better payment model brainstorm

[lachlaan]

Random ideas o.o Just listing as many potential models as possible, feel free to add to it for the sake of refreshing all ideas, and bringing the discussion down to the barebones level.

Edit: Horribly failed to clarify what this was. It is ideas for what a sub or lack of sub could do to differentiate between paying and non paying customers.

[stya]

0-80 100% growth rate for all.
80-150 70% growth rate for free, 100% for verified and subs
150-FOREVERRRR 30% growth rate for free accounts, 60% for verified and 100% for subs.

If I may suggest, maybe use some function (most basic one - linear - might be enough) between stats and growth %., for a smoother progression feeling rather than levels.

That or:
What about limiting play time for sub accounts instead.

Let's imagine 7h for free, 14h for verified, 28h for subs. 28h is an average of 4h per day which is already high (I hope) for most people, the game could even tell you something like "go do something with your life" in the end.

It would take 6 subs accounts to be able to play 24/24h 7/7j. So one bot would cost 6 times what it used to, this would most probably reduce the number of bots out there. And those who will keep botting will at least give more money. I know devs wanted us to play as much as we want. But on the other hand playing 168h per week isn't playing, it is either afk-auto-studying or botting.

Yes you could also make 1 bot with 12 verified accounts (180$ at the moment) or 24 free accounts. I guess verifying an account could cost more than 15$ to balance things if needed, maybe 20-30$? Also maybe reduce a just a litlle the cost of sub? Also if you want a good bot, farmer for example you will need to put some LP on it, 12 or 24 alts will take some time to raise and keep up, so you would need a bot to make skilled bots somehow, making it even harder.

If you want to avoid botted titans you can still apply math functions to the stat diff between players, I know you like the 10*((x²/10), below are the aforementioned (green) and 10*((x/10)^(1/1.5)) (red). The first one seemed a little harsh, hence the second one. This also reduces the progression diff between players and makes skill more relevant. You could also use a high stat cap like 1-5k ?

That's only about sub-related things. I also like the idea of a bigger cash shop with cosmetics / more things like sketches. I didn't buy anything from it so far but would have at some point, especially with a more diverse shop.

[Vaku]

What about limiting play time for sub accounts instead.

This isn't a jab at you, stya, but something I think needs to get out there, or in the very least, reiterated.

As an establishment with potential customers and vast seating space, you want to invite people in, to browse, and ultimately become customers that enjoy their stay for a long time.

Right now, teasing people with limited time does not seem as effective as we once thought.

Maybe if we gather metrics on things like 14-day trials from back in the day, the metrics might show 14-day trials aren't very effective at making customers.
Here we have a 7hr trial, every week, and it doesn't seem to work.

By lifting the barrier to time in the establishment—time in HnH, free account players may become more attached to their creations, and in the very least, verify their account to knock up their progression.

So as I've suggested, teasing the potential customer with time doesn't work.
Will teasing the customer with potency work?

Here, stat cap tied to account status is the tease with potency.

The lightest flavor is 50, a moderate flavor of 125, and the sharpest is 200.

From 0 to 200
Everyone shares the range of time.

From 0 to 200
Everyone shares, fundamentally, the same ability.
From Dream Catcher to Great Hall, everyone shares the same ability.
From squirrel to bear, players may hunt with similar effectiveness. Will hunting with less partners make you happier, paying for sharpest potency, might be appropriate, but it's not mandatory.

From 0 to 200
Every character is competitive in a more balanced way.
A 125 verified stat character dies similarly to a 200 subbed stat character.
Is it more balanced to say a 150 stat character can go against an 800 stat character?

Is TIME something you want to have to PAY for, and have imbued into your mortal character, or do you want potency imbued instead?

Would it be better: In a game with permadeath, that character deaths represents 2 months in the bucket, or 6, or 8, or 10 months in the bucket?

Or is it better that each death represents a range of 0 - 3 Months in the bucket?

Is it easier to get back into playing when TIME is of less consequence?

I think it's worth suggesting, that moving TIME away from payment, is a better model for gameplay.

[stya]

things

From 0 to 200
Everyone shares the range of time.

From 0 to 200
Everyone shares, fundamentally, the same ability.
From Dream Catcher to Great Hall, everyone shares the same ability.
From squirrel to bear, players may hunt with similar effectiveness. Will hunting with less partners make you happier, paying for sharpest potency, might be appropriate, but it's not mandatory.

From 0 to 200
Every character is competitive in a more balanced way.
A 125 verified stat character dies similarly to a 200 subbed stat character.
Is it more balanced to say a 150 stat character can go against an 800 stat character?

Is TIME something you want to have to PAY for, and have imbued into your mortal character, or do you want potency imbued instead?

Would it be better: In a game with permadeath, that character deaths represents 2 months in the bucket, or 6, or 8, or 10 months in the bucket?

Or is it better that each death represents a range of 0 - 3 Months in the bucket?

Is it easier to get back into playing when TIME is of less consequence?

I think it's worth suggesting, that moving TIME away from payment, is a better model for gameplay.

I do see what you want to say, while my proposition isn't perfect, cap system has huge flaws. We will see sub-only villages, alt factories using heavy botting for pvp use. It will be much harder for free/verif players to hunt, mine, do everything. Also time is tied to potency somehow, time brings potency, reducing time reduces potency.

If it's just about limiting time investment in chars you could take my proposition and set a cap for everyone. I guess this is what devs wanted to do, because of that "pick two" equation.
If you want more than 4h per day on average, you could still increase it, but I don't think many players 'really' play more than that, plus you could still increase it to 5-6h maybe.

If it's only about getting money, advertise. This is what companies do when they want money, even if their product is unfinished or just bad.

[Vaku]

It has since occurred to us, however, that the most important resource a player has at his disposal is his own time and effort spent in the game -- power -- for which reason we now instead feel that we do not want to limit time spent in the game. Character ability in game is, arguably, much less important, as most qualitative goals in the game can be reached with very low stats, and this model also allows a new player unlimited time in the game to derp around and decide whether it's fun or not, hang out with friends, try it out indefinitely, or simply skip subscribing a month, but still play, if money is tight, or whatever.

I think this above segment is a guiding principle that gets skimmed over when understanding the announced changes.

Most important thing a player has is time.
Constricting that resource is frustrating for players, customers, everyone.

To say something is not worth your time, is the greatest insult to an activity.

If it's not worth your money? Not so bad. People will still stick around, for time enough, and changes enough to be convinced to pay.

Limiting anyone's hours, as though the game is a parenting simulator, is bad for business.

With games, people want to be in charge of their own time, and not have to pay for it.

Anyways.. read the above quote again...

I'd say if the perks of your suggestion include all the perks of the above quote by Jorb, then you're onto something solid.

[themommawolf]

Others have commented about patch items being strictly cosmetic with no useful stat buffs.
Maybe have patch items with stat buffs, like the nurse hat could have had a plus to constitution, the hero cap a buff to agility, etc.
These are items that are not lootable or tradable. Have various items, that can be used in various equipment slots.

Would be an incentive to pay, with a permanent character item with a stat buff

[Redkat]

On Cosmetics...
I know this is not enough but together with other ideas might help.

Add payable extra inventory space:
I used to play a game where - if you wanted more inventory/other types of space than the initial given space - you paid for it by buying an inventory stone/ whatever stone and you applied it a specific character - if you had several characters on same account - you had to do on each.

However you could still add a bit to the your inventory by doing some quests in the game. Just about 2 rows in total I think it was (to inventory/petcollection) - for this world it would be like getting backpacks, traveler sacks, merchant robe so no changing of what is already possible right now and the current inventory space is the same as now.

They had a bit more type of inventories than this game. They had the normal - inventory. Bankaccounts - which are kinda like our hearthfires (or the idea of changing it to a specific chest- this seen suggested elsewhere).
They also had a separate inventory for bought clothing - so you kinda had your armor panel and an extra for appearance - you could choose which to present to other players. Say I had bought a nursehat and was wearing a strawhat - i could do both. The bought item was only cosmetic. A thought others have requested too.
In my old game you could get looted while dead for your bought items but you could also safekeep it by paying for the safekeeping of your bought items. It was per item. It was your own choice - that made the bought items tradable. If you safekept it - you could never sell them. Since we got worldresets - I am a bit unsure if we should keep the bought items but its worth a thought.

Toolinventory: Its annoying to have to run back and fort to get ones tools all the time - or weapons I suppose - seen somebody complain about bows. Let us pay for the privilege of Not running around looking for the hammer/axe whatever. I am not suggesting we should be able to hammer or use a bow at the same time - just have a separate inventory to carry them that dont really affect the normal one. (Maybe use the belt )

Pet inventory: I have seen people that wants pets and this might be a more difficult idea. But my old game had pets trailing their owners - cute bunnies/Squirrels etc. and 1 specific type character used pets as fighting tools. If you wanted to collect more pets than 1 you should have to pay for it per character. Probably not worth implementing but - shrugs- its an idea.
To this idea my co-villagers said : Make it possible to use petinventory for saddles, saddlepacks, rope, harness, horsearmor (lol Bull armor), and in general animal equipment.

Maybe I should add. The first I bought in my previous game was extra inventory for all my mains. Several of the possible inventories actually. And I bought a whole lot of clothing but - honestly - the characters were a lot prettier/varied and I am a bit vain. Oh PS. one could buy wigs for toons

[Granger]

As a note to the ones arguing more or less that the access to the game should be free:
Please also post where you work and what kind of products you produce or services you provide, so we can come by and pick some up or let us be serviced without paying when we feel like it.

[lachlaan]

@Granger

The point is that this kind of game does seem to feel dead with few people on. So to keep the richer ones paying for their fun they need to first HAVE fun , in a non dead game. To do that Jorb and Loftar need to figure out what balance they need to strike to both make the game be awesome as fuuuuuck with a healthy population from all brackets of economic wealth, as well as get money out of as many things as possible. Now that's where capitalism comes in, and says that if you can make a steady income off a population bracket you charge high. If you have more people you can't milk for sub money, give them something they can afford, give them the means to trade for that something. So, more cheap things that don't feel meaningless, and c'moooon Xsolla (or something else but by now you put so much work into Xsolla we might as well wait that one out, idk). So that way if they have 200 subbed accounts, they get that money, but if there are another 400 accounts unwilling to buy a sub and watch it expire while they feel stressed about making the most of it, perhaps they could instead be swayed to pay 1-2-3 dollars for other trinkets. If subs get some form of progression boost, then perhaps the potions of faster study speed could be shop items for the poorer people that still want to make the most out of their best curio set, or out of that one bunch of curios they bought from better factions. Would also incentivize trade, to make up for the old time token.

[iamclothier]

Would be nice if someone could summarize all the payment model that has been suggested. Something like

Payment model - small description
-read more link

This way, people could see the light of this discussion.