A suggestion for a change to the p2p system.

Thoughts on the further development of Haven & Hearth? Feel free to opine!

A suggestion for a change to the p2p system.

Postby Ocerion » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:49 pm

Yeah we all have suggestions, and I doubt anyone important is going to read this one anymore than they read the other ten trillion, but I think its a good suggestion and thus, I'll make it. What I think Jorbtar should do, is change the subscription model (Not get rid of it...not even lower its price. Guess that ones new) to increase the LP you gain, vs a free game, and then increase (Or make unlimited) the hours the free players get. For example, a free to play player gains 50% normal LP, A verified player gains 75% (After the month of subscription runs out.), a bronze sub player, 100%, a silver sub, 200%, and due to the price increase the gold fella's can get 360%. And I have no idea if any LP is kept after death at all, but perhaps modify that number if it exists by sub level (Or lack of sub) as well. It would give people a reason to want the subscriptions beyond simply the bronze level, and yeah I guess thats pretty p2w which pisses everyone off, but if done at the same time as an increase of playing time for free players, I think it would work better than the system in place now.
Ocerion
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:53 am

Re: A suggestion for a change to the p2p system.

Postby chrisrock » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:51 pm

i'd rather have the system we have now (even though i really don't like it) than having straight up p2w system.
User avatar
chrisrock
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:44 pm

Re: A suggestion for a change to the p2p system.

Postby Ocerion » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:57 pm

Normally I'd agree that a "Straight p2w system" is worse, however the biggest issue here isn't going to be if the game is worth it or not, its going to be trying to get others to agree that it is. All two of my real life pals aren't going to play at all now because there simply isn't enough time per month, or enough value in a subscription, which affects my decision to sub because I'm not sure if I want to pay to play alone, and I simply don't trust people I run across in "The wild".
Ocerion
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:53 am

Re: A suggestion for a change to the p2p system.

Postby Kubius » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:59 pm

LP boost for paying players is unquestionably and unashamedly pay to win. No, no, no, no, no. There are so many better ways to monetize H&H, and the current system (while having an undeniably rough start, devs are at fault here) IS good enough to work if it's tweaked carefully as well as a few niche advantages for subscribers that are more geared towards convenience as opposed to straight-up increased LP/experience/FEP gain or whatever.

12-14h a week for free players and 24-28h a week for "verified accounts" (both resetting on Monday) is a good way to start out the changes - it'd immediately make F2P feasible but limiting, and one time pay for a verified account good enough to most casual H&H players. Subscription offering a few niche benefits should happen to give it an advantage over OTP without simply being more play time.
Damonkaninchen: rest in peace. Betrayed and attacked.
Kubius
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 5:29 pm

Re: A suggestion for a change to the p2p system.

Postby chrisrock » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:01 pm

Kubius wrote:12-14h a week for free players and 24-28h a week for "verified accounts" (both resetting on Monday) is a good way to start out the changes - it'd immediately make F2P feasible but limiting, and one time pay for a verified account good enough to most casual H&H players. Subscription offering a few niche benefits should happen to give it an advantage over OTP without simply being more play time.


i'd be cool with that.
User avatar
chrisrock
 
Posts: 317
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:44 pm

Re: A suggestion for a change to the p2p system.

Postby Coyoty » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:19 pm

Kubius wrote:LP boost for paying players is unquestionably and unashamedly pay to win. No, no, no, no, no. There are so many better ways to monetize H&H, and the current system (while having an undeniably rough start, devs are at fault here) IS good enough to work if it's tweaked carefully as well as a few niche advantages for subscribers that are more geared towards convenience as opposed to straight-up increased LP/experience/FEP gain or whatever.

12-14h a week for free players and 24-28h a week for "verified accounts" (both resetting on Monday) is a good way to start out the changes - it'd immediately make F2P feasible but limiting, and one time pay for a verified account good enough to most casual H&H players. Subscription offering a few niche benefits should happen to give it an advantage over OTP without simply being more play time.


This!
It's the perfect way, it would reward the devs without fuck the players.
Coyoty
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 4:32 pm

Re: A suggestion for a change to the p2p system.

Postby Redlaw » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:28 pm

Play time is what makes this game fun. Even casual players will feel the crunch quickly, play time does = win time atm as well. More you are able to play more ahead you get its that simple.

That said an LP boost even small does add up, but people would be willing to likely pay out of there nose to get it. The items shop is also a good thing, I know a few games that only use a item shop to make money, plus maby a loyalty bonus fir logging in everyday. Keeps even those with out money feeling like that they are having a good time. Meaning if they di get money they are more willing to spend it (though said place now does limited collectors items at least twice a week), they keep going well. Well past in game inflation on items people payed money for to sell in game. But even saying that, they over did it as a company and inflated everything in the hunt for more money. But its a long story and all that. The whole special items shop is a good way to make tons of money.

But my thoughts are just my own and does not matter how long I been online or what I have seen. Its what the devs pick to do in the end, good or bad.
User avatar
Redlaw
 
Posts: 1611
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:58 pm

Re: A suggestion for a change to the p2p system.

Postby Kubius » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:50 pm

Redlaw wrote:Play time is what makes this game fun. Even casual players will feel the crunch quickly, play time does = win time atm as well. More you are able to play more ahead you get its that simple.


I agree, which is why I think the 12-14h for free players is a MINIMUM - but at the same time, incentivizing the one time pay and subscription options is a very big thing. However, with the curio system, LP isn't tied to time active anymore, so it's less of a grindfest than before. However, I dunno how this new experience mechanic works yet, so jury's out on that.

Honestly, I'd like 24h for free players and 70h for OTPers best, but having a slight time advantage for subscription while leaving OTP as feasible for most players is probably ideal. It's a very delicate balance.
Damonkaninchen: rest in peace. Betrayed and attacked.
Kubius
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 5:29 pm

Re: A suggestion for a change to the p2p system.

Postby Granger » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:15 pm

chrisrock wrote:
Kubius wrote:12-14h a week for free players and 24-28h a week for "verified accounts" (both resetting on Monday) is a good way to start out the changes - it'd immediately make F2P feasible but limiting, and one time pay for a verified account good enough to most casual H&H players. Subscription offering a few niche benefits should happen to give it an advantage over OTP without simply being more play time.


i'd be cool with that.

I wouldn't, since it is fiscally unsustainable.
And, especially, since it's long enough per day for a bot.
⁎ Mon Mar 22, 2010 ✝ Thu Jan 23, 2020
User avatar
Granger
 
Posts: 9263
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:00 pm

Re: A suggestion for a change to the p2p system.

Postby Kubius » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:24 pm

Granger wrote:
chrisrock wrote:
Kubius wrote:12-14h a week for free players and 24-28h a week for "verified accounts" (both resetting on Monday) is a good way to start out the changes - it'd immediately make F2P feasible but limiting, and one time pay for a verified account good enough to most casual H&H players. Subscription offering a few niche benefits should happen to give it an advantage over OTP without simply being more play time.


i'd be cool with that.

I wouldn't, since it is fiscally unsustainable.
And, especially, since it's long enough per day for a bot.


Do you have a superior suggestion? I'm doing what I can to find a balance between the F2P/B2P/P2P options. Having shorter timers for "hourglass" type actions is one of the suggested P2P options - an unquestionable benefit but not one that accelerates tanning times / curio studying / crop growth / etc, giving a substantial advantage to subscribers without making it unfair (like an LP boost would).

As to the "long enough per day for a bot", it certainly is - but the bot has the same time restrictions as a player, leveling the playing field at least a little compared to before.

Do you think a 10h/20h free/buy allotment per week would work out better? Honestly, anything substantially better than the 24 hours a MONTH currently given by B2P would be a big improvement.
Damonkaninchen: rest in peace. Betrayed and attacked.
Kubius
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 5:29 pm

Next

Return to Critique & Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 18 guests