better payment model brainstorm

[strpk0]

My suggestion:

+ One time purchase (per account), I would VERY gladly pay $20-25 upfront for this game, if I know my gameplay and playtime are fully unlimited afterwards.
+ Include all the cosmetic things mentioned in this thread
+ Add consumable, non-refundable items to the store (Something like springs in salem or the current flint & steel, as in, items that you don't really need, but that you would much prefer to have).
+ Limited time, non-refundable and transferable cosmetic purchases (because tbh a permanently kept cosmetic item is worth much less than a cool item you can only buy for a short period of time and then have no way of obtaining it after it's gone). Stuff like capes, special limited time "skins" for other items, and basically any other things similar to the cosmetic items already suggested (this time, with a limited time twist to them though). Maybe even limited quantity too.

In a nutshell:
* Guarantee that the player will atleast have to purchase the game at some point if they enjoy it. That's guaranteed profit.
* Add items that are nice to have, but not really required. Items that make some mechanics less annoying, but give you no real advantage otherwise.
* Play a lot with the store, convince players to buy items. I'm sure that as long as this game isn't made into a blatant pay to win, people won't mind you guys selling flint & steel, or village decorations or anything of the sort.

[bitza]

Let's not go overboard, though. There's a vast and unbridgeable gulf between any of these suggestions and paying an arbitrary amount for a proportional amount of instant LP, as the latter eliminates the need to play, whereas the former simply gives you more output for the same kind of grind.

Also, perhaps more importantly, the current system is arguably even worse in that respect. There's no way a free or verified player can seriously compete with a subbed account.

now you're mincing words. at no point did I mention anything about an instant payoff for LP. the implication I was trying to make is that given all other parameters equal, a subscribed player receiving a 2x LP rate over a free player will have an advantage.

although I'll have to concede that any concrete advantage for a subscription that people will actually buy will create a "pay2win" scenario, so I'll just table that line of discussion for now.

but the level caps will create an artificial "end" to the game, once a player hits either the free or paid level cap, depending on what they can afford, they will simply run out of things to do. trust me on this, if there is no more point to pushing LP or food stats or quality, a lot of players will find themselves struggling to find something to do. yeah, I know, "explore and trade and combat and blah blah" but so much of the game content will be pushed aside once the caps are reached, and players will rush through the actual game content in order to maintain the status quo in the meta-game stage of combat capped shenanigans, likely creating character after character if they feel like continuing the stat grind or hedging their bets on alts.

the main point I wanted to make through all of this is, you are now in a unique position to do something about the botting/alts system, with the possibility to line your pockets a little more in the process:

registering (not subscribing) an account gives you 1 character, with whatever limitations you decide to have on the free account.
but a subscription/verification only gives benefits to that one character, meaning that if a player wants alts for whatever reason, that they'll have to pony up for another sub or play with the free limitations.

[Redlaw]

It seems this should be reposted in here:

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.

That's not bad. I actually like the idea of simply buffing study speeds for verified and subscribed accounts. 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, quite simply, perhaps, with 2.0 obviously being today's speeds. That might be a bit P2W, #devssuck, but you could both play as much as you wanted, and you could theoretically get to the same stats as anyone else.

I realize that 200 is very low. It's just that if we set it to, say, 500, it might, on the other hand, be a while before we see any output.

The speed bonus is, on the other hand, relevant from day one, and then we could also set the level cap higher.

So that could perhaps be a thought.

I am ok with this, first month about every grows the same, 2nd month those is payed or subed get ahead, month 3 those that are full grow faster.

[epriham]

If this ends up being the case then there should be a group of starter curios that always study at x2. Newbie stuff like dandelions, ladybugs and cow cones, as well as all of the fated curios. Genuine new players already have to fight a steep learning curve while they discover the game mechanics and doing it at half the LP rate seems like it would be terribly off putting.

Or alternatively, give everybody a pool of x2 study time that refills weekly. Like the first 5 hours of studied items or something.

i really could go for this one. except instead of the first 5 hours, simply make it like the first 20-30* items that finish per week.Keep noob items like cone cows and dandelions at the same speed regardless, remove the fate, or quite simply change it to have them be more available(I have yet to see any fate item besides a pearl), while keeping lp gained for them stay in line with free/verified/subbed.
*numbers subject to change at the discretion of the developers (mostly because #devssuck)

[abt79]

Hardcapping levels means even the most "I enjoy boring endgame" players will just quit instead.

1/10 somehow worse than the original Hafen pay model

[loftar]

although I'll have to concede that any concrete advantage for a subscription that people will actually buy will create a "pay2win" scenario, so I'll just table that line of discussion for now.

I do think that "pay2win" may need to be more clearly defined, though.

As has been stated elsewhere, I would consider both the current system and the systems suggested (by us) rather as a "pay to play, but with more-or-less unlimited trial accounts", rather than "pay to win". "Pay to win", in my mind, would indeed be something rather akin to "pay X amount for proportional payout" -- in other words, whoever pays the most wins, rather than paying a flat rate for getting equal opportunities to the others also paying that flat rate. There is, of course, a spectrum rather than a dichotomy between the two, and I'm not necessarily saying that the latter is "good", but I do consider them different things, and none of the systems we have suggested are in the "pay2win" category.

[abt79]

although I'll have to concede that any concrete advantage for a subscription that people will actually buy will create a "pay2win" scenario, so I'll just table that line of discussion for now.

I do think that "pay2win" may need to be more clearly defined, though.

As has been stated elsewhere, I would consider both the current system and the systems suggested (by us) rather as a "pay to play, but with more-or-less unlimited trial accounts", rather than "pay to win". "Pay to win", in my mind, would indeed be something rather akin to "pay X amount for proportional payout" -- in other words, whoever pays the most wins, rather than paying a flat rate for getting equal opportunities to the others also paying that flat rate. There is, of course, a spectrum rather than a dichotomy between the two, and I'm not necessarily saying that the latter is "good", but I do consider them different things, and none of the systems we have suggested are in the "pay2win" category.

Explain to me how a subscribed account with q200 armor, weapons, and food has no inherent advantage over a free player with <50q armor, weapons, and food.

Not to mention there will apparently be hardcaps on the freeplayer's agility, mc, ua, and strength

[loftar]

Explain to me how a subscribed account with q200 armor, weapons, and food has no inherent advantage over a free player with <50q armor, weapons, and food.

Thank you for not at all reading what I wrote.

[abt79]

Explain to me how a subscribed account with q200 armor, weapons, and food has no inherent advantage over a free player with <50q armor, weapons, and food.

Thank you for not at all reading what I wrote.

I read what you said, but paying a flat rate for an advantage and the ability to gain higher attributes, abilities, and quality is still paying to win.

[sabinati]

it's not pay2win it's pay2be able2win it's different