better payment model brainstorm

[DDDsDD999]

I think the worst part about these stat caps is that for the first bit of the game, when the population is as always the highest, the fewest people possible will be paying for subs as they won't need to, even the most hardcore players will takes some time to reach 50 in any stat (especially with the bs hunger mechanic), much less in all of them, and verified accounts even more so.

I mean, every account started with 48 hours (with an extra 7). I don't think there's a big change in the time when players will start subbing.

[apoc254]

Honestly... the mention of x amount of land per subscription teir would be something players would desire and would not truely limit the experience of gameplay.

Limiting how much land a single person can claim would also preserve the game world... Seems like a really good option honestly.

Anyone care to poke holes in the concept?

[DDDsDD999]

Honestly... the mention of x amount of land per subscription teir would be something players would desire and would not truely limit the experience of gameplay.

Limiting how much land a single person can claim would also preserve the game world... Seems like a really good option honestly.

Anyone care to poke holes in the concept?

Sounds pay2win as in "put in money get rewards out".

Would also severely limit villages.

If new players can't place a claim without paying they'll just quit when their hides get stolen 5 times in a row off the drying frame and are told "put up a claim for only $7.99!". If free players can place a claim, what prevents alt spam?

[apoc254]

That would depend entirely on how much claim a free user can place. If you can claim only 5 squares as a free user and that's enough to keep items but build nothing substantial then that would be enough.

1 square would be taken by the totem, the others would be cabinets or pots to keep your loot. You could try to alt spam, but could you imagine having a claim totem every 5 squares? Good luck making a village out of that.
Farming and town building would be risky then as a free user, but if you want to protect your land.. pay up or build many walls?

[Kalacia]

Why not make it so that a "free" claim over a certain size needs progressively more LP gained to maintain it and stop its decay. Where are a subbers claim will never decay as long as they are subbed.

You could also remove the two claim thing for free players.

[lachlaan]

Honestly... the mention of x amount of land per subscription teir would be something players would desire and would not truely limit the experience of gameplay.

Limiting how much land a single person can claim would also preserve the game world... Seems like a really good option honestly.

Anyone care to poke holes in the concept?

Sounds pay2win as in "put in money get rewards out".

Would also severely limit villages.

If new players can't place a claim without paying they'll just quit when their hides get stolen 5 times in a row off the drying frame and are told "put up a claim for only $7.99!". If free players can place a claim, what prevents alt spam?

The way I formulated the idea, i think, was to say that bigger claims simply need more people to join forces and contribute their "claim capacity" towards a bigger claim. Free accounts would be limited in terms of how many free chars may contribute toward any bigger claim. Sub accounts would both be allowed to further increase a claim size past the free account limit and preferably no two chars on the same account could contribute to the same claim, to yet again prevent spamming.

So you'd get case 1 : f2p player 1, wants to claim land to defend his hides, can claim a bit of land suitable for a casual.

2: f2p players 1, 2 and 3 join forces to make a claim 3 times as big as any of them could individually make, and any other free players could not contribute to the claim past that point, but could obviously still join to live in cramped conditions.

3: verified player would have a higher base claim size and the cap for a mix of verified accounts would be pushed up to say 6? with a mix of 4 verified and 3 free in case of both types of players

4: sub would be tricky, as how does one take away the size afterwards? It'd have to be a mix of different types of subs, and different offered services really. Subs could contribute indefinite accounts to joint claim size, and perhaps after 4-5 months of subbing the claim size buff would be permanent. Past that point offer other things they might want either in the form of a sub or in the form of one time purchases.

[apoc254]

So you'd get case 1 : f2p player 1, wants to claim land to defend his hides, can claim a bit of land suitable for a casual.

2: f2p players 1, 2 and 3 join forces to make a claim 3 times as big as any of them could individually make, and any other free players could not contribute to the claim past that point, but could obviously still join to live in cramped conditions.

3: verified player would have a higher base claim size and the cap for a mix of verified accounts would be pushed up to say 6? with a mix of 4 verified and 3 free in case of both types of players

4: sub would be tricky, as how does one take away the size afterwards? It'd have to be a mix of different types of subs, and different offered services really. Subs could contribute indefinite accounts to joint claim size, and perhaps after 4-5 months of subbing the claim size buff would be permanent. Past that point offer other things they might want either in the form of a sub or in the form of one time purchases.

This is just my opinion on the subject, you can take it, leave it or pretend you didn't hear it. The sub system could be a tiered system that reflects more land as suggested. bronze package(4.99?) is just enough to live with a small field off of. Silver package(9.99?) could be enough for two players to live comfortably off of. gold package(14.99?) could be enough for 4 players to live comfortably off of. platinum package(19.99?) could be enough to build something epic.

1. I think free users should get just enough land to show off the feature and make them want more.

2. I don't think free users should be able to join together to expand the size of the claim. maybe this should be a feature for one of the tiers? This would encourage buying one of the different levels of sub.

3. yeah.. ok.

4. Naw, this would be so much easier then monitoring each players in game time. Just set a variable for max size and increase that variable with sub and decrease when non-sub. Set the size to decrease off all sides to match the new max.

Even if this ends up being a level capped sub system, I think they should restrict this also. It will give them options if the level cap shows to be a player deterrent.

[Kalacia]

Even if this ends up being a level capped sub system, I think they should restrict this also. It will give them options if the level cap shows to be a player deterrent.

You could tie it to charisma? or a base yeomanry stat?

[Granger]

I think there should be no influence on game mechanics (stats, gear, speed, anything) at all.

Only thing that payment modifies should be access to the game, in terms of being able to login.
Simply because different ingame abilities depending on your wallet is pay2win - which as it seems nobody in their right ming would want for this game.

So:

• Keep the subscription as-is.
• Rename gametime tokens to subscription tokens to remove the confusion about them.
• Add gametime tokens which give what they're called: game time, at a rate of ~0.1€ per online hour (like 48 of them for 5€), which is consumed when there is no subsctiption or gametime from other sources (initial free time, weekly refill).

This would give casuals a way to get some extra time in case they have a weekend off which they would like to sink into the game, or to extend the trial supplied by free accounts in case you're unsure and want to test the game a bit more (without waiting for monday morning).

[jorb]

The fact that you can spend time in the game is arguably a game mechanic, though. Limiting time is at least as "pay to win".