There's a reason we're not playing classes in AA:re-whatever, right? Not a sandbox. but some will be willing to have bigger variety of options to play. Might sound fun to you to be a priest and a miner or shroom forager. It's literally putting you in a tiny box and telling you that you have a window. If Steam WO has 1 acc = 1 toon, OP might work there, but not in OGWO on its own.)ĭidn't acknowledge this thread had SteamWO in the back of its mind already (I imagine Steam WO could have multiple characters tied to a steam account, but only one playable at the time. That being said, the proposal isn't bad and may work as part of a bigger overhaul of the business model (which I think will be prudent to consider for SteamWO), but I think it's incomplete reclassing isn't something people will do often (enough), if ever, because in this system having multiple toons would be worthwhile even when you can't play them simultaneously. The best moment for this would be with the release of Steam WO then, as the thread title implies. If it's just done as a sleight of hand and not communicated elsewhere (which CCAB usually does), it will just hurt the businesses' health because if it gets nobody new in and only the existing players buy their dedicated toons for all tasks, it will be exactly as Finnn said - a short term gain and long term loss. It's difficult to project how sucessful this method would be though and if it effectively offsets the revenue lost on individual players. A bigger player base in turn makes buying premium more lucrative as you're actually immersed in an interactable world where the freedom to skill whatever is beneficial rather than subscribing effectively to a singleplayer game. The premise of such proposal is obviously to lower the barrier of entrance to get more people playing at all, and even if all those people paid less individually, it's potentially more revenue overall the more people it can attract. but don't want to get seriousīecause you're doing it on one person, which is missing the bigger picture. retention or not working to lower that earlier proved to be bad for business. the other issue is the lots of pissed off players who left. they'll scratch your back with few bucks, pretty much how business works. same items could be achievable with a good crafter and priest.) could be skinned or passively buffed items by default. and maybe exclusive recipes(doesn't have to be +30% damage. golden mirrors, fashion, more customization options, skins. meaning maybe killing the company in few years as there are costs which can not be covered with this 1 time purchase. 'stopped', good short term, bad long-term. Also, fun fact, you're likely going to have more people willing to dink $10 for a 10 month deed than $10 for 2 months timed play. In terms of game design, it offers the interdependence an mmorpg needs without undermining wurm's key "do anything" design for those willing to pay a premium sub. Also note, such "ever-free" players expire if not played for a while, so they (and all they are carrying) are removed from the game pool. This offers free players a longer developmental path while creating either the need to run a LOT of toons (and remember, not every skill need be unlockable in this way, things like magic and meditation should definitely be premium gated), or to interact with other players (some of whom will need to be premium to complete the skill gaps). If you choose a class you don't like, 10s to change it. No other changes (so existing premium just gets a slightly faster skillgain rate in a skillset/statline chosen by a class), skills outside of a class (for free players) are capped as they are now. if they went for a hypothetical "woodsman" class they'd find forestry, gardening, woodcutting, axe-based skill lines and all three body stats unlocked), and offers a skill gain as if an affinity existed during premium play. This "class" unlocks skills for them when they are playing for free (i.e. Players choose a "class" upon character creation. It's a small change, with wide reaching implication. The latter group is rare, but the former group need not be. In essence, every player on wurm is an island the only players who rely on others being free players WHO REMAIN FREE and people who solo priests. I'm going to put this out here as I very much doubt it will be implemented, but in terms of game design it is likely the cure wurm needs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |