Posted February 27, 2017 9 hours ago, Odynn said: imho, on a freeplay experiment, a pvp server would be better (seeing it's already p2w through armors up to a bunch of traders specific items). Ressurecting challenge would do that quite well. No cluster swap. No large staff assistance (only bugs). The classic faster skillgain and a better fight system. Prevent any money transfer between clusters - offer new trader wares (like crates of dirt / bricks / mortar) - higher upkeep cost - and the usual pvp related items and you will have a server where everyone will have a need for RL cash to get an extra edge. Keep in the rewards and their redeem way, make them either legacy items (not remove on server reset) on challenge or allow players to sell the redeem key on the forum (which would still allow players to make cash out of the game as some did / already do). Pvp isn't p2w through armors lol the biggest advantage money can get you is a decent account, but without good skill, strategy and teamwork you're still going to get dunked, scale, drake or plate 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2017 heh, true, should probably have said 'up to some point', skill is not a matter on a fresh server, the p2w aspect just give you an extra edge, you can easilly lose if you get ganked by people actually knowing what they are doing... which is also a selling point for a f2p reset based pvp server. you can still have the extra edge through money or skill or teamwork. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 2, 2017 On 2/26/2017 at 8:23 PM, Etherdrifter said: What I have suggested is the exploration of an alternative (and very successful) business model, not a kneejerk change but a timelined experiment with a clear success criteria Suggestions of this sort are fun to make as they cost the suggester absolutely noting to do so. The problem arises when a company such as Wurm needing a profit to continue to keep the game running attempts to implement them; thus, they usually will not just attempt them on the basis of experiments since the cost of failure is very risky in the attempt. Therefore, the topic is fine for idle chatter, which I think would mean that all points either for or against are of the same relative cost participation value, excluding of course mere virtual motes of dust soon dispersed to the wind because of their deprivation of thought content. If you would attempt these experiments at your own cost and time participation then perhaps they could be analyzed on a more accurate basis and presented to those who would have the ability to evaluate them in the context of the Wurm business model. Until then have your fun but accept that others may have theirs in response, for words only contain the value within which we imbue them. *alchemizes* =Ayes= Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 2, 2017 From my reading of Nappy's experiences with his Desolation servers, the biggest problem with PvP seems to be the people rather than the setup. All of us who've played on PvP at one point or another can point to toxic individuals; so long as people like this are free to ply their trade, there will be players who depart for less-horrible environs. The original experiment, as proposed by the OP, would be interesting, although you'd have to take the results with some serious salt - there's always a rush for new things, and even challenge was a lot less used after the first iteration. I suspect the servers it ran on were rented from a provider for the occasion, so assuming they haven't already been repurposed into something else, they were probably handed back to the provider. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts there aren't any unused servers lying around needing a reason to live; the test would require investment in server space, not to mention dev/admin time to set it up and run it. Given how hard the devs seem to be working as it is, I can't see this being a priority. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
