Sign in to follow this  
Roccandil

Allow people to buy increased skillcap for non-prem accounts

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Vaelir said:

I would support this if it was capped at 50 or 70, but even if so I would also want a refund for the 1 year subscription I have. 

(Since all my skills are under 70 I would simply continue playing for "free" after a one time fee). 

 

Already, I can see this is flawed as I have paid at least 2 years subscription already.

 

There is no way I would pay £80 for 70 cap on my skills, especially if they were then reduced skill gain for not being prem.  

If they are not reduced by not being prem then there is no reason for the vast majority of people to go prem to build deeds etc.. (70 skill is enough) so the game will lose out in the long run. 

 

My question is though... if you're not premium what do you want to do with your time in wurm? Do you really need 70 skill to do those things?

The kind of situation this seems to address, in my opinion, is what Wurm Unlimited is there for.  

 

The "price" you would need to set this to get the community to accept it, would be more than a years subscription, so if a player "won't pay £10" to continue playing after a month, why would they fork this out?

 

 

I agree that the game is almost not worth playing without premium, but its really not that expensive, especially when you can pay in game.

(If you're at 20 skill to care about this thread you can easily make the silver in game).

 

Besides, I'm fairly sure the "non-prem" option is meant as a trial period/try before you buy. Not as a long term "stick around and play for free". 

 

One possible solution is to limit my skillcap suggestion to usage only, not grinding. Ergo, you can pay to use any skill up to X while non-prem, but you can't do any grinding past 20. You'd still need prem for that, in which case your prem subscription is still entirely valid and valuable and not preempted.

 

In that configuration, I could see players buying short-term bursts of prem to do some mad skilling, and then letting prem lapse, while continuing to play, participate in the economy, and provide content to premium players.

 

Sure, they might be playing for free, but in the long run, I wonder if that might not be a net gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Finnn said:

just adjusting the price won't matter... you'll have to change the model which the game uses to make it's money.

It's not the matter of the money as a factor.. NOBODY is going to pay 200 or 500 euro to buy unlimited access to play prem-free forever, maybe there are 1-2-10-50, but that's able-to-people who are donating to the game they like(like the "crazy" kickstarter game pledges you've seen to be sold 1/2/5/10/20,000$).

 

I hear you, but you're missing my point, so let me clarify. I wasn't remotely talking about adjusting the price (yet) and have no idea where you got that from. I was talking about only lower caps to be an option. In my understanding that's ideally somewhere not as nearly useless as 20, but also low enough to make going premium worthwhile. (Especially by "nerfing" the bought cap with slowed skillgains between 20 and the cap.)

I agree with you and other detractors with similar gripes about the OP on the point that nobody will spend in one go what would be adaequate for a high skill cap. As Vaelir illustrates, even a cap of 70 would be too expensive for most "newcomers". That's specifically why I find the lower caps to be worthwhile entertaining*, as they may go for more reasonable prices, and that's what I was trying to turn your attention to. Because there might be a place for this in the game where it doesn't make subscriptions completely unviable. You know, not like Roccandil proposes it...

 

Your second paragraph seems a bit all over the place, Wurm is already competing with other subscription models by virtue of having a subscription model itself, hence it's constantly being compared to games like WoW where you do in fact get multiple characters from one sub (which is a bad comparison but that's on a different leaf). You're making a case why things may have to change here, if anything.

 

*and by "worthwhile entertaining" I mean they seem to be worth being discussed, not that I outright support it. Again, this is why I'm trying to turn people's attention to that especially from those who just mock the "90 cap"-option without remotely implying anything about other options. I can only speculate you don't like those either. But if I have to speculate... I'm more inclined to guess you (all, not just Finnn) didn't even consider the lower caps in the slightest.

 

The idea might still be bad for all I care. I already conceded (by myself no less) that to provide more flexibility, more shop options may already be sufficient and this may complicate it instead. It just kind of peeves me to see people beating on one point and saying "deal with it", it feels a bit like a kneejerk response.

Edited by Flubb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk, it seems a lot overpowered to be honest. With 70 skill cap bought i can get alt that would make bulks or spam rares in background quite efficient while i play on main and make invested money back in year if not before.

Since i started paying premium yearly for my main (80e a year if i'm not mistaken is really not that much imo) I don't really bother anymore whether i will waste premium or not nor have to calculate when will i prem or is it worth to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Flubb said:

Your second paragraph seems a bit all over the place, Wurm is already competing with other subscription models by virtue of having a subscription model itself, hence it's constantly being compared to games like WoW where you do in fact get multiple characters from one sub (which is a bad comparison but that's on a different leaf). You're making a case why things may have to change here, if anything. 

 These types of comparisons are apples to oranges. With WoW, you need multiple characters as your profession and class limited. Wurm doesn't have that, with the exception of priesthood which is more a character class trade-off than a profession restriction.  In WoW, those multiple characters are intended to make up the experience as a whole that accomplished in one Wurm character. You can't play those multiple characters at one time from the same account. If you wish to multibox, you need several accounts. And with that, you also have a higher monthly cost for WoW.

WoW = Multiple characters, higher monthly premium, character class limitation, profession limitation

Wurm = Single character, lower monthly premium, priest or not priest, no other class limitation or profession limitation

Edited by Seriphina
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Seriphina said:

 These types of comparisons are apples to oranges. With WoW, you need multiple characters as your profession and class limited. Wurm doesn't have that, with the exception of priesthood which is more a character class trade-off than a profession restriction.  In WoW, those multiple characters are intended to make up the experience as a whole that accomplished in one Wurm character. You can't play those multiple characters at one time from the same account. If you wish to multibox, you need several accounts. And with that, you also have a higher monthly cost for WoW.

WoW = Multiple characters, higher monthly premium, character class limitation, profession limitation

Wurm = Single character, lower monthly premium, priest or not priest, no other class limitation or profession limitation


Sure, and all of this is exactly why I called it a bad comparison, if you noticed that. But as nicely as the reply I had in mind for this segways into a larger discussion, I already implied that it's a different one altogether and I don't wish to derail this thread any further, my original remark was already in reply to something drifting offtopic.

My point was merely that subscription models - especially with a similar price - always compete with eachother in the eyes of new potential customers by their very nature, and Finnn made it sound as though as WO's subscription was somehow exempt from that. Which I simply objected to, it's not about "But WoW does it better!" or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@flubb, stop explaining what I have written, you're doing it wrong, it's in plain text, believe other can read and interpret.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Finnn said:

@flubb, stop explaining what I have written, you're doing it wrong, it's in plain text, believe other can read and interpret.?

 

I explained to her what I have written, and to what purpose, based on my interpretation of what you have written. It's a bit ironic that you're way more descriptive about what I'm doing while getting it wrong yourself. But fine, I'll elaborate, I think I should have done the precise quote to begin with and failed to properly communicate my point by not doing so.

20 hours ago, Finnn said:

Currently there are bunch of publishers or whatever they should be called.... selling subscription model for way below 10 or 8 euro a month giving you access to not 1 but 10-20-100+ games, some of which are last month releases or including games from their release date. If wurm had to compete with that .. there were to be a lot of changes to the market, account linking, characters bundle for xx money and so on... to keep people's attention here rather than going to other juicier deals.

The implication of the text in bold is clearly that WO subscriptions don't currently compete with other ones. The validity of my objection to this aside, how is this misinterpreted, just judging from the "plain text"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make it only that you could buy 30 and 40 caps, none above that and you would have slower skill gain than with premium. There could be like sleeping provides sleep bonus only for those who pays for premium also.

 

I think it wouldn't hurt cashflow that bad nor in-game markets.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this