Learn how to join our server and start playing in 60 seconds!
Play Now
  • Hey Guest, If you have any suggestions regarding the Forums/Website we would love to hear them!

Denied Survival Classic survival and a new monetization model

Status
Not open for further replies.

Minecraft_leg

Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
9,795
Points
163
IGN
Minecraft_leg
Hello, like the title suggest this suggestion will about something I've put a lot of thought into, which is the possibility of adding a classic survival and reworking how it's monetized.

Classic survival
I know survival doesn't have the highest priority due to its mediocre player count, and with this, in mind, it would be absurd to open up a classic variant for it. but guess what, I'm still gonna suggest it because I can. (please don't hate me for this, I'm very sensitive)

My suggestion is to try out a season with both a classic survival and normal survival server, the normal server doesn't have to change.

The classic server won't have things like /auction, chest shops, /quests, and economy.
instead, we are going back to 2015 with emerald currency, player hosted shops, and requestable player warps
The advantage of having emeralds as currency and player-owned shops is that you are actually able to collect it and be proud of it, you can literally place it in the world instead of having it be a little number on the side of your screen. it's just so much more satisfying.

also, player-owned shops bring back a lot of player interaction between groups of players that probably wouldn't have interacted before, which is a good thing.
you can even put down some villagers with custom trades at spawn as we had in 2016, selling things such as food and basic needs for when you're just starting out.

it's also important to talk about the negatives, which is villager trading. considering you'll be able to gain massives amounts of wealth through trading I'ts best villager trading gets restricted or blocks completely.
also, there will most likely be a lot more X-ray users with an emerald economy.



A new monetization model
Since pika-network is a business, It's going to need profit.
First of all, I'd like to clarify I have no idea of what financial situation pika-network is in right now, I'm just bringing up ideas for discussion.

Currently, the way survival is monetized either isn't sustainable or efficient.

How it currently works is you have three options as customers;
- either you buy a rank which is a permanent pay to win buff
- buy a class which lasts forever
- or buys some keys.
The thing these 3 options have in common is that they are saturating the market and causing inflation.

My alternative is to opt for seasonal ranks which aren't as much pay to win and focus on cosmetics instead.
There is this server, whose name I'm not going to mention here, which does this perfectly.

how they go about it, is they sell 3 ranks all of which only add small buffs to the player which can we achieved by normal players as well after some time which would make it EULA compliant.
my suggestions are:

RANKS

- Donator (10 euros/month)

- /feed
- /kit donator

- Donator+ (20 euros/month)
-
/feed
- /kit donator+
- /fix
- /kit blocks

- Donator++ (30 euros/month)
- /feed
- /kit donator++
- /fix
- /kit blocks
- /fly

COSMETICS

you're able to buy crates/crate keys which have a % chance of dropping cosmetics ranging from common to godly rarity.
there is a plugin that adds these effects. there are a lot of possibilities, you can for instance even apply it to kit-PVP, when you get a certain kill count you get a cape or whatever.
the rarities are common, rare, epic, and godly btw.

at some point you'll have collected all the cosmetics, that's why after every season we remove 3-5 godly cosmetics and add 5 more, this way crates will always be in demand and the player has something new and exciting to look for.

also to be compliant with the EULA, allow every player to get one free crate every month from the shop.

here are some examples of player effects, you can even add pets.
[Pets]
[common player effect example]
[godly player effect examples]

price-wise, my suggestion would be this:

10 crates (8 euros)
20 crates (14 euros)
35 crates (25 euros)
55 crates (38 euros)

the drop chance will of course be up to the owners, altho I'd highly suggest to at leased have it drop 1 godly every 15 crates.
 
Last edited:

Javuh

Pika Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2016
Messages
27
Points
3
I agree with the overall suggestion but I doubt that they will remove some ranks because it'd be unfair to others who spent 30-200 euros for a warlock and up ranks, others may or may not agree.
 
OP
OP
Minecraft_leg

Minecraft_leg

Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
9,795
Points
163
IGN
Minecraft_leg
I agree with the overall suggestion but I doubt that they will remove some ranks because it'd be unfair to others who spent 30-200 euros for a warlock and up ranks, others may or may not agree.
Nah you get me wrong, this al all on classic survival. The ranks bought stay on normal survival.
 

Arrly

Staff Member
Manager
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
23,738
Points
300
IGN
Arrly
-1
It wouldn't bring back many new players, it would just split the current Survival community which is small enough on its own. Also, the monetization idea is terrible in my opinion - the current system is much better. Having to pay for temporary ranks is just not good for the donators and I think fewer people would donate if such a system was made.
 
OP
OP
Minecraft_leg

Minecraft_leg

Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
9,795
Points
163
IGN
Minecraft_leg
I'm noticing there is a bit of struggle regarding possibly taking away ranks and replacing them with new ones, and I totally agree with the fact it would be foolish to do so.

Instead what we can do is nerve the current ranks, not command wise. but kit wise, for instance, taking away the beacons from rank kits will make its value skyrocket to what they are supposed to be. please give me feedback about this.
 

UpperGround

Great Reporter
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
13,103
Points
300
-1
It wouldn't bring back many new players, it would just split the current Survival community which is small enough on its own. Also, the monetization idea is terrible in my opinion - the current system is much better. Having to pay for temporary ranks is just not good for the donators and I think fewer people would donate if such a system was made.
the server is dying anyway so who cares








+1 to the sugg
 

cagankral31_

Legendary Pika
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
256
Points
37
IGN
cagankral31
ehh i dont think we need another survival it will divide players to 2 survival so its not good idea
 

voodootje0

Staff Member
Owner
Joined
Mar 4, 2018
Messages
2,685
Points
115
Hey Minecraft_leg,​
Thank you for your interest by creating a suggestion for PikaNetwork.​
Unfortunately, we do not think this suggestion will fit into PikaNetwork. So we will be denying your suggestion​
Have a good time on PikaNetwork!​

Best regards,
voodootje0
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top