I personally like having steam trading cards but would like perhaps some more detail in the cards and rarer and more diversified cards and collectibles. Many people do not like them because they are a lot of the same and build up as clutter but perhaps if there was a wider array of them and they were awarded less often this would not be the case.
1 Like
I’ve never really seen a point in trading cards. They don’t really do anything other than show you’ve put enough time or money into the game to get them. Trading cards with some detailed artwork would be nice if we have them at all.
2 Likes
I’d assume that probably goes against Epic’s terms of service.
Many people dislike trading cards when you implement a large amount of them, since it makes obtaining Steam Badges and Steam Levels more time-consuming and more expensive.
I agree that I enjoy when Trading Cards have nice artwork for them, but the only reason I mentioned Trading Cards to begin with was because they’re technically part of the overall Steam Economy, although they are not part of the game’s individual economy.
6 Likes
That wouldnt work at all , somebody could just record the story , post it on youtube and then there is no point in buying it for that
Either have the game free, or paid. One-time payment for DLC official servers, sure.
If there’s subscription based official servers or in-game currency, or any kind of micro-transactions implemented, I will personally gouge my eyes out with a melon baller.
1 Like
Have you not already gouged your eyes out due to U3’s micro-transactions then, and if not is that due to the Steam Economy being implemented later, rather than something planned from the start?
And when you specify in-game currency, do you specifically mean stuff like Gems in a mobile game, or does that include something like Refined Metal in TF2?
I think the game is better off without cosmetics or really any marketplace. I’m sure they’d be implemented anyways, but some things like vehicle skins could be added in through gameplay and not something you buy. Same goes for cosmetics, as cosmetics can hide what you are wearing e.g. you could be seen as an easier target despite having clothes underneath with more protection.
With weapon skins, they should probably move away from the goofy patterns like:
and be made to be a lot more subtle in how they change the weapon, but enough that they aren’t rendered useless.
Micro-transactions in 3.0 don’t really change gameplay. In a whole lot of other games, you can buy in-game items with micro-transactions.
With in-game currency, I mean like anything from tf2, mobile games, v bucks in fortnite, stuff that you use to purchase stuff.
I mean the game has to have some microtransactions if it’s gonna be free
Currently with Unturned having no actual Pay-2-Win mechanics built into the game, normally the servers kinda do that themselves and quiet badly I must say, Unturned having its system like that has been a key role in being a free and non P2W game, if Nelson was to charge between 5 to 20 dollars I wouldn’t even complain, with over 2000 hours in U3 I find it to be well worth it and incredibly fun when you eventually find a good server with good staff, however I don’t feel that the EULA is strong enough agains’t the P2W servers, I understand funding is needed to run them but their are plenty of other ways to do it, such as like unturned you can donate to help run the server and in turn receive neat cosmetical looking items or kits, I haven’t thought of any other ways YET but their should be some.
1 Like
@Mr.Snowy The game will have different endings, plus if gameplays posted on YouTube completely spoiled the sale of games all companies would be bankrupt.
Pay-to-play Game
- Yes. he community has been built, the money could go a long way to make the game better and lastly it’ll hopefully help deter alst (to some extent).
- & 3. Really depends on the scope at the time you pay for it. If it has loads of content I’d be up for paying 30 up to 30 bucks. If it starts out bare-bones and builds improve over time I think it would be fair to scale the price accordinly.
Subscription-based DLC
- No. Games as a service exist to milk the customer and more often than not activley hinder the overall gameplay. I don’t ant to see U II go the way of the AAA and charge for every little thing.
- I can only see a subscription-style DLC work to support Nelson (much like Gold) since I’d wager continous income would be far better than one-time payments pluy I’d would give people a way to directly incentivize catering to the community on Nielson side since if people do not enjoy what he is putting out they can just cancel their support.
Permanent Gold Upgrade - DLC
- Yes, it is way to show support for the game.
- & 3. I’d be fine with giving gold players a golden name (much like in 3.X) and maybe have a server setting akin to Gold mode in II. Character slots and skin colour changes should not be a thing anymore tho.
- No. If you can already cancle ot monthly like I proposed above I don’t see any point in DLC tiers.
Cosmetic Packs - DLC
- Yes, if there are well-defined boundaries on what they can and cannot contain.
- I see Comestic Packs as outfit stlye bundles, so basically a shirt, pants, headpiece.
- Around 3 bucks a pop.
Steam Economy
- Yes.
- I think it is handled reaosnbly well in 3.X, so I’d be fine with that as a baseline and possible further situational improvemnts.
Weapon Skins
- Yes
- Should fit the overal theme (none of that overly flashy shizzel) and no paid-only camouflage.
- A similar system to 3.X will work just fine (equipoping them from the main menu). You should be able to disbale skins client-side so you can just “opt out” of seeing them on both others and yourself is you so choose.
Clothing Comsetics
- Yes
- Same as weapons. Should not be too flashy plus no paid-only camouflage.
- Same as wepaons plus they should not change the overall player shape nor the hitbox. A similar system to 3.X will work just fine (equipoping them from the main menu). You should be able to disbale skins client-side so you can just “opt out” of seeing them on both others and yourself is you so choose.
Vehicle Skins
- Yes. Seeing as there is basically only one vehicle skin in 3.x (Santas Sleigh APC iirc) I’d be fine with them making their way into the game more frequently.
- Same as any other skins, not too flahy and no paid camouflage, no change to overall shape and hitbox.
Structure Skins
- No, that is where I draw the line. The base game itself should have more than one choice of wall. If you want your base to look fancy, go cut down a different sort of tree.
- Nope
- I don’t see myself supporting that basically ever.
Decorative Deployables
- No. The community will find a way to abuse that real quick.
- Nope
- I don’t see myself supporting that basically ever.
Gift Presents
- Yeah. I think they work well in 3.X so I don’t see why II should not have them.
- Distribute them in the same way as in 3.X, with only slight changes to the drop rate scaling with play time (no drops if you play less than let’s say 10 minutes).
Server Realms
- Yes. Giving people the choice to get servers direcrtly from the game rather than some third party side cannot eb a bad idea in my mind.
- Possibly have them be limited in terms of gameplay altering plugins if they want to be listed in the vanilla list or whatever you want to call it. People should have the choice to play and host their game however they want, but the current filter settings are lackluster and too easily circumvented.
Community Hub
- I think skins as rewards for achievments should be a thing and handled similarly to the way they are being handled in TF2 ( the skins are not tradeable and marketable, can be used for crafting other skins but those skins inherit these traits). Cards and badges work fine as is in 3.X.
1 Like
I’ve added images to all of the sections to better showcase what’s going on and to help break up the text walls.
Why are you against it while playing Minecraft? Is it just more of a “I support it existing, but I just don’t plan on ever using it” or are there issues you have with Minecraft Realms as its own service?
I’d definitely support a custom “console” for managing Realms. It shouldn’t paywall features, but I’d support a custom interface to make it easier for people. Have some more direct integration with Steam features, since it’d be an official service and doing so as per Steam’s EULA would be easier.
While I’d be fine with a few purchasable gestures, stuff like reloading animations would require the animations all be the same length. That shouldn’t necessarily be that much of a hassle, but I don’t think either are something I’d like to see frequently implemented.
I think you misunderstood anonimoanbu, because by that logic then what’s the point of buying any game with a story? For example—“why buy a game like Red Dead Redemption 2 if you can just watch videos of it?”
I assume you may have mistook “story” to refer to just a short movie, or something else similarly not interactive. He’s referring to an actual story mode though, at least, a chapter of it exclusive to a DLC. I’m not sure how I feel about a DLC for a single-player campaign.
To clarify: TF2 does not have any premium currency that you use to purchase stuff. You buy stuff with actual cash.
Specifically, I’m referring to stuff like this: 
I don’t really agree with Minecraft Realms because if I’m right, you can only have up to 11 people on it and once source I found said it costed $8 a month since I couldn’t view the pricing on the actual website. If I have to pay for a service I expect it to have more to offer than an official logo and a few fancy templates that people made, especially when the competition can offer a much better service for two or three dollars a month. If this server idea is applied to any game that is known for having mods then it should try to support them too. My view on Minecraft Realms is that its a great idea but it needs a fair bit of work. For my personal uses, I haven’t seen a reason for the Realms servers because if I ever needed one running for a few things I could just set it up on my own and have a lot more options for whatever few people I need to play with. For servers with a maximum under 8 people I’d prefer just having a peer-to-peer option like what some other games use.
2 Likes
Realms is a way to set up an easily available server for you and your friends to play on, for a relatively cheaper price than paying for someone else to host the server, or hosting it yourself.
Of course, there are free ways to host servers, but realms is a nice way to do it.
1 Like
“Relatively cheaper”
Last time I checked, $2 is a lot cheaper than $8 and has a much greater value when it includes decent tech support and lets you have more than eleven people on at a time. With the options that are available, Realms would just be a waste of money if you consider anything else you could do. Hosting yourself costs nothing other than power and internet access if you have the equipment to run it; getting a friend to host a server could potentially be completely free for you; and there are plenty of cheap but decent hosting services you can use for Minecraft.
2 Likes
In the end it comes down to convenience, especially if the person in question wanting to host has no technical know-how in the slightest. There’s also security concerns and peace of mind with using a Realms-esque system instead of hosting on your own PC, as well as not having to worry about specs or other things.
While I really don’t like Realms in Minecraft, I do support such a system in Unturned II, especially as it would both generate revenue effectively and make server hosting more accessible for the community. In addition, it would leave people like you to still be perfectly able to host your own server all the same without being forced to use the new system.
I think that a server paywall would split the community and would likely be empty [small] cough cough [/small] , an example is gold servers, most people with over 500 or so hours has gold, yet they still choose to play non-gold servers and thus no hosters are hosting gold servers. If people are split (say 1 friend has the pass 1 doesn’t they can’t play with each other on a preferred official server) the servers would likely be emptier and the 2 players would migrate to a community server, defeating the purpose of official servers, and this scales largely with a group.
Also
Why is there no “I do not support a server pass for official servers” sort of option on the “Official Server Pass” section poll? Someone is bound to disagree.
2 Likes
Most skin ideas for skins are great ideas and if he made them less common (Drops) and make keys cost tiny bit more then maybe we can have a steam economy, something such as TF2 or Cs:go. The one I disagree on is the structure skins, these would make the game a bit hard to know what the walls were, if they were door skins like Rust then that would be cool but only if the door had a different designs not like in 3 where Metal and Wood Doors are just retextured. Such items as Gun, Cars, Some Cosmetic Items for the Characters, Boxes to Open, and Bags that are free to open are good ideas for making the steam economy stable. Ingame currency should be used maybe as payment for buying Servers.
1 Like
Unturned is not a game based on story unlike other games and the story probably wouldnt be the main focus of the game and therefore it will be shorter and people wont think they should pay for something they can watch online