Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
What if we could buy playlists and compile worlds that share similar features or worlds we think are fun? You would be able to name these playlists and release them. Unlike a campaign, it would not give rewards, but I think this is a good way to make a world compilation. You would be able to like and favourite worlds in a playlist as regular, but you can also like and favourite the playlist all together. Credit would still go to the creators of each world. Thoughts?
thanks koya
Offline
maybe it'd be good as a personal thing if you want to play some levels in a specified sequence and sharing with others could be done with a single string of text, something like "[world_ID_1]-[world_ID_2]-[world_ID_3]" and so on
Offline
maybe it'd be good as a personal thing if you want to play some levels in a specified sequence and sharing with others could be done with a single string of text, something like "[world_ID_1]-[world_ID_2]-[world_ID_3]" and so on
This, plus a menu in the lobby to do it more easily, would make this a great feature.
Offline
Weren't World Playlist suggested before? Personally I like the the word playlist a lot more and should get replaced by the "campaigns".
Then there would be staff-made playlists and user-made playlists. Only the staff-made playlists would have rewards, but if a user-made playlist gets very popular and loved it would get "promoted" and moved to staff-made (now should have some different name like featured or something) and the rewards would be added to them too.
Offline
Is this just a way to advertise instead of using world portals? Because if everyone made a playlist, the lands would mostly be empty. If someone's play list has alot of likes then too bad don't bother creating one of your own. There's alot of things that wont work.
WM malfuntion
Offline
Pages: 1
[ Started around 1735211658.6222 - Generated in 0.033 seconds, 10 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.46 MiB (Peak: 1.59 MiB) ]