Donation options will ruin the game.

[Saru]

Whilst I understand that certain costs need to be covered, and Sheepy deserves to earn some money for the time he put into the game, I feel like the option of receiving $6,000,000 for a donation will essentially mean that this game becomes a pay-to-win one. That combined with the fact that this round is supremely slow, will mean that the ones who donate gain a massive advantage to the point where it's nearly impossible to keep up. Donations should provide substansial incentives but not to this level, and imo the amounts need to come down in relation to what the economy looks like right now.

 

[RagnarBuliwyf]

What do you suggest to cover server costs then? 

The game does require money to run, servers, domains etc etc it's not free. What do you suggest to cover the cost of the game?

[Reagan]

I'm leaning towards agreeing with you.  Sheepy does need support for the costs of the servers and his time and effort.  On the other hand, a new nation with $6 mil is kinda crazy.  I've always believed in a percentage based donation system.  This way, regardless of the size of your nation, you can benefit the same.  For example, say you donate $20, then you get a 20% income bonus and/or increase in improvement output for 10 days.  That would mean less money for a new nation, but a decent bump that's worth the investment.  It would also mean there is incentive for larger nations to donate.  The drawback is that later in the game, when we have larger nations, a new nation could save their cash and have their alliance just give them the money and/or resources that would come with the donation.  Of course, this issue will exist under Sheepy's current donation announcement, or if it's revised to something else.

 

No one wants pay to win, but I have no problem with donators getting a push, as long as it's not drastic. 

[Caillou]

Okay but the 10 day wait for new cities combats this. I understand 6 mil is a lot if you could just keep buying cities but it won't even get you to 2000 infra in one city at the start. They might appear really strong at first because they get to max out one city but unless they save it and don't get attacked it should be pretty easy to catch back up.

[Saru]

What do you suggest to cover server costs then? 

The game does require money to run, servers, domains etc etc it's not free. What do you suggest to cover the cost of the game?

 

Perhaps read my post before replying.

 

Okay but the 10 day wait for new cities combats this. I understand 6 mil is a lot if you could just keep buying cities but it won't even get you to 2000 infra in one city at the start. They might appear really strong at first because they get to max out one city but unless they save it and don't get attacked it should be pretty easy to catch back up.

 

 

You can build a city every 7 days. Donators basically will be able to build a city with a substantial amount of infra in less than those 7 days, because of the city timer reset too ( up until the point where cities cost crazy amounts, but by that point -- the massive advantage is already established, in terms of how much income said nations are receiving. ) Anyone who doesn't donate, stands absolutely no chance...

 

Also right now there's nothing stopping a player from donating for themselves, and for someone else and receiving their cash.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Saru

[RagnarBuliwyf]

Perhaps read my post before replying.

 

I did and you didn't give any specific ideas. You simply stated "incentives that relate to the economy". 

 

Perhaps if you gave a few ideas on what to have for donations instead of !@#$ing about the current system(That does need work, I agree) you'd get further. 

[Ren]

I wouldn't be opposed to more ads. This is one of the only sites I exclude from AdBlock, and the ads are not intrusive at all. Some space available to players to promote whatever would be cool too. Or maybe some alliance wide donations? Alliance wide projects were mentioned before, maybe they could be available via donation. 

[Saru]

I did and you didn't give any specific ideas. You simply stated "incentives that relate to the economy". 

 

Perhaps if you gave a few ideas on what to have for donations instead of !@#$ing about the current system(That does need work, I agree) you'd get further. 

 

.. What part of "Donations should provide substantial incentives but not to this level" do you not understand? I thought I made it clear that the 6,000,000 currently offered is too much, and the amount should be relative to the economy. for example, had we all started with 1mill, and the donations would of opened in a month, then it would be fairer. With the amount we're starting with, and the level of our incomes, a 6million cash injection every month, alongside the timer being reset, means that non donating or low donating donations simply don't stand a chance. Also I want clarification on whether or not donating for others, and getting the cash sent to you will be allowed.

[Grillick]

What does "win" mean in the context of this game?

[Alex]

I completely agree that a pay to win game is not what we want here. It's why I haven't pushed to monetize the game thus far, and even at this point the donation options I mentioned are not available yet (won't be available until September).

 

I tried to do my best to come up with a fair balance between in-game bonus and monetary cost. Advertisements help, but until we have over a thousand active players the amount of money earned is minuscule, around a dollar or two per day. The donation options I brainstormed I thought would be fair because the cash bonus is helpful for new players, and the city reset timer is helpful for older players. However, I'm totally open to changing donation options to something more fair and balanced -- perhaps you could help me brainstorm ideas?

 

What kind of bonuses would you guys like to see for donations aside from just cash or a city reset timer? Reagan mentioned some sort of bonus, I suppose a donation for a "10 day 10% income bonus" or something would be feasible as well and perhaps not so 'gamebreaking'.

 

Feedback?

[Saru]

I completely agree that a pay to win game is not what we want here. It's why I haven't pushed to monetize the game thus far, and even at this point the donation options I mentioned are not available yet (won't be available until September).

 

I tried to do my best to come up with a fair balance between in-game bonus and monetary cost. Advertisements help, but until we have over a thousand active players the amount of money earned is minuscule, around a dollar or two per day. The donation options I brainstormed I thought would be fair because the cash bonus is helpful for new players, and the city reset timer is helpful for older players. However, I'm totally open to changing donation options to something more fair and balanced -- perhaps you could help me brainstorm ideas?

 

What kind of bonuses would you guys like to see for donations aside from just cash or a city reset timer? Reagan mentioned some sort of bonus, I suppose a donation for a "10 day 10% income bonus" or something would be feasible as well and perhaps not so 'gamebreaking'.

 

Feedback?

 

Well in my view it's not that the 6mill is intrinsically bad, it's just that large of an amount at this early stage in the game -- given with how few resources we started with, it's too much of a skewed advantage. I have no issues with it if it's later on in the game. I think Reagan's idea has merit. I have been a part of other games in the past that implement a sort of subscription method, i.e $5 a month and you gain certain things, i.e this could be a x cash amount + an increased rate of production for that month. Perhaps you could run a survey of what people would be willing to pay for example? 

 

It's not that I am against you making money, or people getting rewarded for donating. But I think longevity has to be considered.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Saru

[Atzuya]

A month of fixed 15% color stock bonus should be enticing enough for donators. Perhaps assign them to a special color (that will not change even if they're defeated at war), so everyone can see how fancy and rich they are. Of course, the price tag should be enormous, but I think that never stops anyone.

I'm looking at you Candy Crush

[Vincent]

Not sure if I may suggest. Pay to win - this is definitely not right - bcos this will put those players who are already working at an advantage as they can afford to donate and get the boost whereas for the students , might not have that kind of money to donate even if they wanted to. Should they be penalised and be at disadvantage bcos of this? I don't think so.otherwise we are looking for a way to end the game ourself bcos those who felt they are at an disadvantage will quit the game sooner or later.

 

To cover for the cost of server or domain and of course sheepy does deserved so reward for his effort put in the game, I was just wondering if, we might just consider this option, instead of being a free game as it is now, why not We ( meaning sheepy and gang who developed the game) impose a very minimal fee , lets say USD 2 ( two) per player/account per month or so . then we will get the money maintain the server and etc and also perhaps even need to upgrade the server or other maintenance sometime in the future as the game progresses. ( No reward or advantage for paying - it is supposed to be a membership fee or at least our contribution to keep the game going.

 

how about that? does it work? I mean if USD 2 is too high or etc then perhaps can look into other amount.  I mean I am only giving a suggested figure, it is up to Sheepy and team to fix the amount. ( but keep it low so that it wont burden anyone, ) and also no one will be getting any advantage ( ie 6 million boost?)

BTW there are other games who impose a fee on a monthly basis - and those player doesn't get any benefit from paying except having the right to play the game. I know because besides this game I am also playing one of them - world of warcraft

Edited August 7, 2014 by vincentsum8

[Alex]

Well in my view it's not that the 6mill is intrinsically bad, it's just that large of an amount at this early stage in the game -- given with how few resources we started with, it's too much of a skewed advantage. I have no issues with it if it's later on in the game. I think Reagan's idea has merit. I have been a part of other games in the past that implement a sort of subscription method, i.e $5 a month and you gain certain things, i.e this could be a x cash amount + an increased rate of production for that month. Perhaps you could run a survey of what people would be willing to pay for example? 

 

It's not that I am against you making money, or people getting rewarded for donating. But I think longevity has to be considered.

 

Right, and this is one of the reasons why I'm not even letting people donate for those bonuses this first month.

 

Not sure if I may suggest. Pay to win - this is definitely not right - bcos this will put those players who are already working at an advantage as they can afford to donate and get the boost whereas for the students , might not have that kind of money to donate even if they wanted to. Should they be penalised and be at disadvantage bcos of this? I don't think so.otherwise we are looking for a way to end the game ourself bcos those who felt they are at an disadvantage will quit the game sooner or later.

 

To cover for the cost of server or domain and of course sheepy does deserved so reward for his effort put in the game, I was just wondering if, we might just consider this option, instead of being a free game as it is now, why not We ( meaning sheepy and gang who developed the game) impose a very minimal fee , lets say USD 2 ( two) per player/account per month or so . then we will get the money maintain the server and etc and also perhaps even need to upgrade the server or other maintenance sometime in the future as the game progresses. ( No reward or advantage for paying - it is supposed to be a membership fee or at least our contribution to keep the game going.

 

how about that? does it work? I mean if USD 2 is too high or etc then perhaps can look into other amount.  I mean I am only giving a suggested figure, it is up to Sheepy and team to fix the amount. ( but keep it low so that it wont burden anyone, ) and also no one will be getting any advantage ( ie 6 million boost?)

 

BTW there are other games who impose a fee on a monthly basis - and those player doesn't get any benefit from paying except having the right to play the game. I know because besides this game I am also playing one of them - world of warcraft

 

I am against any sort of subscription to pay the game, because many players don't even have credit cards or a method of payment. The game is free to play for all, and we should be able to raise more than enough money to support it through donations and advertising. The fact that the game is more fun with more players means we should encourage more people to play (by not charging them to do so) which will in turn make the game more fun for everyone else, and make them more willing to donate.

[Saru]

Right, and this is one of the reasons why I'm not even letting people donate for those bonuses this first month.

 

I understand that. But a month long wait doesn't change much, given that we started with such low amounts, and will have such low incomes. The 6million package gives far too much of an advantage -- because without donations, you will be nowhere near to having even a fraction of that amount. People are bound to get hutthurt when they realise how much ahead the donators really are. At the end of the day, it is your decision.

[Grillick]

Donation options aren't even close to as game-breaking as the ability to field a massive military without paying its upkeep. Seriously, this is a minor issue in the grand scheme.

[Vincent]

If is going to be a free game , then there must be a way /reward for those who donated , otherwise why would anyone want to donate. the tricky part is to find the balance. rewarding them for the donation but at the same time not putting those who didn't donate at too much a disadvantage.

 

as for winning. as this is a permanent game - no more resets - not that I am aware of....so it is kind of hard to judge/define what is " win" - does win mean being number 1 currently ? being number 1 in a months time? 3 months down the road? unlike Beta or Speed round where we know when it will end but this, since is an infinite thing no time frame...how would we define win?...even if we win an alliance war...is there any guarantee the losing alliance wont be able to rebuild and beat us in 6 months? 3 years or etc....so really is kind of hard to define the word "win"

[Ren]

Are there many players willing to donate $35 for 6 mil?

[Vincent]

lets wait and see. 6 million is a lot since is not speed round. during speed round 6 million...hahaha whack 3 inactives at most and u probably get it

[Dwynn]

I would definitely donate $35 for 6mil and a timer reset. The economic benefits would be stupid for me not to, and I'm a broke college student.

 

I agree... down the road $6mil would be "a drop in the bucket". But to complain that other people will get ahead while supporting the game is a bit... selfish?

 

I'm all for changing the donations though, however you better believe that a $35 donation better have some helpful "get ahead of the others who can't be bothered to support the game" benefits. Otherwise, what's the point? Nobody will donate.

 

Stimulated economic growth for your nation will still give you a heavy advantage to those who don't get it, will you complain then? 10% for 10 days is just stupid, nobody would donate $35 for that. It's not worth it. If the % scaled with the donation, so the max donation was something like 50% for 2 months or something, then you're talking my language.

 

Edit:

And let me state, ANYONE should be able to donate.

 

There should be benefits for $5, $10, $25, $35, $50 donations. And the effects should scale. $5 / 5% 1 week, $10/10% 2weeks, $25/25% 1mo, $35/35% 2mo, $50/50% 3mo.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Micheal Malone

[Alex]

Donation options aren't even close to as game-breaking as the ability to field a massive military without paying its upkeep. Seriously, this is a minor issue in the grand scheme.

 

You can't "field a military without paying it's upkeep", you trigger a debt boolean that wreaks all sorts of havoc on your nation if you don't pay your bills.

 

Are there many players willing to donate $35 for 6 mil?

 

Probably not too many, but I'm sure a few would.

 

---

 

Revising the donation options is not a bad idea, and perhaps adding more options would be a good thing. Perhaps:

 

$15 - $1,500,000 added to your nation (available in September)

$25 - $3,000,000 added to your nation (available in October)

$25 - Reset City/Project Timer (available in September)

$35 - $6,000,000 added to your nation (available in November)

$45 - $12,000,000 added to your nation (available in December)

 

Would something like this be more fair?

[Grillick]

You can't "field a military without paying it's upkeep", you trigger a debt boolean that wreaks all sorts of havoc on your nation if you don't pay your bills.

You lose power.

 

In a city that has only military improvements, that effect is meaningless for eleven of the twelve turns each day.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Grillick

[Saru]

You can't "field a military without paying it's upkeep", you trigger a debt boolean that wreaks all sorts of havoc on your nation if you don't pay your bills.

 

 

Probably not too many, but I'm sure a few would.

 

---

 

Revising the donation options is not a bad idea, and perhaps adding more options would be a good thing. Perhaps:

 

$15 - $1,500,000 added to your nation (available in September)

$25 - $3,000,000 added to your nation (available in October)

$25 - Reset City/Project Timer (available in September)

$35 - $6,000,000 added to your nation (available in November)

$45 - $12,000,000 added to your nation (available in December)

 

Would something like this be more fair?

 

Sounds alot fairer to me.

[Phiney]

Also allows new players in december to catch up quickly, which is a good thing.

[Taureg]

You can't "field a military without paying it's upkeep", you trigger a debt boolean that wreaks all sorts of havoc on your nation if you don't pay your bills.

 

 

Probably not too many, but I'm sure a few would.

 

---

 

Revising the donation options is not a bad idea, and perhaps adding more options would be a good thing. Perhaps:

 

$15 - $1,500,000 added to your nation (available in September)

$25 - $3,000,000 added to your nation (available in October)

$25 - Reset City/Project Timer (available in September)

$35 - $6,000,000 added to your nation (available in November)

$45 - $12,000,000 added to your nation (available in December)

 

Would something like this be more fair?

 

I was going to suggest a staggered implementation but you beat me to it.  Good job.  It's an excellent compromise.

 

I'd push the price on the $12mm though.  Anyone who's going to spend $35 isn't going to think twice about another $10 to get $12mm.  $50 anyway.  Maybe also also have a premium package or two at $75/$100 that includes cash, flag, pics, etc.  Something for the high-rollers