Donation options will ruin the game.

[Reagan]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

I brought up  a percentage, but nowhere did I say $35 for 10% for 10 days.  I gave an example of a percentage reward donation rather than a hard number reward in order to show how it can better benefit nations of all sizes.

 

I disagree with your scaling suggestions because you are expanding a donation option beyond a month.  That would discourage players from donating monthly.  Why would I donate the 2nd month if I'm still being rewarded from last month?  I do agree, however, with donations scaling based on the donated amount, which is what I was originally suggesting.  For $10, you might get a 10% bump in your income and resource production/effects, and/or you might get 10% reduced costs of upkeep and purchase prices.  There are many ways it can go.  For $20, you could make it 20%.  I wouldn't want to see those effects last longer than a couple of weeks.  Easy to say 30 days, but let's take a $35 donation and say we're doing it this way and a nation gets a 35% increase in income and production for an entire month.That would be a huge difference over the competition, perhaps too huge.  If it were only for a couple of weeks, would that still be worth $35?  I don't know.  Maybe not.  Worth talking about, but I do know that giving a nation a 50% increase for 3 months because they donated $50 would be a gamebreaker.

 

Donators need incentive to donate, and they should be rewarded, but that doesn't mean non-donators should be punished.  Not everyone who plays has a credit card, or even a job.  Donators will hold an edge and they should.  They paid for that edge.  But it can't be so much so that it's not worth it for non-donators to play because they feel they don't stand a chance at being competitive.  I would honestly limit donations to no more than $25 per month and ensure the reward is appropriate for it.  Anything more is going to require a much larger incentive to donate that much and it's going to be unfair to others.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Sounds alot fairer to me.

I agree.  This sounds more fair.

[WISD0MTREE]

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

Get a really high score, get a lot of money, send it to alliance members, build an extremely strong alliance, dominate PaW

 

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 Bloc, you can donate and get custom flags, leader portrait, naion title (ie The Dictator's Republic of North Oman), and a national anthem (small YouTube video embedded). And you can change them at any time, instead of just once. Maybe you could do something like that on top of a bonus that scales with your nation (like Reagan said). 

 

Here is the YT video size: 

 

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. 

Yes, I exclude AdBlock because: 

1. The ads are placed nicely

2. I like Sheepy. He fights for gun rights. 

 

The idea of player ads would be cool. You pay a little money for an ad that links to your nation or market page would be nice. 

 

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.

No. With 6 million right now I could fill my city with 2,000 infra and all oil wells/gas refineries. 

Edited August 7, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[Alex]

I brought up  a percentage, but nowhere did I say $35 for 10% for 10 days.  I gave an example of a percentage reward donation rather than a hard number reward in order to show how it can better benefit nations of all sizes.

 

I disagree with your scaling suggestions because you are expanding a donation option beyond a month.  That would discourage players from donating monthly.  Why would I donate the 2nd month if I'm still being rewarded from last month?  I do agree, however, with donations scaling based on the donated amount, which is what I was originally suggesting.  For $10, you might get a 10% bump in your income and resource production/effects, and/or you might get 10% reduced costs of upkeep and purchase prices.  There are many ways it can go.  For $20, you could make it 20%.  I wouldn't want to see those effects last longer than a couple of weeks.  Easy to say 30 days, but let's take a $35 donation and say we're doing it this way and a nation gets a 35% increase in income and production for an entire month.That would be a huge difference over the competition, perhaps too huge.  If it were only for a couple of weeks, would that still be worth $35?  I don't know.  Maybe not.  Worth talking about, but I do know that giving a nation a 50% increase for 3 months because they donated $50 would be a gamebreaker.

 

Donators need incentive to donate, and they should be rewarded, but that doesn't mean non-donators should be punished.  Not everyone who plays has a credit card, or even a job.  Donators will hold an edge and they should.  They paid for that edge.  But it can't be so much so that it's not worth it for non-donators to play because they feel they don't stand a chance at being competitive.  I would honestly limit donations to no more than $25 per month and ensure the reward is appropriate for it.  Anything more is going to require a much larger incentive to donate that much and it's going to be unfair to others.

 

Honestly, I'm not too fond of the % bonus idea for donations. It sounds fair for every player, because they get the same % bonus, but it seems to me the little players would rather pay $15 for a donation to a very large nation, who might reap an extra $100m over X weeks instead of their own nation who might reap $1m over X weeks, and then have the big nation just cut them some of that money. This wouldn't really be "fair", people would be able to abuse the system. I think hard donation amounts ($1m, $3m, whatever) are fairer all around, and the city reset timer donation option is something more appealing to a big nation. 

 

As for really expensive donation options, I have no problem with them being available ($50 donation, $75 donation, whatever) as long as they're not really much better than a cheaper price ($25 or $35). If someone is wealthy and wants a few extra million and is willing to pay an extra $25, I have no problem with it.

[Han]

Of course you wont have problem with that since you are getting the money no one can stop you from making it but it will be better if people can purchase once and has to wait some time for their next purchase in game or make something like a server for rich people that wants to have war with their money.

[Alex]

Of course you wont have problem with that since you are getting the money no one can stop you from making it but it will be better if people can purchase once and has to wait some time for their next purchase in game or make something like a server for rich people that wants to have war with their money.

 

There is a limit - You will only be able to get one "bonus" donation per month, regardless of the amount you pay.

[Hagbard Celine]

How about making a clean break from the deceptive financial practices of that "other game" and stop calling them donations?  No one is curing ALS here, we'd be paying for a service.