Bring in some more tutorials for income Sheepy

[Marco Polo]

Can you bring up more tutorials or incentives to help us a bit as it is going a bit slow.

[Alex]

You can easily earn $100,000 and 20 munitions, gasoline, steel, and aluminum for each person you refer to the game that sticks around for 2 weeks and reaches 30 score

 

Other than that, when September rolls around I'll start the $15 donation option for a $1,000,000 bonus to your nation (limited to 1 per month per nation)

[Marco Polo]

All we have to do is refer someone and they just sign up and not play and we still get that incentive

[Ren]

It would take a few days to reach a score of 30. They'll be forced to play a little.

[Seryozha Nikanor]

15 dollars for 1mil? thats insane. 1mil isnt a lot

[Shellhound]

15 dollars for 1mil? thats insane. 1mil isnt a lot

Neither is 15 dollars.

 

 

And for the record, 1M is 10x more than what you got when you joined.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Shellhound

[Clarke]

15 dollars for 1mil? thats insane. 1mil isnt a lot

1 million puts you ahead of everyone else by about 10 days, more so when you take into account the quick growth experienced.

I'm of the opinion there should be no donation for cash until the start of October.

 

Any sooner and well the top rankings will only consist of those who donated. 

[Jarl Matt]

I would be disappointed if the game became dominated by pay to win players this early before anyone else can get close to matching them. Although on topic, I don't feel it is necessary to add more money giving tutorials. This game isn't meant to be played in a short time, its something you can just come on for a few minutes every day if you'd like. Do your 10-15 minutes of gaming, then go do something else for a few hours. You'll soon stop worrying about the pace.

[Alex]

1 million puts you ahead of everyone else by about 10 days, more so when you take into account the quick growth experienced.

I'm of the opinion there should be no donation for cash until the start of October.

 

Any sooner and well the top rankings will only consist of those who donated. 

 

We kept a "no donation" policy through all of this month for this reason. It's been generally accepted that the proposed model of tiered donation options becoming more available each month will not make the game "pay-to-win".

[Clarke]

We kept a "no donation" policy through all of this month for this reason. It's been generally accepted that the proposed model of tiered donation options becoming more available each month will not make the game "pay-to-win".

It's only being 17 days so far, if you really want to keep it more balanced than introducing it when September rolls around then you wouldn't introduce it for another 14 days.

Getting a boost of 10 days or more worth of income sounds like a pay to win situation given how far ahead it will put them. 

 

 

And which people accepted this donation scheme? I want to slap them players. 

Edited August 22, 2014 by Diabolos

[Despartainian]

Though I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't ever get in game boosts for real money, That's a discussion for another thread another time.

 

For now, I agree that we don't need more tutorials, regardless of money or not. The game isn't so terribly difficult that we need more tutorials.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Despartainian

[WISD0MTREE]

And which people accepted this donation scheme? I want to slap them players.

Sheepy did it to help pay for the servers. I'm against pay to win, but there won't be any way to win if there aren't servers...

[Alex]

See this thread: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2476-donation-options-will-ruin-the-game/page-2

 

And perhaps I will revise it so that the initial amount (I apparently had it listed at $1.5m, I thought I had written $1m) is less. I want a pay-to-win game as much as you do (I don't) but websites aren't free. I've invested a lot of time and money into this site, and the first 10 months of development and testing was all an investment by me, all out of my pocket. There needs to be a way to make up some of that cost back and have the game be self-sufficient.

[Clarke]

I'm not saying you can't have donation options, but it is pretty clear it will be major boost at this critical stage of nation growth.

I might just donate in order to get ahead of other players, I don't usually donate to anything I do or use so that says a lot in my book. 

[SoS]

It'll make a big difference. But we've all seen the biggest nations brought down.

 

I wish there were some alternative to pay for this, but I couldn't think of one. I'm just glad Sheepy tiered it. Otherwise, there'd be a handful of nations $6 mil ahead.

[Donald Sterling]

Opening up the money donations at this stage is insane.  I have received about $200,000-250,000 from people in total and have quite a few more points than most people.  That's just a fourth of what the donations get you, imagine how much someone could get with a million.  In my opinion this would be fine in a month to implement, but having it in a week could overpower some people quite a bit.

But on the topic of tutorials, no.  Terrible idea.

[Taureg]

I thought we already had this discussion, and I thought we already reached a reasonable compromise. 

[Alex]

I thought we already had this discussion, and I thought we already reached a reasonable compromise. 

 

I did too, but they do have a valid point. The propose $1,500,000 would be a pretty big game changer for those nations that got it. Perhaps for the month of September we should do a smaller amount, such as $500,000 for $15, and then bump it up to $1,000,000 or $1,500,000 in October.

[Taureg]

I did too, but they do have a valid point. The propose $1,500,000 would be a pretty big game changer for those nations that got it. Perhaps for the month of September we should do a smaller amount, such as $500,000 for $15, and then bump it up to $1,000,000 or $1,500,000 in October.

 

I just want you to get filthy stinking rich Sheepy

 

I have no doubt many of the people whining don't think twice about dropping $60 on a game, playing for a week or two and don't think twice about the value they received. Times how many games a year?  Ask those same people to drop an occaisional ten dollars on a browser game they spend houndreds of hours playing for months and years, and it's highway robbery. 

[Clarke]

I haven't bought a game for 60 euros for at least 4 years or more, I also think twice as well so I never bought a game thinking just once.
You definition of "whining" is very bizarre, someone vocally making their opinion known to keep the game balanced in all sense of the word is now called "whining".

 

"Ask those same people to drop an occaisional ten dollars on a browser game they spend houndreds of hours playing for months and years, and it's highway robbery."

Perhaps but the point is going over your head.

[Taureg]

I haven't bought a game for 60 euros for at least 4 years or more, I also think twice as well so I never bought a game thinking just once.

You definition of "whining" is very bizarre, someone vocally making their opinion known to keep the game balanced in all sense of the word is now called "whining".

 

 

Perhaps but the point is going over your head.

 

The point isn't lost on me at all.  I just don't give a hoot about the point you're making.  People who support the game will get ahead.  So be it. 

[Clarke]

No the point is clearly still lost to you, you want players to pay to win the game which is ultimately bad for the game.

[Alex]

No the point is clearly still lost to you, you want players to pay to win the game which is ultimately bad for the game.

 

You can't "win" the game though, that's what makes donations like these acceptable in the first place. A slight boost is a necessary incentive to get people to donate, and I've already stated that I won't do the donations for $1.5m or even $1m.

[Clarke]

Yeah I was just referring to his attitude regarding it, not what decisions you decided to make or not to make. 

[SoS]

Diabolos was #1 once. To him, I suppose that's winning. However brief it may be.