ELPINCHAZO Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Make the donation bonus scale to the length a nation has existed.So for example,a donation bonus scaled to the number of months a nation as existed. I have my arguments for this but I'd rather that other people weigh in on the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 meh I kinda like that new nations to the game can sort of grow faster and catch up a bit quicker to the older nations if they want to donate. Don't really see a problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reagan Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Really don't want to see a system that favors nations which are already the largest in the game. I get your point...reward needs to be worth it, but ideally donations should be primarily attractive to new nations. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan I Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Nah. This will allow larger nations to grow quicker, which in turn gets a huge disadvantage for the newbies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iljohn Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 I get what you mean cause say this last 2 years down the road and the donation becomes so outrageous that a new nations could afforded there next 5 city's but for right now I think the system is good for now at least Quote (^。^)y-.。o○ (-。-)y-゜゜゜ this is how i make my cloud http://i1371.photobucket.com/albums/ag291/petgangster/efb30519-f381-4330-a62b-11db0d2a058b_zpscilyk2rj.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memph Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 (edited) On the flip side, if you do make the change ElPinchazo recommends, I guess what a small nations could do is donate for a large nation and have the nation send him tons of aid in exchange. Of course that means small nations with big friends are at an advantage, haven't really thought about whether that's good or bad. Edited November 9, 2014 by Memph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lardbelly Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 This kind of change would also be very off-putting for newer players when their $30 real-world money gets them 800k in-game and the Placenta guy gets 4 million. Quote All Hail Lardbelly! Lord of Digestion! Conqueror of Quesadillas! Ruler of Rotissierie! Potentate of Pizza! Future Irresponsible Wielder of Thermonuclear Weapons! Bring me your finest meats and cheeses or be nuked into so much radioactive grit! You have been warned..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmad Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Eh, I like it how it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P2K Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 meh I kinda like that new nations to the game can sort of grow faster and catch up a bit quicker to the older nations if they want to donate. Don't really see a problem with it. I agree. giving a bonus to a nation that is already way ahead of us younger nations just seems unfair. but maybe we could have both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athanasios Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 I'm not sure which way the OP meant the donations to be proportional, but I think it'd be better to have a large bonus for younger nations, and a decreasing bonus the larger you get. The big nations get enough money by their own large, developed cities, whereas $3.75 million (or whatever the $30 bonus was this month) would make a huge bonus for younger nations who are just starting out. It would reduce the incentives for huge nations to pay, but would increase the incentive for the many, constantly joining low-tier nations to donate. And hey, if you just joined and threw $30 at a game, you'd be much more likely to stay active, whereas the behemoth nations have been active for months and will continue to be so because of how much time/money/whatever they've put into the game. Just my $0.02 Quote "We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community." - Emperor Haile Selassie I The Republic The Republic Map Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyler215 Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Uhmmm as others say, it will be a bit unfair for the newer players... I'd rather see this as fine and faster growth on new players and I'm sure they will,stick to the game.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greene Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 As an avid donator on many games, and someone who will be donating fairly soon, I've gotta say that I'm against this suggestion. The way that Sheepy's done the donations is so that players, regardless of size, can only get up to $3.75 million for the life of their nation. If we start scaling this, then you're going to have the newer players exploiting the donation by finding a larger nation apply the donation to. Additionally, you run the risk of turning this game into a pay-to-play. I've seen other games try to do this, with disastrous results. I know Guardian may well remember Lord Empires. I believe it was Prefontaine who actually raised the whole pay-to-play issue over there the loudest when there were a couple players who literally sank hundreds of dollars into donations so that they would be untouchable in war. It made the entire game much less playable for everyone else. I like the way that Sheepy's keeping the balance between playability and soliciting donations to cover the costs. On a related note, since I'm sure Sheepy has gotten better at coding since his other games that he started, the actual makeup of the server necessary to run this game at this time is low enough that he can probably get away with running it on Shared Hosting. Anyone who does a whois search on the domain name can see that he most likely uses BlueHost for his hosting needs. For shared hosting they're fairly inexpensive. So from a cost covering point of view, he really doesn't /need/ much in the way of donations, but additional donations would probably allow him to invest more into this game, advertising, etc. I donate because I like the game I play. Getting some perks are great, but they aren't the only reason I donate. I know I'm not the only one with this philosophy. Keep the donations for money as they are. /end rant Quote Formerly known as Grealind of Resvernas (28 October 2014-29 August 2017) and Greene of Japan (29 August 2017-28 Septmber 2017) 7th Caretaker of Duat, the Deity Thoth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I don't think more advanced nations should gain a greater benefit from donating then newer nations. Like others, i'd rather see it the other way around, but given how easy it is to move money around, it should probably just stay how it is. Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.