Fronin Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Hmmm. Encouraging people to give you money two months before you have to file your taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beachrat Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) The few players whose offers were bought up right when the change occurred had their trades subsidized, so that they got $13,000,000 PPU as the price, vs. what they had posted. That's not how it worked for me. 02/01 02:18 am [so and so] accepted your trade offer. You received $8,989,898.00 and in exchange [so and so] received 1 credits. I would like to receive the extra $4,010,102 that apparently should have come my way. Thanks in advance. Edited February 1, 2017 by Beachrat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooves Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I appreciate the first 5 cities being essentially free. As well as the 1 credit for new alliances. What I'm skeptical about is the 10m per credit now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eragon Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 You need to hire a Player Base Representative or some shit to discuss ideas such as this with them before rolling it out. I don't post here often if at all, but you sometimes come up with the worst strategies or ideas I've ever seen. That being said, I also understand I play a game you created which I enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted February 1, 2017 Author Administrators Share Posted February 1, 2017 That's not how it worked for me. 02/01 02:18 am [so and so] accepted your trade offer. You received $8,989,898.00 and in exchange [so and so] received 1 credits. I would like to receive the extra $4,010,102 that apparently should have come my way. Thanks in advance. I threw that much into your nation inventory already - I didn't update the trade offer details. Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted February 1, 2017 Author Administrators Share Posted February 1, 2017 Ok then. Why? I thought you like player retention lol It's exactly for player retention. As I pointed out, new players often join the game and create their own alliances. Without protection, those alliances are quickly raided into oblivion, generally resulting in those players quitting. Often times also new players will join and join a low-quality alliance, with the same outcome as described above. Increasing the quality of alliances will reduce the chances of a player joining a low-quality alliance that can't protect them, and increase the chance of them joining an alliance with a good group of players who will offer a sense of community and incentive to stay. Hmmm. Encouraging people to give you money two months before you have to file your taxes. Coincidental, but not related. I pay estimated taxes on any revenue the game generates, and am actually getting a refund this year due to some education tax credits. 1 Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Basically forcing people to pay (real money) to make new alliances is meh, you would have been better off making nations pay some sort of in-game cash level. As much as I know you can go to the market and not have to pay any real money, it does feel like you're trying to make money out of what was a free feature. Whether that is the intention or not that is what the impression is and I am sure any new nations to this game will also look at this as "Oh this is pay-to-win", meaning you'll likely lose players there anyway. I'm alright if you leave the credit feature there for a month, if you're hard up on cash or something so be it. It's your business at the end of the day and you're the one who has to make sure it is in some way profitable. Just don't leave this as a long standing thing and don't keep going down this track. 2 [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmjohnston Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Mensa HQ has a guy with a PhD in economics and I'm an applied mathematician that's literally in RL Mensa. It doesn't make us feel any better, Sheepy. 4 ☾☆ Priest of Dio º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸ ¨°º¤ø„¸ GOD EMPEROR DIO BRANDO¨°º¤ø„¸ ¨°º¤ø„¸ DIO BRANDO GOD EMPEROR¨°º¤ø„¸ ¨°º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I see the unrecoverable flat spin is ongoing. If only some people had made suggestions about how *not* to enter the rotor wash. Honestly, its a good time to learn some life lessons sheepy so you can write a paper about it. Big picture: failure is a part of life. If it makes you feel any better, I'm an Economics major at one of the top 10 economics programs in the world Kemal must be so proud! Logging back out now =) -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I'm leery of the 10 mill credits thing but I don't think it's game breaking or that big of a deal.The 1 credit thing to create an alliance is smart, and I agree with Alex's logic whole heartedly.Also redeeming credits for money can be very useful in wartime situations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Basically forcing people to pay (real money) to make new alliances is meh, you would have been better off making nations pay some sort of in-game cash level. As much as I know you can go to the market and not have to pay any real money, it does feel like you're trying to make money out of what was a free feature. Whether that is the intention or not that is what the impression is and I am sure any new nations to this game will also look at this as "Oh this is pay-to-win", meaning you'll likely lose players there anyway. I'm alright if you leave the credit feature there for a month, if you're hard up on cash or something so be it. It's your business at the end of the day and you're the one who has to make sure it is in some way profitable. Just don't leave this as a long standing thing and don't keep going down this track. It's easy enough to buy a credit on the market if you don't want to spend RL money on making an alliance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Who are you taking macro from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 You're in-game announcement is missing the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintendo Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I actually think 1 credit to create a new alliance is a good idea. People complaining about that with the argument of, "I guess you don't like player retention" are completely missing the point. If you're a new player and you know no one, your go to move will probably be to create your own alliance....well....you'll quickly learn that doesn't work very well or you quickly get bored out of lack of interaction with other players and bam, your done. One of the biggest aspects of this game is alliance community. If you get involved an an alliance community, you're more likely to stay around I would think. Though, I will admit I hope the credit cash out value does not increase after this month. Just let the market dictate that. Want more credits sold? More nation cosmetics! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwise Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 My issue with paying to start an alliance is that you're taking an actual in-game feature, and adding a RL price tag to it. Sure, you can buy credits using in-game cash, but the money had to come from somewhere. If nobody donates, there are no credits to buy, and then you do have to pay your own cash to start an alliance. Paying for customizations I take no issue with. I took advantage of it in the last war since I didn't want to see a bunch of ads during a time I'd be the most active in-game, slowing down my page loads. I didn't even bother trying to get a credit off the market at a decent price, and just shelled out the $5 bucks. Due to the nature of the game, people have different perspectives on what classifies as "winning" the game. And I'm sure most will agree that founding, building and running the most successful alliance in-game can classify as winning, and you just put a price tag on it so that they have to pay you RL cash if they want to try to achieve that. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 UMN hasn't been top 10 in econ for a few decades now. It's a solid top 20 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 An alliance control panel, with information about member nation's warchests and military counts Alliance tax brackets Increased multi detection & prevention methods More gameplay content What changed your mind about the alliance tax brackets? You've said numerous times that they were unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conner Temple Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 It's easy enough to buy a credit on the market if you don't want to spend RL money on making an alliance. Someone has to buy that credit though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 What changed your mind about the alliance tax brackets? You've said numerous times that they were unnecessary. All those reasons we gave him as to why they were. Go check out the thread for further reference. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Higgins (Old) Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I guess Alex needs some lunch money lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 So it's now turned to pay to play even though it's temporary still the same thing you didn't want in the first place. With the alliances well why seriously! Why not make it for nations over 1500 score can make an alliance it gives them more incentive to grow and then make an alliance as they are over a certain size. Why not introduce something like a silver credits. It would be half the price of the normal credit to buy. This then means you can buy flags for nations or the alliances and purchase the anthem ability. Then use the gold credits for resetting the city clocks and all other parts you can buy with gold ones currently. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torin Tbomb Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 I still hold firm this is the worst idea imaginable for the in-game economy of P&W. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflationis exactly what privatizing Credits is going to do. When you produce more of something then needed, that thing looses it's value rapidly. Already players are not getting the 12 mil or whatever for 1 credit, they're only getting 8 mil or so. This is a sign of what's to come. Credits will become insanely cheap, ruining the profitability of the game for Alex, and completely defeating the reasoning of 1 credit to start an alliance, as credits will be worth dirt essentially. But hey, I'm willing to sit there with Popcorn and watch it all burn down. After all, it's only a game. "When the enemy is loosing, does he cower? You bet your ass he does." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inwegen Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 itt: Alex is a desperate cuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted February 1, 2017 Author Administrators Share Posted February 1, 2017 You're in-game announcement is missing the link. Thanks! Got that fixed up. I still hold firm this is the worst idea imaginable for the in-game economy of P&W. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflationis exactly what privatizing Credits is going to do. When you produce more of something then needed, that thing looses it's value rapidly. Already players are not getting the 12 mil or whatever for 1 credit, they're only getting 8 mil or so. This is a sign of what's to come. Credits will become insanely cheap, ruining the profitability of the game for Alex, and completely defeating the reasoning of 1 credit to start an alliance, as credits will be worth dirt essentially. But hey, I'm willing to sit there with Popcorn and watch it all burn down. After all, it's only a game. Credits will never be worth less than $10,000,000 in this situation, because that's their inherent worth. Only getting 8 mil or so doesn't even make sense - if no one is willing to pay more than $10,000,000 on the market, you just redeem directly to the game for $10,000,000 each. UMN hasn't been top 10 in econ for a few decades now. It's a solid top 20 though. It wasn't intended to be much of an argument anyway, but I suppose there are different rankings. Last I had seen UMN was ranked #10. Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trump Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 The people complaining about this are stupid. Sheepy has already stated that this will only be for a month, meaning if it does have a negative effect on the game it'll get changed back, if it has a positive effect on the game then it can be kept. And you don't need RL money, when the market exists. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts