|
12 Feb 2008, 07:47
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
|
$$$
Ok, we (old players) all know what PA needs: MONEY!!!!
Ok, simple idea: give us our rankings.
Vanity shall trump any obstacles...
Give us ranks, give us a portal that at all times reminds us of our rankings.
Borrow it from the army. Or whatever, give us not only rankings, give us ranks.
I am telling you, a "captain" that has been playing from round 3 will come back (sooner or later) to be a "major."
Now, tie this ranking, somehow, to the XP ranking of the commanders (see my XP commander thread), and you will have a self-sufficient mpog for a couple of decades more.
Fail to do it... fail!
Michel
|
|
|
12 Feb 2008, 07:52
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
|
Re: $$$
btw, how is this round going?
|
|
|
12 Feb 2008, 08:03
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
|
Re: $$$
anyways, "we" need money. Stop babbling so much about other shit. At least for this year, lets all focus on how to make money and take control of this game.
Don't ever say I didn;t mentioned first.
|
|
|
12 Feb 2008, 08:18
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
|
Re: $$$
legally speaking
|
|
|
12 Feb 2008, 10:26
|
#5
|
Kwaak
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 296
|
Re: $$$
This is a way to increase revenue, but the most important part about your idea is to increase the amount of times users can add money to the game. Add money to get extra res or whatever, just let players add money at will. The argument has always been about the rich kids obtaining the advantage and that they just will 'buy' the victory, but that is not the case. If you structure the benefits of extra money in a good way so that activity and skill are still the most important aspects, the game will only gain. Extra money for development, extra money for flashy design, maybe even extra money for advertisement. Or at least keep players focused on the game..
|
|
|
12 Feb 2008, 11:17
|
#6
|
Guest
|
Re: $$$
Bad idea, shut up, go away.
I can't believe how idiotic this idea actually is. My last idea was pointless, but not downright fecking dumb. You think somebody who's been retired for the last 5 years is gonna come back and play because he'll be a 'captain' in the game?
"Wow, you know... I DID think the game was crap, but if they're going to call me Captain I think I'll give it another bash!"
Just shut up.
And this game isn't WOW or Eve Online.... the game is shit enough as it is without expecting us to put more money into it.
Sell your internet, burn down your house and move to Africa.
|
|
|
12 Feb 2008, 11:39
|
#7
|
Drink is Good
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,122
|
Re: $$$
kenny dont be so shit, your whole post was tosh. I like the idea of rankings given out after every round that could be carried forward over the rounds, thus increasing your overall rank on a leaderboard seperated from the rankings ingame. It certainly is an interesting concept to consider.
__________________
Can we please have a moment of silence...........
|
|
|
12 Feb 2008, 11:57
|
#8
|
Hibernating
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Team Kesha
Posts: 1,621
|
Re: $$$
I like the idea of you accomplishments going over to the next round (though not ingame, more like on a statspage on the portal) on the other hand however, I think it's kinda late to start with that now, unless there's a way to get everything from older rounds up there too.
Oh, and we'd need somebody to put it on the portal actually...
__________________
[InSomnia]
Official designated driver
[ToF] - [eXilition] - [Rock] - [Denial] - [DLR] - [eVolution] - [ODDR] - [HR] - [Ultores] - [Apprime] - [Ironborn]
|
|
|
12 Feb 2008, 13:37
|
#9
|
Guest
|
Re: $$$
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alki
kenny dont be so shit, your whole post was tosh. I like the idea of rankings given out after every round that could be carried forward over the rounds, thus increasing your overall rank on a leaderboard seperated from the rankings ingame. It certainly is an interesting concept to consider.
|
A rankings system could be implemented for the portal, but he goes on to suggest that this affect the xp system ingame.
We've already discussed what a shit idea this is, so I don't see why bringing it up again will make us feel differently.
And truth be told a lot of my anger was directed towards paolo, who clearly knows nothing about anything.
Although, I did not make this clear in my original post (which was rushed due to me leaving for uni) so that was indeed a failing on my part.
Sorry, just to be clear, it's Paolo that should sell his internets, burn down his house and move to Africa; Aedolaws I just think should shut up. The notion of this game lasting 'a couple of decades more' is purely idiotic.
That may just be me being a cynic though; although I prefer the term 'realist'.
**edit: And like Veedeejem said, it's too late to start that now as there's no way of backdating the system.
|
|
|
12 Feb 2008, 14:56
|
#10
|
Planetarion Forum Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,289
|
Re: $$$
This idea has been advocated before in a number of other threads including one by myself. The problem that has always arisen is that it would require the coding of some sort of passport system, which to date has proven difficult to do for whatever reason. I also agree with the basic premise that PA needs to find ways to encourage players to spend more money on the game.
__________________
Romans 10:9-10
#strategy
|
|
|
12 Feb 2008, 15:56
|
#11
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: $$$
Passport system good, multi-round xp bad.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
12 Feb 2008, 16:01
|
#12
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 936
|
Re: $$$
Only thing I can come up with the money issue is:
Add account that costs, but is limited to scan techtree (and maybe cov-ops also.)
That way u will get double money from buyer and it gains the account maker also, to be able to scan his def/attacks.
Same u remove the need for people to waste time on scan techtree and paying for them and killing your own game.
That would be legal multi-ing, but I am sure there are such/same kind users with vnc allready... so we can aswell allow it to them and make it cost.
To comment on the other points, I agree with alki and mz...
__________________
If the opponent resists, CaRnage there will be!
|
|
|
12 Feb 2008, 18:08
|
#13
|
Guest
|
Re: $$$
We're already getting screwed for the money we give them, why on earth are we considering giving them more of it?
This thread should be closed/deleted before somebody from Jolt reads it and gets it into their thick heads that they can charge more for this pittance of a game.
|
|
|
12 Feb 2008, 18:25
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 936
|
Re: $$$
Agreed on there, but if money solves the problem of lack of advertise and developement (for real and not just lack of will...) my suggestion atleast should be less painfull for the majority of players.
Also if the game gets too expensive, I believe we can trust on everyones own judgement and there will be no paid accounts anymore... (worst case is we lose players ofc :P)
__________________
If the opponent resists, CaRnage there will be!
|
|
|
12 Feb 2008, 23:19
|
#15
|
Guest
|
Re: $$$
But that's just it... put the price up and existing players will leave. We do want additional members - but to compliment the existing playerbase, not replace.
And Jolt have plenty of money for advertising. Planetarion is basically a money-making advertising machine for them. They don't give a shit about improving the game for existing players, the just want to shop their products.
|
|
|
13 Feb 2008, 00:31
|
#16
|
The BOFH
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 463
|
Re: $$$
People don't mind paying for a decent game, however it needs to represent good value for money. Any change in pricing would be a bad idea unless significant improvements are made beforehand.
I wouldn't want anyone in charge trying to push price changes and then promise improvements after.
|
|
|
13 Feb 2008, 00:49
|
#17
|
Kwaak
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 296
|
Re: $$$
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
But that's just it... put the price up and existing players will leave. We do want additional members - but to compliment the existing playerbase, not replace.
And Jolt have plenty of money for advertising. Planetarion is basically a money-making advertising machine for them. They don't give a shit about improving the game for existing players, the just want to shop their products.
|
As stated in this thread, Planetarion needs money. You are probably right that Jolt is just milking the game dry until it dies, but does that mean it's ok and we don't mind? If so, then sure adding more value adding moments to the game is a bad idea. If the type of game is actually dying, then we shouldn't invest any more time and energy in it than strictly neccessary.
However, if we would want the game to flourish and attract new players, the game needs to rethink it's money making strategy. Right now Planetarion only has one large income 'tick' per eight or nine weeks (could be more), which is far too low to even think about surviving. Advertising and development aren't free and Appoco and co can only do so much with their free time. So more money is needed to keep the game interesting and maybe even improving it to cater and attract more players.
Increase the alliance limit to unlimited while you're at it, but that's a different discussion. The limit is hurting the game...
How will Planetarion get this money? I believe there are two options.
A) Make it a long running game with events and quest etc to keep players occupied with the same game and in the process add money to the game through various packages they can buy from a Planetarion store to get some ingame bonusses. This has worked for other browser based text games, so why not for Planetarion? It requires a lot of coding and restructuring of the game and will probably push away the current playerbase to be replaced by a new one. The concept is being able to play the game for free, but to be truely competetive, you have to purchase something from the store (like getting a mining bonus for 2 weeks for $5 or getting the paid status we currently have for a month for $5 which you will lose after. Maybe the only way alliances can be created is by buying slots for them). Reset the game after half a year or a whole year and start again all new and improved.
B) Sell it to a player who actually gives a damn
|
|
|
13 Feb 2008, 02:16
|
#18
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,663
|
Re: $$$
Before needing money PA needs players. PA is perceived as a P2P game which you can test for free... it cost nothing to change that.
Stop with the "free signup" stuff, coz it only means that people will have to pay AFTER sign up... and go with "Play for free".
Look the other games around and do the same:
Free games where you can buy "premium account" with extra features.
Give extra resources (or roids) for people who vote every day for PA on best games sites (look at what is done in Londinivm, they send daily reminders with just a link to click on, easy and effective).
and where are the ad banners (various sizes) for PA that people can add to their websites ?
__________________
<smith> You're 15 and full of shit.
<Furious_George> no, im 22
|
|
|
13 Feb 2008, 03:32
|
#19
|
Guest
|
Re: $$$
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makhil
Before needing money PA needs players. PA is perceived as a P2P game which you can test for free... it cost nothing to change that.
Stop with the "free signup" stuff, coz it only means that people will have to pay AFTER sign up... and go with "Play for free".
Look the other games around and do the same:
Free games where you can buy "premium account" with extra features.
Give extra resources (or roids) for people who vote every day for PA on best games sites (look at what is done in Londinivm, they send daily reminders with just a link to click on, easy and effective).
and where are the ad banners (various sizes) for PA that people can add to their websites ?
|
Best reply I've seen yet.
And we don't need Jolt to make ad banners, we need 15 minutes of anybody's time to make an Ad Banner so that we can CHOOSE to advertise planetarion on any site; social sites (bebo/facebook etc), clansites, university boards, personal websites, project work, office emails.
And yes, once I have a PC capable of running photoshop again, I'll have a go at one of these banners myself.
Paolo, please stop posting
The alliance cap is the ONLY THING SAVING THIS GAME. Remove it and PA will die.
And when PA does get income... even if only 500 planets were 'paid' - that's still £2500. Now... you may not know a lot about, well, anything apparently. But assuming we had to pay to rent servers, that'd be enough to cover hosting for around 20 years. That's based on £10 per month from most professional hosting companies. And we have around 3 rounds per year, so yeah... roughly 60 rounds.
But Jolt already own the damned servers. So even for the last 10 rounds, if only 500 people per round had paid... that's still £25,000. With that much money, we could rent the servers for 200 years and play 600 rounds of PA. Assuming people still used the internet 200 years from now, and hosting still cost the same (unlikely, but the price for the game would increase in parallel to the cost of web hosting making any consistency argument invalid).
So based on 10 rounds of P2P (which is in practice closer to 20), and earnings well over £100,000 - do you REALLY think Jolt needs any more fecking money from us?
|
|
|
13 Feb 2008, 15:12
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 936
|
Re: $$$
I have played equally well made games as PA or even better with no cost (except tothe game runners), so if I can choose one of those it's a clear choise for me. Anyway they offer no quality quarantees as p2p game such as PA does. Why it's more likely going to last longer also. There is the paid status of user to push the makers forward. Others can make excuses of no money, no honey...
But seriously Kenny I dont think at PA's curent state no one is getting rich by running the game.
excuse me if I talk total bs, but acording to this site for example and few other sources I went thrue.. your server hosting bills are calculated for quite minimum and u forget that we have servers for speed rounds (and test play ground also?) So atleast u need to double the costs...
also do u have any idea what proper advertisement costs? I would say a company trying to make profit aint ready for such sacrifices without having something to back them up. Either they flex, which I doupt will happen or then its us... which is more likely to happen, aslong as it aint done on way to hurt the players too much. ie show them growing income or growing amount of players in here or some other progress, that could push jolt for some caring and agree to support some adverts.
__________________
If the opponent resists, CaRnage there will be!
Last edited by furball; 13 Feb 2008 at 19:49.
|
|
|
13 Feb 2008, 16:13
|
#21
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: $$$
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
The alliance cap is the ONLY THING SAVING THIS GAME. Remove it and PA will die.
|
no, it's really holding PA back.
|
|
|
13 Feb 2008, 16:24
|
#22
|
Custom User Title
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 581
|
Re: $$$
PA "will" die? As in its not dead already? Imo all it lacks atm is the gravestone..
ps. I agree with Kenny. Shit idea.. kill yourself plz..
__________________
I LOVE LAMP
|
|
|
13 Feb 2008, 16:41
|
#23
|
Crackhead
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 239
|
Re: $$$
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesla
PA "will" die? As in its not dead already? Imo all it lacks atm is the gravestone..
ps. I agree with Kenny. Shit idea.. kill yourself plz..
|
I thought PAX was the gravestone?
__________________
[Ministry][Ascendancy][Retired]
|
|
|
13 Feb 2008, 23:56
|
#24
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
|
Re: $$$
O my God, they killed Kenny!
Well, I was drunk that night. Anyways, I stand by my ideas. And btw, as have been noted, is really nothing new. I do have to admit that I am a fan of ranks and statistics, and I have always craved more info and (vanity) recognition from PA. Anyways, the player-rank ("Rank") would be different than the commander-rank ("Round Rank"). The idea is that every Round Rank contributes X points to Rank. Is very simple guys.
People would add to this rank even if they play a free account. Even if they play half-a-round. Shit, all it would take would be to open a main account, that then you will use to open "round accounts" for which you will choose to pay or not pay. Vanity will draw in the proud. And most of us are proud creatures, otherwise we wouldn't have wasted countless nights since last millenium.
I meant it as a simple way to improve the PA community. And, something that will produce more money than the system now in place.
Problems with the passport system? I have to admit I am not a techie. I have heard this "passport system" thrown around for years. I have no clue as to what it would take to have people open an account somewhere which will perpetually track the final points earned by the player each round they play.
Anywyus!!
Show me the money!!!
|
|
|
14 Feb 2008, 00:06
|
#25
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
|
Re: $$$
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aedolaws
Anyways, the player-rank ("Rank") would be different than the commander-rank ("Round Rank"). The idea is that every Round Rank contributes X points to Rank. Is very simple guys.
|
Every player's Round Rank is as it has ever been.
However, at the end of each round, thru some formula (involving factors XYZ), each player will earn or loose a pro-rata amount of points.
Those points will be added to the Rank of the player.
Each rank requires a certain number of points.
Ranks will go up and down thru the years. But it is foreseeable that hardcore players will have higher titles as time goes by.
Our Rank will remain with us as long as we have an account with Jolt, or whoever happens to own the game atm.
|
|
|
14 Feb 2008, 01:00
|
#26
|
Kwaak
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 296
|
Re: $$$
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
Best reply I've seen yet.
And we don't need Jolt to make ad banners, we need 15 minutes of anybody's time to make an Ad Banner so that we can CHOOSE to advertise planetarion on any site; social sites (bebo/facebook etc), clansites, university boards, personal websites, project work, office emails.
And yes, once I have a PC capable of running photoshop again, I'll have a go at one of these banners myself.
Paolo, please stop posting
The alliance cap is the ONLY THING SAVING THIS GAME. Remove it and PA will die.
And when PA does get income... even if only 500 planets were 'paid' - that's still £2500. Now... you may not know a lot about, well, anything apparently. But assuming we had to pay to rent servers, that'd be enough to cover hosting for around 20 years. That's based on £10 per month from most professional hosting companies. And we have around 3 rounds per year, so yeah... roughly 60 rounds.
But Jolt already own the damned servers. So even for the last 10 rounds, if only 500 people per round had paid... that's still £25,000. With that much money, we could rent the servers for 200 years and play 600 rounds of PA. Assuming people still used the internet 200 years from now, and hosting still cost the same (unlikely, but the price for the game would increase in parallel to the cost of web hosting making any consistency argument invalid).
So based on 10 rounds of P2P (which is in practice closer to 20), and earnings well over £100,000 - do you REALLY think Jolt needs any more fecking money from us?
|
Well I was talking about the same stuff your 'Best reply I've ever seen' was talking about, be it in a more finance focused post. Makhil was more to the point and brings up some very good ideas.
And about the Alliance limit, that has to do with elite groups and officers. It will always be a case of big alliance of elite players vs other big alliance of elite players. Everybody loves that to happen. The elite player to be challenged and fight the hard battle and for the casual player to look at and be inspired. If you keep decreasing the amount of elite players that are capable of playing together, you will just simply lose them and the game will lose quality. Less quality, no more big challenge, no point in keep playing the game as SimPlanet is not really challenging.
Then the officers. Being an officer is hard work, especially a DC. To ensure round the clock coverage you will need a minimum of DC's, so the % of members that need to be an officer in an alliance increases when the alliance limit decreases. Not everyone wants to be an officer, a very little amount of people do. Even less are actually good at it.
I should probably let someone like Makhil or Jerome explain it more clearly, but this is the general outline of the problem.
|
|
|
14 Feb 2008, 17:51
|
#27
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 936
|
Re: $$$
limiting alliance size will limit recruiting, which will lead to less players...
__________________
If the opponent resists, CaRnage there will be!
|
|
|
14 Feb 2008, 19:50
|
#28
|
Guest
|
Re: $$$
no, it'll lead to more alliances.
|
|
|
14 Feb 2008, 22:45
|
#29
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: $$$
Who will run these additional alliances?
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
15 Feb 2008, 00:16
|
#30
|
This Space for Rent
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 583
|
Re: $$$
better to have additional independent alliances than alliances with 100+ members that keep people out of tag or in a 2nd tag imo. actually promotes growth, encourages other people to be leaders, etc.
__________________
When in doubt, blame Ascendancy.
#pastats
|
|
|
15 Feb 2008, 09:07
|
#31
|
[Vision]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
|
Re: $$$
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaejii
better to have additional independent alliances than alliances with 100+ members that keep people out of tag or in a 2nd tag imo. actually promotes growth, forces other people to be leaders, etc.
|
fyp, its much better to have a excited leader(group) who set out to achieve some high goal, than to be lead by a command who is forced to lead a group of players because no one else wanted to (perhaps proven by the lack of innovation in warfare these days, apart from a few nice exceptions i might add).
The only issue that exists to my knowledge with alliance limits, is the lesser quality alliances complaining about their quality players moving on to bigger and better things (which is human nature). The result of lowering the alliance limits is some fake idea of a competition where in the end it's still the same old group actually competing for the win (perhaps under different tags).
[edit]
Just as a note, its quite hard to please 100+ members in a ~1000 active players game. If a group of players doesn't agree or has some other things they want to achieve, i personally wouldn't be too surprised to see splits happening to allow them to achieve their goals. The only thing holding such changes back, in terms of rankings, is the alliance contributed score reset when you leave a tag, making it quite pointles to leave a tag halfway through the round as you can't catch up rankwise anyway (if that is what you want).
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
|
|
|
15 Feb 2008, 12:50
|
#32
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 936
|
Re: $$$
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
no, it'll lead to more alliances.
|
it will lead to not inviting your friends to play, since there is no room... and you dont want to lose your own spot.
also why should u recruit if your size is full allready?
no one wants the "dead weight" aka lesser active players, since they take away space from possible serious gamers, again we do have less signed up players and less targets.
the lesser active alliances cant replace the missing activity by adding size...
there are only some key persons cabable to bring more players to the game, than just one addtional half arsed friend. If u limit their cabability to bring players, they surely wont come on their own...
We cant force people to sportmanship... there are always ways to destroy rounds with lame play, or no play at all So we can expect people to be grown enough to realise fights are fun/worthy only when fought on fair playground. If all want to move to some bigass alliance sure of success... then let them and make em see how good desision it is on long run....
__________________
If the opponent resists, CaRnage there will be!
Last edited by Ave; 15 Feb 2008 at 12:58.
|
|
|
21 Feb 2008, 21:38
|
#33
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
|
Re: $$$
$$$ people!!!!
Yo Kenny, the link between Rank and Round Rank does not have to affect the nature of a regular round. Is all a matter of displaying both next to your Planet name.
The idea is to keep track of past performance. Thats all. We would all comeback someday and play again, just with that main account. That (accruing points), in turn, might make some players play every round, rather than once every 3 or 4.
Is just playing on our vanity.
|
|
|
17 Mar 2008, 22:49
|
#34
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13
|
Re: $$$
If you look at the games people play these days you'll find many of them involve some sort of achievement system attached to it. This isn't limited to RPG's either, many games are moving from the static game of running through everything over and over to a game where even though you're replaying the same stuff you're being rewarded for playing it. It doesn't have to give advantages in the game itself, the Rank thing suggested in the post is a good idea (and atm i'd say it's work in progress idea) and needs refining.
Having a system where you get a rank for more experience gained (and i'm not specifically saying the in game XP system here) from playing PA would have some good benefits. For the person getting the rank it becomes a status of their experience and achievement, for new people coming it would give them direction as to who's got the experience to help them get started.
Bringing in achievment systems will help retain new players, and it needs to be multiple levels of achievements. Some that can be gained in a day/week/round, that week people have a reason to keep playing. If you take a game like Warcrack one of the reasons it's so successful is because of the amount of variety it offers to people. Warcrack has long term goals like reputation/raiding then there are short term goals like Daily Quests/Professions etc.
I'm not saying turn PA into some MMORPG, but adding in achievements of sorts gives replayability and retains people (customers!).
__________________
#letsmakecakes
ROCK Cakes ftw!
Solid as a ROCK through and through
|
|
|
18 Mar 2008, 11:55
|
#35
|
Too Sexy For PA
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cardiff, UK
Posts: 2
|
Re: $$$
Lets just remove all rules! Let hell break loose!!
On a positive note multi accounts, more people paying for more accounts more money for you money grabbers out there!
But I agree with Kenny, They make enough money from what playerbase we currently have. If you want more money do as all good companies do and tender for sponsorship from an advertiser, im sure a lot of advertisers would be inetersted in promoting a game such as this with as many members. And as we all know making people pay for PA imo was the worst thing that ever happened, with sponsorship u get your money, we get a free game, attract more new players. And lets face it a lot of people who play this game perhaps cant afford it or are too young, If your also going to make people pay then make sure you come up with a game that runs properly with no errors / server crashes! If we dont pay, we dont moan, simple as that! Well we will but shhh!
As for the ranking idea, Im just putting in a suggestion to perhaps use a sort of Call Of Duty 4 online scenario where as you gain ranks by doin certain tasks, I.E You attack, Defend, Fleetcatch, Where you finish T10/100 and so on so that you have targets to hit, perhaps your XP could earn you the points and certain points get you certain levels etc. But this is purely for bragging rites i wouldnt have it reflect on your score or round in anyway. It would just be a universal ranking from all rounds to see how strong certain players are. This would also help when alliances are recruiting new players and are able to see their stats etc, Perhaps HC's could search for global Nicks or something i dont know its just a suggestion. So basically, completing tasks gives you points and points = rankings! Perhaps then some people would focus on a few rounds rather than 1 or 2. Anyways just a few ideas there, dont know where they came from, im sure they'll be slated!
Laterz
__________________
SubZero
Welcome To Jenova
|
|
|
23 Mar 2008, 23:26
|
#36
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
|
Re: $$$
Heh... u should check conquerclub, they have a nice system of keeping rank, which does not directly influences the game, but indirectly influences who you play with, what type of games, etc.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:01.
| |