Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30
  1. #1

    Open Discussion Pertaining to Monetization Model of Supremacy 1914

    Name:  RZzfNmq.jpg
Views: 397
Size:  17.7 KB



    Greetings, everyone.

    It is our firm belief that users should have the RIGHT to voice their concerns about the monetization model in Supremacy 1914.

    In order to achieve increased transparency with YOU, I am delighted to announce that the company representatives have AGREED that users should have the RIGHT to voice constructive criticism against the monetization model, whether it be about HC ("High Command") or GM ("Goldmarks").



    This leads to a number of concrete policies that must be followed as to ensure a civil discourse and though criticising the monetisation model is from this day forth permitted, it postulates that the following requirements are met:

    • Denunciation of GM use is not permitted.
    • No hateful speech against the company, the staff or other players.
    • The recognisable intention to discuss alternatives / provide solutions.


    With this said, I must emphasise the following:

    • When you decide to discuss the monetization model of Supremacy 1914 in this thread, then it is important that you offer some kind of solution to what you are criticising. You must not criticise without providing a solution to the perceived problem.


    • We know that some of you are highly keen on having e.g. GM free games in exchange for an entry fee or even having a daily GM spending restriction. These are two solutions of out many that you can suggest or reject. Just remember that if you reject an idea, then you need to present something that you feel would be better.


    • Furthermore, it is important to remember that YOU are not here to publicly shame other players as that would be against the rules. With this said, we do not want to see you throwing names around, because that will be treated as blacklisting, which is not allowed.


    • Needless to say, this is a company and it must make money, so make sure your solution account for that in some way that YOU think would be reasonable for both players and the company.



    We look forward to reading your comments.
    Last edited by Alexiel Lucien; 07-09-2018 at 11:38 PM. Reason: Grammar

  2. #2
    Goldmarking morale to 0 or critically low levels should not be an option. If goldmark is to stay to give players an advantage then I am fine with that. Getting a few battleships out early is one thing, but 'nuking' just strips the fun out of the game. An alternative could be to just put a button on the screen that says, 'Pay 10000 goldmarks to win the round' which would save people time. I don't have a serious solution to replace this with. I generally just feel its an unsporting feature from the start and invalidates other players and think rounds would be better for all involved without it.

    While I can live with it, I think instant production of units is a bit overpowered. My solution would be to be to increase the speed units are made. So rather than paying to take 12 hours off instantly, you would pay to increase the production speed by 1/4 for example. That way a units wont just instantly appear out of the blue, but a player using it would still gain an advantage. It also makes more sense in "reality".

    You could pay workers more to do a faster job in constructing something. But workers in reality don't just instantly build battleships in a second, regardless of how much they are paid.
    There comes a time, in every normal man's life, when he must spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats

  3. #3
    From another related topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by Demonaire View Post
    I do understand Devs need revenue to keep the game going, but I certainly agree with evlover: A review about Goldmarks benefits could be needed.

    On one side, there are too many features in the matches where GM can be used (boost moral, buildings or units; instant espionage results; or limitless raw material in the market). On the other side, there are too few features outside the matches where GM can be used: for example, The Treasure Coffin is a marvelous idea but it lacks many more options; it could be features like "premium" statistics; alliance customization (i.e. military uniforms, etc.); in-game alarms, notebooks or "favorites" (people saving "prefered" matches or "stalking" great players); Tactical Headquarters where the system here does analyze the players and how does they fought in the matches; User-created Tournaments with prizes given by the same users; and a long, long, etc.

    As I said, It's something good Goldmarks is accesible to VISA and NON-VISA players, but Byrto, as many game companies, has the problem to think that only giving in-match advantages to VISA they can get revenues, ignoring the potential revenues of the out-match advantages many people would be ready to pay.

    Greetings.

  4. #4
    The complaint of heavy gold mark use is very understandable.
    The only solution to this is a game/event were no gold marks can be used or limit them to 6k or some number like this. instead all player pay 5000 GM when they join the game. and the winner gets his back at the end.
    Not being able to spend GM in game might be a big hit.
    Last edited by Bootstraps; 07-11-2018 at 02:17 AM.

  5. #5
    It might be a big hit however potentially to costly for bytro if people wills tart only joining them. I will post the list I have so far from various other threads:

    + In the same sense of the Tactical Headquarters, to create a "videocamara" for the matches where the people, with a pay in Goldmarks, can rewind, fast forward and replay the matches saved by them to allow themselves to analyze them.


    + Statistics about top players in building infrastructures or units, Goldmarks spent or Goldmarks in their possesion.


    + Menial things for the matches, like a compass and a ruler where people can measure kilometers in the match, considering scales.


    + A tool where people can build their own alliance's logo or personal logo (related with heraldry)


    + Selling Supremacy Merchandising (Mugs, Shirts, Pens, things like that) with cost either in real money and Goldmarks.


    + Limited monthly non GM maps
    Terms:


    1. Server produces one Map monthly with GM disabled.


    1. Free accounts limited to 1 Non-GM map per quarter/half.


    2. Members of High Command limited to 2 per quarter/half (If game mode is popular, more people will look to purchase High Command which = more $$).


    3. Normal Account Entry Cost = 50,000 GM.


    4. Members of High Command Entry Cost = 25,000GM

    Questions about the game? Have a look at the manual and the FAQ's.
    Need game support? Send a ticket or contact the crew.
    Have an idea for the game? Check the BigList.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackthe Ripper View Post
    Goldmarking morale to 0 or critically low levels should not be an option. If goldmark is to stay to give players an advantage then I am fine with that. Getting a few battleships out early is one thing, but 'nuking' just strips the fun out of the game. An alternative could be to just put a button on the screen that says, 'Pay 10000 goldmarks to win the round' which would save people time. I don't have a serious solution to replace this with. I generally just feel its an unsporting feature from the start and invalidates other players and think rounds would be better for all involved without it.

    While I can live with it, I think instant production of units is a bit overpowered. My solution would be to be to increase the speed units are made. So rather than paying to take 12 hours off instantly, you would pay to increase the production speed by 1/4 for example. That way a units wont just instantly appear out of the blue, but a player using it would still gain an advantage. It also makes more sense in "reality".

    You could pay workers more to do a faster job in constructing something. But workers in reality don't just instantly build battleships in a second, regardless of how much they are paid.
    I want to stress the situation explained in this quote:

    + Simply it shouldn't be possible to reduce enemy moral to 0% or enhance your own to 100% with GM instantly. There must be a limit per day, as happens with the conventional "espionage" mode (20%, maybe 30%?)

    + It shouldn't be allowed the creation of inmediate buildings or units. Spend of GM should be limited to 12 hours (850 GM) per building/unit and per day.

    + Same thing goes to "Spy Master" and "Resources Market" options: only one use per option/resource and per day.

    Greetings.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Demonaire View Post
    I want to stress the situation explained in this quote:

    + Simply it shouldn't be possible to reduce enemy moral to 0% or enhance your own to 100% with GM instantly. There must be a limit per day, as happens with the conventional "espionage" mode (20%, maybe 30%?)

    + It shouldn't be allowed the creation of inmediate buildings or units. Spend of GM should be limited to 12 hours (850 GM) per building/unit and per day.

    + Same thing goes to "Spy Master" and "Resources Market" options: only one use per option/resource and per day.

    Greetings.
    In my opinion this is a model that could work (a economist would have to see the numbers) as it would smooth out the GM usage which makes it easier to even out with skills.
    Last edited by NarmerTheLion; 07-15-2018 at 10:18 AM.

    Questions about the game? Have a look at the manual and the FAQ's.
    Need game support? Send a ticket or contact the crew.
    Have an idea for the game? Check the BigList.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by NarmerTheLion View Post

    + Statistics about top players in building infrastructures or units, Goldmarks spent or Goldmarks in their possesion.
    This is a good suggestion in many ways


    Maybe also include if they are won in a previous game or purchased.


    I personally, if all out of winnings buy some for big games, 100+ maps, 20 EUR is not really a game changer there but more often than not get accused for being a big DM spender for growing fast, and DM is not even the issue there, some players don’t understand what a single cruiser can do in a island territory filled with inactive players or AI's .
    Last edited by TolipOc; 07-23-2018 at 11:41 PM.

  9. #9
    Hello, I have a simple suggestion.

    Add an option to disallow use of premium currency at the cost of premium currency? I wouldn't suggest forcing people to pay on joining those certain games though, it would just make them less popular.

    The amount payment required could possibly be proportional to the maximum number of players within the map.

    A particular downside maybe that all live games could eventually become GM-free, maybe reducing income/profit for the company. However, this can be easily tackled by making the games costing high enough to suffice the average GM spent within regular games, I'd assume it is normally distributed.
    Last edited by Alitron123; 07-25-2018 at 05:35 PM.

  10. #10
    A careful reminder to everyone: Please do read the guidelines for the thread. You will then notice that it says that '[...] if you reject an idea, then you need to present something that you feel would be better', furthermore, you will also take notice of the fact that it says that '[...] you must not criticise without providing a solution to the perceived problem'.
    Last edited by Alexiel Lucien; 07-25-2018 at 07:01 PM. Reason: Grammar

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

    Array

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •