Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Turn Frequency and Pricing
#31
"Can I point out that this would actually give people an incentive to drop a game they were not doing well in to not 'waste' on of their slots on a game they were not going to win? How about if people just can't drop until the game is over? Or is that the plan? "


It seems the choice is over which alternative - by turn or by monthly subscription, provides the lower chance for an early drop. Thinking has been that when each turn has a fee, every turn there is a decision to make on continuing. We hadn't considered requiring players to stay to the end no matter what, but again we do have rewards in mind in Valhalla and in credits (like for a free game setup) for players that complete games (and finish high, and assist new players, and are active in the forums, and post on other forums).
Reply
#32
I actually like the turn-around time you have planned as it gives time to deliberate. Often times I change my original plans after I dwell on the circumstances for awhile. Usually for the better.

I think the only reason to really drop a game is if you were attacked by 5-6-7 kingdoms or something ridiculous. It could fairly be argued that it's more un sportsman like to participate in that type of behavior versus dropping when you're on the receiving end... That being said though Alamaze Geographically resolves this issue to more an extent than other games.

I wont be dropping any Alamaze games, someone can quote me and ridicule me if I doSmile
Reply
#33
(03-09-2013, 05:40 AM)Kalrex Wrote: I actually like the turn-around time you have planned as it gives time to deliberate. Often times I change my original plans after I dwell on the circumstances for awhile. Usually for the better.

I think the only reason to really drop a game is if you were attacked by 5-6-7 kingdoms or something ridiculous. It could fairly be argued that it's more un sportsman like to participate in that type of behavior versus dropping when you're on the receiving end... That being said though Alamaze Geographically resolves this issue to more an extent than other games.

I wont be dropping any Alamaze games, someone can quote me and ridicule me if I doSmile

I am a fan of the subscription rate. I would prefer the the option to include FoR and Alamaze where I pay for a total number of games divided however they come up on the sign up boards and player availability.

I would also consider an option to pay for some time in advance, say 6 month or a year.

I played about six Alamaze games. In a team game, I played the halflings and we fairly well dominated. The rest were enjoyable, but I was never terribly successfull. All were incredibly fun. The idea of a game not taking a year to complete is very satisfying. I enjoy the turnaround time and speed we experience in FoR.

Thank you for working on this game. This is what I was looking for a year ago when I found FoR.
Reply
#34
My thoughts:

Pricing: matters very little to me! If I like the game I will pay whatever I must - no matter what my wife says. Per turn or subscription are both acceptable to me. Of course, players dropping a game is the very worst part of any turn based strategy game. Have we considered a per game start-up price on top of a very low subscription price? The subscription price would allow unlimited games for a monthly fee, but each game a player was placed in would have a fee attached. Then players could play in as many games as they wanted and there would be no incentive to drop any position. Additionally, the more games a player was involved in the less likely he would be to stop his subscription. Finally, the more games a player is involved in, the less problematic a lengthier turn around becomes.

Turn around time: I prefer a set 24 hour turn around time. Every night at midnight central time, or whatever, all the turns will process. If I recall correctly, there are standing orders in Alamaze. I suggest we allow players to complete a generic 10 orders or so that will automatically be issued if a turn is missed. I certainly understand that people want time to plan and plot with allies. Nevertheless, the longer turns take to process the more patience is required and if the goal is to increase the player base there is nothing better than the excitement of getting the next turn's results. [BTW, this is another good reason to allow unlimited gaming with a per game charge.] I understand that the chance of missing turns and issuing less than our most fervently thought out orders reduces the player's effectiveness, but that is counter-balanced by not having to wait three months to see our devious plots come to fruition.

Just my two cents...
Lord Thanatos
Reply
#35
whatever fee structure, dropping will happen, and LT will be annoyed (as the players start to attack the unplayed region, hehehe).

the solution to solve such annoyance is to lower the expectation, and put majority of expectation in epic games only.
Reply
#36
Correction - Hyborian War is $5- Small Lingdom $7 Medium Kingdom $9- Large Kingdom. It's what I pay except in Organized Games. Checked the web site.

I would prefer no less than a 7-day turnaround . Too much on my plate.

(03-03-2013, 06:19 AM)wfrankenhoff Wrote: The two largest commercial games in know of currently are Hyborian War and Middle Earth.

Hyborian War costs $5/turn for small nation; $7.50/turn for medium and $10/turn for large nation. Runs every two weeks (regular game) and once a month (slow game)

Middle Earth costs (and I'm translating from pounds): roughly $11.50/turn. Runs every two weeks.

Personally, I think the subscription model is better...

I think three days is the maximum turnaround (it's easy to do even for a single player running six nations).
Reply
#37
Probably too late to consider this but I'm not sure if a subscription priced model will work here. The problem is waiting for a game to fill with players. The longer it takes for a game to fill, the more it ends up costing per turn (like double or triple the cost if a player waits a long time for a game to fill). If alot of people were willing to play the game then this wouldn't be a problem but with a small pool of players, many of us will end up waiting several days/weeks for a new game to fill (also due to the restriction of playing a limited number of games per month). Will people really pay a month's worth of playing a game when they're not actually playing it? So, in my opinion, the pricing model really should be for a complete game (like $25/game) rather than a monthly subscription. This way, you wont have the problem of people paying for something that they're not actually enjoying. And to prevent dropouts, require a $25 deposit that is returned after turn 10 (that's how Phil handled it). It would be nice to offer both options: monthly subscription or pay once for the entire game as described above. Then people will have the flexibility of choosing which payment method they prefer. Any thoughts?
Reply
#38
I think FOR is via subscription.

There's 0 "perfect" pricing models here but I think this is a good one.
Once a game gets going the per turn fee's are extremely low. This has been discussed a lot.

However...

Waiting in a queue is what your worried about and it's a valid point. On FOR they've been extremely good about having unique games/special scenarios and whatnot. You also tend to gain points to enter additional games and stuff. I don't think "bang for your buck" will be an issue at all if you subscribe to play. Almost certain of it.
Reply
#39
Unclemike, you might also consider that you will have a wide variety of subscription plans to choose from. Pick one that suits your needs and budget and that isn't likely to leave you with many open slots. You can increase your subscription plan as you need to and as the games open up.
 Lord Diamond

Please do not take any of my comments as a personal insult or as a criticism of the game 'Alamaze', which I very much enjoy. Rather, I hope that my personal insight and unique perspective may, in some way, help make 'Alamaze' more fun, a more successful financial venture, or simply more sustainable as a long-term project. Anyone who reads this post should feel completely free to ignore, disregard, scorn, implement, improve, dispute, or otherwise comment upon its content.





Reply
#40
One idea to reduce drops would be to offer players that finish in the game in the bottom 3-5 something extra.

It could be that these last place finishers get higher choice priority for position in their next game. Kind of an nfl draft scenario.

Just a thought,

Hawk
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)