Prestige
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: News & Announcements
Forum Name: News & Announcements
Forum Description: Changes, patch release dates, server launch dates, downtime notifications etc.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=184
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 09:52
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Prestige
Posted By: Illyriad Admin
Subject: Prestige
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2010 at 22:02
|
WHAT IS PRESTIGE? Prestige is the ingame currency that you can spend on both instant effects as well as bonuses over time that provide benefits to your playing experience and your town's growth. WHAT PRESTIGE CAN DO FOR YOU You can see all the available spend options by clicking on the Prestige link on the left hand side of your game screen. HOW TO GET PRESTIGE You are given some free Prestige when you start playing Illyriad, and you may spend this as you wish. You can earn Prestige by referring players to Illyriad via our Buddy Programme - and you can find details about this ingame, on the "Prestige / About" page. You can also buy Prestige via PayPal or via Credit/Debit card. OUR PHILOSOPHY REGARDING PRESTIGE Illyriad is going to be around for a long time. We have a very substantial development and expansion list, much of which is current-dev-list_topic98.html - publically accessible in these forums (so you can view, comment, and even influence what we're working on). We believe that the most valuable players in Illyriad are not those who spend (or don't spend) their cash on buying Prestige. The most valuable players are active players who participate both inside the game (active and growing their Empire/Alliance) and outside the game (active in the forums, helping new players, setting up fansites and wikis etc). We don't believe in trying to fleece players for a quick buck. We believe that if the game is good, addictive, rewarding to play and has a strong playerbase then the rewards for the company and our shareholders will follow naturally. Don't get us wrong - at its core, Illyriad Games Limited earns money to pay for the servers, advertising, staff, graphic design, development costs, and everything else that keeps this game both running and developing further - by selling Prestige to players. However, unlike some other games, we don't believe that the game should be unbalanced - or the game interface crippled - for players who do not choose to buy Prestige. We know that there are games out there that allow you to spend money on the equivalent of an "I win" button, and there are games out there that (eg) do not allow you to queue building orders unless you spend money with them. We found these games as frustrating as you did. Sure, if we added a Prestige Spend option to (eg) instantly complete Research queues, or instantly build Settlers then we'd make some short-term money off of it. But it would be at the expense of the long term game, and you: our core playerbase. And we're not going to do that. We have chosen what we allow prestige to be spent on (and how much it costs) very carefully indeed, and we hope that you think we've achieved a good balance. We also believe that you should be able to earn Prestige by helping Illyriad to grow, which is why we have the Buddy Programme - where you earn Prestige by referring players to Illyriad. We hope you agree with this general philosophy, and please feel free to let us know what you think by replying in this thread. |
Replies:
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2010 at 22:28
|
While I agree with your stated philosophy toward monetizing the game, I feel that the addition of military bonuses does not. It is a bonus that applies too directly against other players to allow a continued sense of fairness to remain between paying and non-paying players. Further, it is an imbalance that cannot be measured prior to engagement. Players will have that much harder a time knowing whether they are picking equal opponents or not. I am a paying player, and as such I can already outpace non-paying players in economic development. But I will not be spending my prestige on these military bonuses. That's just too much. |
Posted By: Uther
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2010 at 22:34
|
I don't know if this is the right place for this, but: "We believe that the most valuable players in Illyriad are not those who spend (or don't spend) their cash on buying Prestige." I think that is a great guiding principle. I also think giving military/diplomatic benefits like the most recent changes are in opposition to that principle. If my account has no Prestige, I am further and further away from those who do. It is quite a disincentive, in my opinion. Outside of being slower to upgrade, get resources, etc... (which as a basic going in position, I accept) I now have to be 10% better at diplomacy and military actions in order to just be even with my money paying compatriots. I am not opposed to the folks hosting/developing this game to making a buck to defray the costs. I really appreciate and value the developer attention and quick response to issues. I have just seen too many games get killed by the fact that those with money invested are given such a significant leg up that it is non-competitive. My 2 pence for what they are worth. Regards, U |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2010 at 22:46
|
In defence (of course, what did you expect!) of the military bonuses: in the grand scheme of things 10% is a relatively small amount and does not come close to being a deciding factor in combat. A level 10 commander provides 10% (if you level him up in one area), and a level 10 commander is not difficult to come by. Terrain bonuses provide as much as 60% differential, and city walls can provide over 100% differential. The Combat schools of magic will provide similar bonuses and penalties to Prestige spend as well. All of these stack, so there is more than 200% variance simply in the ingame mechanics excluding Prestige spend. We totally agree that these bonuses would be a decisive and unbalanced game-changing factor if there weren't so many other modifiers already in play, and the game team (including myself) did not feel that a "Prestigable" 10% bonus in either (or both) directions was a "game-changer" given the 200% plus other factors at play. We totally understand that, given 2 min/maxed armies of entirely equal force, then the Prestige spend of 10% would be decisive, but the margin would be very small. +250% vs +240%, say, would mean one army's total destruction - and the other army's very near total destruction. |
Posted By: Diablito
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2010 at 22:54
|
Considering how cheap prestige is, I don't really feel this is imbalanced at all. 75 prestige costs less than a bus ticket where I live.
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2010 at 23:23
75 is just a number. As it so happens, 75 prestige is also worth less than a bus ticket. So what's your point, exactly? The average single use of prestige costs between 7 and 10 cents USD or CDN, and confers a very small privilege: skipping a tedious one-time wait for construction to end or goods to arrive; getting a little bit more of one resource over the course of a week; get a new random quest to consider taking (and the quests are quite useless now anyway, costing more than they provide). But with these military bonuses, immediate shifts in balance can be responsively applied in a much wider variety of scenarios. Tired of laurachristine's cleptomania? See incoming attacks? Spend ~9 cents, and suddenly I'm 10% more capable of repelling her thieves, not just now but for an entire week to follow! Want to start a war? Spend one dollar and gain a 20% (attack + defense) advantage over the enemy that doesn't do the same...not just for your big attack, but for all attacks probably lasting until after your war ends. Sure other larger bonuses apply...but both sides have equal capacity to influence those factors. In the end, Mr. Penniless is decisively 20% behind. Further the depth and variety of ways to spend prestige widens an already tense gap. With this many options, we flirt with a "he who spends the most, wins" outcome. I'm starting to think I'd rather pay a flat monthly fee to play. It would be fair, equitable, and all but destroy multi-account cheaters. Or, since that would scare off too many, pay a flat fee to enjoy a set of minor statically applied benefits such as much longer research and construction queues, ability to schedule attacks, and other such conveniences that non-paying players could replace with greater attention and dedication to their accounts. The game is a load of fun and totally worth a reasonable investment. But I'm not ready to see the level of that "reasonable investment" be determined by a bidding war. |
Diablito wrote:Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2010 at 23:32
| Also, I'd like to point out that it doesn't matter how much it costs one particular person. If we cannot all spend equally, then we are not all on equal grounds. That is the crux of the issue. It does not even matter whether the shortage is in willingness or capability. |
Posted By: fluffy
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2010 at 23:39
| Personally, I dont have the money to spend on prestige, so that already puts me at a disadvantage for city building. Now, I'm at a disadvantage for fighting. If people that use prestige attack/defend against me , they wont lose as much with a bonus and then they'll be able to rebuild quicker too. I guess I'll be falling even further behind now. |
Posted By: Uther
Date Posted: 21 Mar 2010 at 23:40
|
Stormcrow, If you felt it was indefensible, I assume you guys wouldn't have implemented it  . Just a view from outside... mucking around with battle/diplo settings represents a step in the wrong direction. I think the argument that "there are so many more variables, what's one more?" is misleading. All those other variables cancel themselves out in aggregate, this one doesn't. It is unfortunate that military/diplo variables are now subject to revenue considerations. It sends the wrong message. I can now buy my way to military advantage... or in the other direction, without spending, I get a 10% penalty. While from well above the fray, it may appear mathematically not a large impact, I believe it is chilling and and represents a slide (a slippery one?) towards a lack of balance. I have already heard this from others... perhaps they will chime in. |
Posted By: Parennis
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 00:43
meh. you're happy with +20% production bonuses which seem to carry more weight than the military bonuses that are now being offered, but this is a 'step in the wrong direction'? you could buy your way to production advantage and without spending you suffered a 20pc penatly, and you didn't say boo then 'chilling?'. chill out yourself, hypocrit. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 00:57
| The production bonuses are not nearly so valuable nor influential. And no one is saying they were great...just more acceptable given that the devs need to fund the operation somehow. |
Posted By: Uther
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 01:05
Perhaps that is what I am but I still believe what I said (also, I don't think I have been particularly "hot," just expressing an opinion.) Basically the Prestige bonus for production advantage was in the game when we started... I guess I accepted it as a given. In my (possibly hypocritical) opinion, making Military and Diplo bonuses be based on financial investment is a step in the wrong direction... and in a game such as this, has more of a directly unbalancing impact (both mathematically and in a more esoteric sense.) |
Posted By: Diablito
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 01:10
|
I had a pretty large battle today (put me second on attack score). And a 10% bonus doesn't count for a great deal at all, city walls give FAR bigger bonuses, terrain give FAR bigger bonuses, commanders will in a few months give FAR bigger bonuses. All in all, those 10% won't count for many of the dead units on the field in the end. That said, I guess the bonus could be lowered slightly, but it doesn't really change a battle as it stands. I've lost and killed several hundred units, i've spoken to GM's on the K:D ratio balancing and gotten a lot of feedback and info regarding how it all works, and with the amount of % bonues in work by default in the game, those 10% are really quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
|
Posted By: Lorna Doone
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 01:16
|
sigh - I was so trying to not involve myself in yet another interweb forum community... j/k I've been playing thie game for a couple of weeks, and I'm liking it. I don't pretend to understand the financials of the game from the dev guys experience, except as they influence me and my game, as it affects me when I play it. I think the 20 percent bonuses to resources are much more unbalancing than this change to troops. With 20 percent production x5 for each production resource you are actually 100% ahead of other players in the game. This means you are 100 percent ahead of other players in the game in terms of GOLD. This means you are 100 percent ahead of the other players in the game in terms of troop support, depending of course on your tax rates. So a 10 percent bonus to troops makes no odds here or there in the context of the other bonus that you could already buy with prestige. I really can't see what the fuss is about, except that it seems to be a sacred cow? What am i missing here?
|
Posted By: Uther
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 01:46
|
I think that is fair enough, Lorna Doone. I would say that the diplo/military area is a bit of a sacred cow to me. Tying an arm (maybe a finger in this case?) behind my back in a fight elicits more of a reaction that letting someone else grow faster. Possibly an irrational reaction, I'll admit. At the same time, giving someone who pays an advantage in a fight over someone who doesn't sounds wrong and I think it will have a negative impact. (probably something I'll be proven wrong on.) Also, making an argument that adding something that is bad, but less bad than something that is already there makes it good, doesn't add up to me. U |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 01:58
|
I realise I might need to duck generally, regarding this thread, but want to throw two other things out here that may or may not have any bearing on what we're all discussing. 1. The Combat Magic Positive (Blessings) Spell School will have bonuses and (in the polar opposite, the Curses School) penalties of up to 10% in each direction. I do (completely) realise that much of this discussion is on the principle rather than the content of the bonus. 2. We are also intending on releasing another Prestige Spend Option (that players such as Lorna Doone will probably dislike intensely, and for which I offer pre-emptive apologies). This Prestige Spend Option will allow you to exchange the 5 basic basic resources (Wood, Clay, Iron, Stone, Food) on a 1:1 ratio with each other for a one-off Prestige cost. /me runs for cover |
Posted By: fluffy
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 02:09
whats the point of having different grounds then? isn't the fact that you have to figure out city strategy from what resources you can gather supposed to be a part of the game? |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 02:25
Yes, absolutely - and it still is a massive part (and still applies). If you choose to base your army/production/strategy on wood-heavy items such as spears and bows, then you'll be better off on a wood-based square than someone who chooses a clay-based square. Sure you can spend some prestige to swap some clay for wood, but this is still far less efficient than choosing to spend some prestige to (eg) boost your wood resources on a wood-heavy plot, or having settled a wood-heavy plot to begin with. And the combat terrain bonuses stay the same, ofc. You can choose squares to settle based on the combat bonuses/penalties that suit your army, or the production bonuses/penalties that suit what you are producing. If these 2 elements coincide then you're getting the best of all worlds! |
Posted By: Callous
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 02:41
I think it's interesting you mention these items but don't include the ability to instantly build the buildings in your queue. I think that is more unbalancing than the military boost. I have something in my build queue pretty much 24x7 at this point, resources aren't holding me back, it's time to build. I've got buildings that take fewer than an hours worth of resources yet take several hours to build. The prestige may not give you an 'I win' button, but without it there is simply no way to compete with those who have it on the long term.
I can't believe you even said this. I cannot comprehend how you can consider a player is balanced who doesn't buy prestige with one who does. With prestige I'm ahead 20% on everything, and with enough I'm not constrained by build times, I can build as fast as I can get the resources. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that they should be balanced, this is ultimately a money making project. Those who pay should get benefits, the scales should be tipped in their direction. Non paying players add benefit to the game as a whole but the game is here to make money. The problem is that if I devote myself to the game to become that MVP, yet don't pay for prestige it becomes depressing to see my rank continually fall to those who do. Ultimately I have to decide if it's worth it to continue. |
Posted By: rescendent
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 03:08
I'd assume that would be the primary thing and you'd use the swap for occasional things you couldn't find in the marketplace or didn't want to wait for the resources to build up. Otherwise if you continuously used the prestige option: a) the devs would love you b) it would be a very expensive way of going about things
I'm assuming each exchange costs some prestige here; so you use it as a "tight spot" option; rather than a permanent exchange service. The later would obviously make having different resources moot - hence the assumption.
|
Posted By: Lorna Doone
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 03:08
|
largely agreed with callus. To be fair, i don't think "Illyriad Admin" (stormcrow?) really meant that there was NO difference between players who buy and spend prestige and players who don't, because that position would be ridiculous. I think when he talks about balance he means between spend and non spend players? as in that they're different (they have to be in this kinda game) but theyre not completely out of wack. speaking as someone who plays a lot of travian_ now that game was massively unbalanced in my opinion becuase there were so few options to do things in the game. So when you could buy extra attack it was blanket applied to everything in your game world coz there was nothing else to apply it to apart from a few balnket options. you think that the instabuild option is unbalanced. I think the current options for extra prod are unbalanced. honored thinks the new military options are unbalanced. being honest, any kind of spend to buy advantags is unbalanced when we look at it like this. I just think this is game is less kookie than other games. Someone said (can't be assed to look it up) that they would be happy to spend a monthly fee to play the game rather than this system of paid benefits - I wouldnt and i don't think most people would. And I think the game would die quickly if it went that way coz lets be honest, this isn't a WOW boxed set game, it's a free-to-play browser game and i think you areall expecting too much!! PS i'm very drunk now so please inore me if i'm talking sh*t
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2010 at 04:28
|
This isn't WoW...it also doesn't cost nearly as much to develop nor operate as WoW. A flat monthly cost for this would be a fraction of that for MMO's like WoW. Nevertheless, I do realize that paid access will never work, not because of the value but the predisposed "you don't pay money for a browser game" notion many hold. That is why I instead believe that paid benefits should be of a form that can be duplicated by dedication, so that the only unfairness is defined by degrees of convenience. Paid players can schedule an attack for 3 am their time. Free players have to set their alarm for 3 am. Paid players can set rules for auto-producing equipment or units, scheduling additional construction when resources are available, or otherwise ensuring excess resources do not go to waste. Free players have to pay closer attention to their storehouse limits, visit the site frequently to keep construction going, etc. Paid players never see ads. Free players have little cause to complain about *reasonable* ad placement since they are the ones insisting they won't even pay a tiny fee to support the game. There are many opportunities for offering benefits without clearly unbalancing the game. Other games that take this route can be frustrating, but only because they are so hell-bent on convincing as many players as possible to play, that they utterly cripple the interface for those who do not. It doesn't have to be that extreme, especially when the devs are actually working with a system supporting significant depth and breadth of gameplay. I respect the devs here and the work that they are doing. I just dearly hope they manage to stay out of the pitfall of selling the outcome. Given what others have said here that even I had not thought through as thoroughly before, I fear that line is already crossed. I've been turned off from many more games over that issue than mere required payment itself. I can easily afford the cost, but being on the favored side is no less disappointing. ____ The changes I have proposed are very unlikely to be applied, and I bear no resentment over that. The devs have already invested heavily into the existing plan. There is one thing they could do that would still the greatest fears: set a hard limit on the amount of prestige any single account is allowed to spend per unit of time. Set it somewhere slightly above what the average, balanced player with some disposable income would spend, but below what the unhealthily obsessed would spend. At least ward off those who would buy victory at all cost. If there's no upper limit, the victor will almost assuredly be whomever spends the most...especially as the breadth of spending options expand the aggregate benefit possible. |