Global Triumph

I think that's a good idea.

I'd also like to suggest just a straight donation button somewhere - I play enough I'd be willing to give something, even if it's just once or twice.

Yulin

I have mixed feelings about that.

And am not sure how to go about sharing it without getting into the details of your business/marketing plan, and perhaps even going on a couple rants about why I hate MafiaWars, Farmville and World of Warcraft.  lol.

I don't know if I like the idea of limiting the number of worlds played for certain accounts. It's going to drastically reduce the number of worlds being played and the number of players on each world. That would be bad for business. It all boils down to how much exactly would it be to go from free to unlimited.
Also to take in consideration, someone who can play on only one world won't learn or experience the game at the same rate that a gold member would be able to learn by playing on, say four worlds at once. Also people might prefer maps such as Kota where it's free-for-all (but it may not be the first world they actually go on to 'try' the game out).

Weekly worlds, cool. I'm a techoholic so I'm easily here daily so ain't my style but there's plenty of players that claimed even small, daily maps are too much for them and had to quit. Weekly worlds would be good for them.

Real Money worlds, awesome idea! This would be a clever, and fun, way for people to donate money to you. I'm 100% in support of this idea and should be done. I'll admit right now that I'll probably won't participate in it simply because I can barely take care of myself. There are people here who already say they would be willing to pay up a little. Make it fun for them to do so.

Variety in worlds, I think, is an excellent route to go on. There's nothing wrong with the classic rules but spicing it up here and there for different kinds of players is great.

I gave it more thought and I think you're right.  It's probably still too early to limit worlds.

I'll go with the fundable worlds idea first and see how that goes!

Yea, where is the donate button?

I don't like the Dollars for GT's idea because it's gonna unbalance the game as soon as one person with a lot of expendable cash jumps in.  That's why I hate games like MafiaWars where anyone that pays can poon others solely by virtue of overwhelming power they can buy with their RL income.  It could cause the "less subscripted" players to bail out once they notice their subscription isn't gonna matter.

HOW ABOUT... (I know its been mentioned before but please consider my angle)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about making some significantly smaller maps (a limited amount of recyclable maps) for free play, and charging your fees for the full-size ones (like the current ones).  That way it's the same game no matter what (no pay-upgrades to unbalance anyone else's playing experience), while providing naturally occurring benefits to those who play the full-size, longer-lasting maps.  The smaller maps would then serve to "hook" new players and accelerate their learning curves.

    1) Limiting the size, quantity and perhaps even variety of free maps will inevitably draw free players to want subscribe to full-size maps that have more land-layout varieties and alliance interaction.  This would be much like online FPS games that allow free-play on a few demo maps so that people will buy the retail game.

    2) New players will pickup experience faster if they start and end games more often on these smaller maps.  How many times have we seen guys lament their slow starts, get better, and look forward to "the next map" when they're "gonna do it right"?  Some even abandon the current game to start over on the new map one month later.

In this case, by the time the free-players are ready to move on to the bigger pay maps, they'll be more seasoned and easier to play with making for a more positive game experience for the paying group: less noobs to deal with, and likely less mid-way quiters.  Smaller free maps would also reduce the amount of alliance chatter required (essential to winning on large maps) allowing the noobs to focus more on learning the game.  Lord knows this game has a slow learning curve.

    3) By having and RE-USING small maps, you give the benefit and value of your hard work creating NEW and cool large maps to the players that are actually paying you.  Fight me on that one!  lol.

What do you think Johnny?


EDIT:
BTW, I think the relevancy of the issues I mentioned above are all the more relevant considering that you're going to need a great many more regular players than you have now to make these, your efforts lucrative.

GholaMaster

That sounds like an interesting idea.  I'll definitely consider that over the world limit idea!

However, I do still think that having occasional worlds where people can buy upgrades still makes sense.  If players don't like the concept, they can also abstain from that one world.  It will always be the case that almost all worlds will be free of funded countries, simply because that's the concept I started with when I created the game.  It's important to me to keep that balance.

Kind of combining the other thread about tourney play into this one...

A tournament for 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 alliance teams in which the maps were symmetrical to that number would be interesting... These would be smaller and it would be a pay to join... give credits to winners that could be used in other maps.  It would sharpen some skills, reward the winners and maybe even increase better cooperation in alliance mode.  you know even three teams of two with a club shaped world...

Just a thought....

Before I came to Global Triumph, I was addicted to warlight, basically risk.  What the owner did was make already available features have a cost. Many people left, so if you do decide to start charging for it, add new features for money. Also, what I was thinking was to limit funding (I don't know if you have done this already). I'm working on a gigantic archipelago map, I'm open to making smaller ones if you would like help.

Have you considered having 'technologies'?

For example, every player puts in $5.  For that they get 5 technologies... everyone has to contribute so that it's fair.

The 'technologies' would be minor upgrades to the standard stats for units, bases, land, etc.  These would affect game balance and you don't want one technology to dominate all the others.  Some examples could be:

Mech Infantry - infantry units cost 15% more, but have +2 speed and +2 attack
Light Armor - armor units cost the same, have +2 speed, but minus 2 attack
Attack jets - Cost the same, reduced range, but higher attack
Hardened bases - Cost and extra $100, but have 25% more hit points
AA missiles - Turrets cost 15% more, but have extended range against aircraft
etc, etc, etc

Each player would get to pick the five (or whatever) they wanted for their donation for that map.

Xbox 360 paid 50 bucks for a year  held my price because i was already a customer. Well next year it will be 60 a yr unless it goes up again. Johnny I will go 20 bucks a year and help you promote the game for newbies which is what all the guys should do and have a introductory offer of one month free when you buy a $2.99 a month renewable subscription. hopefully hook the newbies instead of destroying them out the game. That you can sell. $30 bucks a month sorry man I'm out, and I have to get the X-box live for my son so it will be C O D for me. My .02 cents or $20

you would need to offer more worlds have limits to worlds on some
still love the game

30$ -40$ a year for all the extra features would be more reasonable.  And if you would make 1 week games, why not a few small ones that update every 12 hours?  If a game is over in a few weeks instead of a few months, I would probably play more maps.

How about have some tourneys in which to subscribe to that tourney given you give prizes on some.  This could offset your cost on the prize based on how many are in the tourney.  If the prize is something people want, you should get a load of people looking to WANT to play that map and pay the fee to play.  I figure a $5-$10 fee for something like this would generate quite a few people.  OF COURSE, noobs (of which I am) might want a tourney to test their skills...have one for those with less than 6 months prior to start date for tourney.  This would also help out.  You could also offer a free tourney every now and then as a bonus to those who play and want to give it a go.

You could try to kill two birds with one stone (maybe two transports with one battleship?) 
1. You need to get paid and...
2. you have problems with multiple accounts "rigging" the game.
If you set up tournament maps were you track the results of multiple games and give a player some sort of score- that should be on a paid account to limit players from making 5 or 6 accounts  (And if they still cheat- well at least they are paying for each account).  The alliances could be set ahead of time, or have no alliance maps, or maps that have areas that open up as you play, there are probaly a million variations to this you could make.  Only problem is getting a lot of players to join the tournement in the first place so its got to be good!

I probaly would never pay to play on multiple maps- can't barley keep up with one!  :)