Buy a spot in War team?

[Astrocyte]

The point is that people who stand to lose/gain the most, are the worst people to make any kind of decisions because they simply cannot be objective. People who are not going to join the event, are more likely to see the big picture and not only think about what this change would mean to them personally. This doesn't of course mean we will ask some random people in chat and let them decide. We have the Warmasters and other staff members who are not joining the War, they are more than capable of making these decisions.

The possibility of you not joining the War.. well, if that happens, I'm sure we will find someone to take your place.

Wow. Just wow.

If this is what you really think -- that people who want to be in War are (apparently) incapable of thinking rationally and that Warmasters are going to make the decision anyway -- why are you asking the community's opinion at all?

[Jaymanfu]

Instead of being for a war spot why not just have a separate special tournament for a fundraiser. Top 16 donaters go into a single or double elim tourny and the winner gets idk 50k electrum and a forum icon or something...

[TheonlyrealBeef]

Well to give my personal analysis on this matter without letting my opinion guide it too much here's what I think the pro's/cons of each option are:

• Option 1:
  
  Highest benefit for the donator, highest drama and annoyance factor for the rest of the team. Generals and other team members are completely locked out from the selection of their own team on this part.
  
  Good motivation to donate much, since higher donation will lead to higher control and you get to be part of an actual war team, bad motivation for anyone else to even consider signing up for war. Getting stuck with someone you might not even like (will happen in at least one team, mark my words).
   
  
• Option 2:
  
  Doesn't really include a part where higher donations are more valuable, so anyone donating just to join war will probably donate as little as possible, or perhaps even nothing at all since you can't get guarantees of getting into a team by donating more, it could very well be a "waste" (from the donator's point of view who merely wanted to join war).
  
  The general will have limited choice, it's better than no choice, but it's all about how many will donate. More people donating is positive for the general to have more choice. But each extra choice is another person to have donated but not make it into war.
   
  
• Option 3:
  
  I'm personally most positive about this one for the obvious reason that generals still have full control about their teams, but it's rather obvious that the donators might be rather disappointed. They might make it into the war, but without war vets you won't have much of a chance against full-fledged teams. Crappy organization is likely and winning is not, not to mention we'd need new deckbuilding rules just for them. They kind of miss out the war experience one would get in an actual war team.
   
  

[willng3]

So long as the 12 new players serve as a mirror to the Rookies of War 2 where they were added in addition to the original 7 players, I don't really have a problem with this.

However if it's not done this way then I fear that this will result in 12 skilled players who have worked to gain reputation to be selected for a War team not being able to participate in the event at all.  And while in retrospect this is fair, it's difficult to accept by those who aren't selected nevertheless.

Option 1 is a problem due to the possibility of Generals and players forming backroom deals in order to ensure that Generals get at least 1 player that they really want on their team without paying any cards for them.  In this scenario option 2 is the best here since there was such opposition for these deals before War 3 began.

I dislike option 3 completely.  I've always believed War to be understood by most players as an Event which is dedicated to allowing elements to have their chances to represent themselves and prove their worth in comparison to the others.  I had difficulty coming to terms with allowing to take part since in all honesty it's not an element in the least, but this is just completely throwing out that entire belief out the window.  This is also adding a second team which emerges during the middle of the War and on the off-chance that this team assembled isn't a complete disorganized mess, this is extremely disadvantageous to the 12 elements which were in the event from the start.  And the thought of a banner saying "Reigned by Rich Kids" doesn't exactly sound like something we'd want to portray...

[kev]

Some of the responses in this thread are kinda funny.  Once upon a time we had a requirement that Generals bid on players that had spent no time on the game and had nothing that showed any commitment at all.  Here SG proposed Generals be required to bid on players that HAVE demonstrated a commitment.  Even if donators are raw and talentless (unlikely imo), teams would be better off with a donator requirement than a rookie requirement because donators would at least have the wealth to buy unupped cards.  This would be an additional spot on each team; nobody would be excluded as a result.  Threatening to boycott is a little silly.

I agree with Astrocyte's note that this probably isn't the best fundraiser for all the reasons he gave.  I also agree with Jenkar's conclusion: Why not try it once?

I personally like Option 2.  It may net less dollars than Option 1 but under Option 1 if a vet contributes enough, his team is significantly advantaged by his veteranness.  In Option 2 all Generals could bid on that vet, and free market pricing eliminates the advantage.  My concerns with this are:

• What happens if there are less than twelve donators?  I really have no idea how many members of the community would donate.
• Should UW just be excluded from the requirement?
• Since Generals would be forced to bid from a smaller and potentially less experienced pool, Donators should probably not get to use any upgraded cards in battle.

Completely unrelated to War:

• Someone in chat mentioned having a top dollar donator list on the homepage.  I think that would be awesome.
• I'd also love to see forum award icons for donators.

[Avenger]

I agree with Astrocyte, if this fails, it will fail because there won't be too many people to fit the conditions. It won't make the war any worse, so quitting because of it is plain silly.

[gumbeh]

In free or freemium games, money causes the least resentment if you can't use it to buy advantages. This "Cash Clown" seat on a team sounds a bit like an advantage - not a combat advantage, but one where money lets you buy your way onto a team otherwise composed of talented players. I don't like it.

Less inflammatory sources of revenue are Convenience - saves you the work of grinding (Existing: you can get shards by grinding Bronze, or by donating. I think donating to upgrade cards would be great too. Spend an hour at your job and donate = spend an hour grinding FGs) or Fluff - decoratives, doodads, and kudos (This is surprisingly profitable. Some people have money to burn and either love the game or are obsessive collectors of shiny things. Icons, titles, banners, different card art, and forum privileges could all work here)

There's a great video by the Extra Credits guys on properly monetizing a free game. Properly being "without making everyone rage" as well as "bringing in good cheddar".

[The_Mormegil]

There's a great video by the Extra Credits guys on properly monetizing a free game. Properly being "without making everyone rage" as well as "bringing in good cheddar".

Linky link for personal interest?

[TStar]

Completely unrelated to War:

• Someone in chat mentioned having a top dollar donator list on the homepage.  I think that would be awesome.
• I'd also love to see forum award icons for donators.

First idea is great.  Second idea will just turn into icon spamming and a headache for whomever has to check the list every day to add people, assuming zanz has a daily list available and doesn't just give us a big list every month/couple months or so.

[gumbeh]

There's a great video by the Extra Credits guys on properly monetizing a free game. Properly being "without making everyone rage" as well as "bringing in good cheddar".

Linky link for personal interest?

Hmm, due to a falling-out with their publisher, The Escapist, most of their videos seem to be down. There's a small handful on Youtube, but not the one in question. I hope the publisher doesn't hold all the rights and have the ability to to keep the videos off the web.

Will edit this post and PM you if I am able to find the vid.