Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

mfreak · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:05 pm

Quote:

The idea that supporters are the life-blood of Battledawn is seriously flawed. We are a game and as such we are always focused on increasing the size of our player base.

Every single player generates advertising revenue for Tacticsoft whenever they open the website, so the company profits from every single player. Furthermore, the non-supporters vastly outnumber the supporters - as such, if the Supporters receive preferential treatment then it is likely that the non-supporters would pack up and leave in droves, which would kill this game.

Supporters and non-supporters alike are both profitable for Tacticsoft and Battledawn could not survive without both of these groups. As such, the admins have literally no choice but to treat them both equally because they can't afford to neglect one group in favour of the other.

I am not talking about neglecting one group over the other. And supporters ARE the lifeline of battledawn. If you say non supporters vastly outnumber supporters, and that battledawn earns advertising revenue everytime the site is opened, then why should we have tokens in the first place? Clearly BD earns more revenue through non supporters in that case. When it comes to reducing token prices or having a token free world, I have seen every single time, that people have argued that server space does not come for free . Therefore your argument is contradictory.

Now both you and Torpet dont seem to grasp my point right. I dont mean - "Screw the non supporters". What I mean is, when you ban someone, have some consideration for the amount of money he has spent on this game. That IS important. And torpet, if you spend more than someone, you cannot ask the admin to ban the guy that spent less. I never said that in any of my posts. Maybe you should read what I wrote

Quote:

I do know that lot of things like yout exampel can be proven to be wrong whit ban and can get lifted.

That takes a week or so, with the current system. So its useless.

My whole point is this, you can include non supporters too if you want. Ban people but take care how long you ban them for. Clearly communicate how long you are banning someone for, and make sure the ban is for a reasonable span of time. Compensate people for any losses incurred during the ban times, or implement an ingame mechanic, that gives no room for losses. Remember the ban itself is the punishment (Not being able to play). Getting his units killed and not giving him compensation is like giving a life term for a murderer and then stabbing him in jail. Last of all, be a little more diligent in responding to ban appeals - which means within 24 hours. Maybe create a seperate mailing lists and automate mails sent from banned colonies to that list. Maybe each admin can have one associated with his servers.

As for supporters, I didn't say they are somehow above non supporters. I said, they have to be considered by admins when bans etc are issued. A supporter leaving this game is not the same as a non supporter leaving.

mfreak · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:12 pm

Seth wrote:

You have no idea how many complaints we get regarding how biased the game already is to supporters! Supporters pay for tokens, which gives them boost, which already gives them an edge over other players, and even over players who cannot afford to pay as much as them. They pay for an edge legally and they get it. To argue that they should be allowed further edge by allowing them to also cheat is unreasonable, and makes no sense at all.

And to say that potential supporters "dont exist" is a complete fallacy. Ill give an example.

Recently, I started playing an MMO racing game called "need for speed world". I was given a 3 day car rental of a Porsche Cayman S which helped me build up levels and in game cash. The cash I had built up was not enough to get the car I wanted, so I had planned, as my rental was running out, to buy some boost points to get the car I wanted. However, just as my car was about to expire, I was booted from the server and the server would not allow me to log in again until I purchased a boost that was smaller, did not have enough value to get the car I wanted and included no benefits at all that appealed to me over the one I already had my eye on.

I literally was *about* to become a supporter (within minutes!), and when that happened, I simply decided it was not worth my time and uninstalled the game and have not played in almost a month. To argue that I, as a supporter, did not exist at that point is a ridiculous argument to make. They lost me as a customer before I was given the chance to be one because they tried to force me into a package I did not want or need.

BattleDawn players are no different. The medium might change, but it is the same principle. By saying that none of the free to play players are potential supporters is completely ignorant of the ability of any F2P player to become a supporter at any moment. To simply alientate them because they have not supported yet is dangerous and makes no sense.

Supporters have to abide by the same rules as any other player. This will not change. Break the rules, and you will be treated the same as everyone else. You pay for tokens and the edge you get from them. Paying for the permission to cheat, is not, and has NEVER been part of the deal!

Like I said before, I am not asking you to overlook cheating. I am asking you to be reasonable with people when you issue bans, and be more communicative, especially with supporters. Perm banning someone who cheated after spending 2000 dollars is ridiculous. You HAVE to ban him for a lesser time so you make your point at the same time retain your customer.

As for the potential customer thingy, that IS NOT in your hands. Do you know how many potential customers you have driven away through your own admining? You wouldn't. You can only work with what you have in hand. One good way of ensuring you convert those potential buyers into actual supporters is again being reasonable and communicative with people, which will automatically urge people to buy tokens. Throwing bans all over the place, for minor infractions wont guarantee you long lasting customers. If you care about them that is :lol:

Seth · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:16 pm

Wow. You have a knack for overlooking important parts of posts. Especially the one where I described to you how I determine severity of punishment.

You are also basing your argument on the notion that only the banned guy in the cheater equasion is the supporter. You neglect to cover how supporters are in all alliances, and fair playing supporters are damaged by the supporting cheater.

So you are basically saying that if the banned supporter supports more than the fair playing supporter, who has been severely impacted by the larger supporter, the banned cheater should get more consideration than the guy who cant pay as much.

Your arguments, I am sorry, are very lob-sided. I think that the difference between us here is that I value integrity more than you do.

I think this is all laughable, and reenforces my point about not being able to please everyone. In 90% of cases, we are accused of being biased. In this case, you are making the argument that we are not biased enough to supporters!!

:lol:

torpet · **Joined:** Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:08 pm **Posts:** 41

i dont think you see the point i wanted to make. But no reason to tell you agein as seth did point it out to agein as i have done i moore the one of my post.

All i know is now you are looking at it from the other side then you did last round on e1.

So funny to see how you change sides so fast since this it did not suite you the right way.

My final post on this.

mfreak · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:31 pm

Quote:

Wow. You have a knack for overlooking important parts of posts. Especially the one where I described to you how I determine severity of punishment.

You are also basing your argument on the notion that only the banned guy in the cheater equasion is the supporter. You neglect to cover how supporters are in all alliances, and fair playing supporters are damaged by the supporting cheater.

So you are basically saying that if the banned supporter supports more than the fair playing supporter, who has been severely impacted by the larger supporter, the banned cheater should get more consideration than the guy who cant pay as much.

Your arguments, I am sorry, are very lob-sided. I think that the difference between us here is that I value integrity more than you do.

I think this is all laughable, and reenforces my point about not being able to please everyone. In 90% of cases, we are accused of being biased. In this case, you are making the argument that we are not biased enough to supporters!!

And you have a knack of overlooking what I proposed when it comes to supporters in different alliances - one that cheats and one that doesnt. I said go ahead ban the guy for cheating, while considering that he spends. But at the same time, compensate others for the losses they incurred because of someone cheating. I also said, banning as such is a punishment, and the banned person should not have to suffer losses ingame as well. Either bring in an ingame mechanic to make sure that he doesnt suffer losses or compensate him. But you did say in the other thread, that you infact compensated for someone's loss. If you did that then well, that is what I mean.

I am not asking you not to have integrity, or be biased to supporters alone, but you surely have to consider how much a person spends before doing anything when it comes to bans. Sure apply the same rules to non supporters too, I am not against it, as long as it has room to make everyone happy.

Yeah, maybe the difference is that you have more integrity than me.

That is an appreciable character no doubt, and while I am like that in RL, when it comes to such things related to business I dont have any qualms about being smart. And what is smart, is what sells.

mfreak · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:34 pm

Quote:

i dont think you see the point i wanted to make. But no reason to tell you agein as seth did point it out to agein as i have done i moore the one of my post.

All i know is now you are looking at it from the other side then you did last round on e1.

So funny to see how you change sides so fast since this it did not suite you the right way.

My final post on this.

I see your point. Your point clearly shows that you dont follow what I am trying to say. You are assuming that I mean for admins to completely be partial to supporters. What I mean is that they should definitely consider how much a guy has spent before they ban him. If its normally gonna be a 48 hour ban, and if he spends more, he has to be banned for a lesser period of time. But I never said, dont ban him. I dont mind the same extended to non supporters, but I was only talking about supporters.

I am not looking at it from any side. I am talking about stuff from a neutral standpoint. And I dont know what you talking about when you say change sides so fast. Do you even understand what you typing ? :lol:

littleconqueror · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 2:18 pm

basicly what deadman is saying that say for expample this guy really pissed me off and i cussed him out but i spent tons of money on this game now it was to the point to where i would normaly get banned for 24 hours or so what the admins should do is basicly just give a warning about it (saying i had a previous offense) and just drop it since it was something so minor instead of just making me more mad and rage quiting on BD :lol:

mfreak · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 2:22 pm

Phew!! The kid understood. The adults didn't.

littleconqueror · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 2:25 pm

i have more commen sense than most kids incase you havent figured that out but i do believe there are quite a few things that need to be changed here

torpet · **Joined:** Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:08 pm **Posts:** 41

Wow you are just to blind to see this. Sure that suporter might leav in anger over it. But if they are allowed to keeo it other suporters that dont cheat but follow the rules might quit. So either way one quit. Better the one that thing they are abowe the rules then the once following it.

By your way of thinking the admin have to look in to how much the other sides suport to.

Back to the start agein.

if you are not man enught to handel someone going at you on msg in a game maybe find somthing els to do.

Just remember there are always to sides to evrything

Supporter Treatment