Forum Discussion

Aegelweard442's avatar
7 years ago

Fairer Compensation

I don’t especially appreciate people that unnecessarily moan at good gestures, but on this occasion I am going to become one of them, but for what I believe to be a good and valid reason (albeit it will no doubt fall on deaf ears!!).

The compensation package is a nice thought, and on that basis alone marginally better than nothing. But how does it actually compensate players in my position, when I have been as equally inconvenienced as those that will benefit?

To explain, I am one of many that fund much less now on old servers, if at all, but am sitting on and wish to retain high repair levels from yesteryear in case of conflict (so I can contribute on old Worlds if required, without further funding). So how exactly does this compensation benefit me at all?
This is what your gift looks like for me from a Repair capacity perspective: http://prntscr.com/k8jy5x, and equally as futile on the CP capacity front: http://prntscr.com/k8j8gj

Basically you add it on in what is a PR stunt, and for me it just runs down and erodes without contributing anything, absolutely of zero benefit!!
So thank you, but for myself and players in the same situation, that have funded on a server but now stopped and maintained their stock levels higher than their current capacities, this is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.
Granted it is great, for example, to the many who (sensibly) have never funded, but utterly useless to player in my situation.

So here’s a radical idea. Why not just 'gift' TA points (i.e. for the value of these compensation packages, maybe x per World played), so that players have the opportunity to spend it in a way that might actually be beneficial to them, rather than this token gesture that is absolutely meaningless to anyone that currently has more CP and/or repair than their current capacities?

And on that note, every day, whilst all non-funding accounts gain extra CP’s and repair time, ‘hoarders’ like me that have historically contributed significantly (financially) to this game, gain no benefit, (and which is only highlighted/emphasised everytime a compensation package is offered up).

How about a sensible and fair concept whereby the free daily allowance sits ‘on top’ of any purchased capacity/stocks, so that everyone gains the same free allowance every day, and former funding players are not penalized for historically contributing financially to your game. Meaning that those with large stocks can still farm there free allowance without eroding their stock of CP/RT, in the exact same way as non-funding players can farm a free amount daily. It is surely just encouraging players not to fund so they do not miss out on the daily free offerings. If you simply make it is the first thing to be used, and the first thing to replenish, it would surely make things much fairer?
So players that have (for example) the standard 100 CP capacity, but have stored and saved 1,000 CP’s, would still get their free daily capacity, and are not penalized for actually paying for the game.

(For clarity I am not anti players that have never funded, they are the smart ones!, just that there situation is the best, most sensible and valid example to compare with).

Anyway just some food for thought, just hope you are not on a diet in that regard.

Regards
Aegelweard442

4 Replies

  • I suspect that it is technically not possible at this time to do what you suggest.

    I argued for differential compensation such that those that fund on current worlds got a different package to those that don't fund on worlds that they are currently active on. This is not feasible with the way the system works. The 30 days since last log on seems to be a fair way of distinguishing between players who never visit their old worlds and players who have all but abandoned worlds except when compensation packages come through.

    I don't agree with you about the principle either - if you have amassed 1000 cp but your cap limit is now 100cp then you have abandoned the world and the funding you put into getting the 1000cp cap. To expect to get more on an abandoned world isn't a reasonable expectation in my mind. If your cap was 1000cp then it would increase to 1200cp, although I know that those with large caps rarely let the cp's build up to the max except in preparation for war.
  • I completely disagree gamerdruid, some worlds I refer to are far from abandoned by me as I play these worlds daily (at least when I am able to log on!!), I just do not spend the CP's/RT I amassed when the world was younger and more volatile, so that in times when this state of play may return I can engage without wasting more funds on old worlds.
    If I have abandoned anything it is the principal of throwing good money after bad on old servers, something non-funding players have (sensibly) always done on all servers, yet they are entitled to compensation (as they should be) and actually get some value out of it, unlike players like myself that have helped support the servers financially, but get zero benefit from this compensation model.

    Yes I could whittle down these stocks by some meaningless farming, but I see no point in that when I do not want any more bases, so I simply and sensibly keep the stocks for when they might be needed. I am on at least daily, I organized multiple fortress attacks, I have far from abandoned the Worlds I refer to, but by your reckoning someone who maybe logs on once or twice a month is more entitled to the compensation (when lets be honest they may not have even realized there was an issue they log on so infrequently!!), yet because I have retained stocks (from heavy investments I might add), I effectively get zero compensation for the inconvenience, when I would have been more inconvenienced, than those that log on so infrequently that they may not even have noticed!!

    I do not always agree with your comments, but always understand where you are coming from and your viewpoints, as you generally speak a lot of sense and in a very balanced and pragmatic way. But sorry, on this I could not disagree with you more.

    I strongly believe in fairness, and try to apply this in life where possible......it will be a hard task for you to convince me that this is a fair or balanced compensation model, or in anyway meaningful for players in my situation, that have funded heavily in the past, are still very active, but happen to have higher stocks than capacities.

    As for the concept of the daily allowances being 'on top' of capacities/stocks not being possible, of course this is possible, it is just not in their interests to change it - and to be fair, given that any changes they do apply normally results in short term carnage, maybe that is for the best!

    Thank you for your response.
  • "Aegelweard442;c-1967200" wrote:
    As for the concept of the daily allowances being 'on top' of capacities/stocks not being possible, of course this is possible, it is just not in their interests to change it - and to be fair, given that any changes they do apply normally results in short term carnage, maybe that is for the best!

    Thank you for your response.


    I'm told it is not technically feasible as the data needed isn't stored in a place and a way they can access without a lot of effort which they don't see as a good use of their time.

    So, I suppose you a right in the sense anything must be possible as the data required has to be stored in some way.
  • Thank you for your feedback @Aegelweard442
    However I hope you also understand that you position is an rather affluent and exceptional one. With this compensation we tried to match roughly the windows of opportunity that most players missed. But of course, there is always more that could have been done, because its never enough.

    I am still looking into a way ti make up for the troubles we have during the changes of the Login, but I have nothing concrete yet.

About Tiberium Alliances General Discussion

Talk with other players about what is going on in your Command and Conquer: Tiberium Alliances game.1,310 PostsLatest Activity: 2 days ago