Better Donor System

[gizmobrick]

I was thinking about this the other day, and realized how many people could be getting ripped off from the current donor system. As you know if you buy gold donor you pay $25 for 3 months of perks. Well what if I bought 3 gold donors over the course of nine months, and I payed a total of $75 dollars? I might as well have bought a diamond donor to begin with... See what I mean? I payed the same amount of money for lesser perks, and I only got the perks for nine months total. Here is how we could fix this issue:

Ask the player if they want to upgrade to diamond for free, or keep their current name color for good. Either way, they can keep diamond level perks for a life time. They basically just have the option of keeping their current donor color.

This idea is just a suggestion, and I am sure some of you should be able to tweak it or find a better solution. Either way there still should be a fix for the issue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Mooclan]

They pay for what they get, and they get what they pay for.
You have to keep in mind votes.

My opinion is that this should not be implemented.

 

[TomahawkGoesChop]

They pay for what they get, and they get what they pay for.
You have to keep in mind votes.

My opinion is that this should not be implemented.

 

[Col_StaR]

Or players should be mindful of what they're purchasing and their associated costs. Not only does that remove any need for developers and bureaucratic/financial/administrative nightmares, but that also teaches a good life lesson.

Someone purchasing 3 Gold ranks for 9 months of Gold is a pretty rare and oddly specific occurrence, however. Usually by the end of the first Gold rank, people know whether they like it here or not enough to buy the Lifetime. And don't forget that the Gold and the Diamond ranks give different perks (most notably /disguise command). Finally, because Iron and Gold operate on a timed-subscription basis, their value technically declines as times goes on so the equivalent-value argument is invalid; a Gold rank with only 1 month left on it is not worth full price.

All in all, I doubt this idea would be worthwhile.

 

[gizmobrick]

Or players should be mindful of what they're purchasing and their associated costs. Not only does that remove any need for developers and bureaucratic/financial/administrative nightmares, but that also teaches a good life lesson.

Someone purchasing 3 Gold ranks for 9 months of Gold is a pretty rare and oddly specific occurrence, however. Usually by the end of the first Gold rank, people know whether they like it here or not enough to buy the Lifetime. And don't forget that the Gold and the Diamond ranks give different perks (most notably /disguise command). Finally, because Iron and Gold operate on a timed-subscription basis, their value technically declines as times goes on so the equivalent-value argument is invalid; a Gold rank with only 1 month left on it is not worth full price.

All in all, I doubt this idea would be worthwhile.

Yeah, I guess your right. This idea honestly sounded better in my head that it does on paper. Anyway, Thats all the info I needed for this topic.

 

[Perkins]

Also, the problem of value and rewards disappears if you treat the donations as donations, IMO.