Pay for Play


I'd like to get some others thoughts on how to make the world games more competitive in some factor other than how much money you spend. In my experience here, each and every world has been dominated by a few players who are willing to fork out what I estimate to be over a hundred dollars a month to maintain their competitive position.
Let's face it, the name of the game for INO GAMES is to make money.
From what I see is we have some players who pay a lot, and because of this, and their ability, dominate the play in all worlds.
But most players, or at least a lot never pay anything. I'd like to propose a different model. By the way, I was asked to post this by the Manager.
What if every player had to pay a monthly fee to play in a world. Say 15 dollars a month. After that, there is no buying coins. While I don't know how much INO makes on a world, or how much it costs to run one, I think its quite possible that their income may go up, not down. Since everyone who plays, pays.
I think this will promote a more enjoyable game, and push play skill and tribe management to become the driving force of victory, not coin. I would like to hear others thoughts on this. Also, INO management is listening. thanks
Players who are unable to spend money like myself would not be able to pay..I feel this world type wouldn't have the same amount of players, which is already low, as only the dedicated would play...and even some dedicated wouldn't.
Anyways, this has already been suggested


i would love to see a free world with like a premium option to at most build troops faster and boost rss but no coining buildings or troops


While there is never a perfect system this sort of game would reward the players who are the most active and engaged. Down side you would have just as much whining just from the part time people Who get crushed early and often by those who are extremely active. The game its self is flawed in that sense because it is built to be a race from many to few..... So sure when there is many the pool of people to make money from used to be 50k or so it is not 10% of that if they get 5$ per player of the 5k that is still not a lot of money. But when it is at 500 or even 50 real active people even $100 or $1000 per player really does not keep the lights on at inno. We are kinda relegated to not that relevant in the grand scheme of things as you may have noticed they realize this is a bad business model and have focused on other games. What makes this game great the total domination and destruction of other players is also what makes it doomed.


I don't think crowns are really the issue. Yes people who spend a lot at the start of a world will get an advantage.. but that advantage disappears more with each passing day. Mad crowning doesn't mean much when everyone has 100+ villages. Eventually superior play will win out over the money. Although if you are not a skilled player then yes fighting someone who crowns everything can feel impossible at times. But I think a monthly fee would chase off too many people.
Now I think having one or two worlds that were set up as " Deathmatch" or "pro" rules would be a great idea. Maybe a world where tribe member limits were capped at 60, and each tribe was limited to one NAP and one Alliance. Or a deathmatch server where each player pays a set fee to play and receives a lump sum of crowns that are the same for everybody. Then it would just come down to how smart you are about using them.
If they started changing rules on individual realms to better address these problems, I think we would find some balancing solutions.
Last edited:


Well it will make the early game enjoyable if all the mol players, the rangers players are gone


The subscription model has been shown time and time again as not to be particularly effective. In the original game, early on, they had a subscription model that gave functionality that made it much less tedious to play, but didn't really give an advantage. I played world 3, back in I think 2006, and it had something like 100k people. It was great, and it was fun, but like cokky said, the model of the game essentially requires that players get kicked out of playing it if they lose. Add on that each world, at that time, lasted years and you could lose it all at anytime. Eventually that becomes un-fun if you're not the winner, and you're not going to replace those players who quit forever. So inno had to find ways to make more with fewer people, and hope that pay-to-win will solve the money-making flaw of the game. As I get in to how TW2 works, I find that it really took away a lot of what made the game fun, so it ended up being the worst of both worlds, and that's why now they only have a couple hundred people.


I've also played since world 3. I think if they had implemented the fortress end game alot more people would have stayed around. They just never add anything new. Games getting boring.


If, as stated above, everyone STARTED with 100 maxed-out villages, COINERS would not be such an issue. But that is not the way this game works. In an environment where it takes a week to build a wall, and well over a month to get to a point where you can start getting nobles, those who BUY these levels in a few days just wait until their neighbors are at a decent level then conquer them. If you manage to attack their village and put a hurt on them, the next day it is all back. In Frankenstein some tribes state they will only accept coiners, because they know non-coiners CAN NOT WIN. l


Part of the game is strategy, if we had everyone start out with maxed out villages, where is the strategy in that? It wouldn't be there. I'm not saying that coiners don't have an advantage but saying that non-coiners can't win, isn't necessarily true.


I and a few others were in N world. it was my first. At first i didnt get the coiner talk until i took out a vill only to find when i sent my nobles there were more troops in it and walls were back up to 20 in a day. Coiners was understood to me then. By the way, with the help of another great player i took out that coiner. Havent seen him since. I personally have never spent a dime on this game. others (coops) have used there coins to help me out but i never asked and didnt care if they did or didnt.
As for a pay to play...I suggested this myself more than once. Always shot down. If every player was to spend $10=15 a month to play i would think it could work. I know a lot of players would come back to at least try it, They got tired of the nuking a vill to the ground only to have it built back up in a day or two. For a pay to play to be fair i think it should allow 200-400 crowns to start and 100 crowns for every month you pay to play. I think you would find more players willing to do this rather than take on someone that puts in 100s of dollars a week to buy there win.
Problem that would come up is more complaints of cheating. There are always those that think they have to cheat to win (no skill). Inno does the best they can to stop this, but they find a way back every time. They will just have to keep kicking those and the rest of us keep playing till we tire of it and quit.