Skip to content
TORNLIFE More

Subscriber draw

Started by Wulfric [1767972] on in General Discussion.

31 replies · 698 views · thread synced · 4 days ago · View on torn.com

Posts archived: 32 / 32 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch

Chedburn [1] Admin Developer · #22

We now have 5,300 subscribers, so the chances of winning are really low. I believe 2.8% chance per month, or 34.5% chance per year.
We'll likely up the rewards at some point to compensate for that.
CapturerHulkmad [1904837] · #25

I won it once in last 3 years so i guess its correct but they need to increase it......... I know being a subscriber does not mean we should be rich in one day but winning it a bit more frequently is more motivating............

 
bLiNd [2010548] · #26

Surely the odds would only raise say per year, if those that won are then removed from future draws, otherwise your odds to win in a year would be the same as the odds to win in a month??
Kayla [2031661] · #27

It's fun and rewarding to win. Perhaps instead of increasing the rewards, increase the amount of people that win?
Trotsky [243931] · #28

Tell us how many of those subscribers were active in the past month...

 

Pleeeeaaaaseeeee, we all wanna know how much cash you're raking in off inactive accounts. Unless you have some sort of inactivity subscriber cut-off, in which case, Kudos.
Chedburn [1] Admin Developer · #29

Since you asked so nicely...

4,938 subscribers have been active in the last month, with 406 being inactive in the last month (usually down to cancelled annual subscriptions that are still ongoing). 73 subscribers have been inactive for a year or more, again which could have been due to forgetting to unsubscribe a short while after leaving Torn - or assuming they'd return and then not doing so. 26 subscribers have been inactive for over 2 years - which could probably be a cut-off at which point a subscription could be automatically terminated - although that may require a bit of development time to implement.



ChillySpunc [1905415] · #30

The cost of a subscription is peanuts, why have a cut off point? I get an alert every time my sub goes out of the bank, if people don't track their cash then why should you baby sit them? As long as fedded(although if someone has broken the rules why don't we make them keep paying until they cancel it themself?) and fallen account subscriptions are cancelled everything should be fine.
Trotsky [243931] · #31

Thanks for the info! 

I don't personally think with those figures you need to implement a cut-off. Despite the fact that there's no system in place to cut-off the subscriptions that are, as you note 2 years or more inactive, which seems like a fair cut-off point. A reminder email stating that the account has been inactive for 2 years might be beneficial, both in terms of bringing back former player base (although more likely to simply alert someone to the issue, unless logging back in really is that addictive, quarterly newsletters dragged me back after many years), covering the moral aspect, and shouldn't require the same amount of development as actually terminating the payments. 

Pleased to hear.