Search Results

Quote from I Patton: “I reiterated the points of the OP and concluded with "But, let's see how it goes and hope there will be (more limiting) adjustments if they're needed." And you rudely responded with "You don't know what you're talking about." (...)" I'm guessing you didn't understand what "if they're needed" means. And whether or not they're needed will be indicated by the active participation rates of games made under the new restrictions. That's not something for which you have any data. …

Every added functionality to HC is a way to go. The better the benefits, the more subscribers, the more stable revenues.

Quote from WiseOdin: “As Roko stated, the province exchange system is the way it is, in order to prevent land pushing from one account to another. The game is about conquering land, not giving it away. Transferring an ally a province or two you liberated, back to him, is about all you need to do. ” That is exactly what I would be able to do. Conquered someone's core provinces can be given back to initial (core) owner without restrictions / limits. I waged a war with neighbour, took some his prov…

Quote from I Patton: “BenjB's above reply to the OP, of this 2 yr. old thread, is all that's really needed to be said to most complainers. I've been in 60 CoW games since my first two years ago. I think I've seen about 5-10 players, out of about 500 or so, who've obviously used gold. Of those 5-10, I recall three who spent copious amounts of gold to ensure a quick and easy win. I don't see a problem with gold use. (...) ” Of course this thread is old. Gold issues are old, even older, as I rememb…

Quote from I Patton: “Quote from Khantix: “You don't know what you are talking about. ” Which part? LOL. ” This part: "My thesis is that all this mass of maps was created by relatively new (or completely new) players. No need to limit veterans." number of game (everyone can check it) - current level of player that created that round 2106048 - 10 2106042 - 10 2106075 - 1 2106045 - 19 2106104 - 2 2105758 - 3 2105681 - 15 2105804 - 14 2105885 - 3 2105887 - 3 2105695 - 8 2105789 - 21 2105843 - 3 210…

Yes. No per-game limit (to allow real allies, real diplomacy) but Daily limit (to forbid transfer of all provinces overnight to ally when overrun and hopeless) Exact number should be connected with map. Big maps = bigger limit (there are more provinces). 100 player world map has 3000+ provinces. 22 player map has 600+ provinces. So different number should be used.

Idea: allowance of exchanging provinces more freely Current state. One province daily can be exchanged (given) to anyone. Probably up to 5 provinces (all time overall). Only 1 province exchange can be suggested at the same time. Proposed change. 1. No limit on exchange of non core provinces (up to unlimited provinces can be given through whole match). 2. Limit on exchange of non core provinces at the same time (up to XX provinces can be given daily). 3. Player's core provinces cannot be exchange…

Quote from I Patton: “- Lvl. 11 is really low and one can reach that quite easily and quickly.- Alliance games are excluded from the restrictions. - HC members can make 5/mo. once they're over lvl.11. - Creating a game has no bearing on how many one can join But, let's see how it goes and hope there will be (more limiting) adjustments if they're needed. ” You don't know what you are talking about. Use your eyes then, see examples: I list only maps from BEFORE that change: 2107833 - created by le…

Quote from WiseOdin: “Quote from Khantix: “So the solution is simple as that: separate those worlds technically. ” At this point, the money generated by gold use supports all players, because they all play together.If we segregate users that are willing to pay, it must also be stated that we would have to, in all fairness, keep the gold funds within the pay servers. Otherwise these pay users are literally paying for servers they can not play in. This being said, the non-supporter server will hav…

Quote from Diabolical: “(...) Still, for all that, Bytro's business interests continue to favor the current system and we aren't allowed to use this forum to complain so you might as well just accept it for what it is like I have. If you truly hate that part of the game, the gold spending, the only real thing you can do, at least for now, within the confines of the game, is to start up a private passworded match and invite only your trusted friends. Good luck convincing a staff member to start u…

Quote from DxC: “Quote from Khantix: “One a month is a little harsh. ” I think it's fine. There were way too many empty games. Now if there aren't enough games maybe someone that doesn't usually spam games will create one. It's the game spammers that will be upset about this anyway; let's see how a once a month works. ” I know WHO made games and WHY they were empty. I've noted staff about it with details. The problem is not with limiting players to create new maps (it's good move) but how strong…

1. The game list has been completely reworked to better promote the most popular game rounds and hide irrelevant ones. 2. From now on players will only be able to create one game per month. We encourage everyone to join existing rounds instead for more exciting challenges. Alliance games are excluded from this limitation. When I asked about limitation I did not think about such harsh restriction. One a month is a little harsh. The main problem is solved by number 3: one need to have some experie…

Quote from Peter Mat: “For a non gold option there is a Players League game every month. Tough competition and a good way to find out how good you really are. In other threads at other times I have seen the suggestion of an up front cost option, where the player creating the game sets the ante. So for example you could set it at 10,000 gold or 100,000 gold. The catch is, that is all you have to spend, once you hit the ante amount you are out of gold for that game. I like the concept. I have also…

Quote from freezy: “Actually on day 2 you can only have units on level 1, even with gold. Day of availability still applies and cannot be circumvented. All players have to wait for day X to research level Y. ” Yes and not. On "H" map (realistic / historic) you start with fairly developed country and those restrictions work different. Example: I play Euro Blitz 39 as USSR. It's day 13. I CAN research infantry all till day 28, armor/air/naval till day 24. That means I CAN have: militia lvl 7 infan…

Quote from king meatster: “In the official rules, gold is fair game for anyone to use. (...) A simple solution is to add a feature that will ban gold for certain games, much like how you can turn the anti-cheat off. A cap would be nice, but the problem with this is who would define what that cap is? And how high? At the end of the day, no matter how much we complain, Goldies will never completely go away. You shouldn't be mad at someone just because they have a larger wallet. ” The first rule is…

Quote from WiseOdin: “(...) We do chase after multis, and take their accounts away. However, you must report them by opening diplomacy, and clicking the "i" for that player. Follow the icon to "Report Player" and change the drop-down menu to "multi account." Please include all information you can as to why you believe it is a multi account. (...) ” I would prefer auto ban from map/session/match if two accounts (with the same internet connection) are playing this match. Just a warning on day one …

Quote from JCS Darragh: “No, I think gold use should be at a cap, like the story I was talking about, (...) ” I have read it carefully. But the problem is not with GOLD itself. It is with mixing gold users with non-gold users. I would have nothing against putting heavy gold users vs. other heavy gold users on maps. If that is the way they love playing, let them spend their gold on equal terms. Besides developers need some revenue. Cap is against gold lovers and developers alike, so BAD IDEA TM (…

I dream about non-gold matches for subscribers (or whatever it is called in particular game). You would just pay gold (a little) for setting a game then all subscribers could join for free (hey, they paid already being subscribers) and common user would join paying gold fee. But all gold functions would be a) disabled in match or b) available for standard game cash (example spy - reveal an army for 750 gold would be 7.500 or 75.000 money) Just a dream, but developers eventually would earn money …

Quote from NukeRaider33: “Give us some stats for the marines, like perhaps they +50% strength on sea and have -50% in cities? ” Marines (WW2) used transport ships at see as other infantry/tanks/artillery. They were no stronger than any other land troops at sea. I don't think it is good idea in general, but if they must be, let them be as in real life: beach assault troops. Plus some terrain bonus, and attack bonus. That's all. But do we really need them?

Simple as that: Playing various games/rounds created by their respective authors with generic names like "World At War 1932 - 100 players" is a little confusing. I just think it will be easier for me if: a) I could name them for myself (just to show on my screen, not the others) or b) interface would show name of the country I play on my screen or at least under "I" key (I tend to play different countries, so that will help) something like that: Day: 14 Game: number Open slots: 0 Ranked Played c…