The role of Gold: a serious problem.

VorlonFCW · Sep 13th 2017, 1:01pm

Diabolical wrote:

They have to raise the price even more because of a reactionary minimum wage increase

That is happening to me now. I have a farm and over 40% of my expenses are labor. So with the local minimum wage increasing from the steady $8 per hour to $12 per hour at $1 per year that is a significant increase in my cost of doing business.

So for every $10 box of produce I had $4 in labor and $5 in other costs, such as fuel, refrigeration, trucking, utilities, insurance, packaging, repairs, etc.

Of course good workers are worth more than minimum wage, so I can't leave them at $10 to $12 per hour while the minimum wage for inexperienced goof offs climbs to that rate, which means an across the board increase in wages.

So this year I have $5 labor and $5 other expenses in that box of produce. In two years I will have $6 labor and $5 other expenses in that box of produce, providing no other expenses increase in price. So I have raised the price I charge, and will do so every year. I can't afford to sell $11 worth of stuff for $10. So I will sell less for the next few years. I have to believe that selling some at a slight profit is better than selling a lot at a loss.

JCS Darragh · Sep 13th 2017, 3:14pm

holy jesus chill out guys, I have no idea what you are talking about. Gold spending is a problem and that is really undeniable, because when a person can raise the entire worlds fighting force and more in a few hours, that is not a good thing. It really is annoying, especially when you cannot spend money on gold, Or, if you can, you can only spend very little on the game.

Khantix · Sep 13th 2017, 5:07pm

Diabolical wrote:

(...)

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 up a 50 or 100 player match like that. But if you do, let me know and I might join you. Otherwise, be prepared to face more of the same. Get used to it. There's really nothing you can do about it. At least it's still pretty rare.

We are allowed to speak about gold, its role in game or criticize how it is implemented in game.
Rules are simple:

e) The denunciation of Gold users is not permitted and leads to an immediate warning. The use of Gold is an explicit part of the game. The same applies to the premium account.

link to rules page

My understanding is that:
1) you can't criticize users for using gold to win
because
2) gold using is part of the game
and
3) you can't criticize users for being premium members (HC)
because
the same reason

There is no rule that forbids criticize the whole system and suggesting good changes in it.

But of course developers would listen or not listen to popular vote. It's their right.

Khantix · Sep 13th 2017, 5:46pm

WiseOdin wrote:

Khantix wrote:

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 have little to no income generated. The servers, and rounds, will have almost constant downtime. There will be no Bytro support from the Developers for bugs and glitches.
I would imagine one will be lucky to have an hour of play time, spread across each day. If some of that time is spent at work, sleeping, or watching a Youtube video to pass time, you may not be able to play, at all.

Given the option between spotty connection from a free server, and a nice server with less than 48 of total outage for a year, I would imagine most non paying players would gladly play on the gold server. Not to mention, without paying the Developers to set up the new server, the "free" users really would never get a server off the ground (or.. have one).

This begs the statement be made: Just as much it is "unfair" that a player that supports the map get an upper hand against you, it is just as "unfair" that the players paying for everything to exist have to share this game with non-supporters.

I had never idea about separate servers. Only matches/round should be separated, but one server can have both gold, non-gold, premium rounds on it in the same time.

The main idea of MY writings here is not to create free-of-gold rounds for everybody, but for premium account users. I wrote it many times and I will be supporting this idea, as this is only one that is fair for players and still brings revenues for developers.

I think there is strong enough potential player base that are willing to pay their HC memberships (premium account / subscription - whatever name you use) if it will give them enough benefits. One of the benefits should be possibility to create free-of-gold match.

Why such a privilege for HC members?

Because:
1) they already paid real money for this game and mostly are gonna pay (support) this game in the future
2) they are the core user group developers can rely (free users can be here today but play different game tomorrow)
3) this will surely incentivize buying HC membership increasing developers revenue

So the idea is to have good money flow for developers AND fair game rules for players. Someone may argue that the game is already super fair for everyone and using gold does not unbalance the game.
Well you may just look at this:

1:33 am Building finished in Crateús: Industrial Complex.
1:39 am Building finished in Teresina: Infrastructure.
2:28 am The 7th Anti Tank Regiment (Maranhao) lost: 1 Anti Air
2:37 am Building finished in Cuiabá: Barracks.
4:27 am Building finished in Boa Vista: Air Base.
4:28 am Building finished in Boa Vista: Infrastructure.
4:30 am Building finished in Cali: Industrial Complex.
4:30 am Building finished in Cali: Infrastructure.
4:30 am Building finished in Cali: Infrastructure.
4:30 am Building finished in Cali: Fortifications.
4:33 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -1 (numbers added by me)
4:33 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -2
4:33 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -3
4:33 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -4
4:33 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -5
4:33 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -6
4:33 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -7
4:33 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -8
4:34 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -9
4:34 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -10
4:34 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -11
4:34 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -12
4:34 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -13
4:35 am Building finished in Imperatriz: Industrial Complex.
4:35 am Building finished in Brumado: Industrial Complex.
4:36 am Building finished in Manicoré: Air Base.
4:37 am Building finished in Urimán: Industrial Complex.
4:37 am Building finished in Urimán: Fortifications.
4:37 am Building finished in Urimán: Infrastructure.
4:37 am Building finished in Urimán: Infrastructure.
4:37 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -14
4:37 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -15
4:37 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -16
4:38 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -17
4:38 am Maranhao produces new Railroadgun. -18

Game: 2089837 Day 15. 18 Railroadguns popped out of nowhere in a minutes (and many other troops).

So if someone IS WILLING to pay (use gold) to be able not to meet such an mass gold using, just please let him do it.

PS: I've said also that free users should be able to participate in free-of-gold rounds just as a teaser of what could be if they will pay their HC membership. It should incentivize them to being HC.

AND gold users should not be limited in using gold as they LOVE it. Let them buy their 18 Railroadguns every minute in every gold match if that pleases them.

So to summarize:

1) one server

2) different rounds on the same server (normal (=gold) rounds, gold-free rounds)

3) privileges for HC members

JCS Darragh · Sep 14th 2017, 12:20am

Erm, that is the problem, because how the hell are we supposed to defeat 18 railroad guns with, lets say, Motorized Infantry, Medium Tanks, Light Tanks, TD, Arty, and a handful of planes? That player could just create 30 or 40 bombers, tanks, infantry, and support units! I know it is their choice to spend that gold, but I still think there should a cap that you are allowed to spend in a 24 hour period, perhaps like 10,000 - 40,000 gold? Again, the fact that you can produce a huge army in a matter of minutes or hours, and overrun your enemy with little to no strategy, is very annoying.

Diabolical · Sep 14th 2017, 2:01am

VorlonFCW wrote:

So this year I have $5 labor and $5 other expenses in that box of produce. In two years I will have $6 labor and $5 other expenses in that box of produce, providing no other expenses increase in price. So I have raised the price I charge, and will do so every year. I can't afford to sell $11 worth of stuff for $10. So I will sell less for the next few years. I have to believe that selling some at a slight profit is better than selling a lot at a loss.

Of course, you don't want to sell at a loss. Sometimes you just have to do what you have to do. But there are alternatives to taking a loss in such a situation. Though they aren't easy to come by, you can come up with ideas that would supplement the income. For example, you might offer the product at the original price to anyone that also purchases a different product alongside it which naturally has a higher profit yield thus keeping an overall profitability on your production while keeping the overall cost more reasonable for those that desire both products and are willing to purchase them together.

Or, you might find some special customers (i.e., other business owners in non-agricultural sectors) that would be willing to pay extra to have a dedicated and continuing supply for their own needs. For example, you might offer your product to a school system in an area where the produce you offer is not readily available or even more cost prohibitive from other producers. If the school has room in their budget to include your product at a fair and profitable rate, then both you and their students gain from the deal.

There's also the export route. You could offer the best of the best (high quality) portions of your produce to international sellers that would take your product and include them in their periodic export packages to foreign markets where your produce may even be considered exotic and special and sold at a premium.

Also, your highest quality portions could be sold to aggregators who make special items like gift boxes and baskets that could include your product among a variety of others giving you both a premium for your product as well as a promotional branding that would be included in the packaging....and you, in turn, can use that other company's branding to accentuate your own in advertisement (e.g., "Our sumptuous apples are featured in gift baskets from the Gift Basket Extraordinaire Company which distributes our luscious produce all over the world."). And, since you'd be making extra profit from those deals, you could keep the regular product (the not-totally perfect variety) at original prices for your regular customers while still maintaining overall profitability.

Another thing is that, if the situation gets less ideal for you, you can also look to changing your product over time to others that are more profitable. And, reducing your output may actually spur a higher demand later on that could permit you to return to producing more of the old product at a reasonable cost.

In addition to changing your product (whether from one produce to another or to something else entirely), you could also take advantage of your equipment's lag time. Let's say, for example, that you have a machine that processes apples for shipping (i.e., cleaning, polishing, waxing of apples). You only use those machines at certain times of the year and only maybe only certain hours of the day. You could work an agreement with other producers in your area to use your machines in off hours to process their own produce and you, in exchange, could use their trucks to transport some of your goods to a market area that you normally don't go or have the truck capacity to cover.

Perhaps in other times of the year, you don't process "apples" but there is another thing that you could process with only minimal adjustments to your machinery and then you could lease them to another producer (or even a less-related manufacturer of small round desk weights) during the off season and keeping as part of your contract with them that they'd be responsible for regular maintenance costs and repair/replacement for damages caused by them. Additionally, instead of relying on your own equipment, if you have it, you could consider selling it to a competitor with an agreement that they lease it to you during certain times of the year or times of day. Either way, this is where having a well-thought out contract can keep you safe from other people's mistakes or abuse. And, so long as you are saving money, both alternatives could help you to keep your prices down.

And let's not forget that there are always other in-house cost-saving measures that can be discovered in your own internal processes. For example, just because the minimum wage has/will gone up doesn't mean that your workers who are already paid above it must get raises to stay above it. And, if you are worried about your worker's own increase in cost of living, you can raise their wages by a smaller level instead of no increase if that makes sense to do so.

Also, you can look to increasing employee loyalty by analysing what positive factors motivate their productivity and find out from them what things can be done that would enhance their productivity or at least entice them to work harder. If the measures are cost-effective, employing those measures makes sense. Perhaps in doing so, you might reduce your production cost by some margin that prevents you from having to raise your prices or maybe at least not raise them as much. Sometimes, these cost saving measures may only add up to a small amount. But cumulatively, multiple incentivizing measures combined with some of the other various steps suggested further above can make an otherwise difficult battle over cost vs. sales and keeping satisfied customers becomes an easier and more prosperous eventuality.

All of these ideas represent taking some time and getting more involved in every step of your production. This is a perfect example of where working a little bit harder can actually fight against the big banks' notions of inflation. When the people that make up the economy take it upon themselves to counter the inflationary tendencies, the market will react to keep the economy on a more even keel. Everybody benefits!

Finally, there is one additional benefit from all these things that you can do. And that is the promotional factor. By implementing some of these steps, you can advertise to your customers how you care about the economy and how you care about their pocketbooks. You can promote yourself as a responsible business owner that is working hard to help keep your employees in a living wage and how you work to maintain your customers access to quality products at fair prices. By doing good for your customers and for your workers, you can also do good for yourself. And you can make a name for yourself as one who really cares. And that is one of the best ways to improve customer loyalty...a business owner that cares and puts words to action to prove it.

Khantix wrote:

There is no rule that forbids criticize the whole system and suggesting good changes in it.

Actually, there are some very specific rules against speaking ill of Bytro, the staff, the games that Bytro produces, their systems, other users, and the premium content including [especially] gold. So, you can't speak negatively about gold usage in the forum or chats, etc. If you want to trash talk something that is prohibited, why would you want to do it here, anyway? This is a Bytro site on a Bytro server. It's their right to establish rules like this. So long as Bytro doesn't change it's national location to a nation with more strenuous free-speech laws (i.e., USA), they can shut down whatever content they don't like. That's their right and, frankly, they deserve that right.

The link to the rule is available in;
Chat Rules

Now, the ruleset for chats and forum are slightly different, though for this part, they are not supposed to be (they were just re-written from scratch, presumably). The content of the more-applicable rules are (from the staff post):

Pathos wrote:

Denunciation of the game operators/the game

Posts which speak ill of Bytro Labs, its staff (professional and volunteer) or the game or that could deter new players are strictly prohibited in the chat channels as is the agitation against features of the game, especially to Gold, High Command and their users is strictly prohibited.

I Patton · Sep 14th 2017, 2:50am

VorlonFCW wrote:

Diabolical wrote:

They have to raise the price even more because of a reactionary minimum wage increase

That is happening to me now. I have a farm and over 40% of my expenses are labor. So with the local minimum wage increasing from the steady $8 per hour to $12 per hour at $1 per year that is a significant increase in my cost of doing business.
So for every $10 box of produce I had $4 in labor and $5 in other costs, such as fuel, refrigeration, trucking, utilities, insurance, packaging, repairs, etc.

Of course good workers are worth more than minimum wage, so I can't leave them at $10 to $12 per hour while the minimum wage for inexperienced goof offs climbs to that rate, which means an across the board increase in wages.

So this year I have $5 labor and $5 other expenses in that box of produce. In two years I will have $6 labor and $5 other expenses in that box of produce, providing no other expenses increase in price. So I have raised the price I charge, and will do so every year. I can't afford to sell $11 worth of stuff for $10. So I will sell less for the next few years. I have to believe that selling some at a slight profit is better than selling a lot at a loss.

- My paternal grandparents were the last generation of farmers [edit: in my family] (in the U.S.) so I am awed by those that can make a living at it without going crazy watching out for what Mother Nature might do.

- I've learned, if one wraps (ie.) a Red Delicious apple in tissue paper yuppies (in NYC) will pay USD $2.50 for it (depending on how fancy the tissue paper is). A tag with "For Teacher" in calligraphy will fetch a bit more. I'm partial to cauliflower or broccoli but no one has wrapped one in tissue paper for me.

I Patton · Sep 14th 2017, 4:13am

BenjB wrote:

Hello and welcome to CoW. I am glad you like the game so far.

Thank you for your comments.

Actually, I would not make myself feel bad for other players leaving. There have been many discussions of Gold and if it should be used, why it exists and I don´t know what else.

First of all, you can play the game, with or without gold. The choice is yours. However, if you decide to play without gold, you do not get any significant disadvantage. Yes, things may take a bit longer than normally and you might not have the option to do premium espionage, but from my experience - and I am a gold player too - the usage of gold does not make up for the lack of strategy and tactical planning. You can beat a gold player, if you use the right tactics and plan your actions carefully. It is more difficult, than beating a normal player, but it can be done. Besides, that the amount of gold used usually limits itself. Players like you and me are fine spending some money freely on the game. However, I would think twice if I am going to use 100 USD, just to get an advantage that lasts only until the map is done. Because in the end, once the map is done, all the gold spend is gone. If you spend a lot of gold the map is done faster...

I know that many people oppose the use of gold and feel it unfair. Still that should not stop you from using it. It is a main part of the game and we all know, there is no such thing as a free game. If you download an app in the app store, you either pay for it or it is free, but to get any further, you need to spend money or have to wait. It is pretty much the same. The Developers do have costs to run the game. Be it for server or staff, lincences, etc. Those need to be covered.

You will probably find a lot of people here, that will tell you using gold is bad, but you will also find a lot of players - non gold users - who see it as a challange. Others than again use gold themselves. I think it is also a matter of time. Speeding up a production or raise moral, because you don't have time to be online all day, that is what most people spend their gold on. Barely anyone uses excessive amounts of gold, to build a huge army, etc. and even such an army - if not used wisely - can be beaten.

Besides, it is a known problem, that people leave the map after a couple of days and start a new one or join a different game. There have been forum discussions about that as well. So I would see that more as a general problem, nothing that is possibly your fault. So I recommend you relax and enjoy the game. Use the map to practive and feel free to join any other games. As I said, you will find that there are players who enjoy the challange to play against a gold player or maybe you find some players, who use gold also. The forums can be a great place to look for people to play with!

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.

There are many games that require money to play beyond a certain point or to have any chance of winning...ever. CoW is so far from being like that that I have to believe gold is being scapgoated for something else.

Khantix · Sep 14th 2017, 9:40am

I Patton wrote:

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 remember discussions from Supremacy 1914 years ago.
Being old - does not mean the problem is non-existent or solved. As you surely know, developers did not change the situation, so it's still the same.

As for "not seeing problem" - there are many people who do not see any problems ever. But the problem exists beside from being seen by some and not being seen by others.

If that would be no problem - developers would long ago go with popular demand and grant free-from-gold matches. They did not make it, in any of their games. You may ask yourself: why? Even for a trial in small range?

Look at current upgrade: they grant everybody possibility to create one game a month if above level 11. Could they grant everybody possibility to create one game a month if above level 11 with special setting "free-from-gold" match?
Yes, they could, they can do it, but still not doing it.
Problem, baby, exists.

I write here to attract game administrators /moderators /etc. to cause them to present my solution to developers / management - people responsible for making decisions. Forum is just the right thing to make petitions and forum administrators are our middle-men to developers. Am I right?

I Patton · Sep 14th 2017, 3:18pm

Khantix wrote:

I Patton wrote:

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 remember discussions from Supremacy 1914 years ago.Being old - does not mean the problem is non-existent or solved. As you surely know, developers did not change the situation, so it's still the same.

As for "not seeing problem" - there are many people who do not see any problems ever. But the problem exists beside from being seen by some and not being seen by others.

If that would be no problem - developers would long ago go with popular demand and grant free-from-gold matches. They did not make it, in any of their games. You may ask yourself: why? Even for a trial in small range?

Look at current upgrade: they grant everybody possibility to create one game a month if above level 11. Could they grant everybody possibility to create one game a month if above level 11 with special setting "free-from-gold" match?
Yes, they could, they can do it, but still not doing it.
Problem, baby, exists.

I write here to attract game administrators /moderators /etc. to cause them to present my solution to developers / management - people responsible for making decisions. Forum is just the right thing to make petitions and forum administrators are our middle-men to developers. Am I right?

Are you right? Probably not as much as you seem to think.

You seem to quote me a fair amount so I've been noticing certain posts. They seem consistent in that they insult the person you quote by stating some logical fallacy (usually an 'ad hominem' or 'tu quoque'). That, right there, lessens the legitimacy of your argument and would tend to give one the impression of a toddler having a conniption. I'm sure that's not the impression you wish to give. Being overly respectful and considerate goes a long way toward gaining support for an argument.

The other thing I tend to notice is a lack of familiarity with the landscape of the issue. When one makes an argument, getting things correct is important if one wants to come across as well-informed and understanding of the situation. For example, Game Administrators are players with no connection to developers or Bytro management. Moderators are not charged with anything other than enforcing the ToS and help players play the game. The "etc." you mention seems to indicate you don't know the structure of CoW staff and just want to include 'everyone else you don't know of'.

Being well informed allows one to make a compelling case that is more likely to be well-received. It's also relevant if the person making the argument is one with obvious experience with the issue; this can be shown by your CoW registration date, the number of games you've won, and anecdotes about the games you've (unfairly) won because of gold use.

CoW is a business venture; not a public entitlement. If one is going to make an argument that impacts the business one should make it in such a way that it clearly helps the business. You've yet to explain how your concern can increase revenue for Bytro. Focus on that and, I'm sure, you'll get the attention you want. If you think this is an important issue, deserving of immediate attention, a well-written snail mail, directly to the relevant person(s) at Bytro would be my choice. Being able to demonstrate you're a Stillfront stockholder wouldn't hurt as it would show your stake in CoW's revenue.

One suggestion: You should do what it takes to become a Board Member of something. It's really not that difficult. Once one has a "seat at the table", things quickly start to look a lot more complicated than they did previously. "Solutions" suddenly don't look so do-able or desirable. Such experience will put a lot of things into perspective.

Diabolical · Sep 15th 2017, 6:58am

I Patton wrote:

I'm partial to cauliflower or broccoli but no one has wrapped one in tissue paper for me.

Well, is broccoli tissue paper acceptable?

(EDIT) OH, I found one!

Display Spoiler

I Patton wrote:

One suggestion: You should do what it takes to become a Board Member of something. It's really not that difficult. Once one has a "seat at the table", things quickly start to look a lot more complicated than they did previously. "Solutions" suddenly don't look so do-able or desirable. Such experience will put a lot of things into perspective.

It seems like just about every feelgood movie about a big corporation embracing the plight of the little guy has to have a 'one board member stands up and puts everything into perspective with simple terms' moment in which that board member helps the others to remember the good old days when they were all young and idealistic....how they can make their community seem so much better if they would only just sacrifice a little bit of 'the way things are just done' and embrace that board member's idealism in whatever project or "solution" they propose.

Such heartwarming moments make for good drama, but unfortunately, not enough people in all aspects of life ever really want to step out on a limb. And, truthfully, a lot of self-generated ideas about how to change the world are more vanity than anything else and only serve to embellish the image of the doer and not really help the recipient, whomever or whatever it is.

The only real effective way to help a person is to observe them, find out what they need (ask them if you must) and then offer them the real help they need. But, once in awhile, someone does come up with an awesome self-generated idea and it is a rare and beautiful thing when the people around that person actually do embrace and enact that idea.

On the other hand, having that "seat at the table" does, unfortunately, not motivate most folks to have that dramatic moment of inspiration and so, things, as usual, pretty much stay "as usual".

temmie1 · Oct 5th 2017, 2:09am

Rick_Glaze wrote:

TankBuster wrote:

I have played against people who i know are using gold, and let me tell you: gold means nothing against a decent strategic plan. Most people soon learn that once they've used up their gold, they end up being beaten back on all fronts.

Gold is in the game as a way for the Devs to (rightfully) make money, and for plays to 'fast track'- and trust me, when you start joining games with some of the people on this forum, people spending gold will be the least of your worries.

TL:DR- Gold means nothing against strategy, its not 'unfair'

I pretty much agree. Gold is not autowin by any stretch of the imagination. However, when you combine a keen strategic mind with an initial progress boost at the very beginning that can provide you with a conquered player country consequently doubling your start up resources...and then followed up with all troop reveals at key moments...it is sort of a big deal. But if someone is terrabad, and doesnt understand how to play this game very well, no amount of gold in the world will get them the win.

I agree somewhat, but once you start reaching your hundreds of dollars poured into a game, it is going to take a top-tier player to beat a gold-spender.

The gold you get at the start doesn't really mean anything, but if you're pouring millions of gold into a game, then you are going to win for the most part.

Cwalen · Oct 5th 2017, 12:10pm

If someone wants to pay $100, or even $10, to the developers, to beat this account like a rag doll, across one map.

I am all for it.

60K resources, is a great start, 600 seems excessive. Hell, put me on a list of the ones that want the people they beat to be upset, I can pretend.

temmie1 · Oct 5th 2017, 11:41pm

People do get angry at gold spenders though...

Diabolical · Oct 6th 2017, 7:05am

temmie1 wrote:

The gold you get at the start doesn't really mean anything, but if you're pouring millions of gold into a game, then you are going to win for the most part.

Lemme just say...."ouch". Millions would pretty much ruin my day.

temmie1 wrote:

People do get angry at gold spenders though...

Alas, they need to just learn to take it in stride. Let others spend their money. It just keeps the game free for the rest of us.

JCS Darragh · Oct 11th 2017, 8:33pm

Okay, yes, it is a free game to us. BUT! The fact of the matter is, even if you have a good strategy, you will lose. You can't do anything against a gold spender when that person is sending in hundreds of units every few hours. I said earlier in this thread that their should be a set amount of gold that a person should be able to spend every 24 hours, I'd say about 650 gold max per day so that you can't rush lots of units.

NovaTopaz · Oct 11th 2017, 8:42pm

JCS Darragh wrote:

Okay, yes, it is a free game to us. BUT! The fact of the matter is, even if you have a good strategy, you will lose. You can't do anything against a gold spender when that person is sending in hundreds of units every few hours. I said earlier in this thread that their should be a set amount of gold that a person should be able to spend every 24 hours, I'd say about 650 gold max per day so that you can't rush lots of units.

Umm..... looks at last sentence you realize that 850 gold is the MINIMUM amount of gold you can spend, right? Excluding when the time of production is below 12 hours, and then your just wasting gold... Because the calculation for the reduction drastically favors you spending a lot more per unit of time than when you just do the 850 per 12 hours reduction. Did you mean to say 850?

temmie1 · Oct 11th 2017, 10:28pm

I'd say simply this is a pay-to-win game. It's not really anything we can do without drastically changing the landscape of the game, not like gaming wise, but as a game company.

Diabolical · Oct 11th 2017, 11:20pm

JCS Darragh wrote:

Okay, yes, it is a free game to us. BUT! The fact of the matter is, even if you have a good strategy, you will lose. You can't do anything against a gold spender when that person is sending in hundreds of units every few hours. I said earlier in this thread that their should be a set amount of gold that a person should be able to spend every 24 hours, I'd say about 650 gold max per day so that you can't rush lots of units.

Ah, no, you won't always lose. And this is an interesting point. Because you are assuming that only Gold can win unless nobody spends Gold. But I've played many matches where a pretty good amount of Gold was spent by various players and they wind up canceling each other out or they are overwhelmed by so many other players who didn't spend Gold. And to assume that you can't beat a person that uses Gold is to discount your own potential.

I've beaten players that have spent thousands of Gold. Just because they had the Gold didn't meant they necessarily used it to it's best effect. And even if they did, a good strategy can make up for some Gold usage. Now, sure, if they are spending just tons and tons, you are likely going to get overwhelmed and pretty fast too. But Call of War, like all of Bytro's games, allows you to join many matches.

Case in point....me. I've joined a great many matches over the past couple years or so. And I've won some but I've lost a lot more than I've won. Sometimes, there would be a Gold "spammer" or even a multi-account violator who ruined a match for me and the others in that match. But most of the time, if I lost, it was usually due to bad choices, misjudged opponent's strategy, or just rotten luck and/or bad circumstances (i.e., surrounded by opponents who happen to be friends outside the game or I've had "real world" issues outside the game that got in the way of being online enough to be competitive). And quite often it was due to a combination of all three.

And I'm not ashamed to admit that many times I've simply just been bested by others who were better than me and even some who, due to the circumstances of the game, where I could normally and objectively say that I would usually beat them but that I just got outsmarted because that one (or few) time(s). This is because I'm not perfect. And who is? Nobody wins every time. Even the best international chess masters lose some of the time....and not always to other champions.

And you know what? That's life. This is a game. You gotta take the good with the bad. Sure, there are times when I want to pull my hair out and times also where I'd like to reach through the computer and pull a couple different people's heads off and shove them into the toilet. BUT (and this is important), no matter what happens in the game, it's still JUST a game and if you take it with a grain of salt, you can find that even losing can be fun, especially if you can get along with your fellow players...be they friend or foe.

temmie1 wrote:

I'd say simply this is a pay-to-win game. It's not really anything we can do without drastically changing the landscape of the game, not like gaming wise, but as a game company.

While I'd say look at my other response just above your quote, I would recommend you play some more matches...and don't spend any Gold! See what happens. Find someone who is doing pretty good. Ask them if they are using Gold. If so, move on. If not, ask them if they can help you to make it to the end of the match and to teach you how to play better.

Heck, if you find someone like that, you can learn a lot about this game from them and you'll slowly learn to appreciate it more and more and to realize that it is so much more than your somewhat crass definition of "pay to play". Truthfully, many new players would agree with you upfront...and many actually do. But that's the beauty of experience. Those of us who have been playing awhile are more likely to win. This doesn't mean you can't win until you are "experienced", but it does increase your odds.

So play the game. Have fun, use diplomacy, maybe use some Gold if it suits you. But try not to overthink the cynicism that you perceive from the company that makes this game or from the community that plays it. We are all a part of this community and we all want this game to be fun for everybody. And that's a part of what makes Call of War so great....this community actually does cooperate with each other pretty darn well and we all want the game to be successful so that it lasts a long time.

NovaTopaz · Oct 11th 2017, 11:37pm

Diabolical wrote:

Case in point....me. I've joined a great many matches over the past couple years or so. And I've won some but I've lost a lot more than I've won. Sometimes, there would be a Gold "spammer" or even a multi-account violator who ruined a match for me and the others in that match. But most of the time, if I lost, it was usually due to bad choices, misjudged opponent's strategy, or just rotten luck and/or bad circumstances (i.e., surrounded by opponents who happen to be friends outside the game or I've had "real world" issues outside the game that got in the way of being online enough to be competitive). And quite often it was due to a combination of all three.

The third point is pretty much why I've always end up quitting CoW for extended periods of time... My life(with school and everything else) is busy, and investing time into a game such as this, which usually saps all of your available free time trying to micromanage forces, production, and the like, just doesn't work for me. My attention drifts, I'm gone for a weekend, and before I know it a week has passed and all my stuff has gotten conquered by someone else. I first played before the Carrier was added, and was the most time I ever spent at one time, playing CoW. And also the only time I've won a match, I'm pretty sure. Had a private match with some online friends of mine, and my team won, and I got some gold from it. Got close on another at that time, but because I was gone for a whole weekend(2 days), I lost out and someone else won the match, with me coming in third(or second, I forget). And countless other matches I simply lost because I left them for a few days, and then decided to just leave without playing them out to conclusion. And have also done misplays, and other stuff like that. I don't think I've made it past day 20 on most games I've ever started to play, because of life getting in the way. But I've still had fun with this game, even with those problems.

Share