The role of Gold: a serious problem.

Gold has a Advantage in Call of War but its not fair a player has 500 units of Tanks near you border. There should be a Gold limit of 25,000 gold per game so that a Non-Gold user have a slight advantage and wouldn't just lose to a pocket. If i had 1,000,000 gold and versed the whole 5 player coalition with full players that are the best in the game. I would win so its a pay to win game indirectly. I agree there should be gold in the game but there should be a rule against excessive gold users like a limit of 25,000 gold a day.

Moderation - Edited out some gold bashing - K.Rokossovski.

What is even less fair is that players get to play for free while others put down hard earned cash to support the servers, pay for the development and other teams. Isn't that terrible?

Ok how about i put this into the final conclusion not supporting each side. Gold does make the game unbalanced but staff and moderators need to make money. People who play for free should expect people that are supporting the game to have a advantage

Free players that never put any money in the pockets of Bytro for development and maintenance should really stop complaining. Sorry, but it is plain silly and spoiled behaviour.

Besides that, the game is extremely well playable without gold, for which Bytro should be applauded.
Due to circumstance, I played 2 years without spending a penny ... and I did not drop a single point in the ranking (on the contrary: I rose in the ranks just as well).
If you cannot play well without gold, if you never managed to beat a moderate gold-player without using gold, well ... than you should spend more time on learning strategy, tactics and game mechanics, because you are simply not yet good enough as a player.

The rare instance, in which you meet an excessive gold-spammer who cannot be beat down by a coalition of good and motivated players, is actually ... very rare. Therefore it does not provide any good grounds to change the game, game rules, game mechanics or whatever.

When you never gave anything to Bytro, but Bytro still allows you to play for free - even with a fair chance to win and rewarding you with gold when you do well enough - than what reason to complain do you have, really?

Gold simply is a necessity to create income to develop the game and to maintain game and infrastructure.

However, thát there is gold in the game should NOT even be the issue.

The issue should be to productively discuss how we can have gold-free maps too (next to maps where gold is allowed).

Loyal players of the game - who support Bytro in the development of the game and maintenance of the infrastructure (personnel, offices, servers, legal frame work etc. and so forth) by regularly buying gold or High Command - have also expressed the wish for gold-free games!

Real players have the wish to measure their skills on a level playing field! That option should be provided.

That option should not even have to be free.
I have already described how to safely calculate an entry fee for such rounds, so that Bytro does not lose the much needed income.
Another option to limit the feared income loss is to limit the number of such rounds.

It is a fact that knowing you are in gold-free round provides a completely different game experience.
Currently I am in the Dutch server tournay, where gold use is forbidden. It is exciting to play on that map in a different way than when you know someone can and will use gold against you at any given moment, so forcing you to do the same (whether bought or saved up from winnings).

That tournay map is about applying skill in strategy, tactics, production, logistics & diplomacy!
That tournay map is how the game would be played in a perfect world without money.

But we do not live in a perfect world...
Gold is a necessary source of income, also for the benefit of the free players (no income, no game! that simple...)

However, dear Bytro devs and managers, in this imperfect world you can still create that perfect game experience!

I am sure that we - the paying and also the free but good enough players with some gold - are even willing to pay a bit for that experience.

MAKE IT HAPPEN! Please, please, please, pretty please

Roger that.

Pay 10 K gold at the door to keep out the gold spammers and plebeians?

I like it.

10,000 gold units is the equivalent of less than $5.00 (U.S.); that's very little, actually. I would think that the entry fee for a gold-free game should be at least double that, and perhaps more for the 50- and 100-player maps.

As a second option, I would be willing to pay $30 or more for a game where the entry fee bought the same amount of gold ---- say 50,000 gold units ---- for all players, and that gold could only be spent in that particular game, so that it would not only be a level playing field, but the winner would also be determined in part by who could spend their gold most effectively.

Bytro might be surprised to discover that many of their mid-range spenders would be willing to spend the equivalent of $20 or more to play gold-free games. Multiply that by 22, 25, 50 or 100, and the bean counters might just discover that the skinny cats would collectively out-spend the fat-cat big spenders. And the free games would still be available to all who wanted to play them, with no gold-spending limits.

I think that this idea has great potential. The bean counters in the office would have to set a number, that I think could be lower than the number you express. Perhaps 10,000 gold, times 50 or 100 players on a map would be sufficient to keep the lights on and server humming. And by all means the players would get to spend their entry fee in that game, or it would be forfeited.

10k gold is earned with 2 won games or 4x 2nd place on a mid sized map or .... well, the math is easy

Not that the fee should be seen as a deterrent, but good free-players can easily earn more than 10k in a few games; especially if they don't spend in-game. A higher fee should thus not be a problem.

The idea is that the gold-free maps also make money for Bytro and if the fee is 'too low', these maps wouldn't generate that income. This fee is nevertheless something the 'bean counters' should be able to determine.

Another advantage of having gold-free maps is that it might attract more new players who like this kind of games and are tired of spending to keep up in other games. IMHO it could be a big image builder for CoW.

Nevertheless, the gold-free maps may still be considered a risk by the 'bean counters'.

Therefore gold-free maps could (just some thoughts; not excluding anything; please add more ideas):
- be a gold option (= per game $$)
- be a gold option for HC only (= per game $$ + stimulate HC buying)
- be limited in number (I would be in favour of keeping them a bit rare, so they will really be a treat and thus valued)
- be only accessible from a certain rank (rewarding loyal players and stimulating new players to faster obtain that rank, which might cause them to spend for that)

So what you guys are basically saying is that, to have an enjoyable experience playing CoW you have to buy gold and to make games, you have to own gold. I just want to say, that we as the players give Bytro money from ads and whatnot, and to me, making games have an entrance fee and to make private/public games cost gold would eliminate a good majority of the player base. Besides, when you join a game, then you have no time for the next three days, come back and your country is almost gone, you have just wasted 10,000 (or more) gold.

If you purchase even a couple dollars worth of gold or high command you get rid of the ads.

I think you would get some value out of a high command subscription if you are away for days at a time. The build queue is invaluable in such cases.

I wouldn't drop an entry fee on a game that I was not able to closely monitor for the first 26 hours or so.

Vorlon, what are these "ads" of which you speak?

When I began playing 9 months ago I got the complimentary 30 days of high command. When that 30 days was up there was a banner ad popup on the right side of the screen. The ad switched between advertising other Bytro games, some non-Bytro games, and frequently displayed "make one purchase in the Bytro shop and remove this ad forever" or some similar wording.

That ad took up a portion of the screen, which was annoying, and was a data hog. I live in a rural area, so the download speed of the tin can and string is pretty slow. Of course knowing now that frequent cache clearing is a great improvement I expect I could have gained some speed then as well with that trick.

I am an artillery man, so I think I lasted about 10 days without high command before I needed my fire controls back, and I have not seen those ads again since purchasing high command the first time, even though it lapsed a time or two before renewing.

A few dollars here and there is quite worth it for this game.

Wait, there was a 30 days free of high command? I never got that, nor did I ever get the gold that I was promised. I will actually look into buying some high command myself now that you mention it, I am not the person to drop more than $30 on ingame purchases

I believe it was a fairly standard 30 day free high command offer. Provide email address and stand on one leg while reciting the alphabet backwards or something, and presto: free high command.

Clearly you were a bad pledge, Kosh.

That should read ". . . while reciting the Greek alphabet backwards . . . ."

Hm, I did register my email address but I guess it never sent?

I'm really upset. I'm in a coalition with three other people. Against 6 people. We are all in an alliance and our team play is very good. Situation: Two of the opponents use a lot of gold. We are superior etc .. but these people spam rockets, planes, repair units and destroy buildings. It sucks! No one has to tell me thatit's possible to win against such people.I don't call a win if I'm on #1 last day on the map. I call it a win, if I had fun. There are two of them. 6 vs 4. Haha. To make sure .. I have no problem losing. If I can say, "Good game, well done man!", I'm fine. "I surrender!" or "you got me". Time for a new game. But if I know that I'm better, I'm superior. My team is strong etc. We think about tactics, act together and are successful. And then some guy comes spamming units and destroying buildings? This is not a good game. That's bullshit. It's so frustrating when you know you're better and you would win .. and then your opponent uses no tactics but gold. Good job. You win because you bought the game! Is it fun? No! The game should be fun, but that's horrible. I do not want to hear anything about "Enter a new card that happens, do not cry." etc. Does that tell someone else. Like I said .. I can lose. No problem. But only to be defeated by gold annoys. Yes, I could look for a new map but I do not want to! I do not begrudge these players a victory. It is not a victory. It is crap. No wonder many players stop. It's not fair. This is the oldest topic and nothing happens. Yes, the game has to be funded and so far. OK. But is it so deadly to introduce a limit on gold per round? Come on. It's funny when gold players fight each other, but everything else is just a waste of time. Your opponent is inferior, has fewer units, bad tactics, and does not play well ... but he has gold. That's enough. And that's just not a game that I enjoy. I'm really thinking about stopping. I want to have fun. And I have that if I win or lose. But not if I am bought to death. The game is not my focus. It's the communication with my alliance. That's the only reason why I'm still playing. The game itself is just annoying now. Well done. Pisses me off. The better one wins. Not here. And please .. do not tell me how to beat gold players. It's not that easy if all airfields are destroyed, rockets are fired at trucks, and your opponent discovers your army every 20 minutes. Don't even start about it. I've finished. And I'm not a bad player .. check my profile or just do not do it. I don't care. Just my 2 cents..

Greetings

^ Agreed, I still think that a gold cap per day should be implemented in some way. Anyway, I don't think you guys are going to agree with that gold spending cap so i'm done posting in this thread (for a while) and you also don't seem to realize what we are saying when we are good players but we get spammed by little dudes reenacting the soviet invasion of Germany. Also, CoW gets a little predictable after a while (like most strategy games) so, I don't know what else to write. See y'all later!

I so much agree with xOrleans...

It pisses me off that so many people here consider that us the people who complain against the heavy gold users are not willing to pay to support this game.

I pay my HC subscription, which by the way is quite expensive for the technology at hands here, but I do so because I have had some really fun games.

It also happens that sometimes I buy some gold and use some. Wisely.

That's not the issue.

The issue is : you spend weeks on a map, patiently building your armies, conquering your ennemies, spying on the big last one you kept for the end, carefully spend some gold for a "reveal positions" (see, I do use gold), finally decide of the D-day, the right day at the right time because you studied his patterns, and....

In the morning he is spamming hundreds of units because you put him in a tight spot. You try to fight back, but to be frank there is NOTHING that can be done if the guy decide to burn his retirement savings into this game.

Geez, this is FRUSTRATING. And from what I read here and there, it does frustrate a shitload of PAYING customers.


What is even more frustrating is that there have been EXCELLENT suggestion made on this thread and other, easy to implement and that would satisfy everybody, and it seems they just don't care...