The role of Gold: a serious problem.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • SSS4902 wrote:

    Pablo22510 wrote:

    CzarHellios wrote:

    Have you seen a Gold player raise a army of over 500 some units in less than a couple of minutes, then a few hundred rockets?
    If that is intended for me, it was day 2 and he had around 20 LTs, so it was a pretty big army for day 2. He also had some infantry.
    I had someone with over 80 light tanks on day one
    Whoa, gold user.
    The past is a foreign country.

  • I agree, there should be controls on gold usage to prevent extreme and outrageous gold use. For instance, right now I'm in a Homefront game as East Mexico and I'm currently fighting North Quebec. My ally used gold to reveal his armies and told me to attack his territory in the South since it was relatively unprotected, so I moved in for a surprise attack, but within an hour to my attack , North Quebec has 30 units there! In just a few minutes, he had built what was equivalent to a third of my army and had taken me days to produce. To balance things out, there should be either a limit to how much gold you can use in certain amount of time or instead of speeding production, gold would instead accelerate the rate of production so players can't build massive armies in very short amounts of time.

  • Well, I would like to disagree, I've been playing CoW for about two years now, and I kinda knew what I was doing (strategy wise) when I first started playing. I use a school laptop to play CoW, and I usually set up large servers (the 50+ maps, or just the really large ones) and there is always that one rich kid who has money to burn, so he has A LOT of gold. The rich kid has no idea about strategy, and I do though, I usually play as Spain, so I set up a few divisions along my border (a mix of militia, infantry and armored cars) so that I could attempt to hold back France. So, I organize my friends together after a few days (this coalition consisted of Germany, Italy, and the UK) to attack France so we could all split it up. We launch Operation: Baguette, a few days in we are successful, then all of a sudden, a horde of French Tanks and Infantry destroy our divisions, we try to out smart this kid, but to no avail, so then we go on the defensive, but this kid is just throwing troops at us constantly, not evening caring about the fact we have the superior defense! The Point: The rich kids can afford to throw troops at you constantly, and you may have superior knowledge and a coalition, but that cannot beat money.
    "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

  • 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 by selling more subscriptions instead direct gold selling.


    And the game would be more fair. :saint:

    PS: Using gold in game does NOT mean creating huge armies. It means SPYING all day long and revealing ALL enemies armies every 12 or so hours. HUGE, I mean huge advantage (YES, I use it). You can't win against wise gold user with spying inclination.

    Ps2: Edited. Another way of using gold with big advantage is instant research. You can literally out-research enemies. Those proud warriors talking about brilliant tactics vs. gold users must met really simple minded gold users (only building armies with gold). But when you meet on day 2 all those level 5 tanks / infantry and airplanes you WILL realize there is really no winning strategy against wise gold user (other than using gold yourselves).
    Better to be servant in heaven than a monarch in hell
    ... besides there is already monarch in hell and he will not tolerate usurpers.
    :saint:

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Khantix ().

  • No, I think gold use should be at a cap, like the story I was talking about, this kid had been able to produce several HUNDRED infantry divisions in a few minutes to push us out of his country and go on the offensive against us.
    "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"

  • JCS Darragh wrote:

    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 (trade mark)
    Better to be servant in heaven than a monarch in hell
    ... besides there is already monarch in hell and he will not tolerate usurpers.
    :saint:

  • In the official rules, gold is fair game for anyone to use. That's just the downside of capitalism, I'm afraid. However, most organized games have rules against gold use, and many players despise "Goldies" (what I'm calling gold users from now on) to the point that they will actively witch hunt anyone using, even by accident.
    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.

  • king meatster wrote:

    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: GOLD must be in game. That is how developers earn money for "free to play" game.
    So there will always be people using gold (paying money for this game) and thanks to them there is "free" to play game for others.

    The second rule: customers (gold users and common folks) should be happy playing game, otherwise they leave and find something more enjoyable.

    GOLD IS A PROBLEM here exclusively because how it is implemented. It can be changed without any changes in game rules/ terms / mechanics and all will be happy.

    I am pretty sure, if subscription (High Command) would benefit its buyer with possibility to play non-gold matches - there will be more subscribers. In conclusion: developers will earn their money by subscriptions, not by selling gold directly and players will be more happy (as a player I would be).

    Dramos wrote:

    how have the admins not shut this down yet

    There is no reason to do so. There were many other gold threads and were not shot down.
    I am pretty sure developers will be glad to hear player's feedback and that is what I do here.

    There was other gold thread with that suggestion in.

    What I was thinking is there should be clear distinction between free users and HC users (subscribers).
    As subscriber I would expect to be able to create non-gold game: as I have ALREADY PAID for it.
    As free user, there could be possibility to take part in non-gold game just for example and encouragement to buy subscriptions.
    And if non-gold match would be an option, there would still be tons of standard gold matches, some people loves playing.
    Better to be servant in heaven than a monarch in hell
    ... besides there is already monarch in hell and he will not tolerate usurpers.
    :saint:

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Khantix ().

  • Dramos wrote:

    how have the admins not shut this down yet
    Because we just filter out the rule breaks and let the thread keep going. I have no desire to close threads that follow the rules. Also, enough of the other forum contributors already understand economics, and the fact that all of the paid Bytro staff (like the developers) as well as the servers need to get paid from elsewhere. It's actually been stated here by normal players already :)
    Free Time looks good on me

  • Khantix wrote:


    Ps2: Edited. Another way of using gold with big advantage is instant research. You can literally out-research enemies. Those proud warriors talking about brilliant tactics vs. gold users must met really simple minded gold users (only building armies with gold). But when you meet on day 2 all those level 5 tanks / infantry and airplanes you WILL realize there is really no winning strategy against wise gold user (other than using gold yourselves).
    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.

  • freezy wrote:

    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
    infantry lvl 5
    mot inf lvl 4
    mech inf lvl 3
    medium tank lvl 3
    and so on

    AFAIR I could start researching all that stuff from day 1 on "H" maps.

    Game: 2085958
    Better to be servant in heaven than a monarch in hell
    ... besides there is already monarch in hell and he will not tolerate usurpers.
    :saint:

  • 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 read about a suggestion of paying gold to have a non gold game, and there are players out there who would support that.

    As for me, I spend a little periodically to support the game, but prefer a game without its usage.
    "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

    "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

  • With respect to using Gold: I use it when I'm in trouble. Wake up in the morning or after a long trip, sign on and your being attacked. Some of my favorite games are with another enemy gold user. Granted after about 2 nights or more of not getting any sleep and slinging rockets/nukes like they are candy can wear you down. Generally....the bitterness, hate, and general wanting to kill your enemy and using every resource you can to crush him is what war is all about. That said...when he fights back with everything he has it usually results in a respect, admiration and eventually a new ally. Would love "Gold Games". At least these are the more serious players (in my opinion) and have a little backbone and will burn some money to keep the fun going.