Announcement New Feature: Scenario Rotation

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

    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      To keep players motivated after their first match is over, it is awfully important there is something they can build up over time - something that remains after the current match. If you each time start from 0 after a match is finished, that's very demotivating. You need something you can look back to, something you can be proud of, something you can show to your friends. This something is your player profile. Therefore it is very important the stats and achievements show how good a player is. Which they currently - as you correctly said - do in a very imprecise and blurry way. The part of my proposal that's about the historic world map is one step to improve that.

      Another step has already been taken by this update, because now maps fill up more reliably. So now it's more difficult to join a map with the hope it doesn't fill completely (and to win more easily, because less players means less competition). My proposal of more "starts when full" maps would even completely remove this nasty option - then there would be the same degree of competition in each game of the respective scenario.

      People's appetite to collect something precious is a very strong incitement. What do you want to collect in CoW?
      Ranking points? That's utterly boring, even the last dumbass gets many ranking points over time just by playing a lot.
      Blueprints? No, that's a side-aspect of the game. Playing just to collect blueprints? No.
      I tell you collecting victories would be THE THING. And for that it's mandatory you cannot tweak your chance to win by being the first on the map, by joining a game that won't fill up completely, or where you can grab the privilege to pick the mightiest nation from a historic map. That's why I'm suggesting more "starts when full" maps. That would not only allow the variety of scenarios to be widened again, but also make a victory meaningful.


      eruth wrote:

      the whole point of this update was to decrease inactivity
      No. How do you think it reduced inactivity? It helped to make games fill up better, but that's it.
      As nemuritor said, I didn't say the update reduced inactivity; I said the point was to reduce inactivity.
      I, and I imagine a lot of other players, play to have fun. I think it's would be better of Bytro to keep their old customers happy by keeping a fun game (where I can choose my country and have minimal inactivity) than try to draw in new people who only care about the game because they want to collect the shinys. It doesn't matter to me how many new players join if none of them remain active becasue they got the wrong country.
    • eruth wrote:

      As nemuritor said, I didn't say the update reduced inactivity; I said the point was to reduce inactivity.
      I, and I imagine a lot of other players, play to have fun. I think it's would be better of Bytro to keep their old customers happy by keeping a fun game (where I can choose my country and have minimal inactivity) than try to draw in new people who only care about the game because they want to collect the shinys. It doesn't matter to me how many new players join if none of them remain active becasue they got the wrong country.
      You should check Steam reviews, plenty of fun there.

      Even if it's not from Bytro itself, they are part of the same group and they worked together creating the Conflict of Nations: World War III game.

      Taking in count the year Bytro joined Stillfront Group, November 2013 and when they ceased almost all official competitive activities such as tournaments, leagues and similar things, that being late 2015, when they made an Alliance League in S1914, which was really fun but due to bugs in the gameplay(which ain't solved yet) and bad concepts regarding the Warchest(Alliance Goldmarks) it didn't end really well, it's been almost 4 years since then and they haven't showed a single intention towards keeping older players around, plus the recent updates that makes the game even faster, something that it's only requested by those that join the game today and leaves tomorrow, well, I'm somehow afraid that even if Bytro would be a bit more polite, it'd be a similar answer.



      Note: the alliance league they made in late 2015 included an option for alliances to have gold-free rounds by paying 5.000 for each member that was going to play the map, that means that a 5v5 would cost 25.000 Goldmarks to each alliance if they wanted a gold-free round. The members of each alliance was able to donate bought gold, not the one you get by achievements or winning rounds, to the alliance warchest, so the alliance could use that gold for more things such as increasing the limit of members, which with this update they made in mid-2015, they changed the limit members from 50(original) to 5, and you could buy 2 slots with blueprints(which is another story), but then the rest, up to 40, was with gold and the price raised every time you buy an update for your alliance. You could also buy maps with gold, to play with other alliances and boosts for experience and something else that I don't recall, the concept was good, but as always, the execution failed.

      PS: I guess the developer from Dorado Games doesn't know about Europa Universalis 4, a game that you can buy the basic for 20$ but due to their updates, DLC's and such, the complete game is worth over 1000$.

      PS2: It's also much easier to deal with the so called "fresh blood" than with the "old group of experts", here's a comparative chart from a simple-minded business perspective.

      "Fresh blood""Old group of experts"
      There's a chance they'll pay for the game as they are new here.If they been playing the game for a while and they haven't spent any cent on it yet, they'll probably never do.
      They won't know about our past mistakes.They remember our past mistakes.
      They don't about bugs and probably will think that's how the game works.They complain about bugs because they know that's not how the game works.
      They'll probably have a more positive mindset towards the company's updates because they haven't been around that much.They are probably pissed off.


      I could probably add more but I think the point is clear.

      PS3: the part with "we have over a million registered users" just makes me laugh over and over.
      Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

      Manual: Básico y Machiavelli

      The post was edited 7 times, last by nemuritor98 ().

    • I believe the answer to the drop out rate may be a fast replacement rate.

      In day one if you do not move within 6 hours of a country assignment you are kicked out and another player put in the spot.

      If you make a move in Day one and then do not move in Day 2, you are kicked out and a new player put in at the start of day 3.

      Then rather than having the Admin player replace people, which by the way I have never seen done, allow for the inactive players over a certain size be automatically replaced by another player.
    • nemuritor98 wrote:

      eruth wrote:

      As nemuritor said, I didn't say the update reduced inactivity; I said the point was to reduce inactivity.
      I, and I imagine a lot of other players, play to have fun. I think it's would be better of Bytro to keep their old customers happy by keeping a fun game (where I can choose my country and have minimal inactivity) than try to draw in new people who only care about the game because they want to collect the shinys. It doesn't matter to me how many new players join if none of them remain active becasue they got the wrong country.
      You should check Steam reviews, plenty of fun there.
      Even if it's not from Bytro itself, they are part of the same group and they worked together creating the Conflict of Nations: World War III game.

      Taking in count the year Bytro joined Stillfront Group, November 2013 and when they ceased almost all official competitive activities such as tournaments, leagues and similar things, that being late 2015, when they made an Alliance League in S1914, which was really fun but due to bugs in the gameplay(which ain't solved yet) and bad concepts regarding the Warchest(Alliance Goldmarks) it didn't end really well, it's been almost 4 years since then and they haven't showed a single intention towards keeping older players around, plus the recent updates that makes the game even faster, something that it's only requested by those that join the game today and leaves tomorrow, well, I'm somehow afraid that even if Bytro would be a bit more polite, it'd be a similar answer.



      Note: the alliance league they made in late 2015 included an option for alliances to have gold-free rounds by paying 5.000 for each member that was going to play the map, that means that a 5v5 would cost 25.000 Goldmarks to each alliance if they wanted a gold-free round. The members of each alliance was able to donate bought gold, not the one you get by achievements or winning rounds, to the alliance warchest, so the alliance could use that gold for more things such as increasing the limit of members, which with this update they made in mid-2015, they changed the limit members from 50(original) to 5, and you could buy 2 slots with blueprints(which is another story), but then the rest, up to 40, was with gold and the price raised every time you buy an update for your alliance. You could also buy maps with gold, to play with other alliances and boosts for experience and something else that I don't recall, the concept was good, but as always, the execution failed.

      PD: I guess the developer from Dorado Games doesn't know about Europa Universalis 4, a game that you can buy the basic for 20$ but due to their updates, DLC's and such, the complete game is worth over 1000$.

      PD2: It's also much easier to deal with the so called "fresh blood" than with the "old group of experts", here's a comparative chart from a simple-minded business perspective.

      "Fresh blood""Old group of experts"
      There's a chance they'll pay for the game as they are new here.If they been playing the game for a while and they haven't spent any cent on it yet, they'll probably never do.
      They won't know about our past mistakes.They remember our past mistakes.
      They don't about bugs and probably will think that's how the game works.They complain about bugs because they know that's not how the game works.
      They'll probably have a more positive mindset towards the company's updates because they haven't been around that much.They are probably pissed off.


      I could probably add more but I think the point is clear.

      PD3: the part with "we have over a million registered users" just makes me laugh over and over.
      just a little note out of the argument (which i agree with)dude..... its PS(post scritum) if you add something after the writing no idea where PD comes from :thumbup:
      You merely adopted the shitposting. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see a proper post until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding!
    • EZ Dolittle wrote:

      I believe the answer to the drop out rate may be a fast replacement rate.

      In day one if you do not move within 6 hours of a country assignment you are kicked out and another player put in the spot.

      If you make a move in Day one and then do not move in Day 2, you are kicked out and a new player put in at the start of day 3.

      Then rather than having the Admin player replace people, which by the way I have never seen done, allow for the inactive players over a certain size be automatically replaced by another player.

      ive never seen a resign when there are 3 or less players. its one of those things you either learn on the forum or if someone tells you, plus if im right only on the 22 maps its possible, 50-100 you cant :whistling:
      You merely adopted the shitposting. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see a proper post until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding!
    • EZ Dolittle wrote:

      I believe the answer to the drop out rate may be a fast replacement rate.

      In day one if you do not move within 6 hours of a country assignment you are kicked out and another player put in the spot.

      If you make a move in Day one and then do not move in Day 2, you are kicked out and a new player put in at the start of day 3.

      Then rather than having the Admin player replace people, which by the way I have never seen done, allow for the inactive players over a certain size be automatically replaced by another player
      Sorry but I seriously doubt that you will find many players willing to get massacred by entering a game in Day 3 or 4, knowing they have probably lost completely the critical first 2 days - you will simply enter in a country with nothing built, no troops created or even grouped, no research done, while the others have developed. I for one am not such a masochist to ever even consider that, and I think I am not alone. I consider even the option of replacing a player a complete nonsense, UNLESS it is a team game (where, again, you need a masochist to volunteer).

      Judging from what I saw in my last games, there is a vast majority of new players who think that they can play this game through their mobile by just logging in for 1 hour every day. Unfortunately (for them) this will never work if they happen to encounter an experienced player in their map, so they get disappointed and drop out, especially since they cannot even enjoy a single battle (it becomes a massacre). Unless this is solved, the maps will be extremely boring.
    • atreas1 wrote:

      EZ Dolittle wrote:

      Sorry but I seriously doubt that you will find many players willing to get massacred by entering a game in Day 3 or 4, knowing they have probably lost completely the critical first 2 days - you will simply enter in a country with nothing built, no troops created or even grouped, no research done, while the others have developed. I for one am not such a masochist to ever even consider that, and I think I am not alone. I consider even the option of replacing a player a complete nonsense, UNLESS it is a team game (where, again, you need a masochist to volunteer).

      Actually, I find this to be the biggest challenge of the game. If a game needs one more player to start, I will join it just to get it started. If I find a game two to three days old and still needing players, I will join those too; just to see if I can 'save' it from extinction. Sure, this will skew my stats, but I don't care about stats. Actually, the mediocre stats makes my opponents think I am weaker than I am. I have joined games as late as day 8. All I ask is give me a peace period (1-2 days) and let me get my countries' affairs in order.