New Changes are BAD(Beta)

  • freezy wrote:

    With this change [disallow trade with players outside your team/coalition] we can predict better which resources a player has available, which helps with our balancing efforts.
    Have you ever seen this from player perspective? Not only the game designer can predict better which resources a player has available. Also the players themselves can predict much better which resources they have available during that game - from beginning to the end. So they also know from the beginning on which units they're going to research. Boredom is pre-programmed - no more strategic decisions and no more fun of choosing the right unit for your current situation. And I don't really see how this shall help with balancing efforts, but even if it does: What's the use of a good balancing if the distribution of resources in your core provinces dictates your unit choice anyway?
    Also if you want to know what units your enemy is going to come up with: Just look at what resources his core provinces have and you have the answer. So there's less surprises in the game, less thinking, less espionage... less excitement.

    Secondly it's always been nice to look for players to trade with all over the map. This change is killing at least half the trade part - trading on the market is not always an alternative: If you need a resource it often is NOT a good idea to place a buy order at a higher price than the so far highest bid. Because then it's probable somebody else places an even higher one and in that case all you've achieved is raising the market value of that resource (which lowers your options to buy it in the future). Also with the 10% tax, there will be even less activity on the market... you now already sometimes have to wait for days or even weeks to buy a resource there - almost no matter how much money you want to pay for it.
    What's worse it's also killing the diplomacy part, by making alliances without coalition or playing alone impossible options. I.e. by forcing everyone to play in coalitions.
    So all in all it's taking all cleverness, all wits out of the game. Dumbs it down to a mere click-orgy. Just build and battle; be online more often, do more clicks or pay more money and you'll win. No need to think. No free space where you might use your grey matter. Perhaps CoW should be renamed from strategy game to no-brain-clicking-game, same genre as Candy Crush.

    Sure, if you remove all features, you've closed all loopholes. But that doesn't mean removing features is good. Trade and diplomacy are absolutely essential features. You have to keep them alive!!
  • I have a better proposal: Remove the 10% tax from the market again and make trade of resources allowed amongst all players again... but give it a limit so one nation can only receive 10000 resources more from another nation than it gave to that nation (with rares counting as *2 and money counting as *0.2). Admittedly, multi-accounters could then still swap precious resources against less worthy resources from their dummy account to their main account, but at least no longer get all resources from their dummy nation for free.
  • Hans A. Pils wrote:

    I have a better proposal: Remove the 10% tax from the market again and make trade of resources allowed amongst all players again... but give it a limit so one nation can only receive 10000 resources more from another nation than it gave to that nation (with rares counting as *2 and money counting as *0.2). Admittedly, multi-accounters could then still swap precious resources against less worthy resources from their dummy account to their main account, but at least no longer get all resources from their dummy nation for free.
    In coalition games, it is not uncommon that one of the members does most of the fighting while the others are supporting this member in a ratio much exceeding the 10K. This is true whether the coalition is official or unofficial (yet undeclared).

    I fully understand why Bytro is so eager to combat multi-accounting (it is a way to win games without them having any profit), but fail to see how you can expect to combat it with such a measure. I completely am in favor of the stop of all other trades between players (especially the trade of units, given the problem with SBDE stacks with units of different levels) but I simply don't believe that the market tax is really intended to battle multi-accounting. The annoyance to normal players is so much bigger that it should really be reconsidered asap. Simply keep a record, per player, with the amounts of trade he receives and you will very soon see the "alarming" accounts.
  • atreas1 wrote:

    In coalition games, it is not uncommon that one of the members does most of the fighting while the others are supporting this member in a ratio much exceeding the 10K.
    True that this is done sometimes. But I wouldn't miss it much, if that option would be gone. At least would be a tiny loss compared to the mutilation of trade as it's planned in this update.



    atreas1 wrote:

    I completely am in favor of the stop of all other trades between players (especially the trade of units, given the problem with SBDE stacks with units of different levels)
    I can also accept removal of trading units. But not removal of trading resources with players outside your coalition! That's a horrible perspective.



    atreas1 wrote:

    Simply keep a record, per player, with the amounts of trade he receives and you will very soon see the "alarming" accounts.
    Yeah, that's also a very good idea. I guess it should be enough to store somewhere in the DB for each player the amount of resources received and the amount of resources given away. If you want to make it more precise, multiply it with the current market value of the resource (i.e. the last prize that was paid for it on the market) before updating the numbers after a trade was done. Then a simple query gives you the suspicious accounts.
    And if you don't make it public you store that data, I bet all multi-accounters will go into that trap :thumbsup: .
  • The reason to play THIS game (and not a ton of others like it) is its DEPTH and the CHALLENGE of mastering its many aspects to sway odds in your favor.
    Bytro made a name for itself by providing games with that little extra 'educational touch' and especially also with the fairness of its games (yes HC and Gold provide advantages, but buying victory is not cheap and the advantages can be countered by less privileged players with skill and good cooperation).

    With the recent changes, however, several features which provide DEPTH to the game and increase the CHALLENGE have been killed.

    One of the arguments to push these changes through, is that it will work against the cheaters, multies, stock and cash hiders etc.
    In fact what you are saying is: let us impose game-ruining changes on ALL players, because there is a small percentage of players who use some loopholes. Lets restrict the masses, to stop a few...
    It is like allowing the government to be listening to all telephone conversations in the country, because maybe they will find a wrong-doer.
    It is like defending democracy with totalitarian means... a superb contradiction!

    Quite a few of the recent changes are quite BAD:

    - Diplomacy has always been a much underestimated weapon, but a very useful one. Now, with the changes, it is becoming an obsolete feature. If you want to kill it, than just completely remove it! I suggest however, to NOT LIMIT the feature, but to EXPAND it even more! Thát would enrich the game, the experience & the realism!

    Weapons trade is real.
    As is sending troops or weapons to a neighbor, while you are not in his conflict itself. (Syria? No, that is a bad example, where we dropped the weapons in the hands of ISIS)
    Economically assisting a neighbor in his fight against a (future) enemy is also real. (happens every day)
    Betraying allies is also real. (Sarkozy bombed Ghadaffi, who paid for his election)
    Back-stabbing is real. (learn from it; don't moan about it; Sarkozy fits here too)

    In short.... Bring back those features of diplomacy!!!

    - Market mark-up... of 10%/ Really? So when one puts up and order, makes a mistake or rethink the offer, one loses 10%???
    Sorry, but that is plain silly...
    A mark up in itself is not unrealistic, but nowhere in RL it is 10%. Commissions (because that is what it is) in RL rarely exceed 3-5%. Make it realistic or don't do it.

    - HC fire commands ... just undo the changes. Simply revert them. It needs no testing or work. Simply UNDO what you did. It was working fine! There were no problems. Why did you change them at all?


    But not all changes are bad though!

    - Elite AI for all is nice for those who will successfully cope with it. I like it; but some people won't.
    It somehow doesn't fit with the argument that the mediocre players are being helped with the multitude of changes....

    - Spy gold-cost increase is simply a good change. Bought victories should be expensive.


    However, dear Devs, when you change things just do not limit the game experience! Conversely, you should try to further enrich the game and only with thát you will enrich the game experience.
    The more options there are, the more ways different kinds of players of different skill levels can find a way to survive or even win!
    Limiting options, however, is counter productive in every aspect!

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

  • New

    Hans A. Pils wrote:

    I can also accept removal of trading units. But not removal of trading resources with players outside your coalition! That's a horrible perspective.
    I agree 100% with Hans on this one ... This silly change would be the equivalent in real life of telling NATO allies that they could not trade resources outside that coalition ... Thus, any NATO ally would not be able to trade resources with countries like China, India, Russia, Japan, and Brazil! ... ?(
  • New

    Sending/Trading units is realism before, after and during WW2
    - Condor Legion (Germany in Spain)
    - International 'volunteer'-brigades (US in China, International Brigades in Spain & Finland etc)
    - Land Lease program (equipment to Russia by the US and UK)
    - US/CIA support to Mudjahedeen in Afghanistan vs the Russians ('accidentally' creating Al Qaida and Taliban and what else)

    et cetera and so forth...

    Let's not forget Syria recently, where 'we' (the West) even send weapons to so called rebels in Syria, which turned out to be or become ISIS....(again by accident OF COURSE)
  • New

    @_Pontus_ appeal for saving the place that diplomacy had in the game describes it very well.

    I'd like to add that removing trade of resources outside coalitions is not so much

    _Pontus_ wrote:

    like allowing the government to be listening to all telephone conversations in the country, because maybe they will find a wrong-doer
    - that we already had before and that was and is alright. No, it's even worse: It's like removing all landline phone connections and antenna poles for mobile phone communication in the country because a few wrong-doers used to communicate by phone.


    Only one thing in your text I disagree: The 10% tax on the market isn't bad because you're punished in case of placing orders and taking them back again - that's not negative in my eyes... it makes you have to think before placing an order.
    The bad things about the tax are: It reduces trade activity in general and it makes playing in a coalition mandatory - which is the death of diplomacy.