Market Overhaul

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

  • I have one more argument: I bet that coalition members are less likely to spend gold. Biggest gold spendings happen if a conflict gets to a personal level, in a one-against-one or one-against-many fight, don't they? I can't imagine anyone to spend a lot of gold in a coalition-versus-coalition fight(?)
    So since the planned change makes playing in a coalition mandatory, Bytro will earn less.

    Anyhow nobody will want to spend gold or even play a game that's dull as a piece of bread.

    So if you really insist on removing trade of resources outside the market (which would be a severe loss, as said), please at least also prohibit trade of resources amongst coalition members (between team members on teamplay maps it can be kept up) and remove the 10% tax from the market again.
    Then the market would become very vivid and trading would still have some place in the game. And you wouldn't give coalitions this massive additional advantage as the planned change does.
    So
    * diplomacy would still be alive,
    * the game would still be colourful as it would still allow for different ways to play (single, just-share-maps-alliances or coalitions),
    * buying gold and thus financing the game would still be attractive.


    Now that I came to talk about the 10% tax on the market:
    As @nemuritor98 already explained, if you want this to help against players hiding resources if their provinces are being conquered (which I doubt is being done in more than one of a hundred games), you'd have to tax placing offers on the market, not accepting orders. Even if this was corrected: Would 10% keep you from doing that desperate measure?? I figure you only do so if you have no other choice, so you'd do it nevertheless, also if you lose 10% on the way. For a tax to be effective against this extremely seldom edge case exploit, you'd need about 25% tax, which would be almost equivalent to a complete removal of the market.
  • The pretext of "preventing hiding resources" is both a pretext and a huge lie. It is distasteful to be used by official announcements. Let's see why:

    First of all, we are not talking about resources but ONLY about cash and ONLY about the capital. In the other cases the booty is determined based on the daily PRODUCTION, not on the stock. That alone proves it is a lie.

    Furthermore, since we are talking about cash only, it would be sufficient to put a 10% tax on standing BUY orders and leave the other things alone. But, above all, who cares about something that applies in 0.01% of the cases? The truth is that if a player wishes to harm the opponent that takes him out, 10% tax means nothing at all.
  • I personally believe the no-unit trading thing is "eh", but the no trading if not in a team/coalition is a bit... weird decision. First, before I join a coalition, I usually negotiate with neighbors for share maps and sometimes, when I am in need or an ally who's not in a coalition is in need, we trade resources. By putting it on the market, it's like you have to risk your ENEMIES taking the stuff you were supposed to give to allies. Plus, it kinda ruins the point of diplomacy other than chat. Because, well, diplomacy isn't just talking. There's a lot of deals that makes the game more unpredictable. I hope this update could be altered at least a little, because... yeah. Not that happy.
    "As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein

    "Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)
  • I want to point out that placing the 10% tax on offer placed rather then bought would destroy your economy if the IA takes over(we all know how much the IA loves to place random offers in the market)

    But apart of that I fully agree with what’s said above that this is such a terrible idea on all fronts and will ruin diplomacy terminally.... :thumbdown:
    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!
  • atreas1 wrote:

    we are not talking about resources but ONLY about cash and ONLY about the capital. In the other cases the booty is determined based on the daily PRODUCTION, not on the stock.
    I thought this was about hiding your entire stock of the respective resource on the market shortly before a province of that resource type gets conquered (and of course, similarly to hide your money on the market before your capital gets conquered... but that's an even more improbable case because somebody who's that considerate to bother using this trick will for sure have been attentive enough before to replace his capital in time). If you do that, your enemy won't loot anything, that's true in the update description. But preventing this could have been achieved more efficiently and without negative side-effects by allowing looting to make a resource stock negative.

    Anyhow atreas1 is right this is an extreme edge case exploit which will be used by definitely not more than 1% of the players. And even then it doesn't make much of a difference.
    So this argument clearly doesn't justify halfway removing trade of resources and fully removing diplomacy.

    There so far have been four elements in the game which require intelligence: Tactical movements, choice of units, trade and diplomacy. The latter three are heavily diminished by removing trade of resources outside coalitions and the market tax. So all that remains is tactical movements. That's not enough as long-term motivation for anyone with a brain - you've mastered that after two or three matches.

    If you really want CoW to be something for only people who are happy clicking without the slightest brain activity, go ahead and release the changes in resource trading. But then don't forget to change your adverts from "WW2 strategy game" to "WW2 click-to-win or pay-to-win game".
  • Spiffolo wrote:

    .. will ruin diplomacy terminally.... :thumbdown:
    Exactly ..

    e.g. >> without free trade I can no longer blackmail my opponents or demand reparations .. :thumbdown:

    Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money -
    - more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game sometimes.
    So beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
    Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :whistling:
  • Hans A. Pils wrote:

    I have one more argument: I bet that coalition members are less likely to spend gold. Biggest gold spendings happen if a conflict gets to a personal level, in a one-against-one or one-against-many fight, don't they? I can't imagine anyone to spend a lot of gold in a coalition-versus-coalition fight(?)
    So since the planned change makes playing in a coalition mandatory, Bytro will earn less.

    Anyhow nobody will want to spend gold or even play a game that's dull as a piece of bread.

    So if you really insist on removing trade of resources outside the market (which would be a severe loss, as said), please at least also prohibit trade of resources amongst coalition members (between team members on teamplay maps it can be kept up) and remove the 10% tax from the market again.
    Then the market would become very vivid and trading would still have some place in the game. And you wouldn't give coalitions this massive additional advantage as the planned change does.
    So
    * diplomacy would still be alive,
    * the game would still be colourful as it would still allow for different ways to play (single, just-share-maps-alliances or coalitions),
    * buying gold and thus financing the game would still be attractive.


    Now that I came to talk about the 10% tax on the market:
    As @nemuritor98 already explained, if you want this to help against players hiding resources if their provinces are being conquered (which I doubt is being done in more than one of a hundred games), you'd have to tax placing offers on the market, not accepting orders. Even if this was corrected: Would 10% keep you from doing that desperate measure?? I figure you only do so if you have no other choice, so you'd do it nevertheless, also if you lose 10% on the way. For a tax to be effective against this extremely seldom edge case exploit, you'd need about 25% tax, which would be almost equivalent to a complete removal of the market.
    Regarding gold spending, well, it depends, yes, sometimes it goes personal, but I for example I'm in a 500p map in S1914, our coalition against 4 other coalitions, and I'm willing to spend 500.000 Goldmarks to defeat the enemy that triple's our power and manpower.
    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
  • Bytro please start listening to players and stop limiting the game!

    It seems that step by step, they restrict next features is sake of ‘balancing’. With recent research changes and now this, CoW is becoming more and more casual and IMO less fun.

    Really unhappy with the patch.

    RogodeterSnowl wrote:

    Come on guys, you are dumbing down the game so much it will eventually not be worth playing!!
    This.
  • What's next? Are you going to restrict all lvl-5 buildings to gold only? Maybe make movement a premium feature only. Oh I know! Let's take away the second research slot to make he game more balanced so we can focus on one specific tree. Also lets make them cost more and take longer. Lets also double the morale loss when your providence is far away from your capital. This is all sarcasm, we definitely don't want that, but hey since when does our opinions matter?
    :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
  • THEARBITER117 wrote:

    What's next? Are you going to restrict all lvl-5 buildings to gold only? Maybe make movement a premium feature only. Oh I know! Let's take away the second research slot to make he game more balanced so we can focus on one specific tree. Also lets make them cost more and take longer. Lets also double the morale loss when your providence is far away from your capital. This is all sarcasm, we definitely don't want that, but hey since when does our opinions matter?
    Let's add a few more balancing ideas, now that it has been made sure that resources are going to be a gold-only feature:

    After spending more than 100K gold, range units gain 10KM of range.
    After 200K the SBDE number is increased ny one for all planes.
    For each Lvl5 IC flattened by a gold spy, you get a 20% discount.

    Before the summer I was determined to purchase HC. Now I am glad I didnt do it. The only response to those changes is to stop playing, at least for a while. If they get the message they will change course - if not it means that this game is not for me. I thought it was a STRATEGY game, but obviously (see the 10x speed map they dare to advertise) it is not any more.
  • I am currently in the midst of trying to negotiate with a bunch of smaller nations and coalitions to try and fight the largest, and without a doubt, strongest coalition currently in my game, me not being able to send them resources or troops, and not being able to pay other nations to join in to fight the against the strong war nation with the coalition I’m supporting is a huge hinderance. Not only does it make it so I can’t help the small coalition that is currently at war with them, but it also ruins any “balance” the game has, since all it takes to win now is just being in the largest coalition or spending money on the game (which is no doubt why you want this). The realism is also completely destroyed because then you can’t coordinate a defense/attack on a huge and powerful coalition or nation(s). The game supposedly takes place in WW2, so why can’t people send troops or resources to other nations to help them mount a defense (the allies did this with not only each other, but small nations who wanted to remain independent, as well as resistance movements), or bribe them into joining you in a fight?
    Edit1:They died. The coalition I was aiding couldn’t fight the enemy off without resources and troops I was going to give them, and they got overrun, and have next to no troops and their lines are broken. They’re dead now no after what.

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

  • Arcorian wrote:

    Furthermore exchanging resources via diplomatic trading will be limited to coalition and team members. This means that trading with enemies or neutral countries will be possible only through the stock market.
    Why restrict player freedom even more ? You do know some informal alliances are used to be economy based ? We should have the freedom to double-track our diplomacy and play nice with everyone. This just makes the game a bit less diverse and one-sided.
  • Restrisiko wrote:

    Spiffolo wrote:

    .. will ruin diplomacy terminally.... :thumbdown:
    Exactly ..
    e.g. >> without free trade I can no longer blackmail my opponents or demand reparations .. :thumbdown:
    Or more logically, in a alliance war we can’t divide the units focus so a player aim only to be a air fighter while the other a naval fighter and share them when needed. ||
    Or better yet, I can’t pay up resources to other random people to make them fight a nation I would be interested in conquering while they are focus somewhere else
    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!
  • Exactly. I don’t think anyone asked for this change, and it should be rolled back. It just makes the game less creative.

    If you ask me even the fact that you can’t share diplomatic relations with nations from other coalitions further than Peace is stupid and uncalled for. I should have the freedom to make friends with other coalitions by myself and betray my coalition if I want to, that is an entirely viable strategy. I’m currently noticing a worrying trend of CoW becoming more streamlined and taking away options that used to be at the player’s disposal (unit trading, tax-free trade, inter-coalition diplomacy, fluidity in coalition membership, neutral sea trafic).

    This game is taking away more and more creativeness from us ; if Bytro thinks this is what’s going to revitalise the CoW playerbase they’ve got another surprise coming.

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

  • VIRVCOBRV wrote:

    Exactly. I don’t think anyone asked for this change, and it should be rolled back. It just makes the game less creative.

    If you ask me even the fact that you can’t share diplomatic relations with nations from other coalitions further than Peace is stupid and uncalled for. I should have the freedom to make friends with other coalitions by myself and betray my coalition if I want to, that is an entirely viable strategy. I’m currently noticing a worrying trend of CoW becoming more streamlined and taking away options that used to be at the player’s disposal (unit trading, tax-free trade, inter-coalition diplomacy, fluidity in coalition membership, neutral sea trafic).

    This game is taking away more and more creativeness from us ; if Bytro thinks this is what’s going to revitalise the CoW playerbase they’ve got another surprise coming.
    Are we all just gonna forget what Italy did in WW2?? They did the exact same thing, They kept switching sides, the last time I checked, this was not prohibited in the rules of WW2, oh wait, there were no rules and it was very realistic, isn't this a game set in WW2? Or are we gonna ignore that fact and just set up rules that no one asked for and do it for the sake of $$$$$?
    :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
  • Now HMS Surprise's post indeed comes as a... surprise. As it's the first one praising the trade/market limitation after about 30 forum users swearing it to hell.
    I figure with "abusing the market" you mean you've been trading a lot? I wouldn't call being an active trader an abuse. Your statement is similar to saying "I've been abusing my skills in unit choices, diplomacy, trade, creativity and strategy to outdo everyone, so it's good this change more or less removes unit choices, diplomacy, trade, creativity and strategy from the game".

    Also it's merely a thesis, without profound argumentation. Can you explain why it should be good that players can no longer profit from being willing and capable to take the effort of being an active and successful trader?