Announcement Market Overhaul

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

    • BMfox wrote:

      OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      1939 Map - Day 9. First day I've seen some Sale Orders up on the market. 3 Orders posted for total of 8,000 cargo.

      Rest of MARKET STILL DEAD.
      That's mainly because almost all of the players go AI on that map and AI don't trade with someone with low popularity.
      Not true...
      I gave the numbers and the proof.

      My older map has a very alive market with about the same number of players.

      Market has been killed. That is it and that is that.

      Just call it what it is: a bad change for a no-good reason (just as the other changes)

      Show pictures of the market in your new games and prove to us that we are just unlucky...
      Show days old, number of actives and above all show the market...
    • BMfox wrote:

      That's mainly because almost all of the players go AI on that map and AI don't trade with someone with low popularity.
      BMFox, you are lowering yourself in hopeless attempts to defend bad changes...

      AI can only trade via the market, like anyone else nowadays...
      When you, me or AI or anyone puts a sale-order up on the market, there is no way of knowing who is the buyer!
      Thus - by the mere logic which was also applied to judging the market changes as BAD - this leads to the conclusion that AI can only not trade with someone if they declared a Trade Embargo on that person.

      Now - again with the same logic as mentioned above (yes, the one that determined irrefutably that the market changes are BAD) - this leads to the conclusion that the better players should always be able to buy the AI offers, because the better players mind their popularity...

      In short: you are making assumptions...and...to ass-u-me makes an ass of u and me!
      (and before you flip about the use of the word 'ass'': ass is old English for donkey)

      The above further leads to the conclusion that indeed only players that either...:

      - are new and don't know which depth, variety and playable options have been lost by the BAD CHANGES,
      or
      - are not new, but just never understood the depth and variety of the game, because they lack the capacity to do so, so they also lack the capacity to judge how BAD the CHANGES are,
      or
      - are for some illogical reason fond of licking the heels of the devs, irrespective of the BAD CHANGES they are bringing about,

      ...could possibly ever like the BAD CHANGES.

      Further:
      The fact that the polls about the BAD CHANGES do not get a high number of votes, has nothing to with the relevance of the outcome. Too few people go to the forum anyway.
      However, the fact that those who do come to the forum massively vote against the changes (and are notably more seasoned that those in favor) says everything it has to say.

      Now, should you doubt whether the word 'massively' is in place, please compare the number of votes (which are in fact a message) to the total number of messages per day. Conclusion: 'massively' is in place here.

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

    • Arcorian wrote:

      We want Call of War to be an exciting, realistic and balanced gaming experience for all of you. With that in mind, we will introduce several changes to trading in Call of War with our next update on September 3rd 2019.
      Sorry, but the latest changes fail to further this goal.

      nemuritor98 wrote:

      let's not forget, the tax serves no purpose and shouldnt exist at all
      The tax does serve a purpose, just not the one stated as the reason for the change.

      Nooberium wrote:

      Charging a commission on completed trades is normal, but totally unreasonable to charge up-front non-refundable fees on OFFERS that never get accepted. Impossible to cheat without a completed trade so there is no valid rationale to tax offers. Resource "hiding" can be eliminated by cancelling all offers when the Capitol falls.

      10% on both ends is a VERY high commission -- unless the purpose is to discourage ALL trade.

      Anyway, the net result of the commission will be to raise prices (like any tax). Most arbitrage becomes infeasible unless bid and ask prices are far apart.
      Cheaters will still cheat, but 20% less effectively. Meanwhile, if I want to sell at 10 now I just ask 11. If I'm buying something I need, I'll just pay 10% more.

      I understand that Bytro is trying to address cheating problems, but it is clear to me that the latest changes are the wrong solution.

      @BMfox, your stats show you are a very good player but your opinions don't sound well thought through. More than once in these discussions you have expressed really lame arguments on the changes (the Bytro party line?). Please try to understand the objections raised and give thoughtful answers
    • Problem is NOT TRADE EMBARGO

      If Elite AI does not trade with players who started many wars... there would still be many Offers on the market, I just would not be able to trade with those AI's. They would "Trade Embargo" me but I would still be able to see all those offers in the "All Offers" tab. But there are no offers, or there have not been for the first 8-9 days.


      I checked the tab just now, Day 10, and it's the first time I've seen an offer on the market that I've got an Embargo with. 1st one on the 10th day...

      I must admit I've started seeing more offers (so far Only Cargo and metal). I hope Dev's are following the stats and seeing how this Elite AI is actually performing. I'd be surprised if the Market is seeing 10% of the activity it had before the changes.
    • Dear CoW:

      I can't trade outside coalition? That is like asking NATO countries not to trade with China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc. ... Please undo trade restrictions outside coalition and 10% mark up on market. I'm totally confused as to the purpose of these changes. These policies resemble old colonial Spain's mercantilism and similar policies by Soviet Bloc nations during cold war. Thank you and have a nice day! ...
    • _Pontus_ wrote:

      AI can only trade via the market, like anyone else nowadays...
      When you, me or AI or anyone puts a sale-order up on the market, there is no way of knowing who is the buyer!
      Thus - by the mere logic which was also applied to judging the market changes as BAD - this leads to the conclusion that AI can only not trade with someone if they declared a Trade Embargo on that person.
      hello _pontus_ as soon as the AI regards you as evil many of them declare embargo and some of them even war. So BMFox statement is perfectly valid.

      BMFox wrote:

      That's mainly because almost all of the players go AI on that map and AI don't trade with someone with low popularity.
      So if one gets no offers due to low popularity the market overhawl is not to blame, this time.

      But maybe the Elite AI strategy needs some change. As far as I know increasing popularity is only possible by trade and decent diplomatic relations. But how to trade with AI with embargo in place, how to improove relation while troops in action? Sounds pretty much like beeing doomed forever
    • _Pontus_ wrote:

      AI can only trade via the market, like anyone else nowadays...
      When you, me or AI or anyone puts a sale-order up on the market, there is no way of knowing who is the buyer!
      Thus - by the mere logic which was also applied to judging the market changes as BAD - this leads to the conclusion that AI can only not trade with someone if they declared a Trade Embargo on that person.
      Due to the programming, AI know with whom they are trading. For that reason you can also increase your popularity with AI by trading a lot in the market.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
    • gusv wrote:

      Dear CoW:

      I can't trade outside coalition? That is like asking NATO countries not to trade with China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc. ... Please undo trade restrictions outside coalition and 10% mark up on market. I'm totally confused as to the purpose of these changes. These policies resemble old colonial Spain's mercantilism and similar policies by Soviet Bloc nations during cold war. Thank you and have a nice day! ...
      More like being North Korea and only trading with China and Vietnam, instead of being NATO
      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
    • BMfox wrote:

      _Pontus_ wrote:

      AI can only trade via the market, like anyone else nowadays...
      When you, me or AI or anyone puts a sale-order up on the market, there is no way of knowing who is the buyer!
      Thus - by the mere logic which was also applied to judging the market changes as BAD - this leads to the conclusion that AI can only not trade with someone if they declared a Trade Embargo on that person.
      Due to the programming, AI know with whom they are trading. For that reason you can also increase your popularity with AI by trading a lot in the market.
      Well I've read all the positions and am currently in a game where I am a "bad person" so it is embargo city all over the place.

      Now with 80% (+) of the board having gone inactive how is one to obtain any resources to optimize the "development plan" put in place?

      Can't trade with other active players who are trying to win the game.

      Can't find any resources on the market to buy because I'm a bad person trying to win the game.

      Net result is:

      All further production and resource development must be internally managed and controlled.

      No other options available that I can see.

      Attempting to conquer other countries (the AI's) and using the money received to buy the resources necessary to fix the damaged production facilities has now become a losing proposition.

      This is the crux of the issue imho.

      Before I could buy what was needed in the marketplace in order to repair what was damaged when taking over a country.

      Now I have to use all my resources to continue with internal development and unit production without any alternative use available for the cash received when taking over a capital / country.

      If the game was filled with active players this sort of scenario might make for a great strategy game, but now all the units still must be produced at home.

      There is only an "either / or" decision to make and the continued development of the homeland will always win out.

      Options seem to have been severely restricted due to the lack of any available resources in the marketplace.

      And finally, the choice to "win the approval of the AI's" in order to be taken off an embargo list seems to be a "non-choice" no one who is actively trying to win the game would be interested in doing.

      Why?

      Because the top five "bad bad boys" are the top five point earners.

      Seems to go hand in hand with the dynamics of being a winner doesn't it?
      wb

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

    • helmuth.moltke wrote:

      hello _pontus_ as soon as the AI regards you as evil many of them declare embargo and some of them even war. So BMFox statement is perfectly valid.
      Please carefully read again what I said.

      The problem in the market is definitely not caused by the AI or Trade Embargos.
      There simply are no offers anymore.

      As you should know, you can see all Embargoed trades in the All Trades tab.... and there are none.

      With that said, the BMFox statement is yet again a bogus argument for the sudden death of the market.
      Players are trading less and AI is trading less ... notably SINCE THE BAD CHANGES.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by _Pontus_ ().

    • BMfox wrote:

      _Pontus_ wrote:

      AI can only trade via the market, like anyone else nowadays...
      When you, me or AI or anyone puts a sale-order up on the market, there is no way of knowing who is the buyer!
      Thus - by the mere logic which was also applied to judging the market changes as BAD - this leads to the conclusion that AI can only not trade with someone if they declared a Trade Embargo on that person.
      Due to the programming, AI know with whom they are trading. For that reason you can also increase your popularity with AI by trading a lot in the market.
      Just for your information: I am not playing this game since yesterday...

      So...let me help you, being a relatively new player, who clearly has not yet fully grasped the matter at hand:

      1. Your answer is irrelevant to what it replies to, because...

      2. Anyone can still SEE the embargoed AI offers on the market in the All Trades tab; just with a line through them, showing they trade is blocked by an embargo or war.

      The sudden market death came after the BAD CHANGES. Now explain that away pls...

      Still waiting for valid answers and arguments.

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

    • Arcorian wrote:

      the list of player facing changes is rather short
      Alone in this thread, I count about 50 players opposing all or some of the changes and 2 who like all or some them.
      A list of 50 players you call "rather short"?
      For a start, just read the first page of this thread again and you get a clear picture.

      Arcorian wrote:

      The price range will be set back to between 1 and 30 money again.
      Removing trade outside coalitions and the 20% tax on the market have killed diplomacy, trade and free unit choices (because now the resources in your core provinces take that desicion for you).
      To sum it up, this change removed strategy.
      And now all you revert is that tiny detail which nobody complained about / which wasn't a problem?

      You've lost me now. I can't imagine I'll start a game again until you make playing outside a coalition possible again.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      Alone in this thread, I count about 50 players opposing all or some of the changes and 2 who like all or some them.
      A list of 50 players you call "rather short"?
      For a start, just read the first page of this thread again and you get a clear picture.
      I think their thinking process that leads to say "a rather short list" is the following:

      - We have 2.000 players playing the game daily.
      - From those 2.000 players, 1.950 don't say a word about it and keep playing, even if they probably dislike the update, they don't know about the update yet or simply don't care, because and I think we can all agree here, Bytro rarely makes in-game polls for controversial updates such as this one or the Fire at Will update, which logically leads to not knowing what those 1.950 users that didn't say a word actually think about the update.
      - From those 2.000 players, 48 of them complain in the forum on how bad the update is, even most of the support team members told the same(negative impact) to the company when they asked for their opinion, I think a few days/hours before its live release.
      - Finally, from those 2.000 players, 2 of them said they actually like the update, or most of it or part of it.

      So my guessing here is that Bytro says that 1.952 players are in favor of the update, even if 1.950 of those didn't say a word. Indeed, with that reasoning behind, we would all say the list of players that dislike the update is "rather short".

      But well, I'm not an expert on statistics, polls and human behaviour, oh wait, actually I am.
      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 1 time, last by nemuritor98 ().

    • nemurito...

      You're making quite an assumption about Bytro's motivation for this change.... yet you're ignoring the prime reason.

      If you believe that "players opinion" of the game is a greater motivator than $$$, you're missing the point. This decision was made to make the game appeal to more players, generate more revenue, and introduce better money sinks.

      You've made plenty of assumptions, none backed by any facts. You've missed obvious facts....

      Please don't be changing the topic of this thread. If you want to let us know how the market in your game is doing... We'd appreciate that.

      As for my game...

      Day 11 - Started getting some "Sale Offers" today for the first time.
    • OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      nemurito...

      You're making quite an assumption about Bytro's motivation for this change.... yet you're ignoring the prime reason.

      If you believe that "players opinion" of the game is a greater motivator than $$$, you're missing the point. This decision was made to make the game appeal to more players, generate more revenue, and introduce better money sinks.

      You've made plenty of assumptions, none backed by any facts. You've missed obvious facts....

      Please don't be changing the topic of this thread. If you want to let us know how the market in your game is doing... We'd appreciate that.

      As for my game...

      Day 11 - Started getting some "Sale Offers" today for the first time.
      I think nobody in this thread forgot/ignored the tendency of becoming a P2W game and also the focus towards Android and iOS style and thus the last updates.

      I do believe that "players opinion" of the game is a greater motivator because unlike Bytro, I prefer the long term option instead of the short term one. You'd probably get some bucks here and there by making this changes towards a fast-paced short term strategy, but a good long term one, specially in this type of games, is always better, not only for the "players opinion" of the game to be high, meaning better % of likes than 52% in Steam, but also for the overall income.

      I do make assumptions, that's correct, been watching Bytro's updates and policies since 2012, I've seen and played all their games.

      "Solving bugs don't give us money", that's the short term and sadly the quote isn't an assumption.

      Now that you asked how the market in my game is doing, sure, I'll let you know.

      Let's see:



      Let's start with this image, where you can see that there are 0 actives in the only game I'm still in, but of course, just a coincidence I guess, not that they should handle the very high inactivity rates first rather than win a few more bucks, duh.

      Now that we can say that the AI is having plenty of fun in my game, let's see the market.



      Ohhh, wait, the market has offers, oh wow, unexpected, you know who trades in the market? Yeah, the 0 active users.

      Awesome gameplay.
      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
    • OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      nemurito...

      You're making quite an assumption about Bytro's motivation for this change.... yet you're ignoring the prime reason.

      If you believe that "players opinion" of the game is a greater motivator than $$$, you're missing the point. This decision was made to make the game appeal to more players, generate more revenue, and introduce better money sinks.

      You've made plenty of assumptions, none backed by any facts. You've missed obvious facts....

      Please don't be changing the topic of this thread. If you want to let us know how the market in your game is doing... We'd appreciate that.

      As for my game...

      Day 11 - Started getting some "Sale Offers" today for the first time.
      Hi Squirrel,
      Yes and no to your arguments.
      We can only guess what the motivations of Bytro were for the overall BAD CHANGES which also involve the market.
      Nevertheless, I think you are making a valid assumption. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with that reason if that were it. Bytro is a business after all.

      Now, having established that Bytro is a business, we may also assume we are clients. Even paying ones, with HC and some gold being paid for. We pay, however, not for the HC and gold as a one-off product, but as a part of the complete service we buy: ENTERTAINMENT from playing what was once a fantastic game, developed, owned and published by Bytro, our supplier.

      When discussing the market issues that have arisen since the series of BAD CHANGES, however, we are unavoidably discussing a BAD CHANGE from a whole batch of BAD CHANGES, which form a bothersome inter-linked package to players = customers.

      It is therefore not off-topic to refer to the other BAD CHANGES during the discussion.

      It may be considered complicated (most likely by the majority of the youths and millennials), when a post consists of more than 3 lines (wall of text...) and/or refers to linked subjects (not Byte-size).
      But this does not mean the messages are less important.
      Conversely, showing the link between various issues arising from the same source, allows people - with the capacity to do so - to form a more informed decision on their stance.

      I strongly believe that the market issues will not be solved if we don't pull it into a wider context; notably the context of a whole batch of doubtlessly well-intended, but awfully BAD CHANGES.

      Notably, the worrying common treat of the BAD CHANGES consists of RESTRICTING LIBERTIES and IMPOSING LIMITATIONS which all LIMIT PLAYABILITY (= fun).

      Edit:
      Btw, the market is still dead. There was 1 sales order for goods until now. Steel buy orders at 30/t are still there unchanged for a full week, meaning there has been no steel sale whatsoever. Same for all, except the 1 goods sale.

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

    • BMfox wrote:

      Giving troops to other players has been abused to create superstacks. Even more so trading troops should never be an option, name one country that just gave his army away and gave them to another nation?
      The allies during world war 2 "gave" their entire forces over to American military command
      U.S. gave supplies, and allowed recruits to join, England during the Battle of Britain
      U.S. sent supplies and "advisors" to the USSR to use on the Eastern front (in both world wars(!))
      China received from the allies "volunteers" to fight for them (Look up the Flying Tigers(!))
      China gave equipment and hundreds of "advisors" to North Korea during the Korean war.
      The USSR gave equipment, and sent "advisors to Vietnam
      The US did the same during Afghanistan
      Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and India put their full military at the disposal of the allies in both world wars.
      Italy "lent" troops to ALL of their allies during both world wars
      Nearly every ally of Napoleon gave troops for service in his military
      EVERY SINGLE (!) feudal lord raised troops from their subjects to be used by their liege whenever that liege required them.

      Rather then "never" happening - is more like the very thing that ALWAYS happen(ed/s)!
      Killings my business, and business is good!