New victory conditions for large maps (50+)

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

    • New victory conditions for large maps (50+)

      Hi guys, here is another of my many suggestions that I have in mind!

      I think that new victory conditions could be added to accelerate the closure of the maps and not have to spend days and days pending a game that obviously already won but you have to deal with the tedious to reach 70% of the map control as coalision

      Why not add some additional conditions? The same would serve to free the servers from overload, right? less useless games and so could raise more games or events.

      An example of victory condition that I have been thinking about is:

      Coalision with 80% of the conquest points BETWEEN THE SUM OF ACTIVE USERS. (If the remaining active users outside the coalition, do not reach more than 20%, practically the victory is assured for that coalition)
      Make Chile Playable Again!
    • Forgive me for insisting on this issue but I really believe that the current victory conditions are outrageous.

      Just look in this picture:






      Currently for a map such as 100, you can only get the victory by coalition (70% control of the map), solitary (51% control of the map) or remaining 3 active players.

      And what happens when 80% of the players go inactive on day 4 and the rest do not move to conquer something and the few players that invade something withdraw ...

      And no ... it is not something strange that happens, it is in fact the normality of today in COW.

      In these circumstances I have been forced to annihilate the useless remaining players who do nothing more than just look at one by one, trying to get only 3 active players left to claim victory for the newspaper. (Currently I have already eliminated as 5 or 6)

      I know i can ask to close the map through the error report button, but for what? I know that these pseudo active players will not answer anything in the newspaper.

      It is absurd that I must continue to conquer invading players when, you see, I already have almost 80% of the points in the sum of the remaining active players. And worse yet I have almost 10 times the second place score.

      I consider this a total waste of time in which I could already be joining a new game instead of being here cleaning the map garbage.
      Make Chile Playable Again!
    • Agree that the game you show looks unchallenging to the leader- and reaching winning conditions will be as fun as watching paint dry ... Normally I buy a gold package at the beginning of the game to get production going faster. If everybody did the same for these CoW games that typically last over 30 days, may be the developer would have a one time gold entry fee (I suggest $4.99 package for 13,000). Thus only serious players would join (only exception could be tutorial map for newbies). Compared to this, the US Chess Federation typically charges about $100 for most weekend chess tournaments! ... :thumbup:
    • gusv wrote:

      Agree that the game you show looks unchallenging to the leader- and reaching winning conditions will be as fun as watching paint dry ... Normally I buy a gold package at the beginning of the game to get production going faster. If everybody did the same for these CoW games that typically last over 30 days, may be the developer would have a one time gold entry fee (I suggest $4.99 package for 13,000). Thus only serious players would join (only exception could be tutorial map for newbies). Compared to this, the US Chess Federation typically charges about $100 for most weekend chess tournaments! ... :thumbup:
      Gusv, not everybody wants to spend money on a free game :D
    • KrestelGaming wrote:

      Gusv, not everybody wants to spend money on a free game
      True ... But it would stop been a 'nearly free' game if nobody spent gold on it ... Software programmers normally get paid $50,000-$100,000 in most developed countries (e.g. US, Germany et al) ... I don't think that they want to sell their house and car and move to a park bench so that we can play for free ... 8)
    • gusv wrote:

      KrestelGaming wrote:

      Gusv, not everybody wants to spend money on a free game
      True ... But it would stop been a 'nearly free' game if nobody spent gold on it ... Software programmers normally get paid $50,000-$100,000 in most developed countries (e.g. US, Germany et al) ... I don't think that they want to sell their house and car and move to a park bench so that we can play for free ... 8)



      Games focused on the free mode can also acquire great profits, everything depends on the business model, it is not necessary to make the game exclusive of payment (and believe me, if COW does, the game would run out of users).

      A free game, which is well done, can be financed without much difficulty through customization options. For example "If I am premium I can choose the appearance of my troops" and things like those already implemented as the production queue.

      But well .. THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF THIS POST!

      The point here is the boredom of having to be forced to continue conquering in a game that you have obviously already won ...

      Making the payment game would not fix this situation, which would end up eliminating a good portion of the players.
      Make Chile Playable Again!
    • YitanTribal wrote:

      Making the payment game would not fix this situation, which would end up eliminating a good portion of the players.
      It may eliminate players that want to play for free and likely to abandon the game halfway thru it as they run into trouble- either militarily or for lack of resources for their armies ... From my interaction with other players they occasionally use small amounts of gold (e.g. buy small package of 13,000 gold for $4.99) to acquire resources or speed up production.
    • I am currently a player who play for free, and I do not because I can not pay, but because I find this game is fun, but not good enough as I would like, but still I do not lack gold .. I win about 50% of the games that I take seriously and take half of my games seriously, so I usually win 1/4 of the maps where I enter.

      I don't even spend it on benefits, just spend on elite blueprints.

      My point is, I do not find that the game as it is at the moment deserves to be a paid game to be able to participate, it has much to improve and that is the main reason that the players are deserting. I have been playing for almost 3 years and sincerely the development has been quite slow, many game mechanics are very simple, poor or nonexistent. The staff is super limited in their actions, they can barely mutate or ban the chat. There are no customization options beyond the names of some units and the coalition flag ...

      I could spend days naming ideas, and I've made the effort to mention some but sadly it feels like those ideas never came to the ears of the developers.

      Well .. I ended up diverting, but to finish, if COW developers really plan that players like me start spending money, they will have to improve the game a lot, start listening to the ideas of the players, and create an environment where The staff feels closer to the users.
      Make Chile Playable Again!
    • YitanTribal wrote:

      but you have to deal with the tedious to reach 70% of the map control as coalision
      It's a tedious task (and boring) to reach 70% of the map as a coalition ... I was hoping that they would lower that a bit- perhaps 65%, where the winning coalition still controls about twice as much as everybody else put together ... :thumbup:
    • I disagree with the pay to play a map. I don’t mind spending a little money here and there, but there are maps where you get knocked out right off the bat. Some games get boring. Some games just start off (for me at least) with the “I’m just not feeling this one” attitude.
      I believe there are many players that spend similar to the way I do. If they made every map cost. They’d most definitely lose players that would still spend given it wasn’t a requirement. They’d lose money overall making it pay to play. There would simply be fewer people paying. It would really be a bad business decision.
      Save the goldfish! They need your help! Goldfish are trapped in small bowls all across the globe!