TROLLS ruin Rounds

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

    • TROLLS ruin Rounds

      I think its about time we put a Lid on these TROLLS (accounts) that are joining Games without any intention to actually play.

      I believe firmly that the Opposition Companies (mostly Chinese) are using their staff to create worthless accounts solely to TROLL the games as they become available. Either that or these same Companies have programmes running to simulate a real players account.

      Rather than just allowing anyone to sign in and wait for the Game to fill up before the start time commences, why not send an alert to their Email to verify participation. This system might stop the TROLL programmes but may not fully deter the Company Employee.

      "When Games are reaching the point whereby on Day 4 there is only 27 Active Accounts showing up as being Active out of a starting number of 100 initial sign ups" the system needs a huge Overhaul.

      The 75% Drop Out rate is becoming a standard pattern rather than the exception. Upon analysing some of the Accounts I also noticed some had literally 100's of games on their Records with Zero wins and a Rank that is obviously not really conducive to someone actually playing the games at all. And oh yes these same accounts did not even place a building order or move a unit on Day One or any Day prior to becoming AI.

      For the more Avid gamers like myself (Monthly Subscriber) who joined to have a game with real people I suggest this:

      INCLUDE Games that require the participants to contribute 1000 Gold to sign in (non-refundable)
      Some people will say they dont want to spend or dont have the Gold, to them I say you are all welcome to sign up to the "Status Quo". When you or your team wins a round you will have 4k to 6k gold as a reward.

      These Fee Based gaming Rounds are to sort out the Real Players from the uncommitted. An old expression which is true to form "nothing is truely appreciated when it's given for free", so by making players actually contribute to the Game round they will be more committed and the TROLLs will certainly not be present.

    • Good call, you also notice it. I noticed it since the first game.
      I already pointed out to the Dev in the 1.5 version.

      In the beginning, i thought it is the Dev. to simulate real players so ppl can quickly start a game without waiting too long. But then as drop out rate is too high in the early session, i don't think that is the Dev intention also.

      But in a sense, i doubt it is the competition company do it because there is no reward or waste their manpower to do something useless (non beneficial to them).

      I think giving an amount of entrance fee (gold) first is the best solutions for now. If the player got killed during the game while active. They will refund the entrance fee to them.

    • There are several things that I think can be done to reduce the drop out rate.

      1. When someone signs up for a game, they must put in a first set of orders, a fairly complete set with a certain number required.
      2. At a time of game start anyone without a set of orders is immediately replaced and the new player needs to put in a set of orders.
      3. Alternatively, the player that fails to put in orders when the game starts is tossed out and the AI issues orders till a new player comes in.
      4. failing to make a set of orders within the first 24 hours should be an auto toss out and AI takes over till a player comes in./

    • The bots can be easily countered by Captcha. It's the humans you need to worry about, the problem is that most of them don't even work for said companies, they're just trolls that enjoy watching us suffer from inactive players.
      "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." -Sun Tzu

      - Leading officer of the Training Alliance

    • ViceRegent wrote:

      INCLUDE Games that require the participants to contribute 1000 Gold to sign in (non-refundable)
      Some people will say they dont want to spend or dont have the Gold, to them I say you are all welcome to sign up to the "Status Quo". When you or your team wins a round you will have 4k to 6k gold as a reward.

      These Fee Based gaming Rounds are to sort out the Real Players from the uncommitted. An old expression which is true to form "nothing is truely appreciated when it's given for free", so by making players actually contribute to the Game round they will be more committed and the TROLLs will certainly not be present.
      This is an excellent idea!

      Everybody who is not nobody or troll or bot account earns gold in a game, as long as he/she stays active (yes, there are women gaming too).

      Thus this measure (asking a limited amount gold to enter a game) will drastically reduce the the number of total nitwits and trolls or bots entering a map.

      To prevent newbies from being locked out of games, this should apply to all games above a certain level.
      Further, the higher the level of the map, the higher the gold-entry-fee should be to have better participation levels the higher you get.

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

    • coolgame2019 wrote:

      I think giving an amount of entrance fee (gold) first is the best solutions for now.
      Great idea! ... The smallest package offered by CoW is 13,000 gold for $4.99 - a good starting point for the game for the less affluent ... However, there should be no refund - let's be good losers ... I never got a refund from the US Chess Federation when I had a bad under .500 performance in a tournament ... 8)

    • Having an entrance fee, also forces motivated but lesser players to stay active to collect their winnings in gold (from points) to enable them to join next maps.
      This will have several positive effects:
      - more actives
      - the lesser players are forced to observe other (better) players and will thus forcibly learn faster
      - needing to survive to collect some gold from points, diplomacy will become much more important

    • CzarHelllios wrote:

      Yes. It's true. The vast majority of the player base are actually Chinese bots that are engaging in a concentrated operation to destroy Bytro by destroying every game round by going inactive....For I confess, I am a Chinese trigendered Pyrofox from the forest planet.
      Lol :)
      But Chinese Pyrofox or not, the destructive effect is the same.
      The gold fee simply is an excellent idea.
      Simple, easy to implement and immediately effective.

      But again, newbie rounds should not have this barrier to avoid brushing off interested people from joining.

      When also implementing a good tutorial system (>>> tutorial issues <<<) with some gold rewards, nobody can complain about the fees, unless frequently going inactive.

      Ofc, this is a fruitless discussion, if we are going towards COW 1.5 replacing COW 1.0.
      In that case, only hefty gold-rewards for joining a map could work to fill a map with players.

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

    • Yes, that will be a good idea. Doing this will definitely sort out those not so willing to play people. One more thing, can you emphasize that you want SOME of the games to be 1000 gold and they will earn more gold in that game because they spend 1000 gold when entering. Also still keep the original. (I don't think there is any bot account. Captcha kills the bot)
      BeaveRyan
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


      Training Alliance United Leader

    • Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      SOME of the games to be 1000 gold and they will earn more gold in that game because they spend 1000 gold when entering
      That would be a simple issue of 'balancing'. First one would have to agree on the principle of the method and only then go into details of how it should be worked out.

      The 'Numero Unero' question: Is this at all a viable idea to the devs and management?


      (PS: 'Numero Unero' is not a spelling mistake and should be familiar to anyone who watched 'The singing detective')

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

    • vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

      The 'Numero Unero' question: Is this at all a viable idea to the devs and management?
      Good point! ... People forget that these folks offering us this great game got to make money, letting gamers play for a reasonable price- not for free ... 1,000 entry fee will not do (for $1?)! ... Software programmers get paid $50-100k in developed countries like the US and Germany ...

      As I said before, the smallest package offered by CoW is 13,000 gold for $4.99 - a good starting point for the game for the less affluent ... However, there should be no refund - let's be good losers ... I never got a refund from the US Chess Federation when I had a bad under .500 performance in a tournament ...

    • As I posted in another thread, players going inactive seems to be a problem in all maps. It looks like many players get on a map, and it things don't go well in the early days they drop out. To reduce the amount of inactive players for all maps, I propose:
      1) Entry fee of 4.99 for 13,000 gold- the smallest gold package offered. Only serious players that intend to play for a long while would stay.
      2) Increase gold rewards at end of game to encourage people to stay all the way thru the end of the game, even if their chance of winning is minimal ...

    • If it's Paying - I won't be Playing. However, an Index of Inactivity should be easy to achieve. So going Inactive (for More Than 72 Hrs in Game Time) should result in a Yellow Card been awarded. At this stage we need to see what would be a sensible number of Cards before certain scenarios cannot be joined. Each card would last for 90 Days real time. So, if you amass say 5 Yellow Cards, then you can ONLY join the Tutorial scenario? (Why the 72 hrs Game time cool down period? well real life sometimes gets in the way with Hospital runs, emergencies, Internet failure whatever. That said, those that join double speed or 6x speed scenarios, are expecting to be on numerous times per (real) day.

      The second stage of this could be a Gold Deposit. The size of Gold deposit depends upon how many active Yellow Cards you have. No cards could be 1000 Gold, and each Card adds 2000 Gold Deposit. Remaining Active for the entire scenario returns your deposit. Inactivty equals forfeit.

    • I have read here a few good ideas and definitely troll accounts is something that should be addressed urgently.

      Here is one more idea, how about creating a new player statistic?
      Activity ratio, the calculation would be very simple:

      Activity ratio = (Days played on a map / Days until the defeat or end of the map)

      With this then can already propose ideas such as that only players with a good activity ratio can enter certain maps or events, and that those with low activity rate can only enter tutorial maps or special maps for these. The idea is that they do not hinder players who really take the games seriously and thus do not have to depend on being forced to pay or if the player is good or bad.

      As a precaution, the days that have "played" should be more than just logging in, a bot could do that, but it should at least take some action, move a unit, build something or reply to a message.
      Make Chile Playable Again!

    • We are close to agreement but 1st we need to quantify the problem. Hence we need a metric, but not of Activity, we want one of Inactivity.
      Getting the definition correct will be key. On Day 3 of any scenario, all players are 'Active' but we all know the Coup d'etats happen in droves on Day 4. That's fine on a Tutorial, with a Low Lvl player trying to see if RTG and indeed CoW is for them. However, on 1944 Endgame, you need players with either Solo or Coalition wins to play because inactivity cripples the triumvate and worse still, recapturing lost Core Provinces for the Inactive player returns that Province to someone who is inactive. Hence, the metric needed may have to be a tad smarter then suggested but we do need a metric to measure 'inactivity'.
      Perhaps scenarios such as the one I stated need 2 Coalition/Solo wins before being allowed to join.
      Step 1 has to be finding a metric that we agree captures those that abuse scenarios and doesn't punish those (myself included) who sometimes go inactive 2 or 3 days in a scenario by real life events getting in the way.

    • Steve_The_Tyke wrote:

      We are close to agreement but 1st we need to quantify the problem. Hence we need a metric, but not of Activity, we want one of Inactivity.
      [Snipped]
      need 2 Coalition/Solo wins before being allowed to join.
      Step 1 has to be finding a metric that we agree captures those that abuse scenarios and doesn't punish those (myself included) who sometimes go inactive 2 or 3 days in a scenario by real life events getting in the way.
      Agreed. But whatever measure is taken, it must be easy to implement and not brush off new players.
      In that sense, a gold-entry-barrier should work perfectly fine.

      Everybody who remains active until the end of a round, earns gold, thus Actives thus have more gold (whether buying or earning or both) than continuously Inactives.

      Therefore a gold-entry-barrier for higher level maps and especially event maps like End-Game, sounds like a rather simple and effective measure that should drastically reduce the number of Inactives in maps and events.

      The good thing about it is also that it does not eliminate players from participating, who like to go inactive early in a lost round (protecting stats), as long as they have the qualities to win or at least survive a good number of other rounds too.

      Besides all that, Inactivity and new players leaving, are simply the biggest problem of CoW and thus of Bytro (especially in terms of money making).
      If anything, Bytro should focus on increasing player retention and incentives to keep players active.

      All else (1 cough dot cough 5 cough) is bound to fail, as it doesn't address the key issues and provides no fix nor remedy.

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