Removal of pay to win option

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

  • freezy wrote:

    The entry fee was set super low (4000, which is far below the necessary average), and still the option was not used by many players (cos it seems people still prefer to play for free).
    Honestly, I am one of those players. I just horde my gold. I have no way to use it but I still don't like spending it on joining maps.
    Forum Rank list here

    Make sure to read and like this thread->The new Roman Empire

    Murica Oh yea!

    Vive le Empire!!!!!

    |RBoi200 likes this
  • I have yet to meet a gold user that can beat skill so far I have met only small amounts of gold users and they have yet to make a difference in one of my games.

    Tom Voke wrote:

    You think you can beat someone with a $1,000 gold advantage over you? I think you overestimate yourself, and underestimate the power of gold.
    if someone spend this much into one of my games I would thank him for paying for my free game and no I probably wouldn't win
  • Friendly reminder that denouncing gold and insulting others is against the ToS. You can suggest things and give your opinion but let’s try to keep denouncements and insults out of it.
    DoctorDR1

    Game Operator
    EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


    Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket


    "Commander Cody, the time has come. Execute Order 66." -Sheev Palpatine
  • Never been against the usage of gold, however I do have a suggestion. There are many event games and like discussed earlier I think an entry fee game where the winner of the game is given the entire amount of gold spent on the game (100p game - 5000 gold entry fee - winner gets 500k gold (or coalition gets 500k divided by however many are in the coalition)) with the usage of gold in the game being restricted. This would incentivize more strategic gameplay with players being more reserved and would change the dynamics of an entire game.

    Of course this is just my suggestion, and I do not have any issues with the current format.
    Agent Orange


    Moderator
    EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


    Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!

    "Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak." - Sun Tzu
  • freezy wrote:


    By the way, we tested optional "no gold" games with entry fee in the S1914 alliance league several years ago for roughly 1 year (2 seasons), so we at least have some data on this already. The entry fee was set super low (4000, which is far below the necessary average), and still the option was not used by many players (cos it seems people still prefer to play for free). Instead the whole league including this option stirred a lot of controversy and because of that reception it was decided back then to not deal with it anymore for the time being. Back then I certainly would have liked if the community rallied behind this option and supported it more, it might have opened some more doors.

    This topic comes up now and then and instead of going into denial, you really should use the frequency of this subject to realise: there is a problem!

    What I really want to post here, however, is that I find the general discussion too binary. It's like 'ban gold' or 'allow every gold usage'. In this context, suggesting to pay an entry-fee for a game is like adding one grain of sand to a desert.

    I have suggested this before and sometimes I add it to these threads, but here it goes again. I hope it goes into your notes whatever you want to reply or not: keep the present gold spending, but put a cap on the daily spending!

    The point of this is to maintain the mechanism that finances Bytro, and to stop only the insane gold spenders. Not the regular gold spender or even the big spender, but the 'whale' in the crazy example that Rokossovski described. This is very rare and so your economic loss by this kind of cap must be limited - and outweighed by the loss you get from appalled players who quit (look at player comments on Steam if you don't believe me!)

    So in effect, the point of my suggestion is to stop game wrecking behaviour only. Surely you cannot object to that? Allowing behaviour that wrecks the game you have worked so long and hard for cannot be something you would care nothing for?

    What threshold should it be? I'm not sure - I bet your data on player behaviour can give you a hint.
  • NoobNoobTrain wrote:

    freezy wrote:

    By the way, we tested optional "no gold" games with entry fee in the S1914 alliance league several years ago for roughly 1 year (2 seasons), so we at least have some data on this already. The entry fee was set super low (4000, which is far below the necessary average), and still the option was not used by many players (cos it seems people still prefer to play for free). Instead the whole league including this option stirred a lot of controversy and because of that reception it was decided back then to not deal with it anymore for the time being. Back then I certainly would have liked if the community rallied behind this option and supported it more, it might have opened some more doors.
    This topic comes up now and then and instead of going into denial, you really should use the frequency of this subject to realise: there is a problem!

    What I really want to post here, however, is that I find the general discussion too binary. It's like 'ban gold' or 'allow every gold usage'. In this context, suggesting to pay an entry-fee for a game is like adding one grain of sand to a desert.

    I have suggested this before and sometimes I add it to these threads, but here it goes again. I hope it goes into your notes whatever you want to reply or not: keep the present gold spending, but put a cap on the daily spending!

    The point of this is to maintain the mechanism that finances Bytro, and to stop only the insane gold spenders. Not the regular gold spender or even the big spender, but the 'whale' in the crazy example that Rokossovski described. This is very rare and so your economic loss by this kind of cap must be limited - and outweighed by the loss you get from appalled players who quit (look at player comments on Steam if you don't believe me!)

    So in effect, the point of my suggestion is to stop game wrecking behaviour only. Surely you cannot object to that? Allowing behaviour that wrecks the game you have worked so long and hard for cannot be something you would care nothing for?

    What threshold should it be? I'm not sure - I bet your data on player behaviour can give you a hint.
    It's possible that the owners make a larger profit using the current system. I'd be looking at that as well. I'd like to see a subscription based plan of payment but that may not be feasible for the owners to accomplish. I have succumbed to the temptation of buying one game for a win myself and I imagine 2 players, possibly 3 were disappointed in that choice I made, if they actually cared (one never knows who one is playing against).

    How many players does the game actually have? Bytro may wish to look into a subscription system, or some hybrid of it. But that's what they have now. At least one way of doing it. There may be a more profitable way and a better way (for the players) combined.

    A cap as you suggest isn't a bad idea but one I wouldn't want if I owned the game. Perhaps making a few games where no gold is allowed would be a decent compromise. I'm not familiar with all the games Bytro promotes yet.
  • NoobNoobTrain wrote:

    There is already a subscription. It is called High Command...
    If they make the terms of the subscription more exclusive they may get a more steady stream of income and have to rely less, or not at all, on gold. They may prefer making, just as an example, a steady $5k a month rather than making an average of $7k a month but with wild swings (where some months they lose money). Or they may combine that in some way with the gold cap per game you suggest.
  • I think most of us who don't know the data seriously underestimate the value of selling gold. I doubt those small adjustments you mention would make up for it. By far not.

    So gold spending will have to stay. A necessary evil it is, but I still think that it should be curtailed to avoid actual game wrecking behaviour.
  • NoobNoobTrain wrote:

    I think most of us who don't know the data seriously underestimate the value of selling gold. I doubt those small adjustments you mention would make up for it. By far not.

    So gold spending will have to stay. A necessary evil it is, but I still think that it should be curtailed to avoid actual game wrecking behaviour.
    Yes, I agree with you.
  • I would personally spend over 30USD for a standalone version of this game that allows anyone to play singleplayer or host their own public or private server and host custom games with custom maps, maybe even a way for voting to speed up the game or even making it faster from the beginning, you know, with the steam workshop stuff.

    This game is too good for the classic "android mobile game buy and win" approach, it has so much more potential and could be aiming so much higher. I tried finding other games like this but there's none.
  • "They don't spend $100, they spend thousands to win a game they have no skill in. This game, sadly, is mainly pay to win."

    I use the above quote as an example - PAY TO WIN?

    Of the 122 games I have played I have encountered maybe 4 mega Gold spammers. In most cases I just left the game and moved on. I pay for HC because I enjoy the benefits and I have 300K in Gold that I hardly use.
    STOP THE CRYING about 'Pay to win' and the occasional GOLD slinger. Move on to another FREE game provided by Bytro and stop the complaining.
    "Es gibt keine verzweifelten Lagen, es gibt nur verzweifelte Menschen" - There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people.
    General Heinz Guderian (Schneller Heinz)

    Kenny says - You've got to know when to hold 'em, Know when to fold 'em, Know when to walk away And know when to run
  • Andromeda wrote:

    I know there's lots of players that don't like gold usage. As I said in my earlier post, just ignore it, and if you are a better player than they are, you'll defeat them.
    i`d be curious to see how can you beat someone that spends 5-800$ for 1 game with your skill especially if you start next to him or on the same continent at least

    The post was edited 2 times, last by meserschmitt me 262 ().

  • Alright, I think all of the rational discussion about this topic has been already said in this thread. Before it devolves into some more game and gold bashing, I’m closing this thread.
    DoctorDR1

    Game Operator
    EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


    Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket


    "Commander Cody, the time has come. Execute Order 66." -Sheev Palpatine