freezy wrote:
Also it is not too unrealistic - if there was one nation starting to conquer the whole earth even smaller nations would band together to stop that, because at some point they would be next on the target list anyway. Of course they wouldn't do it alone, but in our game it is usually also multiple AIs which then declare war. And honestly, this is also how every human player would react if they intended to win, they wouldn't sit idly by and just watch their opponent win and do nothing to stop it.
This game is so rigged against good players
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
This is not technically against the rules if each of them are trying to win the round
and are not there just to feed another account to win by giving them all their resources or provinces.
I myself have been in a round,coalition size 4 and 4 players from our alliance joined. Got there and 2 alliance members and from family alliances were already in the round.
Also sometimes players may be recruited that from that round,adding to their numbers.
These things happen and not always done on purpose. -
I get that - but the AI aggressiveness is overdone. For example, I'm currently in a game where it's day 15 and I'm Sweden. I've attacked no one and declared war on no one since probably day 3. I've been hard pressed to stave off attacks from Germany and UK who both declared war on me.
So fair enough that while I was struggling to hold them off no AI countries attacked me but as soon as I get the upper hand over Germany the AI countries attack - even Estonia which I've gone out of my way to stay on good terms with even when it's been inconvenient eg some provinces revolted to Estonia and I've let them be. -
K.Rokossovski wrote:
simon wrote:
Hi guys. Yes I'm in full 'disagreement' with tiny countries starting out the game with huge armies (for them) that they never could afford, equip, or maintain. I've seen games where after about 3 weeks have passed, Danzig suddenly attacks Germany with around 20 to 30 units, and Luxembourg do the same or, attack France instead, but much more importantly, I'm dead serious about greatly increasing the revenue of Bytro, by revising some of the ways that people gain gold. So who would you suggest is my best choice to speak with? Simon.
-
6thDragon wrote:
K.Rokossovski wrote:
simon wrote:
Hi guys. Yes I'm in full 'disagreement' with tiny countries starting out the game with huge armies (for them) that they never could afford, equip, or maintain. I've seen games where after about 3 weeks have passed, Danzig suddenly attacks Germany with around 20 to 30 units, and Luxembourg do the same or, attack France instead, but much more importantly, I'm dead serious about greatly increasing the revenue of Bytro, by revising some of the ways that people gain gold. So who would you suggest is my best choice to speak with? Simon.
-
I think it might be interesting for there to be some kind of sbmm (spam based match making) where you get put in games with people who spend similar amounts of gold as you do. It wouldn't necessarily hurt the guys who spend a fortune on gold, and would improve the experience for people who rarely use any
-
What if you spend an average of 1m per game? Than what?
-
Yeah, I’m amassing a nice stockpile of gold too. I have the high command and like queuing things. However that’s not an option with research. Usually the only time I spend gold is if I have research set to finish after I go to bed. I’ll rush it so I can start the next.
I’m also a perfectionist. This game is pretty good. I’ll accept their business model as a reason it can’t be perfect. I’ve just adapted my strategy to use more units that can do damage without receiving it like artillery and naval over other units.
I see a lot of suggestions about allowing games that would limit gold usage. I don’t think this would be difficult to implement. They would just need to determine the average amount of gold a player spends during a round and charge that as the price of admission. Bytro is likely just skeptical of the demand. I’m guessing everyone has a massive gold user get the better of them at some point, if they play long enough. But how many would really change their behavior because of it and play those type of games. It’s hard to compete with the price of a free game. -
Donk2.0 wrote:
What if you spend an average of 1m per game? Than what?
I played a game against a guy who spent 2,000,000 fighting just me. I killed his armies every night yet the just "reappeared" and cost me the win. Yes, it sucked, but it was quite fun at the same time watching this guy make himself broke. -
whowh wrote:
Donk2.0 wrote:
What if you spend an average of 1m per game? Than what?
I played a game against a guy who spent 2,000,000 fighting just me. I killed his armies every night yet the just "reappeared" and cost me the win. Yes, it sucked, but it was quite fun at the same time watching this guy make himself broke.
-
There is one way I’ve seen a player use gold that I thought was unfair. As I understand it, you cannot use gold to heal a unit that is actively in combat. By an extension of that logic, you shouldn’t be able to use gold to rush repairs on a build that is being bombarded.
I was playing a game not too long ago and I noticed my opponent’s group of a variety of 12 aircraft on an airstrip refueling within range of coastal bombardment. I promptly sent a fleet to take them out and damaged the airstrip enough that they couldn’t take off. I thought I had him, expecting to be able to destroy his planes only to see that he must have used gold to quickly repair the airstrip when they were done refueling and watched them take off. I had to take a deep breath, but then it occurred to me that two could play at that game and I could use gold to raze his buildings. When his wing of aircraft came in for another attack just as My land force was approaching his city with an aircraft factory, I used gold to raze all his airstrips forcing him to land where I was about to take. I felt like I cheated to win like that, but he was the one to use gold under my nose first. -
6thDragon wrote:
There is one way I’ve seen a player use gold that I thought was unfair. As I understand it, you cannot use gold to heal a unit that is actively in combat. By an extension of that logic, you shouldn’t be able to use gold to rush repairs on a build that is being bombarded.
I was playing a game not too long ago and I noticed my opponent’s group of a variety of 12 aircraft on an airstrip refueling within range of coastal bombardment. I promptly sent a fleet to take them out and damaged the airstrip enough that they couldn’t take off. I thought I had him, expecting to be able to destroy his planes only to see that he must have used gold to quickly repair the airstrip when they were done refueling and watched them take off. I had to take a deep breath, but then it occurred to me that two could play at that game and I could use gold to raze his buildings. When his wing of aircraft came in for another attack just as My land force was approaching his city with an aircraft factory, I used gold to raze all his airstrips forcing him to land where I was about to take. I felt like I cheated to win like that, but he was the one to use gold under my nose first.
-
whowh wrote:
Donk2.0 wrote:
What if you spend an average of 1m per game? Than what?
I played a game against a guy who spent 2,000,000 fighting just me. I killed his armies every night yet the just "reappeared" and cost me the win. Yes, it sucked, but it was quite fun at the same time watching this guy make himself broke.
That's probably the best trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever. -
Z. Sakki wrote:
whowh wrote:
Donk2.0 wrote:
What if you spend an average of 1m per game? Than what?
-
Donk2.0 wrote:
What if you spend an average of 1m per game? Than what?
The Saviour -
newbgamer101 wrote:
I think it might be interesting for there to be some kind of sbmm (spam based match making) where you get put in games with people who spend similar amounts of gold as you do. It wouldn't necessarily hurt the guys who spend a fortune on gold, and would improve the experience for people who rarely use any
what is sure is that Bytro has very few reasons to improve the quality of life of people who don’t pay. -
6thDragon wrote:
I don’t think this would be difficult to implement. They would just need to determine the average amount of gold a player spends during a round and charge that as the price of admission. Bytro is likely just skeptical of the demand. I’m guessing everyone has a massive gold user get the better of them at some point, if they play long enough. But how many would really change their behavior because of it and play those type of games. It’s hard to compete with the price of a free game.
-
Chimere wrote:
6thDragon wrote:
I don’t think this would be difficult to implement. They would just need to determine the average amount of gold a player spends during a round and charge that as the price of admission. Bytro is likely just skeptical of the demand. I’m guessing everyone has a massive gold user get the better of them at some point, if they play long enough. But how many would really change their behavior because of it and play those type of games. It’s hard to compete with the price of a free game.
-
And what if they just use a lot of gold in the beginning, from the starting amount? Do they get punished for that? And not only that, but most players aren't gold users. Or at least avid gold users.
-
6thDragon wrote:
K.Rokossovski wrote:
simon wrote:
Hi guys. Yes I'm in full 'disagreement' with tiny countries starting out the game with huge armies (for them) that they never could afford, equip, or maintain. I've seen games where after about 3 weeks have passed, Danzig suddenly attacks Germany with around 20 to 30 units, and Luxembourg do the same or, attack France instead, but much more importantly, I'm dead serious about greatly increasing the revenue of Bytro, by revising some of the ways that people gain gold. So who would you suggest is my best choice to speak with? Simon.
Nah, if you're into golding, healing units is one of the least cost-effective ways to spend it. Then again, ratio isn't usually the strongest suit of a certain class of users who can't be named.
Chimere wrote:
6thDragon wrote:
I don’t think this would be difficult to implement. They would just need to determine the average amount of gold a player spends during a round and charge that as the price of admission. Bytro is likely just skeptical of the demand. I’m guessing everyone has a massive gold user get the better of them at some point, if they play long enough. But how many would really change their behavior because of it and play those type of games. It’s hard to compete with the price of a free game.
When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
- BIG DADDY.
-
Share
- Facebook 0
- Twitter 0
- Google Plus 0
- Reddit 0