I probably haven't been playing on the larger maps as much as a lot of players. I've got seven games on the 100 player map and three on the Pacific. In those games, I've had other players on the map who were clearly trying to buy the game. One was an idiot tactically, but was active enough, willing to spend enough gold and had another golder he was partnered with that I didn't think we could take them. Another was solid tactically, but willing to spend massive amounts because he was outnumbered. Two others I didn't encounter directly, one had 13% on the day four military ranking, but it was on a map I started without a partner next to a full alliance of good players so didn't last long enough to encounter them directly. Another I was lucky enough to be on the other side of the world when two heavy golders were going at each other. That's 40% of games on large maps with heavy gold users. I'm not counting minor gold users who spend their ad and accomplishment gold, they usually aren't an issue.

I see enough chatter on my alliance's discord channel to think 40% is about right for games with heavy golders.

Does 40% sound about right to everyone or am I/we just unlucky?

I have 12 games on the 22 player map and only ever ran into one. I'd hate to go back to that map as it's populated by inactive players and newbies; not really a challenge.

These golders are starting to wear on me. Anyone have any advice? I'm honestly considering walking away at this point. Or at least keeping my account and only doing AvA games with my alliance when it doesn't involve gold. I'm a pretty reflective person. I like to understand what I could have done differently and improve my game. I've had multiple players come at me in the early game and I accept that there isn't much you can do in those circumstances. It's getting harder and harder for me to justify putting in the amount of time I do (and sacrificing the amount of sleep I do) for these games when an opponent can just break out a credit card for an advantage. I'll admit, I'm more active than most. My last game, I pulled two all-nighter's when I caught players in vulnerable positions. It's getting harder to convince myself this is a serious strategy game because of all the gold.

I get that this is a free game. I'm just old enough and well off enough financially, that I'd prefer to pay to play a game with a level playing field.

I’m not saying all heavy gold users successfully bought a win, but they’re very common. In two of the games I’m counting, players had 6% or more on the military ranking on the day four report. I had 3% once without gold and also with many active players taking heavy casualties. I’m sorry, but if you’re using that much, you count as a heavy gold user.

I would probably say anyone using much more than just the free ad gold counts as a heavy gold user.

Personally I belong to an alliance with a no first usage approach to gold, but I do pay for the premium account to help manage everything more easily.

Perhaps I'm just unlucky. I'll also concede that ten games is a very limited sample size. However, I do monitor my alliance's discord channel. It's always interesting to see how my alliance mate's games progress. Within the last two weeks, one of my alliance mates had 102 aircraft units (from the same opponent) flying over him on day two! Another had a player with 14% of the world military on the day four report on the 100 player map. Both are ridiculous.

Plus the very possibility of gold use undermines any accomplishment you do as it's difficult to prove you did it without gold and probably impossible to convince an opponent.

In two of my last games I had other players call me out as a gold user in the newspaper, when I hadn't used gold. In the first, they based their assumption on the fact that I had lots of leveled up troops coming at them that had virtually no damage. But I keep a narrow research focus on just a handful of troop types and often use shoot and scoot tactics with artillery units. I was messaging with the player during the course of fighting him explaining my early game economic, military, and research strategies coupled with the tactics I was using and he finally understood how I was able to be as successful as I was without gold. In my last game, another player couldn't read the map and accused me of using gold to get as many troops as I had. Again, with a narrow research focus, you can use resources on building troops instead of researching out every technology. Plus the only land boarders I had, were with my coalition partners and AI so I had the luxury of throwing practically everything I had at him.

Yes, many players who use gold have horrible tactics and strategies, or don't spend as much time online and are easy to beat.

I'm sticking with my assessment that 40% of games being strongly influenced or dominated by heavy gold users. Two of those times the golders didn't win, but the other two they did.

I've always said the secrets to success in this game are three part, having a good strategy from the beginning, investing the time necessary in executing that strategy, and coordinating with your partners. I suppose it's worth adding a fourth part in being willing to drop large amounts of gold if you opponents are as well. It's really disappointing because I think the basic structure of this game is incredibly good. However, with the amount of gold lately, it undercuts that strategic nature of the game.

I suppose online players operating with anonymity will do things they would never do in person. It’s the nature of the beast.

The theory in my alliance is that it's just players on summer holidays dropping lots of money. Let's hope this ends with the summer.

I convinced myself to give it another try. Two hours in, my alliance mate has 10 tac bombers over him.

Maybe. In this situation, we're all in Europe and one joined late in S Africa. I'm skeptical this golder is even aware of the rest of us.

Plus our alliances are technically different. They all end with Eklipze, but we have Solar, Lunar and Terran. It usually just confuses people when they first see it.

Plus with one of the two biggest golders I've come across, I only started the map with two partners and our goal was to do it with a coalition of three. The other was when I first met my alliance. They ran into a heavy golder and asked for help. We had ten players going against these two just by asking for help from neighbors. No one likes players trying to buy a win and feel confident enough to group together. We usually just cut similar deals when we come across heavy golders. Just basically make non-aggression pacts and agree to leave them alone after the golder is gone as long as they don't interfere with us winning the game.

Maybe. Three out of the five mates I'm in this game with are European.

In the game I'm in now. I got jumped by two golden armies on day two. I matched what those jokers were spending, but now am going after the initial golder that took out my alliance mate. We were able to discern from his username that he's from Iceland.

The golder from my last game was from Serbia.