Though I haven't played in the PL for a few months, can say, for sure, that your reason for not wanting the 50 player match is reasonable. But you fail to understand that once the match has started, barring some major error, it is not right to just change everything because you have unfavorable conditions.patriota75 wrote:
Most of players was for change of map. I was only one who left it in protest. Others wanted change of map, but stayed even unhappy to play the 50 players map.
These matches last only a single month. And, though the PL is played by humans who mostly won't go inactive, it is very rare for a winner (coalition or solo) to come out on top before the match time-limit is reached. That is why the point system is so important....and it's why it works over a season of play. You can accumulate some points and not be the first place winner....or even second or third. And yet, if you do so in several matches in a season, you might actually rank in the overall season just because no one else won more than a single match in that season. Of course, there are some people who tend to win more than others, but that doesn't negate my logic, here.
While it is nice that the staff customizes penalties per incident....and they are usually pretty fair about it, in my opinion....I think it would be nice if they were to create a more-concise list of penalties. It's fine that they are creative. But, though I think the moderators should be given some leeway on how they employ those penalties, having a baseline of penalties listed would give them a good starting point as well as giving the players something by which to gauge what likely will happen -- as punishment -- when they do violate the rules, or when they witness someone else violating the rules. Of course, that wouldn't violate the anonymity of those who are punished by staff when it occurs.patriota75 wrote:
Penalties are not for public debate, but should be publicly known. PL needs lots of changes if wants to grow. Starting from choice of map. I had much suggestions but I lost a will to write about it. I wish you all the best.
And, don't forget, the punishment usually fits the crime. However, it would be nice if the punishment wasn't quite as severe for accidental violations as for deliberate violations.
Subscriptions aren't too fun, though I think premium accounts like High Command are actually worth it. But, it makes more sense to me that Bytro should return to old-school thinking. Make this game free-to-play for a single match at a time...and it can be gold-free also (to help with the next paragraph). But make it so you have to purchase the title to play multiple matches (and remove the restriction against non-staff starting multiple matches). Also ——— and for the live of me, I don't know why they don't do this ——— they need to add merchandise...both physical (i.e., mugs, hats, t-shirts key-chains, etc.) and in-game (e.g., animated sprites, themed skins, playable bonus rounds, special single-player skirmishes, etc.)grandpooba52 wrote:
there are many who would agree with youand it is okay to say so
but as you also said this is how bytro makes money so they can provide us with a game with no subscription fee
the best you can do when confronting a player who uses that much gold is to just leave the game and find another
By implementing some of my suggestions here, Bytro could conceivably end their reliance on the premium-point model...if not at first, then over time they could slowly phase it out.
I will sometimes fight a golder. But if they are insanely buying up dozens of units on day one, I just quit. Why on earth would I want to throw everything I have at a losing battle only to hurt my stats? At least, if I quit early, I can avoid a protracted situation where I build dozens, if not hundreds, of units that will all be slaughtered? If I quit early, then my stats won't be affected nearly as much. And many players (far more than me) are obsessed with having good stats. So fighting an overwhelmingly-losing war makes no sense.K.Rokossovski wrote:
I don't agree... I think it is our duty to vehemently fight them, even if it is a losing battle, to make them spend as much gold as possible to defeat us. In that way, a maximum amount of real-world cash flows to the developers of the game we all love so much, and make further enhancements possible. See it as a way for non-payers to contribute to the success of the game!
Aside from that point, it also makes no sense to fuel the adrenaline of the golder. If you REALLY want to punish them, don't try to make them spend more money. This won't change or correct their behavior. Instead, make them regret spending so much. If a person spends tons of money on a single match by using tons of gold, then finds that everyone quits on them, then they will have wasted their gold on a futile match with no competition. THAT, more than anything else, will make them think twice about spending too much gold and maybe temper them to be more reasonable.
I'm not saying they shouldn't buy gold, but let them spread it out more. The uber-golders are the only real problem in this game. Everybody else who uses gold will likely do so, more reasonably. And though I'm no fan of gold use and I do want Bytro to migrate away from that terrible premium-point financial model into something that makes a lot more sense, at least, until Bytro does abandon that model, we can strive to keep the excess from being a problem. And if that means abandoning a match to avoid rewarding a heavy golder with the satisfaction of making their abusive gold usage count for something, then I'm all in....by being all out. To the rest of the gold-using players, I am happy to fight on because I can beat most gold-using players in my sleep.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.
