Gold

I agree with you that there should at least be a limitation for gold. I've seen someone who probably used millions of gold to win the game before. It would give other people a fighting chance against the gold user. The only chance currently to defeat one is if they lose interest and go inactive.

Indeed.

First, starting off, this has been brought up so many times in the suggestions section, it's a bit sickening. Just to be clear, the consensus was that this won't happen. Remember that gold (and high command) users are the ones keeping the game free for the rest of us.

Secondly, you definitely can still use gold for instant spy missions.

Anyways, I think it's a little naive to call CoW a pay to win game. A pay to win game (to me at least), means a game where paying for something is an almost guaranteed win.

Though in CoW, where it is pretty expensive to field a strong army with gold, without proper knowledge of game mechanics, a skilled player can destroy that army with some or little difficulty. Most people who use gold seem to be this way anyway, since skilled players would usually find no need to spend large quantities of gold.

vietcong2005 wrote:

I agree with you that there should at least be a limitation for gold. I've seen someone who probably used millions of gold to win the game before. It would give other people a fighting chance against the gold user. The only chance currently to defeat one is if they lose interest and go inactive.

09Mo_Gamer wrote:

I think there should be a limitation of gold in the game. I think for normal game rounds (e.g. Clash of Nations), the amount of gold a player can spend can only go up to 10,000 gold. This is so that nobody can spend gold unfairly and take out other players from day one. Then in special events, you can't spend ANY gold whatsoever. Remember that event where you could win 50,000 gold? I bet some tryhard spent like 30,000 gold, won the game, got the 50,000 gold prize, then got 20k more gold than they did before.

Also, I think that you should no longer be able to increase your unit's own HP instantly by gold. You used to be able to decrease someone else's armies' HP. But C.O.W have removed that long ago. I think that you also can't instantly conduct a spy mission using gold either.

This way, this game isn't such a pay to win game. It is more fairer and balanced.

that’s a bit cringe bruv

Nova0213 wrote:

First, starting off, this has been brought up so many times in the suggestions section, it's a bit sickening. Just to be clear, the consensus was that this won't happen. Remember that gold (and high command) users are the ones keeping the game free for the rest of us.

Secondly, you definitely can still use gold for instant spy missions.

Anyways, I think it's a little naive to call CoW a pay to win game. A pay to win game (to me at least), means a game where paying for something is an almost guaranteed win.

Though in CoW, where it is pretty expensive to field a strong army with gold, without proper knowledge of game mechanics, a skilled player can destroy that army with some or little difficulty. Most people who use gold seem to be this way anyway, since skilled players would usually find no need to spend large quantities of gold.

vietcong2005 wrote:

I agree with you that there should at least be a limitation for gold. I've seen someone who probably used millions of gold to win the game before. It would give other people a fighting chance against the gold user. The only chance currently to defeat one is if they lose interest and go inactive.

If someone's willing to spend that much money on gold just to win a single CoW match, I think they've made it pretty clear they don't want to give others a fighting chance. It's just a CoW match, let them have it. If I spent that much money on something that'll last maybe a month, I'd be expecting results too.

I have never seen a gold spam user. The ones I have found who do use gold aren't toxic about it.

whowh wrote:

I have never seen a gold spam user. The ones I have found who do use gold aren't toxic about it.

The limitation in the use of gold would not be bad, for example I am playing a map where one of the opponents has used gold in industrial quantities, has practically monopolized the game, so you may be good at playing but you are faced after two days of play about 600 armies all at star level, and a bit difficult for you to maneuver or try to do something ... I also understand that these players send money to the developers making sure that the game remains free but in the end those who play based on their own forces and even using gold but not in an exaggerated way, sooner or later he gets tired and gives up .. There must be a limit otherwise only those with a swollen credit card go on ...

vietcong2005 wrote:

encounter people who are spreading a bunch of hate speech for no reason.