Market Overhaul

Arcorian wrote:

Minimum prices

Arcorian wrote:

maximum prices

Arcorian wrote:

another layer of realism

Balanced? Yes

Realistic? No

Arcorian wrote:

We will introduce a 10% trading fee on trades through the stock market. The fee is added on top of the price a player pays when accepting a buy offer, while it is subtracted from the amount a player receives when accepting a sell offer. This change addresses an issue where players used the exchange as their private warehouses to store/hide resources from the enemy when their provinces were about to be conquered.

Are you going to tax a 10% to the resources you add to the stockmarket? Because if not, then the trading fee serves no purpose at all.

Arcorian wrote:

Speaking of coalitions, we will introduce a cooldown for joining or creating a new coalition after a player left or was kicked from a previous one. The cooldown after leaving a coalition will be 3 days and 1 day if the player gets kicked out. This change is designed to make coalition hopping less appealing and undercutting enemy coalitions a more risky strategic option.

I suggest the addition of a "heavily dislike" button. I would find it useful in those "addition of layers of realism".

Why do you even pretend that you listen to the justified complains, or that you have a kind of beta testing, I really wonder. This cooldown period begs for abuse and the 10% tax is the final blow to the legitimate market.

atreas1 wrote:

I suggest the addition of a "heavily dislike" button. I would find it useful in those "addition of layers of realism".

Why do you even pretend that you listen to the justified complains, or that you have a kind of beta testing, I really wonder. This cooldown period begs for abuse and the 10% tax is the final blow to the legitimate market.

This isn't really as Realistic but I can see what point of view Bytro® is coming from this balances the Game but there might be a negative response to this Change, we'll see over the course of some days.

No it is not something we need to wait in order to see. I find it "interesting" to tax the legitimate purchases and sells via the market, while the gold buys remain untaxed.

At least let's not underestimate us so much by talking about balancing.

Just a general Question who thinks this update shouldn't go out/ this is a bad Idea

Look at the page of FP beta. Most people seem to be in favor of the changes in unit trade, but i havent seen anybody in favor of the 10% tax.

Of course, all were ignored...

Sorry I am not in beta testing and I am not in contact with anyone in the Beta testing group

It is a Forum page, at the bottom.

In short, CoW is going full on CoN

Not all these changes are designed to adress each of the goals (that is realism, balancing and exciting game experience in general). Some only address one or two of these goals.

You can do anything you like, but I ask you to do just two things: more maps / maps editor and free map creation.

That's all it takes.

Bytro: We try to make game more realistic

Also Bytroremoves army units trading*

Allied forces allways were trading with units or blueprints via franche curtis hawk, british shermans and stuff...

This update is big lie

I find this a very mixed bag.

I have always used the Scorched Earth policy where when people are attacked and they are going to drop the game they could transfer their stuff to another player. I do not like that this is removed as well as the total removal of free diplomatic trades with non-coalition/team players.

There is a concept of favored nation in international economics that allows for unaligned countries to trade.

The idea of a tax for the Market orders is acceptable and it can make the trade between coalition members attractive.

HOWEVER, what is needed is a 'Trade Agreement' that can be made between any two countries to allow for the avoidance of the open market. Just like we now have embargo, we need the opposite which is a Trade Agreement.

This is a better approach and increases interactions.

The placement of price limits both on the bottom and the top is not a good idea, are you going to eliminate people giving within the coalition say 50,000 Iron for Shared Map? Are we no longer going to have Peace deals where we buy a province for peace?

The restriction on troop gifting is also rather unpopular with me. Many times during WW2 the allies would swap whole units worth of troops,. Example at North Africa the UK got a 100 upgraded US tanks that was critical in stopping Rommel before El Alamain.

I am super irritated with the end of the capacity to send trade resources to non-coalition member. I used this in almost all large games to support "weaker" players that seemed capable and were facing a dangerous players, in order to slow down the later progress.

This is also what was done historically a lot : USA with China, USA and UK with the Soviet Union, Italy with Finland during the Winter War, etc...

I fully understand the removal of "gift units" (though I used it as well), but "no trade resources" REALLY limits the range of diplomatic options a player has.

Can we replace "no trade with non-coalition member" with an hefty "tax" on such trade (like 20% or 25%) ?

I guess coalition-hopping limitation was necessary due to the new rules on gifting / trading.

I played CoW for the first time in 2015, since then a lot has changed -- in my opinion way too much and above all too much in a wrong / unnecessary / predictably unfavorable direction ..

.. in pictures it's something like this:

As it once was >>

>> everybody wants to drive with it, but it's hard to master and also does not succeed everyone, absolutely nothing for kids and overestimated action heroes, requires lot practice, but a great feeling, if you can do it ..

As it is today >>

>> now (almost) anyone can easily ride it, but who really still wants it that way ? ..

.. but that's just my personal opinion ..

So Bytro continue to add more limits to the game to remove all sorts of subtle plays.

Come on guys, you are dumbing down the game so much it will eventually not be worth playing!!

Exactly. The two above posts from Restrisiko and RogodeterSnowl nailed it. Let me try to explain why:

Disallow trade of resources with nations outside your coalition/team and 10% tax on market:

This is really terrible !

1.: It reduces trade in the game to less than 50% of what can be seen now. It makes the game more tedious (trading was always a good pastime in between tactical movements and build orders) and limits your unit choices very much. You will know on day 1 already which units you'll research and which you can forget about - all dictated by the distribution of resources in your cores. Plus you'll know the same about other players. That's boredom³ and has nothing to do with a strategy game.

2.: I - like my two previous speakers - witnessed the old times when no coalitions existed. You could ally with others by sharing maps, but in the end, only one player could be the winner. This created a lot of tension and made the character of your allies important. It required finesse, empathy, honesty and other diplomatic skills to make them not turn against you when the end is approaching and it becomes clear that you'll be the winner and they only place second or third... you actually had to make friends with your allies. Also it was suspenseful to try to figure out the relations in between other nations; espionage was important. Relations were complex and exciting. You never knew what might happen next, there was a lot of dynamic. Sometimes it even made sense to try to manipulate the relations in between other countries, for example with anonymous messages or newspaper articles. To give you an example: I once led peace negotiations between two other nations and even sent a Blue Helmet peacekeeper force in between their armies because I wanted them to save their forces for fighting the player in the lead.

Such games were really rich, emotional and diversified. Each game brought a new experience.

And all of this can so far still be found a bit in CoW, because coalitions are optional. Now this change makes playing in a coalition mandatory, because it makes it even more difficult for "just-share-maps-without-coa-alliances" or single players to compete with coalitions. It reduces diplomacy in the game to one click - the click to join the mightiest coalition around. That is extremely sad. Please don't release this, please please please! It kills all cleverness in the game.

So far CoW was attractive for both players who don't like to play with diplomacy and players who like to play with diplomacy. With this change, you'll lose the second group, while for the first nothing changes.

There are other ways to battle multi-accounting - atreas1 and I proposed two options in --> this thread <--.

And what exactly is "account pushing" (in the same thread, freezy talked about it like this was something else(?))?

Disallow trade of units:

OK, well, as was already said this was a realistic feature, but here I can accept it falling away for the sake of removing some kinds of unfair play.

Cooldown after leaving or being kicked out of a coalition:

This change I like. It indeed makes coalition-hopping harder and I see no downturn in it.

Wow. This change actually made me create an account on the forum to post my dislike for the update. It removes so much fun from the game and it is ripe for abuse. Please reconsider doing this since it limits my options and strategies so much.

To make this very clear: We don't want CoW to become a no-brain game!