Market Overhaul

This thread is way too long

Ryan04px2025 wrote:

This thread is way too long

Chimere wrote:

The new coalition rule with the 3 days cooldown creates another issue : it becomes super hard to adjust the border post-war, since you cannot have a fake quick war as before.

Ridiculous!

Alphared wrote:

The three day cool down has other intended effects... I recently went an

hour (or less) out of the time limit on some of my games, automatically

booting me from my coalitions... which meant, when I came back I had to

wait three days to rejoin those coalitions for a (up to) one hour

mistiming on my check in.

Ridiculous!

Currently in 100 Map

Day 5

Market is Active? seeing more res on market, trades happening every few hours. Very different from 1939 map (with fewer players)

Regarding the cool down I can share the following...

With our next release (end of October) future events will have adjusted cool downs for leaving or getting kicked from a coalition. The cool downs will be as follow:

6x Speed:

Leaving a coalition = 24 real life hours

Getting kicked from a coalition = 8 real life hours

4x Speed:

Leaving a coalition = 36 real life hours

Getting kicked from a coalition = 12 real life hours

2x Speed:

Leaving a coalition = 48 real life hours

Getting kicked from a coalition = 16 real life hours

Arcorian wrote:

Regarding the cool down I can share the following...

With our next release (end of October) future events will have adjusted cool downs for leaving or getting kicked from a coalition. The cool downs will be as follow:

6x Speed:

Leaving a coalition = 24 real life hours

Getting kicked from a coalition = 8 real life hours

4x Speed:

Leaving a coalition = 36 real life hours

Getting kicked from a coalition = 12 real life hours

2x Speed:

Leaving a coalition = 48 real life hours

Getting kicked from a coalition = 16 real life hours

No forget that question. Why are cool downs even being refined and not scraped? As one of your beta players I would like a valid answer for there presence, a some what reasonable one, or even a believable one - any of which makes sense in the real world environment in which the game is supposed to be set.

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

If you had been in my coalition... I would have attacked you and taken your stuff...

You're right on point.

Here is a example for normal speed. I am playing a Pacific map, we are 2 in USA and 2 in Asia, after a long war we decided all to win the game since there is only 4 active. Now we have to wait 3 days until they can join , so we just login on that server.

I know there is nothing that can be done, since the updates from July are still bad and in play. I will not continue to say that my HC is not active because of that ( got bored to get into wars) , my market on all servers is dead since the begging , I gave the leadership to my alliance to someone else, all these factors move me away from the game and I understand and slowly leave place for new players that don't complain .

Have a good one , and thank you that the update will be late next month. I can't wait for the December update where you can send only 2 msg per day, can see the land of you coalition members after they joined for 2 weeks, HC is still bad, market is a zombie and more ( JK ).

Everything is a joke so why not .

One thing that surprises me somewhat is that players involved in Alliance Challenge matches have not been more vociferous here about the ban on trading units. For some countries on the 10 player Europe match like France and Germany, trading units is sometimes the only way these guys can stay alive if they are badly surrounded by opposition players

Only thing about cooldowns I'd change is the Leadership role being passed on to next player... Once it gets to last player instead of them becoming Leader, they should get kicked and Coalition disbanded.

Getting stuck with some Dumbarz name someone else came up with is lame. And you should get a minimum penalty for joining such poorly named coalition.. but not he max penalty as the error was not yours.

Couldn't rsist to check back and happy to see the subject and thread are very alive. This means players care.

I doubt there have been many more threads as active and serious.

Ofc it is very saddening that there is no response to the many valid questions and suggestions.

Still trying out S1 at the moment. Just finished my 1st Great War map. Honestly, I was going to win with ease, but somehow I did not check back in often enough. It is rather simple in its set up, easy to see through (not for the regular bunch of 12 yrs olds ofc). But, heck, I lost, because I didn't check in.

Now, why was that?

Never happened in CoW except once on a Dominion event, where I forgot the timer while drawing out the game a bit

But in S1 the Flanders Front tutorial map has an interesting concept. Going to try out the 3rd map Veterans Front some day soon. Maybe it is more interesting than the Great War map. Hoping it is...

Anyways, if that is the future of Bytro ... oh well... who am I to judge ? If it all keeps going down hill like lately, I can always play my good old 'Making History'. After all, the AI has more interaction options there, than humans have left here.

I want to add that joining a game after day 1. The IA makes an offer of everything and even when canceling that offer you get less resource so with the handicap of day 2 you get even less resources

The main mode of trading in this game is resources ... Yet silly taxes and trade restrictions have drastically reduced this type of trade, particularly if you are not in a coalition ... Within my experience, I only recall selling armaments in one game by request of a cash rich coalition ally (Ironically I sold 2 cruisers to a 'neutral' party, who used them against me shortly thereafter) ... Even though I'm not a big arms salesman, I feel that it should also be allowed- as that mode of trading is common in the real world ... As I said before, silly taxes and trade restrictions are killing this wonderful game! ...

This is just like a protest. Social Activism is not violent at all and it is necessary both in the real world and in games. When people don't like it, the government must change. This applies to the game.

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

Only thing about cooldowns I'd change is the Leadership role being passed on to next player... Once it gets to last player instead of them becoming Leader, they should get kicked and Coalition disbanded.

Getting stuck with some Dumbarz name someone else came up with is lame. And you should get a minimum penalty for joining such poorly named coalition.. but not he max penalty as the error was not yours.

After some searching, I realize that leader has option to change settings of Coalition details... and change the Flag, name and description of Coalition...

OK.

Now for once in a life I want to use the term "we", because I am sure I can speak for all forum users in this. "We" are the ones who enjoyed trade and diplomacy in CoW (other players, mainly mobile users and those who are content with merely tactical movements and slaughter usually aren't active in the forum - let me call them "other players" in this post... not meant disrespectfully).

So "we" don't have to continue telling you (Bytro team) that we don't like the "Market Overhaul" (disallowing trade outside coalitions and taxing market) since it's plainly obvious that it did not only remove trade, but also diplomacy from the game (more precisely forces everyone to play in coalitions, thus reduces diplomacy to looking for the strongest coalition nearby and joining it... which is equal to removing diplomacy).

Also "we" don't have to continue discussing the arguments you provided to justify that change. Except for the superstack-argument that indeed more or less justifies removal of unit trade, all of them have been thoroughly refuted with logical reasoning many times.

For about two weeks, I really believed you did this to battle multi-accounting. But then @atreas1 explained that a multi-accounter now can simply let his secondary (and third and fourth) account join his coalition for a few minutes and transfer resources to his primary account all in one go. Then kick out his secondary account from the coa again. Other players on the map won't notice, since countries joining or leaving coalitions isn't logged anywhere. Is not as comfortable for the multi-accounter as it was before (when he could transfer resources any time), but for sure won't stop him.

Even when atreas1 had proven the anti-multi-accounting argument to be invalid, you showed no reaction. So that leaves only one conclusion - only one reason for removing trade outside coalitions: "We" are not wanted in the game anymore.

Otherwise you wouldn't take away trade and diplomacy from us.

Only thing I don't understand is why you want to get rid of "us". Why can't "we" just continue to play side by side with "other players"? Is server capacity really so precious you have to reduce the player base?

I guess it was a management decision and you, @freezy, are suffering with us, but have your hands tied. Probably Bytro management thinks that "other players" are the future (which I doubt). And probably statistics show that "other players" spend more money on gold (which certainly is true - have to admit that) and that the HC money you get from "us" is only a small part of your revenue. But still I bet there soon comes the day you wish you hadn't sent "us" away. Cause "we" are the soul of this game. Without the passion, creativity and cleverness "we" so far have been adding to each match, CoW is only a bleak zombie of a game - just another click-to-win and pay-to-win game on the internet. So yes, "we" also attract "other players". Don't you think it's the biggest fun for a big gold-spender to defeat someone who cares, someone who plays with brain - in other words to defeat one of "us"? Aren't "we" the motivation for gold spenders to keep spending?

I'm sure it will hurt you that most of "us" are now leaving.

Goodbye my forum friends!

Wait, you are leaving CoW?

Trading units was a good feature in my view, especially for team and coalition based games. It allowed interesting strategies when team/ coalition countries were spread out on different continents.

To address issue of super stacks/ trading large armies there was a 10% limit per day. You could add additional controls by adding a volume limit, say 10% per day but no more than 4-5 units per day.

If possible I'd recommend to restore units trade with some additional controls preventing trade of huge stacks.

This has been going on for a long time and a lot of people are already giving up...

Game Evolving

Axis&Allies is on which "evolution" of the original now... 7th? with how many spin off's using same game mechanics on different maps?... a dozen or so.

Eve Online has not gone 6 moths without changes since it began more than a dozen years online.

Even Monopoly has undergone changes.

It's your money, spend it where YOU want. If you don't like the changes, take your money out and put it where you enjoy spending it more. Weather the Dev's can afford their lattes should not be your concern.

On the other hand if you like, don't mind or can tolerate the changes, and find that you still get entertainment from your money that you spend on this game is worthwhile to you.. keep spending it.

If you play for free and don't support this game financially... the Dev's have been generous enough to offer this forum for us where we can whine about all they've done and we're not even charged for this method of entertaining ourselves.

100 Map

Day 14

Market roughly what it was before the Market Overhaul (still hating the changes but market is being used)