We want Call of War to be an exciting, realistic and balanced gaming experience for all of you. With that in mind, we will introduce several changes to trading in Call of War with our next update on September 3rd 2019.
To start with, you will find that the option to trade units with other players is not available anymore. This change reflects both the realism and the balancing approach. Currently players are able to trade up to 10% of their armies on a daily basis, which can lead to rather bizarre and unrealistic situations.
Furthermore exchanging resources via diplomatic trading will be limited to coalition and team members. This means that trading with enemies or neutral countries will be possible only through the stock market. This reduces options for account pushing as all accounts need to be in the same coalition or team as well as betraying a team or coalition by gifting resources to the enemy. Also, it makes the general balance of the map more fair and predictable. In events or scenarios that don’t have teams or coalitions, trading resources is only possible through the exchange.
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.
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 would receive 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. Apart from the trading fees the maximum prices will be adjusted as well. Currently you can set prices per unit between 1.0 money and 30 money. This will be changed to prices per unit between 3.0 money and 30 money.
Upcoming changes in existing and new games:
The option to trade units via diplomatic trading will be removed.
The option to trade resources via diplomatic trading will be limited to coalition and team members.
Minimum prices per unit for resources will be increased from 1.0 money to 3.0 money. the maximum prices per unit will be set to 30 money.
Upcoming changes in new games only:
Introduction of a 10% trading fee for buyers and sellers when trading resources through the exchange.
10% money is added on top of the price the user pays when accepting a buy offer, while 10% money is subtracted from the amount the user receives when the user is accepting a sell offer.
Players will have a 3 days cooldown for joining or creating a coalition avert they leave a coalition.
Players will have a 1 day cooldown for joining or creating a coalition after they got kicked from a coalition.
These changes will add another layer of realism to Call of War and make the game experience more balanced and fair to all players.
Your Bytro team
Edit: *When removing an offer from the stock market the paid 10% fee will not be paid back.
235 Replies
26 Oct 2019, 14:20
I have a question, how can you play a good 1939 Historical if you are not Japan, Germany, USSR ,USA or another top country ? I started as Australia a week ago because I wanted a challenge , all that I do is build 1 lvl of IC per day because of resources. So this map not only you don't have armies as a low tier country you don't EVER got a chance against a human top tier country because you can never evolve as they are ( research/production/army). All my hope goes into them getting AI. I will play until the end but is not a fun way for someone who doesn't have my patience to develop rather a big land without resources. My opinion is to have that map removed until the market is resolved or have it like a 10 player map ( which I know is a bad idea). It is literally impossible .
26 Oct 2019, 14:57
Newbss wrote:
I have a question, how can you play a good 1939 Historical if you are not Japan, Germany, USSR ,USA or another top country ? I started as Australia a week ago because I wanted a challenge , all that I do is build 1 lvl of IC per day because of resources. So this map not only you don't have armies as a low tier country you don't EVER got a chance against a human top tier country because you can never evolve as they are ( research/production/army). All my hope goes into them getting AI. I will play until the end but is not a fun way for someone who doesn't have my patience to develop rather a big land without resources. My opinion is to have that map removed until the market is resolved or have it like a 10 player map ( which I know is a bad idea). It is literally impossible .
I started last 1939 Map in South America (not Brazil) I've started 100 map as Chinese Sichuan.. both definately NOT major starting powers. Won Both Games as first in points and largest army. In fact I've made it a point NOT to start as one of the 1st Tier countries in any game I've played (granted I'm new and only on 9th game ATM). I've still got lots to learn and tend to learn more playing the underdog than starting on top.
9 out of 10 times it's who quits and goes AI around you and who doesn't that dictates your first week. 2nd week is when you start making alliances.
I agree with you that MORE needs to be done to prevent players from starting 100 games and going AI in 99 of them, that would greatly improve ALL aspects of the game including MARKET!
Much of this thread has discussed the market as it it's somehow Independent of other factors. I'd say that if you put it together WITH other factors such as the High drop out rate of players in game, the picture becomes clearer.
General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"
26 Oct 2019, 16:32
I have not tried Australia yet in 39 map (won with Brazil and Spain). My coalition partners have included some decent players that controlled Canada, Romania, Manchuria and Tibet.
Although those games I won were sometime back before the market overhaul- which prevented trades between human players outside a coalition and taxed trades in the market. 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.
I think that the market overhaul will benefit only those players that have been around for a while and play in coalitions like a wolf pack ... As I said before, silly taxes and trade restrictions are killing this wonderful game! ...
26 Oct 2019, 16:38
Exactly, you don't always want to start as a big power, but without trading you are doomed. My only concern is that they want to make a update in late October. All I'm saying is that is hard for a low level player to acknowledge his position in a map like that and finish it with the current changes. The market was the only think that kept you alive and kicking in late game in 1939 as a low tier country.
26 Oct 2019, 19:06
In the 1939 map with fewer players... the lack of trading partners in the market was VERY noticeable and had a huge impact on my game.
In the 100 World map... more players... more trades available... not so much.
General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"
27 Oct 2019, 14:25
Ryan04px2025 wrote:
Wait, you are leaving CoW?
Not fully the forum yet, but starting a new game without trade and diplomacy? No, why should I do that? Boredom I can get somewhere else.
Mandurah wrote:
To address issue of super stacks/ trading large armies there was a 10% limit per day.
As was explained several times already, also in this thread: The definition of the term "superstack" is a stack containing several units of same type but different (research) level - and thus ignoring SBDE limitations. Limits in the amount of units traded per day didn't help against this seldom, but indeed possible abuse. So removing unit trade indeed made some sense... although I agree also the loss of this feature hurts... better but probably not easily implementable solution would be to change SBDE calculation so it considers all units of same type in a stack regardless of their level - see --> this post <-- on that.
Anyhow removing resource trade outside coalitions and taxing market? No, nothing positive achieved by that.
27 Oct 2019, 14:37
Re: Stacking different Lvl units of same Type
Even something as simple as units for the same type "ie infantry" of different levels, the could suffer a damage allocation penalty, the Lower level units fight, but the higher level units take the damage.
Day 15 on 100 map
Market active... wouldn't know things had changed.
General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"
28 Oct 2019, 18:16
Thanks for the well written feedback Hans! I definitely get your point.
I can tell you what was not our intention: To actively decrease our userbase (why would we?) or to create a "we vs. them" kind of scenario. It is unfortunate that it is perceived that way. You are kind of right though that there are different player types. Not all changes are benefitial to each player group. Sometimes changes adress one group more than the other, and there is always the unfortunate truth that you cannot please everyone and sometimes the needs of group A and group B or Bytro as a business are contradicting eachother, and we have to juggle all of them. So while the last change may not have been in favor of the player group you are speaking of, there certainly will be changes in the future which will be. It's always a give and take in online game development .
To clarify one statement: Coalition leaving/kicking info is logged in a certain way and could be checked by our support team. Frequently going in and out of coalitions also increases the chance that regular players spot such dubious behaviour, which may prompt more accurate multi reports. So if you observe anything like that, please report these players and our support team will be able to check and verify.
But yes, multi accounts are not the sole reason for these changes and I mentioned multiple times already that another big reason for the changes is balancing, e.g. making it a bit harder to circumvent the intended map balancing and make it more of a challenge to deal with bottlenecks. This certainly was achieved.
The team has seen and discussed the feedback in this thread by the way. Although we cannot please everyone and I also cannot promise any changes on these topics in the near future we are grateful that you provided us with your feedback.
28 Oct 2019, 19:20
OneNutSquirrel wrote:
In the 1939 map with fewer players... the lack of trading partners in the market was VERY noticeable and had a huge impact on my game.
Amen ... Agree 100% ... The impact on the lower boards was very noticeable ... If you were not in a coalition, you had no trading partners! ...
28 Oct 2019, 20:14
freezy wrote:
Thanks for the well written feedback Hans! I definitely get your point.
I can tell you ...
Blah blah blah...
...we are grateful that you provided us with your feedback.
To any one who doubted the devs read these threads...
General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"
28 Oct 2019, 21:56
OK, so I may be late to the party (in fact I'm willing to bet that I am) so just redirect me to where I need to be if necessary. What's up with the new trading mechanics between countries? I took a roughly 6 month break from the game, and when I came back, I couldn't buy a province off of another player for resources anymore. What gives?
29 Oct 2019, 01:36
You get a great recap in the starting comment of this thread which explains all the Market Changes (Link)
General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"
29 Oct 2019, 13:40
I don't know if the devs did something but the market seems to slowly start working again. I could get offers on different servers in mid game, a thing that a few weeks ago wasn't possible. So I salute this change if it happened.
29 Oct 2019, 16:53
Same here ... But I still believe that they need to allow non-coalition players trade resources with coalition players they are not at war with (or embargoed by) ... It stinks not been in a coalition! ...
29 Oct 2019, 18:09
With the final answer of @freezy this thread is now closed.
.
