Market Overhaul

BMfox wrote:

Every ship and plane has it's crew, they are not controlled remotely That's why they cost manpower to get produced.

BMfox wrote:

You can't take over an entire country in less then 48 hours even if it's AI. If you play well it will take longer.

Taking over an entire country of an (in)active player in less then 48 hours in a map on regular speed is simply not possible. Your troops don't move fast enough and you lose a couple of hours with every single battle.

Lend lease???

Also in my current game, playing as Poland. I need resources from the allies, which they are willing to give, but their alliance is full. Already this insulting update is crashing my parade.

Also in rps there is a tech tree, if we want to buy tanks or planes, being able to buy them from allies is very nice.

But I can understand why you did it bytro your stand against basically simulated slavery is admirable.

What a complete joke, by the end of this year all the freedom COW has over CON will be gone.

Removing the freedoms under the name of balance and realism is insulting.

I don't even see the problem with multi accounts, as whats the difference from me joining with friends to some lonely dude doing it all himself??

As for countries that gave their armies away to another nation:

In WW2 there were the Italians, Hungarians, Rumanians and Bulgarians and that was just around Stalingrad.

Then you might consider that the Allied Command at D-Day had Canadians, Poles, French, Brits etc under the command of an American.

In Italy there was a Brazilian division *(Cobra Division I believe).

In Africa, you had the Indians, the South Africans, Australians in the British 8th Army.

Shall I continue or do you yield the point>?

BMfox wrote:

Giving troops to other players has been abused to create superstacks.

a. Pls specify what makes a stack a super-stack?

b. Most players are too inept to get any meaningful production going.

Even if they would, they could only trade 10% of their puny army in a day. So, how on earth could that create super-stacks? Impossible!

c. And then the players that do get a meaningful industry developed...and thus meaningful armies.

These are already winning their maps, so why would they trade 10% of their army EVERY day to help someone else - who clearly could net even produce anything meaningful by himself - to get a 'super stack'? I am saying EVERY day, because if you do not trade 10% EVERY day for a longer period of time, it wont build a super-stack, will it?

Super-stacks from trading can therefore be only 1 out of 2 things:

1. a complete fantasy

2. a rare oddity

Hence it can be safely concluded - with an odd exception here and there - that super-stack-building form traded units is utterly impossible, completely unrealistic and thus a non-argument.

Fantasies and oddities, however, need not be regulated (let alone by game destroying measures!) as they are are NOT common.

And even if someone would create a super-stack, how does a super-stack pose a danger (ref SBDE etc)?

A personal note on Super-Stacks:

I have played my fair share of games and I have encountered large stacks from not-so-good players, but I have NEVER encountered anything like a super-stack. The only time I was baffled by the sheer number of units in the enemy's hands, was when playing vs someone with a gazillion planes, but... this is such a good player, that there is no doubt that he built them himself. And since my industry was not the smallest itself, I countered correctly with a gazillion of the right units....which I built myself.

So, if any super-stacks were observed in that game, they were hand-made by the owners themselves.

Now that Super-stacks are being considered such a severe problem that unit trading must be BANNED, the logical solution then is:

---> LIMIT INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT!! As soon as a player worked hard enough to get to the nr. 1 to 3 position in industrial capacity, the TOP 3 of every map should be blocked for a week from building more industry, so the rest can catch up....

For the ultimate solution, Devs should combine this measure with one that I mentioned in connection with 'the market being perceived as so powerful that it should not have so much influence'. Remember that one? No?

Well, I suggested that actually not the market is so powerful, but players are and that thus the number of players should be limited to 1, so that everyone can be a winner!

Now... with 1 player on the map, combined with limited industry development, truly no-one can loose a map, because even AI will be restricted from outdoing lesser players by industry capacity.

So....once having implemented these changes, the chance of anyone complaining will be reduced to zero...ALMOST. I say almost, because some players will still lose due to themselves.

To avoid any further complaints by players, the Devs only need implement 1 more step !!

The 1 player on the map should no longer choose a country to play and then run that country! No, the way to go would be that the 1 human player per map choses a country and immediately AI takes over!

All issues solved!

Bytro is stripping the game away from its features and calls it 'realistic'. It is insulting, I totally agree. Not to mention, such changes aren’t actually realistic… Yes, there were expeditionary forces under command of their allies in WW2, as stated above.

It’s really sad, that they hardly listen to community and instead 'add' things no one ask them for.

Chickenus wrote:

What a complete joke, by the end of this year all the freedom COW has over CON will be gone.

I just can’t get it, not only they don’t add any content to the game but also have to ruin what already works?!

nemuritor98 wrote:

BMfox wrote:

How will you play with your friends? You will each speciallize in a troop type. If you specialize in navy you will protect their shores, if you specialise in air force you will be able to fly to the resque. You can help your friend by giving him resources that he lacks, you can advise him on stratigy and you can move in with your land force whenever he is under attack. That's what they did in WWII so it shouldn't be any different here.

The../...him.

Implying that the only way to play with your friends is by specializing in one branch or by breaking sleeping schedule's and having a non-healthy lifestyle just to play the game is just nuts.

Like we have to use a workaround in the market now (to put a sales offer for any price starting from 1 to 29) for something which was working fine and was needlessly broken too.

These restrictions aim to stop an oddity here and a complete fantasy elsewhere, for which the majority of players are being robbed from playing a good game.

Bytro, pls spend your time on IMPROVING the game; NOT LIMITING it!

Slavery... really?

There are change of commands as stated above. There are volunteers like in the Spanish civil war. There are even entire battalions been given for free to change citizenship like in the Balkan war if I’m not mistaken(or they were “permanent volunteer” but the bottom line is the same)

Trying to bend the logic through a hoop so small as saying that giving a unit is slavery it’s first of all ridicules..... and second of all feels like a terrible excuse to forgive an even worst game change

BMX you really sh*t the bed there with this excuse

And don’t try to use the “realism” excuse when it suits terrible ideas. We have paras, nuclear subs and nuclear battleship which all of those weren’t even in WW2 or were not as useful like the game makes them be

We either keep realism as a stand(so limiting the unit exchange, but no paras) or be in fantasy land and play in this condition

_Pontus_ wrote:

Pls specify what makes a stack a super-stack?

The problem is that they(Bytro) managed to solve that problem in their new game, Supremacy 1: The Great War, where you can have different units from different levels, all by yourself without trading because you can choose the level of the unit you want to produce(also units on the ground don't upgrade if you get the next level in tech tree), and they changed how SBDE works, it being, a SBDE for the whole group of units, instead of each unit specifically, meaning, for the example above where you have 10 tactical bombers(5+5) and 10 fighters(5+5), the SBDE from Supremacy 1 would count as if you had 20 units, instead of 10+10 or 5+5+5+5.

However, as you say, this is something very rare for it to happen.

nemuritor98 wrote:

However, as you say, this is something very rare for it to happen.

Sooo....how does this justify a significant game change that kills an important part of diplomacy for many players and even is totally destructive for i.e. RP-ers?

The answer to this question is short and simple: NOT!

It is truly beyond me that we are facing changes that have no basis in real life gaming and fix non-existent problems only... Why???

BMfox wrote:

You can't take over an entire country in less then 48 hours even if it's AI. If you play well it will take longer.

Anyway... I'm into Day 4 of 1939 map.

Market still dead. Not a single sell order since day 1.

Day 9 on Historical... Market is virtually dead.

because of rising prices (not necessarily meaning order execution) in a map and not yet swimming in cash, I have had to annul a number of orders and place new ones with higher prices.... COSTING ME 10%!!!???

FIX THIS NONSENSE!

On the stock market I only pay commission for executed orders.

This has NOTHING to do with realism. It only is annoying. More annoying than the change itself is that devs apparently have no clue of what does matter and what does NOT!

Arcorian wrote:

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.

.... Blah Blah Blah...

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

The 10% fee is being taken IMMEDIATELY when Buy and Sell orders are POSTED to the market and then another 10% Tax is taken a 2nd time when they are accepted for a total of 20% Market Tax... not just 10%. Then if an order is cancelled, the Posting 10% fee is NOT returned.

Please change your description to accurately reflect the changes that were implemented... or fix the 10% surcharge to the market which according to your description above should only be charging the fee "when accepting" ... when WHO is accepting the Offer... the person posting the offer or the person accepting an offer on the market.

Had you said that the commission is added to offers when they are "POSTED to the market" we would have understood that they are paid for "UP FRONT" . Instead you mislead by suggesting that an offer on the market has hose fees collected when someone "Accepts" an offer to Buy/Sell that is already showing on the market.

---------------------------------

When you "Accept" an offer that has been "POSTED" to the market... those calculations are showing up a second time... so the Tax is actually 20% as it is being charged on both the Posting of the Buy/Sell offer AND when it is "Accepted" buy the Seller/Buyer who sees it on the market

---------------------

Day 5 of 1939 map.... NO new sell offers have been posted since those on Day 1... Market is DEAD.

let's not forget, the tax serves no purpose and shouldnt exist at all

Good, Bad or Ugly wasn't the point of my post... If Dev's say a TB range is 1000km but it's only 800km, I have a problem with that and so should they. It means they are either mistaken or incompetent. In either case, they should correct the issue so that info they release about game mechanics is is accurate.

In this case, the Update claims that there is a 10% Tax on Market trade. In fact there is a 10% Tax to BOTH the Buyer and the Seller for a total of 20% Tax on all Market Trade. And there is a 10% Tax on asking to trade something on the market, even if you don't actually buy/sell your goods.

Weather I like it or not... That's a different complaint altogether. (Even though I agree in this case and think that this market changed has taken away a huge and helpful part of the game and actually made the game LESS Realistic than before)

Prior to the change, I could still trade resources with countries I was NOT at war with, now I can ONLY trade with 2 other countries since all others are refusing to use the Market (and I don't know if it's changes to the "Smart AI" (Read maybe smarter in combat but dumber than a brick in Trade) but combined with the 20% Market Tax, this change has absolutely killed the "Sell Offers" Trade on the market and NO ONE is making any offers to sell excess goods)

One of the following things will happen.

1) People will get over their initial shock of this change... and accept the 20% hit for all trades.

2) People will get over their initial shock of this change... and stop using the market altogether but keep playing.

3) People will not get over the taking away of one of the KEY equalizers to starting map location and stop playing in maps where the basic and most necessary resources needed to compete in first few weeks.. so you will see games taking longer to start as they don't fill up once the first 10 countries have been chosen.

4) People start rage quitting and finding some other game else to spend their time and money.

5) Or some combination of the above.

What will NOT happen;

Anyone thinking this Market mechanics update has been an improvement.

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

This is currently NOT happening.

The 10% fee is being taken IMMEDIATELY when Buy and Sell orders are POSTED to the market and then another 10% Tax is taken a 2nd time when they are accepted for a total of 20% Market Tax... not just 10%. Then if an order is cancelled, the Posting 10% fee is NOT returned.

Please change your description to accurately reflect the changes that were implemented... or fix the 10% surcharge to the market which according to your description above should only be charging the fee "when accepting" ... when WHO is accepting the Offer... the person posting the offer or the person accepting an offer on the market.

Had you said that the commission is added to offers when they are "POSTED to the market" we would have understood that they are paid for "UP FRONT" . Instead you mislead by suggesting that an offer on the market has hose fees collected when someone "Accepts" an offer to Buy/Sell that is already showing on the market.

---------------------------------

When you "Accept" an offer that has been "POSTED" to the market... those calculations are showing up a second time... so the Tax is actually 20% as it is being charged on both the Posting of the Buy/Sell offer AND when it is "Accepted" buy the Seller/Buyer who sees it on the market

---------------------

Day 5 of 1939 map.... NO new sell offers have been posted since those on Day 1... Market is DEAD.

I am sorry if the description caused confusion. I will try to update it, to make it clear. Regarding the issue that the fee is not returned when an resource offer is redrawn from the market is working as intended. The fee is charged whether ressource are sold or removed again.