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:
Your Bytro team
Edit: *When removing an offer from the stock market the paid 10% fee will not be paid back.
Then can a "Modify Offer" option be added to any existing offers, and if price is reduced, nothing happens, if price is increased then 10% of difference between old and new price is added... at least that would allow for Offers be be modified so they can stay relevant.
I will forward your suggestion to our game designers.OneNutSquirrel wrote:
Then can a "Modify Offer" option be added to any existing offers, and if price is reduced, nothing happens, if price is increased then 10% of difference between old and new price is added... at least that would allow for Offers be be modified so they can stay relevant.
Forward my suggestions too please!. There were 5 as you might remember:Arcorian wrote:
I will forward your suggestion to our game designers.
1. REVERT to as it was
2. REVERT to as it was
3. REVERT to as it was
4. REVERT to as it was
and..
5. REVERT to as it was
Oh, lest I forget...number 6: REVERT to as it was
and this applies to trading fee, units trading, diplo etc.
Even though I don't always agree with Bytro they have a valid reason for the new diplomacy. To many players were multi accounting to have more resources. For this reason you can only trade with your coalition or with the market. This makes perfect sense.
From tactical point of view, why would you send resources to a player that is not in your coaliton? The point is to win the game not to sponsor others. If you are sending a strong player resources in exchange not to be attacked then this is a motivation to join a strong or create a strong alliance yourself.
Playing along with an alliance in exhange not to be exterminated and attacking other players or alliances with 4 players is not really fairplay.
Like the law of Darwin: "we adapt"
Fox, what you describe is exactly what diplomacy is.BMfox wrote:
From diplomatic point of view, why would you send resources to a player that is not in your coaliton? The point is to win the game not to sponsor others. If you are sending a strong player resources in exchange not to be attacked then this is a motivation to join a strong or create a strong alliance yourself.Playing along with an alliance in exhange not to be exterminated and attacking other players or alliances with 4 players is not really fairplay.
Like the law of Darwin: "we adapt"
Diplomacy is what players use as an alternative to grenades. I hardly ever lose a map these days; actually only when I have been lazy 
To win, I naturally kill off other players, but .... I tend to reward players that tried hard, made the effort, played smarter than expected AND use diplomacy with survival.
No good at diplomacy? You die... Because diplomacy in reality- as well as was in the game - is a very important tool/weapon in attack and defense.
Fox, I beg you... pls revisit your questions and see how you yourself UNDERLINE and STRESS the IMPORTANCE of the DIPLOMATIC OPTIONS which were REMOVED:
- why would you send resources to a player that is not in your coaliton?
Fox...Oh come on??!! Really? Why would I (or anyone?) do such a thing? ==> Well, maybe for the simple reason that the guy is willingly and knowingly (OR even unwillingly and unknowingly) holding up a barrier that I do not feel like crossing yet. And there are a ton of other reasons to think of...
I make a ton of agreements with other players WITHOUT ever entering into a coalition with the majority of them. Sometimes I share maps only to be able to advise them in their battles or for intelligence purposes or..
etc...
- Playing along to survive?
What is more valid a reason than that, if one cannot manage on his own? ==> It is in fact the purest application of diplomacy in its clearest form since the advent of diplomacy in its earliest stages!!!
Fox, thanks for those questions, pointing out exactly what the changes are ruining...
No..it does not make perfect sense...BMfox wrote:
To many players were multi accounting to have more resources. For this reason you can only trade with your coalition or with the market. This makes perfect sense.
What would make perfect sense is finding and removing those multies, because there are maybe many, BUT NOT THAT MANY.
Restricting ALL PLAYERS because Bytro can't get it right with hunting multies IS NOT THE ANSWER.
And again: you do not need to regulate the masses because of the abuse by a few!!!!
If this is the road the game is going then pls implement my MOTHERS OF SOLUTIONS TO ALL ISSUES:
- 1 human player per map, so everyone can be a winner
- if you are good with economy, restrict the building until the 1 player or AI is number 4 again
- When the 1 allowed human player per map enters the map, he is free to choose his country AND THEN AI takes over
ALL ISSUES SOLVED!
-
I'm not surprised at all that those in favor to play competitive games without diplomacy, are in favor of the removal of the diplomacy. That indeed makes perfect sense.
Well obviously you play soft style and I play hard style so we will never agree. If someone offers me peace for resources I well accept, declare war again and continue attacking. Why? Well because I can 
Giving resources to other players outside your own coalition, I personally don't see the point. Even if you have no allies and you give resources to the winning coalition you just make it more easy to win. You should fight them instead, but that's my humble opinion
You said:BMfox wrote:
Well obviously you play soft style and I play hard style so we will never agree. If someone offers me peace for resources I well accept, declare war again and continue attacking. Why? Well because I canGiving resources to other players outside your own coalition, I personally don't see the point. Even if you have no allies and you give resources to the winning coalition you just make it more easy to win. You should fight them instead, but that's my humble opinion
a. " If someone offers me peace for resources I well accept, declare war again and continue attacking. Why? Well because I can 
"
==> I personally don't see the point in that, BUT... I won't restrict you from doing so, even though I think it is very unfair...
b. "Giving resources to other players outside your own coalition, I personally don't see the point."
===> I am not going to judge your game-insight or discuss the reasons why you don't see it... BUT... I can think of a ton of reasons why I would do that and I am pretty sure that a ton of players can do the same...
This has nothing to do with playing hard or soft style... My style changes per game for instance. Some games I am absolutely Mr. Nice-Guy and spend half my game supporting and teaching other players/
Other games I am a scrupulous killer...
One thing, however, in this discussion is VALID above all points: RESTRICTING the many to STOP A FEW from doing THINGS THAT REALLY DO NOT MATTER to anyone and while doing so RUINING IMPORTANT GAME ASPECTS, is ... ALWAYS WRONG!
And than I do not even go into how badly the changes were implemented, making it necessary to use 'work-arounds in market prices', making it impossible to aid neighbors without coalition, while all the while there are serious issues to be dealt with, like the irritating jumping in the building wait-list, the jumping in the diplomatic messages, invisible units, units getting stuck etc and so forth... How many months for instance, did it take to fix the indestructible Swiss air plane convoys?
And still, with serious issues at hand, the devs do have time for a whole series of unnecessary, unwanted, unplayable changes that:
- NOBODY asked for?
- solving issues that NOBODY had a real problem with?
- prevent only a very few NOBODIES from attaining MINOR advantages that don't even make them win games?
Stop defending these changes, Fox, because only incompetent players could hail these. They are not YOUR changes and you are also not helped in any way by these; at best you are not bothered, but I and many others are!
There is no need to defend the authorities when they do something stupid, just because there are the authorities....
Anyone who does, only reduces his own credibility and discredits himself!
Same goes here for defending devs and the changes...
But lets end this discussion for a short while with the following:
Fox, do a poll asking the players:
- what do you think of the market changes in general?
- do you feel the market works better, equal or worse since the changes?
- do you like or dislike the diplo changes?
- if you had the choice, would you revert or keep the changes (ask for market and diplo)
etc. ..simply add all the points discussed and let the PLAYERS decide!!!
-
The reason is indeed valid but the measure not adequate. In Gernan there is a infamous word for it "Sippenhaft", that is to punish many because you can not get hands on those that behave bad.BMfox wrote:
Even though I don't always agree with Bytro they have a valid reason for the new diplomacy. To many players were multi accounting to have more resources. For this reason you can only trade with your coalition or with the market. This makes perfect sense.
Besides there is sign that even Bytro considers this tax as not the best decision as it is not in place in supremacy. So lets hope that we will get rid of this ill prone measure soon.
M
why? Maybe if they fight hard enough they weaken a common enemy and it’s easier for me, maybe I’m helping a bunch of noobs to survive, maybe I’m being blackmailed by a stronger enemy to not be wipe out.... I can assure you I can find at least other 10 reasons why it should be back as it was and this update only fix a minor issue screwing tons of playersBMfox wrote:
Even though I don't always agree with Bytro they have a valid reason for the new diplomacy. To many players were multi accounting to have more resources. For this reason you can only trade with your coalition or with the market. This makes perfect sense.From tactical point of view, why would you send resources to a player that is not in your coaliton? The point is to win the game not to sponsor others. If you are sending a strong player resources in exchange not to be attacked then this is a motivation to join a strong or create a strong alliance yourself.
Playing along with an alliance in exhange not to be exterminated and attacking other players or alliances with 4 players is not really fairplay.
Like the law of Darwin: "we adapt"
Antartica map, I don’t aim to win it, I much rather end 2-3 and have a future allied in other match
Another topic not considered :
- For historical maps, it makes the "challenging" nations, like let's say Tibet or XJ - even closer to impossible. IIRC those countries usually lack one of the key resources of the game (like : lack fully), or at least have only one icon of each, so for them trading is absolutely essential.
Few players did not go inactive immediately on having those nations. Without trade, I won't even try.
What you see below is one of the freedoms taken away...
It is the player who should decide why he helps another, even when it is for long term -out of the map thinking- purposes.
It should NEVER be others who cannot even fathom the reasons why a player would do so.
Spiffolo wrote:
Antartica map, I don’t aim to win it, I much rather end 2-3 and have a future allied in other match
Bytro devs seem to be getting short sighted.
I fear the worst and I am secretly saying 'goodbye' already, but there is still discussion, so...
Once more unto the breach, my friends!
Please let yourselves be heard and state your opinions.
There is always a ever so light chance that things might change for the better again.
Hey everyone,
although we do not have release notes today, as the list of player facing changes is rather short, I wanted to share the following update here, since the markete overhaul topic is an ongoing discussion.
With today's release we revert the change that limits trading resources on the stock market within a price range of 3 and 30 money. The price range will be set back to between 1 and 30 money again.
Market Automatic-Trade?
There is another issue with the Market that changed recently (I missed the notes on it)
In the past (as recent as a couple months ago, If there was a Buy order on the market for 10 Cash per unit, and I posted a Sell order on the market for 9, my order would be posted and someone would have MANUALLY Buy my offered goods, then manually Sell the goods on the market and they could make 1 cash per unit they did this with... Today... My Posting of a Sell order for something at 9, is automatically sold for 10 Cash until that buy order is filled... What is the explanation for that "automation" in trades.
Having stood on the 68th floor of one of the leading Banks in the world in 2004, on their trading floor, and had one of the traders explain how his computer system is following several currencies on Asian Market, comparing it to the same currencies on North American market, and the computers will "FLAG" and notify him if there is an opportunity to Buy the currency on one and sell on the other so that "I can place the order as soon as there's a chance to make some money on the exchange"....
For the sake of any semblance or realism... What "Automation" existed in the 1930's which would automatically make trades on the Stock Market.
Having made countless thousands of cash from people posting trades by mistake, on purpose, in ignorance or for some other reason which I've caught, then immediately bought up and sold for as little as 0.1 difference in price to make some cash.... I don't understand the reason for this Auto filling of orders.
Right on the head! Now it is impossible to generate cash from trading as a middle man. Countless times (indeed!) there have been trade possibilities - possibly because 2 countries are at war with each other and couldn't trade - where I was able to generate much needed cash from a higher buy offer and a lower sales offer on the market.OneNutSquirrel wrote:
Having made countless thousands of cash from people posting trades by mistake, on purpose, in ignorance or for some other reason which I've caught, then immediately bought up and sold for as little as 0.1 difference in price to make some cash.... I don't understand the reason for this Auto filling of orders.
Now, with a 10% surcharge that has been killed too.
Too many things that provide DEPTH and VARIETY in the game have been killed of by short sighted measures, aiming to restrict a few from gaining irrelevant advantages that do not even make them win.
Again, if this is the road CoW is taking, pls execute my suggestions:
- 1 human player per map (so everyone can be a winner...)
- Let the 1 human player choose his country and immediately after that AI takes over from the human player, who then only has to watch the game unfold (again with the purpose of nobody gaining an advantage from putting in the time to learn and understand the game better than his lazy opponent)
- Restrict the top 3 economies from building until they drop to 4th place (so no one can gain an advantage from mastering the economy better than another player; not even AI)
After all, it is terribly unfair if people who put in the time and enjoy to learn, so they can play better, become better players than there lazy fellow players.
Why should the better players - that are better at the game, invent new strategies and approaches, experiment with other combined weapons, play the market, deal through diplomacy (instead of silently running to their demise, like the masses) et cetera and so forth - win maps?
It is totally ridiculous that lazy players don't win as many times as those that put in the effort!
This leads me to another suggestion: BAN the top 1000 from playing!! That way the lesser players (who are still learning or will never learn) have a more level playing field!
BAN THE TOP 1000!
-
Thinking further ahead, I came up with an ever better solution to all issues! Nobody can do anything wrong anymore and all players are instantly equalized when you do this:
End CoW! Just kill it!
Oh wait... disregard the suggestion pls.... you are already killing CoW with all these bogus measures anyway...
Just lost a fortune again redoing orders....Arcorian wrote:
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.
What again was the purpose of the tax?
How many players have you stopped since the change from hiding their puny resource stock of their losing country?
And - more importantly! - how many players have you annoyed and irritated with this change?
Let me guess and correct me if I am wrong please:
Stopped players from hiding resources: 0
Annoyed and irritated players: multiple 1000s !!!!
Now justify this change again pls. I am all ears...
Pls take the Poll(s) on this and other subjects! (placed under Suggestions & Criticism)
Elite AI
What is causing or preventing AI's to put Sell orders on the market... is it changes in AI or is it the changes in market mechanics. I'm Day 6 into my game and NOT A SINGLE sell order has been placed in my game by AI's... after I bought all the goods off the market on day 1.
Cooldown after leaving a coalition
How long was Italy's "cooldown" for leaving the Axis? I'd be curious for a single example where a country suffered a penalty and was NOT accepted immediately by the inviting party after betraying a coalition they just left. Just one historical example would be all that's needed to make this mechanic "realistic". This explanation makes no historical sense, no diplomatic sense. Is it not the point of the game to break up alliances and make them weaker? Lie, cheat, threaten or steal whatever you can from your enemy to weaken them. If I promise someone a spot in my coalition if they betray their current coalition, they leave that coalition and declare war on their former mates... And I refuse to take that person into my coalition because they are untrustworthy and if they betrayed their former mates they might just betray me as well... Will he now be able to get back into the alliance I just convinced him to leave.... I doubt it... So I've just weakened my enemies and improved my position. Why would you want to prevent that kind of play?
Multi Accounts
What you area saying is this... because a guy rode past my house in a loud red car last night... I'm burning all red cars in the neighbourhood to prevent loud red cars from waking me up a night.
This doesn't make any sense to me. You are trying to shape game play into something that has no basis in fact, in history or current world affairs. Alliances shift, have shifted and will shift in the past, present and the future. That's the nature of diplomacy. For you to try to input some framework to create some form of Interaction that never existed in the real world is just whacked.
An Intelligence spy in my coalition mates capitals does provide Intel on their trades... so I do currently have way of finding out if they sending resources to an enemy. By simply making all Player-to-Player trades visible to other coalition members would that not solve that issue immediately ? Game mechanics seem to be mostly in place to do that.... making artificial boundaries that have no parallels in the real world seems an odd way to go about trying to solve this issue.
You might want to try... say checking IP addresses... I'm not computer geek but that's just something I came up with off the top of my head.
As for the Market being used "as a private Storage" concerns...
If I'm about to lose my capital, and place a Buy order for 1,000,000 cash and I've payed the 100k Tax, and then have my capital captured... what happens to my 1,000,000 offer... If I cancel it after losing my capital... I've just evaded losing 550,000. So your 10% tax did not prevent me hiding my cash.. it just added a cost to it.
The ONLY way to prevent it would be by simply adding a game mechanic which immediately cancels all placed orders on the market of a player who has Unfulfilled Market Orders outstanding and loses their capital, then calculates the rewards for capturing a capital once those orders have been cancelled. Seem like a much easier way to implement that desired outcome.
