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.
Am I mistaken or did the commission get reverted ??
Just did a test in a 4x speed map, buying 2 and selling 2 oil.
In the My trades overview I see no weird pricing...
Can somebody enlighten the players what the status is right now?
According to Arcorian there has been a slight change to widen the limits again. No sign of a change on the trade penality. But lets hope it has gone too.Arcorian wrote:
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.
On my maps the trade penality is still in place however. Was your map a new one, started today?
The commission is in effect in my current round.
Considering RL:
Charging a commission on completed trades is normal, but totally unreasonable to charge up-front non-refundable fees on OFFERS that never get accepted. Impossible to cheat without a completed trade so there is no valid rationale to tax offers. Resource "hiding" can be eliminated by cancelling all offers when the Capitol falls.
10% on both ends is a VERY high commission -- unless the purpose is to discourage ALL trade.
Anyway, the net result of the commission will be to raise prices (like any tax). Most arbitrage becomes infeasible unless bid and ask prices are far apart.
It is weird and confusing...
The penalty was supposedly on the sell orders (to 'prevent' an anyway rare case of a player hiding a resource) and on the buy orders (to prevent hiding cash.. an evenly rare occurrence)
But I am sure I made a profit buying at 6,5 and selling at 7,0....
Can someone from staff clarify pls?
Edit:
Just checked in another map:
- in Historical 25 the commissions are being charged (and the market is DEAD)
- in the fast 100 ... not (and the market is ALIVE)
So, in 1 map the trading PENALTY is charged and in the other not... What the heck ?!
Your map WITHOUT the Tax was likely started BEFORE the update took effect, then all maps starting AFTER the update have the TAX. Check the start dates on those maps and I'm sure that will be the reason why the newer map has it and the older one does not._Pontus_ wrote:
Edit:Just checked in another map:
- in Historical 25 the commissions are being charged (and the market is DEAD)
- in the fast 100 ... not (and the market is ALIVE)
So, in 1 map the trading PENALTY is charged and in the other not... What the heck ?!
The map is in day 10 at 4x speed, thus less than 3 days old...OneNutSquirrel wrote:
Your map WITHOUT the Tax was likely started BEFORE the update took effect,
Edit:
Darn'd...yes...it started 2,5 days ago, but it had been waiting to start for ages... you are right!
: )
Day 7 and market still DEAD. No new sell offers posted since Day 1.
I used to play this game way before coalitions were introduced and trading between players (both resources and armies) was a normal thing, it worked just fine. It's called diplomacy. And diplomacy doesn't limit only to coalitions.BMfox wrote:
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
Hell, I even traded with my enemies. Because signing peace means nothing, but if a peace offer is followed by a substantial amount of some high value resource – that’s a different thing.
Trading was a great thing, when it came to paying for mistakes, unintended (but bloody) perfidious act of war or as war repatriations.
It also helped a lot, when together with other weak players we united themselves against some major, leading country (backstabber etc.).
And this patch just ruins so much fun you can - or rather - you could have with CoW.
The Idea or "Preventing Backstabbing" is in my opinion the dumbest attempt to interfere in game play. WHY would you want to prevent that? I want to break up stronger alliances by sowing dissent and getting those guys not to trust each other... to turn on each other. What's the point if the 3 of the strongest countries picked by the first few players hold on to their power, strength and position, the game was decided by join order not game play.
I want to be the underdog who comes from behind and manipulates the big boys to their destruction. My current game I started as 20th or so to join game on the 1939 map. Playing As British India. Starting position somewhere around 16th largest economy and army. 1 Week into game I'm 2nd largest economy. Not only because I'm working on it... but because I got two weak countries to attack one of the top 5 by convincing them it would be in their self interest before that guy turns on them. They prevailed and one fewer guys ahead of me in points, economy and army to worry about. I took him out without ever firing a shot or declaring a war on him.
Now with the Market a complete wreck... I've lost my ability to bribe other players.... Very disappointing.
If you're playing CoW because you get to move soldiers around... you're playing it wrong.
So the game has been "hijacked" by players like yourself who have this style of play. Do you not see that others have different styles and the changes that have been made stifle these to a great extent. Personally I loved the many mechanisms by which you could engage with other players, not just the brute force approach of kill or be killed.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
It is not too much to say that, for me, the boredom levels of the "new style" mean that I will probably not start another game when my current ones have finished and will not be renewing my High Command subscription as a result = small, tiny loss for Bytro but I suppose in the grand scheme of things this does not matter to whomever is in charge
Definitely different styles of play. I know my game play is more aggressive than most who are content sitting within their borders for the first couple weeks.That's probably why they can start a dozen games at a time. I can't do that. I play one at a time and I play it to win. That means when I make allies it's for the goal of winning.... when I join/accept coalition... it's for the game and I'm loyal to a fault... but every mechanic the game allows for me to defeat my enemies and allows me and my coalition to win... I will use.
These market changes are definitely a step backwards for options I had available for the meta game a few weeks ago.
And I know people have said this before but the market and trading changes will really kill any role play efforts. It is hard enough to get a good bunch of roleplayers together for a game but now it will be impossible. I fondly remember an RP game where I was playing Poland and by dint of fast talking I managed to get Germany looking elsewhere and in the process I created a "Resource Banking" system whereby I would take deposits from players, pay interest and loan out resources to other players to assist their development. Now there is the 20% fee and no trading out of coalitions, it kills ideas like this dead and, IMHO, severely reduces the attraction of the game.
People please vote in the Polls under Suggestions & Criticism/
Maybe, when enough people vote, it will mean something. Maybe the great Deafs ...errr... I meant Devs... will see their mistake and return the game to what it was:
....a game with many more options to play than just throwing armies at each other.
Day 8 of 1939 Map, First 2 Sale Offers showed up on market today, 2,800 and 1,000 cargo. Otherwise the MARKET IS DEAD!
Obviously you are using soft words by calling it hard style, playing a soft style I can imagine more hardcore words for yoursBMfox 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 can
Market? Which market??? Oh... thát! You mean the very dead market?
Day 13
14 active players
'nuf said...
yup.. that's the one...
So sad and so true!RogodeterSnowl wrote:
the game has been hijackedthe boredom levels of the "new style"
1939 Map - Day 9. First day I've seen some Sale Orders up on the market. 3 Orders posted for total of 8,000 cargo.
Rest of MARKET STILL DEAD.
That's mainly because almost all of the players go AI on that map and AI don't trade with someone with low popularity.OneNutSquirrel wrote:
1939 Map - Day 9. First day I've seen some Sale Orders up on the market. 3 Orders posted for total of 8,000 cargo.Rest of MARKET STILL DEAD.
