New Feature: Scenario Rotation

Newbss wrote:

What all of you guys missed is that a new strategy will overtake now. Think how many wolfpacks it will be on every map .

As for the rotation update, let's test it and then we can hate on it , to be honest I don't really see a problem if only 1 player can make a game, in every alliance there are a few that have HC so you can make 4-5 maps per month I think this is more then enough to play with your friends every month. With that being said I'll see you all on the battlefield.

2. Wolfpacks could be an good idea... might actually become something.

3. (The thing I have an issue with here), you are assumeing all alliances have an high count of players in them, for example, a few years back when I had 5-10 people, no one had HC, because we were an casual alliance that simply made games for ourselves, And when I as an LEADER of said alliance no longer can set up games for my guys, that ruins the whole point of makeing an alliance. (Also, you would have to make someone with HC an admin for the alliance, and that person might not be responsible depending on who it is.)

4. Depending on how the next update goes, might or might not see you on the battlefield.

(Edit As ive stated earlier, and I just want to put this as clearly as I can do any mods: In an attempt to make the game feel more active, the "New games" tab seems more dead now then ever.

Confused on the game creation as I understood it, we would create any of the permanent or rotational games. Per the update:

With this change game creation will be limited to members of High Command. Members will be able to create 1 game every month. Game creation is not limited to scenarios that are currently in the rotation.

Just tried to create a game but could only select from:

• Europe Road to War (10 Player)
• Europe Clash of Nations (22 player)
• 1939 Blitzkrieg (10 Player)

Michael Westerdahl wrote:

I made an forum account SOULY to make this post.

Look, ive played Call of war since Launch, I remember when self propelled was a new thing, I remember when the Historic maps were NEW, I played before the 100 Player maps even were announced. I have loved this game for many years, and it's still an AMAZING game. However, this update changes many things, and the claim that it's to help "Activity" seems to be wrong, ill explain why:

Right now there is 5 100 Player matches (Soon midnight will turn day 2), with about 20 players in each, IN EACH! I see a few 22 player games with like 5-15 people in them, I see a few dotted maps here and there made by HC. None are full, and when you scroll down to find older games: you basically can't, once you could straight up scroll for days to find older and older games, now? Now you can scroll with an really hard drag and come to the bottom of the games. and even with this, no games are full.

The thing that made me enjoy the game, was the fact that I could just go to any game, any map, any time, If the map I wanted was full, or I wanted to play with a few freinds, I would simply make a map and do it. Most of my online freinds were and are found from this game alone, I love this game to bits, but without the simple fact of being able to simply make an map the whole casuall playstyle of the game is lost, you can no longer just enjoy an game with an freind. Now I know there are the hardcore people who focus on levels, ranks, etc. But some of us actually just wanna enjoy the game with some freinds and take it slow without haveing to deal with children spamming the news articles and hardcore players who's soul focus is winning.

I understand that some things should be tweaked, but you forced us to make 1 game per 30 days, was that not enough? it clearly has just made the game seem more dead, theres only like 17 games in the "New games" section, and the 100 player maps there are not even half way full!

And im sad, I feel like all my freinds have stopped playing now, and i feel like I will join them, i don't want to be that guy who says "Fix this because i say so". But please take it into consideration, this game IS basically my social life and it means a lot to me, but I just can't.

sincerly - an guy who just want's to make a game once a month with freinds.

Regarding the games list: You can only see games in that list which are not yet full (and which are not too old (>1w) to be joined). So shrinking down the list from "endless scrolling" to only 17 games being displayed seems like a major improvement to me . The oldest game I see in the list currently is day 2, most are on day 1, which is good.

Regarding the ability to play private rounds with your friends: You can still do that, as Member of the High Command. This is very reasonable, as you are basically playing outside the CoW community & ecosystem that way. Previously everyone could create their own private games for free, and play on the community's & bytro's dime, as usually there was rarely any income for us from these games. And before the "greed" card gets played: That income is necessary to keep developing CoW further. If everyone played in their private rounds we would not be able to keep this game running. Now everyone plays either in the shared CoW community or has to pay their fair share for the ability to play in their private community.

Gator98forever wrote:

Confused on the game creation as I understood it, we would create any of the permanent or rotational games. Per the update:

With this change game creation will be limited to members of High Command. Members will be able to create 1 game every month. Game creation is not limited to scenarios that are currently in the rotation.

Just tried to create a game but could only select from:

• Europe Road to War (10 Player)
• Europe Clash of Nations (22 player)
• 1939 Blitzkrieg (10 Player)

What seems to be the issue here?

We want to thank everyone for their feedback and concerns. But to summarize again: We made this change based on alot of data we gathered, and now we continue to gather data how this changed affected the game, and after some time there may be further tweaks based on that data.

freezy wrote:

The news text may be a bit misleading then. What was meant is that the map rotation only affects games opened by the system. The private game creation is limited to the maps it previously had, minus the now retired maps.

Before this update was a thing, we had 12 maps available.

From those 12 maps, 3 have now been retired, which leads to a total of 9 maps.

From those 9, 5 will be rotating on a weekly basis and from those 5 that will be rotating, the only 1 (one) available for those who pay the 3,99€ for 25 days is the "Europe - Road to War".

From those 4 that are left and are labeled as "permanent scenarios", those who pay the 3,99€ for 25 days will be able to create the "Europe - Clash of Nations" not the Tutorial Mode, but the standard mode, which would make it in fact as another map, and the "1939 - Blitzkrieg".

Leaving a total of 3 maps available for creation for those who pay the 3,99€ for 25 days.

The rest of the maps, 6, excluding the 3 removed, will be created ONLY by the system.

So again, if I'm getting this correctly, before the update, both, those who didn't want/couldn't pay and those who paid the 3,99€ for 25 days were able to create 1 game per month, 5 per month for those who paid the 3,99€ for 25 days, including some maps where they had to pay 5.000 gold in order to select that specific map, exception made regarding the gold for those who paid the 3,99€ for 25 days.

However, with this update, you are now forcing those who want to create a game to pay the 3,99€ for 25 days and not only that, you are reducing their previous benefit from paying the 3,99€ for 25 days. How so? Well, previously, if you paid the 3,99€ for 25 days you were able to create 5 games per month, now, if you pay the 3,99€ for 25 days you will be able to create 1 game per month, so, same amount of money, 4 games less per month.

That's not the only thing reduced, you say that:

freezy wrote:

Regarding the ability to play private rounds with your friends: You can still do that, as Member of the High Command. This is very reasonable, as you are basically playing outside the CoW community & ecosystem that way. Previously everyone could create their own private games for free, and play on the community's & bytro's dime, as usually there was rarely any income for us from these games.

freezy wrote:

Now everyone plays either in the shared CoW community or has to pay their fair share for the ability to play in their private community.

1941 - Mediterranean Theater

The English Channel

Specially the English Channel as it was a 1v1 map.

So now, with this update, if I want to pay the 3,99€ for 25 days and become a Member of the High Command I'll have:

-Less maps to play

-Less maps to create

-Pay the same amount of money as when I had more maps to play and was able to create more maps per month.

It is quite ironic that if I'm "basically playing outside the CoW community & ecosystem" by making private games with my friends or members of my alliance(alliance that is within the CoW community even if you don't support them that much), you are punishing those who indeed pay the 3,99€ for 25 days by removing those specific maps that are played in private or, as you say "outside the CoW community & ecosystem"

My suggestion here would be, and I'm just trying to introduce some coherence in your explanations of this update:

-Increase the amount of maps HC members can create to 3, so you'll be able to create both private and public scenarios each month.

-Include the maps you removed as an option for HC members.

And now, for the last part of this post,

freezy wrote:

And before the "greed" card gets played: That income is necessary to keep developing CoW further. If everyone played in their private rounds we would not be able to keep this game running.

Everyone with some common sense understands that the game has a Pay to Win system, and here's the thing you(Bytro) sometimes forget, we complain about the Pay to Win system, but we're still playing the game, and probably there are others, just like me, that not only play this game, but your other games too, because we love the game and it's concept, but what we're trying to make you understand when we complain about this, even you shut down many posts about this because they are too aggresive, is that we're asking for a better balance between the payments and the gameplay. I already had a chat with Akiar about this, there are 2 things that you can pay for in Bytro's games, Goldmarks and High Command, and if you didn't get it after all these years you've been around, I'll tell you, people want more things like High Command and less things like Goldmarks, we want you to grow as a company and have enough money to pay your people and hire even more, but, we also want a fair game. Nobody complains about High Command, even some ask for more advantages if they are going to pay for it, but almost everyone will agree that Goldmarks are a toxic feature and the game would be better if they were removed. I'm pretty sure that if you raise the price for HC to 4,99€, there will be no complaints about it and people will still pay for it and won't complain about it because it's worth the price, and it's something where you pay in order to not spend that much time online, having queues can be countered by a good planification and joining the game in the right time, same for rally points and list goes on and on about the HC, as said, no one complains about HC, they all find it fair to pay for it and to have it if you paid and supported to company. But, and here's the part related to this update and to your post, if you reduce it's value, specially with those explanations you are trying to give, well, it's just going to go against you. We understand you need income but your way of getting that income is a bit outdated, it was "acceptable" to have in 2009 when your first game was released, but it's not anymore, take a look at what other companies do, and I'm not talking about Paradox, but about the big ones, take a look at Epic Games, take a look at Riot Games, they are all free to play and found their income in something that didn't make the game a P2W.

Invest some time in making british skins for your units, and sell them as a one-time buy for 3,99€, just like your HC, people will buy it. Same for other skins.

In League of Legends, if you want to change your name, you either pay a big amount of their free-currency or pay 10€, and trust me, I could give you a list of over 50 people I know that change their name at least twice a month.

Your ONLY asset right now is the gameplay, is the only thing you have, and it's sometimes ruined because of the Goldmarks, and it's your only asset because you, from 2013 to this very moment, DESTROYED the rest.

No one is asking you to go out of business or to don't grow as a company, I'll go even further, we want you to succeed, because you develop the game WE love, but you won't do it by having a P2W system and by basing your main income from Goldmarks.

Remember, we want YOU to succeed, BUT find a BETTER way to do it.

Well that escalated quickly I guess? Going to adress this very briefly and in general. I don't really want to hold a discussion about the value of gold or HC, or the balance between gold vs. non-gold, as this would go far beyond the scope of this topic. I just say this again: We understand and value qualitative opinions on this topic, as it brings our attention to possible facts that need to be checked. We base decisions often on quantitative data though. This data sometimes contradicts what people assume to be correct, often time especially in the context of revenue and gold, or the cost-benefit of offering certain content, or how well the success of other games in other genres would translate into the unique proposition of CoW. If our data proves however, that the presented qualitative opinions are correct, it will of course be in our best interest to change the status quo. I leave it at that.

Now let us please stay on topic.

freezy wrote:

Well that escalated quickly I guess? I don't really want to hold a discussion about the value of gold or HC, or the balance between gold vs. non-gold, as this would go far beyond the scope of this topic. I just say this again: I understand and value qualitative opinions on this topic, as it brings our attention to possible facts that need to be checked. We base decisions often on quantitative data though. This data sometimes contradicts what people assume to be correct, often time especially in the context of revenue and gold, or the cost-benefit of offering certain content, or how well the success of other games in other genres would translate into the unique proposition of CoW. If our data proves however, that the presented qualitative opinions are correct, it will of course be in our best interest to change the status quo. I leave it at that.

Now let us please stay on topic.

nemuritor98 wrote:

As exposed in this post, you can try to mask the "greed" card, but it won't work, people would appreaciate more if all of you were honest about what you are doing and treat them like adults instead of making excuses and assuming they don't know that money runs the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jaAeTaG_ms

nemuritor98 wrote:

So again, if I'm getting this correctly, before the update, both, those who didn't want/couldn't pay and those who paid the 3,99€ for 25 days were able to create 1 game per month, 5 per month for those who paid the 3,99€ for 25 days, including some maps where they had to pay 5.000 gold in order to select that specific map, exception made regarding the gold for those who paid the 3,99€ for 25 days.

f118 wrote:

nemuritor98 wrote:

So again, if I'm getting this correctly, before the update, both, those who didn't want/couldn't pay and those who paid the 3,99€ for 25 days were able to create 1 game per month, 5 per month for those who paid the 3,99€ for 25 days, including some maps where they had to pay 5.000 gold in order to select that specific map, exception made regarding the gold for those who paid the 3,99€ for 25 days.

HC players can create and join fee free vip ruled maps. (premium AI, inkognito and so on)...

Hans A. Pils wrote:

Some would go inactive, not everyone. Those who cannot cope with not being able to choose one specific country would leave their hands off of the historic maps. These maps would then rather be something who favour fair competition. Letting yourself surprise with a random country and making the best out of it is also a nice challenge.

As for your last point, it's already possible to just randomly pick a country. If someone likes that kind of stuff there is no reason to force ti onto all of the people who don't like it.

And remember, the 25 map isn't about being 'fair' int he first place. That's the point of all the maps with a historic borders.

eruth wrote:

many people will still try to play the map in the hopes they get a good nation, then quit that round when they don't and go start the process again on another 25 map, thus creating more total empty slots.

Still I'm convinced the positive effects from starting the historic world map with "starts when full" and random country selection would outweigh that downturn. Currently the last slots on this map either don't fill at all, or only with people who sacrifice themselves and forgo their chance to win. Also having many wins on these maps in your profile isn't really significant - it doesn't necessarily mean you play good, but maybe only that you're the nasty one who always picks away USA soon after the map was started. So yes, random country selection would make this map fair.

See it this way: The major criterion to tell who is a good player (and thus in a way the main long-term goal of CoW) is the percentage games won divided by games joined (in combination with the type of maps joined, as far as visible). This stat is corrupted by historic maps being started with non-random country selection. My proposed change would make this figure clearly more meaningful and thus more motivating.

Also I don't want to force it "onto all of the people who don't like it", but only onto those who want to play a historic map. Maybe explaining it with a metaphor: If you offer different weapons to people to fight with - say a sword, an axe, a fork and a spoon - it creates an ugly mess if you leave the choice to the fighters. There will be a rush for the sword and the axe... and then? Who will then still want to join the fight? I know it looks like there are almost enough guys doing so, since you regularly see the historic world map filled with about 20/25 people in the list of new games. But

a) that's not so very much having in mind you don't see the other maps in the list any more after they filled completely,

b) I imagine most of them don't like their choice to be limited to fork and spoon. They accept it, because they want to play the historic map very much. But some of them and all of the others would prefer to get a random country from the 25.

freezy wrote:

shrinking down the list from "endless scrolling" to only 17 games being displayed seems like a major improvement to me

To us these aspects meant a lot and that's something that no quantitative data can tell you.

OK, clearly it's very positive that you restricted the number of games being started - so those which are started fill up better. And yes, restricting games creation to HC and to 1 per month was a good idea; I approve that change. But in no way it is positive for us that you restricted the number of scenarios (from 12 permanent scenarios to 4 permanent + 5 rotating)! As I already said, you should have gone for "starts when full" instead of reducing the number of scenarios.

Let me summarize my proposal again:

1.: Bring back the three removed scenarios (so they can be started by members of High Command) and make option "starts-when-full" mandatory (i.e. that option greyed out and set to true in the screen for starting a map).

2.: Take two from the five scenarios out of the rotation and make them available permanently again (I would propose the Homefront America and the Pacific map).

3.: All five scenarios currently in rotation should be started with option "starts-when-full". The moment a map is filled up (and ONLY at that moment), the next one of that type is created by the system. So there's always precisely one of each type waiting to fill up.

4. - this one's optional (greetings to eruth ) : Start 25player historic world map with "starts-when-full" and random country selection.

5.: If not hard to implement, disallow players to join several maps on day 0 (i.e. still waiting to become full) at a time.

6.: After a player has joined a map (for "starts-when-full" maps, that's the moment the map starts), a "Confirm to stay on the map" button appears on the upper right corner with a timer that ticks down 6 hours. If at the moment the timer runs out the player still hasn't clicked this button, he turns inactive like usually only happens after two full days of inactivity.

Why don't you do this - at least points 1. to 3.? Advantages and reasoning see my previous posts in this thread.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

eruth wrote:

many people will still try to play the map in the hopes they get a good nation, then quit that round when they don't and go start the process again on another 25 map, thus creating more total empty slots.

Except that I would replace "many" with "some" in that sentence, it is totally correct and understood from the beginning. I tried to express from the beginning, that this is the only negative effect of my proposal. You don't have to mention it again and again. Also it's one of the reasons why I added the idea of automatically kicking out players who didn't press a "Confirm-to-stay-on-map" button during the first 6 hours (see my last post in this thread).

Still I'm convinced the positive effects from starting the historic world map with "starts when full" and random country selection would outweigh that downturn. Currently the last slots on this map either don't fill at all, or only with people who sacrifice themselves and forgo their chance to win. Also having many wins on these maps in your profile isn't really significant - it doesn't necessarily mean you play good, but maybe only that you're the nasty one who always picks away USA soon after the map was started. So yes, random country selection would make this map fair.

See it this way: The major criterion to tell who is a good player (and thus in a way the main long-term goal of CoW) is the percentage games won divided by games joined (in combination with the type of maps joined, as far as visible). This stat is corrupted by historic maps being started with non-random country selection. My proposed change would make this figure clearly more meaningful and thus more motivating.

Also I don't want to force it "onto all of the people who don't like it", but only onto those who want to play a historic map. Maybe explaining it with a metaphor: If you offer different weapons to people to fight with - say a sword, an axe, a fork and a spoon - it creates an ugly mess if you leave the choice to the fighters. There will be a rush for the sword and the axe... and then? Who will then still want to join the fight? I know it looks like there are almost enough guys doing so, since you regularly see the historic world map filled with about 20/25 people in the list of new games. But

a) that's not so very much having in mind you don't see the other maps in the list any more after they filled completely,

b) I imagine most of them don't like their choice to be limited to fork and spoon. They accept it, because they want to play the historic map very much. But some of them and all of the others would prefer to get a random country from the 25.

Also, it really doesn't matter how long it takes the last few slots to get filled. No one cares about Mongolia or Tibet. It would be fantastic if they did play, sure, but there is no way that throwing random people into those slots as opposed to people who knowingly picked those countries is going to make them quit any less. It will just mean that bigger nations quit more. Your proposal would definitely increase the inactivity on the 25 map rather than reduce it.

eruth wrote:

Also consider that you have a better chance of winning by just joining a smaller map, or a newbie map, so the win rate isn't a perfectly reliable indicator anyway.

And again: This indicator isn't working for the historic world map, because countries can be chosen freely.

eruth wrote:

Your proposal would definitely increase the inactivity on the 25 map

And also one last time: I would put up with this disadvantage to get the advantages in return. And it would work out perfectly fine together with suggestion number 6. of my last post ("Confirm-to-stay-on-map" button during first 6 hours).

Hans A. Pils wrote:

eruth wrote:

Also consider that you have a better chance of winning by just joining a smaller map, or a newbie map, so the win rate isn't a perfectly reliable indicator anyway.

As I already said: "percentage games won divided by games joined (in combination with the type of maps joined, as far as visible)" is the only indicator apart from K/D ratio for who is a good player.And again: This indicator isn't working for the historic world map, because countries can be chosen freely.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

eruth wrote:

Your proposal would definitely increase the inactivity on the 25 map

One last time: That's correct and I'm saying the same all the time.And also one last time: I would put up with this disadvantage to get the advantages in return. And it would work out perfectly fine together with suggestion number 6. of my last post ("Confirm-to-stay-on-map" button during first 6 hours).

To keep players motivated after their first match is over, it is awfully important there is something they can build up over time - something that remains after the current match. If you each time start from 0 after a match is finished, that's very demotivating. You need something you can look back to, something you can be proud of, something you can show to your friends. This something is your player profile. Therefore it is very important the stats and achievements show how good a player is. Which they currently - as you correctly said - do in a very imprecise and blurry way. The part of my proposal that's about the historic world map is one step to improve that.

Another step has already been taken by this update, because now maps fill up more reliably. So now it's more difficult to join a map with the hope it doesn't fill completely (and to win more easily, because less players means less competition). My proposal of more "starts when full" maps would even completely remove this nasty option - then there would be the same degree of competition in each game of the respective scenario.

People's appetite to collect something precious is a very strong incitement. What do you want to collect in CoW?

Ranking points? That's utterly boring, even the last dumbass gets many ranking points over time just by playing a lot.

Blueprints? No, that's a side-aspect of the game. Playing just to collect blueprints? No.

I tell you collecting victories would be THE THING. And for that it's mandatory you cannot tweak your chance to win by being the first on the map, by joining a game that won't fill up completely, or where you can grab the privilege to pick the mightiest nation from a historic map. That's why I'm suggesting more "starts when full" maps. That would not only allow the variety of scenarios to be widened again, but also make a victory meaningful.

eruth wrote:

the whole point of this update was to decrease inactivity

Hans A. Pils wrote:

To keep players motivated after their first match is over, it is awfully important there is something they can build up over time - something that remains after the current match. If you each time start from 0 after a match is finished, that's very demotivating. You need something you can look back to, something you can be proud of, something you can show to your friends. This something is your player profile. Therefore it is very important the stats and achievements show how good a player is. Which they currently - as you correctly said - do in a very imprecise and blurry way. The part of my proposal that's about the historic world map is one step to improve that.

Another step has already been taken by this update, because now maps fill up more reliably. So now it's more difficult to join a map with the hope it doesn't fill completely (and to win more easily, because less players means less competition). My proposal of more "starts when full" maps would even completely remove this nasty option - then there would be the same degree of competition in each game of the respective scenario.

People's appetite to collect something precious is a very strong incitement. What do you want to collect in CoW?

Ranking points? That's utterly boring, even the last dumbass gets many ranking points over time just by playing a lot.

Blueprints? No, that's a side-aspect of the game. Playing just to collect blueprints? No.

I tell you collecting victories would be THE THING. And for that it's mandatory you cannot tweak your chance to win by being the first on the map, by joining a game that won't fill up completely, or where you can grab the privilege to pick the mightiest nation from a historic map. That's why I'm suggesting more "starts when full" maps. That would not only allow the variety of scenarios to be widened again, but also make a victory meaningful.

eruth wrote:

the whole point of this update was to decrease inactivity

No. How do you think it reduced inactivity? It helped to make games fill up better, but that's it.

The inactivity thing, that's the reason for the change, check their news. They say "increase activity" but it's obviously about reducing the chances for players to join so many rounds and forget about them and therefore increasing the value of joining matches.

I dont think it will decrease inactivity and I think I am not the only one that thinks so, however, Bytro thinks it will.

Thanks for your consent.

nemuritor98 wrote:

They literally removed all this through the years.

nemuritor98 wrote:

They say "increase activity" but it's obviously about reducing the chances for players to join so many rounds and forget about them and therefore increasing the value of joining matches.

Indeed, now that you have only about 10 choices of games you can join at a time, nobody can join more than 10 at a time any more. But then, who was so insane to join more than 10 games at a time? That really can't have been so many. Such a small minority doesn't justify reducing the number of choices.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

I know CoW since three years and there never existed scenarios started by the system with "starts when full". Recently a few events have been implemented this way, but never a permanent scenario - my proposal is something new.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

To keep players motivated after their first match is over, it is awfully important there is something they can build up over time - something that remains after the current match. If you each time start from 0 after a match is finished, that's very demotivating. You need something you can look back to, something you can be proud of, something you can show to your friends. This something is your player profile. Therefore it is very important the stats and achievements show how good a player is. Which they currently - as you correctly said - do in a very imprecise and blurry way.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

People's appetite to collect something precious is a very strong incitement. What do you want to collect in CoW?

Ranking points? That's utterly boring, even the last dumbass gets many ranking points over time just by playing a lot.

Blueprints? No, that's a side-aspect of the game. Playing just to collect blueprints? No.

I tell you collecting victories would be THE THING.

Hans A. Pils wrote:

Thanks for your consent.

nemuritor98 wrote:

They literally removed all this through the years.

I know CoW since three years and there never existed scenarios started by the system with "starts when full". Recently a few events have been implemented this way, but never a permanent scenario - my proposal is something new.

nemuritor98 wrote:

They say "increase activity" but it's obviously about reducing the chances for players to join so many rounds and forget about them and therefore increasing the value of joining matches.

I've read the sentence about inactivity in the description of the update and already commented that it's wrong.Indeed, now that you have only about 10 choices of games you can join at a time, nobody can join more than 10 at a time any more. But then, who was so insane to join more than 10 games at a time? That really can't have been so many. Such a small minority doesn't justify reducing the number of choices.

i dont remeber what player it was, but he had something like 300 games and 0 victory.... he either never wins or blitz, then archive when he cant win or joins then drop out, and the excuse of "want only to check it out" is major BS(after even 100 game if you havent seen how most maps work i can definy you as the cancer killing the game )

and i know of a player that joins every single map in the italian server, doesnt move once and only build army and troops(to boost his stats)but as you pointed out, its a minority of people that join 10 games and do nothing so will not focus on those

as usual, and for many threads made before this we first need to understand why people drop out and move from there(im gonna spitball some ideas here, could them be crap, or awesome i dont know

-you make kamikaze troops and when it doesnt work you drop out? have a high level volunteer to teach you a new strategy and ropes of the game... like you get a pop up after the X defeat that suggest you a player which is fine to become your buddy and help you

-you wanted to check out the map? after X joined games that you didnt win you get lock off certain ones such as squad team as the 50v50 or the 3v3v3 or 10v10v10.

-you joined just to boost your economic or military stats? well, cant really do much for this i guess

-join a map that someone already is fighting you in? well this is fixed for the start-when-full

-you join, stay active only to watch how it evolve out the map? make a spectator mode with a nonplayable country

etcetcetcetc

every one can have their own reason to drop out, but till bytro show us some data to at least have an idea why they do its not gonna change much

Hans A. Pils wrote:

To keep players motivated after their first match is over, it is awfully important there is something they can build up over time - something that remains after the current match. If you each time start from 0 after a match is finished, that's very demotivating. You need something you can look back to, something you can be proud of, something you can show to your friends. This something is your player profile. Therefore it is very important the stats and achievements show how good a player is. Which they currently - as you correctly said - do in a very imprecise and blurry way. The part of my proposal that's about the historic world map is one step to improve that.

Another step has already been taken by this update, because now maps fill up more reliably. So now it's more difficult to join a map with the hope it doesn't fill completely (and to win more easily, because less players means less competition). My proposal of more "starts when full" maps would even completely remove this nasty option - then there would be the same degree of competition in each game of the respective scenario.

People's appetite to collect something precious is a very strong incitement. What do you want to collect in CoW?

Ranking points? That's utterly boring, even the last dumbass gets many ranking points over time just by playing a lot.

Blueprints? No, that's a side-aspect of the game. Playing just to collect blueprints? No.

I tell you collecting victories would be THE THING. And for that it's mandatory you cannot tweak your chance to win by being the first on the map, by joining a game that won't fill up completely, or where you can grab the privilege to pick the mightiest nation from a historic map. That's why I'm suggesting more "starts when full" maps. That would not only allow the variety of scenarios to be widened again, but also make a victory meaningful.

eruth wrote:

the whole point of this update was to decrease inactivity

No. How do you think it reduced inactivity? It helped to make games fill up better, but that's it.

I, and I imagine a lot of other players, play to have fun. I think it's would be better of Bytro to keep their old customers happy by keeping a fun game (where I can choose my country and have minimal inactivity) than try to draw in new people who only care about the game because they want to collect the shinys. It doesn't matter to me how many new players join if none of them remain active becasue they got the wrong country.