Resources Reforged - Test it now on Beta!

Who shall do the honor of pinging Lord Freezy?

This is all BS.

sesnjcpa wrote:

You have a great game. It involves not only building an army that is suitable for the nation you are playing but managing your economy and resources. If you manage your economy and resources correctly you can build the units you need to win. DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING!

If you change the game, you might as well give everyone the same amount of units and just go fight. No strategy or intelligece to play the game.

Don't do what so many companies do, ruin a good thing.

Apparently, that’s not what Bytro thinks.

And that’s the only thing that matters.

Geden wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Also, I wonder if your job as a "community manager" includes managing the tournaament community? Because we need detailed descriptions of the changes to plan our matches, so if it would be possible at all, could you release new spreadsheets with the relevant data (unit costs, research costs, building costs, production rates for various maps, etc etc) BEFORE the new release is pushed down our throat on some tuesday without any further notice?

Tournament schedules and update schedules are completely independent from each other. That is something that i as Community Manager (without the quotes ) have very little power over.

If you were involved in the organization staff for some of the higher level tournaments you'd be aware that i'm already trying pretty hard to keep everyone informed ahead of time within the boundaries of what i can/can't share publicly.

The changes are live on beta, so if you head to our Discord you can request beta access there. I'll happily enable you to check out the changes before they hit live so that the impact on your more serious matches is minimized.

Now DxCalc is broken!

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Geden wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Also, I wonder if your job as a "community manager" includes managing the tournaament community? Because we need detailed descriptions of the changes to plan our matches, so if it would be possible at all, could you release new spreadsheets with the relevant data (unit costs, research costs, building costs, production rates for various maps, etc etc) BEFORE the new release is pushed down our throat on some tuesday without any further notice?

Tournament schedules and update schedules are completely independent from each other. That is something that i as Community Manager (without the quotes ) have very little power over.If you were involved in the organization staff for some of the higher level tournaments you'd be aware that i'm already trying pretty hard to keep everyone informed ahead of time within the boundaries of what i can/can't share publicly.

The changes are live on beta, so if you head to our Discord you can request beta access there. I'll happily enable you to check out the changes before they hit live so that the impact on your more serious matches is minimized.

I think you don't realize how much work is being done starting four test games (one for each doctrine), selecting every single unit and level (hundreds of combinations), plus buildings and researches, and typing all their costs over again into spreadsheets. You have all this data available, and it should be pretty easy to export it into an Excel or Google sheet. It would be a great help. Thanks.

Geden wrote:

MarioLazzaratti wrote:

Bytro, please don’t go forward with this change. Don’t you realize this would make all existing strategies and gameplay tactics useless?

That is somewhat the point! We do want to offer new experiences to our players.

I empathize though that in recent months the change of pace has been very high, especially compared to our previous pace when it came to releasing gameplay/balance updates.

J Mik wrote:

Almost all comments on this news is like don't do this change. But somehow it doesn't matter...

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

@Geden. Should we call this Call of War 3.0?

Anybody who thinks goods or rares are too complex or strategically bad can play supremacy 1914, if they want simple.

bosna best wrote:

I tried it and I don’t like it.

Geden wrote:

That is somewhat the point! We do want to offer new experiences to our players.

I empathize though that in recent months the change of pace has been very high, especially compared to our previous pace when it came to releasing gameplay/balance updates.

This is a very drastic change which IMO could simply be changed by minor balancing. Why does removing resources effect these goals? What are you actually trying to do with this update, and how will this possibly help?

Geden wrote:

Lord Crayfish wrote:

If you wanted to spice up the economic situation on the "balanced" maps by making one more plentiful, you could do what you did in 1.0 and have four cities with one deficit per country. Possibly make there be more oil in the Middle East, more food in Eastern Europe or N. America, more rares in Central Asia, etc. From what little I remember, that was actually fun.

That is actually exactly what is happening in this update. The urban resource distribution will always be 2-2-1, which means you'll always be missing a little bit of that one resource. On some maps we will offset this by making the rurals 4-1-1 so you'll have equal income in all resources. On others the rural layout is 2-2-2 which means you have an imbalanced starting income that you have to compensate for either by diplomacy, stock market trades or going to war.

That would be less disruptive, with the same benefits. There's no need to fling the baby out with the bathwater by just deleting resources.

P.S. can you explain what you mean by 2-2-2 and 4-1-1? 2-2-2 looks more equal to me, 2 of each resource right? I don't understand this.

Geden wrote:

Pardon my french, but i think that's a cop out. Always being rich in a throwaway resource is the opposite of having to make meaningful choices. If you always have abundance of one resource that allows you to make trades at virtually no cost to your strategic goals. Now you have more situations where you'll be forced to prioritize what you need the resources most for.

My point was that if you are rich in one resource and poor in another it's because you didn't make meaningful choices; you should have balanced your economy and build order better. There are no "throwaway resources" simply poor economic management.

Hence, the game has another aspect, viz. balancing resource use and production, and managing this is a meaningful choice, making it more challenging and more fun. Less variety in resources would objectively reduce the strategic depth of the game, as with it, this aspect is massively diminished.

Furthermore, with more variety of resources, players having moderate resource disparities is more likely. Hence, they are more likely to need to trade with each other or use the stock market, not less.

Bottom line is, I think managing a complex economy with many resources is as important a part of this game as managing a complex army with many tech trees. It isn't just a throwaway feature to be eliminated.

Geden wrote:

Again, to me this sounds like the opposite of strategic depth. You always have your swiss army knife available to deal with any situation that arises. You can play rock paper scissor perfectly ad nauseam.

With this update we can force more situations where you can't just pick the perfect counter all the time, instead having to make compromises to achieve your goals. Wether that's how you allocate resources among allies or by predicting your enemies moves ahead of time so you can prepare accordingly.

Yes the update does trivialise the relationships between the classes. It makes relationships between individual units more important though, because now when you need a specific counter you also need a very specific resource that might not be available to you at the time. That might even be a situation that your opponent forced you into

It makes no sense that the difference between units in a tech class should become more significant than those between classes. Again, the realism pokes in. Essentially, a battleship is a big destroyer, and a bomber is a big fighter. Why should an interceptor be closer to (say) infantry than a strategic bomber? Does it make sense that they would cost different resources?

We have a perfectly good consistent system that Bytro's devs have spent a good amount of time refining, which makes sense and which seems to work perfectly, so it seems a waste to discard that. If anything it is actually worse than the removing of goods and rare. It wouldn't reduce the rock-paper-scissors aspect, it wouldn't make allocating resources more challenging, it would just make tech trees nonsensical.

It also encourages over-reliance on a single tech tree, as the resource differences between trees will not be so important. It incentivises a player to e.g. just build aircraft factories and build nothing but planes without unbalancing their resource reserves; uncreative play, no incentive to research strategy.

Geden wrote:

Thank you for the long, and well-written post! Maybe i can provide some more context for some of the points and questions you've raised here.

Hope this provides a bit more context for the intentions behind the changes. I would recommend giving them a whirl on beta, we really appreciate the well thought out feedback because it let's us tweak the update before it hits live.

By the way, is this update set in stone, or is there a chance of repealling it? The feedback hasn't been promising after all, so I don't think it will be popular.

Lets just be honest. The sole purpose of limiting traditional resources is to force dependance on Call of War's newest resource....Purple Gold!!

This change has nothing to do with improving gameplay and everything to do with improving profits thru increased use of purple gold/traditional gold/boosters.

Really can't blame Bytro as we understand Bytro needs to be profitable, but sadly many of the "old guard" will be leaving this game (and maybe that is part of the intent also). The days of using strategy and game planning have been replaced by "magic" and witchcraft" with purple gold.

this game is getting into brainless zombie mode now. can tell drove away a good portion of players as it takes almost 8hrs to fill 4 100P maps

What about the legal issues? Someone properly bought some of those "payday operations" with booster stuff that contains rare or goods. What about the ad boosters that gives goods ? will all these boosters be converted, or will they be deleted?

Food is primary for interceptors? what is going on nowadays? did these guys catch the latest variant of COVID or got alzheimer's? C'mon you got a horde of bugs like the sea near Manila being labelled as the Atlantic Ocean in historic ww and here are the devs changing stuff which doesnt need changing

Why not release this change already BUT only to a few special maps so we try out the new update

Why are they applying this to every map?

Erecon wrote:

What about the legal issues? Someone properly bought some of those "payday operations" with booster stuff that contains rare or goods. What about the ad boosters that gives goods ? will all these boosters be converted, or will they be deleted?

How can I start a beta game?

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

Geden wrote:

Komrade Khrushchev wrote:

@Geden. Should we call this Call of War 3.0?

Haha, maybe this will stick, who knows I think it was freezy who coined that term initially (CoW 1.0 etc.), so i'll wait for his opinion on the matter

I see. Do you know when this will go live in non-beta games?

So I guess with all the negative feedback Bytro will be going ahead with this anyway.

Why bother getting feedback?

@Geden i have a suggestion for resource booster cards.

since there are only money, food, metal, oil and mp, we could have:

• resource cards for money
• resource cards for mp
• a single card category for food, metal, and oil, maybe called something like ‘natural resources’