Resources Reforged - Test it now on Beta!

hmm

Bandersnatch wrote:

@Geden I think there should also be more operations to give players more rewards and encourage people to play

Geden wrote:

They will be converted, i don't have the specific details for that yet though. As with past updates where we had to convert booster cards to a new variant we'll make sure that no value is being lost.

Geden, thanks for reading and replying to our posts. A big change it's always met with cries of dismay, so your patience is appreciated.

I've been enjoying CoW since the 1.0 version and I still miss it.

The use of rares to power research, industry, and special units gave us an additional layer of strategy that no longer exists. Now, rares are no longer rare or special.

Another fun aspect were the building requirements, like needing infrastructure to build a heavy tank. You couldn't just crank out units in a recently demolished city. Keeping cities whole was important. Areas of the map that changes hands too many times would become a de-industralized wasteland only good for conscripting infantry. That added another layer of strategy to the game, which is now gone.

Regarding resource trades.

The reason players don't trade resources on the market is because the system is broken. Posting a trade costs 10% up front, even if nobody picks up the trade. On the other hand, direct p2p trades are free, and easy to execute. What is the incentive for using the market? There is none. Eliminating resources will not change that basic reality.

Regarding mixing resource requirements within a tree.

This removes another strategic element of the game. The choice of which tree makes economic sense for a given starting location. With the proposed changes, a player no longer needs to care which tree needs what, dumbing down economic decisions.

In summary, if you want to improve game play at a strategic level, please consider bringing back some 1.0 elements. Removing 2 resource types and mixing up the trees takes the game in the opposite direction, making it less special, and less strategic in character.

Thanks for your attention!

Geden wrote:

a 2-2-2 layout, where one resource is more plentiful than the others, and a balanced 4-1-1 layout, where all resources are equally available!

@Addin Turx Can you please not quote long messages like that? It’s very annoying to have to scroll through large blocks of quotes like that, especially when they aren’t necessary.

Michaelis wrote:

Where can I play a round with it?

@Geden hi do you know how i can play a beta game? thanks

This update sounds like shit

If this update goes though I will probably stop playing.

The game needs to become more complex and tactical, not less.

Let’s see what happened to call of war after I take a break-

OH MY GOODNESS

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.

If not i'll definitely prepare a sheet once all numbers have been finalized. Right now they are still in flux, so i don't want to put too much time into something impermanent.

croatian kid wrote:

@Geden hi do you know how i can play a beta game? thanks

Phillip Bosley wrote:

What would nukes be made of? You can’t realistically make a nuke out of food, metal, and oil.

Serious answer: we are favoring a gameplay > realism approach at the moment. That's also why we added the Pan-Asian doctrine to the Europe map. The doctrine name/art style is more of a hinderance in that case, and ideally we rename it on the Europe map at some point. We just prioritized having the variety of a fourth docrine that focuses on mobility/surprise attacks over the realism in that case.

Same thing here with the production costs. We see a benefit to the gameplay, so we are willing to forgo some realism to make it happen. But as we can see with the feedback there seem to be some hard limits with how far we can go before the game becomes less fun to immerse yourself in, so we'll have to do look into solutions for this issue.

Nostroma wrote:

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

Why bother getting feedback?

This "update" has introduced a bug to my game where goods and rare materials production has dropped to 0, while the units still consume those resources. Please fix.

Link to bug report:

Goods and Rare Materials production stopped

Geden, if this update really goes through I will most likely stop playing. I’ve played this game for years and always had a premium account and buy some gold every now and then, probably spent a few $100 over the years.

Pointless updates like this just dumbs the game down.

Geden wrote:

Phillip Bosley wrote:

What would nukes be made of? You can’t realistically make a nuke out of food, metal, and oil.

Sounds like you are not trying hard enough...

Serious answer: we are favoring a gameplay > realism approach at the moment. That's also why we added the Pan-Asian doctrine to the Europe map. The doctrine name/art style is more of a hinderance in that case, and ideally we rename it on the Europe map at some point. We just prioritized having the variety of a fourth docrine that focuses on mobility/surprise attacks over the realism in that case.

Same thing here with the production costs. We see a benefit to the gameplay, so we are willing to forgo some realism to make it happen. But as we can see with the feedback there seem to be some hard limits with how far we can go before the game becomes less fun to immerse yourself in, so we'll have to do look into solutions for this issue.

The game should be more realistic. You cannot change my mind about that

Geden wrote:

Because it's not a binary thing where the update either gets released or scrapped. We can both deploy this update and implement feedback from the community before we do. That's also why we decided to hold the update back on beta for another 2 weeks, so we can do further polishing and discuss how to proceed from here.

This is reasonable.

Note that doctrines are universally liked. But that feature could have been implemented on the 1.0 system. It's the other changes in 2.0 that decreased enjoyment, and the next round of simplifications will most likely decrease enjoyment further. You might get more users and more noobs but they won't stick around.

croatian kid wrote:

@Geden hi do you know how i can play a beta game? thanks

Geden wrote:

Phillip Bosley wrote:

What would nukes be made of? You can’t realistically make a nuke out of food, metal, and oil.

Sounds like you are not trying hard enough...

Serious answer: we are favoring a gameplay > realism approach at the moment. That's also why we added the Pan-Asian doctrine to the Europe map. The doctrine name/art style is more of a hinderance in that case, and ideally we rename it on the Europe map at some point. We just prioritized having the variety of a fourth docrine that focuses on mobility/surprise attacks over the realism in that case.

Same thing here with the production costs. We see a benefit to the gameplay, so we are willing to forgo some realism to make it happen. But as we can see with the feedback there seem to be some hard limits with how far we can go before the game becomes less fun to immerse yourself in, so we'll have to do look into solutions for this issue.

AnonymeggABC1234 wrote:

Geden wrote:

Phillip Bosley wrote:

What would nukes be made of? You can’t realistically make a nuke out of food, metal, and oil.

Sounds like you are not trying hard enough... Serious answer: we are favoring a gameplay > realism approach at the moment. That's also why we added the Pan-Asian doctrine to the Europe map. The doctrine name/art style is more of a hinderance in that case, and ideally we rename it on the Europe map at some point. We just prioritized having the variety of a fourth docrine that focuses on mobility/surprise attacks over the realism in that case.

Same thing here with the production costs. We see a benefit to the gameplay, so we are willing to forgo some realism to make it happen. But as we can see with the feedback there seem to be some hard limits with how far we can go before the game becomes less fun to immerse yourself in, so we'll have to do look into solutions for this issue.

Will nukes use more metal and oil instead?