War Bonds - New Resource

Hornetkeeper wrote:

Master Androv, your post is simple and brilliant! I wish freezy notices this. Suggestion 1 and 2 especially.

All it takes (for freezy) is good old client-side 'programming' like 2 buttons (

plus:

game.canGold = true; // or:

game.canGold = false; game.entryPrice = 20000;

player.hasGold(amount){ // boolean, extracts $amount upon returning true

// add 2 rows:

if !this.game.canGold

return false; // haha, what do you do now Libya?

...

}

),

and a casual 8-hour conversation with Bytro staff, to convince them that the small minority of good players (who don't need gold so they give Bytro no revenue) is important to listen to. The only argument is 'those long-time players will now pay 10-20k gold per game'. Multiply that by the glorious amount of good active players, and you got a small profit which won't convince Bytro staff And even if it does, not very convenient to pay 20k gold a game. Some strategy games cost this much to buy, and from then on you can play (even use multiplayer servers) for free.

You're right Androv, but will it work with Call of War's "Brazil cost"

- I am not a programmer I am Game Designer at Bytro, but the code itself is written by the programmers (and art is supplied by artists). But yeah other persons could code it of course.

- you don't even know how complex and spaghetti our codebase is due to legacy reasons, so sadly there often isn't just a simple code snippet at one place that you can insert.

- I am currently not assigned to the CoW myself (working on another project) so I am not the one responsible for Warbonds and also not making decisions on this feature, but I give feedback to the responsible persons of course.

- The topic of gold/WB-free rounds for an entry fee has been discussed many times at bytro already, its a change that would require green light from most stakeholders and higher ups but so far that green light has not appeared. Which is kinda understandable because there are some risks attached to it. But as I am a fan of the idea myself, at least for a limited subset of games (e.g. tournaments, alliance matches or occasioanl events) I am arguing in favor of it when it comes up.

Anyway, there was a lot of feedback noted and passed to the team already (also a lot from the discord thread where the discussion is a lot more active), and adjustments are already scheduled for the next releases. So I am sure the feature will get better with the help of that community feedback.

Hello everyone.

In my opinion war bonuses should be given in quantity: Example: 40 000 thousand war bonuses per game or something similar. For me, it should not be cumulative per hour, as many users who use multi accounts, will go play more multi accounts just to have bonuses and affect enemy buildings. Also, it takes a lot of strategy out of the game, what's the point of having strategic planes if you can break buildings with bonuses?

To me the game now should be called " War of bonus"

That´s my sincerly opinion

Being able to heal units with bonds is nice. I hated how slow waiting for the day change to get a chunk of health back. So far its interesting.

freezy wrote:

- you don't even know how complex and spaghetti our codebase is due to legacy reasons, so sadly there often isn't just a simple code snippet at one place that you can insert.

Also, if you just said "we use GitHub", that would be a sufficient explanation

freezy wrote:

But as I am a fan of the idea myself, at least for a limited subset of games (e.g. tournaments, alliance matches or occasioanl events) I am arguing in favor of it when it comes up.

I swear. You players complain about gold use, then when Bytro makes a feature to limit gold use, you complain about that. You can never be satisfied!

RedSlayer44 wrote:

I swear. You players complain about gold use, then when Bytro makes a feature to limit gold use, you complain about that. You can never be satisfied!

RedSlayer44 wrote:

I swear. You players complain about gold use, then when Bytro makes a feature to limit gold use, you complain about that. You can never be satisfied!

That's the thing it won't change.

Every person that joined the game was aware that gold is an in-game currency that are used to do certain things that would give a better experience maybe a legal cheat type of experience but it's part of the game that we found like that and gold/War Bonds will not go away.

This is what it is.If we cry about this continuesly we will not enjoy the game.

Love it or hate it,buy it or slate it...

No one is holding a gun against my head, forcing me to play the game and be unhappy with it.

War Bonds now gives me the opportunity to do what golders only could do, that's my focus point

See below a blast from the past (2019) in reply to a gold discussion. Do note that the solutions provided DO NOT apply anymore in the WB-situation.

Thát is what people are complaining about and if anyone does not see that difference, the conclusion can only be that you are not (yet) a good player:

>>>

Dec 1st 2019

You wrote on the forum: "It (gold) is ruining the game as a legitimate wargame"

However, gold is not ruining the game. It is actually enabling the game. Without players spending, there simply can't even be a game for you to play. Developers and publishers do not live of love, sunshine and air alone.

Furthermore, there are just a few true gold spammers. When encountering such a player, each player has a number of options:

1. Buy gold too and show how much better you are at the game by killing the spammer.

2. Ally with other players and form a solid front of multiple nations against the spammer. With sufficient skill and time, there is a very good chance you win, which is one of the things that make COW a great game.

3. Leave the map and join another. The chance of meeting another spammer is small, because there are not enough people spending enough money anyway.

4. Get your skills up to par and get HC. A skilled player with HC and sufficient time is a much more formidable opponent than the average gold user.

Number 4 being my preferred option, which, when meeting a true gold spammer, I combine with buying some gold too, knowing 1g of mine is as good as 10 or 20 of his, because spammers almost always lack skill.

<<<<

So, please note that:

- recognizing gold-spamming is now impossible.

- everyone gets WBs and you basically have to use them, forcing magic into the game which has nothing to do with strategy

- strategic thinking is relegated to a nice extra, but of little value, as at any moment any army can be healed, exposed or simply appear in an empty target city (just to give a few examples).

- when facing a pack a friends, your cores will be continuously ruined by coordinated, free of cost instant sabotage actions.

- leaving a map with too many gold spammers is no longer an option, because now every map has the same nuisances.

Need I go on?

Bytro has plan, for otherwise they would not have introduced WBs, but this is (as it is) plain wrong.

My request to Bytro:

- think again of what you wanted to achieve (you had a reason or 2)

- take note of the very reasonable comments on WBs and the negative effects on gameplay

- readjust (because you won't take them out of the game, we can assume) the workings, quantities and functions of WBs, so that STRATEGY remains the core of the game.

If superior STRATEGY is no longer the determining factor, there is no reason anymore to play COW.

Think of it this way: What would a game of Chess become, when you or your opponent can magically make a Horse jump twice?

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

See below a blast from the past (2019) in reply to a gold discussion. Do note that the solutions provided DO NOT apply anymore in the WB-situation.

Thát is what people are complaining about and if anyone does not see that difference, the conclusion can only be that you are not (yet) a good player:

>>>

Dec 1st 2019

You wrote on the forum: "It (gold) is ruining the game as a legitimate wargame"

However, gold is not ruining the game. It is actually enabling the game. Without players spending, there simply can't even be a game for you to play. Developers and publishers do not live of love, sunshine and air alone.

Furthermore, there are just a few true gold spammers. When encountering such a player, each player has a number of options:

1. Buy gold too and show how much better you are at the game by killing the spammer.

2. Ally with other players and form a solid front of multiple nations against the spammer. With sufficient skill and time, there is a very good chance you win, which is one of the things that make COW a great game.

3. Leave the map and join another. The chance of meeting another spammer is small, because there are not enough people spending enough money anyway.

4. Get your skills up to par and get HC. A skilled player with HC and sufficient time is a much more formidable opponent than the average gold user.

Number 4 being my preferred option, which, when meeting a true gold spammer, I combine with buying some gold too, knowing 1g of mine is as good as 10 or 20 of his, because spammers almost always lack skill.

<<<<

So, please note that:

- recognizing gold-spamming is now impossible.

- everyone gets WBs and you basically have to use them, forcing magic into the game which has nothing to do with strategy

- strategic thinking is relegated to a nice extra, but of little value, as at any moment any army can be healed, exposed or simply appear in an empty target city (just to give a few examples).

- when facing a pack a friends, your cores will be continuously ruined by coordinated, free of cost instant sabotage actions.

- leaving a map with too many gold spammers is no longer an option, because now every map has the same nuisances.

Need I go on?

Bytro has plan, for otherwise they would not have introduced WBs, but this is (as it is) plain wrong.

My request to Bytro:

- think again of what you wanted to achieve (you had a reason or 2)

- take note of the very reasonable comments on WBs and the negative effects on gameplay

- readjust (because you won't take them out of the game, we can assume) the workings, quantities and functions of WBs, so that STRATEGY remains the core of the game.

If superior STRATEGY is no longer the determining factor, there is no reason anymore to play COW.

Think of it this way: What would a game of Chess become, when you or your opponent can magically make a Horse jump twice?

I do hear and understand the issue regarding skill, I also agree.

A good player can play this game without gold or War Bonds.

My point I'm making is the following...We found the game like this,we started playing the game like this and soon realized how Gold buyers have an advantage over players not playing with gold.

People complained about the unfairness and the developers implemented War Bonds to give the unhappy campers some sort of an advantage also but now the complaining is bigger because Gold buyers benefits from gold and WB.

My point is why will Bytro take away gold or WB because we free players don't like their method? Let's be realistic.You are unhappy how the game works but you continue to play it and continue to complain.By the time this game has reached version 5.0 you will still be here crying about this.

I speak for myself.If I don't like how something is done I will definitely not punish myself and force myself to do something I hate

Vanrendo wrote:

By the time this game has reached version 5.0 you will still be here crying about this.

Vanrendo wrote:

../..

My point I'm making is the following...We found the game like this,we started playing the game like this and soon realized how Gold buyers have an advantage over players not playing with gold.

People complained about the unfairness and the developers implemented War Bonds to give the unhappy campers some sort of an advantage also but now the complaining is bigger because Gold buyers benefits from gold and WB.

My point is why will Bytro take away gold or WB because we free players don't like their method? Let's be realistic.You are unhappy how the game works but you continue to play it and continue to complain.By the time this game has reached version 5.0 you will still be here crying about this.

I speak for myself.If I don't like how something is done I will definitely not punish myself and force myself to do something I hate

I do not at all agree with the complaints about gold. Hence, I reposted the 2019 post. yes, its is nuisance, but the user is paying for his advantage and any player has (at the least) the 4 options I mentioned.

Besides that, everyone who is dedicated enough to stay active until the end of a map (determining factor = dedication) can earn gold and hoddle or spend it. Those who do not have gold in their stash are either horrid players (always getting wiped out) or not dedicated to stay the race until the end.

Bytro thus carries no blame for not having gold. On the contrary, the blame is 100% on the player himself.

WBs are a different thing.

Try again to understand the last sentence:

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

../..

Think of it this way: What would a game of Chess become, when you or your opponent can magically make a Horse jump twice?

With WBs everyone, also the non-dedicated (always going inactive, never-learning, etc) players can make Horses jump twice, thrice or more.

My questions therefore =>

1. What was the intended result to be achieved for Bytro?

2. What is the added value of WBs to this otherwise rather brilliant strategy game?

3. Do the intended results match or outweigh the (IMO negative) influence of WBs?

I have my opinion right now, based on what I already experienced:

a. Spamming gold makes dumb & lazy, but that was reserved for a few (well, not too many) who greatly contribute to the required revenue.

b. WBs are somewhat like gold, but for free.

c. WBs now make EVERY - and especially the under-average - player even dumber & lazier.

Concluson (for now/pls do change my mind These 'lesser' players will never have to learn and thus will never understand the game and thus they will move on to something else, once they have been kicked of their maps a few times.

HOWEVER, for the time that they remain in the game, they can and will be spending their WBs and form an unnecessary extra nuisance, which may result in dedicated players turning their backs on the game.

Your last sentence is exactly what I'm saying.If this game is not doing it for a person anymore pack up and leave,it will stay like this,by writing thesises and giving brilliant hypothesis about how Bytro conduct their methods is not going to change how things are.

I agree.This game should be played with no gold and no War Bonds.Every player should be equally disadvantaged.There are community games where no gold were used not sure how it is now with WB.

I am content with the way things are because I can do nothing about it.The little bit of pleasure and enjoyment I get from the game is enough to stimulate my mind and keep me to continue to play it.

What you are insinuating as that Bytro just does what it does and doesn't care.

I hope you also realize that this is not true.

I.e. Freezy and other read these comments and sometimes do adjust things, purely based on the comments read.

That is why it is important to comment in a sensible way on these developments.

After all, Bytro is not served by players turning their backs on the game.

Hence my questions.

In case Bytro is achieving the desired results (of which we do not know what they are), while certain players quit, nothing will change.

In case Bytro can achieve more or less the same results, while tweaking WBs in a way that the less-than-average-players are less of a nuisance, and players do not run away, that would be great for both Bytro and the existing (loyal, strategy loving) player base.

Therefore, your 'solution' (aka: don't comment, just go away if you don't like it; nothing will change anyway) is no solution.

The fact that instant sabotage was already doubled in price is prove of the contrary.

So, please allow me the vague hope for further improvements, which may uphold the strategy aspect of the game a little more than is the case now.

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

What you are insinuating as that Bytro just does what it does and doesn't care.

I hope you also realize that this is not true.

No reason was given for why they needed to disable it (or was it? someone like @K.Rokossovski might know better)

I can imagine many reasons, like:

>>>

It's possible it just created extra mayhem in game development (you'd have to update/modify every feature in both standard AND Canvas graphics separately). Or... possibly, Canvas graphics was based on the HTMLCanvasElement, which allows you to draw complex shapes, but it wasn't enough for some new graphics so they had to disable it. IDK.

<<<

But the fact they didn't respond in any way to the old players, shows that Bytro is sometimes... too busy to focus on the good players' issues. I think most of the CoW revenue comes from things that seem trivial/irrelevant to you (like designing the Gold buttons with a visible golden glow to always catch the impatient kids' attention). For this reason, trying to explain every thing you dislike is often wishful thinking. Your experience is not Bytro's concern as much as that of immature gold spenders. Yes, Bytro does (partly thanks to freezy) make afew concessions to us strategy enjoyers here and there. But I think Vanrendo's point of "Just be less concerned and mind your business" is very understandable.

We gave reasons for disabling the Canvas renderer though, there was a long forum discussion thread about it where I personally elaborated on that in detail. Main reasons were: Meet market standards and today's player expectations (they compare games and nowadays most successful strategy games have good 3d graphics (even now we are still lacking in this department)), make the game attractive to new players again so we can continue to grow the game, enable new graphical features and options which were not possible before, improve usability and controls of the map (Canvas only had 4 fixed zoom stages and felt very restricted and sluggish - to get the fluid stepless zoom of the new renderer was totally worth it in of itself), maintenance and future-proofness, better suited for the growing mobile version.

We also adressed a lot of the feedback in that thread and made the first version of the renderer look as close to the old renderer as possible (in terms of colors). Over time we improved it much further and also changed its style to where it is now (CoW2.0). So we definitely responded. Going back to the old renderer was not an option tho so the only possible response was to improve the new renderer.

Usually some high level reasons are given in the news with every change, which was also done for Warbonds this time (-> give everyone equal opportunity and access to premium actions to stop running it like a 2-class system).

Of course there are some more nitty gritty details and goals which were not mentioned in the news, in case of Warbonds for example that it is also the intention to reduce gold shaming and ostracizing of spenders, which was a real problem. So to a degree war bonds are a result of the constant gold shaming and complaining taking place in the newspaper, diplomacy, forums, discord etc. Since now everyone can spend there are less reasons to complain about others doing it (everyone is guilty basically), and you indeed also can't determine as easily anymore who paid money for it. I know in the eyes of veteran players this may be a negative, but in the eyes of Bytro this is a positive as it protects those who are willing to spend, which is the reason CoW is still alive.

The numbers are being tracked and in the end the numbers will show if the feature achieved its intended effect or not. If the feature is a net positive it will stay and get improved. If it is a net negative it might get reworked or removed.

Until then we are indeed listening to feedback and certain changes are about to be released (or were released already) which were directly based on player feedback:

- Make Sabotage more expensive

- Make the other spy actions (like reveal armies & country info) also more expensive

- reduce warbond production (at first in certain maps to test how it goes)

- introduce a cap how many warbonds can be stored

- make healing costs of certain units more expensive

Further changes are still being discussed, so even more is possible based on the feedback. I personally advocate for some of these changes myself (like removing Sabotage entirely ) so we will see how it goes.

Questions on WBs:

1. Is a player who's cities are taken, but still has some provinces, still accumulating WBs?

2. And if that player is rather frustrated, can he still insta-sabotage, even though he is practically out of the game?

(in a particular case, it seems the player in question is very focussed on male genitals and all the places these could go and doesn't mind informing others by DM and newspaper about his 'fantasies'. Insta-sabotage might suit such a person to simply harrass other players out of spite)

I understand some players frustration over others gold use and just “buying” the game. What most really want is a level playing field. While some maps are lopsided due to the historical basis, coalitions can do a lot to even things out.

The real complaint is how lopsided it can become when a player uses a large amounts of gold to turn the game in their favor. A game must generate revenue, if not it is not long for this world, the electric bill and payroll need to be paid, hence gold.

I would prefer an expansion of the premium account.

• Only premium account players would be ranked, thus only premium players would have stats and qualify for achievements
• Give a daily ration of gold to premium players. (or war bonds). ( It wouldn't bother me if this was tied to rank, the higher your rank the higher your daily ration, could be an incentive to stay active.)
• Add features that make a premium account desirable. (like the ability to que research).
• Expand premium game creation to set game speed, beginning unit counts and level.
• Limit the amount of games free players can play at one time.

The creation of warbonds is just a smoke screen, everybody get the same amount so it is a wash, UNLESS you use gold to buy more warbonds, so nothing has really changed except it might have become more expensive to use gold (who wants to do the math)

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

Questions on WBs:

1. Is a player who's cities are taken, but still has some provinces, still accumulating WBs?

2. And if that player is rather frustrated, can he still insta-sabotage, even though he is practically out of the game?

(in a particular case, it seems the player in question is very focussed on male genitals and all the places these could go and doesn't mind informing others by DM and newspaper about his 'fantasies'. Insta-sabotage might suit such a person to simply harrass other players out of spite)