War Bonds - New Resource

!

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

...

- recognizing gold-spamming is now impossible.

...

Read my paragraph carefully. I did not deny that it is harder to recognize Gold/WB spammers (it is), but it is not impossible.

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

...

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

...

They've only been out for a few weeks. We're only at the tip of the iceberg.

Erecon wrote:

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)

I have been thinking about that issue as well, also people could get an island in oceania and continue bombing people with warbonds from there. ( or trade/get a province from an ally day 7 far away) Why is the insta spy sabotage building feature still in the game?

AleksanderZ wrote:

Erecon wrote:

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)

I have been thinking about that issue as well, also people could get an island in oceania and continue bombing people with warbonds from there. ( or trade/get a province from an ally day 7 far away) Why is the insta spy sabotage building feature still in the game?

More reasons why a stepped WB income scenario is vital.

freezy wrote:

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.

2. Most of those arguments are weird though, as the standard graphics could be set by default and Canvas only for those who choose it voluntarily (so no one would complain of lacking 3D graphics...) The only reason I understand (maybe I'm stupid) is the mobile version and new features/options, because it could've been very inconvenient implementing them in Canvas mode (so just drop Canvas altogether to save your time).

freezy wrote:

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.

rdy2rocknroll wrote:

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.

Some might say it would drive players away, but if they are not contributing to the further development of the game it really doesn’t matter. I know many would not like this but it would level the playing field and still allow free play.

Only premium members should be ranked, have stats and qualify for achievements? Forgive me but that would then definitely be a pay2win/play game and most people would not be bothered to keep on playing.Bytro's aim is to lure people in not chase them away.Also only premium members should get a daily gold/WB? How will that level the playing field?War Bonds every one gets already and the Gold Buyers will add their normal amount of gold to play.And free players already have a limit on games(you suggesting that it should be lowered?)

I myself also feel guilty by not contributing towards the game in a financial way but at the end of the day, people that do not spend real money should not be penalized,they should just make less demands and play the game as it is but should be allowed to have rank,stats and qualify for achievements

Well don’t worry none of that would happen, the real value that free players add is like clicks and reviews and sucking in their friends, it is a game of percentages and so the premium stuff that generates revenue (gold premium accounts ect.) will not go away, it does affect the gameplay but that is the cost free players pay, like you said ” they should just make less demands and play the game as it is”

Hornetkeeper wrote:

2. Most of those arguments are weird though, as the standard graphics could be set by default and Canvas only for those who choose it voluntarily (so no one would complain of lacking 3D graphics...) The only reason I understand (maybe I'm stupid) is the mobile version and new features/options, because it could've been very inconvenient implementing them in Canvas mode (so just drop Canvas altogether to save your time).

Vanrendo wrote:

I myself also feel guilty by not contributing towards the game in a financial way but at the end of the day, people that do not spend real money should not be penalized,they should just make less demands and play the game as it is but should be allowed to have rank,stats and qualify for achievements

@freezy

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

@freezyQuestions 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)

Why would non paying players want to make these restrictions on war bonds

freezy wrote:

- 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

It would make it harder for non paying players to use these actions, which would give them less of advantage against paying players which is the opposite reason war bonds were made.

It seems like they want to make everything more expensive which would mean you can do less things with your war bonds. It would even get more less if the war bond production is lowered which was another suggestion. So these changes would hurt non paying players rather than help them because they dont pay for more war bonds so they will only be able to do a certain amount of things. Paying players would be able to buy more war bonds so they will have more of advantage.

(Sorry for my bad english)

War Bonds are BS.

rdy2rocknroll wrote:

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.

Some might say it would drive players away, but if they are not contributing to the further development of the game it really doesn’t matter. I know many would not like this but it would level the playing field and still allow free play.

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)

Good

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

@freezy

vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

@freezyQuestions 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)

Ash Ketchum wrote:

Why would non paying players want to make these restrictions on war bonds

freezy wrote:

- 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

It would make it harder for non paying players to use these actions, which would give them less of advantage against paying players which is the opposite reason war bonds were made.

freezy wrote:

yes & yes

Ash Ketchum wrote:

Why would non paying players want to make these restrictions on war bonds

Ash Ketchum wrote:

It would make it harder for non paying players to use these actions, which would give them less of advantage against paying players which is the opposite reason war bonds were made.

Let's get clear on what WarBons do. Originally, the "default" level of gold usage was almost zero. Players would have to actively purchase gold to do gold actions. With WB, even passive non-spenders have to do many gold actions (you must use WB as effectively as your opponent or you will fall behind). This means, the default level of gold usage is now much higher. And THAT is what many players don't want. Annoying, impatient, non-strategical gold actions everywhere.

Making those actions more expensive doesn't make it "worse" for non-paying users. Let's say I could originally do 7 sabotages a day, the golder could do 70 a day (thanks to his financial input). Now it got more expensive, I can only do 4 and he can only do 40, so he's still 10x better off than me. As non-paying player, I'm not any worse off than before.

If anything, it discourages heavy gold spending & buying because you now have to pay more per action, so the golder might actually buy less.

I think only a part of your point is valid, which is that golders don't care if they get 40 or 70 sabotages a day, while an expert strategist non-paying player can do alot more with 7 sabotages than he could do with 4. In this regard, yes, making gold actions less affordable can weaken non-paying players more than it does the golders.

Maybe a solution would be to make gold actions incrementally more expensive if you buy a lot in quick succession. Not sure if that's the right thing to do from Bytro Labs perspective though...

We love coconut

I'm not a very experienced player, so pardon me if I'm being slightly ignorant here.

But after some time of the war bonds being introduced, I don't think the idea is too bad, as it can massively lower the need to be pay-to-win, but I think it would be much better if everyone started with a fixed amount, say 100k, and it doesn't increase. That way you can be strategic about how you use your war bonds - and it would add a separate factor to the game - will you use all your war bonds at the start of the game to AC + LT rush someone as a Pan-Asian player? Or will you save it to Day 4 to get a powerful army of Commandos and TD as an Allied player?

I think Bytro definitely had the right idea, but I think slightly changing how they are acquired would satisfy us free-to-play players.

My only input would be war bonds not be able to be used to heal units. Units healed in battle by gold or war bonds are what hurts game play. Allow gold/bonds only to be used for infrastructure, plants, research, etc. Stuff for new items during the game and not for a player to cover up poor game play.

I dislike the healing aspect . I also think Androv's ideas in an earlier post were very good.

I'm certain that Warbonds are just a shiny purple gold that encourages one to press that spend button, and overall gets more people spending real currency. Otherwise why else Introduce them?