Call of war IS dying!

this game is rather infamous for the amount of new players that leave after the toutorial (safe to say 80 percent dont stay for a month)

normally, this is balanced out for the very few amount of old players that leave (which is once again, quite common in all bytro titles)

but with 1.5 a good porportion of the old players either have left, or is playing exclusively 1.0 rounds (which means activity massively cut down) or scale back on their activities dramaticly

but in this case there isnt a sudden influx of new players that actually stays

resulting in the playerbase declining significantly

YDSTRIKER wrote:

Ciro702 wrote:

Second, I'd like to ask about the "ranking manipulation". Would you elaborate please?

I will give you some examples from my region:

Multiple breaks on weak alliances, such five breaks from the bottom of the table is actually 30 free points, You only need to get 5 people from one alliance, 1 from the other and there is a ranking map. I start to encounter such practices more often.

It is also the same with alliances established by multiaccounts. Then he plays with him 3 times, and then the "multialliance" is canceled, for no recognition.

Actually, when I have contact with such a GO, is it possible to add the "Unranked Game" function, where players would count statistics, but the alliance would not lose and gain ELO? It would be a lot easier in sparings and workouts.

ValeraZol wrote:

It seems that game is dying, why ??? I like it so much, why it is so underrrated ?(

z00mz00m wrote:

"CoW is dying" is a bit hyperbolic.

But, I can provide some feedback from my personal experience.

Initially, I was disgusted. Some of the changes really turned me off. I continued to play 1.0 maps.

Then, I resigned myself to the new rules, and started playing 1.5 maps. In large part, because there was no choice.... old maps are getting harder to find, fewer players active on old maps.

Now, I've reached my second "wall" with the game. It's burning me out. It keeps demanding more of my time and attention. The game is faster, for one thing. Battles, especially so, but also builds and movement. And there is more "work" to do. Production queues need constant baby-sitting. Every time a unit reaches a new level, I have to remove the unit from all production queues, else they will continue producing the old unit level. Then, one of my least favorite changed to the game: manual unit upgrades.

The end result is that I'm just burned out. I don't want to start any new maps. It's too much work, and it's eating into my real life. The second issue is that much of the work is not fun. I've complained about this before (manual upgrades, queue management, production balancing).

Do I really want to lose sleep over.... this?

No, probably not.

So if your "engagement" metrics are up, that I completely believe. The game demands greater engagement. More clicks per hour, more active hours per day. But is this sustainable? Is this "good" engagement"?

In my case, no. I'm burned out. You can keep my High Command subscription, I don't mind Bytro making some money, I just don't care any more.

There are a lot of things to manage and it constantly demands you to be focusing on the game.

There needs to be a time out option. Yep, your nation goes into "neutral" and you can not be attacked during the "neutral" status.

That could be logical.

But yes there is a time management issue that hurts many online real time strategy games. thus why they come and go.

The game has many cool aspects. I would suggest to have a membership fee to counter ingame gold usage

1.5 is not much more than CON mechanics forfully transplanted into COW, without retaining the originality nor intergrating it into the traditional 1.0 framework. This caused the vast majority of players at the time to systematically reject the new changes, just like how a human body forcefully rejects transplanted organs. Like i said before, this massive amount of experienced players leaving really drives down the quality of the games played

NOOB1433223 wrote:

1.5 is not much more than CON mechanics forfully transplanted into COW, without retaining the originality nor intergrating it into the traditional 1.0 framework. This caused the vast majority of players at the time to systematically reject the new changes, just like how a human body forcefully rejects transplanted organs. Like i said before, this massive amount of experienced players leaving really drives down the quality of the games played

NOOB1433223 wrote:

Like i said before, this massive amount of experienced players leaving really drives down the quality of the games played

Having tried playing both CoN and CoW 1.5, the two are quite different in a lot of ways.

1. unit production times in CoN are a lot longer than CoW 1.5

2.you cannot mobilise new units in occupied provinces in CoN without annexing them...

3. Combat timers are 1h in CoN, not 30 min.

Okay that's it for now, from what I know playing CoN(still fairly inexperienced with that).

Basically my point is CoW 1.5 and CoN are not the same...

Buzzy02 wrote:

Having tried playing both CoN and CoW 1.5, the two are quite different in a lot of ways.

1. unit production times in CoN are a lot longer than CoW 1.5

Comrade genz wrote:

Buzzy02 wrote:

Having tried playing both CoN and CoW 1.5, the two are quite different in a lot of ways.

1. unit production times in CoN are a lot longer than CoW 1.5

same with supremacy 1914

All past civilizations and generations in the course of history have been confronted with change, new technologies, evolution and revolution. Those put in question the old ways are perceived by the conservative part of the population as a threat.

COW isn't dying it's thriving and it's far from dead. Dinosaurs died because they didn't evolve or adapt, don't forget that.

In other words, I'm closing this thread.