Gold

K.Rokossovski wrote:

OneNutSquirrel wrote:

You know it was suggested a while back that one game type that opens up should be a pay per use game, so you pay say... 10,000 to enter the game, and you can't use gold in the actual game. So BYTRO gets it's 100 x 10,000 = 1,000,000 gold for the game... but they ignored the thread. At current package prices that's approx $350. So that means they must make more than that from an average game.

They didn't really ignore the thread, they replied like a thousand times that they're not going to do it in the past. It doesn't help when you bring up a suggestion, get a "no", and then just bring up the same suggestion again. People get bored of you and stop responding, it doesn't mean it is ignored.

With that said, I'd be happy just to get the ability to create gold free games for the player created variety with high command. That would save so much time and effort. Look at the Alliance World Cup's rules. In terms of word count, they spend half their effort on accidental gold use.

We indeed discussed this topic many times in the past. We won't change the business model because it is working very well and every change has a big risk attached.

What I could see happening is that we experiment with gold-entry fee games, maybe in the form of some limited tournaments or such. I cant see such rounds becoming the standard, but maybe an occasional avenue on the side. But that topic is mostly in the hands of our Community Managers right now. But with delicate topics like this our product people have to be convinced as well.

It is not as easy because there is a risk attached. One of the risks was mentioned, that we communicate that we might view gold as something bad to our loyal customers, which is not something we want.

Another issue is the price point. As was calculated in this thread the entry fee has to be substantial to match the average spendings in maps, so we dont lose money. But by setting a high entry fee you also will lose alot of potential participants (who cant or dont wanna afford the fee), which in turn might increase the entry fee even more cos fewer players have to make up for it, which then leads to even less potential participants, and so on.

Many things have to be considered but I am hopeful that there can be at least some limited tests at some point in the future (this is not a promise).

freezy wrote:

We indeed discussed this topic many times in the past. We won't change the business model because it is working very well and every change has a big risk attached.

What I could see happening is that we experiment with gold-entry fee games, maybe in the form of some limited tournaments or such. I cant see such rounds becoming the standard, but maybe an occasional avenue on the side. But that topic is mostly in the hands of our Community Managers right now. But with delicate topics like this our product people have to be convinced as well.

It is not as easy because there is a risk attached. One of the risks was mentioned, that we communicate that we might view gold as something bad to our loyal customers, which is not something we want.

Another issue is the price point. As was calculated in this thread the entry fee has to be substantial to match the average spendings in maps, so we dont lose money. But by setting a high entry fee you also will lose alot of potential participants (who cant or dont wanna afford the fee), which in turn might increase the entry fee even more cos fewer players have to make up for it, which then leads to even less potential participants, and so on.

Many things have to be considered but I am hopeful that there can be at least some limited tests at some point in the future (this is not a promise).

Out of curiosity... Can you share with us what the average gold spend per game is? The statistician in me would love to know. Even if it's just a ballpark figure?

But regardless - Woop! Woop!

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:

It's fantastic that you're even considering this and a huge step forward! So that definitely has to be applauded!

Out of curiosity... Can you share with us what the average gold spend per game is? The statistician in me would love to know. Even if it's just a ballpark figure?

But regardless - Woop! Woop!

freezy wrote:

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:

It's fantastic that you're even considering this and a huge step forward! So that definitely has to be applauded!

Out of curiosity... Can you share with us what the average gold spend per game is? The statistician in me would love to know. Even if it's just a ballpark figure?

But regardless - Woop! Woop!

Thanks! But I can't share those numbers, they are internal business secrets, sorry.

Thank you for a solid and direct answer anyway, Freezy. It makes sense. And we all want you to stay in business, even the biggest complainers among us.

6thDragon wrote:

Nooberium wrote:

Yet there are elite players with gold accumulated from rewards who might spend it to kill the whale's troops and make him spend even more or quit. Have seen it happen.

Yes, I've done this on more than one occasion, but that may depend on your definition of whale.

Nooberium wrote:

Players who use so much gold are usually lousy generals, lacking skills in every aspect of the game.

Usually but not always. I've seen very competent gold users.

Remember everyone has their own code for when gold use is acceptable. Personally, I only use it when I see gold usage. Getting backstabbed or ganged up on is part of the game. However, I've only ever been backstabbed once and the player was pretty clumsy about it. He kinda did me a favor by doing it. I've seen good players justify gold usage because they had multiple opponents coming at them.

I have rarely abused this to hit players.

we do not have enough players.

so, even as a gold user, I would love to see a cap on gold per game. say 100k.

Then thats it. Bytro wont get financially hurt if its capped at a 100k. that would be nonsense.

lets not confuse greed with profit. lol

Ive been a business owner for a long time. I can read between the lines.

also for gold use. I run a business. I can disappear for 12+ hours without checking in. I can go 2 or 3 days before I launch an attack. I do log in in that period but its basically to check up. build a few things, then back to life/bed/eat/dogs lol

I have recommended many ideas to keep players engaged and busy. The lack of volume of troops is one. The lack of having enough resources to build infra and troops is another.

I could go on.

All games need tweaking and need change to keep people engaged. so this thing of doing no changes (like CoW 1.5 or 2.0) is nonsense. You need to evolve to stay competitive.

But again, as a golder, there needs to be a balance. There isn't right now.

The players are doing the balancing, which should not be the main case. Again as a golder, if a non golding player needs help, I will help.

I kind of rather be a UN force than a bully. But thats me. lol

so a easy solution to balance is a gold cap. and for the love of all that is holy.. fix manpower and manufacturing (goods, the little boxes, lol)

And as I have previously said. If I am taking the time to give input in this game, its because I love this game. As I believe all those that comment in forum are on that page.

Cheers to all!!

z00mz00m wrote:

I agree with the sentiment of this post, and wish I could play maps where there was a guarantee of no gold use. But this is not going to happen. Bytro does not want to stigmatize gold use. They don't even want us to trash talk gold abusers. They consider that a breach of terms, and reserve the right to punish us for badmouthing (unlimited) gold use. This is why they will not create gold-free maps, even if they made as much money as regular maps... and they wouldn't make as much money. Let's be serious. Would you pay $50 to join one map?

So just suck it up, I guess.

What we need is a site that lists all the whales and a Chrome extension that automatically marks their maps so you know not to join them. This is something I would pay for.

Again, the solution is a gold cap. Not to ban gold.

I am I guess, a whale. I have zero issues spending 300$ on a game if it lasts a month. I might put 60$ at the start and a few add ins as i go if I wanna try something out.

But I completely get where many of you are going. As I have stated, do not alienate the golders as they are financing the game. We need a way to merge everyone. A happy medium.

Did you also consider the fact many of us golders are competing against multi accounters? which I find even worse than golders?

So, again: Cap gold use per game (lower on a 22 game, higher on a WaW or Homefront game), fix the support button (still not fixed), and get rid of multi accounters (not that hard to do, despite rumors to the contrary)

Or, damn, lets start a good guys golders to monitor games hahaha

Strule wrote:

As I player who tends to play this game every couple of months (I come, play for a moth and then I just leave the game and come back after 5-6 months of absence) I've realized that in a 100 players map things are slower than it used to be...

To build an army now (even though I have tons of income and almost half of North America continent) is so so slower than the last time I've played it, maybe year ago...

It seems to me like the game is now designed to be used to play with gold..

SORRY FOR CAPS (not sorry lol)

playing homefront. I control 40% the map, can only build 5 units per day. thats nonsense. (of course without gold)

again, not a diss, but constructive observational suggestions.

Moss20 wrote:

THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING. NOT ENOUGH UNITS, THINGS TO DO, BUILDINGS TO SPECIALIZE AND BUILD, DEFENSES TO ERECT ETC. ... TO ENGAGE PLAYERS.

SORRY FOR CAPS (not sorry lol)

playing homefront. I control 40% the map, can only build 5 units per day. thats nonsense. (of course without gold)

again, not a diss, but constructive observational suggestions.

I don't understand this complaint regarding "not enough to do".

If you want a faster paced game, play a speed map. The game is already too fast for a lot of people.

Not enough units? There are plenty of units.

Plan your movements. And of course, don't lose your units.

Are you primarily limited by resources or manpower?

Do you build industry in your core cities and resource provinces?

I don't use gold, and I have plenty of units to keep me busy.

What kind of units and stacks do you build?

z00mz00m wrote:

Moss20 wrote:

THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING. NOT ENOUGH UNITS, THINGS TO DO, BUILDINGS TO SPECIALIZE AND BUILD, DEFENSES TO ERECT ETC. ... TO ENGAGE PLAYERS.

SORRY FOR CAPS (not sorry lol)

playing homefront. I control 40% the map, can only build 5 units per day. thats nonsense. (of course without gold)

again, not a diss, but constructive observational suggestions.

I don't understand this complaint regarding "not enough to do".

If you want a faster paced game, play a speed map. The game is already too fast for a lot of people.

Not enough units? There are plenty of units.

Plan your movements. And of course, don't lose your units.

Are you primarily limited by resources or manpower?

Do you build industry in your core cities and resource provinces?

I don't use gold, and I have plenty of units to keep me busy.

What kind of units and stacks do you build?

In my opinion, Bytro's business model has a way of repelling new players. So much effort goes into enhancing the graphics and interface but as soon as a new player meets their first credit card commander, they walk away from the game.

I've introduced 7 or 8 players from my gaming group to the game. They all tried it and that was all of their experience. They all think I'm crazy for continuing to play a game where you spend so much time playing and someone else can pay to win.

Moss20 wrote:

Did you also consider the fact many of us golders are competing against multi accounters? which I find even worse than golders?

I've seen some pretty egregious multi-accounting too. And what's worse, Bytro doesn't address support tickets to report it. I've seen players bragging about how easy it is to multi-account in the newspaper.

Perhaps a few more checks and limitations could be put into place when countries conquer others with no casualties. I've seen multi-accouters log in, give all their resources to another account and move all their troops to sea; allowing the main account to have a massive resource boost and rapid early expansion. But I've certainly taken many of other countries without casualties too; very easy to do with arty against an inactive player. Perhaps limiting day one trades in resources would make it more difficult for multi-accouters.

6thDragon wrote:

I've seen some pretty egregious multi-accounting too. And what's worse, Bytro doesn't address support tickets to report it. I've seen players bragging about how easy it is to multi-account in the newspaper.

Perhaps a few more checks and limitations could be put into place when countries conquer others with no casualties. I've seen multi-accouters log in, give all their resources to another account and move all their troops to sea; allowing the main account to have a massive resource boost and rapid early expansion. But I've certainly taken many of other countries without casualties too; very easy to do with arty against an inactive player. Perhaps limiting day one trades in resources would make it more difficult for multi-accouters.

They could limit trades, especially early trades. This would negate some of the benefits of alliance play, where we share maps and help each other right away, while other potential coalitions are still in the process of discovering each other. Some consider this an unfair advantage.

Before deciding if this is fair or unfair, please also consider how players, especially alliance mates, combat gold users. It takes a concentrated effort to go hunt a whale. If early and asymmetrical resource trades are disabled, that would make it harder to take down those whales.

Apologies to Moss20 if this sounds personal. It's not intended to be personal. But a heavy spender will attract this kind of attention. If we look in the newspaper and you have 2x-4x the army of anyone else because you paid to remove the manpower cap, we will come for you and we will take you down.

I think bytro should focus more on Players, support tickets and the GAME, BUT AS PER USUAL THEIR DIRTY CAPITOLISTS THAT DONT CARE A CRAP ABOUT US AND OUR COMPLAINTS!

z00mz00m wrote:

6thDragon wrote:

I've seen some pretty egregious multi-accounting too. And what's worse, Bytro doesn't address support tickets to report it. I've seen players bragging about how easy it is to multi-account in the newspaper.

Perhaps a few more checks and limitations could be put into place when countries conquer others with no casualties. I've seen multi-accouters log in, give all their resources to another account and move all their troops to sea; allowing the main account to have a massive resource boost and rapid early expansion. But I've certainly taken many of other countries without casualties too; very easy to do with arty against an inactive player. Perhaps limiting day one trades in resources would make it more difficult for multi-accouters.

They could limit trades, especially early trades. This would negate some of the benefits of alliance play, where we share maps and help each other right away, while other potential coalitions are still in the process of discovering each other. Some consider this an unfair advantage.

Before deciding if this is fair or unfair, please also consider how players, especially alliance mates, combat gold users. It takes a concentrated effort to go hunt a whale. If early and asymmetrical resource trades are disabled, that would make it harder to take down those whales.

Apologies to Moss20 if this sounds personal. It's not intended to be personal. But a heavy spender will attract this kind of attention. If we look in the newspaper and you have 2x-4x the army of anyone else because you paid to remove the manpower cap, we will come for you and we will take you down.

These trades are even more extreme in AvA games.

Sometimes they are very one sided. I've benefited from offering new players, I was at war with, advice on how to improve their game in exchange for resources after they realize they were beaten. I like to help new players improve. However, it's a war game so attacking them is unavoidable. I've even seen plenty of instances of a player having situations come up in real like where they can't finish the game and give resources to alliance/coalition mates. You could easily make the argument that these types of trades are unfair. I've benefited from one sided trades not that long ago when I was ganged up on in the early game and had alliance mates giving me resources to help me rebuild or other times when partners are ganged up on and they are too geographically separated to provide any assistance other than resources and espionage assistance.

Exactly this. And there is nothing preventing a multi-account user from adding all of his accounts to an alliance. In fact, this is the case most of the time, in my experience. In that sense, there is nothing to distinguish a multi-account user from a really generous alliance, except account performance over the long run. The "giving" accounts will not build a lot of units or win solo (but they will have coalition wins). The "receiving" account will build more units, and maybe win some solo maps.

I don't really see the problem with multi-accounters. Someone pushing all his land and res from one account to the other early game is WAY less dangerous than two close friends working closely together.

LOL true.

This may be more of an issue for Bytro. It's a way for 1 player to get some of the benefits of using gold without having to spend gold.

Moss20 wrote:

Strule wrote:

As I player who tends to play this game every couple of months (I come, play for a moth and then I just leave the game and come back after 5-6 months of absence) I've realized that in a 100 players map things are slower than it used to be...

To build an army now (even though I have tons of income and almost half of North America continent) is so so slower than the last time I've played it, maybe year ago...

It seems to me like the game is now designed to be used to play with gold..

THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING. NOT ENOUGH UNITS, THINGS TO DO, BUILDINGS TO SPECIALIZE AND BUILD, DEFENSES TO ERECT ETC. ... TO ENGAGE PLAYERS.

SORRY FOR CAPS (not sorry lol)

playing homefront. I control 40% the map, can only build 5 units per day. thats nonsense. (of course without gold)

again, not a diss, but constructive observational suggestions.

By not enough units, I'm starting to think you mean starting units. Yes, the game starts a little slow. You have all defensive units and you need to build the army you want to go to war with, then do so.

If this is the case, perhaps the historical maps may be more your cup of tea. Or the speed maps. Not sure if they have historical speed maps, but that would be something. I prefer the standard 100 player maps where everyone starts off the same with a few minor geographical differences.

z00mz00m wrote:

Moss20 wrote:

THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT I HAVE BEEN MAKING. NOT ENOUGH UNITS, THINGS TO DO, BUILDINGS TO SPECIALIZE AND BUILD, DEFENSES TO ERECT ETC. ... TO ENGAGE PLAYERS.

SORRY FOR CAPS (not sorry lol)

playing homefront. I control 40% the map, can only build 5 units per day. thats nonsense. (of course without gold)

again, not a diss, but constructive observational suggestions.

I don't understand this complaint regarding "not enough to do".

If you want a faster paced game, play a speed map. The game is already too fast for a lot of people.

Not enough units? There are plenty of units.

Plan your movements. And of course, don't lose your units.

Are you primarily limited by resources or manpower?

Do you build industry in your core cities and resource provinces?

I don't use gold, and I have plenty of units to keep me busy.

What kind of units and stacks do you build?

Manpower is one of the worst things. And in 2nd place manufacturing. (goods)

as for my core, Industry maxed out, Recruiting maxed out, and propaganda usually maxed out.

As for stacks, I have a mix. Artillery and armor. Inf/art/rockets .. I am quite good at mixing unit types tbh.

I guess I am used to playing Civilization or Humankind type strategy games that there are multi faceted things to do.

Like I have stated ZoomZoom, I just throw ideas or observations out there in order to engage the forum peeps and ultimately make the game better and constantly evolving.