Gold

.

Freakbrain wrote:

I see that the most guys do not like Gold and how its use changes a game suddenly.

If Gold is used people normally leave the game, which is a pity.

If Gold is used in the game, half of the gold should be deposit in the Jack Pot, and should be payed out when the game ends. If people would spend a lot of Gold in the game, people would stay in the game to get something of the spend gold.

The size of the Jack Pot should be on the Top Page of the newspaper.

I also don't see people leaving a round in which gold is being used. I do note, however, people leaving a round (myself included) if an inordinate amount is spent by any one or more players early in the round. While this seems to rarely occur, when it does, one should consider the overall diplomatic situation (the number, experience level, and locations of the other active players) which may be such to counter the "deep pockets" gold user.

Only in those rounds, in which the ample use of gold coincided with few active (and inexperienced) players, did gold seem to make a significant difference in the round's probable outcome. I use gold in nearly every round (except for the two or three that prohibited it) and I don't think most players could tell that I bumped up morale in a border province by 20% or sped up research of something by 12 hours. I didn't note anyone leave the game soon after this gold use; nor should they.

"...half the gold..." is way too much to consider as it would likely serve to "rebate" a heavy gold users cost in rounds in which unfilled player slots and/or a roster of inexperienced players would probably guarantee a 1st place win. Such would further nullify the significance of player statistics and level (seen on player's profile).

However, the original post (quoted above) does deserve consideration for three points that many might say is a problem:

1) when one creates a round, there's no option to set a limit for gold use (perhaps "none" shouldn't be an option) that becomes part of the round's description,

2) too many rounds commence with several open player slots, and

3) the drop-out rate in many rounds is very high

While 'no gold' rounds are preferable to rounds in which one (or a few) players use an inordinate amount of gold, I think knowing a particular round has a gold use limit should be sufficient for all players to know they have a reasonable chance to win (with diplomatic and battlefield skill) vs a player using gold up to that round's particular limit. Perhaps knowing there's a limit would counter some of the perception that gold use heavily favours the gold user.

Given I don't have the financials or statistics regarding user trends, I'm hesitant to make any purely intuitive suggestions because they may not be supported by the data. But, it seems to me, rounds shouldn't be permitted to commence unless a minimum of player slots are filled.

Also, perhaps, reducing the user population of who can create a round would decrease the number of rounds, thus, better ensuring those rounds that are created get a more complete player roster.

[In this respect, I would suggest (if I were to suggest anything) players who are members of High Command, Alliance Leaders (for 'Alliance vs. Alliance' or 'Alliance Members Only' rounds), players who have reached a certain level, players who have remained active to the end of a round (perhaps within the past xx days), and anyone creating a Gold-to-Play round.]

It's been suggested, in other threads, that going inactive should carry a penalty of some sort. Given I've gone inactive because the round became boring, trolled, or dominated by Alliance members, I'd have to disagree with punishing dropping out of a round unless there were a mechanism to prevent (according to everyone's definition of) a round from being boring, trolled, or dominated by Alliance members.

I Patton wrote:

the drop-out rate in many rounds is very high

People being able to buy gold, ruins this game, you should only be able to get gold from winning games( and starting out)

buying gold ruins this game, and is a shame, I would be happy to donate money to help fund this game. But gold purchases have ruined this

or even we should be able to make lobbies for people who cant buy gold, so we can play happily without some gold ruining our day

uuhhh makes me annoyed

oceanhawk wrote:

People being able to buy gold, ruins this game, you should only be able to get gold from winning games( and starting out)

buying gold ruins this game, and is a shame, I would be happy to donate money to help fund this game. But gold purchases have ruined this

or even we should be able to make lobbies for people who cant buy gold, so we can play happily without some gold ruining our day

uuhhh makes me annoyed

I

FilipALFA wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

People being able to buy gold, ruins this game, you should only be able to get gold from winning games( and starting out)

buying gold ruins this game, and is a shame, I would be happy to donate money to help fund this game. But gold purchases have ruined this

or even we should be able to make lobbies for people who cant buy gold, so we can play happily without some gold ruining our day

uuhhh makes me annoyed

Why, I think that Gold makes rounds more interesting. If you beat the person who has lots of Gold well you proved yourself, but it isn' much of a problem. As the mod said earlier in the thread, just create a round for non gold players and there you go. Make a password invite who you want.

you think playing a player, who spends 250£ on gold a month is fun proberly exaggerated)

Every time you attack his units, he just bumpes up his units moral, and decreases yours is fun?

Id rather a fight against a long playing skilled reconized player.

Gold should be earned not bought

oceanhawk wrote:

Gold should be earned not bought

Pablo22510 wrote:

Bytro Labs has to pay all of their staff by the money used by people buying gold.

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

No, some are volunteers(e.g. mods).

oceanhawk wrote:

I

FilipALFA wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

People being able to buy gold, ruins this game, you should only be able to get gold from winning games( and starting out)

buying gold ruins this game, and is a shame, I would be happy to donate money to help fund this game. But gold purchases have ruined this

or even we should be able to make lobbies for people who cant buy gold, so we can play happily without some gold ruining our day

uuhhh makes me annoyed

Why, I think that Gold makes rounds more interesting. If you beat the person who has lots of Gold well you proved yourself, but it isn' much of a problem. As the mod said earlier in the thread, just create a round for non gold players and there you go. Make a password invite who you want.

you think playing a player, who spends 250£ on gold a month is fun proberly exaggerated)

Every time you attack his units, he just bumpes up his units moral, and decreases yours is fun?

Id rather a fight against a long playing skilled reconized player.

Gold should be earned not bought

DEAL WITH IT!

Lol, hello Filip.

Hi Pablo, lets chat on the chat and not the thread, shall we.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Lol, hello Filip.

Indeed, indeed.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Indeed, indeed.

FilipALFA wrote:

You ae still spamming replying to that message. Trolololololo.

Pablo22510 wrote:

FilipALFA wrote:

You ae still spamming replying to that message. Trolololololo.

And you are now. Trolololollololol

Tell Bytro guys to work for free and ban gold....

some just do not get it.

You win gold.