Can we please make some maps that outlaw the use of gold in them? For us casual players that simply play the game for fun it is very discouraging when you spend up to a month in a game just to get pummeled by someone who drops $50 on gold.
As long as you play on the gold free server, that has received no funding from gold.
In all seriousness, check out the player's league. They have a monthly map where gold is not allowed. Outside of that, staff members periodically have invitational matches open to the public, also with gold disallowed.
I know one another game (sokker) where you can buy for money just comfort. Very good comfort, like graphs, colors, notifications, orders and so... but not a game progress. And people who like the game mostly pay it / pay for that comfort.
Servers of Call of War need to be paid of course, so such games should be paid to join.
Then if the sum of gold for joining is big enough, servers and Bytro can be paid, and there would be no gold usage in-game.
That's fair I think 
I would play such maps personally.
And what is additional advantage is that probably less often people would resign and become inactive.
What I propose next is that in such games, bigger part of gold, than usually, is distributed among top3 players. (can be optional to choose for map starter)
Then good players as prize can plan another such maps, with gold won. Co price to join in, have to be big enough for it.
I've seen the "gamble gold" option in the past. Dumb idea supported mostly by players that want to transfer gold to multi accounts. 100% against it.Seroslav wrote:
Severs of Call of War need to be paid of course, so such games should be paid to join.Then if the sum of gold for joining is big enough, servers and Bytro can be paid, and there would be no gold usage in-game.
That's fair I think
And what is additional advantage is that probably less often people would resign and become inactive.
What I propose next is that in such games, bigger part of gold, than usually, is distributed among top3 players. (can be optional to choose for map starter)
Then good players as prize can plan another such maps, with gold won. Co price to join in, have to be big enough for it.
No matter what you think or want, the only people who suggest gold free maps are the ones who don't pay Bytro's salary lol. Never going to happen, better get use to it my friends.
Your mistaken Duck. I support Byto with my purchase of High Command. I have for over a year and support a gold free map with an upfront cost to enter or a per day spending limit. I know the developers need to make money. I’m all for capitalism. I also know I have a choice in what games I play.
When renewal of HC comes due I’ll consider if Byto and this game are worth supporting or take my dollars someplace else. We all have that choice.
Lol well the majority of people here don't have HC I think.Futz wrote:
Your mistaken Duck. I support Byto with my purchase of High Command. I have for over a year and support a gold free map with an upfront cost to enter or a per day spending limit. I know the developers need to make money. I’m all for capitalism. I also know I have a choice in what games I play.When renewal of HC comes due I’ll consider if Byto and this game are worth supporting or take my dollars someplace else. We all have that choice.
I am firmly in favor a "PAY-to-play-gold-free-games" option. That said, the "gamble gold" option does very little for me, especially any system that could be manipulated by multi-account cheaters. Frankly, the current gold rewards for winning a game or finishing among the survivors does not affect my behavior at all. I play for the win, whether it's a solo victory, a victory by my ally, or a victory by my team or coalition. The current gold rewards for an outright solo victory usually amount to the equivalent of $3 or $4; that's nice, but it's a trivial incentive for me. Like I said, I am playing for the satisfaction of winning, and not some small payout in a non-transferrable, in-game pseudo-currency.WiseOdin wrote:
I've seen the "gamble gold" option in the past. Dumb idea supported mostly by players that want to transfer gold to multi accounts. 100% against it.
The problem with a game round costing say, 10,000 gold to join for no gold use, is that it caps Bytros income from that player at 10,000 gold spent. Who knows, he may have been willing to spend 100,000 gold. That is the bane of micro transactions. Business standpoint, I'd make the same choice Bytro has made.
Not really. Bird in the hand vs. hypothetical bird in the bush. The bird in the hand is always worth more.StrangeTalent wrote:
The problem with a game round costing say, 10,000 gold to join for no gold use, is that it caps Bytros income from that player at 10,000 gold spent. Who knows, he may have been willing to spend 100,000 gold. That is the bane of micro transactions. Business standpoint, I'd make the same choice Bytro has made.
Let's put this in terms of real money, not in-game pseudo-currency. I would gladly pay $10 to $20 for the privilege of playing a gold-free game against 21, 49 or 99 other players for a game I expect to last 30 to 100 days. That's the equivalent of 30,000 to 64,000 gold units at currently published U.S. dollar prices for in-game "gold." That game is going to fill up, because there are many experienced, competent players of Call of War who feel as I do. You can even make it a "starts when full" game.
The marginal cost to Bytro Labs is virtually zero (one more game running on the server with thousands of others already running); at the lower $10 per-game price, the marginal revenue is 22 x $10 = $220, or 50 x $10 = $500, or 100 x $10 = $1,000. At the higher $20 per-game price, the marginal revenue would double that: 22 x $20 = $440, 50 x $20 = $1,000, or 100 x $20 = $2,000.
Exactly how many Call of War games do you think Bytro has running on the servers right now from which the total revenue will exceed $1,000 to $2,000? I'm going to go out on a limb and say virtually none.
And if the Bytro brain trust wants to make even more money, they could make High Command membership a pre-condition for playing in pre-paid gold-free rounds. So, you could add another $6 (or more, depending on the game duration) per player per game for a High Command membership (plus renewals).
New players could continue to play free rounds, just as they do now, serving as victims for "big spender" gold users, just as they do now. What would change, however, is that more of your best, long-term competent players -- i.e. those who don't need gold to win, and are the players most offended by the prospect of "buying a win" -- are going to shift into the pay-to-play gold-free rounds. These better long-term players are also the ones who are slowly burning out in the current system, so change it. Voila! You now have better long-term customer retention, without the silliness of "crates." And best of all, it costs Bytro nothing, and delivers a new, previously untapped revenue stream.
Fact is, they have the numbers on how much is spent per player average. We do not. If their numbers outweigh $10-20 per game, it isn't worth trying to implement
I've got a pretty good nose for big-time gold-spending. I've bought and spent gold in probably half of my 21 games, and I know how to use it to maximum effect. I also know how to build out industrial complexes and maximize resource provinces as quickly as anyone playing the game, run research 24/7 with a unit mix that matches my game strategy, and use every non-gold trick to accelerate the production of a rapidly expanded air force and army when it's actually needed -- while stockpiling resource reserves as long as possible. In short, I can almost always tell when another player is throwing around more than 25,000 gold units, because the tell-tale signs manifest themselves in a variety of ways you can't hide from another knowledgeable player. And 25,000 gold units is a trivial amount in real dollar terms -- less than U.S. $10. I've played 21 games in two years, and I'm reasonably confident that represents a pretty good sample of games played on the 10-player, 22-player and 50-player maps. In those 21 games, by my best estimation, I've encountered probably no more than 10 or 12 players who spent more than 30,000 gold units ($10), no more than 5 or 6 who spent more than 64,000 ($20), only three who spent more than 100,000 ($30), and only two who spent more than 250,000 ($60-$75). That's 10 or 12 players out of something like 300+ active human players (i.e., not those who dropped out in the first 3 days) I encountered in those 21 games (four 50-player, fifteen 22-player, and two 10-player maps).StrangeTalent wrote:
If their numbers outweigh $10-20 per game, it isn't worth trying to implement.
Yes, I can do the math. And I'm pretty sure you can too.
And for the record, I have watched Bytro make a number of absolutely horrible business decisions over the last two years, starting with how they handle customer complaints and the choice of personnel to interact with customers. As a long-time moderator, ST, I think you know the truth of that statement, even if your current role does not permit you to publicly acknowledge it.
It's not a problem at all.StrangeTalent wrote:
The problem with a game round costing say, 10,000 gold to join for no gold use, is that it caps Bytros income from that player at 10,000 gold spent. Who knows, he may have been willing to spend 100,000 gold. That is the bane of micro transactions. Business standpoint, I'd make the same choice Bytro has made.
Bytro can take statistically data of how much average player spend gold in one game and make the joining price higher than that so statistically they won't lose but gain!
One or two people here and there does not matter, I am still right. When there were more players in general on the forum, most of them did not use gold. There was a complaint thread about gold users almost daily iirc. The majority of players do not use gold, but support banning it from what I know.Seroslav wrote:
You are wrong. I did buy gold several times and still I propose it, cause I just want to have fair playing game where skills matter, not skills + cash.Quasi-duck wrote:
No matter what you think or want, the only people who suggest gold free maps are the ones who don't pay Bytro's salary lol. Never going to happen, better get use to it my friends.So You are fully wrong with Your judgement.
Sadly, the majority also believe that the government should provide them with a job, free healthcare, a better-looking girlfriend, high-speed internet, and free cable television.Quasi-duck wrote:
The majority of players do not use gold, but support banning it from what I know.
And Karl Marx thought "religion was the opiate of the people." I wonder what he would think of what socialism (a.k.a. the "social welfare state") has done to the work ethic, personal independence, and creative dynamism of a large portion of the population. Far from creating a classless workers' state, it's created a new class of dependent non-workers and slackers.
For the educated adults among us, we understand there is no "free lunch," and there is no Call of War unless substantial net revenue is generated. I may disagree with some of the business decisions of the Bytro Labs brain trust, but anyone who fails to understand that this is not another free service of the German government needs to grow up, get a job, and start paying taxes for the freebies they've already received.
Yep thats right thanks to all those that spend ect purchase i get to play this game totaly FREE
Short and sweet, until we hear differently from Bytro, the answer on gold free maps is no. We request you make no further actions to embellish the issue. Closing thread, as this has been answered.
