Realistic solution to toxic gold use (without removing gold)

Noble Peasant, for this thread to be serious, pls add the mentioned suggestions to the suggestion list on top, otherwise it becomes impossible for the crew to pass on the suggestions.

What has been mentioned other than a "pay to play without gold" feature? That is nothing new and has its own thread.

The other threads are dead (for simple reasons like "OMIT gold" in the title). This thread is about realistic solutions to toxic gold use and one of the realistic solutions is the P2P a gold free game.

Hence it should be in the list. If the thread is only about your thoughts and suggestions, then the thread has no real purpose and discussion would be dead before it got started, don't you agree?

gold only earned not bought

get more ads in forums, and homepages

also more features for HC, but nothing that is too unfair

Not saying I disagree...being a gold user myself I do see where it is "Game breaking" if you spam the living crap out of it...Just because you have it doesn't mean you should use it, I must say...it's not very fun day 1 of the server taking over people land who can't even defend it lol.. so I stopped doing that and now only use my gold against other gold users.

BUT at the same time...you guys would not have a free game to play if there were not players who spent gold.

I had touched on an idea about the Gold Controversy in more than one other thread. But I was pointed to this thread from someone else there. So I've copied from a couple of my posts (in those threads) to here, to put together my simple solution to make everybody happy. And here it is:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think that Gold usage should be allowed to the heart's content of those willing to fund this game for the rest of us. However, there needs to be an option for those of us who want only to focus on strategic victories to be able to start a custom game with Gold turned off. The default would be on, of course. And set a limit where no player can be actively enrolled in more than one non-Gold match at a time.

You would have to lose or get kicked from a prior non-Gold match or win a prior non-Gold match before starting or joining a new non-Gold match. Also, there should not be a fee for playing this match. Or else it would defeat the purpose of having a non-Gold match for the less-privileged. (To do otherwise would be cruel to the majority of Bytro's fans.)

Also, a beautiful side benefit of this would be to discourage match-abandonment. A player wouldn't be able to abandon a gold-less match to start another one unless they were actually kicked from the match they abandoned. They would have to play it out even if it means losing gracefully. Although, if game admins would actually kick inactives more frequently (especially early in a match) this wouldn't be such an issue. But that's a side point that doesn't really have much bearing here.

I think allowing one non-Gold match at a time, per player, would ease the concerns of Bytro about cutting into their profit and I think it would be a reasonable compromise on Bytro's part to allow this change for the benefit of the hard-core strategists who just want a pure strategy game.

Though this doesn't exactly match what I said at the top of this post, I really do only support the use of Gold in moderation generally and I also encourage it's and the High Command's purchases for the sake of the game and it's servers. Bytro is in it for the money but we can't continue to enjoy this awesome free game without some way for it to be paid for. So people generally need to stop whining about it.

That's why I am calling for this simple compromise that would make everybody happy. If each player had an option to have one (and only one) of their current matches be a Gold-less match, then they won't feel bad if they lose to a Gold-spammer in another match. They can rely on their [hopefully] superior strategy to preserve their chances at victory in that match even though they may be destined to [die a most gruesome and horrible death and] lose in some of their other matches.

So, lets encourage Bytro to allow this one-non-Gold-spending-match-at-a-time idea to balance the game for those of us too poor or too strategically-minded to use Gold. If I could afford it, I would buy into the High Command, myself, just to support the game. But I would never be interested in purchasing Gold except as a defense against the Gold-spammers on rare occasions.

No compromise can please everyone. But that's not the point. Compromise requires sacrifice on all sides. Bytro must sacrifice a fraction of their potential profit. The gold players must sacrifice this one match. The strategy players must sacrifice their desire to reduce gold spamming across all matches that they play.

Compromises can never work unless all sides agree to sacrifice at least something. The problem is that Bytro has not shown a willingness to sacrifice anything -- in fact -- demonstrating a will to increase their commercial efforts at the expense of playability by adding screen-waste that hurts users [especially] with smaller screens and portable devices (by the in-game ads).

I think that if Bytro were to accede to my suggestion of allowing players to have a one-at-a-time Gold-less match, then they'd demonstrate a strong sense or shared community with the players and I think the goodwill shared by all would vastly improve. I also believe strongly that this compromise would actually see an increase in revenue for Bytro because users are -- in fact -- customers and a happy customer is more likely to purchase premium features.

Please "like" this post to make it more noticeable by the folks that make decisions about changes to the game.

TheBrute01 wrote:

BUT at the same time...you guys would not have a free game to play if there were not players who spent gold.

salbalkus wrote:

They don't have a passion for design so I wouldn't expect them to have a passion for their player base either.

I did a few more chinamen games... great graphics.

I swear I couldn't care less about the graphics if the game is a GOOD strategy game.

Nicer graphics are ... just nicer. That's why I play CoW more now than s1914, I guess.

Graphics matter to me in games like WoT etc.. Not so much in CoW.

And I prefer the passion of Bytro for making slightly more intelligent games (which are really F2P and even slightly educational), to them having a passion for glitter and money. There is enough Chinese crap on the market as it is and Bytro just happens to be different and I love it.

I have played so many stratagey games, and this is the best I have found

prob spent about 3years trying to find it

played some many others, but in the end this is the best

yea there are a few issues, but there are in every game, and this is a great game and I really enjoy it

Best game I have ever played, and I have played a lot

and more stuff is comming

carries and para troopers hopefully

i understand gold usage is a part of the game, but a player using gold in a game should have a gold emblem next to their name. there is no strategy in chess if someone can buy a piece whenever they lose one, and the same reasoning applies to this game. people are devoting weeks and months to maps only to run into a player that will spend whatever they have to, to win.

we all know people use gold in the game, it should be a simple task to make it clear to all players in a map who is and who is not. would i waste a month in a map knowing people are going to shell out 100 bucks just for ha ha's...

back to the chess analogy, you play a 6 hour game you are several moves from winning, and bam, 3 more pieces appear on the board, and there is nothing you can do.

heck, you could even charge me to play a no gold use game, i am sure other players would as well, but honestly i am tired of playing just to get killed by some desperate opponent that is going to drop however much money to buy his/her way out of trouble.

SevRal wrote:

heck, you could even charge me to play a no gold use game, i am sure other players would as well,

A gold-emblem, however, is not a solution. Simple example: when I close a series of maps, I bathe in gold because every map I get gold. And when I have gathered a lot of gold (because I end mostly 1st place or at sometimes 2nd or 3rd), what am I suppose to do with it? Just collect until End of Days?

An emblem next to gold buyers is actually a good idea. If you can identify a gold buyer before you engage them in war, you can adapt your stratagy and tactics in order to increase your chances. Very few players who use gold have the ability to spam continually.

I'm a gold buyer. I'll actually admit that loudly and proudly. I enjoy this game. If I find myself blind sided by an unexpected war, by some trigger happy tool with no interest in even potential diplomatic solutions, especially when they're something as annoying as a tank spammer, or they're someone who's been angling for ages and ages waiting to flood you with their armies, I'm more than happy to turn around and drop 20-30$ just to piss them off by ruining their "hulk smash" strategy. I'm also quite happy to do the same if I'm invaded by someone who's arrogant, or over confident enough to attack me as well as my neighbour at the same time, as if they're some kind of superior know-it-all gaurenteed-to-win player. I like a good war. Actual fronts, both vying for supremacy over the other, pushing each other back and forth. That takes actual skill to win. To out-think an opponent you're evenly matched with, or that's even superior to you? That's what this game is all about for me, and I've only had that once.

I've seen what people call gold spamming. A single nation consuming entire multi-nation alliances almost effortlessly. It's frightening to see someone able and willing to do that. But I also know, that whilst they spent a lot of money, they were still playing strategicly and tactically. They would wear down opponents with bombers, weaken their fronts, then invade. They'd lose in some areas and win in others. All they did was make sure they won in the overall sense.

I understand the frustration in facing that. But you ARE talking about a minority of people that are able to do that. Most gold buyers will spend 20-30$ and that's it. But the moment ANYONE does this, they're labled a gold spammer by people who are so quick to hate, so quick to judge, so quick to frustration and jealousy. Genuine gold spammers are RARE. Someone who spends 20-30$ because they're at a serious disadvantage shouldn't bother any of you, but it does. If you're SO! skilled, and SO capable, then as someone who spends and knows how far gold goes, I'm telling you now, if you're that skilled, even someone buying gold won't stop you from winning. Someone actually spending hundreds in a sitting? Yeah. You'll lose. But again, that is rare. Very rare. In which case, because it's so rare, it really shouldn't bother you to just walk away the moment they've spent so much. Because by doing that, or just spamming some crappy unit to wear down what money they've spent, you make their over-spending worthless.

The solution to gold buyers is this: Realize that actual gold spammers are seriously rare, and aren't bad people. Stop demonizing people for spending their money how they see fit, it's childish and obnoxious. And against general gold buyers? Get better skills, because they can be beaten even 1-on-1 with good thinking. Prove you're better by being more decent human beings than being some of the people I've seen make some seriously negative remarks at and about people who have money to spend, and prove to them that spending gold doesn't replace having the brains, skills, and talent to use what that gold buys.

Put an emblem next to a a gold buyer's name, and it's going to be a target on their back for all of the players that refuse to see that gold is what runs the game. Unless the emblem/badge could be turned on or off by the player wearing it, I'd be against it.

To start with, yeah, I agree, it'd make people targets. But I think that after a while, people would start to see just how many people actually do buy/spend gold, and just how few of those people abuse that, and the anti-gold hate will calm down.

But, there's always a group in any game with any cash feature that grab their pitchforks and go all "The Hills Have Eyes" on people who have money. It's unavoidable until people themselves change, because it's people that are the actual problem, not gold imo.

The $10-$20 most gold buyers spend a month is seen as an entertainment purchase, instead of going out for beers with friends, gambling, going to a movie, or what have you.

As far as trying to, "fix a problem," I have yet to see the, "problem:" A player spend the thousands of dollars on a single map. Honestly, my personal opinion is that when most players that claim more than $20 was spent against them, it is 9/10 of the time simply not true, and they simply want to complain about getting beat. I hear them as the same misinformed people that claim their game was hacked because a medium tank is on the map on day 1.

Furthermore, if a player wants to spend $100 at the start of the game to place an IC and Infra on every province, auto-research LT's and start spamming them? That is that player's choice to put his or her money into the game. Every single one of us want Bytro to invest in a more stable server, why would anybody want to complain about Bytro getting the money to pay for such a luxury; or even a necessity?

Just as much as it is unfair for a player to spend money to get an upper hand against your strategy, it is unfair for a player that is supporting this game to then be insulted by the player's riding the servers on a golder's support. The only anti-gold setting I would personally stand behind is a 10,000 (maybe 5,000 for HC) gold join fee to join a game where gold will not be allowed. That will be the only fair way to do things. If you do not want gold to throw off the balance of a game, pay gold to join it.

And I bow to you and your ability to express what I completely agree with. Shame I can only give you one like lol.

I give mine as well,

but to be honest, we all kinda want to know that by sacrificing our games to gold spammers

that devs are actually doing up the servers and are adding more units

I think they are, so...

Two words: Tank Destroyers xD

yea

but what everybody is even more excitied for

Aircraft carriers

and paratroopers but everybody seems to have different thoughts on that

but carriers, they are not causing much arguements

they will be great

Honestly? Not interested in seeing them in the game. They'll be expensive, slow, and easily sunk.