Suggestion for New Game Options: OMIT GOLD!

H.Locke wrote:

So, when someone attacks you with 40 Light Tank units on Day 2, how exactly is "skill" going to work in your favor?

I am not yelling at anyone.

What about your forum threads in suggestions and criticism with all capital letters?

This is an excellent idea.

@H.Locke

I understand you. I really do. But most people don't have 40 light tanks by Day 2. And if they do, that means they've spent a hundred bucks on the game, which is something you should be happy about. Why? For two simple reasons:

1. It helps the game, and keeps it running.
2. I personally find it funny that a random guy is prepared to spend a hundred bucks on an online game to beat someone who he doesn't know and probably lives thousands of kilometres away.

The use of REAL money should provide REAL advantages. Each use of gold that is unbalanced needs to be addressed individually. I like the suggestions of gold free games. Perhaps this can be a limited privilege provided to members of the high command or cost gold to enter as suggested. But eliminating gold would mean a subscription based game or a game run for charity. I think the developers, creators, investors, and employees should get paid REAL money for what they do and someone has to come up with that money. As a mostly free to play player I am glad for those that do.

I am currently dealing with a person who is instantly purchasing every building possible, instantly researching every tech possible, producing free troops. If that isnt bad enough, he is also using gold to destroy my buildings in advance of his army because he doesnt want me to even be able to fight back.

Balanced right?

The real issue for the developer, and this speaks to the viability of the game long term, is that they need to find a balance. Gold use shouuld provide a real advantage. But it shouldnt be game breaking. If gold use = free win, then people like myself will simply stop playing. A dead player base = a game that isnt profitable.

Limit the "rushing" of buildings, research tech, etc. so that gold usage cannot bring the research or build time past 75% completion. People can now continue to purcahse advantages if they are impatient, but the advantages are not game breaking...

And remove the ability to delete enemy buildings with gold. That is simply absurd because there is 0 counterplay to that.

I am playing with Manchukuo who has, on Day 16, had 5% of the world's armies to most everyone else's 3%. But it is Day 19 and he is at war with Saschakchewetan (don't know how to spell that, ) and Japan and probably has around 15% now.

That would be me. I am Saskatchewan. I havent been golding. And i'm not sure what counter play there is to him simply deleting my buildings with no interaction.

noblepeasant wrote:

I am currently dealing with a person who is instantly purchasing every building possible, instantly researching every tech possible, producing free troops. If that isnt bad enough, he is also using gold to destroy my buildings in advance of his army because he doesnt want me to even be able to fight back.

Balanced right?

The real issue for the developer, and this speaks to the viability of the game long term, is that they need to find a balance. Gold use shouuld provide a real advantage. But it shouldnt be game breaking. If gold use = free win, then people like myself will simply stop playing. A dead player base = a game that isnt profitable.

Limit the "rushing" of buildings, research tech, etc. so that gold usage cannot bring the research or build time past 75% completion. People can now continue to purcahse advantages if they are impatient, but the advantages are not game breaking...

And remove the ability to delete enemy buildings with gold. That is simply absurd because there is 0 counterplay to that.

Pablo22510 wrote:

noblepeasant wrote:

I am currently dealing with a person who is instantly purchasing every building possible, instantly researching every tech possible, producing free troops. If that isnt bad enough, he is also using gold to destroy my buildings in advance of his army because he doesnt want me to even be able to fight back.

Balanced right?

The real issue for the developer, and this speaks to the viability of the game long term, is that they need to find a balance. Gold use shouuld provide a real advantage. But it shouldnt be game breaking. If gold use = free win, then people like myself will simply stop playing. A dead player base = a game that isnt profitable.

Limit the "rushing" of buildings, research tech, etc. so that gold usage cannot bring the research or build time past 75% completion. People can now continue to purcahse advantages if they are impatient, but the advantages are not game breaking...

And remove the ability to delete enemy buildings with gold. That is simply absurd because there is 0 counterplay to that.

Well, if he really is doing that, he has easily spent 500 bucks on the game. And I tell you, abusive gold players are very, very rare.

https://gyazo.com/dfb9ff09a104726e44d88b2644cbc979

He maxed all of these buildings at the highest level. This doesnt show the troop spam, the building deletion, or the constant vision checking (which he bragged about elsewhere in the paper)

noblepeasant wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

noblepeasant wrote:

I am currently dealing with a person who is instantly purchasing every building possible, instantly researching every tech possible, producing free troops. If that isnt bad enough, he is also using gold to destroy my buildings in advance of his army because he doesnt want me to even be able to fight back.

Balanced right?

The real issue for the developer, and this speaks to the viability of the game long term, is that they need to find a balance. Gold use shouuld provide a real advantage. But it shouldnt be game breaking. If gold use = free win, then people like myself will simply stop playing. A dead player base = a game that isnt profitable.

Limit the "rushing" of buildings, research tech, etc. so that gold usage cannot bring the research or build time past 75% completion. People can now continue to purcahse advantages if they are impatient, but the advantages are not game breaking...

And remove the ability to delete enemy buildings with gold. That is simply absurd because there is 0 counterplay to that.

Well, if he really is doing that, he has easily spent 500 bucks on the game. And I tell you, abusive gold players are very, very rare.

He really is doing that. There are plenty of witnesses. Or you can read the paper.

https://gyazo.com/dfb9ff09a104726e44d88b2644cbc979

He maxed all of these buildings at the highest level. This doesnt show the troop spam, the building deletion, or the constant vision checking (which he bragged about elsewhere in the paper)

noblepeasant wrote:

I am currently dealing with a person who is instantly purchasing every building possible, instantly researching every tech possible, producing free troops. If that isnt bad enough, he is also using gold to destroy my buildings in advance of his army because he doesnt want me to even be able to fight back.

Balanced right?

The real issue for the developer, and this speaks to the viability of the game long term, is that they need to find a balance. Gold use shouuld provide a real advantage. But it shouldnt be game breaking. If gold use = free win, then people like myself will simply stop playing. A dead player base = a game that isnt profitable.

Limit the "rushing" of buildings, research tech, etc. so that gold usage cannot bring the research or build time past 75% completion. People can now continue to purcahse advantages if they are impatient, but the advantages are not game breaking...

And remove the ability to delete enemy buildings with gold. That is simply absurd because there is 0 counterplay to that.

Yeah as the game is , you would have to quit and join another game , Id say.. Ive spoken to quite a few people in a bunch of game instances , and it seems the gold abuse (IE spending 100$+ is only a fraction of given games).

It would be WONDERFUL if we could limit the gold spent in a game , or start one without it .. I would even spend gold to be able to launch a game like that.. read up on my previous posts.

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of gold-free games. This post will probably go unnoticed, and even if it is, will not be heeded. However, All of the complaints on both sides of the fight are valid. I myself do not see the merit in wasting money on such a foolish escapade. The unlimited spending of golf by one player can change the scope of any game. The entertainment level of a person who joined a F2P game for it to be free is diminished to near zero when one player spends a paycheck overnight.

While Bytro needs the money to keep the game running, and has every right to offer such options, there should be alternatives. Players enjoy the F2P aspect of this game, and enjoy implementing strategy and tactics to try to win based on an even starting point. The idea of having a limited number of gold-free games is incredibly appealing.

Of course, all games that are currently in play will continue, but the option of gold-free games should be a necessity. I have heard the idea that you could possibly spend gold to get into a game where gold cannot be used. My suggestion is that you use the current plan of elite games, where either it costs 5000 gold, or to be a High Command member, to join such games. In this way, you will further promote High Command purchases, and further increase your funds to continue the changes and fixes in the game you have been doing so often.

I am quickly losing interest, as someone who has no cause to put their money into the real world can change a game in 15 minutes. I have been playing this game for about 5 months, and devote about an hour or two a day minimum. I am leader of an alliance, and try to remain as active as possible. However, this gold use is getting out of hand, and I have considered leaving the game. Not only would I be upset by that, but I have many allies and friends who would be upset about it too. The current gold standards are quickly losing your clientele, and damaging the game for players and Bytro alike. Without at least a mention of plans for gold-free games in the very near future, you will lose many of your players, and this game will vanish as so many before have.

Im pretty sure they are counting on enough new players coming in to offset that attrition , but I wholeheartedly agree. Right now a game of second addition Axis and Allies is more appealing just because it puts the players on a level playing field.

This game can be great in its own right if they would consider this measure, and I would argue that they would make MORE cash making it even cheaper (IE not requiring high command , but just 500-1000 per player joining), as players would see that a small expenditure of cash could get them into a non gold instance, and so be more motivated to take the plunge and pull out the credit card.

I would be willing to bet that the revenue surge from this alone would be very noticeable in accounting if they only tried it.

Guys... with such a player in your game, spending a fortune, whereas you are playing for free ... what stops you from moving to another map?

That guy is a blessing to us! He singlehandedly paid a week's salary of a dev at least!

Honestly, there are not that many of them around. It really, honestly, truly ... is NOT a problem. Just move to another map, if you can't handle it. You are playing a great game for free ffs...

_Pontus_ wrote:

Guys... with such a player in your game, spending a fortune, whereas you are playing for free ... what stops you from moving to another map?

That guy is a blessing to us! He singlehandedly paid a week's salary of a dev at least!

Honestly, there are not that many of them around. It really, honestly, truly ... is NOT a problem. Just move to another map, if you can't handle it. You are playing a great game for free ffs...

It would sort of be like selling insurance: Yes, you do lose money (players can't spend gold in game) but you make more money off of it in the long run due to people's fears.

@sabalkus: exactly ... it is not for nothing the insurance bizz makes lots of money

I shouldnt have to abandon a map when i have invested 3 weeks and am in first place just because one dick head is on a power trip.

Ok, you move to a new 100-player map. You and 99 other players. I'm so bad at math and statistics, but i think there is a relatively high risk of meeting a new goldspammer that spends 50$ (lets day he bought his gold with 500% bonus on average, so he has gold equall to $250) a week in the hope of winning that game.

So I gess you move on again after 3 weeks?

I have nothing againstmoderate gold use. It allows you to repair small mistakes. Like being short of 150 steel for another plane. Or you want to go to sleep and don't feel like waiting another 40 minets for that upgrade to finish before you can start a new one. Or you just really need that airport over there NOW! But the massive spenditure for an instant overwelming army...