I know this has been said time-and-time again, but I am even more firmly rooted in the idea of having games where you CANNOT spend Gold! The new World map just become completely bogus to me and four others all because of a Gold user: when tactics become useless against someone with deep-pockets, the game becomes nothing but depressing!
I am not saying to remove gold, but give us an option in games where there is either a limit to spending gold (such as a per-day limit, or even overall play limit), or an option to omit the usage of Gold. Anyone else have thoughts on the matter?
(Let it be noted that I am also a Gold user, but I use Gold ONLY to compliment my tactics, NOT as a substitution for them!)
"I'd be unstoppable if it wasn't for Law Enforcement and Physics!" -James Hylton "BOLDLY GOING FORWARD! ('Cause I can't find Reverse)" "I have returned from my wilderness Exile!!!"
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
74 Replies
24 Nov 2015, 21:13
Look, it has been said time and again: good players that gang up on a goldspammer can beat him. Especially with so many players on 100map.
If you cant handle it diplomatically and strategically (and psychologically) and you are sure you will meet another goldspammer on anothr 100map ... play the other maps.
In fact I hardly ever encounter real spammers that can keep it up for that long and when I do, normally the guy is spotted swiftly and the anti-coalition is quickly formed.
And if that didnt work, well, so be it, and I move on ... Just like real life...
24 Nov 2015, 23:52
Again. Why should 99 people have to "deal with" or "play around" 1 abusive person.
The functionality that gold use provides needs to be seriously reconsidered.
and with 100 people on a map, the odds of finding one gold spender on the map is pretty good.
25 Nov 2015, 01:30
Nothing stops you from moving to a new map , BUT;
You cant be guaranteed to setup a map where gold use is limited unless theres a pathway to actually make that happen.
AND
Some people will only play this game long term if theres a possibility of not having the unbalance.
SO
Were talking about the ability for this product to generate MORE revenue,
IF
They actually put in such measures WHILE;
AT THE SAME TIME
Making a pathway where the game would actually be more FAIR and BALANCED
AMONG
Other things people already feel about it.
Remember: wherever you go , there you are.
25 Nov 2015, 20:44
I would pay gold (but not too much) to play on a map where gold use was inactive as a game option
I figure Bytro would at least make some money out of the users who would otherwise not spend gold
27 Nov 2015, 00:14
noblepeasant wrote:
Why should 99 people have to "deal with" or "play around" 1 abusive person.
7 billion people (minus a few) suffered an economic crisis (still enduring actually) caused by a few scrupulous people (called 'bankers)' and there were no consequences for those few that caused it.
It is called life.
27 Nov 2015, 00:53
_Pontus_ wrote:
noblepeasant wrote:
Why should 99 people have to "deal with" or "play around" 1 abusive person.
7 billion people (minus a few) suffered an economic crisis (still enduring actually) caused by a few scrupulous people (called 'bankers)' and there were no consequences for those few that caused it.
It is called life.
Does that make it right? Of course not! Stand up and fight for what you believe in! Or the "bankers" will crush you underfoot, laughing all the while.
27 Nov 2015, 20:38
You can't fight gravity, but you can invent ways to fly anyway.
28 Nov 2015, 02:10
I can fight gravity!
*levitates*
28 Nov 2015, 11:18
_Pontus_ wrote:
noblepeasant wrote:
Why should 99 people have to "deal with" or "play around" 1 abusive person.
7 billion people (minus a few) suffered an economic crisis (still enduring actually) caused by a few scrupulous people (called 'bankers)' and there were no consequences for those few that caused it.
It is called life.
I hope the 7 billion learn from their mistake to give the bankers so much uncontrolled power and will stand up to them in order to adjust the current situation to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Leaving all as it was and just move on is imo not the best option.
28 Nov 2015, 13:06
Azkazan wrote:
Leaving all as it was and just move on is imo not the best option.
As it is, Gold will be there...always ...as long as the game continues to exist.
Hence, the efforts to find ways to play Gold-free games are the only option. The suggestion of paying a lump-sum for a Gold-free game seems like a viable option for both Bytro and the players.
Maybe other options can be found, but ... the very moment Gold would be omitted, the game will cease to exist => gravity ... can't change that.
28 Nov 2015, 14:46
_Pontus_ wrote:
Maybe other options can be found, but ... the very moment Gold would be omitted, the game will cease to exist => gravity ... can't change that.
Right, which is why we are trying to find an alternative to omitting gold.
28 Nov 2015, 15:10
so...how do we push the idea of paying a lumpsum to avoid gold-abuse, for instance?
28 Nov 2015, 15:10
We ask a moderator to look at this thread and forward it to the developers.
28 Nov 2015, 15:23
'We' ... that means 'someone'.
But 'someone' is away, because when I just called someone, he didnt pick up.
28 Nov 2015, 15:42
purplepizza117 wrote:
We ask a moderator to look at this thread and forward it to the developers.
salbalkus wrote:
_Pontus_ wrote:
noblepeasant wrote:
Why should 99 people have to "deal with" or "play around" 1 abusive person.
7 billion people (minus a few) suffered an economic crisis (still enduring actually) caused by a few scrupulous people (called 'bankers)' and there were no consequences for those few that caused it.It is called life.
Does that make it right? Of course not! Stand up and fight for what you believe in! Or the "bankers" will crush you underfoot, laughing all the while.
Best chance for this mod, he seems convinced.
28 Nov 2015, 16:20
What are you talking about?
28 Nov 2015, 18:41
pushing the idea of paying to have non-gold games.
Really - its not strategy any more where someone can spend some gold , get 2x your army and crush you. Your pretty much excluding almost every f2p player from enjoying your game as it could be : a well balanced strategy game.
The most frustrating part of that game was the fact that we had a guy who spent $50 worth of gold to instantly sabotage every single factory and infrastructure he had to try to slow him down! The next day, all 20 of them where up to level 3 and 5, and he had TRIPLED the number of tanks he had! How much money does one have to spend before it's just ridiculous? Because I think he found that number.
_Pontus_ wrote:
James Hylton wrote:
I know this has been said time-and-time again, but I am even more firmly rooted in the idea of having games where you CANNOT spend Gold! The new World map just become completely bogus to me and four others all because of a Gold user: when tactics become useless against someone with deep-pockets, the game becomes nothing but depressing!
back to the original question:
5 players that can't beat a goldspender???
that only means you need to learn better tactics and diplomacy
He attacked without warning, did not respond to any of our messages, and responded to our efforts to go around his forces by spawning tanks as our units came to him. Tactic and diplomacy had no chance against him.
It's been awhile since I last posted on the forums; interesting to see how much has been put on this thread since I posted it.
"I'd be unstoppable if it wasn't for Law Enforcement and Physics!" -James Hylton "BOLDLY GOING FORWARD! ('Cause I can't find Reverse)" "I have returned from my wilderness Exile!!!"
2 Dec 2015, 01:56
James Hylton wrote:
instantly sabotage every single factory and infrastructure he had to try to slow him down!
Im guessing he sabotaged the fella who was attacking him? Last I checked, you cant sabotage your own provinces.
