The role of Gold: a serious problem.

this thread was made like 5 months ago Pontus; the "OMIT GOLD" thread was a revival of this idea with a suggested solution.

ah, tnx for the info. Un-following the thread, as there is the newer one with the creative solutions

Pablo22510 wrote:

CzarHellios wrote:

Have you seen a Gold player raise a army of over 500 some units in less than a couple of minutes, then a few hundred rockets?

If that is intended for me, it was day 2 and he had around 20 LTs, so it was a pretty big army for day 2. He also had some infantry.

SSS4902 wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

CzarHellios wrote:

Have you seen a Gold player raise a army of over 500 some units in less than a couple of minutes, then a few hundred rockets?

If that is intended for me, it was day 2 and he had around 20 LTs, so it was a pretty big army for day 2. He also had some infantry.

I had someone with over 80 light tanks on day one

Controls can be issued for gold usage: So much per day, or so much per province per day, etc. But what I think should be done is this rule instituted. "If you do not have a direct supply line from your front (where you want to use the gold) to your capital, then gold cannot be used until that line of supply is reestablished.

I agree, there should be controls on gold usage to prevent extreme and outrageous gold use. For instance, right now I'm in a Homefront game as East Mexico and I'm currently fighting North Quebec. My ally used gold to reveal his armies and told me to attack his territory in the South since it was relatively unprotected, so I moved in for a surprise attack, but within an hour to my attack , North Quebec has 30 units there! In just a few minutes, he had built what was equivalent to a third of my army and had taken me days to produce. To balance things out, there should be either a limit to how much gold you can use in certain amount of time or instead of speeding production, gold would instead accelerate the rate of production so players can't build massive armies in very short amounts of time.

Well, I would like to disagree, I've been playing CoW for about two years now, and I kinda knew what I was doing (strategy wise) when I first started playing. I use a school laptop to play CoW, and I usually set up large servers (the 50+ maps, or just the really large ones) and there is always that one rich kid who has money to burn, so he has A LOT of gold. The rich kid has no idea about strategy, and I do though, I usually play as Spain, so I set up a few divisions along my border (a mix of militia, infantry and armored cars) so that I could attempt to hold back France. So, I organize my friends together after a few days (this coalition consisted of Germany, Italy, and the UK) to attack France so we could all split it up. We launch Operation: Baguette, a few days in we are successful, then all of a sudden, a horde of French Tanks and Infantry destroy our divisions, we try to out smart this kid, but to no avail, so then we go on the defensive, but this kid is just throwing troops at us constantly, not evening caring about the fact we have the superior defense! The Point: The rich kids can afford to throw troops at you constantly, and you may have superior knowledge and a coalition, but that cannot beat money.

I dream about non-gold matches for subscribers (or whatever it is called in particular game). You would just pay gold (a little) for setting a game then all subscribers could join for free (hey, they paid already being subscribers) and common user would join paying gold fee.

But all gold functions would be

a) disabled in match

or

b) available for standard game cash (example spy - reveal an army for 750 gold would be 7.500 or 75.000 money)

Just a dream, but developers eventually would earn money by selling more subscriptions instead direct gold selling.

And the game would be more fair.

PS: Using gold in game does NOT mean creating huge armies. It means SPYING all day long and revealing ALL enemies armies every 12 or so hours. HUGE, I mean huge advantage (YES, I use it). You can't win against wise gold user with spying inclination.

Ps2: Edited. Another way of using gold with big advantage is instant research. You can literally out-research enemies. Those proud warriors talking about brilliant tactics vs. gold users must met really simple minded gold users (only building armies with gold). But when you meet on day 2 all those level 5 tanks / infantry and airplanes you WILL realize there is really no winning strategy against wise gold user (other than using gold yourselves).

No, I think gold use should be at a cap, like the story I was talking about, this kid had been able to produce several HUNDRED infantry divisions in a few minutes to push us out of his country and go on the offensive against us.

JCS Darragh wrote:

No, I think gold use should be at a cap, like the story I was talking about, (...)

If that is the way they love playing, let them spend their gold on equal terms. Besides developers need some revenue.

Cap is against gold lovers and developers alike, so BAD IDEA TM (trade mark)

Well, I am not saying there should be a gold cap in your inventory, I am saying there should be a cap on the gold you spend in a day, so you can't create like 800 infantry units in one day.

how have the admins not shut this down yet

In the official rules, gold is fair game for anyone to use. That's just the downside of capitalism, I'm afraid. However, most organized games have rules against gold use, and many players despise "Goldies" (what I'm calling gold users from now on) to the point that they will actively witch hunt anyone using, even by accident.

A simple solution is to add a feature that will ban gold for certain games, much like how you can turn the anti-cheat off. A cap would be nice, but the problem with this is who would define what that cap is? And how high?

At the end of the day, no matter how much we complain, Goldies will never completely go away. You shouldn't be mad at someone just because they have a larger wallet.

king meatster wrote:

In the official rules, gold is fair game for anyone to use. (...)

A simple solution is to add a feature that will ban gold for certain games, much like how you can turn the anti-cheat off. A cap would be nice, but the problem with this is who would define what that cap is? And how high?

At the end of the day, no matter how much we complain, Goldies will never completely go away. You shouldn't be mad at someone just because they have a larger wallet.

The first rule is: GOLD must be in game. That is how developers earn money for "free to play" game.

So there will always be people using gold (paying money for this game) and thanks to them there is "free" to play game for others.

The second rule: customers (gold users and common folks) should be happy playing game, otherwise they leave and find something more enjoyable.

GOLD IS A PROBLEM here exclusively because how it is implemented. It can be changed without any changes in game rules/ terms / mechanics and all will be happy.

I am pretty sure, if subscription (High Command) would benefit its buyer with possibility to play non-gold matches - there will be more subscribers. In conclusion: developers will earn their money by subscriptions, not by selling gold directly and players will be more happy (as a player I would be).

Dramos wrote:

how have the admins not shut this down yet

There is no reason to do so. There were many other gold threads and were not shot down.

I am pretty sure developers will be glad to hear player's feedback and that is what I do here.

There was other gold thread with that suggestion in.

What I was thinking is there should be clear distinction between free users and HC users (subscribers).

As subscriber I would expect to be able to create non-gold game: as I have ALREADY PAID for it.

As free user, there could be possibility to take part in non-gold game just for example and encouragement to buy subscriptions.

And if non-gold match would be an option, there would still be tons of standard gold matches, some people loves playing.

Dramos wrote:

how have the admins not shut this down yet

Khantix wrote:

Ps2: Edited. Another way of using gold with big advantage is instant research. You can literally out-research enemies. Those proud warriors talking about brilliant tactics vs. gold users must met really simple minded gold users (only building armies with gold). But when you meet on day 2 all those level 5 tanks / infantry and airplanes you WILL realize there is really no winning strategy against wise gold user (other than using gold yourselves).

freezy wrote:

Actually on day 2 you can only have units on level 1, even with gold. Day of availability still applies and cannot be circumvented. All players have to wait for day X to research level Y.

Example: I play Euro Blitz 39 as USSR. It's day 13. I CAN research infantry all till day 28, armor/air/naval till day 24.

That means I CAN have:

militia lvl 7

infantry lvl 5

mot inf lvl 4

mech inf lvl 3

medium tank lvl 3

and so on

AFAIR I could start researching all that stuff from day 1 on "H" maps.

Game: 2085958

For a non gold option there is a Players League game every month. Tough competition and a good way to find out how good you really are.

In other threads at other times I have seen the suggestion of an up front cost option, where the player creating the game sets the ante. So for example you could set it at 10,000 gold or 100,000 gold. The catch is, that is all you have to spend, once you hit the ante amount you are out of gold for that game. I like the concept.

I have also read about a suggestion of paying gold to have a non gold game, and there are players out there who would support that.

As for me, I spend a little periodically to support the game, but prefer a game without its usage.

With respect to using Gold: I use it when I'm in trouble. Wake up in the morning or after a long trip, sign on and your being attacked. Some of my favorite games are with another enemy gold user. Granted after about 2 nights or more of not getting any sleep and slinging rockets/nukes like they are candy can wear you down. Generally....the bitterness, hate, and general wanting to kill your enemy and using every resource you can to crush him is what war is all about. That said...when he fights back with everything he has it usually results in a respect, admiration and eventually a new ally. Would love "Gold Games". At least these are the more serious players (in my opinion) and have a little backbone and will burn some money to keep the fun going.

Peter Mat wrote:

For a non gold option there is a Players League game every month. Tough competition and a good way to find out how good you really are.

In other threads at other times I have seen the suggestion of an up front cost option, where the player creating the game sets the ante. So for example you could set it at 10,000 gold or 100,000 gold. The catch is, that is all you have to spend, once you hit the ante amount you are out of gold for that game. I like the concept.

I have also read about a suggestion of paying gold to have a non gold game, and there are players out there who would support that.

As for me, I spend a little periodically to support the game, but prefer a game without its usage.

Satisfied customer?

Players League is an event, rare, occasional. But I try to support vision with standard, common, normal distinction between gold and non-gold matches.

I don't like suggestion about creating a game with set sum of gold. It limits players that have gold, love gold and want to use it heavily. Why limit them at all?

The problem is not with gold itself (I repeat myself) but with mixing both worlds: golden boys with common folk.

So the solution is simple as that: separate those worlds technically.

If everyone could choose a gold match and non-gold match, then some would choose one, some another.

For the developers the real concern is how to make that revenue still would be enough to maintain the game, so my solution is to give possibility to choose non gold matches for subscribers (people who already paid for the game).

Simple and effective. You want non gold matches, you pay for subscription (High Command). You want free game, you can play free without subscription, but in your match someone can use gold. And developers have their revenues from subscriptions and gold users. That should work for everybody.

You can also add one non gold match for free users as a teaser: set a limit where free player can be actively enrolled only in one non-gold match at a time.