I just started this game a few days ago, so (disclaimer) I am not speaking as an expert on this game, but I have played enough of similar games to know what generally works better and what does not. I find this fascinating, in every sense of the word, but there is a problem with it, and it involves the tutorial, and Gold. 1st Problem: Upon my arriving, the tutorial immediately shows you all the basics of combat; then they show you how gold is! They even reward you a nice amount for completing the tutorial... then you play the game... That was the last bit of free gold I have seen so far. The problem: The tutorial gives you the impression that Gold is very important to this game. To give credit, it does make it so the tutorial goes much faster, but then upon playing for real, you realize that Gold costs real-world money, and that it is going to take time to do everything normally. The Point: There is too much dependence on Gold conveyed in the tutorial. 2nd Problem: So far, most of the players I have encountered so far have one thing in common; they aren't spending any Gold. Now, as for me, I have money, and I freely spent some on this game upon arriving and finding that Gold was the easiest way out of a bind I got in. Then the other players started leaving the game...FAST. Now I have read in the forums that this is fairly common, but I personally feel that my arrival had something to do with it. I started as France, was attacked by Germany on day one, then I used my Gold to give myself enough troops to retaliate. The result: I had taken over half of Germany by the end of day two, most of Germany by day three. When other payers see that and realize that "that guy has more money than I do", then what is the point of them continuing? Of course they're going to start leaving, because money always wins!!! The Point: when a player comes in who has money, and they spend it, this game quickly becomes unplayable for anyone who isn't spending money (or perhaps, might be a more accurate word). Possible solution: I have never like the survey idea as an alternative to earning Gold (or any game currency, for that matter). It is too slow a method when facing against guys like me who have money to spend. So I think there needs to be a method for earning Gold other than Surveys or actual money. Perhaps through winning games, but then that would be easy for money spenders anyway. In this regard, I am open to ideas, because many of you will know how this game work better than I do. So, Ideas, or other comments anyone?
It runs every month and is neither rare nor occasional.Khantix wrote:
Players League is an event, rare, occasional.Peter Mat wrote:
This has been suggested/discussed a bunch.Khantix wrote:
You want non gold matches, you pay for subscription
At this point, the money generated by gold use supports all players, because they all play together.Khantix wrote:
So the solution is simple as that: separate those worlds technically.
If we segregate users that are willing to pay, it must also be stated that we would have to, in all fairness, keep the gold funds within the pay servers. Otherwise these pay users are literally paying for servers they can not play in.
This being said, the non-supporter server will have little to no income generated. The servers, and rounds, will have almost constant downtime. There will be no Bytro support from the Developers for bugs and glitches.
I would imagine one will be lucky to have an hour of play time, spread across each day. If some of that time is spent at work, sleeping, or watching a Youtube video to pass time, you may not be able to play, at all.
Given the option between spotty connection from a free server, and a nice server with less than 48 of total outage for a year, I would imagine most non paying players would gladly play on the gold server. Not to mention, without paying the Developers to set up the new server, the "free" users really would never get a server off the ground (or.. have one).
This begs the statement be made: Just as much it is "unfair" that a player that supports the map get an upper hand against you, it is just as "unfair" that the players paying for everything to exist have to share this game with non-supporters.
I don't think anyone every suggested unsupported servers. The idea is to pay to play non-gold games, so the whole argument above doesn't really make sense.
My opinion:
There's already the possibility to create maps either in the categorie "Normal-AI", or with (so-called) "Elite AI".
I think, it would be easy and worth for Bytro, to considering adding a (special) category "Pay to Play" (for some maptypes).
Maps of this category will allways cost an entrance, for example 25,000 gold or so for each participant, what have also to pay members of the High Command.
Then no further gold can be used on this map (or there may be e.g. an adjustable gold limit on these maps).
The maps should be ranked and give achievements / crates as usual, but it would not necessarily have to be paid a gold reward at the end.
However those maps should have an adjustable start time and, most importantly, a kind of break option >>
>> similar to the known option "quit card - by vote in the News" there should be an option to pause the map (freeze it, also again with selectable start time) e.g. for a period of 12/24/48 hours (weekend getaway, Christmas dinner, etc...).
Perhaps this option or their use could then also be paid with gold.
On such maps only really interested ones will get together, and the "normal CoW business" for Bytro would not be impaired thereby.
Good Point.WiseOdin wrote:
This begs the statement be made: Just as much it is "unfair" that a player that supports the map get an upper hand against you, it is just as "unfair" that the players paying for everything to exist have to share this game with non-supporters.
It seems that the Gold economics in Call of War is not enough incentive for players to play FOR it, in terms of victory rewards, if you know what I mean.
Well that's because it's not the point of gold. If those were too high, Bytro would STILL be without an income stream.haroonriaz wrote:
It seems that the Gold economics in Call of War is not enough incentive for players to play FOR it, in terms of victory rewards, if you know what I mean.
When I play poker...say a 11 person tourney. You put in 100 bucks. The house takes say 25%. They split the rest for the winners. So winner gets 75% of $1100.00. Its seems to me if the pot was bigger I'd be willing to spend more gold to win the game. As low as it is now its like KRok said.....its really not about winning gold. Just a thought....
The solution is simple as it has been said so often:
Like the pay for any gold feature in maps, like drops, elite Ai etc, there could be a feature "No-gold in map".
Just make that feature expensive enough to cover income for Bytro.
Whether that feature be 50g or 500k can be calculated.
Ofc, if it is to be 500k, then the use will be very limited.
The Golden Shower Boys will not like these maps and just not choose the feature or maps with the feature.
Others who like to pay Bytro for the fun game, but don't like showers of molten gold from ontherwise unskilled players, will pay that fee for sure. I know I would!
https://i.gyazo.com/c35159cf18f27b95218b089af2bd04f6.jpg
See Libya (the big green country stretching from Sahara to Arctic).
See Spain (that incomplete damaged country on the south west tip of Europe)
The Golden Shower resides in Spain
Guess what? Spain will beat Libya and its allies (practically rest of world) with 100% certainty.
If 1 city can produce in 1 hr as much as a world empire in a week ... well, 'nuf said, right? Spain has already lost 'the real game', so the other players have their satisfaction by showing their skill AND now Spain can get her's, bc no one feels like playing this map for real anymore and he can now wipe the map clean with his gold magic. (A win-win haha)
Now, losing a map is not a problem. Certainly not when the other guy is just better, has more time, more allies, etc., though winning is more fun.
Paying for a game that is fun is not a problem either. I pay for the champagne in the club too.
Combining this in a paid feature to not have to fight this kind of opponent as in the link, would simply be very healthy for players and Bytro
If a player like me, who does spend a bit (and over the years a lot: s1914 Championship, always 12months premium, gold to fight gold players or backstabbers) would face this type of Extreme Golden Shower more often, well, than it would just be game over for me. (Luckily it is rare, unless the guy will keep stalking me)
A paid non-gold feature would guarantee that I and other more sensible spenders can be retained as a client, whereas:
- those who pay for the feature can finally truly match their skills and strategies on a level playing field and THAT is why we play;
- the pure Golden Boys do not have to use it (unless they want to test their skills once in a while);
- players that do not pay, would not have the feature at their disposal and will have to face the Golden Showers once in a while, but would have no reason to complain anymore
It truly is a solution to many game spoilers (see link; Libya and friends own the world, but already lost the map)
Do the math Bytro:
I spend real money on only 2 games this year; 2x fighting a specific 'player'. The 1st time we didnt know eachother, the 2nd time the specific 'player' ducked the blacklist with a name change and stalked my other game for revenge (well, have fun with it lol).
I played quite a few more games than those 2, and paid nothing for those.
If you take the average expenditure/year and spread it over the games played evenly =>
1. you have your entrance price without losing a penny revenue over the year!
2. regular players would be more happy customers (w/o the Golden Showers) and happy customers play more games => more money for Bytro!
It is not a money losing proposition for Bytro, but a win-win!
(However, this post will be read by the crew only and the content will probably - and sadly - never arrive at Bytro HQ)
I had a post kinda like that one, once. And it never got any traction. Sad.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.Well, I guess Bytro doesn't want to adjust their policy. And it's their good right; you don't discuss the pricing model with your local bakery either.
Hi all, I appreeciate the sober and constructive way the use of in-game currency is discussed in large parts of this thread. Thanks for that! Also, thanks for your suggestions which are of course not totally new to us but still serve the purpose to remind us to reflect on the pricing model and how it affects the game's feel and individual game experiences. We can assure you that we not only read your feedback but also discuss different approaches to monetization on a regular basis. Still, what K.Rokossovski so pointedly noted is true:
So please bear with us even if we do not publically discuss the cons and pros in too much detail on the forums.K.Rokossovski wrote:
you don't discuss the pricing model with your local bakery either.
I beg to differ, I don't even go to my local bakery good sir.
I haven't gone to the "local bakery" for warm bread in the morning in so many years....
It seems like a lifetime ago.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.To my mind, Bytro has a choice in supporting its customers
1. Gold users - great revenue for Bytro so keep going with that model -(it is not the model for me because, being a wargamer from waaay back, I am a rules junkie. Bytro have a set of rules for how CoW runs and, for me, using gold is a way of breaking the rules and I hate it (strong word I know but I feel quite strongly about it))
2. High Command - I love this. I know some people will say it gives unfair advantage but there are no rules broken here - it just streamlines the way the rules are applied and you can actually get some sleep at night without that dreadful imperative that you just have to stay up til 2 am to get the next IC (or LT or Sub) started. So I am more than happy to pay Bytro for this privilege.
3. No Gold Games - I would pay money to be part of an enforced no gold game - Bytro should look into this - how can it hurt? Trial it and see how it goes - I am sure you will get some revenue from those users who, like myself, won't spend gold in games on principle (and therefore don't give Bytro any revenue by buying gold).
I am a software developer myself and know that Bytro have to have a revenue stream - I am literally begging to be able to contribute to that revenue stream to play in a way that satisfies my sense of fair play
You're not the only one, Rogo. Many others feel the same way as you do, or very closely to it.RogodeterSnowl wrote:
I am literally begging to be able to contribute to that revenue stream to play in a way that satisfies my sense of fair play
I think the most pernicious effect of unlimited, unrestrained gold use is the demoralization and ultimately alienation of both new and experienced players who enjoy the game, but are unable or unwilling to spend $199.99 (U.S.) to buy 750,000 gold units on a regular basis. Unlimited gold use drives many players away from the game, including those who are small to moderate gold-spenders themselves. Most buyers of gold, myself included, have threshold limits for gold use, at which point a little alarm goes off in their head which says "This is f---ing nuts."
In one case last year, I saw a player spend at least that entire amount of gold (750,000 units) in the first two weeks of a single game. At that level of gold-spending, the perception -- quite accurate, in fact -- is that player is buying his victory. That level of gold-spending in a single game is so over the top that it simply cannot be justified in any way, and unless the spender-player is completely incompetent, there is no way any other player may reasonably compete unless they spend a similar amount of gold.
The most obvious, most frustrating and arguably most unfair aspect of unlimited gold spending is what I call the "dragon's teeth warriors" problem (remember the old Jason and the Argonauts movie, in which the undead skeleton soldiers arose from dragon's teeth sown in the soil?). When a player who has been bested by one or more of his opponents, and would clearly otherwise inevitably lose the game, is able to instantly gold-spam a new army of dozens of medium tanks, tactical bombers, fighters and rockets in a matter of minutes, which then overwhelm his opponents, something is wrong, and everyone knows it. It offends almost everyone's sense of fair play and good sportsmanship, and such grotesque excesses are not "necessary to support the game."
The obvious solutions to this immediate problem are per-hour, per-day and/or per-game limits on gold-spending, but Bytro Labs has steadfastly refused to publicly even consider such limits. I, for one, would gladly buy into a game, either for currency or its gold equivalent, if I knew what the gold-spending limits were going into the game, regardless of whether that upfront buy-in cost was 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 gold units. Regardless of the particular level at which the limit is set, I am confident enough in my game skills that I could spend that amount of gold as well or better than my opponents because we would all be on an equal competitive footing. The other alternative, repeatedly proposed over the past two years, would be an upfront buy-in cost of 25,000, 50,000 or 75,000 gold units (or currency equivalents) to participate in a gold-free game. The non-refundable, upfront buy-in would also alleviate the player drop-out problem, because few players who have spent the equivalent of $15, $20 or $25 are going to quit and walk away from their buy-in fee, and certainly not on a regular basis.
Years ago, I lived in Coral Gables, Florida (a very nice, affluent part of Miami), and I drove past a French bakery on the way to work every morning. Over a period of two years, I got to know the owners, a Frenchman and his Cuban-born wife. The owners of the patisserie were well aware of my job and my career background in finance, and we in fact did discuss on multiple occasions the pricing of their various baked goods. Invariably, I would argue that they should charge more for particularly popular items, but he was a bit old-fashioned and wanted to sell more items at a lower price, not necessarily maximize his income, which, of course, strikes someone with an MBA education as a bit odd.K.Rokossovski wrote:
you don't discuss the pricing model with your local bakery either.
You must acknowledge that this is an extreme exception to the norm. Anyone who would so foolishly spend so much money for an in-game currency should be just left to their own devices. It's his or her life and really none of our business. That it was so early in the match was the one wise thing they did with their Gold....guaranteeing a win.MontanaBB wrote:
In one case last year, I saw a player spend at least that entire amount of gold (750,000 units) in the first two weeks of a single game. At that level of gold-spending, the perception -- quite accurate, in fact -- is that player is buying his victory. That level of gold-spending in a single game is so over the top that it simply cannot be justified in any way, and unless the spender-player is completely incompetent, there is no way any other player may reasonably compete unless they spend a similar amount of gold.
Trust me when I tell you, I've seen people spend tons of Gold late in a match just because they didn't like the fact that I was winning and I've found that far more upsetting than the case you've just described. Because if someone spends all that upfront, unless I want to be a fool with my own money to counter them, I can easily just leave the match and go join another. But when you are far along into a match -- your "dragon's teeth" scenario -- investing weeks or even months of time to play on an equal playing field, only to be trounced by a bitter loser who can't accept a loss, well, let's just say that it's a good test in one's patience.
Still, for all that, Bytro's business interests
continue to favor the current system and we aren't allowed to use this forum to complain so you might as well just accept it for what it is like I have. If you truly hate that part of the game, the gold spending, the only real thing you can do, at least for now, within the confines of the game, is to start up a private passworded match and invite only your trusted friends. Good luck convincing a staff member to start up a 50 or 100 player match like that. But if you do, let me know and I might join you. Otherwise, be prepared to face more of the same. Get used to it. There's really nothing you can do about it. At least it's still pretty rare.
I hate to say it, but your recommendation is actually a losing strategy in the long run and it hurts economies in very deeply-rooted ways. I'm not saying that prices shouldn't go up when the time is right. But for the most part, raising prices has a tendency to drive away customers.MontanaBB wrote:
Invariably, I would argue that they should charge more for particularly popular items, but he was a bit old-fashioned and wanted to sell more items at a lower price, not necessarily maximize his income, which, of course, strikes someone with an MBA education as a bit odd.
When a product is increased in price, the immediate response is usually less total units sold. For a short time, the profits per unit go up enough to keep up the overall profit. However, soon after, the profits go down because more and more customers start shopping elsewhere. Then, because the usual response is just to raise prices again, the initial profit goes up a bit, but more customers fall away, thus dropping prices.
Eventually, this constant raise in prices alienates so many customers that the product becomes associated with an "elite" status and only the "right" type of individual will afford it. If that elite status holds, then the sales will finally even out with a much smaller amount of goods sold but a much larger per unit profit being had. I know that looks good from a business degree standpoint. But it fails to take into consideration that the competition that didn't raise their prices has received many of the customers who abandoned the first shop.
So that other shop is now moving more goods at a lower per-unit price. Sure, they make less profit individually, but their overall profit is slightly higher while they do have to work a little harder to meet the demand. Now that same business degree standpoint would say that it's unwise to work harder for the same profit that the other shop is getting for doing less business. But then they forget about another factor...the overall market trend.
You see, in a market sense, when you focus and worry about price point and profit, maximizing potential and other business school "widget" terminology, you fail to see the bigger picture. Every aspect of a macro economy is related to every other aspect. And it's kinda like the butterfly effect. So, the customer is suffering because of a seemingly "good" economic model, that of increased profits per unit.
Supply and demand goes out the window when people are spending too much to maintain a lifestyle that they used to afford for less money. So their investments suffer, their savings start to dwindle or their profits grow at a slower pace. Inflation makes their money's valuation shrink and they keep having to spend more and more for the same things while their wages don't keep up with the lost value of their income.
Now, because of the economic inflation, those that buy the more expensive product are paying even more. But the people that purchase the less expensive product at the competition are now also having to pay more because the shopkeeper had to raise prices to keep up with inflation which increases the cost of supplies. They have to raise the price even more because of a reactionary minimum wage increase and raise it more still because of intrusive new government surcharges on certain ingredients, and the price increase goes up again because of a political battle that resulted in an increase in import tariffs, etc.
So now, the competition that offered a more competitive price is making even less money per unit than before because the first shopkeeper was foolish enough to drive up prices rather than sticking to the tried and true method of pushing more product and at a lower price instead of raising prices.
This money pit reactionary price increases is the backbone of why inflation happens. Big banks and the National Reserve try to drive inflation at different rates by controlling the interest rates. But in reality, it's the little guy, the mom and pop shop trying to stay in business when faced with stiff competition, that's screwing the economy by not keeping their prices competitive.
The mom and pop shop, rather than working a little bit harder to keep producing more (and even lowering their prices a bit to keep wayward customers loyal, for example, rather than moving their business to big-box stores), are the ones driving the inflation. Because people don't have faith in the little guy, because they have faith in price points and production costs, and the words of high-falutin economists with big words and the power of the banks behind them, it is no wonder that people are turning away from the mom and pops.
Truly, stores like Wal-Mart and other big-box stores are not the problem. They have risen to meet the needs of an economy that has turned it's backs on mom and pop stores. Until recent changes in how business and economics was taught in colleges, there was always a natural balance between the smaller and larger businesses, each meeting a need and neither cutting into the other's' business interests for the most part.
Yet, with the advent of the new imbalance between the little guy and the giants, it's not the big boxes that destroyed the mom and pops. It's the mom and pops being unwilling to keep their customers loyal by staying competitive in at least a reasonable way. And it's the economists that worked so hard to influence the overall economy to inflate, thus increasing the profits of the banks which finance the movement of money in society. In other words, inflation is because of poor decisions by the mom and pops and because of banker greed trying to ruin profits for everybody else.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.That is happening to me now. I have a farm and over 40% of my expenses are labor. So with the local minimum wage increasing from the steady $8 per hour to $12 per hour at $1 per year that is a significant increase in my cost of doing business.Diabolical wrote:
They have to raise the price even more because of a reactionary minimum wage increase
So for every $10 box of produce I had $4 in labor and $5 in other costs, such as fuel, refrigeration, trucking, utilities, insurance, packaging, repairs, etc.
Of course good workers are worth more than minimum wage, so I can't leave them at $10 to $12 per hour while the minimum wage for inexperienced goof offs climbs to that rate, which means an across the board increase in wages.
So this year I have $5 labor and $5 other expenses in that box of produce. In two years I will have $6 labor and $5 other expenses in that box of produce, providing no other expenses increase in price. So I have raised the price I charge, and will do so every year. I can't afford to sell $11 worth of stuff for $10. So I will sell less for the next few years. I have to believe that selling some at a slight profit is better than selling a lot at a loss.
