The role of Gold: a serious problem.

The idea of daily Gold spending limits is not a bad one, but any arbitrary limit chosen will only be fair to SOME people and not others (e.g., those who have no Gold or very little and/or can't afford to buy it). This is why I proposed my own much-more fair solution (a long time ago) where each player was allowed to participate in a single Gold-free match (no buy-in, either) and couldn't join more than one at a time. So, if they want to play more than a single match, then at least some of those matches would be Gold-unlimited matches where they'll be tempted to invest and spend on Gold premium points while the poorest among us can at least have their one strategy-only match and not feel like they're getting picked on by the rich.

xOrleans wrote:

I want to have fun. And I have that if I win or lose. But not if I am bought to death

Alas, this won't last forever. Eventually, popular opinion will forcibly drive those companies to change their marketing strategies in other directions. Bytro — just like everybody else — will eventually succumb to the collective will of their customers if they want to survive. All companies must...and all smart companies do. Those that do not....fail....and go out of business with their principal shareholders facing bankruptcy. That's just the ebb and flow of eCommerce.

When the economists catch up to the societal will of the Internet, they'll join the call to push for a change against premium-point-based payment systems. And when they do, all of the world's Internet companies' finance departments will follow suit. But, until that glorious day when the companies finally do catch up to the will of the people, you're just going to have to keep putting up with heavy Gold users and swallow your pride whenever they "mysteriously" defeat you after weeks of play...beating them into submission until payday.

Actually, "beating them into submission until payday" might just overcome "bought to death" as Bytro's unofficial slogan....nah, "bought to death" is just golden, to make a pun.

Menoch wrote:

The issue is : you spend weeks on a map, patiently building your armies, conquering your ennemies, spying on the big last one you kept for the end, carefully spend some gold for a "reveal positions" (see, I do use gold), finally decide of the D-day, the right day at the right time because you studied his patterns, and....

In the morning he is spamming hundreds of units because you put him in a tight spot. You try to fight back, but to be frank there is NOTHING that can be done if the guy decide to burn his retirement savings into this game.

Menoch wrote:

What is even more frustrating is that there have been EXCELLENT suggestion made on this thread and other, easy to implement and that would satisfy everybody, and it seems they just don't care...

Yeah, well, fact is part of my answered have been partially censored so I guess I did crossed the line...

Also it is frustrating that none of the suggestions seems to be heard by the devs...I mean, I am ok with spending a fair amount of real money on a game, say 10€ a month. Not 150...

PS. I'm french, so my kids to come will have the benefits of free (or even paid) studies

Paid studies? I take that to mean that the school pays the student to study. Wow, that sounds so...socialistic. But it certainly does not sound utopian. The only way that model has ever worked has been when a corporate interest chooses to pay to train their employees such that they are able to recruit and retain better-skilled workers. But the only way for a school or society to do such a thing is either because of an incredibly wealthy benefactor (not likely) or because of unjust and unfair taxation and wealth redistribution from the earners and entrepreneurs to the takers.

I'm not saying your kids won't be college-worthy...everybody deserves a chance to prove themselves. But to give a free higher education ... or even pay the student for it ... makes it not only less valuable, but it incentivizes undeserving and unmotivated students to waste their time in a higher institution when their time might be best spent in a trade school or just working in a service-sector [or other non college-education-required] job.

No society can support 100% higher education for its citizens as it's both cost-prohibitive and wasteful. Some people need to work in factories. Some people need to work in McDonalds. Some people don't have the mind to become artists, artisans, or architects...but they do have a mind to be a plumber, or maybe an auto mechanic, or even just a ditch digger. My point is that we all can't be in the ivory tower, or the tower will fall.

And wasting resources trying to teach people that are less likely to learn -- let alone retain -- a college education ... and are much more likely to work with their hands than with their minds ... is a surefire way to impoverish a nation to such extremes that their education system -- among other things -- utterly collapses.

That all being said, if your kids have a gift for education, then they should pursue it. But if they don't, then turning, being a student, into a paid thing like a job -- one which doesn't actually produce anything -- would be a waste of their time when they could be advancing in their career in a less-educated job choice.

It is generally advantageous to a society to have educated citizens.

But I doubt if we should turn this thread into a discussion on education systems.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

It is generally advantageous to a society to have educated citizens.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

But I doubt if we should turn this thread into a discussion on education systems.

We also need to remember that higher education can also mean trade schools, not necessarily a bachelors, masters or doctorate program. There are lots of trade schools out their for mechanics, welding, agriculture etc. Today's US military might even be considered a trade school based on their advertisements.

Peter Mat wrote:

We also need to remember that higher education can also mean trade schools

Diabolical wrote:

their time might be best spent in a trade school or just working in a service-sector [or other non college-education-required] job.

I realize this is an old thread but I am a gold user, spending real money (my wife is pissed) It's pathetic and addictive but I love it. Like many have said, there is no such ting as a "free" game, salaries for staff, licenses, etc; need real money so I don't see the game creators and people in charge getting pissed about people like me and many others who spend REAL money to buy game gold.

I look at it like this, the money I spend here is money I can't spend funding terrorism, you know, funding eco-terrorists and groups that go after people who despise cookies.

Have players left a game I was in after I started building? Yes. Do I know tactics? Fortunately I do. I also hate to lose. I have formed very good coalitions in my short time here but I have done this before elsewhere. In the end, it is still a game. This happens to be a very good one.

Were it that simple, I'd agree with you. But the market has changed over the past decade. Smartphones, tablets, software "licenses" and "leases" (as opposed to "purchases"), and the like have engendered a wholesale change in how the people want to acquire and play games online. Gone are the days when one would go to the store and purchase a copy of a game and then download free minor updates while paying for major updates. Now, everything is paid by nickel and diming the customer with "premium" points. Any farming-game app (both literally and conceptually-speaking) relies on baiting the users to enjoy it enough in free mode as to be nigh addicted to the play of it before realizing that the game becomes impossible to play without paying real money for premium points.

Anyone who's played any popular non-puzzle game from the iphone or droid app store will attest to this. As an example, I used to play the Star Wars Commander app. But when it became nearly impossible to advance without spending either an inordinate amount of time in waiting to farm points or else by purchasing points with real money, then I realized that I just couldn't play that game anymore. I was literally waiting up to a week just to be able to upgrade a single building on my base. Sure, I could've scratched the whole thing and started over, just to see things grow and advance, but it's designed to discourage that as I would have lost all progress and all specials. So, I quit playing.

Call of War is a little different, though. Unlike farming games, this one can be played for free (for the most part) and yet it's still possible to win. Sure, you won't win as often without using premium points, but you CAN still win. I have. You can, too. In fact, I don't mind when noobs spend some Gold because it keeps the game a little more challenging for me. Sure, I'll still whip most of them in their britches, so to speak, but I'll also offer free advice via the in-match messaging system just to encourage them not to give up so easily. Sure, it's easy to spend the startup Gold. But once purchased or won, that Gold becomes precious...especially when it was won with persistence without the use of other Gold!

I've said over and over how much I'd like to have a single match at a time where I could face other experienced players without Gold...and I've also said how it makes sense -- given the current market format -- that the folks at Bytro would want to make it only one Gold-free match at a time per each player such that they'd be forced to play in Gold-inclusive matches on the side if they want more than one match to play.

Anywho, unless the market forces change...and I think it should...they are never going to get rid of Gold. Also, by making Manpower a non-tradeable resource, they've actually turned it into a semi-premium currency to accentuate the Gold premium currency. This is why, in most early portions of a match, if I were to advise another player on how to spend their Gold, I'd suggest using it to buy some Manpower and to accelerate critical starting-research into Tanks or Artillery and then using some Gold for Industrial Complexes on their Rare Materials, Metal, and Oil provinces (and any double Food).

However, despite that advice, I rarely use Gold, myself. If I could afford to support Bytro by some manner other than purchasing a title (like the old market ways), I'd do so by buying High Command (again, it's a "rental" style system (lease) and should be ownable) but I'd also buy game and company swag. Unfortunately, they just don't seem to be interested in any product branding aside from the the game, itself.

Ironmann wrote:

Problem Solved.

Your gold free server can also be void of the developers you disagree with paying.

@Ironmann players that don't purchase gold, and obviously cannot understand economics, are normally also bad at strategy. Making you the perfect fodder for good players, whom are willing to spend a little cash. Your place in this world, is getting pounded into the ground in every map. You do it well.

WiseOdin wrote:

Ironmann wrote:

Problem Solved.

Not really. I've long pushed for a gold-free server, actually. It could be funded by all the gold not purchased on it. Enjoy your 16-bit graphics and constant server drops.Your gold free server can also be void of the developers you disagree with paying.

@Ironmann players that don't purchase gold, and obviously cannot understand economics, are normally also bad at strategy. Making you the perfect fodder for good players, whom are willing to spend a little cash. Your place in this world, is getting pounded into the ground in every map. You do it well.

.

.

ouch

You lost all my respect, at paratroopers.

Also, by posting that it is unfair that some support the developers, is like complaining that somebody else can afford a nicer car. It is, as DxC stated.. whining.

I'd like to break down what you wrote and respond to some points.

JCS Darragh wrote:

If I am going to attempt to buy High Command then I want to see some changes to CoW first, specifically Paratroops.

The game engine is clearly written with quite a bit of "spaghetti code" and can't take too much modification at any one time. That being said, if you really want paratroopers, try one of Bytro's other games, Conflict of Nations: Modern War (now ran by Dorado Games, a sister company with Bytro). That game has many more unit options, lots of play variety and vast amounts of technology to be researched. But, what it gains in variety of units, it sacrifices in resources and new base construction. Still, it's a pretty good game in it's own right and was developed on the same Supremacy 1914* game engine that Call of War was built on. (*Supremacy 1914 is one of Bytro's oldest games but a lot simpler even than Call of War.)

JCS Darragh wrote:

I produce some infantry, invade the AI country next to me, go home, come back the next day to see my country has been invaded by someone and they have taken most of my country.

JCS Darragh wrote:

I honestly don't think its that hard for the devs to go through the Forums and look to see what players want, try to develop it, if players like those units and they don't break the code, add them, if those units break the code and players don't like them, remove them. There is plenty of material for the devs to go through.

The development team is also responsible for the creation, update, and maintenance of all of Bytro's titles. They've split some of the load with their partners, but it's the same story with those, as well. So, given the obvious lack of standards-based coding libraries and development practices behind the game engine code, the current development staff has a rather difficult job when they implement new features. Every new feature is a major undertaking and each has to be weighed for cost analysis of production, it's effect on the user community, and the ability of the staff to implement it without fail. All of these factors affect whether they can even choose to take on a new capability.

Finally, any idea you offer has to go through the gateway of the volunteer staff and the very few people (3, I think) on Bytro's development staff that actually goes through all these forums across all their games. If one of these people thinks your idea(s) is worth considering, is practical to implement, and would actually improve one of the games, then they'll pass the idea up the chain.

So, keep offering new ideas. But remember, some ideas aren't new. Just because we don't have paratroopers in Call of War doesn't mean that no one has ever thought of it. In fact, I think it's been said that paratroopers is the single-most requested feature of Call of War alongside requests for gold-free matches. That being said, if you want to play a gold-free match, you can find one per month in the Players League which is a community-supported club of a sort that has token prizes for the highest point-getter(s) per quarter or half-year. Also, the volunteer staff sometimes sponsors a special Event where you can play against a bunch of other more-dedicated players for special prizes while playing the game in an increased speed format. To see upcoming events, just check out the game's front page from time to time. For information about the Players League, just go to the Players League section of the forum.

JCS Darragh wrote:

If there were new units added, I'd go download the game on steam and buy myself High Command and play the game for hours!

Diabolical wrote:

Paid studies? I take that to mean that the school pays the student to study. Wow, that sounds so...socialistic. But it certainly does not sound utopian.

This way he can afford a higher education with both a solid academic background and practical experience. The company gets to increase it's employment branding, test potential "home trained" new recruits on the field, and have a low cost workforce. Trade off seems indeed more accurate.

Also, I strongly believe that a country gains alot from a 100% free higher education, this doesn't equal 100% of the population will go to university, these are 2 very different ideas !

But back to the point : Please Devs have mercy on us and put a cap on the gold spending on unit spamming (or at least on dedicated games) !

I'm curious, who pays for that 100% free higher education? Who pays for the professors and books and electricity? Just curious.

I am totally cool with corporations choosing to fund classes for their employees and/or future employees under contract. After all, that's simply an investment. If the student does well and excels, that turns into better performance on the job and the investment proves worthwhile. But if the student does poorly or fails, and their job situation doesn't improve or even gets worst, then that investment either becomes a bust or a total route. But, that is the nature of investment. When you do an investment, it is a gamble. There are risks and rewards.

There are whole sciences behind trying to minimize those risks and maximizing those rewards, yet no amount of planning and forecasting can guarantee a desired result. That is why some wise investors also have counter-investments...hedging against failure by gambling on the failure, itself, as the outcome. Unfortunately, there are not many practical ways of doing this since it's essentially trying to have one's cake and eat it too.

Such is the game of investment: trying to convince others to gamble on something you believe in...or against.

Well its good to be back and to have put myself through familiarisation of all the changes good,bad,ridiculous

that have occurred in the year i have been gone.

It saddens me to see the idea and issue of parra troopers still being bandied about but look at it like this

guys / There wont be submarines in worldofWarships and there wont be parra troopers in CallofWar1942.

But all is not lost here is my suggestion of many years ago that wont bring on a massive migraine to the

development team or to suggest in anyway that they have limited skills.

This unit could be incorporated into the current game mechanics ect script quite easy if you would to

compare it with the fanciful changes Dominion Antarctica ok thats prob not so bad but id never play it tho.

Tournament Island / lmao ridiculous to a hardcore rts player of wwII genre.

Combat engineers are force multipliers and enhance the survival of other troops through the use and practice of camouflage, reconnaissance, communications and other services. These include the construction of roads, bridges, field fortifications, air base, obstacles and construction of Buildings ect, Anything these units do would have a speed buff and at a higher cost to what is the normal construction cost. And of course would be the most exspensive infantry units to purchase as they would also be experts at defending and Suppression.

KoalaArmy wrote:

Well its good to be back and to have put myself through familiarisation of all the changes good,bad,ridiculous

that have occurred in the year i have been gone.

It saddens me to see the idea and issue of parra troopers still being bandied about but look at it like this

guys / There wont be submarines in worldofWarships and there wont be parra troopers in CallofWar1942.

But all is not lost here is my suggestion of many years ago that wont bring on a massive migraine to the

development team or to suggest in anyway that they have limited skills.

This unit could be incorporated into the current game mechanics ect script quite easy if you would to

compare it with the fanciful changes Dominion Antarctica ok thats prob not so bad but id never play it tho.

Tournament Island / lmao ridiculous to a hardcore rts player of wwII genre.

Combat engineers are force multipliers and enhance the survival of other troops through the use and practice of camouflage, reconnaissance, communications and other services. These include the construction of roads, bridges, field fortifications, air base, obstacles and construction of Buildings ect, Anything these units do would have a speed buff and at a higher cost to what is the normal construction cost. And of course would be the most exspensive infantry units to purchase as they would also be experts at defending and Suppression.

Im pretty sure parra troopers are mentioned on many threads WiseOdin

But my post is not about them as much as its about how i to like to waffle on

just as much as the next guy.

Why single me out on this thread are you trying to cyber bully me

Back to topic:

WiseOdin wrote:

@Ironmann players that don't purchase gold, and obviously cannot understand economics, are normally also bad at strategy. Making you the perfect fodder for good players, whom are willing to spend a little cash. Your place in this world, is getting pounded into the ground in every map. You do it well.

I have several times bought 1 year HC and pretty nice ammount gold first sell and several time little amounts gold.

But imho spending more then 100$/year in single online game is not necessary.

Diabolical wrote:

just go to the Players League

But i gained new point of view: first try make a coalition, fight several battles to kill as many as possible units of hiperaddicted golduser, after that calm down and change gameround.

Sure i wish we would have more possible gameronds: PL without gold, common games without limitation and hard core rounds with limited amount each round and hardcore rounds vs stuff in almoast godlike mode without limitation.