I have been playing for several years, Now this game has gone too much to try to get players to spend cash!!! Ok my proof, when a player in event games is in the top 3 he will encounter AI's or BOTs as we call them, attacking them, constantly lower morale(which influences building times and production times. I once started a game late(DOOMSDAY) and found myself in a terrible spot, 2 major cities(all ready nukes) and 11 providences left. Managed to survive thanks to another players help, found that in the next few days to my surprise the game will give lower score players in a match certain advantages!!! I the first week I was getting free from other players( active or Inactive) major cities, Getting ROW from AIs I was not even asking for ROW from, I did not even think that was possible anymore me usually being in the top 5 on maps. Not asking people to stop playing just asking people to bitch to game management. I am sure we all have spent cash on this game but I will not spend 1 more $ on a game the TREATS it's loyal dedicated players like they are nothing more than a cash cow. I will still play and win but they are taking the fun and skill out of the game, I love a challenge but this is getting ridiculous!!!!!!! 
PLAY WIITH HONOR AND INTEGRITY, OLD MAN JACK OUT
This is not technically against the rules if each of them are trying to win the round
and are not there just to feed another account to win by giving them all their resources or provinces.
I myself have been in a round,coalition size 4 and 4 players from our alliance joined. Got there and 2 alliance members and from family alliances were already in the round.
Also sometimes players may be recruited that from that round,adding to their numbers.
These things happen and not always done on purpose.
I get that - but the AI aggressiveness is overdone. For example, I'm currently in a game where it's day 15 and I'm Sweden. I've attacked no one and declared war on no one since probably day 3. I've been hard pressed to stave off attacks from Germany and UK who both declared war on me.
So fair enough that while I was struggling to hold them off no AI countries attacked me but as soon as I get the upper hand over Germany the AI countries attack - even Estonia which I've gone out of my way to stay on good terms with even when it's been inconvenient eg some provinces revolted to Estonia and I've let them be.
I’m guessing this is why units recover damage so slowly. If a lot of players spend gold to get them back into action, Bytro wouldn’t want to stop that.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Try @freezy. I have to warn you however, many have tried and failed to discuss this issue. Bytro keeps this forum alive to give the impression that they listen to the player base, yet they never actually do. Gold in particular is a "We don't discuss our business model" issue.simon wrote:
Hi guys. Yes I'm in full 'disagreement' with tiny countries starting out the game with huge armies (for them) that they never could afford, equip, or maintain. I've seen games where after about 3 weeks have passed, Danzig suddenly attacks Germany with around 20 to 30 units, and Luxembourg do the same or, attack France instead, but much more importantly, I'm dead serious about greatly increasing the revenue of Bytro, by revising some of the ways that people gain gold. So who would you suggest is my best choice to speak with? Simon.
I'm just happy the game is free, and a very good game. I don't spend much gold, in fact, I spend close to none. I've stockpiled 50k so far and that's constantly growing. Not a single dime spent. I know others like BMfox have done the same and he has over a million now. Yes, gold spammers can be a nuisance, but they are also the ones funding the game. And I, personally, am more thankful than angry.6thDragon wrote:
I’m guessing this is why units recover damage so slowly. If a lot of players spend gold to get them back into action, Bytro wouldn’t want to stop that.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Try @freezy. I have to warn you however, many have tried and failed to discuss this issue. Bytro keeps this forum alive to give the impression that they listen to the player base, yet they never actually do. Gold in particular is a "We don't discuss our business model" issue.simon wrote:
Hi guys. Yes I'm in full 'disagreement' with tiny countries starting out the game with huge armies (for them) that they never could afford, equip, or maintain. I've seen games where after about 3 weeks have passed, Danzig suddenly attacks Germany with around 20 to 30 units, and Luxembourg do the same or, attack France instead, but much more importantly, I'm dead serious about greatly increasing the revenue of Bytro, by revising some of the ways that people gain gold. So who would you suggest is my best choice to speak with? Simon.
I think it might be interesting for there to be some kind of sbmm (spam based match making) where you get put in games with people who spend similar amounts of gold as you do. It wouldn't necessarily hurt the guys who spend a fortune on gold, and would improve the experience for people who rarely use any
What if you spend an average of 1m per game? Than what?
Yeah, I’m amassing a nice stockpile of gold too. I have the high command and like queuing things. However that’s not an option with research. Usually the only time I spend gold is if I have research set to finish after I go to bed. I’ll rush it so I can start the next.
I’m also a perfectionist. This game is pretty good. I’ll accept their business model as a reason it can’t be perfect. I’ve just adapted my strategy to use more units that can do damage without receiving it like artillery and naval over other units.
I see a lot of suggestions about allowing games that would limit gold usage. I don’t think this would be difficult to implement. They would just need to determine the average amount of gold a player spends during a round and charge that as the price of admission. Bytro is likely just skeptical of the demand. I’m guessing everyone has a massive gold user get the better of them at some point, if they play long enough. But how many would really change their behavior because of it and play those type of games. It’s hard to compete with the price of a free game.
Then your name is Bill Gates.Donk2.0 wrote:
What if you spend an average of 1m per game? Than what?
I played a game against a guy who spent 2,000,000 fighting just me. I killed his armies every night yet the just "reappeared" and cost me the win. Yes, it sucked, but it was quite fun at the same time watching this guy make himself broke.
LOL. Image spending that much and still managing to lose, now that would be embarrassing.whowh wrote:
Then your name is Bill Gates.Donk2.0 wrote:
What if you spend an average of 1m per game? Than what?I played a game against a guy who spent 2,000,000 fighting just me. I killed his armies every night yet the just "reappeared" and cost me the win. Yes, it sucked, but it was quite fun at the same time watching this guy make himself broke.
There is one way I’ve seen a player use gold that I thought was unfair. As I understand it, you cannot use gold to heal a unit that is actively in combat. By an extension of that logic, you shouldn’t be able to use gold to rush repairs on a build that is being bombarded.
I was playing a game not too long ago and I noticed my opponent’s group of a variety of 12 aircraft on an airstrip refueling within range of coastal bombardment. I promptly sent a fleet to take them out and damaged the airstrip enough that they couldn’t take off. I thought I had him, expecting to be able to destroy his planes only to see that he must have used gold to quickly repair the airstrip when they were done refueling and watched them take off. I had to take a deep breath, but then it occurred to me that two could play at that game and I could use gold to raze his buildings. When his wing of aircraft came in for another attack just as My land force was approaching his city with an aircraft factory, I used gold to raze all his airstrips forcing him to land where I was about to take. I felt like I cheated to win like that, but he was the one to use gold under my nose first.
That right there is a big brain move If I've ever seen one.6thDragon wrote:
There is one way I’ve seen a player use gold that I thought was unfair. As I understand it, you cannot use gold to heal a unit that is actively in combat. By an extension of that logic, you shouldn’t be able to use gold to rush repairs on a build that is being bombarded.I was playing a game not too long ago and I noticed my opponent’s group of a variety of 12 aircraft on an airstrip refueling within range of coastal bombardment. I promptly sent a fleet to take them out and damaged the airstrip enough that they couldn’t take off. I thought I had him, expecting to be able to destroy his planes only to see that he must have used gold to quickly repair the airstrip when they were done refueling and watched them take off. I had to take a deep breath, but then it occurred to me that two could play at that game and I could use gold to raze his buildings. When his wing of aircraft came in for another attack just as My land force was approaching his city with an aircraft factory, I used gold to raze all his airstrips forcing him to land where I was about to take. I felt like I cheated to win like that, but he was the one to use gold under my nose first.
You're country bled, but so did his wallet.whowh wrote:
Then your name is Bill Gates.Donk2.0 wrote:
What if you spend an average of 1m per game? Than what?I played a game against a guy who spent 2,000,000 fighting just me. I killed his armies every night yet the just "reappeared" and cost me the win. Yes, it sucked, but it was quite fun at the same time watching this guy make himself broke.
That's probably the best trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever.
Would you rather: Lose a CoW match or make a gold spammer lose $500?Z. Sakki wrote:
You're country bled, but so did his wallet.That's probably the best trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever.whowh wrote:
Then your name is Bill Gates.I played a game against a guy who spent 2,000,000 fighting just me. I killed his armies every night yet the just "reappeared" and cost me the win. Yes, it sucked, but it was quite fun at the same time watching this guy make himself broke.Donk2.0 wrote:
What if you spend an average of 1m per game? Than what?
Which currency? Venezuelan Pesos?Donk2.0 wrote:
What if you spend an average of 1m per game? Than what?
Payers pay because it gives them an advantage, they might not pay as well in a world where everyone pays. Or they may pay more, it is always hard to tell.newbgamer101 wrote:
I think it might be interesting for there to be some kind of sbmm (spam based match making) where you get put in games with people who spend similar amounts of gold as you do. It wouldn't necessarily hurt the guys who spend a fortune on gold, and would improve the experience for people who rarely use any
what is sure is that Bytro has very few reasons to improve the quality of life of people who don’t pay.
That’s a good way for Bytro to lose money. Now all paying users who paid more than the average pay exactly the average. All the paying users not willing to pay the average price leave. Free users - the plankton - also leave. The only gain would be those users willing to pay a little more than they actually pay - that’s the minority.6thDragon wrote:
I don’t think this would be difficult to implement. They would just need to determine the average amount of gold a player spends during a round and charge that as the price of admission. Bytro is likely just skeptical of the demand. I’m guessing everyone has a massive gold user get the better of them at some point, if they play long enough. But how many would really change their behavior because of it and play those type of games. It’s hard to compete with the price of a free game.
I agree it would be a failure but for a different reason. The target audience for this type of game would be those who typically don’t pay for a game and requires them to pay the average. Not a recipe for success.Chimere wrote:
That’s a good way for Bytro to lose money. Now all paying users who paid more than the average pay exactly the average. All the paying users not willing to pay the average price leave. Free users - the plankton - also leave. The only gain would be those users willing to pay a little more than they actually pay - that’s the minority.6thDragon wrote:
I don’t think this would be difficult to implement. They would just need to determine the average amount of gold a player spends during a round and charge that as the price of admission. Bytro is likely just skeptical of the demand. I’m guessing everyone has a massive gold user get the better of them at some point, if they play long enough. But how many would really change their behavior because of it and play those type of games. It’s hard to compete with the price of a free game.
And what if they just use a lot of gold in the beginning, from the starting amount? Do they get punished for that? And not only that, but most players aren't gold users. Or at least avid gold users.
6thDragon wrote:
I’m guessing this is why units recover damage so slowly. If a lot of players spend gold to get them back into action, Bytro wouldn’t want to stop that.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Try @freezy. I have to warn you however, many have tried and failed to discuss this issue. Bytro keeps this forum alive to give the impression that they listen to the player base, yet they never actually do. Gold in particular is a "We don't discuss our business model" issue.simon wrote:
Hi guys. Yes I'm in full 'disagreement' with tiny countries starting out the game with huge armies (for them) that they never could afford, equip, or maintain. I've seen games where after about 3 weeks have passed, Danzig suddenly attacks Germany with around 20 to 30 units, and Luxembourg do the same or, attack France instead, but much more importantly, I'm dead serious about greatly increasing the revenue of Bytro, by revising some of the ways that people gain gold. So who would you suggest is my best choice to speak with? Simon.
Nah, if you're into golding, healing units is one of the least cost-effective ways to spend it. Then again, ratio isn't usually the strongest suit of a certain class of users who can't be named.
The point is not to make it on OR but an AND. Organize both. You keep the plankton in the free rounds, and the whales who enjoy paying to win as well. For the players who enjoy the level playing field (many of whom leave in disgust after meeting their first whale; many others not even bothering to come here at all), you introduce flat-fee rounds. You get the extra income from this group, how now will never pay a cent because they don't want to join the pissing contest. It is very unlikely the whales wouldn't play the free games anymore because the flat-fee games existed, right? And heck even I would consider paying for the flat-fee rounds... well, if they hadn't dropped Canvas, of course.Chimere wrote:
That’s a good way for Bytro to lose money. Now all paying users who paid more than the average pay exactly the average. All the paying users not willing to pay the average price leave. Free users - the plankton - also leave. The only gain would be those users willing to pay a little more than they actually pay - that’s the minority.6thDragon wrote:
I don’t think this would be difficult to implement. They would just need to determine the average amount of gold a player spends during a round and charge that as the price of admission. Bytro is likely just skeptical of the demand. I’m guessing everyone has a massive gold user get the better of them at some point, if they play long enough. But how many would really change their behavior because of it and play those type of games. It’s hard to compete with the price of a free game.
I like to win, but like to compete on a level playing field even more. I would certainly be willing to join these types of games and don’t think it would take too much away from the free games.
In my second game I was rolled over by a gold spender and I almost didn’t play a third.
