Suggested New Game Mode - Gold Bonds

  • I've been thinking a lot about Gold Marks and how annoying it can be to run into people who dump tons of gold into the game and while they may not win can still ruin the experiance for someone who is looking to try to match tactical wits with someone and not have a war of wallets. Now, before people break out the flame throwers, i understnad GM is how the game is "free to play" so i am not compaining about the concept of gold marks, i am just proposing a different way to use them, perhaps as a different mode of play. Granted this would require the creators to put new systems in place but as i have seen different versions of Supremacy roll our and different maps i dont think my suggestion is out of the realm of possibilities. Finally, this is just a suggustion.. a thought experiment. Perhaps other games have tried it or there is some flaw i am over looking. Its just an idea. Ok, so now after i doused myself with flame retardent... here is is

    Gold Bonds

    A Gold Bond game is a game that does not allow in game purchase of Gold Marks. Period. Once the game has started you are NOT allowed to purchase any additional Gold Marks. However, to join the game you need to buy "Gold Bonds". Its a buy in cost. EVERYONE needs to pay in to join. Everyone who wants to play pays the same amount and gets GOLD BONDS. Gold Bonds are only good for the game you buy them for. Use them or lose them. But you can spend them anytime you wish, and exactly the same way you would spend gold marks.

    The designers could figure out the **average GM** players buy during a game. I have no idea what that amount would be. But lets assume for the moment the average amount spent by ALL the players in a game is $20, then that would be the buy in price. The desginers would still get thier $$ and everyone would need to chip in who wanted to play.

    The game wouldnt start until all spots were filled, and if the game didnt launch/was cancelled the Gold Bonds would be turned into Gold Marks. I think that may be the the biggest caveat. I am not sure if people would buy into this, i think it really would be what the buy in cost was.

    Anyway, its just a thought experiment. Perhaps this sort of thing has been already discussed ad nauseum. But its new to me.

    What do YOU think?

  • I would never pay for a game. I do not even enter games that you have to pay GMs to enter.

    I have no idea how this problem could be fixed. I think that if there where pay for play matches, they would need to have several things to make sure that the player knows what they are about to get into.

    It is a little unfair that the GM users can just pay for GMs to win a game. But the way me and other players get back at the GM users is try to make it the most expensive game for them. After all, no one would empty their bank account just to win a game.

    However, think of it this way, the GM users made supremacy1 happen by buying GMs from supremacy1914.

    “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”

    ― Albert Einstein

    “War does not determine who is right — only who is left.”

    ― Anonymous

  • I am not saying to get rid of the current model.

    The above idea is a seperate mode of the game that people would CHOOSE to join. So you could continue enjoying the game as is.

    i agree, the majority of player prolly dont want to pay and never will pay to play. This idea is for those who dont mind paying and having the flexibility of additional "credits" to spend, but want to avoid the run away spenders.

  • Well if that is the case, then I think that the people who do not mind paying would probably would like to see something like that happen.

    It is a good idea for the players who pay in small amounts and do not like the "big spenders". You would get support from those type of players. I think that it is a good idea if, like you said, it is a separate mode of the game. If it is like that, I have no objections. Good luck.

    “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”

    ― Albert Einstein

    “War does not determine who is right — only who is left.”

    ― Anonymous

  • I agree that the goldmarks are a big problem with the game as it stands. I have played the game for a while now and really enjoy it. It is one of my favorite games, due to its simplistic yet complex nature. It is a one of a kind game where I can play anywhere without committing tons of time to it in a single sitting as well.

    With that being said I have become extremely frustrated lately, because a friend and I play, and we are repeatedly slaughtered by gold users. We put up one more fight, but it’s never good enough. It is simply not possible to defeat someone who refuses to lose in a game that has a system in place that allows that. The game essentially has an implemented cheat system, where it boils down to whoever wants to use more money. I simply am not willing to spend a load of money on the game or any game and there are more players than not that are like me I am sure.

    One of the worst things about gold mark users is that they can keep units alive, by simply using gold to boost morale. For example, in our current game we cannot defeat our opponent, because his units keep magically healing and there was not magic in World War 1. It takes away so much from players who truly want a strategic experience, where you must plan long term. I don’t want a system that saves me when I am in a bind. I want to have to use strategy to defeat others. After all it is a strategy game.

    I certainly want the developers to get their money. The game is fantastic and could be so much more if a better system was in place. My suggestion/opinion would be to charge ten dollars or so for the game upfront and eliminate goldmarks. The game is a one of a kind and players who enjoy it would buy it. It is an addicting game so I am sure people would buy it. In my opinion the player base would expand, because who wants to be destroyed by someone who is willing to spend lots of money on the game. Many people don’t play the game anymore, because of gold users and that is a shame. They could even keep goldmarks, but implement some sort of cosmetic system where it doesn’t give any performance changes. Many games use these systems and there are plenty of people who will spend money on cosmetic things.

  • The Beholder, I did not realize Supremacy 1 was different than Supremacy 1914. Thank you for the clarification! I just logged in to Supremacy 1 and it is still possible to use gold in game, but I am not sure if it is entirely the same. I will try out a game and see what happens. If it turns out that gold cannot be used to instaheal units during a battle then I will be so happy. I am sure many people understand how frustrating that can be to outsmart someone, but have them spend money to save themselves. That could go on forever and ultimately it would depend on who is willing to spend the most money. There is just no fun in that.