Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Game Mode with no Goldmarks

    Now, I fully understand that the Goldmark system is how the developers of this game get the money to keep running and improving the game. Which is fine by me. However, I came into this game well before the Goldmark system came into existence. And I think that the game was better then as if a player won it was because of their skill and tactics. Their ability in controlling their states facilities and economy to create the army needed to fight off their opponents and expand their country.

    I am not suggesting removing Goldmarks. I am suggesting adding a Game Mode where you can block any spending of Goldmarks. A mode where players can test their skills without worrying about another player throwing money at the game to win rather than using their skills. I for one would be happy to play in such a game mode, a happy return to games I remember from the past of this great game.
    "Come on you rogues, do you want to live forever."
    Frederick the Great.

  2. #2
    has been discussed many times before, won't come, user had to pay approx. 20.000 to 50.000 GM entry fee

  3. #3
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Hmmmm...

    I got what you mean but there are problems:

    1. There is the risk that game mode becomes too popular and everybody wants to play iy. How could devs make profit from that situation? It could be required ads and pop-ups but that can ruin game experience.

    2. Fortunately, Goldmarks are also available for non-VISA players, by making surveys, voting for the game or winning matches. And if a player save enough, why couldn't use them?

    Now, here I propose you a solution: Create an alliance with people like you, who want to play without GM and make internal matches in it with a No GM rule (expelling members who break that rule in a match) After all, as you can see, to discover people using GM is easy in some way.

    Greetings.

  4. #4
    I can approve what Demonaire says there are plenty of people who play with honor codes of not GM, ... in some matches. learn to know some people in the community and I'm sure you can create nice fights

    Questions about the game? Have a look at the manual.
    Need game support? Send a ticket or contact the crew.
    Have an idea for the game? Check the BigList.

  5. #5
    Tbh, the goldmark system should just be completely revised. Anything that involves a direct advantage should be discarded (like speeding up units etc). Instead, be creative and make some indirect advantages. For example the ability to activate "traps/ambushes" in a province under your control that makes enemy units move 50% slower for a set amount of time and can be activated once/day. Creating visual benefits like coloured units where you can pick 2 basic colours for the uniforms or whatever.

    I've played from 2010-2012 and miss those days, too bad people aren't allowed to discuss the current situation and address the flaws in it cause if you criticize too much threads will just be closed, at least that's what happened in the past

    And well, I got dragged back into the game by my nephew a month ago and discovered that from the 9 games I played, I will win 5 of them (due to coalitions or just solo) and from the other 4 there were 3 where I got spammed with GM and 1 where they actually truely beat me by first winning a 1v3 but then losing the 1v4 that came straight after without time to recover. The difference between using GM and not using them is just too big in a game that's completely based on strategy.

    Telling people to learn others from the community first and select all the right rules is just a bad excuse to allow this, cause people who return or get into the game don't know what to pick exactly, and even if you get those right, there are alliances that join 500 player games like on the one I'm currently playing. 40 people left from which 17 of the same alliance, things like that just shouldn't be allowed.. Just restrict the amount of people from the same alliance that can join a game to the maximum number of members of a coalition for that game for christ sake.. So in this game that would've been 7.

    Victory isn't always about being the better one, it's often caused by being the most adored one.

  6. #6
    on the last part to start with this has been discussed internally but nowadays alliances are 80-95% discord or skype... they'd just fool us by joining from sub alliances. And a bunch of friends wo don't even share any alliance can even join the map together. there is little you can do about it if you ask me but if you have ideas that I'm very willing to listen but just saying "no alliance members should join" is not going to work as above mentioned.

    About closing threads. As long as I'm here on the forum any (if kept respectfull) discussion will remain open. If it turns into GM bashing then offcourse it breaks the rules. I can see that GM does give huge advantages and if the wallet is infinital deep then they can buy victory, althought I personally have seen few of such heavy GM users but I think that is because I play the smaller maps. Most people who use lots of GM that I've met used it to make up for their lack of activity and were often beaten.

    The thing is also that people will only pay for stuf that give some sort of advantage (at least in the right amount to keep the servers running) But offcourse alternatives might be considered from time to time but they need to bring in the same revenue to keep the game going
    Last edited by NarmerTheLion; 05-08-2018 at 10:09 PM.

    Questions about the game? Have a look at the manual.
    Need game support? Send a ticket or contact the crew.
    Have an idea for the game? Check the BigList.

  7. #7
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by NarmerTheLion View Post
    The thing is also that people will only pay for stuf that give some sort of advantage (at least in the right amount to keep the servers running) But offcourse alternatives might be considered from time to time but they need to bring in the same revenue to keep the game going
    I do understand Devs need revenue to keep the game going, but I certainly agree with evlover: A review about Goldmarks benefits could be needed.

    On one side, there are too many features in the matches where GM can be used (boost moral, buildings or units; instant espionage results; or limitless raw material in the market). On the other side, there are too few features outside the matches where GM can be used: for example, The Treasure Coffin is a marvelous idea but it lacks many more options; it could be features like "premium" statistics; alliance customization (i.e. military uniforms, etc.); in-game alarms, notebooks or "favorites" (people saving "prefered" matches or "stalking" great players); Tactical Headquarters where the system here does analyze the players and how does they fought in the matches; User-created Tournaments with prizes given by the same users; and a long, long, etc.

    As I said, It's something good Goldmarks is accesible to VISA and NON-VISA players, but Byrto, as many game companies, has the problem to think that only giving in-match advantages to VISA they can get revenues, ignoring the potential revenues of the out-match advantages many people would be ready to pay.

    Greetings.

  8. #8
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Demonaire View Post
    I do understand Devs need revenue to keep the game going, but I certainly agree with evlover: A review about Goldmarks benefits could be needed.

    On one side, there are too many features in the matches where GM can be used (boost moral, buildings or units; instant espionage results; or limitless raw material in the market). On the other side, there are too few features outside the matches where GM can be used: for example, The Treasure Coffin is a marvelous idea but it lacks many more options; it could be features like "premium" statistics; alliance customization (i.e. military uniforms, etc.); in-game alarms, notebooks or "favorites" (people saving "prefered" matches or "stalking" great players); Tactical Headquarters where the system here does analyze the players and how does they fought in the matches; User-created Tournaments with prizes given by the same users; and a long, long, etc.

    As I said, It's something good Goldmarks is accesible to VISA and NON-VISA players, but Byrto, as many game companies, has the problem to think that only giving in-match advantages to VISA they can get revenues, ignoring the potential revenues of the out-match advantages many people would be ready to pay.

    Greetings.
    An example:
    Name:  Screenshot_1.png
Views: 3
Size:  32.6 KB
    Here is a game (I won't say its name, since I think it's forbidden) that only use out-match advantages for VISA players. That game have, today, 200k users after 20 years. Maybe it's not impressive, but many people like it because you get many extra things by being VISA but, at the same time, they keep the policy of not in-game advantages.

    I know that's impossible in games like this, but the example is valid to show the lost potential from selling things not neccesarily related with a particular match.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •