Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1

    What is the justification for unlimited GM spending anyway?

    So for different examples - I have a game where I'm on week 2 and a country has already nearly THREE TIMES more provinces than the next country (#2) while sitting on a safe 70%+ morale despite some people organizing to mass declare-war on him as punishment for GM use (as I understood). Another game I had a similar situation where one massive GM user basically skyrocketed to dominate half the map while no one else was even remotely close to that goal.

    In the first case, the player already had a large air force and lots of artillery by day 10, when most players did not even have their first artillery piece. Don't say that people have to win by skill and tactics because there is very little any country nearby (which were smaller by factors of 3-6) could have done with just infantry or small artillery forces.

    By the time the special unit situation is equalized - the dominant player already has countless powerful armies and forces of artillery, tanks, fighters, and bombers, while also having a navy. No one can even hope to muster anything close to his strength.

    How is this fair? Why are there no spending limits? I have bought Goldmarks plenty of times myself before, I like this game and like supporting it. However, there is a question of how far you bring this. I mostly have used my GMs early game to just boost morale of newly-conquered provinces and get artillery to use against AI (without using it against a player until a few days in).

    In this case, we're talking about someone who owns more land than half the active players and has an unbeatable army. Why is this considered fair? This is quite literally how pay-to-win is defined. He is a new player, his victory is because of the Goldmarks and the large army that comes with it. Not any personal merit of any sort. Everyone next to him is getting wiped out by an air force of a large size, while no one else even has a single plane because it's so early in the game. It's just mind-boggling.

    The game is clearly made for paying consumers, not for the enjoyment of everyone. You can very directly buy your way to victory. Any claims of being able to use skill in a 500 player game sound ridiculous given the advantages that enough money will bring you in the very important early game phase.
    Last edited by Ricoks; 06-03-2018 at 01:14 PM.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Ricoks View Post
    So for different examples - I have a game where I'm on week 2 and a country has already nearly THREE TIMES more provinces than the next country (#2) while sitting on a safe 70%+ morale despite some people organizing to mass declare-war on him as punishment for GM use (as I understood). Another game I had a similar situation where one massive GM user basically skyrocketed to dominate half the map while no one else was even remotely close to that goal.
    First off all I would like to mention that there is a limit in the negative effect of wars on your country. If you could just declare war with your entire coalition on 1 person to destroy his moral the game wouldn't truly work especially not on 500p maps so this limit is important.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ricoks View Post
    In the first case, the player already had a large air force and lots of artillery by day 10, when most players did not even have their first artillery piece. Don't say that people have to win by skill and tactics because there is very little any country nearby (which were smaller by factors of 3-6) could have done with just infantry or small artillery forces.

    By the time the special unit situation is equalized - the dominant player already has countless powerful armies and forces of artillery, tanks, fighters, and bombers, while also having a navy. No one can even hope to muster anything close to his strength.

    How is this fair? Why are there no spending limits? I have bought Goldmarks plenty of times myself before, I like this game and like supporting it. However, there is a question of how far you bring this. I mostly have used my GMs early game to just boost morale of newly-conquered provinces and get artillery to use against AI (without using it against a player until a few days in).
    If the wallet is infinital deep there is indeed little you can do. At that point I'd usually say good luck spending that much but playing this map on your own. And archive it even thought that is not why we play this game. People need to learn their own limits they should realize that they are infact spoiling the fun for others and that that will just result in others avoiding to play with them which would I guess reduce their fun in the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ricoks View Post
    In this case, we're talking about someone who owns more land than half the active players and has an unbeatable army. Why is this considered fair? This is quite literally how pay-to-win is defined. He is a new player, his victory is because of the Goldmarks and the large army that comes with it. Not any personal merit of any sort. Everyone next to him is getting wiped out by an air force of a large size, while no one else even has a single plane because it's so early in the game. It's just mind-boggling.

    The game is clearly made for paying consumers, not for the enjoyment of everyone. You can very directly buy your way to victory. Any claims of being able to use skill in a 500 player game sound ridiculous given the advantages that enough money will bring you in the very important early game phase.
    On the last bit I would just like to mention that I've been playing for 4 years now never to have met en infinital Gm user, and never used GM myself. Yet I have several won medals. This game is not for paying consumers only. As if that was the case I would never have won a map. The majority of users uses no or limited amounts of GM. It is however true that if you join a map with 500 other users that you will have a higher chance of meeting somebody with a very deep wallet. Especially too because the 500p map is prestigious I do know of people who won it without GM. But I'm fairly sure they didn't have to fight people that had a very deep wallet.

    Skill and activity beat moderate payments. However it's not because people pay that they per instance have no skill so that claim is a bit debunked it is however so that many people who use a moderate amount of payment usually do this to make up for lack of activity. If they do however have virtually no activity then you could beat any huge army by just being active yourself.

    I do have hopes in bytro investigating a limit and searching for other ways to get their profits in . As like you say. if the wallet is deep enough it gets close to spoiling the in game fun

    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.

  3. #3
    I completely agree with you that there's still plenty of opportunities to win and you make many other good points. It just sucks that when you've sunk a lot of time and effort into a game and you lose not because of you lost on merit or activity, which would be reasonable, but simply because someone in the game has gone into a massive conquest spree with absolutely no way to stop the person because you're not even close to him/her. Then you're just left watching and hoping that players around him/her mobilize, but often they don't and just give up themselves.

    Yeah, I know about the limit. That's the unfortunate part, although it is obviously a sensible limit. In this case, the player is using the tactic of rushing everyone's capitals to compensate the large number of wars. And it's going to keep working for quite awhile.

    This might not matter as much on 10-30 player maps too because they're much shorter, simpler, and whatnot. If someone uses goldmarks - big whoop, the game will be over soon anyway and you'll jump in to another one. But I love 100 and 500 player maps. In them, it's not as simple as archiving it after coming across the problem - you've already worked hard early game to get into the top five. I don't play this game a lot - I've been here 8 years, yet only 40-50 games, so I really like to invest myself into a couple that I start up after a break. It sucks when 1 player in a 500 player game can ruin it for 499 people (OK, not that many, we all know that a third just go inactive in first two weeks anyway).

  4. #4
    Take a look here : https://forum.supremacy1914.com/show...=1#post1851653

    The thing is mainly that Bytro needs to make money. And that kind of spending is a large part of their profit. So I'm trying to brainstorm with the users about different sources of profit that harm other users less and hopefully some of the solutions can be implemented by the devs. And would be sufficient to implement a GM limit in other games. Or GM free games, give or take an entrance fee.

    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
    https://forum.supremacy1914.com/show...Supremacy-1914

    The above mentioned thread is the official thread for constructively discussing the GM issue. Therefor I will close this thread.

    => Thread Closed

    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.

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
  •