Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    Romhram
    Guest
    I'm a new player and have enjoyed this game. I reached 2nd place in one tournament and the GM users made sure I was taken out. There needs to be more fairness for non GM users, such as games created that doesn't allow Gm's to be used. There are games that you need to be certain rank to enter or the number of players allowed. So why not just make scenario's where no GM is allowed to be used, this way those players who don't have the money to spend can still play, and those that do can play. There's no need to take out GM usage all together, those who want to spend should be allowed to spend and as the moderators say, they need to make money. However those that can't spend should be allowed to play as well!! Just create scenario's where no GM is allowed to be used along with the scenario's where they are allowed to be used.

  2. #22
    I would want to make an addendum to the Non-GM scenario matches with GM enter fee's idea.

    It's a very unpopular one, but it would help Bytro to clear any doubt about this proposal: besides the entry fee, Bytro could put a "permanency fee" to be paid each 30 days in the match. The player who can't pay that fee, it will be sent out from the match until he/she can pay that amount.

    Greetings.

  3. #23
    Was very excited to log in and find this discussion. I have quit the game for some time now for 2 main reasons. 1 was the lack of a proper mobile app, but the other was the literal P2W enabling of GM currency.

    The Problems:

    The current system basically nullifies strategy. A player with bottomless pockets can instantly generate units for both attack and defense. They aren't harshly punished for poor tactical play like F2P players, since they can always buy more units to replace the ones lost. This is particularly problematic in early game, when F2Ps only have small infantry stacks and no mechanical units with which to fight back. It's also quite disheartening in late game, after investing so much time building a powerful nation, to lose because a P2W reduced your morale to 0.

    The other issue, IMO, is that GM use unfairly stigmatizes paying players, when we should be grateful to them for supporting the game we enjoy. I recall in one of the last games I played, when the 4 surrounding nations realized a player was a GM player, (he had 5 artillery when we didn't even have a factory,) we resolved he had to be immediately eradicated. Looking back, even though I'm sure we did the right thing, I regret very much that was the reality.


    The Solutions?:

    The most obvious solution is no GM rounds, with a GM entry fee as a precaution in case the mode becomes the default. This is the best solution IMO, but I have found some of the suggestions in this forum intriguing. The biggest problem being instant unit production, I think increased construction rate rather than magical instant completion is a good compromise. That way, GM users would still get those critical artillery before the F2P, and a skilled F2P could still fight back.

    I also quite like the idea of limiting GM use to a player's wealth. I think a good way to do something like this would be to calculate the wealth of a nation at the start of each day, then cap GM use per day by that quantity. The system is open to abuse, however. Players could forward obscene amounts of cash to a P2W coalition member, and if you limit GM use by a Coalition's total wealth, players could still get around it by temporarily leaving the coalition. Because of said potential exploit, I think a better option is to limit daily GM spending by average theoretical income, which translates roughly to a player's number of provinces.


    I appreciate the devs consideration of whether a less P2W monetization scheme is feasible. Hopefully, improvements can come from it.

  4. #24
    Hi All


    My thoughts..
    Have played some folks who may have just joined but hammer their GM usage in each game they play to steam roll newer people and more experienced players..Not a geat game in my opinion


    But its their Choice


    2 things,
    Newer players may leave if they are beaten and dont understand what happened and how
    Older players may leave because they like to play a game and GM usage by some people defeats that purpose


    My idea's


    1..Have no GM rounds
    2..Have a marker so people can see what GM has been used in a Game..thus revealing their real skill level
    3..Great idea regarding limiting GM use to a player's wealth




    Anyhow, thats my 2 cent

  5. #25
    Greetings everyone.
    I will bring forward a shortened version of this topic I posted on another thread.
    Historical perspective - when WW1 started;
    a. all of the countries involved were using precious metals (Gold, Silver, Copper) as their currency units.
    b. were not prepared for what was to come. The amount of war material that was needed to raise units and support the existing units outstripped their economies. All of them save one had to turn to gold in their treasuries to stay alive and provide resources to the troops in the field. This game simulates this event.
    I recommend a policy whereby gold mark useage in any particular game be limited to the amount of silver marks a player country has at any given moment. The historical ratio was 20 silver to 1 gold. Some may argue a 16 to 1 ratio is more correct. It varied by country. Essentially you can spend any amount of gold based on the silver you have. If you have 20,000 silver, you can spend 1,000 gold marks on anything you want with the following stipulation - you convert (exchange) the 20,000 silver for 1,000 gold to use in this game.
    Sidebar - silver converted over to gold does not transfer from game to game. The flow of gold from our individual treasuries to the country we are running is one way only.
    Game mechanics - you as a player may have 10,000 gold marks which you can use in any of your games but the amount you of gold you can use at any particular time in a game depends on the amount of silver you have in that game.
    If in game you have 20,000 silver - you convert the silver to 1,000 gold that you "bring into this game" from what you have available and then you buy what you need/want with that gold.
    Summary -
    1. anyone can use gold. It is up to them.
    2. gold marks useage is depending on the amount of silver you have in a game.
    This restricts but does not eliminate the ability to auto produce expensive units (Battleships, bombers, and rail-guns) in mass all on day X

    New topic to discuss...
    Economics of excessive gold useage in a country during the course of a game.
    Idea - for every 10,000 gold marks spent, all of that player's costs increase by 1%. This reflects inflationary forces now at work effecting that country's economy.
    Summary - you can use gold, but be careful - you may wreck your economy...

    Thank you for your time.
    Respectfully,
    Tyr-Ion

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ion View Post
    snip
    I just talked about this idea, and you failed to address my concern with it. You ignore a situation where other players in-game, (a coalition,) forward large quantities of silver to a single premium player. What is to prevent them from doing this, assuming they have their own economies stabilized?

  7. #27
    Hi Dauntless and thank you for posting and concerns which are valid. I say the answer is inflation which is realistic and was historical. If allies dump their silver treasuries onto a player to purchase immediate units and improvements they will wreck his economy by making permanent (throughout the rest of that game) increased costs for follow-on units, improvements, and resources to acquire at the stock market.
    Effectively the use of gold which is freely available to use will negatively effect that player for the rest of that game. If this format is adopted it will focus GM users/abusers/spammers into a paradigm shift in their thinking as to when and where the gold should be used. And I am not blind to the fact that it will not be adopted because it will force a game mod to be present at each game monitoring the gold mark useage and adjusting costs accordingly. Example if I just convert 100,000 silver to 5,000 gold marks and buy things/improve morale etc then all my costs should reflect a 1% increase across the spectrum in my country.
    Thank you for your time
    Tyr-Ion

  8. #28
    Try adding some cosmetic features. Some people might want to buy those.

  9. #29
    Each player's profile should include a statistic indicating their average Goldmark expenditure. Plus lowest and highest. Each game should end with statistics indicating highest scores with Goldmark expenditure and without it. That way we all know who we are competing with and without costing Bytro any money.

    --------------------

    Also change the daily european stats to show efficient economies, biggest armies, most goldmarks spent, largest economies, and richest (silver) countries. Four of those things already exist and including goldmarks spent would be a simple fix!
    Last edited by anarchyburger6; 10-14-2018 at 08:59 AM.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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
  •