"Fair" Games: Will it Happen?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Hydralysk wrote:

      Again, how about the developers charge an upfront gold fee to each game player?

      Make the fee equal to the median of what players spend on gold in each game, plus five percent.

      This way, players get to play with no gold being spent after the start of the game, and the developers grow their bottom line.

      Win/Win.
      For some reason they don't understand this...
      "CoN is a game of 80% skill and 20% luck" - Tifo_14

      "I don't get paid enough to do anything" - Germanico

      Nothing stops the Tifo :thumbup:
    • I do not think they do not understand it. they have way much data to look into than we do.

      in these kind of games, data shows that if you "gate" a game with an access fee you will not fill it as fast, which causes a trickle of players leaving it then stopping the game, and the game falls apart.
      The current model allow the game to fill quickly, and players to try multiple games before they stick with on.

      This is the way to play if you are not a golder.
      You start many games, you abandon them if you are pitted against a golder early, and do your best to go as far as you can, still knowing that eventually it is a golder that will win the first place. The journey and fight is more important than the win.
      This could not be done if games are "gated".

      Now offering a few gold-capped games would keep the same mechanics.
      the only thing is that golders who win only from the gold expenses will probably not start these games, but everyone else will still do them, so it will not "gate" players out, except the most incompetent golders.
    • Grisix wrote:

      I do not think they do not understand it. they have way much data to look into than we do.

      in these kind of games, data shows that if you "gate" a game with an access fee you will not fill it as fast, which causes a trickle of players leaving it then stopping the game, and the game falls apart.
      The current model allow the game to fill quickly, and players to try multiple games before they stick with on.

      This is the way to play if you are not a golder.
      You start many games, you abandon them if you are pitted against a golder early, and do your best to go as far as you can, still knowing that eventually it is a golder that will win the first place. The journey and fight is more important than the win.
      This could not be done if games are "gated".

      Now offering a few gold-capped games would keep the same mechanics.
      the only thing is that golders who win only from the gold expenses will probably not start these games, but everyone else will still do them, so it will not "gate" players out, except the most incompetent golders.
      There is no trickle if there are not as many slots to be filled. A small map could be used, etc.

      I abandon them? Excuse me? I try not to abandon every single one of my games and always have! Inactives are what make the game bad, not the game design itself.

      true enough, it will gate out incompetents... inactivity will be discouraged with the fee however if it is high enough

      edit
      gatekeeper , the fee, will only gate out those without enough balance or willpower to pay the fee.
      1. the players that spam 50 games for stats and give everyone else the gift of 50 inactives will likely find no real reason to do it on the gated games unless they were intentionally trying to be toxic and annoying
      CORRECTION: RANKS, NOT STATS (how do I always manage to get one thing wrong in every post?)
      2. yes, otherwise incompetent golders likely will play 1 and if they only want to win then they will not play any more of the gated games or will renounce their ways as a golder (probably not the latter though)
      3. it will gate out some that are simply not willing to pay and
      4. even if they are willing to pay, they are more likely to invest their time and effort into actually providing a challenge because they think they need to get back their money's worth

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Clock ().

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Grisix wrote:

      This is the way to play . . . You start many games, you abandon them if . . .
      Please don't do that.
      Frankly, if you are facing a golder early, I do not see any other outcome.

      My main point is on a gold-capped gate, at least you know they could have spend up to their cap, and staying make sense. If you can hold them off/survive, you can possibly make it to the later stages.
      If there is no cap, and the golder is just going to outspend you, there is really no points in continuing to play.

      If you get to the later stage of the game, likely because you managed to team up with another golder, then the game becomes resisting and raking as much kills as you can, but the outcome is never in question, unless you can outspend the other golders.

      Gold-capped games at least put a clear ceiling on each game.





      Hydralysk wrote:

      Grisix wrote:

      in these kind of games, data shows that if you "gate" a game with an access fee you will not fill it as fast, which causes a trickle of players leaving it then stopping the game, and the game falls apart.
      Interesting personal viewpoint. Your source for such an opinion?
      Personal experience, and indeed a personal view point. Also a bit of good sense, I believe.
    • Clock wrote:

      Grisix wrote:

      I do not think they do not understand it. they have way much data to look into than we do.

      in these kind of games, data shows that if you "gate" a game with an access fee you will not fill it as fast, which causes a trickle of players leaving it then stopping the game, and the game falls apart.
      The current model allow the game to fill quickly, and players to try multiple games before they stick with on.

      This is the way to play if you are not a golder.
      You start many games, you abandon them if you are pitted against a golder early, and do your best to go as far as you can, still knowing that eventually it is a golder that will win the first place. The journey and fight is more important than the win.
      This could not be done if games are "gated".

      Now offering a few gold-capped games would keep the same mechanics.
      the only thing is that golders who win only from the gold expenses will probably not start these games, but everyone else will still do them, so it will not "gate" players out, except the most incompetent golders.
      There is no trickle if there are not as many slots to be filled. A small map could be used, etc.
      I abandon them? Excuse me? I try not to abandon every single one of my games and always have! Inactives are what make the game bad, not the game design itself.

      true enough, it will gate out incompetents... inactivity will be discouraged with the fee however if it is high enough

      edit
      gatekeeper , the fee, will only gate out those without enough balance or willpower to pay the fee.
      1. the players that spam 50 games for stats and give everyone else the gift of 50 inactives will likely find no real reason to do it on the gated games unless they were intentionally trying to be toxic and annoying
      2. yes, otherwise incompetent golders likely will play 1 and if they only want to win then they will not play any more of the gated games or will renounce their ways as a golder (probably not the latter though)
      3. it will gate out some that are simply not willing to pay and
      4. even if they are willing to pay, they are more likely to invest their time and effort into actually providing a challenge because they think they need to get back their money's worth
      I see your points, but I still think a gold-capped game with no upfront fee is much better solution than gated games.
      your 4. is true, if one invests money in it they will remain more engaged with it, but that will apply the same to gold caps do the same thing.
    • Clock wrote:

      1. the players that spam 50 games for stats and give everyone else the gift of 50 inactives will likely find no real reason to do it on the gated games unless they were intentionally trying to be toxic and annoying
      people do that?

      why would it improve their stats? if i see games joined: 1037 and games won: 2 then I think you are a sh!t@ss player.
      Україна
      Україна

      "The future is not written" - Anna Jija
    • Grisix wrote:





      Hydralysk wrote:

      Grisix wrote:

      in these kind of games, data shows that if you "gate" a game with an access fee you will not fill it as fast, which causes a trickle of players leaving it then stopping the game, and the game falls apart.
      Interesting personal viewpoint. Your source for such an opinion?
      Personal experience, and indeed a personal view point. Also a bit of good sense, I believe.
      'Personal experience...' eh?

      Sorry, but when you used the phrase '...data shows...' I hoped that you would cite an actual source that gave credence to your claims, and that you were not just spouting your own two cents worth.
    • Hydralysk wrote:

      Grisix wrote:

      Hydralysk wrote:

      Grisix wrote:

      in these kind of games, data shows that if you "gate" a game with an access fee you will not fill it as fast, which causes a trickle of players leaving it then stopping the game, and the game falls apart.
      Interesting personal viewpoint. Your source for such an opinion?
      Personal experience, and indeed a personal view point. Also a bit of good sense, I believe.
      'Personal experience...' eh?
      Sorry, but when you used the phrase '...data shows...' I hoped that you would cite an actual source that gave credence to your claims, and that you were not just spouting your own two cents worth.
      probably would have been better worded with "data would show", as I remain 100% convinced that free games is the key to fill games quickly. I have seen this phenomenon in games like magic the gathering and tournaments. You have a clear difference of attendance between free access friday night magic and paying tournaments.

      So gating the game's access here is going to significantly reduce games starting...
      gold capping is not gating, and a choice for all players, who would know the maximum amount of gold than can be spent on any one game.

      It is like poker rooms, where casinos offer both high rollers rooms and 10 cents machines. They would have much less people playing if they would charge a fee at the entrance.

      Now a casino that only offers no limit spending room is actually not making as much money as they could and I actually believe that offering gold capped game would actually increase Dorado's income.
      Currently, what is the point of spending money when you know you can be bankrolled by another player with unlimited funds?
      The game's potential 1st place is only for high spenders and those that enter coalition with at least one of them, the competition at the end being between high spenders, which is totally fine as this game goes.

      Just pointing out that people with less disposable money would be more inclined to spend it on the game if they know everyone as the same cap in the game they are in, while sitll entering the game for free.
    • Grisix wrote:

      Hydralysk wrote:

      Grisix wrote:

      Hydralysk wrote:

      Grisix wrote:

      in these kind of games, data shows that if you "gate" a game with an access fee you will not fill it as fast, which causes a trickle of players leaving it then stopping the game, and the game falls apart.
      Interesting personal viewpoint. Your source for such an opinion?
      Personal experience, and indeed a personal view point. Also a bit of good sense, I believe.
      'Personal experience...' eh?Sorry, but when you used the phrase '...data shows...' I hoped that you would cite an actual source that gave credence to your claims, and that you were not just spouting your own two cents worth.
      probably would have been better worded with "data would show", as I remain 100% convinced that free games is the key to fill games quickly. I have seen this phenomenon in games like magic the gathering and tournaments. You have a clear difference of attendance between free access friday night magic and paying tournaments.
      So gating the game's access here is going to significantly reduce games starting...
      gold capping is not gating, and a choice for all players, who would know the maximum amount of gold than can be spent on any one game.

      It is like poker rooms, where casinos offer both high rollers rooms and 10 cents machines. They would have much less people playing if they would charge a fee at the entrance.

      Now a casino that only offers no limit spending room is actually not making as much money as they could and I actually believe that offering gold capped game would actually increase Dorado's income.
      Currently, what is the point of spending money when you know you can be bankrolled by another player with unlimited funds?
      The game's potential 1st place is only for high spenders and those that enter coalition with at least one of them, the competition at the end being between high spenders, which is totally fine as this game goes.

      Just pointing out that people with less disposable money would be more inclined to spend it on the game if they know everyone as the same cap in the game they are in, while sitll entering the game for free.
      At this point you are supporting the argument that, in fact, gold-capped games do NOT go against Dorado's business model.
      Also, my propositions and arguments:
      1. They could just only make a few games and
      2. Then start those games only when the maximum player count is reached (or 1 below, like 29/30 for example as the last slot takes a while to fill usually).
      3. That way, the entry rate wouldn't matter much.
      4. How much actual knowledge of the game mechanics, true experience, etcetera et cetera does the golder really have? I think you overestimate it. Think of it this way: If you were a player that wanted to act like a golder and pay to win games, you would start instantly and not have as much of a challenge as other players would early on. Therefore, you would effectively undermined your experience in the game and true knowledge of the game playstyles and mechanics.
      5. But what if they played the game enough to get experience and knowledge enough? Nope. Not going to happen. If you are not spending gold within your first 3 games, from my perspective you will likely never spend gold in the vast quantities like golders do. Why? Well, if you had money and wanted to spend it on this game, you might spend it modestly at first. But if you are willing to invest possibly over fifty dollars and occasionally over $1,000... clearly you don't really have too much of a limit to how much you will spend. Now, think about this: if they end up with no limit, do you really think that they ever had too much of a limit? What, did you win the lottery and suddenly start golding on game 10? Of course not. Golders have likely spend most of their Conflict of Nations career golding. The main idea is: if you are golding massively, why wouldn't you start as soon as possible? Especially if you enjoy winning.

      Hopefully that was intelligible.
    • Clock wrote:

      Grisix wrote:

      Hydralysk wrote:

      Grisix wrote:

      Hydralysk wrote:

      Grisix wrote:

      in these kind of games, data shows that if you "gate" a game with an access fee you will not fill it as fast, which causes a trickle of players leaving it then stopping the game, and the game falls apart.
      Interesting personal viewpoint. Your source for such an opinion?
      Personal experience, and indeed a personal view point. Also a bit of good sense, I believe.
      'Personal experience...' eh?Sorry, but when you used the phrase '...data shows...' I hoped that you would cite an actual source that gave credence to your claims, and that you were not just spouting your own two cents worth.
      probably would have been better worded with "data would show", as I remain 100% convinced that free games is the key to fill games quickly. I have seen this phenomenon in games like magic the gathering and tournaments. You have a clear difference of attendance between free access friday night magic and paying tournaments.So gating the game's access here is going to significantly reduce games starting...
      gold capping is not gating, and a choice for all players, who would know the maximum amount of gold than can be spent on any one game.

      It is like poker rooms, where casinos offer both high rollers rooms and 10 cents machines. They would have much less people playing if they would charge a fee at the entrance.

      Now a casino that only offers no limit spending room is actually not making as much money as they could and I actually believe that offering gold capped game would actually increase Dorado's income.
      Currently, what is the point of spending money when you know you can be bankrolled by another player with unlimited funds?
      The game's potential 1st place is only for high spenders and those that enter coalition with at least one of them, the competition at the end being between high spenders, which is totally fine as this game goes.

      Just pointing out that people with less disposable money would be more inclined to spend it on the game if they know everyone as the same cap in the game they are in, while sitll entering the game for free.
      At this point you are supporting the argument that, in fact, gold-capped games do NOT go against Dorado's business model.Also, my propositions and arguments:
      1. They could just only make a few games and
      2. Then start those games only when the maximum player count is reached (or 1 below, like 29/30 for example as the last slot takes a while to fill usually).
      3. That way, the entry rate wouldn't matter much.
      4. How much actual knowledge of the game mechanics, true experience, etcetera et cetera does the golder really have? I think you overestimate it. Think of it this way: If you were a player that wanted to act like a golder and pay to win games, you would start instantly and not have as much of a challenge as other players would early on. Therefore, you would effectively undermined your experience in the game and true knowledge of the game playstyles and mechanics.
      5. But what if they played the game enough to get experience and knowledge enough? Nope. Not going to happen. If you are not spending gold within your first 3 games, from my perspective you will likely never spend gold in the vast quantities like golders do. Why? Well, if you had money and wanted to spend it on this game, you might spend it modestly at first. But if you are willing to invest possibly over fifty dollars and occasionally over $1,000... clearly you don't really have too much of a limit to how much you will spend. Now, think about this: if they end up with no limit, do you really think that they ever had too much of a limit? What, did you win the lottery and suddenly start golding on game 10? Of course not. Golders have likely spend most of their Conflict of Nations career golding. The main idea is: if you are golding massively, why wouldn't you start as soon as possible? Especially if you enjoy winning.

      Hopefully that was intelligible.
      it was, and you have good points. Certainly a few gated games would not be a problem.
      I am still new and have to learn much more. My comments/suggestions were just my first impressions after only a few games. I also go the impression that the golders I met already do not seem to know rules like stacking penalties and stuff like that, like you say. The ones I fought just threw up units at me, without any tactical or strategic thinking. It was like pigeon shooting for a while, until it naturally overwhelmed me. At the very least it got my ranks up pretty quick.
      Regardless I am here to stay. I'd prefer to see gold-capped games of course, but I would still play with gated games too :)