Gold limits

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

    • Gold limits

      If you've played more than 10 games you've probably come across at least one player who uses gold to ruin the gameplay entirely.
      Why is this even considered possible? Shouldn't there be a limit to the amount of gold one can use per day or match??
      Why dedicate several days only to have the entire game ruined by some dope with a credit card who wants to try out nukes?!?
      I've seen many players quit the game entirely and never return because of this, and it seems the devs really need to address this somehow for regular players

    • From the perspective of Dorado or game dev in general, losing a couple of free-to-play players is a necessary evil for the game to survive via the revenue coming in by whale golders. The olive branch they gave to free-to-play players are an abundance of games, the ability to join multiple games and the archival function. Losing sucks, yes, but that's par for the course at this point. If someone burns out from it, they're a little bit too competitive and takes winning and losing the game way too personal then.

      Doritos does walk the tight rope between keeping the game somewhat skill-based and activity-based (usually this would mean death to the game) while offering premium options for whales but not too disruptive as to completely turn free-to-play players away.

      On a more skeptical note, the rule of thumb is: if something is free, you're the products. Free-to-play players help give whale golders the satisfaction of squashing them. But sometimes if you're good enough and the golder is bad enough the reverse would happen and you'll be satisfied instead. So git gud.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by vynical ().

    • Please keep in mind Conflict of Nations is a free game. Not going to echo the sentiments of others in this thread, but without people making purchases in the game, servers cannot be maintained and we cannot dedicate time to actually updating the game and fixing issues on a regular basis. And yes Security Council is available as well, but that alone is not enough to maintain a game like this.

    • Totally respect the revenue needs to keep the game alive and well, and the devs have created a terrific game overall. My friends and I have played non-stop for almost three years, and we would love nothing more than to see the community and game overall continue to improve.

      Guess my point is that the balance of being able to use unlimited gold seems to have gone too far. Not sure if there are some analytics to see what the devs are using to evaluate such decisions, but I would love to understand that area better.

      The game needs more help developing new players and converting them into consistent and active users (with and without gold). Right now, people download the app, and most seem to quit rather quickly. I suspect not many players want to dedicate several days to seeing a campaign through.

      One of the main reasons my friends and I have played for this long is that we eventually learned through hundreds of hours of playing. Not many players have that attention span, so some simplification and streamlining need to be considered. The 10x games are a good start, but I'm sure it's tough, given the limited funds the devs have. A solid investor would be ideal at this stage of the game's evolution.

    • Crozbomb wrote:

      Totally respect the revenue needs to keep the game alive and well, and the devs have created a terrific game overall. My friends and I have played non-stop for almost three years, and we would love nothing more than to see the community and game overall continue to improve.

      Guess my point is that the balance of being able to use unlimited gold seems to have gone too far. Not sure if there are some analytics to see what the devs are using to evaluate such decisions, but I would love to understand that area better.
      I appreciate the thought out messages Crozbomb. These days there a fair bit of variables in player experience, Coalition vs Solo, Map selection & rules, Opponent experience, Nation choice, etc. All these in varying degrees play a part in the final experience. It wouldn't be the first time I hear and see players make a comeback. In a way it does make things more exciting.

      I highly advise for players to join a coalition and coordinate defensive and offensive skirmishes. The game in the future will hopefully further encourage and motivate players to cooperate through our in-development: mission system.
      Further on your point, we want to revise intel in the future to make that game loop a bit less destructive through spending. So this is all to say we understand there are potential areas which should be explored which won't hurt monetisation while keeping a fair balance.

      Crozbomb wrote:

      The game needs more help developing new players and converting them into consistent and active users (with and without gold). Right now, people download the app, and most seem to quit rather quickly. I suspect not many players want to dedicate several days to seeing a campaign through.
      It's on the radar, the aforementioned mission system is in aim of teaching new players as well as potentially rewarding them for fulfilling said mission. Retention is always tricky with free to play games but we are definitely aggressively tracking this down in the coming months. Once unfied client is released we have a more consistent codebase among the different repos we maintain.


      Crozbomb wrote:

      One of the main reasons my friends and I have played for this long is that we eventually learned through hundreds of hours of playing. Not many players have that attention span, so some simplification and streamlining need to be considered. The 10x games are a good start, but I'm sure it's tough, given the limited funds the devs have. A solid investor would be ideal at this stage of the game's evolution.
      That won't be necessary - people will be reassured in knowing that CoN is doing perfectly well, in some parts thanks to our efforts to take conservative changes to the monetisation model. We really need to measure each change and thus we have special analyst operatives on the clock whispering wisdom in our ear. Jokes aside we also are saving further expansion until we have unified client, until then our resources are heavily allocated on ongoing projects; mission system, unified client, localisation in other countries, and maintaining CoN of course. It won't be long untill players start seeing these changes come to the game.

      Again I appreciate you taking the time to write out your experienced point of view, and interacting with us.
      Dorado Games
      Conflict Of Nations

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Yak ().

    • Yak wrote:

      Crozbomb wrote:

      Totally respect the revenue needs to keep the game alive and well, and the devs have created a terrific game overall. My friends and I have played non-stop for almost three years, and we would love nothing more than to see the community and game overall continue to improve.

      Guess my point is that the balance of being able to use unlimited gold seems to have gone too far. Not sure if there are some analytics to see what the devs are using to evaluate such decisions, but I would love to understand that area better.
      I appreciate the thought out messages Crozbomb. These days there a fair bit of variables in player experience, Coalition vs Solo, Map selection & rules, Opponent experience, Nation choice, etc. All these in varying degrees play a part in the final experience. It wouldn't be the first time I hear and see players make a comeback. In a way it does make things more exciting.
      I highly advise for players to join a coalition and coordinate defensive and offensive skirmishes. The game in the future will hopefully further encourage and motivate players to cooperate through our in-development: mission system.
      Further on your point, we want to revise intel in the future to make that game loop a bit less destructive through spending. So this is all to say we understand there are potential areas which should be explored which won't hurt monetisation while keeping a fair balance.

      Crozbomb wrote:

      The game needs more help developing new players and converting them into consistent and active users (with and without gold). Right now, people download the app, and most seem to quit rather quickly. I suspect not many players want to dedicate several days to seeing a campaign through.
      It's on the radar, the aforementioned mission system is in aim of teaching new players as well as potentially rewarding them for fulfilling said mission. Retention is always tricky with free to play games but we are definitely aggressively tracking this down in the coming months. Once unfied client is released we have a more consistent codebase among the different repos we maintain.

      Crozbomb wrote:

      One of the main reasons my friends and I have played for this long is that we eventually learned through hundreds of hours of playing. Not many players have that attention span, so some simplification and streamlining need to be considered. The 10x games are a good start, but I'm sure it's tough, given the limited funds the devs have. A solid investor would be ideal at this stage of the game's evolution.
      That won't be necessary - people will be reassured in knowing that CoN is doing perfectly well, in some parts thanks to our efforts to take conservative changes to the monetisation model. We really need to measure each change and special analyst operatives on the clock whispering wisdom in our ear. Jokes aside we also are saving further expansion until we have unified client, until then our resources are heavily allocated on ongoing projects; mission system, unified client, localisation in other countries, and maintaining CoN of course. It won't be long untill players start seeing these changes come to the game.
      Again I appreciate you taking the time to write out your experienced point of view, and interacting with us.
      Any thoughts on trying to decrease the general issues with backstabbing/betrayals in coas made up by random people? I think anyone with some amount of experience will confirm that more often than not joining a coalition is actually detrimental because there is no reliable way to determine how trustworthy/ reliable people are and Solo you have to worry less about that kinda stuff
      general issues that come to mind are:
      - simple backstabbing; grace period after kicking/leaving can make for a messy game of „lets place units in each others homeland cities“
      - landgrabbing, be it malice or something else but one of the frequent complains i see is that people clear out enemies just for an „ally“ cap them
      - unable to accurately judge how reliable someone is


      For that purpose I’d love to have some sort of reputation/endorsement system (maybe similar to the one in Overwatch?).
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • Crozbomb wrote:

      If you've played more than 10 games you've probably come across at least one player who uses gold to ruin the gameplay entirely.
      Why is this even considered possible? Shouldn't there be a limit to the amount of gold one can use per day or match??
      Why dedicate several days only to have the entire game ruined by some dope with a credit card who wants to try out nukes?!?
      I've seen many players quit the game entirely and never return because of this, and it seems the devs really need to address this somehow for regular players
      I've made my peace and accepted the fact that 'golders' are a part of the game. I do support the site as a paying Security Council member, but somehow I just don't think my mere contribution means much in light of the fact that one of my recent teammates mentioned to me privately that he had dropped 850K in gold during our game. Dorado makes some decent coin on the game and they've provided me with hours of entertainment. So be it.

      One thing that I haven't yet gotten used to is the constant attacks in the News section of the game. I've lost count of how many times I've been viciously attacked and accused of ruining the game by being a 'golder'. I've never spent a dollar on gold, but the false accusations are constant.

    • Teburu wrote:

      Any thoughts on trying to decrease the general issues with backstabbing/betrayals in coas made up by random people?
      I absolutely understand what you mean. It's a very frequent grievance we see from player feedback. Right now we don't have anything like this on the roadmap for 2023 - that said it is an acknowledge experience that will directly or indirectly change with time. Unified clients is a critical juncture in our project planning, since it will serve the foundation for features we build on.


      Teburu wrote:

      joining a coalition is actually detrimental because there is no reliable way to determine how trustworthy/ reliable people are
      100% - if I had to personally pick one of the issues plaguing our multiplayer experience right now it's this. So much so, I've had a design for commendation system drawn up now for 5 years - including indicator/icon for spoken language, rewards, role-specific commendations, rep deterioration due to inactivity, you get the idea. So yes - I am definitely keen on seeing this improved haha - right now it all very much hinges on Unified clients.

      Until that milestone is reached it isn't sensible to setup elaborate features. I want to be clear though that we have other introductions coming this season to change gears a bit. More on that soon.
      Dorado Games
      Conflict Of Nations

    • bajalobo wrote:

      . . .
      One thing that I haven't yet gotten used to is the constant attacks in the News section of the game. I've lost count of how many times I've been viciously attacked and accused of ruining the game by being a 'golder'. I've never spent a dollar on gold, but the false accusations are constant.
      This sounds so odd to me. I've never had that happen, even though I've done well in my games.

      Admittedly my total games count is very low, but still I would think that I would have seen some hint of it by now.

      Except for the game-generated messages, so far the CoN News in my games has been very nearly 100% dead.

      (Setting aside the beginner maps like Flashpoint and BGUSA) Does it happen in some map types more than others maybe?

    • KFGauss wrote:

      bajalobo wrote:

      . . .
      One thing that I haven't yet gotten used to is the constant attacks in the News section of the game. I've lost count of how many times I've been viciously attacked and accused of ruining the game by being a 'golder'. I've never spent a dollar on gold, but the false accusations are constant.
      This sounds so odd to me. I've never had that happen, even though I've done well in my games.
      Admittedly my total games count is very low, but still I would think that I would have seen some hint of it by now.

      Except for the game-generated messages, so far the CoN News in my games has been very nearly 100% dead.

      (Setting aside the beginner maps like Flashpoint and BGUSA) Does it happen in some map types more than others maybe?
      This is from a recent game... prior to these News comments, we had had no communication. This was all out of the blue... but like I said, I have no problem with golders, I just don't like being accused of being one.

      Screenshot (5).pngScreenshot (6).pngforum.conflictnations.com/inde…8aa83c4d5216a0cc728a1a059
      Files

    • KFGauss wrote:

      bajalobo wrote:

      . . .
      One thing that I haven't yet gotten used to is the constant attacks in the News section of the game. I've lost count of how many times I've been viciously attacked and accused of ruining the game by being a 'golder'. I've never spent a dollar on gold, but the false accusations are constant.
      This sounds so odd to me. I've never had that happen, even though I've done well in my games.
      Admittedly my total games count is very low, but still I would think that I would have seen some hint of it by now.

      Except for the game-generated messages, so far the CoN News in my games has been very nearly 100% dead.

      (Setting aside the beginner maps like Flashpoint and BGUSA) Does it happen in some map types more than others maybe?
      here's another screen shot with a News comment from a different player. I'm not named, but this was posted immediately after I destroyed him.
      Files

    • Halv0r wrote:

      bajalobo wrote:

      This is from a recent game... prior to these News comments, we had had no communication. This was all out of the blue... but like I said, I have no problem with golders, I just don't like being accused of being one.
      Thats pretty tame in comparison to some of the stuff I got thrown at me in the paper xd
      lol. I get it just about every game. unprovoked.

      I posted those comments because that game was still in my archive and I could screenshot it.

      Be nice if there was some way we could prove our innocence against the accusation of being a 'golder'.

    • bajalobo wrote:

      This is from a recent game... prior to these News comments, we had had no communication. This was all out of the blue... but like I said, I have no problem with golders, I just don't like being accused of being one.
      OK - I did get a short in-game-message reply once similar to those.

      My reply to that message was along the lies of an LOL and a dismissal of loser-whining.

      On a side note - I want to get back to my project of simulating how a country economy can grow in a typical game, and furthermore translating those economic predictions into research and mobilization possibilities.

      To the extent that anyone pays attention the results might 1) Wake up clueless players who think they're good, but really aren't, 2) Supply accused players with proof that their results are possible before/without pouring Gold onto the game to accelerate stuff, and 3) Make diplomacy, strategic maneuvering/timing, and unit selection more important because paths to reaching loosely-defined economic-performance ceilings are better known.

      If I'm able to complete it, a simple link to a future forum post can become my/our reply to whiners.

    • Yak wrote:

      I've had a design for commendation system drawn up now for 5 years - including indicator/icon for spoken language, rewards, role-specific commendations, rep deterioration due to inactivity
      Good ideas, especially the last one.

      Players inactivity is a major problem I think, and it would really help to, let's say, determine if your potential ally is going to actually play or leave you alone in the game in the middle of war...

      Please introduce this!

    • I've only played 7 times and I 'bought" a win 6 times. I agree that it is a bit unfair to be able to buy the game. I also think it is necessary for the revenue stream. Perhaps there is a compromise wherein either 1) there is a limit on gold usage for a given day OR 2) some features/functions must be in play for a set amount of time before they are brought to 100% completion.

      For example, disable immediate or expedited Annexation. Annexation must always take place across a full day.

      Perhaps restrict certain types of units until x number of days into the game. Maybe officers are not allowwed until after day 5.

      Restrict the number of expedites in a given period. (This is already partially addressed with the timeline concept).