Dear Players,
I understand some of you are extremely upset but that's absolutely not what we intended.
Let me clarify some points: We had a bad bug in the Unit gifting - so we had to close it down until fixed. At the same time we have good reason to believe that the resource trading (specifically starting rares and starting money) was being abused.
What good does it do to the honest player if some cheater ruins the game for all? Everybody leaves the game - and then? Players complain about empty maps and the cheater wins the match. Not an option.
So what to do? We decided to close the exploit down and will reiterate it according to the unit trading - which already has a cap etc. It's totally not as easy as simply editing a number value and copy/pasting these things. They take time and we are a small team with limited resources - so we had to pull the plug until we find a good solution. Have we seriously ever let you down so far? In no way do we intend to ruin your RP experience or tactical options (please look at all the contrary features we have actually introduced in the game or are working on atm: Expanded Coalitions and Outposts among others.)
About the more balancing related issues with HP and pricing of units/research: it is a fact that lots of the mid/end game fights take a long time (unless a nuke comes into play). Remember we quite elementally increase the HP and Damages and Special Features a unit obtains with leveling up (unlike COW where the HP remain the same practically). Thus we decided to lower these mid and late HP numbers accordingly for most but not all units, usually in the max 20-25% range. Now that's noticeable but not a game changer across the board. Anything seriously below 20% and in game you wouldn't actually notice it unless on a statistics overview. Please note all the unit damages etc remained - so offensive units such as the marines retain their punch. Should we find that we overdid it for a unit specifically (I am thinking about the Motinf and Mechinf in particular) we will add some points again with an update. It's called balancing online games and includes analyzing cashflow in game: Slowly increasing pricing is necessary and really not drastic considering it predominately concerns money (ingame currency) of which we can see from our statistics, samples and experience that most players in later stages have a lot of. It will lead to players sometimes considering possibly picking a new unit research instead of pushing a branch to the very top - yes. That's intended and not terrible at all. We hope to potentially increase the variety of units encountered that way. Let's see if it works before killing it with words. Diversity on the battlefield is something to embrace, or?
HOT TOPIC - concerning resource and map balancing let me please provide you with some hard facts about the maps as I believe there is a lot of confusion which should be avoided:
Above you will see the resource locations provided on our first version of the 26 player map (many of you are still playing it), as well as the overhauled new 26 and new 45 player maps.
Maps do not update automatically - so all running games are not affected (they would actually break if we did that). To see these changes you need to start a new map after said update.
With the Exemption of Supplies we have increased all resources across the board on the new 45er map. While balancing units we shifted some Supply demand (eg. Airmobile) to Components thus freeing up space for some other resources. At least in theory. Overall we actually increased the total amount of resources on the map by 25%. Remember: The map size remained the same. Let me give you an example:
Player F plays France - formerly, on the old 26 player map he had in his direct vicinity the minor AI nations of Belgium, Switzerland and Spain (hope I didn't forget any). These together had 5 resources. On the new 45er map the same player F for France will find the same nations as neighbor, albeit without their minor nation resources, now instead hosting 8 resources in Spain. An increase of 3 on the exactly same territory picked as an example. Additionally Belgium and Switzerland remain with their cities for VP, money and Manpower (and construction slots). Please compare yourself and tell me how this comprises a reduction of map resources...
After further analyzing the late game on the 26 map we again in line with the stats noticed and oversupply of resources for the remaining players. Now this varies of course by player, nation, luck, behavior etc. But there is a clear abundance which we can see in our statistics of older games. Thus we decided to shift and/or delete some of the resources on the 26 map to balance according to our analysis.
Our intention with the balancing is clear: we want to stimulate player vs player combat (that's what the game is about) and not week-long turtle gaming and AI camping. Additionally we cannot allow a cornucopia of resources for the remaining players, as there will always be a winner and loser in a regional fight - with the winner taking it all and the loser leaving. It has to remain balanced. The only way of achieving this without A) creating crazy split/unrealistic nations ala COW, or replacing the AI countries with player nations (which we will be doing in our next 100+ map currently in development) was to reduce the importance of the existing AI nations.
Lastly, should we find that our statistics are lying (or rather, we are not reading them correctly) then we will adjust the stats again. And again. I know you are not used to this from COW, but this is how MMO's usually work. Look at LoL or any other online game and you will find that the best Hero Char doesn't always remain the Hero Char. He gets nerfed and then buffed and finally finds his place. But this takes time. We are in beta. Not without reason as you can see.
And now, should you still be reading this shows you are exactly the person i am looking for: a last really important request - because no statistic can actually report player fun and frustration: I would really love to receive reports from the experienced (and critical) guys concerning your personal experience with frustrating moments in the game. And I don't mean bugs but rather situations early/mid/late where you had the feeling you were stuck or artificially throttled, starved of resources etc. Even how you play with your gold and what motivates you to spend. I know this is a sensitive issue but many players play with "some" gold and that keeps us in the job. Please send them to me per IM - cause the more info the better. By comparing your experience with your profile and the game should allow us to get a better idea of the elasticity with which we can operate.
Thanks for the assist and please don't give up on this great game.
//G
I understand some of you are extremely upset but that's absolutely not what we intended.
Let me clarify some points: We had a bad bug in the Unit gifting - so we had to close it down until fixed. At the same time we have good reason to believe that the resource trading (specifically starting rares and starting money) was being abused.
What good does it do to the honest player if some cheater ruins the game for all? Everybody leaves the game - and then? Players complain about empty maps and the cheater wins the match. Not an option.
So what to do? We decided to close the exploit down and will reiterate it according to the unit trading - which already has a cap etc. It's totally not as easy as simply editing a number value and copy/pasting these things. They take time and we are a small team with limited resources - so we had to pull the plug until we find a good solution. Have we seriously ever let you down so far? In no way do we intend to ruin your RP experience or tactical options (please look at all the contrary features we have actually introduced in the game or are working on atm: Expanded Coalitions and Outposts among others.)
About the more balancing related issues with HP and pricing of units/research: it is a fact that lots of the mid/end game fights take a long time (unless a nuke comes into play). Remember we quite elementally increase the HP and Damages and Special Features a unit obtains with leveling up (unlike COW where the HP remain the same practically). Thus we decided to lower these mid and late HP numbers accordingly for most but not all units, usually in the max 20-25% range. Now that's noticeable but not a game changer across the board. Anything seriously below 20% and in game you wouldn't actually notice it unless on a statistics overview. Please note all the unit damages etc remained - so offensive units such as the marines retain their punch. Should we find that we overdid it for a unit specifically (I am thinking about the Motinf and Mechinf in particular) we will add some points again with an update. It's called balancing online games and includes analyzing cashflow in game: Slowly increasing pricing is necessary and really not drastic considering it predominately concerns money (ingame currency) of which we can see from our statistics, samples and experience that most players in later stages have a lot of. It will lead to players sometimes considering possibly picking a new unit research instead of pushing a branch to the very top - yes. That's intended and not terrible at all. We hope to potentially increase the variety of units encountered that way. Let's see if it works before killing it with words. Diversity on the battlefield is something to embrace, or?
HOT TOPIC - concerning resource and map balancing let me please provide you with some hard facts about the maps as I believe there is a lot of confusion which should be avoided:
Above you will see the resource locations provided on our first version of the 26 player map (many of you are still playing it), as well as the overhauled new 26 and new 45 player maps.
Maps do not update automatically - so all running games are not affected (they would actually break if we did that). To see these changes you need to start a new map after said update.
With the Exemption of Supplies we have increased all resources across the board on the new 45er map. While balancing units we shifted some Supply demand (eg. Airmobile) to Components thus freeing up space for some other resources. At least in theory. Overall we actually increased the total amount of resources on the map by 25%. Remember: The map size remained the same. Let me give you an example:
Player F plays France - formerly, on the old 26 player map he had in his direct vicinity the minor AI nations of Belgium, Switzerland and Spain (hope I didn't forget any). These together had 5 resources. On the new 45er map the same player F for France will find the same nations as neighbor, albeit without their minor nation resources, now instead hosting 8 resources in Spain. An increase of 3 on the exactly same territory picked as an example. Additionally Belgium and Switzerland remain with their cities for VP, money and Manpower (and construction slots). Please compare yourself and tell me how this comprises a reduction of map resources...
After further analyzing the late game on the 26 map we again in line with the stats noticed and oversupply of resources for the remaining players. Now this varies of course by player, nation, luck, behavior etc. But there is a clear abundance which we can see in our statistics of older games. Thus we decided to shift and/or delete some of the resources on the 26 map to balance according to our analysis.
Our intention with the balancing is clear: we want to stimulate player vs player combat (that's what the game is about) and not week-long turtle gaming and AI camping. Additionally we cannot allow a cornucopia of resources for the remaining players, as there will always be a winner and loser in a regional fight - with the winner taking it all and the loser leaving. It has to remain balanced. The only way of achieving this without A) creating crazy split/unrealistic nations ala COW, or replacing the AI countries with player nations (which we will be doing in our next 100+ map currently in development) was to reduce the importance of the existing AI nations.
Lastly, should we find that our statistics are lying (or rather, we are not reading them correctly) then we will adjust the stats again. And again. I know you are not used to this from COW, but this is how MMO's usually work. Look at LoL or any other online game and you will find that the best Hero Char doesn't always remain the Hero Char. He gets nerfed and then buffed and finally finds his place. But this takes time. We are in beta. Not without reason as you can see.
And now, should you still be reading this shows you are exactly the person i am looking for: a last really important request - because no statistic can actually report player fun and frustration: I would really love to receive reports from the experienced (and critical) guys concerning your personal experience with frustrating moments in the game. And I don't mean bugs but rather situations early/mid/late where you had the feeling you were stuck or artificially throttled, starved of resources etc. Even how you play with your gold and what motivates you to spend. I know this is a sensitive issue but many players play with "some" gold and that keeps us in the job. Please send them to me per IM - cause the more info the better. By comparing your experience with your profile and the game should allow us to get a better idea of the elasticity with which we can operate.
Thanks for the assist and please don't give up on this great game.
//G
"Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf