PDA

View Full Version : Modern War: Douchebag Hall of Fame



MWDoucheCounter
12-26-2011, 01:10 PM
I am starting this thread to list the douchebags playing Modern War. How does one qualify as a douchebag? Well, it's not quite as arbitrary as you may think.

Given the unusually flawed mechanics of the game, including the inexplicable and inexcusable decision of Funzio to permit extremely high level players to attack players that are literally half of their level or even less, I stopped leveling around 40.

I could make a separate post about why this and other mechanics of the game will doom it to failure and a premature demise, but I'll leave that for another date.

I will also note that the posts of others regarding building up, and not leveling at all, is an entirely valid - if not genius - strategy to play the game and not be utterly victimized by the insecure and hyper-competitive people that stupidly pay money for in game items. I could also make a separate post about the discrete issue of people exchanging cash for in game items and how it is utterly moronic and irrational to do so - in particular in this game - but again will address it at another time.

Since I stopped leveling around 40, I have noticed that I never get attacked by anyone close to my level. In fact, I am never attacked by anyone unless they are at least 1.25x to 2.00x or even greater than my level.

However and for whatever reason Funzio allows this to happen, this phenomenon also interestingly occurs in temporal stretches - i.e., I will go for hours without an attack, and then all of a sudden multiple high level players will attack me suddenly.

Logically, the only thing I can surmise is that they are sitting around and waiting to find low level players to victimize and constantly refreshing their rivals list in order to accomplish the terribly important objective of fighting those that they are assured to beat. To me, this is a prime douchebag characteristic.

Remarkably, in every instance, these people are also gold players. Equally remarkable, in most instances they have spent multiple hundreds - or sometimes thousands - of dollars in pursuit of dominating a free game played anonymously over a phone that as a "skill" only involves pushing a button over and over again.

Also, I keep seeing many of the same players exhibiting the foregoing traits launching their attacks over and over again. Whatever the population of the game may be (and I suspect it is or will be shrinking), I'm seeing the same players over and over again. In other words, it's not a one time action, but clearly a behavioral trait.

So I propose that the necessary criteria to designate a player as a douchebag will be:

1. Attacking much lower level players that have no possible chance of being competitive or defending (here, by being at least 1.25x the level of the defending player or greater);

2. Having spent real money to buy in game items, typically in excess of several hundred dollars (or the equivalent international currency), to overwhelm such lower level opponents; and

3. Repeatedly engaging in such behavior.

Please post if you disagree or have any other qualities that deserve to have a player tagged as a douchebag.

I will start working on a douchebag list based on the foregoing, with multiple levels of douchebags as follows:

A. Epic Mega Douchebag: the players that have spent multiple hundreds or thousands on in game items AND regularly attack players far lower level or even half their level. These players are the epitome of a douchebag. This title will be rarely, but deservedly, bestowed; truly, there are no greater douches.

B. Mega Douchebag: these players have spent a lot, but not as much, in total amount for in game items as the Epic Mega Douchebags, but regularly or almost exclusively attack only lower level players.

C. Committed Douchebag: have spent some, but overall less, in total amount for in game items than the preceding two types of douchebags. However, they seek to largely and opportunistically attack players at 3/4 or less than their levels.

D. Douchebag: may or may not have spent some actual funds for in game items, but repeatedly attacks lower level players that are not competitive in an effort to boost stats and apparently shore up confidence and assuage real life insecurities.

And with that, I'm going to start preparing a list of douchebags. Feel free to submit your own.

Speed ump
12-26-2011, 02:13 PM
Let me be the first to add my name. I am a top level gold player I.e. thousands of dollars, who regularly attacks whoever is in my rival list without any thought or guilt. The handle is Stephen, and I probably should be in the category above the top one you have listed. At least then I will have achieved at being the best of the worst, lol. I got tired of getting stomped, so I decided to do the stomping instead.

MWDoucheCounter
12-26-2011, 05:09 PM
Thank you Stephen. I agree, you certainly qualify as an Epic Mega Douchebag. In fact, you attacked me at around level 89 when I am around level 40 within the last 24 hours, having apparently spent many thousands of dollars and obtaining an attack score nearly 10 times my defense score.

I really appreciate both your admission as well as your candor. You have shown extreme douchurity by manning up to your behavior. Given your honesty, I would also give you a special informal subtitle under the Epic Mega Douchebag title - the Honest But Indifferent Douchebag.

I would also like to ask you a few questions, if you would humor me with a response, because I'm really trying to understand why you would spend so much money on this game. I really find it irrational. Seriously, I would like to comprehend how you ended up doing this to yourself.

1. You state that you "got tired of getting stomped, so I decided to do the stomping instead." Yet, this is a relatively benign, unsophisticated and, frankly, kind of stupid game that you play on a phone or similar device for free. Wouldn't it be more rational to stop playing if you were "tired of getting stomped"?

2. Building on the first question, how can you take "getting stomped" in a stupid free phone game so personally that it drives you to spend thousands of dollars in it? Couldn't you just brush it off? Why take it so personal?

3. Let's assume you are a console gamer. Would you spend thousands of dollars on additional downloadable content to play a real game? I mean, let's assume you paid $60 for a AAA console title that gave you around 20 hours of regular content and had optional online play. Would you spend thousands of dollars to "do the stomping" on a console?

4. Have you read the terms of service provided by Funzio? They state that they can delete the items that you paid for and shut down the game at any time, and there is nothing you can do about it. Doesn't it somewhat bother you that you can spend thousands of dollars to play an anonymous free phone game and the developer can flip the off switch tomorrow? Why would you spend the money in such an instance? Would you give me thousands of dollars in connection with a service if I told you that I could decide not to provide to you at any time?

5. Do you at all consider your behavior and spending in connection with this game to be irrational, if not insane? Do you view this as at all foolish, or at least inadvisable and silly?

6. Why in the world would you do this????? No one cares, let alone knows about, this game outside of the small community that plays it - and even most of them are temporary or, at best, part time players!!!!!

Thanks in advance for your response.

And here is my preliminary list of Modern War Hall of Fame Douchebags, which I will supplement from time to time - feel free to add your own:

1. Epic Mega Douchebags:

JVJK

stephen (also granted the honor title, Honest But Indifferent Douchebag)

2. Mega Douchebags:

Humpty

l3g3ndk1ll3r (as an aside, mixing numbers with letters in this fashion to form a title is an additional sign of douchebaggery)

criz

OOSplat

daskalos

JJ

db

stellas groove thing

joko

Heckno

Jeff160

3. Committed Douchebags:

Marcel Julian

dan

kairos

Captain GMan

4. Douchebags:

(to be added)

ankyrin
12-26-2011, 05:19 PM
Can I propose a 5th category: "E. Douchebag in the Making"? That would probably be me.

I'm currently camping out at level 20. Although I have not spent any real money on this game (I hope that doesn't disqualify me), I only attack players much weaker than me. My rivals list only lets me attack players of my numerical level, but within my level there is a wide range of strong/weak players. If I had the option of attacking down, I probably would.

In all seriousness, I hear (on these forums) higher level players complaining that their rivals list is much more varied. At what point doesn't this happen? level 30? level 40?

I'm not sure if this was done intentionally or if it's simply a numbers game: There are a lot more players at level 20 than there are at level 60. So if you create a rivals list of the 1000 players above and below you, you'd get a much more uniform list at level 20 than at level 60. What do you guys think?

MWDoucheCounter
12-26-2011, 06:11 PM
Well, if you're not spending real funds, and you're only attacking players within an appropriate range (say within 5 or so of your level), you're not really a douchebag if you pick the opponents you can beat. You only become a real douchebag if you attack people 3/4 of your level or less that have no chance to defend when the rivals list apparently starts to go whacko (e.g., using stephen as an example, he was level 89 when he attacked me at level 40, which is a sign of epic doucheness).

I don't know what Funzio is thinking with opening up the rivals list like this - Crime City works because largely everyone can be competitive and your rivals are limited to people of similarly situated levels, so even if they aren't spending real funds or playing that much, at least they have the chance to compete against people with similar potential capabilities.

In this case, when you permit people to attack others half (or less) of their level, it's a complete cluster**** because there is absolutely no parity or ability to compete. The problem with allowing such an uneven level of competition is that it will ultimately drive all other people out of the game except for a few foolish, hardcore players. But this result is very bad for Funzio.

First, players joining the game have no incentive to play and possibly buy new items, if they were inclined to do so, because they will just get repeatedly demolished by people that started before they did and were able to level up.

Second, and this is admittedly anecdotal and speculative, but I really think the people that spend real funds on a game like this and repeatedly beat up on lower level players need a source of cannon fodder to play the game in the first instance. In other words, they would not sustainably play a genuinely competitive game for some particular reason. Truthfully, this issue is something that someone like stephen is more appropriate to address than me.

Third, the uneven playing field will simply continue to drive other players out of the game, or they will adopt alternative strategies that allows them to survive and grow. In Modern War, this has evolved into a strategy in which low level players simply do not attack or level, and instead focus on increasing their income generating capacity and defenses in a very slow growth model. These players remain at such a low level that they are not subject to the raping of the douchebags.

Such a result is good for those players - and a strategy I endorse - but it's not good for Funzio, because these players are also smarter (or at least more in control of their impulses) and certainly understand that they don't need to spend a single penny on the game in order to build this way.

Thus, in this system, there will likely be a really deadly one-two punch for Funzio and the players:

The players that joined the game early and spent substantial real life funds to level up and "do the stomping" will find fewer and fewer players on which they can reliably beat up. Inevitably, they may end up just facing other players that likewise wasted a lot of money on the game, because by the time many people reach around level 30 or 40, they start facing douchebags and lose interest in the game given the ridiculously uneven competition that is permitted by Funzio. Even if that is not the case, they won't need to spend any more money to beat up on any new players joining the new game because they will have advanced to a sufficient apex of power.

On the other end of the spectrum, players just joining the game will likely learn quickly that they should not level up, and should rather concentrate on building resources. They will likely also learn quickly that they don't need to spend any funds to play the game such a low level, either to attack other low level players or to defend against higher level players that are too far out of, and they don't need to spend any funds to defend themselves against ultra high level players because they are not yet vulnerable to the veritable meat grinder that Funzio has created for the now mid-level players.

My prediction: without substantial changes to the mechanics of the game, the people willing to waste their money on the game have largely spent those funds and will not be spending much more, the user base has or will start to decline, and anyone that later joins the game will employ the build up/no leveling strategy and not spend any money on the game.

The net result is that Funzio has created a game/system in which it was able to successfully gain a decent sized user base and fleece a lot of players early in the lifecycle of the game, but in the long term (again, unless there are substantial modifications) I sincerely expect to see the user base and amounts spent on the game crater. In other words, short term gain, but long term pain.

So why did Funzio do this? Again, just speculation, but it is overwhelmingly likely that are they unprofitable and living off venture capital funds, and in social media type start ups it is very important to show some form of growth to attract additional investment, especially with the underperformance of the social media companies that have recently gone public (e.g., Zynga). They created a system that fosters short term growth on steroids, but over the long term will be doomed to fail. I think that Crime City is a stark contrast to Modern War in this respect.

youj
12-26-2011, 07:00 PM
Actually what is happening in Modern War at lvl 40 is the exact phenomena that's happening at lvl 90 in Crime City.

The simple reason is that there's simpliy not enough players in high lvl to make a complete rival list for the top players. In order for everyone at high lvls to have some people to attack, some players has to be pulled up from the lower levels.

The lvl cut off for modern war high lvl list is lower because Modern War is a relative young game compare to Crime City.

MWDoucheCounter
12-26-2011, 07:45 PM
I don't know whether that's the case, but if it is, it seems that (i) there is a huge reason not to level up and (ii) this will further deplete the user base. Not good.

Agent Orange
12-27-2011, 03:40 AM
I don't know whether that's the case, but if it is, it seems that (i) there is a huge reason not to level up and (ii) this will further deplete the user base. Not good.

This might be partially my fault.... several weeks ago many of us were complaining that our rivals list never changed. In an old post I also questioned exactly how many players were playing based on the fact that I only ever saw the same one's over and over. Some people even higher than I was were saying that they would only have 1-2 people show up in their rivals list. In my case I would have maybe 6-8 and always the same people.

A couple of days later my rivals list started to change a lot. Unfortunately though it suddenly contained a lot of lower level players and has since.

I also suspect a lot of the problem is that some add a lot of people to their ally list. I capped mine at 666 for some weird reason but that also means I've reduced the number of people I can see on my rivals list since many are now allies. So this further reduces the number of people I can see and attack/raid.

My guess is that the Mega douches have a similar problem as I recognize some of the names on your list from my sitreps from being attacked.

The real problem with the game is that once you reach a certain point there is pretty much nothing to do other than watch and wait for your base to expand and grow. Plus if you were trying to gain as much valor as possible the higher up you go the less goals you have for getting valor pts. Plus one of the goals is to attack X number of rivals without loosing so I can see some of us attacking as many weak players as possible in order to fulfill this goal since a loss means starting all over.

But one interesting thing I am also seeing is a lot less raids on bases probably because you loose too many high value units vs what you might gain in the raid.

The last thing that comes to mind is that I have for a while suspected that some of these high level gold players may in fact either be the developers or friends of the developers as some of these people have rather odd attack strategies. What I mean by that is that they don't attack you the way I might if I was going for a valor goal. They attack once and then stop which struck me as rather odd just enough to get someone with an inferiority complex to bite by getting pissed off and going out and buying gold or cash to try and get even. I call it the rabbit and greyhound approach. Does seem to have worked on some folks though.

Though I also keep hearing about hackers which might be an even higher level of douchebag.

And yes we've been telling everyone not to level up too fast but also not to add too many allies especially the latter because that will put you on the radar screen of the whales or in your case the douchebags.....

Agent Orange
12-27-2011, 03:55 AM
I posted the following to the thread about attacking but some of it is relevant here as well....

No the game was rejigged a while back and the end result is that you now tend to loose more in terms of unit value than you gain from the attack/raid.

It occurs to me that the reason for this might be because the devs opened up the rivals list a lot. Before many of us complained that we could only see the same players over and over again so it was pretty boring. Then a few weeks back we suddenly saw a lot more players but all were from much lower levels.

Then there was a big uproar from these lower level players because the more powerful were going in and attacking/raiding the crap out of them.

Then suddenly I started to notice that my attack/raid losses were really high even though I was a lot more powerful than the players I was attacking/raiding. It occurs to me that perhaps this is not a fluke but perhaps a clever way of trying to reduce the number of times these lower level players are getting blown up. It is bad for business if your players all get fed up and leave.... granted that seems to be the case anyway.

The other thing I notice is with multiple attacks, you might win the first one. Not loose any units but suddenly loose the second, then win the third. Again I'm starting to wonder if this isn't such a fluke but perhaps the game trying to keep the whales from eating all the smaller fish.

The other thing is crashing, this kind of interests me as well. Oddly I crash every time if I go for a second attack and then when I reboot the game the person I'm attacking is suddenly gone from my rivals list. I find that rather odd as well though I have to say I crash a lot no matter what but it seems to be more often when attacking.

MWDoucheCounter
12-27-2011, 08:05 AM
Thanks Agent Orange - very intelligent and insightful analysis, and right on point.

I find this note particularly brilliant, and I couldn't agree more:

"The last thing that comes to mind is that I have for a while suspected that some of these high level gold players may in fact either be the developers or friends of the developers as some of these people have rather odd attack strategies. What I mean by that is that they don't attack you the way I might if I was going for a valor goal. They attack once and then stop which struck me as rather odd just enough to get someone with an inferiority complex to bite by getting pissed off and going out and buying gold or cash to try and get even. I call it the rabbit and greyhound approach. Does seem to have worked on some folks though."

(side note to Funzio - legal implications and unenforceability of many of the provisions of your terms of service aside, tell your in house or outside counsel to draft a real non-boilerplate cut and paste TOS - what you have is a joke and contains myriad flaws)

One additional observation - I can understand that the developers tampering with the game may have had some unintended (and in my view, potentially disastrous) consequences by opening up low level players to doucheageddon, but one thing I have noticed is that the same high level gold buying douchebags attack me repeatedly.

In other words, I can accept the premise that they needed to expand the rivals list so people didn't see the same few opponents every time, but even after doing that, it seems the douchebags want to attack the same lower level players repeatedly. Thus, I'm not sure that the initial complaint was truly for lack of diversity of rivals, but not enough players to easily defeat.

Also, strangely, I never see high level players on my rivals list, so this is truly a one way door. Assume that I was a huge gold buying douchebag (although I am not) and could therefore beat up much higher level players while in a mid-level range. Why not give me that chance if the system permits high level players to attack me? Kind of ridiculous.

Speed ump
12-27-2011, 04:10 PM
I agree, the money I have spent is stupid and crazy. I put it to my competitive nature, and there really are very few things in this world that we can achieve top level status in. That is why I greatly appreciate the wonderful honor of being at the top of ( though I noticed the main reason I spent this amount is actually one spot above me) your list, lol. Oranges comments are all correct. The reason I don't raid much is it seems more personal, and others seem to take it that way also. At my level there are very few challenges to allow you bonus velour and stars. Attacking is easy with little real consequences for me. I lose a few very low level units that I won from attacking. Most of my strength is from gold, and some from valor purchases.i don't like sitting and waiting so I attack, and use gold to speed up building process sometimes.

Wildfire
12-27-2011, 04:20 PM
Actually what is happening in Modern War at lvl 40 is the exact phenomena that's happening at lvl 90 in Crime City


Might even be lower than 40, I've just reached 37 with 88 allies and am now getting hammered by people 20 odd levels higher with tons of allies, none of whom appear in my rivals list. I tried to connect earlier and it said the server was down for maintenance, it was after this that I started getting hit, don't know if it's been another game tweak or just a coincidence.

The other possibility is my defence rating just passed 3000, I wonder could that also be significant.

Just looked at the last guy's inventory, he could have had a nice holiday in the sun and left me alone for what he spent on gold!

Hugh Bris
12-27-2011, 04:49 PM
MWDoucheCounter you are such a tool for starting this thread. Why are you so butthurt about people spending money? You have to make some kind of argument that these people are wrong for spending money that THEY earned on something that THEY decided to buy? Why do all of you sit in judgement on other people's decisions? Don't you see how arrogant and self-rightous you are with these petty opinions? I don't suppose you even consider how gold-spenders fund the very game you're playing to allow for improvements, expansions, and this new version.

What I do with my money is my business. I don't need to boost my image here by reciting acts of philanthropy but if I choose to spend money on gold here it's my business. I don't care about being #1, it's just fun. I don't know how else to explain it, nor do I feel the need to do so.


Mods should lock this for calling out characters by name. If you don't allow people to call out potential cheaters by name, you shouldn't allow this slander. Delete it now before it goes further.

Dover
12-27-2011, 05:13 PM
I think I hear a OMW sit in coming on! The game was created to make money for the company. We all know this. If the so called Whales did not spend there 1,000ís a month Funzio would go and create a new game to make money. If fewer people spend more money that just means the majority of you do not have to spend any money to play. Has no one figured out most free games are not truly free? Those who spend money are playing the way Funzio created the game to be played. If you want to play for free will be at a disadvantage please oh please stop compaining about it. If you are into games at any age and won a million (enter currancy) you to could drop 1,000ís and not blind an eye. Just play the game for what its worth and if the money spenders whether they are rich or not beat you up and that makes you cry please go and buy a PS2 and play that for free (wait, that cost a few 100.00, hmm). Sorry to vent but I just read too much whining about fair and not fair. I will say I spent $22.00 to change my country and to buy a 0010011101 and I donít think it will make me better or worse but I will enjoy what I did and I think Funzio deserves a few bucks because I do enjoy playing this game. Feel free to tip your developer on the way out.

Agent Orange
12-27-2011, 05:15 PM
Might even be lower than 40, I've just reached 37 with 88 allies and am now getting hammered by people 20 odd levels higher with tons of allies, none of whom appear in my rivals list. I tried to connect earlier and it said the server was down for maintenance, it was after this that I started getting hit, don't know if it's been another game tweak or just a coincidence.

The other possibility is my defence rating just passed 3000, I wonder could that also be significant.

Just looked at the last guy's inventory, he could have had a nice holiday in the sun and left me alone for what he spent on gold!

Hmmm and I thought it was just me for posting comments in this thread. I've noticed an increase in whale attacks as well. Oh well not much you can do since it's not going to jump start me into buying units. Guess we'll see even more empty bases as folks leave.

Agent Orange
12-27-2011, 05:16 PM
I think the question I would have to ask is are some of these players actually spending the thousands of dollars they appear to be? If not where did it come from or is it magic....

Tramp Stamp
12-27-2011, 05:22 PM
Dover, the problem is that Modern Warfare is poorly designed and that all available indicators say the game is hemorrhaging audience. As it is nearly impossible to recoup costs on even a budget game within a month, it's unlikely Funzio has made any money, even with some guys paying thousands. Without a large base of free players the game becomes little more than an arms race between cash buyers. In this scenario inflation (gold) will spiral out of control, forcing all players out of the market.

Speed ump
12-27-2011, 05:24 PM
I think this idea should be taken tongue in cheek. Instead of jumping all over me for being the subject of this thread, I think a bit of humor with genuine interest as to why someone would do this was indicated. If I had been jumped on I just would move on to more interesting discussions. I don't mind laughing at myself a bit. My grandparents were Polish, but I don't mind funy Polock jokes either.

Tramp Stamp
12-27-2011, 05:24 PM
I think the question I would have to ask is are some of these players actually spending the thousands of dollars they appear to be? If not where did it come from or is it magic....

Common theories are game data modification and company sponsored sharks.

Wildfire
12-27-2011, 05:45 PM
Without getting into an of the politics of this thread just for fun how strong an army could you theoretically build, well the max number of an alliance currently is 500 with 4 units each that is 2000 units.

The strongest unit currently available is the Limited Edition 900 gold Party Dirigible 275 attack 185 defence
so 2000*275 =550000 and 2000*185=370000

Without using gold you can have the stongest ship at 46/39
so 2000*46=92000 and 2000*39=78000

Add 10% to these for choosing the appropriate country. I know other units can be slightly stronger either defensively or in attack but it's pretty close overall.

So I think in the end it's a no contest, but 2000*900= 1800000 gold bars
now the biggest bulk purchase in the UK is 1500 for £69.99
so 1800000/1500=1200
1200*69.99=£83,988

Hmm, maybe we'll never see that army! Though if we do I bet the 500 alliance limit is increased to encourage a bigger spend.

Wouldn't it be nice though if the developers said for each alliance member you can bring 1 gold or 4 non gold units to battle. This would still allow the people who want to spend money to get ahead just as fast as now by adding more allies if need be and would allow let's face it over £20,000 of gold units to be used. It would mean that someone playing with less or no gold over a long period of time could compete on more even terms which should surely be more enjoyable for everyone. Sadly I doubt if a change like this can be made now as it would be harsh on those who've already parted with their cash.

MWDoucheCounter
12-27-2011, 05:47 PM
I have clearly touched a nerve. So which one are you on the list?

In any event, to respond to your series of logical fallacies, non sequiturs and misconceptions, let me state as follows:

First, I don't think I ever claimed to be or indicated some form of what you cleverly call "butthurt" about these types of people and their conduct, so let's easily dispatch with the ad hominem attacks.

Second, I am certainly entitled to voice my opinion on how people behave and what characteristics they exhibit. In addition, while you are free to spend your money as you please, I am equally entitled to voice my opinion on the wisdom of your decision. To give but one example, do you seriously suggest that you could not comment on the wisdom of someone spending identically ludicrous amounts on, say, bedazzled jean shorts? Of course not. I have done both here. Thus, please release that particular non sequitur.

Third, I, like all others, am entitled to "sit in judgment of other people's decisions," including their behavior, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY AFFECT ME AND AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY OTHER PEOPLE. We are all entitled to point out the behavior of other people. You apparent suggestion otherwise is so absurd as to border on the retarded.

Fourth, I dare to posit that identifying these people serves a positive function by potentially limiting their douchebag behavior by identifying their conduct. That is in the interest of everyone except the douchebags, but I suppose that may be why this post has provoked so much ire from you, which I guess is the very same "butthurt" that you previously mentioned. Odd. Far from being inappropriate, I view it as a great service and having tremendous value to the community as a whole. Indeed, if Funzio did seek to limit posts such as this, it would effectively be telling the majority of the player base that they have no voice in these games. That would be shameful.

Fifth, I think many if us have an earnest interest in trying to understand why people engage in this behavior. We all have assumptions regarding it - such as hypercompetitiveness and, somewhat, an accompanying insecurity, and the ability of the anonymity if the internet to foster and encourage behavior that people would not dare commit in the real world - but many of us truly want to understand just what the hell people are thinking.

In fact, go up and read the post by Speed ump/Stephen. He candidly explains his particular case, which is both enlightening and helpful. I actually really, really respect him for posting. He can attack me any time and we could be friends in and outside outside of the game because he's an honest, straight shooter that concedes what he does and doesn't try to make a single excuse. The same likely cannot be said as to you.

Sixth, I further find that this post has supported all sorts of analyses of the game and its mechanics, as well as player input on the same. I think that has tremendous value as well - for both the players and Funzio.

And Dover, I think you posted the exact same thing in another thread - it might be easier to just use a link.

Finally, lest there be any doubt, I am a massive douchebag. Not in the game - because I won't buy gold and intentionally beat up on defenseless lower level players, but because of this statement: I can guarantee there is not a single player in the game or on this message board that has more or makes more money than me. And that is a fact. But the way you accumulate real world money is, in part, by busting your ass and not getting caught up in meainingless peripheral distractions. Dover alludes to the 99%ers - well, I'm among the other 1% with plenty of disposable income, and I still would never waste a dollar on a free game that you play on a phone and only requires you to press a button much like a chimp does in the hopes of receiving a peanut in a clinical test. So that is why I am a douchebag.

Consequently, rather than taking your narrow and self-interested position that appears intended to avoid only your own personal "butthurt" shame, I think posts like this are exactly what helps a gaming community and game developers.

So I respectfully disagree with your post.

Dover
12-27-2011, 05:49 PM
No link. Me cut and paste. Cat fight!

Wildfire
12-27-2011, 05:52 PM
Guess we'll see even more empty bases as folks leave.

When I leave I won't leave an empty base, it will be a tasteful pattern made out of barrels!;)

BoBoPa
12-27-2011, 05:52 PM
You certainly have missed out a few big ones.
let me add:
Commander Dave
Zhang
Fahad96
Zero
They should stay top at your mega douchebag list...

zynshmily
12-27-2011, 06:06 PM
You can never complete the list...
i bet there are more than 20 ppl with 15k+ attack/defense. By your standard, they are all douchebags...
Anatoly667, dr death,db,zaher,Tbone,sob,Jeff60....and so on
while you are at it,why dont you question those who buy manors when they can simply live in an apartment;those who buy benz when toyota is available; those who spend money on Gucci or LV. if you think about it, there are six billion people in the world and their social circle includes less than six hundred people. Don't you think their ostentatious ways of spending money are also irrational???

MWDoucheCounter
12-27-2011, 06:06 PM
Meow!

Thanks for the additional suggestions. We can update the list from time to time.

MWDoucheCounter
12-27-2011, 06:10 PM
Zynshmily, I realize by your own admission you have spent at least $600 on this game and probably don't like this discussion much, but everything you pointed out is totally irrelevant. Certainl you must realize that. Rather than raising and igniting a field of straw men as you propose, we are talking very specifically about this game. QED.

Wildfire
12-27-2011, 06:22 PM
Thanks for the additional suggestions. We can update the list from time to time.

You know what that's something Funzio could legitimately do as an addition to the game, wouldn't it be an idea if they had a league table of all the players, then everyone would have something to play for again. Less turtling with an objective to get a position on a league table rather than a largely meaningless level in the game. Thinking back many years there was a league in I think Red Alert 2 on the PC where you went up in rank through winning battles with other players and down if you lost. In a very mismatched fight the victor gained next to nothing and the loser lost nothing much, the real points were to be made and lost in more even fights. Also you started with 0 points each month which gives newcomers a chance.

zynshmily
12-27-2011, 06:25 PM
Hope you can realize its not easy to analyze other people with different social classes, financial background and area of interests...
if you can spend more time improving yourself instead of sarcastically studying others, you may one day fit in the category of "epic douchebag"...
quite frankly, the intelligent dont mind being called douche by the stupid...
You are free to call those big spenders irrational and childish, but at least they have money to waste while yourself being cheap,meticulous, sarcastic and POOR!!!
Have you ever stopped to think for a second why that is?
why can't you achieve your goal since you are so smart and see through so many things...

zynshmily
12-27-2011, 06:50 PM
If i hurt your feelings in any sort of way, i apologize.
I don't mean to be harsh and have no intention to harm your self-esteem.
If its not too late, scratch what i wrote on #29....

Hugh Bris
12-27-2011, 06:55 PM
Holy Christ MWDC - one day you will finally see that the world doesn't revolve around you. I call myself Hugh Bris but you...man, you are the one with hubris. You are entitled to your opinion but you give it like a child dictating roles for others to suit your own needs. If this affects you so much, pay up. If not, shut up. I will not respond to all of your childish banter in your ranting diatribe but I pay for you to enjoy the game for free. I am the 1%.

Dover
12-27-2011, 06:58 PM
It's too late for that now, he has already down loaded angry birds and is on their message board shouting about that game.

MWDoucheCounter
12-27-2011, 07:10 PM
Cool story bro

+1

Wakka wakka wakka

Viduus
12-27-2011, 11:15 PM
"I am the 1%" - good way of putting it.

Agent Orange
12-28-2011, 03:26 AM
When I leave I won't leave an empty base, it will be a tasteful pattern made out of barrels!;)

Ah you read my comment to the person trying to get out from under all the attacks. Would be my exit strategy as well.

Agent Orange
12-28-2011, 03:28 AM
Holy Christ MWDC - one day you will finally see that the world doesn't revolve around you. I call myself Hugh Bris but you...man, you are the one with hubris. You are entitled to your opinion but you give it like a child dictating roles for others to suit your own needs. If this affects you so much, pay up. If not, shut up. I will not respond to all of your childish banter in your ranting diatribe but I pay for you to enjoy the game for free. I am the 1%.

Um but that is the whole point, paying up is not the solution.........

MWDoucheCounter
12-28-2011, 07:32 AM
I wouldn't try to reason with them, because it will be an exercise in futility.

They are singularly focused on what they perceive to be unfair criticism of players such as themselves that buy gold, whereas the entire point is the behavior of certain players that overwhelmingly also just happen to spend real funds on the game just like them in order to pick on, and take advantage of, the defenseless.

They are overly sensitive to any implicit criticism of their choice to spend money on this game, and whether merited or not, it's not like we can reasonably expect to see a rational response and will only find more indignation.

But again, this isn't just about the choice of any individual to buy in game items, but how they act. Further, it's about how it impacts the game and players overall and, thus, Funzio. I don't think it could have been stated any more clearly in the first post and every later post in this thread. It is as clear as the mid-day sun on a cloudless day.

These points are not lost on most people, but these guys aren't even bothering to read the posts, and instead will lash out at anyone that dares state that spending inordinate amounts of real money in a game like this to beat up defenseless players might not only be irrational, but reflective of certain personality traits of those people. I digress.

Dover
12-28-2011, 07:41 AM
But again, this isn't just about the choice of any individual to buy in game items, but how they act. Further, it's about how it impacts the game and players overall and, thus, Funzio.

I will not bother writing anything until I clarify something to make sure I understand what this thread is about: You are upset because some players (strong players) are attacking other players (weaker players)? Also, who is them, they and these guys in your above post?

MWDoucheCounter
12-28-2011, 08:31 AM
"I will not bother writing anything until I clarify something to make sure I understand what this thread is about: You are upset because some players (strong players) are attacking other players (weaker players)? Also, who is "them" in your above post?"

Ugh, this is getting a little tiresome, in particular the flurry of misleading adjectives and misstatements about the issues.

To be clear:

I am upset about nothing. Period. I am pointing out the flawed game mechanics and behavior of certain individuals that act in douchebag ways, the characteristics of which have been described so many times in this thread (not only by me) that I don't think it bears repeating. To put it even more into focus, the players such as myself and others that do not feel compelled to buy gold in this game to "beat up" other players actually demonstrate far less indication that they get in any way "upset" about anything in the game than the people that rush out and drop hundreds or even thousands of dollars in an effort to fight back. Instead of falling into that trap, we just brush it off or stop playing. Which I bet will be happening more often if the game isn't modified.

In my anecdotal experience, there happens to be an extremely high correlation between people spending a lot of money on this game and selectively attacking lower level players (e.g., as stated previously, often 3/4, 1/2 or less of their level). In fact, they are the only ones that ever attack my level 40 player. Even Stephen dropped by for a visit last night at level 91.

Can you do this? You bet? Is it a good decision by Funzio to allow it if it drives away lots of players and impacts the game negatively? Probably not. Does it make the player a douchebag? Probably, yes.

I mean, take this real world example. Former Nebraska star and NFL running back Lawrence Philips, after he got booted from the NFL for acting like a douchebag in many respects, was for some reason playing a pick up football game against teenagers in a park, perhaps solely for the love of the game, but likely because he is a douchebag and wanted to beat up on them. He got so incensed at how the game went that he tried to run the kids down in a car. That is douchebag behavior.

I think players spending a lot of money to beat up on defenseless players 1/2 their level are pretty much doing the same thing. Douchebag is as douchebag does.

So to state it yet again, the issue is not either just spending money or attacking lower level players, or as your implied false dilemma suggests the decision of "stronger" players to attack "weaker" players, but the players that seem to spend quite a bit of money to gain an advantage and then seemingly exclusively attack significantly lower level players that have no chance to defend, regardless whether they even spent the same amount of money.

Indeed, the guy whose name starts with a Z that has been posting on this thread and has spent at least $600 on this game has specifically endorsed this tactic as the way he plays the game.

If you want to play that way, more power to you, but it doesn't make you any less of a douchebag than Lawrence Philips or an adult that goes around beating up on a defenseless kid.

Dover, I understand that you have also spent real money on this game. It may help you enjoy it more, I get that. But if you then turn around and only attack players half your level, then it kind of makes you a douchebag. Not good, not bad, just a douchebag.

Can we share an e-hug?

At this juncture, maybe someone should argue why it dosn't make them a douchebag. I think that actually may be more constructive, but given the apparent sensitivity of people on this issue, I doubt that will get much traction either, which is unfortunate.

Also, I'll need some context (such as a specific sentence or paragraph) to figure out the "them" to which you are referring.

Dover
12-28-2011, 08:39 AM
1) Why is the player a DB if the game allows him to play this way?

2) Shouldn't your name calling be aimed at Funzio for allowing players to play this way?

Hugh Bris
12-28-2011, 08:40 AM
Oh I read your posts. You use so many words to say so little. What right to you have to critisize anyone? My point is and always has been that you feel that you are somehow better than the people who buy gold or beat up on you at the higher levels. Do you think of this as cheating?

I am not sensitive to criticism in the least but rather how you choose to deliver it from post #1. YOU STARTED A POST CALLING PEOPLE DOUCHEBAGS. Am I the only person that thinks this is wrong? He or she starts out calling people names and then has a problem with the backlash that this creates.

I also understand that this is not just about the gold players but also the higher level players beating the snot out of lesser level players. You have a beef with Funzio, not these people you are calling names. You contradict yourself by acting so self-rightous about being above the fray when you resort to the childish behavior in post #1.

To quote:
"These points are not lost on most people, but these guys aren't even bothering to read the posts, and instead will lash out at anyone that dares state that spending inordinate amounts of real money in a game like this to beat up defenseless players might not only be irrational, but reflective of certain personality traits of those people. I digress."

Lash out at people? Seriously? Once again YOU STARTED A THREAD FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF CALLING PEOPLE DOUCHEBAGS!!!

Agent Orange - sorry for the rash post. I only meant that the people that have been purchasing gold fund the company creating the games and thus allow more growth and logevity. What I left out in that comment was the point of non-gold and gold players both picking on the lower levels and I understand that. This may be due to many factors such as only a few high level players or something to do with the population of your army members. OP has no right; however, to start a thread calling players out by their handle and insulting them.

I only meant the 1% percent thing to get a rise out of OP. The points made about the game being uneven are true. I bought gold and I get pummelled on a regular basis. It's the hypocricy of the first post vs. the rest of the statements made by OP.

MWDoucheCounter
12-28-2011, 08:57 AM
I don't think that is really responsive to my point, but you have finally raised the relevant issue.

You fail to distinguish between someone doing something that they can do, which is voluntary but may make them a douchebag, and refraining from doing something that makes them a douchebag.

For example, nothing prohibits you from pushing aside and cutting in front of a line of little old ladies at the grocery store and calling them names. You can do it, it's not illegal. But it makes you a douchebag. And you might also get pushed back or have your ass beat in the parking lot over it. That is the check on behavior that the real world provides, which is absent in an anonymous game and over the Internet generally. Hence, the proliferation of keyboard warriors and Internet Rambos.

Also, I concede that the title of douchebag may be labeled "name calling," but it is really intended to be descriptive of the behavior of certain players. I think the name used is ultimately irrelevant. If we instead employed the euphemism "cupcake" or something less offensive, would you object?

Finally, the "name calling" in fact is not appropriately directed at Funzio. They may be validly criticized for the game play mechanics, but I actually think they have quite brilliantly exploited and manipulated the psychology of certain individuals to induce them to spend a lot of money on this game. It's genius, really. Others have pointed this out as well. Now I question whether it will work over the long term, but that's a different issue altogether. I also hope that they are reading this thread, because it has a gold mine of insight into the psychology and traits of the people that may be inclined to spend real money on their product, and how they can be induced into doing so.

Stated differently, Funzio just created the sand box. The players decide whether to act like cupcakes and piss in it.

MWDoucheCounter
12-28-2011, 09:02 AM
Sorry Hugh Bris, I didn't intend to offend or upset you. Ok, other than using the title douchebag, how about we replace that with "whales."

I earlier suggested something else, but that seems like a more commonly used phrase. I think if you go back and use that term instead, you will clearly find nothing of the sort of which you have accused me.

Again, sorry for the use of an offensive term. It's just one that is commonly used among my friends in a joking manner, and is hardly a serious insult.

Dover
12-28-2011, 09:07 AM
I don't see how any player gold spending or not gold spending beating up on anyone in his list makes him a bad person, in this game. This is what the game is about. PvP for $ to build up your army. I do not see why you are mad about a player doing what the game was developed to due, allow PvP, there is even a button right up on the main GUI making it easier dare I say faster to PVP the anyone we want, for money or just to build up their wins. It's called Modern War, if the group of individuals playing upset you please take your toys to another sandbox.

And now I want a cupcake, thanks for mentioning that at lunch time. LOL

Shee
12-28-2011, 09:26 AM
Somebody mentioned "douchbag in the making", well I would like to add "Wanna-douche". These are the lower level gold-players...and I once qualified. However I never bought gold, just coins & after breaking my phone & having to start over, I put that habit behind me (well, other than spending gold to get a better avatar...seriously! could the female avatars be any uglier?)

I was very proud of my stats till about level 24 (1 loss in 300 attacks) when suddenly I started being attacked by gold players. Additionally, they wouldnt be happy with just one attack or raid. Which is rather contra to their own creed, isn't it? I mean, if they have inflated their forces to begin with, why do they need to add more $$'s from multiple raids onto $$'s from their attack? Shouldnt they already have plenty of $$$'s?

Now I don't want to appear the hypocrite or prude...I am not apposed to an attack & a raid, because if I gain $0.00 in an attack, I will raid ONCE. My justification is to do otherwise is a waste of stamina. However, already-inflated players raiding everything on a rivals base is a sign of a very small pencil (IMHO).

MWDoucheCounter
12-28-2011, 09:36 AM
Just remember that Modern War gold can't buy you a real cupcake!

Speed ump
12-28-2011, 09:38 AM
Dover is correct. The game is war. War is attack with losers and winners. Those with bigger pockets can win more if they chose to, just like the real world. I am sure some find it frustrating to be attacked, but then maybe they should look for a different kind of game. I know for a while that I could not level up, as I kept getting attacked and all my money taken. If I had spent more time earlier on building a bigger vault and waiting for it to expand, this would not have been a problem, but I just did not have the patience for this. Not right or wrong, just the route I chose. I think the people here are just poking a little fun. Some people get really ugly in the game after they have been attacked, and try to get personal. If they keep up I oblige them with repeated attacks until they are weakened. Then if they continue I will do it again when they regain strength, and maybe even raid them of everything I can. After that if they have not learned, then I just ignore them and attack them normally. A lot after that do learn and ask to become allies, which I am happy to do. After I had loses I just looked for a better way to defend myself. No need to call the bullies in the neighborhood names, I would just get what I asked for then. Time to go do some more bullying now.

MWDoucheCounter
12-28-2011, 10:04 AM
I am really enjoying the constructive metamorphosis of this discussion, and I especially appreciate Stephen's participation. We seem to have reached a new level of understanding: rationalization. I'd love to hear what others have to say. Thanks to all!

You know, I also have to note that it has been really interesting to contrast Stephen's reaction to this post to those of others. If anyone could rightfully feel indignation and a sense of insult, it would be him, although none was intended. But he didn't feel insulted, knew it was humorously intended, and even volunteered to be an Epic Mega Whale. I guess he has a sense of humor, is not insecure and is self-deprecating as well. I also understand his points, which he has communicated quite well without invective.

Hugh Bris
12-28-2011, 11:43 AM
No beef and sorry for calling you a tool. It got heated and hopefully we can learn from it. Thanks for being the bigger man with the apology. None needed but thanks all the same.

MWDoucheCounter
12-28-2011, 12:36 PM
Hey, no worries here. I'll be the first to admit that I've been acting like a tool, although I'd use the term douchebag instead. I know that I've been smarmy and condescending, but I'm just trying to mix things up a bit and have some fun while getting people to address some of the game play issues.

I'm not trying to be malevolent, I just find that some of the best discussions start when people get heated and really involved in conveying their positions. I'll tone down my douchiness because I don't want to be counterproductive. Ha.

Agent Orange
12-28-2011, 02:18 PM
I don't see how any player gold spending or not gold spending beating up on anyone in his list makes him a bad person, in this game. This is what the game is about. PvP for $ to build up your army. I do not see why you are mad about a player doing what the game was developed to due, allow PvP, there is even a button right up on the main GUI making it easier dare I say faster to PVP the anyone we want, for money or just to build up their wins. It's called Modern War, if the group of individuals playing upset you please take your toys to another sandbox.

And now I want a cupcake, thanks for mentioning that at lunch time. LOL

You bring up an interesting point. I think though that some players do take this game a step further and we do get into some nasty situations. I had someone that I monitored because they were a good source for valor points, so once in a while I would stop in and have a look to see how they were doing. Last week I saw their name pop up on my rivals list so went to look. Noticed that they had completely nuked their base so went and had a look at their wall. On it I discovered the reason.

Someone was bullying this person on their wall to the point they broke down and quit. I feel bad because even though as others have said that it is a game this person finally gave up because some bully couldn't leave them alone. They were telling them to buy gold or quit. Guess what happened, the context of the messages was a lot nastier btw. I just don't recall exact wording. But that is just one example of the bully mentality as it applies to this game.

I've seen other empty bases so my guess is that the problem isn't an isolated one.

The thing is as MWDC points out, if you are a bully online there is a good chance you are offline as well.

Back to the screwed up game mechanics. As I mentioned this is probably the result of not having enough people turning up on rivals lists. But the way it is now is worse since this is probably quickly turning new players off of the game.

I should mention that during the first week the game was released up in Canada the game seemed to be better at matching players. As it is now the game is looking at two paraeters level and allies with a heavy weighting on allies. It is not looking at defense and attack ratings which is what it needs to also be doing.

Last night I saw a new name pop into my rivals list, person was over L35 and had over 200 allies but only had an attack score of 500 an defense of 700. Not good considering I'm over 12000 attack and 17000 defense with even more powerful players in my list. And no I didn't attack them.

Someone in another thread made a good point we seem to have two extremes those lower level players turtling and the high level gold buyers with everyone else stuck in the middle treading water frantically.

The comment about it being 'just a game' fails to take into account that most people play games as a form of entertainment and not frustration so the minute the enjoyment factor leaves so will the player and that is what I am seeing a lot of in the game and reading in these forums.

In terms of the devs, I have to think they do actually care and it does seem like they do as I get prompt replies from real people in their support dept who care. Granted given the sometimes caustic nature of the forums it might just be that they are not posting as themselves but using aliases....

As for terminology, sometimes you have to yell 'fire' to get peoples attention....

cheif
12-28-2011, 09:23 PM
.... Rival screen name : RTe
level 32 ...( me 22)
attacks 3-5 times daily
how can i ?.. attack lower level ?.. like 10 or 11 ? HOW ? do they do it ?

chuck norris
12-28-2011, 09:25 PM
vault your cash and grow your army carefully. The game lets him see you. There is no cheating there.

Agent Orange
12-29-2011, 03:56 AM
.... Rival screen name : RTe
level 32 ...( me 22)
attacks 3-5 times daily
how can i ?.. attack lower level ?.. like 10 or 11 ? HOW ? do they do it ?

Compare the number of allies you each have, if similar I would nuke some. But perhaps tell us first...

frenda
12-29-2011, 02:00 PM
When do the miscompares come up? I'm only at level 37 so I haven't seen that yet. At most, someone with maybe a few less levels than me shows up in my rivals list.

Speed ump
12-29-2011, 02:24 PM
Frenda you are getting very close to entering my world. I think though that you have to have a certain level of allies also. I am not sure the formula. If you show up in my list, I will come by and visit, taking a few dollars and points along the way. How many times a day just depends on how often you show up in my list. I do try to even things out, so if I see a name too often, I will try to skip over it.

Agent Orange
12-29-2011, 02:48 PM
When do the miscompares come up? I'm only at level 37 so I haven't seen that yet. At most, someone with maybe a few less levels than me shows up in my rivals list.

I would say in terms of level you have arrived. If you are under 180-190 allies you might be ok a bit longer.

Agent Orange
12-29-2011, 02:50 PM
Posted the following to another thread... Has anyone out there got 0 allies?


The more I scan my rivals lists the more it looks like the kicker is number of allies. So far the lowest level I have on the list is L38 with 190 allies but has only 1366 attack and 1420 defense. The next lowest are a clump at L40-41 with 200-205 allies. The highest level I have ever seen was over 110.

My bro who is still trying to dig out of the kill zone only has a range of rivals. L37-50 with allies of 148-181.

And data from another friend who nuked is allies kindly supplied the following, L range 36-57 and allies of 16-110.

I suspect the cutoffs are in the ranges above give or take.

frenda
12-30-2011, 06:48 AM
speed ump, you're too kind. *s*

i'm starting to think that number of allies is more important than level in whether or not you show up on someone's rival list.

Agent Orange
12-30-2011, 07:08 AM
Well that theory just went to hell. Allies no longer have a factor, which oddly makes sense to me.

frenda
12-30-2011, 07:10 AM
Yup! Time to rethink strategy. Checking my rival list now.

Dover
12-30-2011, 07:17 AM
Well that theory just went to hell. Allies no longer have a factor, which oddly makes sense to me.

So is it time to max out our allies list? This does not sound like a bad thing. If two real nations ever went to war in theory the nation wtih the most allies should win (notice I said should). This way allies becomes more important in the game as you level. Now you are not punished for being level 7 with 400 allies, its not like you can take advantage of the troops 400 allies brings until you level up higher, correct?

MWDoucheCounter
12-30-2011, 08:02 AM
Seems to make a lot more sense to me as well, and much more fair. You are limited by the number of allies you can use by your level, regardless of how many total overall allies you may have. The number of allies you have is also somewhat in your control (e.g., you can invite to be allies VIPs and other players posting their numbers, and post your own number on the wall for others to invite you to become an ally).

Your overall attack/defense is thus mostly governed by your total level.

For non-gold players, this makes things much more equal, and everyone (at least in theory) should be capable of matching up or being competitive.

Also, while gold players will still have a power/unit attrition advantage - which they should - the non-gold players should have a chance to also be competitive with most of them.

Finally, it fixes one fatal flaw - letting players up to 2x greater in level and more repeatedly attacking defenseless low level players. So there should be much more balance now, if I understand the changes correctly.

At least in my experience, the number of attacks by high level whale gold players seems to have entirely ceased.

The problem? This system should have been in place and kept in place since the game was launched. Now, if the rivals match up used to depend on number of allies, everyone that tried to put their own fix in place by keeping their ally lists intentionally low may be disadvantaged, at least until they build it up, and rightfully pissed.

I know you can't make all of the people happy all of the time, but this should have been a foreseeable and avoidable screw up by Funzio.

Tramp Stamp
12-30-2011, 11:36 AM
Finally, it fixes one fatal flaw - letting players up to 2x greater in level and more repeatedly attacking defenseless low level players. [...] I know you can't make all of the people happy all of the time, but this should have been a foreseeable and avoidable screw up by Funzio.

Especially since the same thing happened and still happens in Crime City. It's just that so many people are playing that it takes time to see the problem.

EDIT: Ah, seems like Crime City saw the same change.

Speed ump
12-30-2011, 12:44 PM
This morning after I woke up I started the rounds visiting my rivals. Then later I went back to is it more. Something really changes. There are just about 7 rivals showing up, even after I refresh. I released a few of my higher level allies from their duties so I don't have to attack the same seven guys 30 times a day, but still don't have many rivals to chose from. There are some in the 60s, but not not many compared to all the level 60s I saw before. They obviously made some changes, but I have no one to play with now. Those few rivals left are going to be really pissed. It has Been a long time since they have given me any challenges to do that don't have to do with attacking people at level 84 and above. Of course I can buy items to " intimidate" my opponents. Just have to buy 50 more items to be able to intimidate you guys now. I know you will be really scared when you see all the trees and walls on my base. It appears they are trying to change things somewhat. Sure wish they would anounce changes, and the reasoning behind them so we knew that direction they are going with things.

Speed ump
12-30-2011, 01:05 PM
Actually I just read a post in technical from one of the developers, and he noted the changes and that the higher level guys would have a very sparse rival list. Like 7 in my case. I can't wait for some others to level up to come play with me. I am so bored. I could beat the snot out of the ones left and raid them of everything on their bases, then enjoy the wonderful messages I get from them. Naw, I think just the fact that I could is enough for now. The rest of you please hurry up and come play.

GoldenGirl
12-31-2011, 02:44 PM
Until today, I have read the forum but never joined it. I resent being called a Douchbag. The game has issues as you all know. I wasn't even seeing people at the correct level until recently and then I got level 50 through level 117. That being said, many of the rivals I get are carrying my own flag and I try not to attack my own flag. I may make an honest mistake and hit one but always try to apologize. Or if one continually attacks me I then have no qualms about tit for tat (Commander Dave.) I give hints and suggestions in my profile as well as by hitting raid with no intent of raidin or attacking the person and leaving a message on their profile even though they are not an Allie and have been attacking me.

I realize not everyone can afford to spend money for cash/gold on a game but each person who does has different reasons for doing so. You people who are judging us know nothing about us and don't stop to think maybe you are 100% wrong in your characterization of us because we spent some money on a game. At least Try to understand this, we still lose units to Y'All that come from the buildings we paid for with gold.

JJ

Moki
12-31-2011, 04:35 PM
Have just been raided by player who has 80,000+ of a unit requiring gold. This works out at a staggering £140,000 of real money ~ WTF! has the god damn world gone crazy. Even if you are a multi millionaire no sane person can justify spending this obscene amount of money on what is essentially 1's & 0's in a computing device.

MWDoucheCounter
12-31-2011, 06:27 PM
Thanks for showing up GoldenGirl/JJ and leaving the comments. I have a few questions.

You seem not to have read most of the posts on this thread, and for that I cannot blame you because they have been voluminous. It appears that you have missed the main point regarding the behavior of certain people in the game, including yourself, that lead to the designation that you apparently resent.

Because I think we are far, far past raising that discussion again, can you help me understand the following? Given that you decided to appear and interject your thoughts, I assume that you are also willing to address these questions.

I checked your stats through a friend. You attacked him within the last 48 to 72 hours, before the limitation on high level players was introduced. As of this evening, you are level 73, and he is level 41. At the time you attacked him several times, he was probably around level 40, and you were probably around level 65+. He was also of the same flag as you. Hmm.

Regardless, we ran some quick back of the envelope calculations on your spending in the game, and came up with the best case scenario, assuming that you bought all gold at the maximum cheapest price of 1500 gold/$80 USD, and also ignoring unit costs for which we cannot verify the cost (because they were "special limited edition" units that are no longer available for purchase).

Checking your units and building, this is what we found - frankly, we were shocked. Below are the name of the unit/building, the number of each such unit/building, the gold cost per unit/building in parenthesis, and then the sum total of gold necessary for that category. It just blew us away.

Bomb technicians x4 (120) = 480
Spetznaz x2 (200) = 400
Deadly rebel x66 (50) = 3300
Crazy reveler x1 (50) = 60
Gladiator anti-tank x5 (100) = 500
Minesweeper x5 (160) = 800
Gatling tank x21 (40) = 840
Stretch humvee x1 (120) = 120
Sentry aircraft x13 (40) = 520
Nighthawk x1 (600) = 600
Raptor x4 (180) = 720
Super cobra x25 (60) = 1500
Reaper x10 (100) = 1000
Akula stealth sub x1 (450) = 450
Super carrier x1 (500) = 500
SSGN x2 (240) = 480
Fast attack craft x5 (80) = 400
Sea shadow x2 (360) = 720
Yamoto battleship x1 (600) = 600
Water treatment plant x1 = 200
EMP cannon x4 (200) = 800
Flak cannon x4 (100) = 400
Diamond mine x1 (500) = 500
Biodome x 1 (300) = 300
Solar energy plan x2 (60) = 120

GOLD UNITS THAT YOU HAVE THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN CALCULATION:

Wingsuit x4
Exoskeleton x2
Arctic radar vehicle x1
MARPAT ARV x14
Laser aircraft x1
Arctic helicopter x1
Pirate cutter x3
Fireboat x3

TOTAL AMOUNT OF GOLD NECESSARY TO ACQUIRE UNITS ACTUALLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN ABOVE LIST:

16310

Best case total cost in USD: 1500/$80 = 18.75 gold/USD

16310/18.75 = ~ $870.

In other words, you have spent at least $870 on this game, and I suspect far more than that because (i) we just did a really quick look at your base/inventory to get our figures, so we probably missed some things, (ii) as noted above, we did not attempt to estimate the amount of gold necessary to acquire certain "limited edition" units because we could not verify the actual cost, and (iii) we are assuming, probably unrealistically, that you bought all gold during a discount period.

So, you probably spent over $1k or more. Wow.

You state "I realize not everyone can afford to spend money for cash/gold on a game but each person who does has different reasons for doing so. You people who are judging us know nothing about us and don't stop to think maybe you are 100% wrong in your characterization of us because we spent some money on a game."

If you believe that is the case, please humor us. Truly, I humbly ask you to offer us this single indulgence. Please tell us:

1. Why would you spend so much money on this game???? Please tell us, with specificity, your personal "reasons" for spending so much???? I can't be the only person virtually dying with curiosity to understand your motives and "reasons."

2. Do you think this is money well spent, especially given that your record as of this evening was roughly 4,100 wins and 1,500 losses????

This just seems bat **** out of this world crazy to me. I mean, I spent about $15k this week to buy a couple of pieces of furniture and make some charitable donations for tax purposes and have plenty of cash, but would never, never, never consider spending that kind of money on a game like this, especially considering the limited license structure and TOS employed by Funzio.

Seriously, I just want to understand where you're coming from - undoubtedly Funzio is doing something right (unless you're somehow linked to Funzio).

GoldenGirl
12-31-2011, 07:57 PM
I wrote a response and it didn't post. Let's just say I would rather spend my money on a game than on designer purses and shoes I have no use for not that it's any of your business. You don't pay my bills and untill you do it's not your right to question how I chose to spend my money.

Whatever was done to fix the rivals list didn't work very well because the bulk of my rivals are level 50.

Why is it ok for someone 12 levels below me to attack me continually when there is no way I can beat their stats but if I attack back I get called names? I continually have to replace my units because of this guy who also spent a lot of gold but I dont see his name posted though he attacked tons of people after dumping them from his allies list without telling them. Plus they were 20 or more levels below him.

I think posting my gold spending should be considered a breach of privacy! Where I come from that gate don't swing.

GoldenGirl
12-31-2011, 08:39 PM
Why isn't Commander Dave (American flag approx level 64) and Stephen (American flag level 94) on your list?

I am requesting that you remove my gold stats. Again, I consider it a breach of privacy!

Speed ump
12-31-2011, 09:58 PM
Actually I am on his list. Stephen

Nolefan
12-31-2011, 10:19 PM
Its not a beach of privacy, it's arithmetic.

MWDoucheCounter
12-31-2011, 10:41 PM
Oh where or where could I begin.

As an initial matter, as Stephen notes, he's on the list. Frankly, he's also a really honest and good guy and, unlike you, actually volunteered to be on the list instead of expressing some exceptionally late and misplaced anger at such fact. He - again unlike you - actually has a sense of humor too.

And why isn't "Commander Dave" included? Well, that guy didn't appear to pull a mega whale move on me like you, but at your insistence and the suggestion of may others, I think he would be a legitimate addition to the list.

I will swiftly dissect the rest of your post.

"I wrote a response and it didn't post."

You can't try again? Just copy and paste. It's not that hard.

”Let's just say I would rather spend my money on a game than on designer purses and shoes I have no use for not that it's any of your business. You don't pay my bills and untill you do it's not your right to question how I chose to spend my money."

This is a remarkable series of straw men, false dilemmas and rationalizations. I won't explain why, because it's clear it won't matter. That said, I don't know of any real women that ever refer to "designer purses and shoes," let alone a preference for spending on a phone game to the exclusion of any such items, so your phrasing strikes me as a little concocted and weird. Yeah, I'll say it right here - I bet you're a girl only on the Internet, but not anywhere else.

"Whatever was done to fix the rivals list didn't work very well because the bulk of my rivals are level 50."

Not responsive and not my problem, but no one forces you to attack low level players that have not spent thousands on a silly free button pushing phone game.

"Why is it ok for someone 12 levels below me to attack me continually when there is no way I can beat their stats but if I attack back I get called names? I continually have to replace my units because of this guy who also spent a lot of gold but I dont see his name posted though he attacked tons of people after dumping them from his allies list without telling them. Plus they were 20 or more levels below him."

After how you acted, in repeatedly attacking low level players when you had the chance, you actually complain about this???? AND YOU CANNOT FIGURE OUT, BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT, THAT WHEN HE ATTACKS YOU HE IS ATTACKING WELL ABOVE HIS LEVEL, AND, NOT LIKE YOU, WAY BELOW IT???? You fail to notice that distinction???? Now that is illuminating concerning your spending habits in this game.

And how do you know the attacking habits of another player beyond your personal experience of being a victim? The game generally doesn't allow that possibility, so don't pull stuff out of your ass.

"I think posting my gold spending should be considered a breach of privacy! Where I come from that gate don't swing."

From time to time I have seen things on this post with which I disagree or that I thought were ill formulated or illogical, but this has to be the most singularly stupid ****ing statement to date. Guess what Sally - you are playing and agreed to play according to Funzio's TOS a game in which precisely that information is both public and you consented to such information being public and/or waived any supposed "right to privacy" for this information, not as if any one ever ****ing existed. Moron.

So I'll ask again, in the vain hope of receiving a substantive response:

Why have you spent at least $800+ and more than likely over $1k on this game? Why?

You started spouting off on this thread about it, no one forced you to do it - so explain.

Speed ump
01-01-2012, 12:10 AM
MW if you would like, send me your ID and I will add you as an ally. I don't know if this is the name you use as a handle or not.

Air
01-01-2012, 01:15 AM
I nominate Con for the list. Douchebag raided me for $225000, my biggest loss yet and of course it's a gold bar buyer with stats 2 times my own. I guess I should have had my iPod in my pocket tonight but I was worried about losing it. How's that for a happy new year. Con you are a douche!

Agent Orange
01-01-2012, 07:15 AM
Hmm how can your privacy be breached by reposting publicly available information?

Have to admit that 'her' comment about shoes and purses was too cliche that would be the last thing my wife would be interested in spending $ on.

Perhaps there needs to be a new classification for guys posing as girls. Pseudodouchettes perhaps.

And I too appreciate Stephen's honesty.

Jihad Joe
01-01-2012, 01:28 PM
I have another theory about the attacker who only attacks once. In Crime City, you can only see the amount of cash a player has on hand; the amount they have in the bank can't be seen. In MW, all the money is displayed, so the only way a player has of knowing if some or all the money is available to steal is to attack and see what they get. I get attacked once by multiple players regularly, and assume it is because I regularly have a large amount of my vault.

As well, someone mentioned getting attacked multiple times in a row, and then nothing for an hour or so. My theory is that the game hides you for a while after you've been beat up, which is probably a good thing for me or I'd never get any peace (level 65 and pathetic stats but half decent money buildings). When you attack another player repeatedly (come on, we've all done it for valour goals!), eventually you get a notification that they are too weak to fight. I'm assuming that this is what attacking players are getting after I've been thumped for awhile...

GoldenGirl
01-01-2012, 01:44 PM
Sans posting a picture I have no way to prove to you that I am female and even then you would probably claim it was someone else. This is a lose - lose battle.

So, according to you I should just give up achieving certain goals and getting V-medals because Funzio has an algarythem problem?

Stephen is level 95 and I just broke level 75 but he has been continually attacking me for several days. Com Dave was attacking me when I was well below him and continues to attack though he is nesting or whatever you guys call not leveling up. Still with his stats I can't attack back but we now have a game of cat and mouse just to tweak each other with comments as well. I attack him knowing I will lose and leave him a message like Happy New Year. He didn't respond so I attacked him this morning, lost and asked if he is sick. Guess I am a real douchbag.

All that being said, again I don't answer to anyone about how I spend my money. If you want to expose yourself and have a private conversation I might explain why it angers me that you are even rude enough to ask. Female with the guts to at least expose my MW identity no matter how much grief it's brought me.

Tramp Stamp
01-01-2012, 02:17 PM
GoldenGirl, the likely reason they feel you are masquerading as a woman is your simultaneously employing multiple losing internet argument strategies, a position usually reserved by those with high testosterone and little brains.

GoldenGirl
01-01-2012, 02:31 PM
Thank you for your honesty Tramp Stamp. I am done talking to these guys anyway. The more I have thought about it the more it has become clear they just don't like the fact that some of us can afford to play with gold. If we were not here these games would not exist for them to enjoy but they don't have the intelligence to look at it that way.

Tramp Stamp
01-01-2012, 02:42 PM
For the record, I am curious myself. I have a relatively high amount of funds available to spend yet would place a value of no more than $15 onto this game. If that were the up-front price it's highly unlikely I'd be paying at all. I assume there must be some sort of "rush" associated with buying gold units to combat the competition. I "get" that thrill in a lot of areas but have trouble visualizing the psychological payoff in a game like this, especially when the unit costs are so high for such little relative reward.

Wildfire
01-02-2012, 05:16 AM
I like this thread the arguments make a good read, it's got me thinking about my own decisions regarding gold spending.

As someone who has been a game player on the pc for years, well since games were on a pc really, I come across just about all the different payment options, nothing I've played comes close to what you could potentially spend on this though. The most common model for the games I'd play on a pc would be buy the game, play online, if server based my clan would normally have one or several servers which the members would fund. Chargeable dlc (downloadable content, extra maps etc) for the game would appear and the decision would be whether to buy the new content and upgrade the servers to reflect the new maps etc, this would always cause divisions as some wouldn't want to spend the extra money on the game. It's a subject that has split many pc gaming clans and communities. Some games I like I've played for over a thousand hours so to me having fresh maps every few months for £10-15 is a small price to pay. Others are completely of the opinion "I've bought the game everything should be free after this". So take a pc game at say £35, 3 expansion packs at say £12 each, a server that costs about £20 per slot for a year and the individual outlay would still be well under £100 for a year, less if you just play on random public servers. After that your progression in a game is down to individual skill, dedication and strategy so your sense of achievement is down to your own gameplay.

When I started playing MW for the first week or two I was thinking of buying gold to speed me along, but my idea of a spend would have been based on what I've experienced for years in the pc world. When I looked at the sort of spend that was going on around me I quickly realised this was a whole different world and one I simply couldn't afford to compete in even if I wanted to. The amount I would realistically want to spend wouldn't really make any lasting difference.

It was at that point that I first came looking for these forums because I was sure I was not the only one in the same situation. The freely offered advice has been great, and has allowed me to compete relatively successfully if much much slower than I'd expected. This to me is where the gold comes in, a large spend undoubtably lets you rank much faster, but where is the sense of achievement? To me it wouldn't be there, so I'm glad I chose the no gold route, but I've absolutely no gripe with those who want to spend spend spend. I do actually feel slightly guilty not contributing anything to Funzio for the game by doing this! Tramp Stamp's maximum of $15 does feel like how I'd value the game too.

What I wonder is how this compares to others views, is the gold or no gold purely a financial thing, an impulse buy, or more down to achieving rather than buying success, or a bit of all these?

Dover
01-02-2012, 05:26 AM
I played WoW for 4 years at $12.99 a month I think it was. Being married and away from family and friends it allowed me to decompress a few times a week at a cost less than eating one dinner out a month. I think it just comes down to your resources, priorities and situation. I think this is a very fun game so far so to give the company 13.00 a month at the cost of one less dinner out a month, I am OK with that. I have a budget and I follow it, I have a few extra bucks put aside each month for fun whether that is $20.00 for the movies or a meal or a game.

Everyone's situation is different; you cannot put all people under one umbrella and expect to get an understanding of why people do what they do.

Wildfire
01-02-2012, 06:18 AM
I played WoW for 4 years at $12.99 a month I think it was. Being married and away from family and friends it allowed me to decompress a few times a week at a cost less than eating one dinner out a month. I think it just comes down to your resources, priorities and situation. I think this is a very fun game so far so to give the company 13.00 a month at the cost of one less dinner out a month, I am OK with that. I have a budget and I follow it, I have a few extra bucks put aside each month for fun whether that is $20.00 for the movies or a meal or a game.

Everyone's situation is different; you cannot put all people under one umbrella and expect to get an understanding of why people do what they do.

Indeed, one of my sons played WOW for years to, I tried it but couldn't really get into it. He's also probably the fastest Call Of Duty player I've ever seen. Even a brief hours played versus money spent sum does make those sort of games look very cheap. WOW does highlight more what I was saying though, the subscription for WOW was to play the game online and was there for every player. It's the same for games I like where the DLC is a pay for item that goes back to the developers and probably where the servers are all hosted by one firm I expect the developers get a cut of that too but I don't know for sure.

From what you are saying regarding what you'd spend on this game you're confirming what I was hinting at, taking the equivalent amount that you thought reasonable from WOW experience and spending that on the game is exactly where I'd expect many seasoned gamers to place themselves whether they are XBOX, PS3 or PC gamers etc. I think what we are getting here is a much more eclectic mix of people who as you say can't be put under one umbrella and don't deserve in any way to be pillioried for how they choose to play.

zynshmily
01-02-2012, 09:33 AM
JJ, altho you constantly harass me, i can't help applauding for you. wish my GF could spend less time shopping for shoes and purses
This is Zhang, btw.
Ironically, i switched nation from usa to russia because of you. i was born american living in NJ actually...

zynshmily
01-02-2012, 12:00 PM
related to the original intention of this thread, you interrogate those gold spenders who exclusively bully the defendless, which justifies you all the namecalling and sarcasm...next time, lead with lawrence philips example. that explains alot.

we attack the defendless for a reason, not our ego gone wrong, because of virtually zero casualty.
Anyone whose attk is over 10k should've noticed, when you attack someone of your own size, it comes with a big price to pay, especially many precious units die much easily than trivial units. on the contrary, attacking the weak barely costs anything, some rangers, light gunners, snipers tops.

Maybe you've never considered from our perspective. stamina points somehow are also a burden to us..It just gets nowhere to go sometimes. how should we deal with maxed out stamina points? go attack another big spender with huge loss and little gain of valor? and dont forget the payback and possible cause of vicious circle? the reason i quit my last game was because i angered a monster and brought doom to myself. This time,i've learned my lesson not to provoke any spenders...

moreover, those put real money into this game because they care about this game. they truly cherish what they have cultivated and won't quit easily. I certainly don't want to mess with people like that. On the other hand, those weak players, they probably just play this game to kill time, they don't care that much about their well-being in this game. they may be irritated and indignant when getting attacked, but they can easily give up and turn around to find more valuable things to do. Or they can be like you acting like a psychiatrist analyzing the behavior of bullies. Either way, you people can find outlets to release your negative emotion other than getting back at the attacker. That's the kinda people i like to deal with...

all in all, the practical reason is that attacking the weak has no loss and wrestling with the strong costs more than we gain... is this good enough for you???
if you still have the need to condemn someone, try focusing on the devs who created this lame mechanics. im sure they won't feel offended.

as long as you are an adult who lives and spends, you should know all commercial companies have their ways of tricking you into consuming. But you constantly implies funzio sneakily induces players to spend real money and how stupid those players are for falling into the trap. this really makes you a wise-ass...

Finally, your longawaited answer: I spend money because, deducting all my living cost, i still have money surplus every week. I have scholarship for my graduate study; i do part time intern and the pay is decent; i live with my gf who shares rent with me; my parents paid my college tuition and bought me a car, so i have no installment loan whatsoever... Now she's saving up for wedding, where should my money go??? Is the money so-called well spent on Prada or Zegna???plus, a few hundred bucks can't hurt...

MWDoucheCounter
01-02-2012, 02:23 PM
I am glad that we can raise a serious discussion here, and appreciate the input of everyone, while simultaneously lamenting that some people continue to be defensive, which in any event I equally understand.

The real difficulty in comprehension that I'm having with spending real funds - especially in the range of several hundreds to thousands of USD or equivalent amounts in other currencies - is the cost/benefit calculation, particularly when compared to the relative expense of the other types and requirements of games mentioned on this post.

For example, take WOW. I've never played the game, but I find it easily distinguishable from this one, in terms of the spending involved. First, it's a pay subscription only game, right? Meaning that, if you want to play, you have to pay. Second, paying the monthly fee seems, at least to me, to give a player access to a game with an extreme amount of content, as well as a really huge user base with millions of players. Third, in my understanding of the game, it is relatively complex in structure, requiring players to make strategic choices in their character development, partnerships and in game decisions (e.g., the make up and roles of players within a group to accomplish specific goals and/or tasks). Fourth, to my knowledge, the game has a rather complex social system, with players interacting with and between guilds and alliances, among other things.

To me, all of these qualities are absent in a game such as MW, and so I'm left striving to understand the impetus for the decisions of certain players, but not others, to spend so much on this game. Indeed, the only persuasive justification with which I am left, at the end of the day, is that Funzio has developed a game economy and system which appeals to the most base of human instincts, whether the players spending the most on this game are willing to recognize or concede as such, or not. And god damn it, if I don't love Funzio for this admirable and wicked genius.

To take one example, if you played WOW for four years at $13 USD per month, that would have cost roughly $624 USD (I think - math make brain hurt not well so good). For hundreds and hundreds of hours of entertainment and diversion over a four year period (as an aside, I really get this point, by the way, and tremendously so - I've been gaming since the Atari 2600 days, and also play games to decompress and reduce stress - something about rote activities really helps me break obsessive job worries), you paid $624 USD. In relative terms, that is a very cheap form of entertainment. And not to mention, the game is still going strong, and consistently provides new content and things to do.

I could also provide many examples for PC and console games, including DLC, but I don't think it is necessary (e.g., would you spend $300 for a console game, inclusive of DLC? That would seem to cause a riot.)

Here, these aspects seem conspicuously absent. Yet, you see people spending far more than that over a period of mere weeks for little to no actual game content, let alone anything to do other than repeatedly hitting a button. There is nothing to create, nothing resembling a community, and no apparent strategic decisions to be made, except perhaps whether an opponent is deemed too strong to press a button to "attack." Maybe someone might disagree, but if so, I'd really like to see some specific examples rather than conclusory statements to the contrary.

So the only impression with which I am left - and that has not been disabused, and seems supported by some posts on this thread - is that people pay a premium in a game like this to solely beat up other players. Nothing else. And by appealing to the base instincts of players, this is what I meant.

Paying for instant gratification.

Many have been distracted by some notion that I have a problem with people spending money for instant gratification, or using their disposable funds how they deem fit. For the millionth time, I don't care about that. I know people may choose to spend their money how they deem appropriate. I am only trying to figure out why certain people spend so much money on a game like this, other than the reason I already mentioned. I have yet to see an alternative justification, at least one persuasively argued here.

This is not interpretation as a "psychiatrist," although I think you may have meant "psychologist" (The distinction is that psychiatrists are actual MDs with medical degrees, whereas psychologists are third rate social scientists that don't go to medical school and reach conclusions through clinical and, at the most sophisticated end, experimental results. That said, this games strikes me as an awesome experimental psychology test on a macro level.). Rather, this is common sense observation. To wit, I have no doubt that the system developed by Funzio is far more similar to a gambling style payoff than anything. Manipulative? You bet.

Leading to another question, I beg anyone to answer, exactly what is being "cultivated" in a game like this?

Speed ump
01-02-2012, 03:27 PM
When someone plays a game, they way they pick that game is not thought of in cost benifit. I found this game from app advisor and gave it a try. I don't care for the game play of many games, and this one I enjoyed, I can set it down anytime if I get busy and no big deal. I don't think most people look at it from cost benefit, as this thought never occurred to me. It also took a while to find out that I could buy gold and get more powerful quicker, in order to defend myself, in the beginning. It never occurred to me that I would spend any money, other than to buy the game, much less the amount I have. Obviously I could not have done it if I did not have the money. What is the. Oat benifit of a purse, or a new power tool? Depends on who you ask.by comparison to what I make, it's not a lot. Is that justified? Many things people buy because they want, not need them. If it brings you pleasure, and you can afford it, more power to you. I bet most here would love a Buggati Veryon if you gave it to them. Is it practical, well..... Probably each person has different reasons why "justify" spending the money. The game drives them to do this to some extent of course, but each person has their own reasons. I don't think all my reasoning is the same as the next guy who spent as much. I would bet if JVJK would respond, or Garis, etc, they would each have a different story. I know some people thinks it ruins the purity or the spirit of the game. Maybe they really feel this is the case, maybe they are mad and wish they could do the same. In the end the game allows this type of play, another strategy if you will.if I had to play and wait to build the army and buildings,etc, I might have never played for long. My patienence just is not that great. When others were beating up on me, I just looked for whatever way I could to change that. I have seen what I will call a new strategy when someone gets attacked, they message that I had better watch out, they will spend every penny they have to beat the .... Out of me, or they will quit.then I see this same person telling another player the same thing after they attacked other players that were weaker than them without mercy. If you quit, then you do, your decision. If I quit, then I do, my decision. The game is war. I am sure they will make a game called make friends soon. I get some that use some pretty awful language, and wish personal harm to me. If this game really makes you this stressed, then please stop playing. I dont want anyone to be that bothered. I think anyone can play the game in the manner that they wish. I don't feel the need to say that anyone should play by buying gold, or not. Spend your money the way you wish. Buy a Buggatti, just please take me for a drive just once.

MWDoucheCounter
01-02-2012, 03:57 PM
Dude. Stephen. Bro. My man. My brother. Brosephus!

That paragraph, me so hard to read. I think I get it, but damn!

You can state it better than that!

Speed ump
01-02-2012, 05:10 PM
That's how your thinking process works when you try to write on your iPad while you are talking to customers on the phone. Sometimes I can't remember where I was and just start where my thoughts are at the moment. Sure makes for cool reading. I also the the auto correct which literally puts words in your mouth.

MWDoucheCounter
01-02-2012, 05:51 PM
Ha - I know exactly what you mean. The iPad "correction" creates some whacky and bizarre results.

zynshmily
01-02-2012, 06:37 PM
I am glad that we can raise a serious discussion here, and appreciate the input of everyone, while simultaneously lamenting that some people continue to be defensive, which in any event I equally understand.

The real difficulty in comprehension that I'm having with spending real funds - especially in the range of several hundreds to thousands of USD or equivalent amounts in other currencies - is the cost/benefit calculation, particularly when compared to the relative expense of the other types and requirements of games mentioned on this post.

For example, take WOW. I've never played the game, but I find it easily distinguishable from this one, in terms of the spending involved. First, it's a pay subscription only game, right? Meaning that, if you want to play, you have to pay. Second, paying the monthly fee seems, at least to me, to give a player access to a game with an extreme amount of content, as well as a really huge user base with millions of players. Third, in my understanding of the game, it is relatively complex in structure, requiring players to make strategic choices in their character development, partnerships and in game decisions (e.g., the make up and roles of players within a group to accomplish specific goals and/or tasks). Fourth, to my knowledge, the game has a rather complex social system, with players interacting with and between guilds and alliances, among other things.

To me, all of these qualities are absent in a game such as MW, and so I'm left striving to understand the impetus for the decisions of certain players, but not others, to spend so much on this game. Indeed, the only persuasive justification with which I am left, at the end of the day, is that Funzio has developed a game economy and system which appeals to the most base of human instincts, whether the players spending the most on this game are willing to recognize or concede as such, or not. And god damn it, if I don't love Funzio for this admirable and wicked genius.

To take one example, if you played WOW for four years at $13 USD per month, that would have cost roughly $624 USD (I think - math make brain hurt not well so good). For hundreds and hundreds of hours of entertainment and diversion over a four year period (as an aside, I really get this point, by the way, and tremendously so - I've been gaming since the Atari 2600 days, and also play games to decompress and reduce stress - something about rote activities really helps me break obsessive job worries), you paid $624 USD. In relative terms, that is a very cheap form of entertainment. And not to mention, the game is still going strong, and consistently provides new content and things to do.

I could also provide many examples for PC and console games, including DLC, but I don't think it is necessary (e.g., would you spend $300 for a console game, inclusive of DLC? That would seem to cause a riot.)

Here, these aspects seem conspicuously absent. Yet, you see people spending far more than that over a period of mere weeks for little to no actual game content, let alone anything to do other than repeatedly hitting a button. There is nothing to create, nothing resembling a community, and no apparent strategic decisions to be made, except perhaps whether an opponent is deemed too strong to press a button to "attack." Maybe someone might disagree, but if so, I'd really like to see some specific examples rather than conclusory statements to the contrary.

So the only impression with which I am left - and that has not been disabused, and seems supported by some posts on this thread - is that people pay a premium in a game like this to solely beat up other players. Nothing else. And by appealing to the base instincts of players, this is what I meant.

Paying for instant gratification.

Many have been distracted by some notion that I have a problem with people spending money for instant gratification, or using their disposable funds how they deem fit. For the millionth time, I don't care about that. I know people may choose to spend their money how they deem appropriate. I am only trying to figure out why certain people spend so much money on a game like this, other than the reason I already mentioned. I have yet to see an alternative justification, at least one persuasively argued here.

This is not interpretation as a "psychiatrist," although I think you may have meant "psychologist" (The distinction is that psychiatrists are actual MDs with medical degrees, whereas psychologists are third rate social scientists that don't go to medical school and reach conclusions through clinical and, at the most sophisticated end, experimental results. That said, this games strikes me as an awesome experimental psychology test on a macro level.). Rather, this is common sense observation. To wit, I have no doubt that the system developed by Funzio is far more similar to a gambling style payoff than anything. Manipulative? You bet.

Leading to another question, I beg anyone to answer, exactly what is being "cultivated" in a game like this?

alrite. Now you got me into thinking...

I couldn't agree more that MMORPG games have a better graphics, stronger playability and far more comprehensive game play experience. I used to be into games like that and fascinated about equipment refinery system.

But games like that also require playtime, a computer with better-than-average configuration and many fighting skills and micro-management(which takes long time to master.)

I still remember the times i stayed up all night grinding for experience or some legendary gears; I can vividly recall my excitement when i successfully refined my weapon to +10, followed by my ass-kicking later on in PvP.

In conventional sense, that's the kinda game a true gamer would play. However, the trend of game has changed for me...I start to feel too mature to play games that require too much game time, remembering various tactic to crack all bosses and instance and practicing PvP skills associated with different classes...you see,im no longer a teenager nerd who can spend the whole weekend sitting in front of a computer monitor...

i dig MW type of game for the moment, especially when its accessible on a mobile device. I can open the game client on commute, in class, at work and no one even knows i'm playing a game on a phone....

In addition, MW is easy... No mission strategy to remember, no grinding for experience or equipment, no guild obligation and schedule to follow. I don't have to stay playing days and nights to secure my spot on the server... Just a few clicks once awhile with a phone on the go.
it fits me perfectly considering the amount of my spare time.

MW is a simulation EDU game. i enjoy this type of game experience when i first started playing railrod tycoon. I really can't tell you the feeling if you are not into this type of game. I get my joy and fulfillment when i c the empire i build up.
some like real time strategy; some like first person shooting; some like action sports; some like simulation sports manager games...
I like edu games; i like playing games on a mobile phone with internet access 24/7' i like multi player online games. thats why im willing to spend on MW
It's true that there are some more real interesting games, but how can i enjoy the fun game play when i dont have time and condition to actually play it? Just now, i saw an ad on youtube about call of duty: modern warfare 3... it looked awesome. If only i were 5 years youger...

MWDoucheCounter
01-02-2012, 07:56 PM
Awesome response Z - I totally get your perspective. Thanks!

Speed ump
01-02-2012, 10:49 PM
That is exactly what I meant when I said I could just put it down without worrying about it. I would probably have to get a divorce if I started playing the other types of games on a console or computer as my wife would say I am ignoring her. She doesn't mind me surfing he web, etc on the iPad, as I can still hold a conversation. Try that with the other games and you lose battles, and trying to play without concentrating is just not fun. I am 50 now, and not many wives can appreciate a gamer.

Palmer
01-03-2012, 06:51 AM
I am 50 now, and not many wives can appreciate a gamer.

50 years old? Respect you old man ;)

frenda
01-03-2012, 07:01 AM
My son is a semi-pro Halo player, so I know how much time those games take. I'm with Speed ump, my wife wouldn't put up with me playing games like that with all the hours it takes, especially late into the night. We need to have a special bracket for over 50 players here, maybe we can get some free gold, lol.

Tramp Stamp
01-03-2012, 08:29 AM
Senior Citizen's discount. The free gold comes with complementary packets of Sweet & Low.

Wildfire
01-03-2012, 08:40 AM
My son is a semi-pro Halo player, so I know how much time those games take. I'm with Speed ump, my wife wouldn't put up with me playing games like that with all the hours it takes, especially late into the night. We need to have a special bracket for over 50 players here, maybe we can get some free gold, lol.

I'm in the over 50 club too, starting to look not all that exclusive here! Anyway zynshmily mentioned Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, my playing time's over 10 days in that since the game came out in November and my wife hasn't complained yet, no fighting over the TV remote and I'm close enough to yell at to "put the kettle on"!

I only started playing online when Call of Duty 4 came out 4 years ago and I currently I play modern warfare 3 along with my son which is great. We play in a clan that has several 50 somethings and I think a couple of 60 somethings now too. One interesting observation I'd make is that the older players in the clan tend to have more disposable income than the young ones, to that end they tend to play on better hardware, faster pc's with better graphics cards and larger monitors, in a way you could call this their gold spend, which helps counteract the better reactions of the younger players.

frenda
01-03-2012, 09:37 AM
I didn't say exclusive, lol, the more the better. :) I wish I had the time to play some of the online games, I used to love doing that when I was younger and could spend the whole night playing Silent Service on my Atari 1040ST. :) How's that for dating yourself?

Wildfire
01-03-2012, 11:02 AM
I didn't say exclusive, lol, the more the better. :) I wish I had the time to play some of the online games, I used to love doing that when I was younger and could spend the whole night playing Silent Service on my Atari 1040ST. :) How's that for dating yourself?

Yep I'd an Atari 520STF :)

frenda
01-03-2012, 11:12 AM
Cheapskate!!! Just kidding, my first computer was the 520ST. :)

JMC
01-03-2012, 11:15 AM
I understand why you older 50+ guys would like to play a game like modern war, where you dont have to spend too much time or anything. However, that still does not explain why some of you like to throw away the average persons 4 month salary within a week to get stronger at a game. Just play the game strategically how it is supposed to be played and honestly you'll probably get a lot more enjoyment out of gaining strength or beating people without having to throw down thousands of dollars.

So your wives would divorce you if you spent a few hours a night playing an MMORPG/console game, but it is fine to spend $10000 on a simple ios game? That's strange.

frenda
01-03-2012, 11:25 AM
I bought $10 worth of Gold, once, and realized that it would be a money pit. And I'm certainly not spending a months salary on the game. Some people on here should switch to decaf, before jumping to too many conclusions based on a few line posts in this forum.

Wildfire
01-03-2012, 11:35 AM
Well JMC I'm not in that category either, I've still got the 10 gold bars that you get at the start and haven't bought any. I've stated my own case often enough in here, I play games for a challenge not to buy success.

Dover
01-03-2012, 12:08 PM
Just play the game strategically how it is supposed to be played and honestly you'll probably get a lot more enjoyment out of gaining strength or beating people without having to throw down thousands of dollars.

1) "Suppose to be played" - The game was not supposed to be played for free by everyone or we would not have the option to buy anything. Along those lines we would not have a game as there would be no reason for the developers to create something for nothing.
2) "strategically" - Gov'ts throw more money to their war machines than they do for food for their nations, why should this game be any different?
3) Why should anyone explain to you why they play a game and spend money or do not spend money? Who the heck are you? If you are not their wife’s or mom’s I don't believe anyone owes you anything except a butt whopping in the game for being a whiner.
4) "enjoyment" - So you have become enlighten enough to know what will bring us all enjoyment?
Come on, it's a GAME people! Everyone plays it for different reasons in different ways. Stop trying to understand everything about everyone, go back to playing the game. If you don't like the way the game is played go play Dragonvale, you won't get picked on by anyone over there.

Holy cow these boards are killing me...

Agent Orange
01-03-2012, 01:12 PM
Senior Citizen's discount. The free gold comes with complementary packets of Sweet & Low.

I'm for the seniors discount as well. This is rather frightening.

Agent Orange
01-03-2012, 01:15 PM
Yep I'd and Atari 520STF :)

Hmmm video games, my first almost video game was pong. But really the first one that was halfway decent was my Intelivision then the Colecovision. We never really spent all nighters on the video games though, usually it was Risk or out on our MC's or at parties.

frenda
01-03-2012, 01:16 PM
You guys are just jealous cuz we get free Sweet and Low... ;)

Tramp Stamp
01-03-2012, 01:19 PM
You guys with the STs are spoiled. I had to settle for the 800XL, which was far more awesome than the 600XL that it replaced.

JMC
01-03-2012, 01:19 PM
Im referring mostly to stephen, who has spent thousands. Not you other guys.

JMC
01-03-2012, 01:39 PM
1) "Suppose to be played" - The game was not supposed to be played for free by everyone or we would not have the option to buy anything. Along those lines we would not have a game as there would be no reason for the developers to create something for nothing.
2) "strategically" - Gov'ts throw more money to their war machines than they do for food for their nations, why should this game be any different?
3) Why should anyone explain to you why they play a game and spend money or do not spend money? Who the heck are you? If you are not their wife’s or mom’s I don't believe anyone owes you anything except a butt whopping in the game for being a whiner.
4) "enjoyment" - So you have become enlighten enough to know what will bring us all enjoyment?
Come on, it's a GAME people! Everyone plays it for different reasons in different ways. Stop trying to understand everything about everyone, go back to playing the game. If you don't like the way the game is played go play Dragonvale, you won't get picked on by anyone over there.

Holy cow these boards are killing me...

Seems like a lot of the people on these forums are retards that **** themselves over absolutely nothing. I barely said anything and im not whining about anything. Have you guys not been discussing why someone would spend thousands to play his game?

1) Yes the game is supposed to be playyed strategically and you are supposed to figure out the best ways to build up and become more powerul. Gold is to give you a bit of an edge, not for you buy 1000000 gold and not even really 'play' the game. Do care that someone has done that? Not really. Am i wondering why they would do that? Yes.

2) Governments throw money at their war machines. Theres something called in-game cash which is used to buy in-game war machines. Buying gold in this game would be the equivalent of governments in real life selling their souls or something to acquire money (couldnt think of something worth more than money for rl situations). If you want to make stupid realism comparisons there you go.

3) Are you ****ing retarded? This whole thread is about how people spend ridiculous amounts of real cash on the game. OMG, so sorry for making one post in 110 asking why someone would throw away so much cash. Im whining? Really? I didnt know that being curious about why people are willing to spend so much cash on an ios game was whining. But, then again, everything is whining/crying/*****ing/raging to internet trolls.

4) Yes, itd be more enjoyable if you earned everything and became powerful legitimately. Buying gold can be compared to a cheat in other games. People buy gold and go straight from the start of the game to the end. If you went and bought a game for a console or something and just went from start to end instantly, are you telling me that is fun? I know its not the same but really kind of is. Things are valued higher or more enjoyable when you've earned it. Not when youve been given everything or just spent money to get ahead. That is generally true for most people, in most situations.



"Holy cow these *****s that whine about others *****ing, when they arent even *****ing are killing me..."

Agent Orange
01-03-2012, 01:45 PM
I understand why you older 50+ guys would like to play a game like modern war, where you dont have to spend too much time or anything. However, that still does not explain why some of you like to throw away the average persons 4 month salary within a week to get stronger at a game. Just play the game strategically how it is supposed to be played and honestly you'll probably get a lot more enjoyment out of gaining strength or beating people without having to throw down thousands of dollars.

So your wives would divorce you if you spent a few hours a night playing an MMORPG/console game, but it is fine to spend $10000 on a simple ios game? That's strange.

Mine would divorce me, granted she's come a long way since we first got together. As much as I love to spend for some reason I can't bring myself to spend that kind of money on a game. Well ok, I can see myself spending that much on a game but that game would be either Black Knight the pinball game or Out Run the arcade game. Granted then the new war would be where am I going to put it in the house but that is a very different story.

I haven't bought gold, also still have the 10 I started with. I can see why some folks would buy into the game and I guess if you have the money then why not. But what is rather interesting is some of the banter going on with the first of the big gold buyers. He's been going around complaining about being attacked now that others have caught up to him. Was fine when he was all powerful but now that he's on the receiving end it's a different story. So I suppose if I had the money (er let me rephrase that, if I could get away with spending the money), and I already have the warped sense of humor I would probably get pissed off and buy my way past this guy just to teach him a lesson. I suspect that is what Funzio is banking on is something like this where players get tired of getting beat up and buy in.

Personally that doesn't really work for me but I can see it does in some cases based on some of the things I read on players walls.

The flip side is I'm all for supporting the devs and they are showing that they do want to keep making improvements to the game to keep folks playing. All good IMHO.

If they can get some of the bugs sorted the main one being the crashing I would say paying a small amount up front would work for me. I did buy an iPod Touch on boxing day for my computer collection so perhaps I'll open it up and spend $20 on gold and test out some of my theories. Further along in the game I can't see the cost to benefit of buying gold as you need to spend a lot to make a difference.

Actually find this discussion interesting, might be the minor in psych I took in university back when the earth was still cooling....



*

Agent Orange
01-03-2012, 01:48 PM
You guys are just jealous cuz we get free Sweet and Low... ;)

I still use sugar, I don't trust that chemical shiit.

Tramp Stamp
01-03-2012, 01:53 PM
Black Knight can be had for considerably less. It runs $2,000 in decent condition. If you can take the stand-up version rather than the motorized sit-in cabinet, Out Run can be had for under $500.

JMC
01-03-2012, 01:53 PM
Mine would divorce me, granted she's come a long way since we first got together. As much as I love to spend for some reason I can't bring myself to spend that kind of money on a game. Well ok, I can see myself spending that much on a game but that game would be either Black Knight the pinball game or Out Run the arcade game. Granted then the new war would be where am I going to put it in the house but that is a very different story.

I haven't bought gold, also still have the 10 I started with. I can see why some folks would buy into the game and I guess if you have the money then why not. But what is rather interesting is some of the banter going on with the first of the big gold buyers. He's been going around complaining about being attacked now that others have caught up to him. Was fine when he was all powerful but now that he's on the receiving end it's a different story. So I suppose if I had the money (er let me rephrase that, if I could get away with spending the money), and I already have the warped sense of humor I would probably get pissed off and buy my way past this guy just to teach him a lesson. I suspect that is what Funzio is banking on is something like this where players get tired of getting beat up and buy in.

Personally that doesn't really work for me but I can see it does in some cases based on some of the things I read on players walls.

The flip side is I'm all for supporting the devs and they are showing that they do want to keep making improvements to the game to keep folks playing. All good IMHO.

If they can get some of the bugs sorted the main one being the crashing I would say paying a small amount up front would work for me. I did buy an iPod Touch on boxing day for my computer collection so perhaps I'll open it up and spend $20 on gold and test out some of my theories. Further along in the game I can't see the cost to benefit of buying gold as you need to spend a lot to make a difference.

Actually find this discussion interesting, might be the minor in psych I took in university back when the earth was still cooling....



*

I understand why someone would want to buy a ton of gold. But i dont understand why they would actually do it, unless of course they are filthy rich and can afford to spend big bucks on random games they play. When you spend so much that youre on top of everyone, there is nothing left to do really. So those sorts of guys most likely spend, get bored quickly and move on to the next game. Its a huge money pit and it puzzles me even more when people spend that much and they arent even loaded with cash. Some people actually cant pay their rent and stuff because they spend on games like these.

Wildfire
01-03-2012, 02:03 PM
Im referring mostly to stephen, who has spent thousands. Not you other guys.

He's been quiet for a bit, maybe he was one of those Commodore Amiga people rather than an Atari person!:D

Agent Orange
01-03-2012, 02:17 PM
Black Knight can be had for considerably less. It runs $2,000 in decent condition. If you can take the stand-up version rather than the motorized sit-in cabinet, Out Run can be had for under $500.

Hmmm, know any good divorce lawyers! I would want the sit down version of Out Run and wouldn't you know it it isn't that expensive too. I always figured this stuff was still pretty expensive, they were when they first came out.

http://www.rotheblog.com/2009/12/arcade/sega-outrun-cockpit-for-sale-indiana/

The problem I have now is space, my wife is telling me I have to get rid of a couple of cars before I can buy any more 'new' toys.

In my case I think I want to have something tangible vs virtual and perhaps that is why I can't wrap my head around spending that much money on a game when I could be out there buying stuff like more cars, computers, cameras etc.

I was wondering of some folks who are shut in's might be part of the demographic but from the looks of things it's a lot different than I had suspected.

Tramp Stamp
01-03-2012, 02:20 PM
Best price I've seen on a motorized cabinet, especially if the motor actually works.

Speed ump
01-03-2012, 02:50 PM
My first game was pong that I bought from sears for 600 with my lawn mowing money. I really don't feel 50 at all. JMC if you read some of my previous posts you could get a little insight into why I spend so much. I would think that most guys here that are married know that even though money can be an issue, and of course it is all relative to income, that your wife would rather have your time and attention than worry about where you spend your discretionary income( as long as its not a strip joint) there are far worse things a husband could be doing. I at one time had the largest antique fishing reel collection anywhere. Spent more than one million on it. Not practical, I lost money when I sold much of it, but it gave me great enjoyment. I really don't expect others to enjoy the same things that I do, nor do I expect to enjoy all the things that other people do, but that is what makes them happy, so more power to them. As far as how the game"should" or was " meant" to be played, I think different people have different ideas about that, and I am fine with how each person wants to play the game. If funzio did not mean for people to advance more quickly, then they would not allow people to purchase gold. As expensive as it is, I think that really limits the numbers who will play this way. You may feel that those with money have more advantages if they chose, which is true, but this is true everywhere in life. The USA can afford to spend more than other countries, so we have the most powerful military. In a way this game mimics life. I don't expect anyone to understand my thought processes, as they see things from their own perspective. I don't wish to try to convince any one way is the best, real, or intended way the game should be played. Some people seem to feel the way some others play is right or wrong. I can let each play the way hey wish, within the rules funzio sets and the realities of the way the players around you react within those rules. As such I am sure the " purest "does not appreciate my attacks, like some don't appreciate enhanced breasts. I can live with the natural and enhanced and be happy.

Agent Orange
01-03-2012, 04:24 PM
That's interesting, I don't feel 50 or really think about it much either other than I've been thinking about taking the early retirement at work. Problem then becomes the 'honey do' list plus I get bored too easily.

In my case my wife is more of a hard core online gamer than I am though it's Facebook gaming. She got me started on it too but the games she players don't require a lot of strategy so I was getting bored and one day when I was feeding my virtual fish tank I saw a pop up for this game. Didn't realize at the time that it was brand new and since I like military based strategy games (such as Risk and Command and Conquer) I thought I would give it a spin.

I should mention that the ladies in this one game which is watering gardens and catching critters are considerably more vicious than what I have seen here.....

I wonder if Funzio realized that some players would buy so heavily into this game (sorry I don't play CC) at least that's what it feels like given the problem with the rivals listings. They are sort of a victim of their own success and I guess a real problem now is what goals are left for those who have big investments in their setups who are way up there in terms of levels. Seems that there isn't much left to do as I notice the goals are even petering out and if you have finished all the maps then the only thing left is to attack and then get flamed for doing so even though that is part of the game....

Will the game eventually collapse in on itself because of this?

JMC
01-03-2012, 05:46 PM
Saw the 10+ pages and how long each post was and i didnt bother reading through most of it. If youve spent over a million on a collection im guessing youre doing well for yourself. I know some people just dump all their cash into games though when they really can't afford it.

Example: On an MMORPG game some guy dumped $36000 to get a super powered equipment set. He said he was going broke and would have to save up money for a while because of it. Newer game comes out and he just leaves and goes to it.

Thats the thing about buying in-game currencies. You cannot get your money back. For something like your collection you could take a loss, but get some cash back if you needed to. But for games, once its gone, its gone and you dont get much for it. I suppose you could sell your account on some games but not likely going to happen on MW

Speed ump
01-03-2012, 06:28 PM
I'm sure there are stories out there like this. Ive heard of crazy amounts that kids charged on their parents accounts, so apple changed the time limit on the purchases after the password was put in. I read yesterday about some guy in Japan or china that paid 16k for a sword in a game that had not even hit the market yet. I'm glad he could afford it, but tht is crazy even to me. Of coursevive also read the story about the kid in china who sold a kidney forn iPhone, or maybe it was an iPad.

JMC
01-03-2012, 11:24 PM
I also used to play a game where there were clans of 200 people. Most of which had all spent hundreds a least on the game, many that had spent thousands. There were about 5 main clans like this full of huge buyers. They dominated the game.

In many instances, companies make A LOT of money by making a "free" game and a cash shop. All because there are a bunch of people that are willing to spend what would be like 1000 months membership on a p2p game.

Im not a big spender though so ive come to dislike these sort of games. Most ive spent on a game is $100, which lasted over 18 months.

P2P games tend to be better managed with more content and updates. Also a completely even playing field. So from now on those are the only games i will spend money on. Have yet to find one worth subscribing to though.

Speed ump
01-04-2012, 02:47 AM
There is a star trek game, I am a Trekkie, the has a lot of content, that I did play for a while. Also I have seen a WWII one that looked pretty interesting, though I have never played it.

ariveadeoveri
01-04-2012, 02:49 AM
Excuse me for choosing topic to leave a letter for men about women and cialis
cialis cost Twin Falls (http://www.healthhere.smfnew.com/index.php?topic=21.0) and no prescription cialis buy cialis online Twin Lake (http://www.topmedicalboard.smfnew.com/index.php?topic=11.0)ariveadeoveri: PDE1 is found in the brain, heart, and vascular smooth muscle. Also see: generic cialis overnight delivery Twin Lakes

Nicz
01-04-2012, 04:19 AM
I havent read the thread in totality, but u sugger not rushing above lvl 40 for the moment due to higher people?
I'm actually 28, with 2500att/4000def, without a single gold (130k income...) and im tired of turtleling with guys at 500att/def...That's not competitive at all. But if rushing lvl makes me being farmed by HL, no thanks...

Speed ump
01-04-2012, 02:58 PM
I would suggest waiting as long as you can stand it, so you will be in a better position when you do level up. There are a few people(like me) buying thier way to power with gold. If you get to my level if find it hard to find the ones I can milk for some money because others have gotten there first. I feel just a bit sorry for the milkies, just not enough to stop doing it.

Crime City Mark
01-04-2012, 03:35 PM
Yeah, this can't go anywhere positive. Closing this up.