Open Discussion Pertaining to Monetization Model of Supremacy 1914


    What about givinh me possibility to contact my allies from my alliance by special chat ,esecially when I am playing alliance games and I need some way of communication.


    I would also would like to be abe to write whispers to MODs if I have chat-ban as I need to ask question about game/bugs somewhere. With ban on chat and forum at the same time people will have huge problems.


    I also would not mind joining special chat only for trools, avalaible only fr people with chat-ban. Why not - everyone playing this game should be 18 years or parents monitoring kids so according to bytro rules it should be safe to send banned players there. Such a small hell for trools.

    Quote from Golden Frieeza

    I would also would like to be abe to write whispers to MODs if I have chat-ban as I need to ask question about game/bugs somewhere. With ban on chat and forum at the same time people will have huge problems.

    From webpage, you can send a PM even if you are banned, unless you have an account-ban, then you'll have to contact by answering the mail you got from support team.

    Quote from Golden Frieeza

    everyone playing this game should be 18 years or parents monitoring kids so according to bytro rules it should be safe to send banned players there.

    Acoording to Bytro policies, users must be over 16 to play without parent monitoring.


    As NarmerTheLion stated, if you want to discuss this type of things, you should open a new thread where we can discuss it properly, this thread is for the monetization of the game.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HA8kSdsf_M


    Soldiers! don't give yourselves to brutes

    men who despise you, enslave you

    who regiment your lives, tell you what to do

    what to think and what to feel!

    Who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle,

    use you as cannon fodder.

    Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men

    machine men with machine minds and machine hearts!

    First - the problem : Declining numbers of players and I assume , revenue.

    I can remember when 500p maps filled within hours ( and very little GM was being used openly).Now I see one 500p map that is more than 10 days old and still not full. Roleplay , alliance and tournament games are effectively gone .

    Second - the cause : Unlimited GM use ( Pay to Win).

    I understand that there are players who enjoy spending large amounts of GM and I assume this means large amounts of money , although not always ( and that should really bother the players who do). But I doubt if it is enough to support the game over much longer.

    I can deal with multi accounting , backstabbing and wolf packing - these are real world problems. Even the large numbers of quitters in the early game can be called luck. Uncontrolled Pay to Win is different - it's just like a child who ruins a game for fun - no strategy or skill ( sometimes it seems it actually is a child). This has become very common on all games.

    Third - the solution : GM free games

    S1914 is unique in that it is not just one game , but a multitude of different types , all constantly starting and ending . It needs to try at least one more before it is too late ( maybe it already is ). A GM free game using a GM ( specified as bought not earned) entry fee was tried in an alliance tournament but not promoted or supported very well. Although it was not very popular ( for several reasons) , there are no alliance tournaments using GM left either. This should cut down the number of early quitters also. Keep GM use games for those who like it . See what survives. Keep HC and add anything that does not have the potential to significantly alter the game result. Email all accounts and tell them it's available - good luck.

    Greetings


    I think that we will never find out a good way to be able to use gm properly. "correct" use and spamming is two things that are actually very blur.

    I will say again that an advertising system that will let any player to collect gm and a daily+map limit (as a limit per day for one, not all of your current map) use of them, and an eshop will do the trick.


    Let the (you know which one) most profitable FREE game for 2018 teach all of us how this can be doable, profitable, funable(lol).


    Icarus

    In general I would say that some serious test should be run by group of players with the best knowledge of the game mechanic and they will show you what could be done when you use GM playstyle vs Skill(including Exploits) playstyle /Activity Playstyle. Run test, compare results then make sure that there is proper balance between all 3 playstyles. If we cannot do that we should creater paper-rock sciccors relation in which one plastyle beats another and there is no perfect strategy to win every map.



    tbh such a balancing test should be run 1 vs 1 every one of 3 factors playstyles to compare if they are balanced.

    as you can see problem arises when you start to mix playstyles.


    Golden Fighters Rush

    Golden SNS

    Lemming invasion of milions of 1pp units spreading everywhere supported by GMS


    these are just few we can mention which involve mixing.

    IMHO adding GM use on top of other playstyles very often leads to easy win.

    How many times we have seen Golden Fortress killing enemy army that was aproaching province without single fort on the third day...

    Or guy building railway system allowing him to move troops quickly form Spain to Germany in a matter of hours, not days...

    Running on speed with constant GM boost - this one is actually quite good against planes.

    Building 50 uboots from nowhere on the way of enemy fleet is another example.

    Most overpowered is OFC Checking Troops because it is like Reveal Whole Map cheat used in games. This one IMO should be removed completly or replacde by disposition of randomly choosen 1-5 units within affected country( to simulate bribing one of enemy officials).


    I do not think you can lose Alliance game if you properly use once Reveal Armies option. I never used it so it is hard but I know how valuable were information from spies about disposition of enemy troops when I was leading my alliances to a frontline. Having possibility to choose at will when to see enemy would allow me to use my plan to maximum effectivness.

    actually, make it simple?

    keep the current model.

    But on TOP of the current model, you create a true skill based ranking system.


    For the ranking system, you only earn points when you play in a goldmark round = paying 5000GM per person.

    But IN the game itself, GM use is impossible.


    This keeps the "easy money" system going & keeps the "i have fun paying and using GM so leave me alone"

    BUT

    competitive players have an easy method of having what they want.


    Competitive players have 3 options:

    1) get high command to avoid the GM fee for competitive games.

    2) play "open games" to earn free GM to be able to pay for the entry fee for the competitive games

    3) buy GM's to pay for the entry fee for competitive game


    AFTER this, you can still have alot of continuous improvements of paying a bit extra for god knows whats.

    But, you will have permanently eliminated the irritation for competitive players about so called GM "abuse"

    in that case you discriminate users using GMs as they are exluded from playing user with advanced knowledge, ergo they will always play easier opponents and never get to the level of competitive player what will lead in a future to competitive players coming to regular rounds and crushing everyone with highly advanced strategy.


    the thing is- competitive players develop strategies all the time. When they found new one they learned it and try to counter it. With counter ready they can win a war but still they have to think in advance and look for strategy that beats their own counter. I had the same with planes and right now I am on counter strategy against lvl3 planes. This means in general I never meet guy who uses lvl3 strategy like me but I already have counter against it if someone learns my strategy. Then , fighting this player I will be able to learn lvl4 strategy.


    When you play GMs then there is no need for improving strategy, you just focus od spending less and less GMs so you strategy is not becoming better , but cheaper.


    As I wrote somewhere- I meet a n account which was using Golden Fighter Rush. it was on level 1 strategy when it comes to planes so I killed hundreds of its planes loosing less than 50. it never thought about changing strategy but sticked to Gold strategies more and more. Seeing he is loosing more than 10-1 he started to create Golden stacks with 0 inf. You can guess what happens to them if they are hit by Bombers. So war turned into series of mindless golden waves produced from empty provinces- just to make sure he is pushing me back. But you cannot catch planes with land units so after loosign dozens of milions troops , around 6 mln GMs and 10-20 provinces he left a map in which he had 2200 provinces against mine 500. OFC he had supporters and they almost win a map as coalition but I managed to convince supporters to stop fighting me and wait for a result of war with top player on the map. Thing is he never tried to change his plane strategy, he just moved to another Gold strategy he knew and it was worse than the first one.... It cost me a lot of time - I guess I had to increase my activity like 3-4 times but this is a resource I can scale with 45-90 min spend per day on active maps. he was not able to scale time as account was already active 24h/day and the gold run out after a week. He did nothing to innovate his strategy, check with other players, practise counters on another map. He just sat on the account all day and was throwing gold thinking I will resign while I knew it is a matter of time when he will resign.


    Wars between GM playstyle and skill playstyle/ active playstyle generate the most gold for Bytro. I do not think they will resign from it ever. That is balancing GM influence is more important. The more chance Skil land active players have- the more gold they will generate from GM playstyle. It is simple as that. But from all 3 playstyles : skill based playstyle is the weakest right now in my opinion if I have to increase my activity several times when I meet good level GM/activity playstyle.



    btw. I am talking here about 500 and 100 maps straight from mine and my friends experience. We do not play smaller maps as it is more related to activity and GMs than to strategy. What I am writing about is checked and I can confirmed that. I am happy to hear about your examples how the things worked as we can write here a lot of hypothesis but only facts counts , facts experienced by you as you will be able to analyze them in details without any disortion.

    These players will be around. I dont think that we have to count them in. I think that the GM issue is about the unreasonable use, or abuse. Or to rephrase it more proper, as i see it of course, the GM use that will not allow the player to think.


    Using GM to speed up a unit 'cause you have to go to work is one thing, but spamming planes, arties, or moral manipulation is one other one.


    Limits, common sense, paying tournaments, ads and a better alliance are the keys!

    Frieza, you post alot of text, but what is the point you want to adress?


    you state that players who want to use GM's are excluded from playing with users that have advanced knowledge => please read my previous post again.

    My idea actually allow every possibility of this occuring:

    - competitive players who do not want to use real money to buy GM or to buy High Command, will have to play in "regular" games to earn GM. And they have to play good, because you get more GM's by winning. Meaning these competitive players have to use their best strategies to get those free GM's

    - the players who normally use GM during a game ,can always use 5000 GM to play a 'no GM during the game' with the competitive players


    So there are 2 very likely options for the exact thing you want to happen.


    Currently, there are 0 likely options for this to happen. Because currently competitive players have no reason to stay around.

    Sorry Macdouwe - I went ahead.

    Me and all competitive-players I know will never waste time to earn GMs playing maps with GM users. Our time , as I see it, is more valuable than lets say 50 pounds per hour. Why to waste weeks risking you will lose or t most win 5 k GM?? I am not even sure how big are prizes because comparing to what you can buy there are worth nothing.


    Other thing are GM users- who woulod like to pay to get their 4 letters kicked?

    It is possible tht someone is sado-masohist and likes to pay for it but we can assume what will happen.


    I saw three games going your direction - they finished up with two communities- one that was able to play and second that was able to pay. You can do it that way but my guess is that we will get more pro-players and GMs from them but less money from GM gameplay. when competitive will start to enjoy their new haven only active players and other GM users will force GM gameplay to pay for wars. This could mean Bytro will loose 5-20% of revenue from Golden Wars.


    I ofc support your idea as it is the best for guys like me but I must say, if 2-3 of us will come to normal game we will purge everyone from 500s without any problem. This new have for pro-players will create super-think -tank communitty that will surrpas regular players by hundreds of light years .



    PS. I write a lot because english is not my language and my english syntax is terrible so to make sure everything is clear I make sure i wrote everything in a correct order, in a correct manner. When I used "free" syntax noone from english speaking nations ws able to understand niuances. It is just more convenient for you guys I write more than less so we do not waste time on tlkaing about something I have never said.

    If Bytro loses 5-20% revenue from Golden Wars as you call it, then it is not a problem?


    I would estimate it alot higher, more towards 50%. Let's say 50%


    Small playerbase => revenue as it is now

    Change system, aim for a playerbase that is 20x higher => let's take a low estimate: 5x higher playerbase


    Revenue X playerbase X revenueloss per game = revenue X 5 X 0.5 = revenue goes up by at least factor 2.5

    Quote from Golden Frieeza

    they finished up with two communities

    The one community who can play and the other that is dead (probably painfully, hehe) ? !? and i explain...


    I think that Golden Frieeza is right. To make the game better who have to connect all the players. The strategist, the spender, the freeloader...All of them. If you divide them, you will create a two league community that eventually will die.


    P.S. Keep the talk to the fact. try (all) not to talk with made up numbers..

    military GM spendings need nerfing as their advantage is to high

    I am ok with economical GMs as I like someone building inftrastructure for others


    but when it comes to creating whole golden stacks from zero.... well that aint seem right

    it is like AI Hun fuction spawning fully upgraded top tier Stacks of Death in Atilla Total War evey year with a small difference : in supremacy you can spawn them every minute.....


    Quote from Macdouwe

    If Bytro loses 5-20% revenue from Golden Wars as you call it, then it is not a problem?

    problem with Macdouwe counting is that he still believes that active and skilled players would join paid GM-free rounds.


    Skilled players may pay but most of active players are just players who use time instead of GMs/skills and I do not see them coming to rounds where they have to pay. Maybe I am wrong but I will say more than half will not have money to do that. Plus who would like to pay for being crushed by pro-players? It is safer to assume theywill play in normal map where they can use free colelcted GMs whenever there is a need for that.


    When it comes to skilled players- there is no to many left after what was happening in supremacy since 2012 so revenue would be smaller than expected by Macdouve. Most of them are long gone . Some are still here but if new GM free map will not work as supposed I would expect part of them quit the game.


    In the end we will still finish with the same problem - team with most players joining game will win. Maps still resemble uneven alliance games where quanity decides. and devs cannot risk ideas that will not work. so they need to be 101% sure everything will go as planned.

    everything starts with a clear ambition stated by the persons who create this game.


    Which I havent found so far. That is the first fact that should be posted


    Bytro should announce their reason WHY they make games.

    After that, you can focus on the HOW & the WHAT.

    Golden circle, nothing more and nothing less.

    i hear since 2014 that supremacy is used only for making money to develop new, better titles

    it could be true as going into GM alliance games and GM maps killed competitive play and players just left.



    now mostly you will find random guys, activity SnS players and Golden Stategists.

    But if you meet a guy who knows how to properly use skills + activity + Gold then your are lucky as you met one of Gods of war. There is still couple of them left in this game and they produce a lot of gold for Bytro in Golden Wars.


    So my hypothesis is that Bytro got rid of skilled players on purpose OPing GM solution and acitivty (SnS). In short it is easier to compete between GM player and SnS player as they both have big chance to win - it only depends on number of time or GMs you will use. Very nice, easy equation with constant values. While if you have skilled player who can add GMs or activity according to demand - then it is very hard to predict what he will do as GM and time constant values just scale skills which are impossible to judge.


    Now imagine simple guy with a lot of money - he starts first map and goes into golden war. losses every single battle to someone who is 10 times smaller and still cannot figure out what is happening. Do you think such a golden player will stay in a game , try another map? Rule of 10 minutes also works in MMO games. I myself wanted to leave a game when I saw SnS for the first time used against my guys and having 5 players with 9 countries against 1 guy with on country in the Europe 10 map - we lost an alliance game. Earlier in the days skilled players were OP later they were nerfed and countered by GMs and SnS. I am guessing it was supposed to be some kind of balancing aproach to make everyone happy.


    True pro-players do not like to use golden options and repetitive exploits to win engagements. I believe every one of them will agree with that. But if you are forced as a pro-player to use gold or exploit to win a war - then you feal sth is not right. I must say I wanted to leave many times but I always met Gods of War here and there. And seeing how they effortlessly were defeating much bigger opponents I studied their skills and tricks, their GM usage, their exploits and bugs, their rushes and counters. And I must say that after 8 years I know almost everything about game engine. But I also see how unbalanced system is. It is possible there is no way to fix it anymore.


    Imagine a guy who saw every single exploit, every single strategy and tactic, saw all of them on all maps in different stages and analyzed them. You cannot surprise him, you cannot guess how much damage he can do. But he knows precisely how many unit of chosen kind he needs to crush you. And even if engine calculation went very bad- he can still use GMs or activity to fix it. He has only one small problem: to survive till first artillery avoiding all multiaccounts, wolfpacks and GM rushers. I saw a guy on map 100 who built around 50 horses with gold in one day to take over British Islands. Now i is hard to quarrel it is forbidden - but does it make any sense?




    So in short- GMs are good countermeasure against active and skilled players. But GMs used by the two latter players are mostly unstoppable for a simple, regular golden player. They give uneven advantage to a player who knows how to combine it with activity and skills. Thus IMHO they should not be used in wars on bigger scale or if they have to be used- they should boost defense- not offense. I always thought about Gms like something that gives me economical advantage , easier options to protect myself. As everyone is saying- reasonable limits form how much can be done with GM- should be imposed. Otherwise it is pay -to -win scenario.

    I think most people have agreed an option of pay to play maps with no GM usage is a good idea. They used to be available in the alliance league matches but I've never seen them in general maps.

    How hard would it be to trial that scenario? I know there are still many free players who could not take advantage but there are plenty of players who are willing to spend a little on a game but don't want to have to empty their bank every game just to survive past the initial 2 weeks when the GMers and multi's are more active.


    As far as the complaints about other tactics go that's a conversation for a different thread and Golden Buddha already knows my feelings on that subject :P