MAXIMUM JOIN DATE MAPS

  • MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DAYS TO BE ABLE TO JOIN PARTICULAR MAPTYPES, TYPES OF MAP:


    EUROPA HISTORIC, 10 PLAYER MAP: 10 DAYS

    WORLD IN FLAMES, 100 PLAYER: 10 DAYS

    TOURNAMENTMAP: 10 DAYS


    500 PLAYER MAP: 14 DAYS


    MEXICO VERSUS USA, 2P: NO LIMIT

    PASSWORD PROTECTED GAMES: NO LIMIT


    EVENT MAPS: 7 DAYS

    ALL OTHER MAPS: 7 DAYS

  • uuuu nice

    thank you :-)


    can I ask what was the reason to limiting ability to join longer round in unprotected by password games


    I enjoyed going to 100 -200 days old game doing my staff, and fighting much bigger opponents who had millions of infantry. Or joining confrontation between two mega alliances as a mercenary and helping one of them in exchange for troops and provinces. Now it is not possible.

  • it was enough to limit number of new players on the older maps to 1 per day /week

    it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater - as you have not solved the problem and the same will happen in the beggining of the map



    I was joining maps to take over 10 province nations and was defeating 100 province player only because the big guy was lvl 0 or lvl 1 player. But it was fun as he had every possible advantage except skills and probably many of them learned something from this wars. But I also lost many times if player was lvl2 or higher.

  • it was enough to limit number of new players on the older maps to 1 per day /week

    We're always open to suggestions which is the reason unranked maps are excluded. the RP community needs to be able to join maps late game

  • sorry to ask but I have no idea how it works: who is deciding about solutions:


    is it bytro or teams?

    The EN team tries to gather ideas and suggestions in the biglist (See link in my signature). Bytro reads these too. We discuss the ideas with bytro but eventually it's they who decide what does and does not get implemented. We (the Team) are only the messengers in between.

    Bytro usually decides if an idea is worth it by looking at


    • Effort to implement it vs gain for new potential users
    • Does it change the game play very drastically and what would the user base think of it
    • How important is the feature for the overal game play
    • How much overhead will the feature create for the teams

    So the question becomes basically for this idea "How many users that do not cheat, join late game and is it worth setting a developer to work to change it. Knowing that takes a few 100 bucks in wages that could have been spend elsewhere."

  • in short- most Gms are spend in end game wars

    allowing skilled players ( lets say above captain) to join late games would generate a lot of GMs but only if administrator of map has made places available...


    if he decides not to open them- they are closed. so it is more up to him .


    for the rest - limiting number of players joining later maps together with wolfpack rule that is easy to see here straight away should help.



    Problem is rather in skills- player has no skills and does not secure countries on his back. and then he is suprised he was was hit by a bot who turned into player . there is many of this 0 lvl marshals. I joined once a game where there was a marshal taunting me to play 1 vs 1. So she had like 90 provinces and I only had 10 with infantry. 1--th day I guess. She started to cry out loud straight away and called team that I am wolfpacking against her .... It was easy to kill here as everything was empty around her capital. But because I already proved my point to her that there is no point playing agaisnt her if she is panicking with 9-1 advantage I quit game to avoid spam and threats.


    sumarizing- problem is with a bytro aproach and player skills. game allows players with 0 skills to gain advantage over others based only on bacstabing or activity. Then , when they are hit by someone betetr they scream : wolfpacking,exploits,GMs,cheating.


    If bytro aproach was to focus on players progress, learning something about the game and winning by skills and knowledge then the game would be more interesting, more GMs would have been spent to win and we would have less screamers. Supremacy does not encourage or support players progress.


    I also had problem once on 500 where I was hit in late stage by 15 guys. I killed them all, but it took some time to get rid of them one by one. It was all about strategy to defend on 14 fronts and win on the last one... But it requires skills in strategy thinking, logistics, planning, offensive and defensive gameplay . Right now Supremacy is promoting the most basic strategies as a winning condition for maps .

  • Problem is rather in skills- player has no skills

    I disagree as we asked for the feature because it was proven the majority of late time joiners are in fact wolfpackers

  • hard for me agree or disagree as I have not seen information from all servers


    but if there is 15 wolfpackers on one map and there is one latejoiner like me on another map so I would treat it like 1 :1 not like 15:1. I would count cases , not accoutns involved in a case. Plus probably there is no complain or ticket about single headed late joiners like me who just want to have good time without multiaccoutns and wolfpacks in the first 3 weeks of the map


    for me it was a main reason to join later games as I knew I would not have to fight so many multis and wolves and I can slowly improve my strategy in wars 1 vs 1

  • but if there is 15 wolfpackers on one map and there is one latejoiner like me on another map so I would treat it like 1 :1 not like 15:1. I would count cases

    As stated we from the teams(all teams not EN) asked /begged bytro to implement it. Trust me when I say we did have the numbers but this does proof my other case about the unjustfull bans. You're sad because we made a system to stop a lot of cheating. It hurts your gameplay. Most users dislike any implementation that hurts their game play and they are most certainly right about disliking it. The teams are in a constant situation of weighing the pro's vs contra's of our systems and procedures so that we disappoint the least of our customers.

  • it is more that you forced me to play maps from beginning - awful lot of real time wasted that way. this directly influences things that I do in real life to earn money = I pay you less for GMs because I am not happy with implementation and have less time and money if I want to play Supremacy.


    I probably made couple of users to quit as I am forced to play from beginning and do not have time to play around sitting in the night. So I implement lvl2 and lvl3 strategies to remove everyone around which results in a lot of screams about cheating, using scripts,exploits, bugs and the truth is they just do not know game mechanics and a patterns which every map has. It is like showing electricity to a medieval peasant. Magic from a milk.


    It was more fun and more fair to fight one big opponent than to kill dozens of small ones who never stood a chance in the first place. It is said both for me and them that we have no fun in following food chain every single time the same way . And noone is happy about that. It is lose-lose situation.

  • it is more that you forced me to play maps from beginning - awful lot of real time wasted that way. this directly influences things that I do in real life to earn money = I pay you less for GMs because I am not happy with implementation and have less time and money if I want to play Supremacy.

    You still ignore what I said

    As stated we from the teams(all teams not EN) asked /begged bytro to implement it. Trust me when I say we did have the numbers

    I will not keep repeating myself. Nothing stops you from joining a game and not doing anything the first few days ... For the one big user you killed who spend months going through the early game play just to be backstabbed by somebody he thought was and would be an AI was much more stressing tbh anyway. Plus then you talk you who joined and not wolfpacks that joined to aid their friend late game by running all their troops on the biggest giant till it collapses. Or people late game multiying because they feel they're losing the fight,... All cases that also happened and happened a lot.


    The benefits outweighed the downsides. Or with your own words:

    rule of lesser of two evils


    I am sure more people have quit game because of that as it is seen as a weakness of company. IMHO cheaters would be interested more in staying in such a system than casual players

    There are very few users that join late game without cheating for a friend. In percentages most late game joiners are cheaters. We picked to remove the option. And in this case because you see the negative effects of it you disagree with it. However in the case where you stated this lesser of two evils quote you want it to harm more innocent users then it currently does and you expect in that case there will be respect to our implemented limits. While in this case you complain about such limit that was created to aid the majority of users and staff.

    As stated before all decisions we as staff and as bytro make are outweighing benefits and counterparts. If the solutions were easily found by removing or adding features they wouldn't have been issues for as long as the game exists. Example are vpn connections these are actually checked and higher a red flag. (Even though many people believe we only look at IP address) But a red flag doesnt need to mean the user is cheating a vpn connection might also be to play on school/work/... where the site is blocked. We flag it with the reason to look more carefully. This too late game joiners are a flag both for user playing the map and for mods. A lot of bigger people will complain if a late game joiner defeated them as they see it as unfair.

    We used to look into it to see if it was truly a cheat or a true late game joiner looking for a challenge. and the majority of the cases where wolfpacks and multis. I'm open for the idea of removing the limit but then We need proof that a lot of users are lacking this option in regular ranked gameplay. As it creates a huge overhead for the teams and spoils a lot of gameplay due to cheats.

  • Solution:


    in a creation panel of games add tick : late joiners. By default it would be off. Add some nasty description what could happen if you will decide to use that option.


    But whoever will decide to join a game with tick on - knows the risk... and can not complain. And if he does- ban him for flaming the team.


    Add restriction that from Major you can take part in such a game. It is more painful to lose Major lvl account than a newbie lvl one due to punishment for wolfpacking. There would be some hardcores who will find a way how to feed their newbie lvl account in 500 maps and then reuse them in above game scenario - but you will limit the number of cheaters considerably.


    And ofc banning . I do not think you will ban such a player from a game entirely but locking his ability to join later games would do. Or you can flag him with a comment. Next time it happens again - 2nd or 3rd time - lock the account completely with all relevant IPs.



    "

    For the one big user you killed who spend months going through the early game play just to be backstabbed by somebody he thought was and would be an AI was much more stressing tbh anyway. Plus then you talk you who joined and not wolfpacks that joined to aid their friend late game by running all their troops on the biggest giant till it collapses. Or people late game multiying because they feel they're losing the fight,... All cases that also happened and happened a lot."


    not sure was was written here, but I do not like to fight with sticks and stones ( lack of mechs). So joining later gives me opportunity to build quicker, observe my neighbors build up, get some diplomacy and start a war when I have mechs, bot sticks. ( stick wars/ cave wars are the wars where you have only cars cavs and infantry)


    When it comes to wolfpacking accusation - ? I always played alone but it was hard to win 500 so I joined two 500s with 1 friend and we won both 500 we have started together . Probably you refer to a test case I described- this was true scenario from my national server where I saw it couple of times when I lost. Frustrating like hell to lose a map to someone who was not able to win a single war alone.

  • Probably you refer to a test case I described-

    I'm talking about cases I've seen back when I was Game Operator. Making it optional is something I wouldn't mind but I doubt a lot of people would use the optional flag. Such option exists if you count the "Unranked" game mode as there it's still possible (was made this way for the Roleplay community).

  • hmm


    but why not to make some money on it


    Let's make a flag on creation panel

    but also allow only HQ users to use "late joiners" slot. .


    There is much smaller chance that someone who paid HQ will be willing to break Bytro rules , risking being banned for wolfpacking and lose of his/hers paid HQ.


    if I may ask- how many % of cheaters have HQ??

  • if I may ask- how many % of cheaters have HQ??

    well till recently you could win HC on the wheel. So it didn't really matter but it is true that you are less likely to buy high command for a throw away account.

  • it is true that you are less likely to buy high command for a throw away account.


    then use it to your advantage and allow certain gameplay features , exploited by cheaters, to be used by HQ as a paid option.

    I am happy to pay for a HQ if it will allow me to do more than a free user. And you have I guess 90% chance I will not be trying to cheat afraid of loosing invested money. it is hard to call it backstabbing or wolfpacking if one guy joins a game on 10 province country while everyone else has 50+ provinces