Cool, but it would be a harder game after,
Generals would add more complexity strategically.
Generals should be a unit that adds a modifier.
Leaders should be like spies that add an economic modifier and also be able to be killed by spies.
PS: I Don't mind if they want to add complexity, but for me, Supremacy misses on the diplomacy aspect ( trading land, trading armies) that would allow more cooperation and ceasefires.
Posts by I NIKAS
-
-
yes, The strongest units contribute to the damage first,
An Army of 50 tanks and 50 inf would have the same damage as an army of 50 tanks only. -
lol even the bot declared me war after I gone to sleep :p
I am never playing this game again .... I want to be able to sleep -
How often do you check your matches? I do check it every 1-2 hours for 10-15 minutes how do people don't have time for family or other stuff in their life, ofc except job at job you can t really play this game unless you have a job that let you check it time to time also if you are in like 10 matches is not Bytro mistake you don t have time for all. (talking about x1) (x4 is just a mode for people with too much time)
Time wise I am the best case scenario of Parent (1 kid), I have an office job, I don't have issue at work and I use High command every time I play a map.
But Even me whenever I am at war I have to sleep late and wake up earlier than normal,
It not right instead of relaxing a bit with your wife and kid in the morning , to go check supremacy for 10-15 minutes first.
This is why I stopped playing more than 1 map per 6 months and I don't play more than 31 players maps , Even if I love All the big maps and modes.
I would like to have supremacy as my main game but Supremacy and family life don't go together.
Even if a Game Life Balance mode was behind a paywall to join, like Gold rounds, I would Happily pay that.
I was playing this game with 4 other friends , they all stopped because of this. Even if they agree that's one of the best strategy games out there. -
You Prove my point , Game has a market gap!
To attract and retain more players/customers, the company needs to launch a Game life balance mode.
Most people with available revenue to spend have Jobs and family.
It would be a good investment for Bytro. -
The ability to pause a match for 8 hours doesn't seem feasible. you will find that players from all over the world play S1914. to pause it for 8 hours would benefit some in certain time zones, but punish those in others, as half their day would be paused.
I have already written it, just pick the map that suits your time zone.
they will not pause all at the same time.
The speed increase is to compensate for the time the map was paused. -
The problem:
The game is running for 24h meaning that if you are engaged with it, you will lose your carefree sleep during a war or requires your attention during working hours.
It becomes more of a liability than a relaxing game that you play in your free time.
Solution:
- The game pauses for 8 hours every real-life day.
- Pausing time period will be indicated on the map so the player chooses the map with their preferred time frame break.
- To compensate for the time the map was paused the speed of the map adjusts to 1.5 so it runs a full game day in the time frame of 16 hours.
- During the break diplomacy and trade is available but everything else is paused.
PS: Nuber of hours and speed are indicative it could be 8-16 and speed from 1.5-3
This will also allow for a more competitive game instead of trying to outsleep the other player.Players/customers, with available revenue to spend have Jobs and family.
It would be a good investment for Bytro.
-
The real reason unit trades were removed was because of an over powered exploit with planes and ability to trade planes to another player during attack which caused continuous attacking of a target.
Thank you Hastings, didn't know this exploit but this is also solved with the new proposal as "trade mech" would have 24h delay
I doubt Bytro will pursue any such alterations which would complicate the new simplicity of the game> UNLESS... there was a way to that Bytro could make profit from the pursuit.
For Bytro to get some return on their investment, They can enable it for high command only, as they have done with share intelligence.
I would be happy to pay a fee to have this extra option in the game as it is very useful for peace agreements, cooperation and opens more playstyles. -
@I Nikas If I understand it, you would like to get ridd of the trade of resources in favor of the trade of units.
Hello Frisian , Not at all, I would love to have them both.
My point was that as trade resources is an implemented and acceptable feature despite of how much it can be used from Multi account abusers. Then trade mech units a feature that can not be abused by multi-accounters has also to be an acceptable feature.
I play the game since 2011 , I know the issues, that's why I proposed a refinished version of it,
24-hour delay and restraining it to mech only solves all the issues basically.
( the 2 players in different time zones playing all day with the same units. is solved for exmple)
(you can try to think of any of the old abuses you will see that have been solved or cheater would be better off using other tools instead )
the newspaper article is extra anti-cheat protection. -
A great explanation to ban trade resources while don't allow unit resources. Devs will be fascinated with that.
If that keeps the devs fascinated sure, It will make stakeholders mad though if it affects player base interest and profitability.
It will also contradict what you told me before that the game is supposed to be about diplomatic interaction and strategy rather than tactics.
Removing trade resources and trade mech would be basically the devs disabling the game part by part because they fail to solve an issue. ( As a dev myself, I would be replaced from my job if I was delivering such solutions to the clients)
Thanks for commenting on my analysis though, and subtly agree that trade mech units is as acceptable as the already features in place,
(don't know why the subtlety but I respect your reasons)
If you have the time to show this analysis/proposal to the developers, would be much appreciated.
I personally think that both features, trade resources and trade mech are acceptable and net positive to the game,
They would create more interest and revenue than disappointment and loss, but if they chose to remove so be it.
Also, Devs are absolutely not interested in making the newspaper an info resource. So, newspaper in the future will be less and less informative, in favour of espionage.
That's an interesting aspect, that Would buff the espionage section of the game,
What would be this newly created free newspaper space used for though, an anti-cheat safety article would be more than welcome to cover a little of this space. -
I understand your worry about Multi accounts and wolfpacks and couldn't agree with you more, when they occur
the damage is already done.
They can from day 1 attack a neighbor, trade all their recourses, and leave their provinces empty for their main account to conquer.
But this proposal is not about tackling multi-account issue. This proposal seeks to promote a functionality that would enable mech units trading While being a lot less abusable than the current mechanics.
So I am asking you, please ,take a step back and compare it with the current mechanics of trade resources.
which functionality would be the tool that would be used to inflict much greater and instant abuse, the current mechanics of trade resource or the trade mech units?
-
Essentially, those units were transfered to "mercenary" players, who fight for the client with those units in exchange for collaboration at other maps for them to win goldmarks easily. That's also a problem and a huge tool for the Wolfpacks, since they were able to transfer once and again those units 24/7 to protect them.
OH thank you Demonaire!
just realized that" trade mech units" would not be abusable from Wolfpacks too!
and if used from them it would reveal them and nerf their abuse!
Right now Wolfpack abuse exists and they can use trade resources instead, to transfer resources to their collaborator.
Let's say then, a Wolfpack tries to abuse trading mech units.
Instead of transferring resources to their collaborator from day 1 as they used to do before.
They start to invest those resources in their respective countries and start to build workshops and factories to make units.
Now what that means:
- They have to defend all their respective countries,
( sidenote they will need to survive for 14-15 days until the first canon gets built),
- Spend resources that their collaborator could use instead.
- They will have to travel the unit to their collaborator borders,
- They will get delayed for a critical 24h before their units can be used for defending from their Collaborator,
- Other Players will notice the transfer, consider their wolfpack a hidden Coalition, and calculate their strategy accordingly
- if trade mech units are done repeatedly for account pushing their Wolfpack will probably get reported too.
In contrast with the current situation in which they use trade resources.
- the collaborator gets to use the resources from day 1,
(he can make workshops everywhere and spams Cars, instant return from the Wolfpack hidden coalition)
- no game time attention and resources get wasted on building up a defense for their supporting nations.
- No need for the Wolfpack to border their collaborator.
- Their Collaborator would have all the mech units available to defend his country without delay.
- It is done in silence and next to impossible to get reported
So Demonaire what do you think now, which mechanic is a better tool for Wolfpack abuse,
the one that uses the current game mechanics or the one that will use trade mech units? -
Even if Bytro are able to accurately detect all cases of multi-accounting (thats a very big IF), it currently takes 3 days (sometimes longer) for them to process multi-accounting tickets. So if the freeze period is 1 day, multi-accounts will wreck havoc for 2+ days. Even if those players get banned eventually, the damage would have already been done and would be irreversible.
Hello ScaredyCat , thank you for the feedback
As I analyzed in the previous post I am not relying on bytro wasting company resources spotting and banning them.
I rely on the fact that, would be a very inefficient and difficult way to try to abuse multi accounts and a Very risky one.
You can go read and tell me, which multi-account abuser will wreak more havoc, the one that uses the current game mechanics or the one that will use trade mech units? -
They did change it with a reason, so I dont expect they change it back.
It was a nice feature in the past, but I myself wouldnt like to have the trade option of mechanics back, because it will be abused, trust me
Thank you Frisian, you give me the chance to clarify something important
You won't have the same old mechanic back...
Trading mech units" seems the same as "trading armies" But there is a subtle difference that removes all the issues that the previous mechanic had.
Right now multi-account abuse exists and they can use trade resources instead, to transfer resources to their main account.
Let's say then, a multi-accounter tries to abuse trading mech units.
Instead of transferring resources to his main account from day 1 as he used to do before.
He starts to invest those resources in his 2nd country and starting to build workshops and factories to make units.
Now what that means:
- They have to defend a 2nd country,
( sidenote they will need to survive for 14-15 days until the first canon gets built),
- Spend resources that their main account could use instead.
- They will have to travel the unit to their main account borders,
- They will also get it delayed by a whole day by default,
- Other Players will notice the transfer, consider the 2 nations allies, and calculate their strategy accordingly
- if trade mech units are done repeatedly his accounts will probably get reported too.
In contrast with the current situation in which they use trade resources.
- the main account gets to use the resources from day 1,
(he can make workshops everywhere and spams Cars, instant return on using a multi-account)
- no game time attention and resources get wasted on building up a defense for the 2nd account
- No need for the multiaccount to border his main one
- It is done in silence and next to impossible to get reported
So Frisian what do you think now, which mechanic is a better option for multi-account abuse? -
I don't see the developers putting unit trades back into the code, especially since they would also have to code a 24 hour delay into unit movement, and 0 stats due 24 hours.
That's more interesting feedback, thanks.
Why do you think they won't do it?
Is it because of the developing cost?
- they Already have the old code of trading armies
- Already have the embark/disembark functionality that keeps an army stationary for an amount of time and changes stats
- they only have to edit the old code a bit to allow only mech units, That's not costly to develop.
Is it because of something else? -
You would get the same effect by trading them the resources needed to build the unit, and they would generally get it faster than 24 hours.
That argument was either hastily formed or comes from a biased perspective.
-Trading resources do not cover the needs of demilitarisation functionality, in which player A seeks to remove some military power from player B in mass and in an instance, in exchange for peace and other forms of co-operation.
- But also resource trading will fail to deliver what instant trading units can do in the concept of helping an ally that immediately needs support in mass, bombers need 4-3 days, not 1, Also the amount of production is limited by factory number and levels. -
Good question , anyone?
-
Greetings mates I would like your feedback on how to promote this feature.
Concept of use: you can trade only mech units, not infantry
Useful for: creating peace agreements, demilitarization of a defeated enemy, vassalization, subsidizing an ally, loan unused equipment etc
Anti-Abuse mechanics:
1. traded unit gets 24 hours of 0 speed and 0 stats ( this is to prevent ROW abuse)
2. A post is created in the Newspaper, to let others know what is going on ( informs for potential hidden allies and multi-account)
3. Unit doesn't change position on the map it just changes owner.
This mechanic can not be abused, if used from multi-accounts it would reveal them and nerf their abuse, Change my mind!
PS: please vote it up with a comment, if you think it would upgrade the game experience. -
Oh yes, thank you!
Sorry I got distracted from my kid and didn't pay much attention before posting. -
This is because you are giving ROW or higher to that player (while the player did not give you ROW or higher). Try changing your relationship towards him to peace.
The clue is in the message "you will attack an allied nation"nope, just tried and turned my relation to peace.
