Posts by Golden Frieeza

    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.

    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.

    ofc there are exploits within exploits - years ago I saw a guy who was able to shoot 3 minutes before time on his ground and almost 90 seconds before on the enemy ground ...


    I generaly speek about guys who know how to use SNS and are active 24h per day for couple of weeks ,sometimes months

    they firmly believe they can win just by activity and it takes milions killed in ratio 100-1 to convince them to quit fighting. As you noticed- I do not like to waste my time but the more stacks are send, the more time I have to spend killing them. In general no skills nor GMs help against such a combination of SNS and hyperactivity that is why I am forced in the crucial moments to sit longer just to make sure I stay in a game. And this is why I think SNS should be not related to activity so much or the link SNS+activity should be nerfed somehow. Unfortunately in this only more activity beats hyperactivity.


    Reasonable SNS for 4-8 hours per day is not bad but non-stop SNS for months- this is very sick. Especially if it is supported with GMs to run on speed march after enemy. Or produce 50 arts from empty province in 30 secs.



    I once played against guys who were said to be the best among RolePLaying users- they somehow catch my arts with over 2 times bigger armies but I was able to use melee stranghts of art infs and cavs and managed to survive almost whole day till relief force broke them. Trick was to divide untits properly and use arts harvesting strenght to maximum. OFC I was called cheater and they did everything to harm my reputation but it did not stop me from littering map with their corpses. This is when I saw I do not have to worry about my stacks because even if they get caught I will obliterate enemy without to much problems. You just set up defence perimeter and wait till relief can come.


    anyways:

    1. nerf SNS by increasing reload time to 90-120 minutes / or by allowing return fire every single time

    2. decrease melee strengh of arts. Arts were never stronger than cavs or infnatry when it came to hand-to-hand combat so this is very unhistorical.

    I don't know what maps you are playing but I rarely find I am against an opponent who only uses SnS and even less who can get the better of me - I enjoy the challenge of people who use tactics over just ramming everything with a massive tank army, I consider SnS a tactic not an exploit but I guess those who don't like it will try to get it banned. IMHO the mindlessness of the game in those who do nothing but send huge armies marching through everything, they take heavier losses and when they do come up against a half proficient player they will lose.

    Yes you are true - I am not getting to a point where I play some random players. I mostly meet guys with small empires that were created mostly by SNS. Casual player who are ramming everything with numbers - it is hard to call them even players as the chance they will survive till the end of map without single valid strategy is equal to 0.000001%. They are more like AI countries , destinated to be eaten, but led by casual people. Do not get me wrong - I do not want to make anyone angry but everyone knows that this kind of casual players are next to go after AIs are down.


    So in general what you feel about casual players on the smaller maps doing same,simple,mindless ramming activity in hope of better future - I feel the same about SNS players in a bigger map. They are everywhere, they do exactly the same thing, they even react the same way to your strategy as they have to use /protect arts. This is why I use my strategy because it is valid for SNS , GM rush and superactive players, not so much against other type of players. So I am pretty sure you understood how I feel because you feel the same about other type of players. One sidenote here- ramming opponents with hundreds of horses before arts - it is very efficient strategy of winning alliance games on a small europe 1914. I also won couple of tournament/ players league games with horses supported by heavier equipment later and I must say that if you have a plan how to attack and encircle arts - then it is a valid strategy.



    Last paragraph leads me to one thought- why arts are so powerfull in hand to hand combat? they should have 2 factors- one is range factor, second is melee- which IMHO should be much lower like it is with planes on the ground. Now melee arts are very efficient against ACs/Cavs and Infantry- what about nerffing it from 1.5 points to lets say 0.15. This will lead people to chasing and attacking them with melee units even more fun. I must say that could lead to changes in thinking and hopefully decreasing number of players who do not see any other way to counter SNS than SNS itself.


    give it a think.


    still killing enemy armies, with a same units, without single loss is freaking huge exploit and something should be done about it.

    couple of words why LC rules:


    much quicker than anything , with water covering most of the 100 and 500 maps they are main weapon of choice to control continents and logistics through water

    fast to deploy and strike, even faster to retreat - ideal hit and run weapon


    how to play them - carefully as they are weak against Uboots and other range units. keep them surrounded by supporting units or next to shore under plane umbrella.


    generally you build 500-10000 of them, divide them into 50 units squads and send on the raids with agressive fire. It is good practise to put in front on them 10-15 units which will clear a way from uboots - trawling is your friend. put 10x50 LCs next to each other with agressiv e fire and nothing will stop you from devastating enemy lands (unless cities are empty ...).


    what's more? Hmm- check their AA defence. 3 LCs= 1BBS but in terms of AA it would be 3 > 1.2.

    OFC BBS are better against Uboots , but trying to kill LCs with uboots and BBSes is like trying to catch Cavs with Arts.


    There is one more trick related to LCs and I am guessing everyone should know it. Connected with Cavs and Infs at sea they can do some harvesting . Such a combination is known as a sea-stack and is highly resistatnt to dying. Even planes struggle.


    There is one more thing that makes LCs and BBSes good - but who knows that knows. Rest does not have to know about that I guess as noone is writign about that.




    So set Pirate Flag and kill all this 1pp scouts swimming everywhere. Burn shores, irritate much bigger guys by destroying their garrisons on carribean island or in Indonesia and then quickly withdraw to your save haven in Australia or Africa. Try to avoid inner seas as they are bottlenecks. Dissrupt logistic lines and have fun from game as everyone should enjoy, not only big ones or active ones :-). With a group of 500 LC and well supplied Easter Island you can stay in the game till the last day. Just make sure you do some extortions with your fleet to supply it. Or maybe some other big guy will pay you for being his Privateer. 60 kk dead shows the power of my LC when there were only 1500 of them and they rammed enemy fleets and shores.



    GL & HF

    I am one of those mindless players who just uses SnS to win


    It is SNS explopit that is mindless, not a players themselves. If someone will join a game today and I will show him how to properly use SNS, how to defend against attacks (SNS,melee,planes) and how to produce arty then he will be able to win most of maps just by staying longer than oponents on the map. If 1 day player can defeat players with years of experinece- there you have my description of mindless exploit.




    There would be no fun if everyone had to play the same cos there was only one available tactic to use.

    As you may not noticed there is only one tactic/exploit ( call it how you want) used in Supremacy and it is called SNS. That is why nerffing it will make game more interesting as you nicely pointed out above.


    Maybe we should see if they can change sup so everyone can only give orders to their armies once a day, I'm sure that would make it much fairer for everyone and get rid of all those pesky players with more time to play.

    there were questions about that but no answer was give. It was more about how many hours you will spend in game per day. But as you said it is enough to retreat - that is why peopel without time IMHO should play only 500. There you can defeat anyone by spending 1-2 hours per day.




    But hey you will be able to say you got rid of all those cheats who chose to commit to being able to log at any time needed, when I can't log I only retreat as far as I need to for the hours I will be away - it has nothing to do with my enemies hours but my own so your point there is moot.

    +

    Punishing activity would be very weird indeed.

    it is not about active players but connection between SNS exploit and activity so the balance between time, GMs and skills could be restored. Ofc I can sit longer and for a player throwing 6 mln GMs in a week I used more time than for a player who was SNS 24/day 365/year but there is less Milions-GM-Worth-players than super-active players. I am guessing 98-99% of players use only SNS and when they figure out opponent is more active they just surrender dropping from a map. I will also drop if I have more important things to do in a real life as I already know I could defeat that opponent without problems but he is not worth my time. I slowly getting to this point where supremacy is not worth my time if only sitting longer decides if I win or lose a map. How much strategy is in that- you tell me.



    But I must say I like to watch players with 1000 arts and 20 mln troops chasing my faster units, watching them loosing undefended provinces as they do not keep steady frontline, their economies collapsing from to many wars, their huge stack enricled and loosing morale in freshly conquered provinces, stacks dying on sea or shores, their swears in DE that you are a cheater because you can win against their obsolete SNS strategy and all of that small things they do not know about that you throw on them every single day.

    most of game currencies in any kind of game are spent by misclicks. why to stop players from spending them that way?


    I myself misclicked Uncover Armeis 20 times in a row as I was sure I am buying spies.... noone ever gave me back my 33 k GMs :-)


    but try to appeal, you never know

    This would not be in the slightest bit realistic, the delay in firing back actually mimics real life.

    answer is- who cares what is realistic if this exploit giving advantage only to a player who is active. from what I know exploits should be removed from game so everyone has same chances to win engagement. If I saw in another game 100 troops killed by 2 without looses I would have only one thing in mind.


    I am also at a loss to work out why tactics that are available to everyone in the game should be changed just because someone doesn't like them.

    quote above from me and add: why should players be punished with the exploit left on purpose in the game just to artificially support active players? I would not mind if this exploit was balanced but it is unbalanced and is a reason why better player quit a game since 2012.


    Warping is available to EVERYONE (and not limited to AC) always has been for years, if you don't know about it or use not the games fault.

    another classic from a players: let me ask you that- if someone kills 300 of your planes without loosing single one of his ( and I know guys who can do it) will you say the same: it is available to everyone and it is your fault you lose against 10 times small player, because you do not know the trick? Same with walking straight through your armies , being untouchable while attacking enemy and so on.


    SNS also available to everyone, and there is a simple counter to it if you know you are not going to be online, make sure your armies are a safe distance away. Retreating is also a tactic available to everyone and can be the best thing to do in many situations and guess what - after retreating it is still possible to win you just need to use your armies well.

    now lets imagine that account is active 24h/per day. I am guessing 3-5 people has to run it. How long will you retreat? accounts24 hours overuse SNS and this is the only reason why they have chance in this game. Never think about SNS alone - it is hard attached to overactive accounts.



    You need to play to your limitations and not try to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator, punishing people with more time, or more patience or more money is not going to make the game any better.

    this is exactly what happens now- lowest common denominator is unproductive activity related to mindless SNS which results in exactly 0 new tactics or strategies . This is punishing people with more skills and more GMs but less time. Doing that is not going to make game any better but on contrary- it makes it worse and full of weak players whose only advantage is sitting longer and then attacking. Person with more activity wins- super, why then to bother playing this game? Imagine playing poker and people who sits more- wins. Or playing football and team with players standing longer on the pitch- wins. Exactly same patern.


    I am guessing I contradicted every of your commonly used arguments with exactly the same logic you guys are using to defend SNS or activity. If I missed something - let me know.

    every MMO strategy game has GOs who are analyzing flow of materials,troops and cities/provinces. If they exceed norms written down by company- players are punished for breaking the rules.

    Even if ,like in case of supre, someone is attacking his friend to avoid the rules - players are still punished.

    If GOs do not have time to track it- automatic system is punishing everyone and then you can appeal from that to GOs.

    Allowing multiaccounts to rule a game, being afraid to hurt other players is the best way to lose players as you will lose more who will be dissapointed with a game and administration.


    I lost couple of account because I have not read rules properly, I appealed and sometimes accounts stayed blocked but I never thought about it as an unfair.


    IMHO hard limiting transfers of everything from account to another ( no matter how it is done) is better choice than limiting number of players who start a game together. We just need someone who set up a daily limit or exchange factor, using solution form other successful games (copy-paste if you want) and get on with that. Set up automatic blockade or automatic kick from map and then wait for appeals. Multi account should not appeal from ban so in 90% of cases punished account will not appeal. There is only 10% of work to be done .


    I do not want to be punished with 1000 of new multis every week because someone is afraid to hurt feelings of a playerX who is balancing on the edge of cheating/braking rules.

    So this is what I pointed out:


    1. most of players doing this huge alliances are kamikazes- they protect back of PlayerX and then grow to certain levels just to kamikazes into new enemies. It could be trated like normal game but n many cases they cannon fodders and as soon as they lose whole army Player X moves to second phase ->

    2. PlayerX takes what he can: resources, mechanized troops, puts his soldiers into empty towns of kamikaze ally. When ally lose a war - Player X takes over everything for free while person attacked by a kamikaze player loses a game. We also have here capital farming as taking over ally/coalition member/multiaccount finishes with taking capital

    3. from two above we see it is very easy to say that most of 500 games have woflpacking issues. You can debate that kamikaze players joined a game to play and then decided to be kamikazes for player X- but what is a difference between being kamikaze in the begining and becoming kamikaze in the end- for game outcome it is the same as it destabilize balance of the map and put other players in worse position.



    This is how alliances/coalitions worked in my national server and english server on maps 500 and 100. And I must say I do my best to stop such a players from winning maps even on the cost of my own victory.

    Bytro and teams should be more straight forward and I guess more agressive in removing such a mehaviours from a game.



    I have nothing against 20 players playing together. But if they are giving all lands resources, troops and lands to one player who is the best between them just to save their skin. Now this I will call cheating and wolfpacking.

    I'm not a very well player, I used to have time as my main defence, and waiting my strike out at the right locations/timings. However with a job, moderating and other hobbies my time is more limited then ever, I'm more then likely a sitting duck in most maps.


    and that is exactly why there should be a balance between time-GMs-skills.

    players are discouraged from joining games and bytro is loosing players. Thank you for summarising it.


    arty with S&S,AC Warp Jump and harvesting are to powerfull to other kind of units.

    even planes can be easily countered but not combination I described above. Just to say - I once shoot down 297 planes in one go - this could tell you how easy it is to kill them in the air.

    In the game it has been simplified somewhat from real warfare to make it fun for those playing and not to get down to too much micro management which would put a lot of people off.

    well S&S is too much micromanagement IMHO. when you add AC Warp Jump related to it there you have it. People with no skills at all - but knowing S&S can kill the best player with the best defensive setup, if attacked pro-player is ie. on the party, wedding or working. And please do not tell me that pro-players should sit all the time- people without GMs and skills have to sit all the time. Regular players use time, rich players use GMs, pro-players use skills. Holy Trinity: time-gold-skill.


    there is another overpowered feature related to arties- harvesting something. Who knows- knows what I am talking about. You create such a snowball and add infnatry to it rolling it from one side of the map to another with S&S. This is greatly OPing arties and should be stopped in my opinion as with S&S creates somethign that is hard to kll without skills.


    when it comes to SnS/S&S - just change a game code so if player is hit by a range unit and has this range unit in a range ( arty vs arty as it is mostly) both stacks are hit at the same time and dmg is applied without one shooting earlier than other. Problem solved. Ofc there would be guys sending 100 inf to get bombarded as a decoy - but this alone will require more micro thus SnS will become less and less valiable option. It is strange that someone with 10 arties can kill someoen with 1000 arties without losing a single arty.... It is not even strange, it is not worth a comment. Imagine other game where two groups of untis of the same class meet and unit that is 10-100 times smaller wins without a single loss. Do you know such a game- I only know one company producing them. There should always be some casualties if units of the same type fight.

    48 kk: 0.5 kk in 24 h in one war against 3 guys


    problem is it is boring and I let my allies to finish them when I am done with killing main armies as there is no point in killing strings of lemings going against your armoured armies without any thinking. So there is a feeling of uncertainity for 1-2 days if you are going against guys 5-10 tiems bigger and stronger. You are thinking if you have enought troops, maybe you shouldnt given them upperhand restricting your military on purpose. But after that it is just regular slaughter.



    but maybe I will give you another eample how this could be exploited. 10 guys. 2 in australia, 2 africa, 4 in both americas and 2 in europe. Guys from europe got resources from 8 others. They quickly conquered spain and started to move towrds africa where resources went next. Then with West europe and north africa secured they pumped resources into australia that was easily overrun by share number of mechanized troops sponsored by 8 other guys. We had new zeland Guinea and celebes at that time and without any problems took australia from them. This stopped whole their coalition as they were not able to support americas properly so american guys from this group were destroyed as australian group. This prolonged game but as you imagine they already created empires in africa and europe reducing it only to two players, eating 2 other allies with 0 casualties. Asia joined their coalition thinking they can survive in that big coalition . but in the end they were asked to prove what they can do and they died in our malasia and indonesia. so they gave up whole asia for free ( 0 casualties) to europe and africa. As you can imagine at that stage fighting 3 k provinces with only australia and indonesia was quite hard as we were at war since 100 days all the time. I myself finished upp with 37% morale in my country because all friends of this big alliance declared war on me. This is why I was not using cavs and inf - they were loosing morale to quickly to be usefull.


    maybe it was possible if I commited all my free time to S&S. but there was no point in wasting real time worth hundreds of dollars per day to defeat someone who does not even know how to conquer asutralia with 10 times bigger economy and army. ANd this, more than anything else force me to play less and less in supremacy, even though it is a great game and has a potential. There are not enough pro-players left to kill all this blobs,multiaccounts,activity players. If there was at least 1-2 guys like me in every continent and they were not eaten in the first week by a swarm of infantry from 5 countries then I would play more and put more effort, and probably more money into a map. But because I know I am playing someone who is weaker than Narmer or Nemuritor ( ;-)) there is no point in wasting Gms or real-time.


    I guess now I made it clear what I wanted to achieve by limiting swarm-type players based only on share numbers.

    In other topics I try to show how to atract pro-players to come back to a game but even I cannot do anything if I ask my friends to join me after many years, they come back, they read chat/forum, they see how peoeple write in DE and backstab themselves, how they exploit weaknesses of the game , how they build 100 fighters instatnt. It is really hard to translate them it is worth to stay, that this is a norm and we need to close our mouth and play nice even though all this crazy things happen around.


    I believe that should be enough to highlight a problem.

    ok bobokill- this sounds as a reasonable ending


    but imagine guy who hsa 2500 provinces and 60 mln troops and he just floods everyone with it because he is bigger.

    so your only task is to kill wave after wave and then move forward taking his provinces. asa you can imagine he will resign after loosing all frontline troops so theere is no fun as that player had no idea how to play and how to win. the only thing he knew was how to eat allies with their resources and provinces, and then use numbers against others. you learn exactly 0 from fighting such a oponent and this summarize stagnation in Supremacy strategy and tactisc development. Why to think, look for new solution if you just need more friends on the map than others and hopefully you will not meet any proplayers with enough time to stop you.


    It is closed a circle and without doing something about it you will get rather boring games in 99% of cases. and who wants to play broing game when the result depends on the numbers of supporting account and not the skills or knowledge? I saw similar games when kids where fighting each other in the woods. The ones who had more people or longer sticks always won. So as you see system forces people not to get better but too get more guys. And if I see 6 people fighting my 4 people it is obvious that someone from my smaller team will join bigger alliance to secure coalition victory. ( that is probably another topic how to make the game more enjoyable).


    In general from a military game supremacy changed into diplomatic (backstabbing,betraying) and economical ( more friends, more multiaccounts) game . And even though there are still pro players who can defeat 10 times bigger armies players who were defeated by this prplayers are called cheaters,exploit users and their reputation is often damaged but false comments made by players who have not a clue how game mechanic works. (this is one more topic how to keep balance between diplomacy,economy,military ).



    In the end getting people to try harder instead of getting more friends should stimulate progress of players.

    The game has alliances and with those encourages players to form groups that play together. To then limit them and suggest they have an unfair advantage because of it is not right.

    You have 2 choices, you can join an alliance and play with people you know and trust or you can chose to go it alone and hope allies you make in games will work out for you.

    My experience of allying random players in maps is that most will stab you in the back and that is the reason I chose to create an alliance and play with people I know I can rely on.

    There is already a limit to how many troops & cities you can transfer, limiting resources would have little effect IMHO, when a group of good player chose to play as a team it is their combined experience and tactical knowledge that wins for them.

    I think the main problem is not with groups of real players but of individuals running multiple accounts, even when you can get them banned from a game the damage has already been done. I do not know what the answer to them is as it is pretty simple to set up proxy servers if you really want to cheat your way to victory.

    As you said it is mostly about multiaccounts, remote control of of "friends", or just giving up whole countries to one guy while doing nothing to enjoy game. I would say that guys who join map just to support one player brake to rule of wolfpacking as their only intention is to work against neigbours of the main player in he group thus it should be forbidden. especially if they send all troops on the neighbouring nation, lose all army, allow main player to take over their provinces. This also means that player who was attacked by such a mindless country will have no chance whtsoever to play map in 99% of cases.


    most of MMO SG I know have rules limiting this kind of behaviours. I myself am tired of killing so mindless blobs who only fight AIs, eat alive their friends from alliance or coalition or attack people 5- 10 times weaker. Ofc you gain a lot of military points from that and almost undamaged countries but killing brainless waves send on me by players who has no idea how to play is not a kind of fun I like to spend my time on.

    Personally I would preffer to fight someone smaller but with more skills to elarn something.


    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.