If you believe a GO takes the wrong decisions you can move it up to the SGO who is the second line. They can take a look at already closed cases and review whether or not they agree with the decision taken by the GO, This is what the team has Senior and eventually Main Administrator functions
In the English version of the game the provinces are usually named with the English name that customary for the time. If they're written in Russian are you perhaps playing on the Russian server or where you talking about the english writting in the wrong translation if such then the above is the reason. Also don't forget in WWI Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire So it does make more sense then you'd think.
Now we have copy-paste answers which takes 5 seconds to do the ticket.... almost no work. It saves a lot of time comparing to hand written answers which actually were checking a case.
The main part of resolving tickets is not writing that reply. It's getting all information gathered. when you get the default reply mail that is when they handled your ticket they do thatthe exact same way they did before only difference they are no longer allowed to inform you. It's not the Mod crew that asked for this but bytro so if you want to complain about it I'd suggest going higher up the chain of command to the people that actually take those shots.
You're moderator wait till the end of the month xd
This is a protection mechanism against multi accounts. It would be too easy for them to spend free gold on their main account to boost it.
Seriously thats the explanation you'll come with? How about how moderation pay out is also this type of free (useless) GM? You think moderators are multiaccounts? And why would GM won from maps need to be in that, multi accounts most likely blow tutorial GM on eachother?
Form several mods I am receiving information which for me sounds like closing a ticket without even looking into it:
"Due to data protection regulations I won’t be able to inform you of the outcome of our investigation.
That got introduced when I was still Smod, and trust me most of the team members find this a horrible reply. Yet bytro demanded us to send this reply regardless of the actions we take.
As such as I've always been against bytro's approach on this, as it just indeed sounds like the team isn't doing a thing, I agree with you on the fact that the outcome of your ticket should be shared. If I report somebody I ought to know wether or not he got banned. Arguments I used when I was still Smod is that in games you still see in the newspaper wether or not a user was banned or not. And indeed if he was given a warning I'd like to know as then I know my report was valid and that if he does it again he has been sanctioned and as such will be removed.
From a customer service point of view Bytro (not the crew) made the wrong call and a fake call as that entire thing doesn't fall under data protection as far as I know (as stated if we ban you can notice a user was banned regardless of the mail we send you). If we remove his messages and newspaper articles you can notice in the newspaper, etc. As such, and I also told Bytro officials that when I was Smod, I think bytro just takes the easy road here not the customer service road.
LC's is the abbreviation of Light cruiser (the naval unit smaller then a BB)
the list of
posting that on the forum will however not speed up your case the English crew has a lot of extra users due to corona more users mean more tickets bare with them while they increase their capacity.
Im sure they arent forgetting about you however the forum is managrd by moderators and the tickets by Game Operators so all you can do is be a bit more patient. Im sure one of these days youll get a respons
Hey there Joseph don't know if you still remember me but glad to see you're around again.
yeah winning a map is part 1/3 skill 1/3rd tactics and 1/3rd dumb luck basically xd this does explain somebasics for the 1st 2/3rds
. And for your world war to be achieved the majority of the people in your map must be the type of users who'd like this option.... If you get that done (and thus invite people who actually think this is a needed feature)
This especially if you are vasalizing while your opponent is growing gives you a weaker spot so you actually end up in a situation where if you yourself use this option you are reducing your power.
Lets go to realism for a second why did personal unions puppet states and vassals actually exist? Contrary to the game they existed because if you took direct control the local people would be more resistant and trying to overthrow the foreign power. If you install a puppet government the local people think they are independent and as such are less likely to riot against it. And also because annexing territories of civilized nations was frowned upon and would shift the balance of power to much.
Now in this game balance of power is something you want to shift to your side, and everybody knows and does that it's a conquest game not a game where you try to guard the balance of power which is what happend in the real world and is the reason historically allies change to guard it. e.g. how Britain and france suddenly unite after centuries of hostility because the new player (germany) seems to disrupt the balance of power.
Secondly this game would lack any form of nationalistic riots and revolts which would make occupying costly. Which is another reason why in the real world it's opted to influence the government of a nation instead of conquering the nation.
Annexing a nation is not frowned upon so it has little reason why to guard international relations as contrary to rl the alliances will remain even if you become to powerfull because this game isn't endless in an endless game you woul dneed to betray allies to guard your own growth just like irl.
im noticing we play for different reasons 😂
I can find winning games very boring, to the point that I'll make bad deals and look the other way.
No, I'm saying the majority of the users play for different reasons I play RP there winning is always the 5th thing to achieve. The majority of the users are just conquest type of users as this is per definition a conquest type of game. The majority of users would not care about this option or use it.
And as such still remain with the opinion that an investment in this feature would be a waste of resources that bytro already has short. And for your world war to be achieved the majority of the people in your map must be the type of users who'd like this option.... If you get that done (and thus invite people who actually think this is a needed feature) you could as well have asked them to use the coalition features (as Furry1 already explained) . Else I guarantee you that most of the users in your randomly joined map, will not use this feature they're retire upon losing their main stack to save their k/d and the conqueror would just take it all as he can use the full amount of resources better then just some small tax amount.
If we're going to make gameplay and realism meet then maybe the first thing to handle are the horrible province shapes in most Bytro maps. No eye for cultural, natural or historical borders at all... That is the first unrealistic thing where gameplay and realism could go hand in hand that annoys me the most. Althought even that should apply only to new maps as I also for that part agree that bytro should first focus on handling issues that don't have work arounds
Sorry but I don't seem to get what the missing feature is here?
it is actually very common.
mainly it is beginners who arent familiar with things like dmg efficiency and morale and get totally crushed.
i like to give them a second chance, so they may learn, but im not polluting my coalition with rookies.
Ones againt his would work if people actually communicated generally which they don't so most new players would end up vassals of either inactive or deaf nations... Ooh what a fun... A lot of other games revolve a lot more on communication I would also dare to say anybody who uses chat and forum will use communication in game but after years of being a moderator I noticed heavily that the largest group is not on chat or forum and does not use ingame messages for diplomacy other then fast trade and cries for aid when they start losing somewhere.
I do play Victoria II every ones in a while and there are also vassals and personal union, you could even in modern day still see the british Commonwealth as such personal unions of nations together under the british crown although most likely the ties are more fragile then they were in the past. Even In WWII the use of puppet governments (and thus vassals) was used so I have to debunk the historical irrelevance. It did exist and it still exists in some form but just keep doubting I want devs to put in effort for a feature that as stated above can be done through general diplomacy. And second would probably be used by maybe 5 to 10% of the users. Then I'd like the devs to put in effort in bug fixing, other more wide spread features or the moderation tools.
On The RP outcome being set in stone (bit offtopic) not always true Hastings TNT There are different types of RP's. Those which involve Landshuffle often indeed see the game admin as strongest and most likely winner (also because he's often loved by the people who joined so they're biased into helping him) however there is a type of RP where you don't LS and just start with the balanced Supremacy map.
As last I would like to state, Yes it would be realistic, but in all honesty bytro in all other forms destroy realism for the sake of fairness and equality, this game does remain a (and Victory II is not) conquest game. The end goal is full conquest of the map So if somebody is weak enough to agree to becoming a vassal (and thus almost ensuring never to get the victory) he'd rather quit and if he's so weak that he'd agree then chances become realisticly that most conquerors will push through destroying the last of the resistance. A game like Victoria II is more a realistic game your end goal is not (and when you'r enot playing a large power it's even impossile) to dominate the world for at least 50% that is a game based on realism and overall fun.
every ones in a while there is a pop up on the main page which asks to join the Frontline pioneers ones you accepted it's important to join a frontline pioneer map (use the advanced game filters) else you'll be kicked out due to inactivity
Agree with the Gentlemens agreement, and this is what Alliance Battle Maps used to be about...until I ran into an Alliance leader telling me that Gold Use is allowed in such a battle map... and there went the 'Gentlemens agreement' out the window... Tactics based solely on morality can only succeed when you are dealing with people who are moral or a system that is moral, so we need be aware of who is and who is not a gentleman....
I agree anda lot of players who start to lose accidently slip in some GM too at times.you're only certain with your friends
I doubt many nnew players are awaiting to be a slave of another nation tbh. And you also have the lack of diplomacy on the other side. In order for this feature to be used both the offender and the defender need to be diplomatically skilled. Which makes effective use of such a feature still void. You wish to add another layer but as stated above.
Andd maybe if people would start actually using diplomacy instead of jumping into coalitions never saying a word...
Most people aren't using current diplomacy not to make alliances/coalitions not to trade not to talk strategy. Both on winning and losing side. Why would somebody who just destroyed another nation spare him so that person can backstab later? Most winners wont do that.
And most loser would leave before you can even message them. My conclusion remains
Then I'd rather have bytro focus on other features that aid both the RP and the Regular community. Andd maybe if people would start actually using diplomacy instead of jumping into coalitions never saying a word... Then Maybe this idea becomes valuable else I think still 95-99% of the losing nations will leave, especially taken that most people already leave if they lost their main army even way before the enemy enters their territory
Bit risky to start a topic like this this thread could end up in blacklisting. However you are right you have people that focus on single games and do their best in one or some games. Others join as many games as possible and will win in one and more importantly build in all so their overal profile score jumps up faster then the dedicates user. That is why I never really payed much value at the general score a player is defined by it's K/D's
Perhaps gold marks to enter a game is not a bad idea.
I think it would indirectly lead to more consistently populated games.
...but i don't think limiting gold marks will happen realistically, maybe in player hosted games
The discussion that has been waging basically as long as I can recall.realism is that most paying users still pay to get the advantage not to get the fair playing ground. And most of the free users would still not buy GM's to join GM free rounds. SO for bytro from a sales perspective it just isn't that valuable especially if you look at how much GM passes through some maps. THe best we have is still since day 1 the Gentlemens agreement