Posts by LostRealist


    Why not, right? It's my feedback thread so I felt like also throwing in the little things that I feel aren't ideal or whatever. Maybe someone agrees and maybe someone agrees with them then and maybe, one day, someone in Hamburg agrees as well. It doesn't feel like much longer of a shot than the other stuff above, even though here's where some highly taste-related items are probably going to show up.

    6.1 - Flags are not round

    They are rectangular. I disagree with this Eurovision Song Contest-looking decision to the fullest extent. Please make them rectangular again, like, you know, a flag.

    6.2 - "Declare war and start fighting"

    I venture the guess that even someone well below the age requirement of the ToS has enough of a concept of what a war is to not need the super redundant "and start fighting" bit at the end of that. It happens in the popup that asks you to confirm a war when changing your diplomacy setting to declare one. If it said this in response to an actual attack command I'd give you the benefit. But not right there.

    6.3 - Snapping to orders

    Unless my memory of it is already so tarnished, Legacy also didn't do this. Letting you snap a new move order to the target of an existing move order when it's not in a city or at a fork, but just at open path. I realize the same effect can be accomplished by selecting both stacks or units you wish to give the order to and then just give one order, but I've always wished for the convenience of not having to do that and instead having the target of the other order provide snapping. Now that the target is always displayed in the form of that huge arrowhead I feel like it's almost too apparent not to have it that way.

    True, I guess the while lines are still there but they very often run right on the paths underneath so they sort of fade a little and they still connect the most irrelevant aspect of the unit icon to the location though, which I have stated my issues with. It's the thing I try to glance past as I'm reading a unit icon.

    The mechanic that moves unit sprites away from one another I cannot see at all anymore though, regardless of the number of sprites. In my own thread I have an example of just three individual stacks overlapping each other in such a way that only one of them has a readable unit tag at all.

    I agree on the colors and general graphics though. As far as I recall, the reduced graphics mode was introduced later, which in my opinion looks much more readable and pleasing at least as far as the backdrop, the map itself is concerned.

    Nope. You can see your own global popularity only when looking at your own nation. When looking at other players it's specific popularity of their nation toward yours (which may start to matter once that nation goes AI).

    Yeah, turns out I was misled myself. Either way, it doesn't tell you the other guy's popularity, that was the main thing.

    who generally have that "Customers' always in the right" philosophy.

    I generally agree with your sentiment, of course it's daring to tell people off, but I think it's not much less daring albeit on another level to ignore them when they actively try to help you improve your product.

    And I quoted you there, because that's far from the mentality that I personally have, but in this situation we have here, it's the customers who are the ones using the product, not the company itself. So sure, they're not always in the right, but on questions about how you play the game and how this should be accomodated by its interfacce design, they are more proficient and maybe a little more likely to be right in this particular setting.

    and my popularity is much lower than them !

    You do not know another player's popularity unless he tells you. The number it gives you when selecting a human player's profile is your own global popularity, the average you have among all the AI. It's a little misleading, but that's what it is.

    Also the fact that there are no precise numbers anywhere and nobody really cares about it all that much is your hint that it's not nearly that important to gameplay. Popularity will do things here and then and over the course of a game it deteriorates, usually, anyway. I think there is reason to doubt that knowing the exact numbers would provide any gameplay benefit to you. Come to think of it it's not even such a bad thing that you don't have the exact equation for your own Excel sheets - should it really be that predictable how a random nation's leader comes to form his opinion on you?

    So, summarizing, these "diplomatic" words still holds to the truth: "Thanks for your patience. We're working to give you a better service".

    This point is surely a valid one and believe me, my personal image of Bytro is not that of a highly-efficient company with more resources than work to do.

    But then it all gets murky when you take a look at what they did get done over the past four years. How many changes were made to the game that nobody ever asked for, while items of feedback that have been emphasized time and time again sit idly in the forums, collecting digital dust and not even recieving an acknowledgement. If someone had ever replied to any of that with an honest "Sorry, I don't think we can pull it off" or "Sorry, the development team disagrees on your opinion that this is an important matter" when presented with specific feedback, the point that they're not game development gods with tons of excess resources would have been perfeclty palatable. But like this...

    A creator could set a daily GM spending cap that players couldn't exceed as a fairness standard, but wouldn't interfere with Bytro's revenue generation because it would be reset each day.

    Any spending limit, no matter the implementation, will interfere with revenue more than having no spending limit does. "More" = "Better".

    I remain in favor of a "Win game round immediately" button fo 250k Goldmark in every game. Save everone some time and anger, you know.


    I am not a programmer or a graphic designer, I am writing this from a long-time player's perspective who considers himself fairly proficient in how the game works and is operated by players. I can't tell you how to make it so that unit icons will go out of the way of one another like they did, or how to make it so that multi-tabbing several games is more available again. I can only tell you that these things are issues from my perspective and point to how they were possible for programmers in the past to accomplish. Right here.

    There are many more things about the new UI which I personally find grotesque, but I have tried to limit this list to the more objective and more general issues that can be explained more or less argumentatively rather than by taste and also the ones that are primary concerns to me.

    These concerns have also been voiced by indisputably top-level players of the game. Some of the quite literally and measurably best players in the world, the people who are the best on this planet at operating this game engine, dislike the new client to a point where some find it "unplayable". This hurts marketability. I cannot demand the company to see this as a grave concern the way I do, I can only emphasize my very strong opinion that it is, and that I consider it phlegmatic business practice to not take into account the opinions of the people who are the quantifiably best and most proficient at using the company's product.

    We all want this game to be successful and good. For all we know, it's successful already. But for the points mentioned here, it can be better as a game.

    I just leave this here. Make of it what you will. I will very likely continue to try and claw my way back into enjoying my experience with this game. I'm still not sure whether I will make it or not, but whether I do or don't, here are my suggestions. Thank you for your time.


    I feel like there's not much to add to the title of this one.

    4.1 - Multitabbing

    In order to have access to multiple games simultaneously in several browser tabs, the following steps are apparently now neccessary: 1.) Open the Homepage 2.) Select a game 3.)Open a new tab 4.) Go to the Homepage 5.) Select a game

    I do not think having to go the detour via the homepage and loading every game once again each time you want to check on it is acceptable given the fact it was possible to enable players to accomplish opening several games with one single click per game. In case it was entirely unknown that there are players who play the game like that, now it no longer is.

    4.2 - Why do you force this clutter upon me

    I dislike quite strongly that a unit's movement path is always displayed even when that unit is not selected (or mouse-overed, as was the extremely convenient implementation of this in the Legacy client). This not only clutters the map with moving stripes that are unneccessarily distracting the eyes but also becomes next to meaningless as soon as several units are taking the same paths since they all show as one path. This is a part where the game now technically gives more information at a glance, but it's not helpful to constantly be shown every single path of every single unit on your map. In the late game this simply illuminates all of your paths all the time with move orders going through them.

    Make it so that a unit's path only shows on the map when mouse-overed or selected again. This prioritizes more relevant information and emphasizes the player's own ability to organize his military movements. It might also help alleviate performance issues on weaker devices.

    4.3 - How can you make even THIS chat more intrusive to my life

    The chat window cannot be placed in the extreme corners of the screen. On the left, it is always in between the tab bar and the action, on the right it just won't snap to the extreme edges just because it doesn't want to? Or something. No, "inactive mode" is not a solution to this.

    Being able to place it in the extreme outer corners of the screen and possibly adding a resizing option would be solutions to this.

    4.4 - At the edge of the world

    Quite old is the notion that it is inconvenient that you cannot completely outfocus the map anymore as you could in Legacy, e.g. scroll past the edge of it to maneuver around. The player is now forced to zoom because he bumps into the frame and cannot scroll past the edges anymore.


    I use this quote a lot here, since it's the verbatim description Bytro gave for the Legacy client's advantages. It's really nice, I think, because it really perfectly pins down the main characteristic of that client.

    This chapter deals with places where that value is lacking in the new client and could be recollected. It's understandable that long-time players and hired designers and developers have different understandings of what information is valuable. This is why an actual exchange of ideas would have been of great benefit in the development of this new client. I want this game to be successful just as much as Bytro does. I have no more interest in making it unappealing to new players than you do. And the "at-a-glance informative value" is something that helps make a UI appealing and I want to help you bring this game back to providing that.

    3.1 - Resource Icons

    Thanks to their edgy, dark, grey-ish color scheme with heavy shading, the resource barely stand out from the background at the size they are at and mange to, despite their obvious differences, look very similar on the map and in the menues. The more schematic icons of Legacy served their purpose better and where very easy to spot from far out. This seems like a case where it was simply missed how important it was for players to be able to spot resources on the map at a glance. They can surely look better and more modern than Legacy's icons but still maintain the ease of visibility on the map, especially a cluttered one. It is important information, especially to newer players, who sometimes have a hard time making the connection between resources and provinces because they don't really notice the resource icons on the map. It seems hard to find a reason why it would look worse to seek a more visible implementation.

    Simplify the color scheme and/or outline these icons and increase their size so they are more apparent on the map.

    3.2 - Building Icons

    Conversely, building icons on the map are extremely hard to spot. When I first transitioned to the new client I thought for a few days they had just been removed entirely apart from fortresses, which also looked way more impressive in the previous client and could do with like a 400% boost in size. Those puny, tiny little chimney stacks at those weird brownish colors blend into the background of the map so perfectly in so many cases, I literally didn't notice them until I saw someone on the forums ask what that weird icon is.

    Both of those problems are also massively exacerbated by the "everything overlaps everything" issue. The disparity to the "at a glance informative value" of Legacy is massive to someone who is looking at the map.

    Simplify the color scheme and/or outline these icons and increase their size if neccessary so they are more visible on the map and cannot blend into the background so easily.

    3.3 - Alliance Flags

    Alliance flags used to be displayed under a nation's flag and underneath their flag on the unit icons. This was a very convenient way to know other people's affiliations and also show your own.

    Display coalition flags on capitals and units in the map, subordinate to the country's flag.

    3.4 - Forced March being represented on the map

    There used to be a different color scheme for a unit's path when it was on forced march. It would turn the stripey stuff to red and orange. Please do not point out how the stripey animation moves faster on forced march, I am aware. I am also not a radar gun.

    Bring back seperate color schemes for force marching units for more at a glance information.

    3.5 - Activity Status Icons

    It could be very easily implemented again to show the activity status of a player when a province is selected. The information bar at the bottom could easily show different symbols for active or inactive players. This would be much more convenient and reliable than the options that are currently available, including its accessibility to new players.

    3.6 - Zooming out

    Join a 500p game and grab a country in northern siberia.

    Now try to zoom out to a point where you can see the entire country and also the province borders and detailed unit tags (with types and numbers) are visible.

    Such a point is not available.


    The province borders bail on you first, then it's basically everything else. Oh okay, there's some troops there, but that's about it. Yes, I could select them and scroll through them, but that's not "at a glance informative value". The province borders not being displayed so early on in the zooming out is an especially unnerving bummer. I actually do enjoy the clean look you get when you go all the way out, but I need much more detail in the zooms before that in order to be able to run a large country.

    Displaying the province borders way longer seems like a very minor impact to thoughts like "marketability" and general appearance but adds back information that was needlessly removed from first glance access. In a similar fashion, unit icons should be displayed from much higher up with much more informative detail.

    3.7 - Buildings times mouse-over

    When mouse-overing a construction in the province administration tab, the remaining construction time could be shown.

    3.8 - Revolts

    The thin, pellucid stack of smoke coming from a revolting province on the map is laughably hard to notice. It even hides behind unit sprites:


    Change this so that revolting provinces are much more apparent from the map view. This was possible in the old client, it should not massively impact "marketability" to do it again. It used to be possible to glance over a whole bunch of provinces and immediately see the ones below 35% morale. Now this is not possible because of how small this tiny little visual hint is and requires one to have the luck needed to have nothing else obscure the visual hint completely.

    3.9 - Selected units

    This is a point where Legacy also wasn't spectacular. One of these units is actively selected right now:


    And I think it should be much clearer to tell which one it is by looking at the map. If not for orientation, then for visual satisfaction. The monitor you're using might have a large impact in this, I reckon, at your color settings it might look more visually separated. I have tried this on three different screens though and always found the way the selection is represented far too subtle.

    It would be easy to implement a color palette option here, or maybe invert the colors of the unit tag, any number of creative ideas could quickly make the difference between selected and unselected units more dramatic and add effect, also help especially new players navigate the map when making battle plans and whatnot.

    3.10 - Province borders disappearing completely

    Check this out:


    Province borders are completely invisible here thanks to the country's color on the map. Not even selecting a province helps at all:


    This is just nasty on the eye within all the context. It's a repuslive outlier that breaks the rules of the rest of the design, because province borders are not visible here.

    Redesign province borders in such a way that the color of the country cannot obscure them.


    I was proficient in the old design by ten years of practice. Obviously, any switch to a new UI is going to take adjustment on my part. These are issues, however, where I feel like functionality was simply scrapped without replacement or changed in ways that appear objectively unneccessary and, importantly, where functionality has been lost that was integral to the gameplay of someone playing the game at an advanced level.

    2.1 - The map view is disorienting

    It is absolutely not unusual for new players to take a long time to understand the concept of a unit's location on the map. The large sprite, which does not offer that information in itself because it is offset from the actual location, naturally draws attention to itself. This is even reinforced with the unit's "tag" pointing right at those sprites. It is unintuitive that these two vastly most prominent features of a unit's display do not correlate with where it is on the map. I am not a "new player", I am aware that the unit's actual location is the tiny red dot on the map. But even so, when looking across a country from a little bit of a distance, this sort of display is simply disorienting because my brain has to correct for the misleading information that the two features it percieves strongest provide.

    The Legacy client in contrast provided all of the information on a unit or stack of units bundled in the exact location on the map whenever possible and had active provision in place to still make it easy to read at a glance (see 1.2) whenever the simple solution could not be used. It makes more sense to the neutral observer that the location that a game piece would be displayed most prominently is in its actual location on the game board of the game it is a part of and the new client fails to do this while the previous one was especially good at it.

    Re-design unit icons in a way that emphasizes the informative contents of them: Unit types, unit numbers and unit locations. Aspects which are qualified to distract from these three informative values of a unit icon are to be avoided as this robs clarity across the entire UI during almost the entire playing time. See chapter one.

    2.2 - The resource bar

    In the top bar, the resource and money stocks are now rounded and shortened. This is one of these where the change seems incredibly unneccessary to the overall appearance of the game but hurts "advanced" gameplay for no apparent benefit.

    It is annoying enough on it's own that I have to mouse-over to see the precise amounts instead of having the "at a glance informative value" anymore, especially if I want to know the exact stock amounts on several resources, having to mouse-over every single one of them individually.

    What makes this especially irritating however is how that mouse-over does not work when there's a tab open. It often happens that I want to know the precise stock amounts that I have of something when I'm hustling on the market to maximize efficiency or the exact time a stockpile will last when I'm fiddling with the sliders. To do this now I have to 1.) close out of the market tab and 2.) mouse-over the resource, 3.) memorize that amount like an animal or something and then 4.) re-open the market tab, 5.) repeat for next resource or to see how long the stock will now last and then readjust. In the previous client, it went 1.) glance upwards and maybe 2.) mouse-over to see how long the stock will last if in critical area.

    This can objectively be called a major loss of playability for a minor difference in appearance.

    Thankfully, the fix is simple: Return to the full numbers in the top bar instead of the "x.xK" format. And might as well have that mouse-over work while tabs are open like it gracefully did in the previous client for extra credit.

    There's a word limit, right? I'm sure there's a word limit. This is gonna be a painstaking thing to post.


    There seems to be varying perceptions of how much "actionable Feedback" the "legacy players" have provided towards the improvement of the new client. This thread serves to order the "actionable" feedback that has been given since its initial release and along the years in some sort of format.

    Not all of these points were initially raised by me, far from it. These are all points that I subscribe to but if other points are raised that are deemed important in the context of this work, I shall expand the list.

    I tried to refrain from inserting items that are mainly taste-related. Not because I find them unimportant or too hard to quantify, but because experience has shown that the company will dismiss these points immediately based on the "matter of taste" argument and it took enough time to type all of this out already that I don't need to waste more of it.

    I am not doing this to berate anyone. I am doing this in the understanding that it is a common goal between both the players and Bytro that Supremacy as a product should be as good as it can be. From this is where I draw the conclusion that a loss in functionality would not be intended but rather an oversight in the development processes. I understand that the visuals are a major factor in "marketability", but this is not a painting. It is a thing that is actively interacted with by players and the way this interaction is accomodated is a part of the "marketable" experience.

    Yes, this list will bank on comparisons to the Legacy client at some points. This is not because I'm so in love with Legacy and want to keep it around. I have made it explicitly clear in the past that I was never opposed to giving it at least a spit-shine, even modernizing the whole display.

    It is just the most sensible thing to compare the new UI to because it's literally the same game. The good things that it offered are achievable within Supremacy1914 and my proof of them shall be the fact that they existed in Legacy. And then why shouldn't the new UI strive to include them as well? I do not point out things that were better in Legacy because me and Legacy need to get a room, I do it because those things have been implemented better in the same game before. It serves as proof of feasibility and it simply appears to be the most logically reasonable item to compare to for demonstrative reasons.

    I would not be opposed to improvements to the UI that would also have been improvements to Legacy.

    The only way to compile this I could commit to was a category format of sorts. It's not very possible to assign an order of severity to these issues that could be held up as anything near objective, so I refrained from doing so. An item being lower down in a chapter does not indicate anything about its percieved importance to me. And even still, this is not a perfect format. Some of these could easily tick multiple chapter's criteria.


    These are issues I percieve as obvious to any observer, in the sense that it is clear that they are at least "not ideal". They are mainly concerned with visuals and contain cases where the visual representation of the game is severely tarnished to a point where it just doesn't "look good".

    1.1 - The big one

    Everything about 3D-Sprites overlapping. They somtimes do this to absolutely extreme effects:


    This seems simply chaotic and completely unresolved by the display engine. It appears as though no care was given at all to the way situations like this are displayed to the user.

    It is obvious to even the most casual of observers that this is in no way a crafty or appealing visualization of the game mechanics. It appears make-shift. Note that this is just one of countless examples.

    1.2 - Everything overlaps everything everywhere

    There seems to be no logic whatsoever that dictates which items overlap which items on the map view. The hierarchy, if there is any, appears to have just fallen into place in the order the items were added during the development process. Unit sprites overlapping the country's flag and leader names on the capital city are irritating, sometimes making both of them entirely impossible to see. The large amount of space that these sprites occupy without delivering any informative value to the player within that space exacerbates this problem. This is a large contrast to the "at a glance informative value" that you have attributed yourselves to the Legacy client and it looks chaotic and unorganized. The reasonable observer might find the choice to have informational content hidden behind unneccessary decor somewhat unusual.

    Decide on an organized hierarchy of display order, if clashes cannot be resolved without overlapping, which would be the ideal first solution. Prioritize items by amount and importance and relevance of gameplay information they deliver.


    Here, informative value gets lost from the map view. I have to select each unit individually to gain access to their numbers. The client does not even try to accommodate me here, and this is only three units. The Legacy client used to move the unit icons around if it had to and drew clear and distinct, sharp black lines from the icon to its location on the map if neccessary to be able to show both the full stack icons to give all the information on unit types and numbers as well as the precise location on the map. It quite literally went out of its way to be able to give all of these informations at a glance all the time. This functionality was essential to the informative value of the map display and is lost completely. Like, not even remnants are to be found. Everything overlaps everything everywhere all the time like it doesn't matter one single bit. I do not believe an argument of this being favourable to "marketability" can be made.

    1.3 - Other general sillyness

    It is objectively nonsensical to display the sprite of any kind of ship or submarine offset from its location in such a way that it is displayed "swimming on land":


    There is no reasonable justification to this. It appears lazy and unfinished. Yes, that's where the sprite goes relative to the unit's location for all units all the time. But it objectively should not. This way of displaying naval units was not handed upon us by God above. It looks bad, it is disorienting on the map (see 2.1), it heavily gives off the impression of bad craftsmanship on the development of this display.

    Re-design unit icons in a way that makes it possible to implement the functionality that was possible in the past, where they will avoid overlapping while maintaining the pointing lines to indicate precise location on the map. It is also undesirable to have unit icons cover such large parts of the map, because the map is an essential part of gameplay, too. They should be changed in such a way as to deliver information more precisely while being less intrusive to other information. This is one of the hallmarks of the Legacy client. Its unit icons could have been preserved and polished up, improving their appearance while maintaining their functional values, if no new design could fullfill the same standard. Since this was not done, a design that leans on these principles very heavily seems like an appropriate suggestion to make.

    In all honesty, while from a player's perspective it is hard to find any arguments that are not in favor of this suggestion, it's not realistic that a company would say "No, no, that's enough. Please keep the rest of your money". Gameplay is a secondary concern when it comes to sales. This is the case here and everywhere else on the current market.

    Your best hope would probably be legislation that forces providers to implement spending caps to combat addiction and protect consumers, which has been suggested in the EU but so far apparently been successfully repressed.

    1. As you can see, I can outfocus the map in Legacy almost totally, that allows comfort to the user when he needs to manages troops in the extremes of the map. In Frontline, that's not longer possible and that comfort disappear (we need to zoom in to do the same management

    This, by the way, is still a bummer and a half for pete's sake.

    Also quite funny how those early screenshots actually containt features that were helpful and then removed, like the white line connecting the sprites to the actual ingame location and sprites at least trying to get out of the way of one another, albeit neither of these implementations are especially breathtaking. It's still just baffling that they were both just pulled while all of the actual feedback here remained untouched.

    I would prefer seeking out some way to attract more players who will last a while instead of the revolving door crowd that has been washing through the game for a while now.

    Advertising this game for what it is instead of being ashamed of it might be one way. It's a slow-paced, board-gamey game. It's not the action and explosion-packed instant gratification sort of thing it tries to present itself as. Because of this constant and extreme flux of players you are bound to run into pretty new players aplenty in basically any public game. Many of these players might be playing their first regular speed game and be turned off immediately. Or they're just at the stage where they realize the pace of the game is just not for them and abandon it. But for every one that does, a new one joins and joins some games before doing the same, and so the story goes on.

    And the numbers at head office look great that way, too. So many new players!

    So yeah I think trying to improve the single-player experience in this game that is carried by its interaction between players, normally, would pretty much be exactly the wrong turn to make here. And they already did make all AI Elite AI a while ago, you would not have enjoyed being here before they did that. :^)

    - We are continuing to improve the new client and the game overall. Specific feedback is always helpful for that. Improved usability features like the view option I mentioned are in the works.

    And I will still not give you Brownie points for having these "in the works" four years after they have been asked for. Either your staff was not able to do it for four years or your superiors did not care about having it done for four years. Quit selling this as an example of how much you're improving the client and how much feedback you've consulted to do it. That is disrespectful to the many players and paying customers of yours who care so deeply about this game that they gave that feedback again and again over the years, only to see next to none of it ever be considered, recieve not even any recognition from the developers for it, and then still continue to be asked to "finally" get around and give some feedback if you want the new client to improve.

    We did this in the good faith that you cared about our feedback in achieving what you consider the best product you could provide for business or marketing reasons or whatever. We did this because we thought the company cared about what we had to say and that it shared the same love and care for the game that we have. Now four years later something that we unanimously called a massive concern immediately back when this client first rolled out is "in the works".

    If it was only the playability, due to not one single person in the development team knowing how this thing is actually played, it would be one thing. Almost understandable. But on top of it, the client was released with horrid, obvious errors in visual display that immediately become obvious to even the most casual of observers.


    This is not a matter of taste. It is just silly to publish something like that as a for-profit company. It's emberrasing. It is not an improvement on anything. It's a glaring issue. Want me to go on? Because you stopped replying to the German thread at all, so not sure whether anyone relevant saw this. In four years I've never been sure that anyone who mattered saw my feedback, that's how valuable it seems to be.


    You wanna make me believe that the new players love this? They think this looks superb? As good as it could ever look? I'm just the one with the old-fashioned taste for visuals that make congruent sense?

    You are also going to have me believe that nobody during the initial design process four years ago caught this stuff? You must have actively decided to put that on the brand's portfolio. This is what a Bytro game should look, glitchy and half-assed? Why hasn't it long been fixed if that were not the case, like, super long? Was it done this poorly on purpose because that's what the competition on the App Stores looks like, too?

    Conversations have a tendency to move in circles when questions are avoided and comments withheld. If the same questions are never addressed, they will keep coming up. I really admire you Freezy, you have by far the worst job in that company you could possibly have. If you're not at the top of the payroll then you're underpaid. But you, too, must have figured that out over the years now. To us, the whole fricking "give feedback about the new client" thing has been going nowhere but in circles as well, maybe you can understand that.

    We compared those numbers to after the new Clients were made the default with numbers when Legacy was the default.

    And you're comparing two spans of time that differ in no other way whatsoever, only the clients that were available? There wasn't like, I don't know, a global pandemic? A much larger marketing push on the company's part? Apparently not then, okay.

    I think you should put the energy into suggesting specific improvements for the new client.

    We put plenty of energy into that over the past few years and might have as well spent it screaming at a brick wall. This is fact and your ignoring of it doesn't make it less so. The community gave a very large amount of very specific, constructive, actionable feedback back when there was still the possibility to compare the two UIs directly. Please stop asking for more of it and get your colleagues in Hamburg to sit down and actually look at some of it. Or maybe bring someone in who actually plays the game to teach you how it works.

    So even with the new interface the unique selling point of S1914 still remains the unique gameplay that no other successful online game was able to copy yet.

    "But we decided to go ahead and hide that fact behind the most generic interface we could possibly duct-tape together, because being openly unique is for people with ambitions.".

    And again, that's the mootest of all moot points. A "different" UI does not need to get rid of the features that nobody disliked and that most found useful. It does not have to look like it was patched together in half a shift and then left as is because the boss figured that's about enough of the resources spent on that community now. It could have been held to the standard that Legacy set by your company during the creation of it. Then it wouldn't have been left up to the players to tell you where it falls short after you roll it out, which, at least so far has left the impression that in doing that it was made unfixable, too. Since the core issues the community has with it have been on the table since the first beta and they remain on the table until this very day. This really only leaves two conclusions: The points that seem undefendable to most people (unit sprites are just one large visual glitch. Freezy can refer to my Screenshots in the German thread, or any other thread on the goddamn design in the last four years for that matter. If you think it's a matter of taste as to whether or not you enjoy having a dozen sprites stubbornly displayed in the same location as one big garbled, indistinguishable mess of pixels, you are out of your mind) are actually intentional because there can't be anything good in the world or there was not and so far never has been enough motivation (or proficiency) to fix them.