If "well it makes them more money" is considered a good argument in every single possible situation, Bytro should not be a gaming company. They should be moving stocks, investing in real estate or coming up with a pyramid scheme.
tbh I havent met a good player since 2017 so i guess all pro-players have already left. And even that single individual was the first instance of a good player since 2015. I see only HNR lvl 1 - the most basic strategy.
Yeah that's true. The whole community basically died a slow death in the last five years. That's probably not all Bytro's fault but it's a symptom of something.
Anyway, you're right about one thing, and that is that it all won't do any good. Bytro has commited themselves to marketing this game to a young, casual audience with low standards and loose money. They have spent the last few years gradually pulling out of the community, lowering their workload and any expectations they might otherwise be confronted with. None of us are going to change any of that. I just like to use my last couple of weeks around here to tell them how it sucks after spending plenty of time trying to help development and improving the game for a lukewarm "Thanks mate" at the very best. Afterall, does marketing to that new generation mean you have to make your UI harder to use and inferiour to the previous version? There was a time when I was sincerely convinced that the answer to this was obviously "No" and that Bytro would care about that and show a genuine interest in providing the best product they possibly could. That was about two years ago. What has happened in development since then makes it clear that either I was wrong or the company just can't do any better.
And it sucks. I had a really good time here. This is a really good, unique game. There was no need to change that, new generation or not. But if I take a step back now and assess the "State of Supremacy1914" for lack of a less pathetic term, it's a generically presented, random RTS game on Steam and the App Store like hundreds of others, managed by a company like all the others on those markets as well, with no mentionable "community" or much less "fan base" surrounding it anymore. I mean, come on, we have a global forum and there's like ten people active here.
If you throw me some of the links you mentioned, I'll sure check them out. Not so sure I'll get myself to look real deep, but I'll look for sure.
you got here from Java to HTML
you will get from HTML to Revamp
That's been brought up before and I dispute that. You were around back then as well, so you should know why. Comparing these two transitions is ineffective.
And sure, it's their game, they can do what they like. I just like the game a lot and hate to see it become worse.
Hmm, I guess one thing is that there was feedback given at the start of the revamp version, such as crowding of armies being hard to tell where their actual position is and the lack of colour contrast with the revamp's palette as well as armies being harder to read at a glance, and those issues still persist.
So I'm not sure I'm seeing the convincing improvement that makes me want to use the new mode over legacy, quite frankly.
Oh, but don't you see all the amazing changes they've made to Revamp recently? Just check out the most recent patch notes!Quote
- The maximum number of units that can be displayed on a map was increased by 50% on desktop and 200% on mobile.
- The likelihood of the AI declaring war on smaller nations was slightly decreased.
- The likelihood of the AI declaring war on bigger nations was slightly increased.
- The advisor popup was replaced by a mission list that displays the information to give a nice and clear overview about advisor missions as well as feedback on the player’s progress.
- To allow players to avoid spending gold by mis-tapping on mobile, a confirmation popup can now be enabled in the game settings.
(That last one actually is quite huge, unsarcastically speaking)
I can see very clearly how serious they're taking our feedback here, yet again. Just as they did two years ago.
Just forget it. Supremacy is becoming a generic, freemium mobile game with a developer that can lean back and count their income while we're in here yelling at him how lazy he is. He doesn't hear us. It doesn't matter.
During the first three days of any game, mobilization is reduced for all players. Since you cannot see other player's mobilization, their units damage stat that is shown to you will not contain this mobilization penalty. You can rest assured it's there though.
I would not have it any other way Hastings. I lament the loss, but understand the way of progress as well. A tight rope to walk, indeed, but the game dynamics remain, so a new paint job on an old house is worth the time to see if the furniture still works with it.
Pretty good way of putting it I guess. Like a half-timbered building painted magenta, and inside some doorways were moved for no reason.
There was no real gameplay benefit of having a nation get less of a penalty if they declare war 1 second before attacking (there never was a less negative effect for waiting X hours to attack after declaring war, it was only a check if war was declared at all). We didn't want to penalize players for missing out on it.
That makes sense I guess, although it's a bit of a shame, too. It makes war declarations superflous outside of "ceremonial" purposes, which I don't find too clean of a solution... changing it so that it would check for the time that had passed since declaration and first shots fired was not an option at all?
I know you like antagonizing me/Bytro quite a bit lately, but its fine. I am not the only game designer at bytro though, so I am / was not the only one who designs / designed all features or mechanics. I am also currently not assigned to do GameDesign on S1914 as I am focussing on CoW, I am basically answering here in my free time to help you guys out with answers.
How Elite AI behaves was designed long before I even started at Bytro. Still I know this fact that they give shared map when the relations are good, I just wanted to tell you that I also proved it in practice and that it's not just a theory.
I think you misunderstood me a little, especially if you felt it was you that I was antagonizing. It's not, it's Bytro. I'm very thankful for your involvment here, especially seeing as you are the only one who even bothers with that, and that's pretty lame. I have not the slightest little feeling that Bytro cares even a tiny bit about anything posted in this forum unless it contains a curseword, because for all intents and purposes I have to believe that you are the only developer/"game designer" who ever shows up around here, and then you're not even assigned to this game anymore... yeah, I'll antagonize your employer for that any day. There used to be developers hanging around the (old) forums who spewed their knowledge all over the place, helped people understand obscure mechanics and showed legitimate interest in their opinions, I guess I'm a little spoiled from when that was still the case. It's absolutely nothing personal with you.
Alot of the game has not been documented somewhere since it was started 10 years ago and back then the standards on documentation have been much lower. This would not happen nowadays anymore of course since we are documenting every new feature. But alot of info on old fine grained mechanics are only buried in old codelines, with a lot of dev investigation required to extract their meaning and all edge cases where the mechanic intertwines with other mechanics.
At least from the outside, it seems quite a lot like documenting things is still very, very far from Bytros forté. I've been around for a while now, for by far the better part of those ten years actually. I'm not saying I remember every update and every piece of Docs that came out in that time, but there has definitely not been the kind of trend you're implying when you say "This would not happen nowadays anymore". I can list upwards of five things from most recent updates that I am sure or at least suspect heavily were changed/introduced with completely zero accompanying documentation. I'm also in the Help chat a lot and have to keep throwing the manual at people who don't know it exists, by the way. I guess that's a point for Bytro, "nobody reads that stuff anyway". To me it seems lazy and quite franky just odd that a mechanic like popularity is documented nowhere. Yeah, ten years ago, I get it, but that's also been ten years to write better docs and instead, tactical army view gets removed, resource trading gets crippled, 3D sprites are made... you know where I'm going with this. It's not like Bytro completely nuked everything but the code, including staff, and started from near scratch at some point. They had plenty of opportunities to improve on documentation.
I'm still a little on the fence about it but I would surely be interested in testing out a different implementation of the railway. Generally I'm always in favor of keeping things as simple as possible in this game because that's a main part of its appeal and I think the modifier instead of equalized speeds serves that purpose. But who knows. Improving a system like that and testing it out is what creative developers and beta testers exist for, right. Dot, dot, dot...
Railgun is slower when moving on rails than it is on water, this seems like a flawed game mechanic
I don't quite agree with this, if you're talking logically here. Since the railgun is also unable to fire while at sea, I think it's fair to imagine it's disassembled when embarked and thus I don't really see why cargo vessels carrying the railgun parts shouldn't be able to be faster than the gun itself when it is put together to the hundreds of tons behemoth that it is, bound to rails with heavy friction. On land, the railgun pays for its massive range by only being able to shift it elsewhere very slowly, while on water it has neither the use nor the disadvantage - doesn't seem like such a flawed mechanic to me either actually.
I tend to agree with your main point, in that a railway should concievably be able to carry "regular" units as in Infantry, ACs, Cav, Artillery, Tanks and maybe heavy tanks at the same speed. This was probably just overlooked when the mechanic was placed in the game originally as a result of making the speed bonus a modifier of the original value, although I actually don't want to completely discard the idea that it might have been a balancing tool as well. Afterall, the base movement speeds are. And if the artillery is "embarked" on the train in such a way as to give it the same movement speed as infantry, should it still be able to use its ranged attack? Realistically it would probably have to deboard the train completely to get into firing positions next to the tracks. That would create quite a new situational element to combat. And if it could fire while aboard the train, balancing questions would have to arise. At the end of the day the modifier we have now is consistent and straightforward with all the unit's speeds maintaining the same relations to one another.
Giving this one yet another bump because: Province order, anyone? Did Bytro not program this feature or why do they apparently find it so hard to give anyone information about it? If it's the broken shell of something you wanted to do but didn't, just say so, if it's supposed to be filled with some actual functionality in the future, just say so, jeez.
Yet if moral gets to low the city might even become yours
I hope you're not meaning to imply that that would be a viable tactic to gain a good standing in a game or even win it. Of course I'm aware what bombardment does. It's supplemental. Infantry does the brunt work still.
a long time a go the status you set with an AI was important too.. so the highest possible status with an AI would give you rightofway faster.. do not think that still works though..
Yeah from what I heard that was only a factor for the "old" AI, Elite AI supposedly doesn't care so much, but freezy's post up there seems to indicate otherwise. Then again, surprisingly enough he is referring to his "testing" as opposed to a "Game Designer" actually just, you know, knowing these things? Who designed that mechanic if not a "Game Designer"?
It would sure be awesome if there was some documentation about this and we wouldn't have to be stabbing in the dark and taking people's explanations on faith like this is some sort of amateur open source project we're playing here. Hell, even those usually have their features documented much, much better than this one.
Having a big army while you are unpopular makes you more unpopular (perceived as bigger threat).
Does it also deter war declarations by AI though? That would line up with my observations.
Doing a surprise attack one someone has no additional popularity penalty anymore, it is the same as declaring war normally.
And that's quite huge. Since when is that the case and was this ever publicised? Also, how does that make sense? Also, why? This means that declaring war is completely irrelevant towards the game mechanics now?
Not sure I understand what it is that you want to be able to color? I absolutely agree this game needs that kind of stuff as premium features - customization options that do not impact gameplay itself. It's never gonna happen because Bytro has grown so contempt with their current monetization system that any amount of effort on it is obviously considered wasteful within the company, but it can't hurt to dream, can it.
But still, I'm not so sure what exactly you're envisioning - and if it has to do with the "3"-D sprites for the units, count me out. Those are hideous enough and should go out the window completely. Other than that, you're onto something.
If Bytro keeps this up, they will lose a lot of support from their loyal player base.
I am sure they know that. It isn't without precedent either: The switch from original design to what is now Legacy drove away a lot of people, the switch from Java to HTML did as well. I would argue this time it's a little more extreme with such drastic changes after ten years of "Legacy" Design, but they do not care about this at all. Why would they? Our loyalty isn't paying their bus fare. That's done by a myriad of new users before they grow frustrated with the game for whatever reason and leave after a week. Before they've been around long enough to cast doubt whether this game and especially the practices of the company behind it are really something they want to reward with their spending. That's how mobile gaming works. Well, that, and gambling for children. That also works really well on that market. At least we're not witness to that yet in the case of Bytro.
Now i do think that this will add to the imersion of the game and to a more strategic use of the spy .
Now I don't know about you, but when I'm preparing an invasion on Day 30 or whatever, I am not flicking through thirty pages of newspaper with hundreds of articles in them to slowly piece together what upgrades someone has in a specific province. I'll use a spy for that already.
And I honestly can't say for sure I know how it is in S1, but in S1914, all relevant buildings are visible on the map. Railways, Harbours, Fortresses, Workshops, Factories and Aerodromes all show up on the map in one way or another. Is this not the case in S1?
Yeah that's even mentioned specifically in the survey, isn't it?
The problem, to me, just is that it's Bytro who originally made the awful, uncalled for decision to get rid of those army displays among many others. I don't quite see why I should be very hopeful that now, all of a sudden, that very same Bytro has magically regained an understanding of what was good and worth keeping in Legacy, or of how people actually play their game and what features and conveniences they're looking for. Yeah I know, new players ain't complaining, which is a very amazing accomplishment considering they don't even have a clue how much convenience they are being robbed of by being forced into Revamp.
They removed that army display for some reason, just like they decided for some reason to make naval waypoints nearly invisible, decided for some reason that we would care about people's usernames when zooming out real far and not the names of their freaking countries, that it didn't need to be quick and simple to see if someone's inactive or not, they decided for some reason that performance was a neglectible topic entirely. And let's not forget that nobody from the community had ever asked for any of those things. These guys went in and made a ton of very odd, unprovoced choices when designing Revamp. Thinkin that they'll now suddenly realize all of that and start making much improved decisions all across the board seems a little silly to me, quite honestly. It's like sure, I think it would be good if the New York Jets got a new Quarterback, but then you realize it'll be the New York Jets who will pick that new Quarterback, so what good could it possibly do?
correct me if I'm wrong.
AI [...] gave me share map
I almost wanna say that AI traditionally doesn't do that. No AI in this game has ever shared its map with anyone.
You do raise a good point though. I'm pretty sure AI is indeed supposed to have that kind of system where it knows to differentiate between friends and foes like that. I'm fairly certain it's also supposed to be based off of popularity, where attacking an unpopular nation is supposed to give you less of a penalty yourself. Would be sort of a double standard otherwise if AI just hates and hates you for going to war and then ends up going to war on you itself.
Ugh, don't make me enter it for him.