Posts by LostRealist

Attention, Generals!

Supremacy 1914 and Tesla Wars will undergo a server maintenance from 9am CET until 10am CET on Tuesday the 15th of June 2021. Please note that within the maintenance window servers and/or game rounds will have a short downtime and will not be available for a few minutes. We will keep you posted about the status of the maintenance.

    Another thing you can do using diplomacy tab is to change diplomacy status to RoW or Share Maps status with all AI on the map

    final thing you can do to improve Global popularity is 100's of micro trades on stock market each day, buying or selling 1 unit at a time... or you can trade 5k silver for 5k silver with coalition mates, number of trades per day not the amount or the resource is what counts.

    See these two I tested quite a bit and can't really confirm. Especially the market and I did indeed test triple-digit amounts of trades in a day for sure. I saw no short- or long-term effect on popularity.

    And while RoW and Shared Maps (both to the exact same amount, too) do have an effect, it only seems plausible for this to become a factor in maps on which there are ideally several dozens of AI countries to do this with are available. The effect is also fairly minor and gets outweighed by negative influences very easily from what I've observed at least.

    Global popularity, is relative to other countries in your map, elite players use it to gain RoW with AI nations early on in the map, GP is only important prior to declaring any wars, with first war it goes out the window. Since it is relative, there is no concrete % at which AI will trade embargo or declare war on you however, a good indicator is being one of 5 most dreaded in the newspaper.

    And that, hnnnnnnnnnaaaahhhhh.... can't say this aligns quite well with my observations either, except for "with the first war it goes out the window" - that's certainly true as stated above and will make it all but impossible for practical purposes to attain peace with an AI since you evidently already are in at least one war if that's what you want. Unless obviously it's the AI left by a former player who declared on you, but even then... a few days of regular gameplay, which includes warfare as its major content, will tank your popularity enough. So you're absolutely right, GP is only important very early on and anything later in the game is damage control at best.

    However, you can spend literally an entire game in the Top 5 Most Dreaded and recieve trade embargoes at most. Where I have found it to become dangerous is once your popularity goes into the single digits. Anything below 10% or maybe a little earlier than that already and AI will start declaring on you left and right very indiscriminately. I suspect that up until that point, your average morale and the military strength that gets published in the DE play quite a role as well.

    So the way I play it is whenever there's a chance to possibly better it, like giving ROW, I do it, but I do it assuming it will not change the run of the game in any meaningful way. I keep an eye on my popularity to be ready once they start bumrushing me, but that's about it. At that point, you would usually be strong enough anyway for them to be not more than a slight bother.

    Bombing them with anything will lower morale. Depends on the firepower I reckon. The point is that you can't win a war with a navy alone. You can win battles with it, you can win major battles with it, it can turn the tide of a war for you - but your navy will never gain any points for you.

    Then just do your report.

    That's a bad way to put it. You will also additionally have to make sure now there is no way for the GO who recieves your report to miss the infringing content - something that the system automatically did for you previously. I recommend when reporting a player and his specific posts, make sure you put enough "evidence" in there so that it would be inconcievable for anyone to say "Well that's not easy enough to work out, I'll leave it.". That is important because you want your report to be taken care of and it's especially important because in many cases you will not be informed if it isn't.

    I have never witness Elite AI return to Peace status after having war status with me, it is even a rare thing when a player goes inactive and becomes AI that AI will then give peace status...

    Normal behavior for elite AI is that you must destroy/kill the Elite AI.

    What would sure be nice is a little more insight in how the "Global Popularity" dynamic actually works. I'm thinking about having a little test map for that purpose. So far I gather that most of the methods to improve your popularity are fairly experimental, there's little in terms of proven methods and I haven't been able to observe any measurable effects whenever I've tried something. From my experience, regular gameplay will consistently and predictably lead to the Global Pop going down thanks to warfare. Effects that cause it to drop are documented and easy to prove working. A player's options to combat this situation are neither of those, or can anyone name me one action that is both feasible and has been confirmed by developers and players to improve your global pop?

    Guys, seriously, the removal of the report buttons I have a hard time finding a word for that you're not gonna at least warn me for. It smacks of clearly subpar intellect, let's say it that way.

    If I have to read "How do u report a message" one more time in Help chat, I swear to god. So clearly, you didn't just remove those buttons to the main effect that making justified reports is now much harder both on me but also on the GO who picks them up, you also did an amazingly awful job at communicating this to players and more importantly communicating to them what the procedure is to report content now. Yeah, I know, there's a thread explaining it on the Forums here that nobody uses anymore - extremely helpful. Clearly it's not helping a lot of players. What you did is take a feature that was very accessible, obvious, hard to miss and easy to understand and you hid it within menues or at the bottom of the homepage and added several steps of work to it, then you're not showing any credible effort (no, a single forum thread by a volunteer is not a credible effort by a company with six-digit revenues) to explain to your customers how to at least be able to still use the feature at all, albeit in a much worse way than before anyway. If anyone thought it wasn't exceedingly transparent where you're headed with that, they're very wrong. At this point I seriously have to wonder why there still is a report function at all after this kind of change and this kind of handling of it. You very obviously don't wanna bother with it.

    There at least would have to be a prominent note about it to every player, a prominent mention of how to access the feature in the tutorial probably wouldn't hurt either. I'm not gonna let you guys try to tell me you have no idea what kind of people post what kind of content in what kind of numbers around here. You know full well that the likelihood that any random player will encounter fascist imagery, racist remarks, excessive verbal abuse, antisemitic content, multi-account cheaters, wolfpackers and other fun things while playing this game approaches 100% over time. Hell, even the oh-so-dreaded denunciation of Goldmark players is at a drastically increased risk of going unreported now. Maybe a sign that it's indeed less sinister motives and more good old incompetence at work here. The point is that making it harder to report those things is a decision that is inherently going to lead to an increase in that kind of content by a drop in reports and thus measures taken against it. It is in stark contrast to the actual reality of how needed the feature is. Does having fewer baseless reports really mean that much to you? Or is this just a decision mimicking what the other Big Players on the mobile gaming market are doing? Not bothering with a "community"?

    If there was a way to still report content directly, for example by linking DE articles or private messages in that report, I certainly wouldn't be so mad about the button being moved into a menue. It would just go down as one more of those features that were made worse along the way or just straight up disappeared altogether for no acceptable reason at all. At least then one could give Bytro the benefit of the doubt here about "Most reports are baseless, we need to add another layer of involvment to deter those". But you didn't only make it a little more demanding on players to file them, you shafted your own volunteers who are going through those reports now that the content that is being reported isn't filed along with the report automatically anymore. This is the other, no less problematic side to this change: You made life harder on your own guys. That's not what somebody would do who wants reports to be handled well and efficiently. I'm going to venture the guess here that while completely unreasonable reports have probably been going down, the number of reports with basis in fact that were not or could not be investigated because details were lacking from the report (that the player would not have had to add themselves a few weeks ago) rises. Is that good for anyone now?

    The revamp evolved and improved alot in the beginning after we introduced it because we got alot of feedback on it back then.

    I won't dispute that things have been done to Revamp then, but how much of a role player feedback played in that seems a little debatable to me. Was it player feedback that caused tactical army displays to disappear? Was it player feedback that caused the 2.5-D sprites to remain the way they are? Was it player feedback that led to it being much harder in Revamp to tell if a player is inactive or not and has in fact been made even harder just very recently? Why is it that nobody seems to realize how irrational some of these development decisions appear to somebody who's just playing the game? I also expressed my frustration about this before, so I'm also just repeating myself here. It just appears to the average observer that development may at the very most be cherry picking bits and pieces of consumer feedback it finds easy and cheap to implement while other, sometimes larger issues can get raised dozens of times and go unanswered and you wind up defending that by essentially saying "Well you guys didn't barrage us with inquests about the same issues over and over and over again for two years, so we didn't think you were serious when you first brought them up."

    A sufficient amount of infantry on armed transport vessels could very concievably overpower a single ship. We're not talking 1 Inf here afterall but several thousand men. Historically, Battleships in WW1 were indeed vulnerable to situations like this as they were often not equipped with any weapon system to engage enemies at such close range at all. These things for example were used to some success against much larger vessels, however under the provision that they came close enough.

    I'm by no means an expert on WW1 naval warfare though, so just from a gameplay perspective as well, making ships immune to infantry attacks would give them a massive buff. Any AI with exposed shores would be meaningless as soon as cruisers become a thing. Making them completely invulnerable to infantry on transport vessels also doesn't seem much more realistic, might I add. It's not like Inf deals a lot of damage on the water as it is or you couldn't protect your vessels from them. I consider it a big blunder on my part if one of my vessels gets caught with infantry.

    The question was not which version is liked more by players. We already know from our marketing efforts that the revamp version works much better in attracting new users and growing the community again. The revamp was necessary to keep the game alive, because in the last years before the revamp we struggled quite a bit to attract new players and the overall numbers dwindled. And then with the revamp and the mobile version: boom, the game got its second wind and is now bigger than ever. We never planned to keep both versions alive forever because that adds alot of code complexity and maintenance costs, it was always clear that legacy will be phased out over time. Therefore also the decision to limit it to existing players (since we knew from our numbers revamp works better for new players). I think we communicated this outlook back then when we rolled out the revamp mode. The question now was just: When is the right moment to turn off legacy? The current numbers told us exactly that, they showed us that now the opportunity costs and maintenance costs of keeping this version alive are higher than the benefit it brings. I know it sounds harsh but that's the business. We have to go with the times. Software has to evolve in order to stay relevant on the market.

    Sorry, but I think I acknowledged pretty much every single point you raise there in this thread before? I even specifically acknowledged, multiple times, that I agree that an overhaul was due of some sort. This is not the issue that I have. The issue that I have is that from all the input from actual customers of both products, the opinion has been unequivocally given that Revamp presents several major steps backwards compared to Legacy. Some of which are very glaring and some of which are very hard to get behind.

    I want to keep playing and enrichen you guys by 5 bucks every 25 days for whatever it's worth but Supremacy in Revamp is very hardly worth that to me because it just got worse. This is the thing that your numbers do not show you. That you haven't "evolved" the game as much as made it less attractive, which isn't apparent if you only look at the number of new players brought in especially by the mobile market. I mean, come on, do you realize how many players a glorified slot machine for children like Coin Master has on that market? Do you want to be the kind of company that puts its name under a product like that? Under its bank account probably, yeah. But that can't really be the direction that the standards of Bytro are headed as well? Mobile players will make any garbage look amazing on paper if you only count their numbers. I fear you guys are getting distracted by those numbers from the feedback of players who get to compare the two designs and most importantly from the actual drawbacks, that are very much there after two years still, that it has to the previous one. Or you have decided that those numbers are good enough to make much less improvement neccessary, if any. Granted that's great for the company but it's a dang shame about the game itself.

    Which, if you consider it enough of a disadvantage that mobile has, could lead you to the conclusion that it's not a good idea to play mobile. I mean there's never any harm in trying but I have serious doubts that you will get Bytro to change the design so the buttons are at least further apart, much less add a confirmation window. So if that's too bothersome for you, don't play mobile.

    Can't disagree with any of that, but I mean the thing is...

    This issue, along with other suggestions given by other players, is on the list for platform review by the fine folks at Bytro.

    This has been "on the list" for "platform review" since May, the whole problem in general: GM being literally one of the only spending actions in the game that require no confirmation click is as old as GM itself and has been pointed out furiously since then. Bytro has been well aware for over ten years now that people are spending GM on accident. Make of that what you will. A motivation to change this issue I cannot make of that as hard as I may try. We all gotta eat I guess and this is clearly part of this company's business model - you're being naive if you think otherwise after a decade of people misclicking buttons that cost them real money and nobody batting an eye. Just... be more careful I guess. Stop playing mobile, too.

    would like both button back: report article and report player as number of multis, pushers and gm denouncing articles have risen in maps where I play

    But aren't you essentially calling Bytro a bunch of idiots if you imply they hadn't thought this might happen? It's clearly very obvious that fewer players would report content even if it is in violation of the ToS if the report function got confined in obscurity like this. It's also very obvious that GOs will now be less likely to follow up on reports as the whole function has become much less convenient on their side as well, having to look up the offending content rather than being shown it right away with no effort of theirs required at all. Bytro cannot convince me they didn't want both of these exact things to happen. Fewer reports, even fewer successful reports, fewer community management total. Tell your friends!

    This is the time

    This is the time now, not when it came out, or during the short beta stage, or the two years since. Now is the time. Anyone who had been letting the devs know what they thought needs to be changed at any other time was simply mistaken. Bytro's interest in its player's opinions just happens to be confined to very specific moments in time. We should all be much more understanding of that. (Well I guess it's "inofficial", so inferring that is actually not exactly fair. You struck a nerve with that phrasing though, sorry.)

    Anyway, thanks for the survey, I'll obviously participate. Don't want anyone to say I didn't try.