Not sure how to add polls in that forum so here we go
polls are too dangerous, the community may express its disapproval with it
Not sure how to add polls in that forum so here we go
polls are too dangerous, the community may express its disapproval with it
I agree on some things you said but I don't think making it a 2-hour game is the way to go.
World of Tanks started out as a (mostly) free to play game. For a couple of years it was at the top of the world. WG (the developers of the game) then try to take advantage of their players by introducing thier pay to win/pay to progress option, to convince players that they can be better by paying for advantages. Result: World of Tanks pllayerbase (in NA) is steadily trickling to nothingness.
Supremacy 1914 drops, and starts as a (mostly) free to play game. Updates are steady and in my games it remains at the top of the world. I get the distinct feeling that, with the elimination of the tumbola (which gave players with no money the opportunity to try and win premium time), along with the elite AI having been in all rounds (free and premium) for a long while now, coupled on with these literal trade restrictions, they are going to steer their game in the way of Pay to Enjoy. If S1914 continues going this way, id be more than happy to drop 4 years of playing (and almost everyday at that) because Bytro is becoming Wargaming. If this is true, then Result: S1914's playerbase tickles to nothingness
Bytro needs to understand that 80% of its playerbase is not playing this game competitively, but to enjoy the aspects of it. Id even bet that at least 30-50% of the playerbase (myself included) have, or are actively roleplaying. This game has everything a roleplayer needs for a WWI setting. We can customise our portraits, leader name/title and even our flag. Premium members even get to enjoy placing their custom picture in their custom article on the newspaper. Killing the trade stuff really damages how rpers go about playing this game. I love this game, and i used to be proud to say i wowuld play it until one of us (the game or myself) reaches its expiration date. But the last few updates (Tumbola elimination, Elite Ai default in every game, restricting in game trade) have made me really wonder if this game is worth putting another 4 years of time into. In fact, if it keeps going like this, Bytro can be assured that i will no longer support this game, or the other ones for that matter.
I'm not so sure they value your profile enough anymore.
I mean, by looking at the updates, everyone would say that they dont value it enough, but who knows their real intentions...
Btw, the "Fire at will" problem, got somehow solved in CoW in the same patch(yesterday), I guess we'll have to wait another week.
It's funny because the update is like a weird comparison to the world.
We all live together but everyone is alone.
To keep it civilised- How to start user's initiative to withdraw some changes? In a civilised manner.
I would be also interested in convincing Bytro to remove pre-last bug update. How to start such an operation? 30 completely new 'advanced tactics' in a new update- it is slightly to much. Especially for people who only use Hnr.
Should we make some kind of pool on the forum or is it better to do it on discord (but then Bytro can argue they cannot verify people's identity)
Last time I did that I made cross-server, in all languages, "spamming" chat for 4 weeks, sending private messages, making forum threads on announcements, etc. It was about maps for CoW. There was 1 first step of a public brainstorming for ideas, to which I think we got more than 60 different map ideas and then 3 eñiminatory rounds by voting to determina which map should go next. We got more than 400 unique votes and 800 total votes throughout the 3 rounds.
After this happened, a few months later, Bytro released 2 maps that were indeed the 1st and 2nd map from the poll.
I never asked Bytro for their commitment to the results, but from my POV, the popular movement was enough for them not only to get ideas but to also please the users.
yeah- i have same war described 3 times with different scores, not sure which one o trust. maybe it is realism of different publishers during the war...
same with spies- they always lie, remove their reports as they are edited, bribed and not trustworthy. double agents everywhere
well i think S1 doesn't have spies, so there you go
it is sarcasm
still
Display Moregame was to complicated with all this trading, exchanging troops and resources, paying tributes , offering reparations, helping friends , supporting international trade, building military bases, buying provinces, hiring mercenaries, sending expeditionary forces and so on.
You need to understand this is not what players like. To much complexity. To much gameplay posibilities. Toooo much fun.
now it is simple- you are alone and you can count only on yourself, you cannot expect a peace terms as you have nothing to offer. so it is either you or them. 0-1. black and white. So everyone can understand the game.
simple? I hope so as I do not want them to remove anything else like rows and share maps.
we could ask for the newspaper removal, too complex
It is in a correct section my friend and these are huge bugs
that's how the game works after the update, i understand the frustration, but not the place to show it
a002dc405cdf8b5a2b304ef13077a3b6.png
new bugs due to the update, yujuuuu
now, at day 71, you are no longer able to build more factories or queue them until your current construction ends, get your factory for only 5,99€, LIMITED UNITS
funny part, this only happens to some provinces, not all of them
also, it happens to all buildings that have levels
emm
1. I cannot trade units with my allies
2. I cannot force weaker and defeated nations to pay tribute
3. When someone kicks me from coalition I am excomunicado for 1 day and everyone can kick me in a head
i think you wrote in the wrong thread
I am open to suggestions on how to properly document and reproduce this bug for purpose of future fairness in melee among players.
Easy, you need 1 attacker and at least 2 defenders. Get 100 infantry to attack 1 city where it has 2 defenders, one of them being the owner and the other one and ally of the owner, they'll have 50 infantry each.
Do that a few times and if you want to see even more disparity, add different defenders keeping the same total amount of infantry, if there are 4 defenders and the total is 100, then 25 each.
Run some tests.
In order to compare the results, do the same outside a city, in plain road.
Allegledly, you should see a big difference in results.
No need for any fortress or buildings in the city
There's something everyone should keep in mind, even if Bytro's games are slightly different, the updates are the same, I myself I'm always very curious to see how updates are perceived in each game and usually the reaction is the same.
Take a look: Market, trades and coalitions & Elite AI for all
Now that you will fight against the elite AI, you might want to know about your standing with the AI more often to avoid unexpected attacks. We have got you covered, as you now find the global popularity indicator in your nation profile giving you exactly that information!
- We added a global popularity indicator to the player profile showing the current standing of the player with the AI.
You didn't add anything new, this was already part of the rounds with Elite AI, the only new thing is that now we don't have to pay 5.000GM for it.
As my fellows explained, you basically killed roleplay and even if you killed alliance games in 2015, with this update you made sure they are dead.
Instead of making people, smartly, to need to indirectly use the diplomacy in a war game, you want it to be a childish game forcing people into coalitions and making them behave like 12 years old kids not allowing their friends to play with others outside their own group.
Finally, in order to add another layer of realism to Supremacy 1914 and make the game experience more balanced and fair to all players we took a look at trading in the game. The result are several changes like the removal of unit trading or limitations to resource trading with players outside of one’s own team or coalition (see the list below for details).
As everyone already told you, this is not adding another layer of realism, it could add some beauty to the text, but it's false, balanced yes, and fair, well, that's arguable.
Do you know anything about the plane patrol exploit or the flower bouquet exploit? Ijust saw them mentioned in Sckopen's damage stack bug thread. I hadn't heard of them but it sounds like they belong in here.
Yes, plane patrol doesn't belong to this game but it will to S1, flower bouquet exploit, i'll explain it soon if no one does.
Display MoreA link to the no fix proof. Man that's messed up, but Supremacy 1 is gonna be great. Hopefully the combat bugs will be fixed in that one. But anyway I'm getting off topic. I do have a combat bug to add now that I think about it. I posted about it in the missing features forum to try to get it fixed.
Though it isn't really a bug, it may be exploited if you know better than your opponent.
Let's say you and I are allied. You have a fortress in an important province. The enemy is moving to attack that province, but for some reason you have no guys there. I have a big army nearby and I go to defend it. I will get the fortress bonus from being in your fort, but once the enemy gets to the city, instead of a normal fight, they will instantly conquer the province, and suddenly, they are in the fort killing my guys who have been booted out!
I am pretty sure this applies too if you have guys in the province and your guys are killed. Once they die, I suspect, the enemy will take the province and my guys will be sitting outside, now in a position of attack instead of defense. Though, I admit, I have not seen this actually happen.
I'll send you the link in private as I suspect I'm not allowed to show it in public.
Regarding the combat thing you mention, it'd be indeed a "missing feature" instead of a bug as it always worked the way you explain, basically, if an enemy attacks a city that has no own garrison, the enemy will take the city even if it has allies in it and then fight your ally, keeping fortress bonus for the first round for your ally but removing it for the next rounds.
I've seen some requests, just as yours, so they change that so ally units fight even if there's no own garrison, but there hasn't been official news about that yet or even confirmation that they are planning to change it.
If I remember correctly they introduced the defending bonus for allies in 2013 and it always worked like that.
Display MoreI think they are related to the points a forum user has.
For example,I have 638 points and im a Major. The OP has only 10 points,and is,thus,a lance corporal. You have 3269 points and are a Retired Veteran.
I think Points are determined by the number of your posts and the likes you receive.
If I got it wrong,feel free to correct me.
you are correct, as in-game, the rank is related to the points you have, forum rank to forum points and game rank to game points
retired veteran is a special rank that isn't related to points
You got a link to the resource slider thing? No way they won't fix that...
A link to what exactly, the error pop-up?
Well, it's not just that's been almost 3 years since the bug appeared but also that their new game, which was supposed to be the major content update scheduled for summer 2019 for supremacy1914, don't have the resource slider. Aside of that, internall, it had the note of not getting fixed.