Posts by freezy

    We didn't modify the fighting mechanics, they are the same now for years.

    If you attack with 30 infantry, then not all 30 Infantry deal full damage. An army with 30 Inf is actually rather close to an army of 15 Inf in terms of damage output. See "size factors" in the game manual.

    Those limits are bad for Bytro economically. In reality in this kind of game a huge portion of the money almost surely comes from isolated spending sprees not a steady stream of trickling revenue from a high number of sources. The money comes from a few torrential downpours that cause flooding not a daily light sprinkling. The limits you're suggesting would make the flood smaller while not increasing the small sources in any manner and put a big dent in the revenue. When two whales get into an ego war and start spending at an accelerated rate Bytro gets a pay day. The cap you're suggesting would not only lower the need for both players to spend more but would give them time to think things over and decided if $200 on GM was really going to give a good ROI for their entertainment dollar. Even when a single player is trying to buy a win, they typically spend more GM than the rest of the map combined. Bytro needs these bursts of spending to keep the lights on, this model would not survive if it tries to rely on smaller contributions from a much wider set of clients. That model only works for games with a much broader appeal and typically a much higher production value. People pay to play games like eve and WoW on a subscription basis because there's many millions of dollars poured into creating a much richer world and a nearly infinite number of things to do. This game can not hope to approximate that kin of immersive experience, nor should it. It's hard to create a good game with a f2p option but a premium model where the f2p players still have a chance. They've done a fairly decent job here and if occasionally you get steam rolled by a fat wallet remember that expenditure keeps the game available to everyone.

    I don't personally understand the joy in winning by spending more money but never lose sight of the fact that the game could not be f2p if that option was not available.

    Thanks for this post, because this sums it up quite nicely and explains why we are hesitant to make any change to the current business model. It is just a very risky endeavor for a matured game that is deep in its product cycle. We might experiment with different monetization methods in future games that garner a new player base, but it is unlikely that we will change the model for existing games.

    By the way, Supremacy 1914 currently has the highest amount of active players and the highest amount of revenues in its whole decade long lifetime. So we are not in any decline yet.

    You can of course continue to discuss alrernatives in this thread, but please don't expect us to change the current model of this game as long as it is working and as long as alternatives have a significant risk attached to them. That is just the economically sensible thing to do (and most other businesses would (or should) act in the same way.

    Maybe I'm dumb but I'm failing to see the difference between Aggressive and Offensive other than one no longer attacks neutrals. Please explain it to me like I'm an 8 year old. :)

    Yes that's the only difference, but it makes a big difference in practice. With aggressive you can prevent "soon to be enemies" from landing on your shores or going into your country, with "offensive" you can let your artilleries move along the frontline without the risk of triggering unwanted wars.

    What I am seeing and have been seeing since I joined a number of years ago is that bugs and upgrades are implemented but then this invokes NEW bugs coming into play. (Latest one being the loss of Day Change display) Also, be aware that the 3D graphics look cute but whatever you're using to generate them is very resource needy and has overall slowed down the performance and draw on the servers which trickles down to the clients (Users) causing frustration. As a computer graphics pioneer and specialist, I suggest you rethink some decisions like 'moving water' to save resource.

    Why I'm posting this and what I want to know since I've seen this pattern of fixing something and having it break something else has been ongoing for awhile now, is do you NOT have a Sandbox where you test and take note of what's broken BEFORE you release or invoke change? I understand that there will be bugs "appear" that won't happen until a special set of circumstances go into play but basics being ignored is just lazy coding.

    Hi, to answer some things:

    Graphics are not calculated on the server, they are all being rendered on the client side. Therefore the addition of the new graphics have not slowed down the server. For many people with newer hardware the game actually runs smoother in new graphics than the old graphics. This requires more computational resources on the user's end of course. Still much less resources than in typical client games. The new graphics should run fine also on hardware that is some years old.

    Yes we have test servers and QA before releasing things. There can never be 100% coverage though, and we try our best to minimize and fix bugs (many are fixed before release actually).

    Not one

    Simply not true btw. You can check the patchnotes since the release of the Revamp. We did alot of fixes and optimization for the WebGL version already and also stuff listed in this thread got improved. For example the missing army composition was improved by providing army labels that show more information on composition and which show the diplomatic relation more clearly, and later last year we brought back positioning dots & lines for all units on roads so you can always see where the exact position of a unit is. We also updated the positioning system to create less overlap in crowded areas, and we made units always facing the direction they are attacking for more clarity. There will be more bugfixes and improvements coming soon, for example scrolling the screen when moving the cursor close to the edge while in drag mode, or further improvements to the positioning system.

    We won't give up on the new version and keep improving it further. So I recommend you check it out from time to time to see if it is finally to your liking :)

    How exactly is better?

    You shouldn't compare lvl1 of units that unlock at different days of game.

    The Light Tank for example is balanced to be as strong & expensive as lvl2-3 of a Heavy Tank, because the Light Tank unlocks at a later day and also has less levels overall (LT: 4, HT: 5). Light Tank lvl1 also needs a higher building level for production. Level 2 heavy tank should already beat a level 1 Light Tank.

    The idea behind is that you can immediately switch your strategy to producing the new units without the need to first research lower and weaker levels of these units, because for these later units you basically skip 1-2 research levels.

    Comparing the maximum level of each unit is a better comparison for units of different days. Still units unlocked at later days are a tiny bit better on max level overall.

    Please also note that units which are good in both def and off have usually lower peaks. But if you add up both off and def values they are competitive.

    Yes, only killing elite AI units grant ranking points. Killing regular AI in older games does not grant ranking points.

    All of the 500 maps you are playing right now have normal AI enabled. Therefore it was regular AI that moved your troops, and the behaviour of regular AI did not change in years. Therefore I don't see any new issue here. You basically just had bad luck with the normal AI.

    Elite AI is only active in games that were created after the 3rd of September 2019. You can check if your game runs on elite AI by checking player profiles in your match. If a "popularity" value is listed in the profile, it uses Elite AI.

    Thanks for the feedback. Glad you like some aspects of the game. To clear up a few points:

    We do not market the game to a wrong audience because marketing on this game barely even started. We are not even marketing yet in english speaking countries. The game is still in a test phase, so you will have to live with rather empty maps for a while unfortunately, until we ramp up the marketing.

    Players who try the game and then abandon it are only abandoning the tutorial map as they don't even join a second map, and naturally we can't have a minimum rank on the tutorial map because new players need to be able to join it. Therefore the minimum rank is neither a problem nor a solution to the activity problem due to beginner dropouts. That said we have the Veterans Front map for experience players, which has a minimum rank. First we need more players to reach that rank though.

    Please regard this game as NEW game. Therefore we did not remove any features from this game at all, because what is in there is the base set of the game that was in it from the beginning. So it would be great if you wouldn't constantly spread your discontent that you have with CoW into these S1 forums as well, as it is off-topic.

    We are still in the process of developing alot of new features and content for S1, which will arrive in the coming weeks and months. Stay tuned.

    Yes the third map serves exactly that purpose that is demanded, a battlefield only for veterans. The normal Flanders Front map instead is the tutorial map, so it can't have any minimum requirements.

    Regarding the AI feedback: The team is planning to improve and normalize how AI behaves, so look forward to some improvements there.

    Hey Oktan, I would recommend that you use the "relation view mode" (you can turn it on and off in the settings in the top right). This colors all enemies in red, all allies in blue, yourself in green and neutrals in yellow. This could help you in distinguishing friend and foe better.

    The performance on large maps with the old Canvas system was just as awful. Problem there is that there was also no room for optimization anymore. With WebGL there is luckily, and we are currently also taking further measures to improve its performance.

    Additionally to the factors mentioned above you also gain reptuation by granting higher diplomatic settings (right of way, shared map) to AIs, and you also gain reputation by joining AIs in declaring war on nations that have a low reputation.

    The exact values I cannot tell.

    Hi guys, first of all, thank you for the feedback again. Of course we read and observe all the feedback, our CMs even already compiled a list with all different opinions for the team to look at, and we will certainly discuss all of that. If you keep your posts civil and constructive we will always take note of them, like our moderators have already explained. If threads keep civil staff is also more inclined to participate in them.

    The reasons behind the update were already stated in the news. To close loopholes, make it harder for "cheaters" and make it harder for all kinds of players to circumvent our intended map balancing. The last point is actually one of the most important reasons. We already expected that not all players will like such changes. Player opinion is always helpful but as this was for the most part a change to enforce balancing we will in this case focus more on observing statistics and data to determine the right course of action. And believe us we have no intend to deliberately tank this game, quite the opposite. Given the climate in this thread there is not much else to say on this topic from my perspective.

    As for any combat related change: We are not aware of doing any changes in the way combat is calculated. If there were any changes these have to be side products of other changes, and they were not deliberate. Though we did not see any proof of such reports yet, and without having proof or clear reproduction steps we also can't do much. So if you feel that combat was changed, feel free to collaborate with others to create a clear list of what exactly changed (before & after comparison), including example results and steps how to reproduce them. This also means looking at results of multiple battles, not just one single tick which can just be lucky or unlucky. Then please hand this over to our support staff, which will then hand it over to our QA for review. Thank you!