Posts by Sckopen

    Corruption was added in 2012, but to be fair, I don't think it really affected the game as much as the latest updates..

    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.

    "Thank you for the feedback", I do appreciate you taking the time to answer, but as usual, judging on the past, it doesn't mean Bytro has actually taken on board any of it.

    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.

    Don't you think cheaters will find new ways of cheating? All you are doing is destroying our gameplay. Cheaters can simply exchange resources through de market with a trade embargo to everyone else, buy and sell between themselves same product for different prices to exchange money, etc. So no "loopholes" have been closed, you have simply destroyed the game even more. I guess the next step will be to remove the market...

    As for map balancing, you have done exactly the contrary. Limiting trade makes it harder for countries without oil for example to get oil, making it even harder for them. So it's now much more unbalanced. You have done exactly the contrary to what your "main reason" was and upset most of the players in the meantime. I really can't understand how you think this is positive for the game and I'm finding it really hard to believe that you are not deliberately trying to destroy the game.

    As for me, I really don't see the point of playing this game anymore.. My options are to play normal games (90% AI and can't trade resources anymore), alliance games (that's a joke, bugged combats and dead alliances) and the only thing that was left before this update, internal games in the alliance (now can't play as a team as you have limited unit transfers and trade, which destroys 90% of the strategy). So I guess that's it, after 9 years, you have finally done it.

    No more trades and no unit transfers, this is simply ridiculous. We don't care about reality, we care about playability.

    I never joined coalitions, but I still traded a lot.. So now what? You have just destryed half the game with this even though you might not have realised. What about alliance internal games where we would do a 5v5v5v5, 10v10, etc. we can't all join the same coalition, so we can't trade.. That's internal games ruined too. You have destroyed games between alliances and now the games in the alliances too. Well done.

    And not being able to transfer units? In a good game, with good allies we would constantly do this.. What about alliance games where country nearest to enemy created all the cars and then transfered them? What about transfering some artis to your ally if he's not doing so well? What about coordination between allys?

    This game is ruled by people that have no idea how the game actually works and these are the people that take all the decisions that ruin their game. How many competitive games have these actually played? (and I'm not talking about playing a public game for 10 days and defeating an AI).

    This has got to the point where there is no trust in Bytro. You keep doing updates that no one wants, and then sometimes, if there is a big uproar like this time, you promise to look in to possible solutions and maybe revert it, but this doesn't happen or it take a very long time. Why can't this time invested in updates no one wants be invested in things you know we do want? Like fixing bugs, bringing back alliances, bringing back tournaments/leagues, etc.

    Golden Frieza and I currently have a map in which we both have 20k x 1000 units easy enough to test this Bug under several scenario's (land/air/sea) to save data and to give screen shots... I have not heard Skopen mention mixing stacks as means to disburse damage, but seems someone mentioned multiple stacks are each individually doing defense damage against larger stack but still this does not explain the disparity in k/d also, splitting stacks is not supposed to make a difference as damage is capped at 50/40/30/etc...depending on the unit/mech involved in the melee....

    The attackers only attack once which gets spread out between all the enemy stacks. So the attackers don't attack each stack individually as they should do, this is what explians the disparity. So basically you create various defensive stacks to increase AD of defenders as the attacker will still only attack once conserving it's AD.

    All units deal attacking damage and defending damage, you can check that in the unit details panel. Normally during battles on paths, both sides attack each other using offensive damage, and also return defensive damage (basically 2 ticks in parallel). In cities or during disembarking or when a single patrol tick happens one side is only defending with its defensive damage and one side is only attacking with its attacking damage (only 1 tick happens then).

    So when meeting on a path both sides attack both ways and also defend both ways, which often times nullifies the advantage of multiple stacks. That's because each smaller stack attacks the bigger stack and each time gets defensive damage in return, just like the bigger stack gets defensive damage from each of the smaller stacks.

    That's why the bug is most often only noticeable when the side with the multiple stacks is defending only, due to the behaviour I explained in my previous post.

    I understand the difference between defensive & offesive damage, but haven't noticed any strange combats outside cities. So according to what you say, outside the city the advantage would be halved.. You would have one bugged round and a normal round. So if we had a combat with 10 stacks which in a city would be 10/1 favourable to the defenders, this must mean that it will be 5/1 favourable anywhere else. Will have to test it or maybe someone else might volunteer (as I'm not currently in any game).

    Splash damage is there to prevent the exploit of splitting up stacks in alot of smaller chunks so that artillery shots or plane attacks are wasted for example, so just removing it is also no solution

    I don't think it would be an issue with artilleries since you introduced the extra attack one minute after destroying the unit/group, but I guess it would with planes.

    And yeah removing the behaviour that troops only defend in certain situations should also solve most of these situations (though maybe not all edge cases).

    I was refering to the fact that the bugged troops appear as if they weren't in combat. The troops that defend a city appear as being attacked, but the bugged ones never do, so was wondering if it was clear why they stay like that as I thought it was what triggers the bug.

    That's why I back the CM's statement that bug usage is allowed unless we announce it globally as a banned exploit or until we fix it. In this case it is "until we fix it".

    Might or might not agree, but I asked for a clear answer and I believe I have it. So thanks for your responses Freezy ;)

    So basically, you are saying that splash damage is to blame for it. Troops only attack one stack which divides between all and then doesn't attack the rest of the stacks. But why doesn't this happen outside a city? It only happens when there are various defending stacks in a city (except for flower bouqet).

    The bug also only happens when the stacks aren't showing as in combat, sometimes they "join" the battle and appear as in combat which means bug ends and advantage is lost, combat goes back to normal.

    So in order to fix this bug we would need to rewrite the combat calculation in a way that size factors are applied after adding up damage values. Or by making an attacking army attacking each army in an area individually instead of spreading its damage among all of them.

    But why is the city combat different? I can't see why you have to change all this when combats are fine in other situations, can't you change the behaviour in the city? Find out why those stacks in the city seem to "stay out of combat" (allthough they are)?

    Or if splash damage really is the cause, couldn't this be removed? Then attackers would actually attack each stack.

    I don't agree in allowing a player to be able to divide his own troops, it's insane that he could defeat someone with 10 or 20 times more troops by simply dividing his troops. As for allied troops, I would simply allow as there is no way to prove if it's intentional or not. But I still think it's something that should be fixed even if it takes extra work.. Combat system has to be one of the most important things in a combat game.

    I once attacked enemy force of around 10 kk with my stack divided in 20 smaller stacks of 500 inf 50 tanks 50 cars 50 cavs 15 HTs and some ballons . I had to help my guys with 4 k planes. But from what I saw smaller stacks where not so effective as i thought in an attack so I would risk statement that melee defending is a better option that attacking. my 20 meee mini-stacks had overhelming dmg but were killing not more 1.5-2 kk. Dmg got magically spread all over the map. While at the same time 18*50 arts were roughly killing 6kk-.7.5kk mln troops per round.

    The thing is when you divide, the big group attacks every little stack independently, so big group will always have the advange if the other conditions are equal (same morale, damage attack, etc.). I have also done tests on same troops attacking and defending a city (50v50, 100v100, etc) and there were no differences, it doesn't matter if you attack or defend a city, it was random which side won. So this doesn't have anything to do with that.

    The only thing you need to confirm the bug is:

    A) 5 stacks of 50 defending in a city against 300 troops.

    B) 5 stacks of 50 anywhere that's not a city against 300 troops.

    You will see there is a huge difference in the results.. I would say that defenders will win in A with less than 100 losses, while attackers will win in B with just over 50 troops remaining. But in theory, results should be more or less the same.

    The bug is simply that the attacker only attacks once when it should actually attack each stack independently. Example:

    5 stacks of 50 vs 300. The 5 groups of 50 will each attack the group of 300, so the group of 300 should attack each stack of 50 too, so there would 5 independent battles. What the bug does, is that the attackers only attack once and spreads between all the stacks, reducing it's attack by a 20%..

    Petruz figured out in Theory how to divide stacks into smaller baby-stacks. He is convinced that having baby stack of 40% damage of enemy stack is quite optimal size.

    I still think it is better to have more, like 1:1 dmg comparision with a big stack but it is my idea that I use without any argumetns behind. It just works for me with a new off a defensive values introduced in a last update.

    I'm not sure about that theory, I have always felt that dividing troops always makes you lose more troops. In a 50+50 vs 100, the bigger group should have advantage as there will 2 independent combats of 50vs100, so the larger group will start off the combat with higher resistance. But I haven't read his theory, so can't say really.

    But Petruz explained me that I have not understood your bug correctly as you are aware of size factor. What you are saying is:

    1 .Bug puts in disadvantage single attacking stack fighting multiple defending armies.

    2. Bug also supports multiple attacking armies vs one single stack even though they are smaller.

    1. Yes, but only when this happens in a city.

    2. No, bug only happens when troops defend the city, many stacks of attacker don't get bugged.

    Have you tested bug on home, enemy and neutral territories? I believe picking up enemy away from his provinces will get you much better results.

    It only happens when troops are all together in a city without moving. If you do the same tests in any other situation, even in the same province but outside the city, there will a normal combat (attacker will attack each stack independently), the results will be very different.

    B. If we have multiple defending armies they should not attack attacker if they want to avoid losses- this means they cannot move. So if they are from one nation they should stand next to each other, keeping distance so they do not merge, which allows attacker to pick them roughly on by one

    They can be in the same point by giving them an order and delaying it, that way they all sit in the same spot. If you stand them next to each other, the bug won't happen.

    C. Same as B. but with different defending nations in one fort - I believe diplomacy could help here if they havent nerfed it.

    Yes, the diplomacy bug also affects this both ways.. The defender can also do the diplomacy bug causing a lot of damage to the attackers. Haven't tested the attacker doing the diplomacy changes, but I do remember it was hard to break this bug.. Tried to see if there was a way to make the defending troops come out of the bug, but couldn't find one.

    Edit on original post:

    What seems tohappen is that the defenders both independently attack the attacker with alltheir attack damage (as it should be), but the attacker only attacks once (hereis the bug). The attacker should combat with each stack independently, so itshould attack twice. Also, the defending stacks will appear as if they are not in combat when they are (no combat symbol and doesn't say they are in combat).

    Though you were saying that the results were normal/correct and justifying the results with those things, my bad if you dind't mean that.

    I'm afraid I have lost all the results, stats and screenshots.. I only have extracts of conversations and posts on out alliance forum. Most was posted on the bug brigade skype group but I'm no longer in it. Not sure what you mean at the end about Petruz, is that about the damage efficiency?

    Tests can easily be done by a GO in a pioneer game, they have the power to speedup games and skip ahead an hour, 24 hours, etc.

    No, it has nothing to do with what you are saying, none of that explains that 100 troops can beat 1000 troops... These are just some of the results to explain it, but we did many more tests.

    This has been tested and retested many times, it has been discussed by players and mods that know a lot about the game and it has been confirmed as a bug. So just because you don't know it, doesn't make it untrue.

    Let's keep this to the point please.. If you don't believe it, do some tests yourself and you will see the results.

    Just to make this whole thing of an answer a bit more official...

    Basically we allow players to raise any "bug related topic". So they don't have to wonder is this a bug or an exploit. Since we do not provide an official list of bugs and exploits, we cannot expect players to know whether this was reported already or is considered an exploit.

    Ok, but I don't think you realise the magnitude of these bugs.. Here is the first bug related topic: Defensive Combat Bug case the reported issue then indeed is classed as an exploit by us, Bytro will take action to fix it asap… otherwise it won't be considered an exploit

    So you say if it's classed as an exploit, it will get fixed.. If it's not fixed, it won't be considered and exploit. This sounds fair enough to me, but the problem is that this was reported a couple of years ago and we were told by CMs that it wouldn't get fixed, too hard to modify the combat system.

    So following what you say, it's not getting fixed, it's not an exploit... So anyone could defeat another player even though he is being attacked 10/1... This is the problem, this can't happen either otherwise it would be chaos.

    In theory I agree with "not fixed, then not an exploit", but this doesn't actually happen in reality because they don't get fixed.

    Thank you for answering by the way, I am glad there is a discussion about this.

    As it seems that we can discuss bugs, I would like to make this combat bug known to everyone as it’s very easy to be affected by.

    Basically, there’s a bug in the melee combat system when there’s a combat in a city and there are 2 or more groups defending. The defenders don’t do anything to create the bug nor can they avoid it.

    To show you in numbers, I did various tests of 50+50 defending against a stack of 100 units attacking, the results were:

    Combat: 50 (98%) + 50 (94%) vs 100 (93%)

    Result: 26 (76%) + 25 (78%) vs 0

    Losses: 51 / 100

    Combat: 50 (95%) + 50 (92%) vs 100 (87%)

    Result: 25 (78%) + 24 (67%) vs 0

    Losses: 51 / 100

    Combat: 50 (98%) + 50 (91%) vs 100 (89%)

    Result: 28 (83%) + 31 (74%) vs 0

    Losses: 59 / 100

    The morale is a bit lower in the attackers side, but no way does it explain the 2/1 difference in a combat that should actually be a bit more favourable to the larger stack.

    What seems to happen is that the defenders both independently attack the attacker with all their attack damage (as it should be), but the attacker only attacks once (here is the bug). The attacker should combat with each stack independently, so it should attack twice. Also, the defending stacks will appear as if they are not in combat when they are (no combat symbol and doesn't say they are in combat).

    I did many more tests with this bug, and if there are more than 2 groups in the city, the results are even worse.

    - 10 stacks of 100 defending vs 1000 attackers, the results were that defenders lost just over 100 troops while the attackers lost everything.. So losses at 10/1.

    - Let's say the defender has 200 troops and is being attacked by 1000 troops, defender can divide in to stacks and defeat the attacker in a 5/1 inferiority...

    The more stacks there are, the higher the difference and the defender can actually create stacks with it's own troops, he doesn't even need an ally to defend the city. So yes, this is a gamebreaking bug.

    This bug has existed for many years, at least 5... I reported this a couple of years ago too, through the Bug Brigade, with plenty of tests, details, screenshots, etc.

    Some veterans might remember how some alliances were capable of winning combats with a 5/1 loss ratio during the alliance league, the ISAC tournament, etc., these bugs in the combat system have completely destroyed the alliances. I myself organised a alliance tournament last year in the Spanish server with 16 alliances and it had to be ended due to disputes over this bug. But of course, this doesn't just affect alliance games, it affects every single game..

    There are more combat bugs similar to this one, but this is it for now.

    Yep, as Narmer says you need shared map with the ally to get the defensive bonus and you should declare war if you want to fight. Also, there has to be some italian troops to defend the province, you can fight the enemy and have the defensive bonus, but once the troops of the city (the italians in this case) die, he will conquer the province even if you still have troops fighting. So actually, you aren't really defending the province, only he can do that.

    I can confirm that Mr.Dutch answer came directly from Bytro officials.

    Ok, thanks Narmer and Mr.Dutch.

    So, back to the original discussion, if these are now allowed, I can't see why we shouldn't be able to discuss these freely.. Or do we have to disguise the discussion as a bug report?

    I am of opinion difference in exploit (bug) and 'feature' seems to be that a 'feature' is something you create with activity level of play, and is part of business plan where more activity creates more income for Bytro...this is smart business plan.

    Can I get Sckopen and Nemuritor to teach me some of these 'Tricks" I like to be in the loop ;)

    I don't think anyone can really say what the difference is between a "bug" and a "feature" :D

    If you manage to reproduce this situation. You are allowed to use it, and you will not be banned for it. This is also the case for similar situations in the future

    So you are saying that bug exploits are now allowed? Just like that? This can't be good either.. If the players that know about combat bugs start exploiting them, there will be lots of unfair combats and a lot of unhappy players. Even more so when there is no information anywhere about these bugs. Could someone else please confirm this? as it's quite hard to believe..

    Seems to me that Bytro has no answer to this issue. So what I take out of this, is that reporting bugs on the forum is legal, so we can explain the causes and how the bug works, but without pointing out how this could be taken advange of..

    I totally agree if 'accepted' it should be explained somewhere to level the battle field like SnS is in the FaQ but I myself have to little knowledge of them and tbh have no idea myself at this point what is bug and what is "feature" despite having acces to the sources.

    Precisely, I don't know everything, but if it was allowed to publicly discuss all these "bugs", then we could all share our knowledge, make up a list and there could be clear rules as to what is allowed and what isn't.

    Right now, there is too much subjectivity, if there is a problem/ticket, whoever is in charge of it decides based on his/her experience.

    If you have access to the source(sckopen and I did too) and you can't tell which is a bug and which is a "feature" then how are you going to warn/ban for exploits?

    Yeah, there isn't a bug list even available for support members and they aren't really informed of anything.. What I know about the game is out of experience and I would say most support members are the same.

    Well, in order to report bugs you need to be allowed to make that a topic on the forums. So yes, you are allowed to create a post to explain bugs on the forums.

    The fine line lies between:

    • Explaining a bug so we are made aware of it in order to fix it,
    • Explaining an advanced strategy (something in the game that is accepted, but is referred to as a bug by some players) to other players
    • And publicly explaining how to take advantage of an exploit (which is not allowed, as you can imagine).

    I'm not talking about bug reports, I'm talking about bugs that have been reported many times over the years, even by myself through the Bug Brigade or as a support member, and that don't get fixed. So the first point is out of the discussion.

    The thing is how can a player know the difference between 2 and 3? S&S is a bug which is allowed, planes retargeting is a bug which is allowed.. But what about defending an allied with your troops for a melee combat? That would produce a bugged combat which you don't allow, although it's not explained anywhere.

    So yes, the question is why wouldn't we be able to explain to players that having troops in an allied province is going to cause a bug? Why can't we explain what would happen if you touch diplomacy status during a melee combat? There are things that some players already know, but many don't.. And I find it unfair that it can't be made public for everyone to know so that we can all play in equal conditions. And no, it's not "publicly explaining how to take advantage of an exploit", it's simply explaing how the game works.

    That would also solve all the silly disputes about bug exploits in proper competitive games.. If everyone knew how the game worked, with all it's flaws, there wouldn't be so many problems in competitive games and we might be able to organise more.. But everytime there's a tournament or a league, there's problems because of this which the support team have to deal with.

    And as Nemuritor as already said, I refer to these as bugs because I know they aren't intended to work like that. But in reality they do, have been for years and you have no intention of changing.. So why not just make them "legal" or make the public.. Turn them in to "features" instead of bugs in the same way many other things have.