You also get a warning in advance that you might provoke war if you do so. But something that can be easily tested no?
I think I saw somewhere a war started only by placing troops in a enemy province.
You also get a warning in advance that you might provoke war if you do so. But something that can be easily tested no?
I think I saw somewhere a war started only by placing troops in a enemy province.
By the way, I want to share something to you, people:
Elite AI can be SM if you have high reputation enough. Too bad that country is gonna be betrayed anytime soon. PC must learn he can't be SM with anybody.
Its not only 'neutral' trade removal. It is Majority trade removal. I mean,you cannot even trade with nations who you have Share Map with. They are arguably your allies and not neutral.
Then we can call it by its true name: Trade Removal. Without specifics.
And, again, it's certainly questionable the devs' knowledge in Foreign Affairs and International Trade. To tell that's for "adding another layer of realism", with all the due respect, is to think players doesn't know what they are playing...
If they had told "to improve fairness in the game", at least it would have had some people supporting that decision...
In this moment, I would be securing an important diplomatic relationship with an ally, but I can't because I can't give him 5.000 oil units for that action and, in that way, trying to give him assurances and receive loyalty from him.
Neutral trade removal has all the potential to damage S1914 beyond fixing.
1We should be allowed to trade resources with whomever we want. By restricting this, you are making interacting between players harder. You are restricting interactions to only 3 players in a coalition or whomever you trust with share the map. Who I am willing to trade with and who I am willing to show my troop movements to are 2 very different things. Also, trading on the stock market isn't the same because you can't control who buys your product. If you are in an arms race with your neighbor and need steel but don't want it from them because you would be giving them money, you send trades to specific people. In the current update, if you don't have share the map with anyone or none of the players you have it with have steel, you are out of luck.
Indeed, considering the way devs advertised that update ("to add another layer of realism"), that sowed me many doubts about how they understands Foreign Affairs and International Trade (the ones happening in real life, of course)
Thank you for responding to the thread Freezy.
I will also ask that all RPU members keep civilized while giving there feedback.
I already sent some minor changes that could be implemented to make it so the RP community can continue to exist on the community without effecting the PVP or social side to Dutch while keeping this update mostly unaffected if you are looking not to reverse it. If we would like to coordinate a meeting with some of the RP & PVP leaders with the staff to better discuss the topic at hand I can also coordinate it.
At the end of the day, all I want to see is the game and RP community to continue to grow and thrive for many years to come.
The only alternative I see to compensate the neutral trade removal (and not entirely) is to make Stockmarket's buyers and sellers public. In that way, countries will be able to choose the countries they want to support with trade.
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.
I understand the reasons. Still, I think it's a very regretful decision to keep the removal of neutral trade.
I'm not the one who like being overly tragic about measures taken, but I believe neutral trade removal will become S1914 biggest liability. Indeed, RolePlaying is no more with this change, as many people already had said in this thread.
It's truly a pity.
What is this supposed to mean?
I won't quote the rest because I think I had enough of the same old replies talking about nothing and justifying nothing without even reading the content you are replying to.
As for the update, Bytro usually updates the game on Tuesday, so let's hope they reply tomorrow.
That means you know we report in the Bytro channels what players think about the update. So, don't come here at me with that stuff.
And if my answers are so unimportant for you not mentioning it, then, please, don't make me lose my time writing them.
Demonaire do you even know what Customer support mean? because I feel like you don't or reading and writing down from a document. Example here is a list that you will need to if ask you this . Got it? and replay yes. The update is bad for every map and player base will go done . I think enjoy if join a 500 map and 10 ppl and rest AI I won't maybe you will, because that future for game how I see it. Know come we will get new player from we're? stream and negative comments definitive not. Also get one and see how game is he will leave because will lose to the AI. Elite AI are not easy:) first played them they surprised me attack 2 border city with fort 4 and 5:) ,give that a newbie that no clue and will leave good update. Next the coalition trades I personally played solo and join late a coalition to give a free win to others that help me with ressurses .All 4 x speed like that joining 11 coalition wins 10 and 1 lost fight half map every time. Trade Units in 500 I generally play 3-4 ppl and trade our units how on continue the bombarding we call it 24 h bombard of fighters and bombers not more possible. Also like we kill a lot heavy gm and if speak heavy I mean that game got from 40m to 200m gm from the spender:) make free others not possible again. Know tell how it help the game? you think I will spent this game if take all because fell like it definitive not. So good luck with the game make it even worse and worse and have 10 ppl in a 500 map gone be hilarious since then Bytro will lose a lot money or change only 10 map:).
Don't worry: I'm fighting right now against 34 Elite AI countries. Very fun, I may add...
Again, if you want to think "Community is always right", be my guest. I'm not interested in convince you otherwise.
You are operating under the belief that the trading of units is inherently unrealistic. I have supplied a reasonable explanation for the mechanic and posed real-life scenarios in which it has occurred (this explains the 20 grain upkeep as I have demonstrated twice, refer to prior posts.). This kind of explanation has occured for literally years among the roleplaying community, there are many things which are not present in the game that would have occurred in real life including logistic trains, the ability to move outside of predetermined nodes, and the training of mech crews. Implementing these things would detract from the simplicity of the game, which is a bad thing. You speak of Occam's Razor to explain that you are giving over an entire arty crew instead of just the arty pieces. But this is not the simplist solution as dictated by the principle . The simplest solution is to look at what the game is based around (WW1) and what the mechanic is based on (arms deals, lend-leases.) and say they are the same.
In terms of the giving of troops to a better PVPer. You state that it is not teamwork because... It doesn't require coordination, the players are shirking there duties, and it denaturalises fighting? On coordination, both parties (contrater + merc) will still fight as only a small portion can be given away at a time (10%) and it really is not a good strat to dedicate your resource to economy when the easiest and fastest way to build an economy is through expansion (unless you really stuffed up early game). People act as though a small nation can survive against a big nation, but in reality this is not true, if both players are equal skill the small country will lose 90% of the time. On players shirking their duties, again they will fight, it is not feasible to leave out the armies of your friends simply because you are better. On it denaturalising fighting, I had to google denaturalisation lol, again if i have 50 provs and my pvp buddy has 50 provs, we will both have equal armies, even if i give him 10% of my army it is still advantageous for me to fight as well, or we will simply lose to a 100 prov country. I would also like to point out you ignored many of my points. i.e. the following (includes a few extra)
- Only 10% of an army can be traded at any one time, limiting the ability for this to even be feasible.
- Have you ever seen this tactic used in a public match? I haven't in my two years. Makes it a non-issue.
- You are still fighting the same amount of men.
- You are still fighting 2+ countries with the same amount of land.
- Less mobilisation hurts.
- Ultimately some may prefer the economic mechanics over the PVP mechanics (idk why but they may). Before you use this, it is okay to enjoy different mechanics of the same game, everyone has their own play-style lol. We don't want to discourage any one playstyle as that will merely push players form the game. This is more a general statement than anything else.
Also low-key I've never seen you in an RP? If you want to join one hit me up lol.
Of course you are, but I think I have supplied reasonable explanation about why those posed scenarios doesn't really apply there. And the Occam Razor I quote is precisely about the scenario, not about the game, by which I think the unit trade removal is a correct decision. Your explanation, albeit good, is too complex for me to accept it, when the alternative is simpler.
About PvP: With a 120 units army, 10% means 12 units. That could be 6 arties, 2 rainguns, 2 tanks and 2 light tanks that can be used for shoot n' scoot. And then, the base keeps growing, so more units can be transfered.
Then yes, it's only 10%; yes, the contractor still have to use army for expansion; but he counts now with that 10% army leased to a expert player who might be the dominating factor in the war between two players with equal skill. That thing, of course, wouldn't be an issue, had the expert player (or well, "mercenary") assist his average ally against the common enemy using its own troops and assuming the opprtunity and distance costs from that. Instead, those units transfered are already ready for use in battlefield and means two people fighting against one, who is fairly expecting a one-to-one duel. Not very fair, if you ask me. At least, without the transfer, that mercenary/ally still has to move their troops to assist the player. That's not happening there.
But, now, let me view some of your points and I put them upside down to ask you: if it's only the 10%, if that not happen frequently, if you're fighting with the same amount of troops and if you're fighting with two countries (although I already explained the unfairness here), then why are you complaining about a so irrelevant removal? If units transfering isn't that important, as you want to show me, then there is no difference between remove it or leave it as it is. Again, I'm not of the kind of believing more options are better and a feature practically irrelevant but with the risk to be used in unfair way deserves to be removed.
I think this thread has perhaps become side-tracked, that being said I think the community has clearly expressed that they are not behind latest update regarding unit trading and the limitations to resource trading specifically. The primary advocate (and only from what i gather? at least here.) for the update is Demonaire, and although he is entitled to an opinion, and to the expression of said opinion. He is, however, still a member Byto's staff base and thus perhaps inclined to side with his employer, no offense or anything demon but you are a member of staff first before you are a member of the community. It is literally your job (also i'm low-key annoyed you didn't respond to my counter-argument, but it be like that sometimes.).
Thus I suspect it is now up to Bytro as to whether they wish to implement any changes or revert any of the changes they have thus far put into place. Some of these include:
Well, Uncanny, big news: me being member of staff first before member of the community is a troublesome vision you and other people have and, hence, see me and other staff members like that is really your problem, not mine.
It's clear for me my argument has less respect or less importance for you, not because that argument is good or bad. No, no, it's because I AM Bytro's staff member. A really nice ad hominem fallacy representation. And as far you hold and defend that vision, you really never fulfill to comprehend the dissent opinions, because you'll always focus in the person telling those counter-arguments before the counter-arguments themselves.
Gosh, you're not even recognize that my opinion about the update as a whole is frankly bad (mainly due to the neutral trade removal). Of course, I get that, since that can't fit in your "distress community vs. evil staff" narrative.
But well, you're right in something: it's now up to Bytro. And I suggest you to look for a couch, prepare a very good cup of colombian coffee, a good book to read and start to wait, until devs can be convinced the update is not that good as they think, and I hope that happens sooner than later.
CM: "How's everything going?"
Mods: "Oh, yeah, super cool, users loved last update"
Those same users who allegedly loved last update: "What a bullshit update man"
The funny thing there is: I know some games where that situation not only happens, but it's enforced by the same developers. Even in one game, developers have one good point to keep that behavior. Bytro, until now and AFAIK, doesn't show any of those situations. The correction of the Fire At Will update is an example. And considering you're retired veteran, I find very strange those words from you.
The problem here is, Demonaire, that in fact, there's no answer at all, because the fact that only support team members are participating in those threads saying, "Added to the list", "Maybe", "This couldn't be done", it's just a bunch of words with no real weight on them because those support team members have no way to influence Bytro's decisions on what's the next step, specially if after adding it to the list, that is nice to gather all the ideas but doesn't have a way to see how good is an idea, it makes all the ideas equal, even if one of them it's the best(most amount of likes) and the next one is the worst(least amount of likes), you can't tell by just barely looking at the list. Also the fact that from the Support Teams there's no active pursue towards getting those suggestions reviewed by Bytro's game designer's or developers themselves and maybe even to try to add them in the game.
Something most Support Members forget some weeks/months after they joined the team is that, you don't work for Bytro, you work for the community. As a volunteer, anywhere you'd be, you are dedicated to the cause, towards the community. You care for the company, because is the one giving the support to the game and community you love, but don't forget, it's the community who you have to commend to.
If you think answers like "added to the list", "maybe" or "that couldn't be done" aren't enough, it's a OK for me. I disagree, of course, because those answers shows those ideas were read by Bytro members but they have the right to consider an idea is good or bad for the game and when it is the right time to implement it. Plus, in many cases, the likes a idea get isn't a good indicator that idea is really good: those only indicates the idea is very popular, and developers shouldn't be compelled to implement ideas just because popularity if those can damage the game. Finally, more people involving in decision making means more bureaucracy (hence, more inmovility), especially when people doesn't know the technical aspects, which explains why the devs can't give people a more elaborated answer about why an idea isn't feasible. although I certainly agree that if people ask for that elaborated answer, devs could give it.
Something most of the community forgets when they say "You work for the community" to support members and volunteers is that "work for the community" doesn't mean support members and volunteers must become community "yes men". "Work for the Community" is, for example, dedicating some of my time to answer you and other people who's disturbed (in many cases, rightfully disturbed) by updates like this and deliver some of those concerns to the upper echelons, instead of joining brainlessly to all of you and say "Down with the unit trade removal!, Down with the Elite AI as standard!, Down with the trade removal!" If you think my disagreements means "me not working for the community enough", then I think community are the actual problem here, not the support members.
I'm sorry but that's not Mods work, that's CM's work, because no one below CM's works at Bytro and therefore no one could talk to the developers/other employees or have internal conversations. If a CM needs 200 volunteers to know if an update has good or bad reviews or to interact with its community, the one he's supposed being paid for, then I'm sorry to say this but that CM isn't doing his/her job right.
The joke here is, you'll see developers, CM's and other employees be active in the forums of the games they are working in, you have plenty of examples, League of Legends, Fortnite, CS:GO, Starcraft, Europa Universalis and many many others, how comes that an INDIE company like Bytro can't do that, are they too busy to interact with its community or is it just the amount of interest in the game itself?
PS: Sometimes even support members don't interact with users. Just the idea of being a volunteer in a game you say you love and that you don't even interact with the community, simply insane.
OK, If you want to wait for the CM. please, be my guest.
As I said before, even in LOL. Fortnite, Starcraft, etc., I'm pretty sure developers doesn't applies brainlessly community ideas and suggestions. And I know pretty well the consequences of developers implementing in a game, without reserves, whatever idea community can have.
If you want to think "Community is always right", go ahead. Just allow me to disagree.
Also, I noticed that the game developers rarely interact with their community whenever they post new updates, which is really bad.
They just post the changes and that's it. End of story.
I am starting to think they don't even read our opinions and stuff. The same goes with the Missing Features forum where you post your suggestions or ideas you want to add in the game. The only replies users get are from mods, and when they post a new concept the mods replies are: "added to big list", "idea already suggested", or "for balancing issues devs cannot implement your idea".
Anyways, I wonder what the next update would be like.
Well, in some sense, we, as mods, are the bridge between users and developers. So we're the ones in charge of keeping communication with the users and inform the developers about users' reaction on the updates they implement.
I can empathize with the feeling of seeing most ideas and suggestions user gives took a long time to be implemented or aren't implemented at all. However, those answers, in some way disheartened, are better than not giving an answer at all or to promise your ideas and suggestions will surely be implemented only to not fulfill that promise.
People must understand that NOT all the ideas and suggestions will ever be implemented and the best thing we can do in those cases is, at least, read those proposals and give a proper answer, even if opposed to the expectatives the player has.
On the other hand, as you surely have had the opportunity to see, topics like this, in some cases, serves as applause committee for the people disagreeing with the updates implemented. Answers from mods disagreeing with them aren't welcome here and, in that context, it's understandable the devs prefers to not involving in such discussions. After all, their work isn't to interact with players, but develop the game in the way they think better serves for Bytro and the community. Hence, Mods are here for that interaction, including the communication to them about players' concerns and worries.
I'm sorry for the fact there is no better way to manage those affairs.
are you writing above as a mod or a a simple user trolling another user with spam in the topic about updates?
No, I'm writing as an everyday player in Supremacy1914, which it's allowed for everyone who participate here. Of course, due to me participating here, I don't have allowed to exercise my power as Mod in this topic, as that would be an evident conflict of interests. If any violation results to happen here, I only could do the same thing an user would do: report the content. Nothing more, nothing less.
Finally, trolling implies nonsense replies only for the sake of provocation. My reply to Momo only appoints to the fact that her considering my opinion wrong just because I'm Bytro Moderator is so off-of-the-mark (because of the evident ad hominem fallacy) that clearly remember me the same character from Girls und Panzer, who miss the mark even if her target was at point-blank range.
Im quite frankly not surprised that a EN mod for bytro is defending these updates. I was enjoying a good amount of hours and pay from my job. When i became critical of them, my hours dropped significantly, i will not be working for the company in the coming weeks. Probably the same with you demon. (...)
...and then I stop reading. But don't worry: I'll compensate you with this image, which I think it reflected "sharply" my thought about your point of view:
It's simple, Jeck: games aren't made for you having an easy playing, neither for the newbie (we can be considerated with their first steps, though) nor the expert. If you don't like challenges, that's fine, but spare me from that "standard".
My conception of roleplay is the standard one in S1914s organised roleplay community and has been for several years.
Again, I do not believe you have enough of an informed opinion to be able to comment on how this update damages the rp community. Certainly not with any weight to your words. Anyone who had even just glanced at a community game in the past few years would understand what a land swap is.
The fact you are trying to make such a case for why the update won't harm the community without understanding said community just shows the disconnect that's present between the staff and the players .
And again, if your worries isn't about, let's say, the damage done by neutral trade removal, but because the AI is too powerful for you to face, then your conception of roleplay is essentially wrong, no matter how old are you in this game or how comfortable you are in the "standard".
I used the destroyer as an example last time, this time I will use artillery as the example as you have. If I sell another country an artillery piece I sell them the artillery equipment, normally my artllery crew would cost 20 grain to operate this. However once I sell the artillery I keep my arty crew and the other country uses one of their arty crew to man the artillery they just bought. Thus they pay the 20 grain for the use of there artillery crew. No transaction of soldiers or nationals have occured, only the transfer of the artillery pieces themselves. This is done literally all over the world in billion dollar arms deals. I don't know were you got the notion that you have to merge infantry with a mech in order to use it, perhaps you are saying that you need soldiers to man the artillery. However these crews are not infantry, they are simply trained artillery crews that do not show on the map as they are not used to fight.
On the idea of giving men to someone in your group that is a better PVPer. This is simply teamwork and i can tell you right now this would never happen between randoms. Is it a bad thing, no, you are still playing against the same amount of men with the same amount of land as if you had fought them all when they were controlling there own soldiers. Could this even happen, not really, 10% of an army being slightly upskilled is not enough to turn the tide of war. I mean ultimately if they employ this tactic you were going to fight the two of them anyway as they are friends outside of the individual game and will fight for each other regardless. Really this does not occur commonly, I myself have literally never seen it in my 2 years of play, and the negatives clearly out-weigh the positives (particularly if this is your 'positive').
You perceived like this. I don't. Again, for your "I'm only buying the equipment" being true, the arty should only cost 5 oil as upkeep, without the 20 grains. You saying "I have my own artillery crew" makes no sense because I don't see, between my troops, the crew from the artillery I just transfered, in the same way you haven't that crew before you got the arty. Occam Razor, they call: the arty with the crew being transfered is simpler to assume than the "complexity" of imagine non-existent arty crew on both sides while you're receiving just the equipment.
And no: giving troops to another player for him to use is anything else but teamwork. Teamworks requires coordination between those players (with the flaws that implies). Giving units to a better player is just shirking their work. That's all. Again, you perceived negatives clearly out-weigh the positives. I don't: the benefits of that removal overwhelmingly surpass the costs, as I saw it. More options isn't better and the content of that option in particular denaturalize that fighting since contractor can dedicate only to his country economy, since the mercenary will care their borders and expansion, forcing other players to do the same thing.
That just remember me the SImpson episode where tennis doubles match between Bart/Marge vs. Homer/Lisa transformed in Sampras/Serena vs. Agassi/Venus. Yep, the same denaturalization.