Posts by Demonaire

    This point is surely a valid one and believe me, my personal image of Bytro is not that of a highly-efficient company with more resources than work to do.

    But then it all gets murky when you take a look at what they did get done over the past four years. How many changes were made to the game that nobody ever asked for, while items of feedback that have been emphasized time and time again sit idly in the forums, collecting digital dust and not even recieving an acknowledgement. If someone had ever replied to any of that with an honest "Sorry, I don't think we can pull it off" or "Sorry, the development team disagrees on your opinion that this is an important matter" when presented with specific feedback, the point that they're not game development gods with tons of excess resources would have been perfeclty palatable. But like this...

    I'm pretty sure that, If I review some of the announcements and bug fixes made by Bytro in these last 4 years, either in this forum or in Discord, I'm going to find some feedbacks applied.

    Yes, you may be right when you say Bytro should tell whether a proposal likes or dislikes them, but it's also true nobody likes when someone says your proposal is useless, and saying that can cut the feedback input for Bytro, in the same way it's better to not say an user if his multiple accounts/pushing report gave results or not.

    I'm all for honesty as policy, the problem is the line between honesty and "brutal" honesty is not so clear when talking with customers who generally have that "Customers' always in the right" philosophy. And at those cases, the better policy is "When in doubt, refrain".


    I think everything was already said in this thread. But I must also make a clarification:

    If you think companies like Bytro are hyper-efficient and counts with a lot of resources, time and employees to apply every bit of feedback the community has said during those four years, then all of you have Bytro in extremely high-expectations and I believe, hence, you must lower those expectations for the sake of everybody here.

    This isn't like a S1914 match where a harbour is built in 3 days, a rail in another 3 and a factory in just 2 days. Feedback implementation take (a lot of) time, unfortunately for the players, of course, besides the verifications of possible bugs caused by those implementations and other issues to be developed.

    So, to think Bytro's development of projects regarding the new UI taking months and even years to be implemented shouldn't be so far-fetched to be understood, or the existence of a "line" of feedbacks waiting to be introduced into the game.

    So, summarizing, these "diplomatic" words still holds to the truth: "Thanks for your patience. We're working to give you a better service".


    Well, popularity doesn't work against human players.

    And if you're talking about AI players, nobody said you don't lose popularity if you declare wars abeforehand.

    I just want to add that the game offers features to, let's say, "play while nightshift": Forced March, Add Targets, Delay Troops, Add armies.

    As people above said, this game wasn't meant for the players to stay glued in front of the screen. Of course, people making micro-management of tactics will get better results than the ones not doing that because they have more strategical thinking, but that's a reality hardly avoidable despite the fact the devs truly wants to give more weight to strategy before tactics.

    Personally, maps with speed 0,75x or 0,5x should be created, but those are hardly attractive for the community.


    But going inactive here means being AFK for 2 days straight. Even if Bytro doesn't want people to log in constantly, they would still want players to log in at least once every 1-2 days right? I think if we want KDR to be a good indicator of skills and ability, then dropping the KDR of players who don't log in for 2 days straight seems like the right thing to do..

    Yes, but, again, far from make those users remain in the match, that measure would end pushing them away from the game and that's not in the Bytro's best interests.


    I think the fundamental difference between in-map assistance and account pushing is that "assistance" is between active players in the map, who intend to both stay active, to the benefit of both players. "Account pushing" occurs when one player intends to leave the map, and plans that departure with the still active players.

    Receiving assistance in-game can be a result of good diplomacy, good strategy, or external relationships. Account pushing, to me, is solely based on factors external to the game.

    "Leaving the map" is the usual thing, but not the only one. The case in the Dominion map you quoted is a good example: the pusher didn't leave the map but made efforts to interfere against you and favored another player to win the match, despite the fact he won't get any prize in that map.

    Summarizing: all players must play with the goal of winning the match in their minds. We can call this "Self-interest". Since the precise moment a player abandon his/her "Self-interest", he/she has "mens rea" for Pushing.

    Interesting.. thanks for the discussion.

    From what I see:

    • I think we can all agree that in Walrus's case (in post #11), player A had clear intention to help player B right before quitting.
    • But I think there is no evidence indicating that player A joined the game with the sole intention of helping Player B.

    People tends to overlook the numeral 3 and the note of the Anti-Pushing Rule:

    "3. Should players join a game with the intent to influence the outcome and aid Player X will be considered Account-Pushing

    Note: contrary to the past, account pushing does not apply to a certain date of joining, and is defined as solely joining to aid another user not to play the game."

    As you can see, numeral 3 DOES NOT demand "sole intention", meaning the pusher could have many other intentions at the match before deciding to do Pushing, also meaning that, as written in the note, Account-Pushing can happen any time, any moment during the match. It's possible to "punish" pushers and pushed even after the match is over.

    1. That's right. You are not supposed to capture his empty provinces, nor your disadvantaged enemy's by means of the action.
    2. Yes, in that particular case, it matters: that would also be Pushing.
    3. Effectively. You are not supposed to help your coallition by giving away land, resources and sending your troops in a Kamikaze fashion to attack the competitors.


    On a related note, this happened in a Dominion map.

    Player A contacts me, suggesting that he'll give me his remaining control points (we both had two) if I then join another Dominion map with him and give him the control points in the second map. I refuse. Two weeks later, Player B allows him to walk into the final control point (right of way, war, right of way), and they both fight me to prevent me taking any of his four points before the timer is up. I assume they collaborated on another Dominion map afterwards.



    I'd ban B by Account-Pushing. Since A was eliminated from the round, he's pending from a game ban by the same reason and I'd make sure A and B never meet again in a new match. Day is irrelevant.

    That case would be subject to the numeral 3 of the Anti-Pushing rule in the General Game Rules

    Complicated. Many people goes AFK because of... "anything". You can't punish them for that since Bytro doesn't want to people are logged in constantly.

    However, an "equidistant" solution could be achieved by protecting the statistics from those who went AFK but, on the other hand, allow active players to improve their own by conquering the former countries of those AFK players.

    Hey! It is indeed counter-logical that the game runs worse on a new machine. That shouldn't happen and points rather to a local problem. I am not aware of any recent performance degredation and also not of any noteworthy amounts of tickets in that regard. I myself also did not see any change of game performance in recently.

    One thing that I can imagine is that on your new machine perhaps you onboard graphics card is rendering the game instead of your dedicated graphics card. Check your graphics card control panel (e.g. Nvidia settings) and check the program settings, which determine which program is rendered with which graphics card. Add the browser you run the game in to the programs you want the dedicated graphics card to handle.

    Also check your browser settings if hardware acceleration is enabled. You could also try out a different browser just to rule out some causes. And make sure that your system and graphics drivers are up to date and no other program or browser tab is taking away too much computation time.

    Well, it's a laptop, so there is only one graphic card (AFAIK). On the other hand, I tested with the hardware acceleration and, well, it worked but sometimes it's still laggy and crashy (fortunately, it's a no-more in low graphics). Thanks for the advice.

    A bit late for the discussion, but since I found the thread...

    In this moment, I'm forced to use Legacy mode, unlike before the current year, when I was using the Ultimate client for all the maps (except for the 500p one, which is unplayable with that client). Now, with my current PC (which it's relatively new), Ultimate client is hopelessly unplayable in all the maps: it has lags and crashes every moment, even with the Low Graphics option. Only it's possible to play that client in the mobile APP.

    If I was using Ultimate client, but now I must use Legacy because whatever change made to Ultimate that became it unplayable, that says a lot about why do the community takes any attempt against Legacy as a personal daring. This remember me the paradox of the books, which are both the most backward and the most advanced technology in the current time. Likewise, I agree with Slyx when he says Legacy client is a relic from the past, but the issue here is: Legacy is currently, at the same time, technologically superior when compared with Ultimate.


    Can't share any details at this point but rest assured that new maps are frequently thought about.

    If any, please transfer Flanders Front map to Supremacy 1914. Not only it's the kind of map appropriated for that game, but maps like those (with WWI battles) would be very well received by the community in S1914.

    With all said in this thread, I just want to point something:

    Don't underestimate aesthetics. People complains the revamped (Ultimate) version is too modern, Instead, I feel Legacy too backward for a WWI game. If not by the tanks, battleships and planes (and the WWI photos), Legacy resembles too much to the typical Napoleonic Wars that is base in the RISK-like games like this. As a matter of fact, some roleplaying games made in S1914 always evoke dates too far preceding to WWI. I know aesthetics isn't the priority in these revamp cases, but clearly the revamp version is more WWI-esque than Legacy.

    People are right when says Legacy is better than Ultimate regarding playability, simplicity, gameplay, etc. But my point is, as some people had said before, not everything about Ultimate is bad.