Posts by Demonaire

Quote from I NIKAS

OH thank you Demonaire!
just realized that" trade mech units" would not be abusable from Wolfpacks too!
and if used from them it would reveal them and nerf their abuse!

Right now Wolfpack abuse exists and they can use trade resources instead, to transfer resources to their collaborator.

Let's say then, a Wolfpack tries to abuse trading mech units.

Instead of transferring resources to their collaborator from day 1 as they used to do before.
They start to invest those resources in their respective countries and start to build workshops and factories to make units.

Now what that means:
- They have to defend all their respective countries,
( sidenote they will need to survive for 14-15 days until the first canon gets built),
- Spend resources that their collaborator could use instead.
- They will have to travel the unit to their collaborator borders,
- They will get delayed for a critical 24h before their units can be used for defending from their Collaborator,
- Other Players will notice the transfer, consider their wolfpack a hidden Coalition, and calculate their strategy accordingly
- if trade mech units are done repeatedly for account pushing their Wolfpack will probably get reported too.

In contrast with the current situation in which they use trade resources.
- the collaborator gets to use the resources from day 1,
(he can make workshops everywhere and spams Cars, instant return from the Wolfpack hidden coalition)
- no game time attention and resources get wasted on building up a defense for their supporting nations.
- No need for the Wolfpack to border their collaborator.
- Their Collaborator would have all the mech units available to defend his country without delay.
- It is done in silence and next to impossible to get reported

So Demonaire what do you think now, which mechanic is a better tool for Wolfpack abuse,
the one that uses the current game mechanics or the one that will use trade mech units?

Display More

A great explanation to ban trade resources while don't allow unit resources. Devs will be fascinated with that.

Also, Devs are absolutely not interested in making the newspaper an info resource. So, newspaper in the future will be less and less informative, in favour of espionage.

Quote from I NIKAS

That's more interesting feedback, thanks.

Why do you think they won't do it?
Is it because of the developing cost?
- they Already have the old code of trading armies
- Already have the embark/disembark functionality that keeps an army stationary for an amount of time and changes stats
- they only have to edit the old code a bit to allow only mech units, That's not costly to develop.

Is it because of something else?

Display More

Essentially, those units were transfered to "mercenary" players, who fight for the client with those units in exchange for collaboration at other maps for them to win goldmarks easily. That's also a problem in alliance matches and a huge tool for the Wolfpacks, since they were able to transfer once and again those units 24/7 to protect them. That also meant the match was less strategic and more tactic, which is not the original purpose of this game. And, as you can read, I didn't even mention the multi-accounts issue.

Finally, the mere fact you have to think about a lot of conditions for that feature to be viable enough, means the feature is non-viable at all. If something works, works in simple ways, not with lots and lots of pre-requirements.

Greetings.

P.D. Personally, I would like the mechs unit trades to come back for roleplay purposes, but the risk do not worth the gains: today, the game is better without that trade, same case as with the annonymous feature in the newspaper.

Quote from Ticla

hello, I noticed that my province's morale is affected by "expansion" ...

What is it? What does it cause it? How do I get rid of it?

thank you very much

The expansion is a morale penalty you receive by extending your territory. The logic behind that is that WWI soldiers was not interested in gain inches of terrain only to lose it at counterattacks, they only want to go home.

To ameliorate the effect, you need to build infrastructure like fortress, factories, railways and harbors. However, you never will be able to get rid of it completely.

You must prepare any invasion. Not just invade.

Yes, Syria is a strong IA with 40 troops at start. Generally, the best course of action is to share that territory with the Ottoman Empire.

freezy At this moment, regarding the cumulative penalty of expansion plus distance from capital, my only worry rests in the fact a -70 penalty is almost unassailable for provinces without coast.

Those provinces, without harbor, only can add until +42 of morale boost. Even moving the capital to the center, I see truly complicated a province keeps its morale at 100% when facing a total penalty of -28, even with the neighbors moral boost, the disadvantage is reduced to -18, still a fearsome quantity.

I openly support the new moral penalty mechanism, but I think players making the decisions you want them to take shouldn't still be strongly penalized for that system.

Greetings.

Quote from Hedone_R

Attention Generals!

We are happy to announce that new game mechanics as well as all balancing changes are live! Please find the full list of changes here!

We appreciate your feedback on the new mechanics. Want to report a bug, share your thoughts and suggestions? - You are in the right thread. All comments are taken into consideration, so don't hesitate and feel free to tell us what you think!

Please note that the changes are available only in the rounds created after the update (2023-01-10)

Talked already with freezy, but I think it's worth to put it here.

I don't think it was a good idea to eliminate the economical news at the newspaper. The "defeat the purpose of the fog of war" argument is countered with the current espionage (and not even the ones paid with Goldmarks, but the normal ones, paid with silvermarks/pounds), which features more complete and precise information at a reasonable price, in contrast with the vague and incomplete info provided by the newspaper for free.

The value of the newspaper lies at informing players about events. By removing pieces of info from that resource, the newspaper will become more and more irrelevant, and that's not good for the playability and inmersion the players need in this game.

Knowing what building was built in which province is what a newspaper exists for, since is making aware to the players about the competition and who's developing the country really fast (maybe because goldmarks?), while, at the same time, is not giving sensible information that can determinate victory or defeat in a match and, thus, is not worth of making some kind of datamining (for that, as I said, there is the espionage section)

I think players would be grateful if you step back in that regard, which is not a critical topic, fortunately.

Greetings.

I say... is there any meaning in keeping this topic open?

The topic was opened at 2018 because it seemed Bytro was going to take steps at the medium term to solve the problem regarding unlimited Goldmarks spending, considering the perceived nocive effects for the player base.

Today, 5 years later, it's clear Bytro is not going to take any step to solve that issue, and this topic is just a placebo in the best case, and a drain of unusable ideas, in the worst. Both positions are, by all means, unconciliable and all things needed to be said, they were.

Maybe the only difference between 2018 and 2023 is that master spies discovering all the enemy armies now costs 8000 GM, a quantity that is still candymoney for a whale, anyway.

Greetings.

The Support team is aware many users want to invite their familiy members and friends to play games in Supremacy 1914 as an alternative to spend the (much) free time they have. All those people, of course, are more than welcome to the game and we wish them a pleasant time in this place.

However, this situation has also meant that reports against users for the use of multiple accounts, account-pushing and wolfpacking have increased, all of which are practices against the Terms of Service and the Rules of the Game. Thus, to avoid misunderstandings and disagreements between the community and the Support team, we proceed to write these recommendations so players can enjoy the game with their family and friends without the risk of losing their accounts.

• We do not advise players to share matches or rounds with family or friends. We recommend that each and every one of them play different rounds and talk to each other to coordinate which games each one are going to enter.

• If, for some reason, the player and their family members and/or friends accidentally play the same match, other than let them know they are doing this at their own risk, the best advice we can give is to do not make trades of resources or provinces between any of them , either by diplomatic or military means.

• If you still want to play games with your family and friends without any restriction, we recommend that, when creating the match or when looking for one in the match search engine at the "Games" section, select the option "anti-cheat system disabled". By deactivating the system, of course, the match will not be official, so it will not add to your statistics or give you Goldmarks prizes, but it is the safer mode we can offer you to play with your acquaintances without any risk whatsoever. If you can't find rounds with anti-cheat disabled or can't create one, please contact a Game Operator (GO) so he/she can create one for you.

We hope that, with these recommendations, you can spend quality time with your family and friends without suffering any inconvenience.

Best regards.

Quote from LostRealist

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".

Greetings.

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".

Greetings.

Quote from femtow

No, not very helpfull, as "The weight of these factors and how they quantifiable influence popularity is unknown" !!!
And what I see doeesn't really match with what is said.

In my actual games,I didn't make any of these "actions that decrease your popularity"

- starting new wars without declaring them
- when producing a lot of troops while already being unpopular
(what is "a lot" ???!!!)
- having troops in their country without right of way
- getting your spies caught by them

On the contrary I have been attacked by an other players without any previous warning - and even with player I had high diplomatic stance with - and my popularity is much lower than them !

I really don't understand how to manager it, but it's very stupide and boring to be always attacked by IA and being unable to get back to peace with them !!!

Display More

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.

Hi...

Hi.

As all of you know it,

Please, open a ticket for us to investigate the case. The forum is not the place for make those request.

/Closed.

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.

Greetings.

Tutorial match, no?

Normal.

Quote from ScaredyCat

Okay, I get it... can't complain too much since this is a free-to-play game

Had that way, I'd close this thread and I wouldn't allow further debate. Instead, I think it's worth to debate but also I let it clear why it's very possible Bytro won't accept it.

Quote from ScaredyCat

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.

Quote from Walrus_3d 1914

Furry1

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.

Quote from ScaredyCat

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.

Quote from ScaredyCat

If this constitute account pushing, does this then means that:

• 1) In future games, if my coalition-mates decides to quit halfway through the game (e.g., work commitement, health reasons, family members died) and send all his troops towards a competitor (who we may or may not be at war with), I am not supposed to capture his empty provinces?
• 2) (Variation of the #1) Does it matter if capturing of the empty provinces is delayed by 2 days till he turns AI? (and assuming the recruitment center is disabled for easy capture)
• 3) In future games, if I have to quit the game halfway for personal reasons, I am not supposed to help my coalition by giving away land, resources, and sending my troops to attack the competitors?

If the above scenarios are not considered pushing, what is the distinguishing characteristics from the scenario described by Walrus?

I don't disagree with the rules, I just want to better understand it so I can adhere to them.

EDIT: to clarify that I am referring to Walrus's scenario in post #11 (i only saw post #17 after I made this post)

Display More

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.

Greetings.