Posts by Demonaire

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.

Quote from Walrus_3d 1914

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.

Pushing?

Pushing.

Quote from Walrus_3d 1914

Had this come up the last few days.

Coalitions: (A and B) vs (C and D)

A decides he's going to quit the map.

A Attacks D with all of his troops.

B attacks and captures all of A's empty provinces.

C and D attempt to negotiate with A for a full day.

A declares he's going to attack everyone. Only attacks C and D.

B finally reveals, two days later, that A was quitting, and they did it that way to "keep the map balanced". None of this is revealed until after A is eliminated.

This is on days 21-24 of a 15 player map. Is the kamikaze approach to "I'm quitting but giving my coalition partner all my provinces while destroying/capturing his enemies" account pushing, or is it just unfortunate that we were on the wrong side of it?

Thanks!

Display More

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

Quote from Furry1

Many people complain bitterly about joining a round and by day 10 or so there are only a HANDFUL of players left because most of the starting players have gone AI.

Now one of the reasons that players go AI is to try and protect their statistics.

What IF when you join a round you need to play it until the end or the losses you take after you have gone AI are still counted against your account? Oh and before anyone jumps on me and talks about it, YES, I have also gone AI in games to try and save my stats, so yeah, it will affect me too.

Display More

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.

Quote from freezy

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.

Greetings.

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.

Recracked the lease?!

made by Montezemolo

Quote from NarmerTheLion

Well I fire the soldier that used to use those small arms offcourse . Why would I keep around a unarmed soldier?

The question is: you can't fire him, you ought to transfer him. Which, at its turn, returns us back to the problem of transfering soldiers' nationality as if it's nothing.

Had the artillery costs only the 5 oil as upkeep, you would have to be right.

Here.

Let's say the main difference between S1 and S1914 is the former looks to represent The Great War more faithfully by offering a variety of combat units, which belong to types better against some types and worser against others while also considering terrain.

In some sense, you get the trench warfare more in that game... Besides, at the moment, there is little to none diplomacy.

It's weird, since Supremacy 1 have less than two years of existence...

Only here to say people in chat has been seen more satisfied than disturbed with the addition of sound in the game, since some people had been asking it, looking for an inmersion into the matches.

However, I don't deny the fact that, when you have sites like YouTube and Spotify, a soundtrack created by Bytro enters to compete in disadvantage. I think, nonetheless, that's a good option.

On the other side, I totally support the addition of SFX to the game, that helps with the inmersion aforementioned.

I'm not an expert in graphic systems and other related experiences, but I know many sites that looks to create products that estimulate people's senses as many as possible. If they could, they'd create features to also have the senses of tact, smell and flavor stimulated, besides sight and hearing. While I agree, in someway, with Salzz and Furry1 that sound in sites is so 80's I also remember the best sound archive available in that era was Chiptune.

Greetings.

Ticket to Support: https://www.supremacy1914.com/game.php?bust=1#/support/

Flaming and others scathing comments regarding other players aren't allowed in the forum.

Quote from Betty ass cracker

Hello fellers i came up with an idea with the 500 player map and turning that into a different style where all nations are not broken down but all nations full again with there empires and everything the reason is the map is a perfect size for it because of the amount of provinces the map contains and also not everyone in the 500 player wants to rebuild there nations very few do and if you were to do so it would take a long time and skill because you would 100% run into someone better than you i hope this mode comes to the game eventually it would be the map i'd play for good what do you guy's think

That's called "100 player map"

Now with Age of Empires - Definitive Edition, I can thrash all of those... but it's still need the good PC...

- Supremacy 1914

- Supremacy 1

Former

- Hattrick

- eRepublik (and a lot of similar games. each one worse than the former)

- Pro Evolution 2009

I have all the collection of Age of Empire until III... and I can't play with them because I don't have computer suited for those.

And well, the Marios from Nintendo, Super Nintendo and many games for Play Station

Quote from NarmerTheLion

tbh I always saw infantry trade more as trade of small arms and equipment, during my RP's

Which is ironic, since that trade save you from paying 20 tons of grain by the upkeep per unit.

I mean, since when is a cannon feeded with bread?

Quote from Golden Buddha

well to fisnih that: look at Halliburn, Blackwaters, Accademy

Same for condotierre and mercenaries in years

they do not have alliance to anything but money

it does not matter if you are french or Russian

you are paid- you fight

if you pay for years like Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan , then troops fight there for decades till they are dead

Display More

Even mercenaries are gone once a war is over. That didn't happen with troops trade: once traded, those troops were yours forever.

You continue quoting a lot of examples that doesn't really fit with the concept used for troops trading. The closer thing for that are soldiers serving for more than one army or serving for a foreign army (Adolf Hitler, Lauri Törni, Alpo Martinnen). What's more, the closest thing are the Foreign Legions (French, Spanish, etc.) but, again, recruits didn't arrive by government orders nor have their nationality stripped (although some countries did establish that rule) nor had any problem to retire from those armies once their service was made.

Quote from Golden Buddha

I guess we can ban trading infs, but all other units should be tradable

simple bolean ( is inf or not) will do

Demonaire happy with his arguments while we have what we need to stop cheaters

No, because, as I explained Furry (explanation he couldn't understand), you not only trade armaments: you also trade the operators.

And coming back to the mechanical issues (the ones matters more here whatsoever), I repeat what I said before: features aren't made for the ones who break the rules, but the ones who follow them, and there is no way to avoid the cheaters also use troops trade. And about that, I could argue those cheaters made a better work using that troops trade than you, considering devs prefered to ban that trade instead of using it to fight against cheaters.

Greetings.