Elite AI for all! - Patch Notes

It's funny because the update is like a weird comparison to the world.

We all live together but everyone is alone.

Forget about Bytro, More to the point

we have people who understand that game, it's mechanic, it's strategies, gameplay patterns and flow of the maps. Only problem they are not hired or paid by Bytro but it does not really matter. I believe we will have to do our work for free, just like Team.

We should choose our own gamedesigners who represent different POVs: like diplomatic gameplay, Gm gampleay, Rush Gameplay, Solo Gameplay, Coalition Gameplay, Backstabbing Gameplay and talk together. Talking to each other we will come with idea that would be compromise between all POVs. I can stand for solo gameplay .

I generally was killing everyone on maps but it is time consuming and not fun at all. So lately I just focused on being on map and stopping everyone from winning the map by using expeditionary forces and renting units from other nations to help them survive attack from leading coalition. With current changes my tall empire, help-based gameplay is not valid but...

1. If we can trade units 10% within coalition

2. If we can reduce rss trade with neutrals to 10% of our resources on market and in storage ( or it could be based on production - 50% of daily production)

3. Reduce rss trade in coalition to 20% using above rules. I have enough Multis and Friendpacks trading without any limits.

4. If above rules of trade are to much to program - just stick to the rule only trades 1-2 are max limit once per resource, per DE day.

5. Right now we can still go around trade blockades and use market to do what we want if we use discord to communicate.... so your updated for ress trading is useless.

something like that will suit me as a lone wolf and I still can help others as a mercenary, woff woff

I heard that Elite AI,unlike normal AI,will invade your nation on their own,without you needing to invade them. That makes me slightly paranoid,to be honest. I always leave borders with AI nations empty,but keep troops in borders with players,because players are more likely to invade,than the AI.

Also,no trading except for between coalitions,what? Thats not realistic at all. In real life,many nations often trade with nations they dislike or hate.

Eg: China-USA, India-Pakistan.

99.99% of nations do international trade in the real world. Exception is North Korea,but even they have a trading partner (China).

Also,on the playability aspect,why can we only trade with nations in our coalition? It SEVERELY limits trade options,because in most maps,coalitions can only have 3 members (5 in 100p map and 7 in 500p map). At least reduce the limitation to being able to trade with nations you have Share map/Right of way. Because usually nations that grant Share Map/Right of Way consider each other allies,and you have to recognise that as such.

However,the best option would be to go back to how it was before the update,being able to trade anything with anyone (Except for people who you have Embargo/Ceasefire/War with).

Also,what about games without coalitions? Then you cannot trade any resources or units AT ALL. I just realised this,when I wanted some oil from Morocco while playing as France on the 10p map.

Btw, the "Fire at will" problem, got somehow solved in CoW in the same patch(yesterday), I guess we'll have to wait another week.

By far my biggest qualm about this update is the trading issue. I mean what the hell? This restricts resource and unit trade a ton. There can only be you and 2 other members of a coalition,so,at max,you can only have 2 (4 for 100p map,6 for 500p map) trade partners. And there is the issue of games without the ability to make and join coalitions.

We now have to spawn in maps with our friends in strategic areas, pre planning whom will be in our coalition based on the resources we know we all need, I have already been doing something similar to this for purposes of control points in these maps...

Elite AI has always been same, no big deal...declare war before you attack LOL

The 'NO Trade units', is some knee jerk reaction to fix the different BUGS/exploits for instance> trading planes , constant attack of planes, some players know about this bug/exploit

The rule about 1 day/3 day for coalition jumping will result in a banker in any given coalition and probably create friend packs in 2-3 coalitions operating within same map, seems that has been going on also.

I am only interested in one thing, where is the balance how to level playing field, can limits be placed on gold use?

1) How will I now be able to fight the Gold Abusers? For instance> they get new province and moments later have railroad, lvl4 factory, lvl 5 fort and golden Tanks and railguns that moments before was on fire ...HOW?

start writing your proposals for trade changes that will be OK with you and hopefully others.

My proposal would be to revert it back to the way it was. Anything other than that, makes no sense.

Well I like the way how they push people to be responsible in Coalitions and leaving has some punishments

I also like the idea of limiting trade but it should be more related to limiting friendpacks/ multis moving millions of resources from Australia to Europe to win a war... 1-2 restrain, limited in time, taken straight from another game where it worked perfect, seems like a good idea. For everything else you would have to use market.

Small changes in the update , not related to trade, also look quite good so I would leave them too.

trade could be limited but right now is just reciculous it was indeed done to "fix" (read workaround) bugs but killing the lone wolf and the RPer at the same time. Why not make resource trade a bit more fairer only ratio's between 1:1 and 1:5 be allowed as I guess this is all about unfair trades but then still people woul dhave work arounds... I'm fairly certain this hits regular users more then it hits cheaters...

Short version - return the ability to trade resources to the players. We are in control of our own countries and to whom we choose to trade with.

Long version - Bytro's inability to deal with the multi-account persons has lead to to a rule which impacts everyone negatively. All of us should not be punished. The ability to trade openly or not trade at all should rest solely with the players. The wording I have read is that this will be a good thing. I whole heartedly disagree. It only positively effects those constant groups of three to seven players who move from match to match because for them, there is no change except when their members want more of a resource that none of them are willing to trade to each other.

Trade and commerce is communication. Restrict trade, you restrict the way players can intereact.

Undo the fix, and allow us to trade freely.

Restrict trade and the results are simple - either the players try and take it if they cannot afford it through silver marks or it forces them to use gold marks to buy the things they need. We all know the company that runs these games (cannot mention them by name...) loves gold mark purchasers.

to make proper trade regulations you need to limit ratio and time in which they are undertaken

there is no other way.

If you say - ratio 1-2 is ok then it is enough to made 10 deals to get 1 024 000 resources out of 2 000 resources , 2 square2 = 1024. You need to limit ratio and time. Most of games are doing it by using merchants who are limited in number and at the same time are forced to travel long distances.... hardcoded 1 exchange of resource per day with hardcoded 1-2 ratio can replace merchants

remember - better that than nothing

World of Tanks started out as a (mostly) free to play game. For a couple of years it was at the top of the world. WG (the developers of the game) then try to take advantage of their players by introducing thier pay to win/pay to progress option, to convince players that they can be better by paying for advantages. Result: World of Tanks pllayerbase (in NA) is steadily trickling to nothingness.

Supremacy 1914 drops, and starts as a (mostly) free to play game. Updates are steady and in my games it remains at the top of the world. I get the distinct feeling that, with the elimination of the tumbola (which gave players with no money the opportunity to try and win premium time), along with the elite AI having been in all rounds (free and premium) for a long while now, coupled on with these literal trade restrictions, they are going to steer their game in the way of Pay to Enjoy. If S1914 continues going this way, id be more than happy to drop 4 years of playing (and almost everyday at that) because Bytro is becoming Wargaming. If this is true, then Result: S1914's playerbase tickles to nothingness

Bytro needs to understand that 80% of its playerbase is not playing this game competitively, but to enjoy the aspects of it. Id even bet that at least 30-50% of the playerbase (myself included) have, or are actively roleplaying. This game has everything a roleplayer needs for a WWI setting. We can customise our portraits, leader name/title and even our flag. Premium members even get to enjoy placing their custom picture in their custom article on the newspaper. Killing the trade stuff really damages how rpers go about playing this game. I love this game, and i used to be proud to say i wowuld play it until one of us (the game or myself) reaches its expiration date. But the last few updates (Tumbola elimination, Elite Ai default in every game, restricting in game trade) have made me really wonder if this game is worth putting another 4 years of time into. In fact, if it keeps going like this, Bytro can be assured that i will no longer support this game, or the other ones for that matter.

Momo Kawashima

World of Tanks started out as a (mostly) free to play game. For a couple of years it was at the top of the world. WG (the developers of the game) then try to take advantage of their players by introducing thier pay to win/pay to progress option, to convince players that they can be better by paying for advantages. Result: World of Tanks pllayerbase (in NA) is steadily trickling to nothingness.

Supremacy 1914 drops, and starts as a (mostly) free to play game. Updates are steady and in my games it remains at the top of the world. I get the distinct feeling that, with the elimination of the tumbola (which gave players with no money the opportunity to try and win premium time), along with the elite AI having been in all rounds (free and premium) for a long while now, coupled on with these literal trade restrictions, they are going to steer their game in the way of Pay to Enjoy. If S1914 continues going this way, id be more than happy to drop 4 years of playing (and almost everyday at that) because Bytro is becoming Wargaming. If this is true, then Result: S1914's playerbase tickles to nothingness

Bytro needs to understand that 80% of its playerbase is not playing this game competitively, but to enjoy the aspects of it. Id even bet that at least 30-50% of the playerbase (myself included) have, or are actively roleplaying. This game has everything a roleplayer needs for a WWI setting. We can customise our portraits, leader name/title and even our flag. Premium members even get to enjoy placing their custom picture in their custom article on the newspaper. Killing the trade stuff really damages how rpers go about playing this game. I love this game, and i used to be proud to say i wowuld play it until one of us (the game or myself) reaches its expiration date. But the last few updates (Tumbola elimination, Elite Ai default in every game, restricting in game trade) have made me really wonder if this game is worth putting another 4 years of time into. In fact, if it keeps going like this, Bytro can be assured that i will no longer support this game, or the other ones for that matter.

I'm not so sure they value your profile enough anymore.

I mean, by looking at the updates, everyone would say that they dont value it enough, but who knows their real intentions...

Pros:

- Multi-accounts will have slightly more difficult time multi-accounting.

- Punished coalition jumping/betrayal attempts through join cooldown.

- Pushes players to make friends and work together through coalition team ups.

- Prevents losing players to trade all their resources/units/provinces to another country to prevent their enemies to get those stuff.

Cons:

- Solo players / Regular users will now have a more difficult time surviving early in the game. They need to pay to win if they want to survive alone or work in coalition teams (that is active and competent) if they want to succeed.

- Killed roleplayers in-game.

-----

My opinion:

In terms of multi-accounts not being able to trade unfair amounts of resources or units to each other, this new update doesn't completely remove them at all, but it instead just made it for them to be slightly difficult to multi-account and also damaged regular players ability to make trades with other fair users whose only intentions are to survive early game.

The update also encourages users to join up with random players in-game to work together, but rarely do I witness a competent coalition being lead in public matches. Good luck finding a decent team in a public game. I can see veterans or skilled players messaging each other in discord or something and joining maps to dominate uncoordinated or poorly led coalitions. Furthermore, not being able to survive alone also pushes players to p2w in order to play the game independently.

Lastly, they should at least increase the starting amount of resources you get in regular maps imo. Due to the changes in the stock market trade and the resource restrictions, it is more difficult to exploit or manipulate the stock market in which you can survive independently and trade with neutral players. In tutorial maps, new players tend to survive better because of the resource advantage they receive, but when they join regular maps without the tutorial benefits they either get bogged down or massacred by more skilled or experience players.

------

That will be all. Wonderful update! Keep up the great work, Bytro!

Kezikarp Grembeurgo

Wonderful update! Keep up the great work, Bytro!

It IS a pretty good update,except for the trade restriction.

The update isn't that great tbh. If you are wanting to diversify and improve gameplay then I would suggest adding in more unit types. There are lots of fun ones you could try such as flame thrower a, Strom troopers, scout infantry ,heavy artillery, Elite soldiers , even soldiers carrying anti tank rifles or even snipers. Perhaps even make the forts look more like trenches. Historically some nation's traded with thier enemies so to say it's good and realistic to restrict trade to this degree is untrue. I understand that bytro needs money but pissing off the playerbase time after time is not the best way. I would suggest even the idea of making a unit that requires a small amount of hm to make but has a medium value in strength. I personally do not spend gm as 10k vanishes extremely fast. I'm not paying large sums for 1 Arty. But if there was a unit that wasn't to op but was stronger than average I'd say that is a good way to get money. I know some wouldn't like it because ftp but bytro needs money at some point and I think this is a fair way. I've been on bytro for over five years now. Now on the rp front we hear the reason we can't make maps is server strain etc. Therefore I suggest a certain number of slots be made for rpers to request a game. (Of the locked sizes) if the slots are full try again later. These rules while not as popular I believe give us both something we want. Rpers can have a game and you can limit server consumption. Now for bugs. I have not seen bugs but I hear of them all the time, I would suggest actually patching any known bugs as that is simple maintenance. I suggest Making gold more viable to those who will spend money but not lots of money. For example there may be some who would spend three bucks here and there for a few small units, but won't spend a hundred to win a game.

For the love of god, just revert it back and stop touching things.

Don't fix what isn't broken

Not "Try to fix it with a sledge hammer"

Absolutely awful update. People saying its about multis... Anyone could just use their multi to attack another player then swoop in and take all the land. How about Bytro stops us taking provinces? Problem solved?

Adding limitations is nearly always the less popular option. You can bet your left leg that Bytro will latch onto the least popular option too and never let go. Le sigh.

Can you just admit you want this game to die so you can focus on your Cow reskin?

Kaikirigaya

Historically some nation's traded with thier enemies so to say it's good and realistic to restrict trade to this degree is untrue.

Even if in real life,enemies did not trade with each other,neutral countries certainly did trade with each other. The way Bytro has made it,we cannot even trade with nations with Share Map. We have to be in the same coalition,and in most maps,coalitions can only have 3 members. THREE. That means a coalition member only has two trade partners in most maps. And what about games that do not allow coalitions? I am currently playing a game as France and I need oil. I want to ask Morocco for oil,but I notice that I cannot propose a resource trade. In that game,Coalitions are disabled. That means that nobody can trade resources and units in that game.