Let me back up what Edwylm said. You all may give opinions but you need to do it in a respectfull way else bytro will just shut it down. Most people dislike the current update and I agree with some. If we try to bring that to attention in a respectfull way bytro might do changes ones more to bring the game to a level that we want it to be.

As moderators we are offcourse 'forced' to enforce the rules even if we agree with the anger that exists in the community but the only way to change is constructive feedback and hopefully bytro listens to the community.

another thing - not all info are posted

have not seen a word about nerfing cavs,arts and planes and as you can imagine someone who uses only cavs, planes or arts should be informed about changes before he losses them in a fight due to dev's changes

I lost 75% of my armies because I was not properly informed about changes in cavs and planes and almost lost 500 map I was working really hard for months. Imagine changing responsiveness of center stick in a plane together with dmg it's weaponry is dealing and maneuverability. How this guys i supposed to prevail in fight when the newest update just loaded up?

it is better to announce this changes or we will finish like some russian games.

Golden Frieeza

have not seen a word about nerfing cavs,arts and planes and as you can imagine someone who uses only cavs, planes or arts should be informed about changes before he losses them in a fight due to dev's changes

How I've been informed this 'change' slipped in without actually being ment. So thats why it hasn't been announced I'm guessing as it wasn't ment it could be considered a bug (for now) so if you have more information you might want to submit a bug report with concrete values of how it changed.

Sorry not sure how to include Narmer the LION quote

However, I play game using a cav/inf/arty rush and I can assure you that despite nothing being posted that units now die far faster than they did one month ago... e.g attacking 25 inf units same moral with 24 in +5 cav units, first thing I lost was 4 cav units, this is new , I used to have good attack with 1 cav unit per 10 inf units,

Same thing is happening with arty units and with planes , as if the hit points have been cut in 1/2, they die too easy now

Hi guys, first of all, thank you for the feedback again. Of course we read and observe all the feedback, our CMs even already compiled a list with all different opinions for the team to look at, and we will certainly discuss all of that. If you keep your posts civil and constructive we will always take note of them, like our moderators have already explained. If threads keep civil staff is also more inclined to participate in them.

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.

As for any combat related change: We are not aware of doing any changes in the way combat is calculated. If there were any changes these have to be side products of other changes, and they were not deliberate. Though we did not see any proof of such reports yet, and without having proof or clear reproduction steps we also can't do much. So if you feel that combat was changed, feel free to collaborate with others to create a clear list of what exactly changed (before & after comparison), including example results and steps how to reproduce them. This also means looking at results of multiple battles, not just one single tick which can just be lucky or unlucky. Then please hand this over to our support staff, which will then hand it over to our QA for review. Thank you!

freezy

Hi guys, of course we read and observe all the feedback, our CMs even already compiled a list with all different opinions for the team to look at, and we will certainly discuss all of that. If you keep your posts civil and constructive we will always take note of them, like our moderators have already explained. If threads keep civil staff is also more inclined to participate in them.

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.

As for any combat related change: We are not aware of doing any changes in the way combat is calculated. If there were any changes these have to be side products of other changes, and they were not deliberate. Though we did not see any proof of such reports yet, and without having proof or clear reproduction steps we also can't do much. So if you feel that combat was changed, feel free to collaborate with others to create a clear list of what exactly changed (before & after comparison), including example results and steps how to reproduce them. This also means looking at results of multiple battles, not just one single tick which can just be lucky or unlucky. Then please hand this over to our support staff, which will then hand it over to our QA for review. Thank you!

The update does not really bother me,but,as I have stated numerous times in this thread,the trade restriction to coalition is the biggest problem in this update. I do not really understand why you would remove trading with neutral countries.

Golden Frieeza

simple way to make it - introduce updates in closed beta version games to see the reaction for full 4 weeks

I belive Frontline Pioneers are not the best in testing whatever they are testing or in giving feedback- both ways it is clear that you need better test environment

and some feedback from players and community, not from CMs and Teams as I believe there is huge difference between feedback from both groups( i can tell you how it is done in video games if you are interested , we will talk about payment later

I played frontline and got no option to voice my opinion or give feedback for anything other than reporting BUGS in the maps... seems the real purpose of frontline pioneers is to work out bugs in maps because it is forgone conclusion that these changes will be taking place

freezy

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.

Golden Frieeza

and some feedback from players and community, not from CMs and Teams as I believe there is huge difference between feedback from both groups

tbh I think the teams gave the same feedback internal as the community is doing right now. We are however a "small part of the community" so usually you guys' have more power in the discussion.

Hastings TNT

I played frontline and got no option to voice my opinion or give feedback for anything other than reporting BUGS in the maps... seems the real purpose of frontline pioneers is to work out bugs in maps because it is forgone conclusion that these changes will be taking place

Best to give feedback on the forum under the frontline pioneer part
Frontline Pioneers
you can consider feedback an issue I guess.

freezy

Hi guys, first of all, thank you for the feedback again. Of course we read and observe all the feedback, our CMs even already compiled a list with all different opinions for the team to look at, and we will certainly discuss all of that. If you keep your posts civil and constructive we will always take note of them, like our moderators have already explained. If threads keep civil staff is also more inclined to participate in them.

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.

As for any combat related change: We are not aware of doing any changes in the way combat is calculated. If there were any changes these have to be side products of other changes, and they were not deliberate. Though we did not see any proof of such reports yet, and without having proof or clear reproduction steps we also can't do much. So if you feel that combat was changed, feel free to collaborate with others to create a clear list of what exactly changed (before & after comparison), including example results and steps how to reproduce them. This also means looking at results of multiple battles, not just one single tick which can just be lucky or unlucky. Then please hand this over to our support staff, which will then hand it over to our QA for review. Thank you!

Thank you for taking the time to answer our concerns. I really appreciate that.

I don't know how to give civil feedback other than to say your history of constantly making the dumbest changes possible to fix non-existent problems is killing this game. One of your greatest hits:

The "corruption" feature. You introduced a pointless feature that makes it harder for a player to produce resources. This was done over the guise of "realism" which is hilarious given that when in the history of gaming when we the customers are thinking up cool new units has anyone ever said "hey rather than an aircraft carrier, you know what will make this game cool...how about frustrating administrative bureaucracy?"

Now that you limited domestic resource production, you are also working to limit trading to acquire resources as well. Hey genius, you know how the entire freaking core of your game revolves around having imbalanced resources per country? Some countries have double oil and no grain whereas others have double grain and no oil? Your only recourse is the stock market. But guess what? The stock market is killed off with these changes. So if you don't have oil, you are shit out of luck when people start building battleships. Or if you have oil and build those ships, too bad ==> food shortage.

Can you just admit that you are trying to kill independent play? Your goal is to kill independent play which was the backbone of S1914 in the first 6 years of its existence to support the newer coalition feature. Once coalition came out your vision is to have 100% of all players in a coalition. And you are making independent play as miserable, pointless, and impractical as possible in order to achieve that goal.

Can you also admit that every single time you have had the chance, you have tried to decrease resource availability in an attempt to increase GM spending on resources? I can think of five major examples where you stretched resources even thinner but not one example where you made resources more abundant.

Another backbone of the game, your great profile/medals/awards/badges system that encourages players to try different strategies, join new games, play all the different maps, use different units, to collect them all? ==> You introduced map limits making half of them impossible to get for no reason.

At what point do you realize that most of your updates kill the game? And don't even get me started on the two dozen different changes to map creation rules that you introduced after almost a decade of those limits not being in place for god knows what reason. When did joining after day 7 magically become a problem? Or creating world maps by the player become a problem? Or maps not being full suddenly became a problem? Or creating more than one game a month suddenly become a problem? Or hell, why did you kill the highly popular players' tournament that was awesome in the first three years of the game?

It's as if Bytro specifically asks, what are the best things the vets love about this game just so they can intentionally take it all away. And don't say you guys listen to the players. Remember when you gave us a poll for a new unit and the players voted for calvary, then you guys gave us armored cars instead which was a fast attack unit that was identical to calvary? Then when you offered up the next new unit it was calvary which we no longer wanted because it was fundamentally identical to the same fast attack unit of Armored Cars? And we wanted a new unit that would introduce a new role such as aircraft carriers rather than having another unit that was fundamentally identical to a preexisting unit/role? Bytro literally refused to give us a unit when we wanted it and then gave it to us once we didn't want it. That sums up Bytro rather perfectly.

When you say "realism" what you really mean is: "How to justify a new feature that makes the game worse, but drives profit." It's a justification for an unpopular change and you treat us all like we are stupid by trying to pitch changes that way.

Breaking News: In order to increase realism, Bytro removed all of the units from the game. Now you can just GM each other.

Tbh I would love new units to shake up the battlefield a little.

Kaikirigaya

Tbh I would love new units to shake up the battlefield a little.

In that case, Supremacy 1 is the perfect option for you

It has dynamic unit types, new maps and great new opportunities for RP!

But just remember in 2 years, they will come up with another iteration of it and take those away, so be sure to use your time wisely

lightningturk

In that case, Supremacy 1 is the perfect option for you

It has dynamic unit types, new maps and great new opportunities for RP!

But just remember in 2 years, they will come up with another iteration of it and take those away, so be sure to use your time wisely

Implying it will be alive in 2 years. Or right now for that matter.

freezy

Hi guys, first of all, thank you for the feedback again. Of course we read and observe all the feedback, our CMs even already compiled a list with all different opinions for the team to look at, and we will certainly discuss all of that. If you keep your posts civil and constructive we will always take note of them, like our moderators have already explained. If threads keep civil staff is also more inclined to participate in them.

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.

As for any combat related change: We are not aware of doing any changes in the way combat is calculated. If there were any changes these have to be side products of other changes, and they were not deliberate. Though we did not see any proof of such reports yet, and without having proof or clear reproduction steps we also can't do much. So if you feel that combat was changed, feel free to collaborate with others to create a clear list of what exactly changed (before & after comparison), including example results and steps how to reproduce them. This also means looking at results of multiple battles, not just one single tick which can just be lucky or unlucky. Then please hand this over to our support staff, which will then hand it over to our QA for review. Thank you!

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.

As a long time player who has only just recently come back to the game, I hate this update. Here is why Summarized:

1. We should be allowed to trade resources with whomever we want.

2. We should be allowed to trade units.

Elaborated reasons:

1. We 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.

2. Concerning the trade of units, I see why they took it away to prevent cheating with multiple accounts ect, but you could place a restriction on it so that you can only do it after day 8 or something. If i am late in the game and want a railgun but don't want to spend the time to make one or I need it immediately, I should be allowed to trade units for said rail gun.

A lot of the restrictions being places limits player interactions and team building and I don't like it one bit.

Forgotten_Marshal

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.

Houla

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)

Houla

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.

Friend,even if you have Share Map with someone,you STILL cannot trade with them. You have to be in a coalition with them. And that means that you cannot trade with anyone in games that do not allow coalitions.