My suggestions for improving WebGL are well-documented elsewhere.
Unrelated to those changes, I have the following suggestions:
Please bring back Anonymous News Stories
Please bring back Unit Trades.
That's it.
Well I mean people often abused the unit trades feature. That is why they removed the feature from the game. Also, people often used anonymous news as a way to say slangs, racial slurs, or spread extremist ideology without being reported.
i agree with anonymous but i dont like unit trade.Stumpy Pete wrote:
My suggestions for improving WebGL are well-documented elsewhere.Unrelated to those changes, I have the following suggestions:
Please bring back Anonymous News Stories
Please bring back Unit Trades.
That's it.
Perhaps bring back anonymous news/messages if it had a large report button next to it that allowed reporting without seeing the user's name
I didn't even realize anonymous newspaper article posting was gone! :O
Yea I'd like the have a big report icon that mods or GOs can monitor if stupid stuff is being posted.
Unit trades won't being happening for sure. Search the suggestion forum for like posts and read a little and you can find out why.
Unfortunately, neither are coming back due to abuse. Anonymous messages were perceived by some players to be “untraceable” which lead to an increase in rule breaks in them. Obviously, they aren’t “untraceable,” but it was just easier to remove them. There are some other reasons that they were removed, but I can’t really get into the details of them.
I loved the anonymous newspaper posts. I used it to manipulate other countries or to diffuse vital or sensitive information without anyone knowing who I was.
same hereBMfox wrote:
I loved the anonymous newspaper posts. I used it to manipulate other countries or to diffuse vital or sensitive information without anyone knowing who I was.
I was desperate to use it to trick an enemy coalition the other day...
Oh, no doubt. DIPLOMACY — whether good or bad — is the single most powerful weapon in the game. Anyone with any sense knows that. I use unit trades all the time. Sometimes, I'd aid an ally, yet most often I was trying to aggregate a certain unit type to make a bigger stack. For example, on day one, I'd usually offer a set amount of cash to most other players to try to buy their starter Interceptor. Some would accept. And, unless I was landlocked, I usually could come up with a large air force, numbering maybe a dozen Interceptors by day 2 or 3. NOW, I didn't do this just to be a dominator. I did this as a DIRECT response to any heavy gold users who liked to buy up tons of bombers on day 1. MY tactic usually forced them to either spend more $$$ on the game (which Bytro should LOVE), or else they'd fight with what they got, got disillusioned a bit, and quit the match, moving to another one where they can spend their gold on.vietcong2005 wrote:
Well I mean people often abused the unit trades feature. That is why they removed the feature from the game. Also, people often used anonymous news as a way to say slangs, racial slurs, or spread extremist ideology without being reported.
As one of the true expert players, since I don't like Gold, I had to come up with every tactic imaginable to keep not only competitive with, but superior to, most heavy Gold users. Tricks and schemes like that often are the only way to survive MOST matches in this pay-to-win game. That said, I'm one a few players that can win without Gold. But many— if not most — people have no idea how, and they just get disappointed with the game and quit.
Unit trades CAN be abused, in a sense, but THAT was why there were percentage limits. THAT was good enough. Tech-stacking, which shouldn't be disallowed (it can be done in Call of War v.1.5, too easily, anyway), was often disallowed in certain special events and contests. But apart from that, it was rarely used except by a few overly-crafty alliances playing in shared matches.
My POINT is that the reasons for removing unit trades are FAR outweighed by the reasons for keeping them. And let's face it, with diplomacy being the most important weapon of the game, removing unit trades has neutered some of the best players, and it seems like a poor excuse to try to force them to buy [more] gold when they'd rather only invest in features that don't unbalance the game (like High Command).
As to anonymous messages in the paper, there always WAS a report button for those occasional offenses by others. And, though racial slurs should be reported — as well as age–inappropriate text — there is no reason to ban non–vulgar slangs, nor [especially] "extremist ideology", since the latter often could be misreported as such by snowflake millennials and zoomers who haven't got a clue how to conduct clean, yet witty, banter, nor of others who might actually have an opinion on something, or even could be religious, since it seems that even pro-Christian ideas are oft-treated as "extremist" by some of those "snowflakes".
I think it's weird that, in addition to removing the anonymous feature, they removed the reporting feature which actually made it harder to report a violator since most players either aren't aware, or aren't willing, to go to the long-form bug report to make such claims. If this is to make the job of the moderators easier, that's a grave mistake that could put Bytro at risk of getting a major lawsuit because someone doesn't report something (like bullying (the real kind)) and which leads to something like a suicide or other terrible tragedy. If anything, keeping anonymous, but also keeping the report feature, kept things well-balanced.
As I said, there WAS a reporting button. But one shouldn't have to fear reprisals from other players in-game for using it, since if it does happen, then those that participate should be at risk of getting banned from the match.whowh wrote:
Perhaps bring back anonymous news/messages if it had a large report button next to it that allowed reporting without seeing the user's name
I guess the issue may be more to do with a lack of volunteer staff with the moderators. But rather than convincing enough people to volunteer and actually help…responsibly…the company just said "screw it" and threw out the baby with the bathwater. And so the lack of enforcement over a few bad apples is probably what led to the anonymous news removal. I'd join the crowd and blame the whiners, but I'm willing to bet my interpretation of likely events is indeed…likely. And as far as snitches go, I'm happily one of them, when it matters. But I'm also one to let things go if it's only minor, and I'll often take initiative to make the offender know how they violated Bytro's TOS and/or why what they said is wrong (like, morally wrong, for example).
Anonymous articles could still get reported. I still don't understand why the have changed it. The fact that people were abusing is an excuse. People violate the ToS in-game, in the chat and on the form every single day.vietcong2005 wrote:
Well I mean people often abused the unit trades feature. That is why they removed the feature from the game. Also, people often used anonymous news as a way to say slangs, racial slurs, or spread extremist ideology without being reported.
It has to do with things on the GO side that didn’t allow for anonymous articles to be properly processed. That’s really all I can say.
Yeah they did…and still do. The automatic censorship of certain words helped a little. But the real problem is that the company hasn't figured out a way for the staff to foster a more wholesome sense of gameplay across the entirety of the gaming community. It's like they need to be making friendly reminder popups that occur at least once per day whenever you open the chats, forums, or newspaper.BMfox wrote:
Anonymous articles could still get reported. I still don't understand why the have changed it. The fact that people were abusing is an excuse. People violate the ToS in-game, in the chat and on the form every single day.vietcong2005 wrote:
Well I mean people often abused the unit trades feature. That is why they removed the feature from the game. Also, people often used anonymous news as a way to say slangs, racial slurs, or spread extremist ideology without being reported.
The problem is, that there will always be some that deliberately abuse the comms. Those have to be rooted out and given an ultimatum. Then there's the idiots that just don't realize what they are doing…they need more frequent reminders than everybody else, but these need to be afforded some patience since what they do often is without any real malice.
Either way, the fact that they made it more difficult to report rule-breakers doesn't really make sense.
I think what you are beating around the bush, must be that so many people found ways to abuse the anonymous system, that it was causing a headache for the volunteer staff. And if that's the case, then the system needs somehow refined, not just dropped altogether. But I can see why that would lead to it's dismissal in whole.DoctorDR1 wrote:
It has to do with things on the GO side that didn’t allow for anonymous articles to be properly processed. That’s really all I can say.
I've come to the conclusion, without meaning any disrespect for anyone on staff, that what you need — really need — is to make the higher volunteer positions paid with more than just in-game perks. That way, you might draw some more folks who can help handle the problems that occur. I know, that would fall under limitations of the company's budgeting, etc. But it would make a difference…especially if you hired me. But then, if I worked for Bytro, I'd want to be on the dev team, helping to shape up the game and make the code more efficient. But then I'd probably have to move to Germany, and I could never leave my beloved home and valley of 40+ years. However, were Bytro to hire me to run the staff, or at least be "high up" on the team, you'd see some serious improvements overall, in a fairly short amount of time. But then, I'm a harsh taskmaster…though I'm also good to those under me.
In addition to the need to bring back anonymous messages and unit trades, I'd also like to see a return to displaying the custom names of Battleships, Nukes, and RR Guns.
In fact, it might be nice to have a small label under each in the game, with their custom name on display for all to see, so others can see that a "big-bad" is on the horizon and make those units a little more intimidating. But, even if that weren't implemented (and it'd be surprisingly simple to do), at least get the names back in the details section. I'm tired of naming Battleships only to not be able to identify which is which on the map.
It wasn't really the fact that it caused a headache for us. Just as many people, if not more, attempt to abuse the regular messages/articles, which is why Bytro needs volunteers to make sure that we catch all of these people. Certain changes to the backend of the ticketing system and the game made anonymous articles not viable to keep. I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to explain in more detail, so I won't, but that's the basic idea.Stumpy Pete wrote:
I think what you are beating around the bush, must be that so many people found ways to abuse the anonymous system, that it was causing a headache for the volunteer staff. And if that's the case, then the system needs somehow refined, not just dropped altogether. But I can see why that would lead to it's dismissal in whole.
Well, if that's the case, then so be it. But like I said elsewhere, they've thrown away the baby with the bathwater. If it needs fixed, then they need to fix it. Perhaps it's for the best that they got rid of it...for now. But it needs fixed then returned to the community. Anonymous messages were an interesting and semi-important part of the game.DoctorDR1 wrote:
It wasn't really the fact that it caused a headache for us. Just as many people, if not more, attempt to abuse the regular messages/articles, which is why Bytro needs volunteers to make sure that we catch all of these people. Certain changes to the backend of the ticketing system and the game made anonymous articles not viable to keep. I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to explain in more detail, so I won't, but that's the basic idea.Stumpy Pete wrote:
I think what you are beating around the bush, must be that so many people found ways to abuse the anonymous system, that it was causing a headache for the volunteer staff. And if that's the case, then the system needs somehow refined, not just dropped altogether. But I can see why that would lead to it's dismissal in whole.
Anonymus option in the news was the best thing.
They rlly need to bring that back.
I was re-reading my own post, and it made me think of something, that would make for an awesome improvement.Stumpy Pete wrote:
In addition to the need to bring back anonymous messages and unit trades, I'd also like to see a return to displaying the custom names of Battleships, Nukes, and RR Guns.In fact, it might be nice to have a small label under each in the game, with their custom name on display for all to see, so others can see that a "big-bad" is on the horizon and make those units a little more intimidating. But, even if that weren't implemented (and it'd be surprisingly simple to do), at least get the names back in the details section. I'm tired of naming Battleships only to not be able to identify which is which on the map.
How about, instead of just having names of "big bad" units appear———and they should appear in the minor fog of war (though not the full fog of war) thus fostering that ominous feeling that something "big" is coming on the horizon———instead, there should also be a tagging of stacks (or individual units) that reach a "legendary" status. What I mean, is that when a unit (or group of units) destroys a certain amount of enemy targets (the count is tracked in-game), then it should get some kind of prestige bonus (i.e., a 5% increase in speed, a 3% increase in daily healing, a 5% increase to damage protection, etc.) as well as [most importantly] it's own special label.
Whenever a unit(s) reaches, i.e., a dozen confirmed kills, then you get to name it (like a Battleship), and that name would then follow it around in the same little box as an intimidation factor for all to see. Also, since naming could popup in the middle of a battle, perhaps the naming should be prevented from popping up until that battle has ended. And the popup should then be given a short amount of time (e.g., 60 seconds) in which a default title gets entered (to prevent screen clutter or when a person is afk).
Also, making that popup occur in the center of the screen might be confusing, so it should popup above or below the unit. And if the unit is off-screen, then the popup should go to the edge of the screen nearest to the target. Additionally, the popup could have a "center on target" kind of button that would center the screen on the unit and move the box above or below it to make it more obvious in context.
Another improvement that would make legendary units more of a thing, would be to make an automated news story be added, e.g., "The Infantry unit has reached legendary status after reaching confirmed kills." This could even be augmented, such that there's a higher bonus for a "super" legendary status, i.e., "The Interceptor pilot has achieved the status of "flying ace" after having killed units. This Interceptor is part of the air wing."
Other ways it could be said:
[AFTER A NAVAL UNIT HAS ACHIEVED LEGENDARY STATUS:]
"World leaders have gained a new respect for the leadership of as 's has become one of the most cunning and deadly ships on the high seas."
{AFTER A LEGENDARY ARMORED UNIT (i.e., Medium Tank) HAS SCORED THE MOST KILLS IN THE GAME UP TO CURRENT DATE:]
" has become a most fearful leader indeed, as their regiment has confirmed kills, making it the most deadly unit in the world."
[AFTER A RAILROAD GUN ACHIEVES SUPER LEGENDARY STATUS:]
"Leaders around the world are decrying the awesome terror that is the . This has become infamous for the confirmed destruction of it's <*integer-as-adjective> target. is to be feared."
(*integer-as-adjective: i.e., "24th., 3rd., 14th., etc., or as spelled out, twenty-fourth, third, fourteenth, etc.)
These are some additional examples of stories that could be added, based on other in-game tracking, along the lines of the above:
[AFTER A PLAYER SHOOTS DOWN A NUCLEAR BOMBER THAT HAS TRIED TO DETONATE OVER A TARGET:]
"People throughout the nation of " applaud the leadership of for wisely sending the (air wing, armored column, troop division, etc.) to intercept the of ."
[IF TARGET WAS A PROVINCE CONTROL POINT:]
"The people of breathe a sigh of relief at the
heroism of [ of the] .
[IF TARGET WAS A GROUND UNIT ON LAND:]
"The soldiers of the division are
changing all their pants after having narrowly avoided getting
obliterated by the , which was shot down
over ."
[IF TARGET WAS WITHIN 50 KM OF ANY GROUND UNIT:]
[FOREACH GROUND UNIT WITHIN 50 KM OF TARGET:]
[USE:] "IF TARGET WAS A GROUND UNIT ON LAND"
[with]
[IF TARGET WAS A NAVAL VESSEL:]
"The sailors of the naval fleet breathe
a collective sigh of relief as they have been spared annihilation
from the mighty power of the atom."
[IF TARGET WAS AN AIR UNIT OVER LAND:]
"The airmen of the air wing are celebrating
as they've narrowly missed getting blasted out of the sky by a
hurricane of nuclear power, as the
got shot out of the sky."
[IF TARGET WAS AN AIR UNIT OVER WATER:]
[IF TARGET WAS WITHIN 100 KM OF ANY PROVINCE COAST:]
[FOREACH PROVINCE WITH A COAST WITHIN 100 KM:]
[USE] "IF TARGET WAS AN AIR UNIT OVER LAND"
[WITH]
[IF TARGET WAS WITHIN 100 KM OF ANY NAVAL VESSEL:]
[FOREACH NAVAL VESSEL WITHIN 100 KM:]
[USE] "IF TARGET WAS A NAVAL VESSEL"
[WITH]
[AFTER A COALITION (or team) DESTROYS THE 100TH UNIT OFAN OPPONENT COALITION:]
"Citizens and soldiers alike, throughout the nations of
coalition, are celebrating their 100th confirmed kill as
has suffered the loss of yet another
."
To sum up, I think that having legendary units and/or legendary stacks would make for a more interesting game. i think it would also make the game more interesting if those legendary units and certain other conditions had better news story coverage. There is lots of potential for improving the story for each match, within the newspaper.
Perhaps, if some stories are such incredible feats (i.e., a legendary unit reaches 100 kills), then it could be a short snippet that goes to the main game screen: i.e., "In match #,###,###, the of has reached a monumental number of confirmed kills…100!"
I agree strongly that, at least, Anonymous messages should return. Or be given to a players that meet a certain level or requisite. Not to be elitist, but just to make them more traceable in case needed... It's sad but it's not the first time that instead of modifying things to make them work, they throw away it entirely. In the case of Anonymous message, it was an interesting resource and gave diplomacy a deeper meaning. I even faked combat plans and espionage reports with that. It was fun.
I really liked it too. Unfortunately the few people who thought abusing it would be funny ruined it for the rest of us.
Abusing how?
Using it to insult others, and break the ToS in other ways, thinking they couldn't be caught.
