Release Notes - 2019-11-27

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Hans A. Pils wrote:


      freezy wrote:

      The white outlines in the army bar image is intentional, it's like a small glow.
      It's the white outline that blends too much into the background and which makes what should be the distinguishable features of each well detailed figure much less than distinguishable.

      A crisp black line for the details and then the white outline would be much better imho
      wb

    • Michael Myres wrote:

      I can see every single unit clearly and i can tell what every unit is even sitting across my room idk how ya'll cant see doesn't make any sense but i sure as hell want the rest of these units get the update it looks yum yum
      I can see any unit too but say clearly what is what? me and normal ppl , who do not suffer of autism , need to check the stats to say which is light tank and which is medium.. anyway it doesnt matter now im used to check the stats but still the work they did is very bad..

    • As well as the line that indicates the unit is here. it seems weird and confusing. The unit alignment should be kept the same.
      Images

      • Screen Shot 2019-12-01 at 9.57.36 AM.png

        184.31 kB, 430×278, viewed 18 times
      BeaveRyan
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


      Training Alliance United Leader

    • Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      Why do I have mixed old and new version of the tank? When facing this angle only
      Please clear your browser cache or app cache, that should fix it then.

      Buttery_Pretzel wrote:

      Italy still has German units...is this intentional?
      Yes, we never had an Italian skin. Unfortunately it is too expensive to make skins for all countries.

      Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      As well as the line that indicates the unit is here. it seems weird and confusing. The unit alignment should be kept the same.
      Not sure what you mean. The white line shows you where the exact position of the unit is, a feature that is liked by quite many. Sometimes there is not enough space to paint the image exactly on the road, that's when the image gets pushed out and the line shows where it belongs. It really depends on how many other images are in the vicinity.

    • New skin isn't expensive, but will affect game performance. So, I still think devs should start with replacing pictures and description. Like, springfire with American fighter model.

      Difficult to find the units. Because you select more divisions into one place. Especially during the combat. After this update, I selected my airplanes to attack transport ships whose are fighting my transport ships. Then airplanes will select the sea path to attack them! I can only use patrol to kill them. This was happening on my mobile version.

    • freezy wrote:

      Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      Why do I have mixed old and new version of the tank? When facing this angle only
      Please clear your browser cache or app cache, that should fix it then.Yes, we never had an Italian skin. Unfortunately it is too expensive to make skins for all countries.

      Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      As well as the line that indicates the unit is here. it seems weird and confusing. The unit alignment should be kept the same.
      Not sure what you mean. The white line shows you where the exact position of the unit is, a feature that is liked by quite many. Sometimes there is not enough space to paint the image exactly on the road, that's when the image gets pushed out and the line shows where it belongs. It really depends on how many other images are in the vicinity.
      No, it does not work. I have reported this to you in another post here in the forum. The old and new version tank is only for the heavy tank unit. It happens only when facing South-East. All the other angle of that unit is OK. Should I submit bug report to have someone look at it?



      What I am saying is that the white line is really weird but I still do not get what you changed in the update. Did you add the white line? Or did you change the entire positioning system.
      BeaveRyan
      Moderator
      EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


      Training Alliance United Leader

    • Overall, I'm satisfied with the last release. However, it did not remove trade restrictions outside coalitions ... I vote for the removal of trade outside coalitions as the worst mod of the year ...

      The post was edited 1 time, last by gusv: correct typo ().

    • Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      No, it does not work. I have reported this to you in another post here in the forum. The old and new version tank is only for the heavy tank unit. It happens only when facing South-East. All the other angle of that unit is OK. Should I submit bug report to have someone look at it?


      What I am saying is that the white line is really weird but I still do not get what you changed in the update. Did you add the white line? Or did you change the entire positioning system.
      I commented on your thread again, let's discuss that topic there.

      The white line is not new, it just changed a bit when it is displayed because of the new positioning system, which pushes unit images more far apart from eachother so that we have less overlaps in crowded areas. The white line is there to show the actual unit position on the map.

      gusv wrote:

      Overall, I'm satisfied with the last release. However, it did not remove trade restrictions outside coalitions ... I vote for the removal of trade outside coalitions as the worst mod of the year ...
      Was not meant to be part of the last release. But soon...

    • Sorry for the off-topic but I can't help it.

      We had 460 replies for the updates and I believe only 15-20 were made by the Bytro team about them. That topic was just a read material ? Something that you read before bed ? I say this because on the design , the game designer has a lot to say . This is the most important think always to reply ? On how the tank looks ? Freezy you are among that are in top of the chain at Bytro and it seems that what is important to you is to have players say that the design is nice now and they approve it .

      In my opinion because you had a lot of players old/new write in that update topic to post a message that their words will be take into consideration, not apply but something that you (and the Bytro team) will take into consideration because you saw how argued the 1.5 update was and bad in my opinion. I feel that is a bit of pride from your part to reply more to posts that are agreeing and with posts that fit right just your ally ( what the Sherman tank looks like) .

      Thank you and I wish for everyone to have great battles further on.

    • Newbss wrote:

      Sorry for the off-topic but I can't help it.

      We had 460 replies for the updates and I believe only 15-20 were made by the Bytro team about them. That topic was just a read material ? Something that you read before bed ? I say this because on the design , the game designer has a lot to say . This is the most important think always to reply ? On how the tank looks ? Freezy you are among that are in top of the chain at Bytro and it seems that what is important to you is to have players say that the design is nice now and they approve it .

      In my opinion because you had a lot of players old/new write in that update topic to post a message that their words will be take into consideration, not apply but something that you (and the Bytro team) will take into consideration because you saw how argued the 1.5 update was and bad in my opinion. I feel that is a bit of pride from your part to reply more to posts that are agreeing and with posts that fit right just your ally ( what the Sherman tank looks like) .

      Thank you and I wish for everyone to have great battles further on.
      @Newbss Though the grammar and structure of your comment take some creativity to understand it well, you are right.
      Reactions and likes by staff are given largely on favorable posts, while even well founded and constructive criticism (which is simply always the more valuable feed-back compared to the comments of 'Yay-sayers' and 'pleasers') goes without.
      It also seems more emphasis is placed on how things are said, than that is considered what is said.

      Unarguably, the criticism on the changes since the 'Market Overhaul et al.' and 1.5 is enormous.

      Seasoned players are even leaving the game because of it.
      I just saw the Farewell note of Pontus on a different server (I wonder why he left us in the dark on this server?) and can't help but notice that many other regular posters have recently disappeared recently, which might mean that the have given up on the game and Bytro.

      And I can't help, but understand them, because important questions and issues posted go basically ignored, such as there have been in various threads:

      - will the Market Overhaul be reverted?
      - will the Diplomatic Features be restored, like trade between nations without being forced into a coalition?
      - will HC Fire Settings be restored?

      and most importantly:
      - will COW 1.0 cease to exist after release of COW 1.5?

      A very simple response, quoting the question followed by a 'Yes' or 'No', would be sufficient to stop the anxiety over these subjects, which each have a caused a storm of protest!

      Further, if COW 1.5 is going to replace COW 1.0:
      - how is COW 1.5 addressing the real problems of large scale inactivity and low player retention (= reducing income for Bytro & reducing fun for players)?

      Notably, good suggestions have been made, which address these core issues in a much better way than replacing COW 1.0 with COW 1.5.

      But it seems that, because these questions and suggestions entail some form of criticism by their nature, they have to go unanswered.
      But what does that do?
      That results only in growing anxiety over the issues. It results in growing distrust. And it displays a gross disrespect for those many - often long term - players.

      I hope I do not need to spell out that not responding to unfavorable comments and/or questions and/or suggestions, is counter-productive, no matter which industry you are in.

      Transparency goes a long way.

      VLV

      __________________
      On a side note:
      - Criticism is not the same as blaming.
      - Leaders who cannot handle criticism are bound to fail.
      - Any complaint should be considered a gift from heaven, because it gives you opportunity to prove or improve yourself, your product and your business.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by vonlettowvorbeck ().

    • Newbss wrote:

      Sorry for the off-topic but I can't help it.

      We had 460 replies for the updates and I believe only 15-20 were made by the Bytro team about them. That topic was just a read material ? Something that you read before bed ? I say this because on the design , the game designer has a lot to say . This is the most important think always to reply ? On how the tank looks ? Freezy you are among that are in top of the chain at Bytro and it seems that what is important to you is to have players say that the design is nice now and they approve it .

      In my opinion because you had a lot of players old/new write in that update topic to post a message that their words will be take into consideration, not apply but something that you (and the Bytro team) will take into consideration because you saw how argued the 1.5 update was and bad in my opinion. I feel that is a bit of pride from your part to reply more to posts that are agreeing and with posts that fit right just your ally ( what the Sherman tank looks like) .

      Thank you and I wish for everyone to have great battles further on.

      vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

      @Newbss Though the grammar and structure of your comment take some creativity to understand it well, you are right.Reactions and likes by staff are given largely on favorable posts, while even well founded and constructive criticism (which is simply always the more valuable feed-back compared to the comments of 'Yay-sayers' and 'pleasers') goes without.
      It also seems more emphasis is placed on how things are said, than that is considered what is said.
      Frankly I respect your opinion but I disagree on that. It is true that I liked mostly responses of players that were positive, but that stems mostly from a fact that I don't want to reward harsh tone or flaming in the forums. I also liked a lot of posts that gave detailed feedback and experience reports, even if these reports were negative (as long as they were constructive and not provoking).
      I also made many posts in these topics, in multiple languages, and I replied in great detail on alot of different posts and gave reasoning and asked questions for clarification. I also had long debates in these threads with players of negative opinions, making arguments about balancing, game design and historical accuracy. I don't have the time though to answer on 100% of the posts in that thread because many opinions were also just repeats of one another, and in such cases I answered one of these opinions exemplary. Some questions also can't be answered yet.
      If you have overread our posts, please skim through the threads again or use the search function to find answers from me in those threads. For fun I checked my post history and counted more than 60 posts by me in 1.5 topics (and in many of them I answered to multiple posts at once), and there were probably other staffers answering as well.
      We read all posts that were made in these threads without exception, and summarized all opinions in internal documents. I would say that even that is not that common and takes alot of time. And we will make alot of changes in the next 1.5 events based on the feedback. If you still think it isn't enough then we sadly cannot please you in that regard.

      vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

      A) - will the Market Overhaul be reverted?

      B) - will the Diplomatic Features be restored, like trade between nations without being forced into a coalition?
      C) - will HC Fire Settings be restored?

      and most importantly:
      D) - will COW 1.0 cease to exist after release of COW 1.5?

      Further, if COW 1.5 is going to replace COW 1.0:
      E) - how is COW 1.5 addressing the real problems of large scale inactivity and low player retention (= reducing income for Bytro & reducing fun for players)?
      A) no but some reported problems may be alleviated by a change in a future update.
      B) yes, resource trading
      C) yes, in a future update.
      D) not in our focus to decide this right now. What will happen and how we roll out will be decided in the later stages (and we won't discuss this further right now)
      E) too complex to answer in detail. To give a short answer: Make the game more appealing, easier to understand, more balanced, more feature rich. Though it doesnt even have all features yet that we want to implement. Of course this also won't solve everything, but it creates a foundation upon which further changes can be made to tackle the remaining problems.


      Oh and as a general disclaimer: plans can change. Whenever i speak about something in the future it is with the info of today, but its never 100% certain.

    • freezy wrote:

      Newbss wrote:

      [snip]

      vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

      [snip]
      Frankly [snip] that regard.

      vonlettowvorbeck wrote:

      A) - will the Market Overhaul be reverted?

      B) - will the Diplomatic Features be restored, like trade between nations without being forced into a coalition?
      C) - will HC Fire Settings be restored?

      and most importantly:
      D) - will COW 1.0 cease to exist after release of COW 1.5?

      Further, if COW 1.5 is going to replace COW 1.0:
      E) - how is COW 1.5 addressing the real problems of large scale inactivity and low player retention (= reducing income for Bytro & reducing fun for players)?
      A) no but some reported problems may be alleviated by a change in a future update.B) yes, resource trading
      C) yes, in a future update.
      D) not in our focus to decide this right now. What will happen and how we roll out will be decided in the later stages (and we won't discuss this further right now)
      E) too complex to answer in detail. To give a short answer: Make the game more appealing, easier to understand, more balanced, more feature rich. Though it doesnt even have all features yet that we want to implement. Of course this also won't solve everything, but it creates a foundation upon which further changes can be made to tackle the remaining problems.


      Oh and as a general disclaimer: plans can change. Whenever i speak about something in the future it is with the info of today, but its never 100% certain.

      This post provides some relief! It clarifies, at least partially if not entirely, a good many of the urgent questions.

      Points A, B and C addressed, deal with the playability of COW 1.0 as is, and I am sure a great many players are happy with these clarifications.

      Point D is a major issue. I would like to interpret (but can I?) it as: COW 1.5 was NOT designed with the immediate replacement of COW 1.0 in mind, but of course any product can be replaced over time, if and when it is the sensible thing to do. It is an option, not a 'must'.

      Point E is actually worth its own thread (also in the current COW), because it has only somewhat sideways to do with the game-play itself.
      IF COW 1.5 should be able to resolve retention and activity issues in ways that cannot be implemented within COW 1.0, then Bytro should ofc go for it with 1.6 (note the 6).
      The latter thus not entailing that which can be achieved within the framework of COW 1.0, as there are: a good set of progressively difficult tutorials accompanied by an easily accessible and quality in-game manual, better incentives to stay active and other points mentioned all over the thread(s).

      The post was edited 4 times, last by vonlettowvorbeck ().

    • Concerning the discussion about feedback on feedback on CoW1.5: First of all, it's a gift to us players in Bytro games to have the option to discuss game features. That we sometimes get replies is the second gift. And that we get the chance to test changes before they're released is another one. I wouldn't know any of that is the case in any other game. So we're not in the position to complain.

      And freezy, nobody doubts you do a lot. I bet you're occupied with the game for more than 40 hours per week. But I guess what @Newbss had in mind or at least what he should have meant is that the apparently leading game designer shouldn't have to care about what the tanks look like and other front-end stuff. Can't that be taken over by somebody else from Bytro team? Deciding about game mechanics, balancing and so on is already a full-time job (taking into consideration that for proper decisions the game designer should read all those tons of stuff in the forum, be up-to-date with other Bytro games and also with games from other companies, gather a lot of historical knowledge, stay in close contact with the devs, sometimes play the game himself and so forth). The game badly needs someone who can fully focus on that.
      In other words we're concerned that CoW isn't being improved, because the apparently leading game designer is overloaded having to care of pretty much everything (except for coding) and thus sometimes doesn't notice obvious aspects(?) Like it was obvious to many or most players immediately from reading the respective news articles that the fire control changes or the removal of resource trade outside coalitions can't be good. And now I state it's similarly obvious that CoW1.5 is a big step in a wrong direction.

      Anyhow, please don't take this as criticism (of course distribution of tasks in the Bytro team aren't our business anyways) but only as my opinion that the leading game designer of CoW shouldn't have to worry about frontend stuff, bugs and anything that doesn't have to do with functional decisions.

      freezy wrote:

      For fun I checked my post history and counted more than 60 posts by me in 1.5 topics
      OK, but almost all of these were about rather superficial balancing questions. Whereas if somebody questioned the fundamental principles in CoW1.5, such posts remained widely unanswered (at least until four days ago). I admit that when I did so, I had a very provocative tone. But I think that's not reason enough not to consider the content. And there were others who wrote their 1.5-criticism more soberly - for example I think I didn't see a single answer to the posts of @Chimere(?)
      Wouldn't it make much more sense to first debate the underlying principles in 1.5 - before getting the balancing straight?
      As an example: When somebody wrote the capital of Iceland should be an urban province in 1.5, this was immediately answered and noted, but when several players said it's bad for strategy that buildings in 1.5 have only one purpose and no more upkeep costs AND explained their reasoning, this remained unanswered.
      So I do see the objection from Newbss as justified.