Bring Back Anonymous News & Unit Trades

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

  • 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.
    DoctorDR1

    Game Operator
    EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


    Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket


    "Commander Cody, the time has come. Execute Order 66." -Sheev Palpatine
  • 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.
    BMfox

    Moderator
    EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


    Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!


    Dinosaurs died because they didn't evolve, luckily COW does. Let's embrace it instead of complaining about it.

    "It's only cold when you need petrol to get a tank out of the ice to depart": my bootcamp training sergeant.
  • New

    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.
    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.

    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.

    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
    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.

    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).
  • New

    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.
    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.
    BMfox

    Moderator
    EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


    Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!


    Dinosaurs died because they didn't evolve, luckily COW does. Let's embrace it instead of complaining about it.

    "It's only cold when you need petrol to get a tank out of the ice to depart": my bootcamp training sergeant.
  • New

    BMfox wrote:

    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.
    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.
    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.

    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.

    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 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.

    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.
  • New

    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.
  • New

    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.
    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.
    DoctorDR1

    Game Operator
    EN Community Support | Bytro Labs Gmbh


    Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket


    "Commander Cody, the time has come. Execute Order 66." -Sheev Palpatine
  • New

    DoctorDR1 wrote:

    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.
    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.
    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.
  • New

    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.

    I was re-reading my own post, and it made me think of something, that would make for an awesome improvement.

    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 <name> Infantry unit has reached legendary status after reaching <integer> confirmed kills." This could even be augmented, such that there's a higher bonus for a "super" legendary status, i.e., "The <name> Interceptor pilot has achieved the status of "flying ace" after having killed <integer> units. This Interceptor is part of the <stack-name> 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 <player name> as <player nation>'s <naval unit name> 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:]
    "<player name> has become a most fearful leader indeed, as their <armored unit name> <armored unit type> regiment has confirmed <integer> kills, making it the most deadly <armor type> unit in the world."

    [AFTER A RAILROAD GUN ACHIEVES SUPER LEGENDARY STATUS:]
    "Leaders around the world are decrying the awesome terror that is the <Railroad Gun Name>. This <unit type> has become infamous for the confirmed destruction of it's <*integer-as-adjective> target. <player title> <player name> 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 "<player nation> applaud the leadership of <player name> for wisely sending the <unit ID> <group type> (air wing, armored column, troop division, etc.) to intercept the <nuke bomber ID> of <other player name>."
    [IF TARGET WAS A PROVINCE CONTROL POINT:]
    "The people of <province name> breathe a sigh of relief at the
    heroism of [<unit name> of the] <unit ID> <unit type> <group type>.

    [IF TARGET WAS A GROUND UNIT ON LAND:]
    "The soldiers of the <group name> <unit group type> division are
    changing all their pants after having narrowly avoided getting
    obliterated by the <opponent nuke bomber>, which was shot down
    over <province name>."
    [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] <unit group name>

    [IF TARGET WAS A NAVAL VESSEL:]
    "The sailors of the <naval unit group name> 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 <unit group name> air wing are celebrating
    as they've narrowly missed getting blasted out of the sky by a
    hurricane of nuclear power, as the <opponent nuke bomber>
    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] <province name>

    [IF TARGET WAS WITHIN 100 KM OF ANY NAVAL VESSEL:]
    [FOREACH NAVAL VESSEL WITHIN 100 KM:]
    [USE] "IF TARGET WAS A NAVAL VESSEL"
    [WITH] <naval group name>

    [AFTER A COALITION (or team) DESTROYS THE 100TH UNIT O
    FAN OPPONENT COALITION:]
    "Citizens and soldiers alike, throughout the nations of <coalition name>
    coalition, are celebrating their 100th confirmed
    kill as
    <opponent coalition name> has suffered the loss of yet
    another
    <opponent unit type>."




    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 <legendary unit name> of <player name> has reached a monumental number of confirmed kills…100!"
  • New

    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.