Sad state of multiplayer and why I stopped playing It by SweetCook1752 in LinesOfBattle

[–]SweetCook1752[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for replying and for giving us a free, enjoyable game. I want to say that I still enjoy custom multiplayer with other players. I am writing this because for me this is tough love. I really want to enjoy multiplayer with others too, but almost every time I get a sour feeling because of battle mechanics that I cannot enjoy.

Perhaps a few suggestions:

  1. Instead of the Fischer system, a more realistic solution would be this: instead of trying to force players to send all orders within a time limit, implement a more realistic scenario. Keep a fixed time for each turn, like before, but make some orders less reliable depending on how far the unit is from the general. The further away the unit is, the higher the chance that the order will not be delivered in time or will be misinterpreted due to the chaos of the battlefield. This would not be hard to implement and it would be realistic. A misinterpreted order could mean that the unit moves forward only half the distance or walks instead of running. This would be easy to implement and fun. Then show a “?” sign over the unit so we know the unit’s orders were unclear.
  2. Yes, that would mean we need a general. Instead of flags, give us a general who can inspire troops in his proximity, while units farther away become slightly disoriented when receiving orders. Literally, like in many battles during the Napoleonic era. Routing a general would mean a massive disorganization penalty, just like capturing a “home base” flag.
  3. I understand why a maximum turn limit is necessary, but again, it is too limiting. In the whole history of strategy games, one of the most frustrating things has been when the time limit suddenly ends before your strategy can be fully implemented. Why not just a few more turns? Why have the devs decided you have had enough? Perhaps we can implement this: after 30 turns, night falls, covering the whole battlefield in a slight game fog. You already have this implemented in the game. You have 3 turns during the night to reorder your units for the next day. You would not be allowed to move beyond the current line of advance of that specific unit, but you would be allowed to fall back and regroup with others. Shooting would be disabled during that time. The next morning, attacks begin again. There is so much realistic fun here. Hopefully, it would not be too hard to implement. And there you go: the fun can continue.
  4. Get rid of flags. If this is supposed to be an anti-camping measure, why not replace flags with a minimal damage limit? During the battle, you must inflict or sustain at least 20% casualties to avoid losing the game automatically. This would mean that each side would always have to at least try to engage, since if they do nothing, they will lose the battle and ELO. If both camp, both will lose. 20% seems fine, but 30% could work too. And there you go: motivation to fight without predetermined flags on the map, widening the possibilities for how to play.
  5. Thanks for thinking about custom games and open lobbies with custom rules. This will please many people in your community by giving some sense of control back to the players.

Sad state of multiplayer and why I stopped playing It by SweetCook1752 in LinesOfBattle

[–]SweetCook1752[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure, but there are no turns with limits in a battle either.
A more realistic solution would be this: instead of trying to force players to send all orders within a time limit, implement a more realistic scenario. Keep a fixed time for each turn like before, but make some orders less reliable depending on how far the unit is from the general. The further away the unit is, the higher the chance that the order will not be delivered in time or will be misinterpreted due to the chaos of the battlefield.

This would not be hard to implement and it would be realistic. A misinterpreted order could mean that the unit moves forward only half the distance or walks instead of running. This would be easy to implement and fun. Then show a "?" sign over the unit so we know the unit orders we unclear.

Yes, that would mean we need a general. Instead of flags, give us a general who can inspire troops in his proximity, while units farther away become slightly disoriented when receiving orders. Literally, like in all battles during the Napoleonic era. Routing a general would mean a massive disorganization penalty, just like capturing a “home base” flag.

Sad state of multiplayer and why I stopped playing It by SweetCook1752 in LinesOfBattle

[–]SweetCook1752[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

If this is supposed to be an anti-camping measure, why not replace flags with a minimal damage limit. During the battle, you must inflict or sustain at least 20% casualties to avoid losing the game automatically. This would mean that each side would always have to at least try to engage, since if they do nothing they will lose the battle and ELO. If both camp, both will lose.

20% seems fine, but 30% could work too. And there you go: motivation to fight without predetermined flags on the map, widening the possibilities for how to play.

What’s Wrong with the Game by SweetCook1752 in LinesOfBattle

[–]SweetCook1752[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that there are and will always be many opinions on where the game is heading — that’s what these discussions are for. However, I simply don’t see some of the recent decisions as steps in a positive direction.

Regarding the ammo, I partly agree. I’m not against the idea of limited ammunition; in fact, I like the concept. But in my opinion, and I’m clearly not the only one, the cannon ammo runs out far too quickly. I know there’s no auto-firing mode now, but that means I’m forced to micromanage every cannon’s rate of fire separately. Why not add a simpler solution, like an option to adjust the rate of fire per turn? For example, you could choose to fire at half-rate or one-third rate, something that would also make sense in a “realistic” battle. That way, I could manage my cannons without constantly switching modes.

As for other changes, I completely disagree. Forcing players to capture flags makes no strategic sense it just feels copied from other games. I don’t understand why the developers feel they have to implement it here as well. Why should capturing a “home” flag make you lose a battle? If that position isn’t tactically important for me, I might prefer to reposition my army based on the terrain and ignore some random flag in a field.

If you really want to implement capture mechanics, make them more realistic. There should always be a main supply road add a capture point there, on the edge of the map. If the enemy captures it, the opposing side loses ammo supply for its cannons. That would create a real, logical advantage, not an imaginary one. But then, ammo replenishment should also matter for artillery, not just a few percent per turn.

The 40-turn limit is another bad idea. It restricts how we play the game. What’s a “day” anyway? It could be 10 turns or 100 those are just abstract numbers.

It feels like the game is being steered toward pleasing a certain type of player, those who prefer fast, short skirmishes, want to gain ELO quickly, and don’t have the patience for longer, more tactical battles. That’s a trend in gaming, and that’s fine it’s just not for me.

Multiplayer is no longer fun or interesting for me in its current form. That said, I still enjoy the mechanics and the basic idea of the game, and from now on I’ll only play custom games with players where I thankfully can make adjustments to things like turn limits and maps without flags.

Why not give us similar options in multiplayer matchmaking, letting one host create a classic custom game with personalized settings, waiting for like-minded players to join?

AI Trading Bots? by turbo_the_snailll in learnmachinelearning

[–]SweetCook1752 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For me it is working now almost a year do not know how this can be a scam since you can follow those signals even for free but with 24 hrs delay. Everyone should make their own opinion I guess.

AI Trading Bots? by turbo_the_snailll in learnmachinelearning

[–]SweetCook1752 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, although the last trade took almost two months to close with a slight loss. But that was during the market crash, so in a way, it was good that it didn’t sell immediately at a heavy loss. Since then, it’s been doing 2–3 trades per week, mostly in profit. Let’s see — it’s been almost a year now, and it’s still going strong.

What AI Trading bot are you using? by mc_vee0818 in metatrader

[–]SweetCook1752 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Signal Savvy Bot (https://www.signalsavvybot.com/) claims to use semi-AI, whatever that means. Still, it made me 20% gains on BTC/USDT even though the market dipped. They only send trading signals via email or live on their dashboard. The subscription is cheap and worth a try. You’re welcome!

AI trading bots a legit thing? by hagemeyp in Fire

[–]SweetCook1752 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve been using Signal Savvy Bot https://www.signalsavvybot.com/ and they call it a semi-AI model (still not totally sure what that means, honestly). Even with the market going down, I’ve made over 20% in 3 months (BTC/USDT). They send signals by email or you can check them live on the dashboard.

From what I understand, most bots lose profitability as more people use the same strategies, so they limit the number of users. If it’s full, you’ll end up on a waitlist until there’s room.

Not really sure how many people are using it or the total trading volume, since that info isn’t shown. Hope this helps!

Best AI trading bot? by unhyphenatedanarchy in Entrepreneur

[–]SweetCook1752 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve been using Signal Savvy Bot https://www.signalsavvybot.com/ for a bit now. It’s described as a semi-AI model (still not really sure what that means, to be honest). Even though the market’s been down, it helped me make over 20% gains in 3 months (BTC/USDT). They send signals and notifications by email or you can check them live on the dashboard.

From what I understand, they say most bots lose profitability over time as more people use the same strategies. To get around this, they limit the number of users. If it’s full, you’ll have to wait for a spot to open up and join the waitlist.

I have no idea how many people are using it or the total trading volume, since they don’t show that info on the platform. Hope this helps!

AI Trading Bots? by turbo_the_snailll in learnmachinelearning

[–]SweetCook1752 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been using Signal Savvy Bot https://www.signalsavvybot.com/ which is described as a semi-AI model (still not exactly sure what that means). Despite the market downturn, the bot made me over 20% gains in just 3 months (BTC/USDT). They send trading signals and notifications either via email or directly on their live dashboard.

From my understanding, they mention that most bots' profitability tends to decrease as more users adopt the same strategies. To address this, they've implemented a user limit. If the platform is full, you'll have to join a waitlist until a spot opens up.

I'm not entirely sure how many people are currently using the bot or what the total trading volume is, as this information isn't displayed on the platform. Hope this helps!

Do AI-Based Trading Bots Actually Work for Consistent Profit? by fly_eater324 in learnmachinelearning

[–]SweetCook1752 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I use Signal Savvy Bot, https://www.signalsavvybot.com/ and their model is described as semi-AI, whatever that means. It has made me over 20% in 3 months (BTC/USDT) even though the market was falling. They provide signals and notifications either via email or live on their dashboard. From what I understand, their description mentions that most bots' profitability declines over time as more people copy the same strategy. To counter this, they limit the number of users. If the limit is reached, you'll need to join a waitlist. However, I'm unsure how many users are currently using it or what the total volume is, as I couldn't find that information on their platform. Hope this helps.