Announcement Team Up!

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

    • Stormbringer50 wrote:

      freezy wrote:

      If morale becomes a problem on this map (though all players share that same problem, so it is still balanced), we would rather remove the morale war penalty on this map, and maybe at the same time remove the ability to change to peace completely. Plus there are also other ideas on out list.
      I think implementing this for the event map would make it much more enjoyable. remove the war penalty, remove the ability to go to peace with the other team. Great idea!
      IF, and only IF, the war morale penalty is dropped, would I support the inability to have peace with the opposition. As this is an event map, special rules can apply. I had thought, however, that this might become a regular version of the world map. Regardless, it still has been interesting and yet I've been unhappy with it.

      In the match that I joined, I managed to get peace with all but one player in a distant land. In my own continent, myself and two other players have taken over South America for the Red team. I've got peace with the one remaining blue player, Peru, who've I've sat back and watched use Bombers to eradicate three of my allies who each foolishly sent individual units after a big stack that just sat there with the bombers overhead.

      Usually, I'll help out the noobs, but in this case, it was just not worth it as I had my own interests which included trying to let Peru take over the Argentine nations so that I could then "liberate" them for myself later. Unfortunately, I'm going to be forced to invade Peru before he can do that because I've got nowhere else in the South American theater to go and I can't sit stagnant. But this leads up to my biggest complaint about this "special" event map....and of all Team matches.

      The inability to kick and takeover inactive players in a team game is repugnant. I refuse to defend them from other teams and yet I can't convince the other team(s) to takeover those inactive players because they fear what I'm obviously planning to do to them, afterwards. This makes it boring for me and many players who don't want to waste time defending useless lands and all teams (not just mine) in a team match should be able to consolidate their lands to keep them active throughout a match.

      Obviously no inactive players should be kicked in the first few days of inactivity. Also, there should be a way to set a status on one's own inactivity if it should be planned (i.e., a student might have to study for midterms for a couple days or an employee is going on a work retreat for a weekend and the boss banned all mobile devices so the company crew can "bond" on their campout, or maybe even a player has several matches but one of which has become extremely intense so they need to put a couple slow ones on hold for a few days while they duke it out with some annoying golder or some such).

      Anyway, the Game Admin ability should be restored for ALL non-team matches (including larger maps) while removing the 10 day rejoining limit. Then for all team games, in place of a Game Admin, each team should be given the ability to have periodic votes, selecting 'yeah' or 'nay' to kick inactive players on their team, which would turn the former teammates' territory into neutral lands ripe for invasion by any players including their former teammates.

      Through all this, obviously, a permanently set inactivity duration needs to be in place that precedes the ability to be kicked. Perhaps a minimum of three days would make sense. But, I've mentioned elsewhere that having the ability to set that inactivity via a slider range (from 3 to 14 days) during the creation of a match, but all larger matches (which can't be started by regular players) would have a default that is usually set at one number, maybe that minimum of 3, maybe a week, just so long as it is a reasonable compromise.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • Captain Hurricane wrote:

      am thinking now :)

      It is possible for a team to win but the top 10 players be from other team.??
      Only in one single case, that being that the other team has all the points but they are all inactive. The three (or fewer) remaining players who didn't go inactive are on your team and you vote to end the match. Technically, you would end the match and 'win', but you also would only win a tiny amount of Gold since you'd be so far down the list. The top 10 players, being all inactive opponents, would receive nothing, so the potential Gold jackpots are all forfeited.

      Logically, apart from that extremely unlikely case of inactivity, your question is not going to ever happen since the winning team, by definition, must have a majority of the top 10 players on its side. In theory, there could be many players remaining, far beyond the 10, but a victory can't happen unless one side loses most of their territory, thus the point remains.

      Artinium wrote:

      It is turn 9 in my 50 v 50 game and the game is OVER. It actually could have been called around turn 7. that is how lopsided the game is.
      That is just funny. But, apart from the other team going inactive all at once, this seems to be only likely if everyone on your team made a beeline for the other teams' territory in a mad blitz, and you all caught them all by surprise and so none of them even made it to your territory to counter-attack and.....yeah, it sounds ridiculous. Perhaps you could shed some light on exactly what happened in your match.

      nemuritor98 wrote:

      Artinium wrote:

      You make a game that can be won in 7 turns. A 50 v 50 game.
      where's the problem in ending in 7 turns?
      I'd like to take on that question, if I may?

      Lemme see. I join a match to play a game....I expect it to take awhile since this is a -- realtime -- slow game. I intend to build an empire which would require me to kick some serious butt. I am going to share my victory with a team and we need to work together. Ideally, we might end the match in a few weeks if we work really hard and cooperate efficiently.

      What? The match is over already? Now I'm pissed! I didn't get to DO anything, really, and it's already over! What a jip! I feel like I've been robbed of the gameplay and excitement of taking on and taking down my opponents.

      Is my argument starting to make sense, yet?
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • Diabolical wrote:

      our question is not going to ever happen since the winning team, by definition, must have a majority of the top 10 players on its side. In theory, there could be many players remaining, far beyond the 10, but a victory can't happen unless one side loses most of their territory, thus the point remains.
      if the top 10 are blue then the top 11-60 are Red 61-100 are blue then it is quite possible that Red team wins. You assume that the top 10 scores far exceed scores 61-100.

      It is possible isn't it? You haven't proven it CAN'T happen.
    • Diabolical wrote:

      all teams (not just mine) in a team match should be able to consolidate their lands to keep them active throughout a match.
      I do have an alternative idea which might alleviate this extreme annoyance without forcibly kicking inactive players, but it'll be more complicated to implement for @freezy and the rest of the devs.

      Perhaps for all team matches, whenever a player goes inactive, his or her teammates get an even share of that player's resource income (not their stockpile) above and beyond what is needed to cover the inactive player's province and unit maintenance upkeep costs. At least this idea would make it worth defending those lands. At the same time, in order for this to make sense, when a teammate goes inactive, their relationship with the rest of the team should no longer switch to Right of Way, but stay permanently as Shared Map status. This way, not only are you incentivised to protect the lands, but you are also able to actually monitor it for intrusions by the opposition.

      Without this proposal, my earlier point about kicking inactives remains the same. Either let us kick them, or else let us at least benefit in part from their absence.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • Diabolical wrote:

      I'd like to take on that question, if I may?

      Lemme see. I join a match to play a game....I expect it to take awhile since this is a -- realtime -- slow game. I intend to build an empire which would require me to kick some serious butt. I am going to share my victory with a team and we need to work together. Ideally, we might end the match in a few weeks if we work really hard and cooperate efficiently.

      What? The match is over already? Now I'm pissed! I didn't get to DO anything, really, and it's already over! What a jip! I feel like I've been robbed of the gameplay and excitement of taking on and taking down my opponents.

      Is my argument starting to make sense, yet?
      I'm sorry, but it's not.
      Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

      Manual: Básico y Machiavelli
    • nemuritor98 wrote:

      Diabolical wrote:

      I'd like to take on that question, if I may?

      Lemme see. I join a match to play a game....I expect it to take awhile since this is a -- realtime -- slow game. I intend to build an empire which would require me to kick some serious butt. I am going to share my victory with a team and we need to work together. Ideally, we might end the match in a few weeks if we work really hard and cooperate efficiently.

      What? The match is over already? Now I'm pissed! I didn't get to DO anything, really, and it's already over! What a jip! I feel like I've been robbed of the gameplay and excitement of taking on and taking down my opponents.

      Is my argument starting to make sense, yet?
      I'm sorry, but it's not.
      "tsk tsk" *shrugs
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • freezy wrote:

      Feedback for improving the Team mode in future iterations was noted, thanks everyone.
      "Was"? Are you not looking for more feedback at this time?

      Anyway this is my feedback after playing this format for the last couple weeks. I like the idea. It has been interesting, and it makes adopting some unorthodox strategies a must. Which is fun, but sort of negates the "reality" of the simulation.

      Allies that go inactive need to be handled differently. As the dev says, this is supposed to challenge you to defend un-owned territory etc. However that is not the case in reality. Strategically this will have wildly varying results. If your Ally built up his provinces and put in airfields and defenses, then one could effectively defend that Ally. However in early game, and with certain play styles, what you find is that the territory you need to defend can't be defended effectively or efficiently. The vanilla AI rarely builds to suit others needs... I'm not going to let 10 ground units die defending a useless vanilla AI because his player didn't build airbases for me to fly out of. I hope that makes sense to the devs. In most cases that I have played so far the better strategy is to let your active opponents kill off your inactive ally and then move in so you can capture those provinces. At least this makes sense in early play.

      I doubt you have built your engine this way, but I would suggest that the "teams" be the"player" entities, and each human player merely an "admin" for that team. Sort of layer it so that no matter how many people go AWOL the others automatically take over control of resources. You would need to incorporate some team internal control as well, maybe the ability to assign provinces or some such. You might have to rewrite your game if you want this format to work sensibly.
    • We are always looking for feedback, don't worry :) So thanks for providing it!

      Some suggestions are of course harder to implement than others, so please don't be sad if not everything on the wishlist will be done. We also can never work off all the points on these lists and have to prioritize them. Usually we go with the simplest solutions that have the biggest benefit. In that regard there have been made a lot of useful suggestions already, and we will evaluate them together with the future of this type of event.
    • romanathens wrote:

      In most cases that I have played so far the better strategy is to let your active opponents kill off your inactive ally and then move in so you can capture those provinces. At least this makes sense in early play.

      This is what I've been doing in my 50/50 match. There are two of us Red players in South America, pretty much owning the continent. I've kept Blue Peru isolated and watched his bombers slaughters some noobs who kept sending single units after him. They both went inactive, and I've told Peru that if he takes out Argentina for me, I'll let him retreat his forces to an island or go inactive before I wipe him out....you know, to spare his stats from suffering my wrath.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • cchyt wrote:

      50:50 is very fun and almost ready for me as a feature. 2 main suggestions:
      1) inactive players should treated as AI
      2) basic distribution based on levels or stats for example for basic balance when players join
      Hi cchyt
      Did not enter that event myself but have been watching feedback and spoken
      to a couple of players that had...Sounds like inactivity is still the main issue
      and for that i would suggest the Game Designers put a firm entry Lvl 30+
      as this should help a little % wise as it may attract better players
      and less newbies that go inactive or just get seal clubbed.
    • Artinium wrote:

      This is a Crap game as it is now played. I saw in my game that there were people the joined one side and just gave up because they were on the other side. When they say You can only have one acount in a game is not true they dont enforce it.
      Say what you will...but be careful not to violate the Terms of Service (TOS) which regulates the forums and chats, etc. You can't say certain things....among them, you can't speak out against the staff nor gold usage, you can't be hostile to others, you can't use profanity and must avoid and not promote taboo subjects (i.e., racism, Nazi propaganda, criminalities, etc.), or "adult" subjects that a younger player might be corrupted by. Also, you can't promote competing products that would replace or usurp Call of War (or any of Bytro's products) in favor of those other products (i.e., other online WWII era FTP strategy games, per se).

      And, one of the cardinal rules of Bytro, along with not being allowed to say anything negative about gold premium points and the usage thereof, is that you can't have more than one account. And just so you know, the staff have ways of finding out if you have more than one account. And a part of that rule is that you can't tell others (from within Bytro's chats, forums, etc.) how to circumvent the staff in detecting multiple account violations.

      Just so you know, the staff DOES enforce these rules....all of them. And they DO have methods of detection of multiple accounts that actually DO work. Sure, nothing's foolproof, but their methods are more than adequate and they do enforce these policies fairly vigorously. Also, if anyone violates those rules deliberately, they are at risk of getting permanently banned and even making new accounts won't help them play Bytro's games because of how the detection system works.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3