Announcement Team Up!

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



    • Dear generals,

      some battles are not meant to be fought alone and our next event is one of them. Join the 100 player map and choose which of the two sides will benefit from your knowledge as a leader and tactician. Prepare for the biggest team fight in the history of Call of War.
      • Sign-up period: 2018/06/22, 11 AM CEST - 2018/06/25, 11 AM CEST
      • starts-when-full
      • random country selection & free selection among 2 teams
      • TOP 10 in terms of VP will receive a reward
      • players flagged as inactive after 2 real-life days
      • AI & human player peace period of 1 real-life day
      Please keep in mind that we are testing this event mode and further adjustments may be made in the future. Therefore feel free to give us your input and feedback in the forum about this event.

      Your Call of War team
      Sarah / Sasri
      Community Manager
      Bytro Labs GmbH
    • My biggest concern about team games is backstabbers. It is possible to have one person join another team just to feed info to the other team. Hope you guys have some sort of solution to solve them. These guys can seriously ruin a team game. Yes I understand backstabbing and betraying is not against the rules as far as I know.

      Perhaps an ability for one team to vote to kick someone out of their team?

      If one starts surrounded by other team while the rest of teammates spawns on the other side of the world, then good luck. May the Gods have mercy upon you because I'm sure the other team won't XD

      Also, may your teammates stay active to the end XD
    • As these games are "starts when full" they aren't started until 100 players complete the joining process. Even when a game may have no open slots there may be players who have not yet selected their team and been assigned a country.

      If users do not select a team within an hour they will be removed from the game automatically and it will be opened up to another player to join in that place. This can lead to a slight delay which is a consequence of allowing players to choose their teams.

      Once the game is filled with players that have chosen a team and been assigned a country the game will start normally
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Senior Game Operator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • pagancapt wrote:

      The team up game is flawed. inactive players should be turned into neutral players so any side can take the province.
      This is not a flaw, but the way that games with fixed teams function.


      Artinium wrote:

      I am in the 50 v 50 game and so many people went afk from turn one.... please DO NOT join any of these games. Worst game I have played yet....
      In any team game that I have ever played the amount of people that are inactive or borderline inactive is fairly high. This is part of the added challenge of a team game where you as the active player have to defend land that is not your own, with little assistance. The rewards for this game are higher because having 49 people help you may not make winning any easier.


      Nooberium wrote:

      Does "Game Host" mean anything in a 50v50 round? Weren't these Bytro generated?
      Game hosts have no powers in maps over 25 players in size or in system generated games, so it is just an honorary title. Congratulations for having the most points! :00002448:
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Senior Game Operator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • pagancapt wrote:

      The team up game is flawed. inactive players should be turned into neutral players so any side can take the province.

      VorlonFCW wrote:

      This is not a flaw, but the way that games with fixed teams function

      VorlonFCW wrote:

      Game hosts have no powers in maps over 25 players in size or in system generated games, so it is just an honorary title. Congratulations for having the most points!

      @pagancapts point may not be a technical flaw, but it is a design flaw. If a player goes inactive....permanently....then they should be kicked automatically. And, the inability to bring in new players after 10 days or so screws that up, also. @VorlonFCWs point about honorary admin host is an additional part of this design problem.

      The admin was an important role to be taken responsibly in order to keep a game from being dormant. Replacing inactive players keeps the match more lively and worth playing. Just because a map is one of the bigger ones in no way invalidates either the importance of that role nor the justification for a single normal player to fulfill that role.

      However, for some unjustified reason concerning that extremely rare chance of ganging up on other players, the devs removed the power of the admin from any matches with maps over 25 players in size and from ALL matches after about 10 days. Instead of making that change, which has slowed down the progression of many matches due to some high inactivity rates, the devs should have implemented a method of detection against targeted bullying and ganging up of players against others. In other words, instead of solving the problem with a viable and sensible solution, the devs opted to throw out the baby with the bathwater by removing that admin kicking/late-joining power altogether.

      It's the same thing as trying to cure a plague by killing those who've contracted the disease. That's not medicine, that's genocide. Sure, you might not be successful in curing the disease, but you still might stem the plague by employing sensible quarantine restrictions and offering analgesics and care for the sick such that at least some of them improve over time.

      So if the devs come up with a way to track that ganging up aspect, then it might be buggy, but at least it'd be progress in the right direction. A buggy function can be fixed over time. But to not even try to solve the problem is just...well, it's just not good programming.

      I don't know the priorities of the dev staff. But I wish they'd fix this issue and bring back the power to replace players and that for all size maps.

      Now, IF a team member should go inactive, at the very least, you should be able to declare war on them if they don't return to active status or else replaced within a set amount of time. And that depends also on restoration of the normative admin powers that I just covered.

      Then there is this new 50v50 map. You know that most of those players will be inactive in less than a week. And most of those inactives will never return to the match. If we can't replace at least some of them, then it is terribly unjust that we can't declare war on former teammates after some pre-set amount of time has passed.

      This REALLY needs fixing....on all levels. These problems are all very closely related AND interrelated on many levels.

      Fix this. Please.


      (EDIT)

      Perhaps a simple fix would be to create a preset amount of time in which inactive players automatically get kicked (along with removing the 10 day limit on new joiners). Also, along this line, having that preset inactivity kicking duration be adjustable as part of the match creation settings could make for a more interesting match option when making new ones. Additionally, the duration for becoming inactive could be adjustable at match creation such that there'd be two slider options for inactivity.

      The first slider (going inactive) could range from 1 full day-change up to 7 full day-changes while the second slider (kicking inactives) would be ranged from 1 full day-change up to 14 day-changes. It might make sense (but this shouldn't have to be) that the second slider (kicking inactives) can't be set lower than the first slider (going inactive). However, there's no real justification for that. But, it might behoove the devs to make it such that the second slider can't be set lower than the first slider plus the current value of the second slider as being less than some permanent number (i.e., no player can be kicked in less than 4 days of inactivity, regardless of the user-settings of inactivity).
      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.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Diabolical ().

    • VorlonFCW wrote:

      In any team game that I have ever played the amount of people that are inactive or borderline inactive is fairly high. This is part of the added challenge of a team game where you as the active player have to defend land that is not your own, with little assistance.
      A so called "added challenge" to a team game is in fact what I would call a BIG problem.

      As a suggestion, don't try to make something beautiful out of a problem the game has just because nobody figured out how to fix it.

      Defending land is not yours with an active ally is part of a team game from a MMO, defending land is not yours just because the game mode sets you with AI is part of playing a PVE game. I'd rather play a MMO, thank you.
      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

      ¿Buscas alianza? BKE está reclutando: Reclutamiento activo
    • nemuritor98 wrote:

      Defending land is not yours with an active ally is part of a team game from a MMO, defending land is not yours just because the game mode sets you with AI is part of playing a PVE game. I'd rather play a MMO, thank you.
      Bravo!
      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.
    • I have one more thing to say about this new team mode....while it might be worth playing in a gigantic team for the heck of it, having the teams start off at war is really screwy. Sure, you are going to have to fight the other team, but I identified this issue almost immediately and set off fixing it in my own match almost just as quickly. Obviously, that initial morale level start of 70 is meant to go up after a few days, even if you never capture a capital. But having 50 nations at war with you right from the start means that your morale isn't going to go up....ANNOYING!!!!

      Now, in my match, I started a campaign in the World Herald, challenging other players to at least offer and accept peace with their opponents that aren't near to them, i.e., on the other side of the world. I figure, if you can get your active-wars count under the maximum threshold of 5 for the -25 morale hit, then maybe people could enjoy this match a little more. And, I've had mixed results.

      In my own communications with individuals on the opposite team, I got peace with at least a third of them within a couple days (taking into account some slow responders). As for the remainder, about half of them went inactive, and so I've set my status to peace and already most of the AI's have accepted as the rest soon will. That has left me with about 12 to 15 active wars including maybe 3 or 4 AI's. AND, by using reason and a little cajoling, I think I'll have that down to about 5 or 6 active wars by tomorrow (a few distant players are very stubborn). STILL, that's not below the threshold. But, it's very encouraging.

      And since I'll have eliminated two of those wars by conquest by tomorrow, the remaining wars will just have to simmer while I am in transit to their lands. It seems the goal of having peace in our time might not sound realistic in this map, but I'm going to do my dangest to make it so!

      I said all that to say this: Please fix this new map setting such that the players aren't already at war with each other. Oh, and a side note....does it really make sense to have everyone be at war with each other from the start if there's a forced peace period???
      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.
    • MACKMITTENZ wrote:

      Not sure if someone posted this idea or not yet but; Group Chat... I am in a situation where it's the entire Western US vs the Eastern and it is quite difficult to communicate.
      I think the simplest way to implement this is to skip the chat idea (which isn't too difficult to implement (and was briefly discussed earlier in this thread)) and just go for giving teams their own coalition shared message section in the diplomacy system. That seems like an easy-enough implementation for @freezy and Co.
      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.
    • Not starting at war defeats the purpose of this map. We want to invoke a feeling of a large battle, with frontlines everywhere and no save haven. We also want as few hurdles as possible for helping each other out, as we want to promote teamplay, even with strangers. If players started at peace, everyone would think twice about starting a war as players dont want to take the morale penalty or open themselves up for attacks. Because there is not enough trust it would result in more players deliberately not helping their neighbors out, and it would result in egoistical negotiations between nations that do not serve the purpose of the team. All that we don't want on this team map. We want all the players of a team to attack and defend together straight out of the gate, without any secret deliberations or hesitation.

      If morale becomes a problem on this map (though all players share that same problem, so it is still balanced and can just be regarded as challenge of this map), 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.

      The motto of the map is One for all, all for one. I know currently there are some hurdles in the way of this idea, but before we do this event again we will certainly make some adjustments.
    • 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!