Announcement Team Up!

    • And now, my own conclusions about this new Event map format.

      I will never play any map with giant teams again...ever...unless [at-least long term] inactive players get automatically kicked and their lands made available for capture by their former allies.

      This has been a very restrictive map. I've sat on my heels, waiting for pathetic opponents to take over my inactive allies near me just so that I can take them all out and create a much larger empire for myself. Ultimately, even the last blue player on my continent, whom I shielded from my own active allies, has given up and quit even against the inactive nations. Alas, I'll have to take out his nation, since I can attack him.

      Also, having all of red and blue starting the match at war has been totally intolerable. Morale was terrible for most of the players throughout the match that I played. Unlike everybody else, I actually sent peace offers to the entire opponent team (except for a few local opponents, which I quickly dispatched). So, unlike the rest of the map, I had great morale. Only one member on the entire blue team repeatedly refused to give me peace and he was on the other side of the world. Out of spite, I'm tempted to send my entire army to his shores, though I know they'd never reach him as our match will soon end in a stupid victory for my red side...."yay team", he said without enthusiasm.

      If the staff even only fixes one of those two critical faults (unable to eliminate inactive team mates, all opponents start at war), then I'd consider participating in future events of this type. However, until they do, I will boycott this map type...as well as ALL team games...and I will encourage all other players with whom I'm associated -- and anyone else who'll listen -- to boycott it, as well.

      I'm sorry. I really love Call of War. I like all the event variants (usually), and I rarely ever have anything negative to say about this game nor of the developers. Because I care about this game, the company that puts it out, and the community that plays it, I am very active in helping others in the chats and forums as well as making an effort...often...to offer ideas to improve (or at least fix) this game whenever possible. So understand that the issues I have with this event map must be very serious if an uber fan such as myself has this much negative things to say about it.

      Please, take my advice to heart. Fix this map....and restore mine and many many other players' faith in Call of War as the world's best multiplayer strategy game of all time.
      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 1 time, last by Diabolical ().

    • Thank you for your detailed feedback, we appreciate if you guys take the time to also give us a reasoning for the ideas you have.
      As mentioned in the news for this event this was more some sort of 'test run'. We never had this big of a team map before and liked the idea. We assumed there were going to be a few things that probably need fixing for the next time, but without trying it is often hard to tell where are the main problems and what are the best ways to tackle it, and before we even start to think about this, the most important part of course is if the community even likes this kind of map.
      Many people seem to have liked the idea but we saw that many of you also had feedback and concerns in regards to diplomacy and the morale in those game rounds. Also as you mentioned the inactivity seems to be on of the bigger issues as well. Ideas could be to either increase the minimum level to provide this map to high level and therefore more active players, to remove the maximum join day restriction and kick for inactivity faster or even make it a gold round, so that people actually think whether they really want to join this event or not (the winning reward could also be increased then of course.
      We will evaluate the different options and maybe make another test round in the future, when I can't tell yet, but please keep the feedback coming if any of you have more of it :)
      Sarah / Sasri
      Community Manager
      Bytro Labs GmbH
    • i think raising the level is not the way to go.

      raising the level bars new players, surely not something we want.

      new player leave early, that is the problem.

      so what we need to do is IMHO address the issue of new players leaving early rather than exclude them from future events just because they might spoil the experience for players who are already hooked to the game.

      in my view the key problem is because the game has a lot of inertia.

      not the speed of the game, it's the inertia.

      let me explain. it takes time to research, build, produce then move to the front. this can take several days. if you are in New Zealand even more! SO i can understand a NEW player trying the game, seeing that he has spent the best part of a week getting to the frontlines and thinking...."never again".

      We should be able to start with some research, more units and not just inf, 2 aa 2 ac and a fighter. and why not a minimum outlay of buildings. IC + Infra + barracks in every city.

      The pace of the game has not changed but the inertia has been reduced a lot.

      I'ts like the historic map or the Arms race event which I just finished and was great fun.

      So let's address the root of the problem and not the symptom.

      As for morale? It wasn't a problem, we were all struggling with it so no advantage gained. I learned to deal with negative food and manpower in that Arms race so ditto for this team event.

      I am still in a team event, my side was winning, now we are losing and trying to gain the upperhand again., it's a great game mode for me.
    • I think if there was a chat tab for team play, or a discussion area in diplomacy for the team (like we have for coalitions), it would just about solve the issue of inactivity. With 50 team mates, there would always be someone to talk to on the team, and with this way to discuss strategy, surely the game would hold players' interests longer.
    • I don’t have any other main point that have to be shared other than the major one our comrades already pointed out well enough with fulfilling explanation :thumbsup:


      I have on the other hand, one major problem for the let’s say “multiaccount” one....
      In our 50v50 there have been two or three nations that were doing F-all, going inactive then just logging in move to some units, and ask again shared maps for afterward go inactive yet again....which isn’t multiaccount per se, but sure as hell means he is playing for the other team and willynilly spying and having the upper hand on intel(obviously after the third time they have done it, the world herald was on flame against them and no one shared crap ever again)
      Was quite obvious that was some blue player using maybe the account of a “friend”(joined with red team) to spy on every nation on the opponent and therefor move strategically in another direction....one was a low level player(around 18-20) coming back every time after going inactive where the other was more obvious being in the same alliance as some other blue member!!! :wallbash (Not gonna say names, but if you are reading this dear Filippine member of XXXXXXXX go :love: Yourself)

      As a suggestion it could help I guess locking the team choice from what alliance you are from if there have been already a member join that match....and the other having a “friend” account of low level it have to be done maybe by crossing checking the match he joins and what other player joins too....if they play together in the same match(without being alliance obviously) every time maybe it’s time to check for multiaccount



      But I’m diverting here. As I said, diabolical pointed out all the major flaws of this match exhaustively so nothing else to add on my part :D
    • Not the biggest concern with 50 v 50 games, but, if you are going to offer Air Drops, how about program the game so that any Air Drop does NOT appear in an inactive team member's territory? It is bad enough that we lose Share Map (so we can't even monitor the lands that we are supposed to want to defend for the team member who quit), but we can't declare War to claim the territory, and then we see an Air Drop sitting there for 48 hours as well. I enjoyed the only 50 v 50 game I have thus far entered, but the inactive team member issues will need to be addressed before I will be interested in another one. Thanks.
    • Would it be possible to have additional airbases at the beginning in this map? Since we have allied land that we need to defend as part of the team concept we have AI controlling team members territory here on day 20 and said AI has never built an airbase, making it difficult to cross it to defend. Said AI is quite helpful about racing ahead with armored cars and stealing land that I clear of enemy troops, but still isn't building airbases :(




      rickmcq wrote:

      Air Drop does NOT appear in an inactive team member's territory?
      Sadly this is a known issue and is on the list of things to fix, but due to the limited number of team type games it is not at the top of the list. My suggestion would be not offer supply drops on this map, but the resources gained from supply drops has been quite useful, so I am on the fence about it.



      rickmcq wrote:

      It is bad enough that we lose Share Map
      I will second this. I wonder if it is possible for the share map to continue with inactive team mates?
      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 <<<
    • New

      Captain Hurricane wrote:

      We should be able to start with some research, more units and not just inf, 2 aa 2 ac and a fighter. and why not a minimum outlay of buildings. IC + Infra + barracks in every city.

      Captain Hurricane wrote:

      The pace of the game has not changed but the inertia has been reduced a lot.

      I'ts like the historic map or the Arms race event which I just finished and was great fun.
      As you later noted, this is done on historical maps and event maps. The simple fact is, without starting small, the game would see newer noobish players wiped out very swiftly by the experienced ones. Having a larger starting army may seem equal, but it's not. In my hands, having a decent-sized army at the start would guarantee that I win most matches. As much as I would like to win, I'd find it boring and quit playing. The occasional event match is different, and the historical matches are different in how they are balanced and they don't let in the lowest-level players.

      Besides, what fun would it be to have a bunch of starting factories but not enough stockpiles to build units nor enough resource income to fuel your stockpiles because of larger starting maintenance costs. Thankfully, because it is fun to start with a large army at least sometimes, we have the Arms Race event. And, as you also noted, that match is a good teaching ground for maintenance issues. It's also an excellent training ground for learning how to deal with overpowered core province fortresses!

      And the first lesson to learn is to not just send your armies rushing headlong into those fortresses.

      ~O~

      "The enemy keeps catapulting soldiers into our fortress walls, sir!"


      "Yes, I know, Lieutenant. As sickening as the growing pile of gore at the base of our walls is, you need not worry about it...aside from the smell. Our enemy is operating under the assumption that heaping bloody corpses at the wall will eventually tear it down like some medieval tactic used by Attila the Hun. What they don't realize is that he used heavy boulders, not soldiers."

      "Wow, our enemy is really stupid, then, isn't he?"

      "Yes, Lieutenant, they are all morons. Sadly, even if they learned how to use their guns effectively, it'd barely make a dent in our fortress."

      "Thank God for home field advantages, sir."

      "Yes, that 15% core province bonus really stacks up with our 75% fortress bonus. And if the developers ever come up with a way to represent a digging-in advantage beyond the permanent fortress idea, we could increase our defenses nearly to 100%."


      " 'Developers', sir? What are you talking about?"

      "Never mind, Lieutenant....never mind."



      Spiffolo wrote:

      As a suggestion it could help I guess locking the team choice from what alliance you are from if there have been already a member join that match....and the other having a “friend” account of low level it have to be done maybe by crossing checking the match he joins and what other player joins too....if they play together in the same match(without being alliance obviously) every time maybe it’s time to check for multiaccount
      Actually, I think this is done, automatically. But an investigation by a staff member might be needed in order to track third-party matches that link other players. Unfortunately, that'd be a bit of a stretch and it would make the staff act more like 'big-brother' than anything else.

      It's the slippery slope problem with what you are seeking. Whatever's automated seems to be good enough in more circumstances. And there will always be someone out there coming up with new ways to circumvent the system. You can't account for all instances. So, let it go.


      VorlonFCW wrote:

      Said AI is quite helpful about racing ahead with armored cars and stealing land that I clear of enemy troops, but still isn't building airbases
      Isn't the "Elite AI" so 'cunning'?

      I'm CMPLSH....that should be a new acronym...."Crapping My Pants, Laughing So Hard"....as if. If anyone has a better version of this, a little different maybe, just conveys the same 'crappiness', I'm all ears, so to say.

      rickmcq wrote:

      how about program the game so that any Air Drop does NOT appear in an inactive team member's territory?

      VorlonFCW wrote:

      Sadly this is a known issue and is on the list of things to fix, but due to the limited number of team type games it is not at the top of the list. My suggestion would be not offer supply drops on this map, but the resources gained from supply drops has been quite useful, so I am on the fence about it.
      Hm....a weird problem. So, like with a few other issues, let's just throw out the baby with the bathwater....that ought to fix it!

      ~O~

      "The supply drops are landing in the wrong field, sir."

      "That's OK, Lieutenant. We'll just have the developers cancel all supply drops for the foreseeable future."

      "Again, with that 'developers' talk, sir. What are you talking about?!? And, don't we need those supply drops, sir?"
      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 1 time, last by Diabolical ().

    • New

      Diabolical wrote:

      As you later noted, this is done on historical maps and event maps. The simple fact is, without starting small, the game would see newer noobish players wiped out very swiftly by the experienced ones.
      you miss the whole point that there is diddly squat to do in the first week or so of the game.

      all the other superflous info you post is just that, I have only seen one arms race. how long do u think a new player is gonna be waiting around for such an event? oh, I'll check in again see if they've decided to spice up things? oh dear no, not yet?

      get real dude, new players are new players not someone like u who is in the game every day.

      historical maps are not balanced and they dont let new players in so why drag them in, same about charging into fortresses, what has that got to do with any of my points, inclyding your attempt at sarcasm/humour whatever with that little story. dude, get off your soap box and put your self in a new player's shoes.
    • New

      Captain Hurricane wrote:

      you miss the whole point that there is diddly squat to do in the first week or so of the game.

      Captain Hurricane wrote:

      get real dude, new players are new players not someone like u who is in the game every day.
      Maybe you missed my point which is that having too many forces at the start would make the newer players not want to play because the larger start would make more-experienced players like myself -- there, I said it -- have an even greater advantage against them since we would know what to do with those extra forces while the noobs would be bumbling around trying to figure out what those forces do.

      I need not step down from my soap box. I've been there, done that, in terms of being a new player. But just because that was years ago doesn't mean that I don't remember what it's like to get a little confused with this game. That said, sticking to my guns, here, starting with a larger force would exclude new players just as the Arms Race event would do.

      And as for the availability of the Arms Race....it comes around several times a year. In the meantime, why don't you, like any other newer player, just play some other matches. And when the next Arms Race even does come around, be sure to join more than just one so you can get your fill of them.

      mmm'kay?

      BTW, if you are creative enough, there is PUH-lenty to do in the first week of the game.
      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.
    • New

      Captain Hurricane wrote:

      once again you miss the point by several light years. New players get bored because they have very little to do, NOT because they get beaten by experienced players.

      new players don't join and carry on in a game that demands creativity. that's not how it works.




      You seem to be missing a much greater point, here.....THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF NEW PLAYERS.




      ~O~




      Bytro must be doing something right. Oh, yeah, that's it! They start you off with a small army to give you the incentive to want to build a
      BIG army.



      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.
    • New

      VorlonFCW wrote:

      In any team game that I have ever played the amount of people that are inactive or borderline inactive is fairly high.
      he obviously didn't get the memo either

      nemuritor98 wrote:

      A so called "added challenge" to a team game is in fact what I would call a BIG problem.
      nemuritor, an ex mod, talks about the size of the inactivity problem, he thinks it's a BIG problem>

      he obviously didn't get the memo either

      romanathens wrote:

      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.
      clearly inactives is still a problem, the urge to build bigger armies

      Diabolical wrote:

      I will never play any map with giant teams again...ever...unless [at-least long term] inactive players get automatically kicked and their lands made available for capture by their former allies


      clearly inactives is affecting you, they might be resistant to the urge to build bigger armies? have they been vaccinated to become immune to the urge?
    • New

      I think if there was a chat tab for team play, or a discussion area in diplomacy for the team (like we have for coalitions), it would just about solve the issue of inactivity

      The above is from the Senior Mod, evidently he hasn't got the memo that they should feel an urge to build armies and remain in the game. What's the matter with these new players? Don't they want to build bigger armies? What's wrong with them? Well let's wait for the next game, oh look, more new players!! Oh wait, they are also immune to the urge? What is going wrong?

      Diabolical, the evidence is stacked up against you. It is a problem, they get bored, they get inactive, it irritates those who get left behind, even you.

      I await with bated breath your next explanation.
    • New

      Captain Hurricane wrote:

      I think if there was a chat tab for team play, or a discussion area in diplomacy for the team (like we have for coalitions), it would just about solve the issue of inactivity

      The above is from the Senior Mod, evidently he hasn't got the memo that they should feel an urge to build armies and remain in the game. What's the matter with these new players? Don't they want to build bigger armies? What's wrong with them? Well let's wait for the next game, oh look, more new players!! Oh wait, they are also immune to the urge? What is going wrong?
      yes, i believe having a chat tab for teams would encourage players to build stuff, and play the game, as the chat would help alleviate the initial slow start of the game. Instead of everyone on the map feeling alone, even though they are part of a huge team, there would be planning and coordination of forces happening (sounds great for a strategy game, dont ya think?)

      And, as the developers pointed out on this thread, this was the first time they tried a team game of this size. They wanted our input to better the game, which is something that they are continually doing. We need to be patient, because Bytro is good at listening to their users and making improvements to the game. :)
    • New

      Personally I have gone inactive in any 25 player historical nap that I have ever joined. Yes I said NAP instead of map, and that is what I meant. I can' t stand the slow speed of that one.


      I think a lot of players join and create an account when they get enticed by an ad to try it out. Most of them are expecting something more like a shoot-em-up game where they drive a tank around like Need for Speed and win a game in 15 minutes and then can go play a different game. Such is the attention span of this Instant Gratification Generation. This is strategy and planning more than anything else. So people who don't have the desire to plan ahead don't even last through the tutorial.
      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 <<<