The Team League Official Rulebook Q & A

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

    • When Vorlon creates the game those of you who have formed a full team and agreed to the Rulebook, Game Rules, and Terms of Service will be invited to a forum "conversation". In there you will find the game name and password to enter. Since you will be assigned starting positions based on your teams random drawing for starting position, Vorlon will give you the details where and when in the same thread I'm sure.
      "Flesh grows weak. Steel becomes brittle. But the will is indomitable." - the RIDDLE OF STEEL
    • Few points from me...

      Point 1 - Probably because English is not my first language, I am struggling to understand this bit:

      Each team is allowed only 2 gold check requests during any match. If a gold check is confirmed, then the team keeps that gold check. If the team’s gold check is not confirmed, then the team will lose that gold check.

      Can you please explain in other words what does it actually mean?


      Point 2 - I am not sure if the formula is reflecting this, what you actually want to receive... (even after correction of brackets).

      VP : (Team’s Total Awards – Total Penalties) x Total VP = Score

      Imagine that:

      1) team scored 100 points - they have been awarded 20 points and deducted 25 for penalties = their score will be -500 (minus five hundred)
      2) the other team which scored 50 points and has been awarded 10 and decucted 5 points = their score will be 250 (plus two hundred and fifty)

      In other words: in case of a negative multiplier the higher team's score goes against them. Was that your intention?


      Point 3 - system of awarding extra points is unfair / not precise in my opinion and may lead to unnecessary arguments in the future - therefore please sort it now before it becomes an issue.

      Imagine that I have declared a war on everyone except my team mates and sent few units to capture empty AI provinces and silly "kamikadze" attacks on other humans - just for a sake of having a war with them. I will get +5 multiplier and no penalty points.

      Someone else who is genuinely fighting against 2-3 human opponents, will have no possibility to get any other wars at their borders - they will get less bonus points and some penalties.

      Did you consider that kind of scenarios? Please re-think these extra points generators / deductors and either make these less "score impacting" or precise what is considered as "a war" in the context of extra points.

      Thanks,
      L.

      PS. Looping @VorlonFCW
      .......................................................................................................................................................................
    • Lord wrote:

      Point 1 - Probably because English is not my first language, I am struggling to understand this bit:

      Each team is allowed only 2 gold check requests during any match. If a gold check is confirmed, then the team keeps that gold check. If the team’s gold check is not confirmed, then the team will lose that gold check.

      Can you please explain in other words what does it actually mean?

      Perhaps think of this as a "token" which your team can use to request a gold check.

      During the match you may suggest that another team has used gold, and someone (Myself or Dr L) will investigate.

      If you have made this accusation in error and no gold was used, That means your token was consumed. then you have one more opportunity to accuse another team of using gold using your second token.

      If the gold use is confirmed, you get your token back and can use it over again.




      This allows for an orderly process for teams to have their suspicions investigated, without allowing unlimited demands on the time of myself or Dr L.
      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
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

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

      Point 2 - I am not sure if the formula is reflecting this, what you actually want to receive... (even after correction of brackets).

      VP : (Team’s Total Awards – Total Penalties) x Total VP = Score

      Imagine that:

      1) team scored 100 points - they have been awarded 20 points and deducted 25 for penalties = their score will be -500 (minus five hundred)
      2) the other team which scored 50 points and has been awarded 10 and decucted 5 points = their score will be 250 (plus two hundred and fifty)

      In other words: in case of a negative multiplier the higher team's score goes against them. Was that your intention?
      The intention of the penalty system is to promote war instead of peace. Indeed if you share a peaceful border with another team for too long we intend for the penalties to be quite severe. Your example of a negative points multiplier is not something that we expect to see happen, although it is possible.
      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
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

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

      Point 3 - system of awarding extra points is unfair / not precise in my opinion and may lead to unnecessary arguments in the future - therefore please sort it now before it becomes an issue.

      Imagine that I have declared a war on everyone except my team mates and sent few units to capture empty AI provinces and silly "kamikadze" attacks on other humans - just for a sake of having a war with them. I will get +5 multiplier and no penalty points.

      Someone else who is genuinely fighting against 2-3 human opponents, will have no possibility to get any other wars at their borders - they will get less bonus points and some penalties.

      Did you consider that kind of scenarios? Please re-think these extra points generators / deductors and either make these less "score impacting" or precise what is considered as "a war" in the context of extra points.


      Indeed we have no wish to reward for fake wars.

      The official wording in the rules is as follows:

      rules wrote:

      SUSTAINMENT:
      Only sustained combat operations against an enemy will be rewarded. For example, firing
      artillery over your border at your neighbor’s militia once a week will NOT be counted. Attacks
      must be continuous with the intent to take territory and defeat your enemy.

      So this means that a simple declaration of war, or a foolish single unit kamikaze attack doesn't count as a war. A war should have actual casualties or provinces changing hands.

      Of course it may be possible for a stalemate to exist for a time, perhaps a fortified border with neither side advancing or retreating, but in such situations we expect to see an effort made by both sided to break the stalemate. We are hoping with our map selection and arrangement that a fortified and impenetrable border is not practical, but a more fluid game of maneuver and counter maneuver will emerge.





      And should these bonuses, penalties, and multipliers prove troublesome they may be modified for future matches. We have this plan, but it is yet untested. Of course we remember that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. :D
      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
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • Thanks for taking time to respond to the above.

      I believe that there are many scenarios, which you think are "rare" / unlikely to happen, but actually are more probable than you think. Especially when there are 2 strong opponents facing a long war between them or when some players in particular team become inactive, while the frontline is far away.

      And just being a devil's advocate - it may lead to arguments if certain action was "an intent to take territory and defeat your enemy" or not... ;)

      Just bear these in mind - if you don't predict these upfront they may become a heavy burden later on - obviously everything will depend on the situation on the map. There may be absolutely no issues whatsoever - but as they say: "better to be safe than sorry".
      .......................................................................................................................................................................
    • Thank you for the questions @Lord.

      I am making note of each and will review them with the team that was responsible for The Team League. For now I will answer them to the best of my ability, though I want everyone to understand that A) there can and will be no changes for this month since the Rulebook has already been published and distributed; and B) we fully expected there to be "what ifs".

      I tried to write the Rulebook as tightly as possible, but there is no way I could conceive of every single scenario that might pop up. This is why we correctly made the MOD running the match the "Final and Absolute" authority. Considering the past issues that hurt the Player's League I also implemented the idea of the "Council of Leaders" to give the players a "say" in what happens when something falls between the rules. I expect the MOD to run a fair and balanced game, relying on the rules whenever possible, and using his/her best judgment when they can't.

      I also get the feeling that many of these questions may come from residual Players League issues that were never fully resolved. To that end I emphatically state this: This is NOT the Players League, nor is this even intended as the successor to the Players League. This is something entirely new.

      There will be other events, and we may even bring back the PL with significant modifications to eliminate the issues that eventually brought about it's demise.

      Now, for your specific questions...

      Lord wrote:

      Point 1 - Probably because English is not my first language, I am struggling to understand this bit:

      Each team is allowed only 2 gold check requests during any match. If a gold check is confirmed, then the team keeps that gold check. If the team’s gold check is not confirmed, then the team will lose that gold check.

      Can you please explain in other words what does it actually mean?

      As Vorlon has already pointed out, it may help if you think of this system as a token or maybe even a "poker chip" if you play Poker. First a couple of points... 1) We can't tie up the game staff with unlimited requests for Gold Checks; and 2) We needed to implement an ability to both report suspected gold use and to have your suspicions for gold use checked.

      To accomplish both tasks at once we decided to place the burden for this responsibility on the players, since this is after all a player run league. This means if you have a suspicion about gold use, you can "wager/bet" one of your tokens/chips on your suspicion. To do this your team leader would go to the World Herald and make a CLAIM article for that gold use. That article would contain in it the player and the team s/he is on, the location of the gold use, the type of gold use it was for, and any other relevant information you think is required.

      With that information in hand the MOD can then request the game staff to check for that specific instance of gold use. This is very different from the standard random gold checks the staff will do approximately once per week in that they only have to check a single player, not every player in the round.

      It's also important to understand that ANY post in the World Herald (by the TEAM LEADER only) is a REQUEST for a Gold Use check, thus using up one of your tokens/chips. If you are correct and the player did use gold, you get that token/chip back. If, however, you are wrong and that player didn't use gold you will forfeit that token/chip, leaving you only one. If that should happen again you will have lost your two tokens/chips and will have lost your ability to request a gold check for the remainder of the match. This will obviously make players cautious about what the claim and when and where they do so. This will greatly limit the number of "frivolous" gold challenges and force players to make responsible choices.

      I also took great pains to make sure TTL is a DRAMA FREE ZONE.. something else I learned from my PL experiences. This is why ONLY the TEAM LEADER can make posts in the World Herald, and they can only make a post for a CLAIM (award or gold use) or for a REFUTE (to publicly DENY a claim by providing evidence otherwise). This has a twofold benefit of removing the disruptive back and forth talk we've all experienced in our games and to provide for crystal clear transparency of what is happening to the rest of the league.

      Lord wrote:

      Point 2 - I am not sure if the formula is reflecting this, what you actually want to receive... (even after correction of brackets).

      VP : (Team’s Total Awards – Total Penalties) x Total VP = Score

      Imagine that:

      1) team scored 100 points - they have been awarded 20 points and deducted 25 for penalties = their score will be -500 (minus five hundred)
      2) the other team which scored 50 points and has been awarded 10 and decucted 5 points = their score will be 250 (plus two hundred and fifty)

      In other words: in case of a negative multiplier the higher team's score goes against them. Was that your intention?

      I wrote the rulebook with the intent of absolute defeat (zero VP, you have lost your last province or ability to play on) as being the baseline from which all calculations are made. Thus you can never have a negative quantity of either VP nor multipliers. It should be pointed out that the conditions for either VP or multiplier awards and penalties has been CLEARLY laid out.

      Some consequences such as an unauthorized post from a teammate in the World Herald will incur a VP penalty (-5 VP) that is factored in before the multipliers come into play. Awards (or penalties) for multipliers revolve around the actions of the players on the field of battle. Do something good, get an award, do something bad, get a penalty. The only penalties thus far implemented in the rules are for inaction against a neighbor.

      If there was any confusion about this in either the rulebook or in Vorlon's response to you earlier in this thread then the fault is mine alone. We will discuss this and possibly implement changes or reword that part of the rulebook for August.

      For clarity sake (and brevity) you can never have a negative quantity of either VP or multipliers.

      Lord wrote:

      Point 3 - system of awarding extra points is unfair / not precise in my opinion and may lead to unnecessary arguments in the future - therefore please sort it now before it becomes an issue.

      Imagine that I have declared a war on everyone except my team mates and sent few units to capture empty AI provinces and silly "kamikadze" attacks on other humans - just for a sake of having a war with them. I will get +5 multiplier and no penalty points.

      Someone else who is genuinely fighting against 2-3 human opponents, will have no possibility to get any other wars at their borders - they will get less bonus points and some penalties.

      If you have a specific question that I can answer on this one please post it. Though from your example I will repeat what Vorlon said in that the rule for "Sustainment" makes it quite clear that only sustained combat will be counted. If your concern is that fortified borders which lead to a "trench warfare" type stalemate will harm you then look at the options you have available for sustaining combat:

      • Using artillery of any type to attack from afar the fortifications. Those with experience in AWC matches know that sooner or later this is will happen.
      • Using aircraft to attack behind the front lines
      • Using rockets and/or nukes on the fortifications or elsewhere
      • Using ranged naval attacks
      • Dropping paratroopers behind the lines


      Point being is that there are MANY ways built into Call of War to help you destroy your enemy. No need to just stare at each other across a fortified position. We WILL take into account your sustained actions to break a stalemate one way or another. Just understand that if you do NOT attempt to take the fight to your enemy there can and likely will be consequences.

      What we absolutely will NOT tolerate is if you make some backroom deal with another team to avoid attacking each other if you are neighbors. This isn't the Player's League.. this is THE TEAM LEAGUE.. you either kill or be killed. We have done our best to eliminate all options to do otherwise.

      In the end, there can only be ONE winner!

      Lord wrote:

      Did you consider that kind of scenarios? Please re-think these extra points generators / deductors and either make these less "score impacting" or precise what is considered as "a war" in the context of extra points.

      The multiplier system was designed to ensure you enter into combat with those near you. You are rewarded for actions in which you are attacking and you are penalized for actions in which you are not attacking a neighbor. We will look for any adjustments that may be needed to the system, but the system itself is here to stay. It will also likely be used either as is or with some modifications for future events, depending on what behavior we want to emphasize in the players actions.

      I will also state quite clearly that even if given a year to work on this I probably couldn't come up with a full proof means of keeping humans from finding and trying to exploit some issue in the rulebook. That's just human nature, and I am not foolish enough to think I can overcome that with a "rulebook", not matter how many rules it contains.

      So I guess the real answer to your question becomes this: Are you the type of player who needs to look for, find a flaw, and exploit it for victory.. or are you the type of player who can play within the rules and just enjoy the game? If you are the first one, well you and the MOD in your round are going to have things to talk about... and the MOD is the final and absolute authority in the round (within the rules of course).

      Also there is this from the Terms of Service:

      13 Further Duties and Obligations of Participants:

      13.1 The Participant is aware that he uses the game together with many other Participants and communicates with different Participants when using the additional services. In order to achieve an enjoyable gaming experience, it is necessary to adhere to the rules of the game. The Participants accept the rules of the game and the ToS as binding. The Participants will follow Bytro Lab’s instructions which will be provided by the game supervisor. Additionally, the Participants will refrain from any conduct which may interfere with the operation of the game and/or the additional services and which may disturb an enjoyable gaming experience.

      The MOD has the fiduciary responsibility to ALL PLAYERS in the round to do what is necessary to ensure the "enjoyable game experience". That is something that we as Bytro Game Staff take VERY SERIOUSLY.

      Lord wrote:

      I believe that there are many scenarios, which you think are "rare" / unlikely to happen, but actually are more probable than you think. Especially when there are 2 strong opponents facing a long war between them or when some players in particular team become inactive, while the frontline is far away.

      No one can plan for every contingency when the human condition is part of the equation. This is after all a game of risk and reward that pits players of differing abilities and level of skill against each other. Will there be situations as you describe? Quite possibly, though I think you may underestimate the ability of some players to work around that.

      If you are looking for a "sure thing" than electronic gaming is probably the very last place I would choose to look. In my years of experience I have learned to expect whatever, and just roll with the punches to get the job done.

      Lord wrote:

      And just being a devil's advocate - it may lead to arguments if certain action was "an intent to take territory and defeat your enemy" or not...

      You will find that I have quite clearly removed all ability for "drama" from The Team League. I did so because of my own experiences in the Players League. There are in fact very stiff penalties for engaging in such behavior. There will be absolutely not unauthorized articles posted in the World Herald by anyone other than a Team Leader. Even the Team Leader can only post for a claim (award or gold use) or for to refute another claim.

      There can be no responses, denials, comments, explanations, or any other reason you can think of to post an article or even send each other a message in game. If you do and that message is reported via the correct method you will have consequences coming your way. Just follow the rules and play the game, leave the drama outside before you walk through The Team League door.

      Lord wrote:

      Just bear these in mind - if you don't predict these upfront they may become a heavy burden later on - obviously everything will depend on the situation on the map. There may be absolutely no issues whatsoever - but as they say: "better to be safe than sorry".

      Predicting every conceivable way someone can find to cheat or violate a set of rules is a fool's errand. But I believe I have done quite a good job of "thinking this through" to produce a solid product. However, please inform us if/when you do find issues so that we may address them.

      I hope you and everyone else enjoy's The Team League. It's something that we have worked very hard to produces and I personally have much time invested in it. It was a labor of love.. not love of the players but love of the game. If the players find it an enjoyable experience that is just the icing on the cake!

      Thank you again for the questions :thumbup:

      Cheers! :beer:
      "Flesh grows weak. Steel becomes brittle. But the will is indomitable." - the RIDDLE OF STEEL
    • Alydar wrote:

      if a player is in a heated battle with another player or two, does he receive a penalty for not attack the neighbor AI?
      No, the penalties are designed for active players only. We could care less about what you do with AI. The goal is to encourage fierce and cunning battles.
      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
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • LoI10522 wrote:

      Can we attack a team that withdrew from a tournament or we should wait until they become bots?

      Yes you can. There isn't anything in a TTL match you are not allowed to attack.

      We'll discuss what to do with team blocks that have been abandoned or were never filled. My inclination is that it will be the same. The map and how it plays out over the month is part of the random part of the equation. You don't know what you will get month to month to fight against.
      "Flesh grows weak. Steel becomes brittle. But the will is indomitable." - the RIDDLE OF STEEL
    • LoI10522 wrote:

      Will we receive multipliers for taking the last provinces and the capitals of those players?

      No.. only human vs human actions are considered for awarding MP. We don't care what you do vs the AI's, and that includes AI controlled human nations (unoccupied by a player).

      You won't earn free MP from them, but there are other bonuses to taking land easily.
      "Flesh grows weak. Steel becomes brittle. But the will is indomitable." - the RIDDLE OF STEEL