Announcement New Feature: Scenario Rotation

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

    • New Feature: Scenario Rotation


      Attention, Generals!

      Today we are introducing the new scenario rotation to Call of War! Starting today you will be able to join games from a list of 4 permanently available scenarios and 1 additional one from a pool of 5 scenarios. This extra scenario will change on a weekly basis.

      To celebrate the introduction all active players receive 14 days High Command for free!

      Why are we doing this? Our goal was to improve the player experience by increasing the activity across all running scenarios and increasing server performance. We analyzed which scenarios you like and play the most and which scenario are less popular. According to these findings we chose which scenarios will be available all the time, and which scenarios will make regular but temporary occurrences.

      We expect the new scenario rotation feature to significantly increase activity on all maps as it distributes all players over a smaller amount of different maps. The improved activity is less demanding on our servers and improves server performance as less maps need to be provided and less AIs need to be processed.

      Some of you might have noticed that Call of War has more than the 9 maps mentioned earlier. Based on our analysis we made the decision to retire those maps that are played less often in order to increase activity and performance and improve player experience. We know that some of you like these maps and we didn’t make this decision lightly, but in the end we came to the conclusion that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. We are confident that the new scenario rotation will introduce players to new maps they haven’t played before and bring more variation in the players scenario mix. Retired scenarios might come back as events in the future though.

      The following scenarios will be available permanently:
      • Tutorial Mode - Clash of Nations
      • Europe - Clash of Nations
      • World at War
      • 1939 - Historical World War


      The following scenarios will rotate on a weekly basis:
      • America - Homefront
      • Pacific Conquest
      • Dominion Antarctica
      • Europa - Road to War
      • 1939 -Blitzkrieg


      The following scenarios will be retired:
      Tournament Island
      1941 - Mediterranean Theater
      The English Channel

      This week "America - Homefront" will be available in the scenario rotation, followed by "Dominion Antarctica" next week.

      Another change that will help to increase activity across all running scenarios is the limitation of game creation. With this change game creation will be limited to members of High Command. Members will be able to create 1 game every month. Game creation is not limited to scenarios that are currently in the rotation. This change will include internal alliance games. Alliance challenges are excluded from thesechanges.

      Fire Control Review

      two weeks ago we adjusted the fire control settings of units. As part ofthis adjustment we tweaked the Fire at Will mode in the way that units now block units of neutral nations or even open fire when in close range.

      We received a lot of feedback and concerns regarding the changes from you and we listened carefully. Due to your feedback we reviewed the adjustment and its behaviour in live game rounds within the team once more and concluded that we want to fix and improve these settings to be more in line with player expectations. We would like to thank each and everyone of you for sharing your constructive feedback from first hand experiences, as it helps us to continuously improve Call of War.

      Although we are dedicated to re-work the fire control settings as soon as possible, we would like to point out that it will take some time for the change to be developed and tested. We will release the changes in one of the upcoming releases. This means that it won't be an immediate fix and will take some weeks to be available in live games.

      Your Bytro Team
    • Arcorian wrote:



      The following scenarios will be retired:
      Tournament Island
      1941 - Mediterranean Theater
      The English Channel
      Will the achievements for winning on the retired scenarios be kept since they may return as events or will the achievements be retired as well?
      --
      Trying to be helpful, If my answers are incorrect, please let me know and provide the right information.
      I am not all serious, will tag along for a joke.
    • Thank you Bytro for destroy the rol matches and the option of play only with your friends. Ok, the change is good because we'll have less inactivity, but why this affect to the internal Alliance games? So, now we have less scenarios and only high commands can create these. That's good but shouldn't affect the alliances. Also maybe you can give the option of create the map you want in the internal Alliance games. Thanks.
    • When I saw this change I nearly got a heart attack on how bad it is. This is the worst change that can happen in Call of War I spent over $1000 on this game and let me tell you something until this change is reversed I will quit the game and not spend 1 more dime on it.

      First of all the giving everyone the free 14 Day High Command is "stupid"!. The people that actually PAID for it will recieve nothing in return because everyone has it in game and it will be useless to have. It is actually a way to make people happy after a bad change that will damage this game.

      Second there should be a FREE choice what map you want to play and the right players with the right skills or the same tactics joining that map. Everyone knows that the Pacific Map is WAY different to the American Homefront map and the Pacific Players will HATE playing the American Homefront Map because they CANNOT chose anymore. This game was great when you can chose many different types of maps to play. Now it's bad where they force you into 1 thing.

      Thirdly getting rid of 1 v 1 matches is putting salt into the wounds of many players. I like to have 1 v 1 matches with players to see who is really better without allies or unfair competition because 1 opponent has more provinces than the other. Unfortunatly NO MORE it doesn't in any shape or form damage the game, players still use gold in those games and make it better.

      Forthly getting rid of the Mediterranian Theater and Tournament Island is basically making this game worser. If you see other computer games they have higher rating because they have more maps, doing this is making this game poorer and more boring for everyone. Who the hell wants a choice to play 2 maps. As I stated in points 2 and 3 Limiting maps and getting rid of maps will make this game WORSE AND BORING.

      And my final point on this terrible change is. The games that have rotation is one map every 5 weeks!!. 5 WEEKS!! you might as well delete those maps if we have to wait this long for them and those 5 maps are VERY POPULAR with a lot of players in COW.

      All I can say is I hope you take my points into consideration because this change is the worst change in this game's history. And zero benefit if it's with money or getting more players. You will lose money and people playing it.

      The post was edited 6 times, last by Werwolf ().

    • Werwolf is right removing some scenarios and making others available only every fifth week made the game far less attractive.

      Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better would be to make the "starts-when-full" option mandatory for most of the scenarios.
      Which goes for both maps started by players as well as for maps started by the system.
      (Especially the 1939 historic world map should be started with "starts-when-full" and random country selection, because that's much fairer anyway.)

      From that everyone would benefit:
      * Maps are always full, which is good for both players and server capacities.
      * The advantage of players joining a map first is gone, which is good for fairer competition and also helps maps getting filled up (since currently, of course nobody wants to fill the last slots of games already running since days).
      * Players can still choose amongst many scenarios.

      Only downside would be that players eager on starting their new match immediately would have limited choices - but that's a tiny problem compared to EVERYONE having limited choices (as is now).


      Arcorian wrote:

      Game creation will be limited to members of High Command. Members will be able to create 1 game every month.
      Only this change is reasonable - thumbs up for that one!
    • Werwolf wrote:

      First of all the giving everyone the free 14 Day High Command is "stupid"!. The people that actually PAID for it will recieve nothing in return because everyone has it in game and it will be useless to have. It is actually a way to make people happy after a bad change that will damage this game.

      Player who already have High Command also got the 14 days for free. These days were simply added to the ammount of days of High Command they already had.

      Werwolf wrote:

      Second there should be a FREE choice what map you want to play and the right players with the right skills or the same tactics joining that map. Everyone knows that the Pacific Map is WAY different to the American Homefront map and the Pacific Players will HATE playing the American Homefront Map because they CANNOT chose anymore. This game was great when you can chose many different types of maps to play. Now it's bad where they force you into 1 thing.


      Players do have the free choice to join any game from the scenarios that are available all the time as well as the scenario that is currently in the rotation. The maps created by other players will also be available unless they are protected by password.

      Werwolf wrote:

      Thirdly getting rid of 1 v 1 matches is putting salt into the wounds of many players. I like to have 1 v 1 matches with players to see who is really better without allies or unfair competition because 1 opponent has more provinces than the other. Unfortunatly NO MORE it doesn't in any shape or form damage the game, players still use gold in those games and make it better.

      You still have the option to play 1 vs 1 one when you or your opponent creates a scenario.

      Werwolf wrote:

      Forthly getting rid of the Mediterranian Theater and Tournament Island is basically making this game worser. If you see other computer games they have higher rating because they have more maps, doing this is making this game poorer and more boring for everyone. Who the hell wants a choice to play 2 maps. As I stated in points 2 and 3 Limiting maps and getting rid of maps will make this game WORSE AND BORING.

      We are aware that some players particuarly like these maps, but as mentioned in the news article we analyzed how often these maps were actually played compared to the others and based our decission on that analysis. Appart from the scenarios in the rotation players also have the regular events as an option for finding a new challenge. There is the option that these maps will return as events again at some point as well.

      Werwolf wrote:

      And my final point on this terrible change is. The games that have rotation is one map every 5 weeks!!. 5 WEEKS!! you might as well delete those maps if we have to wait this long for them and those 5 maps are VERY POPULAR with a lot of players in COW.

      Maps in the weekly rotation don't necessary need 5 weeks to come back as an option. Those scenarios in the pool that showed to be more popular than others will be available more often than those that showed to be less popular.

      Werwolf wrote:

      All I can say is I hope you take my points into consideration because this change is the worst change in this game's history. And zero benefit if it's with money or getting more players. You will lose money and people playing it.

      Thank you for your feedback, and I hope you can see that we indeed do take your points into consideration. We are always open for feedback and willing to adjust if we see the need for it (e.g. the upcoming review of fire at will as part of the fire control update). I hope I could clarify and answer some of your concerns there.
    • Captain Hurricane wrote:

      what is the forthcoming change to Fire Control? You mention implementing a change to address current concerns but not what that change will be?'
      To be specific, "the fire at" will setting will return to it's former behaviour, while the "aggressive" setting will stay as it is, so that it is an opt-in behaviour to attack neutral units instead of an opt-out. I know this won't cover every use case, but it should fix the biggest issue while still allowing for the intended mechanic of setting up blockades or to prepare pre-emptive measures while being offline.
    • Arcorian wrote:

      You still have the option to play 1 vs 1 one when you or your opponent creates a scenario.
      Which scenario would that be?

      Should we create a 10p map so we can play a 1v1?

      Arcorian wrote:

      Our goal was to improve the player experience by increasing the activity across all running scenarios and increasing server performance.
      Because the news says that your goal was to "increase server performance". Is it more helpful if instead of creating the 1v1 map to play a 1v1 we create the 10p map to play a 1v1? I'm not an expert on this matter but my logic tells me that the bigger the map the bigger the resources it needs, right?
      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
    • First of all I created this forum account just to respond to this change I talked to players in the Call of War Chat and they fowarded me to the forums so that is where I am.

      With your response to this you have bypassed my points and said some things untrue that comparing what you responded to me and what you offically made news in the newspaper to the game announcing the changes. Also you are trying to make things sound better than what it actually is.

      Arcorian wrote:

      Werwolf wrote:

      First of all the giving everyone the free 14 Day High Command is "stupid"!. The people that actually PAID for it will recieve nothing in return because everyone has it in game and it will be useless to have. It is actually a way to make people happy after a bad change that will damage this game.
      Player who already have High Command also got the 14 days for free. These days were simply added to the ammount of days of High Command they already had.

      With my first point I said that the reward with 14 days high command is HIDING the fact to make players happy with the changes you brought to the game. Can you please tell me is it for the compensation with the bad changes you brought to the game or is it a reward for completely changing the game because it really is a ugly gesture what you done. I would rather have the changes reversed than 50,000 gold and 1 month of High Command. I hope you are right that the High Command that was paid for will be added on to the free one.


      Arcorian wrote:

      Werwolf wrote:

      Second there should be a FREE choice what map you want to play and the right players with the right skills or the same tactics joining that map. Everyone knows that the Pacific Map is WAY different to the American Homefront map and the Pacific Players will HATE playing the American Homefront Map because they CANNOT chose anymore. This game was great when you can chose many different types of maps to play. Now it's bad where they force you into 1 thing.
      Players do have the free choice to join any game from the scenarios that are available all the time as well as the scenario that is currently in the rotation. The maps created by other players will also be available unless they are protected by password.
      This is 100% bypassing my question and not answering it to the fullest extent. You even answered my question thinking I am a pure beginner of the game because of coarse there is free choice on the games that are available. Do you even realize that the 2 examples I provided are ROTATIONAL GAMES and players can't chose The American Homefront map because they need to wait 5 weeks for it and will need to play the rotational game of the Pacific Map instead. So it proves my point which you are forced into 1 thing.


      Arcorian wrote:

      Werwolf wrote:

      Thirdly getting rid of 1 v 1 matches is putting salt into the wounds of many players. I like to have 1 v 1 matches with players to see who is really better without allies or unfair competition because 1 opponent has more provinces than the other. Unfortunatly NO MORE it doesn't in any shape or form damage the game, players still use gold in those games and make it better.
      You still have the option to play 1 vs 1 one when you or your opponent creates a scenario.
      Again bypassing my question hiding the fact that you deleted the English Channel 1 v 1 Map. And how can oponents create a scenario that has 1 v 1 when there are other players in the game. Oh it is ranked as well which is terrible news and you need High Command to create it as well.


      Arcorian wrote:

      Werwolf wrote:

      Forthly getting rid of the Mediterranian Theater and Tournament Island is basically making this game worser. If you see other computer games they have higher rating because they have more maps, doing this is making this game poorer and more boring for everyone. Who the hell wants a choice to play 2 maps. As I stated in points 2 and 3 Limiting maps and getting rid of maps will make this game WORSE AND BORING.
      We are aware that some players particuarly like these maps, but as mentioned in the news article we analyzed how often these maps were actually played compared to the others and based our decission on that analysis. Appart from the scenarios in the rotation players also have the regular events as an option for finding a new challenge. There is the option that these maps will return as events again at some point as well.
      This decision as well as other decisions will destroy the game. Why is there a need for this!! Please tell us!. So what if there is players playing less games do you really think players will enjoy playing 1 single game all the time. Nope let me tell you they will leave the game because they are bored playing it


      Arcorian wrote:

      Werwolf wrote:

      And my final point on this terrible change is. The games that have rotation is one map every 5 weeks!!. 5 WEEKS!! you might as well delete those maps if we have to wait this long for them and those 5 maps are VERY POPULAR with a lot of players in COW.
      Maps in the weekly rotation don't necessary need 5 weeks to come back as an option. Those scenarios in the pool that showed to be more popular than others will be available more often than those that showed to be less popular.
      You are just saying it to make the situation sound better and you are agreeing to it because you know that it is terrible.

      Arcorian wrote:

      Werwolf wrote:

      All I can say is I hope you take my points into consideration because this change is the worst change in this game's history. And zero benefit if it's with money or getting more players. You will lose money and people playing it.
      Thank you for your feedback, and I hope you can see that we indeed do take your points into consideration. We are always open for feedback and willing to adjust if we see the need for it (e.g. the upcoming review of fire at will as part of the fire control update). I hope I could clarify and answer some of your concerns there.
      I hope my feedback goes into consideration but I don't think so with the way you responded to all of this. But I will be happy if you can prove me wrong on that point.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Werwolf ().

    • Werewolf, you've got some good points and some bad ones. Players will not be 'forced' to play the America Homefront map when it is up; they can just take a break from the game to wait for the next time the Pacific map is up. Or they can join one Pacific map before their last Pacific map ends. Or they can play one of the other scenarios that is always up. No one is forced into 1 thing-they always have 5 options available at any one time, and 9 options overall.

      If this does fix player inactivity, I will gladly give up these maps. However, I'm not really sure how this will (except for the high command thing. That seems legit). Sooo.... I guess I'll just hope that Bytro actually knows what they're doing here.
    • eruth wrote:

      Werewolf, you've got some good points and some bad ones. Players will not be 'forced' to play the America Homefront map when it is up; they can just take a break from the game to wait for the next time the Pacific map is up. Or they can join one Pacific map before their last Pacific map ends. Or they can play one of the other scenarios that is always up. No one is forced into 1 thing-they always have 5 options available at any one time, and 9 options overall.

      If this does fix player inactivity, I will gladly give up these maps. However, I'm not really sure how this will (except for the high command thing. That seems legit). Sooo.... I guess I'll just hope that Bytro actually knows what they're doing here.
      First of all when I say "force" I mean the games that are available and because the rotational games is every 5 weeks you can't pick and chose. And who the hell wants to take a break from the game!!. Because of this players will leave the game and not come back to Call of War because there favourite game isn't there and the game becoming worse. Now you say they can join there Pacific Map before their Pacific Map ends!. Do you even realize that most players don't even last 35 days (5 weeks) and if they lose before 5 weeks then they have to wait again for there favourite game which is bad for this game or if they want a different scenario they have to wait for that one as well so now we have to wait for the right game!!. And for the 5 options available because what they done they made the World Map superior to other maps 100 player map defeats the 25 player map easily and for the rotational maps it's 1 every 5 weeks which really sucks. And what the hell is the point with player inactivity. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE INACTIVITY before this change and after this change and because of this change there will be more beginners or inactive players joining the World Map and the other rotational maps because they don't have much maps to chose from and Bytro Labs employes doesn't play Call of War games they don't know anything compared to experianced players knowledge
    • I'm really not sure how to respond to that because I can barely think while reading it. Try reading that out loud to yourself exactly as it appears and see if you can figure out the problem. All your thoughts blur together in sentences that should really stop much sooner than they do. It all comes across as very whiny and poorly thought out. Try that again, lets see if you can do it a bit better.
    • I am not sure that having the "when full" mandatory will do much to improve the game. We already have a 25% drop out rate in the first 4-5 days. Having people sign up for a game and then waiting a few days longer will cause that number to increase because in todays game player environment they want to get into something and get going right away.

      The get going right away aspect is one reason that I like the shorter research line as it allows for more things to happen earlier. The faster players become committed to a game the longer they stay.


      One thing that was an interesting affect in the Diplomacy Game hobby was the introduction of 'Best Country' awards in Tournaments back in 1976, This gave players in games an incentive to still do good even when their chances of winning the tournament was not there. Maybe this could be introduced as an Achievement for high scores in games.