Team Up!

one thing, whats/ the prize?

also it says top 10 get a prize, but if blue team wins and the top red team player is in top 10 overall does he get a prize?

if it did maybe that could addect gameplay for the losing side?

am thinking now

It is possible for a team to win but the top 10 players be from other team.??

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.

You make a game that can be won in 7 turns. A 50 v 50 game. ARE U IDIOTS?

Artinium wrote:

You make a game that can be won in 7 turns. A 50 v 50 game.

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!

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.

Captain Hurricane wrote:

am thinking now

It is possible for a team to win but the top 10 players be from other team.??

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.

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?

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?

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.

It is possible isn't it? You haven't proven it CAN'T happen.

In my game Blue team is winning by a healthy margin but have only 3 players in top 10 at 2,3 and 7th. So it seems quite possible.

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.

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.

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?

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.

freezy wrote:

Feedback for improving the Team mode in future iterations was noted, thanks everyone.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.