Wolf-packing solution

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

    • Wolf-packing solution

      Because of wolfpacking situation we are facing and accusation between all of us will not be over, i suggest to turn the pl into a Free for all game, no coalition allowed, no ROW, anonym round.
      Even if players want to wolfpack it will not be efficient with the above system.
      and we will be getting more wars, as it will become purely standalone fights and strategies.
    • I do not see the way to stop a group of people to cooperate, also I do not see reason why to do it at all. Anonymous round will just make them easier job, because they will know who are they and they will choose who to attack, but rest of players will have no clue who to trust or not. I expected clans over there but it is much less than I expected. As I understood, Players league goal is to expand, so you can call to join as much members of your alliance as you wish. It will be some kind of alliance war, and rest of players who are not in alliance will have to cope with that, find their place and maybe be a factor who will decide final result. For a first round, let`s say I had a good experience, I am just surprised with violations of rule 9 a saw there. I know that some players are emotional and young, if we are against each other in game, we are still human and there is no need for insults, this is just a game. Enjoy it and have fun!
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.
    • In my opinion, in PL only rule that is good is rule number one. Other rules are useless because it can not be forced by moderators without complains from players. Players who are in pact do not have to share maps, they take screenshots and share them on some other network. They will still share resources and armies, fight against same opponent and not fight each other... Wolf-packing is something that happens in all site and I do not see way to be stopped. Maybe if you make rules that no sharing maps, no ROW, no trade except in market, and that one country can be in war only against one country at same time, that would make their job harder. Wolf-packing is similar to multiaccounting. Unfair way to get victory.
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.
    • Yes you are right. Maybe to set maximum of two countries be in war? Without full circle?
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.
    • Your non constructive answer was expected. It doesn't matter.
      Moreover, you spoke about you as you need to be helped by friends to get an advantage.

      I talk about a reality you didn't deny in-game and supported by other players too.

      I though the community must be aware if they intend to play Players League.

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

    • Hello fellow players,

      Lets start by saying that this is no way to keep things civil guys...

      grandpooba52 wrote:

      There was no response in the world herald because that is not the place for discussion
      Anouncements in the World Herald are part of the game that is being played. Whether it requires a response or not is up to each and every individual player.

      As we are not within the boundries of a map being played on this forum I do think it is fair to point out that some statements made in this thread are somewhat concerning.

      1)What I expected to happen when I voted for a PL season without coalitions was not that everyone would just be working together anyway.

      MarkAchkar wrote:

      Because of wolfpacking situation we are facing and accusation between all of us will not be over, i suggest to turn the pl into a Free for all game, no coalition allowed, no ROW, anonym round.
      Even if players want to wolfpack it will not be efficient with the above system.
      and we will be getting more wars, as it will become purely standalone fights and strategies.
      I hoped/expected it to be as stated above.

      2) Whether it is true or not. Stating that a player (that has been eliminated from non-coalition game because of a simultanious attack by three players) is a whiney sore loser and one is happy to see said player go does not really seem like a fair way to treat players. Not in a map nor on the forum.

      3) The rules are in place for certain reasons. The aim of a no-coalitions game setting to me seems pretty obvious. To have each player rely on themselves in an all out war consisting of everyone versing everyone. Having it stated in this thread that working together ''as if in a coalition'' is within the rules to me means that the rules need to be changed.

      '' It's against the rules to shoot your dog? Then I'll drown it ''
      Within the rules, yes. But there is still something wrong with it now isn't it.

      Its a game guys, lets try and keep fun for everyone.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable
    • Edepedable wrote:

      3) The rules are in place for certain reasons. The aim of a no-coalitions game setting to me seems pretty obvious. To have each player rely on themselves in an all out war consisting of everyone versing everyone. Having it stated in this thread that working together ''as if in a coalition'' is within the rules to me means that the rules need to be changed.
      the rules were not intended or meant to elimimate or restruict players from joining together in any manner that they chose. the rules were not written to have each player rely on themselves in an all out war. That is an impossile and unenforceable rule.
    • Edepedable wrote:

      2) Whether it is true or not. Stating that a player (that has been eliminated from non-coalition game because of a simultanious attack by three players) is a whiney sore loser and one is happy to see said player go does not really seem like a fair way to treat players. Not in a map nor on the forum.
      guilty of losing my temper, i should not have resorted to name calling and taunting
      I apologize
    • Edepedable wrote:

      1)What I expected to happen when I voted for a PL season without coalitions was not that everyone would just be working together anyway.

      MarkAchkar wrote:

      Because of wolfpacking situation we are facing and accusation between all of us will not be over, i suggest to turn the pl into a Free for all game, no coalition allowed, no ROW, anonym round.
      Even if players want to wolfpack it will not be efficient with the above system.
      and we will be getting more wars, as it will become purely standalone fights and strategies.
      this proposal by Mark was not part of the discussion to allow or disallow coaltions
      there was discussion about the facts that players could still work together
    • The reason I mentioned Mark Achkar's post is because it does a good job of summarising my expectations.

      grandpooba52 wrote:

      the rules were not intended or meant to elimimate or restruict players from joining together in any manner that they chose. the rules were not written to have each player rely on themselves in an all out war. That is an impossile and unenforceable rule.
      Then I supose I am guilty of having expectations that do not meet reality.

      Perhaps some discusion could be had about what rules should shape the PL and what those rules should set out to do?
      I do not think I am the only one that has a different outlook on how things are/should be because of the way the rules are now.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable
    • that would be a good suggestion, would you be willing to start a thread where it could be discussed. I am asking you to do it to better address your concerns. I am reluctant to make a change to the rules until June, trying to avoid changing the rules constantly, at least in my opinion. But if there is enough support i can be persuaded to make an ammendment.
      Thanks
    • can they not make a server rule that limits the number of shared games an account could have.

      James and I are in 2 games together
      We cant co-join a game until one game is finished.


      Or

      I join a game with James

      James & I cant play a shared game for the next 50 gamestarts.



      It wouldnt completely stop it but make it tedious as hell....