Announcement New Points awards Beginnig new season starting Jan 2019

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

    • New Points awards Beginnig new season starting Jan 2019

      I want to change the points awarded to a fixed amount each month
      Using the current method awards too many points for a large map, creating a disadvnatage to the smaller maps
      Under the current system you recieve the number of points by how many VP you atttainedf
      An example: you could attain 600+ points on the 50 player map but on the smaller maps you would only get 300
      This would require that you win two small maps to equal one large map
      I propose that the points will be awarded to the top 6 inishers


      1st place100
      2nd80
      3rd60
      4th40
      5th20
      6th10


      i would like to see your input on this idea and also how many points would be awarded
    • I think that it is easier to win smaller map so one should receive smaller number of points.
      "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.
    • I think there are two options:
      Options 1: at map small, onebody have 45 point when start and 50 point at map 50. So point map larger 45/50 *100 % = 90%. However, MAp large plates are usually not full and have more AL Player-->We can adjust a reasonable number between 70-80% point.
      Options 2: Use bonus points. At map 50-100 bonus 300-400 point and split point 2 ( 1st 150-200 point)
      At map 22 - Use the old rule. It was passed before
    • haidang2014 wrote:

      At map 22 - Use the old rule. It was passed before
      unless i missed something it was never voted on
      i believe it was decided by Dr Leiprechaun, he may have consulted others

      The posting Revised PL Rule changes (Trial Period) was adapted from another Players League on another server
    • haidang2014 wrote:

      Options 1: at map small, onebody have 45 point when start and 50 point at map 50. So point map larger 45/50 *100 % = 90%. However, MAp large plates are usually not full and have more AL Player-->We can adjust a reasonable number between 70-80% poin
      interesting
      could you expalin more please

      haidang2014 wrote:

      Options 2: Use bonus points. At map 50-100 bonus 300-400 point and split point 2 ( 1st 150-200 point)
      also an interesting possibility
      thanks for your constructive suggestions
    • grandpooba52 wrote:

      I want to change the points awarded to a fixed amount each month
      Using the current method awards too many points for a large map, creating a disadvnatage to the smaller maps
      Under the current system you recieve the number of points by how many VP you atttainedf
      An example: you could attain 600+ points on the 50 player map but on the smaller maps you would only get 300
      This would require that you win two small maps to equal one large map
      I propose that the points will be awarded to the top 6 inishers


      1st place100
      2nd80
      3rd60
      4th40
      5th20
      6th10


      i would like to see your input on this idea and also how many points would be awarded
      1) Personally, I'm against it. It is hard enough for the lower level players on a map to survive and get some points. Under this system a player could have over 100 VPs and get no points by placing lower than 6th. Most of the players on a map would receive no points even if they survived till the end of the round. I like to at least get some points occasionally. It is a small reward to sometimes get some PL points.
      2) IMHO, fewer players would stick with PL which is already having issues with keeping players.
    • Lawrence Czl wrote:

      1) Personally, I'm against it. It is hard enough for the lower level players on a map to survive and get some points. Under this system a player could have over 100 VPs and get no points by placing lower than 6th. Most of the players on a map would receive no points even if they survived till the end of the round. I like to at least get some points occasionally. It is a small reward to sometimes get some PL poin
      give to top ten ?
    • I remember a similar discussion about a year ago when we had a round with the Homefront map. The following month the 22 map was given double points. The method works, but needed more math behind the solution. imo: For this method to work properly, set the number of points allowed at 100% for the 22 map as that is the most common for the groups size. All other maps would then be ratioed to the 22 map for a multiplier based on total points available on the map. Some maps like Homefront would have a low multiplier (50% for example) while smaller maps like the 10 would have a higher multiplier (150% for example).

      The set amount per place works as it can encourage a player to stick around clinging to their last few provinces and points. With sufficient defense the top players will occasionally ignore you as "not worth the expense" while dealing with bigger problems and you can sneak into placement for points. Most PL games I remember ended in a route with only a handful of players left at the end of the month (often times fewer than 6).

      I'm fine with either method. btw, I plan to come back in January as things have quieted down a bit IRL, and should be good through April before things start to heat up again.
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
    • Peter Mat wrote:

      I remember a similar discussion about a year ago when we had a round with the Homefront map. The following month the 22 map was given double points. The method works, but needed more math behind the solution. imo: For this method to work properly, set the number of points allowed at 100% for the 22 map as that is the most common for the groups size. All other maps would then be ratioed to the 22 map for a multiplier based on total points available on the map. Some maps like Homefront would have a low multiplier (50% for example) while smaller maps like the 10 would have a higher multiplier (150% for example).

      The set amount per place works as it can encourage a player to stick around clinging to their last few provinces and points. With sufficient defense the top players will occasionally ignore you as "not worth the expense" while dealing with bigger problems and you can sneak into placement for points. Most PL games I remember ended in a route with only a handful of players left at the end of the month (often times fewer than 6).

      I'm fine with either method. btw, I plan to come back in January as things have quieted down a bit IRL, and should be good through April before things start to heat up again.
      thanks for your input
    • The rank-based system (fixed amounts based on rank) was specifically ended a while ago. The problem was that players (a) based decisions on who was directly ahead or behind them, not on the actual map situation and (b) players who had nothing to gain or lose (cause their rank was already fixed) developed patron-client relations with other players ("Hey can't you give me some land, it won't threaten your first place but it will help me from 4th to 3rd"). Points based on actual VP's was considered fairer, and generated less foul play.

      Just saying.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      The rank-based system (fixed amounts based on rank) was specifically ended a while ago. The problem was that players (a) based decisions on who was directly ahead or behind them, not on the actual map situation and (b) players who had nothing to gain or lose (cause their rank was already fixed) developed patron-client relations with other players ("Hey can't you give me some land, it won't threaten your first place but it will help me from 4th to 3rd"). Points based on actual VP's was considered fairer, and generated less foul play.


      thanks for that info
      i was not aware of how the decision was made
      what do you think of awarding points rated as to size of map
      example 50 player map gets 50%
      22 player get 100%
    • grandpooba52 wrote:

      Lawrence Czl wrote:

      1) Personally, I'm against it. It is hard enough for the lower level players on a map to survive and get some points. Under this system a player could have over 100 VPs and get no points by placing lower than 6th. Most of the players on a map would receive no points even if they survived till the end of the round. I like to at least get some points occasionally. It is a small reward to sometimes get some PL poin
      give to top ten ?
      If you go with points for place, then yes, top ten would be good. Some months you wouldn't have 10 players remaining but it would give some points to them if they managed to place in the top ten. So, you could have 1st 100 points, 2nd 90, etc.
    • grandpooba52 wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      The rank-based system (fixed amounts based on rank) was specifically ended a while ago. The problem was that players (a) based decisions on who was directly ahead or behind them, not on the actual map situation and (b) players who had nothing to gain or lose (cause their rank was already fixed) developed patron-client relations with other players ("Hey can't you give me some land, it won't threaten your first place but it will help me from 4th to 3rd"). Points based on actual VP's was considered fairer, and generated less foul play.
      thanks for that info
      i was not aware of how the decision was made
      what do you think of awarding points rated as to size of map
      example 50 player map gets 50%
      22 player get 100%
      Yeah, completely agree. We have used a key like this before.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • Hello all,

      I might have a suggestion for this. How about instead of using VP's to translate into PL points, instead use the number of provinces? The number of provinces you have at the end of the game would translate into your number of PL.

      I think bonuses for winners on a map should be small if present at all. Since the winner already gets more PL from simply winning the map. I see little sense in giving more aditional points. PL points should be fought for and earned dammit! Not handed out for free.

      If you were run over in the beginning there would be no way to win anything in the future. Besides being run over in the beginning usually has little to do with strategy and more with being ganged up on. Having no way to return from this does not sound fun.

      This way the PL won't already be won halve way through a season. Chances would be more equal througout the duration of the PL. Perhaps the expectation of not winning anything anyway makes people quit playing?
    • Edepedable wrote:

      I might have a suggestion for this. How about instead of using VP's to translate into PL points, instead use the number of provinces? The number of provinces you have at the end of the game would translate into your number of PL.

      I think bonuses for winners on a map should be small if present at all. Since the winner already gets more PL from simply winning the map. I see little sense in giving more aditional points. PL points should be fought for and earned dammit! Not handed out for free.

      If you were run over in the beginning there would be no way to win anything in the future. Besides being run over in the beginning usually has little to do with strategy and more with being ganged up on. Having no way to return from this does not sound fun.

      This way the PL won't already be won halve way through a season. Chances would be more equal througout the duration of the PL. Perhaps the expectation of not winning anything anyway makes people quit playing?
      thanks for your input