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.

    • What is the purpose of the ranking?
      What skill do you want to reward: Victory Points, Largest Army, Most research, etc>
      Largest land mass?

      do you want to encourage people to jump on those that are higher rank themselves

      do you want to encourage cross game alliances and cliques?

      do you want to reward those that do not drop out and play to the bitter end?

      Running an anonymous game would cause some differences in style except I would expect players would quickly reveal themselves to their friends on Discord or in game chat.

      What about letting the players choose their goals so that we could have players who want the most victory points an some that want the largest land mass and those that want the largest army. Award points by category and may allow there to be player cooperation though it could be seen as collusion.
    • EZ Dolittle wrote:

      What is the purpose of the ranking?
      What skill do you want to reward: Victory Points, Largest Army, Most research, etc>
      Largest land mass?

      do you want to encourage people to jump on those that are higher rank themselves

      do you want to encourage cross game alliances and cliques?

      do you want to reward those that do not drop out and play to the bitter end?
      I think these are all very valuable questions that deserve consideration.

      Though I do not agree with your conclusion. If every player gets to choose its own measure, than at the end of the game there will be different winners depending on the criterium you value most. How you would decide what outweighs something else will then make it very complicated. Without any clear distinctive criterium to base any ranking on a ranking as a whole will be pointless.

      I think having anonimity enforced would solve some problems at the start. Although this could easily make players that have played multiple games with each other notice each others identity anyway. It would eventually not solve much.
    • No need for bonus points for place getting.
      As the series is a collection of games, the series should be the sum of all the CoW points earnt in each game. Everyone gets the points that they earnt each game, or a percentage there off. Everyone that is still alive at the end of each game gets their points in that game added to that that they have earnt in the previous games in the same series.
      The above is fairly easy to work with, but were the problem is is with working out penalties for violations to rules, especially gold usage, whether accidental or deliberate.
      Is there any list of what the penalties are for each rule breakage?
      If someone does the right thing the whole game and doesn't use any gold might only end up with 10 point, where as others that have used gold (accidental or dilberate) could still earn CoW 200 points in the same game.
      Maybe the answer could be in the opposite. You get bonus points for each rule you DONT break.
      Every player could start with 200 points for NOT using any Gold. Accidental or deliberate use would result in total loss of this 200 points. The penality for gold use has to be high to deter it.
      The above points system would give large points to the winner that doesn't use gold, which would make it harder for someone to win the series that misses a game or two. It is possible to determine the winner of the series by also taking into account the number of games in the series they have played. The final score could be the total score divided by the number of games they have played. This way players that join late in the series could still win.
      With getting bonus points for NOT breaking any points you would get points even if you were killed, if you didn't break any rules - this would be like getting points for playing even though you didn't get any CoW points because you were killed - this would encourage people to play even though they think they would not win, as they would get points for playing by the rules.

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

    • Good point - dont know the answer.
      It is hard to keep everyone happy.
      You want new players to join, but you dont want to turn existing players away either.
      Just putting some ideas forward.
      Maybe someone smarter than me can take something from what I have said, and make something from it that works.
    • BattleIvan wrote:

      No need for bonus points for place getting.
      As the series is a collection of games, the series should be the sum of all the CoW points earnt in each game. Everyone gets the points that they earnt each game, or a percentage there off. Everyone that is still alive at the end of each game gets their points in that game added to that that they have earnt in the previous games in the same series.
      The above is fairly easy to work with, but were the problem is is with working out penalties for violations to rules, especially gold usage, whether accidental or deliberate.
      thanks for input
      Gold use is the biggest problem but it really is a small problem, most often it is a single unintended use and the penalty will be waived if it is a single use and is promptly reported to me. Non reported use or multiple uses are penalized with -5 points per occurence multiple and intended usage is almost non existent
      Most other vilolations are handled in a similair manner, but the penalty is increased with severity
      We have only 10 rules and i wont list here all the possible violations of the 10
    • Gold usage can make a big difference in the game outcome, especially if used at the beginning of the game.
      The -5 points per non reported use of gold or for multiple uses of gold is NOT HIGH ENOUGH. Players have said they will not use gold and to then to use gold for the second or third time should lose all their points. The penalty for using gold needs to be high and known to be high by all, otherwise it is more likely to be abused.
    • I think we are missing the point. I waited to see any argument why should we reduce points from bigger maps, but there is no any. Even gold rewards are different for wining bigger map, and there is a reason for that. In my opinion, we should use VP and eventually to have bonuses for first 3 or 5 places. Also, moderators should decide what rules do we use, I personally felt bad when I entered november map and there was rule that no coalitions are allowed, but on day one rules changed and coalition were allowed, but only for 3 players in one coalition, but we had coalitions with 4 players... Set up the rules and stick with it. About gold, if someone uses small amount of gold, it will not change the game even in early game. I personally had two uses of gold. First time I did not noticed at all, and second time I saw it. I asked if there was option to turn off use of gold at all, that players can not use it even if they want it. I was sad to hear that the option was impossible.
      To summarize, I ask moderators to do the following>
      1. Decide about point system
      2. Decide what rules will apply
      3. Decide about penalties
      and to do that before season starts and to apply it on one whole season.
      Also I would like to add that penalties should be public, and if player uses gold should always write it in News that everyone of us know that, not just to send private message to moderator.
      Thank you.
      "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.
    • BattleIvan wrote:

      Good point - dont know the answer.
      It is hard to keep everyone happy.
      You want new players to join, but you dont want to turn existing players away either.
      Just putting some ideas forward.
      Maybe someone smarter than me can take something from what I have said, and make something from it that works.
      I think you made the most sensible argument so far in this thread. I also do not think added bonusses are needed. It makes differences that already exist even bigger for no real reason other than having a 'reward'.

      Strange that gold usage is a problem among a collection of players that join a series of games where gold usage is said to be unwanted by all participants. I see no reason for mercy in these kind of situations. The whole point of the players league to me seems to be having a place where players can rally in order to strategize to the best of their ability in order to win/do well. Ruining this players collective is nothing short of a moral crime. Make the punishments severe.
    • we need to return to the topic for this thread which was

      New Points awards Beginnig new season starting Jan 2019
      (complete with misspelling)



      please limit your comments to this topic

      I will open 2 new threads where we can discuss coalitions and how to regulate gold use in the Players league

      thank you for all of your participation
    • Did theyDid they ever add a automatic gold check at end?
      Only time i played in one , supposed non gold use, equalled nearly everyone using gold. Then some admtd it, said sorry in forums and immediately used FAR more. Was rediculous. Glad for awc tho some still used gold KNOWING there was auto checks, it kinda gave me faith again. Also goes to show you EVEN when know there will be checks, n entire allaince PUNISHED some selfish player still try to get away with it.
    • Nadin25 wrote:

      Did theyDid they ever add a automatic gold check at end?
      Only time i played in one , supposed non gold use, equalled nearly everyone using gold. Then some admtd it, said sorry in forums and immediately used FAR more. Was rediculous. Glad for awc tho some still used gold KNOWING there was auto checks, it kinda gave me faith again. Also goes to show you EVEN when know there will be checks, n entire allaince PUNISHED some selfish player still try to get away with it.
      yes they did
      i have answered your questions and comments in the gold use thread
    • 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.

      Just saying.
      I agree that there should be no additional PL point bonus for the top places.
    • I believe that PL point awards should be VP, with modifiers based on map size. So the PL points would be:
      VP * m

      The modifier "m" would be x divided by y, where x and y are:
      x = the number of VP needed for a solo victory in the 22-player Clash of Nations map
      y = the number of VP needed for a solo victory in the map being played in this round

      This is the equivalent of saying that your PL point award is based on the percentage of the map's total VP which you own.
    • A bit late but you could have a new PL scoring like this:-
      PL scores:-
      1st place100 points
      2nd90
      3rd80
      4th70
      5th60
      6th50
      7th40
      8th30
      9th20
      10th10
      Placement > 10th or you have at least one province and a CoW game score = 02
      Participate in game but loss all provinces1

      To get a PL score greater than 2 at the end of the game you must end the game with a CoW game score greater than 0, and be in the top 10 scoring players in the game. Hence if only 5 players finish the game with a CoW game score of greater than 0, then only those players get PL scores greater than 2. If two people share the same placement greater than 10th, then the next two places are added together and divided by two to get the new shared score.
      For example if two people share 3rd place, the score for 3rd and 4th place are added together and divided by two.80 + 70 = 150 then 150 / 2 = 75 each. The score for 4th place would then become that of the 5th place.
      If three people share the same place, the next three places would be added together and divided by three to get their shared score etc etc.
      PL scores when two players share 3rd place and three players share 5th place.

      1x 1st place100
      1x 2nd90
      2x 3rd75points to two players80 + 70 = 150.150 / 2 = 75
      1x 4th60Old 5th place score
      3x 5th40points to three players50 + 40 + 30 = 120.120/3 = 40
      1x 6th20Old 9th place score
      1x 7th10Old 10th place score
      Placement > 7th or you have at least one province and a CoW game score = 02
      Participate in game but loss all provinces1

      The above will most probably be too confusing to most, so probably best run with what Grand Pooba suggested at the start.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by BattleIvan ().

    • thanks everyone for your help and responses

      i have been persuaded to use a percntage based on map size
      the 22 player map will be the base of 100% VP
      the 50 will be scaled to 50% VP
      the 100 will be scaled to 25%
      lastly the 10 player map will be 200%

      you still have time to persuade me that this is unfair or unworkable
    • Can I also be supportive? I think this will work. So no rewards for placing first, second third or whatever then?

      I can see this work for the 22 p and 50p maps. Though I'm having doubts about whether VP's are 4 times easier to get on a 100p map and twice as hard on a 10p map when a 22p is the standard. The ratio at these extremes seems a bit off to me.

      But I definately aplaud this way to go about it. In case there will be no additional rewards for placement that is.