Pinned What should rules set out to accomplish in the PL? What is their goal?

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

    • cerealnerd wrote:

      I thought it was the Players league, not a coalition league. Maybe coalitions are a bigger problem than realized.

      So instead of making a "premier" league and a "first" league or whatever names were mentioned earlier maybe we should do this.....

      How about we have a "Single Player" league - a PL where everyone is a lone wolf. There is no communication with other players allowed and much less any RoW or map sharing.

      Then there is the "Coalition League" - it's a PL where coalitions are obviously the main driving force. This is where we can debate on the amount of players allowable per coalition depending on map size per game.

      Of course the "Golden Rule" would be in effect in both these player leagues.
    • "Anti betrayal measures: Players of a team or a coalition can no longer change their relation to members of other teams or coalitions to anything better than peace (e.g. shared map is not possible)"

      This prevents only one betrayal scenario among many. It is misguided on the part of Bytro. They should at least make this optional on user-created games, and make half of the system-created games the old way of no diplomacy restrictions.
    • I played the January 2019 round, and it was a good experience. The change that will bring me back is removing the time limit.

      A game played to the end should have an addition to the rewards. Namely: Any player who never goes inactive should receive 100 PL points. And the gold rewards for the round should continue to be awarded soon after the round. These things will hopefully encourage more players to stick with PL.
    • Hello all,

      Two good quotes from K.Rokossovski that I can use to illustrate some of the idea behind this thread with:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      This is like some ebb and flood thing. People plea for less rules; inadverse effects happen; people want those countered; more rules are implemented; people say it gets too complicated and scream for less rules.
      I am hoping to prevent this by asking what we want rules to be doing instead of what rules we want. I think we have a good chance of forming rules that serve the majority of the community's interrest as long as there is some sort of consensus about what we want the rules to be there for. That way rules can always be formed to serve a goal that has been agreed upon.

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Many of these rules have been tried and tested for years now. Shure, they weren't perfect and it was a work-forever-in-progress; nonetheless, going back to one rule ("no gold") seems a waiste of effort.
      This is exactly why I separated the 'rules' into rules and clauses. That way we can put the 'rules' up for debate whilst keeping the solid core that the PL has been working to build during its existence. No need to keep re-inventing the wheel over and over again, changing the rims from time to time is all that will be needed. I hope I succeeded into housing the essential into the clauses and the changeable into the rules. I would however like a more catchy name for the divide of rules and clauses. Feel free to make a suggestion.

      dioglaert wrote:

      I played the January 2019 round, and it was a good experience. The change that will bring me back is removing the time limit.

      A game played to the end should have an addition to the rewards. Namely: Any player who never goes inactive should receive 100 PL points. And the gold rewards for the round should continue to be awarded soon after the round. These things will hopefully encourage more players to stick with PL.
      Let me begin by saying that I appreciate your input. Personally I do not see your request as a possible or likely thing to happen though. Not in the PL's current size and format. Starting and finishing on set days with a predictable amount of time dedicated in between is somewhat essential for the PL to work. I think there are many pros to having a map only last 30 days. Those eliminated will not have to wait for a few players to finish a map. Maps might go stale, sometimes evenly matched players/countries do not want to go head to head with each other in fear of losing. Having a time limit solves this problem to a certain extent. 30 days is enough to decide who performed best on a certain map. In fact, apart from the world maps, even the 50 player maps I have played never lasted longer than 40 days. 22p europe maps tend to last less than 30 days in my experience. There is plenty of time to decide who is ahead and who is dead (lol it rhymes). Having said that perhaps it should be possible for players to continue playing after day 31 on the PL maps for those that want to. Then again, I asume most players would prefer to start a new month.
      The second part of your post is about the way victory points are distributed, which is a whole other subject.

      So in returning back to the topic of this thread. What I got from most of you somewhat in order and numbers of time mentioned is (the number of question marks indicates that I am less sure about the subject being in the right place):

      - NO GOLD, Just play Call of War without gold being any part of the game. Other than that the design of the game sets the limit.
      - Make entering for new entries more inviting/easier ? (by possibly creating another PL game)
      - We would like advertising for the PL if possible ? ?
      - Limit teaming abilities ? ? ?
      - Make sure fair play happens ? ? ? ?

      Am I missing something here? Because if this is it then I think it is time to move on to creating a format that makes this possible.

      Almost there!

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable
    • Hello @Diablo Mayor,

      Diablo Mayor wrote:


      cerealnerd wrote:

      I thought it was the Players league, not a coalition league. Maybe coalitions are a bigger problem than realized.
      So instead of making a "premier" league and a "first" league or whatever names were mentioned earlier maybe we should do this.....

      How about we have a "Single Player" league - a PL where everyone is a lone wolf. There is no communication with other players allowed and much less any RoW or map sharing.

      Then there is the "Coalition League" - it's a PL where coalitions are obviously the main driving force. This is where we can debate on the amount of players allowable per coalition depending on map size per game.

      Of course the "Golden Rule" would be in effect in both these player leagues.

      Not a bad idea at all. I also recognize that there is a divide among players present that divides between those that want to play as a coalition and those that want to play without it. The problem to act on this divide according to me is as follows:

      Dividing players based on some sort of level of experience solves a lot of problems. Players not feeling like battling against the pros and all, bringing in new recruits. So drawing a line between players based on some sort of experience level will be the most likely candidate (my personal opinion) for dividing players. Whether that will be PL games played, in game experience (level) or stats can be debated about, but I am pretty sure that it will happen based on any one or a combination of these indicators for experience. Dividing players this way is much more fair for those involved.

      Though your distinction is a very real one, it comes with the following issue. If we can all (majority) agree that dividing players based on experience is a good idea, dividing players into those that want to play alone and those that want to play in coalitions on top of this will be to much. It will mean that if there are 20 players, they end up in 2 groups of 10 after they are divided based on experience and in 4 groups of 5 if they are divided based on both experience and what they want to play on top of that. Currently, we can not do both. Of course these are not real numbers but I do hope you see the problem that can arise.

      Changing from season to season based on votes, whether coalitions will be active or not has my preference in this. Or perhaps we can even make switching a standard thing between seasons. This keeps the PL from becoming a static environment that always has the same format, without losing the elements that the community values.

      I hope this offers somewhat of a solution to the community on this.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable
    • I think the coalition & non-coalition idea would be better in my mind. Would there be enough new players to join a non-coalition game? I would think the non-coalition idea would be filled with the more experience players, and all the newcomers would support the coalitions idea. We could do no coaltions, just NAPs, in the first season of the year; and coalitions would be included for the 2nd season of the year.

      One of the hard parts about dividing the league based on experience would be the problem of deciding which players are inexperienced and which are experienced. Are you going to base it off their levels? Ranks? Win rate? Unit K/D ratio? All of these may be inaccurate when referring to their current experience level because its an accumulation of all the games they've played. If you allow players to select the version they play, they may select it based on their likelihood of gaining rewards. This might end up taking many of the players from the experienced league into the less experienced one simply for rewards.

      This concern is why I kind of like the idea of randomly-assigned coalitions. Anybody could turn up lucky, and anybody can turn up unlucky, sure if you want the host to screen these coalitions to avoid any super teams or coalitions with ZERO chance that might be workable, but it would need to be limited on how much could be done.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • Hello fellow player,

      Lukenick wrote:

      I think the coalition & non-coalition idea would be better in my mind. Would there be enough new players to join a non-coalition game?
      Well I do not know about new players as an individual group. The current no-coalition format however was voted the winner for the current season by new and more experienced players alike.


      Lukenick wrote:

      One of the hard parts about dividing the league based on experience would be the problem of deciding which players are inexperienced and which are experienced. Are you going to base it off their levels? Ranks? Win rate? Unit K/D ratio? All of these may be inaccurate when referring to their current experience level because its an accumulation of all the games they've played. If you allow players to select the version they play, they may select it based on their likelihood of gaining rewards. This might end up taking many of the players from the experienced league into the less experienced one simply for rewards.
      Just because dividing players based on experience means we have to think about it a little does not make dividing based on who wants to play coalition and who does not the prefered option. Besides, there is no reason to think that the players that won't play PL because coalitions are not possible will not be replaced by players that do not want to play PL because they have to play in a coalition. It really can go either way. When players are divided based on experience, playing the less experience league shouldn't be an option for the experienced players. What we decide to be ''unexperienced players'' will probably be able to pick between joining either.

      Anyway, that is the way I think it should/could/will happen.

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable
    • Edepedable wrote:

      Just because dividing players based on experience means we have to think about it a little does not make dividing based on who wants to play coalition and who does not the prefered option. Besides, there is no reason to think that the players that won't play PL because coalitions are not possible will not be replaced by players that do not want to play PL because they have to play in a coalition. It really can go either way. When players are divided based on experience, playing the less experience league shouldn't be an option for the experienced players. What we decide to be ''unexperienced players'' will probably be able to pick between joining either.
      Thank you and i like the idea of alternating coalition/no coaltion on a season basis
    • I assume that PL started with non gold rule and rules about start and end map. Other rules were added later. No coalition, no ROW etc were among my suggestions. I suggested that all trades must go trough market. The goal of that rules was to make harder for group of players and easier for single player.
      Why?
      In PL we have groups of players who know each other and they will help each other with resources, intel, armies etc. I played only 4 maps and I made very good relations among some of the players too. No rule can stop me to cooperate with them, but can make it harder and PL is single player tournament, not coalition or alliance.

      So, what I wanted to say is that rules should accomplish one vs. one experience as much as it is posible.

      I read suggestions here and I have to say that I like one about coalitions with players who have different experience. I think it is very good one and we should work on it.
      Idea about making two leagues I do not like. What map will be used when you divide 20 or less players?

      One more thing, it is not problem in rules, because the rules are the same for all players. I assume that about 70 or maybe 80% of new players abandon COW, why should it be different in PL?

      Why should someone participate in PL?

      1. it is only non gold game, but when you enter you will face excellent players who are active 24/7 on a small map, they know each other and soon your troops will be cannon fodder. PL is competition with pre-made diplomacy.
      I personally feel that playing 100 players map is much easier to play even with gold users.
      2. For awards? Awards are to small and hard to get
      3. for glory? Most of players did not even heard about PL
      So what do you think that will hold new player to play in PL?
      "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.