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.

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

      New

      Hello fellow players,

      Due to some recent events in the PL I have the following subject I would like the community to gather some thought on.

      My question to all of you is: what should PL rules accomplish?

      - create a gold free environment
      - create equal chances for every player to win
      - enforce 'fair play' (whatever we decide 'fair play' to mean in that case)
      - create as much possible fun for everyone
      - make every player fend for themselves

      Listed above are just a few examples of what we might want the the PL rules to be doing.

      Please comment your thoughts on what you think PL rules should be doing. A combination of multiple subjects is possible (a gold free environment is somewhat of a staple thing I'd say).

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable
    • New

      thanks edepedable for making this post

      i was waiting to see what others thought

      My first choice would be to have only one rule, no gold
      i favor coaltions and privagte agreements and all of diplomacy
      i enjoy the teamwork of joining with my friends
      i also enjoy fighting against my friends

      when more respond i will say more
    • New

      As a person who might be joining in March, I think the most important rule is definitely to maintain a gold-free environment in the PL. It is simply not realistic to ban diplomacy in these games, the prevention of people working together even goes against how wars usually work. I think we can mostly, if not entirely, agree that the one rule to remain across every season should be the gold-free environment, because without this it's just another game in the hundreds across Call of War. You might try out new ideas every season, or maybe just for each game in the season, to test if a rule works or not. But you need to remember that if you keep testing ideas, people may walk away because of what it may turn to. Are you trying to find the PERFECT gameplay or are you okay with games without gold and that's it? If you ask me, the name Players League suggests competition with a consistent set of rules, not something that is trying to achieve the PERFECT gameplay. Changing these rules also lessens the value of being the champion because it keeps changing. If one were to look back in the future, they might say they won 2 to 3 seasons in the PL, but what they may not tell you is that those were the 2 to 3 seasons that they followed x set of rules (banning all diplomacy, banning coalitions, or something else). I think the league needs consistency in whatever it does. Is the league a testing ground or a league to find the best players of the Call of War game style? If you want to test something, don't incorporate it into your main seasons, test it in some games on the side before you incorporate it and see if it works as you imagined it would (which may involve PL members if you wish) but don't allow these tests to affect their seasonal results, unless you feel confident enough to make it a season-long test.

      The Players' League needs to maintain a gold-free environment, but whether it employs my idea of semi-balanced coalitions (top players can't team up against the newbies) or randomly assigned coalitions into its seasons probably will not be a deciding factor for me. The PL wouldn't even have to have it on the side, I could go somewhere else to find fulfillment for that interest; but without a gold-free environment, the only potential value is high status games where I MAY learn something, but would probably be less likely to do such.
      "Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak". ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    • New

      Hello to all!

      Thanks for the input so far, I think all your comments paint a very clear picture.

      Might as well give my own opinion on this subject. I think it would be a good thing if rules in the PL accomplish a set of things.

      - maximise fun for everyone
      - make PL accesible to players new to PL
      - be challenging
      - fair play
      - friendly atmosphere

      In theory, all these things can be accomplished by 1 thing. No gold.
      Fewer rules, less chance to break any rules right?

      I do think there is a catch however, as Lukenick points out. Since no one wants to lose and it is a war game, everyone needs conquest. Be it sooner or later. This has some consequences. Experienced PL players knowing each other from games and that are friends or whatever can ruin a lot of the fun. Especially for players new to the PL. I do think that the PL being accesible to new players is a very important thing.

      A possible solution? Limit teaming possibilities. Divide players in the PL under 3 different categories.

      3: PL veteran, played more than x PL seasons.
      2: PL lieutenant, played more than x PL games.
      1: PL soldier, not yet a PL lieutenant.

      Depending on the size of a map and the players that applied for a map certain rules could be in place. For example:
      - no coalition can have a rating of more than 6
      - no coalition can have more than two 3 rated players.
      - every coalition must have at least one 1 rated player in its coalition.

      Which of these rules and what the numbers in it should be is a simple thing for moderators to decide I think. Players can post their PL rating along with their agreement to the rules when they apply. Fraud should be punished.

      Complicated? Perhaps a little. But I do think this opens the PL up to new recruits!! Which is a good thing!

      A lot of players want to play gold free. The PL can be the solution for a lot of those players.

      Additionaly some points could be handed out at the end of every PL game in case their level 1 rated team mate is still alive or has flourished. (Though I am not sure this is indeed a good idea and relates more to how points work in PL than anything else, WHICH IS NOT THE SIBJECT OF THIS THREAD).

      Lets keep the conversation going!

      Kind regards,

      Edepedable
    • New

      The categories could also be based on player level on CoW, K/D ratios, Economic/Military Ranks, Games joined in CoW, matches won in CoW, or even a group of these things combined. You could probably even do an eye test with current PL members to determine which are the best 5 or something and just try to ensure they don't team up with each other too much. You might even be able to look at the VP counts of PL players or see how they fare when they fight AIs and then how they do against other PL members. Whatever the tier/category system may be, and however broad the categories may be, it would probably be difficult to determine how to define each category. A more accurate standing may be something along the lines of this (unless tanking occurs/weak coalition last match):

      Tier 1: Top 25% in Rankings of last PL match participated in.
      Tier 2: 25%-80% in Rankings of last PL match participated in.
      Tier 3: Bottom 20% in Rankings of last PL match participated in and newbies.

      You may want to divide the newbies among Tier 2 and 3 based on how one may feel they would interact with the environment, but I didn't want to make that call.

      Because of the flaws with designing a tier system I thought maybe randomly-assigned coaltions would work better, and I would think it would be unlikely to get the best players in one coalition consistently.
      Maybe you could have a supervisor doing any necessary balancing if an exceptionally good/bad group appears, or you could force the weak coalition to team up with another to take down the much more experienced one (which still might not work). But even that I felt would be unnecessary for the most part.
      Anyways, those are just some more ideas to consider.
      "Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak". ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    • New

      I think you guys are starting to think in the right direction. Another thought was to have the player league split into 2 divisions, a minor league for players level 40 and under, and the major league for players level 41 and above. Both leagues would have equal rewards.

      This would allow new players in the PL to have a chanve to learn without getting destroyed by the veterans, and would not punish the vets for being good.

      Add in the only rule is no gold use, and the only thing you have to iron out is the maps you play, and how points will be awarded.
    • New

      Edepedable wrote:

      I do think there is a catch however, as Lukenick points out. Since no one wants to lose and it is a war game, everyone needs conquest. Be it sooner or later. This has some consequences. Experienced PL players knowing each other from games and that are friends or whatever can ruin a lot of the fun. Especially for players new to the PL. I do think that the PL being accesible to new players is a very important thing.

      A possible solution? Limit teaming possibilities. Divide players in the PL under 3 different categories.

      3: PL veteran, played more than x PL seasons.
      2: PL lieutenant, played more than x PL games.
      1: PL soldier, not yet a PL lieutenant.
      ideas similiar to this are being considered for future season
    • New

      Stormbringer50 wrote:

      I think you guys are starting to think in the right direction. Another thought was to have the player league split into 2 divisions, a minor league for players level 40 and under, and the major league for players level 41 and above. Both leagues would have equal rewards.

      This would allow new players in the PL to have a chanve to learn without getting destroyed by the veterans, and would not punish the vets for being good.

      Add in the only rule is no gold use, and the only thing you have to iron out is the maps you play, and how points will be awarded.
      while i support this option i forsee one problem we dont have enough entries to have two games per month
      there would be matches with only a few players in one division and most dont want to play against AI

      thanks everyone for your ideas and suggestions
      keep talking and we will find a way to improve
    • New

      grandpooba52 wrote:

      while i support this option i forsee one problem we dont have enough entries to have two games per month
      there would be matches with only a few players in one division and most dont want to play against AI
      this idea would be supported by making a news release on the main page, "advertising" the new leagues, and i feel that the option itself would draw many new players. Most players feel intimidated by the "pros" that play the league regularly, and many players are put off by the restrictions and special rules. It seems that the myriad of rules used in the players league make half the game arguing about the rules, and then blaming mods for not "fixing it" according to the way they interpret them. simplifying rules, and getting a league for beginners may make the players league more welcoming.
    • New

      Stormbringer50 wrote:

      this idea would be supported by making a news release on the main page, "advertising" the new leagues, and i feel that the option itself would draw many new players. Most players feel intimidated by the "pros" that play the league regularly, and many players are put off by the restrictions and special rules. It seems that the myriad of rules used in the players league make half the game arguing about the rules, and then blaming mods for not "fixing it" according to the way they interpret them. simplifying rules, and getting a league for beginners may make the players league more welcoming.
      advertiing is a thing i suggested months ago and is very much needed
      new players are joining every month, few are regulars
      it is true that we have had some bad months where we argued and complained, but that has been fixed,the malingers and complainers have been dealt with
      simplifing the rules, returning to the rules used by the game everywhere else would increase the friendliness of the game and increasing participation
      if there is too be a division of the league keep the limiting factors simple, players with a rank of less than x in one group and greater than x in the other group
    • New

      Stormbringer50 wrote:

      I think you guys are starting to think in the right direction. Another thought was to have the player league split into 2 divisions, a minor league for players level 40 and under, and the major league for players level 41 and above. Both leagues would have equal rewards.
      There is a major flaw though. What will keep the major leaguers from making a new account to participate with the minors? If there were 2 divisions, you need to give incentive to the majors to remain in that division.

      CoralWar wrote:

      What about not making PL a tournament ?

      Just no gold games, open to everyone.

      We just want to find back the board games' atmosphere, being sure that our lovely stock broker friend won't suddenly pay 100 $ for having 80 units in LA.

      Find another name and keep it simple.
      Sounds pretty good to me, and the host can still kick any severe golders. Then the matches could actually be played to their ends, which sounds much better to me. But of course you could still start a new match each month for those who were eliminated early on.
      "Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak". ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    • New

      Lukenick wrote:

      There is a major flaw though. What will keep the major leaguers from making a new account to participate with the minors? If there were 2 divisions, you need to give incentive to the majors to remain in that division
      the same thing that keeps anyone from making a second account. Section 4.3 of the ToS

      4.3 Each Participant may register for and use one Account only. Registering for and using multiple accounts is strictly prohibited (so-called “multi-accounts”). Breach of this clause may lead to the immediate exclusion of the Participant from the game.


      Notice this says "game" and not "round". Making multiple accounts is a fast track to not being allowed to play Bytro games at all.