Players League season 2 discussion thread

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

  • Players League season 2 discussion thread

    Hello all,

    The new season is underway, with 22 players having joined the May game, a full roster!

    With a new season, I would like to suggest and implement a few changes, based on the experience in the previous season

    The things I am thinking of, are:

    - Change how the PL ranking is done, several pointed out to me they arent entirely happy with the point system.
    - Change the rule system to be less complex and overbearing
    - Thinking of each PL having a 'special rule or handicap'. Think of suggestions like 'All units may be builded' or 'No Light tanks allowed'
    - 2x 10 player games for June, instead of the 22p map. Perhaps have different rules on either

    What I am personally thinking of regarding the rules, is:

    - Max 2 allies, but you may freely choose who you ally, the 'threeway alliance rule' has proved to be broken by various players and for others it became very hard to find allies at all. In my view this cure (to prevent 'chained alliances)' is worse then the ailment. Alternatively we can perhaps scrap the alliance ruling altogether and let it work out in the game itself. Every player should have the freedom to ask himself 'ok, I have 3 allies, that means 25% chance I will be backstabbed - is it worth it?'

    - Sab/Econ spies a declaration of war, I think that is up to the individual ruler to decide its worth a war or not.
    - Peace period increased to 48 hours, or even 72. Including AI's.
    - Im in favor of the no rockets policy, but they might return on occasion

    Please have the discussion below in a constructive manner. Did I miss anything at all to put on the table? Please mention it.

    Edit:
    We opened some polls about the future of the Payers League     -> go this way

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Xarus: poll included ().

  • miech wrote:

    - Sab/Econ spies a declaration of war, I think that is up to the individual ruler to decide its worth a war or not.
    Well, it was always up to the player to decide if its worth or not. I think that rule " Espionage with economic and with military sabotage is an act of war" is well defined and it refers to NAPs. To paraphrase, it would mean:
    NO, do not send spies to military and economic sabotages against player you have NAP with, it's not according to peace; and
    YES, if someone send spies on military and economic sabotage against your country, its good reason to cancel NAP, actually it's violation of peace by itself.
    But, if you want to continue NAP, it's up to you..


    miech wrote:

    - Peace period increased to 48 hours, or even 72. Including AI's.
    - Im in favor of the no rockets policy, but they might return on occasion
    I agree about increasing peace period.
    I'm extremely against rockets. With experience i have with rockets, Players League would turn into Rockets League.

    I support dividing PL into 2 divisions, but not making special rules for each.

    I think that key goals of reorganization should be:

    dividing into 2 divisions;
    new ranking system;
    redefining some rules
    and defining rules for promotion/demotion from one to another division.

    I think we shouldn't rush with this, we should do this thoroughly, consider all arguments, croate matrix and make conditions for our PL to grow and develop.

    We might need 3rd and 4th division one day, who knows..

  • Wasnt rocket league something with cars?

    Yeah, I agree. I like rockets, but they are just too powerful in the hands of a good player. Following up, I wouldnt even be against (rocket propelled) nukes, as the costs to invest in them are so huge, its usually actually stupid to go the nuke 'route'. Games, after all, typically last for 40-50 days, giving nukes a relatively minor role. I doubt I will ever research them on the 10 or 22p map. Perhaps a solution regarding regular rockets could be that only lvl 1 can be researched - so people have a defense against rockets. I would still build them, but far less

    I like your idea about divisions, I reckon its more fun for the more casual players. To have those divisions actually be dynamic, I think that after every game there should be a demotion/promotion.

    The only issue I see with this, is the demotion part - is it really fair that the first player that is killed is the first on the list for demotion? It has advantages as well though, as I expect the more regular players will have a more defensive approach to avoid the risk of a bumrush by a nemesis or first timer.

    Ah, I understand that rule better now regarding the spies. Didnt even cross my mind.

    What rules would you like to see redefined? Or scrapped, or even (shudder) adding rules?

  • Dunno about that game, was just suggesting new name in case we allow rockets, rocket league or League of rockets :D

    I have no idea how we should deal with promotion/demotion system, im not capable of thinking right now. Perhaps we need more brains engaged for this matter. More ideas-better solution.

    Im curious to hear what xarus, para, wild, snowl and others have to say about this...

  • First of all, I am glad that new people are coming to the League every month. Now that I am absent they (and everybody else) even have a chance to win :P

    About the rules, I don't think anything involving rockets needs to be changed, it is good the way it is. For ranking system, do whatever most people want (of course, I would like to see all kind of information present in ranking, for example wins per games playes, because that is where I am good and I would like to brag :D ).

    But things about deals are what I would like to see being discussed. We all want some rules but not too much of them. We have rules about spies and number of allies, which is ok, but on the other hand, things like NAP-s, breaking deals and similar are not strictly defined in the rule book. I would like too see either strict rules about relationships between players during the game or, if that limits gameplay too much, perhaps there should be agreement that all relationships are free to interpretation. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, so I will try to give example:
    Alliance, NAP, using spies being considered declaration of war, etc. Either we define the strict rules for using these concepts or we announce to players that those agreements cannont be enforced by the rules of the League and if someone abuses them against someone, that is not violation of the the League rules and game moves on.

    Anyway, I think that this League is by far the most professionally organised event in Call of War and only place where players can find good competition, active players and a lot of fun in the game. Aside from alliance games, there is probably no other place where you can search for games where you can play against very experienced players and enjoy very dynamic games (not counting RP but competitive games). Thanks to @miech (I think it was him who introduced the League to Call of War), @Xarus (Who often took on himself the responsibility to make games go by the rules) and others who played or were involved in other ways in the League.

    ps. I know I shouldn't keep talking over and over again about the guy who decided to backstab me (and failed miserably) in the last game I played here, but I when I remember him, I do it again :D and I exclude him from the list of people from my previous sentence.

  • Hi everyone, I just came across the whole "Player's League" and I'd be interested to be a part of it. I think someone should setup a chatroom on a site like Discord or some other chatroom like Teamspeak, that way newbies can join in and ask questions without having to go to the forums and constantly check for replies.

  • miech wrote:

    The things I am thinking of, are:

    - Change how the PL ranking is done, several pointed out to me they arent entirely happy with the point system.
    - Change the rule system to be less complex and overbearing
    - Thinking of each PL having a 'special rule or handicap'. Think of suggestions like 'All units may be builded' or 'No Light tanks allowed'
    - 2x 10 player games for June, instead of the 22p map. Perhaps have different rules on either
    1) PL ranking 5/4/3 for each place according is the most fair ranking system, unless there were One person who took everybody out ( He deserves 7 )
    - The rules are simple already, the only one rule that does not make much sense is the number of allies and that they have to be allied to each other as well. I think it should be dropped, everyone should be on their own, and as far as back stabbing and breaking NAPs, oh well , it is part of the real world , why should we prohobit it here, let's keep it as real as possible.
    2) I like the idea of each PL having a "special handicap rule" , it will add a new depth into the game each time.
    3) As far as separating the league , even though I like the idea of different divisions, but there are many obstacles to that :
    -we don't have enough players yet
    -newly joined will miss out on learning from the more experienced players,
    -it is hard to decide on a fair to all demotion system ( maybe by voting at the end of the game? )
    4) I don't like the idea of splitting into two different 10 player maps at all. It will be less fun, and the games will last differently, one may end in 15 days, and the other in 45. ( also a good point against the different divisions )

    miech wrote:

    - Sab/Econ spies a declaration of war, I think that is up to the individual ruler to decide its worth a war or not.
    - Peace period increased to 48 hours, or even 72. Including AI's.
    - Im in favor of the no rockets policy, but they might return on occasion
    I like the idea of a longer Peace period, it will be more fair to latecomers ( they should not be late if they signed up ). But I also think it will increase the length of each round by a lot. I would like to allow rockets, but only Level 1 ( they were used in WWII after all ) , so their effectiveness will be questionable , and I doubt people will use it very much, but I still like it as an option

    Paramunac wrote:

    Anyway, I think that this League is by far the most professionally organised event in Call of War and only place where players can find good competition, active players and a lot of fun in the game. Aside from alliance games, there is probably no other place where you can search for games where you can play against very experienced players and enjoy very dynamic games (not counting RP but competitive games). Thanks to @miech (I think it was him who introduced the League to Call of War), @Xarus (Who often took on himself the responsibility to make games go by the rules) and others who played or were involved in other ways in the League.
    I agree 100% with Paramunac. Thanks guys! :beer: :thumbsup:

  • IISpikeII wrote:

    Hi everyone, I just came across the whole "Player's League" and I'd be interested to be a part of it. I think someone should setup a chatroom on a site like Discord or some other chatroom like Teamspeak, that way newbies can join in and ask questions without having to go to the forums and constantly check for replies.
    Unfortunately, we cannot globally advertise a Discord URL per Bytro ToS.
    Pax Romana Communications Officer

  • StrangeTalent wrote:

    IISpikeII wrote:

    Hi everyone, I just came across the whole "Player's League" and I'd be interested to be a part of it. I think someone should setup a chatroom on a site like Discord or some other chatroom like Teamspeak, that way newbies can join in and ask questions without having to go to the forums and constantly check for replies.
    Unfortunately, we cannot globally advertise a Discord URL per Bytro ToS.
    That really sucks :/

  • Hi, what we need is a committee of three players for questions/answers, organization and punishment.

    If we have more than 22 players for one month we need to split the league into two or more games per month, if this happens we need two or more players that start this rounds simultaneously. I can't play in all games! ;)

    So who will help me to organized this games? (leave a reply!)


    __________________

    Suggestions:
    1. I like the Idea with a special Handicap too.
    2. I hope we get a new game feature for the alliance problem in near future.
    3. I think to expand the beginning peace period is good, but we need a punishment for rule breakers.
    4. If we want to split the pl in more simultaneously games, we can do it by ranking points from the Hall of Fame.
    5. I prefer a automatic end of the battle after 30 day. Winner by points after day change 30 to 31.
    6. I don't know if the 10 player map is good balanced for the PL (France, IT and UK will go into a lot of wars!)

    Would you like to play with your friends in a game where gold is banned?


    Watch for the next season starts in September!

  • thanks for all the replies guys:).

    Seems there are more people interested in handicaps, I have quite a few in mind, so dont worry about lack of creativity. input, as always, is appreciated.

    Same goes for the PP, I propose we start immediately in the June game

    Mihail raises some fair points regarding the divisions, and the solution from Xarus might solve it. That said, regarding the number of regular players, Mihail may be right that its 'too soon'. Unless indeed we do 10P maps only. In S1914 the PL was actually mostly on 10P maps, and more PLs were started based on player demand. It went as far as PL 75 in fact!

    The 30 day suggestion is quite nice Xarus, at least as a handicap, but maybe even 'always'. We would need Mod support to force end games though. Reminds me of the S1914 tourneys.

    10P map is perhaps a bit unbalanced, but in my experience the invisible hand of the market does its thing and creates balance. In that respect I would be happy to see a Blitzkrieg map game as well, where amount of points max gained in a win depends on the country (say as Germany max 3 points for a win, as Yugo 12 points). So its interesting to have a weak country too

    @Xarus: I think 2 people doing game starts and enforcing rules and all is fine, with perhaps 1 'reserve'. Regarding breaking rules - I think a 2 strikes out system is fair, and the decision of PL 'management' is final to avoid endless discussions. Believe me, in 1914 I went into that rabbit hole, and it caused me to quit as PL leader.

  • Suggestions:
    1. I like the Idea with a special Handicap too.
    2. I hope we get a new game feature for the alliance problem in near future.
    3. I think to expand the beginning peace period is good, but we need a punishment for rule breakers.
    4. If we want to split the pl in more simultaneously games, we can do it by ranking points from the Hall of Fame.
    5. I prefer a automatic end of the battle after 30 day. Winner by points after day change 30 to 31.
    6. I don't know if the 10 player map is good balanced for the PL (France, IT and UK will go into a lot of wars!)


    I agree with all points

  • So now we have these new feature for alliance in the game called "coalitions". I think it make it easier for us to find a new way for the alliance problem.

    So I think we will play in future with this coalitions with a maximum of three players. So everybody can see who is allied with who.

    Good?

    Would you like to play with your friends in a game where gold is banned?


    Watch for the next season starts in September!

  • It actually doesnt, as coalitions show who is in that coalition by applying, not who are actually allied. In fact, in a lot of scenarios I dont want people to know who my allies are.

    Straight up, I dont think there is an 'alliance problem'. Sure there are some people who ally half the map....and think they get away with it long term. They dont, people find out, and react on that - including those he allied. Name 1 PL game from before the rule was added, where such a player won the game.

  • MihailMD wrote:

    1) PL ranking 5/4/3 for each place according is the most fair ranking system, unless there were One person who took everybody out ( He deserves 7 )
    I think that player solo winning should get 12 points, and two players winning 7 and 5..

    It's harder for one player to win the game than for team of 3, hence there is no reason he should get less than a whole team, a ?