Players League - new season starts with July game

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

  • We started an sociological experiment here in the virtual world.
    We put hundred wild and aggressive players on one map, to see what will be happen in one month, who will survive?

    Now we leave the beast out of his cage:

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


    Watch for the next season starts in September!
  • Xarus wrote:

    We started an sociological experiment here in the virtual world.
    We put hundred wild and aggressive players on one map, to see what will be happen in one month, who will survive?

    Now we leave the beast out of his cage:


    It's weird to see some peaceful oases untouched by war in the middle of that mess!
    Let me say that I'm seeing more diplomacy than I expected between coalitions and between single players
    By that way, I'm curious about the nationality of the players. It'd be nice to do a poll in order to know how many americans, germans, italians etc are playing this game! I wonder what is the nation that gave us more players :)
    PS I know my english sucks, so pardon my mistakes
  • I have a concern as to the fairness of this tournament.

    Because of the large amount of interest, the amount of players is more than a single hundred player map can accommodate. Thus, the overflow has gone to a second map. Herein lies the problem: The first map has an hundred participants whereas the overflow map has around 40 or 50 players. Thus the primary match has an hundred players fighting each other with few AI's and the players have to tear into each other under a different set of circumstances than the players in the other match. For those of us in the secondary match, we have fewer live opponents and can choose to go after easier AI targets if we want to. The primary match participants don't have that option.

    So, even though I'm a beneficiary of the secondary match options, I think it is unfair that the primary match participants do not have the same option that the secondary match participants have. I think it would be more fair to divide the players up evenly between matches so that the relative conditions are the same for everyone. If there are 150 participants, then there should be 75 in each World Map. if there are only 50 players, then they might have more fun in a crowded Pacific Map. But there needs to be balance.

    That's my two bits and I anticipate that this dilemma may not be addressable until next month's matches. But it should be addressed.
    It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

    The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

    R.I.P. Snickers <3
  • The imbalance is due to many players who signed up, but did not join the game. There is little that can be done to re-balance, short of starting 2 new maps, with 75 players each.
    A possible (partial) solution is to award a bonus factor of about 1.5 for the survivors on the full 100p map.

    In the long term, the issue of no-shows could be greatly mitigated with a minimum experience level, perhaps 10 games?
  • Diabolical wrote:

    I have a concern as to the fairness of this tournament.

    Because of the large amount of interest, the amount of players is more than a single hundred player map can accommodate. Thus, the overflow has gone to a second map. Herein lies the problem: The first map has an hundred participants whereas the overflow map has around 40 or 50 players. Thus the primary match has an hundred players fighting each other with few AI's and the players have to tear into each other under a different set of circumstances than the players in the other match. For those of us in the secondary match, we have fewer live opponents and can choose to go after easier AI targets if we want to. The primary match participants don't have that option.

    So, even though I'm a beneficiary of the secondary match options, I think it is unfair that the primary match participants do not have the same option that the secondary match participants have. I think it would be more fair to divide the players up evenly between matches so that the relative conditions are the same for everyone. If there are 150 participants, then there should be 75 in each World Map. if there are only 50 players, then they might have more fun in a crowded Pacific Map. But there needs to be balance.

    That's my two bits and I anticipate that this dilemma may not be addressable until next month's matches. But it should be addressed.
    You made a post that was a good argument, doesnt matter if I agree or not, but that made sense lo (defo no colorado now) l

    but yea, I see your point



    If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
    -Friedrich von Haye


  • Here's an idea...and it involves an automation!

    Instead of you assigning players to their respective matches, how about make it so that there is just one match to sign-in to, but have the players automatically assigned to alternating matches as they join in. In other words, the first player to sign in for the first time gets assigned match 1; the second player, match 2; the third player, match 1; the fourth player, match 2; the fifth player, match 1; and so on. And, the number of matches to be started will be determined based on the total amount of requests before the beginning of the season.

    So, if 350 people claim they want to participate, then the alternations would be between four different matches. And, if only 190 actually log in, then there will still be four matches: matches one and two would have 48 players each, matches three and four would have 47 players each. And that would be fair.
    It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

    The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

    R.I.P. Snickers <3

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

  • The idea presented by Diabolical is ok, but it could be better. Instead of determining where will players go by the order of signing up, which would easily lead to exploits, people should be randomly selected for one of the maps. Also if, for example 350 apply, it will be safe to assume that many of them will not join so no more than three world maps should be opened in order not to have maps with lot of AI. Anyway, my guess is that next month less people will join.
  • That would not be good, though, because 301 players might try to log in. Secondly, the point of the alternations is not in the pre-assignments, it is in the first-time logins. This would eliminate pre-assignments. Since you can't predict who will actually log in, it makes more sense to automatically assign players that are actually choosing to log in. That is fair. There would be no exploits except that if you join in earlier than others, you might get a bit of a bonus. But since there is an initial peace period of 2 and 3 days, the bonuses don't amount to any real significance.

    The automation is just to ensure that there are the same amount of players in each match. If it turns out that the automation doesn't work well, for some reason, then they can return to manually pre-assigning players. But a pre-assigned player won't necessarily ever log in on time. And there are rules for a reason ... including not logging in too late.
    It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

    The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

    R.I.P. Snickers <3