Players League - Sign up for September

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

    • Casimir le Loup wrote:

      Does the game end when a single player AND/OR coalition reaches 654 VP points?
      No

      Casimir le Loup wrote:

      For the record I want to add something here, Finland broke a NAP with Sweden
      This is not known to me. Nobody reported it.

      Casimir le Loup wrote:

      With victory achieved, and guaranteed under the peace Morocco and I offered, I also want to note that the decision by these two to continue the war and take in a backstabber like Finland does nothing to promote the interests of a fun and player filled league
      You mean, it does nothing to allow you take the third place?

      Casimir le Loup wrote:

      When you admit defeat, offer congratulations, and guarantee through pacts that you do not usurp the position of the victor the rest of the map you would think a moderator at that, would happily take the offer and allow the other players to compete with each other for a chance at actually achieving something.
      This one is good. When you decline cooperation offer (which had its conditions, of course), decline extending NAP with words "What on earth would I get from another 7 days?", launch surprise attack next day with your ally (on last newspaper report, you and him had total of 31% army, while we had 20%), organize all our neighbours (even my coalition member to attack me) and get beaten in less than 6 hours, do you believe you are entitled to be spared? You took the risks, you lost. Now you, for two straight days, keep spamming my diplomacy tab, this forum, newspapers, with your boring cries fro mercy. What is the problem? Winning the war is not sportsmanship? In that case I have no sportsmanship at all. You think congradulating is the reason to be spared? This is a strategy game, it's about the war. You declared war and got sick of it before it even got real. I didn't spare people who deserved it more by their skills and will to fight for it, I will not do it for you.

      Casimir le Loup wrote:

      I for one can understand that eliminating me from any chance at 3rd robs me of points in a race where I am tied with Paramunac and a sliver ahead of Red Barron but it still doesn't change the bad taste it leaves to be tag teamed by both of them when I already capitulated victory to both. Only reinforces what other players feel about them.

      Anyway, maybe it would be novice idea to not allow moderators with the power to issue cards and influence games to ALSO compete in the league for Fame!
      Yea, yea, I understand. We won, therefore, we are the devils. We should have allowed you and those like you to take our lands without fighting, because that would in the spirit of the league? Also, please don't confuse my role as league moderator and player. Those are different roles. As moderator, I have no objections to you, except perhaps the lack of respect for fellow players (asking for other players to be "booted" or "punished"), but as a player, my opinion of you got very low recently. As for the last paragraph, I took the responsibility to moderate PL games games because since this season, that job got harder for people who did it and more manpower was welcome.
    • You don't get it. You might be immune to the greater message I am trying to convey here. Maybe my words are wrong and you feel attacked. I don't know. I am not asking you for mercy. I am encouraging you to be mindful of your decisions to prosecute a war that given the exact context of our game has negative implications in continuing. What are you going to get more from attacking Morocco than you would get by signing the peace he is willing to sign? What we all lose are people willing to play this game. No one likes having their faces pushed in the dirt when they have already acknowledge your victory.

      I want to be precise here because other moderators and players read this and you presented a selective narrative. I am not a total idiot, I may not be an expert at the game, but I can see when the race for 1st place is over. What you fail to mention above is that your condition for cooperation was that even though I had 20 more VPs, a larger army, and you had potential enemies on all sides that if I joined you I would have to agree to be no higher than 3rd. With our NAP ending you offered to extend it a week. Now it turns out that the countries of Canada, UK, Morocco, Finland, and I who contemplated taking you on ended up when the guns fired only being Morocco and I. After a few hours I saw you were a good player and based on your alliance with Caucasus (who has the game entirely won with over 300 VPs and more oil than he could ever know what to do with) that fighting the 2 of us against the 2 of you was a waste of time. So we offered you peace. I withdrew voluntarily from all of Italy, Greece, the Balkans, and Spain while accepting the premise that we would do nothing to try to usurp your number 2 spot. All we asked is that we be able to compete among ourselves (the remaining players) for a chance at 3rd. You responded a day later no and both continue to attack. With nothing to gain whatsoever from a war that from a math standpoint we can do nothing to stop you and you could have the EXACT same result in the game by just making peace with us not doing so is just in bad taste. You are not a devil because you are winning, you are just being..I don't know the right word to use..perhaps a jerk?

      Now you wish to talk about respect and the rule of respecting players but you somehow find saying a simple thank you unnecessary. It is rude frankly. I have read how you treat others on this forum and it is often condescending, short, and when you feel attacked you divert to straw man arguments or carefully spiced narratives that just happen to omit the parts that make your point less valid. Like you do here.

      This is not real life. This is supposed to be fun. Now you can of course continue to fight and eliminate us from the game. It is your right. However when we simply ask to be allowed to fight for the scraps remaining while kneeling to your victorious position you choose to stomp on us again it does not show any respect in the spirit of the league.
      If this league wants players to stay in games it needs to keep an eye for the fun aspect of the game for players who are not as Darwinian in their approach as you may be. While you are padding your stats or just being all that you can be you may have not noticed that 4 players gave up on the game recently. Two more, myself included, are just resigned to making pointless maneuvers defending until the game ends.

      Let me finish with this, if you think your opinion of me is low lately I would cringe to see what you would think of what other players write about you and your play style. Regardless I took about an hour of my life out to write this because I wanted to call you out on being kind of a dick. I say this with all respect of course.
    • Casimir le Loup wrote:

      This is not real life.
      You should take this your words seriously then and stop spamming me for two straight days and begging for mercy. Get over it.

      Casimir le Loup wrote:

      However when we simply ask to be allowed to fight for the scraps remaining while kneeling to your victorious position you choose to stomp on us
      If someone outside of game had any insight on the map, they would call you crazy for this. What stomping? I am not even close to your core, and you had some of my core provinces in your domain until yesterday. Am I disrespecting you by taking back what you took when you invaded? Don't be so limited.



      You are trying to deliver a greater message? Longer perhaps, but nothing great in it except stupidity, but you shouldn't be proud of that, I think. Situation is pretty clear here. You attacked, you had more casualties, you asked for peace, I didn't accept. That is my role in this. After that, it was you who started this drama, newspaper articles, forum posts, you insulted me at least 4 or 5 times. It is you who continues to develop it, you who publish it here. Perhaps you are practising for some writing contest. A lot of famous books and articles are based on lies, anyway. If you are not trying to express your fiction writing talents, then why? What do you want? Don't tell me that you care about the league or other players. You care only for yourself and try to represent yourself like some kind of justice warrior while in fact you just lost and couldn't take it. How far will you go with this?

      ps. I am not moderator of this forum, but since you already repeated your insults from our private conversation here, I believe that some forum moderator will take action once they get to read your posts.
    • There are no specific rules about how to employ a NAP or what construct/premise you build it on.

      In fact, you're allowed to NAP everyone if that's your playstyle, however I bet you won't win that way. You're also allowed to make certain kinds of deals with your NAP partner, except of course right of way/share maps etc.

      About unit sightings etc. :
      they do not pertain to NAPs. NAP = non aggression policy / no attack policy - so that's what it means and has nothing to do with how far a unit can see. If it's a standard NAP with no specifications you're allowed to scout your NAP partner in any way you like, however, know that it might be treated as a violation of the NAP if you fly over their lands or similar. SO, do it with care / discreetly if you must. A violation will only be in situations where you are attacked prematurely whether it's by mistake or intentionally doesn't really matter.
      Sincerely, wildL
      EN Mod
      Report a problem

    • Maximilianvs wrote:

      Hey everybody.
      I want to discuss NAP rules. Players league is good because there are much active player, which is very difficult to find in other games. Thats is ok. The problem is with the NAP rule. The spirit of the rules seem to be well intentioned but in the game it is different. In the middle of the games there are cases where 2 coalitions fights vs 1 coalition, and situation where fights are not equal. In other cases, one coalition has additional help of out alliance players, because they are friends or they know each other of other previous games. Coalition are not supposed to help each other. Which is fine if you knew the other coalitions were not helping each other. But you don't know; and it seems like they were.
      Maybe the rule should be no NAP for no one for no reason. Might generate a little less trust and help between coalitions since there is not supposed to be any.
      We can't stop two groups of people talking to each other on the internet. And that is what two coalition are. Current rules state that you are not allowed to give right of way or shared map outside of the coalition. That prevents using other people's land to launch surprise attacks. But it is not possible to forbid communication. We could try to do it. We could punish someone if we see the proof of cooperation. Even if that don't kill the game (by decreasing diplomatic possibitilies) it would just make people use other forms of communication (Discord, Skype...).

      To prevent that, we must observe coalitions behaviour. For example, if we see two coalitions attack third coalition at the same time, that is probably unwanted cooperation. Makes sense. But what if coalition A attacks coalition B and coalition C steps in to take coalition B while it is involved too much in war with coaltition A? Can coalition B say that they used illegal cooparation? It can, but in this case it would be wrong. With this examples I wanted to point out that controlling cooperation between coalitions could be impossible if we had a rule which would forbid that kind of cooperation.

      In current state, both coalitions are aware that only first three position bring additional league points, so if they start cooperation with other coalitions, they must know that it can't be to the end. I think this is our current best way to defend against multiple coalitions working together. The idea of no NAPs is interesting. Currently, we have NAP-s and there is arguing about how severe should be their breaking be punished. Depending on the context of breaking and benefits gained from it, punishment was ranging from warning to yellow card which could lead to reducing league points if similar activity gets repeated. However, existence of NAP-s was discussed earlier, if I remember. I took break from PL from April until July. In that time period, I believe, many rules were discussed and voted. Rules since July are much different than rules from March, when I played last time before this season.

      For the next season, rules will probably be updated severely, based on experiences we gather in this season. If you pay close attention, you can see that every month we change something small, and a lot of bigger things are planned for next season, since many ways of abusing current rules are visible. We are trying to adjust the rules as good as possible. List of suggested changes will probably be revealed on this forum for players to get involved into discussion, but more about that later in this season. Your suggestion seem like a good topic to be discussed.
    • About what is going on in Paramunac's game

      @Casimir le Loup I can't see how you can blame the victorious party for securing the win over their opponent; even if the opponents are defeated and have sued for peace. It's up to the victor if they wish to allow suing for peace. Why should the victor allow for smaller nations to pick up the scraps and possibly become powerful enough to challenge the victor?

      With the added insinuation that Casimir has a chance at third place I see even more reason for the victor to crush him.
      Sincerely, wildL
      EN Mod
      Report a problem

    • Casimir le Loup wrote:

      Does the game end when a single player AND/OR coalition reaches 654 VP points?
      I thought I saw that when a coalition gets 60% the administrators call it a game.
      Clarification would be great, thanks.

      Perhaps our moderator, Paramunac, despite both Morocco and I already congratulating him on a well deserved 2nd place can take a break from needlessly taking the rest of our lands to answer the question.

      For the record I want to add something here, Finland broke a NAP with Sweden and joined the winning alliance of Paramunac and Red Barron. Given those 2 have a stranglehold on the game it is in bad taste to keep such a player protected under the umbrella of their alliance. With victory achieved, and guaranteed under the peace Morocco and I offered, I also want to note that the decision by these two to continue the war and take in a backstabber like Finland does nothing to promote the interests of a fun and player filled league. When you admit defeat, offer congratulations, and guarantee through pacts that you do not usurp the position of the victor the rest of the map you would think a moderator at that, would happily take the offer and allow the other players to compete with each other for a chance at actually achieving something. I have received messages from several players complaining that these two show no sportsmanship even in absolute victory.

      I for one can understand that eliminating me from any chance at 3rd robs me of points in a race where I am tied with Paramunac and a sliver ahead of Red Barron but it still doesn't change the bad taste it leaves to be tag teamed by both of them when I already capitulated victory to both. Only reinforces what other players feel about them.

      Anyway, maybe it would be novice idea to not allow moderators with the power to issue cards and influence games to ALSO compete in the league for Fame!
      The coalition win was a special rule for the 100 player MAP. Not needed on a 22 player map. I promise I am attempting to end this game as quickly and painlessly as possible by reaching the 654 point level. Unfortunately the remaining players still have some fight in them which has slowed my progress to that goal. But working on it.

      As far as the rest of the post. That's part of the game. I know very well how difficult it is, since last round I had 7 against 1 at the end. I fought to the bitter end, but it was hopeless. So I empathize, however, I understood why they did it. I don't hold it against them. If the roles were reversed I would have taken me out too. In this game the roles are reversed, except instead of 7 against 1 it is basically 2 against 2 and the most it ever was....2 against 1. You shouldn't complain about that.
    • This message is for all but addressed directly to Paramunac. It will be short and simple.

      I attempted to be engaging in a conversation and debate about the state of the game and our roles in it. I just happened to have that conversation with someone whose personality is off putting.

      Paramunac, your replies are cold, condescending, and filled with all the charm of a drill instructor. God forbid a joke comes your way. Now if you think me telling you this is insulting, just imagine how the people you answer and reply to must feel!? Pointing out that you are acting or sounding like this is not insulting. Perhaps you were not aware of how you come off. You show zero respect for others, talk down to them, but if you get called out you are insulted and need the forum moderators to stroke your ego. Frankly, I think for the last few days I have just maintained this conversation because the tone of your answers piss me off. I offered you peace, you say no. Fine I lose oh well. Your tone though irritates me.

      What I really feel and think I cannot put in public. I don't respect you as a moderator, I certainly do not as a player, and as a person on the other side of a computer I can only say that your online persona presented here sucks.

      Please do not contact me or mention me again.
    • @Casimir le Loup

      So you don't want those that created the PL and keep it going allowed to play in it? Then you really think we would run it? Two of us are Bytro Admins and we control and manage the games, we don't manage our own games (except the creation). And by manage I mean, check for rule breaks, force end game at day 30 etc., since we are not allowed to do so in our own games. We don't abuse our powers if that's what you're afraid of. But I for one would not continue to moderate/manage this PL if I was not allowed to play in it. I see my self as a player first, then Bytro staff. Some might find that odd, but that's the way it is.

      Btw we could use one more mod to help us with the PL. Preferably a Bytro Admin.

      @Paramunac and @Casimir le Loup Please settle your differences on the battlefield :D
      Sincerely, wildL
      EN Mod
      Report a problem

    • Casimir le Loup wrote:

      I withdrew voluntarily from all of Italy, Greece, the Balkans, and Spain while accepting the premise that we would do nothing to try to usurp your number 2 spot. All we asked is that we be able to compete among ourselves (the remaining players) for a chance at 3rd.

      Has it not occurred to you that by trying to deny you a 3rd. place finish at or near 2nd. place, that @Paramunac is only ensuring that he remains 2nd. place. If one of you remaining players finishes off the others, then you may yet be in a position to climb to 2nd. place before the end of the match. Furthermore, it may be that your overall score for the season is seen as a threat to @Paramunac and by eliminating you even for 3rd. place could ensure his higher overall standing by the end of the season.

      Perhaps there are other reasons as well. But please stop whining. We all have our axe to grind, but without a greater purpose, it must be limited. I too have had my own dealings with other players and even felt it necessary to mention them here. But I never accused anyone of anything serious or in bad taste. Sure, my opponents ganged up on me in a couple different matches. It leaves you chagrined, but don't go around trying to hurt others here.

      Casimir le Loup wrote:

      I took about an hour of my life out to write this because I wanted to call you out on being kind of a dick. I say this with all respect of course.

      I too take time to write lengthy and eloquent arguments in the forums...I'm kinda known for it. You seemed to have a cogent point that was reasonably supported in theory (though still whiny). But you need to avoid the personal insults. It is bad form and weakens your argument when you finish with an insult. Furthermore, to add "with all respect" only magnifies your error because it draws attention to your cold sarcasm. It is akin to "fighting words".

      Hopefully, you will learn from this and improve your interactions in your writings. Clearly, you have good writing skills. Please don't soil them with poor behavior.
      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
    • wildL SPQR wrote:

      Btw we could use one more mod to help us with the PL. Preferably a Bytro Admin.
      I think I would like to volunteer to moderate the league in the next round. I need to step up and start getting involved more. Certainly, Bytro via CoW has given me much enjoyment over the past year, surely I can contribute something back.
      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
    • Thank you for your responses.
      Why should I show respect to someone who has shown to be disrespectful?

      Person A acts like a pompous, condescending, and rude individual.
      Person B calls them out on being such.

      Cause and effect.

      I have been called stupid, a spammer, a whiner, liar, and so forth by a moderator. If my behavior are any of these then so be it and the person calling me this is in his fair right. Likewise if it looks like a turd, acts like a turd, and smells like a turd it is not insulting to call it a turd.

      As for moderators and playing. I am surely not the only one who thinks it odd that someone with the power to issue cards and determine honor breaking penalties can at the same time compete as aggressively for top honors in the same league he is policing! No conflict of interest there?

      Good luck to all next round
    • If I'm not mistaken, I believe any staff that plays in the match does not get awarded the prizes but at the same time, I happen to like the challenge of having more than a few real players on here. To date, I have yet to win a PL match. I hope to eventually, but I'd rather lose to real players than beat out a bunch of half-abandoned noobs.

      And cause and effect is irrelevant. If you want to be treated with respect, try showing it to others even if it isn't always shown to you. You will win more points that way, and -- frankly -- you will earn quiet respect from others who aren't participating in the argument directly.
      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
    • Diabolical wrote:

      If you want to be treated with respect, try showing it to others even if it isn't always shown to you. You will win more points that way, and -- frankly -- you will earn quiet respect from others who aren't participating in the argument directly.
      got to agree with diabolic this time
      disrespectful behavior creates disrespect
      respectful behavior creates respect
      when you respect others others will respect you
    • wildL SPQR wrote:

      Paramunac wrote:

      That prevents using other people's land to launch surprise attacks.
      Except in those situations where one coalition gives away a beachhead to the other coalition in order for them to land safely. That happened in my game recently. A cowardly act by those coalitions and should be frowned upon.
      A cowardly act ? No I have to disagree with that . It was a tactic designed to try and relieve pressure on myself by refocusing my enemies attention elsewhere . I only gave the province AFTER careful consideration for 2 days and after seeing provinces given to defeated players to help lower moral (mine included) lol

      I saw coalition members from all sides swap provinces by declaring war then taking the province before making peace . How I did it was no attempt to be deceitful or cowardly . I refused to enter in the masquerade of pretend war for territory donations like some on our map .
      "Warning may contain a nut"
    • NICKYD wrote:

      wildL SPQR wrote:

      Paramunac wrote:

      That prevents using other people's land to launch surprise attacks.
      Except in those situations where one coalition gives away a beachhead to the other coalition in order for them to land safely. That happened in my game recently. A cowardly act by those coalitions and should be frowned upon.
      A cowardly act ? No I have to disagree with that . It was a tactic designed to try and relieve pressure on myself by refocusing my enemies attention elsewhere . I only gave the province AFTER careful consideration for 2 days and after seeing provinces given to defeated players to help lower moral (mine included) lol
      I saw coalition members from all sides swap provinces by declaring war then taking the province before making peace . How I did it was no attempt to be deceitful or cowardly . I refused to enter in the masquerade of pretend war for territory donations like some on our map .
      Hehe, well I aint saying that the other territory swaps were honest, but they didn't exactly allow anyone to pass massive loads of troops into the heartland. But I can understand why you did it.. no worries
      Sincerely, wildL
      EN Mod
      Report a problem