Next pl season suggestion

MarkAchkar wrote:

many players now playing the blue collar, that type of games should not have been advertised for in the player league forums ... we have few players and we cannot afford many leagues

Maximilianvs wrote:

Another thing, we should do some kind of publicity in the forum to find more player to join PL.

Other Idea I have is to create objetives. Example, objetive 1: Dominance of france and All america. objetive 2: dominance Spain, Italy And all Africa.

We create lot of objetives like these, and the first who do the objetive wins a lot of points (for example 300 ) The others, only win the vp that have in the game, divide in 3. Others objetives could be kill to determinate player/alliance.

I have a table game called T.E.G. (I recommend this game for you guys jeje) that use this system.

So how are these objectives different than the current achievements (aprt from a much bigger bonus)?

My thoughts on changes...

I will start by going back to something Roko said in a previous post, the biggest problem that caused us to start using coalition rules was our honor system on NAP's was broken. That was due to the players, not the game itself. I believe the honor of our current group of players is much higher then those that caused this rule to be put into place. So I offer this as a suggestion.

1) No more coalitions. (No RoW or Share Map with players as well as NPC's)

2) NAP can only be formed with a neighboring country. (This would help with the same players always teaming.)

3) Day 1 - 15, two NAP's max. Day 16 - End, one NAP max. (This helps with our current issue)

4) NAP's must be published in the World Herald. (So the NAP rules can be moderated properly.)

Discuss

Nimbrel wrote:

My thoughts on changes...

I will start by going back to something Roko said in a previous post, the biggest problem that caused us to start using coalition rules was our honor system on NAP's was broken. That was due to the players, not the game itself. I believe the honor of our current group of players is much higher then those that caused this rule to be put into place. So I offer this as a suggestion.

1) No more coalitions. (No RoW or Share Map with players as well as NPC's)

2) NAP can only be formed with a neighboring country. (This would help with the same players always teaming.)

3) Day 1 - 15, two NAP's max. Day 16 - End, one NAP max. (This helps with our current issue)

4) NAP's must be published in the World Herald. (So the NAP rules can be moderated properly.)

Discuss

2) No. Neighboring country can be ambiguous since players can often attack by sea.

3) No. Being able to successfully gain NAPs is often the only way to survive till the end of the game. Failure to gain a NAP can mean being seriously damaged or eliminated.

4) No.

1) OK

2) If #3 (limited # of NAP's) is in effect I am not sure limiting it to neighboring countries is necessary. If Caucasus and Northern US want to waste one of their two slots on each other, oh well let them.

3) OK

4) Yes, if #3 is in effect then #4 is needed to verify.

Nimbrel wrote:

I believe the honor of our current group of players is much higher then those that caused this rule to be put into place

WayneBo wrote:

Nimbrel wrote:

I believe the honor of our current group of players is much higher then those that caused this rule to be put into place

Entry into a PL game is not limited to the "current group of players" Unless you mean that no new players will be admitted, no system that relies on honor will be foolproof.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

So how are these objectives different than the current achievements (aprt from a much bigger bonus)?

Is totally different: In muy proposal, all player will have one objetive at the beginning. So, all are going to attack to that objetives (because the BIG PRIZE will be to the 1rst who complete the objetive) So, will be very difficult to do NAPS because nobody know which is the objetive of the other alliance, and in many times 2 alliances will have same interest in one country or region, because their objetives have something in common.

In the actual achievements system, you have extra point to complete them, but not are the principal objetive.

The only problem I see is who is going to raffle the objetives (must be a person who no participate in the game)

This is a nice, civil, fact based discussion I see happening here. Kudos to everyone participating, this is a testament about how each of you feel about the Player's League!

Sorry I haven't posted my ideas yet, this is a busy time of year for me. Anyways, from what I've read so far I think Mark has come closest to what I think of as the Player's League of the future. One that will attract new players and maybe even promote direct participation from some of the many alliances in the game.

To begin with, neither competition nor coalitions are the issue in this league. What is the issue is the mandate to compete for a score that is comprised of a full years worth of games. This yearly format rewards regular players, but punishes new players.. especially those who come into the league at a late stage of the current season. What I suggest is that the Player's League scrap this yearly format in favor of a monthly format that will instead reward a player's individuality and promote competition, even within one's own coalition. Each player's rank in the WH on the last day of the month is their score for that month.

Some of the key points for this system are:

-League is Monthly based

-There is an End of Month "reset" on relationships

-Goal is supremacy of ones own nation

-Coalition rules remain the same

-Your rank in WH at end of month is now most important

-There will be a leaderboard updated monthly based on a 3 month running average of your WH rank

-Stats will be kept on all competitors individually, updated monthly

Each point in detail:

Monthly Based- Keeping the league monthly based will encourage participation from new players who will like that every month brings a new chance to be #1. Regular players will enjoy the pure competition aspect the game brings in an environment that rewards individual effort. No more will league play be dictated by the need to play for a score at the end of the year. Competition is for you to be the best player in any given month. This will promote competition, even within ones own coalition. I also hope this will attract the attention of the game's alliances, and they will also come compete both individually and as teams. "Test your metal in the Crucible of the Player's League!".

Monthly Reset- This new format will not only encourage you to think independently, it will also make you think first what is "right" for your own nation's needs. At the end of the month, the conditions of the lats months map will no longer exist. Every month all relationships reset and what matters ONLY is how you do in the next month. All decisions you make have the benefit of being made on a clean slate.

Map Supremacy- Your nations rank in the WH at the end of the month is the most important stat kept in your personal "League Record". It is what is used in the running three month average to determine Leaderboard Rank. Since this one stat determines who is top dog in the league, you will play the game for the sake of your own interests as well as that of your coalitions. The temptation to make long term agreements with other coalitions or nations will be severely impacted. You will be far more reluctant to act in concert with another, especially if the greatest benefit isn't to your own nation. You won't want to help someone else as helping them get stronger makes you weaker.

Coalition rules- Remain in effect as is.

WH Rank- The most important, but not the only stat that should be kept. Perhaps others stats recognizing other aspects of league life could be formulated? Maybe like "Most Consecutive Games Played" or Most Consecutive Months in leaderboard Top Ten" among others. This one if for you guys to decide, but by acknowledging the efforts of many players in the league, not just the leaders, it will create enthusiasm and encourage participation.

Leaderboard- Three Month running average explained. For this example we have only three players and no coalitions, keeping it simple: Mark, Keya, and Roko play in the PL for three straight months. Mark is ranked #1 in month 1 and 2, and #2 in month 3, Keya is #2, #3, and #1, Roko is #3, #2, and #3. So after three months each has the following math to determine their place on the leaderboard:

#1 Ranked Player Mark- 1+1+2 = 4, then divide by 3 giving an average score of 1.333

#2 Ranked Player Keya- 2+3+1 = 6, then divide by 3 giving an average score of 2.000

#3 Ranked Player Roko- 3+2+3 = 8, then divide by 3 giving an average score of 2.666

***Lowest Average Score is best in this model***

Competitor Stats- Updated Monthly. Below is an example of what I think an entry MIGHT look like. Again, this up for everyone to decide keeping in mind that someone is going to have to manage it. Which means keep it kind of simple unless someone wants to dedicate many hours to maintaining it:

Using Mark again as an example, hope you don't mind buddy!

Mark Achar

Current PL Rank: #1 (1.333 score)

Highest Rank Ever Finished: #1

# of games played: ??

Highest Ranked Coalition: #1

Consecutive months in Top Ten Leaderboard: 37

# of times Alpine Achievement: 12

# of times Far East Achievement: 9

Plus anything else you may want to display....

OK... SOOOOO.... I have a lot more I want to say on this, I've given it great thought. But I figure this is a good start so here it is!

Some other random thoughts:

Achievements add no score but are instead honorifics that are measured in your own personal stats.

At the end of the year you could have league wide rewards such as "Player of the Year" and "Most Wins by two players in the same coalition"

Almost forgot, finish this year out if that hasn't already been decided. Start the new season/year of Players League with any changes decided on.

@ChaosWarlord very nicely laid out discussion. I generally like what I read, but my sense is going to an individual based scoring system will bring back some of the problems of the 2016 season that the coalition scoring system fixed. Those problems being:

• a race to point objectives, while ignoring other strategic considerations (example I built a navy this month that kept BSW from any substantial breakout from the Med, but a navy doesn't capture points)
• Trades and stabs for points late in the month.

Peter Mat wrote:

Those problems being:

a race to point objectives, while ignoring other strategic considerations (example I built a navy this month that kept BSW from any substantial breakout from the Med, but a navy doesn't capture points)

Trades and stabs for points late in the month.

Thanks. Lets see what others have to say before we get too deep into the details, but I think working in a fix for those problems might be rather easy actually. I want to see what others have to say before putting too much time into detailed adjustments so I don't repeat effort.

------

Another issue that I noticed after I posted is what Nimbrel explained about the breaking of NAPs and there needing to be consequences for it. My solution for that one is actually rather innovative in that it creates a wholly political level in the game that you can either elect to participate in or not. What I propose is setting up a new substructure within the league, called the "Federation of Nations". A nation can choose to either be a member or not. The whole purpose of the Federation is political, in that it requires each member to immediately attack any nation that violates a NAP, even if it is within your own coalition. The whole purpose is of course deterrence. Whatever points or advantage you might gain vs the cost of having the entire map (or most of it) hell bent on your destruction will not be easily dismissed. If a member of the Federation does not assist in attacking a violating nation they may be removed from the Federation. The primary benefit a nation gains by being a member is protection against NAP violations. Federation protection is available only to those in the Federation. Sort of "We're a group who play by the rules and if you violate the NAP rule against one of our members we'll all attack you" kind of protection/deterrence from NAP violations.

I would also STRONGLY encourage new players, either to the game or the PL to NOT JOIN the Federation. They may have trouble with the game's or leagues' mechanics as is without being expected to drop everything and attack a nation far across the map.

ChaosWarlord, I like you proposal, except for the competition into the same coalitions, does not convince me. Is a contradictory thing: people in a same coalition but "fighting" each other for vp. Nobody is going to help their coalitions partners if that happen (if you help your coalition budy, then maybe he will get your vp, so why help him?). In your model, what will work out, is to do all you said, but WITHOUT COALITIONS. 100 % individual game. Coalitions don't have sense, the coalitions partners are ENEMYS in this model.

Thanks Max for your response!

Actually, if you consider the world upon which this game is based upon, late 1930's where many nations were still trying to recover from the first World War, the competition within a coalition makes perfect sense. Even when measured in modern terms, even within an organization such as NATO, competition still makes perfect sense. How far you take the competition within your own coalition is up to you. Personally, I plan on playing towards the GREATEST cooperation within a coalition.

This is entirely personal, and maybe even gives an advantage to those I will play against. However, I think a coalition that works hard and plays smart.. and MOST IMPORTANTLY works together in close cooperation, will have the greatest success in this new environment. The reasoning is simple, and relates directly back to how society was back in the late 1930's. Yes I want you my friend to succeed, because if you succeed I will have a strong partner in order to do more things with. BUT.. I must ENSURE my nation is the most powerful as that is the only way to guarantee our success.

Just how far you go towards treating your enemies, coalition mates, and anyone else you meet in our leagues games is entirely up to you. You can either be a total prick towards one and all, or you can be the one everyone counts on.. and anywhere else in between you would like to play your game at, the choice is up to you really what kind of personality you bring to the league.. or just which personality you want the league to see in any given month.

I may play one month as the nation that looks out for the well being of his neighbors and allies. I may decide, with some role-play thrown in there to fit the role, that I want to play the megalomaniac dictator bent on world domination. What's important is that each and every month we can play how we want to with a clean slate.

Oh BTW.. I would be very VERY careful though about playing the bad guy or the guy who back stabs others regularly. My hopes is that the community this league will create by being inclusive, fun, and includes a regular monthly reset where anyone can be anything and play anyway they want, all with an equal chance at being #1 this month. That community will have a rich social life, where everyone talks about everyone and who NOT to trust going into any months game. So if you play like a prick don't be surprised that you get the reputation of being a prick. You will get left out of the top coalitions and you will likely be targeted first to be "rid of that problem".

Like I said, I've given this GREAT thought.. and I will tell all of you the over-riding goal I set for myself when I came up with this idea was to make it FUN, ENGAGING, and FAIR. Most importantly.. KEEP IT RELEVANT for everyone, every month. Now THAT'S a league I want to compete in!

Again, don't like your idea. Is my personal opinion.

Chaos, what value would someone get for the 3 month average if they didn't play in a given month?

First off, Happy Thanksgiving to all of you!

Ok, so initially I thought this would be a really simple one to answer. Then I started writing and putting together how this would impact a player and the league. Just so we're on the same page, let me first add that I will be impacted by this issue during the year. The life I live simply can not sustain the kind of continuous effort I put into any given map on a year round basis. At various points in the year I will be just too busy with my business in order to accommodate my play style.

Having said that, I think if someone does miss a month their position on the Leader Board should be impacted. To what extent though should be up for discussion within the group, as I don't feel this is a choice I alone should make. To maintain the competitiveness of the League (and therefore mitigate the impact any single player's absence will have) I would argue that any player who misses a month should receive the lowest score in that months game as a PLACEHOLDER. Meaning it will preserve that player's previous efforts by not removing them completely until they've once again completed three consecutive months of play and can be once again ranked normally. However, if a second consecutive month is missed then perhaps that player should be temporarily removed from the Leader Board altogether so that the Leader Board remains active and vibrant with competition (or, alternatively, that player could once again receive the lowest score). Any player that misses either 2 or 3 consecutive games (group decision, not mine) should be removed from Leader Board in order to PROTECT the league. We want a vibrant, active community in our league.. having someone on the Leader Board who played for 3 months and then never came back is fruitless and will cause stagnation in the standings.

For example: I come in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place within a 3 month span and am currently ranked in second place on the Leader Board. The next month I get busy and can't play, but there are 12 other players that month. My rank at the end of that month should be 13, one below the last place active players score. So my last three scores would be 2nd, 3rd, and 13th.. dropping me rather precipitously in the rankings. Then I play three consecutive months and my score is (hopefully) once again raised into the top ten.

My thinking is that everyone should be given the chance to miss a month due to work, vacation, or just life in general without having to be completely de-listed from the Leader Board. The game wont' stop and therefore the competition MUST go on. I believe this to be the fairest compromise between mitigating the damage to your rank from missing a month and the need to maintain an active league.

This way if you and your wife just had a baby you can take the time off without losing everything. I wouldn't want to be the one to say to my wife "Honey, you have to change the diaper and prepare the bottle because I'm busy leading an assault on the UK right now". We're human first, and REAL LIFE must ALWAYS COME FIRST!!!

"To begin with, neither competition nor coalitions are the issue in this league. What is the issue is the mandate to compete for a score that is comprised of a full years worth of games. This yearly format rewards regular players, but punishes new players.. especially those who come into the league at a late stage of the current season. What I suggest is that the Player's League scrap this yearly format in favor of a monthly format that will instead reward a player's individuality and promote competition, even within one's own coalition. Each player's rank in the WH on the last day of the month is their score for that month." Tuesday, 7:41am ChaosWarlord

Haven't you just scrapped a 6 month format that you argued against, and replaced it with a rolling 3 month format? Not that I am against a rolling 3. IMO if going that way, if a player is inactive for a month they get 0 and that is computed into their most recent 3 month average, Then if they were inactive for 3 months they would simply be delisted, by never showing players at a 0 three month average. Of course that would also mean players who routinely got wiped off the map would never get listed as their 3 month average would be 0, even though they were active.

I'm still mainly listening... but as a suggestion... why not use a "top tennis ranking" system? In short, this is a sum of your achievements, which become less relevant as time progresses. So for example, score earned last month is worth 100%, previous month 75%, month before that 60%, etc. It is as if previous results gradually fade over time. The total of it gives a "current best player" list where recent results are simply weighted heavier than older ones.