PL rules - effective season 2018-1

One thing: I think is not equal changing the maps every month, we should play all the season with one only map, because, for example, this map gives much vp than the january map, so: this month winners will have muuuuuuuuuch more vp than january winners. That is nor fair at all. I am not saying this because this month I lose, is a reasonable matter, isn't it?

Maximilianvs wrote:

One thing: I think is not equal changing the maps every month, we should play all the season with one only map

So if we had say 40 sign up we should set up two 22 player maps?

Sadly only 21 started.

OMG....I'm away a few months and THIS is what the Players League degenerates into???

K.Rokossovski wrote:

2) A coalition can have a maximum of three members. Players can create, join, leave, and disband a coalition at any moment they wish. There should be no loss of honor doing so; in fact coalitions should only be considered to be a tool for enforcing rule number (4) below.

In a team-based game, one does not simply switch sides when the chips are down. If you are playing Baseball, do you suddenly start hitting for the other guys? When in the Olympics, is it just fine to count your USA Gold Medal as one belonging to, say, Canada, for instance???

This is not a rule that should have been changed. Now, there's no loyalty. Now there's no consequences for making a bad decision when it comes to choosing one's coalition partners.

Now, there's nothing stopping the no-NAP rule from being violated constantly via switching partners back and forth between multiple coalitions so that one can artificially have unlimited allies.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

3) At the end of the round, every player earns an amount of points equal to the victory points on the last day change of the round.

But the new PL rules are killing the essence of teams. Sure, you can go it alone and supposedly get a 10% bonus for doing so, but now that's probably out the window, also. Oye!

kmacbobo wrote:

I love the fact that you will not be stuck with the inactive player...that was the worst..like a punishment for choosing people we were unfamiliar with

It's about good sportsmanship. But, now that you can just switch, willy-nilly, sportsmanship has gone out the window, anyway. In some attempt to remove the "problem" of having a player leave prematurely, you guys threw out the baby with the bathwater.

And with that, the PL is no longer special. it's matches have now devolved into ordinary Call of War matches. Why even bother with a password? Want more gold? Why...just stab your neighbor in the back! Heck, that's now even called "honorable" by some posts in this thread.

Pray tell me this: will these rules changes stick for the rest of the season or is there any hope that you guys learned from the folly of your ways over the past couple months and so, for the rest of the season, we can go back to the more-thought-out rules of the past where the PL had the great distinction of being a club of active players that had a good reason to play honorably and with good sportsmanship and team spirit?

this makes the game more interesting. I guess you need a "safe PLace"

This is WAR, not baseball or the Olympics.

Diabolical, if you couldn't be bothered to take part in the discussion when it took place, there's little point in having a bit of a rant now. I have always been in favor of team play, but there were serious issues about continuing that style of play. There was a poll about it, and people expressed their desire to return to individual scoring (as the PL has been in the past as well; so "no longer special" is a bit of bs really).

You remind me of one of those many people who is always complaining about politics and politicians, but can't be bothered to go to the polling station on election day.

Peter Mat wrote:

Maximilianvs wrote:

One thing: I think is not equal changing the maps every month, we should play all the season with one only map

So if we had say 40 sign up we should set up two 22 player maps?

if you divide them it shoould be random choice who is on each map, if you divde them by the how often they have participated and how well they did, some will accuse the judge of favortisim, and you will deny the new players the chance to play with the best. those on the b team will be unable to learn from the A team. just beause they are new doesnt mean that they are not quality players

another problem with two maps is some players sign up but dont make it to the start line

if you make a second map because you have 30 players but only 25 start then you will have one map with too few players

I don't see the point of running more than one map until we get more than 100 players)))

As for the point difference, yeah you guys have a point. Still as others have said, it is also harder to earn points because there are more players (yeah yeah I know the current one is under-populated).

Can t change the rules when the race has started though... but how about, the 22p maps give 50% more points for the remainder of the season?

that sounds like an excellent idea

K.Rokossovski wrote:

As for the point difference, yeah you guys have a point. Still as others have said, it is also harder to earn points because there are more players (yeah yeah I know the current one is under-populated).

Can t change the rules when the race has started though... but how about, the 22p maps give 50% more points for the remainder of the season?

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Diabolical, if you couldn't be bothered to take part in the discussion when it took place, there's little point in having a bit of a rant now. I have always been in favor of team play, but there were serious issues about continuing that style of play. There was a poll about it, and people expressed their desire to return to individual scoring (as the PL has been in the past as well; so "no longer special" is a bit of bs really).

You remind me of one of those many people who is always complaining about politics and politicians, but can't be bothered to go to the polling station on election day.

OK, so I missed the debate when it occurred. But after testing the waters again, and making the suggestion —— that was me! —— that we use a map -- any map -- other than the wretched and played-to-death "Clash of Nations" map, I did not notice that I missed a debate about a serious rules change. As to the shared points vs. individual points being a non-special rule, I actually didn't make that my main focus as it is less relevant to me than the frickin' wife-swapping coalition rules change.

You see, there were different rules before. Soon after I joined the PL, we started having many debates over trying to refine how this game's rules affect play. Eventually, we (and I think you were a part of this) made the equal distribution of points into a workable and well-conceived idea. But while it's a good side rule, it's not an absolute necessity. However, soon after coalitions became a feature of the game, we in the PL realized that switching coalitions was a problem and so we made it a policy that switching coalitions shouldn't be allowed and so it was banned in the PL. So, with coalitions locked in, and a bonus multiplier for bravely not actively joining one, no longer would back-stabbing by allies be possible. Also, no longer was there any debate on how much down time during a switch would be necessary.

Also, since NAP's were almost never enforced by the "official" staff of the PL, having locked-in coalition choices meant one actually could play as a team member without fear of getting betrayed. Sure, a bunch of new PL players might have "voted" to remove the locked status of coalitions, but that's only because those inexperienced players did not have the foresight to see how removing one of the best rules of the PL would decimate the PL.

~O~

As an example, most of the newer players in the PL are like the millennials of real life, here in America. Whereas every generation had a political ebb and flow to social life, and whereas rules were pulled one way and the other yet never broken too far (with very few exceptions), when the millennials started reaching voting age, their overly-sheltered mentality made them get politically active in the form of unruly behavior and nonsensical political positions which are tearing our society apart...dividing us in ways not seen even in the worst days of the hippie movement only two generations ago.

Because of the weird mentality* of the millennials in not accepting the individual expressions of others as having any importance when compared against their own self-aggrandized egos, their pathos towards "safe spaces" is oxymoronically enforcing their unruly and unsafe behavior in the form of constant public protests. Thus it is with the newer PL players. Because of their lack of experience, they think that anything-goes gaming is fine because they haven't learnt how to weigh social justice vs. individual rights in a practical manner.

And, because the newer PL members assume that everyone is like them, they think that there is no need for protection from anything-goes play-style because they want to behave badly. If one supports the right to be unruly in a mob-rally, it is usually because they plan to be unruly in a mob-rally. But if one supports the notion that civility must govern a rally, then they are likely only going to attend a rally in a civil manner. In other words, one's actions will usually reflect their opinions. And the newer PL players that voted to make coalitions willy-nilly therefore planned to violate that rule anyway and so -- by removing the rule -- freed themselves to behave badly without consequence.

But the PL was designed to be a collection of civil matches between like-minded strategists who wanted to have a club of players who refused gold, did not abandon matches, and would have good sportsmanship and civility between it's members. Perhaps the problem with the newer PL members is that they never were vetted. It used to be that only experienced and dedicated players to CoW were invited to be a part of the PL.

~O~

Let's use this analogy. We were a gentlemen's club, in a sense, in that we had rules that were refined and worked well and tradition was a mainstay in how we were civil with each other. But then a bunch of upstart radical feminists convinced some hack judge in a liberal district court to forcibly remove our policy of "no girls allowed" even though we are a private entity and as men, should have the constitutional right to peaceably assemble in a manner of our choosing. We would never willfully invade a woman's club, so why should any woman want to forcibly invade our men's club?

OK, that analogy seems a little funny, but that kind of stuff has actually been happening in America for years now. And it fits perfectly in this case. The Players League is a club...not of a bunch of angry old white men, but of strategists who've already created the best set of rules through trial and error. Those of us who've been a part of this for a long time know that going back to the ways of our barbarian ancestors who first climbed out of the muck to create paved roads for a Romanized civility would be a step in the wrong direction.

Our "ancestors" left the muck because the muck was not good. They conceived of a paved road with stones because it left them clean and dry. Our ancestors paid their dues so that we, their descendents, would never have to trudge through the muck again. But a new generation of people have arisen and they were taught by liberal thinkers that mud is a wonderful thing and that we all should be forced to go back to the muck because it is so much nicer than being "clean".

~O~

The newer PL members want to return us to the muck of lesser-refined rules and I'm taking a stand against it. The fact that I missed the argument is like the noble Crusaders of old. Those heroes who, upon finally returning to their beloved homeland after a great quest to remove pagan infidels from their holy city, returned to find that their society fell apart in their absence. Worst still, some knave who remained behind to act as the Sheriff of Rottingham deigned to claim that the noble Crusaders that were away missed out on the discussion even though their mission was of greater importance.

Those Crusaders could never dream that the few people they left in charge would so-swiftly degenerate into chaos and let "anything-goes" mentality return to their poor serfs' ways of life. And so it is up to the returning nobility, like myself, to set the standard and stand up in the great halls of the castle and speak against the swine who tried to take over our kingdom and allowed it to degenerate in our absence. And so, upon returning to the PL, I spoke out against the folly of going back to the old ways for which we have worked so hard to eliminate in our growing pains as the Players League.

Hm, I guess that means that I'm Robin of the Hood and Roko has become the dreaded Sheriff of Rottingham .... what???? OK. Where is @Ay Blinkin to cross-reference this for me?

*Well, even before they could vote, millennials started causing trouble in society, like their hippie grandparents but far far worse, since their misplaced belief in freedom from offensiveness outweighed the fact of individual responsibility...something -- a concept -- for which most millennials never learned, that bad stuff happens, so deal with it on a personal level, not by whining in the public square. And ain't that just like the modern liberal movement, anyway?...to remove God from the public square and remove anything else that might offend a person's unjustified belief in their right to superiority of self and inferiority of anyone that disagrees with them...so much so that they want to criminalize dissent from their wayward and senseless point of view.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

I don't see the point of running more than one map until we get more than 100 players)))

This is why I proposed mixing it up a little. With the bigger maps, there's room for more players and, by luck of the draw, if you are surrounded by a bunch of NPC's then you might get a chance at outpacing some other players who are surrounded by human players.

Those that complain about that possibility better realize that the same would happen if only 12 people logged into a 22 player map. So having the extra room is good since we don't want to have a 22 player map when there's the possibility of, for example, 27 players wanting to join.

Of course, in the past, this was dealt with by having more than one 22 player match at the same time, but there aren't enough volunteer staff to manage that. So the bigger maps are going to have to do for now.

Besides, isn't anyone else like me in that they are tired of playing the same map over and over and over again with the same people and the same strategies over and over again? At least by changing up the maps, we can keep the game going in a more exciting manner.

But if we keep to the old maps while removing the life-blood rules of civility (i.e., locked in coalitions), then I, like many others, will just get bored and leave. Then there won't be a Players League anymore.

Is that what you people want? If not, then we need to continue keeping larger maps and we need to restore the better rules that governed the PL for the majority of its existence.

things even out over the league, it's 6 rounds, so don't judge the entire league on one map.

It's worked well so far.

THe PL needs to be inclusive and offer opportunities for all COW players.

Im interested in joining the PL

But to me it seems the format ect rules and a few other things are still in the infant stage

to see what works best for the majority.

Also is it run as an official event?

I have never seen it in the public gallery of games (New Games)

Would that not resolve participation,big maps,ect ect

Yes every game will get the inactive people for whatever reason but lets say

i join an official players league event if it existed and its a 100 people map and say

by day 3,4,5,6,7,day 7 being the cut of point, all the inactives having been removed

and them slots re-opened to the public,and a system peace period for the same amount

of days upon which you enterd the event after it started.

Koalaarmy there are no inactive players in pl and u wont see it in new games bcs its an official event based on invites, only way to participate is to sign up on the pl forums for march sign up for example

the rules have matured over a considerable period. you get people suggesting unnecessary changes often.

it is supported by Bytro and is a player led event.

it is a passworded game, there is only 1 match running at all times.

to keep it to a decent level of participation means you need committed players who have read the rules. So placing it as a public game opens it up to people who haven't even registered in the forum.

the game is very competitive, no one is allowed in after the peace period has expired, you really don't want to join this game late as you'll be at a huge disadvantage.

If you are interested in joining the league then sign up on the relevant thread and I hope to see you next month

TBF, there "used" to be more than one match at a time, but the league's been scaled back due to smaller participation numbers and less volunteer staff being a part of it. As Clownpunk said, the game has had rules "matured" but some recent changes are actually a step backwards into chaos. I've been advocating for a return to the time-tested and more-civilized rules that governed the PL for most of its history ever since I returned to the PL to find those new uncivil rules instituted in my absence (I was on a "real life comes first" hiatus).

Why i am i being mentioned?