These are the Player's League rules for the 1st season of 2018:
1) Round usually start at the first day of the month, and run one full day short the normal length of the month (e.g. the january round ends at the day change from january 30th to january 31st). Exception will be published on this forum.
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.
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.
4) Having a Right-of-way or Share-map with a player outside a coalition is forbidden. PLEASE NOTE: this also includes NPC's and inactives. Players leaving a coalition are responsible themselves for adhering to this rule and must cancel SM/RoW upon leaving; former coalition partners must cancel it within 12 hours.
4a) Only exception to rule (4) are the former coalition members of an inactive player; they are still allowed to have RoW with the inactive player (after all they cannot cancel the RoW offer by the inactive nation).
5) GOLD USE IS FORBIDDEN!! We will set EXTREMELY harsh rules for breaking them... If you are caught using gold, you will be banned from the PL for the remainder of the season, unless you confess in a PM to the moderator within 1 hour of doing it, and are willing to accept, and cooperate in executing, a penalty which will be severe enough to make sure you never do it again (like... healing one unit will cost you three).
6) NAP's and other diplomatic agreements (other than those in the rules above) are not a part of the official rules, and will not be enforced by the moderators.
7) Tech stacking (using the same unit type of different levels in the same stack) is NOT allowed. You can swap units with other players even if your tech levels differ, but you are NOT allowed to merge them into the same stack. Offending stacks must be split immediatly at the request of any other player in the World Herald. Failing to do so within 12 hours, or if significant advantage was gained by breaking this rule, additional penalties may be imposed by the moderator.
Moderating decisions are final. Players must respect and obey moderating decisions, if they fail to do so they may be expelled from the round or even the PL as a whole at moderator discretion.
9) Be respectful: Morale rule based on staff ethics, Bytro ethics, and normal social ethics.
Because your opinion on the value of my .... analogy .... was considered and requested.Ay Blinkin wrote:
Why i am i being mentioned?
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.Yes, you were correct in your sheriff of rottingham and your analogy 
IrrelevantDiabolical wrote:
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
This is your opinion, it is not fact.Diabolical wrote:
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).
Again your opinion and personal preferences. Not a valid argument.
@K.Rokossovski in the wh last month we discussed making the 22 player map +50%. Is that official as it is not posted here?
Ah yes, sorry.
YES this month's 22p map will be +50% points.
My opinions ARE facts!!!Clanpred wrote:
IrrelevantDiabolical wrote:
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 itThis is your opinion, it is not fact.Diabolical wrote:
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).
Again your opinion and personal preferences. Not a valid argument.
What I say carries much weight in the forums because of the aggregated value of my contributions to many of the discussions over the years. And, not only I, but others have weight of opinion as well. Because, when there are no facts either for or against an argument, then opinions MUST carry much weight in a discussion and acts as the only facts available and then the weightedness of those opinions depends on the reputations of their contributors. And my reputation is established and sound as one who cares about CoW, its players, and its integrity, and I dare you to find just cause to argue against that ... MY ... reputation.
For only the second time in my history with Call of War....
*mic drop*
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.Diabolical wrote:
My opinions ARE facts!!!What I say carries much weight in the forums because of the aggregated value of my contributions to many of the discussions over the years. And, not only I, but others have weight of opinion as well. Because, when there are no facts either for or against an argument, then opinions MUST carry much weight in a discussion and acts as the only facts available and then the weightedness of those opinions depends on the reputations of their contributors. And my reputation is established and sound as one who cares about CoW, its players, and its integrity, and I dare you to find just cause to argue against that ... MY ... reputation.Clanpred wrote:
IrrelevantDiabolical wrote:
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 itThis is your opinion, it is not fact.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).Diabolical wrote:
As Clownpunk said, the game has had rules "matured" but some recent changes are actually a step backwards into chaos.Again your opinion and personal preferences. Not a valid argument.
For only the second time in my history with Call of War....
*mic drop*
did you injure your shoulder patting yourself on the back or are you doouble jointed
Nah, I can't pat myself on the back ever since I almost died in a car accident back in '08. But my knees are very flexible, almost as if double-jointed. I can fold my lower legs backwards and up "past" my butt so that they are facing forward again. And, when sitting, I can swing my lower legs outwards and sit in the opposite of "Indian style". I call it a "butterfly" style of sitting.grandpooba52 wrote:
did you injure your shoulder patting yourself on the back or are you doouble jointed
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.I take it you can kiss your own butt? lol
Opinions are not facts.
I see no "chaos" please define and measure "chaos". What constitutes civil or uncivil, please once more define and measure what civility you expect in a game about war. Despite it's common use there is no such thing as a civil war
You certainly have a reputation, no one doubts that. But you also have a reputation for other things lol.
Your opinion as an experienced player certainly carries weight but it does not constitute fact.
I stand by what I said. Opinions are valued as facts of ideas. They are especially useful in society when "cold" facts are not available or impossible to measure.
Civil war has nothing to do with "civility"...and I'm sure you know that, based on your "smiley".
As for civility in a wargame. I believe that, we as players are -- conceptually speaking -- sitting around a large table with a board game in the middle. Instead of rolling dice, moving pieces and picking up cards with detailed random events, the board game is Call of War. But while the game is about a war, we -- the people around the table -- are playing to have fun and get along. We should be nice to each other outside the game. We should play to win and use our skills and tricks and so forth.
But when someone does something underhanded like back-stabbing their ally, for instance, then a pall falls over the table. And as an awkward silence rolls across this sudden gulf -- eyes darting about and people staring at each other-- suddenly that silence erupts into argument...and then bad feelings, recriminations, hurtful words, and people taking sides. That friendly game isn't friendly anymore. Some people just get up and walk away. Others start ranting about how bad it is that the other person did what they did. Some people say things like "hey, it's a war game, what do you expect?" And nobody remembers that there is supposed to be a civility amongst the people at this table because we're all participating in something we all enjoy...together.
~OR~
Nobody does anything underhanded. Maybe a few use some misleading diplomatic messages making someone think their forces are going one way when in fact they are going the opposite, but they never betray anyone. The whole table doesn't gang up on one player. Nobody goes to the store to buy a bunch of extra pieces and then secretly puts them on the board while no one is looking. Everybody has fun. People make mistakes. Someone rolls a lucky snake eyes, someone else rolls craps, and the game continues.
Eventually some people get eliminated but the others at the table congratulate them for playing well and saying things like "it was fun " and "better luck next time." Eventually someone or some few people win and the game is over. The people get up and say goodbye and they all go to different tables with more games being played. A few people from this game happen to run into each other at one of the other tables and they reminisce and try to play that new round a little differently and maybe even switch sides....or team up...because they can and it's fun.
So, to me, Call of War is a civil game and everything is wonderful....until some jerk does something underhanded again.
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.i hope that the rules on coalitions is not changed
it is much better allowing coalition changes
it creates more strategic opportunites
most of the time we know who can be trusted and who cant
Good Lord, Granpooba,
you mean create more flexibility and nuances in the game with greater opportunities for different outcomes as we are not strait jacketed with rules or bound by concepts of chivalry and etiquette?
we can't really have that, it would mean people moving out of their safe spaces and across the comfort zone to the area of uncertainty that is known as game playing to win?
that is really pushing some people to their limits I think.
Game on
Ready Player One
thanks i think
I dunno, I thought chivalry and etiquette were good things.Clanpred wrote:
you mean create more flexibility and nuances in the game with greater opportunities for different outcomes as we are not strait jacketed with rules or bound by concepts of chivalry and etiquette?
It seems to me like the PL can really benefit from a good camaraderie .... this Diabolical guy seems to really have a handle on things. I'd listen to him if I were you.Diabolical wrote:
Nobody does anything underhanded. Maybe a few use some misleading diplomatic messages making someone think their forces are going one way when in fact they are going the opposite, but they never betray anyone. The whole table doesn't gang up on one player. Nobody goes to the store to buy a bunch of extra pieces and then secretly puts them on the board while no one is looking. Everybody has fun. People make mistakes. Someone rolls a lucky snake eyes, someone else rolls craps, and the game continues.Eventually some people get eliminated but the others ... congratulate them for playing well and saying things like "it was fun " and "better luck next time." Eventually someone or some few people win and the game is over. The people ... say goodbye and they all go to different ... games being played.
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.on coalition issue: why punish 3 players if a players goes inactive or gets banned!
it all depend on the players u are making alliance with, some players are worthy to ally with them and some are not, its just a matter of choice, and the players backstabbing other alliance members wont go far in the league as their reputation will be bad.
Very easy to solve this:
1-i would vote to have a 24 or 48 hrs peace period if a players leaves a coalition btw him and his old allies.
2-the current setup will always give us an unknown variable in the round to be more unpredictable and fun, as alliances can always change and the round will be more competitive. in March PL, every time we defeat a player, they replace him with another which kept the round challenging till there is no1 for us to fight
It seems to me that the PL can really benefit from better game play opportunities, I don't need camaraderie.Diabolical wrote:
It seems to me like the PL can really benefit from a good camaraderie .... this Diabolical guy seems to really have a handle on things. I'd listen to him if I were you.
This Diabolical guy seems to have verbal Diarhoea and is too full of himself. I'd avoid like the plague
i heartly agree with all but #1 i cant support unless the peace period doesnt have to be announced but then how would it be enforcedMarkAchkar wrote:
on coalition issue: why punish 3 players if a players goes inactive or gets banned!it all depend on the players u are making alliance with, some players are worthy to ally with them and some are not, its just a matter of choice, and the players backstabbing other alliance members wont go far in the league as their reputation will be bad.
Very easy to solve this:
1-i would vote to have a 24 or 48 hrs peace period if a players leaves a coalition btw him and his old allies.
2-the current setup will always give us an unknown variable in the round to be more unpredictable and fun, as alliances can always change and the round will be more competitive. in March PL, every time we defeat a player, they replace him with another which kept the round challenging till there is no1 for us to figh
enforcement nightmare that the PL doesnt need
Something that might be interesting to try some time is preset 3 member coalitions by country. Whatever country you randomly land in is the coalition you are in, no changes allowed. I do not think I would want to do that every month, but it might make an interesting diversity for one month per season. It would just be a question of grouping countries by geography or spreading them out so none were adjacent.
Food for thought.
Well I'm not in favor of changing any rules while the season is running, unless there is a really urgent need. I think a mandatory peace period after leaving a coalition is appropriate, and will add that next season.
As for rule experiments, I have an idea about a "PL Teams League" which has similarities with Peter's idea. Basically it would be a game for two opposing unbreakable teams each round, with mandatory team assignments re-randomized each game. This would not replace the normal PL, though I would suspect many players to participate in both.
how would you be able to enforce any peace period when leaving a coalition?
