Players League Season 2 discussion thread

The way it is now is causing too many complaints and the last thing I want is for people to feel the league is unfair, biased or just us moderators personal little league where we can do as we please.

I know a few limited selection feels this is the way it is, but that's just untrue. It's not at all why we are doing this. The reason we carry on and the reason this league was made is because we love active, fun, action-packed CoW games where you actually have to think about strategy, troop movements, VP.

The way I see it is there are two roads we can go down, in any case changes are coming

road 1) more rules to keep the old rules from being abused or tricked

road 2) less rules to simplify the game

I'm leaning to the second road, i.e. making simpler rules, and this is just a draft:

1) Max 3 players pr. coalition (you must make a coalition IF you want to share map with anyone)

2) You cannot leave a coalition - once it's made, you stay. (to avoid backstabs)

3) Standard peace period

4) Be respectful: Moral rule based on staff ethics and Bytro ethics.

5) Rockets above lvl 1 is not allowed (could be fun)

6) No gold

7) No trading provinces. (to avoid sheltering those that have fallen in battle AND avoid changing game ranks before the end)

Breaking a hard rule results in expulsion from game and no points for the round.

Honor rules:

NAPs are strictly honor based.

Forgive the pissed messages on November pages but #7 is a winner right there.

I AM ANNOYED THAT I JUST PLAYED FOR 30 days playing hard and fair only to be robbed of a finish I deserved by trading provinces.

When the rankings come out after November, Lobster should be up by 3 on me not 6 BUT because he and his ally

TRADED PROVINCES AT THE END OF A GAME TO CHANGE FINAL RANKINGS I GOT SHAFTED OUT OF AN EXTRA 3 points.

It is total lack of respect for the game and to players who played the entire 30 days and earned a specific score.

Paramunac would have an extra 3 to his total score had I done that in last game.

It is real BS and clouds the entire rankings in my opinion. I'v been robbed any realistic chance at coming in first over a gimmick like that. It is bullshit.

I agree that it was not the most fair or honorable thing to do, but frankly I've been very pissed in the last game, provinces traded against me too, that caused a big disruption and heated arguments. And much other shit in the previous games.

Let's just say I will do what I can to make the rules more fair for everyone? I think that's what we need..

All this bickering and bitching is not really helping anything (I can understand that you're mad).

From our point of view Turkey was in a bad position all game (tied up for long against Yugoslavia) and no factories near the main theatre. So me and Mark went way ahead in points and I guess we just came up with the idea to pawn over some territory to him to beef him up in the rank. Was nothing personally just thought he deserved some credit for a decent performance. To be honest you should probably never had made the NAP with us, or at least cancelled it much earlier. From day 15-20 or thereabouts you basicly sat on your island, as did the UK. Takes two to tango.

2) You cannot leave a coalition - once it's made, you stay. (to avoid backstabs)

5) Rockets above lvl 1 is not allowed (could be fun)

7) No trading provinces. (to avoid sheltering those that have fallen in battle AND avoid changing game ranks before the end)

Oh and Casimir. Don't be so selective in your affront. We all know that you earned most of your points by massively shafting and backstabbing virtually everyone you ever allied with. There is a name for your disease in clinical psychiatry, sorry I forgot which one... basically, it is about assuming you are right all the time and everybody else is wrong, then constructing your own alternate reality to prove that it is so, weaving a web of half-truths and straight lies to support it, twisting them round again if the opposite is needed to support a particular argument later on... then getting tangled up in which version you told to who... until eventually, there is nothing left but ranting. You have come quite close to that final stage by now. For example, do you remember how insulted you were that Morocco was promising to give you free territory, then cheated on your deal? You made the initial deal to get free territory... How was him giving you points fine, but someone else doing it so wrong?

K.Rokossovski wrote:

2) You cannot leave a coalition - once it's made, you stay. (to avoid backstabs)

essentially, agreed. Might pose a problem though for "widowers", i.e. players whose mates were conquered. As suggested, they are not allowed to "remarry" and join/form a new alliance, which isn't really fair.

5) Rockets above lvl 1 is not allowed (could be fun)

Why is the rocket rule in place at all? Why is a rocket so much worse than, say, a tac?

7) No trading provinces. (to avoid sheltering those that have fallen in battle AND avoid changing game ranks before the end)

Underlying problem is in the point system. Since it is rank-based and not point-based, trading out provs has no real penalty when the rank is not changed (this goes for small players that don't make top-3 anyway as well, they could easily have a huge effect on top-3 ranking!). Why do mods have such a preference for a rank-based system? What's wrong with just earning the amount of points equal to your VP count at the end of day 30? As it is, a hard-fought 4th place earns equal points to someone defeated on day 4, which isn't really fair.

5) The rocket rule came into place because Rockets are very OP, not only do the do massive damage to units, they also destroy buildings very effectively and it will turn the game into a rocket game. Lvl 1 rockets are cool because they can be shot down and they don't do great damage, only minor. So if we were to reinstate the rocket we should try it out with lvl 1s only I think.

7) I like your idea about VP being the thing that adds to your score. People will still keep fighting, even if they are not in the top rank of the game and lvl 5/6/7 still gets decent score. Also, people will likely be more protective and defensive, not just go for top 3 at any cost thus making the game more interesting and strategic.

wildL SPQR wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

2) You cannot leave a coalition - once it's made, you stay. (to avoid backstabs)

essentially, agreed. Might pose a problem though for "widowers", i.e. players whose mates were conquered. As suggested, they are not allowed to "remarry" and join/form a new alliance, which isn't really fair.

5) Rockets above lvl 1 is not allowed (could be fun)

Why is the rocket rule in place at all? Why is a rocket so much worse than, say, a tac?

7) No trading provinces. (to avoid sheltering those that have fallen in battle AND avoid changing game ranks before the end)

Underlying problem is in the point system. Since it is rank-based and not point-based, trading out provs has no real penalty when the rank is not changed (this goes for small players that don't make top-3 anyway as well, they could easily have a huge effect on top-3 ranking!). Why do mods have such a preference for a rank-based system? What's wrong with just earning the amount of points equal to your VP count at the end of day 30? As it is, a hard-fought 4th place earns equal points to someone defeated on day 4, which isn't really fair.

2) The problem is, if we allow for widowers to join with someone else what will be the scenario? Do their former allies have to be completely destroyed? Have no army? Because then it will be circumvented by the enemy surrounding a province of said ally with no-one being able to remove that province, thus the original ally still has land left.

5) The rocket rule came into place because Rockets are very OP, not only do the do massive damage to units, they also destroy buildings very effectively and it will turn the game into a rocket game. Lvl 1 rockets are cool because they can be shot down and they don't do great damage, only minor. So if we were to reinstate the rocket we should try it out with lvl 1s only I think.

7) I like your idea about VP being the thing that adds to your score. People will still keep fighting, even if they are not in the top rank of the game and lvl 5/6/7 still gets decent score. Also, people will likely be more protective and defensive, not just go for top 3 at any cost thus making the game more interesting and strategic.

5) Heck I never used rockets in any game and I'm not too afraid if my opponents do, either. However, when my opponent doesn't use air, I'll make toast of him in all scenario's))

wildL SPQR wrote:

The way it is now is causing too many complaints and the last thing I want is for people to feel the league is unfair, biased or just us moderators personal little league where we can do as we please.

I know a few limited selection feels this is the way it is, but that's just untrue. It's not at all why we are doing this. The reason we carry on and the reason this league was made is because we love active, fun, action-packed CoW games where you actually have to think about strategy, troop movements, VP.

The way I see it is there are two roads we can go down, in any case changes are coming

road 1) more rules to keep the old rules from being abused or tricked

road 2) less rules to simplify the game

I'm leaning to the second road, i.e. making simpler rules, and this is just a draft:

1) Max 3 players pr. coalition (you must make a coalition IF you want to share map with anyone)

2) You cannot leave a coalition - once it's made, you stay. (to avoid backstabs)

3) Standard peace period

4) Be respectful: Moral rule based on staff ethics and Bytro ethics.

5) Rockets above lvl 1 is not allowed (could be fun)

6) No gold

7) No trading provinces. (to avoid sheltering those that have fallen in battle AND avoid changing game ranks before the end)

Breaking a hard rule results in expulsion from game and no points for the round.

Honor rules:

NAPs are strictly honor based.

1) Good idea. Secret alliances are interesting, but more frustrating on balance I think. Personally, being a straight-up honorable guy, I just want to form a team and work at conquering the world with them... Not worry about "politics" (in the negative sense of backroom deals and such.)

2) Yes please. Someone asked how it should work with "widow" players. You should be able to replace a player who is effectively out of the game... That's assuming there is an un-aligned player available to replace them with of course. What is "effectively out"? Lost his capital and didn't build a new one within a day? Down to <10 provinces? Lost half of his core provinces? Lost all of his ICs? It's certainly frustrating to be saddled with an ally who turns out to be a terribaddie, but the wheeling and dealing to gain an advantage over your allies is ridiculous IMO.

3) Sure

4) Quantified how? What is the penalty for cursing someone out in the newspaper?

5) Worth a try

6) Of course.

7) This is a bigger change than it might appear. There are various reasons someone might want to trade provinces... One common one is to give the enemy of your enemy (or a defeated ally) a safe place behind your lines so that the -5 morale penalty remains on your mutual enemy. This very common strategy and others would be prevented by this rule, which could be OK - But make sure it's completely thought through!

-- I would add: Since your goal is to prevent bad feelings over perceived unfair play, consider making it a rule that consorting with anyone outside your coalition is banned. No NAPs at all outside of your coalition. No pulling out of your capital so that the neighbour you are friendly with can capture it ahead of the enemy who has crushed your army in the field. No allowing a third party (by agreement) to capture a province that then blocks the country you are at war with from advancing further into your heartland. The only communication with other players should be about resource trades, or off-topic banter. (Or possibly warnings, "Hey, I see a lot of German troops headed your way, did you notice?")

K.Rokossovski wrote:

2) You cannot leave a coalition - once it's made, you stay. (to avoid backstabs)

essentially, agreed. Might pose a problem though for "widowers", i.e. players whose mates were conquered. As suggested, they are not allowed to "remarry" and join/form a new alliance, which isn't really fair.

5) Rockets above lvl 1 is not allowed (could be fun)

Why is the rocket rule in place at all? Why is a rocket so much worse than, say, a tac?

7) No trading provinces. (to avoid sheltering those that have fallen in battle AND avoid changing game ranks before the end)

Underlying problem is in the point system. Since it is rank-based and not point-based, trading out provs has no real penalty when the rank is not changed (this goes for small players that don't make top-3 anyway as well, they could easily have a huge effect on top-3 ranking!). Why do mods have such a preference for a rank-based system? What's wrong with just earning the amount of points equal to your VP count at the end of day 30? As it is, a hard-fought 4th place earns equal points to someone defeated on day 4, which isn't really fair.

Regarding your other point, very interesting, we just took the rank system 'as the way to go' (also part of the old limitless days system, you cant finish games with more then 3 players in a normal game). I think this also is a good one that could be considered. Lets say I am getting tired of all those 4th places without getting anything out of it myself, as well.

Plus it would automatically clear up the silly province trading thing (both sheltering and 'rank abusing'). This one I could see go far as well in 'likes'

As a dissenting opinion about the "rank abusing" concept, I don't like allies being pitted against each other in a race to snap up the high-value cities. As WildLobster pointed out in our game, "It forces me to have to make foolish/costly frontal attacks just to grab the points before my ally gets them"

I think points for rank are better. But there's no reason they couldn't extend well beyond 3rd place.

Also, since rockets are up on the table, Id like to stick my neck out for....the nuke bomber. though its (probably) very unwise to build them, as you can basically only use them on the last day - I think someone with such a daring (or stupid) approach must be able to do it. Again the nukes were a leftover from the old PL format

CityOfAngels wrote:

As a dissenting opinion about the "rank abusing" concept, I don't like allies being pitted against each other in a race to snap up the high-value cities. As WildLobster pointed out in our game, "It forces me to have to make foolish/costly frontal attacks just to grab the points before my ally gets them"

I think points for rank are better. But there's no reason they couldn't extend well beyond 3rd place.

ah...choices choices..

I like these suggestions in general. I also like the idea of a score based on continuous ranking, but perhaps weighted by total VP so that you don't get a disproportionately high score for just staying in the game, but are rewarded for hanging in there and doing relatively well. So score = VP/ (VP of all players). No trading provs sounds good, and I like the idea of no changing coalition after, say, day 15 or so. That way if you realize you aren't going to fit there (or other reasons outlined below) you can try to swap around or go solo. I also like the idea of no NAP and even perhaps limit coalitions to 2 players or even no coalitions. A basic problem with coalitions is that members are generally still competing with each other for VP which creates an implicit conflict of interest, so that people will greedily go for VP even if it is not in the best interest of the coalition as a whole, or might even intentionally (or unconsciously) inhibit teammates from gaining VP. This brings me to the biggest change though that I would like to see. Regardless of the size limits for a coalition, I would like scoring to be even among coalition members. This would create a scenario where one members VP is just as valuable as your own and would create an environment where players focused on the health of the coalition as a whole. It would also give someone that wants to play solo a chance to perform competitively. On the down side it would create a conflict if a member wasn't pulling his or her weight in the coalition. One partial solution to this would be the ability to kick a coalition member up to a certain point, say, day 15, with perhaps a 3 day NAP. If the coalition leader was the slacker the other members could drop and rejoin. Another potential issue is that a member could still go for VP using the benefits of the coalition and then drop out of the coalition later to get a bigger piece of the pie. To avoid this, just keep the rule that there is absolutely no altering of coalitions after day 15, and even if a member goes to zero provs they still get the same slice of pie. In these examples, I used day 15, but there may be a better cutoff day than that.

K.Rokossovski, thank you for the clinical analysis but simply said you are probably not the best suited to point the finger at anyone. As for my deal with Morocco, that player may actually not be completely sane so I will not go there. He did say he was quitting and said I could make a landing (not for points) to set up base and expand from there. When I arrived he attacked me instead lol.

I agree that the rankings should be based on total VP for the season and not top 3 finishes for points. It is also ridiculous that someone who has a retreat province gets the same points as someone who got 4th.

I also think we could consider doing away with the NAPs all together. If someone wants to make an agreement with another that is his business and when it fails there is no bitching either way. I'v been victimized so many times by outright shameful play (a player once told me he had a family emergency for a day and not to attack him only to wake up myself to see he blindsided me!) that trusting players becomes very cynical and indeed I end up treating the alliance system as a means to an end. Like MANY MANY OTHERS. So lets not just point this at me.

Ok, lets stick to arguing rules and rulechanges, and keep out personal vendettas please. Most top players have a certain way of having things go their way, whether its backstabbing, mechanic abuse or sly diplomacy. And they all have an honor code too I suppose. My personal goal though is to have a PL that is not stale and the numbers dwindling, so in my arguments I always look out for the new guy or average Joe (in terms of skill), and make it fun for them as well.

Ill read up on this discussion later, so far it seems to turn out an excellent thread with good comments all around

Another point for making coalition "non-leaveable" is that we, the mods don't have to rule in those cases where coalition NAPs are not upheld. Let me put it gently, it takes a shitload of time and is a constant source for nasty banter.

So I suggest that coalitions cannot be changed after day 10 (in combination with the rule that you MUST be in a coalition in order to have RoW/SM with anyone.)

If a member of coalition is dead (less than 10 provinces or no working ICs) then they are allowed to do a swap for a new ally. The remaining two players are still not allowed to leave, but they are allowed to gain a new member.

wildL SPQR wrote:

If a member of coalition is dead (less than 10 provinces or no working ICs) then they are allowed to do a swap for a new ally. The remaining two players are still not allowed to leave, but they are allowed to gain a new member.

So, essentially what you mean is, the strongest coalition (with most VP) gets top three no matter if they are not ranked 1,2,3 ?

wildL SPQR wrote:

So, essentially what you mean is, the strongest coalition (with most VP) gets top three no matter if they are not ranked 1,2,3 ?

Here is hypothetical set of rules:

1. No gold

2. Coalition max size is X

3. Coalition number affects score and is set in stone at start of day Y (see Scoring)

4. No NAPs, RoW etc

5. No province trades

6. Be respectful

7. Peace period

Scoring: score = (VP coalition) / (VP all players) / (# in coalition)

So, if I follow correctly, the three players in the same coalition get the same score? (combined score)