Players League Season 2 discussion thread

wildL SPQR wrote:

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

Hmm, I kinda like the idea, because it will make teamwork more important (and beneficial). Not sure the numbers a coalition gets from the score is good for a easy calculation. (we want to avoid too much work). So maybe it's easier to take the sum of VP in a coalition then divide that number by 10.

So if a coalition in total has 130 VP the players would get 13 points each?

Although the scoring might be a bit complicated for some it is really not that bad. If everyone is solo then everyone just get's the score that is proportional to their total VP out of the total. But it would solve some balance and honesty problems. Instead of an experienced player using a coalition solely for their own gains, they would be forced to collaborate. If they decided to go solo, they might have to face groups of other coalitions alone. The one drawback is that it would encourage experienced players to form coalitions, but this is pretty natural and happens anyway.

OK so you divide the VP score with the total VP score and then divide by no. of players. Still three calculations just to get three players score.

Easier to just divide the total VP score by a factor of 10 ? Move the comma one spot...

wildL SPQR wrote:

Hmm, I kinda like the idea, because it will make teamwork more important (and beneficial). Not sure the numbers a coalition gets from the score is good for a easy calculation. (we want to avoid too much work). So maybe it's easier to take the sum of VP in a coalition then divide that number by 10.

So if a coalition in total has 130 VP the players would get 13 points each?

That's how a solo player could end up ahead of the winning coalition. A1 score = 160; A2=125; A3=75... All three of them would get 360/3 = 120... If player B (solo) got 122, they would finish 1st.

Not sure I like the idea, but it could be fine.

wildL SPQR wrote:

So maybe it's easier to take the sum of VP in a coalition then divide that number by 10.

So if a coalition in total has 130 VP the players would get 13 points each?

DxC wrote:

wildL SPQR wrote:

So maybe it's easier to take the sum of VP in a coalition then divide that number by 10.

So if a coalition in total has 130 VP the players would get 13 points each?

I think it is important to penalize larger coalitions. If you just divide VP by 10 a solo player or smaller coalition is at a severe disadvantage. So in my opinion dividing by coalition size is critical. On the other hand dividing by total VP at end of game may not be so important if games are always played on the same map as usually all the VP will be accounted for anyway. However, if there are different maps, I think the score should also be normalized by total VP. It might seem a bit complicated but a simple function in excel could do all the numbers for you. And as people get used to it I think they will come to appreciate the intuition behind it.

Another thing,

I was thinking maybe it would be a good idea to have the season run 5 months, so that we get a break in july or august and a break in december or january... what do you think?

About coalition points, since usually at the end of the game all VP's on the board are taken, that division doesn't need to be in the calculation. I agree that coalition size SHOULD matter. So without too many calcs, it would simply be "each player scores the average VP's of every member of his coalition. "

Some scoring system like this would certainly stimulate team play (it's no longer important who takes those capitals), and is worth a try!

Another thing,

I was thinking maybe it would be a good idea to have the season run 5 months, so that we get a break in july or august and a break in december or january... what do you think?

But I'm not sure it's a good idea to penalize the winning coalition because they should get more points (because they won).

It depends on your definition of winning... if a single player ended with 200 points, while a 3-player coalition ended with 3x 100, who won, in your opinion?

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Not needed, favorite vacation month is different for everyone... some may have EXTRA time in those months and not be able to play... Though I understand the continuous flow can be stressful for mods.

It would also be nice to have each game start on day 2 of the month and end on day 30, because the going from one game to start next game 8 hrs later is tough as well.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

since usually at the end of the game all VP's on the board are taken, that division doesn't need to be in the calculation

Wild, there are two main points that I was suggesting. One was to share points within an alliance. The other was to normalize the score. Simply dividing by 10 and giving each member the result doesn't address these issues. For example, if an alliance of 4 got 250 points they would each get 25 points, but then if a solo player got the remaining 250, they would also get 25 points. This doesn't account for the fact that the solo player did just as well as the coalition of 4. When you said: "There should be a difference, but not too big or too small.", I take that to mean dividing by the number in coalition is too much of a penalty? In other words, perhaps doubling coalition size doesn't necessarily give you twice the advantage? Perhaps that is the case and at least mathematically that can be dealt with easily, for example you could divide by the square root of the coalition number instead. But anyway, the real issue is determining the relative value of coalition number. I do think that just dividing by the number of members is reasonable. In fact, in principle, two players should have more than two times the chance of beating a single player, on average, due to synergistic effects. In that case, the divisor should be even larger than the number in a coalition, for example: #members^1.5.

DxC wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

since usually at the end of the game all VP's on the board are taken, that division doesn't need to be in the calculation

That is true and I commented above that since usually all VP are accounted for then division by total wouldn't change the relative scores. This would only be an issue if different maps were played within a season. In anycase, I don't think a bit of arithmetic should keep us from using an appropriate scoring system. Whatever flavor we might decide to use, it's a pretty simple equation.

Wild, there are two main points that I was suggesting. One was to share points within an alliance. The other was to normalize the score. Simply dividing by 10 and giving each member the result doesn't address these issues. For example, if an alliance of 4 got 250 points they would each get 25 points, but then if a solo player got the remaining 250, they would also get 25 points. This doesn't account for the fact that the solo player did just as well as the coalition of 4. When you said: "There should be a difference, but not too big or too small.", I take that to mean dividing by the number in coalition is too much of a penalty? In other words, perhaps doubling coalition size doesn't necessarily give you twice the advantage? Perhaps that is the case and at least mathematically that can be dealt with easily, for example you could divide by the square root of the coalition number instead. But anyway, the real issue is determining the relative value of coalition number. I do think that just dividing by the number of members is reasonable. In fact, in principle, two players should have more than two times the chance of beating a single player, on average, due to synergistic effects. In that case, the divisor should be even larger than the number in a coalition, for example: #members^1.5.

wildL SPQR wrote:

that could work if you join the mod team and work excel for us

I am a pretty small player in the league, but I have played a three times now so I guess I am in a position to make some comments about my observations so far.

I find it pretty daunting being put into a random game and then having to scrabble to find coalition members among a sea of names I don't know. I have no idea who is likely to stab me in the back or go inactive and both of these have happened to me. On the third occasion I was was not quick enough to get into a coalition and so was quickly gobbled up. If we are put into random games, why not random coalitions? Stupid idea? Then what about having the games in play ranked differently? So the more experienced player go into game 1, the next batch into game 2 and so on. Scores could be enhanced to reflect the game you were placed in.

I enjoy the active play and teamwork the league provides, but I am really disheartened the amount of backstabbing I have witnessed. I have no idea how this can be prevented, publicly shaming seems petty, maybe I am just naive and get caught out too easily, but some players really need to clean up their acts.

Another point about coalitions is friends from the same alliances are probably going to work together which is fine if they are in the same coalition, but often they are not. You can't stop people sharing screenshots.

Whatever rules are put in place players are going to work round them, so keeping rules simple and enforceable is important and atm that is what we have in my opinion.

I fully support a change to the scoring system as has been mentioned by earlier posters. What about your best 5 out of 6 scores counting, that way everyone can take a holiday when they want.

As I said at the start, just my observations, with some ideas thrown in for good measure.

Lizzy wrote:

What about your best 5 out of 6 scores counting, that way everyone can take a holiday when they want.

In terms of backstabbing and sharing info with alliance members or friends, some of this is inevitable, but I think some of the suggestions about locking coalitions and sharing scores evenly within a coalition would help reduce both of these issues. For example, if a friend or alliance mate in other coalition shared intel about one of their own coalition members they would be hurting their own score once the coalition is locked.

I think sharing scores evenly among members is the best rule change suggested so far.

It would certainly change things. Joining with a baddie would become very risky (and they aren't always completely obvious), and that one person who gobbles up North America playing solo would be very hard to beat (i.e. the best player in NA may win nearly every game).

How would it be more risky than it is now? If there is a lock date on coalition there is no risk after that point, you all get the same score. All get the coalition number stamped on them after cutoff date. Solo could be a good strategy in some situations, but for the America's the rest of the map would see it coming also and one person can't defend the Americas.

The risk is that you end up with someone who is one of the other, or all three:

1) not a good player (subjective, but still measurable)

2) inactive

3) non-agressive

Ultimately bringing down your coalition altogether because you share the points = you share the average

Would be a bit annoying having a third wheel who does no work. Then again if the lock date is something like day 15, you have a chance to find another I suppose.

wildL SPQR wrote:

Ultimately bringing down your coalition altogether because you share the points = you share the average

Would be a bit annoying having a third wheel who does no work. Then again if the lock date is something like day 15, you have a chance to find another I suppose.