Players League Season 2 discussion thread

After further reflection, I agree with Rossovski about not penalizing coalitions. Making coalitions permanent also appeals to me.

For me- Rockets are a good thing, it gives a desperation play when you are truly f'd and makes people think about how big a stack they should push forward.

For coalitions- I like the Idea of all coalition members receiving the same score, and I don't mind the score being indexed to the size of the coalition. Both these only work well if coalitions are locked in early. My preference would be to say before peace ends kind of early.

For points in general- I think there should be a token given to someone who dominated a round vs barely squeaked out a win, but it should be that just a token- maybe 1 extra point for dominant performance (30% of the map, 40% of the map , whatever). This rewards excellence and gives a reason to keep fighting even when the winner is clear.

I also think there should be no points awarded to someone camping out in a single province in someone's back yard. Maybe make it something like a minimum of 20VP or at least 5 of your core provinces to get the finisher bonus point.

For trading provinces- I don't think this really causes any issues till the end of the round, maybe just disallow all trading after day 25. If you loose a province to rebellion on the last day then so be it.

For Maps- Lets use a bit more variety, same map every month sucks. As long as its random province selection it doesn't really matter if there are some NPC's we all have an equal chance of benefiting or losing out because of it. Also final round should be everyone on the same map so you have the best chance to fight for your final position.

For duration- there should be 1 or 2 days off between rounds to get the scores updated and say hi to the family. Also I wouldn't be opposed to some variety in length- maybe a 35 day one in January/ early Feb, a 15 day sprint mid Feb, another longer one in march. Not much more than 30 days so it doesn't get tedious but some variety.

It seems the discussion was a good one, but seems to go in a circle now. I do not mean this as a bad thing, it just seems everyone had their say.

We will think about it for now and be assured that quite a few suggestions will be put into the next season, as I personally saw some very good ones that really spice up the game.

This could/should attract newcomers, as well as disenchanted former players who were unsatisfied with last rounds rules and regulations.

I will personally try to achieve less rules, and at the same time, less 'contesting' rules. Be it NAPs, points, or the age of your grandmother.

Just read through all the posts and love the idea of the shared points for coalition and forming set coalition whenever you create one (no coalitions changes after day 5 or 7 max). This helps for a team that works together instead of using you to shield their territory or racing ahead of you to grab territories that you helped fight for. It also might prevent the early game team up that destroys most solo players. If you are stuck with whatever you form on day 3, you might be more careful with who you team with.

As far as orphans... sorry, no new coalitions once formed. You are now on your own. Maybe the points should only be split between active players, so if you go inactive during a game, you automatically get 0 points for that game. If you fight and die, but stay active, you could still share with your team. I would be ok with either option (split or no split with dead players).

I don't think a penalty should apply to coalitions besides splitting with team members. If you add a penalty, I could see a real possibility that all good players play by themselves. That may be good or bad, but it would change the game significantly and probably would lead to more unannounced partnerships between good players.

As far as the other rules, whatever is decided is good with me.

Is there going to be a January round?

No, we will start next season in February

All in all good suggestions. I'll throw my vote in with the no coalition changes after day 7 (I think 5 is too early to get an opinon of your possible ally, as most people won't team up until at least day 3 unless they already know someone). If your alliance mate dies horribly and you're stuck with only 2 people... Well... Too bad you didn't help defend your ally then! You messed up, and you'll have to pay for that by having less help for the rest of the round. Next time maybe you'll actually send the units needed to help...

For the points... Why can't we just say that the VP score at the end is the score, but if you're in a coalition the coalition score gets divided on the members? My head started hurting after reading the first page, so I'm not really sure where you guys stand at this point, but please don't make it dividing on/multiplying by/in the n'th degree... Simple is good...

SpiritNOR wrote:

but if you're in a coalition the coalition score gets divided on the members?

So.. is the PL still going on, and i can join it?

I don't like the idea that we can only join one coalition. I never booted an ally mate until he was wiped out, but I should retain the ability to chose that option. If I did, he should have the ability to join a different coalition. 2 day auto NAP is fine as it stands. I do like the idea of not trading provinces. I like the idea of making it points based rather than rank based. Double first place points if you want it really interesting. Rockets work for me in any form, from none to level 1 to full use. Any way is fine.

Having said all that, My last PL game was nearly unplayable due to server issues. Took a full 12 hours to even join and even after joining took many hours to make simple moves that should have taken seconds. I don't know if we just got a bad server somehow, or what. But it happened. Further I had ridiculous results like attacking 1 infantry with 4 level 2 tac bombers and losing 1 tac bomber, while failing to kill the infantry. Attack that same wounded inf with 3 tac bombers now, and lose one more tack bomber, and inf still alive at 37%. No enemy air cover or modifiers as I had a 5 stack of fighters patrolling the same area. Nothing there. I finally had to abandon the game. Something I never do. This isn't a PL issue as far as I know. More of a Bytro issue. But it means my comments here might be meaningless. If the game won't play, then I won't be playing it. And my comments and preferences can be safely ignored.

when start season 2?

Feb 1st

two questions:

1. Is there a cap on the number of participants?
2. Is there a gold limitation in the league games?

The limit is the map size (22?) The goal is to have all player countries taken.

Gold use is forbidden. (Admins will check)

there are a post to suscribe febreaury game?

I don't like idea of having the coalition points being averaged across the coalition members.

The unintended consequence of this effort to reward the lower scoring members of a coalition will have the higher scoring members leave the coalition in favor of being scored individually.

Here is why.

***********************

Player Good Guy Noob joins in with a couple of old foxes and they play hard, each to their best abilities.

Good Guy, being a new noob, volunteers for the hard missions. [i]His mates offer good advice and he learns a lot. He jumps on the attrition battles that sucks up hours of time and massive amounts of resources with on the smallest of point gains. No problem 'cause his coalition mates are picking up huge map portions and lots of VPs around the edges.[/i]

Everything is great until day 29.

Good Guy logs in to discover that his coalition mates have kicked him. Nothing personal mind you, just business. That was the fastest way for them to improve their average score. For arguments sake, lets say Good Guy had 60 points while his buddies had 130 and 170. That totals out to 360 or an average of 120 each. If his buddies kick him to the curb, they now have an average of 150 each. This could move them up into possible win/place/show space when 120 each left them beyond the edge of Bronze. Of course, it could get even better if they boot the new low guy...

If we take this "boot the low guy" to it's logical conclusion, on Day 29 there will be no coalitions left since the strongest member of each coalition is better off leaving the coalition.

***********************

Any attempt to "fix" this coalition penalty that the top player is seeing by averaging or dividing or normalizing is doomed to failure. There will always be a point where kicking the lowest player or leaving as the highest player is the best move for the coalition or the highest player. Add in size restrictions on coalitions and it just is ugly.

The proper fix is in how we score the players.

This point system is based on "winner has the LEAST points".

Rank all players by VP.

Most VP gets 3/4 of a point. 2nd most gets 2 points, 3rd gets 3 points and so on for all players who are still active on the last day.

Players who are no longer active on the last day get points equal to "number of players plus 1".

The example:

***********************

Player A with 243 VP gets 0.75 points.

Player B with 242 VP gets 2 points.

Player C with 175 VP gets 3 points.

Player D (inactive) with 173 VP gets 23 points. (would be 4th but inactive so 22 players +1)

Player E with 52 VP gets 4 points. (5th in number of VP but 5th was inactive so now 4th)

Player F with 51 VP gets 5 points.

Player G with 43 VP gets 6 points.

Player H with 42 VP gets 7 points. (tied in points, both get the same score)

Player I with 42 VP gets 7 points. (tied in points, both get the same score)

Player J (inactive) with 42 VP gets 23 points. (tied for 7th but inactive so 22 players +1)

Player K with 37 VP gets 8 points.

Player L with 33 VP gets 9 points.

Player M with 30 VP gets 10 points.

Player N with 27 VP gets 11 points.

Player O with 22 VP gets 12 points.

Player P with 18 VP gets 13 points.

Player Q with 15 VP gets 14 points.

Player R with 9 VP gets 15 points.[i] (tied in points, both get the same score)

[/i]

Player S with 9 VP gets 15 points.[i] (tied in points, both get the same score)

[/i]

Player T with 2 VP gets 16 points.

Player U (inactive) with 2 VP gets 23 points.[i] (tied for 16th but inactive so 22 players +1)

[/i]

Player V with 0 VP gets 17 points. ( he has a submarine hiding in Antarctic, logs in daily and trades rumors for oil )

Player X did not play a game this month gets 24 points (number of players +2).

***********************

This penalizes the drop out. Severely. Play the game until the end, if at all possible. Every player now has an incentive to stay alive as long as possible. That lonely submarine that keeps you alive as you trade info for resources gets you (less) points.

This also sets up some interesting dynamics. Players H, I and J all tying up moved everyone below them up by two points. The guys below them have an interest in getting that tie to happen.

Note also Player X. He joined the series late or missed a game. His score can't be 0 for the missed game. It can't be the same as the inactive player who at least started the game. Player X gets "number of players +2).

Finally, at the top this smooths the big gaps that huge VP run ups would give us with straight VP scores yet that 0.75 for first place makes a 1st and 3rd better than a 2nd and 2nd. There is still competition at the top even as we have made it valuable to be hanging in there for 30 days and doing battle on day 30 for that VP that moves you from 8th to 6th.

But what about coalitions???

Sorry, I don't care about coalitions.

At least not in the point scoring system. As far as I am concerned, limitations on coalitions, RoW, map shares and all the rest should be tossed out the window. Those limits reduce the ability for players to bring their statesmanship skills to the table. They add to the administrative nightmare that our poor game hosts are dealing with. What is the harm of getting rid of all that?

If coalitions don't count for scoring, the only valid reason for them to exist is for the individual player to use them to improve his own score. All they provide is a handy way to do map shares and a common chat channel. If we reduce the administrative task of looking for "illegal" map shares or "illicit" out of game comms, what do we care about coalition sizes, how long they last and their VP totals? They are a tool for winning, not the way to measure a win.

The easiest way to address coalition size, duration and durability is to remove it from scoring and have the players use coalitions as they are meant to be used.

My recommendation?

No restrictions on coalitions.

F. Marion wrote:

unintended consequence of this effort to reward the lower scoring members of a coalition will have the higher scoring members leave the coalition in favor of being scored individually

DxC wrote:

F. Marion wrote:

unintended consequence of this effort to reward the lower scoring members of a coalition will have the higher scoring members leave the coalition in favor of being scored individually

You obviously haven't looked at the previous discussions very closely. The whole point of sharing points is so you can't screw coalition members over. At some point coalitions are locked. Even if you were to leave coalition in game you are still in that group and share points with those players.

The community is discussing rules that they hope will prevent "bad behavior" of various kinds. The general theme here is betrayal of trust, whether it is the debacle of "honor rule" NAPs, or "no secret alliances" or the latest version which is essentially "no coalition jumping".

This is not rocket science. Role play this stuff out before actually implementing the rules. Assume every player will twist the rules as much as possible for personal gain. Look at what happens and decide if the result is what is desired or intended. More rules make more loop holes (look at the US tax code). Keep it simple.

The larger point I see here is an attempt to "legislate morality". That simply does not work. Putting a rule up of "no asshats allowed" or "do no evil" might sound good but the facts are if you can't figure out who the asshat is in the room, look in the mirror and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

To me, this is a basic misunderstanding of what the game is about. We take 22 players, start them on equal footing in an environment of limited, finite, resources and then we are surprised when folks use every dirty trick in the book to get ahead??? It is a war game with resource development and diplomacy. War is hell, the market place is full of losers and politicians all lie. I don't know what other folks are expecting but I would be disappointed with a game that does not allow me to violate the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and burn Stalingrad.

If we can't handle deceit, treachery and deception, we should be playing Candy Land, not Call of War.

Your verbiage hinges on your random announcement of "day 20". In my opinion once two players agree to join a coalition they should be locked, but I'm not sure what the actual rules will be. Btw, if it takes more than a few of sentences to get your point across you are probably rambling.

The proposed coalition lock period is much earlier than day 20 - More like day 7 iirc.

Your concern about the "foxes" snapping up all the VPs with light tank breakthroughs while the well-meaning "noob" fights the hard stalemate battles for the good of the team is basically how the PL works now, in my limited experience. This measure is specifically designed to address that.