What should rules set out to accomplish in the PL? What is their goal?

Edepedable wrote:

Not a bad idea on its own at all, but as WayneBo points out, it has low participation.

Edepedable wrote:

It also defeats the purpose of what I think we should set out to do. Creating a new league does not make the current one more accesible. I think it to be important that new players are taken in by the more veteran ones and are taught how to survive and flourish.

Edepedable wrote:

My suggestion is this.

- Make teams with newbies and veterans. Mix them. This will force veterans to help the newbs.

Requiring the vets to help the newbs would not neccesarily make them better. It could actually limit their growth, because they could hide behind their vet and not participate as best they could. There would be grumbleing about why dont I ever get Vet X instead of that bum Vet y.

Edepedable wrote:

-Make the required level for the PL higher than level 13. I do not know about the rest of you, but when I was at level 13 I was still completely in the dark about the complexity of this game. People lower than level 30 trying PL are (imo) are just not experienced enough with the game to do well. This could put players of. Since the experienced players in the PL have a very good understanding of the game mechanics, people feel cheated without that being the case.

Yes, the creation of a low level group was attempted by Wayne Bo and others but it didnt have the support of Bytro. It had no advertising or any support for non gold game.

Edepedable wrote:

- stop making PL a tournament

VorlonFCW wrote:

Edepedable wrote:

- stop making PL a tournament

The only reason that the Players League has the support as an official gold free game is that is an official tournament, otherwise it is just another game. The support staff has the ability to support such official community tournaments and enforce the rules that are agreed upon during entry. There will not be the same level of gold monitoring or prizes without the tournament structure.

But why, for playing without gold, have the average player (like me) have to contend with experts ?

As you said, we (I think I am not the only one) just want "another game" with no gold.

And we don't care about the prices.

No rule. No price. No gold. = The perfect strategic game !

VorlonFCW wrote:

The only reason that the Players League has the support as an official gold free game is that is an official tournament

If anyone asks what is the problem with the players league, there is but one answer:

lack of support from bytro.

CoralWar wrote:

Yes, Vorlon, we understand.

But why, for playing without gold, have the average player (like me) have to contend with experts ?

WayneBo wrote:

the players league is just that, originated, designed, managed by PLAYERS, not bytro. bytro was a sorry late comer to even offer prizes, and to this day levels the entire burden of management and dispute resolution onto the few who volunteer to run the PL.

If anyone asks what is the problem with the players league, there is but one answer:

lack of support from bytro.

lets try and limit our comments to positve suggestions and ideas and remain courteous

grandpooba52 wrote:

Edepedable wrote:

It also defeats the purpose of what I think we should set out to do. Creating a new league does not make the current one more accesible. I think it to be important that new players are taken in by the more veteran ones and are taught how to survive and flourish.

He is not proposing creating a NEW or alternate Players League, only a new feature to the existing Players League

grandpooba52 wrote:

Edepedable wrote:

My suggestion is this.

- Make teams with newbies and veterans. Mix them. This will force veterans to help the newbs.

this has the problem that not all veterans would want to do this and i would not force anyone to do anythingRequiring the vets to help the newbs would not neccesarily make them better. It could actually limit their growth, because they could hide behind their vet and not participate as best they could. There would be grumbleing about why dont I ever get Vet X instead of that bum Vet y.

I had not touched on the topic of advertising, if that is a doable thing I aplaud it. Loudly, using both hands and feet to clap along. For the PL and the premier PL.

CoralWar wrote:

But why, for playing without gold, have the average player (like me) have to contend with experts ?

I am in my second PL map/game and I have to honestly say that I have no trouble staying in or putting up a good fight. Yes the experienced players in the PL know how the game works, but I run into capable players on a lot of maps. I do not know what you mean exactly with ''experts'', from what I have seen in the PL so far every player that is good still makes plenty of mistakes you can act upon, myself included. Everyone here is still human you know. No one is unbeatable no matter how much some players like to pretend that they are.

Besides, it is a game. I think in the end you really should not care about if you win or lose. It is about fun, challenging your strategic mindset or whatever. Like in chess or risk I guess. Sure winning ads to the fun, but if that is the only reason that you play you are guaranteed to have a bad time sooner or later. Everyone can be beaten by anyone in this game. That is the beauty of it.

So is anyone in actual contact with Bytro to do advertising for the PL?

Kind regards,

Edepedable

Edepedable wrote:

Creating a premier league would put an additional step between what the player league is now and new entrie

the dissussion has only been to modify the Players League so that new players dont have to compete against the more experienced players, there have been several complaints that the new players are being discouraged by having to compete against more experienced players. It is hoped by creating a new division that the new players can compete against players of their level

i personally believe that the perception that newer players are disadvanteged by playing with more experienced players

when i begin any competition i find that i only gain from competinng against the tougher competition, i learn little if i only play the easy games

Lastly, i disagree that there are too many experienced players, i believe most of the players are mid level players. But i support anything that will encourage more players of any level to join us. We have many new members who have only been with us a few months and they have been a great addition

Thanks for your help and participation

If we divide the league into 2 divisions or maybe into 2 versions of the game play, they could have differing rules. For example, the Beginner's League could have a tiered system where the experienced (or those familiar with the League) players help out the beginners while the classical PL games remain the same in coalition assignments (or there are coalitions randomly assigned which can be good or bad).

The first would allow the beginners to become more familiar with the gameplay from those willing to work with the newcomers. The second could either remain mostly how it is other than dropping some rules, or randomly assign coalitions.

In order to have incentive for players to focus on the classic PL the rewards should be higher than the new division, maybe 3 times the reward of the newcomers league (or the newcomers league is 1/3 of the current PL reward system)?

Edepedable wrote:

CoralWar wrote:

But why, for playing without gold, have the average player (like me) have to contend with experts ?

So what I understand from Vorlon is that the reason the PL gets support from Bytro is that is a tournament. We need official support for advertising. Seems fine to me, isn't every map kind of like a tournament in itself? Either one or a group of players win on every map right? So you could consider every map a little tournament with only a change of perspective, a slight one. You can also play in the PL without having an eye on the prize. For me personally, that is what I do. I just want to play gold free, that the players in the PL are a bit fanatic just ads to the fun for me.

I am in my second PL map/game and I have to honestly say that I have no trouble staying in or putting up a good fight. Yes the experienced players in the PL know how the game works, but I run into capable players on a lot of maps. I do not know what you mean exactly with ''experts'', from what I have seen in the PL so far every player that is good still makes plenty of mistakes you can act upon, myself included. Everyone here is still human you know. No one is unbeatable no matter how much some players like to pretend that they are.

Besides, it is a game. I think in the end you really should not care about if you win or lose. It is about fun, challenging your strategic mindset or whatever. Like in chess or risk I guess. Sure winning ads to the fun, but if that is the only reason that you play you are guaranteed to have a bad time sooner or later. Everyone can be beaten by anyone in this game. That is the beauty of it.

So is anyone in actual contact with Bytro to do advertising for the PL?

I am fine with the reward system remaining how it is, and since my main reason for joining may be the gold-free games, I still would get the benefit of my main motivation for joining. Sure these gold rewards may be nice, but do they really matter to me? Not really. The high command idea sounds much more appealing, but I wouldn't expect to get that high in 2/3 of one season.

As long as you decrease the restrictions on diplomacy in the future (and yes I understand that may not come into effect till July or January of next year), I would be excited even more to join this league.

Since the beginning people told the gamemasters they don't want artificial rules.

So now, start to drop your rules before talking everything else.

No RoW? Drop it

No coalition? Drop it

... and so on

We know you had good intentions but all of this degrades the gameplay :

https://forum.callofwar.com/index.php?thread/23116-2018-intnl-player-s-league-rules/

The only good accepted rule is n.1

Hello all,

grandpooba52 wrote:

Edepedable wrote:

Creating a premier league would put an additional step between what the player league is now and new entries

some how we have a misunderstanding there is no proposal to make a new premier leaguethe dissussion has only been to modify the Players League so that new players dont have to compete against the more experienced players, there have been several complaints that the new players are being discouraged by having to compete against more experienced players. It is hoped by creating a new division that the new players can compete against players of their level

CoralWar wrote:

Since the beginning people told the gamemasters they don't want artificial rules.

So now, start to drop your rules before talking everything else.

No RoW? Drop it

No coalition? Drop it

... and so on

We know you had good intentions but all of this degrades the gameplay :

https://forum.callofwar.com/index.php?thread/23116-2018-intnl-player-s-league-rules/

The only good accepted rule is n.1

Posted below are the rules your link revers to. Note that I coppied it and left out a lot of explanation of the rules, those that want to can click your link if needed. Also note that these rules are the PL rules for 2018(when coalitions were alowed). I am using this because you refered to it.

• RULE 1 - GOLD USE IS FORBIDDEN!!
• RULE 2 - 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).
• RULE 3- A coalition can have a maximum of three members.
• RULE 4 - 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.
• RULE 5(A) - 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.
• RULE - 5(B) - Only exception to rule (5A) 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).
• RULE 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.
• RULE 7 - Tech stacking (using the same unit type of different levels in the same stack) is NOTallowed.
• RULE 8 - Moderator/PL Admin 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.
• RULE 9 - Be respectful: Morale rule based on staff ethics, Bytro ethics, and normal social ethics

With the risk of sounding like a smartass I will say it anyway. Rule: #2, #4, #6, #8 and #9 are not rules. They are clauses. They are conditions that are bigger than the rules and I think we should keep all of them. These clauses include the protection of the moderators decisions to keep the game civil and friendly. It also states the shape of the game, as to when the map is started and ended. These clauses should be safeguarded, they should not be named rules though. These are conditions, criteria, clauses or whatever you want to name them. Ones we can not do without!

What remains are 'rules' that can possibly shape the way a map is played and are changeble season to season. Contrary to the clauses that are more so meant to shape players their behaviour in order to have things go orderly.

• RULE 1 - GOLD USE IS FORBIDDEN!!
• RULE 3- A coalition can have a maximum of three members.
• RULE 5(A) - 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.
• RULE - 5(B) - Only exception to rule (5A) 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).
• RULE 7 - Tech stacking (using the same unit type of different levels in the same stack) is NOTallowed.

I agree with this. As most players so far also do. Having said that I do think that #3 will depend on what will be decided. A set maximum to the amount of coalition members might be something we want. Say that there will be 13 players on a map where the set maxiumum players for a coalition is 5. If the map then divides into two teams of 5 and one of 3 I do think that is a problem. I think it is part of the 'fair teaming possibilities'.

Lukenick wrote:

As long as you decrease the restrictions on diplomacy in the future (and yes I understand that may not come into effect till July or January of next year), I would be excited even more to join this league.

The only restriction on diplomacy currently active in the PL are the ones listed above (see 2019 rules for a more acurate depiction). No right of way and/or shared map with anyone and that there are no coalitions.

It also has some advantages I might add. You can not be attacked by two players in the same province. This makes defending a lot easier. It sort of makes it possible for players to protect themselves against being ganged up upon.

You are more than welcome to join the PL in march and see how you like the current format.

I think we are coming near a new workable set of rules and clauses. I will be posting a new thread in the PL part of the forum where I will do a proposal as to what new rules and clauses should shape the PL. A voting will be included. In case anyone disagrees there will of course be room to explain why one disagrees in a reply.

Before proposing a new set of rules I want to give anyone the oppertunity to share any thoughts still left on this subject. The proposal will show up in about a week I guess.

Thanks for all the input! I truly think we can improve on what PL already is in the very near future!

Kind regards,

Edepedable

I don't know if it's just me, but rule 3 seems mostly unnecessary. Is there not already restrictions on coalition sizes? Or is this rule to prevent anybody from doing 2 coalitions working together?

This is like some ebb and flood thing. People plea for less rules; inadverse effects happen; people want those countered; more rules are implemented; people say it gets too complicated and scream for less rules.

Many of these rules have been tried and tested for years now. Shure, they weren't perfect and it was a work-forever-in-progress; nonetheless, going back to one rule ("no gold") seems a waiste of effort.

I thought it was the Players league, not a coalition league. Maybe coalitions are a bigger problem than realized.

The 3 player limit is fine for maps that can be made by the common player, I was just wondering if it were possible for the PL to get a specialized map for 40 or more players which would make a 4-5 player coalition limit reasonable. And yes, I know this would only be relevant if the PL was that large, but maybe it would grow to exceed that 22 player limit. What would happen then?

K.Rokossovski wrote:

This is like some ebb and flood thing. People plea for less rules; inadverse effects happen; people want those countered; more rules are implemented; people say it gets too complicated and scream for less rules.

Many of these rules have been tried and tested for years now. Shure, they weren't perfect and it was a work-forever-in-progress; nonetheless, going back to one rule ("no gold") seems a waiste of effort.

So, we try to help finding a solution.

And look at the 2nd answer of this topic and the likes : non participating players want as less rules as possible.

They want to play as usual but with no gold.

I agree with Edepedable : Ok to keep the clauses. You are right (many thanks for the clarification) + rule 1 only.

And let's the players make their own original games !

hey guys. rule 5 has already been made a call of war rule during the last update. so it doesnt need to be a special players league rule.

As of Jan 22

• Anti betrayal measures: Players of a team or a coalition can no longer change their relation to members of other teams or coalitions to anything better than peace (e.g. shared map is not possible)

How the tournament runs month to month and when it starts and ends is not really a "rule", just how the tournament is set up.

So, when it is suggested there be no rule other than gold use, are we really just down to no tech-stacking?

I would just let go of that one. trading and planning are part of the game.

Edepedable wrote:

Misunderstandings happen, I am trying to understand, it seems we perceive the creating of a new division diferently. My stance is that opening a new division might make the regular league less crowded. If I understand correctly your stance seems to be that the new division will be filled with people that would never start in the regular league anyway. I have no way of knowing which will happen. I hope you are right!

Hopefully this discussion will help contribute to the final decisions, which i dont get to make but hopefullly my input will be considered

you are correct that it is desired to increase membership and recruit more low level players who feel left out of the current structure

if we are going to debate what changes should be made lets use the latest rules in effect

here is the link for the correct rules now in effect

Players League Rules effective January 1, 2019

cerealnerd wrote:

I thought it was the Players league, not a coalition league. Maybe coalitions are a bigger problem than realized.

So instead of making a "premier" league and a "first" league or whatever names were mentioned earlier maybe we should do this.....

How about we have a "Single Player" league - a PL where everyone is a lone wolf. There is no communication with other players allowed and much less any RoW or map sharing.

Then there is the "Coalition League" - it's a PL where coalitions are obviously the main driving force. This is where we can debate on the amount of players allowable per coalition depending on map size per game.

Of course the "Golden Rule" would be in effect in both these player leagues.