Players League 6 (Start on 1 january 2016)

RogodeterSnowl wrote:

is paying the price now

EDIT at 22:35 --> And on my other 22er i play as russian empire too and i am under attack from sovjets and ukraine. and i stay in deff since 4 days and dont quit. Also dont think i quited cause "losing", i could attack you on sunday (since i did not replied your NAP, but you thought you have it)

But no, i still dont want play with rulebreakers.

@f118

I don't get why you quit so early, you didn't give any of this players a chance to change they meaning of the alliance system of the PL.

Nobody wants to break the rules - they did it the same way they always do - looking for to partners for a ally, but mostly these both ally members have different partners... They need time to fix they problems and to reconfigure the alliance.

@all PL players

The problem with the chained alliances is that we have in fact lager allies than 3, one single player have no chance against 3 or more players but a team of two players have a chance against 3 players in a ally. That was the reason to make these hard but fair rules for game 6. If we allowed chained alliance for more than 3 members than we have always the sad taste for the last player that can't quit the game as a winner.

We want to establish a league of good & fair games and these players that accept that they only help the 3 winners to reach the top, destroys all other players a chance to win. I the end we are getting a league of games with only two teams and a lot of player that carry only water for the big guys. If we have a PL in this way we can stop it and play normal alliance games.

think about it!

Xarus

f118 wrote:

i could attack you on sunday (since i did not replied your NAP, but you thought you have it

No offense but the no-chain alliances rule is pretty stupid. It is much harder to make a three way alliance, and much easier to get screwed over in a game with a three-way alliance requirement.

For starters diplomacy is all about speed and it takes a much longer time to get three people to come to a consensus rather than two people.

Last I checked 22 does not divide by three evenly. Not to mention even if it did what about players who don't want to ally anyone? What about spots that are not filled? what about players than go inactive? what if a single ally gets knocked out?

What about nations on the corner of the map that are isolated? They have very limited alliance options and if their neighbors don't want to ally them, they are SOL.

In conclusion this rule is dumb because it adds an unnecessary amount of confusion, complexity, and logistical challenges to the game which is simply overkill. It destroys any potential for adjustments as the game progresses which is critical to a well functioning match. It severely limits one's diplomacy options which is extremely unfair.

Lastly and I can not stress this enough: This rule actually encourages wolfpacking. Think of the map as a puzzle. The second you put in a group of three interlocking alliance requirement you are creating pockets all over the map where one player in his region does not have an ally because everyone else is already locked into their group of three. What do you think happens to that player? This is one of many examples as to how this rule has the unintended consequence of making certain players targets for wolfpacking or unable to find an alliance.

A thought.......

What if we did away with alliances all together, no ROW or Share Map or Shared Intel. Only NAP's can be agreed upon and you can have as many as you can talk your way to, but, all NAP's must be published in the daily news. I throw this out, as I don't see this current situation as a workable one.

Interesting Nim, I was actually thinking of setting up PL 7 as a no ally game, with NAPs that can only last a limited time (to make it interesting, very short times like 5 days).

F118 seems sour, and especially directed at me. Xarus, Butter and Nim probably remember that PL game where I was to backstab FIRST (kind of like a Han Solo discussion), because I intercepted an accidental message from a certain ally he was going to rape me after I barely was able to beat Xarus in one of the best fights I had in CoW up to today. With his help (which I was thankful for, I would be even more thankful if we could cruise together to the nr 1 spot). Perhaps 3 different people mentioning an avoiding style of communicating...tells something too.

Anyway, to avoid further starting (and/or ending) a flame war, on to topic.

I still stand by what I said in the newspaper - that I dont think this rule is the cure we need for poisonous wolfpack 4+ alliances. They are rare to begin with (and other ways to deal with as well), and I am perhaps naively thinking that peoples personal honor stands in the way of abusing the golden 2 allies max rule. Heck, perhaps we should abandon the 2 allies rule as well. Dunno

I see no alternative how to unite the 2 camps in this discussion - I can only say with my vast PL experience from s1914 that over there it was rarely an issue. Jack mentions some extra arguments I didnt think about and makes me even feel stronger about the cure being worse then the ailment.

To conclude, I will stand with Xarus, perhaps surprisingly given my rant. He organised this PL game and set the rules. Many of us misinterpreted them (I for one for the reason that I expected it to be a behavior guide, instead of a setinstone rule) and we as a group eventually fixed it ingame by changing alliances.

The alliances work just fine, it's completely up to anyone to ally or NAP with who they want. Obviously chained alliances are not a good thing for the game and good that it is now not allowed.

So you only have one ally? Find one overseas or in another area of the map or make do with your one ally and def up then counter attack at weak points. There are endless possibilities.

The alternative is to make it everyone against everyone, which would pretty much make it like any other public game.

We could however test with "only" one ally per player, but I think that would encourage chained alliances much more than it already is.

jackass01992 wrote:

No offense but the no-chain alliances rule is pretty stupid. It is much harder to make a three way alliance, and much easier to get screwed over in a game with a three-way alliance requirement.

jackass01992 wrote:

For starters diplomacy is all about speed and it takes a much longer time to get three people to come to a consensus rather than two people.

jackass01992 wrote:

Last I checked 22 does not divide by three evenly. Not to mention even if it did what about players who don't want to ally anyone? What about spots that are not filled? what about players than go inactive? what if a single ally gets knocked out?

jackass01992 wrote:

What about nations on the corner of the map that are isolated? They have very limited alliance options and if their neighbors don't want to ally them, they are SOL.

jackass01992 wrote:

In conclusion this rule is dumb because it adds an unnecessary amount of confusion, complexity, and logistical challenges to the game which is simply overkill. It destroys any potential for adjustments as the game progresses which is critical to a well functioning match. It severely limits one's diplomacy options which is extremely unfair.

jackass01992 wrote:

Lastly and I can not stress this enough: This rule actually encourages wolfpacking. Think of the map as a puzzle. The second you put in a group of three interlocking alliance requirement you are creating pockets all over the map where one player in his region does not have an ally because everyone else is already locked into their group of three. What do you think happens to that player? This is one of many examples as to how this rule has the unintended consequence of making certain players targets for wolfpacking or unable to find an alliance.

Can we talk about the size of the maps for second? Everyone is talking about the S-1914 comparisons however no one is mentioning that the map for that game was 10 players (Great Britain, France, Spain, Morocco, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Russia, Austria-Hungary, & Sweden). On top of that it had only four AI countries on the entire map (Belgium, Portugal, Greece, & Denmark).

Maybe having 22 open spots is simply too complicated. Maybe we need to build a model completely different from S-1914 PL. But one thing that I know is that we should only implement such a massive change like this no-chain alliances rule if 1) There is a serious need for a fix and 2) The pros and cons of said change has at least been discussed in an open forum.

Personally, I think it would be best to cut the number to eight players on a ten player with pre-determined alliances of two and nation selection that are assigned by meich, xarus, or someone else. These maps would be a lot less chaotic and we could pump out games more often. The 22 player ones can be reserved for every 10th round.

Wolfpacking is something that not can happen in the PL - It's not allowed to enter games after day 3. Wolfpacking is call when a losing players ask some friends to join a running game to help him to wipe out his enemy.

That's just the S1914 in me. It should be clear from the post that I was talking about players being ganged up on by the other existing players in the game.

I made a poll for the "alliance rule" for the next PL games

click here: poll

Interested. Happy to wait

hello, i just want to say that i would like to enter the next game thanks for the opportunity to play with you!

Click on the link down at my signature!

miech wrote:

F118 seems sour, and especially directed at me. Xarus, Butter and Nim probably remember that PL game where I was to backstab FIRST (kind of like a Han Solo discussion), because I intercepted an accidental message from a certain ally he was going to rape me after I barely was able to beat Xarus in one of the best fights I had in CoW up to today. With his help (which I was thankful for, I would be even more thankful if we could cruise together to the nr 1 spot). Perhaps 3 different people mentioning an avoiding style of communicating...tells something too.

1) You have not interrupted a message from me to finland, but i send copy of message to you, you could think it was jumping lag message, but i did it special, i knew that i can say to finland it was a jumped message if he would interrupt that message to you.

2) I was betrayed by you and by finland while fighting spain. I sent 15 regiment to help you and stand under bombardement from spain (Xarus) Tac.Bomber for 12 hours. I did not retreat, i waited you make raids and kill him, while his Tac.Bombs are in other direction from your troops. But both of you, finnland and Germany have done nothing and waited till my expeditioncorp is dead.

3) I should go for more than 2 days offline, also you accepted NAP till im back. But you attacked me on next day without warning.

In PL2 there weren't rules for shared maps, also every one could have many, i tried to play with Kardinal Richelleu Taktics, but cause betraying failed like hell. Without me you would not win those PL game. Be sure for that.

I dont want fight with you, i wanted you know at the end what i did really, cause i knew you don't know that.

Game is finished after last three players agreed to retire. Here are standings:

1. Paramunac - 519

2. Mc Cool - 309

3. Vasco Macedo - 181

is it too late i would like to join

grandpooba52

grandpooba52

hehe um what year is this