Players League™ - Discussion Thread

1: Thats a toughie, I think we should see as it goes. Its hard to predict the popularity each game. Personally Id like to be able to play a 10p game as well as 22p, with a slight preference for 10p.

2: Hmm, I like the last option you mentioned. In Supremacy there was a more complex (like ELO in chess) way to handle the rankings. I kinda liked that option best because having the ranking like that ensured the ranking could go on forever, yet newer players could also become top ranked.

3: Would take forever, we could make it a 'special'. Of course it should still count towards the rankings (with triple points?)

4: Agreed, Im game.

1) I am open to quality games, no matter the map they are on and for one that once made a run for Player of the Month going in Supremacy with 50 games going at once, I guess I could juggle 2 COW PL games at once.

2) I like the idea of yearly winners. Remember, a year is almost forever on the internet and a game fan.

3) I would love to have a game on the huge map even if we had a limited number of players.

4) I would need to obtain some gold, but I would join.

1. Hmm. tricky one - I like the 22 player map as there is less chance that a player will get left hanging without an ally. Though the 10 player map has its own attraction of course. I like the intimacy of PL as it is now but I recognize that it will become a lot more popular. It is the difficulty of having many PL games (starting once a week for example) which would greatly favour those players who can spend a lot of time in the game and could take part in every game. Or do you have a game start "lottery" where there is a list of PL players who are willing to start a game and the start players are chosen randomly. OR - just first on the list gets a game start then that player moves to the bottom of the starter list?

2. I think clear the points, perhaps even every 6 months. Keep a master record of the six monthly hall of fame. Later perhaps a more sophisticated system can be developed for ranking?

3. A special 100 player PL game would be cool - my two 100 player games have been a dismal disaster with mega-gold spenders wrecking the game so a PL version with no gold would be very attractive, possibly with Elite AI as per 4. if that is possible?

4. Happy to do Elite AI. I my limited experience of Elite AI, the AI's do not seem to be much cleverer it is just that their threshold for action is a lot lower.

100p map with elite AI would be awesome. So even if we 'only' get 35 players or so, the AI isnt a bore to attack. If that could be arranged? *looks at Xarus*

I try to get the OK from Bytro, to start a World Map with Elite-AI, exclusive for the Players League!

But if we want to do it, we have to clear the alliance rule before. So I think we close the poll at 01/28, and see how we do it in game 7.

I would like to just keep the discussion going on all these alliance rules we are tossing back and forth. I was one of the founding players to the first Players League back in Supremacy 1914 and was active through perhaps the first ten games before, WoW expansion, SWTOR, something pulled me away. But to the point. We didn't have any rules about alliances and the games worked.

Thirty Kingdoms when it launched, I thought, good place to get this Players League going again. So I did and we had about five good games until that game, well, it's not very active anymore. But to the point, we didn't have any alliance rules and the games, they worked.

Now here we are in CoW, same platform, different pieces and rules, but we have these alliance rules and I don't see them working. I feel so restricted in these games, the current one the most. Remember, this isn't an Alliance League, its a Player's League, let the players play within the already fine rule set the game has and the few rules we do impose, like no gold usage and no going inactive. Why isn't anything else fine, just as it is in public games?

Okay, Nim will look for more feedback and perhaps words here will change my mind, but actual play that is taking place, I do feel we are restricting players way to much.

If played the world map three times and in each round the players formed large allies with more than 5 nations. This is normal on large maps, but I think it will be more interesting for us if we have different rules for the PL than in normal games. That was one of the two reasons why we have the PL, the other one is that we know that they are a lot of good & active opponent on each map.

For a fair fight we need rules, if we don't do it we have frustrated players that leaves the PL - how often we had pissed players about the situation, that his alliance members can't help a him, because he is allied with his enemy? Same in the series of games in 30K. Other problem is when you don't have a regimentation about the numbers of alliance partners you have to fight against your partners in end of a game, because only 3 players can end a round and if you have nor regimentation you need to build up big alliances in the beginning, because you know that your enemy doing the same!

I think with the four options we have now in the poll, the last option will be very special. But if we want to have a single players league this option will be awesome! In the end you have no friends, the partner from yesterday will be your enemy tomorrow

But we a democratic here in the PL and have a look to the votes of the POLL in the end!

Xarus wrote:

If played the world map three times and in each round the players formed large allies with more than 5 nations. This is normal on large maps, but I think it will be more interesting for us if we have different rules for the PL than in normal games. That was one of the two reasons why we have the PL, the other one is that we know that they are a lot of good & active opponent on each map.

For a fair fight we need rules, if we don't do it we have frustrated players that leaves the PL - how often we had pissed players about the situation, that his alliance members can't help a him, because he is allied with his enemy? Same in the series of games in 30K. Other problem is when you don't have a regimentation about the numbers of alliance partners you have to fight against your partners in end of a game, because only 3 players can end a round and if you have nor regimentation you need to build up big alliances in the beginning, because you know that your enemy doing the same!

I think with the four options we have now in the poll, the last option will be very special. But if we want to have a single players league this option will be awesome! In the end you have no friends, the partner from yesterday will be your enemy tomorrow

But we a democratic here in the PL and have a look to the votes of the POLL in the end!

A fair fight? One person is more skilled. It is unfair. Do we limit the more skilled player, then?

No. We provide a even platform for anyone to hop on and have a chance. That is all. We do not need silly alliance rules. If the players are the problem, the attitude should be fixed. Not silly rules thrown onto things to "Patch" things up.

If players get pissed about something, they need to get over themselves. This is a online game. A hobby. A fun game. They will lose. Adapt. Flow with what is.

If people decide to form big alliances, so be it. Diplomacy is also part of a Players League game. The reason the games are fun is because they are natural. Artificial game mechanics are a notion I despise. Very much so. If they form big alliances, then people can play psychological games with each other, and then it becomes another game on top of CoW. More fun. More enjoyment. People can then manipulate each other, or try. Or fight people people. And win. Or lose.

So no. No silly alliance rules are needed. Nor is a "democracy" in such a small community needed. Simply have one or two people make everything. Everyone gives them feedback. If they do a crappy job/Don't listen, people just don't follow them and do their own thing. Problem solved.

Moving on,

1: Ten player maps are the way to go. They are the most balanced of the maps.

2: Nein. Just a simple point system that cuts off every year.

3: No World Map. The World Map is extremely buggy, among other things. The novelty of artificial game mechanics, and "Bigger" is better, is a notion that has rotted out the SP1914 RP community and reduced it to a shell of its former self. Try to stay away from such things. The bigger the map, the harder it is to ensure rules are enforced - followed, as well as being able to notice rule breaks. A one hundred player map looks neat. It's shiny. It is a novelty. But the ten player map is the way to go. Simple. Easy. Not to big, not to small. Very well made. It simply works. And has had the most work put into making it. Etc.

4: No requirements. At all. The Player League serves as a community organization to play fun, Non-Gold games in Call of War, that anyone and everybody can join, provided they follow the rules. Requiring High Command, or a small amount of Gold is silly, and I feel goes against the spirit of the league itself.

My opinion about the four subjetcs:

1. I am at my first game now, PL 6. At least 25 people signed for joining it. No more than 17 or 18 players actually joined. I believe that, for now, there is not enough people for more than one map unless you want to be divided into two 10p maps, which could cause some organization problems. If more than 22 players sign for joining, for now it is better to put them on waiting list, since many will not join when game starts.

2. Hall of fame should not be the problem. Data can be stored easily, so in one thread it would be easy to put all time records, yearly records and also standings for each map individually. It could be nicely formatted so the thread is not too big or complicated but still contains all important information.

3. I don't think there is enough people for world map unless you want it to be full of AI (see number 1).

4. I will not join if there is a gold requirement. And I thought about bringing some people to PL which will definitelly not play if gold is a requirement. Don't get me wrong, I just don't like the idea. Whatever you decide, I will not object.

I have opened a Elite World with nearly the same rules that we have in the PL. (I only allowed to use Nuke Bombers)

The extra round will be out of the normal PL games and only twice a year (next after Summer) and needs 5K Gold as enter fee. I hope you will play with me this game.

Guys - I would like a consensus ruling.

If you want to leave an alliance in-game, I am suggesting that you can leave at any time but that you should assume an automatic NAP with a 24hr termination clause (or 48 hrs). Any thoughts?

No.

Rogo I think those terms should be negotiated individually..

We have to be careful not to slaughter these games with too many annoying rules. I think there is already too many as it is.

I agree with Rogo. If you do not have some sort of alliance exit rule then you can never trust your ally. The other option of course is that when forming an alliance part of the alliance agreement is an exit agreement negotiated as part of the alliance.

If you wish to have a exit agreement, then just negotiate it... it doesn't have to be a rule...

Also I wish to discuss the use of rockets and nukes. I think it sucks that they are not allowed.

1. 22 player maps seems the way to go as there appears to be almost enough players to fill the requirements. Given that there is a sign up period if you get less than say 15 sign up then go to a 10 player map first 10 sign up get to play the others are on the waiting list, especially since the league wants a new start at the beginning of each month. We can not wait forever to get the right numbers.

2. Hall of Fame is not an issue as far as I can see. Decide on the simplest way to track points and move on. A more complex method can be devised later on as the league becomes more established.

3. I don't think we are any where near ready to discuss a world map. It might make some sense when carriers enter the picture.

4. I'm not sure that a gold requirement would be very productive. It is more likely to turn players away at a time when we are trying to encourage players to get involved.

General Comments: Because we choose to develop this as a league then there is a requirement for rules above and beyond the basic game rules. It is these rules that set the league apart from general play. The rules should be kept to a min., they should be rules that are representative what the league is trying to accomplish, they should be clear and not open to a different interpretation by everyone. At this point we as a group are still sorting out these rules so we have debates and this forum is a good resource to sort out and develop the direction of the league and the rules involved. Because we are trying to establish a league it is important that those interested in its formation are part of its development. Democracy is one way of arriving at a consensus concerning the rules which will govern the league. There may come a time when the league is large enough to put into place a governing body which will sort these out but that is a long way off. A league is not just a place of: if you don't agree with them do your own thing. The place for that is in regular play. If you are going to be involved in league play then you must follow the requirements of the league, if not then what is the difference between league play and regular play? None.When we are in this forum we need to be careful of the language we use so as not to offend each other and get led astray in needless arguments. Example a rule that might appear "silly" to one person may very well be a "deal breaker" to another.

BTW I'm back for Game 7