The new season is underway, with 22 players having joined the May game, a full roster!
With a new season, I would like to suggest and implement a few changes, based on the experience in the previous season
The things I am thinking of, are:
- Change how the PL ranking is done, several pointed out to me they arent entirely happy with the point system.
- Change the rule system to be less complex and overbearing
- Thinking of each PL having a 'special rule or handicap'. Think of suggestions like 'All units may be builded' or 'No Light tanks allowed'
- 2x 10 player games for June, instead of the 22p map. Perhaps have different rules on either
What I am personally thinking of regarding the rules, is:
- Max 2 allies, but you may freely choose who you ally, the 'threeway alliance rule' has proved to be broken by various players and for others it became very hard to find allies at all. In my view this cure (to prevent 'chained alliances)' is worse then the ailment. Alternatively we can perhaps scrap the alliance ruling altogether and let it work out in the game itself. Every player should have the freedom to ask himself 'ok, I have 3 allies, that means 25% chance I will be backstabbed - is it worth it?'
- Sab/Econ spies a declaration of war, I think that is up to the individual ruler to decide its worth a war or not.
- Peace period increased to 48 hours, or even 72. Including AI's.
- Im in favor of the no rockets policy, but they might return on occasion
Please have the discussion below in a constructive manner. Did I miss anything at all to put on the table? Please mention it.
Edit:
We opened some polls about the future of the Payers League -> go this way
45 Replies
11 May 2016, 14:24
No one will ever win a game of the PL alone! Especially if we automatic end the game after 30 days.
Do we want to make a poll for the new alliance rule?
Options for a new ally rule:
- no rule
- actual rule (no chained allies)
- two players per ally
- open rules with coalitions (only 3 players per coalition)
- open rules with coalitions (no limit, all players can leave a coalition with a peace period of 24h?)
- no ally (SM is forbidden, only NAPs with RoW are allowed)
- ???
Note:
I think we want to play a fair game, if we want it, we need rules!
11 May 2016, 14:25
- open rules with coalitions (only 3 players per coalition)
Pax Romana Communications Officer
11 May 2016, 14:33
Forcing the game to end after 30 days could be tricky. In my experience PL games usually last near 30 days so there would not be too much impact on length. However, it could change gameplay dramatically, and I don't know if that would be good or bad.
11 May 2016, 15:13
OK, I open some polls now for the future of the PL
11 May 2016, 15:29
I agree with a higher amount of points for a solo win, it works encouraging as well to try and actually do it.
11 May 2016, 18:03
All right I haven't read all the suggestions, but I'd like a extended peace period...
would make it easier to find allies, support eachother in weak areas and so on...
No one will ever win a game of the PL alone! Especially if we automatic end the game after 30 days.
Do we want to make a poll for the new alliance rule?
Options for a new ally rule:
- no rule
- actual rule (no chained allies)
- two players per ally
- open rules with coalitions (only 3 players per coalition)
- open rules with coalitions (no limit, all players can leave a coalition with a peace period of 24h?)
- no ally (SM is forbidden, only NAPs with RoW are allowed)
- ???
Note:
I think we want to play a fair game, if we want it, we need rules!
in my opinion open rules with coalitions of maxium 3 players is the best option
Nunca fué un adiós, solo un hasta luego. It wasn't a goodbye, only a see you later.
12 May 2016, 01:36
one more suggestion
Any player that goes inactive ( with his country intact ) in the game without a word or good reason and tries to sign up for another round will not be allowed to do so.
12 May 2016, 07:22
Is it just me or are coalitions just useless? Its a nice cosmetic thing and all, but in the end its just advertising who you are allied with. I rather have people waste intel spies on that info.
I voted no rules, lets weed out the backstabbers
12 May 2016, 08:36
Well, coalitions seems more like a feature for roleplaying and similar stuff. For competitive playing, it is worthe mentioning that they add shared intelligence to non HC players which is cool but if I wanted to hide my allies, which I usually want until it is obvious to others who I am allied with, I might settle with one man coalition, because of the flag
12 May 2016, 09:20
Xarus, you really like voice of the people..
We have situation is PL where people ally with half of the map, and you remember our attempts to properly join clash of alliances; Do you really think that all people will be able to follow rule like "no light tanks"? And what should we do when after few days someone make them or any other forbidden unit from low tech branch? i think its imposible
About ending game after 30 days. I can imagine fighting big battle on day 29 on one side of my country while on other part enemy armored cars are advancing to big cities of some unimportant colony of mine. I can imagine my AC's or any other fast unit doing the same. It would ruin the game.
NO PEOPLE NO!
12 May 2016, 09:33
We could at least try and see how it works out in 1 game. I have fond memories of limited time fights in the Bytro S1914 tourneys. It encourages another mindset, as at some point 'you must go'.
12 May 2016, 12:18
STAPH WITH ALL TEH RULES
Seriously.. we need LESS rules not more!
But longer peace period would be nice... especially for Poland/Romania/Germany/Crussia type nations... they are so difficult to hold, even for decent players...
Then I can guess you voted about the same as I did?
12 May 2016, 19:15
I voted no rules as well. The simpler the better.
And even though I like the idea of handicap, there is no way to enforce it, as one or two not very bright players will build banned units anyway. ( or out of anger)
14 May 2016, 16:47
I know I am new here but wanted to share my 2 cents on the peace period.
In a perfect world we have all the players that sign up enter on day one causing no issues.
Realistically we have 2-5 players that do not show up in the allotted amount of time and we bring in reserves.
These reserves enter after the current rule of peace is over, to find they have already lost land.
To fix this issues we either stop bringing in reserves, (which I feel hurts the community) or extend the peace period to 24-48 after the last player enters the battle.
My first experience in the PL I was Libya. I was a reserve and was brought in after the peace period. When I did log in to the map, I was under attack. I had to instantly halt an invasion.
Just my two cents.
14 May 2016, 17:21
Let us hope, that Bytro implement the peace period very soon into the game option, by starting a new map!
17 May 2016, 13:28
Question about the poll, what do you mean with 'open rules'? I just reread it twice and I can think of 3 different interpretations
🔒This thread is locked. No new replies can be posted.
.
