MV League Round 2

Game rules, settings and tweaks.

from GalCiv2 Forums
Hi all and welcome to round 2 of the Metaverse League. I think round 1 was a success and we can only do better from here. For those reading about the MV League for the first time, please see the threads at the bottom of this post for any information you need and please feel free to sign up and play, we would love to have you.

Our main goal with the league is to create a new way of playing the game and being competitive without the need to be able to get those super large scores. If we can get enough people playing we just might see the MVL get recognized as a viable method of playing and scoring which would lead us to another goal, that of having Kryo incorporate the MVL into the Altmeta. So anything we can do to promote the League and get more players interested will be greatly appreciated. I do believe that by ironing out a few kinks and showing the community that the League is, viable, here to stay and uniquely different that we might create a whole new way of playing GalCiv II.

A few tweaks to the rules and scoring.

No longer will "random anything" be in my selection process when it comes to planets, stars, etc...

I have tweaked the scoring a little based on a few suggestions. If we don't like it we can change back.

3,2,1 for fastest games, to be determined by submission time if there is a tie.
(get your games in quick guys)

-1 for the lowest scoring game

It is now 0 for a defeat, no penalty.

I can't think of anything i may have missed, i did troll the league threads looking for other suggestions. If i missed something we were going to implement please let me know.

Here is the teams just so everyone knows where everyone is,

The A-Team (A)

CornhuskerMac
Pndrev
Piznit
Dethadder
Xei Win Toh

Blade Runners (B)

neilo
TGE
Ghostwes
Marshall

Celestial Crusaders (C)

Darth
Playjeff
Mumble
Butterfly
TP Scott

Domination of Death (D)

Macmatt
Motti
Shadow
Elwood

Onto the round 2 setting's,

A military conquest on a small map with 7 opponent's.

Habitable planet's - common
Number of planet's - common
Number of Star's - abundant
Star density - tight
Anomalies - uncommon
Asteroids (DA) - rare
Tech rate - very slow

Disable tech trading
Disable Blind exploration
Enable Mega events (DA)
Disable Super Abilities (DA)

Of course all victory conditions must be enabled and all else is up to you.

Good luck all, this certainly looks like it will be an interesting challenge.

The Commish.




Player Sign up & Roster
Results & League Ladder
Help Desk
"The Metaverse League"
metaverse
68,391 views 188 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hey, you forgot The_butter_fly. He is in our team too.

HUZZAH! MILITARY VICTORY!

But what happened to different victory conditions the team captain decides?
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hey, you forgot The_butter_fly. He is in our team too


Oops, i did to. Fixed.

Yes there are going to be games where we will have 4 different objectives, but it is all random. There are 15 choices for game type, and 3 of those are the 4 different victory types.

They will come, i was hoping for it this round too, but i am equally as delighted as you to have a conquest to do. Though the smaller map will really test me.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
3,2,1 for fastest games, to be determined by submission time if there is a tie.
(get your games in quick guys)


What is this? You seem to be talking about how long in real time it takes to finish the game versus how much game time it's required. I don't agree with this at all. Simply completing a game in one day and submitting it is no indication of skill. Completing a game in one game year is a measure of skill even though it may take a month of real time to do it. What was mentioned was game years and there really can be no tie breaker because game lengths are only reported by the metaverse in years so *if* you go this way you would need to split up the points in the case of ties.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You seem to be talking about how long in real time it takes to finish the game versus how much game time it's required.


Not at all. I am speaking of game years. If i was to submit a game within the 1st week of the round that was a victory in the correct criteria that was 3 years long, that would be a greater achievement than doing the same in the 4th week of the round, after having the whole month to fine tune my effort.

Perhaps my wording did not convey this, but in no way do i mean real time.

Real time comes in to break that tie. In the above event the 3 points would go to the game submited in the 1st week and the 2 points to the game in the 4th week.

If i submit a game that took 3 years on the first day of the round and you submited one that was 2 years on the last day of the round you would still get the 3 points.

I hope this cleared that up.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Habitable planet's - common
Number of planet's - common
Number of Star's - abundant


now I'm on my own turf! lots of habitatible planets!
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
OK. I actually did understand this once I read the comment in the other thread. Your saying that game years is what counts and submittal time only breaks ties. I can see some benefit in this, however, although this makes it a bit less objectionable to me I still have issue with it.

My reasoning is that I do believe that game speed as a scoring determinant will result in a fair amount of ties. But I still object to first submitted game as a tie breaker because that gives a benefit to folks that have less of a life (only a figure of speech, no criticism intended) and have more time to dedicate to the game.

Part of the appeal that the league format has to me is that it allows a reasonable time to finish a game with no real time pressure. I didn't even really start last months game until two weeks into the time period and may start even later this time period. The last thing I want is to feel pressured into playing when I don't want to. I see no real problem with spliting up the tie points in the normal way. I think it's as fair a solution as any other.

However I can see the rationale behind the proposal and I'm willing to give it a try but I suggest that we try it both ways before committing. Since it's already been proposed this way for round 2 let's go with it like this but let's try the tie method for round 3 and then people can comment which they like the best. I personally would feel kind of screwed if I had a two year game and so did two other people yet I ended up with a single bonus point vs. 2 or 3 because I didn't start my game until two weeks into the time period.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
[quote]
Tech rate - very slow


AGAIN?!?!     

Shouldn't the results of the previous round be unveiled before the next round begins?
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
now I'm on my own turf! lots of habitatible planets!

Don't bet on it. Small map with 7 opponents will most likely end up with your starting planet and the Mars equivilient regardless of the abundancy settings. At most there may be a planet or two for 8 civs to fight over. I think the DA folks will have a big advantage on this one. But regardless this will indeed be a very challenging setting.

The other point is that the smaller the galaxy the bigger the challenge faced by the suicidal player. Winning at suicidal on a medium galaxy was definitely harder than on gigantic. I'm assuming that winning against suicidal on a small will be equivilently harder than in a medium galaxy. This is something that I don't believe is true for folks that play against AI that have little or no bonus.

You see it from turn 1 at suicidal. Even the influence circle of the AI is twice that of the player. Some people don't realize what an accomplishment winning against suicidal is, the AI realy does get a 200% bonus to *everything*.
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Tech rate - very slow


AGAIN?!?!

Actually wasn't it just slow, not very slow last time? Plus this time there's no tech trading. That, coupled with probably having only the equivilient of Earth and Mars? As I said this will be a very challenging setting. I'm actually kind of looking forward to it as much as I'm dreading it.
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This one should be interesting. As far as the scoring and bonuses go, once a round starts, I think it's too late to change anything, though.

Perhaps in the next round, we can have a little time to reflect and resolve things if need be before a new round starts.

I recall someone coming real close to challenging my game last round. A challenge is tantamount to being called a cheater and is an insult to the player. It should be resolved.

A challenge should have consequences, such as penalties if it's defeated. Maybe during or after this round, we can discuss such things.
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This one should be interesting. As far as the scoring and bonuses go, once a round starts, I think it's too late to change anything, though.

Yes, I agree. My last suggestion was to proceed with this round as proposed but next round try splitting up the points in the case of game speed ties.

Perhaps in the next round, we can have a little time to reflect and resolve things if need be before a new round starts.

I also think that we should have a little breathing space between rounds so that we have a chance to discuss and come to agreement about possible changes prior to immediately starting a new round. We don't need much time but at least a few days space would be nice.

I recall someone coming real close to challenging my game last round. A challenge is tantamount to being called a cheater and is an insult to the player. It should be resolved.

Maybe close but I don't believe any real accusations were made. In fact I think it was clearly prefaced that it was a request for understanding and not an accusation of any kind of cheating.

Actually Cornhusker had made a request that high scoring games be open to scrutiny prior to any game being submitted that meet the 15K point criteria that he set. This was in the middle of the round and didn't receive much discussion (if any) at the time. I can see the validity of his request but at the same time I don't know as I agree that everyone should be forced to share their winning strategy with everyone. I personally exceeded his 15K threshold and did in fact share how I did it with my teammates in our private area using a number of screenshots from the game. I'm sure this information if it were shared with everyone would make it clear that there was nothing untoward in my game but I do have a slight objection of being required to share this with others not on my team.

On the other hand I don't really think that anything I did was any real secret that isn't well known by many folks. Also having told my teammates it would then be known by other teams if perhaps one of our five players were transferred to another team.

I guess I'm open to the decision of the League on this one, but if we do it for score we should do it for every game that gets any bonus for either score or speed.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Maybe close but I don't believe any real accusations were made. In fact I think it was clearly prefaced that it was a request for understanding and not an accusation of any kind of cheating.


I didn't say a challenge was issued. I said it came close. There's no need to add anything to it.

I'm saying that if a challenge is made, there should be consequences. The thought if it happening was unthinkable to me before this round, but I can see the potential of it happening now.

Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Actually Cornhusker had made a request that high scoring games be open to scrutiny prior to any game being submitted that meet the 15K point criteria that he set.


Not true.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
He did actually, but it doesnt really matter, he just was curious as to how it was done.

EDIT: I stand corrected, he actually asked to do that Aug 9th, and you posted score on July 30th.

Anyhow, I dont think he meant anything by it.
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
He did actually, but it doesnt really matter, he just was curious as to how it was done.

EDIT: I stand corrected, he actually asked to do that Aug 9th, and you posted score on July 30th.

Anyhow, I dont think he meant anything by it.


I agree, which is why I didn't drop his name. The way it happened opened my eyes to the possibility though.

I read his first post and was pretty insulted. He posted again after that and we discussed it amongst ourselves to our mutual satisfaction.

(I was awake and reading the posts as they came across. I didn't respond until I slept on it though).

Cornhusker and I have no problems with each other AFAIK.
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Question: Does "7 opponents on small map" mean no minors? Or do minors fall under "everything else is up to you"?
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I have experiance on smaller maps since my computer isnt yet capable of producing gigantic galaxies. I think I'll raise the difficulty on this one since I know how to beat them now. And I certainly hope that the error 12 thing would be fixed by then.

And mumble, earth and mars equivalent civs isnt exactly true. Especially at higher difficulties. You'll see.  

YEY! Am I the only one who has experiance on smaller maps?

-Scot
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
No, I play mostly small to medium
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
And mumble, earth and mars equivalent civs isnt exactly true. Especially at higher difficulties. You'll see.

I hope you're right. I only had 22 planets in the entire medium galaxy and 10 of those were home planet and secondary of the starting system of one civ or other. I can't imagaine that a small galaxy could have much more than that regardless of the abundancy settings. However, this is part of the point of the league, playing games outside of your comfort zone.
Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
However I can see the rationale behind the proposal and I'm willing to give it a try but I suggest that we try it both ways before committing. Since it's already been proposed this way for round 2 let's go with it like this but let's try the tie method for round 3 and then people can comment which they like the best.


Agreed, i am more than happy to do this. Like we said, trial and error...we will get there in the end.

The reason i rushed these in with little discussion was i felt rushed in putting together round 2. I really do think 1 week's break between rounds would be prudent but i thought the general feeling was get straight back into playing. This was more an assumption by me maybe, and we all know that assumption is the mother of all frak-up's!!

I think if we can all debate the topics through this round we can hit the ground running for round 3. We can do it here or i will start a new thread dedicated just to the debate.

The topics are,

penalty's
5th player and non submital
tie breaker's
game scrutineering
have i forgot anything??????

As to the topic of checking games over a certain score, i really don't see the need. If Wyndstar played in the league would we question his scores? I think most of us know (if not check his profile) that he is capable of putting in plus 50,000k scores on these types of settings, even more IIRC. Now he has been challenged before and explained his method's.

For the few +15k game we had, there are no cheat flags present and i trust that the games in question were played within the limit's of the game setting's.

For me there is no debate, but if we want to look at the issue and come up with something, by all means, anything to keep the players happy.

Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Shouldn't the results of the previous round be unveiled before the next round begins?


Sorry TP, i missed your question here.

I don't think there is a need for the results to be out in order to begin play. It in no way affects the round or the games, i did not want to hold up play till the mater was resolved.

I can tell you that it will either be a 2 point win for the Crusader or there will be a 3 way tie for first after 1 round.

Before i made a decision i wanted to hear the majority of players thoughts.
Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Tie for first, now I am confused, WE KICKED SOME SERIOUS.  
Reply #24 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
scrutineering


I don't think scrutinizing games is really necessary at this point - but that is an awesome new word, I love it! It reminds me a little of the bit at the beginning of Monty Python's The Meaning of Life - I picture a rogue band of accountants breaking down the doors at board meetings, "Arr, we come to inspect yer statement o' cash flows - and give us yer real books or we'll amortize all yer assets to the hilt!"


Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
    

Tell me, did you find the fish!!