Everything looks great. The one I was really hoping for and kept mentioning was a team score. Finally it looks like we will get a team score   The average score looks good as long as everyone submits, which should'nt be a problem

Marcus Cardiff   TP you want religion in here? Here's some for you, In heaven there aint no beer, so you gotta drink it here.

No. Heck no. (no pun intended)



Can we have the sticky on the main forums? seeing as not many people actually go into the metaverse sub-forum. Still, It'd be great if we got the front page. A single post of "Galactic news" would be nice.   

Yes, piznit. I like the idea.




That wouldn't work with advanced players.
Different players would have different strategies which would use different bonuses, tactics or race to achieve the same goal. In this way, for a few players, a bit harder and for the others no difference at all.

i.e.I can assign my bonus points to the Yor for a political victory. I don't need to make alliances with everyone. Just kill all but one. Butter them up and ally yourself with them or pick your pet race from the beginning.

For some players who love to play as yor: absolutly no difference, all except a shiny extra bonus point. For example, I like the Torians and Yor as my favourite races.

-Scot

I still don't care for this or other schemes that apply an artifical limit on bonus points. For one I don't think it will realistically happen. Secondly if it does how do you decide which bonus the person doesn't get and therefore which bonus point needs to be passed on to the next guy in line. Finally the most important reason is that it seems to say that improvement is good but only up until a certain point. I think that's a bad message to send to folks.

As I've said let's just have a good selection of bonus points that are available for folks to get and the rest will take care of itself without the need for some kind of arbitration system to decide who can get what bonus. Part of the motivation of reducing the points to one point per category was to eliminate the need for resolving ties. If folks tie and one would have deserved a bonus point then they both get one. It makes things simple.

I do understand the idea of playing a race that is perceived to have some disadvantage as worthy of a bonus but overall I don't like this idea either. With the score and speed criteria there is some level of performance that must be achieved even after the player decides what to attempt. In the case of race selection you just pick the race and assumedly as long as you win you get your bonus. The end result is that now everyone simply is pretty much told which race to use because otherwise you intentionally start out with a disadvantage.

If there was use this race and achieve either a speed or score bonus then I could go along with it but a bonus point for simply selecting a race to play with is not reasonable. Scot's point is absolutely correct, you can pretty much always use a military conquest strategy to gain control of the galaxy at which point it's easy enough to dictate the type of victory.

I certainly do like the total team score or average team score as a bonus criteria. But also cumualtive or average team speed should be a bonus criteria as well. I think everyone seems to be in agreement that all bonuses be 1 point only. But for the two team bonuses I would like a 2 point bonus for 1st and a 1 point bonus for 2nd, with ties earning the same. This puts a slight amount of accent on the team criteria and makes up a bit for the fact that there are more individual bonuses to go around then there are team bonuses.

I was simply throwing out ideas for possible bonus points that would be easy to prove. Because thats the problem. I could offer a lot more possiblities but you couldn't prove any of them. Example: spend no bonus points on racial skills when you start would provide an extra point, or something like that. Granted, we are using the honor system, but questions will arise if theres too many things open to debate. I'll see if I can brainstorm any others.

How about not creating another team to maintain 4 players per team. But rather have 5 players per team as we have enough players. How about it?

In this way, each team has exactly 5 players and the new recruits would be the sixth player in the same way as the fifth player now.

More teams mean more complication. We must reduce complication, not add to it.

-Scot

Also, neilo. Whats the deadline?

Include that in the challenge post please.

Have'nt heard too much from some of the other teams out there. SCARED.

Teams A B and D fly, fly away in your puny little flagships as The Celestial Crusaders are coming for YOU. Mwwhahahaha. Oh yeah your mommy cant save you now   

Just want to give this thread a bump. We're getting close to the end of the current round we should start to try and gain some concensus on the ideas presented here.

I think the best way is for everyone to post their feelings about the various ideas presented here and then Neilo can look them all over and pick what he thinks seems to have the most support.

I think I've probably expressed my opinions throughly enough that I don't need to add much at this point but there are many others that should pop in and express their opinion.

One final suggestion I have is that we change the start/end date of our month to the 15th, it's slightly more intuitive.

15th,13th, all I care about is team scoring to keep it a team effort. Sorry Mumble.

Yes, mumble. I also hate those pesky fridays on them 13ths. 15th sounds good. You have my vote.

Also, to keep discussions bumped I'll throw in a suggestion that I put in earlier.



Whaddaya think?
More players per team instead of more teams. Less complication.

Also, I think for next round the highest average team score should be given a bonus but the cumalative game years should be given a +1 and not the average game years.

Back to Call of Duty 2.

-Scot

I have a proposal, please either vote yes or no and if no please counter propose.

2 points per win in correct manner (as it is now)
2 point for highest team score, 1 for next highest
2 point for fastest team time, 1 for next fastest

1 points for highest individual score
1 point for next highest indiv score

1 points for fastest indiv game
1 for next fastets indiv game

resignations and defeats are 0 points
non-submital is -2 points unless notice has been given
no penalty points at all

If we get 1 more player, then we could do another team. We would then have 5 teams of 4.

Your doing it again. Being all complicated.
But I agree. Both commishioners agreed. Now lets wait for the votes.



But why not simply 4 teams of 5? And have the 6th player act as the 5th player now.

-Scot

I vote yay.

This is all based on the ideas put forth in the discussion. Not sure any of it is complicated...Could it be simplified, i believe so, but these best represent the majority of the players i feel.



Because there is not enough players, that is why. To do what you say would require 20 players, as of round 3 we have 18, but that includes Cornhusker, whom IIRC is taking a break from the league.

We currently have three teams of 5 and one team of 4. As soon as we get another player we can take that player and along with 1 from each of the 5 person teams and make a Team E. The more teams the better, we don't want anymore than 4 in a team ideally, certainly not on any permanent bases anyway.

I vote yay on all but the non-submittal penalty. I don't think we need penalties of any kind, but a -1 would be an ok compromise. Choosing to "punish" people seems to only encourage them to stay away.

Forgiveness should be the rule of the day. After all, it's the evil thing to do.   

I'd vote no because of the following caveats.

I think it should be 1 point for the *three* highest individual scores and *three* fastest individual games. Also ties in both team and individual categories should all get the same points.

Also you do need to mention how different sized teams are handled. Clearly the team catagories need to be either an average score/speed or the lowest score and highest speed needs to be dropped. I think average is better because that way all team members contribute. Also dropping one player brings up the problem of whether it's the lowest scoring game or the slowest game gets dropped. If this is the case it also brings up the concern that a different game is dropped for score and for speed. The average eliminates this problem and is the simplier solution.

As far as -1 versus -2 for non submittal I tend to agree but it's not a big deal to me one way or the other.

As far as team size again I could deal with 5 as a base or 4 as it is now, again it doesn't really matter to me.

Hrmm, guess I get to vote. Temporarily vote no, agree with Mumblefratz's concerns. With more and more people joining, I think at least the 3 fastest/biggest individual games should get a bonus. I also think the teams should be done on an average, so that the size 4 and size 5 teams are more equal.

Team size: no need to really define this imo with averages. This round we can stay with 4 teams, if more people join we can increase it to 5.

I do like the idea of there being a tie breaker. If 10 people have a 4 year game, they shouldn't all get the bonus. The one who submitted earlier, instead of the one who carefully tweaked it for max points in December should receive the bonus imo.

Anyways, that's about it. Love the changes, especially dropping the lowest/slowest penalties.

Vilgan

I guess i should have written in that the team points are averaged, i thought that was given. As usual i rarely get my point across with 1 effort, but the team score and speed points are indeed averaged with all players included.



This is how i see it too mate.



I can go either way with this, i really have no prefence, if others feel the same this is the way we will go.

The non-submital penalty is something we could lose altogether i guess, anything that is perceived to keep players away is bed i think anad should be delted from the league. Perhaps there would be less pressure on players and more might join, since the league has taken a "laid back approach".

The reason i say only 4 per team is what does the 5th player do when there is a round where there is 4 different victory types?

Commish.

I abstain.

Good point. Although we've yet to see one of these challenges yet. I suppose what would be natural to do would be to allow the 5th player to play a back up game of their own choice. However, not sure who the 5th player should be. It shouldn't always be the same person just because they were the last person assigned to the team that's the only thing that should be definite.

But actually this is really a different topic than the decision on the scoring rules. I don't see how one thing really depends on the other. Regardles of whether the base number is 4 or 5 we still must allow for the possibility of different numbers of folks on each team for the average thing. I think the more immediate need is to decide the rules for the next round based on how we've all felt the first 2 rounds have gone. I don't think we have enough folks at this point to break into 5 teams anyway we, can certainly defer this decision until we reach the total of 20 players in the league.


Again I disagree. If I remember correctly we agreed to try it with a tiebreaker (which we did) and then try it without a tiebreaker.

Basically my point is to eliminate the need of the complication of a tiebreaker. The implication Vilgan makes by suggesting that a game submitted earlier is better than a game "carefully tweaked for max points in December" is that the tiebreaker is in terms of game time which as far as I know cannot be determined from submitted game data. That leaves the MV submission date as the tie breaker which is what we used last game. This opens up the possibility that someone that simply has more time to play the game has an advantaqe over someone that might not be able to start playing the instant the game is announced.

Also I think the expectation of 10 ties is pretty unrealistic. Part of my intent *is* to have a large number of small bonuses so that many people can share in them. Ties in my mind are good. If a 4 year game is good enough to make the top three and if there really are 10 four year games then fine, all ten of them get a point. But if there's one 2 year game and 2 three year games then the 4 year games get nothing. Anyway, this has all been discussed before and it was essentially agreed at that time that we would try it both ways and then decide.

The 2nd round isn't over so I don't know what the final tally will be in game speed but AFAIK at the moment there's one 3 year game and three 4 year games. It's regetable in my mind that one 4 year game will get 2 points, one game will get 1 point and another will get no points. If what I proposed were in place there would actually be less total bonus points applied to game speed (4 vs 6) but more people would get bonuses (4 vs 3). I think this is a more fitting solution.

As far as the non-submital I still think this is an awful bad thing to do to your teammates. We really aren't requiring much in the way of effort in the case that real life suddenly interferes with anyones ability to finish a game. We accept a loss or a resignation (don't know as if we can even tell the difference) as a "submission" so at the worst someone could take 15 minutes or so and do this for the benefit of his team. If someone can't be bothered to do even this then I feel that's pretty bad. I'm not looking to punish anyone or to otherwise inhibit someone from continuing in the league even if for some reason they do forget to submit a game but again this is really bad and lets down your whole team and undermines the existance of the league. I say let the -2 stay.

I am being completely honest when i say i am down right confused as to the whole fastest game/tie break situation. We seem to be making more rules and exceptions where's we should be streamlining the system as much as possible.

So what you are saying Mumble, is that there is no limit to fastest game bonus points. It is possible, however unlikely. that everyone could get a bonus point for fastest game???

In theory that sounds ok but let's put a ceiling on it. Say no more than 6 people could share in the points. If there is 8 that qualify then we use Meta submission time to decide which six of those 8 get the points.

There still should be some reward for submitting early, IMHO, and "paying down to sixth" leaves plenty of opportunity for those with not as much time as others.

Now i'm not saying 6 is the magic number, but a ceiling of some form should be used.

By having the possibility of everyone gets bonus's then there is no incentive for anyone to better themselves.....

My 2 cent's.

As for the non submital, i think it might be best to leave it -2 for the moment.

There are certainly more rules required to break ties than are required in treating ties equally. It's not me that's adding the rules.


Sure why not? If suddenly everyone submitted a 4 year game then that would certainly indicate that a whole bunch of people have suddenly improved their game. I think that is both the goal of the league as well as something that deserves the slight recognition that a single bonus point conveys. However, for this to happen everyone would have to improve to precisely 4 years because if only three people posted a 3 year game then four years gets nothing.

In any case we did have this discussion and I thought we had agreement to at least try it. You can't condem a system without at least giving it a chance. If everyone hates it and thinks it's stupid then we can go back to the 1,2,3 method or top 6 or whatever. But all of these have more rules and exceptions than treating ties equally.


This is actually a totally separate category. Yes I agree that submitting earlier is a disadvantage that perhaps deserves some kind of bonus, but why should submitting earlier be part of the fast game criteria and have nothing to do with the high score criteria?

Basically it's more unlikely that there will be ties in the score but they certainly can and will happen. We need to have a policy of what we do in case of tied scores before it happens not after. Again my opinion is that all ties are treated equally. Period. End of story. No ifs ands or buts. Everything else proposed adds an extra and unnecessary layer of rules. Why bother? Give both of them a point and move on. What could be easier?

As far as Game submittal. If folks feel that submitting early to the game thread is a disadvantage then perhaps we should offer a single bonus point to the first three that post their game to the League Submission thread. This would encourage people to submit their game and not wait to see if they can better it later. However it only helps the first three because once three have posted their game no one else as any incentive to post.

Anyway, folks are postulating conditions and putting what ifs on things that will never happen. There won't be 10 ties as Vilgan suggested nor will there even be 6 as Neilo suggested. And even if there are so what? How is this the end of the world if everybody happens to have a good quick game. If ten people get a 4 year game and that's defined to be somehow good and worthy of bonus it's pretty arbitrary to cut that off at 6 and say to the other 4 that their 4 year game is not as good as someone else's four year game. Particularily if you need an extra layer of rule and exception to enforce this arbitrary cut off. Seems senseless to me.

Only concern I have is that giving points to the highest score AND the highest team score will, in MOST cases, be the same team. So its almost just a double bonus. The team with the highest average score will *most* likely be the team with the player with the highest overall score. With only 4 to 5 players per team, it will end up that way the majority of the time. If this league was meant to shy away from just maxxing out points like the metaverse, then having that much emphasis on bonus points is working in the wrong direction. I would be happy if it never worked out that way, and I'm well aware of ways it could be different, but the law of averages is a joykill. Of course we can try it for a few rounds and if that seems to be the case, can change it at that point.

If the team score is computed as an average, the penalty is built in right there, no need for further penalties; you've got four scores divided by five (for instance), which is a significant penalty all by itself.



Captain's choice. The team captain can use it as a dispute resolution tool, assigning two people the same victory type when they fight over it. Otherwise, he assigns his four players one type each and chooses his own type separately. There should be at least one perq for being a captain, right?