I agree, am bouncing up and down waiting for the specs for this round. My weekend with the most free time is this one.. and its a wastin!

Vilgan

Need to give this thread a bump. We do have this one issue left to resolve. Not quite sure why we haven't heard anything from team D on this because I personally feel they got the short end of the stick this last round. We need to have a decision on this issue of how a non-submittal affects a 4 man team vs. a 5 man team prior or at least coincident with the start of round 3. No comment from Neilo on this yet, not sure he's even seen it, hence the bump.

I do agree with this however Xei Win Toh's concern about giving someone the same (or more) points as someone that submitted a game is still a valid point. Although I think it's harsh to penalize any team in this situation, if we're going to effectively penalize the 4 man team then it's only fair to penalize the 5 man team.

One thing that could help is that if we can get all the teams up to 5 then we wouldn't have to worry about this. I think FB suggested 5 man teams as a base earlier and this among other thing would cause me to tend to agree, however we don't quite have enough players yet.

BTW someone in one of these threads (it is hard to keep them straight) asked about TGE. I checked at the Core and the last he was seen there was Sept. 13th but I haven't heard anything directly from him for awhile. Hopefully he will show back up.

We are using averages for bonuses. Using an average for base score has not been discussed but is one way of potentially dealing with the issue. Perhaps this is one thing to consider. But if we continue to use four cumulative scores from both 4 and 5 man teams for base score then this issue is not mute.

This is simply throwing up your hands and saying it's too bad that an obvious inequity exists. If there was no other choice then I guess I would be forced to agree. However, there is an easy and obvious solution that I proposed and that is to make the non-submittal work the same for both the 4 and 5 man team.

I agree that this is just bad luck but if so it should be bad luck whether you're on a 4 man team or a 5 man team. Basically for base score we take the 4 scores from a 4 man team and 4 scores from a 5 man team and make the 5 man team drop one score. Fine. The simple solution to the inequity between being on a 4 man team and a 5 man team is to not allow the non-submittal to be the score that's dropped. It's both simple and fair. What's wrong with this solution?

Good point, certainly if we had all 5 man teams as FireBender suggested then we could do this and a single non-submittal wouldn't hurt. But then the flip side is that a non-submittal should hurt some because it's not a good thing to do. The key is to make it hurt some but not too much as well as make sure that if 4 man teams feel the pain then so should 5 man teams.

We have eliminated the explicit -2 point penalty and we've moved team bonus calculations to averages so the non-submittal wiil have no effect there. The only thing left is the impact this has on base score and my solution does make it hurt some and also makes it hurt *relatively* fairly between 4 and 5 man teams. Yes, as you point out the 5 man team has a 20% higher chance of this happening and that is *somewhat* unfair to the 5 man team but the other way around makes the 4 man team bear all the burden of this and the 5 man team none of the burden. My solution isn't perfect but it's closer to fair than not.

Your suggestion of a 2nd "backup" game that could be used in a limited way deserves some consideration. I think it's very likey that the team may have such a backup. In general quite a few folks have a couple of games to select from. Allowing someone to use such a game to lessen but not eliminate the loss from this has merit. I would suggest that the concept of having a backup is what is different between a 4 and a 5 man team. A 5 man team automatically has a "backup" game, in this case from their 5th player. I would say this is a good solution. I think you might want to allow this for 4 man teams and let 5 man teams behave as they have already. That's as close to fair as one could reasonably expect.

The downside of this solution is that it does require some extra rules and exceptions to rules and I think it therefore fails the test of Occam's Razor. In any case I am not quite so adverse to rules and exceptions to rules as it seems many here are and I think this is a less harsh and in fact preferable solution to the one I proposed. My proposal may be simpler but it's also harsher.

I think each solution is relatively fair and I could live with either. But I do have difficulty with allowing a condition to exist that would always penalize 4 man teams and never penalize 5 man teams. I can accept luck, I just can't accept bias.

Not quite so sure about that, certainly we could start the round and decide early in the round, however we have precedent that says we don't change rules in the middle of a round. If this situation comes up at the end of this round it's far better to have decided before the fact instead of after. As to the probability of it occuring, it occured this round and so I don't think its too unreasonable to assume that it might occur next round as well.

I guess none of my comments actually addressed the 4 vs 5 situation for round 2 but, as we have done in the past, we can only go by the rules available at the time. So i think there is little to be done for what happened to Team D in round 2 but if we are happy with the back up game as the solution for excused or allowed non submital's then it will be included in the next round. A non submital with no notification will not be granted the back up game.

I know i will have posted round 3 by the time this could be disscused, so if the back up game is not in favor it will be omitted.

I wasn't proposing changing the score for round 2 because as you point out things were done based on the rules in place at the time. I was only using this as an example of the issue so we could address it for future rounds.

I edited this post (quite) a bit because I thought the above meant that this issue was not going to be addressed. However since I see that it is being addressed for round 3 then I have no complaint.

Now I believe there is little choice but to make another team. Dystopic and Noctalicus are still waiting for assignment, correct?

Unless we want to start a waiting list for participation another team is needed.

OR

We could have all 5 players' submissions count as well as apply for bonus points and have the 6th player act as the 5th player now.


Both suggestions eliminate a waiting list as a option.

If we create another team we will have 3 teams of 4 and 2 teams of 5.
If anyone in the 3 four player teams encounters a problem and can't submit for whatever reason, then that four man team is at a serious disadvantage.

Ideas or thoughts?

Also, about individual victory condition bonuses.
Here is my suggestion:

1 point for the highest score in [victory condition]. 1 point for ties.(although there are never any ties in score)

1 point for fastest game in [victory condition]. 1 point for ties.(or we could employ the submission to the MVL as the tie breaker)

Please tell me what you think

-Fire
Commish.

Hmmm, I guess you're right. Having discussion like this mid-round is not very... efficient(for lack of a better word  ).



I don't think there is anyone who has disagreed with this. With the inclusion of Neilo and exception of playjeff. Even Playjeff has agreed to the afore-mentioned system)

Therefore, Mumble's suggestion of individual BP for each category is passed by majority in the poll.

As for the teams, I don't think there is any other choice but what I mentioned in reply#116. And I don't think there is anyone who would mind the teams growing larger.

But that only solves the problem for a short while. For long term there could be 8 players per team with 2 players at each victory condition(Or simply, another team).


_______________________________________________________________________________________
But whatever, Indiv. BPs for each category is passed since not a single person has disagreed(correct me if I'm wrong) and the above-mentioned system (reply#116) is the way its going to be done.

Teams are now 5 players applying for bonus points and the 6th acting as the 5th player does now. 2 players can play the same victory condition. I made this because I think there is no other choice. Either this or kick the new players out. Your choice.

-Fire
Commish.

Yes I think it's obvious to all that we've agreed on this. Of course the fact that you said that ties in score never happen will most likely ensure that we get a tie score.

That issue is old news (see the date on the post) and was resolved with the start of round 3 (see the OP of the Round 3 thread).

The current issue is the assignment of a new player when all teams already have a 5th player. Please don't muddy the current issue with others that have already been resolved.

The same thing goes for the no tiebreaker which is clearly stated in the OP of the Round 3 thread.

Don't take it so hard. It certainly wasn't meant that way. It's just that this 6th player thing is distracting in the middle of a round and needs to be resolved quickly, firmly and of course correctly. Our friend FB managed the first 2 of these points however his solution is rather lacking on the 3rd point.