all this fuss over lil old me (and someone else)?

if you've got one extra player that'd leave one team with a 6th player, i'd be willing to sit this round out if necessary. i started (and finished) a game with the current rules guidelines, but since i hadn't yet been assigned to a team, i didn't know if i should be pursuing a particular type of victory.

since you all are much more familiar with the history of the MVL, i'll leave this up to your judgement. though, i don't supposed there's some resource out there's some sort of synopsis of policies and discussions thus far that wouldn't require me to read through several pages of posts in several different forum threads, is there?

Well yes and no.

Not you in particular but you in general, if that makes any sense at all.

The point is to have fun and it's no fun to sit on the sidelines and we haven't made anyone do so yet so why should we start now. Yes it may be a touch confusing but it really is no big deal.

Neilo is probably waking up about now, since he's on the other side of the planet, and we do need to wait for him to assign you a team but otherwise this is very little different than other rounds. Yes we have multiple victory types and yes we may now have to have 6 on a team or two until we can reorganize but we are being more consistent with our previous practice by allowing you to play than if we were to make you wait.

I agree with allowing new players to join existing teams in the middle of the round. For one, we are really still just getting this League started, and mixing things up a little bit now will help us plan better for future rounds while allowing everyone to participate from the get-go.

Neilo, I am probably going to be unavailable this weekend - if the Sorting Hat drops a player into the Bladerunners, please do the honors and welcome them for me. Forum password, secret handshake, show them where we keep the good beer, etc.

Still haven't heard Neilo weigh-in so it still is up in the air. And although my somewhat arbitrary pronouncement differed from your initial suggestion, I do absolutely agree that we need to minimize the upset to the round which is why I felt we should do things based on how we have already done similar things in the past. At least that means we've behaved consistently.

I think all would be in agreement that we can't adjust teams in the middle of a round but as far as who goes where I'd be fine with any reasonable suggestion or even Neilo making random assignment. However with that said it would seem that they people that just joined and thus haven't had much time to become too accustomed to any particular team would be the first candidates to move. However, other than these folks I would presume to say that someone that started the round with the team has as much right to stay on that team as anyone else even someone who has been on the team a bit longer. So if the reorginization requires more then the members that just joined to move then I would say who moves should be randomly assigned by Neilo.

However I don't really have a very strong opinion on how we should move people between teams when required other than it not happen in the middle of a round.

And yes I certainly hear you about the passwords and probably teams should be adjusted to minimize the needed password changes. However, it was assumed that this would happen which is why those forums were setup with passwords to begin with. It may not be easier for those that need to remember a new password but it's far easier for the admin at the core to assign new passwords and create another forum for the new team than it is to always juggle the access control lists every time a new member joins the league.

And I do think that 5 may indeed be the platonic ideal as it gives resonable flexibility in the case of the non-submittal, but clearly 4 is a minimum if we wish to do multiple victory condition type rounds and 6 does seem like a little too many per team for the same reason so there's not all that much wiggle room between this range.

Also nonsensical noncriticism aside , the concept that we should have a minimum of rules and they should be simple and clear is one I share, and falling back on precedent is a very good way not to have to invent new rules as every new wrinkle is discovered. It's inevitable that when starting something new there will be unanticipated issues that come up. I think we're pretty close to finalized on the scoring. I suppose after this round we can see how leaving ties unbroken worked out and decide if we want to leave it that way or not but otherwise scoring seems set with a minimun of rules. I doubt we have more than 5 listed if that. If we simply rely on precedent we've created no new rules for how people can join. All in all I don't think we've overly complicated the process.

You really don't need to read all the previous discussion. All the resulting changes of those posts are in effect. However, you can still voice your opinion on current issues.

mumble, you strike me as either a seasoned lawyer or a seasoned dungeon master   for my own two cents' worth, i don't have a strong opinion but all other things being equal, i'd ideally like to join the same team FireBender's on (we benders've gotta stick together).

at this point i'm just sort of wondering if i should be working on a particular victory type in a new game, and i don't anticipate having too much free time over the next two weeks so i'd hoped to spend today and/or tomorrow working on a new, stronger game. from what i've read, it seems the sixth player will be treated like the 5th, which is to say that the captain will assign one victory type, and the scores of both players with that victory type assignment will be averaged (and for what it's worth, i think i could do relatively best on a tech victory).

also, great humor butterfly, but should the tattoo be printed forwards, so others can read it, or backwards, so i can read it myself in a mirror?

Ok, how about this:

4 players apply for bonus points and 2 extras.

If this is something that was suggested or dismissed then I want to say I'll read the rest of the posts in an hour or so. I don't have much time now.

-Fire

LOL, y'know I'm a Political Science major and I think even all this is going over my head, i'd rather read a dissertation on constitutional review. Its alright everyone, I know that kinks are still trying to be worked out and in the end, we will have a very smooth running machine. However, that being said, I'm going to thrown my $.03 (LOL, I must just be richer than all of you haha)

Firstly, being a League and having teams I personally feel that focus should ALWAYS be on the team, and NEVER an individual player. For example, Sammy Sosa hit a crap load of home runs for the Cubs but it didn't guarantee them any wins (which is too bad, I really really really want my Cubbies to go all the way sometime...before i die). Great player, but the Team needed to work together more. In other words, I feel that individual bonuses are counter-productive and hurt teams that work hard for a goal together.

Secondly, to an individual that could be reading these posts, the MVL could seem...intimidating and a tad chaotic. We really need to stress and emphasize that this is about being presented with a specific challenge and meeting it head on, possibly in a way that is different from a player's usual style. To the uninitiated or newbies to see us quibbling over bonus points or who does what or what have you, leads to a very high probability that they are less likely to join in. I decided to join the MVL because I like the camaraderie and the challenges that each round presents, and I know that many out there would probably actually enjoy doing the MVL.

Third, if we do need to discuss rule changes, new teams, etc, may I suggest that we use a forum at the Core. IIRC all the MVL players are registered over there anyhow, and also it prevents presenting an "unfinished" product to those that may be interested.

Finally, if we do decide that we need or will create a new team(s) for Round 4, I am willing to join and/or head said team.

Codex Mumbli



Actually, I am quite happy with mumble's summary of our rules. I am quite optimistic that we have now an established set of rules that is the result of our experience from the first rounds.
We might add a point zero to this:
Mid-round rule changes are to be aoided; in cases that are new and unclear we can talk about it, but neilo decides. Neilo can follow the majority but he doesn't have to.

The only points that might change in the long run are:
- the question if +3/+2/+1 team bonueses make sense once we get to 6 teams
- the question of ties (submitting later is an advantage, since you know what you must beat if you submitlater) - so I am against ties for the next round - submission date should play a role as tie breaker in round 4.


In a situation like round three where all victories get you 2 credits this means that in a 5 player team player A has the fastest and player E the highest scoring win of the same type. That sounds like something I like because it makes it possible for all five players to play a role without putting teams of 4 at too great a disadvantage.

The more interesting case is a specified win:
In this case I think we should only let games compete for fastest/highest scoring that would be worth the 2 basic points for correct type even if it is not counted for basic credits. In other words: only correct victory types are eligible for individual bonueses.
Example:
if we have a alliance win round - players A-D of the team do alliance victories and get 2 credits each it just wouldn't be fair if player 5 could go for a military win to boost his score or a tech win to be the fastest.

agreed, and i isn't my intent to step on toes or minimize the matters at hand nor would i ever suggest trying to change things mid-round. Also, it is in my ignorance that I did not notice the forum at the Core, and I apologize for that. We just gotta get through 2+ more weeks kids by the time i had read through every post, i was skimming heavily and really missing what i should be seeing. my original intent was just to voice concern over complicating and possibly being intimidating to those who may be interested in joining. Everything else is just icing, i just happen to like lemon.

As for the 6th player issue/base points/and individual bonus points for non-base score games:

IMHO, 5th and 6th player treated as is, that is lowest score game dropped, but it should be (and I think this is what everyone plans?) per victory status ie Team Z, Person 4 and Person 5 both do Military, 4 has the higher score so his submitted.

However, if Person 5 say has the highest speed game he should still be awarded Bonus Point (for contributing to his team)

Ok, so if we look at that way, doesn't that solve the issues at hand? Even a 4 member team wouldn't be at a disadvantage to a 6 person team because the amount of possible bonus points would be the same, the only real benefit a larger team has is someone fails to submit a game, they are more likely to have a backup game from their extra players.

So, and trying to look over Mumble's numerous posts (no easy task, I don't even write that much in English Comp), I'm thinking the real issue is going to be team size. A 4 person team allows for the separate victory settings perfectly but lacks the ability to recoup from a non-submission. A 5-person team alleviates the worst case from a non-submittal but it also leaves someone out, partially. Larger than 5 people, is treated in the same way, but more individuals are left with more minor contributions. Now, I DON'T want us to go all in a tangent on new teams yet, we obviously can't make new ones right now (and I've stated that elsewhere) but it is something we will have to discuss at some point.

finally, so am I wrong in thinking that we pretty much have the scoring nailed down for this round? at least, in basic form, if not all its details

I agree with this. It has neven been an issue and thus never discussed but I think this makes the most sense.


Yes, I think it make sense to increase the team bonuses once we have more teams.

As far as ties we agreed that we would try it both ways. After this round we will at least have seen how it works out and we can decide which we prefer. My own personal preference is to leaves ties unbroken because it requires less rules and exceptions to do it this way and I think it's also is easier for the score keeper to do his job. However I agree that submitting earlier is more difficult and should be used to break ties if that's how most people prefer it. I think that if we do decide to break ties then it should be the submission to the League that counts, not the MV submission time.


Actually, with the single victory condition rounds it really wasn't considered which player's 2 point base score would be dropped. Also it's not necessarily the lowest "game" score that is dropped but lowest "base" score. Most often these are ties since everyone tends to get 2 points.

In the case of this round of multiple victory conditions it makes sense that the 4 games that are counted must be one of each type and therefore only victory conditions that are duplicated can be dropped.

I would agree that even a dropped game (as long it is a victory) should be eligible for individual bonus but this was the point that hasn't ever been discussed nor has any precedant that I was looking for opinion on. So far we've had a couple people in favor of this but PlayJeff (see below) is not. We do need to have others express their opinion on this and hopefully reach concensus quickly. My informal count is 3 to 1 for allowing dropped base scores to still be eligible for individual bonus.

Note that dropped games do count for team bonuses because they're based on averages. In fact it was intentionally done that way so that the so called 5th player can participate as much as possible. This is more justification for allowing all games to be eligible for individual bonus.


Clearly 4 is minimum if we want to do rounds with all victory conditions which I assume we do. I do think 5 is the best number for the reason you point out but that 6 does become unweildly. I think we should always be able to keep it between 4 and 6 and that 6 would only be temporary until new teams can be formed.


I think so but the devil is in the details. Such as the following.


Again this is the point that has no precedent nor discussion. This is one valid opinion that seems slightly outnumbered at this point but we still haven't heard a from whole lot of folks yet.

ya know, i was just daydreaming, and i thought of a nice name for Team E if its created...Ethereal Egomaniacs, tho, in fairness we could call Team F "Fumbling Floozies" haha, but...from the Crusader's perspective its more like this: 'The Aaack-Team', 'The Blade Runner-Aways', and the 'Domination of Doo Doo'....but thats just cuz we're so great, i mean we're Celestial and Crusaders, our purpose is to defeat and subjugate the heretical pagan peoples of the other teams.

don't make me break out the arrows to knock that Pols Voice out