Advance notice before a round starts makes a lot of sense if you still think some sort of reward for it makes sense.

However, I do not support anything that sums up to a player doing absolutely nothing can earn more points for his team than a hard-working player that fails to get the correct win.
And therefore, since there's no greater penalty for not submitting as opposed to posting a resign/defeat, it makes no sense to have a restriction on when a player can say that he won't be able to submit a game. It should be stressed, however, that a player who can't submit a game for whatever reason informs the league (or at least the commish and his team) that he won't be able to, 'cause that's just common courtesy.

As for 4 vs. 5-man teams, I believe this to be a separate issue that I have no strong opinion on.


In a perfect world, of course, we'd have several more 4-man teams and no non-submittals whatsoever.

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

But it's not a perfect world as this months results show. I'm fine with not rewarding a non-submittal as you call it. However if that's what we're going to do then it's only fair if a non-submittal occurs in a 5 man team then they must drop *two* score's. The one they would have had to drop anyway *and* the non-submittal, that's only fair.

[edit]
The 4 versus 5 man teams is not a separate issue. Using this months scoring as an example, Team A should have only ended up with 7 points instead of 9 because they needed to drop one score because they're a 5 man team and then they also had a person not submit a game. To do anything different is unfair to Team D who had the same situation except they only have 4 players to begin with. If you chose one interpretation of the rule you must then accept the consequence that fairness dictates.
[/edit]

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 don't think there is anyone in the league low enough to do that. Good or bad we still have our pride. Accept points on charity? Thats an insult to a player.

If I were in the situation above mentioned then I'd post that defeat. Or at the very least I wouldn't accept points to my character in that way. You win some, you lose some. Nothing lost but always something gained.(except time)

Away with rewards for not submitting, I say. Just complete a scapegoat game when you have time. And in my opinion bring back the penalties for lowest score or slowest game. Its a competition. Be a sportsman. (I learned, don't mention please  )

In FPS games I never back out before the kill board strikes the score limit. I'm a marksman to the end. So, away with rewards for not submitting I say.

-Fire

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.

If we are going down the path of using averages, then the whole issue of dropping a players score is mute. I could not agree on giving any person points for an honest and informed non submital. Personally i think that it is just bad luck, the team get's no penalty but i think it is just the way the cookie crumbles in this case.

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?

Not sure I disagree, but to be the devil's advocate: The 5 man team has a 20% chance higher of having to worry about a non submittal raping them. So they do run a higher risk of having someone not submit. Also, in a league where we want participants, it seems risky to have a frontpage rule basically be hey, you will totally screw the other 3-4 people on your team if you join but then are not able to submit. I think it should be possible to "cover" for a teammate in some manner.

I personally would instead suggest a system where any team member can submit a 2nd game. This game is ONLY examined if someone in their empire did not submit (for whatever reason) and it could only receive 1 point instead of 2 (and not be eligible for individual bonuses). It would, however, count in for the averaging of score/speed etc for the team bonuses.

This way there is a penalty for not submitting, but you are not utterly ruining your team if you are unable to submit. They take a hit, and someone has to pick up the slack, but someone likely can and the team still competes albeit at a slight disadvantage. If it nears the end of the round and someone has not submitted and can not be contacted, the captain would specify which game is the reserve in case they do not submit.

Tbh, this does not seem like something that HAS to be in stone before round 3 is released as its a contingency end of round issue.

Vilgan

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.

Unless there is a huge outcry from the team in question and/or more players, i don't see a need to address the issue at all. I may indeed be throwing up my hands Mumble, but as i see it there is nothing to be done. I do understand what you propose but i disagree with it.

I would though be happy with the back up game but, but it should be randomally assigned to a player in the team in question, by either myself or Firebender. I just wish to state though, that the back back game is to be used only in times of a notified omission from the round by the player in question. A no show will not be aloowed the privilage of a back up game.

As to your comment,



For round 2, Team A was a four man team, there is no need for a dropped game in this situation.

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 agree with the back up game bit. But is it not strange that the team that suffered such a crucial blow to their score has not as of yet made any comment on the issue. I believe none of them actually saw the results yet.

I will start issuing PM invites. Hopefully, it can do away with this problem.

-Fire

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.

You are the leaders. Don't talk. Lead. Decide whatever you want, but DO decide.



For this round, we've already invited some of these people in. The fact that the word disinvite does not sound to English to my ears can only mean that disinviting people is not a common practice. So again, make a decision - any decision that includes them -and make it quickly, so they know what they have to do. This will also tell our new co-gamers that you are actually getting things DONE which is efficient.

For future rounds we should set up a waiting list:
I hate debates about on-going MVL rounds. It's unfair. It's enervating and it's a hassle for everyone involved. So for the future I suggest that you create a waiting list and only let people in that tell you before the round starts. No more exceptions, or round has just started. I do not think this will scare people away. On the contrary: it is usually the clubs that have a 400 buck cover charge and bouncers that make people stand in line outside that attract people.

I just read through this again. I hope it does not sound offensive - English native speakers always seem to be much more indirect than me.

Anyway, get it done. No matter how.

(turns away, talking to himself, looking mean, old and grumpy)

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.

Well I don't think this is really such a big issue. I mentioned an easy solution in some earlier reply but at the moment I'm not going to go searching through the posts to find it.

Firstly, I agree that we do not want a lot of disruption in the middle of a round, it doesn't benefit anyone.

Secondly, we could make people wait but we haven't in the past and I see no real reason for starting it now. Certainly we cannot break up teams in the middle of a round, that's totally out of the question. However, adding a 5th person to an already existing team has so far been no big deal. If we simply treat a 6th player just like an additional 5th player then there really is no issue. The scoring rules we have will already accommodate a 6th player without modification and that is that for team bonuses all members games are averaged and for base score only the top 4 count. It's actually no more difficult with 6 than it is with 5.

Certainly once a round is over we need to reorganize because we shouldn't start a round with 6 players on a team but I really don't want to turn away folks or even make them wait.


Yes there is another choice which is as I've stated above. We shouldn't change the rules in the middle of a round. Therefore the scoring of the 5th player remains as we initially defined it at the beginning of the round. The fact that one team may essentially have 2 "5th" players now doesn't require us to change the either rules or scoring. However I will certainly agree with whatever Neilo says. Also we do need to have a policy on this for the start of next round.

By default we *do* already have a policy on this which is the precedent that has been set in the past and by that precedent we've allowed everyone to join and contribute in the middle of the round. To do anything different is actually more of a change in the rules than treating the 6th player exactly as a 2nd 5th player.

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.

To what Vilgan proposed in reply #109, instead of having another player submit 2 scores, why not count the lowest score twice? That way you dont get a zero, but you do get a minor penalty, and you eliminate the chance of the "second" score being a monster 100000 point game...unless everyone scores that on the team   

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.

Wow, sorry...I was catching up and didn't notice the date. Sorry I'm so 80's. I wasn't trying to muddy the current issue.

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.

To get back on the immediate topic on hand we have two people waiting for team assignments.

Our precedent and rules pretty much dictate how they should be dealt with. The only complication is that this puts 6 people on a team (for the moment). However our scoring system as is will accommodate 6 in the same way it already accommodates 5 therefore having 6 men on a team does not violate any rule.

To repeat myself from the post 5 posts ago, team bonuses are based on average which doesn't care if there are 5 or 6 (or even 4) on a team. Our base score simply uses the top 4 scores which again doesn't really care whether there are 4, 5 or 6 on a team it's still the top 4 that count.

Finally we have the precedent that everyone desiring to join in the middle of the round has so far been allowed and encouraged to do so, the fact that some people have been explicitly invited only reinforces that opinion.

Therefore my proposal is that when Neilo wakes up on the other side of the world he merely randomly assigns Dystopic and Noctalicus to two teams and we proceed normally. Scoring stays as defined. What could be simpler?

If we want to discuss this and define how this is to be handled differently in the future then we can do so between rounds, but this way changes no rule or precedent which is how we should proceed unless Neilo can come up with a better idea on the fly. Clearly whether or not we redefine how to handle this there is no doubt that we will also need to reorganize the teams between rounds as well.