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?

I will go with Mumble on this. DONT LET PEOPLE WAIT! It makes absolutely no difference with the way the scoring is achieved. If at the beginning of round 4 we feel we need another team, then so be it. But they should play now. This leaque is bigger than the CFL (Canadian Football Leaque)

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.

well i wouldn't use it as a line to panhandle anyone, but it made sense to me. i'd planned, should i need to submit a real score for this round, to have to play through another game anyhow (since i figured i wouldn't be able to rely on a conquest victory... even if i do, i think i can do better).

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.

Okay, it looks like the debate on waiting is not going the way I had hoped. I am not per se for making people wait for admission as new adepts into the high art of Metaleague Gaming.

That still leaves the following questions unanswered:
- If a new team is formed because we become too popular: who goes there: Anyone? Everyone who signed up last?
- This also has consequences for the Core because we will need regular changes of passwords (a thought I particularly abhor: it's bad enough to remember all the passwords for email, banking, copy machine, VISA, this forum, [25 pages omitted), the core forum, ...
- Finally am I right to believe that 5 is perceived to be our platonic ideal of a Metaverse Leahue Team (or was that just a shadow on the back of my mind as I stumble through the dark cave of Metaverse Rules)





Actually there is. Look at our weekly rules and regulations sabbat. You are supposed to dress in black, light a candle, kill a chicken by ritually slicing its belly and read the Metaverse Black mass threat (I mean thread). After reading six posts you are allowed to write one by quoting Mumble backwards. If you have participated in the league ceremonies for at least 6 weeks in a row you are allowed to shave your head. After 10 weeks you get the formal permission to tatoo "I love you, Brad!" on your forehead! Isn't this GREAT!

(PS: The second half of this post was just me being nonsensical - there is no criticism implied).

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.

Ummm, I don't quite know yet what the 3rd issue is. Care to fill me in?   



I'll agree to that.   


Now lets wait for Neilo.

-Fire

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.

Point not issue. The three points about dealing with a distracting problem is that it needs to be "resolved quickly, firmly and of course correctly". You managed quickly and firmly, it was the correctly part of your solution that was lacking.

Not to be critical but there was no real reason to invent a new solution "on the fly" when we have past precendent to fall back on. By introducing the brand new concept of changing the base of all teams to 5 you only open up the potential of argument and add additional confusion to how scoring would work in this case. This idea has never been discussed and was bound to only add to the confusion that was already introduced.

To simply point out that this is hardly any different to cases that we've already dealt with and to insist that we deal with this new problem in the same manner that they've been dealt with in the past and to insist that we not change rules in the middle of a round is far less controversial and therefore is far less open to question or argument. Therefore it is a far superior solution than totally revamping the team structure from 4 to 5 on what was essentially your own personal recognizance.

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?

No that was a silly suggestion that got dismissed somewhere in the morass of all these threads.

Basically what was suggested to be averaged was the base score which is the two points that a player gets for a victory of the assigned type. If we average this it can never help the team and only hinder the team since at best both players get 2 points which then average to 2 points. Seems silly to do this and dropping the lowest base score is both simpler and better for the team, a win-win.

However, for bonus points these are already calculated based on the average of all games so a 5th (or 6th) players contribution is already accounted for in terms of bonus. It's true that this results in a 5th (or 6th) players base score not contributing towards a teams base score but the 5th (or 6th) players game does provide protection to the team against the dreaded non-submittal.

Based on the above a 5th or 6th player does contribute quite a bit of benefit to the team and in fact who precisely the 5th or 6th player is will depend on the lower (base) score being dropped.

As to a reasonable suggestion as to how to proceed one way would be if you have a major preference in game type to simply do that game. However without a major preference the best contribution is a military victory, because that is the highest scoring game type and since scores are averaged for bonus that is likely to be the biggest contribution an extra game can make.

To hopefully not confuse you further your base score is 0 for a loss/resignation/non-submittal, 1 for a win of the wrong type and 2 for a win of the proper type. This was to basically reward players for finishing the game without regard to how fast or how high a score they got. Bonus points of 1 for individuals or 1 and 2 for the team are based on game speed and game score. So a gigantic score gets an extra 1 bonus for the team but not the potentially thousands of points that can be the difference in scores.

As far as occupation I'm an electrical engineer and although I did play D&D once in my life I never was a dungeon master (but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night ).

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

To summarize scoring as concisely as possible.

1) Only 4 games count towards a teams base score. A games base score is 2 points for win of the proper type, 1 point for win of an incorrect type and 0 otherwise.

2) For team bonuses all submitted games get averaged. The team with the highest average score and the team with the lowest average game years gets 2 bonus points. The team with the 2nd highest average score and the team with the 2nd lowest average game years gets 1 bonus point. All ties are treated equally.

3) Any submitted games may receive individual bonuses. For a round with all victory types the individual with the highest score and the individual with the fastest game *in each victory type* receive 1 bonus point. For a round with only one victory type the 3 highest scores and 3 fastest games receive 1 bonus point. All ties are treated equally.

4) A team's total score is the sum of its base score, any team bonuses and any individual bonuses.

---

The slight complication that FireBender points out is something that hasn't really been discussed. That is should a game that is not counted towards base score be considered for bonus? I think they should but we really haven't discussed this and we also have no precedent for it. Note that for it to really make a difference a single team would need to have 5 people that received bonuses because otherwise they would simply drop the games that didn't receive bonus. I actually don't think this is likely to happen but it could.

So I guess there is this one point to discuss. Should a "dropped" game be eligible for individual bonuses? Please post your feeling on this.

Note that this doesn't apply to team bonus because we have already agreed to average them.

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.

I understand your point and also agree that these things tend to spiral into greater and greater complexity which is not something that is desirable in the middle of a round. However I do have to mention that your bringing up points unrelated to the specifics of dealing with the 6th player issue only adds to the complexity that you're pointing out.

To answer your specific question about individual bonus, that is how we started the round and since we don't change rules in the middle of a round that is how we will score this round. These things have been discussed exhaustively and questioning established rules in the middle of a round isn't productive. It's tough enough to deal with the unavoidable exceptions in the middle of a round without starting to question base premises as well.

Basically I agree with your team concept. Initailly we started with 3, 2 and 1 point bonuses for the individual top three. To address the very issue that you've brought out we've reduced them to a single bonus point. Also this is the 1st round that we've introduced the team bonuses as well. The reason all individual bonuses should not be eliminated is because there is little enough to differentiate the scoring between teams as it is. Basically every team so far has gotten it's 8 total points from 4 victories of the proper type. With only the team bonuses in play there is very little opportunity for teams to gain points. Allowing minor individual bonuses is merely a way for people to contribute to their teams success.

Finally, we do have a common forum at the Core where these issues could be discussed without airing our dirty laundry, but you can look at this two ways. One is as you point out the desire to not expose all this arguing to potential new members the other way to view it is that by discussing these things here we are being transparent and things aren't being decided in secret.

In any case the things you bring up are very legitimate points to discuss however they don't contribute to resolution of the "emergency" at hand which is what to do with 6th players and I think discussion should be held off on your points until *after* the round is over.

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.

what i was really hoping for is a concise breakdown of the current rules in place, so that i can help my team strategize on a team level; however i see the "Codex Mumbli" above is more or less what i was looking for    i think it'd be best for me to wait until the next round starts before discussing possible changes and suggestions.

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

First of all,
Team C seems to be posting the most again. Thats good and bad.
Dropped scores Would be just that, Dropped scores. No good, Unless there is a non submittal somewhere. Unless I misunderstand the rules somewhere.

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.

ok, i'm going to be in agreement with the synopsis presented above. Nothing more from me at the present time.

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.

i pity the fool...

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