Mumblefratz Mumblefratz

The MVL and the AltMeta

▼

The MVL and the AltMeta

from GalCiv2 Forums
OK guys, I've tried to bring up this topic of discussion subtly on a number of occasions all for naught. It seems that subtly is lost on the average MVL player, or perhaps put another way, the average MVL player has all the subtly of a ball peen hammer.

Anyway, it’s time to start discussing this directly. By this I mean I would like to get support for the MVL into the AltMeta. Kryo has expressed willingness to do this but wants a solid definition of precisely what it is that we want. This encompasses a number of potential issues.

Certainly at a minimum it would be nice if we have a fancy display of league results that all could view each month on the AltMeta. It would also be nice to be able to see past months results. Finally I’m sure all would like to be able to view these results on a league wide, team wide or individual basis.

Even regarding the "simple" display of league results there are probably very many ways to do this. I know when the Metaverse Council was discussing options relating to AltMeta Classes we found it helpful to sketch up something just for folks to look at, criticize and comment on. I have a couple of ideas that I will sketch up at some point when I get a chance however it would be nice if other folks could come up with a few ideas on their own (hint, hint ).

The next level of complexity that needs some discussion is a method of game submission to the league that could be a little more automated than posting images or words to a thread. As we’ve seen this requires the official scorers to go through a lot of posts for a limited amount of information and there are invariably a few folks that leave off a critical piece of information that then requires the scorer to check the player’s character.

The final level of complexity could involve a well defined set of scoring rules that could allow software to score each round automatically.

Regardless of all of the above there probably would be the need for someone to administer all of this.

Anyway, I hope that the potential of getting MVL support into the AltMeta is of interest to most players and that we can use this thread to decide what it is we want to do.

I do want to forewarn folks that this is not something that can be resolved quickly and easily and it will take folks that are willing to put in a little bit of effort to reach a good solution that we can be proud of and that pretty much everyone agrees on. All too often the attitude that I’ve seen in the League is one of "let’s hurry up and get this over with". If that’s the attitude of most folks then we probably shouldn’t even bother. If so then perhaps I should resurrect the corpses of the Metaverse Council and we should figure out what to do within that framework.   

Everyone should feel free to comment on any and all of these points that I’ve brought up or to bring up any others that they feel are related.

One of the first points I want to discuss is the issue that within the context of all of these MVL threads everyone thinks of MVL members in terms of their username not their character name (i.e. Mumblefratz instead of Toshiro Mifune). Clearly this isn’t that big a deal because I think folks can figure out who is who if required, however one thing to point out is that the AltMeta only knows about character names *not* user names.

Another point to consider is that it may be beneficial for everyone in the league to commit to join a single metaverse empire such as the MV League that thebutterfly has setup. A number of folks have joined that empire but a number of folks haven’t. It would be good to hear from Kryo if he thinks that would be a benefit and if so whether or not most folks would be willing to do it. If it simplifies things (and I think it would) perhaps we should simply make it a requirement.

So what do you think?
metaverse
82,164 views 182 replies
Reply #101 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Just checking in and letting you guys know that ia reading and following this thread and i have not abandoned the cause.
End of quote


Me too.   
Reply #102 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Actually I have thre proposals in play that I feel are worthy of adoption. I'm repeating them here just because these pages seem to scroll by so quickly. I would appreciate if people could respond and indicate either approval or disapproval of each one.

AltMetaMVL Submission Method

Each team is to have a separate team submission page which is accessed via a single password generated by the MVL AltMeta administrator and sent via PM on GalCiv2.com to the defined team captain who is required to share this password with any teammate that desires it. A new password must be generated whenever any team member leaves the team.
End of quote


Automatic AltMetaMVL Submissions

After the round's expiration, software will automatically select the last game submitted to the Metaverse that fits the round's criteria as the MVL submission for any character that has not otherwise submitted a game. If no games fit the round's criteria then that player will be considered to have made no submission.
End of quote


Usage of AltMetaMVL Characters for non-MVL games

Because we potentially allow the automatic submissions of a game that appears to fit the current rounds criteria, no game should be posted under a MVL character that could be confused with the current rounds settings. This means during Single Victory rounds no game should be submitted of the same size and victory condition as specified by that round unless it meets all of the round's settings. In the case of an All Victory round all games of the same galaxy size are prohibited. Once a valid submission has been made for the current round this restriction is lifted until the start of the next round.
End of quote

So far dystopic has provided the feedback that he preferred automatic submission by software only when the player has only one game that fits the criteria and if multiple games exist then the team should choose which one to use. I personally think this is better than having software pick the optimal game for the team but I still think it's an unfair advantage to select a game after everyone has submitted. I prefer the last game submitted because it's the most likely game that was intended to be submitted and being a fixed decision does not take advantage of knowledge that wouldn't have been known if the game was submitted properly.

Please add your feedback regarding all three of these proposals.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #103 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Not to be an odd guy out, however I don't think there should be any automatic submission. Leave it up to the team. As Kyro says, a little lei way should be looked at here.
If a person does not submit, then the captain or co-captain can look back and make the selection the next day.

ON a different note, if that happens, instead of the 2 pts for that game it only recieves 1 pnt. I know this last point is for another thread but....
Reply #104 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I still think it's an unfair advantage to select a game after everyone has submitted.
End of quote


i'm not sure i see any great advantage that couldn't be had by intentionally waiting to submit until the last second. the player's submission to the MVL will already be considered the latest in the round you could get - negatively affect team submission time bonus. while the team could examine the games and find the 1 of 3 games that would give them a bonus they wouldn't otherwise get, you could still do this by having 1 player wait on his submission until the very last second. waiting until that last second has its own dangers.

plus, i don't necessiarly think the last game played will usually be the game intended for submission. i could easily imagine a player getting lucky on the first map, trying to do better for two more games, and realizing he probably won't, and calling the round done on his part.

i think PlayJeff's suggestion of having such games count for only 1 point is reasonable. it'd be similar to a victory of the wrong type (i.e., a game that doesn't meet all the round's criteria: in this case, the deadline).
Reply #105 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm agree with the way all three points are laid out in Reply#102

Automatic AltMetaMVL Submissions

After the round's expiration, software will automatically select the last game submitted to the Metaverse that fits the round's criteria as the MVL submission for any character that has not otherwise submitted a game. If no games fit the round's criteria then that player will be considered to have made no submission.
End of quote


I would like to add my two cents to this one though. I do agree with the way that it is written in that, if you don't make your selection then the automated process grabs the last game. As far as the concern that this was not the intended game, I would say this is the "punishment" if you will for not selcting your game within the time limit. We want to encourage players to get involved with making their selections and not just sit back knowing software will sort it out for them. The single point thing is another that could help get people making their selections, but then again we don't want penalties to pile on top of an already disadvantaged position and turn any one off from playing due to it.
The point being, yea we need a criteria to address someone not selecting their submission, but you take the chance of not getting your best game in by letting the software do it.
Reply #106 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
AltMetaMVL Submission Method

Each team is to have a separate team submission page which is accessed via a single password generated by the MVL AltMeta administrator and sent via PM on GalCiv2.com to the defined team captain who is required to share this password with any teammate that desires it. A new password must be generated whenever any team member leaves the team.
End of quote


It sounds fine to me. Only I don't think any player should be given the freedom of submitting another player's game. He might have something else planned out. You have yet to fully explain what kind of access this password grants to any player that wants it.

Automatic AltMetaMVL Submissions

After the round's expiration, software will automatically select the last game submitted to the Metaverse that fits the round's criteria as the MVL submission for any character that has not otherwise submitted a game. If no games fit the round's criteria then that player will be considered to have made no submission.
End of quote


The last part is OK with me but the software should not choose that game for that person until the very last second of the deadline.

But if that player has multiple games that meet the criteria then the decision is left to the team. Not the software. The software can only select a game at the very last second. But the team captain should be able to set what kind of optimization they want. i.e. as a precautionary measure, the captain can set that the game which will optimize their score and/or speed, should be selected if the afore-mentioned scenario should become a reality.

Usage of AltMetaMVL Characters for non-MVL games

Because we potentially allow the automatic submissions of a game that appears to fit the current rounds criteria, no game should be posted under a MVL character that could be confused with the current rounds settings. This means during Single Victory rounds no game should be submitted of the same size and victory condition as specified by that round unless it meets all of the round's settings. In the case of an All Victory round all games of the same galaxy size are prohibited. Once a valid submission has been made for the current round this restriction is lifted until the start of the next round.
End of quote


My point here is that I play only small galaxies. Larger galaxies are too boring. If I want to play a medium galaxy and the round settings include a medium galaxy then that should remain my choice. Second, I salvage my games should any of them go off-course. When I join the league I commit to play the different settings of a round but not to totally abandon other games I play.

For example, I tried a Crippling game for the league in which the pirate event hit and I couldn't make alliances. I salvaged that game into a military victory later on(Yes, the 9 year 14000 point game is the one).
Reply #107 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I don't think any player should be given the freedom of submitting another player's game. He might have something else planned out. You have yet to fully explain what kind of access this password grants to any player that wants it.
End of quote

Basically this password would grant access to the entire teams submissions. The team should agree in advance to however it wants to proceed. I would expect that the normal agreement would be that each player submits their own game and should leave everyone else's games alone with perhaps an exception granted to the captain if the team so wishes. However this couldn't be enforced by software only by rule within the team.

The last part is OK with me but the software should not choose that game for that person until the very last second of the deadline.
End of quote

Hence the preface "After the round's expiration".

My point here is that I play only small galaxies. Larger galaxies are too boring. If I want to play a medium galaxy and the round settings include a medium galaxy then that should remain my choice. Second, I salvage my games should any of them go off-course. When I join the league I commit to play the different settings of a round but not to totally abandon other games I play.
End of quote

If you have already made your submission for the current round you could play anything you want. If the round is a medium tech win then you could play a medium anything you want *except* tech win. If the round is a medium All Victory round then you could play anything *except* a medium. You could also play anything you want under another character.

The point is that if there are automatic submissions or even submissions by the captain, team or anyone that's not the player himself then they won't be able to tell the difference from games that look like MVL games but otherwise could be played with totally different settings. I think it's right to avoid this possiblity.

As far as "salvaging" a game later certainly this would be no issue on any game that wasn't a MVL submission, however there could be some concern about resubmitting a MVL game to the metaverse dependent on how the AltMetaMVL was implementated. However, this is a separate issue that needs to be addressed but the salvaging aspect actually has no bearing on the three listed proposals and so we should deal with this later.
Reply #108 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
As per reply 102,

AltMetaMVL Submission Method

Each team is to have a separate team submission page which is accessed via a single password generated by the MVL AltMeta administrator and sent via PM on GalCiv2.com to the defined team captain who is required to share this password with any teammate that desires it. A new password must be generated whenever any team member leaves the team.
End of quote


I still prefer the individual submission method. I'm not sure i see any advantage of one over the other, except that the team way gives the captain something more to do. My problem is if the captain goes missing, a whole teams submission could be faulted. Where as with the individual submission, when a person goes missing then it is only their game affected.

Only I don't think any player should be given the freedom of submitting another player's game.
End of quote


Another reason i support the individual method. Now it's an unlikely event but why even allow the possibility.

Mainly though it just appeals to me more, we all have our own access and we submit our own games with no interference from anyone else. This is also my choice cause i aslo support the following,

Automatic AltMetaMVL Submissions

After the round's expiration, software will automatically select the last game submitted to the Metaverse that fits the round's criteria as the MVL submission for any character that has not otherwise submitted a game. If no games fit the round's criteria then that player will be considered to have made no submission.
End of quote


This is what i feel one of the best things about being in the Altmeta. A true sense of automation for our games, like the new MV tournament's. We log in (just like the MV), submit our game (just like the MV), and then the software does the rest. Just like the MV. In this regard i think we will gain more players who crave the same automation as in the official MV and with individual submitions and automated selection this is the closest we will get.
As for the selection of the last game submitted where the player may not have intended that to be his/her game, then like DA said, that is your punishment for not selecting the right game. It kinda brings back our non-submital penalty a little in a way. No points are taken away, but perhaps a bonus point went begging....

plus, i don't necessiarly think the last game played will usually be the game intended for submission. i could easily imagine a player getting lucky on the first map, trying to do better for two more games, and realizing he probably won't, and calling the round done on his part.
End of quote


I agree, the last game won't always be the preferred game. But if the players has not logged on to select his first map, then his punishment is that he did not get his preferred selection counted. This of course, from my perspective goes hand in hand with individual submition. If the captains method was used then there is little to no use of the software selecting a game for anyone, as the captain would pick that first "lucky map" every time. With this, the punishment idea goes out the window.

We want to encourage players to get involved with making their selections and not just sit back knowing software will sort it out for them.
End of quote


Yes, without the "punishment" players might just get a little lazy.

Usage of AltMetaMVL Characters for non-MVL games

Because we potentially allow the automatic submissions of a game that appears to fit the current rounds criteria, no game should be posted under a MVL character that could be confused with the current rounds settings. This means during Single Victory rounds no game should be submitted of the same size and victory condition as specified by that round unless it meets all of the round's settings. In the case of an All Victory round all games of the same galaxy size are prohibited. Once a valid submission has been made for the current round this restriction is lifted until the start of the next round.
End of quote


Yup, i agree here too. Only once your game for that round has been completed, submitted and selected as your submittion, could you do whatever you wanted with that character. In a perfect world i would like to see us implement a rule of, "Your MVL character is only used for MVL games. No others." But this might be a bit intrusive and far beyond what we could expect. Plus most of you may simply disagree.

But yes, some restriction as Mumble outlined would need to be in place.

In short, for anyone reviewing the posts, per reply 102

Point 1) Disagree (I prefer individual submitions).

Point 2) Agreed.

Point 3) Agreed.



Reply #109 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
1 Agree
2 Disagree
3 Agree

For reasons stated in earlier replies.
Reply #110 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Here's how I would vote on the three points:

1. Yes

2. No - especially bad idea

3. No

The first two I explained in previous posts, and the third I don't like it because the MVL should not negatively impact how you play the game the rest of the time, by limiting your options. This is not an issue for me personally, because I never really play settings similar to those I have played in the MVL (which is one reason I like it), but for some players it might be a significant annoyance. If we can designate our submittals, I dont see why this should be an issue.

Kzinti empire2.JPG Sentient species taste better...
Reply #111 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If we can designate our submittals, I dont see why this should be an issue.
End of quote


Though i still prefer the alternative, this is also true. As was indicated the only issue would be if there was an MVL game and a similar non MVL game that the automated system would be able to differentiate. Some level of constraint would have to be shown so as not to confuse any automated system.
Reply #112 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Just further to this, both systems could run concurrently. The player who is diligent in his selecting of his games would never even know there was an automated system in place, as he logged in and selected his game, no matter how many there are there that meet the requirements, he has told the system which to choose.

Then the player who has submitted three games but not selected one and has gone away or whatever will have his last game picked up by the system and submitted for him. Of course this happens after the deadline has passed, so as to give said player ample time to log back in and select his preferred game.

For many the automated system would be never seen. For some it might be a back up to them not being able to log back in and select one. And for others it may be their preferred way of playing. Play one game that meets the requirements and let the system do the rest.

This is appealing to the casual player who as of yet, is perhaps not in the league as they see it as too much work. Many players might just wish to check out the current round settings, play that game and submit it to the AltMVL. Thay have done very little from what they might if playing a normal MV game.

Remember most humans are more on the lazy side and the easier we can make this whole process for the casual player the better. Granted most of us playing in the league now will probably never use the automated system, as we will play a few games and select the one we want.

But what about the rest of the community that we are trying to lure to the league? They are, the casual players, aware of the league, how could they not what with all our posts, but just do not like the amount of time and effort to submit a game. Yes i think it is rather easy, as does most of us, obviously, but to get the casual player in we need to have it as easy as possible to do.

Reply #113 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I still prefer the individual submission method. I'm not sure i see any advantage of one over the other, except that the team way gives the captain something more to do. My problem is if the captain goes missing, a whole teams submission could be faulted. Where as with the individual submission, when a person goes missing then it is only their game affected.

Only I don't think any player should be given the freedom of submitting another player's game.
End of quote

Another reason i support the individual method. Now it's an unlikely event but why even allow the possibility.
End of quote

Basically the proposal requires the captain to share the password with his teammates so that everyone can submit their own games.

I agree that no on should submit games for another players game except perhaps the captain if the team allows.

This method allows everything that the individual method does but has the advantage of requiring only 5 separate submission screens with 5 different passwords versus having 25 separate submission screens and passwords. The slight penalty is that someone could possibly mess up someone elses submission but we would legislate against this and it would be very unlikely.

The first two I explained in previous posts,
End of quote

Please don't make me search for reasoning in a post on some previous page. Firstly I lost 20 minutes of typing a response when I scrolled back to look for your previous post and secondly I never did find what you were referring to. As far as limiting options I agree that this is something that I would prefer not to do however this is hardly a gigantic limitation, it's mostly stay away from one particular size with one particular victory condition during a round if you haven't already submitted. This really is not much of an imposition.

Finally the "automatic submission", as Neilo points out above, is really just a failsafe selection method that should in general hardly ever be used. In general people should submit their games. We have even added a team submission bonus to encourage folks to submit early. The problem with after the fact selection of games by a teammate is that it can take advantage of knowledge that was not otherwise known as well that it turns not submitting from a disadvantage to an advantage. I don't think the punishment arguments are very valid. I think we all agreed that we really don't want to be in the punishment business. However on the other hand giving an advantage to someone because they didn't submit is *not* a message I want to send.

Basically if you want a particular game submitted then just submit the damn game. If you fail to submit your teammates get some random game but they shouldn't get to pick and chose the replacement game. In all of the things that we have discussed for allowing backup games there was always some random selection involved usually by the commissioner assigning someone to do a replacement game. Otherwise the replacement would always be done by the best player on the team turning a disadvantage into an advantage.
Reply #114 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
OK so we have a random collection of yes and no on these three proposals. I guess the only place to go from here is a vote. However, I find it particularly unproductive to vote yes or no for a proposal without a defined alternative since if it's voted down we're back to square one.

So could someone else (particularly someone that disagrees with each of these proposals) write up a counter proposal and then at least we can vote between two options and thereby gaurantee that some progress is made.
Reply #115 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This method allows everything that the individual method does but has the advantage of requiring only 5 separate submission screens with 5 different passwords versus having 25 separate submission screens and passwords. The slight penalty is that someone could possibly mess up someone elses submission but we would legislate against this and it would be very unlikely.
End of quote


Ok, so it is more an issue of the work done behind the scenes to create 5 submission screens ( + passwords and logins) VS having to do 1 screen and password/login for every player. 25 at the moment but if we really took off we could end up with 50 or 60 players which would result in far too many screens and too much ongoing work. (for Kryo i assume)

Being that that's the only difference i am fine to go the captains way. But i would still rather the automated system pick the last submitted game for anyone who has not selected their submission VS a captain or another team mate selecting one for them.

The slight penalty is that someone could possibly mess up someone else's submission but we would legislate against this and it would be very unlikely.
End of quote


In the event of an honest mistake by a player, or a new player who has joined with only mischief in mind, and a messing up of someone's or the whole teams submition's took place, could Kryo or the appointed admin, delete that selection? i have no idea how software works/written and not sure if that is doable but it would make it easy to rectify those situations.

I don't think the punishment arguments are very valid. I think we all agreed that we really don't want to be in the punishment business. However on the other hand giving an advantage to someone because they didn't submit is *not* a message I want to send.
End of quote


Perhaps punishment is not the right word. Perhaps Consequences is better.

A player plays 3 games and his second game is his desired (a 2 year) game to submit, but through laziness or otherwise intolerable reasons he failed to select that desired game. Now his (4 year) game 3 is automatically selected by the AltMVL system. After the round result is announced he realised that his game 2 would have won the speed bonus. He is not punished in any sense as the system did not submit his game incorrectly, in fact he is helped by the auto-selector, but his failure to select a game cost him and his team that bonus point.

You won't make that mistake again.

If it was left to the captain or any teammate to decide they would have put his game 2 in as the selection. That, like you say Mumble is an advantage. There still needs to be some personal responsibility for your game submition/selection and as such there are consequences, some good, some bad.

Reply #116 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
OK so we have a random collection of yes and no on these three proposals. I guess the only place to go from here is a vote. However, I find it particularly unproductive to vote yes or no for a proposal without a defined alternative since if it's voted down we're back to square one.
End of quote


It is hard on these long threads to be sure of everyone's opinion's. I, after a quick look back through came up with these results.

Point 1
For_____________________Against_________________Unsure
Neilo___________________________________________Dystopic
Playjeff
Kzinti
FB
DA
Mumble

Point 2

Neilo____________________Playjeff
DA______________________Kzinti
Mumble___________________FB

Point 3

Neilo_____________________Kzinti
DA________________________FB
Mumble
Playjeff

Point 1
It would seem we have a accord on Point 1.

Point 2
Though we are split on this issue that may change once the other guys have read the last few posts. We can have the automated system there for 1) the casual player that wants ease of use. And 2) as a back up for submitting when all else has failed.

I think the real issue for point 2 is,

Do we allow Captains to make a selection for their team when no other selection has been made? And at what time can the captain make that selection?

VS

Do we let the automated system make that call for us, and that is where i think we are split.

Point 3
Any vote here would go the way of the "for". but does that mean we should, it is by a slime margin. Perhaps we could get an accord on this,

For games played by MVL characters that are not MVL games, they should be of large size or greater so as not to confuse these as official MVL games.


Reply #117 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
In all of the things that we have discussed for allowing backup games there was always some random selection involved usually by the commissioner assigning someone to do a replacement game. Otherwise the replacement would always be done by the best player on the team turning a disadvantage into an advantage.
End of quote


This must have been an edit of yours Mumble as i missed it the first time through. Anyway, this is the best argument yet for the case of no captains picking the games.

By allowing the captains this choice we would be in direct opposition to the way it is now.
Reply #118 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
the team captain should be able to set what kind of optimization they want. i.e. as a precautionary measure, the captain can set that the game which will optimize their score and/or speed, should be selected if the afore-mentioned scenario should become a reality.
End of quote


As an adage to point 2. I proposed this earlier.
Reply #119 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
But at what point does a captain make a selection. If it is before the end date, he is stepping on the toes of the player in question. If it is after the round has ended, then it is a clear advantage for that team.
Reply #120 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
But at what point does a captain make a selection. If it is before the end date, he is stepping on the toes of the player in question. If it is after the round has ended, then it is a clear advantage for that team.
End of quote
If it is after the deadline, then it is/should be 1pnt instead of 2 pnts, but still leaves it in the hands of humans. A co-captain can also make the submission in case the captain is a no-show

I might add that this also requires more team orientation, which is what this leaque is also about.

Oh and I apologize for not mentioning which threads I was refering to earlier on.
Reply #121 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
But i would still rather the automated system pick the last submitted game for anyone who has not selected their submission VS a captain or another team mate selecting one for them.
End of quote

Me too.

In the event of an honest mistake by a player, or a new player who has joined with only mischief in mind, and a messing up of someone's or the whole teams submition's took place, could Kryo or the appointed admin, delete that selection?
End of quote

I would hope so. No doubt Kryo could fix anything, but the admin should as well.

There still needs to be some personal responsibility for your game submition/selection and as such there are consequences, some good, some bad.
End of quote

We are in complete agreement here.

For games played by MVL characters that are not MVL games, they should be of large size or greater so as not to confuse these as official MVL games.
End of quote

There is no reason to be this restrictive. There's no problem playing a small when the round is a medium, there is no problem playing a medium tech win when the round is a medium military victory and once a game has been submitted then there's no restriction at all until the beginning of the next round. This is hardly any restriction at all. The biggest restriction is during an All Victory round where you can't play the same size regardless of victory condition until you've submitted the current round's game.

the team captain should be able to set what kind of optimization they want. i.e. as a precautionary measure, the captain can set that the game which will optimize their score and/or speed, should be selected if the afore-mentioned scenario should become a reality.
End of quote

I basically don't like the captain and or the team to be able to cherry pick the submitted game after the fact under any circumstances at all. I'm OK with the captain being allowed to pick the game during the normal selection period i.e. while the round is in play but *only* if the team/player has agreed to allow this.

After the fact in case of a non-submission I favor the "random" game being selected and in my mind the easiest random game to select is the last game or if folks prefer the first game, I really don't care. But I am totally against letting the team/player select the game once the round is over and it's clear that there has been no submission. If there has to be a human involved with this choice then I think it should be neilo selecting a truly "random" game. Anyway that's my vote and I'm sticking to it.

But at what point does a captain make a selection. If it is before the end date, he is stepping on the toes of the player in question. If it is after the round has ended, then it is a clear advantage for that team.
End of quote

My opinion is the captain could make a decision before the end date *only* if the team has explicitly given him this power. For the reasons stated above I am against the captain or anyone on the team being able to select the game to submit.

If it is after the deadline, then it is/should be 1pnt instead of 2 pnts, but still leaves it in the hands of humans. A co-captain can also make the submission in case the captain is a no-show
End of quote

I don't like this as I stated and particularly don't care for modifying points in this special circumstance. I prefer some quasi-random selection but the normal 2 points awarded assuming of course it is a win of the correct type.

Oh and I apologize for not mentioning which threads I was refering to earlier on.
End of quote

It's not your fault that I stupidly scrolled to look for these references while in the middle of posting a long reply, but it really would help everyone that if you must reference a previous post at least give the reply # and if at all possible please summarize the point in the current post. This stuff is confusing enough without blind references.
Reply #122 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This method allows everything that the individual method does but has the advantage of requiring only 5 separate submission screens with 5 different passwords versus having 25 separate submission screens
End of quote
Ok, so it is more an issue of the work done behind the scenes to create 5 submission screens ( + passwords and logins) VS having to do 1 screen and password/login for every player. 25 at the moment but if we really took off we could end up with 50 or 60 players which would result in far too many screens and too much ongoing work. (for Kryo i assume)
End of quote


It'd all be script-generated either way, so that's not much besides keying off team ID or user ID in the database. So the only real material difference beyond the initial implementation is that the admin would be reissuing passwords any time the teams changed in the captain system, whereas the individual system would be largely fire and forget (assign access to characters to forum accounts, then there's nothing else to do).
Reply #123 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
In the event of an honest mistake by a player, or a new player who has joined with only mischief in mind, and a messing up of someone's or the whole teams submition's took place, could Kryo or the appointed admin, delete that selection? i have no idea how software works/written and not sure if that is doable but it would make it easy to rectify those situations.
End of quote


That's certainly possible, though I'm getting the impression that you guys prefer that once someone chooses a game to be used, the choice can't be undone under normal curcumstances?

I prefer some quasi-random selection but the normal 2 points awarded assuming of course it is a win of the correct type.
End of quote


Random is easy enough to do.
Reply #124 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It'd all be script-generated either way, so that's not much besides keying off team ID or user ID in the database. So the only real material difference beyond the initial implementation is that the admin would be reissuing passwords any time the teams changed in the captain system, whereas the individual system would be largely fire and forget (assign access to characters to forum accounts, then there's nothing else to do).
End of quote

I'm really thinking less about the potential work than about "forcing" people to register at another site. While most people wouldn't care, anytime you "require" folks to do something there's going to be those that object for whatever the reason. The advantage of a submission screen and associated password per team is that it's "voluntary". If someone really doesn't want to logon to and submit for themselves then they can ask their captain to do it for them. The majority that prefer to submit for themselves can do so without having to register somewhere. It's the flexibility of the system that is the biggest advantage along with not forcing people to do anything if they don't want to.

That's certainly possible, though I'm getting the impression that you guys prefer that once someone chooses a game to be used, the choice can't be undone under normal curcumstances?
End of quote

Absolutely. The thing about a submission is that you're putting your game out there for people to shoot at. This is a disadvantage in that people then know what they need to beat you, but we reward this by awarding a team bonus based on average submission time.

The thing is it's not that fun if everyone holds back their game until the very end just to see what they need to do and then only submits right at the end. Sometimes this is necessary due to real life, but where it's not we think it's a good idea for folks to submit early. Clearly being able to change your submission totally defeats this purpose.

Random is easy enough to do.
End of quote

Actually this would probably be the best in my opinion. Basically we seem to have a split between those that would like the team/captain to be able to select a game that optimizes the team score in this situation versus those that prefer they not be able to do this.

The point as I see it is that not submitting a game is a bad thing and a team should not gain an advantage by it. The reason we allow an automatic submission as well as have a good handful of things we can do in case there is a non-submission is that we also don't think a team should be punished because a teammate had real life issues or simply abandoned the team. I feel that random selection is an equitable compromise between these two concerns.

Note we haven't even gotten into the scoring ramifications of dealing with a non-submission and if you think this has been complicated up to now then you're in for a rude awakening when we get to actual scoring. The reason I mention this is to encourage folks to try and come to agreement on this because if we can't come to agreement on what is actually a relatively simple issue we will have no chance at reaching agreement on the more complicated stuff to come.
Reply #125 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Actually a question for Kryo.

The Metaverse allows a single resubmission of a game. The question is does the AltMeta eventually pick up this potential scoring change? If so, would these potential changes ripple back into MVL submitted games and possibly chage previous rounds results?

The best answer would be if resubmitting a metaverse couldn't change data from previous (or current) MVL rounds. If this would be difficult to manage then we would have to legislate against anyone resubmitting a game to the metaverse that had been used as a MVL submission. As you have seen we invariably get objection to anything that involves requiring people to behave in a certain manner. It really doesn't seem to matter much whether or not most normal folks would consider such a requirement to be trivial or not.