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
82,169 views 182 replies
Reply #126 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The Metaverse allows a single resubmission of a game. The question is does the AltMeta eventually pick up this potential scoring change?
End of quote


Initially it did not, so resubbed games would only be reflected if for some reason I had to drop the database and rebuild it from scratch (which has happened a couple of times). I know I looked into it some time ago but I can't remember if I fixed it to update resubbed games during normal updates or not; I'd have to go look at the code.

Either way, since the value of MVL games depends not only on the games themselves, but on their relation to other submissions, it's most likely that I'd just have it calculate scores once at the end of the round, and those scores would be permanent rather than dynamic. Though if someone does resubmit (and if AM reflects that), it might make the results look odd since it'd be showing the MVL score based on the original posting, but the stats of the new one. So it'd probably be most sensible to record all of the final round results in a separate table where they won't be influenced by any external or postmortem changes.
Reply #127 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
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.
End of quote


Understandable, but really it's just as possible to do that now with private arrangement/discussion by the team. Granted having everyone's posted games listed where the team can see them and decide the best selection strategy makes it easier. I think the existing rule of giving bonus points for posting games early should be sufficient to deter such behavoir (benefits of speed outweigh benefits of optimization).
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #128 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.
End of quote


You could use the snap shot effect. As in not have the previous round's information open to new metaverse data. Don't know about the current round thing though.

Reply #129 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
So it'd probably be most sensible to record all of the final round results in a separate table where they won't be influenced by any external or postmortem changes.
End of quote

This would be best since some folks have expressed the desire to potentially go back and "fix up" some MVL games for purposes of regular Metaverse rankings (or whatever the reason).

You could use the snap shot effect. As in not have the previous round's information open to new metaverse data. Don't know about the current round thing though.
End of quote

I would suggest that when a game is "submitted" that all information of the game is copied into a separate MVL database (i.e. your snapshot) and then once a game is submitted then anyone would be free to do what they want with a game. This goes hand in hand with putting as few restrictions as possible on other potential uses of your MVL character.

I still am hopeful to convince folks (i.e. FB, Kzinti) that the minimal restriction that we pretty much need to put on games that may look like MVL games but aren't really is not really an onerous restriction. First off there are many very similar games that can't be confused with the current rounds game such as small vs. medium or tech win vs. military victory. Plus even this small restriction is eliminated once you make your submission for the current round.

All in all it's a minimal restriction that's necessary if we are to allow the submission of any game by anyone (or software) other than the original player. I think this slight restriction is worth the benefit gained which is the assurance that any game that is selected by anyone other than the original player or by software will still be a game that satisfies the designated settings. We need this assurance because there is so little of a games settings that can be determined simply from the RSS data from the MV.
Reply #130 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


agree.

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


disagree. i'm still in favor of teams being able to pick which game will be the submission, including any optimization they might desire.

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


unsure. while i think it'd be great if everyone had a secondary or tertiary character devoted to MVL games and nothing else, i wouldn't want to deter anyone from playing if they want the scores to go towards their primary character's standing.
Reply #131 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
disagree. i'm still in favor of teams being able to pick which game will be the submission, including any optimization they might desire.
End of quote

Why?

Don't you feel this is an unfair advantage?

Why should someone get a benefit for *not* submitting a game?

I can't see any justification for this and would like to understand your rationalization.

i wouldn't want to deter anyone from playing if they want the scores to go towards their primary character's standing.
End of quote

I agree. We aren't restricting people from having their MVL games count towards their overall standings. This only restricts the charaters use for a short period of time and even then only for a very few specific games that could possibly be confused with league games.

Another point is that most of those that I see objecting to this are not objecting to this because it bothers them but because they *think* it may bother others. If only those that objected to this directly did so it would be obvious that it affects only a very small minority of folks and then as I said it doesn't affect them very much or for very long. Really the alternative is to simply not allow any automatic selections by either the team or software because we have no assurance that these automatically selected games really do qualify. It's really an either/or decision; either no submission by anyone other than the player or restrict players from having games that might be confused with legitimate MVL games.
Reply #132 from Stardock Forums Top
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.
End of quote


Quite true, for those that disagree with point 3, does this solution not solve the issue?

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.
End of quote

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.
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.
End of quote


This Is by far the best way to go. It's not the last game nor the first but just random. This mirrors exactly how we are all playing now. If there was a problem with a team mate not being able to submit a game, me or FB would randomaly choice a player from that team to complete another game in it's place.

The current structure and the automated random selection (only in the event of the player not selecting his submitted game) are basically identical.

The rule of a captain being able to pick the game in question would be like allowing for example, Team A needs a back up game played in a military victory, so of course the captain selects Mumble to play that game as he is his best scorer.

And what happens, Mumble drops in another (since he already has played once) 100k game and Team A blows the rest of us away.

Thats an advantage, just like allowing the captain to pick a certain game after the round has ended.

In the event of a non-submital/non selection(altmvl) the current rule is a random game is to be played.

Why change this, have a random game selected, you might get the game you want anyway, but at least it was random.



Remember guys, the automated selection is mainly there for back up, all it does is replace me or FB assigning a random game to someone to play. Most of the time you will have logged in and selected your game, and this whole point would be mute. That being said, since we are split what about a compromise.

If before the round ends, as Mumble has said, you and your team can work out your strategy and have the captain select the desired games at the last second. But failing that any games not selected by the captain once the deadline has passed will be randomly selected by the software.

Seems fair.
Reply #133 from Stardock Forums Top
Another summary,

We seem to be all in agreement of point 1. The captains system over the individual system.

Point 2 is still up in there air, but perhaps the compromise will gain some following.

Point 3. Is a slight restriction reasonable to players?
Reply #134 from Stardock Forums Top
i'm still in favor of teams being able to pick which game will be the submission, including any optimization they might desire.
End of quote


Just to highlight the compromise.

This, as Dystopic has said, is a good strategy and may be how many teams play. This is fine, the players and captain can all agree what type of games they will play and then the captain has an idea which games to select from his player pool to submit.

So as long as this is done before the end of the round. Leave it as late as you want but as long the selection has been done before midnight (board time) on the final day.

If for whatever reason the selection process was interupted, the captain didn't get to finish the selection due to RL or people plainly forgot to do it, then and only then does the software continue the process by selecting random games for characters without submitions.
Reply #135 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Regarding pnt 2.

I don't believe back up games from other team members should be allowed period. Because yes you would get Mumble or Motti to do the back up game.

I will also go with the random selection for a noshow MVL game. I doubt it will ever come to that I hope. However I still think a captain should be able to beat the random selection with a last hour game submittal from the player in question.

Passwords for everybody or just 1 per team. Whichever is easisest for the moderators.


P.S. with software doing alot of the work, just remember the Cylons, Terminators, I Robot and of course the Yor.  
Reply #136 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
However I still think a captain should be able to beat the random selection with a last hour game submittal from the player in question.
End of quote


As long as it was agreed between player and captain that he should do so failing the player selecting something his self.

I don't believe back up games from other team members should be allowed period. Because yes you would get Mumble or Motti to do the back up game.
End of quote


Ahh but the back up game is randomally selected by either my self or FB, the decision is not in the captains hands at all. Nor should it be in the new system.

For instance, i have played 3 games that meet the rounds requirements, but as the round end draws near i have not selected one. There are 3 possibilites,

1 - I log in and select a submition as i see fit before the round ends.

2 - Silver (my captain) in the last hour selects a predetermined game out of my 3, that we as a team decided on (strategy wise), he does this late so as to avoid clashing with a possible submition from me.

3 - No action is taken and the deadline has passed. The automated system randomally selects one of my 3 games to be my submition.

I had ample opportunity to either submit it myself, or whilst in conversation with my captain, have him submit an agreed upon game for me.

It may end up that the software does nothing. Most people will have submitted themselves, or have an understanding with their team captain. But in cases where i may have 1 game submitted and i want to be lazy, i can just let the software do the work.

And remember we want to attract new players to the league, and the less work they have to do the better, the casual player may use the automated system too.

But it is a choice, not a requirement.
Reply #137 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I am almost in total agreement. I know that on Team D, the automated system would never get used.
Reply #138 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I am in complete agreement with Neilo's summaries over the last handful of posts. Good work and thanks.

Also the point about random is that that *is* how the current rule has been treated. Previously we never considered that someone wouldn't submit a game that had been posted to the metaverse but treating it in the way that's been described is totally consistent with our previously defined rules.

The thing about random is certainly it's not fair if the best player on the team *always* happened to be selected to do a backup game which is what would happen if the decision was left up to the team or the captain. However it also should *sometimes* be the best player that was picked to do the game. The random selection of a player to do a backup game is fair. In the same manner the selection of a backup game from a set of games already completed should be random as well. Fairness dictates that the best game shouldn't be selected by the team/captain.

I am almost in total agreement. I know that on Team D, the automated system would never get used.
End of quote

I hope this is true for all teams, but if there is a way to avoid a few non-submissions then I'm all for it. The non-submission really messes up a team. Certainly the single game that fits the rounds criteria posted to the metaverse but simply neglected to be submitted is the easy solution. However, all this other stuff needs to be considered for all of the possible "what-if" scenarios. I would be tempted to say it's just easiest to leave a non-submission just as it is and be done with it but this punishes the team that otherwise did nothing wrong. Therefore we have all taken great pains discussing the situation to be as fair as possible in as many cases as possible, however no system can be perfect and I have to draw the line when it turns out that all this effort we're spending to save a team some catastrophe due to a non-submission is somehow twisted into an advantage to that team.
Reply #139 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
disagree. i'm still in favor of teams being able to pick which game will be the submission, including any optimization they might desire.
Why?
Don't you feel this is an unfair advantage?
Why should someone get a benefit for *not* submitting a game?
I can't see any justification for this and would like to understand your rationalization.
End of quote
End of quote


i thought i'd stated my case already but for the record, no, i don't think it's an unfair advantage. if a player and his team wanted to wait until the very last second to pick an optimal game, they could. the only difference here is the player playing the game isn't involved. a modest penalty already comes into play, in the form of a lower average team submission, and i previously stated i thought a better penalty would be 1 point for the game as an incorrect submission rather than 2 points (IIRC it was originally KP's suggestion).

here's the scenario i imagine. some random round, i play the "wild card" for my team. that is, i try for several different wins, some for speed, some for score, and let's just say it's an all-victory type round, so i've got like 6 games with different victory types. i'm waiting til the end to see what my team will benefit from most. 15 minutes before the round's deadline, my team captain, team and i agree that my second game completed would help the team most, so i go ahead and submit it officially. as a result, we get bonuses we wouldn't have if we didn't wait.

but what if some emergency came up, and i couldn't be involved in that last-moment decision? i don't even have time to PM my team captain to say "decide without me" (maybe i was in a car accident or something, knock on wood). i think it'd be fair for the plan to be something we can go ahead with. i'd much rather suffer losing a single point for something like "incorrect submission (late submission)" than potentially losing several points for my team (one of which might have been an incorrect victory type, if my team needed a cultural and my last game happened to be a military- in an all victory round, that is).

so to summarize: allowing the team the ability to pick a game, if there are multiple that qualify for someone who goes MIA, does not in my view provide them with an unfair advantage. the type of optimizing it'd allow is nothing the team couldn't already do. if teams don't do that already, that's not a matter of something in the rules, it's a matter of their choice in team strategy. essentially, i think forcing a particlar game to count as the submission consitutes a kind of double-jeopardy, so to speak.

i hope that clarifies my position
Reply #140 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
so to summarize: allowing the team the ability to pick a game, if there are multiple that qualify for someone who goes MIA, does not in my view provide them with an unfair advantage. the type of optimizing it'd allow is nothing the team couldn't already do. if teams don't do that already, that's not a matter of something in the rules, it's a matter of their choice in team strategy. essentially, i think forcing a particlar game to count as the submission consitutes a kind of double-jeopardy, so to speak.
End of quote


This is the crux of my compromise, this is fine. It is after the deadline submitals we wish to dis-allow. If you have discussed strategy with your captain about your games, of which you have 3 for arguements sake, that unless you submit a better game he is to take your 2 year win unless someone posts a 1 year win, then he is to select your 20,000pt game...that is fine. That selection should be done by your captain before the deadline.

If for whatever reason the captain failed to make the selection, only then would your game be subject to the automation of the system and 1 game would be selected randomaly from your 3.

Reply #141 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
That is all assuming of course that some discussion had taken place between the captain and his players, for your example Dystopic. I think most of us discuss what we are all going to do, so in your unfortunate example, your captain would know what to do by your previous conversations and make the appropriate selection.

If he too was befouled for some reason, then at least the automated system would choose some games, so that the entire round was not wasted.
Reply #142 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
i thought i'd stated my case already but for the record, no, i don't think it's an unfair advantage.
End of quote

OK now I remember your point. A couple of things. One is that any automatic or random submission should come from the set of games that satifies all of the rounds conditions as long as one such game exists. So in your example if you needed a cultural win for an all victory round and there was at least one cultural win that qualifies for selection then one of the cultural wins must be selected. So your example of losing a point for incorrect win as well as bonus doesn't apply.

However certainly a particular game could be responsible for perhaps 3 total bonus points if it was for example a monster score that would get an individual bonus as well as cause the team to get the 1st place team bonus.

OK so we take your wild card example and you have a number of games prepared that you're ready to submit. Fine wonderful. But in the last second where you intended to submit right at the end for maximum knowledge as to which is the best submission some real life thing intrudes and the submission fails to happen. In that case I would suggest that you deserved whatever you get. You are taking an intentional risk to gain an advantage. For all you know the forum could be down for ten minutes at just the critical time. If you make the conscious choice to engage in such brinkmanship then that is the risk you decided to take. The real life crisis in this case is not something that you were trying to avoid but were simply unable to. It's something that your tempting fate with and is inevitable that you will sooner or later mess up. I see this as the price you pay for trying to gain an advantage, *not* something that I should spend time and effort figuring out ways to protect yourself from yourself.

i think forcing a particlar game to count as the submission consitutes a kind of double-jeopardy, so to speak.
End of quote

But what you're asking for doesn't even count as single-jeopardy. You are intentionally skating on thin ice and then when the inevitable happens you're asking the league to make sure not that you don't drown as you deserve but that you don't even get wet. You say that you only gain perhaps 15 minutes more of knowledge than if you didn't mess up and that 15 minutes of advantage is hardly much advantage. I agree that its hardly much advantage but it's certainly not a disadvantage. You're asking me to subsidize the intentional risk that you are taking on the basis that when you mess up you don't gain that much more of an advantage. The more I understand about your position the more onerous it seems to me.

So OK. If randomly selecting a game constitues double-jeopardy in this case what was the first jeopardy? I assume it was the single point that you're willing to give up for the late submission? But so far you're the only proponent of that. If there is no single point penalty for late submission (which is probable because there is no real support for it) then your behaviour has no jeopardy whatsoever by allowing your team to select the replacement in fact it does count as an advantage if its only perhaps 15 minutes of more knowledge.

We are looking to protect people from real life emergency not people who are intentionally embarking on a risky strategy to gain an advantage. I more strenously object to this than I did at the outset.
Reply #143 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I did once suggest a 1 pnt penalty for late submission by a captain, however I think it would start to get a little complicated, and the more I think of it the more I believe random selection from the software is the way to go. It saves everyone, and as I kind of understand the captain can still make the last minute selection to avoid the software doing it.


Please correct me if I am wrong.
Reply #144 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
and as I kind of understand the captain can still make the last minute selection to avoid the software doing it.
End of quote


In this no, you are not wrong. Any player will have in effect 2 chances to have his desired game selected for submition, plus a 3rd backup chance.

1st Chance - The player himself logs in and selects his desired submitted game for said round. End of discussion, no issue's.

2nd Chance - Be it for strategy reasons or real life issues the player does not select his game. Knowing the desired game from previous discussions whilst stratagizing the round, the captain steps in at the last minute, 15 mins, hour...whatever, and makes the appropriate selection based on what his team desires and had discussed. End of discussion, no issue's.

3rd Chance - Failing that the player cannot select his game and for whatever reason the captain cannot either (net may be down, server is down) the automated system picks a game from that players submittions that meet that rounds requirements, randomly. After the end of the round, not before. If there is only one game that meets the rounds requirements then obviously that is the game that is chosen. Ok, your desired game may not be the selected game, but at least you have a game submitted. The way it is now if for whatever reason mid way through a round and after you have submitted your game to the MV, you are unable to post your submittion in the round thread, there would be possibly no back up and this could very well be a non-submittal. There is no structure in place, right now, for the captain to do anything.

This system covers all bases and allows for you, your captain or the software to select the game for that round.

There would be no late submissions by anyone as there is not any allowed now. There may of course be circumstances that arise where for some reason a game may be allowed after the deadline, but this would be arbitarily decided at that time.

I have mentioned this a few times but i will again as i think it could be the greatest yet asset of our inclusion to the AltMeta.

By having the automated system in place as i have described will allow other new players to play in the league much the same as they would in the MV. They would not really need to chat in our threads, or even select a game to be submitted.
They would sign up, the admin would allocate them a password and all details to login to the AltMeta and once the software was aware that Player X was on Team Z, all they would need do is check out the current round settings, play that game with their MVL character and that is it. The software in place would do the rest.

We may never all agree on point 2. But everyone could play the game as we do now with point 2 being implemented, nothing would change for the diligent player. But we could very well open the league up to a lot of new players.

When all is said and done, that should be one of our main goals. Making the MVL usable and accessible to even the most lazy player.
Reply #145 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I know Kzinti and FB are probably going to swear loudly when they see how far this thread has gone since their last look, but once they have read all this i really want to hear what they have to add to all this.

Since the inclusion of the MVL has been mainly discussed by, and forgive me if i have missed you,

Mumble - Neilo - DA - FB - Dystopic - Kzinti - PlayJeff and Silver & Butterfly too i think (just not recently)

I think we should consider that we should not move on to any topics or decide anything unless these people's opinion's have been heard.

Kind of like a MVL Committee if you will.

Just my two cents.
Reply #146 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Thank you. Point 2 has been cleared to hell and back

Point 1 Agree
Point 2 Agree
Point 3 Agree
  
Reply #147 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Thank you. Point 2 has been cleared to hell and back
End of quote

Agreed, however one final point that Neilo touched on earlier and that is that although the current set of rules does not address the issue of submitting a game that the character had posted to the metaverse but simply failed to submit, they do address the concept of a backup game played by a teammate. In all of the discussion of those rules it has always been a "random" selection to be made by the commissioner or vice commssioner, the ability to select the source of the backup game has never been with the team.

The intent of this discussion is to decide how to implement the league within the context of the AltMeta, certainly this may require some new rules but the basis should be what we already have. I feel the concept that the team/captain should select a backup or replacement is not one required by the move to the AltMeta and is an attempt to set a new precedent. I don't feel this discussion even belongs in this thread since what is currently proposed is clearly just an extension of what already exists and not the introduction of a new precedent.

Therefore the only competing proposal to the one that I proposed is not really a viable option. If this path is desired then the proponents of that scheme should gather enough support to first change the current rules to allow the team/captain to select who does a backup game in the case of announced non-submission and then it would be natural to continue that method into the AltMeta. However I am confident that there is not enough support within the league to make that change and therefore as far as I'm concerned this idea is a dead end that is merely wasting our time to continue to address.
Reply #148 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I brought the backup game up in the rule thread. I seen your reply over there Mumble, however I believe it needs to be discussed a little further.  

In the rule thread though, so as not to confuse these issues any further  
Reply #149 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I know Kzinti and FB are probably going to swear loudly when they see how far this thread has gone since their last look, but once they have read all this i really want to hear what they have to add to all this.
End of quote


By the Fanged God, look at all these posts! You are grass-eating sthondats who make ch'rowl with your litter-mates!

I would agree to the automatic selection only as a last resort, if a player or captain has not been able to submit. But there is still a potential problem in that a game with apparently similar conditions would be selected by the automatic system, even if it did not have all the correct settings. This brings up the issue of posting similar non-MVL games to the Metaverse. So, when taking these two issues into account, and also the fact that the chance of players submitting similar games is small, I think it I would now vote for the automatic selection system (only as a last resort, as I said before), and also vote for banning players from submitting games with similar conditions to the Metaverse. (sorry for the run-on sentence!) If people do want to play similar map conditions, but still post, they can always save the endgame-save and post it at some other time, which I dont think is too much of an annoyance.

As for not being able to find my other replies on these subjects, dont worry about it Mumble. I appreciate your thoroughness, but it could even be another thread I'm thinking about, as these discussions are somewhat scattered.

I do not agree with the idea of being able to submit a back-up game for an absent player, using a different player's game.

Kzinti empire2.JPG Sentient species taste better...
Reply #150 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I brought the backup game up in the rule thread. I seen your reply over there Mumble, however I believe it needs to be discussed a little further.

In the rule thread though, so as not to confuse these issues any further
End of quote

Oh God. Yeah I saw your response there although I'm not sure what needs further discussion over there.

I agree that I'd prefer not to go into detail here about that but because you brought it up I think it needs some mention.

So far in this thread we have only discussed the possible automatic selection of other games already submitted to the metaverse by the player that failed to submit one of them to the league. The whole idea of selecting another teammates submitted game or if there's enough notice the idea of assigning a teammate to do a backup game has not been addressed here. In truth I really don't want to discuss that here because if we can't reach agreement on this far simpler case how will we ever agree on the more complex general case.

How I would prefer to deal with the issue of assigning someone else or of selecting someone else's already played game to cover for an announced non-submission is exactly as we curretnly are which is by special random selection by the commissioner's office. Basically I think this has way too many what-if's to program into the AltMeta interface and we should continue with administrating this special condition by hand and getting it into the AltMeta through the backdoor directly through the AltMetaMVL administrator.

As an aside the current wording of the rule is to allow random selection by the commissioner or vice commissioner. The question I have in regard to this is has FB been instructed in how to perform these random selections? If not then I suggest that he should get the proper training prior to him having to implement this in real time.

As an even further aside, I hope Kryo is watching this conversation carefully and noting the picayune and pedantic detail that is involved with some of this stuff. Need I remind folks that we have barely begun to scratch the surface of what is involved with this and if our current rate of progress is any indication then I will be surprised if we finish this before 2009.