Hi Iztok,

Just take a screenshot of the victory screen and post it in this thread. Other people have had trouble submiting in the past, so this is an acceptable way to submit your game.

Sentient species taste better...

Hi!

Thank you for the speedy answer! This will work for the current round, but I need to solve that problem with serial in order to participate in other games.

Now I need to remember how did I post game pictures...

BR, Iztok

Hi!

Since I'm unable to post the game to metaverse I'm posting printscreens here. Game properties:
Difficulty: suicidal
Ended: 29. Dec. 2227 (The very last turn to end it as 1-year game)
Score: 11200 points
Race: Krynn with +30% econ, +10% PQ, +10% morale, +20% soldiering, Federalists









The link to zipped savegame (270kB):
http://cid-123e3f9c4d270036.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Public/EndGameSave.zip


BR, Iztok

Iztok, I had the same issue as you did and the same trouble fixing it. Cari helped me, she does have a work around for it but i will let her tell you the details. Email her mate, she got my account all fixed up....Her bloods worth bottling!

And submitting in this fashion is fine mate. Nice game to BTW.

Just going back to Bluntblade's post RE: can't submit this round (reply 219 page 5) and the following reply's (reply 221 & 224 page 5).

Perhaps we should have allowed a backup game to be played so that the averages can by done /5. The situation we have now is technically The A-Team is a 5 man team with 1 non-submital, i know for base score they are fine, but technically they will have a 0 factored into their avg's.

Now since we told DA that no back-up was needed we should allow their avg's to be /4. This was probably a given to many of us anyway, but since we try to stay within the rules and follow precedents we should have looked at this closer. I failed to take the Avg's into account in this situation, rather, i saw that they were in good shape, base score wise and thought nothing else of it.

I doubt that there is time for a backup game to be played, and since it will be a few hours till most of you guys read this, even less time.

So /4 for A-Team avg's please people.

Just a heads up for those who have yet to submit,

CornhuskerMac, Bluntblade, Playjeff, TGE, Butterfly, Velkyn

There is only a little over a day left in the round, so get your games in quick!!

If no submissions are seen in the the thread any captains that need to may select a suitable game from that players profile, if they have one. (Jeff is sorted, i believe TGE has a game that you could put forward DA) If no submission is made by a captain i will randomally pick a game from said person profile if applicable (Cmac?? I don't think blunt, butterfly or velkyn have any)

That sounds both reasonable and fair.

Sentient species taste better...

Just another quick note, for submission purposes, did we agree that all captain selected or commissioner selected games would tie for last?

I believe that's what was decided.

thats how I was planning on ranking them; equally last place. please let me know if there is a change.

Yes.

BTW Impressive game Iztok.   

Certainly is....Kudos!!

This one game might make all the difference for team E. I take off my hat to you, sir.

Might??.....hehehe Not a strong enough word.

Fine. Iztok DID make all the difference for Team E.
Dang you, Iztok!

Umm... Neilo, Silver and Mumble, have you visited the draft results page yet? Please tell me if there are any errors. Check your Emails for the links.

i have, just trying to get all the final inputs into place. I will be sending out emails later. Finalization can not occur until after Midnight tonight.

I did and sent you a PM, looks good. I did point out what I think are two minor score discrepancies that made no difference to the outcome. Please verify them as a crosscheck. I also sent my take on the round to Silver as well.

One other point is that on the GC2 site the correct spelling is Berzelius, note that it's incorrect in the OP of this thread as well. To add to the confusion, at the Core the correct spelling is Brezelius. This took me quite a bit to figure out when setting up the character links that I previously posted.


Amen. We could still get another submission that could change everything.

Yep. Still about 12 hours to go.

Mumble and FireBender, please note that the score you have listed for TheGreatEmperor is incorrect; it is '6000' not '6600'

Below are the links to my scoring tables; link 1 is Teams A and B; link 2 Teams C and D, and link 3 is Team E

Please note that this is NOT the official score, but unless we have someone show up last minute it is the most likely result tabulation.

Teams A and B: WWW Link

Teams C and D: WWW Link

Team E: WWW Link

Hi!



Thank you gentlemen! I just had to keep up my reputatation.

Frankly this was the THIRD game I tried for that round. First two were DL ones, with Drengin and Yor. I thought +70% growth bonus, +30% econ, drengin's 25% inherited morale bonus and 40% better DLs' economy would be enough to win quickly, and I also haven't played Drengin yet. The second one was with Yor, and was inspired by mumble's AAR. But I just could't get starting conditions I supposed mumble got (me in center, the rest of AIs roughly on one side of the galaxy, some empty planets on the other (not to mention a class-26 planet nearby ).

But I've learned a lot from those two games (all-factories is bad for tech rush I needed to get invasion tech before my neighbours started militarizing). Since Ferrel posted a nice one game (1 year, 9600 points), I had to try something different. Yor was already used, so I've chosen Krynn (good starting tech AND Ion Drive, excellent morale (+60% at start!), and lots of econ bonuses (50% at start) to compensate the 40% smaller income from DA planets. I've kept most planets at 100% approval for most of the game, starting at ~55% tax, ending at 78%, so money wasn't a problem until I've invaded both Terra and New Iconia in the same turn using Information warfare (both had ~15B pop at 50% and 55% approval). But at that time I already had the best economy, and climbed out of that hole in just one turn.

Pitty I missed the morale resource to the north of my HW. When I discovered it, it already had an iconians' SB on it. But I managed to claim the only one econ and research resource in the galaxy, and 1 out of 2 influence ones. I've also been very lucky with cash anomalies: IIRC they gave me 1850 BC!

The game was mixed all-X. At first I've been running my empire at 100% social spending and building some factories on all planets, but after two-three factores I've built two-three labs everywhere, and changed spending to 100% research for a real tech rush. That helped me to get enough tech to switch back to all-factories and built just one type of medium-hull ships for successful attack on both Iconians and Terrans, since they were using mass drivers as their weapon. Korx were neutral to friendly, too strong to subdue quickly, and using beams. I also needed peace in the last three months to finish game with proper victory type.

Alas, the first time I won, it happened at about 5th of Januar 2228. I counted weeks properly, but I didn't expect 10 weeks need to pass AFTER the announcement. So the game started count-down two weeks after I've taken the last iconians' planet in 8th of October. I had to reload a game from July 2227 and replay it. While waiting for the victory I really didn't had much else to do than grow pop at max rate, build/buy some wonders, and research techs that could give me more scores.

IMO what gave me 1600 more points than the Ferrel's game was my big pop (social score)and high econ (econ score) from high tax rate, both possible by very high "natural" krynn's morale ability. Without it I doubt I could pull out better score. Maybe by building lots of fake defenders, and putting them all under cover of an enhanced military starbase(s), but there just wasn't enough time to research other two basic weapons' techs, and free Starports to actually build them. But I'm just guessing. Until now I never played for scores.

BR, Iztok

Hi!

BTW I still didn't vote for the way ties are resolved. That's because I don't agree with the scoring system of "the winner takes it all". What I'd like to propose would be more like medals: 3, 2 and 1 points for best three games in each category. If there would be ties, then they should be resolved by the next category: scores by speed, speed by score.

Such a scoring system should give each player a reason to try to give his team a bit more points, despite knowing he can't beat expert players, but knowing he can aim at the second or the third place. So the competition would be more fierce.

Comments?

BR, Iztok

Yep. It's good to have multiple folks looking at all of this.


The goal of the bonus point system is to provide some means for the teams to differentiate themselves without the bonuses becoming the predominate scoring method.

The idea is that a simple win of a game with randomly selected setting is an achievement in and of itself. We initally started with a 3, 2, 1 points for 1st, 2nd, 3rd place individual bonuses but felt that this gave too many points for the so-called experts. We then changes to 1 individual point for each of the top 3 individuals but then gave 2, 1 points for the team averages. Later with more members we expanded the first 3 to the first four for individual bonus.

The bottom line is that I think pretty much everyone is for any idea that will result in an evening out of competition within the league. One issue with the current system is that the top games both speed and score do in some sense carry more weight. For example, I only got a sinle individual bonus point for my 39K game but basically that was enough to carry my team to the team score bonus for an additional 2 point team bonus. While it's slightly more difficult for a single fast game to singlehandedly gain a team speed bonus, there is a similar effect with speed games as well.

I do think that 1 point individual bonuses are good because that allows 2nd, 3rd and 4th in each category to contribute just as much as 1st. I think leaving individual bonuses fixed at 1 point each is a good thing. If you're talking about changing the team bonuses to top three with 3, 2, 1 points than I think I agree with this.

One goal is to see teams that might not get any individual bonus points at all still be able to get a team bonus because of a collection of good games even with no single "great" game. Actually Team D almost pulled off that feat in this round. Until Iztok submitted his game, Team D was in position to take 2nd place team speed without a single game getting an individual bonus. I'm all for anything we can come up with that rewards this type of performance.

I think perhaps opening up the team bonuses to top three might help this but I'm not so sure about the 3,2,1 scoring. I think it may actually accomplish more along these lines by opening up the team scores to top 3 but going to 1 point team bonus for all places just as for the individual bonuses. This would tend to "flatten" out the differences between teams somewhat.

One final point I want to make and that is that the goals of this league have been stated as "to have fun", "to provide camaraderie" and "to improve the play of all involved" among others. There is no doubt about it having accomplished the first two but there is also no doubt in my mind that it has accomplished the third as well.

It's clear the level of play as exhibited by the scores and the game speeds are gradually increasing throughout the league. If you look at this round this was probably the closest round so far. If we didn't have the team submission bonus we would have had 3 teams tied for 1st.

Actually I do like the idea of taking the team bonuses to 1 point each for the first three teams. That should include submission bonus as well.

I also think we should take a look at the what difference would be made by a time based submission versus rank based. Perhaps I'll chart this up for the current round just to see what kind of difference it would make.

I think you misunderstand the criteria. Each of the 4 fastest games and each of the 4 highest scores get a single individual bonus point each. The team speeds and scores are then averaged for a team bonus that gives 2 for 1st and 1 for 2nd.

Initially I had supported all ties getting equal bonus but in round four we ended up with 10 individuals getting a speed bonus because of this. This was why we trying to limit this to 4 total.

I see how it was worded could confuse someone into thinking that only the single fastest game gets 4 points, but that's not it. The four top games are to get a single bonus point each but tiebreaks should be used to limit this to only the top four games.