Neilo Neilo

Metaverse League Round 5

▼

Metaverse League Round 5

from GalCiv2 Forums
Hi all and welcome to round 5!!

Congrats to the Domination of Death for a well played victory in round 4!! :CONGRAT:

Everyone please welcome our six new players, Defcon13, Velkyn Kyil, GalenEvil, Almaric Iztok Bitenc and RexDaddy. I have placed you guys into teams. Domination (team D) please welcome GalenEvil and RexDaddy, Eternal Villainy please welcome Velkyn Kyil and Iztok Bitenc, Blade Runners please welcome Defon13and Crusaders please welcome Almaric. Captains, make sure to Pm your new players their core passwords please. (I still can't believe i forgot you Defcon...sorry again mate.)

Good luck to all our new players and i hope your enjoy the League.

Current teams are,


We lost Vilgan, Doombringer and Drengin in round 4. I hope to see these guys playing with us again soon. (Noticulus and Xei Win Toh have abstained from playing till further notice.)

Ok, onto round 5.

We are after an Influence Victory in a Tiny Galaxy with 4 Opponents.

Settings are,
Habitable planets - Abundant
Number of planets - Common
Number of stars - Uncommon
Star Density - Tight Clusters
Anomolies - Common
Asteroids - Uncommon
Tech Rate - Fast
Minors - Random/Enabled in DL

Disable Tech Trading
Blind Exploration (Check the box. No seeing AI sphere's of influence.)
Allow Mega Events
Disable Super Abilities
All Victory's Enabled
Allow Surrenders

Round 5 ends Midnight 13th January 2008.

Two slight rule changes for round 5.
Ties for fastest game will now be broken by score. So there will only be 4 points given out for fastest game, regardless of the number of games with equal time.

Ties for high score will also be limited to the 4 points. These will be broken by game speed. In the event of double ties (equal speed and score) points will be given, regardless of number. (These rules are not yet official and may be omitted from the round. It has had discussion but no closure. If there is no objection than these rules will apply for this round.)

We will use the Round 5 thread for our discussions, plus the submission's. Looking back through one thread is far easier than looking back through many threads and posts.

For any discussions on rules please post in the MVL Rulebook thread.

Also there is a discussion about our inclusion into the AltMeta here, The MVL and the AltMeta. Please watch this thread for more discussion soon.

I am really looking forward to this challenge and to the rounds ahead. Good luck to everyone and a big welcome to our new players, i hope you enjoy the league. As always i hope you enjoy your games and i hope you all have safe and happy holidays.

The Commish.
"The Metaverse League"
Player Sign up & Roster
Round Results & League Ladder
The MVL Rulebook
The MVL and the AltMeta


metaverse
107,157 views 306 replies
Reply #276 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
I think you misunderstand the criteria
End of quote

True. What made me think so was:
there will only be 4 points given out for fastest game
End of quote

Please not "game" is in singular, not plural. So I understood that as: only the fastest and most scoring game gets 4 points.  Just a lack of background info on my side. I actually like the "1 point for 4 best games" idea.

BR, Iztok


Reply #277 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Please note "game" is in singular, not plural.
End of quote


Just a lack of background info on my side
End of quote

Like I said it wasn't well worded. Mainly because after a while of discussion you tend to start to speak in shorthand and of course without the background the shorthand is easily misunderstood.

In any case the scoring methodology has flucuated over time but your point about giving as many people as possible something for to aim for certainly has been a goal of the league and we're always looking for other methods to accomplish this.

Actually I still like the idea of leaving ties unbroken but in the previous round, which was Tech Victory, we had ten total speed bonus games due to ties and many felt 10 was just too many.

Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #278 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Corhuskermac score for Team B:


Character: Bastard
Score: 10200
Years: 5
Difficulty: Obscene
All other settings as per round requirements


I went one step up in difficulty this time and enjoyed it immensely, even though I almost lost!

This MVL is a great way to challenge yourself and thanks to all who run it for making this possible.



Reply #279 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
LOL, oh thanks C-Mac; now I have to go back and redo all my hard work :CONGRAT:

((it is good to hear from you tho!))
Reply #280 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Ok guys i want to get the teams sorted for the next round. I know i am early but i really want the teams sorted out ASAP. We dont need a draft or anything, but with Playjeff missing, team D is only a 3 man team and we have two 5 man teams. (Dystopic sitting out the next round drops the Crusaders to 4 men.)

My idea is to randomally take 1 person from 1 of those teams (Blade Runners and Eternal Villainy) and place them into the Domination of Death.

This problem of no-shows is still a headache we have in the MVL, and not one i think we can get rid of.

We lost quite a few players since the end of round 4, some notified and others have simply dissapeared.

If ever the time to spread the word of the MVL it is now. If we are to lose anymore players in the next round we might have to cull a team, not a prospect i wish to have to entertain.

I'll give it a few days for any comments on moving a player to team D and in the mean time guys, tell the people about the MVL!!!
Reply #281 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Just looking again at activity, we may need to take two players. The A-Team are close to being a 3 man team with TGE not being seen around lately. Has anyone had contact with TGE. Just something we should be looking into.
Reply #282 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
God, I can't belive I forgot to post my game in here again...

Edit:

Here it is, the most amazing tiny game in existance.
YAY for planetary invasion tactics!!!

Alignmnet: Pond Scum
Years:3
Type of Victory:Cultural Conquest
Score:6000
Difficutly: Tough
Size: Tiny
v1.80e Dark Avatar (Dark Avatar)1/9/2008 3:22:00 PM
Reply #283 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
if only all of you could hear the words that I am flinging at the screen (actually, I'm laughing hysterically, but whatever)

back to the drawing board I go

LOL, now all we need is a 11:59 appearance by Jeff
Reply #284 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Just looking again at activity, we may need to take two players. The A-Team are close to being a 3 man team with TGE not being seen around lately. Has anyone had contact with TGE. Just something we should be looking into.
End of quote

Talk of the devil and he shows up. :)

Actually we had communication from TGE during the round and as I said he did have a game all ready to go so I'm not really worried about him. I'm certain that he will give us notice if there was any real concern.

Also PlayJeff hasn't been heard from in a bit but he did have 4 games ready to go. That really doesn't sound like someone that's in any jepoardy of leaving.

Actually Berzelius may be the biggest concern of folks that have games in the MV but not submitted to the League, but then that may just be because I haven't much direct communication with him. Has anyone on his team heard from him lately?

Moving someone from C and E to A and D is only changing which team are the 5 man teams. There's really no gaurantee that this kind of juggling makes it any less likely to have a non-submission next month.

As far as any reorg I think we can hang onto the teams as they are now constituted for the moment. I would recommend that we shift as few people as possible and moving 0 is the best, if there is an issue next round we can always reshuffle everyone then. Also we can try to keep on top of the situation during the next round, if halfway through the round there is concern any team can ask for the random selection of a player to do a backup game.

The thing is we just stretched to reach 5 and I think we should try to hold onto the teams as is. At least give it one more month before pushing the panic button.

One thing, Neilo could you summarize the status of anyone in question? I know some people have announced that they're leaving and some people may be off temporarily, but at this point I'm not sure who is doing what.
Reply #285 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I know Jeff had 4 games but he has been missing from our forums too. This is unlike Jeff, so with his and The Butterfly's disappearance along with Shadow's resignation leaves team D with only 3 players.

As for team A, yes they will be fine i forgot Bluntblade was only unable to submit this round. So they are fine.

I too do not wish the teams to shrink, we worked hard to get to 5 teams and going back would be such a disappointment.


Xei Win Toh - Abstained until TA is MV ready.
Vilgan - Abstaining until he has more free time and/or is excited about GC2.
Playjeff - Disappeared early in round 5. Zero contact.
Velkyn & Doombringer - Again Zero contact on their no-shows.
Shadow - Quit MVL.


We do have a return to look forward too, i hope. Nocticulus gave notice of his inability to play round 5 in reply 196 of the sign up thread. MVL Player Sign Up. In that post he remarks that he was only out for round 5 and looks forward to round 6.
Of course we will not count him in untill he posts but i do look forward to his return.
Reply #286 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
alright y'all, scores are posted in the League Results thread. Congratulations to everyone as always.
Reply #287 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi guys please check out our MVL thread...Metaverse League, i really would like to see that thread become very active. All the chatter we have each round surely we can move some of it there.

Also please read the new and improved OP in that thread, thankyou Silver for a great write up. If we can make that thread more active perhaps we can get some new players.
Reply #288 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
In reply 285 i forgot to mention Dystopic - Abstaining due to RL.
Reply #289 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You also forgot thebutterfly, my other missing team-mate.

Kzinti empire2.JPG Sentient species taste better...
Reply #290 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Here's my results. I made it, might as well post it. Besides, the results seem to be a fitting end to the Round thread. ;)

MVL Round 5 Results and Roster

For any queries or misunderstandings, there is a Bonus point Legend at the Bottom explaining where all the bonus points came from and went so everybody knows what they got and what its for. Its also scrollable, and includes a little on the dewpoint of the round. I admit, the colour-coating may not have the best choice of colours, but it makes it user-friendly and somewhat easy to understand.

Also, be sure to check out the latest replies and OP update on the League Results thread.

Btw, neilo, your other avatar was better.
Reply #291 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Indeed i did Kzinti, thankyou, Butterfly is indeed another one missing with no notice. Though i do recall something being said way back in round 4....

Well done FB!, I think this round has been the smoothest as far as scoring goes. Well done guys!!

Btw, neilo, your other avatar was better.
End of quote


It's showing up for you? I still see my old centurion one. I have been meaning to change my avatar for some time. The centurion one actually dates back to when i was in the colonial fleet, and that was prior to the HCH even! My original one was the superman one i use at the core.

I changed to that one as i am about to make my BadMuthaFraker character my default one soon, and this one is far more fitting.
Reply #292 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Also, be sure to check out the latest replies and OP update on the League Results thread.
End of quote

There are a few errors in the submission order to point out, however they make no difference in the outcome. Actually from 17 on is messed up. The rank should have been.

17 Amalric (post 220)
18 Dystopic (post 227)
19 Iztok (post 253)
20 Cornhusker (post 278)
21 TGE (post 282)
22 Berzelius (by auto-submit)
22 PlayJeff (by auto-submit)

Again none of this made any difference to the outcome but it could have.
Reply #293 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I know Jeff had 4 games but he has been missing from our forums too. This is unlike Jeff, so with his and The Butterfly's disappearance along with Shadow's resignation leaves team D with only 3 players.
End of quote

I guess if you're convinced this is the case then moving one person from a 5 man team to Team D is reasonable. However I would hope that we wouldn't have to go through a password change on any of the private forums just because of this.

Instead of making the assignment to Team D now you could merely hold off a bit and just make the next player in go to Team D. I know this leaves it a bit up to chance but there's the chance that PlayJeff returns, the chance that Nocticulus shows up and the chance that some new player decides to join. The cumulative chance of one of these three things happening is relatively good.

In any case I'm mostly looking to avoid password changes at the Core because it does seem to take a bit to get them straightened out.
Reply #294 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It took me about 10 minutes to come up with the following which is the submission calculation based on time compared to that based on rank order. I'm not totally sure what to make of it. Note that the order came out the same in the case of this round although I can't be sure that will always be the case.

I tried to upload the .xls file to the Core but couldn't, if anyone wants a copy of the spreadsheet itself then we'll have to figure out a way to get it to you.

Basically if the time spacing between submissions is relatively even then I think both methods come out the same. However I think the rank order tends to exaggerate differences in submissions close together in time and minimize differences in submissions that are far apart in time. I think that the intuitive approach is the time based one.

Note that I did make an error in playjeff's team assignment but it didn't make any difference since he had the same rank/time as berzelius.

I used the sumproduct function which multiplies arrays to multiply the team column by the rank column and days column respectively then divided by the sum of the team column to get the average. For example the Rank submission average for Team A was calculated by =SUMPRODUCT($D2:$D24,E2:E24)/SUM(E2:E24) and similarly for the others. The Time submission average for Team A is =SUMPRODUCT($C2:$C24,E2:E24)/SUM(E2:E24). The $ sign keeps that column fixed in this case as the formula is copied from column to column for each team. The days column is calculated by =B2-B$1, in this case the $ sign keeps the row constant (of the OP timestamp) as the formula is copied from row to row.

Reply #295 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

Also, be sure to check out the latest replies and OP update on the League Results thread.

There are a few errors in the submission order to point out, however they make no difference in the outcome. Actually from 17 on is messed up. The rank should have been.

End of quote


Please note that in my tally, the so-called "Official Score Table", the ranks are correct.

In other news, awesome work on the Average Submission Time table, Mumblefratz. I was able to get it to work for me once I got your message. Now, just having to decide the methods that we are going to be using from now on. "Your" method is probably best as that is the most similar to what would be used if/when we are in the AltMeta.
Reply #296 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Please note that in my tally, the so-called "Official Score Table", the ranks are correct.
End of quote

Actually, "almost" correct. You had PlayJeff at 20th submission instead of tied with Berzelius at 22nd. ;) And as Ferrel pointed out in the other thread credited dystopic with ferrel's speed bonus.

In any case no one should take any offense when I or anyone else points out an occasional error. I make them and so does everyone else. I simply point them out for correctness sake and actually appreciate when others point them out in my stuff.

The best protection is for a number of folks to work on this stuff independenty and then compare their results. This is what FB, Silver and I did behind the scenes. Note that anything that doesn't make a difference to the final outcome is far less likely to be spotted.

As always the most likely person to spot an error is the person in whose score the error is made, so everyone should take it on themselves to check the stuff we all do and make sure that they're being reported correctly. Please feel free too point out that you got the bonus instead of your teammate. And we who contribute to the "official" results won't take offense at it because as I said everyone makes the occasional mistake.
Reply #297 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This is what FB, Silver and I did behind the scenes.
End of quote


Neilo too. :) He sent his calculations to me as well as Silver. They were correct.


In any case no one should take any offense when I or anyone else points out an occasional error. I make them and so does everyone else. I simply point them out for correctness sake and actually appreciate when others point them out in my stuff.
End of quote


The best solution is to have an online spreadsheet instead of Excel. That way, the user can scroll the sheet, the editor can make any changes if necessary, they don't have to be displayed in screenshots but just a simple link like the above in reply#290.

And just as a reminder, anyone who hasn't yet voted in the "MVL Tibreak Criteria Vote" please do so now at this page. Better late then never.
Reply #298 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The best solution is to have an online spreadsheet instead of Excel. That way, the user can scroll the sheet, the editor can make any changes if necessary, they don't have to be displayed in screenshots but just a simple link like the above in reply#290.
End of quote

Well yes and no. If everyone uses a common source then that still doesn't mean that no error can occur. Because there are more people looking at is errors may be less likely but the probability of error is not zero. Basically the method of comparing independent calculations does pretty much gaurantee that the final results are accurate.

One thing is true and that is that if my results show team E winning and someone else's results show Team C winning that is sure to be noticed and resolved. Note that since we've been sharing independent results there hasn't been a single error that has affected the final outcome because of this. Sure there still might be an error present that doesn't affect the final score and yes even those should get corrected but if there is an error in the common source there's no independent validation of outcome.
Reply #299 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
i am most greatly offended that anyone would dare question me. I don't make mistakes; if it disagrees with your reality then that's not my problem. :LOL:

though...for the record Mumble LOL, I do have PlayJeff at 22nd in the official posting. The links I posted in the Round 5 threads earlier are missing a number of players scores (notably Iztok, C-Mac, and TGE)

Eventually, I am going to have my own server network set up here at the house and will be able to store this stuff right on the server and I'll be able to just put up the links and such. Of course, by then we may be in the Altmeta and it won't matter anyhow.
Reply #300 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I guess if you're convinced this is the case then moving one person from a 5 man team to Team D is reasonable. However I would hope that we wouldn't have to go through a password change on any of the private forums just because of this.

Instead of making the assignment to Team D now you could merely hold off a bit and just make the next player in go to Team D.
End of quote


Well i do hope he will show up soon (Jeff), but i am convinced that there is more to his disappearance than simply not showing. Jeff was one of our most active members on the ToE forum site and was quite active on chat too. He has not been seen on either of these for a very long time. We suspect some computer snafu had kept him offline. So he could return at any moment, but assuming he will be available for round 6 might not be the best way to go.

With that in mind though, and with Nocticulus returning, hopefully, then yes there would be no issue and team-D would be fine.

If we were to leave it to chance that either Jeff, Nocticulus or a new player will join/return and that does not happen and we need to take a player from another team, we run into all sorts of problems, the biggest of which is that that player may have already submitted a game for their current team.

It would be unfair to leave team-D in that position.

What i propose is that we do 1 of two things.

1) Move someone before the start of round 6. It fills the teams out nicely but would become redundant if there is a return/new joining.

2) Do nothing, leave it to chance that we do get a return/new joining. But if we don't we do not move a player, but allow a backup game to be played (randomally choosen) that counts as game number 4 and is entitled to all points.

I like choice 2 myself...thoughts?