just a quick note. Dethadder has pmed me and offered his help in running the elections. So when voting begins guys, direct your pm's to either myself or Dethadder please.



No we are fine mate....



So with JustinSane4 we are back to a 5 man team.

No objections here.

Thanks for contributing an opinion.


Great. I didn't remember that I had the foresight to include teams in the tie rule. It's also clear I don't have the rules memorized. But as Scorekeeper you've probably looked at them more recently than I have.

As far as team ties in both categories go that's a *lot* more unlikely to be accomplished but if any team can do so then they absolutely deserve a bonus point.

I've sent my PM to you neilo. Please make sure it's not blank. I received a blank PM from Stardock during the forum upgrade and would like to be sure that they have it fixed. If not, perhaps we should PM at the Core instead?

Well played everyone.

Now that this round is over...

Wyndstar, how did you get that great 0yr score? I'm still trying to figure it out.

Ferrel.

Mumblefratz,

Now why can't our elected officials play as nice as we do when running for office?

Obviously, all that have been nominated are preeminently qualified for the post of Commissioner.

So, more for the newer players of the MVL, a little about me.

I am a sophomore at Purdue University studying Political Science (focus on Public Administration and Policy) that joined the MVL during Round 3. At the end of that round we needed to form a new team, and I was given captaincy of the Eternal Villainy. After a sore loss in Round 4 we came back to secure a First place victory in Round 5, and a tie for First in Round 6. I wouldn't say I'm the most vocal captain by any stretch, mostly I just trust in my players to do what they do best, and I'm there just as a guiding hand.

I say that because I think thats an important quality to have in a leader. I don't think I am, or would want to be, heavy handed in my approach or how I deal with others. I do think its important to trust in others abilities, and be willing to step in or help only when needed.

I think I have shown that I am quick to respond to most situations that have arisen in the MVL and try to keep people on task without unduly influencing what actions are taken.

I also have had a lot of experience in dealing with the more mundane aspects of the MVL due to my time as a Captain and for the last three rounds as Score Keeper. I have been active in helping with matters of Rules, and also rewriting the entire "Welcome to the MVL" post to help new players better.

I would like to end by again congratulating my fellow nominees of FireBender and Mumblefratz, and thanking Neilo for his time and effort as Commissioner. And finally, thanking all of you for being willing to participate in this League and taking the time to help decide where we go from here.

Many Thanks To All

Silverbeacher

Actually I went back and re-read the section related to team ties and in fact they really aren't specified the same way individual ties are although it is a matter of picky sematics and knowledge of how the text evolved that makes me come to that conclusion.

I don't want to make a big deal about this but the text actually reads as follows.


The aspect of this that is not clear is that at the time this was written individual ties were not broken by the "other" criteria and so reference to team ties being treated "as with individual bonuses" did not specifically refer to score breaking speed ties and vice versa.

The rule about speed ties being broken by score for individual bonuses was added later and at that time I changed the wording under the individual bonus points section but made no change to the team bonus point tiebreak criteria.

I also carefully looked at the wording that was voted and approved for the individual bonus tiebreak and nowhere was mentioned ties for team bonus points.

I therefore conclude that we currently don't have anything specified about ties for team bonus points.

However as I said I don't wish to make a big deal about the situation and think the proposal that team ties *should* be handled just as we do individual ties is a totally reasonable proposal that I would expect that the league could accept by consensus.

Therefore I propose that we simply change the wording listed above to the following that explicitly mentions this case.

I agree.

Sentient species taste better...

Hi!

That's exacly what I asked him. He answered he had luck with habitable planets, and he also had MCC in May. Early enough to almost double his econ score.

BR, Iztok

OK that answers the score part of the question. Now how about how you folks captured those habitable planets within year 0?

Well, I played an all-labs strategy along with a simple spore rush, and I did manage to colonize a few close systems. I usually skip colonization all together on smaller maps, but I had a few planets right next door so I couldn't resist leasing a few colonizers.

My first year of my Altarian Rebellion AAR looked real close to my first year of this game. I never built a factory, but I did go straight for concepts of malice and a MCC to try and afford my spore ships and research.

Perhaps this summary of my end scores will help you:



Good luck next round.

So, uh, how did my team do?

~ Wyndstar

Well, we WERE playing on a tiny map with just two enemies. Spore ships can be researched even faster than planetary invasion, and don't cost you any people, so your taxes never drop off.

You may not have read it Mumble because it came with TA in the subject thread, but you might be interested in reading my AAR at the beginning of this thread:
Thoughts and analysis on TA as of beta 4

In that game I had 1 enemy on a tiny map, and though a faster tech rate than in this game, I was able to win on turn 20 with a military victory on suicidal.

Honestly, I spent several turns score grinding because I had THIS MV game wrapped up but for one planet by turn 38.... so I got to do several months of just babying my people while I waited to invade that last world.

~ Wyndstar

You may ALSO notice that in my 20 turn suicidal game I managed a score of 24850, which was quite a bit higher than my 50 turn game which I submitted here (only 20650). True, the tech rate I think was 1 different.

Still, I might be a bad teammate, but I didn't play several games with the league settings going for the best score. As time was a factor, I just submitted the first one I tried. I think I could push that 0 year score quite a bit higher with a few tries, especially if I got lucky with starting tiles.


You know how it goes though, on medium and smaller maps, fortune (and score) favors the bold. The very, very bold.

~ Wyndstar

Thanks for the info.

I'm going to have to study this a bit.

The telling feature is the ratio of the sum of the four components of score versus the total score and such a low ratio is indicitive of the early win. However this was assumed from the start. I mean this will pretty much be characteristic of *all* 0 year wins to a greater or lessor degree. After all everything was complete within 48 turns at the max.

There were 9 zero year wins all of which were DA. I wasn't questioning how the best of the bunch scored higher than the others, that's pretty much a given. I'm more searching for what is the enabling feature of DA that allowed the zero year win to begin with. Perhaps there is more then one, but I do assume there is some commonality since it is a feature missing in DL, because I do believe such a win is not possible in DL. I could be wrong in that assumption but I doubt it.

I mean is it spore that is the key to this? Did everyone that achieved a 0 year win do so because of spore functionality? Was there a zero year win that didn't involve spore as a prime feature?

Or was it some other combination of unique DA functionality? Or were there multiple methods all unique to DA that allowed the 0 year win?

I will study the material that you reference, and thanks. However I'm looking less for whatever made your game unique and more for what was common to all the DA 0 year wins that cannot be replicated in DL.

This is basically motivated by, I wouldn't call it a concern it's really just a question, of whether I need to move on to DA simply to continue to compete. It's clear to me that there is something unique to DA unavailable in DL that gives DA an advantage on the speed side. It's also clear that with the increased number of planets DA has an advantage in the high score side as well.

I believe that I've been able to beat out the score of DA games while still playing DL only because I take score to such an extreme. However anyone that did the same things in DA that I do in DL should easily be able to better my scores by a significant margin.

My plans do involve moving onto DA however SDC is not part of that plan and if that's the case the only way to get the latest DA is as part of the TA CD that I ordered. I guess what I'm trying to sound out is whether or not I need to break down and go the SDC route.

It would be useful if some other people that got 0-year DA wins would enlighten us on what methods they used to achieve it. Anybody care to comment?

Sentient species taste better...

Mumble, you may want to take a look at page two of the topic "Secrets of a High Scoring Game" in the Diplomats forum at the core. I wrote up the basic mechanic I used in that thread, though I executed it very sloppily this time around. Basically, it was a blatant copy of Wyndstar's approach in his Altarian AAR last spring (which I'd just read) only using the Korath(for the spore ships)instead, with one other slight twist.

Ah, Mumble, no reason to fear. DL is very competitive for the fast win, in fact, its easier. Engine techs are cheaper, its just harder to score well going fast.

Just for fun, and because it only took me 10 minutes, here is a 10 turn suicidal victory using the latest patch of DL. No fancy super abilities or funky stat maxing... but suddenly I have anomalies that give WAAAAAY more cash.



This isn't a submission to the league of any kind, just way of example that the zero year win is very easy in DL as well.

Hope that helps,
~ Wyndstar

What, I haven't given you enough information? What am I holding back, exactly?

Humph.
~ Wyndstar

I am definately outclassed with these 0yr wins. I don't think I could ever get one. Also DethAdder could you please send me the password for team A. Thanks.

How many opponents was this? If only one I could buy it. Two if they're very close, but 10 turns seems pretty tough even to just gain planetary invasion and that's assuming a 300% research tile. I've never seen a 700% research tile in a tiny game so that's not it.

Basically you are a bad example of what is to be expected on "average" because clearly this is not average performance.

In my DL 0 year attempt I did get a planetary improvements and maybe another early tech before going for planetary invasion but I did get planetary invasion by April 1 which is 12 turns. So this looks like to me that you had one opponent, immediately went for planetary invasion, bought the transport on time and happened to catch your opponent with no scout or colony ship that would block the invasion attempt, or perhaps you got space cannon on your transport.

Still the 0 year games must have involved conquering more than 1 or 2 planets. In my case there were 14 planets of which I colonized 6. I could have colonized none and been quicker to planetary invasion but that would have simply left more planets to conquer. As it was I had to conquer 8 planets and by the time I got to the second opponent I had to have legitimate attack ships to defeat his defenses.

There is some trick going on here.

Hehe...no Wyndstar, I meant some additional people should comment, so Mumble's fears could be quelled about being at a disadvantage playing DL. You've always been helpful with lots of details.

Sentient species taste better...

Well, that 10 turn win was not using the settings for this league, it was indeed against 1 opponent. I'm sure I could have pasted a second opponent in the remaining 38 turns. You want me to try again with the exact settings for this particular round... is that what you are after?

You just research like mad and hope you start near the center so you are close to everything. You don't really need bonus tiles, although in that game I had a +100% tile.

Some trick....?

Its just research and invading.

~ Wyndstar

I regret bringing up the topic. I hope no one thinks I am questioning anything about anyone's game or implying that anyone is holding back anything. I had no intent to be accusatory, I was simply seeking understanding.

The information you referenced is significant, in fact far too significant to digest in the moment between my eating breakfast and my wife yelling at me to get in the shower or she would, which would make me at least an hour late to work.

I fully intend to read through the AAR that you referenced and I'm sure that I'll be able to gain significant insight from it.

However like I said I was looking for understanding and you do have to see the point that a quest for understanding one thing is not helped by the display of information on another thing that on the face of it is even more amazing than what you asked about in the first place.

No one here is questioning anyone's ability or integrity. Like I said I would have rather simply have never asked the question than to have anyone think that I was impuning anyone's game or character.

What I assume Kzinti's comment meant was the same thing I was trying to say that your game is not neccesarily a good game to take as a model of average play since it obviously is not average by any stretch of the imagination.

At this point I still don't have the understanding that I initially sought however I prefer to drop the subject rather than be perceived as questioning anyone.

I don't think anyone thinks that at all Mumble; you have a legitimate question in my opinion: does DA offer or have an inherent property that DL doesn't that allows for a faster game?

The answer is yes and no.

DA users get a benefit from two possible sources: super ability and extreme worlds. The super ability is an obvious bonus, such as the Spore ability for Super Annhilators. Though it just as possible to win through Planetary Invasion in one year.

The second benefit is the extreme worlds. The reason for this is that these are worlds that in DL would normally be colonizable but in DA are basically may as well be Class 0 worlds. This means that there are actually "fewer" worlds in a DA game since the AI or player doesn't usually have the research for those worlds in the time frame that most MVL games use.

A small added bonus is the Asteroid Miner (but not the asteroids themselves). Since it is a Cargo hull ship it means that it can be upgraded for very cheap into a constructor or colony ship as needed. I've used the Miner to colonize my secondary world after my asteroids have been mined, or as a constructor to grab the nearby resource. Uusally an upgrade only costs like 66BC.

DL benefits from other factors, the main being the lower cost of engines. DA ships are basically "capped", especially early game at speeds between 5-9pc/wk due to the inherent cost and size of engines. This means even on a tiny map it can take multiple turns to reach even a nearby system.

DL also has higher anomaly monetary awards and income from taxes.

I would hypothesize that its actually easier to attain a higher score faster in DL than in DA due to the income ability, even though DA games tend to have a 1.5x higher average score, usually due to the greater amount of planets.

My final thoughts are playing style. Fast games are not Score games. One must make numerous sacrifices to achieve domination that fast, and must be willing to live with Debt sometimes also (which is why All Research is such a nice path for a Fast game, you can continue to build even when in debt). Players such as Wyndstar are an exception only because they 1) play at the highest difficulty and 2) know the tricks that maximize their score even with the drawbacks such a fast game provides (such as the MCC by May).

I didn't manage a 0yr in this last round (mostly due to starting position and HW resources) but I hope this helps enlighten you a little more.

No, its alright. The internet often breeds misunderstanding. I didn't think you were attacking my character or skills, I thought you didn't think that I was being clear. I try to give good advice, and I was failing to see where I went wrong.

But these games are super fast to play through, so... although I will regret it later tonight, I put off work a little longer to do you a very quick AAR on EXACTLY the play settings for this league using DL 1.5. Here goes:

Knowing I want to blitz early, soldiering bonuses are going to be important, as is research. Here is my starting list of abilities:


Turn 1 I research better labs, go to 100% research and production, and sink my taxes to keep my approval up. Here is my starting planet:


Not great but workable. On turn 2 I switch to impulse drive for a quick speed boost, and manage to get two steps in the tree done this turn. I add a new factory to my home planet:


On turn 3 I start researching towards planetary invasion, and take stock of my situation. As usual, I just ignore colonizing completely:


While the Thalans and Altarians madly build colonizers as if it will matter, I methodically research up to the "ultimate" tech in the game, PI - and do NOTHING else. On turn 9 I have my first transport:

Speed is king by the way in DL, so here is the design:


I continue to kick out a transport every turn. On turn 11 I knock out the Thalans at the cost of two transports:


I continue to lease buy transports as often as I can, and by turn 14 I've attacked the Altarians:


Again, it costs me two transports, but by turn 16 I've taken the Altarian jewel. Now the rest of the game is a simple job of finding where their colonists landed.


By turn 20 I find the first outlying colony and easily capture it. I went away from invasion line for more speed and longer range techs in research, just in case I have problems finding the colonies.


On turn 22 I finally have a transport scout out the last two Altarian worlds. It will take me a few turns to fly transports out here, lets hope they don't have enough money to buy fighters.


By turn 26 I have the last planet surrounded, but they now have a few scouts for defenders:

Fortunately, I always mix in a few particle beam transports with my early rush crowd:


And by turn 27 its over:


Using exactly the settings for this particular league round. Also, submit another game to the metaverse for this morning:



Again, not a high score, but early score is much harder to get in DL because of the lack of real raping of bonuses, and I'm not using any of my super cool early game score techniques in this simple demo. Hopefully this step by step illustration answers whatever questions or tricks you think are involved in a zero year win on a smaller map.

I'm sorry if I was unclear, to me it seems simple, and I really don't mean to seem to be talking down to anyone. You just build labs, get PI, and win. Its about as easy as the year 0 altarian tech win, where you just build labs and research. Starting location can help, so can bonus tiles, but neither is necessary.

The AI just can't handle if you never build colonizers and instead just start invading. Its like Brad never thought of it

All kidding aside though, its a hard thing to plan for if you don't expect people to approach the game that way. It IS easier with the Korath, because i can have my first spore ship by turn 6, and then I can ignore any further soldiering techs or a soldiering bonus in my abilities. And its faster if I get good bonus tiles, which for this round I did not.

I really hope that helps. And if you get the chance, please read my other AAR too, it may help more. If there is anything else I can do to help illustrate a rush win, let me know, I'll try what I can.

I understand yelling wives too
~ Wyndstar