Neilo Neilo

Metaverse League Round 4

▼

Metaverse League Round 4

Let the games begin!!!!!

from GalCiv2 Forums
Hi all and welcome to round 4 and a new season of the MV League. First i would like to congratulate the Celestial Crusaders for their victory in season 1.

A big welcome to all our new players that have joined us. We hope you like the league as much as the rest of us do, and we hope you stay with us for a long time.

Please check out this thread guys, The MVL and the AltMeta, we have been trying to get the MVL into the AltMeta for a while and now we are finally on the road to do this. We do need your support though. It will not be a quick and easy process for Kryo but he is willing to do this if there is the support to go with it. Please drop by this thread and lend your support to this effort.

As most of you know we shook things up for this round with a player draft. For those that we unaware of this i will explain. We have a new team for this season, The Eternal Evildoers/Villainy (not sure yet on the name) and to fill this new team in a fair manner and to try and create a level playing field across all teams we instigated a draft. The captain of each team stayed a member and everyone else went into the player pool.(Silverbeacher was appointed Team E captain).

Each team then had two draft picks each and the rest of the team spots filled randomly.

So here are the new look teams,


(Xei Win Toh has abstained from play until the arrival of TA)

See your captain for the new forum passwords at the Galactic Core.

As the league expands there is a need for more people to help administer and run the league. Here is a rundown of "official" positions.

Commissioner - Neilo
Vice Commissioner/Score Keeper - Firebender
Score Keeper - Silverbeacher
Rule Moderation - Mumblefratz

Also we have two current threads guys, the MVL Round 4 Draft and Discussion thread and the MVL Rulebook thread.

It is in the MVL Rulebook thread that all rules for the league will be kept. Mumblefratz will keep the OP of that thread updated with the current rules as they change across rounds. Bar for a change in the way ties are managed i do believe that the rules are very similar as to round 3.

Without further delay here is the Round 4 challenge,

A Diplomatic Victory(alliance) in a small map with 5 opponents.

Habitable planets - Abundant
Number of stars - Occasional
Number of planets - Common
Star density - Tight Clusters
Anomolies - Common
Asteroids - Rare
Tech rate - Very fast
Minors - random (enabled in DL)

Enable,
Blind Exploration
Mega Events
Super Abilities
Surrenders
Tech trading
and of course all victory conditions.

End of round - Midnight NOV 30 2007 (forum time)

Please guys leave all discussion to the Round 4 Draft and Discussion thread, as to leave this thread free for game submissions. It does get hard to sift through alot of posts to find a submitted game. Thanks.

Well, here's to a re-invigorated league and a nice challenge for round 4.
Good luck all and enjoy your games.
metaverse
83,336 views 261 replies
Reply #226 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Something not mentioned in the rulebook and worth mentioning: Is a substitute game elligible to recieve bonus points?
Reply #227 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Something not mentioned in the rulebook and worth mentioning: Is a substitute game elligible to recieve bonus points?
End of quote

I would have to consider that an authorized substitute game is a legitimate game and worthy of bonus but that defeats or wins of the incorrect type are not.

Also in regards to unbroken ties I had kind of assumed it was understood how to deal with these in cases of large numbers, basically because it's sort of awkward to explain, but this is how that should go.

Let's say we're looking for the top 4 for bonus. Let's say that 2 people tied for the 1st place time and 3 people tied for the 2nd place time and 3 people tied for the 3rd place time. In this case 2 people tied for first place. However the 3 people with the 2nd place time did not tie for 2nd place they actually tied for 3rd place because all of them have two people ahead of them. In the same way the 3 people that tied with the third place time actually tied for 6th because there are 5 people with better scores. In this case we would award bonus points for only the top 2 times and give bonus to a total of 5 people. This is very standard but you see what I mean about awkward to explain.

Basically you take the number of top placements until you have at least the number of bonus points that you wish to award and then everyone that tied at that level or above gets points. In the case of four bonus points if four or more people tied in first place then only those people would get bonus, however if there are only three 1st place times then you need to add the 2nd place time to get to four bonuses and so everyone that tied with the second place time would also get bonus even though they technically would be tied for 4th *not* second. Is this clear?

[edit] This is how it works in money tournaments like golf. In golf they break the tie for 1st place but any ties at lower levels are left as is. So assume there are two people tied for 2nd. Clearly those two people together should get the money for both 2nd and 3rd place. So what they do is add the money for 2nd and 3rd place and then split that between the two players. The next folks on the list would be 4th and below and if tied they would do the same thing. However anyone tied at some level is only tied for the level below the total number of people above him. [/edit]
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #228 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
We actually have had this happen in this round, and once the scores are considered official we will highlight that point.
Reply #229 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
i'm quivering in anticipation :d 
Reply #230 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
OK, I can't submit official results yet (sorry guys!) since I still haven't received confirmation from Neilo and FireBender. That being said, for those of you that may be compiling scores on your own (I'm looking at you Kzinti ;p ) here are some matters of interest to take into account.

All verified submitted games are averaged for team score; even if the submitted game is not a win of the correct type. This goes for score, game time, and submission time.

Mumblefratz touched on it earlier but since we leave ties unbroken please note that in this round we had multiple ties in the speed category. PlayJeff45 took the spot of the fastest game at 2yrs, but then we had 7 players who tied with 3 year games. This means that PlayJeff took first; then 7 players with 3yrs took second place, but the next player who had a
4 year game actually placed 9th.

Edit: Yes, Toshiro Mifune had a 3yr game but it is a win of the incorrect type and as such is not able to receive bonus points. That is why there is 7 instead of 8 who have tied.
Reply #231 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
That being said, for those of you that may be compiling scores on your own (I'm looking at you Kzinti ) here are some matters of interest to take into account.
End of quote


I believe I took all that into account, I'll send you a PM of my results if want to compare.

All verified submitted games are averaged for team score; even if the submitted game is not a win of the correct type. This goes for score, game time, and submission time.

PlayJeff45 took the spot of the fastest game at 2yrs
End of quote


Congratulations to my team-mate PlayJeff on fastest game....excellent job!  :CONGRAT: 

Kzinti empire2.JPG Sentient species taste better...
Reply #232 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Thank you O Fearless captain of D


http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee294/thalanruler/TeamD1.png
Reply #233 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Mumble, Silver and FB.

I have set up a forum for points discussion and tallying over at the Tyranny of Evil forum site.

Tyranny of Evil

Silver and FB, you are already set up as mods of the forum. Now Mumble i know you are not a score keeper per se, but we could use the forum for anything related to the MVL so all 4 MVL admins should have access. It is hidden and private so only us four can post and read threads.

Mumble let me know if and when you sign up and i will grant you access.

My round 4 summary is there now for confirmation, please post your efforts in there too guys.

Another matter,

Do we want to get round 5 up and running now guys? Or wait a little while? I am ready to go and could have the round up in no time.

Please let me know.

Round results will be available shortly guys.
Reply #234 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
All verified submitted games are averaged for team score; even if the submitted game is not a win of the correct type. This goes for score, game time, and submission time.

Edit: Yes, Toshiro Mifune had a 3yr game but it is a win of the incorrect type and as such is not able to receive bonus points. That is why there is 7 instead of 8 who have tied.
End of quote

Actually I would think that wins of the incorrect type (or losses)should not count towards team bonuses as well as be ineligible for individual bonus. Clearly in this round a military victory easily out scores an alliance win. It's really not fair to average in a military victory.

Since team bonus are average base this doesn't hurt the team's chance at a team bonus but also doesn't give them an unfair advantage.

Mumble let me know if and when you sign up and i will grant you access.
End of quote

I registered and am waiting for approval.

[edit]
Do we want to get round 5 up and running now guys? Or wait a little while? I am ready to go and could have the round up in no time.
End of quote

Actually a couple of days breather would be fine by me. I'm continuing my game just for yuks to see if I can get any alliance. I've had the Korx with 8 plus factors and 1 minus factor for over a year now and still no close. I can possibly get one more plus factor (9 is the limit in DL) but with only two opponents left there's no way to get rid of a minus due to "close borders". I'm starting to come to the conclusion that an alliance is not possible in DL v1.4x although I can't imagine how that is possible.

[/edit]
Reply #235 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Mumlbefratz, the only thing with not averaging them in is that then the game has no value whatsoever, since it would not be counted for any type of scoring purpose. I am personally somewhat torn, I agree in the spirit of what you are saying, but I also don't want any player to feel like they wasted their time.
Reply #236 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Maybe divide the score of incorect types in half and then allow it to be added in the team average would be a good compromise
Reply #237 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Unfortunately, this results in a Rule Change and thus if we are going to use it this round I need a ruling from Neilo at the very least.

Also, it wouldn't be advisable for a team to purposefully submit a win of the wrong type for a round since the possible gain in bonus pts would be negated by the loss of the 2 base pts
Reply #238 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
CORRECTION;

AS STATED IN THE MVL RULEBOOK

Team Bonus Points

All team bonus points are based on the average of the team’s submitted games. Just as in the individual bonus point case only wins of the correct type are counted. The 1st place team receives 2 points and the 2nd place team receives 1 point in the following categories.


However, there are possible situations where a team could theoretically receive 1 Base Point from a victory of the wrong type but not have that game averaged into score/speed/submission time.
Reply #239 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Do we want to get round 5 up and running now guys? Or wait a little while? I am ready to go and could have the round up in no time.
End of quote


I'd advise against that. Remember, Christmas is on the 25th. We really shouldn't press people to submit games in the holiday season. I'd reccommend waiting a bit.

I would have to consider that an authorized substitute game is a legitimate game and worthy of bonus but that defeats or wins of the incorrect type are not.
End of quote


In the current round, the subsitute game is not elligible to recieve bonus points since it is a defeat. But I was just curious as to what we would do in case it does.

I'll send you the results shortly, silver and neilo. Bad weather here yesterday. Power outage.


Reply #240 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
A valid substitute game of the correct victory type is good for any of the possible bonus points
Reply #241 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Maybe divide the score of incorect types in half and then allow it to be added in the team average would be a good compromise
End of quote

No not really. Doing this makes it more into a penalty. Plus would you double the games years as well? Now it's just complicated and again again a penalty.

Leaving the loss/incorrect win out of the average is a more neutral thing to do. It doesn't penalize a team for a low score loss nor does it reward the team for a high score incorrect win.

IMHO the best for everyone is to leave the loss/incorrect win out of the average.
Reply #242 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Would the Teams mind posting the banners that they would like representing them in the reselts? I can't find the links.
Reply #243 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
In any case the MVL Rulebook is clear on how to proceed at the current time. Myself and Neilo have already come to this conclusion and our score tallies reflect all current rules and standards put into place for the MVL. If, after this round, individuals wish to discuss possible rule changes may I suggest the MVL Rulebook thread where we can reference the current rules that are standing.
Reply #244 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Mumlbefratz, the only thing with not averaging them in is that then the game has no value whatsoever, since it would not be counted for any type of scoring purpose. I am personally somewhat torn, I agree in the spirit of what you are saying, but I also don't want any player to feel like they wasted their time.
End of quote

I submitted an incorrect win and am happy that at least it would have counted for 1 point towards base score if it had been needed. In my case it wasn't needed and I'm fine with that but it's not fair to add my 32K in for an average, particularly since it could have been 100K.

In my case adding the 32K as part of the average is an undeserved benefit to the team. In the case of the loss the intrinsically low score of a loss causes a lower average than if it was not included. I would think that someone whose contribution was negative would feel better if it wasn't counted.

As far as feeling like they wasted their time no one that knowingly submits a loss or incorrect win has any real expectation of being rewarded for it. Generally they're doing so specifically to cause the least harm possible to their team. In the case of posting a loss there's not even the possible 1 point for base score but it's at least saying "Gee guys I'm sorry, but at least I'm still here trying". There's a kind of honor in that.
Reply #245 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
yes, after discussing it with Neilo and reviewing the Rulebook, we have come to the conclusion that games of the incorrect type are not used for averaging. They are only used for Base Points, if needed. If others wish that this be changed we can discuss it after results have been finalized for this round.
Reply #246 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
In any case the MVL Rulebook is clear on how to proceed at the current time. Myself and Neilo have already come to this conclusion and our score tallies reflect all current rules and standards put into place for the MVL. If, after this round, individuals wish to discuss possible rule changes may I suggest the MVL Rulebook thread where we can reference the current rules that are standing.
End of quote

Exactly correct.

Also I think the rule on loss/incorrect win is best as it currently stands.

If anything we may want to revisit the tiebreak situation having had 7 ties in this round. I've probably been the biggest proponent of leaving ties unbroken but 7 is a bit much. Again this should go in the rule thread, so I'll make this suggestion there as well.
Reply #247 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I've probably been the biggest proponent of leaving ties unbroken but 7 is a bit much.
End of quote


i don't know if i agree. this is certainly unusual, but i think the high number of 3-year victories was directly related to the game settings and requisite victory type. this could reflect fore-thinking on part of several teams; while changing the rule for future rounds is a matter of debate, i'm not sure if you're suggesting that it be changed now, for this round's scoring. i wouldn't agree with that.
Reply #248 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Agreed on all points here gentleman. I think points like these highlight the need for a dedicated forum so i am glad we no have one. (note the smug tone;))

If anything we may want to revisit the tiebreak situation having had 7 ties in this round. I've probably been the biggest proponent of leaving ties unbroken but 7 is a bit much.
End of quote


Yes, i agree. I really don't like that many ties, but also agree that it is a discussion for another thread and at another time.

Reply #249 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
i'm not sure if you're suggesting that it be changed now, for this round's scoring. i wouldn't agree with that.
End of quote


No of course not. Im of the believe that he does indeed mean for suture rounds. This rounds rules are concrete.
Reply #250 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
this could reflect fore-thinking on part of several teams; while changing the rule for future rounds is a matter of debate, i'm not sure if you're suggesting that it be changed now, for this round's scoring. i wouldn't agree with that.
End of quote


This certainly was our purposeful strategy for Team D, and if the rules were changed now (for this round), I would be very pissed indeed.

Kzinti empire2.JPG Sentient species taste better...