MP: Noobs & Vets: Rise of the AI Menace. EA, BI. Game Over. Team ACGHHS wins!

[GrudgeBringer]

I have one question then i will retire from this conversation...

Does it matter if you request an extension 2 days in advance or 2 seconds in advance...as long as the admin says yes?

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by DrPraetorious

That's true, I did take one rehost. When the game hosted I believe *6 hours* early, after we had requested an extension *days* ahead of time.

Your team requested an extension, what, 3 hours before the game hosted?

Anyway, I'm sympathetic with Grudge Bringer, but everyone else is also busy, and if we're going to do rollbacks all the time, then everyone else will be unable to meet deadlines.

Actually DrP, I requested attention to it (and an extension, before the previous turn was in, on Tues of last week, saying that I was going to be out Thursday - Sunday night, and wasn't sure I would be able to turn it in monday.

Bringing up timing is rather specious - as other requests -including some of your own - were also done with 2 hours notice. Check the thread.

[Septimius Severus]

To answer Grudge's question. Generally, players should allow as much time as possible for the admin to act when making delay requests and should both post on the thread and PM. I have honored requests whenever I've been able to get to them, sometimes lucky enough to catch them at the 2 hour mark sometimes not, sometimes without both a PM and public post. Doing all I could to make sure as many players are as happy as possible. As DrP noted, many other people are busy and contrary to what may be thought, your admin has other things to do as well.

This rollback was one I regretted doing more than most (though I regretted all of them). Frankly I found the determined, unrelenting, insistence on a rollback for a single turn stale to be just going overboard (a hint as to the importance of Arco in ACGHHS strategy perhaps). It was authorized largely only due to the inaccurate countdown timer still being present without a full warning and disclaimer to accompany it (which was partly the fault of the admins) even with the warnings that were issued in the thread.

Arco seems to have staled a few times in the past, don't quite know why, so I am guessing this is why Chris felt the need for the extraordinary hoopla. The rollback was done using the old Arco .2h that was sent in after the server hosted to minimize any cheating attempt.

Gandalf's experiment at Dom3 PBEM hasn't turned out exactly the way we hoped (which is why direct connect will be used in the future) but I believe he and I have done our best to satisfy players, as it is ultimately your game people. I am not interested in who wins or loses, just that people submit turns on time, the game keeps moving, and people are enjoying themselves.

So captains you've got three choices:

1. Shall we just move on at this point (and put in a no rollbacks for the remainder of this game policy regardless of any server issue)

2. Should we reverse the rollback (which may be possible I still have the old 13 .2hs)

3. Or shall I call the game now and you will be forced to accept my ruling on the score graph analysis?

#3 will only take place if all agree. PM me your decision. Talk it over amongst yourselves and your teammates. Silence or indecision will result in #1 happening. If you find your team members are quitting it is best you choose option 3. Option 3 will also be pursued if I see mass stales without any agreement. Just to let ya know. These choices will be PM'ed to captains.

Good luck.

[DrPraetorious]

"Undoing" the rollback only works if we still have the old homeland file, which will be needed if Pyg and Frank are to reuse the turns they already did. Generally I think that'll just lead to Chaos, although I can hardly complain.

Frank wants it called - Pyg and Illum have been making noises about calling the game for some time.

For future reference - am I the only one who likes VP accumulation? My suggestion for future team games would be:
* 2 VP in each team captain's capital
* 1 VP in each other player capital and in each AI capital (if there are any.)
* Things should be called after the late game has started but before it has dragged on forever; that is, about now. This'd be 50VP total for the team, I think, to claim victory.
* VP accumulation discourages turtling.
* No rollbacks, even if the server catches fire or the admin maliciously deletes .trn files. If you allow any rollbacks at all, you get rollback creep, where in the spirit of fairness you have the give rollbacks.

[chrispedersen]

Sept,

Again, even if you had ignored the countdown timer, the game hosted an hour early (or two if you count DST).

Arco sent his turn in 1 minute after (according to Gandalf) the turn hosted. Or 59 minutes before it should have been due.

I don't see how anyone can regard rerolling to let a player get his turn in is 'unfair'. There is no preknowledge. I would think everyone would want players to get turns in as a matter of sportsmanship.

And yes, Arco staled a few recently; and when it became clear it was his mistake I dropped it. But when its *not* his fault, c'mon!

Going forward, I will play with whatever rules you want to set. But I think going forward with no rollbacks is a serious mistake.
There have been a number of issues with the server. What are we going to do if the game hosts with half the players unsubmitted?
Change the policy again?

I think the standard is and ought to remain that we do rollbacks on server error or serious bug.

As a suggestion, I think that if you think you might declare a winner in the future from the graphs, I suggest you determine the formula now so there is no argument or subjectivism.

You might base it on capitols, gems, or provinces. And I'd say you'd have to list what you consider a winning margin to be. So for example, if it were based on capitols - would having one more capitol be enough? Is having 10% more gem income enough.
I'd also suggest you *not* make it on income.

So to formally answer:
Yes, go forward. I don't see how using the first turn without arco is more 'fair' than using the turn with arco.

No, I think we should continue the policy rollback upon admin discretion.

And no, I think the game is interesting, hotly contested, with fun options for most players and with the number of players available on each team I think we should continue, finding players if necessary.

And as I was ninja'd by Dr. P somewhat, I am think using accumulated VP as he suggests is perfectly fine.

[Septimius Severus]

DrP, I do have the old fatherlnd file and all the old turns and .2h's, if need be, I assume that is what you meant by homeland. Activating or using VP's? Never really felt the need, but I will consider it as a possibility.

One thing we instituted in one of the venerable NvV games was a moratorium on globals. I forgot about it this time. This allows teams to focus on regular tactics without major things hanging over them, evens out the experience level gaps (may not be as strongly pronounced in game 2), and gives teams an equal chance to make inroads before things like arcane nexus and astral corruption come on line. I am strongly considering it for say 50 or 75 turns.

Chris, I would have prefered a PM from you, but your post is sufficent. It is not strictly unfair that we allowed a staling player to resubmit, but as Gandalf noted (countdown timer aside) he did miss the mark by 1 minute. Gandalf has not said anything regarding any irregularities due to daylight savings time and the server. We simply cannot make it a regular practice to do rollbacks just because of that, there's a time limit and turns need to be in on time.

Regarding the score graphs (gotta love em) they make it easy for me to determine a winner without any VP's (why I like them in). Don't care whether people think they are flawed are not or don't tell the whole story. It will be noted that when the Mysterios came in against the Deva's back in the 30's, the Deva's were the leader in the majority of the categories. The Deva's then lost ground but have recovered somewhat. If I need to do a score graph analysis it will be like the first one I did. The leader in the majority of categories (not counting VPs) will be the winner. Plain and simple, like it or don't. No formula, no nonsense.

So I've got 1 vote, for option 1 (there will be a no rollback rule like it or not for the duration of the game, you deal with it or concede). I've got one vote for option 3, which is apparently nixed unless someone changes their mind.

2 votes still outstanding from Agema and Algae.

On a side note, I have a great deal of respect for Grudgebringer. A reliable sub, and a stand up player. Though perhaps not the most computer savvy (by own admission), if Grudge says a thing happened, I am inclined to believe it, but no one is questioning that, just wanted to say it.

[GrudgeBringer]

Thank you...thats all I wanted....

[rdonj]

Personally I would probably just call it a draw if you quit. I'm not really up to date on how the game is going, but it seems like no one can quite manage to finish anyone else off (even yomi, which has been struggling for a long, long time).

[Septimius Severus]

Rdonj, the Mysterios and Blesseds at 2 nations each are basically out of the running (they'd likely not stand a chance against either ACGHHS or The Deva's). It is pretty much between the Deva's and ACGHHS at this point. If option 3 is selected, and I haven't looked at numbers yet, one of the two will likely be leading in the majority of categories. It will be noted that if the Deva's lose, it was largely due to the alliance of the 3 teams. Thanks for the input though.

Yes Grudge, no one is questioning your honesty. Just wanted that known.

Awaiting word from Algae and Agema.

[DrPraetorious]

It's primarily an issue with timing.

Secondarily, I do feel a bit cheated - I tried a major gamble which worked, and then failed on the rehost. This is one reason I hate rehosts - I don't enjoy having a gamble work on the rehost but feel strongly cheated when it worked on the original and then fails on the retry. If the rehost were immediate that would be one thing, but with 24h to plan on followup, we have to redo not just the entire turn, but the strategic discussion that *followed* this most recent turn. So if we're going to play another turn we need to turn the timer off and I have no idea how long it's going to take us to figure out what to do next.

As for fairness: at this point in the game, time to do turns is the main issue. It's unfair to use the rehost *because we are busy* and because if you give people 101 hours to do their turns, they ought to be able to do them. Grudge bringer is not that much busier than the med students, HIV researchers etc. on my team, no offense, and we managed to get our turns in on the original deadline.

So -
* If we roll back the rehost, I've *done my turn already in the 24h it took for the rehost to go through* so we might as well keep playing.
* If we don't roll back the rehost, personally I'm willing to concede. We can call this a win for Chrispedersen et. al. as far as I'm concerned.
* Regardless, if we keep playing, my teammates and I are not interested in dealing with any rehosts at all any more. If we don't have a no-rehost policy (regardless of server glitches) we're done.

For the record, I don't accuse Grudgebringer of any dishonesty either.