What's a Blog?
Published on October 19, 2007 By Mumblefratz In Metaverse

This is where we will keep all the rules used for the Metaverse League (MVL). The point is to have a single place where all rules are defined and so there's a single place where people can refer to resolve all question.

I will continually update this OP to reflect the current state of rules that we have all agreed to. The point is to make this as simple and concise as possible. As we have seen argument and upset occurs when different people have different interpretations of what has been agreed. Keeping these rules as simple and short as possible will help reduce potential conflict.



Rule 1) Rule changes are not allowed in the middle of a round. If an unanticipated situation develops in the middle of a round all effort should be made to deal with it as consistently as possible based on current rules and precedent. In the hopefully rare cases this is not possible the Commissioner will make an arbitrary ruling on how the matter will be resolved for the current round. Once the round is over then the issue can be revisited and a more permanent solution can be decided by the members of the League. Note that this arbitrary ruling can only be made by the Commissioner. Also the Commissioner is the only person that can grant an exception to any rule, but this power should be used judiciously.

Rule 2) Team Size. People may join the League and start playing at pretty much anytime. In the middle of a round a new player should be randomly assigned a new team by either the Commissioner or Vice Commissioner. The only limitation is that at any point in time no team should have more than one more player than any other team.

Also people may have to announce that they can't submit during a round. This can be treated using the scoring rules related to non-submission or if it's early in the round the teams could be re-balanced by the Commissioner. The decision to re-balance or not, and if so who to move, is soley the decision of the Commissioner.

The ideal team size is 5 since it provides some protection against an unforeseen non-submittal without being too unweildly. Team size at the beginning of a round should never be less than 4 or more than 6.

Rule 3) Honor System. Each round of play consists of a game (or games) of randomly selected settings and victory conditions. Very few of the required settings can be verified, namely galaxy size and victory condition. The fact that all other settings cannot be verified requires the league to operate on the honor system.

From time to time various versions of the game may exhibit a bug that temporarily allows some particular exploit. When and if this happens people should make sure the league is aware of the situation but no rule will be made to prohibit the particular exploit other than the same honor system that ensures everyone is playing the same game.

A final point about the honor system is that abuse of the honor system doesn't debase a single game played by a single player but debases every game played by every player. When seen in this light I'm sure that no one would be tempted to risk shaking the foundation of the league just to gain a miniscule benefit by intentionally bending a setting or rule. Also everyone should realize that honest mistakes do happen and if occasionally someone makes a mistake in a required game setting that it's no real big deal.

A corollary to the fact that only galaxy size and victory condition can be verified, along with the practice of taking a game submitted to the metaverse but not submitted to the league as a persons "intended" league submission, results in the rule that people should not have games submitted to the metaverse under their league character that might be confused with a legitimate league game. Note that clearly once a player has made a submission for the current round there can be no such confusion.

Honor System Addendum

The deliberate and determined use by a Player, with full knowledge and intent, of repeatedly and excessively, exploiting bugs, quirks, or other miscellanea in a game to achieve an outcome not normally possible is hereby prohibited in the MVL.

Rule 4) Reported Difficulty Levels and Race Customization in MVL Games

Every MVL player is honor bound to ensure that the effective difficulty of any game they submit is accurately represented by the games posted difficulty. To support this requirement the following guidance is provided.

External modification of any game related files are prohibited in MVL games.

In-game modification of opponent characteristics is prohibited in MVL games. The only choices allowed are the selection of opponents from among the default standard races and default custom race and the selection of their difficulty levels.

All opponent starting relations must be set to "Unknown".

DA games must be set to Allow Surrenders.

Rule 5) MVL Member Behavior

In the case where a MVL member has been found to be cheating, being overly disruptive, or detrimental to the League in some form, the commissioner is free to levy the following punishments as he deems necessary and appropriate. Such punishments may include; the loss of a team Captaincy or other MVL Administrative Position, the loss of the Player's points earned in a particular Round, forcing the Player to sit out a Round, or any other temporary punishment deemed appropriate.

For anything deemed worthy of a permanent ban from the league then besides the recommendation of the commissioner it should also require the consensus of the captains and other MVL administrators to make the ban permanent. Once banned then continued disruption of MVL threads and activities will be appropriately reported to forum authorities.



Scoring

A team's score consists of the sum of "base" scores plus individual and team bonus points.

Base Score

A player's base score is simply 2 points for a win of the designated type, 1 point for a win of the wrong type and 0 points otherwise. A team’s base score is the sum of the four top player base scores submitted. This is done so that a team having more players has no advantage over a team with fewer players.

There are two types of rounds that are treated slightly differently. One is a “Single Victory” type round where all players play for the same victory condition. The other is an “All Victories” type round where each team must submit at least one game of each of the 4 different victory types.

Non-Submission

In the Single Victory round if a player neglects to submit a game then there is no issue as long as the team still has at least four other players that submitted a game. However, if the team only had four players to begin with then they would be missing one potential contribution to the team’s base score. If this non-submission is pre-announced (this is highly encouraged), then either the Commissioner or Vice Commissioner may randomly select another member of the team to submit another game to count towards the teams base score.

In the case where no notice is given, if the player has a single game that fits the rounds criteria as to date, galaxy size and victory condition posted to the Metaverse but not yet submitted to the league then that game will be presumed to be submitted "automatically" to the league during the last minute of the round. If there are more than one qualifying game posted to the metaverse under the players MVL character than the game with the highest score/year ratio will be the game submitted to the league. If two or more games have identical score/year ratios then the submitted game shall be randomly selected from these games by the commissioner or vice commissioner whichever is not a memeber of the team in question. Note that players should make sure that any games that "appear" to match the current rounds criteria posted to the MV do indeed satisfy all the current rounds criteria. This can always be accomplished by simply waiting until your official has been made before posting a game to the MV that might otherwise be confused with the current MVL game.

In the case where no notice is given, and if other members of the team have other games that satisfy the round’s criteria that have already been submitted to the metaverse then either the Commissioner or Vice Commissioner may randomly select one of these games to count towards the teams base score. In this case the team should identify *all* such games that satisfy the round’s criteria for possible selection not simply the *best* such game.

If the non-submission is not pre-announced and the team has no “extra” qualifying games then the team gets credit only for the number of base scores properly submitted.

Note that a team of 5 players with two players that failed to submit a game would be in a similar situation as described above and the same rules apply. The same is true with 6 players and 3 non-submissions, etc. It is also possible for a team to be more than one submission short of the required total of 4 in which case the same rules can be applied to possibly allow the team to make up for more than one non-submission.

Finally these same rules apply in the case of an All Victories round but with an extra qualification. This extra requirement is that in an All Victories round each team is required to submit at least one game of each victory type. In this case the team may be required to use an “extra” game as described by the rules above that duplicates the victory type of an already submitted game. In this case for base scoring purposes that game would have to be considered a 1 point victory of the wrong type. Note that such a game could still receive individual and team bonus points based on the correct victory category.

Individual Bonus Points

In the case of a Single Victory round a single bonus point is granted for the 4 top scoring games and the 4 fastest games.

In the case of an All Victory round a single bonus point is given to the top score and the fastest game in each of the 4 different victory conditions.

The fastest games are determined by the number of years reported by the metaverse. Game speed ties are broken by score and score ties are broken by speed. Any games tied in both speed and score will be left unbroken and both players will receive the identical bonus.

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.

Team Score

Team Speed (speed of game reported by metaverse)

Team Submission (number of days into the round before game is submitted to the league)

Any teams tied in any team bonus category receive the same bonus. However, any fractional result is not subject to rounding and any tie must be exact.



MVL Voting Rules

1. Any MVL member can call for a vote among any number of competing proposals which must be seconded by two other MVL members to be considered official.

2. All votes will occur in the Galciv II Metaverse Leagues forum at the Core and notice must also be given in the current MVL Round thread.

3. All votes should run for a period of time specified in the OP of the voting thread. This period should be no shorter than 1 week or longer than 3 weeks. It's encouraged but not required that votes should be completed before the start of the next round of play if at all possible.

4. A valid vote requires participation by at least 50% of active MVL members. An abstention counts as participation. A proposal requires 60% or more of the cast ballots to be accepted. If less than 60% is achieved by any one proposal there will be a runoff between the two most popular options. The winner of the runoff will be the proposal that achieves a simple majority of votes cast with no quorum requirement.

5. Editing of your vote is allowed although any changes should be made in such a way as to make it obvious that a change has occured.

6. Once the time specified for the vote expires the thread will be locked to maintain an accurate record of the vote. The results of any vote are final and can only be changed by a subsequent official MVL vote.

Rules accepted by Consensus

From time to time minor issues may crop up that may not warrent the full attention of the League. In such cases a limited number of members may discuss the issue and come to some agreement. As long as no member of the league voices any objection to such an agreement and as long as such an agreement has been posted in a prominent thread (the current round thread or the MVL Rule thread) for a period of one week then that rule will be considered to be "official" by the league.

Besides any MVL member voicing an objection to the proposed rule, thereby invalidating the proposal, any member could also move to have a vote taken on the proposal which, as specified in our voting rules, requires a vote be taken as long as the motion is seconded by two other MVL members.



Last update Mar 28, 2008. Added Race Configuration Rule and Honor System Addendum

 


Comments (Page 24)
31 PagesFirst 22 23 24 25 26  Last
on Mar 11, 2008
One comment on: "Every MVL player is honor bound to ensure that the effective difficulty of any game they submit is accurately represented by the games posted difficulty."

I have no problem with this as long as we have a reasonable guidelines in place as to "accurately represented by the games posted difficulty". Who makes this call? The player, the commissioner, or someone else?

Personally I think if a game is played at a given difficulty and does not exploit known bugs (for instance, the AI re-set) or cheat in any way disallowed by the Metaverse, it does accurately reflect the difficulty level. A difficulty level is a range, not an absolute. I also feel there is probably some degree of overlap between one level and another. For instance, compare Obscene with super breeder Drengin AIs for every opponent with Suicidal with Iconian super spy AIs. For my play style, I'd have an easier time with the Suicidal, but on the other hand I'm not sure that having such AIs means that the effective difficulty is lower.

Or are we dis-allowing playing against the weaker races? The wording of the rule is great in principle, but it just seems like it could potentially lead to a situation where one players view differs from another's (or the commissioner's), and might that not be a little messy if it came up? I fear everyone might read the proposed rule through the frame of their own views on several different issues and have a pretty wide range of interpretations. If this range of interpretations is acceptable to people, and this rule is only going to be enforced for egregious violations where pretty much anyone would agree (like the AI re-set bug), then it could be helpful and certainly wouldn't hurt.
on Mar 11, 2008
I'm happy with this, but is the person or persons who had some reservations about ARC's pleased with the outcome? Could they post and let their thoughts be known or at least pm Mumble so as to let us know how you feel?
Cheers.

Absolutely, the advantage of this "default approval" method is that it doesn't bother the bulk of MVL members with the formality of a vote but it does presume that anyone that objects needs to speak up.

No one should associate any kind of onus with this. If there is the slightest doubt in your mind then you should probably speak up because your opinion probably applies to more than just yourself.

With that said from what I know and what I have seen posted I expect that this does sufficiently address the issue. Also taking the liberty of making some reasonable assuptions I think the initial objection to ADC was more based on simply not knowing about it and not knowing that it was a well know, common practice with specific limits.

Again continuing the presumption of speaking for the objectors here I think the concern about the ability of generating weak opponents, whether done via ARC or via in-game methods, turned out to be the more troubling problem.

This is really the issue that this new rule is meant to address and the point Ferrel made about this rule being subject to each persons interpretation is an important one.

I would think that this rule should go into the section about the honor system and that we should make a point of reminding ourselves as well as reminding new members how dependent this league really is on the honor system.
on Mar 11, 2008
Oh, and by way of clarification: I have not used straw dog AIs and was somewhat in favor of them. However, my personal interpretation of "accurately reflecting the reported difficulty level" would allow in-game customization of opponents, since this is quite clearly within the rules of the game and the Metaverse. It would dis-allow exploitation of known bugs that are commonly agreed to be A. bugs, not features and B. of meaningful impact on the difficulty of the game. The AI reset is the only such bug I am personally aware of, but there are probably others.
on Mar 11, 2008
I have no problem with this as long as we have a reasonable guidelines in place as to "accurately represented by the games posted difficulty". Who makes this call? The player, the commissioner, or someone else?

This is totally up to the player and certainly I agree about your points of the variablilty and range of any particular difficulty level.

Basically we're looking for things like Iztok's test where knowing how suicidal plays it was obvious to him that the settings he chose resulted in a game that was definitely not suicidal.

That's all we're asking for here. We assume that everyone is *very* familiar with the normal difficulty level that they play. All we're asking for is for players to make the honest assesment that the changes that they have made does not effectively noticely reduce the difficulty level.

If someone isn't sure then it's not the case we're looking for. We're looking for something pretty blatent. If you select suicidal and think that *maybe* the game played like masochistic then forget about it. However if you select suicidal and the game played like tough then I would think that's pretty obvious and you would be honor bound to not submit that game.
on Mar 11, 2008
Ok, that makes perfect sense. Thanks.
on Mar 11, 2008
my personal interpretation of "accurately reflecting the reported difficulty level" would allow in-game customization of opponents, since this is quite clearly within the rules of the game and the Metaverse. It would dis-allow exploitation of known bugs that are commonly agreed to be A. bugs, not features and B. of meaningful impact on the difficulty of the game. The AI reset is the only such bug I am personally aware of, but there are probably others.

I would pretty much agree with this assessment except I would add that the game where Iztok allocated points and super ability and then commented that the game did not play like suicidal would be excluded as well.

You know what the difficulty levels play like, you are the judge of whether any particular change results in a game that you feel was beneath your level. If you find that you have a game that fits this requirement however it came to be, then it's up to you to not submit it.
on Mar 11, 2008
Fair enough. Personally, I think I'm going to avoid customizing opponents, since I like bright lines and dislike judgment calls.
on Mar 12, 2008
I will be using advanced customization to specify super ability and starting alignment for my own race, but will not be modifying opponents in any way. In the current game, for example, I played as Altarians started with evil alignment and super hive. Did it fail to meet the specifications of a this new proposed rule? I don't know for sure, but I can tell you it was the hardest most thought provoking game I've ever played. I enjoyed it greatly.
on Mar 12, 2008
Did it fail to meet the specifications of a this new proposed rule?

You answered your own question twice.

I don't know for sure

If you have to ask this then the rule is satisfied. We're not looking for subtle differences. If you're playing beneath your level then it will be obvious to you. So this suggests that this game meets the criteria of the new rule.

I can tell you it was the hardest most thought provoking game I've ever played.

It's very clear to me and should be to you as well that this is fine.

The point of the rule was to be ambiguous as to how a game came to be played below what a "reasonable" person would consider to be their level because beside via ARC which could be argued against there's is also in game adjustement that could achieve similar results as Iztok demonstrated.

Again I want to highlight that each person is the judge of their own game. But if you use words like "I think" or "maybe" then there is probably no issue. If there's an issue it should be pretty obvious to you that the game in question was noticeably easier than it should have been.

on Mar 14, 2008
My problem with it is combos. Once you realize how everything interacts, you can give yourself huge advantages.

Even evil Altarians. In a game like this, going evil is going to cost you a tidy sum of money as the altarians because there is not enough time to switch your ethic. That little bit of money (and saved treasury) makes a pretty big difference when you are fighting for one or two turns.

But "at the level of suicidal" doesn't encompass things you could do. Taking away all enemy SAs is one. Or giving them all super spy. How about giving every enemy Thala as a starting world, so you need less transports to knock them out in turns 8-16? It still IS a suicidal game, you just took away 1 world from every AI. They now have the Thalan advantage of higher PQ starting worlds right? It is still competitive.

Better, give every enemy the same alignment and super organizer, and give yourself the same alignment. As soon as anyone declares war, everyone declares on everyone, and you are basically immune. It takes away the combat element of the game completely, while still leaving all enemies with all of their abilities. You basically just rigged a galaxy wide trap for as soon as someone declares war.

Etc., Etc.

I don't like this ARC at all. You can give yourself massive advantages, and you can rig the galaxy for failure. EVEN if you don't change the enemies, you can still give yourself as a player a huge advantage by changing the stock races around. Krynn with Spore Ships?? and Evil?? I could outscore anyone with that setup.

More bothered the more I think about it,
~ Wyndstar
on Mar 14, 2008
I've played around with this some more, and boy... even if I just use ARC to modify my own race, it completely changes the level of the game. It made this last MVL round seem easy. I can't imagine how the AI could ever stop me, honestly.

All that careful balancing between the stock races, and its blown away by about a 2 minute hack job on a few xml files.

I can't believe this is legal,

~ Wyndstar
on Mar 14, 2008
One thing to note is that many of the changes to the enemy can be made from within the game via custom opponents. You can select alignment, AI and super ability I'm pretty sure. I don't know about homeworld. The galaxy wide trap you devised can be set entirely legally from within the game.

Mumblefratz' proposed rule should help, and I don't doubt that everyone will honestly follow it if it passes, but I do wonder just how wide the spread of opinions on what constitues accurately reflecting the reported level will be. I'd think it may end up penalizing those players with stricter interpretations. I just don't want to see this issue fracture the league, personally. I fear we may have players leave if we ban ARC and others leave if we don't, and I'm not sure whether or not the compromise rule will prevent that.

Perhaps better than asking "What do you all think about ARC?" would be to ask for each player to answer the following questions:

A. Would you leave, or strongly consider leaving, the league if ARC is banned?
B. Would you leave, or strongly consider leaving, the league if ARC is allowed?
C. Would you leave, or strongly consider leaving, the league if a compromise rule, such as that proposed by Mumblefratz (all games submitted to the MVL must accurately reflect the reported difficulty level) were passed to resolve this issue?

Personally, I would answer
A. No
B. No
C. No
since this isn't an issue that would impact my decision to stay in the MVL regardless of how it ends up being decided. I think it is possible we have a majority that favors ARC, but a minority composed of people that feels much more strongly about their opposition than the majority does their support.

As to a vote, I'll vote for whatever option will keep people from leaving the league, if such an option exists. It's not that large a deal to me either way. I hope we can find some solution here that will be acceptable to everyone. I had hoped Mumblefratz's proposed rule was such a solution.
on Mar 14, 2008
With all due respect, JustinSane4, you have left out an option: D. Wait and see what Stardock does about this. CariElf is investigating this as we discuss this, I think someone said above somewhere.

So, I'm going with D.
on Mar 14, 2008
Remember an ARC and a straw dog are two different things.

ARC =
Change of Homestar
Change of Ethical alignment
Change of Super Ability

Everything else is just cosmetic.

Straw Dog =
Usless or no Super Ability
Useless techs
Useless Abilities
Weak AI behavior
etc..etc..

And you can also make stronger races to play against. You could create an ARC, Yor with hive for example and play against Krynn with spore.

It goes both ways. Krynn with hive is particularly difficult to beat.

on Mar 14, 2008
Originally posted this in the round 7 thread, copied it here as this seems to be the place for opinions on the rules.


As someone who comes from the FPS e-sports scene (though a few years back), I am frightenly familiar with toeing the line between obvious cheats and 'almost but not entirely illegal' modifications*. It's simple. If ARC is allowed, it means that more or less everyone has to use it in order to stay competitive. The difference wyndstar notes in his game speak for itself. However, as it doesn't trip the cheat flag, we would have to depend on the honour system if we disallow it.


I therefore propose the following possible solutions:

- Explicitly allow ARC (open season)
- Explicitly ban ARC (honour system)

- Partially allow ARC in the following way: The round setup is posted together with the raceconfigs that can be used. The honour system would see that every player either uses stock races or the ARC provided by the commish. This would also allow players who know nothing about ARC themselves to not be disadvantaged. I know that silverbeacher has experience in modifying the raceconfigs, so that should not be an issue.


Whatever the decision is, I'd suggest a ruling before the beginning of the next round.


(*) It is my opinion that during internet matches there was always at least one player that either used still undetectable cheats or modified resources to gain an advantage. As a server admin I spent a lot of time testing cheats and cheat detection software and therefore also knew exactly what was possible at any given time.
31 PagesFirst 22 23 24 25 26  Last