SGOTM 05 Maintenance Thread

[AlanH]

Disclosing the end date for a fast team does undoubtedly provide a target for slower teams - it's happened before, and that prompted the search for some method of obscuring the information.

I previously tried a complex arrangement where the graph only showed progress up to a cut-off date, determined by the slowest moving team, but that proved unpopular because the faster teams couldn't see their progress.

The current system does leave some element of doubt about the dates achieved, and it was the best I could come up with way back when, but please feel free to suggest an alternative.

 

[Mad Professor]

I wasn't aware so many teams were finished?

It's been ... ummmm ... a while. I forget how long now.

 

[LowtherCastle]

As long as we start the next SG on November 1st, I don't care if the deadline is extended 10 years.

 

[BLubmuz]

This SG, perhaps for the first time, has a deadline from the start.
Accordingly to this, i stressed my team to be on time with the TSs.
I think that if some team doesn't care to play according to this, well, they deserves what they achieved at the deadline date.

I agree a that a subscription thread should be started, not much time to Nov. 1st.

Just, please, some better start.

About the results page: i find it OK, no changes for me.

 

[DaviddesJ]

The current system does leave some element of doubt about the dates achieved, and it was the best I could come up with way back when, but please feel free to suggest an alternative.

I would put the final save on the Progress page, but replace the date with FINAL or something similar, so that the exact date of finish is concealed in the same way as it is now.

This is pretty similar to the information that people already have (if a team hasn't uploaded in weeks, it's pretty obvious that they have finished), but it also gives observers access to the results, and the fact that some teams have finished may serve as a spur to get others to do the same.

 

[cabert]

disclaimer : I do not speak for the team, just myself here.
I don't see the point in playing spy games. If you can win earlier, you should win earlier anyway, so there is no big deal IMHO if the other teams' finish dates are somewhat disclosed .
DaviddesJ's proposal is good enough for me, in the sense that you don't know the exact final turn. The estimation is in a range of 10-15 turns, which IMHO wouldn't lead to a "total race" event.

Then again, I'm not especially competitive here, so maybe I'm underestimating the others' competitive soul.

 

[cnwjr]

I agree. I like to know in advance that there is a deadline and plan towards it. Those who don't play fast enough to finish by the deadline remove themselves from the competition for awards.

 

[Balbes]

This SG, perhaps for the first time, has a deadline from the start.
Accordingly to this, i stressed my team to be on time with the TSs.
I think that if some team doesn't care to play according to this, well, they deserves what they achieved at the deadline date.

What he said.

 

[Big Pig]

I agree a that a subscription thread should be started, not much time to Nov. 1st.

Agree with who? No-one else has proposed starting a sign-up thread as there is no game to sign up for

Until AlanH has a new SGOTM for us, there is no point of a subscription thread. Of course it would be nice if there were a new SGOTM announced soon, but there are various confounding factors with patches and mods etc.

 

[Civicide]

I really don't like the idea of extending the deadline. As BLubmuz said (I'm on his team), Fifth Element has been pretty firm about getting our turnsets played on time. This sometimes comes at the cost of time for analysis and the achievement of a consensus amongst the team. We were well aware of the trade-off between time spent and quality of play, and our decisions regarding this trade-off were certainly affected by our knowledge of the looming deadline.

Extending the deadline effectively punishes the teams that put an effort into playing the game as per the rules that were originally put forth (and likely sacrificed some quality of play as a result) to the favor of those that did not. I don't see how that's fair.

If it's determined that 3 months is not enough to complete a SGOTM (I completely understand that sentiment), then give future SGOTM's more time from the start.

 

[Niklas]

FWIW I agree with Civicide, even though I belong to one of the teams who risk being cut off.

 

[LowtherCastle]

Of course it would be nice if there were a new SGOTM announced soon, but there are various confounding factors with patches and mods etc.

Well, I mentioned starting a new SG on November 1st. I can think of no faster way to solve all these dreadful problems than to start an SG. Works like a charm every time.

 

[LowtherCastle]

***deleted***

 

[unkle]

I am also on the no-extension team ;-) I know that with some time extension, we (Smurkz) will find time for *more* discussion...

 

[DaviddesJ]

Since Murky Waters was the first to complete, at least I now understand why our result was so bad...

I think since we're revising the rules anyway, we should add a penalty for finishing early, and a bonus for taking as long as possible.

 

[AlanH]

There's a built-in penalty for finishing early, as Murky Waters have suggested. I'd be happy to give extra points for taking forever - saves me bothering to start a new game ... ever. However, I suspect that would upset a few players.

 

[Frederiksberg]

Agree with who? No-one else has proposed starting a sign-up thread as there is no game to sign up for

One of your minions, LC, proposed this - clearly without your knowledge and consent. I didn't know he was allowed to express independent opinions in public.

 

[DaviddesJ]

There's a built-in penalty for finishing early, as Murky Waters have suggested.

Not really. It's not like anyone isn't going to finish as soon as they can. But I understand the sentiment, and if people like concealing the exact finish date, then I think that does little harm.

 

[Big Pig]

One of your minions, LC, proposed this - clearly without your knowledge and consent. I didn't know he was allowed to express independent opinions in public.

Do you really think we'd ever win any laurels if we started listening to LC's proposals? MW policy is to ignore all LC proposals - and if possible to do the exact opposite

(At least, that is how I've been playing my turnsets)

 

[LowtherCastle]

***spam deleted***