The Monarchists' Cookbook Bullpen

[OTAKUjbski]

A suggestion tho... I looked into the game thread, and reading it is a real pain, because of all those spoiler tags...
Perhaps making a deadline for submitting the saves (the ones to be concidered for participation), and then post reports - and more important - discussion - without spoiler tags (as everyone already past that point) would be better.

We considered that, but the idea is to eventually have one 'main game' consisting of the starting save plus each round's 'best ball' save.

By starting every report in spoiler tags and only removing the best ball saves from them, the end result will be a single game thread which can easily be followed.

If anybody wants to know the alternative attempts, they can open the spoiler tags after the fact.

Whereas this does make the overall process slightly more difficult, it will make the final result more congruent and easy to follow or reference. (The less desirable alternative is an easier-to-follow process with a difficult(nigh impossible)-to-understand result.)

 

[Refar]

Thereis something to it. We will see how it turns out as the game preogresses

 

[Bleys]

The big problem with this first one is that some of us played it within minutes of it going up, while others didnt have the time until a bit later. I think the general "rule of thumb" is that spoiler tags get used until the 5 actual "Best Ballers" are through with the round, then we can openly discuss the strategy of the game, best save, etc.

Keep in mind its a work in progress. Adjustments to format are not only possible, I think they are expected. As things "work" or "dont work" we can always make changes. Nothing is set in stone. The spoiler system is definitely one thing we need to look at modifying.

Rounds do have set time limits to play though. Diamondeye, who basically put the idea together, hasnt been able to play yet, so rather than spoil his fun, I think spoilers are a good thing, for now. Once his round goes up, we will open up into a more lively discussion about which is the best save, what we should be doing "in general", etc etc. Since each round lasts a full week, and these early ones "play" the fastest, this was bound to pop up. Later, when it takes a good amount of dedicated time to play and post a comprehensive report, I think the posting will be much slower.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Refar's right ... it's hard to follow the ensuing discussion with all those SPOILER tags everywhere.

IMO:

Only reports and screenshots should be in SPOILER tags.

Anybody who hasn't played the round simply needs to avoid the thread until after they have and are ready to report.

 

[Bleys]

Refar's right ... it's hard to follow the ensuing discussion with all those SPOILER tags everywhere.

IMO:

Only reports and screenshots should be in SPOILER tags.

Anybody who hasn't played the round simply needs to avoid the thread until after they have and are ready to report.

I concur 100% with this idea. Solves the problems in a heartbeat. We simply trust the current Best-Ballers (LOL I love that term, I think we should coin it) to avoid the thread until they are actually ready to post their own round. Keep reports and screenshots in spoilers, and openly discuss the strategy of the round and future rounds.

 

[Diamondeye]

Agree with above. By the way I will not be able to post my save until tuesday. Work's in the awy

 

[Nares]

Taken from MCI thread:

Please don't post spoiler info before tuesday

Ummmmm....

What did you expect from six pages of discussion?

It's too early to really make an issue of this, but I see where some problems could arise.

Which leaves me wondering how the other CSG attempt(s) failed.

So I went and read Ruff_Hi's original CSG. I was under the impression that it had been a failure. Why I was under that impression, I don't know, because that CSG didn't fail. It just took months to complete due to week-long turnsets.

What I would like to point out, and I think this is one reason why that CSG managed to work, is that there was a very strict policy on not posting saves/reports except during specified periods. For example, if you (Diamondeye) had wanted spoiler discussion limited to post-Tuesday, then perhaps reports shouldn't have been posted until Monday or Tuesday.

 

[Diamondeye]

Taken from MCI thread:Ummmmm....

What did you expect from six pages of discussion?

It's too early to really make an issue of this, but I see where some problems could arise.

Which leaves me wondering how the other CSG attempt(s) failed.

So I went and read Ruff_Hi's original CSG. I was under the impression that it had been a failure. Why I was under that impression, I don't know, because that CSG didn't fail. It just took months to complete due to week-long turnsets.

What I would like to point out, and I think this is one reason why that CSG managed to work, is that there was a very strict policy on not posting saves/reports except during specified periods. For example, if you (Diamondeye) had wanted spoiler discussion limited to post-Tuesday, then perhaps reports shouldn't have been posted until Monday or Tuesday.

This is a serious issue and I'm glad you had the time and will to get through Ruff_hi's game and conclude this. Frankly, I should have been able to play Sunday and then post. Having said this, since we have agreed on a posting deadline of tuesday, spoiler info should be kept in spoilers atleast until tuesday. I think I'll drop a note in the thread and tell people to keep it in spoilers. If this doesn't help we might have to enforce something like you say, a limit ot when reports should be posted. Let's see how this first game works out, then we can alter the principles a bit later on, if needed.

 

[r_rolo1]

I think it is better to maintain a " no look" policy for the people that hadn't finished the set yet... it is easier to implement and clearly makes the thread to look cleaner.

 

[futurehermit]

I personally prefer the spoilers myself as I like to check out the thread on a regular basis and then can choose what I look at and what I don't.

 

[Bleys]

I personally prefer the spoilers myself as I like to check out the thread on a regular basis and then can choose what I look at and what I don't.

Well no matter what, actual reports and screenshots will still be in spoilers. What we are talking about removing from the spoilers is the discussion about the round, discussion about future rounds, etc. That discussion will still contain "spoiler" information, like Diamond saw who our neighbor is in the other thread, but no turns or screenies. I prefer keeping turns and screenies in spoilers myself, because that keeps the thread neater.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I think it is better to maintain a " no look" policy for the people that hadn't finished the set yet... it is easier to implement and clearly makes the thread to look cleaner.

I find information in spoiler tags difficult to read. Part of it is that I have to "open" all the tags and the other is that my eyes don't do so well with black text on a grey background.

I think if we want to be able to come back to these threads later and follow them as a contiguous progression of reports and discussions, we need to keep as many posts as possible out of spoiler tags.

I personally prefer the spoilers myself as I like to check out the thread on a regular basis and then can choose what I look at and what I don't.

I'm not sure why you would want to do that, though.?.? So far, every post has been relevant to the discussion of how to progress from here and which save to do it off of ... wouldn't skipping posts leave you at a loss?

 

[Nares]

wouldn't skipping posts leave you at a loss?

Wouldn't skipping posts leave the thread at a loss?

Isn't the concept to review other players' actions through their saves and reports, discuss what went well and what can be improved, and not only vote as to which save is "the best," but also to give advice to others as to how to improve their own gameplay?

With regards to the spoilers, I don't think I can stress enough that Ruff_Hi's game worked because of enforced posting guidelines. His game was also different in that it had limited participation, and even then they eventually broke the group down into two teams who alternated rounds.

With the emphasis I've seen on these "Best Ballers," I'm wondering if the concept can only work through limited participation. I hate saying it, and as I said, it's too early to even begin judging this, but if limited participation is necessary to continue, then I don't know that this amounts to more than a mis-placed CSG (ie that should be in the SG forum).

If the idea is to keep participation open, then the "Best Ballers" need to adjust their approach. Either diminish their importance, or make them earn their keep.

To be honest, taking a look at the number of views of each of the saves left me thinking that not a single one of the "Best Ballers" checked out the saves of any "non-Ballers." I don't know how many even read reports from the "non-Ballers," because I see little discussion from the "Best Ballers" of "non-Baller" games.

Most of the discussion I've seen in the thread has been generated by "non-Ballers," even excluding myself (both vale and Winston have contributed fairly substantially; more than some of the "Best Ballers").

If the concept is to help others improve through discussion and example, perhaps a better approach would be to discuss "non-Baller" saves?

These are just some potential issues to consider. Obviously there has been some limitation due to posting issues related to spoilers and spoiler tags, but if you really feel the need to keep the term "Best Ballers," then I humbly suggest that you "earn it" by interacting more with the "non-Ballers" than with each other.

Limiting most of your interaction between yourselves leaves me with an impression of elitism, and the thought that this is little more than a glorified SG that meandered its way to the Strategy & Tips forum.

Anyway, we'll see what Tuesday brings, once discussion can really open up. You may want to open the round up to 1000BC, not only because most players are prepared to move on until then, but it will also help others visualize the outcomes of the different approaches, and will stimulate further discussion, seeing as the current discussion is stalling at "Ok, so we're all building the Great Lighthouse, and possibly the Colossus, and most likely will pursue the Oracle."

 

[Nares]

Taken from MCI:

I think the game is broken down into 6 sessions, so thats 6 weeks of play.

Ah, ok. That should certainly make this easier to follow. I'm sure a good balance will be found between sufficiently long turnsets and breaks in gameplay to accommodate discussion.

This being the Maiden Voyage, I am thinking the first couple rounds at least will be "just chosen best-ballers", but I like the idea of picking one or two of the shadows as "possibles".

I state this in the above post, but I thought I'd offer it here in a slightly more concise version.

I'm concerned that heavily relying on these "Best Ballers" will drive away players. The discussion already seems to be progressing in such a way as to suggest two different CSGs playing the same map. As I said, I don't know if this is related primarily to the spoiler tag barrier, but there seems to be very little interaction between the "Best Ballers" and the "non-Ballers."

Save count alone suggests that there's a disconnect from what your goals are and what is actually taking place. "Best Ballers" saves have all been accessed at least four times. "Non-Ballers" saves have been accessed half as often, or less.

I would put the burden on the "Best Ballers" to examine and comment on each and every offered save, possibly even ignoring other "Best Ballers" saves until a specified time.

Make them earn the title, and the honor of having their saved consistently considered. Anything less leaves this as a misplaced SG.

EDIT: Save counts have changed since I had last checked, and aren't as bad as they were.

I still think you should emphasize interacting with the "non-Ballers," as the discussion hasn't changed one bit.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

That is the current plan, but we are all very open to new ideas and suggestions to improve the format. This being the Maiden Voyage, I am thinking the first couple rounds at least will be "just chosen best-ballers", but I like the idea of picking one or two of the shadows as "possibles".

I think the term "best baller" is getting misconstrued (or maybe I just don't understand).

In my mind, there are no best ballers yet, because no best ball save has been chosen. We are essentially all just "ballers" until we proceed to Round 2 -- at which point there will be 1 "best baller" on the list.

I think referring to "Roster players" as "best ballers" is a little condescending to "non-Roster players" who may not fully understand why the distinction is made.

On a similar note, allowing "non best ballers" to submit reports but without the intent of them being judged with equal weight as the "best ballers" seems to discourage non roster players from playing the round, since there is little or no reward for them in doing so.

Since there's not really a "how to" on signing up yet, everybody else is kind of at a loss until we start the next game if this game's roster is locked.

If this game's roster is, indeed, locked, then Nares is right -- we belong in the SG subforum!

--------

That being said, I think the main reason for only using "roster player" saves is clear: trust. I know the current roster players are going to avoid reading spoilers early and committing otherwise unscrupulous playing methods to gain an unfair advantage over other roster players. That isn't to say I can't or don't trust "non roster players" ... just that I KNOW I can trust "roster player" saves.

The second reason is because I know the current roster players are at roughly the same playing level. Even though this series is focused on learning how to break down a Monarch-level game and making the best strategic decisions, there's also an element of competition to play better than your teammates. If the game is "wide open" to all players to submit an equally-weighted best ball candidate, a Deity level player could easily undermine the innate competitiveness of the series. (Just something I keep in mind, ya know ... not that it'll ever happen quite like that.)

--------

I'm not sure we're ignoring non roster player saves or discussion either.

Personally, I only JUST opened the saves. Why? Because we're still waiting on Diamondeye's report, and because I'd rather hear as much discussion as possible prior so when I do finally look at them, I'll know just what I'm looking for instead of blindly going over the save with no direction.

Since I know the consensus is to beeline the GLH, Oracle and ToA, I can now view the saves with that in mind to see which save can most quickly and effectively accomplish those tasks.

There's no sense in evaluating every save for every strategic plan when only one [plan] is going to be chosen!

--------

On the note of who posts what and when and how much and to whom:

The primary draw for the charter members of this format was "the preservation of IRL". With so many days to play, report and post, it allows us to commit considerably less time than with the various other series formats. In essence, the format is more casual and IRL-friendly.

If we have to "earn our keep" by posting every day or on an equal basis as the non roster players, then we might as well close the doors and/or play shorter turnsets -- which defeats the whole purpose of this format for us.

It's also worth noting we don't really want to "argue" about which save is better. Obviously, we understand our own strategy better and will probably be biased towards our own saves. By not entering the discussion and allowing the non roster players to discuss the various saves and approaches, it saves us the wonder of if we're being as objective as we'd like to be.

IMO: If all a roster player does is play each round, post 1 report per round and post 1 best ball vote just prior to the next round, then I believe they have fulfilled their responsibilities to the format!!!

 

[Nares]

If we have to "earn our keep" by posting every day or on an equal basis as the non roster players, then we might as well close the doors and/or play shorter turnsets -- which defeats the whole purpose of this format for us.

Then perhaps you should coordinate amongst the roster players, and simultaneously release roster saves as an indication that the next round has begun.

If there's no real intention to discuss until all roster saves have been submitted, then why even open up the round for discussion?

For example, in this round, the roster players would coordinate and determine when the latest save would be submitted (Tuesday, by Diamondeye). No saves, including the 4000BC save, would be posted until Tuesday.

However, the save would be supplied to the roster players before then, allowing them to play and complete the round and their report at their convenience prior to opening it up to the general public.

Indeed, the initial thread may not even be started until all saves are available, or the 4000BC save is reserved until all roster players have submitted their saves, and the thread contains only the announcement of the leader and the map type (I wouldn't even post the initial screenshot).

 

[Bleys]

Good discussion.

Speaking for myself, I am taking the play of non-current Best Ballers quite seriously. I havent opened a single save, mostly because of Winstons very well formatted report of the saves. Looking at that gives me all the information I need to make my choice. I have already made adjustments to my plans based on the input of shadow gamers.

I think we have a good thing here, and I certainly dont want to alienate the general membership from participating. We have lots of wiggle room, in fact we planned on having it be this way, a work in progress that is open to improvement.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

... as an indication that the next round has begun.

Huh? Why? We already have an indication: When the clock at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich in London strikes 00:00 Friday morning.

Every Round begins on Friday of one week and ends on Thursday of the following week.

If there's no real intention to discuss until all roster saves have been submitted, then why even open up the round for discussion?

I never said there's no intent to discuss ... the fact I've been part of nearly every discussion should be evidence enough of that fact.

Discussion is all but over for this 1st Round of play. We know what the immediate goals need to be (or at least seem to mostly agree), so we are waiting for the final report from Diamondeye so we can make an informed vote.

In truth, there is no real need for discussion. As long as each player makes an informed decision and gives their reason for why the particular save is the 'best' in their eyes, then all's well -- there's no need to 'convince' each other of whether it's right or not (unless we just feel that strongly about it) ... the majority vote wins, and everybody starts with the same "best ball save" for the next round!

That's all I meant ... it isn't a universal intent of all players to never discuss anything until the last minute ... I don't hold enough weight to speak for everybody.

For example, in this round, the roster players would coordinate and determine when the latest save would be submitted (Tuesday, by Diamondeye). No saves, including the 4000BC save, would be posted until Tuesday.

In the interest of saving time, I'd rather have saves available as early as possible. I'd much prefer to look at one or two saves per night than be forced to compare all of them at once on one night (which I'm not even guaranteed to have available!)

However, the save would be supplied to the roster players before then, allowing them to play and complete the round and their report at their convenience prior to opening it up to the general public.

In that format, non-roster players couldn't feasibly submit saves and expect them to be judged and voted on (which would be even worse than the current perceived inconsideration).

If all roster players' saves are in on Tuesday, then by Wednesday morning, we would've all likely voted on what we think the "best ball save" is. So, a non roster player would be forced to play and post on the same night in hopes of 'squeezing in' their save on time.

And if by some chance a non roster player submitted a great save on Thursday night ... what then? Not all members would likely be able to see it and vote on it, so the submitted save would simply be ignored, which is not what any of us want.

In the current format, everybody has 5 days (Fri, Sat, Sun, Mon, Tue) to play and post their rounds -- leaving 2 days (Wed, Thurs) dedicated to ONLY discussion and voting.

If we later determine more time for discussion is necessary, then the latest report date will be moved up to Mon night, leaving 3 full days for contrast and comparison.

This format should allow casual players to participate. If we require everybody to participate in some element of the game every night or even on specific nights (which we're not guaranteed to have available based on IRL responsibilities), then we restrict which players can and cannot participate.

EDIT: For example, what happens if my son is sick or if I'm out of town and away from my computer Tuesday night? If I have to report exactly on Tuesday (or any other day) but am unable to do so on that exact day, then I screw everybody else and/or myself by not being able to do so. If, however, I can report by Tuesday, then there's no reason I can't make the post Saturday night before I leave town.​

Again, I don't see players as being required to discuss everything about every game or round (though it's certainly encouraged and desired). As long as they play the round, submit a clear and detailed report and then later vote on the "best ball save" with a brief explanation of why they feel that way, they've fulfilled their responsibilities. If a tie is determined after voting, THEN discussion becomes necessary!

 

[Solon70]

I think where this format really has the potential to shine is when people adopt radically different game plans. For example, imagine if one person chooses a military strategy, another person chooses to REX, and another person chooses to wonder-spam, etc. Fast-forward a bunch of turns and now we get to compare the results of a successful military strategy, a successful REX strategy, and so forth. If the consensus best result comes from a strategy different than what we would have chosen, then maybe we learn something in the process.

The situation in the current game at 2000 BC is a different story. While it's interesting to study the differences between the various submissions, everyone is in roughly the same place, with roughly the same options available. The discussion of which strategy is the best from here takes place more or less in a vacuum. There's nothing wrong with a group of players looking at a save and deciding which strategy to pursue for the next turnset - but if you think about it, that process sounds an awful lot like a regular succession game.

I think this highlights the advantage of making the first turnset last until 1000 BC or so. In my opinion, what you want is for different players to make different strategy decisions and then submit the result of those strategy decisions in the form of a save. When everyone submits right before the major strategy decisions get made, the process of making those decisions collectively is certainly instructive, but it's instructive in the same way that a normal succession game is instructive. I think this format has the potential to be something a little different and better.

 

[Bleys]

I agree Solon, but I think the similarity of the saves in the first one is related to the map more than anything. Had we been in a Pangaea or Fractal situation, I think you would have seen a radical difference in strategies, especially with a leader like Bismark. I am sure that future maps, and even future rounds in this first game, will have a lot more differences. This map, and the similarity of the paths we all took playing it, is proof of just how dependent the map is to the strategy. All the players were able to recognize the strongest (IMHO) path, focusing on a specific plan. There just arent that many good choices on a map like that one.