Rules of The MetaGame

[masterjskye]

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but just so I'm clear: However the picks for round 1 go based on everyone getting their moves in, that's the exact same order for all subsequent moves, correct? If, for example, our team got their first move in first, then we'd also be 1st in the following rounds of moves? So you don't HAVE to put in all your orders for all to see?

Actually no, that's not the way we're doing it. What you call Rounds, I will refer to as Loops, since Rounds have another meaning in the Meta. Have a read over the quotes of Trailblazer in one of my above posts - he probably explains it better than I'm about to.

The way it will work is you can lock your place in each loop by posting moves that are valid. But posting first doesn't make you first for every loop, only the loops for which you submitted a move. Even then it may not be secure if you do not provide any back up plan and the moves are invalid at the time of processing. An Example:

Cards/Chilly is the very first team to make a post when the phase opens up. In that post they specify 1 move. The move they submitted will be 100% locked in place, since they beat everyone to the forum. and no one can change it short of nuking the place they attacked.

TH/Dorcee come along next and make a post with 3 moves on it. They are second in line for the first loop after Cards/Chilly but they are FIRST in line for the second and third loops.
Anyone posting after them are always going to be after them in the first, second and third loops but if another team submitted enough moves they can reach the later loops first.

One very important detail that hasn't been raised but that everyone should know: Don't think that by submitting a list of deliberately invalid moves will secure your place in the loops. Invalid moves will be simply skipped and I'd go down the list looking for something valid. If nothing was found in that post, essentially that place in the loop goes to the next in line. I wouldn't skip on to your next post, I would consider anyone else that posted in between your original and subsequent posts.

So fair warning to everyone; if your moves ain't valid you ain't getting in!

 

[hat7rick]

sorry if this is clear in any of the previous wall of texts but If my teams post first a list with 4 valid moves like this:

A.
B.
C.
D.

What will our place be in the B(second) loop ..? do we have to make another post to take a place for the 2nd loop?

 

[trailblazer]

sorry if this is clear in any of the previous wall of texts but If my teams post first a list with 4 valid moves like this:

A.
B.
C.
D.

What will our place be in the B(second) loop ..? do we have to make another post to take a place for the 2nd loop?

In principle, if those moves are being posted as a simple list and not as part of a Cypher chain system, then if your post was first in for the first loop, then those other moves posted at the same time would be first in the second, third and fourth loops.

However, this assumes these moves are still valid at the time each loop starts, eg. move B is still valid at the start of the second loop, move C is still valid at the start of the third loop and move D is still valid at the start of the fourth loop. If for example, your move B is no longer valid at the start of the second loop, then your move C will be actioned instead, assuming this is valid. Move D would then be actioned at the start of the third loop, assuming it is still valid. So you would then no longer be first when it comes to the fourth loop, as all the moves listed in the post would have been considered.

This is why it is worth considering posting backup moves at the same time, so if your preferred moves are no longer valid, then you will still be first in the loop with your back up moves.

One way to do this is to use the Cypher chain system. Indeed, it would be best to say at the start of your post, whether you are ranking the possible moves as a simple list or as a Cypher chain. If instead the moves A to D you put in your post were part of a Cypher chain, this would only keep your place as first in each loop for a maximum of three loops, as under this system either move B or move C are actioned, not both.

 

[masterjskye]

What he said ^

 

[namelochil]

Can we all just take a step back to marvel at how geeked-out this whole enterprise has become? I mean, honestly, 'Cypher Chains'.....'Loops'....?

(Hmmm. Speaking of geekery, I just realized the above sentence contains the words 'marvel' and 'enterprise'...)

 

[hat7rick]

In principle, if those moves are being posted as a simple list and not as part of a Cypher chain system, then if your post was first in for the first loop, then those other moves posted at the same time would be first in the second, third and fourth loops.

However, this assumes these moves are still valid at the time each loop starts, eg. move B is still valid at the start of the second loop, move C is still valid at the start of the third loop and move D is still valid at the start of the fourth loop.

well if my moves were valid at the time that I posted them and are first in all the loops then I don't see how they will be invalidated.. Am i missing something ..?

 

[masterjskye]

Can we all just take a step back to marvel at how geeked-out this whole enterprise has become? I mean, honestly, 'Cypher Chains'.....'Loops'....?

(Hmmm. Speaking of geekery, I just realized the above sentence contains the words 'marvel' and 'enterprise'...)

I know.. hasn't it just. Is it bad that I love it?

well if my moves were valid at the time that I posted them and are first in all the loops then I don't see how they will be invalidated.. Am i missing something ..?

Yep.. the fact that a loop must be completed (I.E every team makes their move) before the next loop will commence. This means moves have the propensity to be rendered invalid as other teams make their plays.

 

[trailblazer]

I know.. hasn't it just. Is it bad that I love it?



Yep.. the fact that a loop must be completed (I.E every team makes their move) before the next loop will commence. This means moves have the propensity to be rendered invalid as other teams make their plays.

Primarily putting either putting your countries you were wanting to attack from under seige, or alternatively by attacking the countries you wanted to in your later moves, thus invalidating your attacks, as this is now soley (how do you spell that word?) a 2 versus 2 battle for the metagame territories.

Bear in mind that if you post your first four proposed moves immediately, then another team might hold back in their post to just two moves, to first see what you are planning to do and then usurping your plans by sending in a post with a third move that then is placed in the third loop, so prior to the fourth move on your list (assunming your first three moves were all successful in the first three loops).

Or a team might hold off sending in any moves until they see what the other relevant teams have planned for the first two loops. As long as this team sends in a move before the end of the countdown on Saturday, this team's first valid move will be ranked ahead of all the other teams second valid moves.

 

[trailblazer]

Quick query - if both players in a team send in move orders during the 24 hour countdown, I assume the second player's moves are added on to the end of the first player's move requests. In the same way as in the case when the first player sends in additional move request posts. Although as previously mentioned, the timing of the moves in the later posts (from either team player), will depend on how many other teams already have valid moves logged for the relevant loops associated with the later postings.

Is this the case, even if both team players fire in the same moves in their postings, or some moves the same and some different (not noticing that their team mate had previously sent in a post?

 

[masterjskye]

Quick query - if both players in a team send in move orders during the 24 hour countdown, I assume the second player's moves are added on to the end of the first player's move requests. In the same way as in the case when the first player sends in additional move request posts. Although as previously mentioned, the timing of the moves in the later posts (from either team player), will depend on how many other teams already have valid moves logged for the relevant loops associated with the later postings.

Is this the case, even if both team players fire in the same moves in their postings, or some moves the same and some different (not noticing that their team mate had previously sent in a post?

I assume the second player's moves are added on to the end of the first player's move requests.

Yes.

Is this the case, even if both team players fire in the same moves in their postings, or some moves the same and some different (not noticing that their team mate had previously sent in a post?

Well if they send in the same moves it doesn't matter because they can only be done once, so they're just invalid. If they send in different moves they will be counted, even if it was submitted in error.

Remember, all moves made are final and editing or deleting move posts is not allowed.

 

[namelochil]

solely.

'soley' might describe a rather clunky boot

 

[trailblazer]

I assume the second player's moves are added on to the end of the first player's move requests.

Yes.

Is this the case, even if both team players fire in the same moves in their postings, or some moves the same and some different (not noticing that their team mate had previously sent in a post?

Well if they send in the same moves it doesn't matter because they can only be done once, so they're just invalid. If they send in different moves they will be counted, even if it was submitted in error.

Remember, all moves made are final and editing or deleting move posts is not allowed.

Hi masterjskye,

Just clarifying this point - if both team members fire in the same moves as a simple ranked list, then as you say since the same moves can only be done once it doesn't matter, so the second time round they would be invalid.

However, if both team members fire in the same set of moves as a Cypher chain list, then the second time round this could operate a different branch of the chain, which would then lead to some different, potentially valid moves. In this case I assume these moves would be used, since the rule is all moves posted cannot be edited?

The only thing then limiting how many of these moves will be actioned would be if the team uses up their full quota of moves which they have available for that round.

 

[masterjskye]

Hi masterjskye,

Just clarifying this point - if both team members fire in the same moves as a simple ranked list, then as you say since the same moves can only be done once it doesn't matter, so the second time round they would be invalid.

However, if both team members fire in the same set of moves as a Cypher chain list, then the second time round this could operate a different branch of the chain, which would then lead to some different, potentially valid moves. In this case I assume these moves would be used, since the rule is all moves posted cannot be edited?

The only thing then limiting how many of these moves will be actioned would be if the team uses up their full quota of moves which they have available for that round.

I'll just process moves as I find them, if they're valid they're going through. If you post it - it has the potential to happen. But the first persons post would be considered fully before the second one.

 

[BadElmer]

we're posting moves in the forum The Metagame, correct?

 

[masterjskye]

I see you already posted there, but yes that is where we are posting moves. After each round I move them to MetaGame History.

 

[Chilly]

Point clarification:
When defending against a stormtrooper attack, do we need to provide 3 maps/settings or just one?

 

[Cardinalsrule]

another point clarification, if you nuke a country, does that nullify prior attacks made FROM that country?

or is that not possible, since moves don't originate from a specific country.

 

[masterjskye]

Point clarification:
When defending against a stormtrooper attack, do we need to provide 3 maps/settings or just one?

You need to provide 3 maps against a stormtrooper. Obviously with a surprise stormtrooper the attackers dictate.

another point clarification, if you nuke a country, does that nullify prior attacks made FROM that country?

or is that not possible, since moves don't originate from a specific country.

No, once an attack has left a country it can't be nullified by nuking the originating country. Think of it as if your army already left so nuking their homeland can't stop them.

 

[Chilly]

Some thoughts for the future

First off, major congratulations to jSkye for the change this round of the metagame and the implementation of it.

It was hugely complicated, I thought I understood the loops, but in hindsight I didn't really. Hopefully I get it now. The graphics that you uploaded showing how you processed the rounds did make it much clearer. While Cards and I benefited greatly from getting our moves in super early in the first couple rounds, I think the new system is MUCH more fair.

So I was looking for a good place to put my thoughts on how this is going so far as well as offer some thoughts for discussion.

Most of the thoughts here stem from how powerful an early well of move orders appears, and how difficult it is to defend, especially against multiple blitzes.

1. Let's get all the Metagame threads into their own subforum.
   I'm sure that folks who aren't participating, probably don't want to see the flurry of activity that this generates from time to time.
   
2. I would propose a slight change in how move orders are earned:
   • Everyone gets default 2 move orders
   • +1 move order for every two territories over the first one
   • Continent bonuses as they currently are
   • It's my opinion that the number of move orders earned escalated too quickly (especially for me and Cards)
3. Cost of move orders should be changed slightly:
   • Basic attack = 2
   • Surprise attack = 3
   • Blitz attack = 4
   • Stormtrooper attack = 4
   • Nuke attack = 6
4. Defense is possible for your territories. I acknowledge this adds another whole layer of complexity but I think it would be worth it. I like the idea of the attacking moves being made out in the open and being resolved with the looping system. IMO, the defense should be submitted to an impartial and uninvolved 3rd party during the move sequence and done in secret until JSkye resolves all of the moves.
   
   Basically, one would list any territories they wish to defend, and how many move orders they would like to use. These would be used in order to defend against any incoming attacks. Once an attack has been repulsed or downgraded, the defense orders are used up.
   • 2 defense order: downgrades a blitz to a surprise, a surprise to a basic attack, basic attacks repulsed
   • 3 defense order: downgrades a blitz to a basic attack, surprise and basic attacks are repulsed
   • 4 defense order: blitz, surprise, basic attacks are all repulsed
   • 5 defense order: stormtrooper attacks are repulsed
   • 7 defense order: nuke attacks are repulsed
5. Lastly, I think territories that have been successfully blitzed should still be available that turn for further attack or to be re-blitzed from another direction. Given the looping system, I think this is reasonable and possible.
6. If you are eliminated with move orders in the bank and choose to buy back in, you should get half the orders in the bank and the ones who attacked your last country get half. Extra order to the attackers if any.

So, please respond with any thoughts here. Another beta test of sorts could be done by trying these out and then resolving all battles just by flipping a coin. In fact for beta testing, that might have been better/faster than our current format.

1. Do you think any of the changes have merit as they are?
2. Do they have merit with slightly different numbers for earning orders, using attack/defense orders?
3. No thanks period. ;-)

 

[masterjskye]

Nice one Chilly, you've raised some really interesting points. Personally, I am happy for the game to "evolve" and gain layers of complexity as time goes by, like it has already been but I know for some it is already feeling uncomfortably complicated. So, I'd like to hear opinions from people in both camps, and think about it for a while but here are a few first thoughts:

Let's get all the Metagame threads into their own subforum.

I agree. I have asked. Hopefully at some point we will get, maybe Santa will be good to us... Maybe even a clan would be good for this. Then it is completely off the radar to non-participants though, and even though you said people probably don't want to see these threads I have noticed a lot of non participants reading them nonetheless. Whether it's just a quick look and back out or if they are genuinely interested is up for debate. All I'm saying is maybe having a little exposure is a good thing if it gets people more interested in signing up for future games.

1. I would propose a slight change in how move orders are earned:
   • Everyone gets default 2 move orders
   • +1 move order for every two territories over the first one
   • Continent bonuses as they currently are
   • It's my opinion that the number of move orders earned escalated too quickly (especially for me and Cards)

So, you would get 2 guaranteed even with only 1 territory, then at 3 territories you get 3 moves, 5 territories you get 4 moves, 7 territories you get 5 moves, etc? That makes commands a lot more important then.

I do think move order numbers have escalated quickly for both of our teams, but it was partly because of choices in our play that caused that. in our case grabbing up so many neutrals in the early rounds and in yours taking south America and lecbass's moves. I think if we were to start this whole thing over with the new move order system we would get very different results. Now that it is much fairer, everyone would get an equal chance at grabbing neutrals, etc at the start. i think then teams would have a much more balanced start.

By implementing your change it would extend the length of the metagame a LOT. You could even compare the current way as a sort of "Escalate", where once you're powerful you're only going to get stronger unless someone stops you. I wouldn't want to make move orders so rare that every round is just a tiny amount of moves made either. I think I'd like to tone it back a bit, but possibly not quite as much as you said. Not sure, needs thought. I also went with the straight 1 for 1 just because I was trying to reduce the complexity of things people had to work out. Obviously now the game has taken quite a few jumps in complexity already.

Cost of move orders should be changed slightly:

• Basic attack = 2
• Surprise attack = 3
• Blitz attack = 4
• Stormtrooper attack = 4
• Nuke attack = 6

Were these numbers running alongside our "defender gets 1 move if they win" rule? Seems to discourage attacking, I'm curious why you think this is necessary on top of an income change.

1. Defense is possible for your territories. I acknowledge this adds another whole layer of complexity but I think it would be worth it. I like the idea of the attacking moves being made out in the open and being resolved with the looping system. IMO, the defense should be submitted to an impartial and uninvolved 3rd party during the move sequence and done in secret until JSkye resolves all of the moves.
   
   Basically, one would list any territories they wish to defend, and how many move orders they would like to use. These would be used in order to defend against any incoming attacks. Once an attack has been repulsed or downgraded, the defense orders are used up.
   • 2 defense order: downgrades a blitz to a surprise, a surprise to a basic attack, basic attacks repulsed
   • 3 defense order: downgrades a blitz to a basic attack, surprise and basic attacks are repulsed
   • 4 defense order: blitz, surprise, basic attacks are all repulsed
   • 5 defense order: stormtrooper attacks are repulsed
   • 7 defense order: nuke attacks are repulsed

I do like this. I've actually had something like that in my mind for a bit too. I didn't really know how to go about it though. Your way may be a solution. Again though, how much change is our player base willing to accept?

Lastly, I think territories that have been successfully blitzed should still be available that turn for further attack or to be re-blitzed from another direction. Given the looping system, I think this is reasonable and possible.

While I think maybe you're right that it should be possible to re-attack a blitzed territory, I don't think it should be easy. I also do like having that certainty in my mind that if I make this move there is no way they can re attack that place. Maybe that should be it's own, more expensive type of special attack - a blitz that cannot be undone. While a normal blitz can only be undone by a re-blitz by someone else? Or you think you should be able to regular attack a blitzed territory?

If you are eliminated with move orders in the bank and choose to buy back in, you should get half the orders in the bank and the ones who attacked your last country get half. Extra order to the attackers if any.

I like this. I've been thinking the re-buy is pretty hefty and not very attractive really, but I didn't want to change it now since other people have already been eliminated and chose not to buy in at that price. If people don't mind we could slip that in mid-game though, it'll make it a much better lifeline.

So, please respond with any thoughts here. Another beta test of sorts could be done by trying these out and then resolving all battles just by flipping a coin. In fact for beta testing, that might have been better/faster than our current format.

Maybe, but it's less fun. Also, it takes a hell of a lot of work on my end to get everything done, I don't think I could go through it all just for a practice run. The live game will just have to evolve, or stay the same.

One thing I would like help with is streamlining the cypher chain system. It is a good system, but it's too complicated to be able to just look at and decipher by eye quickly. Whoever can come up with a clean and sleek way of presenting a cypher chain gets a cookie.