Valhalla - Kingdoms of Alamaze

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

I have to say that I'm more than a bit stunned that this was even allowed to happen. I had one teammate drop and managed to find a replacement though a turn was missed. The other player eventually dropped leaving our 3-player team handicapped for the rest of the game after a good start. But then to find out we were battling a team that got to have the same player play all 3 positions, well, heck, no wonder he won; perfect coordination. Quite unfair when one team is playing Warlords and the other 3 teams having different players attempting to coordinate as best they can.

[Jumpingfist]

That is not an option.  Valhalla needs 12-15 distinct personas or it will treat it as a Primeval, Warlords or Titan game.  

Valhalla will not allow a 10-persona game to be counted as an Alamaze Classic game.

I need the other two players or it will get processed as a Primeval.  I will wait to process it until we have consensus.

If that is the case I would think best to let LT pick the kingdom he wants to claim the win under and put the other two as dummy account type names so those that quit do not get credited a win.

[Lord Thanatos]

That is not an option.  Valhalla needs 12-15 distinct personas or it will treat it as a Primeval, Warlords or Titan game.  

Valhalla will not allow a 10-persona game to be counted as an Alamaze Classic game.

I need the other two players or it will get processed as a Primeval.  I will wait to process it until we have consensus.

I don't give a fuck about Primeval.

Count it as a Warlords, if you must.

Why does JF's concern about Valhalla get so much credit?  I absolutely detest that the Dual Duel was counted as a Warlords contest because I think Warlords contests are so much tougher than other games.  But, hey, who cares about the purity of Warlords victories?  When we started the Dual Duel we all understood it would not count in Valhalla . . .  I wonder who complained so that Warlord statistics for Valhalla no longer reflect only Warlords contests?

We all were able to play a really good 31 turn game instead of the contest devolving into an unplayable mess on turn 3.  Then everyone would have been begging Rick to start over without charging set-up fees because players quit . . .

Instead of writing post-ops in a Valhalla thread we are arguing over how the victory will be scored?  You know what, I really don't give a damn . . .  What an awesome gaming community [dripping with sarcasm]!

[HeadHoncho]

Once again, your assumptions about other people's knowledge and motives are completely erroneous. I told everyone it wouldn't count for individual Valhalla status, I never said anything about Warlords.

JF never even interacted with Rick on this, it was me, after I had handed the game off. I made the suggestion after everyone said they liked the format, thinking the concept was appropriate because the difference between four players with three Kingdoms each didn't seem materially different from six players with two Kingdoms each.

It was a brainstorming comment that took me 30 seconds to make and probably not a lot longer for Rick to approve.

You seem extremely easily offended these days, LT. For your own sake, please consider either lightening up or taking a step back. You're a pillar of the community and I love having you around, but this is supposed to be a fun pastime, and you sure don't seem like you're enjoying yourself much lately.

[Frost Lord]

When it comes to Valhalla, there is no arguing.  The Valhalla Database is huge and a living, breathing entity all to its self.  For example, there is one module that creates the individual Player Statistics and that has over 1000 lines of code in it...and that is 1 of 6 modules (that is between 5000-6000 lines of code in total).  There are also 150+ functions, sub-routines & stored procedures, 20 supporting tables, 9 Excel templates for the 25+ output reports and a front-end GUI.  I am not manually punching numbers into an excel sheet, picking where each game goes and exporting it to a PDF for everyone to see.  It is all done by the database.  Once a game file gets loaded into the database, it is all automation except for when the database finds errors in the data (I get a popup message allowing me to exit, fix the data file, and reload).

Because one change can have cascade effects downstream, any changes to the code will require extensive testing and debugging.  One example I can think of if I forced game 189 to be treated as a classic game as it is now, is that all of LT's personal stats would be forever skewed (average status points per game, number of team wins, kingdom play counts...etc...just to name a few).

As it stands, here is the logic it uses to determine the type of game:
Step 1 -- If there are 12-15 distinct personas = Classic game (Magic if there is a "T" in the victory column, else it is a Steel game)
Step 2 -- If there are only 2 personas = Titan
Step 3 -- If there are 3-7 personas where each player controls more than 1 kingdom = Warlords
Step 4 -- Else it is Primeval

Our options are to correct (or modify) the data file before it is loaded so that we get the desired results. 

Unless we correct the data before I load it, Game 189 would currently fall down to Step 4 (Primeval).  If we want this game to be considered a Classic game, I need to replace 2 of the positions so that there are a total of 12 distinct personas listed for that game.  I am not sure I like the idea of putting dummy names in there because I am sure we would end up seeing the word "Dummy" somewhere in a downstream report.  If we could get the original players and what kingdom they were each playing, I could remove their victory and zero out their stats before I load the file.  If we do that, then Thanatos would show as the single survivor of a winning team in a Magic contest.

PS.  And I believe using the logic above, that "Dual Duel" game would also fall into the Primeval camp because everyone is playing a single kingdom.

[Jumpingfist]

Thanks Frostlord

Your right dummy would be annoying to see. LT should be able to provide the teammates

Dual dual - is a 6 player game of 2 kingdoms each fits in your warlords list but I personally do not care where it goes.

[Frost Lord]

Thanks Frostlord

Your right dummy would be annoying to see.   LT should be able to provide the teammates

Dual dual - is a 6 player game of 2 kingdoms each fits in your warlords list but I personally do not care where it goes.

You are right, 6 personas each playing 2 kingdoms is a Warlords game.  thanks.

[HeadHoncho]

Each of the six players in Dual Duel actually plays two Kingdoms, so it appears properly allocated. So I guess Rick was just confirming existing procedure (unbeknownst to me).

Thanks for explaining, FL! I think the replacement of the original players and zeroing out of their victory and status points sounds like the right call to me, for whatever that's worth.

EDIT: Ninja'd!

[Lord Thanatos]

Game 189 victors:

Put Lord Thanatos as SO;  Morgan Kane as DW; Madmardigan as BL.

***

HeadHoncho,

When Madmardigan organized a 6v1 against me and specifically posted that I should take that as a compliment I treated that the same way as if I learned that friends I had been playing poker with for years had been cheating all that time.  I no longer care about being tactful, respectful, kind, supportive, etc...  One has to care to be willing to exert effort to be a pillar of the community - I am no longer willing.  Now, (after many years in this "community") I simply type my initial - often unfiltered - thoughts, close the computer, and move on to interact with those friends I enjoy being with.

Not a single player responded to Madmardigan's bullshit with a comment about 6v1 being unacceptable.  I think Rick's response was "What do you want me to do about it?"  That ended the discussion in my mind.

My son, who played a single Alamaze game that resulted in Winter something [cant remember his name] and another player bullying him in his first game, refuses to play Alamaze.  That is the sort of "community" we have.  If I either "lighten up" or "take a step back" it will be because I choose to.

[HeadHoncho]

I followed that discussion only very lightly, and I'm sure others who weren't in that game didn't even follow it at all, since it was in an Active Games thread. Regardless, once Rick weighed in, I didn't feel it was appropriate for me to wade in.

Regardless, you know how I feel about the unacceptability of breaking one's word or not following through on a commitment, and I remember that as the bigger issue. In the absence of that, 6v1 to stop someone from winning (and assuming no broken words, which again was not the case in the situation against you) is fair game, in my view.

Obviously you may disagree, and that's OK, every player is going to make their own decision on what they feel is appropriate.

On the rest, to reiterate a common theme in my posts, I'm not the boss of you or anyone else here, and anything I post as a suggestion is merely that.

With that said, for a person to say whatever comes into his or her mind with no filter or regard for others whatsoever is typically the province of children, misanthropes, or the extremely selfish. And as someone who genuinely cares about you even if that care is not reciprocated, my hope is that you will rethink that at some point.

But again, that is up to you. Be well.