"I think the guideline to fairness could be very simple. If it's posted in the official library, it's okay. Everyone has access to use it or not.
A simple guideline, fair and equitable."

Since there's no actual checking of what gets hosted here, that's a pretty lame method of deciding. By your logic if someone posts an event tomorrow that gives you a chance to double the PQ of all your planets, hey, that's fine because we could all download the obviously broken mod.

If you do make an in-game trainer, you should include a de-shroud function and the ability to examine enemy planets. It would shut up those people who are always accusing the AI of cheating, and it would give the rest of us the chance to learn from it.

Until someone comes up with some better or more official guidelines I think that these are the general guidelines that should be used.

1. No tampering with current mil/soc/politics entities. (no giving a banking center +50% econ, survey ship +2 attack, etc)

2. Try to only use mods that are posted in the library. (Stay away from broken or unrealistic ones)

3. Most any mod that only changes graphics/sound/layout are ok.

4. Mods that are used must be well balanced. (No good +%50 econ, evil -100000bc)

5. No trainers.

This is all that I could think of for the moment. Any other ideas?

Codemonkey,

While I appreciate your response, I wish you could express it in a more constructive manner. I disagree that it's "lame". It's simple, it' fair, and it's equitable. If you'll recall, the concern was managing what's fair for submitting scores to the Metaverse, not ensuring the quality of mods submitted to the web site.

Now, I may have assumed that some degree of quality control was exerted before the admin types of this site would post a mod. If that is wrong, perhaps there would be a better way.

The only other fair and equitable method would be that no mods whatsoever be allowed to be applied to games submitted to the Metaverse. Any mods that are used by players individually without other players having access to them is automatically unfair.

Having guidelines in general is too subjective because someone has to make a decision in each case if that crossed the line or not. That creates a situation in which people start trying to design mods more creatively to see how far they can push the envelope. The games submitted to the Metaverse should be about how well the game was played, not who was more creative in altering the game to affect the score. Either that, or ranking on the Metaverse loses some of it's validity and my only concern then would be submitting games for purposes of A.I. improvement.

All mods on the web site, or no mods at all, that's my opinion for what it's worth. Clearly, what Frogboy and company decide will prevail.

Post editing would be nice. I read that before I believe. Anyway, what is the likelihood of having a mod section that has only officially sanctioned mods, reviewed and approved by Stardock staff for purposes of using in games that could be posted to the metaverse? This places an objective limit on how the game can be modified (and subsequent affects on Metaverse scores), makes those adjustments to all those who wish to participate, while maintaining a sense of user involvement in designing game elements. I feel much more comfortable with the idea of approved mods than individually reviewed games that may have mods to which others do not have access.

This is essentially my first suggestion revised to add mod quality/affect control.

~SDC~

"While I appreciate your response, I wish you could express it in a more constructive manner. I disagree that it's "lame". It's simple, it' fair, and it's equitable. If you'll recall, the concern was managing what's fair for submitting scores to the Metaverse, not ensuring the quality of mods submitted to the web site."

Sorry if you thought that wasn't constructive, but the "everybody has access to it" is the same sort of stuff that has athletes feeling the need for steroids, or why in some states 95% of the race horses are "mysteriously" being treated with Lasix. So, it was lame because it's poorly thought out in regards to its consequences, and I stand by the comment.

If someone posts a mod that even just 15% of the games results in you essentially getting 1000+ points higher than you would have with an unmodded game and you, for some reason, feel the need to be competitive on the Metaverse, you *must* get that mod. In fact, no matter what it does to the balance of the game, if there's any significant chance that a mod when used results in conditions that increase but never decrease your score, you *must* use that mod. Equitable? yes, fair? heck no.

Fair means that everyone is scored by the same set of rules and criteria - if player A is using a mod which can increase his score but player B isn't, your idea puts the burden on player B to go out and get a mod he may have no interest in playing with because it's poorly balanced and unofficial. In that situation, whether they're available to everyone or not, those that choose to use unapproved mods have an advantage over those that don't, i.e. lame.

Funny. I've submitted 6 or 7 games to the metaverse, my last one being a 1600 point win and I don't see myself anywhere.

Not lame, but your entitled to your opinion. Here's an idea, instead criticizing other suggestions, make your own. I'm at least attempting to offer suggestions to the developers, rather than complaining theres a problem, and not offering a solution. I don't see anywhere in this thread, where you have offered a suggestion or alternative. That's being constructive. Calling someone else's suggestion "lame" is not. Nice selective editing, totally dismissing the second part of the post offering an alternative. A fair and constructive response would have addressed the entirety of my ideas.

My suggestions were both fair and equitable to all players. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it unfair.

The method which I would most support, the one that truly relies on playing skill would be no mods, period, for metaverse scoring submissions. You seem to have missed that as one of my suggestions.

What would be your suggestion Code Monkey?

~SDC~

I think I already made in the first few posts in this thread: clear guidelines from the game creators themselves. Brad has mentioned that sometime this week the library will be split into official and unofficial mods, but other than some very vagued up descriptions of truly outlandish mods, he still hasn't bothered to clarify what is allowed and what is not.

My personal feeling is that if it's not an official mod and it changes anything other than the cosmetics of the game (graphics and name changes should be fine), it has absolutely no business being submitted and I'm all for deleting the accounts of people who do.

Posted by vernmeister2u:
> My suggestions were both fair and equitable to all players.
> Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it unfair.

Just because you do like it doesn't make it fair, either. I think I made my argument about why it's objectively unfair in my mind, so I won't bother repeating it.


> The method which I would most support, the one that truly relies
> on playing skill would be no mods, period, for metaverse scoring
> submissions. You seem to have missed that as one of my suggestions.

Well, on that we agree. Like I said above, I'm all for allowing cosmetic changes to the game, but any sort of stat, additional unit, political party, event, etc. should be strictly verboten unless given the official stamp of approval from Brad and company.

As far as I'm concerned, everything that has been allowed in the library thus far is considered "official", and does not constitute cheating. I have downloaded everything because they add to the diversity of the game, instead of getting the same old events all the time, etc. If Stardock decides that some of those mods aren't "official" then I guess that I will be banned, because I am not going to go to the trouble of removing files that I have already added to my game. If they didn't want us using those mods in the Library for Metaverse games then they should either have not put them there or told us so from the beginning. The Metaverse, for me, is purely an ending to the experience, not the end all, be all (as you can tell from my score there). I would like to be able to continue submitting games, but if I can't, fine. I'd rather enjoy the richness of the minds of the player community then have to worry about deciding that what I'm currently playing with has to be changed.

~SDC~

We agree on something Code Monkey, there is hope for the community.

Thanks for your thoughts.

~SDC~

i also like using only the ones submitted and approved in the library. Are all the ones in the library approved? Will stardock take a mod under submission before it goes into the library? like the submission policy at wincustomize?

yours in TUNA
the cat

"Are all the ones in the library approved?"

Nope, and therein lies the problem. Right now you can submit anything you like and it immediately shows up for download.

Brad has said he plans to split the library into official/approved and unofficial/not-approved sections which will hopefully clear up some of the confusion.

Maybe then he can take the time while he's at it to actually clarify what is metaverse acceptable and what isn't.

Code Monkey,

It is not true that you can submit things and have them show up immediately. I have submitted a total of five mods to the library. Go look them up. Show me where they are. 1 of them was submitted eleven days ago and

The problem lies in the fact that one of the ones that got put up didn't even work, and many of the ones being put up contain pretty egregious spelling errors and the like. A serious question arises in whether some of them even fits into the vision of the game itself.

Interesting, it posted while I was still writing it. What I intended to say is that I submitted one eleven days ago and it is still not posted in the Library. MANY are put in immediately, often in less than a day.

I will be happy to team up with someone and begin rating mods. Would someone like to host a webspace for myself and others to work? If you wish to take part in this project, write me at [email protected]

M

The problem with the Metaverse is that is doesn't prevent anyone from using legitimate but cheesy exploits in the game

-- colonize-destroy until +38% PQ (or to change alignment)
-- profiting on straight money trades
-- infinite starbases
-- using unattackable freighters as walls (fixed in new patch?)
-- etc etc, more out there I'm sure

Brad has said that they are not planning to fix some of these exploits simply because they want to focus on more important issues. I personally like that approach, but this means that the cheesemeisters will organize specifically to use these exploits to dominate the Metaverse rankings.

It sounds silly, but every online game I've played that "ranks" players has suffered from this problem -- groups of hackers competing with each other and ruining the rankings for legitimate players.

It's not a big deal to me because I'm not posting my games to the Metaverse. But don't get your hopes up about the legitimacy of the multiverse rankings unless the exploits are addressed as they are found *and* the rankings are reset periodically.

It would be nice if each planet could only generate *one* random event, thus preventing the "colonize - destroy - colonize - destroy" cycle.


~SDC~

If people are playing for points in the Metaverse, they need to play particular games set up for particular circumstances. After all, you score better the LONGER you play a game. And the bigger the galaxy, the more the worlds, the better your score.

The Metaverse is a tool for the developers to get a bunch of games, and see what the playing community is doing. It is meant to allow the developers to adjust and tune the AI. Everything else are little carrots meant to encourage us, the players, to submit our games. Knowing that, I have no problem if games with any mods are not 'scored' in the Metaverse. After all, the more mods you run, the less applicable your games will be towards helping someone just running the 'baseline/approved' game.

It's our game. If having an event that gives you +50 Planet Quality makes it more fun for you, go ahead. I don't care, as it doesn't affect my game. But all this talk about 'fair/unfair' Metaverse scorings is just marshmellows burning in the fire. Metaverse doesn't score fairly to begin with, and it's not meant to be 'Hey look how big a grand master of GalCiv I am!' deal. It's just meant to as a tool to allow our GalCiv to be better in the future.

You want to really compete? Build a save game. Zip it up. Challenge other GalCiv players to win by military the quickest. Or Research. Or Culture. But only playing the same game, with the same mods and version of GalCiv, will allow for 'competitive and fair' comparisons.

Posted by Star Pilot:
> It's our game. If having an event that gives you +50
> Planet Quality makes it more fun for you, go ahead.
> I don't care, as it doesn't affect my game. But all
> this talk about 'fair/unfair' Metaverse scorings is
> just marshmellows burning in the fire.

For the most part I agree with you and have said in other threads how the top spots will be dominated by the cheese mongers - they just keep twiddling and twiddling way beyond anything that could objectively be called fun. OTOH, what score is there should at least be *within* the existing rules. I am not a cheese monger, and I am more than happy to pass off the top positions to the people who would do something as unintuitive as the colonise-destroy shuffle for a random event. But, I personally have issue with the idea that someone who writes 100 "different" PQ boosting events so that they are the most likely ones to come up in the game gets listed next to me. They did not play within the same rules as most players, and their submission doesn't reflect anything about how people are playing, just how they are abusing the system.

I really like the idea of the Metaverse, not because it's a ranked ladder, but for the reason you point out: it gives the devs a way to get quantified feedback on how we're playing the game, which lets them make it better. And who knows, maybe the devs want to see some third party ships and political parties to see just how these things do affect the overall gameplay. Maybe what we need is a "plain vanilla" and a "with nuts and sprinkles" Metaverse. Nothing but graphical and textual changes to the first, but anything goes within the flag limits set up in the second.

At any rate, my bitching and moaning in this thread isn't really about fairness, but about clarity from the devs. Brad posts "don't cheat or I'll delete and ban your account!" and then has said nothing about what constitutes cheating beyond the equally undefined "we try to be lenient" statement above.

My understanding is that the post was aimed at people who use clearly unbalanced mods (such as, say, a random event that boosts all your PQs by some ungodly amount) or use trainers to boost their scores.

~SDC~

Posted by Phaedyme:
> My understanding is that the post was aimed at people
> who use clearly unbalanced mods (such as, say, a
> random event that boosts all your PQs by some ungodly
> amount) or use trainers to boost their scores.

Define where clearly imbalanced starts then?

For instance, let's say I design an event which has a chance to increase all your planets +1%, that's not "clearly imbalanced", right?

Now, let's say I write the same event 500X but give it a different name each time. Now, every time the game rolls a random event, I'll probably get my PQ boosted. On a huge or gigantic map, that would translate into as much as 10-15% boosts in PQ for nada.

Phrases like "clearly imbalanced" and "blatant" don't belong in rules, quantifiable and concrete data is what is needed.

In the first instance, not so imbalanced. Especially if it's a very evil thing (morality weight 1). You probably won't see any results with it anyway. Maybe +5% global planet quality.

If you have 500 versions of that event, I suspect it'd show in the metaverse data. In other words, it seems clearly imbalanced.

Speaking as a game designer[1], I'd have to say that in a lot of cases, "blatant cheats" and "clear imbalances" are like pornography - you know it when you see it. It sounds like a copout, but it's not - after all, you didn't have any trouble coming up with an okay event that by itself would not be balancing, and then described an obviously imbalanced abuse of that same event.

[1] Of course, you don't have to be a game designer to do that, it's just that being a game designer requires it.

~SDC~

Well I would think that the guys running the show would have a simple way of verifying the balance of a submitted game. Any mod allowed onto the Library had better have been run over with a fine toothed comb before being admitted. If anything gets posted into the Library too quickly without being checked out, whose fault is that? Totally preventable there. And those "official" mods should also probably have a unique ID code. Every event (or empire trait chosen) that happens in a game should write its code into the submission log, and the Metaverse software should just be able to pick out any games with unrecognized event codes. I know this system does not handle every way to cheat, but it would chop out a lot of the most obvious cheaters in my opinion.

I can't help with what is or isn't a balanced event, but I can with political parties: all the political parties that shipped with the game consist of bonuses that add up to between 3-5 ability points worth. So if you make a new political party it should have no more than 5 ability points worth of bonuses in it.

I definitely want Stardock to implement some sort of flag for Library mods that are deemed 'Metaverse safe'. I don't want to find out after my submission fails that the Metaverse won't accept a particular mod.