IoG Play Input Query

[Poor Yorek]

I noted tonight the first play input for Invasion of Germany. I am just curious regarding how old plays from the five expansions from which IoG was constituted will be carried over? I ask because the bounty points for plays and AARs in IoG seem predicated on zero plays/submissions rather than the, frequently, multiple plays from the previous expansions? If the Bounty Points are to mean anything, one shouldn't get a different (higher) award because of entering a play via IoG rather than in one of the original expansions.

[Shad]

You're correct regarding bounty points. I simply haven't had time to sort out the existing plays and AARs. Ultimately they'll be unified so that each play and AAR will appear on the site twice (original game & IoG) but you will only receive credit once. I can easily retroactively calculate the proper bounties based on submission dates.

I just don't have time to work on that right now.

[vince hughes]

Michael Murphy's just played "Bitter Irony" a case in point. This scenario is building up a good number of plays in its old guise and with its excellent balance would be one that would be used in the 'Fairy-Tale" convention competition. Mike has just added a play of this to the IoG version.(a US win)

[Poor Yorek]

You're correct regarding bounty points. I simply haven't had time to sort out the existing plays and AARs. Ultimately they'll be unified so that each play and AAR will appear on the site twice (original game & IoG) but you will only receive credit once. I can easily retroactively calculate the proper bounties based on submission dates.

I just don't have time to work on that right now.

Shad, understood.

Might I gently suggest that IoG submissions be turned off then, until such time as all this can be remedied? Anyone playing from IoG can easily find the original scenario in the appropriate supplement's listing.

On one hand, Bounty Points are just numbers stored in a computer somewhere with nothing to do with daily life and ethics (c.f. Dorothy Sayers). But, I submit it is "better" to turn off a "broken" system, than to have to retrofit it later ( ::cough, Obamacare, cough:: ).

PY

[campsawyer]

Might I gently suggest that IoG submissions be turned off then, until such time as all this can be remedied?

You would have the same issue with all multiple versions of a scenarios in other revamped books/games such as Edelweiss and Eastern Front.

[Poor Yorek]

You would have the same issue with all multiple versions of a scenarios in other revamped books/games such as Edelweiss and Eastern Front.

Yes, if in fact that is the case. I'm not sure of your point, though. Whilst I did assume that submissions for the older updates had, in fact, been dealt with (in terms of the Site "points system") and that IoG was the only outlier, surely the existence of multiple problems doesn't suggest that a problem doesn't exist.

All I'm suggesting is that the Bounty System is broken if someone can build up points by exploiting this (not suggesting that anyone did/has) or simply by using the new playlist in lieu of the old. For example, any of us with plays in the five supplements could "pad" our play count and/or Bounty Total by copying plays/AARs. Not sure why anyone would want to. But as it is, someone might earn 400+ points for a play/AAR submitted in IoG as another obtains perhaps 250 for the same submitted in the original.

Unless, of course, we intend to adopt Matthew 20:1-16 as a model?

And, just to reiterate, I understand Shad has finite time on which to work on Site coding issues. I wanted to draw a concern to his attention, not berate him for not having addressed the matter the day before I raised the question.

[campsawyer]

I'm not sure of your point, though.

My point is just what I posted, there are other games/books that would need to be turned off as well, if this was turned off for IoG. Personally, I don't have a problem with IoG being the way that it is. People can just enter the plays where ever they play them. As for "gaming" the system, there is enough plenty of other ways, to do this if someone wanted to do that. It is all just for fun anyway.

[Poor Yorek]

It is all just for fun anyway.

"Fun" in group activities or games requires some sense of order and equity unless one is playing Calvinball. Fun need not be antinomian.

It appears that Shad intends to address the issue, the only question seems to be when it can be addressed given the priority of Site needs and his available time. I think my suggestion in post #4 for the interim is the better approach compared to the current status, but this is not my Site and I'm professionally inured to folks not taking my advice.

[Michael Murphy]

You're correct regarding bounty points. I simply haven't had time to sort out the existing plays and AARs. Ultimately they'll be unified so that each play and AAR will appear on the site twice (original game & IoG) but you will only receive credit once. I can easily retroactively calculate the proper bounties based on submission dates.

I just don't have time to work on that right now.

Michael Murphy's just played "Bitter Irony" a case in point. This scenario is building up a good number of plays in its old guise and with its excellent balance would be one that would be used in the 'Fairy-Tale" convention competition. Mike has just added a play of this to the IoG version.(a US win)

Whoa, hold on here. I posted that play of Bitter Irony to ask a question and to maybe throw in my own thoughts.

My question; if I play a scenario such as Advance Along the Douve, making at least three appearances in the Airborne line, and record each play in its own supplement, do I get credit for one or three unique plays? From the answer above, I get credit for 3 unique plays of the same scenario. The same scenario! That leads me to ask a counter-question. What makes IoG so special that I shouldn't get credit for 2 unique plays of Bitter Irony, one each under West Wall and IoG? Am I missing something here?

Oh, and Vince, my play of Bitter Irony literally went down to the last 2 DR on the very last turn. Only two DEM German half-platoons had the potential to seal a win for the bad guys. Only one unit had to recover to DIS or better for the win. Alas for the Reich, neither rolled better than 11! It was a real nail biter at the end.

Michael

[Poor Yorek]

My question; if I play a scenario such as Advance Along the Douve, making at least three appearances in the Airborne line, and record each play in its own supplement, do I get credit for one or three unique plays? From the answer above, I get credit for 3 unique plays of the same scenario. The same scenario! That leads me to ask a counter-question. What makes IoG so special that I shouldn't get credit for 2 unique plays of Bitter Irony, one each under West Wall and IoG? Am I missing something here?

In starting this thread, I never suggested IoG should be unique: as should be clear from reading the thread, I presumed (apparently in error), that previous "repeat scenarios" had been dealt with and that IoG, being new to the list, was the outlier. I simply noted the issue with your recent IoG submission. Surely, though, this issue should be dealt with consistently, however it is adjudicated.

Whether repeat plays gain BPs or add to the play count is the underlying issue: currently, they do not: thus, per current policy, IoG and the others should not (but they do). Were this policy to change, and it was discussed somewhat in another thread recently as I recall, then again, apply whatever is done equally.

My purpose what not to suggest what should be done - that's Shad's call - the matter to which I wanted to draw attention was simply that person A submitting a play in IoG gets "more" (in terms of BPs) than a person submitting the same play in one of the original five supplements (in the case of submitting the first, unique play by virtue of more BPs) or in play count and BPs in the case of a second submission of the same scenario.

PY