akots, mad-bax, aggie and/or anyone else intrigued by the thought of comparative analysis:
if teams of players (with each player more or less different from each other in terms of approach, skill and creativity) are supposed to be compared, using what one would assume was the same platform for the games (not taking into consideration the differences between 1.29f, 1.27f and 1.22f - vanilla, ptw and c3c respectively) - how on earth is it possible to not be thorough in playtesting a generated map to make sure that at least all maps are configured consistently, AND that ANY differences between maps for the different teams and versions are written down and kept for reference and/or informational purpose to the players.
I was scared away from GOTM, and I am too frightened to enter into the land of succession games. I am not of a compeditive nature - so succession game competition does not tempt me much either. But I cannot help wondering why you mad-bax, and the team I presume you have to help out - cannot work out a scheme where you make sure to note details that could be of importance to the players of each team.
I hope you understand that I base most of this rant on how I interpreted akots' post - I have been in the SGOTM forum @ CFC only 1nce or twice in the past, to look at what the deal was about, so I cannot base this on anything but my assumption that akots isnt one to pick on people without something to back his words with.
I am of course humble to human errors. I am certainly not perfect myself, and even though I devise many a plan to get control of my workload, I seem to loose grip on it from time to time. But I feel that to undertake the effort of maintaining a competition, you need to take every precaution to ensure that noone gets an unnatural advantage.
That's my 2 cents and a rant's worth. Most of this text is directed at mad-bax, as response to akots post above. English is my 2nd language, but my message in general should be understandable.
__________________
|