Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

For topics that do not fit in another sub-forum.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
swaq
Space Dragon
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:56 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#106 Post by swaq »

JonCST wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:13 am
swaq wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:43 pm I can't seem to build a basic shipyard on the planet that JonCST gifted me. That's an annoying bug...
Wasn't there already a shipyard started there? Check the bottom of your queue.

J
Yeah, that's what I was expecting but I don't see it there. Do you see the shipyard I started at the planet I gifted to you in your queue?

JonCST
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#107 Post by JonCST »

swaq wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:33 am Yeah, that's what I was expecting but I don't see it there. Do you see the shipyard I started at the planet I gifted to you in your queue?
Yes, i do see some stuff at Hassaleh: a shipyard and an outpost base.

I don't know if this helps or hinders, but after you complained about not seeing it, i looked in my queue, and the shipyard on Constance was in my queue, arrival time "never". So, i deleted it from my queue. You should be able to build a shipyard there now, if you couldn't before. Means you lose the 2 or 3 turns i had on it, but you maybe have more important things to do with those PPs at this point anyway.

Sorry about any confusion.

Jon

User avatar
swaq
Space Dragon
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:56 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#108 Post by swaq »

JonCST wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:05 am
swaq wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:33 am Yeah, that's what I was expecting but I don't see it there. Do you see the shipyard I started at the planet I gifted to you in your queue?
Yes, i do see some stuff at Hassaleh: a shipyard and an outpost base.

I don't know if this helps or hinders, but after you complained about not seeing it, i looked in my queue, and the shipyard on Constance was in my queue, arrival time "never". So, i deleted it from my queue. You should be able to build a shipyard there now, if you couldn't before. Means you lose the 2 or 3 turns i had on it, but you maybe have more important things to do with those PPs at this point anyway.

Sorry about any confusion.

Jon
Those might be from the planet you already owned?

I also had a shipyard at Hassaleh in my queue saying "never" after gifting which I also deleted. Hopefully that clears things up next turn. But I was really hoping to be able to transfer the build progress. If I had known I would have waited until the buildings were complete before transferring ownership.

JonCST
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#109 Post by JonCST »

swaq wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:45 am [...]
I also had a shipyard at Hassaleh in my queue saying "never" after gifting which I also deleted. [...]
Hm. That looks like something we should look into more carefully. I agree that partial work should transfer with the planet: it does when a planet is captured, for example.

Thanks for the clarification.

Jon

Magnate
Space Dragon
Posts: 425
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#110 Post by Magnate »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 7:31 pm The Weed is pissed off. Our exploratory mission to Alsafi beta, where previous scouting showed us just a maintenance ship, was met by a huge army of annoying invisible ships armed with lasers and shields that shred most of our ships to pieces. The owners were the L29Ah and Magnate empires. There's something fishy about them, those names...
In any case, we shall get revenge.
Yeah that was a huge mistake on our part. We had some kind of weird miscommunication with the Chato, and suddenly they have invaded! We can see over a dozen capital ships and twice our total production AND research, and those are only the systems we can see!! Fortunately we managed to hide our colony moments before their troops could land, but this only buys us a short stay of execution.

The magnate empire would welcome assistance from, er, anyone who cares to help. We are known for not breaking alliances.

User avatar
swaq
Space Dragon
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:56 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#111 Post by swaq »

Turn 55

We're outgunned. Need more ships... These creepy crawly crystals are a blight on our fertile lands.

User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 1129
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#112 Post by The Silent One »

Guys, I think we should discuss the way we handle alliances in the game. Formal rule is alliances of two. But in fact o01eg and I are now facing at least three factions (swaq, Jon, L29h, maybe even Alleryn?) fighting together against the two of us, even if they're not openly allied. A 3(-5) vs. 2 is hardly fair, and the reason why the alliance of two rule is there.
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#113 Post by Oberlus »

The Silent One wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:06 pm Guys, I think we should discuss the way we handle alliances in the game. Formal rule is alliances of two. But in fact o01eg and I are now facing at least three factions (swaq, Jon, L29h, maybe even Alleryn?) fighting together against the two of us, even if they're not openly allied. A 3(-5) vs. 2 is hardly fair, and the reason why the alliance of two rule is there.
Yes, let's discuss.
My impression is that temporal alliances, meant not to get victory but to destroy a common enemy is fair the same way it is fair that two players team up to kill a single one.

User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 1129
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#114 Post by The Silent One »

Oberlus wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:36 pm... is fair the same way it is fair that two players team up to kill a single one.
Which obviously isn't fair.
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#115 Post by o01eg »

The Silent One wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:06 pm Guys, I think we should discuss the way we handle alliances in the game. Formal rule is alliances of two. But in fact o01eg and I are now facing at least three factions (swaq, Jon, L29h, maybe even Alleryn?) fighting together against the two of us, even if they're not openly allied. A 3(-5) vs. 2 is hardly fair, and the reason why the alliance of two rule is there.
Alliance of two rule doesn't mean it forbidden to form bigger alliance, it only means such alliance cannot be winner.
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-11.2, boost-1.78.0
Ubuntu Server 22.04 x64, gcc-12, boost-1.74.0
Welcome to the slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io.Version 2024-03-15.b3de094.
Donations're welcome:BTC:bc1q007qldm6eppqcukewtfkfcj0naut9njj7audnm

User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 1129
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#116 Post by The Silent One »

o01eg wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:12 pmAlliance of two rule doesn't mean it forbidden to form bigger alliance, it only means such alliance cannot be winner.
That I do understand, but I'm not playing a game where the players defeated in the previous game team up to take revenge in a 5 vs. 2.
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#117 Post by o01eg »

The Silent One wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:18 pm
o01eg wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:12 pmAlliance of two rule doesn't mean it forbidden to form bigger alliance, it only means such alliance cannot be winner.
That I do understand, but I'm not playing a game where the players defeated in the previous game team up to take revenge in a 5 vs. 2.
Technically, it's a very reasonable to unite against most formidable enemies. It's get more chances to win if remaining players are weaker. I cannot blame others for it.
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-11.2, boost-1.78.0
Ubuntu Server 22.04 x64, gcc-12, boost-1.74.0
Welcome to the slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io.Version 2024-03-15.b3de094.
Donations're welcome:BTC:bc1q007qldm6eppqcukewtfkfcj0naut9njj7audnm

User avatar
alleryn
Space Dragon
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:32 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#118 Post by alleryn »

The Silent One wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:06 pm maybe even Alleryn?)
I have no interest in fighting you, but i'm not about to just sit by idly as you gobble up swaq and Jon's empires for yourself either. An empire that has consumed the territory of another is more powerful than 2 empires allied (what with it having the equivalent industry and research points, while only having to research each tech once).

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#119 Post by Oberlus »

The Silent One wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:18 pmI'm not playing a game where the players defeated in the previous game team up to take revenge in a 5 vs. 2.
For me it is very important that every player has a nice time playing the game. Regardless of who wins.
However, I don't see here a game "where players defeated in a previous game team up to take revenge in a 5 vs. 2".
I am allied with alleryn, and we both aim at winning the game over any other (however, if in the end he turns against me for a solo victory, I wouldn't be mad at him, I'd just try to do that on the next game and fuck him hard). We also like to cooperate with any weak empire to take down the bigger ones, just because we want to win, and helping the big empires is not in our interest.

IMO, if two players feel they are being opposed by a larger ensemble of players (regardless of fairness), then they should try to play the diplomatic game and team up with other players to balance things.

But again, I want everyone to not feel bad in the game. So maybe we should get more explicit rules or make the game forbid whatever we don't like.
For me, it's like the comsat PROBLEM, I don't like that mechanic at all but I can't blame whoever uses it (like TSO and Magnate), I just can try to adjust to it or convince others to change that mechanic (done!).

JonCST
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#120 Post by JonCST »

The Silent One wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:18 pmI'm not playing a game where the players defeated in the previous game team up to take revenge in a 5 vs. 2.
Um. I can guarantee that is not what has been motivating my play. I team up based on who's willing to talk to me, who seems to be willing to act in good faith, and who i'm afraid is going to kill me. For example, now, where i'm about to have all my warships destroyed, and where i don't have any significant resources to replace them.

Perhaps i am not seeing clearly, but it looks to me like one 2-player alliance is making mince-meat of another 2-player alliance. If third or fourth-party powers perceive it in their best interest to attempt to aid the parties being minced, that's what they'll do. If they perceive it to be in their best interests to join the mincing, they'll get out knives.

I've done my best to use my diplomatic assets to convince people of the former, rather than the latter. Goodness knows diplomatic assets are about all i got out of the starting race/galaxy position i ended up with! :?
Oberlus wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:31 pm For me it is very important that every player has a nice time playing the game. Regardless of who wins.
Agreed. If it's not fun, why do it?
Oberlus wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:31 pm IMO, if two players feel they are being opposed by a larger ensemble of players (regardless of fairness), then they should try to play the diplomatic game and team up with other players to balance things.
That to me is the essence of multi-player games: through whatever kind of diplomacy (be it PM, broadcast, or gunboat) try to persuade other players to work with you towards a common goal which is in your best interests. If it's more in your interest than in theirs, that means you're good at diplomacy.

The fact i'm currently being minced implies i'm not... :(
Oberlus wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:31 pm [...] it's like the comsat PROBLEM, I don't like that mechanic at all but I can't blame whoever uses it[.]
Like me: having built 20 comsats in a location i knew would be attacked soon. The game allows something, and the strategic and/or tactical situation makes it to one's advantage, one uses it.

Perhaps one disagrees that it should be allowed? That means either opening an issue on the balance discussion threads, or lobbying the Server Ruler to set the parameters the way you prefer before game start.

There are threads discussing what to do about comsats. I suspect it will turn into discussions about what to do about empty BSH, then whatever the next "chaff" ship will be. Fighters are already under siege. At some point, we have to just accept that "ablative shielding" is a valid tactic, be aware, and deal with it.

Similarly in multiplayer games. Players will make overt and covert alliance which they think will benefit them. You can fiddle with the ruleset to forbid or allow explicit alliances in various combinations, but you're not going to be able to prevent covert ones.

Even if you make the explicit ruleset no alliances, no peace, no PM, no broadcast, and request no outside-the-game communications (via forum e.g.), there will be mechanisms to work out alliances and coordinate fleet movements.

The game Diplomacy has a special subset of games which explicitly disallow any communications by any means other than game orders. Players who like that type of game have worked out "stereotyped" orders which convey meaning,and make (and break) alliances using them.

So, yes. In Multiplayer games, diplomacy is going to be a thing. It may not always be a successful thing for a given player. As previously noted, it isn't working for me this game. :|

Jon

Post Reply