Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

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

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#76 Post by o01eg »

Oberlus wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:35 pm Now, seriously, for 14th game I'd like a substantially bigger galaxy.
o01eg, how big a galaxy can be for it to run in your server without causing trouble? 500 systems? Whatever it is, I'd like a game with systems per empire = that number divided by number of players.
Hard to say. Currently server uses:

Code: Select all

VIRT    RES    SHR       S %CPU  %MEM     TIME+ COMMAND SWAP   CODE    DATA   USED
842628  60716  13220 S  0.0    12.3    16:49.73 freeoriond 112740   3572  220544 173456
I'm not sure if system itself use many memory but it also means more ships, planets, buildings and so on. Also it makes game longer so I increase galaxy size gradually.

I suppose next game could be tried with 38-40 systems per player.
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-9.3, boost-1.74.0
Ubuntu Server 18.04 x64, gcc-7.4, boost-1.65.1
Welcome to the slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io.Version 0.4.10.1.
Donations are welcome: BTC:14XLekD9ifwqLtZX4iteepvbLQNYVG87zK

ThinkSome
Dyson Forest
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:13 pm

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#77 Post by ThinkSome »

Today must be the 4th time that we destroyed swaq/ophi fleet without large losses. And I see another fleet gathering near celtsi. This time including wobbly's ships ;)
Should go easier now with swaq's economy scattered and in shambles. Also relieves poor Oberlus from having to deal with ophi-reinforced wobbly.

To quote swaq:

Code: Select all

<swaq> fudge
<swaq> 0 lost!!!?
<swaq> What the hell?
This is what I think lots for...


There is also a bug with xenophobic frenzy... there's no industry malus on swaq's frontier worlds :/

User avatar
swaq
Space Dragon
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:56 pm

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#78 Post by swaq »

ThinkSome wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:14 pm Today must be the 4th time that we destroyed swaq/ophi fleet without large losses. And I see another fleet gathering near celtsi. This time including wobbly's ships ;)
Should go easier now with swaq's economy scattered and in shambles. Also relieves poor Oberlus from having to deal with ophi-reinforced wobbly.

To quote swaq:

Code: Select all

<swaq> fudge
<swaq> 0 lost!!!?
<swaq> What the hell?
This is what I think lots for...
It's hard to lose when your nearest enemy doesn't establish their second colony until turn 15... I seriously can't think of a previous game where I've had this terrible of a start.

After our first encounter where you somehow wiped our fleets with inferior forces I was expecting to lose every subsequent encounter. I'm just surprised that in that latest big battle that you sustained zero loses. Pretty ridiculous RNG.

wobbly
Dyson Forest
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#79 Post by wobbly »

We would of been better swapped around. I've got Etty paradise but didn't have etty for a long time.

I was only half paying attention to the fight in the south so could be wrong, but some of those fleets looked "risky". Gun heavy ships with no armour hold a risk of dropping in the early rounds and there wasn't much anti-fighter craft which is mostly what has been rolling you.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#80 Post by Ophiuchus »

swaq wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 4:49 am After our first encounter where you somehow wiped our fleets with inferior forces I was expecting to lose every subsequent encounter. I'm just surprised that in that latest big battle that you sustained zero loses. Pretty ridiculous RNG.
Having multiple encounters with unexpected results could be hint that it wasnt RNG. Which turn was it (for post-mortem analysis)?
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#81 Post by Ophiuchus »

wobbly wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 6:52 am We would of been better swapped around. I've got Etty paradise but didn't have etty for a long time.
I think there was much optimisation potential. E.g. somehow we all went for organics.

Agreed you should have gotten etty earlier. Also more planet swapping/a more global approach to empire layout would have been a lot of help. I was completely busy with bringing up GGG. Swaq was wasting PP colonising mediocre planets and you were wasting PP building inferior forces.

Also we should have been the ones with a strong rush (probably in the south, because the north had nice chokepoints) - we had the long-term worse species mix and the early combat species advantage.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#82 Post by Ophiuchus »

ThinkSome wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:14 pm There is also a bug with xenophobic frenzy... there's no industry malus on swaq's frontier worlds :/
It applies only to your own planets.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

wobbly
Dyson Forest
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#83 Post by wobbly »

Yeah there was plenty we could have done better, though I think we did pretty well considering the race balance we were served. Trying to stay behind the bottleneck in the north is problematic too. That area between me and Oberlus is prime gyschae real estate.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#84 Post by Ophiuchus »

wobbly wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 9:30 am Yeah there was plenty we could have done better, though I think we did pretty well considering the race balance we were served. Trying to stay behind the bottleneck in the north is problematic too. That area between me and Oberlus is prime gyschae real estate.
Yes, of course threaten attacks there. Just being able to withdraw and hold (so you would maybe invest in defense troop tech, while we wouldnt).

Swaq homeworld was pretty close to the enemies. If in the south there would have been another chokepoint, we could have made a shove in the north.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3365
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#85 Post by Oberlus »

o01eg wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:14 pm Currently server uses:

Code: Select all

VIRT    RES    SHR       S %CPU  %MEM     TIME+ COMMAND SWAP   CODE    DATA   USED
842628  60716  13220 S  0.0    12.3    16:49.73 freeoriond 112740   3572  220544 173456
Do you have VIRT values for 12th game (at start and end)?

Anyways, testing locally with single player mode:

freeorion before starting a game (no freeoriond): 1300k

1000 systems, 6 AIs + 1 human:
freeorion turn 1 1320k +/- 10k, turn 100 1380k, turn 150 1410k, turn 200 1450k... looks slightly superlinear, takes 60k for first 100 turns, 70k for next 100 turns, so maybe 1630k for turn 400.
freeoriond turn 1 1100k, turn 100 1100k, turn 200 1100k, with spikes to 1700k (from turn 1).

100 systems and 6 AIs I got worse results:
freeorion turn 1 1330k, turn 100 1460k, turn 200 1530... so for this game we got a much faster growth at start and slower later. We can't expect steady, regular curves here.
freeoriond turn 1 1050k, turn 100 1050k, turn 200 1100k, with spikes to 1650k (from turn 1). Here it seems number of systems takes a small toll on server memory usage: 50k

10 systems and 1 AI:
freeoriond turn 1 1035k, turn 100 1040k, turn 200 1045k... Didn't see any spike, but that might be due to luck (top refreshes once per second, spikes could be in between).


So it seems seed (luck) is quite relevant for client resource consumption, probably due to AIs building ships faster or slower, having more or less monsters, etc. But number of systems doesn't seem to affect resource consumption much, for neither client or server: from 1035k (spikes maybe somewhere around 1600k) with 10 systems to 1100k (1700k spikes) with 1000 systems.

Server only has freeoriond, right?

o01eg wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:14 pm I suppose next game could be tried with 38-40 systems per player.
100, please! With research and production cost factors at 50% of default.
If in the end it's a bad idea, you'd find out at game test and cancel game if it takes too much memory?
Imagine that memory usage grows as slow as in my tests above, then by making increases of +10 systems per player we would need more than a year to reach 100 systems per player and find out if it was doable or not.

Edit: regarding game pace (turns to finish), galaxy size isn't as determinant as it seems (for multiplayer), because we humans know how to outpost to quickly reach our enemies and wreak havoc. I mean, doubling galaxy size doesn't doubles time to first contact, time to first battle, etc. If a game with 30 systems per player can be decided around turn 100 (and linger until 150), a game with 60 systems per player could be decided around turn 200 (and finished around turn 250).

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#86 Post by Ophiuchus »

wrapping up issues from the game.
#3229

i think the invasion was on turn 71
wobbly wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:46 pm Seen through ally vision. It is still (yellow) swaq with a yellow supply circle, even though it is owned by thinksome (blue). The stealthed since, is obviously when it changed hands.

supply3.png

Edit: Sorry about the terrible screenshot, hard to get an informative version, that doesn't reveal info from a current game.
swaq wrote:..
can you remember if you saw that invaded planet owned by thinksome or still by yourself as we did?
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
swaq
Space Dragon
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:56 pm

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#87 Post by swaq »

Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:28 am wrapping up issues from the game.
#3229

i think the invasion was on turn 71
wobbly wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:46 pm Seen through ally vision. It is still (yellow) swaq with a yellow supply circle, even though it is owned by thinksome (blue). The stealthed since, is obviously when it changed hands.

supply3.png

Edit: Sorry about the terrible screenshot, hard to get an informative version, that doesn't reveal info from a current game.
swaq wrote:..
can you remember if you saw that invaded planet owned by thinksome or still by yourself as we did?
The invaded planet was owned by ThinkSome according to my empire immediately after he took it back.

User avatar
swaq
Space Dragon
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:56 pm

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#88 Post by swaq »

Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:39 am
swaq wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 4:49 am After our first encounter where you somehow wiped our fleets with inferior forces I was expecting to lose every subsequent encounter. I'm just surprised that in that latest big battle that you sustained zero loses. Pretty ridiculous RNG.
Having multiple encounters with unexpected results could be hint that it wasnt RNG. Which turn was it (for post-mortem analysis)?
There were only two encounters (out of 5 or 6?) that seemed to have noticeably bad RNG. I think it was turn 96 where Ophiuchus's empire lost all 11 ships and destroyed 0. One of the contributing factors was first turn stealth because the Ophiuchus empire was still at 10 detection and there were no swaq empire ships in the system.

User avatar
swaq
Space Dragon
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:56 pm

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#89 Post by swaq »

wobbly wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 6:52 am We would of been better swapped around. I've got Etty paradise but didn't have etty for a long time.

I was only half paying attention to the fight in the south so could be wrong, but some of those fleets looked "risky". Gun heavy ships with no armour hold a risk of dropping in the early rounds and there wasn't much anti-fighter craft which is mostly what has been rolling you.
There were no enemy fighters the first time we were wiped. Uphill battle after that. I would have liked to go for robo hull warships instead of organics to get some more armor but I was severely limited in PP so I ended up building glass cannons to try and discourage battle.

There were a lot of places we could have improved. Could have retreated to repair after winning the first battle. Should have prevented losing the gas giant at Babel. Should have sent actual planet attacking warships to retake the gas giant at Babel. Should have rebuilt the gas giant generator before gifting it back to swaq who didn't have the tech researched. Maybe should have tried to battle at Aspirin Alpha and definitely should have focused more on defensive ships to hold it instead of all the troop ships. There was a turn where we were in an ion storm and could have attacked with a turn of stealth but ended up deciding not to (partial lack of coordination, partial not spending time evaluating the potential). Might have still lost but would have been a better last stand than the one we made in deep space. Etc.

Though I think because of the starting universe/species RNG we were probably still doomed eventually anyway.

ThinkSome
Dyson Forest
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:13 pm

Re: Thirteenth game on the multiplayer slow game server

#90 Post by ThinkSome »

Another turn (107), another battle with no losses. 10 dead organic warships (2k HP total) to 0 ours. Looks like swaq jumped the slow fleet ahead but left the fast ones to follow next turn. But we jumped at the same time. Though, honestly, we would have won even with all his fleet in one piece. Our bombers were guaranteed to deal 4000 damage even if they are all immidiatelly shot down. Losing a few carriers would be, however, highly likely. But we decided to hold off for a turn to encourage swaq to do the mistake of splitting his fleet.

swaq wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 4:49 am After our first encounter where you somehow wiped our fleets with inferior forces I was expecting to lose every subsequent encounter. I'm just surprised that in that latest big battle that you sustained zero loses. Pretty ridiculous RNG.
swaq wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 2:26 pm There were only two encounters (out of 5 or 6?) that seemed to have noticeably bad RNG. I think it was turn 96 where Ophiuchus's empire lost all 11 ships and destroyed 0. One of the contributing factors was first turn stealth because the Ophiuchus empire was still at 10 detection and there were no swaq empire ships in the system.
My sim was quite on point about the results. My carriers are heavily-armored and there were a lot of them. Stealth had nothing to do with this, as my ships were not cloaked in any way. What doomed the turn 96 ships was that you couldn't see our fleet gathering one <100uu jump ahead. But that's a strategic mistake and has nothing to do with bad rng or stealth.

There were a lot of turns where I could have played more aggressively, even captured Dry Heat 10-20 turns earlier, but ultimately decided to play cautiously.

My sim even said that i had 50% chance to defend aspirin. Perhaps I should have taken that chance, but decided to instead retreat and simultaneously party at Babel.


While I didn't really simulate this, I also think that fleet composition nailed the last coffin to you. You had a lot of strike fighters, which both launched late (last batch on bout3) and attacked my fighter chaff. Meanwhile I had dedicated bombers that were guaranteed to attack your ships and cheaper interceptors that successfully minimised damage from your strike fighters. I'd go as far as to say that one laser fighters interceptor carrier is worth two strike fighter carriers, as the launch rates are the same(2*2 vs 1*4).
swaq wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 2:38 pm Should have rebuilt the gas giant generator before gifting it back to swaq who didn't have the tech researched.
Now this is what we could have used as well, I didn't realise that gas gens operated even when the empire using one doesen't have it researched. I could have sent scouts to ooleg and Oberluses worlds and built them the gas gens, while they could have had plasma fighters earlier. Does the same hold for solar orbital gens?

Post Reply