Full options for test game present in https://github.com/o01eg/freeorion/blob ... config.xmlBlueAward wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:07 am Another thing I am missing is actual settings if, say, I want to try something over the weekend. It's a chain of "what changed since last game" and not obvious to replicate fully. I guess the galaxy is "box"? Never played that one. Production cost - you set it up by changing both ships' cost and buildings' cost, right? Is Transcendence set to 10%?
Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server
Moderator: Oberlus
Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server
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 2024-04-14.ad50e93.
Donations're welcome:BTC:bc1q007qldm6eppqcukewtfkfcj0naut9njj7audnm
Ubuntu Server 22.04 x64, gcc-12, boost-1.74.0
Welcome to the slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io.Version 2024-04-14.ad50e93.
Donations're welcome:BTC:bc1q007qldm6eppqcukewtfkfcj0naut9njj7audnm
Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server
Sort of. You set that in the "Balance" tab of the game options at game start. There are four relevant factors to set: tech cost ("research cost"), parts cost, buildings cost, and hulls cost (all these three are "production costs").
I think relevant settings for this game will be:
Systems per player: 46
Planet density: Medium.
Galaxy age: Medium.
Starlane density: Medium.
Research cost: 120%
Production cost: 60%
Monsters Frequency: Low (o01eg, we had medium on 20th game, right?)
Specials: Medium
Natives: Medium
Experimentors: Disabled
Planet Stability Baseline: 5
Extra-solar detection: enabled (ships can see what's around while on a starlane).
Not sure about Transcendence.
o01eg, and players, could we reduce a bit systems per player? We are talking of a 276 or 322 systems galaxy.
I'm thinking of making games a bit faster (the more systems, the longer the game).
Edit: also, maybe, setting research cost to 100% and production costs to 50%?
Also, if we get 7 players for this game, I think we need another player or another setting for diplomacy, because 3vs4 or 2vs2vs3 is unfair.
If we get 7 players, I suggest playing no-diplomacy (all people at war for the whole game), if that is OK for everyone.
Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server
What's the meaning of "interesting" in this context?
For me, last game was quite interesting, and the previous one. And I find it not very interesting that games take up several months to get to where influence upkeep is a problem.
For me, last game was quite interesting, and the previous one. And I find it not very interesting that games take up several months to get to where influence upkeep is a problem.
Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server
Is not the several months more about the turns - I vote for a 32 hour timer this round
Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server
Endhu may play, so 8 players.Oberlus wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:58 am Also, if we get 7 players for this game, I think we need another player or another setting for diplomacy, because 3vs4 or 2vs2vs3 is unfair.
If we get 7 players, I suggest playing no-diplomacy (all people at war for the whole game), if that is OK for everyone.
Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server
If Endhu can do 32 hours, I'm more than happy.
But I think Endhu and maybe some of the others (including me) might have sporadic days in which we won't be able to play, and asking o01eg for delegation or turn pause every time will be a burden for him (I guess). Remember that each time Endhu or whoever didn't show up when the 48h were close to end, someone asked o01eg to pause game, so it is my understanding that a shorter timer won't accellerate turns.
On the other hand, if we set 48h but we play faster than that, no problem.
Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server
o01eg wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:45 am Full options for test game present in https://github.com/o01eg/freeorion/blob ... config.xml
Thank you, both. I actually missed the part where parts and hulls are separate setting. And singluarity of transcendence indeed looks to be 10% - I think I should use that setting in SP as well, actuallyOberlus wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:58 am Sort of. You set that in the "Balance" tab of the game options at game start. There are four relevant factors to set: tech cost ("research cost"), parts cost, buildings cost, and hulls cost (all these three are "production costs").
I think relevant settings for this game will be: (...){snip}
I tried those settings a bit and... boy, was it a rude awakening! Does the meta change!
One of unique things I love about FO is the duality of point cost and turn cost. However, changing the point cost and leaving turn cost (including things like organic armor growth!) changes the dynamics considerably more than something like game speed setting in Civ V.
I mean, in Civ V, things get sped up or slowed down thanks to scaling production and science cost, and growth, but since unit power and movement stays the same, the biggest impact really is on combat. Like the slower pace, the more action a unit can see before getting obsoleted, and can cover comparatively more ground (I mean if something builds twice as long, then relative to building speed, units can go twice as far, even though this is not twice as fast; and since you research better units slower, it also means the units remain viable all that time). And conversely, the lower build and research costs, the shorter window of unit's usefulness (though you can upgrade them, if you have coin)
Here, those considerations about units' (ships) movement is still true if research and production costs change (though growth rate remains unnafected, btw). But if turn cost stays the same, it changes things around in a more complicated way
I guess lowering point costs without changing turn cost nerfs organics in the early game. You cannot get to them any faster, while you can get faster to other stuff. I mean it was true previously as well, that you could research other hulls faster, but the question of production costs remained - did you have enough production to pump out those faster-researched units considerably faster than waiting for cheaper organics?
Though, in sparse galaxy with plenty of room to grow initially, and no apetite for zerg rushes, I guess organics can catch up a bit (though still get penalized in terms of armor at least).
On the other hand, getting to bigger guns (and hulls?) faster, obsoletes old technology faster, giving an implicit boost to things with better upgrade potential, so... fighters
I'm not complaining, just some musings. Need to adapt to survive Because that truly is different to default SP settings, on more fronts than I initially naively thought. Wonder what are others' thoughts about it
Have you played/considered leaving research costs intact, only lowering production costs? Have you considered tweaking turn costs as well (including armor growth)?
BTW I think what could really make games faster would be literally faster engines (or denser galaxy - shorter distances) and faster population growth. Faster RP and PP do that in a roundabout way (though it may be more fun to have bigger toys, sooner, too) But that would also be a different meta then
Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server
That's why I said no worries about excluding me if I'm a fifth wheel for an even number of players.Oberlus wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:58 am Also, if we get 7 players for this game, I think we need another player or another setting for diplomacy, because 3vs4 or 2vs2vs3 is unfair.
If we get 7 players, I suggest playing no-diplomacy (all people at war for the whole game), if that is OK for everyone.
Then again, even though team play may be more educational for me, I think I'd prefer every cephalopod for themselves, too. It is a dark forest out there! Though I imagine shadow diplomacy with secret protocols still would go around, wouldn't it? Molotov-Ribbentrop, yo! As in, no game supported benefits but you could still metagame and have some shady deals, I mean, gentleman's agreements? Can't say I enjoy such things but... don't hate the player
Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server
Guys, try and play with master versions as much as you can. I'm seeing some annoying bugs being hunted and I suspect there will be more. Any reports in the forums or github are welcome.
Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server
I believe it was changed to Low after daybreak complained about nests being unbalancing. I'd like medium to test the new monster game rule setting, but any setting is fine (except none) for testing purposes I guess.
Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server
I wonder if Natives sould be set to high as well, last time Endhu had no natives in his section, while Oberlus and Wobbly had 2. I had 2, but found some more further away towards o01eg, who had 3 in his area. I don't think Lienrag had any.
Although if we play teams, then it is less of a problem, as we can share, unless they are natives we can't share.
I am ok with Medium
Although if we play teams, then it is less of a problem, as we can share, unless they are natives we can't share.
Not me
I am ok with Medium
Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server
I had two but they were not interesting for a Xenophobic Empire.
I could have been tempted by the Beige Goo if I could get it early but the high defense + Dyson forest made it unworthy of the effort.