Multiplayer slow game server

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

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Multiplayer slow game server

#511 Post by Ophiuchus » Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:14 am

Would you guys be open to test experimental features for generating feedback in one of your coming games?

The topics i am working on are targeting and more-than-3-bouts combat.

Targeting would be probably a single patch/commit on your branch (e.g. 0.4.9).

Necessary settings for balancing N-bouts-combat probably would become part of master and you could would start with certain values. (Rather in 0.5)

If you are open to such, the first thing i would propose is krikkitones ships-weapons-dont-shoot-at-fighters KISS-hard-targeting approach mentioned in the fighter cannonfodder thread/poll.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Multiplayer slow game server

#512 Post by o01eg » Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:30 am

Ophiuchus wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:14 am
Would you guys be open to test experimental features for generating feedback in one of your coming games?

The topics i am working on are targeting and more-than-3-bouts combat.

Targeting would be probably a single patch/commit on your branch (e.g. 0.4.9).

Necessary settings for balancing N-bouts-combat probably would become part of master and you could would start with certain values. (Rather in 0.5)

If you are open to such, the first thing i would propose is krikkitones ships-weapons-dont-shoot-at-fighters hard-targeting approach mentioned in the fighter cannonfodder thread.
Main issue is distribution of such changes. I use publishing builds release and weekly test because I cann't provide MacOS and Windows builds myself.
It would be simpler if you changes don't require to have altered client and only depends on server code or default/ content.

If you make changes in common C++ code it better to gate C++ changes them behind experimental game rule to use standard client with alternative default/ content.
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-9.2, boost-1.71.0
Ubuntu Server 18.04 x64, gcc-7.4, boost-1.65.1
Welcome to slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io. Version 2019-12-08.203bc4c.
Donates are welcome: BTC:14XLekD9ifwqLtZX4iteepvbLQNYVG87zK

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Multiplayer slow game server

#513 Post by Ophiuchus » Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:48 am

o01eg wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:30 am
Ophiuchus wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:14 am
Would you guys be open to test experimental features for generating feedback in one of your coming games?

The topics i am working on are targeting ...
If you are open to such, the first thing i would propose is krikkitones ships-weapons-dont-shoot-at-fighters hard-targeting approach mentioned in the fighter cannonfodder thread.
Main issue is distribution of such changes. I use publishing builds release and weekly test because I cann't provide MacOS and Windows builds myself.
It would be simpler if you changes don't require to have altered client and only depends on server code or default/ content.
Yes, these functional targeting changes would be FOCS-only (and stringtables, and if i am really ambitious python AI, so also in default).
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Multiplayer slow game server

#514 Post by o01eg » Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:22 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:48 am
o01eg wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:30 am
Ophiuchus wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:14 am
Would you guys be open to test experimental features for generating feedback in one of your coming games?

The topics i am working on are targeting ...
If you are open to such, the first thing i would propose is krikkitones ships-weapons-dont-shoot-at-fighters hard-targeting approach mentioned in the fighter cannonfodder thread.
Main issue is distribution of such changes. I use publishing builds release and weekly test because I cann't provide MacOS and Windows builds myself.
It would be simpler if you changes don't require to have altered client and only depends on server code or default/ content.
Yes, these functional targeting changes would be FOCS-only (and stringtables, and if i am really ambitious python AI, so also in default).
Nice, next game I will ask other players if they are willing to test this feature. Also, could you participate as well to check how it works?
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-9.2, boost-1.71.0
Ubuntu Server 18.04 x64, gcc-7.4, boost-1.65.1
Welcome to slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io. Version 2019-12-08.203bc4c.
Donates are welcome: BTC:14XLekD9ifwqLtZX4iteepvbLQNYVG87zK

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1674
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Multiplayer slow game server

#515 Post by Oberlus » Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:24 pm

o01eg wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:22 pm
Ophiuchus wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:48 am
Yes, these functional targeting changes would be FOCS-only (and stringtables, and if i am really ambitious python AI, so also in default).
Nice, next game I will ask other players if they are willing to test this feature. Also, could you participate as well to check how it works?
YESYESYES! Ophiuchus! Join a game! One or two turns per day, 10 minutes tops if we don't get into complex diplomacy backstabbing.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Multiplayer slow game server

#516 Post by Ophiuchus » Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:20 am

Oberlus wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:24 pm
o01eg wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:22 pm
Ophiuchus wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:48 am
Yes, these functional targeting changes would be FOCS-only (and stringtables, and if i am really ambitious python AI, so also in default).
Nice, next game I will ask other players if they are willing to test this feature. Also, could you participate as well to check how it works?
YESYESYES! Ophiuchus! Join a game! One or two turns per day, 10 minutes tops if we don't get into complex diplomacy backstabbing.
I do not think that I can even spend 10 minutes a day on a regular base currenty :(

Anyway, i could not sleep. So here is PR-2665, implementing Krikkitone's KISS hard targeting (the changes are only in folder default/ ). It would be good if somebody could start a game with this before going multiplayer ;)

Also I did not yet do any balancing, only the targeting and stringtables entries.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
JonCST
Space Kraken
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Multiplayer slow game server

#517 Post by JonCST » Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:20 am

Oberlus wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:24 pm
[...] 10 minutes tops if we don't get into complex diplomacy backstabbing.
Backstabbing is simple. Allying is complex.

j

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1674
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Multiplayer slow game server

#518 Post by Oberlus » Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:03 am

JonCST wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:20 am
Oberlus wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:24 pm
[...] 10 minutes tops if we don't get into complex diplomacy backstabbing.
Backstabbing is simple. Allying is complex.
Specially if you mix up the movements that your allies are doing to accomplish the agreed plan and then switch sides before asking, just assuming your ally was going to betray you (or not a wrong assumption and just an excuse for the betrayal). I'll never again ally with you, Jon :evil:

User avatar
JonCST
Space Kraken
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Multiplayer slow game server

#519 Post by JonCST » Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:01 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:03 am
just an excuse for the betrayal
"Betrayal" is an interesting word choice there.

It would seem a more appropriate word if i had pretended to remain allied with you, and manipulated you into a situation to your detriment. Instead, i openly broke the alliance.

And, personally, i cannot see that doing so is in fact to my benefit or to your detriment, except that you can no longer park large fleets on my planet without warning and in supply.
Oberlus wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:03 am
I'll never again ally with you, Jon
That is of course your privilege.

Perhaps you'll even gain something from it, if the next time you're allied with someone, you tell them ahead of time what your plan is, and maybe even get their approval?

Jon

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1674
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Multiplayer slow game server

#520 Post by Oberlus » Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:23 pm

JonCST wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:01 pm
i cannot see that doing so is in fact to my benefit or to your detriment, except that you can no longer park large fleets on my planet without warning and in supply.
Indeed it's been (or going to be) beneficial for me, since now I can just conquer your planets and put them to a good purpose (first thing I'll do is build an orbital generator on that GG you've been neglecting for eons), instead of continuing with the initial pact.

My disappointment (FreeOrion bound, nothing personal outside the game) is not coming from the harm of you breaking the alliance, but from the offence I perceive from you considering I was going to betray you.
The conditions of our initial pact were to work together against the other until we no longer want to. I would have never (unless playing a Xenophobic species) betrayed you. I would have told you in advance when I would be considering finishing the pact and attacking you.
Perhaps you'll even gain something from it, if the next time you're allied with someone, you tell them ahead of time what your plan is, and maybe even get their approval?
Communication with you has been rather difficult this game. You many times didn't answer to open and direct questions, or did not say your opinion on the plans we were talking. At some point I took for granted that you will speak up whenever you have something to say.
For example: "hey, Oberlus, why are you sending some ships to Gilly?", to which I would have answered "to attack TSO worlds from there, hopefully with your support (no need to tell you in advance until my ships arrive there)".
I don't have the same miss-communications problems with anyone else. I'm not saying I'm the perfect partner regarding communication, but you lecturing me on this point is funny. And I'm not receptive to it at all right now, so I'll appreciate if you stop it now.

I do have learnt something from this: "do not ally Jon, he does things I don't understand".

GLHF

User avatar
JonCST
Space Kraken
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Multiplayer slow game server

#521 Post by JonCST » Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:04 am

Wow, Oberlus, you're good at this diplomacy stuff.

That is not sarcastic.

By posting your impression of our exchange, you're influencing people's opinions for many games into the future.

All i'll say in my own defense is:

1) Yes, one does have to notify the owner of a planet of one's intentions before sending fleets there
2) If fleets go to one of my planets without my agreement, i declare war (happened twice this game).

Not so hard to understand, really.

Jon

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1674
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Multiplayer slow game server

#522 Post by Oberlus » Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:36 am

JonCST wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:04 am
Yes, one does have to notify the owner of a planet of one's intentions before sending fleets there
Or not.
If I wanted to conquer Gilly to your surprise, I could have asked you "can I send a fleet there to attack TSO?", then you say "yes", then I go there, declare war myself and conquer the planet without you preparing in advance.
I trusted you and I thought you trusted me, and that was wrong. Now I think all this might be due to my inexperience in playing games like that Diplomacy you mentioned sometimes, in which maybe you got used to backstabbing or something, which I am not, and so you expect some kind of formalisms that I don't.
If fleets go to one of my planets without my agreement, i declare war (happened twice this game).
Does this mean you had some kind of agreement with o01eg when he was sending ships to your area and later declared war on you? Looks like a really good way to play diplomacy, FreeOrion and everything else. I bow to your wisdom.
Not so hard to understand, really.
You won's stop lecturing me, in a condescending way now, so I have to accept it. EOT.

Post Reply