Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
Moderator: Oberlus
Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
You know little about the truth and a lot about twisted dialectics. I'll ignore you.
Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
We probably can consider that most players play as often as they reasonably can (considering the level of priority that they give to the game, which no one is forced to put at a high level), and AFAIK that was the reasoning behind extending from 24 h to 48 h ; it's more inconvenient to address the situations where a player wasn't able to play his turn than to have to wait for a player to turn later than he would have if the timer was shorter.
How many turns actually were longer than 40 h, by the way ?
Anyway if we have two timers for two games let's make them more different : 12 h for one (for players who can play both in the morning and evening) and 48 h the other, with also different conventions : for the 48 h game we could keep the current convention of delaying the turn when a player has troubles, for the 12 h game we could agree that it's a strict timer and that players have to make sure to plan ahead for possible "forced turns".
Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
Not really, no. Pretty sure not playing to the rules is cheating rather then bad sportsmanship.
Technically within the rules, arguably bad sportsmanship.The underarm bowling incident of 1981 is a sporting controversy which took place on 1 February 1981, when Australia played New Zealand in a One Day International cricket match, the third in the best-of-five final of the 1980–81 World Series Cup, at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.[1]
With one ball of the final over remaining in the match, New Zealand required a six to tie the match. To ensure that New Zealand were unable to achieve this, the Australian captain Greg Chappell instructed his bowler (and younger brother) Trevor Chappell to deliver the last ball to batsman Brian McKechnie underarm along the ground. Trevor Chappell did so, forcing McKechnie to play the ball defensively, meaning Australia won. This action, although legal at the time, was nevertheless widely perceived as being wholly against the traditional spirit of cricketing fair play.
The outrage caused by the incident eventually led to an official amendment to the international laws of cricket to prevent it from occurring again.
Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
I guess that you have a point...
Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
Whoah, stop getting your panties all twisted - I was not pointing fingers at anyone.Daybreak wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 10:02 pmA little unfair - there was an unknown bug, we were unaware of, so hardly an exploitation, and has not been exploited again.Oberlus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:13 pm Palace and Command Center are expected to be unique buildings, so should be destroyed upon gifting.
Keeping AHA on gifting is OK. If you happen to get your hands on a second Cultural Archives without AHA, you are allowed to build one.
I am disappointed with Daybreak and Endhu's exploitations of these bugs. It will boost Daybreaks power, not help Endhu to survive, so it's not only lame but also unfair.
You say it is not sportmanlike, but the politics both inside and outside dictate it all.BlueAward wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 7:35 pm I can deal with it, alas not alone, and as you have seen Oberlus is on board to help, but even so, he is not enjoying these plays, viewing them as not sportsmanlike. And that is more of an issue, adding to his willingness to move on from this game, apart from other issues like so many turns taking full 48h to complete
Remains to be seen if Daybreak chose wisely in the end, though for now he is reaping some benefits indeed.
Oberlus accepted warships from you instead of using his own. Not that I feel it is wrong.
From what I scouted Oberlus is receiving an Eaxaw colony ship, and no doubt has arrangements with Wobbly a close friend.
It really doe not matter what politics you set internally, as outside politics will always come into play.
1. I called it unfair as we did not know about the bug
2. I was trying to point out that I don't think exploiting the politics, is unfair as in essence everyone does it, and showed some examples, and I have no problem with them as alls fair in love and war. I also pointed out it did not matter what politics are set up in game.
3. I am not going to claim I did not see the Palace and Military Command buildings did not get destroyed, but at the time I did not thnk about the ramfications, NOR did I take advantage of them. I have scrapped them for nex turn.
I don't like this game much anymore, I dont like the politics which is all it seems to be and leads to harsh posts, while strategy takes a back seat. Pretty well the end ofr me and this game.
I have only just started to enjoy single player games when I realsised I could set planet stability at 20, and Capital IP at 20 as well. Even then I dont enjoy it as much as 4.9.
I would like -
planet stability limit to be 40
Capital IP limit to be 40
Planet Scaling ability for positve IP (Zero plus) to be set at 1, so a player can change it.
Planet Scaling ability for negative IP (to be set at 1, so a player can change it.
Basically allowing the player to manipulate stability and IP, and also gives the AI's a better chance.
EDIT: I did nto get any extra social or economic policy slots from Endhus capital. Not sure about military, bu will tell you next turn
Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
I dislike the colony swapping, though I don't find it unfair, more a consequence of playing with an odd diplomacy setup. The bugs bug me of course. It's extra frustrating as we haven't had a bug free multiplayer game since we started playing on master. Other then that I've been mostly fine with the game outside of game speed which makes everything else more frustrating.
Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
It's a trade-off for new features not yet released as a stable version. Of course we have several games on stable version after release.
Maybe with second game server it would be possible to have both `master` and stable games in parallel.
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-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
On empire summary you show as having 7 economic slots, but did not research sentient automation yet. So you should have 6 slots, just like me. Military slot, not sure if you already killed enough stuff to unlock the other slot, but based on my reproduction, and save is included there, you also get extra military slot.
I think since it was clear one can have multiple Cultural Archives to begin with, that is guarded from having multiple social slots from those, just like Sentient Hull, Nearly-Universal Translator (which is stupid expensive now without discount for multiple species btw) and such
Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
From what I've read it seems the discussion is inconclusive. Here is a summary of my thoughts on diplomacy exploitation:
Points for leaving:
- Can allow weak players to survive a little longer (biased)
- Hard to judge what is exploitation and what is not, is bound to spark conflict (apart from bugs, those should probably not be used)
Points for prohibition:
- Denial through gifting is generally annoying and just prolongs suffering
Exploitation in my view includes particularly denial of conquest when it is apparent that a planet will be lost, bailing out a surrounded fleet or performing blatantly hostile actions (like settling in their territory without permission) against an allied / at peace player -- this last option would be the biggest problem for game integrity, but I don't think anyone has done that yet and probably won't. I don't think colony swapping through a third party is a problem.
I would leave things as they are, but that is obviously a biased opinion, so I'd like to get a consensus (or at least a majority vote) on what is right first.
Points for leaving:
- Can allow weak players to survive a little longer (biased)
- Hard to judge what is exploitation and what is not, is bound to spark conflict (apart from bugs, those should probably not be used)
Points for prohibition:
- Denial through gifting is generally annoying and just prolongs suffering
Exploitation in my view includes particularly denial of conquest when it is apparent that a planet will be lost, bailing out a surrounded fleet or performing blatantly hostile actions (like settling in their territory without permission) against an allied / at peace player -- this last option would be the biggest problem for game integrity, but I don't think anyone has done that yet and probably won't. I don't think colony swapping through a third party is a problem.
I would leave things as they are, but that is obviously a biased opinion, so I'd like to get a consensus (or at least a majority vote) on what is right first.
Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
This one was absolutely attempted, and words were absolutely said about it. I'm glad someone agrees with me on "blatantly hostile action".
Arguably I'm engaging in this one, depending on where you draw the line on territory between my border and o01eg's. Technically any outposts/colonies I put down were within my supply, though 1 is literally with-in 2 jumps of the capital. At the same time there are Ophi ships present in the contested space and o01eg can actually still invade said colonies through Ophi.
Edit: As a note, the way the empires were placed on the map I literally could not of expanded in either direction without being in allied/or peaceful territory.
Last edited by wobbly on Sat Jan 28, 2023 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
Also, can allow strong players to deny any possibility of counterattack from the weaker empires.
That is not a pro nor a con.
Also, I never talked about prohibition. I would not join another game with this kind of diplomacy, but it's up to each one what game modes they like and none should be prohibited. I don't think there is need for any consensus about that.
What there is a consensus about is regarding the gifting of unique buildings that are supposed to be unique regardless of invasions of gifting but they don't get destroyed upon gifting: that's a bug, to be fixed, not really open to debate to keep a broken mechanic.
Not so hard from my perspective. Anyways, whatever.
Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
Prohibition was probably not the right word. Better (and more precisely) would be "to agree that exploiting fixed diplomacy in these ways is bad and should not be done"
True
Oberlus wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 4:22 pm What there is a consensus about is regarding the gifting of unique buildings that are supposed to be unique regardless of invasions of gifting but they don't get destroyed upon gifting: that's a bug, to be fixed, not really open to debate to keep a broken mechanic.
I sorta included that
Privately? Or do I just not remember?
Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
Is it too late to unscrap ?
It would be nice to know.
Also, it would be nice to have some Sly planets in your Empire to check whether they too get the Stability bonus from "Imperial Capital Species".
You got the Influence bonus, though, I guess ?
Re: Twenty-second game on the multiplayer slow game server
BA tested it, it's in the issue he opened.
That is much interesting to test, out of curiosity.