Pre-Fortress is not working as intended.

kevin551 · Post by **kevin551** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:11 am

The Pre-Fortress was created to prevent Turn Change (TC) exploits.
An unintended consequence of adding the restrict infrastructure setting to LT32 is to add a new TC exploit.

The fix for this is trivial.
In the file terrain.ruleset the defintion for [base_prefortress] should include border_sq = 0
Currently it is set to 1 which allows the pre-fortress to claim a border.

A second unwanted feature was added to the Pre-Fortress class when we moved to a new ruleset based on Civ2Civ3.
A copy paste error meant that the following line in the Fortress class got misplaced.
"Base", "Pre-Fortress", "Tile"
This should be part of the requirements for a fortress.

I also like the fact that GreatTurn has renamed the Pre-Fortress 'Trench'.

det0r · Post by **det0r** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:08 am

I think this should be patched/hot-fixed when akfaew gets time. Hopefully nobody disagrees..

mrsynical · Post by **mrsynical** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:38 am

What is the consequence of the 2nd "feature"?

jhh · Post by **jhh** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:32 pm

I agree that it's kind of unfair to change this now, when the harm has already happened and cannot be fixed.

However I suggest you do as I will do. If somebody uses that exploit against me, I stop playing. Period.

If you find that challenging way to win me, go for it!

cgalik · Post by **cgalik** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:50 pm

I'm fine with asking akfaew to take it out.

Dimitril · Post by **Dimitril** » Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:00 pm

cgalik wrote:I'm fine with asking akfaew to take it out.

jhh · Post by **jhh** » Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:28 pm

akfaew wrote:Do you also smash your keyboard on your desk and start crying?

That must be a translation error, or else I didn't explain it correctly.

No, this has nothing to do with emotions. It's all about that the game should be fun and fair.

Bugs are unintentional side-effects that should never be used to get advance on competing games. That's just what I belief. It also means that I cannot use them myself because of my personal ethics, which leads to that the game isn't fun anymore, and the only option left for me is to stop playing.

That's actually pretty much how Wieder translated what means "Pitäkää tunkkinne!"

det0r · Post by **det0r** » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:05 am

Well I guess it should be the people who have had this used against them who get the final say (i.e. are they happy for it to be patched mid-game, or do they want a chance to do it to their enemies).

My biggest concern is that this will result in the game becoming a "TC-war", as the whole purpose of a pre-fortress was to prevent the game devolving into a TC-war (which is usually much less fun and much more time consuming for everybody involved).

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:11 am

There was lots of bugs in the past here, we have lots of features that are not used in the way of prepared for be used.
Once somebody will use a feature in a game in a bad way we have nice talking about it and we a removing this feature, repare it or leaving as it is.
We cannot prever TC moves, once somebody will move his invasion just before TC, opponent cannot prevent this invasion in a way he could look at it before TC.
Same like prefortress, restrictinfra and prefortress are quite new feature, so if it is exploit it will be used by guys who think that they can make TC moves, other people who dont like TC moves will not do it, every player may build his respect ranking of players, so if any player make a nasty tricks are not in your way of playing you can reduce your wilingness to play with him in other games.
You dont like exploit of prefortress, so dont use it by yourself, other player dont like massive alliances and have a bad fealings about it, another one cant walk over betrayal. If any cannot accept this part of a game than he should not joining to it.

We have had HUDGE flame wars about some features/exploits, some of players liked it and some of players didint, after all every player can make a poll before a game. We have had test game. We cannot changing rules once game has started. For some players pre-fortress-border are feature for others this is bug. We will need to make a poll before next game will start, if we have restrictinfra on (for me this feature (restrictinfra) breaking fun of a attack part of a game, with pre-fortress-border-bug it crush my fun hudge but i must live with it)

tiger · Post by **tiger** » Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:06 am

Consequence of 2nd feature is that everyone can build fortress without building prefortress - and cgalik team happily uses that ( just go to menu and choose fortress, pressing f will build useless prefortress)

cgalik · Post by **cgalik** » Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:56 pm

Thanks tiger I actually didn't know why you were saying we were cheating until now. Makes sense at least why you would say that. Why didn't you explain that before? Anyways, it would have saved me a turn vs my enemies a few turns ago.

I fail to understand why even my teammates didn't tell me about this second consequence! lol

kevin551 · Post by **kevin551** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:07 am

The pre-fortress code has been broken for a couple of years now. People have been building fortresses directly since LT30. It is not a new issue, it just wasn't talked about openly before. Hence it is hard to describe this behaviour as cheating. I accept the admins point of view that given how long the bug has been in place we can wait until the next game to fix it.
But I won't be upset if it happens to be fixed while the server is currently down.

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:25 am

kevin551 wrote:The pre-fortress code has been broken for a couple of years now. People have been building fortresses directly since LT30.

Heh, i didnt know abut this bug since LT30, i am worry about it that some players knew this bug and didnt try to fix it in a poll or any way. I am sad about it.

If anybody said that someone is cheating, that this player should not use this cheating feature. this player should convince other players to repair this bug without using it, asking other not to using it in gentelmans deal.

mrsynical · Post by **mrsynical** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:47 am

kevin551 wrote:The pre-fortress code has been broken for a couple of years now. People have been building fortresses directly since LT30. It is not a new issue, it just wasn't talked about openly before. Hence it is hard to describe this behaviour as cheating. I accept the admins point of view that given how long the bug has been in place we can wait until the next game to fix it.
But I won't be upset if it happens to be fixed while the server is currently down.

Kind of disappointing that you, in part, helped to introduce the pre-fortress, yet knew it was really broken.

http://longturn.org/poll/10/

kevin551 · Post by **kevin551** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:14 pm

mrsynical wrote: Kind of disappointing that you, in part, helped to introduce the pre-fortress, yet knew it was really broken.

First part of this is true - I did help create the pre-fortress back in the days of Maho's Longturn. At that time it worked.

Second part isn't. I didn't know that is has been broken in the current version of Longturn until this game.
I played LT30 and never built a fortress directly or ever saw anyone do it.
I will assume that is true of all the major players because if any one of these players had ever used it it would have become immediately apparent to everyone.

Xercise · Post by **Xercise** » Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:01 am

Dear fellow Long Turn players,

I fear I have to add my voice to this debate, because I now realise that any features that cause game play to necessitate being around at TC are hurting our FreeCiv community (incl. this 'send a worker to build fortress just before TC' trick). There are many players who are keen to play 'turn-based strategy' games - like ifaesfu - who simply cannot be online at particular times of the day to counter attacks by other players who have more time on their hands. I realise that this could seem 'whiny' to some people, but really, when you think about it is not.

I, for one, am currently working from home, so I can log on at many times of the day (I am quite flexible). But the truth is that in my previous jobs (or in jobs I might have in the future), I will not be able to log on during working hours to monitor if I am being attacked and am then at a distinct disadvantage compared to players who have more time.

I am not blaming people for exploiting this tactic - I mean anything that is not hacking the game is in effect passable; but, I am talking about our long-term building of a turn-based strategy game that can involve a variety of players from all walks of life. Therefore:

1. Please let's change any coding that allows RTS game play around TC - there are several suggestions already at different parts of this forum.
2. Let's try to be nice to players who have less time: This is just one game - losing good players like ifaesfu is a real shame (I do not say this just because we are in the same team in LT32, but even before I have noted how ifaesfu is always giving noobs advice on the metaserver and really being a great sport about playing FreeCiv)

Now, regarding LT32 specifically: May I suggest that we suspend the game for a few turns, while all teams get a chance to gain players to replace idlers? Because if ifaesfu leaves (since I doubt people will agree to changing the code mid-game), our team will be almost half idlers, and we do not have time to play everyone. All of us quitting because we can't play is a real possibility otherwise, and that would be bad for everyone, as it would give a very clear advantage to our neighbouring enemies - it would effectually destroy the fun of LT32 for at least 2 other teams).

Please, let's have a civilised discussion about this (this is Free Civ after all).

Cheers, Xercise

edrim · Post by **edrim** » Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:59 pm

Xercise wrote: 1. Please let's change any coding that allows RTS game play around TC - there are several suggestions already at different parts of this forum.

Why dont you invite and code it? Dont you suspect that we are fighting with it this several years and it is not good ways to solve it? Everytime player who can login any time in a day will have adventage then player who cannot. Trying to reduce TC movement we will make this game harder to play and more players will quit.

Xercise wrote: 2. Let's try to be nice to players who have less time: This is just one game - losing good players like ifaesfu is a real shame (I do not say this just because we are in the same team in LT32, but even before I have noted how ifaesfu is always giving noobs advice on the metaserver and really being a great sport about playing FreeCiv)

I hope ifaesu quit only from LT32 not for all future games. In this game every player can find a path to make him smile, liek winning, loosing, simciting, diplomacy, war, fighting, etc.

kevin551 · Post by **kevin551** » Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:23 am

The reality of longturn games is that TC attacks have always been exploited in our games and we are slowly adapting the code to reduce these exploits. There has been many such debates on this topic in the past. This process takes a long time - many games - many years.

The pre-fortress is a case in point. It was an idea by Edrim and code by me 3 or 4 years ago. It was created specifically to prevent the TC fortress. No one objects to the idea that we work to prevent RTS strategies during TC. In this game it has become obvious to the people who weren't around for the original debate why the pre-fortress was written in the first place.

There are many other TC issues, each of these will need to be looked at and hopefully changed. But I don't expect that any time soon.

As for Ifaesfu quitting, I hope he reconsiders. If he looks back he should remember that he played LT30 which had a much worse record of TC 'cheating'. And sadly for mmm2 delegating to a player on another team is not allowed.

pamplina · Post by **pamplina** » Sat Sep 28, 2013 7:36 am

This is my first team game, and I'm impressed so much work it is. You have to be in contact with the team almost every day, make maps, tactics, plans, pacts... I've been enjoying all of these, because it's a challenge for me, and most important, the mates on the team are really kind and great people, so they made easy to be part of it.
This is so much work, so adding an extra time to be watching turn changes and preventing exploits is excessive, on my opinion. There's no big reason to not fixing the exploits, but there's the resistance of some members that don't want to change rules on the middle of the game. I understand it, but the risk of losing players is real. In my team, almost half of the players have quit and also ifaesfu is considering to do it. We are in a state where the fun of playing is going away.
Please consider Xercise's request that we suspend the game for a few turns, while all teams get a chance to gain players to replace idlers. Please, also do some of the proposed coding changes to prevent RTS game play around TC.
Thanks

Post by **wieder** » Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:37 pm

Yeah, TC RTS has been a problem and it will be a problem.

The easiest solution for this would be making the TC to happen at a random time. If the TC happened randomly in 22 or 24 hours after the last TC, there wouldn't be any last minute activities.

Someone said making that wouldn't be too much work. However if it's even little work, someone should still do that. I don't know how because I don't really know how Freeciv does the TC.

mrsynical · Post by **mrsynical** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 1:22 am

wieder wrote:Yeah, TC RTS has been a problem and it will be a problem.

The easiest solution for this would be making the TC to happen at a random time. If the TC happened randomly in 22 or 24 hours after the last TC, there wouldn't be any last minute activities.

Someone said making that wouldn't be too much work. However if it's even little work, someone should still do that. I don't know how because I don't really know how Freeciv does the TC.

That doesn't solve it but would help a bit ... people will make roads/fortress at 20-22 hrs. Wait till turn change then use the roads/forts. This is what we used to do when TC was randomised.

Making the pre-fortress not claim land would help things (it would require 2 turns to claim land/infrastructure), but it does make it stupidly hard to capture a city (unless on a river). This is okay, as long as we are aware...

Post by **wieder** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:49 am

It depends.

Some people think that you should be allowed to build the road if you move the unit 10 before TC to the enemy territory.

I consider it some kind of RTS if you kill units that were already moved at the same turn. In normal turn based Civilization those units would be killed only at the next turn and the road or whatever would be there.

TC RTS happens because of hour based RTS. Some people have suggested to forbid that.

Of course it would be possible to randomize the TC even more. Making it to happen in +-5 hours and making the turns 25h instead if 23h. That way a turn would be something between 20 hours or 30 hours. But would that be convenient?

mrsynical · Post by **mrsynical** » Mon Sep 30, 2013 10:48 pm

wieder wrote: Of course it would be possible to randomize the TC even more. Making it to happen in +-5 hours and making the turns 25h instead if 23h. That way a turn would be something between 20 hours or 30 hours. But would that be convenient?

Hmm. I always thought of shortening each TC, but I think increasing the average turn and increasing the randomness is the correct way to proceed. You want to force people to make their pre-turn moves well before TC if they want to guarantee the action. We should also somehow be stricter on restricting time on line especially before a turn.