Longturn Forum

The kingmaker, heh.

edrim wrote:I have a vision that we are somehow rude ald old fashioned guys after reading this topic.

Whether someone is rude and oldfashioned is a matter of personal taste and preferences and will have to be decided by everyone for himself. If you have a community running, and it's consistent, with growing population, you shouldn't worry about other people's opinions. Not everything is for everybody. People are different and there will always be someone who won't be getting along with someone else. That's life. Nothing can be done about it.

Akfaew proposed to GT players and new admins that they can use our server to start next GT game, but you have to bring your settings (rulesets, settings, etc.) and you can start a game on LT machines. After all somebody says that have scenario files of a game or two and nothing happend. We had not bad mind with GT games till GT machines will be ready. But there was any more words about it.

I'm not sure if anyone agreed on something concrete. Usually a game needs a specific admin. When there is a decision who will be the admin, everything from that moment on will be his responsibility (and guilt ), so, no need to worry until then

Something to the funcinality of the forum - what do we need for forum to do his work? Make posts, make replays, edit replays. Thats all we need. We dont need secrets forums for conversation about game because nobody will use it in this commnity where there is so much conspiracy and gossips. Nobody will write secrets when there is a chance anybody elese will read it. I know i am going to far with conspiracy.

When you want to hangout with your friends you can do it. So saying that we have unfunctional forum is ridiculous.We are not using this forum during a game is going on because nobody is reading it, we dont need a forum to say everyday, good job, good job.

I think I was the one who said that this forum is unfunctional, so allow me to explain. Basically, you said that here you have everything you need. Well, good for you, however, I don't. When we played GT09, 10 and 11, I created an excellent system for coordinating scientific research. Also, our alliance used our secret subforum to discuss external politics, military strategies and so on. It was definitely useful and desired. So, we used it and we need it.

When your allies prefer to communicate with you on forums you can create it in anywhere on internet, when you want to use googlegroups or ircnet you can establish this way of communication.

Well, that's the thing. You have forum A that serves a certain purpose. However, if I have to go to forum B when I need to communicate with people in a certain way, then forum B is obviously more functional for me than forum A.

The thing is, my main problem with this forum isn't the lack of secret subforums. It's a welcome convinience, but it's neither perfect nor necessary. What bothers me more is that you can't send private messages. Someone said that you can use email for that. Well, the thing is, I use email for a number of other purposes: job, private life, some other activities. When I check my email, I don't really care about LT messages. I want to be able to take a few minutes (or hours) in the day when I'm able to say "now I will go to see what's happening in FreeCiv, and will go and check my messages". So I go to the game and to the GT forum because I know everything connected to the game is there: public discussions, in-alliance discussions, private messages. I don't want game messages from FreeCiv cluttering my mailbox.

In the end, I wasn't criticizing this forum. When I said that it is "unfunctional", I simply said that it doesn't serve my purpose. If you're fine with it, fine, good for you. I need something different.



And now to get to the hardest part where I think most differences between LT and GT lie. You mention "wolfpacks". I don't really know what happened in the game(s) you describe, but you mentioned that people were quitting because they were prevented from winning by a "wolfpack". I don't want to theoreticise too much here, I'll simply copy something what someone else said atthe GT forum:

In LT30, there were a LOT of new players joining, and therefore a LOT of "newbies" from a LT point of view. Many of those newbies decided to unite and ended up beating up an alliance of relatively few old timers, and I got the impression the very act those newbies to survive and beat up old timers was considered grossly insulting. Sure, there were a few old timers in the winning alliance as well, but all in all, it seemed to be a matter of a large number of more peaceful nations (many being new to LT) managing to cooperate closely to thwart off some aggression.

And, in my view, the most important part:
I consider it interesting to let the countries themselves participating in the game world to decide how the game is played. If the majority ends up being aggressive warmongers, then elimination there is. If the majority cooperates on peaceful sim-citying, then the aggressive warmongers get themselves eliminated.

Edrim, you said that some people left because of "wolfpack(s)". Well, I know a few people are thinking about leaving because players here are "too aggressive". I think both are wrong. I've seen some complaining about people being wiped out. I agree with you on this: fight back, when you are overrun, accept that you lost and learn something from it.

However, it seems that people are learning too well, and not what *you* want them to learn. You need to understand that joining together into an alliance is also a viable way of surviving. People are here to play a game. You don't have the right to dictate "sim-city players" how to play just as they don't have the right to dictate you how to play. Civilization is a VERY complex game. There are many ways of playing and condemning people for choosing to play one or the other is just plain wrong. You don't like it? Well, adapt.

You say: "It is just a game, learn it and do not leave your cities open next time." And you are absolutely right. If someone makes such mistakes, his neighbours have the right to run him over.

However, I can also say: if you are being prevented to win by a wolfpack, then adapt. Accept this as reality and adapt your way of play so that you achieve victory under those changed circumstances. Because you are missing a very important point: those are not wolfpacks, they are sheeppacks and were created simply because the sheep have grown tired of being ran over by wolves so they decided to join forces.

In other words, nobody should ever tell you how to play (and if they do, tell them to go to hell). But also, you should never tell other people how to play either.

For the record, I personally don't like allied victories. Too many dirty politics under the table and, in the end, it all amounts to popularity contests. What is fair and square is: every nation for itself, either you survive or you don't, either you are one of the most powerful or you are not. You can rely on your friends for a while, but, in the end, they are your opponents, too.

Yes, there will be ideological alliances - meaning, people willing to play more peacefully will bundle together against those who play more aggressively. And that it the most natural thing that can happen. What should you do? ADAPT! Show flexibility. I came to LT aware that it's a bit more hostile environment; I should have been ran over two times by now, maybe even three, and whenever I've been negotiating, I didn't whine that "it's not fair, I want to play peacefully". Of course I do, but still I have to be able to defend myself. Which is exactly what I'm planning to do, and use every means possible. But I took being destroyed as a realistic possibility and then started looking around what I can do to turn the situation to my benefit. As you can see, I'm not whining and I'm still alive.

You should do the same. You want to win? Well, investigate your environment, check the paths that will lead you to victory and take them. Don't protest when things don't go according to your plan. Because then you're no better than the people you are criticizing.

I can only talk by myself.
It is not that i am playing only with old guys.
I think for many guys here specialy old once (because i dont know why some of players has much different style of playing) send their explorers and warriors just in first turns in a game to any direction they can for searching close enemies. Once they will find some unocupied cities they destroy them because they can. As mmm2 those 3 legs wolfes are not so dangenerous in this case, once they can lost another city it is going to RIP this player.

Many players who has play this game for some time after this stage trying to search who is in next quene on settlement, they are probably best pals for allies. Once you are find some players you dont know and find players you know they are quite good in playing (no idle in worse possible moment, good sim city/warmongers/diplomatic) you are trying to set up ally with them. If they want to check what is other option and dont want to ally it means that they connect with any other players and dont want to be your allies in nearly future, usualy players asked for ally and in ally already would not say that they are already in ally and they dont need you to join, they will say something "i dont know yet, but maybe we will set a peace to see what is going on around". Once you will hear this sentence it is up to you if you will go bunker or send as many army as you can to this guy:)
After all your time is going low to find proper ally and you need to hurry because all player in second level of settlement from you could be already allied, in this case you need to back to hose players closest to you and try to start coversation, but all of you will have low ground to settle and have many dangerous times for breaking ally or being attacked.

This is why people dont ally with newbies, if i meet newbie it is highly possible he has never played on freeciv or he has much different vision of play that it is here. So thats why all of newbies has a vision that old players are forming allies together game by game. It is not, as you can see for eg. wieder with his precious ability to write things in forum has great come in to this community, and he was never treated as newbie.

About saying how to play in my way, i am not saying it is only possible play and nobody should group of wolfpacks. But.
There is something like reputation here (as wieder mentioned in one thread) and players cant belive that they cant find proper allies in games once their reputation fails so ugly in previous games.
I am personaly dont like wolfpacks (sheeppacks) because it bring me bullying what i dont like in real life. If i see some players from game to game are play in wolfpacks because they cant stand in normal (normal in my point of view) i am not treating them as a potential allies in future (because they are usless and potential traitors to wolfpacks if any will show ingame).

When i am bought for eg. BF4 where i play now, and i am killed every single minute ingame, i am not saying: hey why dont you go and kill guys on your level. No, i have pleasure in playing by being killed and learnig how to get alive as long as i can. In my vision of multiply games in internet there is no chance to be a good playing guy when you are newbie, you have to pay tribute for being newbie, but once you will show you are worth to try to play with you it will come to see you in glory.

There is nothing new here that only one player can win. We have had this games in past, but there is still issue with wolfpack, when one player understand that he should killall and he is trying but after staying to powerfull all of players agre group together and after killing him they are not interested in playing this game anymore. There are allies with players known that they need to kill each other in the end like in "Hunger Games". This games bring much more negative influences (like last team game) then normal games.

Some players reading sentence that n players is max winning ally treat this that they should not group ingame in more then n players allies and some player are not treat this serious. Maybe it is a clue to know why some players are treated in this or that way.

edrim wrote:There is nothing new here that only one player can win. We have had this games in past, but there is still issue with wolfpack, when one player understand that he should killall and he is trying but after staying to powerfull all of players agre group together and after killing him they are not interested in playing this game anymore.

Yeah, well, that sucks So, the clue is to use diplomacy, not brute force.

In my view, the "there can be only one" principle is pointless because it effectively debilitates a very complex game in which you can make various choices and take different directions. For gods' sake, you are running a CIVILIZATION! not a local gang of thugs!

The thing is, a game like this attracts many different kinds of people. If you want to dictate or stimulate only one type of gameplay, it will turn around and bite you in the arse. Well, wolf/sheeppack is the answer to such policy.

Because there are three main outcomes that a player/nation can come to:

1. win
2. survive
3. die

The thing is, in a game like this, a lot of people are satisfied by surviving and, if someone wants to win by making everybody else die, those people will, naturally, band together in order to - survive. However, there are other ways of winning in such a game. If a game comes near the end and there is an obviously the strongest player/alliance, you can be sure that most people from this "pack" (let's rather call it "SimCityPack") won't object to accepting his/their victory. If they don't, then it's another matter. But the thing is, you don't have to Kill'Em All to be the winner.

However, I agree that there is a realistic problem with such packs: exchanging technology. Simply put, with tech exchange, you are not advanced based on how well you play, but based on how many friends you have, period. So as long as tech exchange is allowed, big alliances will have a further advantage, besides from being big.

So, you don't need a featureful forum, but you have no problem contacting people through a dozen other services and then mock people who want to use forum private messages? My friend, you should either stop using those pills or try something stronger because whatever you're using is not doing you good.

EDIT: If all you can add to at least partially constructive discussion are such sarcastic, arrogant and demeaning comments, maybe you should keep your excuse for an opinion to yourself. As Lincoln (allegedly) said, better to be quiet and be considered a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Corbeau wrote: My friend, you should either stop using those pills or try something stronger because whatever you're using is not doing you good.

wow, this is very constructive quote, perfect one. Do you think sentences like that can bring anything good to this discussion?

The same as Akfaew's "constructive comments".

Allow me to feel utterly pissed because this guy jumps into a detailed, thorough and, I really believe this, constructive discussion that both you and me are really spending my time and energy on in order to make something good of a slightly tense situation, and then contributes nothing but short arrogant ironic remarks that amount to nothing but direct trolling. And an admin, of all! No wonder this forum looks the way it does.

Corbeau and everyone.

I can mostly guess about the forum but I'm quite confident that it's like this for few very simple reasons. It's not like the admins or anyone else would refuse to improve the site or add features like private forums just because they want to make people to communicate with certain tools or features. People probably prefer those ways of communication, but it's not about forcing you or anyone else to use them. It's simply about putting the resources where they make the actual game more interesting and better for all to play.

Doing even some simple stuff for the forum would take some time and if the forum was upgraded to a more advanced one, it would still result with at least some tike used for it and also with a lost or archived forum history. Today the code for the forum is available and if someone has time, resources and skills for adding it, I suppose something just might come from that. Currently the forum is not a priority but the actual game is.

Yeah, the game.

There is ongoing effort in order to improve the game and make it better and even more fair to players joining to play the Longturn Freeciv. Of course it would be cool to have features from Trello included on the forum software, but while it's not happening, the next best thing is to use Trello. You can check it at https://trello.com/b/wIEPjpkd/longturn and see what was planned for the future games. Also if you have suggestions helping for the newcomers to have a better gaming experience, please talk about those and share your ideas. There are some guides available and as akfaew said, with some communication tools like IRC or Jabber (I personally just can't use Jabber but really like IRC:) available the newcomers can have help and advice from those who they ally with.

However what's true is that teaming up with lots of new players can be a huge risk. It's not that bad if one of your allies start idling or if one or even two of them completely ignore all advice someone is giving them. It's bad when you team with all new players and half of them start idling and the other half just ignores any teamwork or any communication or planning. It really comes to the reputation because in the beginning you don't have that and very few competitive players want to risk it all by joining with all new players.

However, of but as we Finns would say, there is a workaround for that for the new players. Communicate. Chat with the others or try even asking something on the public chat. It's not embarrassing to ask even the basics. Like why don't you get additional food from irrigating grassland on T5 while you are in despotism. Someone probably tells you that it's the penalty for despotism and may call you with a name meaning that you are new to the game. However what some people will see from that is that you are willing to ask and learn how to play the game. They might even be interested to team with you once they know more about you. It's really not needed to write walls of text but even some some basic communications will do as long as it's not completely random, makes at least some sense and happens more that few times on the game.

Oh.. And if you simply can't write any English, it's still better to use your native language and let the others to figure out what you said. English is of course better but any language is better than nothing

What server, channel do you guys use for irc? I wouldn't mind a place to idle.

If I had the time I would totally dig though the code and make some changes, but I'm working like crazy until break up (march?).

The IRC channel is #longturn and it's on Freenode

There is also a general freeciv channel on Freenode and that's called #freeciv

The Finnish Freeciv channel is called #freeciv.fi and it's on Ircnet

For games people have been using some private irc channels. If someone didn't know, those private channels can be made by anyone and they can be useful for an alliance. It's also possible to send private messages on IRC and this is one of the main advantages of IRC for me.