#1 Re: LT31 » LT31 Winner Claims » 2013-05-26 17:32:05

I accept defeat, as explained elsewhere.

#2 Re: LT31 » I claim victory in LT31. » 2013-05-25 12:09:00

I declare myself belonging to the formal losers of this game.

...as well as one of the survivors, which means I fullfill my own personal success criteria wink.

Actually, even if I had NOT gotten that crippled as I did (I neglected building a strong enough military to defend myself, got attacked and ended up only surviving with a couple of small colonies intact) and instead had managed to become a big nation with a score among the top 7, I would STILL have declared myself a formal loser smile.

I really don't care about my own score (and caring about one's own ranking score is optional in Longturn, not a requirement for participating), hence me founding the church the way I did (with focus on the survival of peaceful nations, not on formal victory for myself).

#3 Re: LT31 » Alliance and Turn Limits » 2013-03-10 20:14:17

I don't think we should make premature assumptions regarding the difficulty for the game to be concluded given the map size and the rulets, so I suggest we don't decide upon changing any ruleset settings for now.  However, I think moving the end turn to 250 could make sense.

If participants at turn 170 have a concensus that the game indeed will be a stalemate, THEN perhaps we can discuss tweaking the rulesets.  Hopefully geoengineers, nukes and railroad will speed up the game considerably at that time ;-).

#4 Re: LT31 » Japan got in civil war and split up » 2013-02-26 22:14:12

Sure, you can have your alpines.  Just wait until your country get's split up in half by a civil war, at that point in time they get added JUST IN TIME to get assigned to the AI that has spawned from what remains of your empire... Good luck taking back what was once yours as alpines guard it!

(Oh... you wanted to just to get some alpines to have under your OWN command... oh dear, they are indeed generous, but not THAT generous, in LT31)

#5 Re: LT31 » small corrections in ruleset » 2012-12-28 22:11:43

I cannot directly confirm this but rumors state that yes, trying to give money to someone results in the giver to lose the money but the reciever to never recieve anything.  IIRC, this was intended in the ruleset design, and I have not investigated if the helpfiles and/or ruleset code actually mentions it.

As far as I'm concerned, normal monetary transactions seem to be disabled in LT31.  Then is someone figures out a way to transmit money between cooperating countries, well, then I would sort that under the "getting an advantage by being clever" umbrella and not regard it as a problem if anyone uses it but rather as wizardry in the realms of dark freeciv knowledge.

#6 Re: other » New Tileset: NATOPunk! » 2012-12-28 00:13:07

NATOPunk now have an homepage!  A rudimentary one, but still: https://www.illvilja.se/foswiki/Main/NATOPunk

Don't worry about the complaint about the insecure SSL certificate for now, just tell your browser to proceed to the site.  One of those days I will get a properly signed SSL certificate installed.

#7 Re: LT31 » small corrections in ruleset » 2012-12-06 21:45:39

Players have now seen each other, so now is the time to deep freeze the rules!  Deep freeze with liquid nitrogen! :-)

#8 Re: LT31 » Changes » 2012-11-24 11:22:45

Noticed while browsing the unit help pages there are some changes to what units can do, and what they can't.  That's fine, but I found one couple of things unclear from the help pages alone, even if reading this thread clarified one of them for me.

Most notably: Helicopters are claimed to be able to carry what's called "infantry".  Exactly what is infantry in this context, all the units I 'assume' are infantry or is there a more formalized unit class that can be used to determine that a unit is transportable by helicopter?  If there is such a class (like the unit belonging to the "Land Unit" class) then I think the helicopter help text should refer to that specific classes instead of referring to it as "infantry".

My guess (I have not had time to download the rules files, I've only browsed this thread + read the ingame unit help files) is that any unit belonging to the "Land unit" class can be transported by helicopter.  Is that guess correct? Or is it just all the units that are capable of capturing empty cities that can be heli-transported (but perhaps "being able to capture empty city" == "Land unit" class :-) )

Suggestion, as rulesets are not set in stone (yet): Maybe let small land units be transported by helicopter as well?  Could be useful to sneak in spies into enemy territory...  Submarines should also be able to transport small land units in this way, in order to get spies onto enemy turf. OTOH, this would allow migrants to be transported by submarine + helicopter as well which could be, um, strange.

Another unclear thing that I finally think I managed to figure out: it is merchant units and migrants ONLY that can be captured, right?  And every unit with the ability to "capture some other units" has the ability to capture them, right?

(It could have been interesting to allow enemy sea and air units to be captured along with a city if enemy infantry manage to capture the city, making them belong to the side that took the city, like in good old Xconq anno 1988)

#9 Re: other » New Tileset: NATOPunk! » 2012-11-24 07:20:42

Ok, first 'bad-enough-to-give-me-an-urge-to-try-to-fix-it-at-first-opportunity' bug has appeared when using it in a longturn game.

Migrants have a 'worker' symbol!  That's not OK!  They should at least have the same symbol as settlers (or more preferable) have a symbol of their own (settlerlike but still distinguishable)

Edit: Also saw that shallow sea and deep ocean tiles are far too similar in appearance... Another thing I'm a bit urged to fix.

#10 other » New Tileset: NATOPunk! » 2012-11-23 13:09:07

Replies: 2

Wargaming have an old tradition to use so called NATO symbols.  So far, no freeciv tileset with such symbols have been found by me.

So, without further ado...



http://illvilja.se/Downloads/Freeciv/ti … nshot1.png
http://illvilja.se/Downloads/Freeciv/ti … nshot2.png

The actual tileset:

http://illvilja.se/Downloads/Freeciv/ti … ealpha.zip

Worth noting, this is work in progress, even if most of the work happened this summer and it has been essentially halted since then due to IRL obligations.


I'll babble more about why I like these kinds of symbols and how on earth this tileset ended up being like it is in future posts in this thread, but for now, I only have time with this single post.

Best regards


#11 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-11-04 21:32:49

Noticed that with tilesperplayer set to 900 the map seem interesting when it comes to using triremes, as those only may travel on shallow waters.  As far I can tell from the screenshot, the map might turn into a veritable maze for such vessels (and not necessarily a maze where you can find your way to certain destination).

Most likely, this will mostly put pressure on players to get caravels researched and built to break dependency of that 'maze of the sea', but if you akfaew have the time and find it interesting to try it out, you could see what happens with tilesperplayer set to 800 or 850, would triremes access to the world be dramatically improved?  My thought is that we might get a 'non-shitty' island map which still provides quite good access for triremes for traveling between islands.

But a again, this is more a curious reflection regarding the last screenshot.  All in all, the map seem very promising and I'm looking forward to participate.

#12 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-11-04 18:23:10

Maps look wonderful!  Am I right that every player gets their own private island? (The screenshot looks like it)

I don't mind sharing my island with 1 or 2 active players (regardless if those players ally with me or if they wage against with me) as proposed earlier in this thread, only issue is if I end up being the only active player on my island, with one or two idlers to R.I.P at my convenience and with a huge island to expand my economy on undisturbed.  THAT would be a bit wrong...

Requirement to get a working navy before any diplomacy can take place is awesome, as it not only gives some breathing room for players at the start but also rewards wise use of that breathing room so one is prepared for dealing with other islands, be it being a warmonger dead set on expanding overseas or being a diplomacy party-animal trying to ally every reachable island in the neighborhood.

(Navies will matter... YES!)


#13 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-10-31 12:21:55

One thing in LT that contributes to increase the advantage of double TC moves is the fact that virtually all units seem to have their movement allowance tripled in comparision to 'vanilla' freeciv.  If movement capacity was tuned down to the 'vanilla' settings, units can do less, even when considering double TC moves, and thus double TC becomes less of an issue.

Having vague and unclear rules of what's allowed is dangerous because not so often the thin border between what's considered all ok and what's considered absolutely unacceptable have the VERY strange property of MOVING depending on whether or not the player would benefit from or is being hurt of the RTS-ness of a given situation.  I'm still having the position that rules either should be clear or should be removed entirely.  Otherwise the rules and the admins trying to enforce the rules becomes yet another tool for domination (and I assume the admins themselves would prefer NOT be part of such a tool...).

Having a system where the community concensus and a community vote is used to determine if someone 'is a dick' seem very dangerous to me.  How do we prevent that system from becoming YET another domination tool where some players gets a position that allows them to violate the rules from time to time while other players are forced to stick strictly to the rules (or even innocently gets punished for rule-breaking even if they respected the rules 100%).

For the record, I'm not arguing against restrictive rules because I'll violate those rules if they are not removed, but because I'm considering the aggressive tone associated with (sometimes incorrectly assumed) violations against those rules to be far more harmful the game than the "problems" the rules tries to address.  Or to put it in another way: the aggressive tone I'm referring to is the primary reason I don't 'market' longturn to other people except for very few of my closest friends and my family.  Seriously, the aggressive tone used sometimes is a HUGE barrier to introducing the game to others.

Heck, I can already now tell you all that I'll respect the rules when interacting with others but when others play against me, I won't notice they gain an advantage against me due to them breaking rules and thus I won't report it or yell about it in chat/forum whatever (exception is hijacking accounts, that's plain unacceptable and if I observe THAT I'll report it at once and be VERY obnoxious about it in all channels available...).  To put it in other words, if someone does RTS intervention against me when I attack him I'll just regard it as a player interacting with me (those inter-player-interaction things happen in online games, I've been told... wink ) and I'll probably just send him a "Oh you are online, howdy!" in the inline chat and then we continue the RTS warfare.

And again, as said, I won't do RTS intervention against others attacking me if rules are writteng that forbids it.  Of course, this will put me at a tactical disadvantage, that I allow others to do against me things I won't do agains them but I'll rather do that than contribute to the too hostile tone used in discussions.

Elrik, I really doubt someone online 24/7 makes our skills irrelevant when we try to defend ourselves against them, I sincerely do.  Interesting point regarding having the sound off, I'm always play with no sound when playing Freeciv, Longturn is no exception.  I intend to keep doing that, no matter whatever disadvantage that gives me....

#14 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-10-26 22:26:15

elrik wrote:

With random mix of order que is one big problem... - imagine attack 4 catas followed with 3 def units to cover that. Now mix it and take a look at results:D

Everyone suffers from this problem, that defending units and attacking units won't be guaranteed to act in a coordinated way.  Only way to cope reliably with this is to outnumber your opponent so chances increases that the right kind of units that you have gets their commands executed.  That is, in the example above, double the catas and def units: that would increase the chance that at least SOME catas and def units reach the destination before enemies executes attacks against it.

But yes, it would be HARD to control what happens in detail.  Only way to cope is to get the economy to produce units that outnumber the enemy and tilt the odds to your advantage in the long run.

elrik wrote:

Maybe we can mix only player in que? one turn you have luck and are first, another turn the last.

Possible way to do it, only catch is that the player that get's the ability to move first with ALL his commands will get an almost insane advantage.   Maybe a better way to do it is to keep the sequence of every players orders intact (so your 4 catas really GETS moved before the 3 def units that cover it) but randomize the way different player commands gets interleaved with each other (some enemy moves might happen before even the first cata moves as well as between each of the remaining 6 units of yours).  Of course, moves between allies probably have to be randomly interleaved as well, it would be impossible I think to ensure that a bunch of cooperating players gets their orders entered in a certain sequence and also, it goes against the anti-RTS idea.

Personally, I'm inclined to implement a fully randomized (not even maintain the relative sequence of your own orders) variant of this, if for nothing else it is 1.) easier to implement and 2.) easier to grasp for the players.

#15 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-10-26 10:38:14

elrik wrote:

Heh... I can't even remeber when You tell about such modification for the first time Maho:) Maybe this time it can really happen. I think it is a GREAT idea:) But i am affraid that this simple change can be too big to cope for some players:) I really we will at least try a test game like that. That brings so many tactical possibilities:) The only weak in some ways point is FIFO que on the server. Sometimes setting orders just after TC can decide about everything

Well, the FIFO queue of pending orders can be addressed like this: before the orders are executed, randomly rearrange their sequence.  That way you don't know if it is YOU or your OPPONENT who manage to move a settler to that juicy city spot B first, no matter when or in what sequence you two enter your orders for that move :-).

Of course, in that situation, the player hitting 'B' first will still be the first to build a city regardless of where his settler has ended up (and assuming those two settlers end up in tiles next to each other, building that city effectively prevents the other player to build a city at HIS settler's location), so all RTS-ish artifacts of the game won't go away.  (But hopefully, enough of them will so the advantage gained by RTS-ish and TC-focused play is small enough for safely eliminating all informal rules intended to reduce RTS-ish play and play around TC.)

So, no matter in what order you provide your move+attack commands, you don't know in what order they will be applied, and you don't know how many enemy commands they will be interleaved with.

Ofc, this might prove challenging regarding multiple-action units like howitzers on railroad who have enough movement points for attacking multiple times in a turn or for fighters who need to both attack as well as return to base in the same turn, but this can either a.) be solved by providing a way to specify multiple commands in sequence for a unit or b.) accept the tricky situation as it will be fair in the sense it's equally tricky for all players.  Sure, fighters will be rendered useless (unless theres a rule change allowing them to stay up during 1 TC like bombers) but that's artifacts to be pondered as the game is further developed.

Another interesting thing to ponder: how do we treat the paradrop command?  Will that be a delayed command which happen in a random order or will it be an RTS-ish command?  Not to mention NUKES and their (potentially accidental while en route to target) detonation!

Not to mention how tricky it will be to pursuit an enemy unit who's trying to escape (or land aircraft on a carrier which is moving... you better keep that carrier static ;-) ).

Of course this scheme has places where it may be 'exploited' or 'abused' or would 'not work' but when it comes to those three phrases, just do a search and replace like this: replace 'exploit' and 'abuse' with 'use that hurts me because it is different from my personal preferences and I insist on sticking to my personal preferences' and replace "don't work" with "works in a way I did not bother or manage to anticpate and which hurts me because someone else was innovative enough to figure out that way".  (Actually, I find that substitution scheme useful quite often elsewhere when discussing game designs... ;-) )

Questions, questions, questions.... and hypothesises, hypothesises and hypothesises...

So many things to play around with... and SO many nasty PITFALLS!  Can it get any better?

Time for some serious experimentation!!

(And ooh, how badly would not this change to the game defeat schemes like using en-masse  scripted attacks...? Just asking...)

#16 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-10-24 18:03:06

maho wrote:

Not really. The only change should be: at beginning of every turn (but after automatic/scheduled moves), iterate through units and set remaining movepoints to 0.

so simple.

...but IMPRESSIVELY effective vs logging/RTSing/TC-gaming given the small change in the server.

I can think of a host of, well, let's call it CHALLENGES that the players have to cope with when this server modification is in effect (e.g getting units to coordinate their behavior, especially when belonging to multiple players, moving into unknown territory with ships or not to mention managing FIGHTERS), but still... it would make a LOT of issues simply GO AWAY!

And all the problems that happens to surface due to this modification will affect all players alike, so the modification would in that sense be fair!

YES, I'm quite enthusiastic about this suggestion!  Definitive one I'll look into implementing on a freeciv server!

maho wrote:

BTW: what is PBM?

PBM = "Play By Mail".  Sometimes called PBeM = "Play by Email".

In essence, in these days it's more by "Play by Web" or some call it just turn-based play.  Main concept is that a report or "Current situation" is provided to all players which in practice means that the world is totally static, NOTHING changes in it while the players analyze the situation, contact each other for diplomacy etc and craft up their orders.  Then, at the update (TC that is), the PBM server will take all player orders that has been submitted (usually there is a deadline for submitting the order before the update takes place) and processes them, running an update of the world (stuff moves, is produced, combat takes place etc etc) and during that update the players are COMPLETELY locked out, they cannot interact with the update.  Once finished, the world have progressed to the next turn, and a new set of reports are provided to players.  A long time dream (or rather fantasy) of mine has been to create a freeciv-ish/empire-ish/xconq-ish PBM game with infantry, cities, submarines, nukes and the lot......

With your fix, the movement stuff would be very PBMish, whilst diplomacy, city management, research management is more RTS-ish.

And there will be no need for the exercise of identifying and kicking/banning RTSers, because from a movement+combat perspective, there won't be any around!

maho wrote:
IllvilJa wrote:

Regarding declaring people who move after 'Turn Done' is pressed being RTS-ers I have a better solution: simply block ALL orders from a player who has pressed 'Turn Done' until TC!

Then nobody will press TC, like now.

Marduk's suggestion was to have an informal rule that required players to press TC once they had done their moves or else risk being identified as RTSers and potentially banned.

(ifaesfu and Modeemirotta, I saw your two last posts.  Got sorta kinda a reply ready in my head but don't have time to write it... Real Life (TM) demands attention for now...)

#17 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-10-24 13:30:31

Maho, your suggestion of letting players just submit orders and not have anything actually happen ingame until TC would turn freeciv into a PBM which indeed eliminates all RTS issues.  It would probably require quite some coding, UI design and server design work to make even a rudimentary implementation of that a reality, and then the result would be a PBM with a TON of wrinkles and odd game mechanic artifacts to iron out, enough to drive players crazy many times over!  But still, I think it is the best long term solution and it would be worth looking into how to redesign the Longturn/freeciv ruleset to make such a PBM-ified game as painless as possible to implement. (E.g perhaps reduce down the speed of units to the settings of vanilla freeciv etc)

Until then, longturn freeciv IS an RTS, game mechanics-wise.

Marduk, as I see it, with this many players (LT30 was ca 70 starting players IIRC) the best solution is to enforce rules by code mechanics in the server code if possible and if not possible to enforce/implement in server code, SERIOUSLY consider dropping the rule in it's entirety.  The best for everyone involved is to LOWER the number of rule violations in the game, and that NOT ONLY by asking people to follow the rules, but also by making it impossible to violate them. An automated rule implemented in the server CANNOT be violated.  A rule eliminated cannot be violated NEITHER.

(Yes, players might work around rules implemented in the server but then the work around comes with a cost for the player which most likely makes the work around acceptable as part of the game...)

We already have the ability to hardcode, in the server, a max online time for players.  Automatically enforced by a machine, without the need for bothering any admins.  Just communicate to the players the max online time as a technical property of the server, comparable to server IP adress.

Regarding declaring people who move after 'Turn Done' is pressed being RTS-ers I have a better solution: simply block ALL orders from a player who has pressed 'Turn Done' until TC!  That way the wanted effect is achieved, without the need for calling out someone as a rule breaker (simply, again, because the rule CANNOT be broken).

One situation I would hate to see happen (and I think it happens quite easily) with soft rules like the suggested "RTS should not be allowed" is something like this: Player A is perfectly well obeying all the rules but with a combination of wisdom, intelligence, skill and/or luck, he manage to win some contest vs player B (say, manage to steal some tech, defeat some of B's units, capture a city belonging to B, prevent B from taking a city or put player B's dog on fire etc) but player B does due to not paying enough attention to relevant details in the situation, being unskilled, missing knowledge regarding a critical game mechanic and/or some other reason not understand that player A can be that successful without violating the rules.  As a consequence, player B decides (incorrectly) that player A is a rule-breaker (or to put it in another way, player B starts to 'see a ghost') and then calls out/reports that A has broken the rules and we have the following problem:

1.) Player A is innocently accused for something he has not done.
2.) Player B think he is at a disadvantage due to another player breaking the rules.

To be honest, I fail to see how the above situation is beneficial for the game.  It hurts the atmosphere and tone for everyone and it puts MORE load on the admins no matter how the admins deal with it.

(Then we have the situation when someone in player B's situation thinks once more, realizes that he actually MAY be seeing a ghost and decides to not report what after all may be an honest, albeit prolific, opponent, but that situation isn't really a headache for the rest of the players or the admins)

Not to mention the phenomenon seen in many online games, when someone cries 'you cannot be that successful against such a skilled player like me without CHEATING' when stuff goes awry for him.  Soft rules like these gives room for a lot of that kind of 'psychological warfare' which I think is one of the biggest issues with Longturn.

Having rules to the max implemented in running server code and as little as possible in informal written rules means there is less rewarding to 'play the community' and 'play the admins' and more rewarding to focus on 'playing the GAME' which is all we want.

Rant over.

PS. For the record, I have a very permissive attitude vs what other players do against me in the game and I do NOT actively look for any violations of the informal rules, no matter how successful enemies are against me or my allies.  I intend to keep that attitude even in LT31.  The only thing I found really obviously unacceptable and which I simply cannot find a place for in the LT games was hacking players accounts and thrashing them. But again, action was taken against that player in LT30.  Regarding everything else like RTS play, autoattacking clients, being online all day watching my country and what not, you can most safely use those tactics/tools/techniques vs Sweden because I won't notice you break the rules, I'm constantly focused on other aspects of the game and intend to remain so.  Of course, I have this permissive attitude while myself sticking to the rules in LT31 and if that puts me at a strategic disadvantage, so be it!  Rather that than spending time accusing and complaining (or being accused myself).

#18 Re: LT31 » LT31 will start soon » 2012-10-22 14:40:20

Ah, we will have LT31 running! As there's some issues getting the 'please confirm your participation' mails to their intended recipients, I encourage everyone to use their 'jungle telegraph' to communicate to their buddies the game is coming.  I'll take care of my buddies and I assume, for instance, that someone will notify the guys at freeciv.fi that LT31 is en route!  Etc, etc...

Given the discussions to reduce the number of winners allowed or reducing cooperation: as soon as two players are allowed to play in the same game, they do have the option to decide to cooperate and if they decide to, they are most likely going to get an advantage out of it, no matter how many obstacles for formal cooperations you throw at it in the ruleset.  Disabling creating formal alliances for example won't prevent two players from cooperating for reasons given earlier in the thread.  They will find ways to transfer tech anyway and they will benefit from having a non-aggression behavior against each other's troops/cities, e.g not needing to have defensive troops beetwen themselves but instead they can use those forces against others.  Etc etc.

Another point, many players (like me) don't care about victory/loss in the sense we need to eliminate others who want to claim themselves victorious.  I personally don't care about ranking and would not adapt my playing style in anyway to adjust the points I get.  Actually, no matter how well Sweden does in LT31, I can tell already that I won't claim victory.  Which of course don't need I'll let everyone run me over but neither that I will refuse to cooperate with everyone.

ifaesfu wrote:

I think with this sentence "I'll now be kicking and temporarily banning players who stay logged in all the time", we'll have problems too. What is all the time? only 23 hours? There is no problem with staying logged 22, 16 or 9?

Personally, I found the rest of that sentence quite a lot more interesting, namely the one I emphasize in the quote below:

"I'll now be kicking and temporarily banning players who stay logged in all the time or who otherwise cause grievance."

Does not essentially all activities (or lack there of) in LT fall under the "otherwise cause grievance" category?  Given how much people complain about what others do in the game, it seem impossible to not be a candidate for a temporary ban.  Just an observation.

#19 Re: LT30 » And the winner is.... » 2012-05-27 15:37:17

Jhh got on the list because he is still alive and we survivors agreed to have him among the winners.

Hope the explanation was clear enough.

Best regards


#20 Re: LT30 » And the winner is.... » 2012-05-26 18:12:32

The proposed list of winners is fine for me.

Monamipierrot, my assumption is that our score is decreased as we are not formal winners.  Personally, I don't have any problem with that, as I really don't care about ranking. I have fullfilled those success criterias I setup for myself at the start of the game, but those success criterias are a bit different from 'increase my ranking at any cost' :-).

(And no, I won't disclose what those criterias are... ;-) )

#21 Re: LT30 » And the winner is.... » 2012-05-24 22:44:59

mrsynical wrote:
elrik wrote:

Hmm... As i saw in mailing list the 10th place is for me:) As the only member of NS there

U Serious?! Seems wrong somehow...

If anyone in Northern Alliance should be included among the winners, then that one is Elrik.  He provided tons of advice for the rest of us so we got at least SOME kind of economy limping along :-).  Also he managed to maintain the alliance's foreign affairs.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to claim any victory on my behalf but instead keep up with some fun sim-city activities until the game ends. (City building, terraforming and globalWarming/nuclearWinter-cleanup is a nice thing to do in LT...)

Best regards


#22 Re: LT30 » **Terror banned from Longturn** » 2012-05-13 07:04:04

adsynth (ruling Babylonia) is the only one who, by himself, has explicitly said to me he was hacked.  However, others have been reported to have been logged in to from the same address as being used when adsynth was hacked, among those I know LatroSurdus (North Korea) was one. LatroSurdus all units were disbanded, then adsynth's  units were used to take all LatroSurdus cities on the mainland. (I was not online ingame when these incidents happened, so I had no opportunity to write down neither targets of the attacks or the address used to attack from)

I've been very busy IRL so I have not had time to write this until now.

akfaew, det0r, Marduk: the situation is sensitive, so please be careful how you handle it and communicate about it.  I want to believe that you consider it as serious as the rest of us, that we have a person who has the potential and will to continue to take control over ingame players (in current and future games) and forum accounts in LT.  However, some communication some of you have provided gives an impression, hopefully unintentionally, that you are not that interested having this problem properly addressed.

Of course others can provide valuable information to assist you, but as jhh points out, there is reason to believe that you have plenty of information already to start identifying accounts that have been attacked.  For instance, in logs for access to the forum and LT30 (and perhaps the Ex game as well), investigate if there is any address on the internet used to connect to a large number of accounts.  If one such address stands out, all the accounts being logged on to recently from that address are potentially hacked, at least in my eyes.

There are a few sets of two-three accounts being accessed from similar/identical addresses (me, Sweden, and my son, Estonia accessing from our home is one example, Bluemoth, MrSynical and someone else working/studying in the same organizaion is another and... was it Szigy also having a son...?).  I want to point out that I'm not referring to any of THOSE accounts or addresses in my above paragraph  (Even if Bluemoth got hacked if I recall correctly, but obviously then from an address that will stand out as being one of the hostile ones (or the only hostile one, I don't know if attacks have used multiple or a single attack)).

Best regards


Edit: Pickyness against myself as I spotted a place I was unclear.

#23 Re: LT30 » Poll: Keeping_client_open_247 » 2012-05-06 22:25:13

monamipierrot wrote:

I withheld, just because I don't agree with this. I mean, we can't change a general rule IN-game, even if 99% of players agree. It is unfair for the last 1%.
But I agree that this "rule" should be abolished for next games.

Should the fact that LT30 is currently ongoing prevent a rule change that improves the rules for future games?  Feels like an opportunity for an improvement is lost solely due to a mere technicality.  If this vote pass, it should be reasonable that LT30 is excempt from the rule amendment suggested.  Administrators thoughts on this technicality would be much appreciated.

Formally, I have not yet voted (current matters IRL has required me to spend quite little time on longturn and/or associated forums/chat), but as Kryon and Marduk discusses, it is possible to implement server enforced limits on how long players are allowed to be online, and the limit can be set by the use of votes.  Also, this limit can be configured individually for the game servers (including the option, if players so desire, to configure that there is NO time limit).  This is worth keeping in mind if resources come available to allow for multiple non-experimental servers running in parallel.

Given that, I think it's safe to say the rule no longer need to be part of Longturn rules, as it will be automatically enforced to the extent necessary by each individual server.


Edit: I voted, but was disturbed by the fact the poll actually appeared to refer to the LT30 game. After consulting jhh who placed the poll, it turned out he was considering the appropriate place for the poll to be in 'General' but that there is a bug that prevents him to create a 'General' poll.  So, this poll is a general rule-change poll, not a poll aimed at changing the rules just for one specific game.

#24 Re: LT30 » Poll: Keeping_client_open_247 » 2012-05-05 20:04:59

ifaesfu wrote:
jhh wrote:

For example I am still waiting gold from my allies and cannot finish my turn until that comes.

I think you don't need to be online to receive gold. You can log in 5 minutes each time and see if you have received it or ask for it or whatever you want to.

Does not every login onto the server cause quite some strain on it, temporarily halting the game for *everyone* briefly at the moment one logs on?  Besides the ridiculously cumbersome process of logging off and logging on again after 5 minutes and wait for the entire game data to be transferred back to you, in a game this size, one exposes oneself for the risk of being accused of trying to carry out a DOS attack on the server :-/.  Sorry, but there is such a culture of accusing here at Longturn it is outright silly.

LT is aimed not only to people with just "15 minutes" per day to play, but also to people like me as well, who have the gaming time and interaction with others quite heavily fragmented into several small bits due to more important things (like having a job, taking responsibility for one's children etc) cutting it up. Having the client logged on is the only practical solution when one plays LT in that situation.  One set of moves takes care of one's workers/engineers at one moment, then goes down and change the laundry in the washing machine.  Then one takes care of the cities various productions and after that reads a bed time story for the small kids.  After that, moves the remaining units.  During this time, I glance to see if there is any diplomatic meetings I need to accept or open, depending on various things that happens with my allied nations.

If I keep the client up and logged on, I can, at the very instant I get a suitable moment, use it fully for the game, instead of waiting for the client to login and initialize every time.

Also, I cannot really take the argument seriously that it becomes 'impossible' to attack someone if you cannot figure out if he's online or offline.  I consider it part of the game that my target might or might not know what I do.  That uncertainity caused me some 'problems' when I fought a bit against MrSynical, but hey, it is the kind of problems I *EXPECT* as part of the game.

Actually, it's MORE fun to if he's online, because then it's more of a challenge (will I investigate his city quickly enough? Can I bring down his defence before he reinforces? etc...).  Also, one can chat with each other (makes game less boring!).

With the risk of being offensive... requiring that people are offline and don't interfere with each others moves in a game that essentially is an RTS (and freeciv as we use it for longturn IS an RTS as it is fundamentally architectured) feels as natural that a man and a woman are required to have sex with each other only when one of them is asleep. (Yes, I'm serious).

Well, maybe it's me coming from an empire background... a game where the concept of 'my turn, your turn' was absolutely absent.  There it was the RULE that players acted in real time on each other's moves... (and being a game played using a CLI, many players used scripted CLI attacks being raw text piped into the client before and after 'update' (empire word for TC), with expected or unexpected results).

In empire, you were declared 'fodder' if you were not reacting during an invasion attempt :-).  Here, you are accused for bad sportmanship :-/.

Best regards


#25 Re: LT30 » Game server hacked » 2012-05-03 09:52:21

Worth pointing out is that if a person breaks into someone's account here on Longturn.org he cannot just run the victim's country in the game but also write posts in the victim's name on this forum.

Which makes this account compromising situation much more serious than just breaking player's positions in a game.  There are concerns regarding who's the real author of Monamipierrot's post #14 in this thread: http://forum.longturn.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1101


Board footer

Powered by FluxBB