We need to fix the site rules

[det0r]

I am posting this here because it is relevant to all LT games, not just LT32.

Anyway, we need to fix the website/community rules because people are breaking the pre-defined (and democractically approved) rules without impunity.

I have a feeling that people are reading the 'specific instance of the rule' and trying to think of ways around the rule. This is a stupid approach for a variety of reasons, first and foremost: the vast majority of people who play LT speak English as a second language and as a result their rules are sometimes 'poorly defined'. The purpose of the rules on the other hand, is very clear, and not open to interpretation, but people are actively trying to bend the rules (i.e. cheat). In many cases, these rules have been introduced because of issues in previous games, but new players in particular seem to be unaware of this, so they are going back to their 'literal interpretation of the written rule'.

Some examples:

1) The alliance-size limit in LT31.
A rule was introduced to limit the maximum winning alliance size in LT31 because previous games had been ruined by large alliances. People took the wording of the rule and twisted it to the point where they could find a loophole - not all of their alliance members wanted to claim victory. To me, the purpose of this rule is very clear, any alliance which wants to claim victory should be no longer than the pre-defined limit.

2) The time limit in LT31.
A rule was introduced to limit the length of the game in LT31. Beforehand, 180 turns (roughly 6 months) seemed like plenty of time for the game, and we needed a turn limit to stop the game dragging on. The way Kryon wrote this rule was poorly worded, and as a result, people tried to twist it's form - e.g. "it should only end if there are less than the alliance size claiming victory", rather than thinking about the actual purpose of the rule (a game which goes for 6 months becomes a major time drain on remaining players).


So, we need to re-write the rules so the purpose of each rule is stated. I think any people who "bend" the rules should have to forfeit that game, otherwise we will simply enter a downward spiral where people ignore any rules that do not suit them. I am already very tempted to form an across-team alliance in LT32, and then the top players from associated teams can claim victory, because there is no rule which *explicitly prevents this*, and given the behavior of other players in LT31, I cannot exclude the possibility that my opponents will not resort to such underhanded and unfair tactics.

[Archont]

So, we need to re-write the rules so the purpose of each rule is stated.

A lawyer or at least law student would be a great help.

I think any people who "bend" the rules should have to forfeit that game

I do not know, who you are talking about, but - since we are people from all the world's time zones - it may be a cultural thing. For example, I do not have to "bend" the rules (jeez, quotation marks?) - I can simply kombinować.

otherwise we will simply enter a downward spiral where people ignore any rules that do not suit them.

Yes, if there is a law, but no enforcer, or corrupted enforcer... well, your efforts have one weak point: we are all involved. We all play the game, we are all players. Thus we will not find any enforcer, who would not be corrupted from the beginning.

I am already very tempted to form an across-team alliance in LT32, and then the top players from associated teams can claim victory

Oh, so that is the custom here! Well, I Kill You Last Alliance means cooperation to the point where only participants of that kind of agreement (usually two) remain on board. From that moment a total war of attrition is waged, until only one participant remains.

because there is no rule which *explicitly prevents this*, and given the behavior of other players in LT31, I cannot exclude the possibility that my opponents will not resort to such underhanded and unfair tactics.

What's so unfair in that, if only part of players care for ranking and others sprinkle it with warm parabolic one? And the latter attitude can not be avoided as long as FreeCiv is an entertainment product, made to provide players with fun and pleasure. Because in the end they are the only things that matter. The fact that some old foxes built an overlay game on top of it and maybe even consider it more important than FreeCiv itself does not mean much in my nooby eyes.

[det0r]

OK, well people seem to like the possibility to form large alliances, so perhaps we need to define game types where such interactions are allowed (but people all know this before hand). How about something like this.

Declaring victors
There can be a variety of outcomes for players in Longturn games, depending on the game type. If a time limit is in place, the game will be halted at the pre-determined number of turns. If no time-limit is in place, surviving players can vote to end the game but at least 80% of players must agree to this on the forums.

There are three possible outcomes for different players across all game types and a fourth outcome in Open Alliance games:
- Victorious: your nation (and/or your allies) have killed all opponents during the course of the game, and unless playing an Open alliance game (where people can concede), less than the pre-determined number of victors are alive
- Defeated: your nation is destroyed during the course of the game
- Tie: your nation is still alive at the end of the game, but more than the pre-determined number of players have claimed victory


Standard Victory Conditions:

Team Game
- Teams are formed before the game begins
- Diplomacy is completely disabled between teams, and fully enabled within teams

FFA Game (Lone Wolf)
- Only a single player can claim victory
- Diplomacy is completely disabled between all players

FFA Game (Limited Alliances)
- Victory is reached when only the "pre-determined number of victors" are left alive
- Limited levels of diplomacy may be allowed between players (specific settings will vary between games; default - no tech/city/gold trading)

FFA Game (Open Alliances)
- Victory is reached when only the "pre-determined number of victors" are left alive, however, vassal states are allowed
- High levels of diplomacy allowed between players (specific settings will vary between games; default - full diplomacy enabled [tech/city/gold trading])
- Vassal State: you have conceded to a stronger player and can no longer claim victory, but you may be left alive by the stronger player. Players must create a post of their concession on the forum or they will be awarded a "loss" at the end of the game.

[det0r]

Most people here will know of book mmm2, he used to play Longturn many years ago (and I think he even developed the first LT ranking system?).

The problem with 'coding these features', is that nobody has the skills, or nobody can be fucked. I spend 8 hours a day programming at work, and the last thing I want to do in my spare time is code up LT features that may not even get used (plus I code in MATLAB and other mathematical languages, not C/C++). We used to have a player called terror who was probably the most active LT code developer I've seen in my 5+ years of longturn, but he got banned for hacking other peoples accounts (after he got pissed off about massive alliances forming against him in every game), so we lost a good player and an active developer.

It should also be noted that creating in-game code may not necessarily fix some problems. People can still work together even if they are not officially allied in-game (share screen shots instead of shared vision, attack the same person etc).

[edrim]

It should also be noted that creating in-game code may not necessarily fix some problems. People can still work together even if they are not officially allied in-game (share screen shots instead of shared vision, attack the same person etc).

Thats why it should be gentelmans deal not to make so radicolous forms, but we cannot say it to all new members joining community every month, some of them will not get it real. In other words every man who joining to big pack of wolfes should not talk about honor in another parts of a game. Of course in future when everybody will know that it is a gentelmans deal about it. I am not talking about previous games.

This gentelmans deal should be like: do not enter to coalition that more member that limit of winning size +33% (we all know that something can happen in the end of a game, and alive player is only who has a city, not respawn explorer or worker).

It is same gentelmans deal about staying ingame for all time. Akfaew wax make a patch with it in LTeX but it was something wrong with it. So Try to stay online as long as it necessary for doing moves and thinking about strategy, not let your client working all time, we all know how it is ending when we breaking this deal:)

[Dimitril]

Keep crying det0r, if your alliance wanted, they could have make alliance with RAAR, Red Tide, The Church. Maybe even Edrim team.

You guys attacked everyone without thinking of the longterm concequences and ditched diplomacy. The art of growing a superpower without making too much enemies at the same time is a fine one, no kidding your alliance lost.

[edrim]

i will make some code to create a report to show alliance/shared vision when I have the time for it - this will greatly assist in showing transparently who is sharing vision with who and how big really the team sizes are.

Maybe you should make a poll before you will start coding, are you sure it will pass in future? I dont like this idea, because it will bring much more suspiccions to LT, this is not good too.
If you belive your alliy you give him share vision, if not you are not share vision at all.
Once it will be this obligation to show how many teams has one vision it will come feature exploit and big alliances will share it in groups or only for couple of hours a day.

[Dimitril]

What ever, I troll too much (it should be clear I didn't even read this post before writting my previous reply).

Let me rewrite that, I made enough contract to know this should be more solid like this.

Declaring victors
There can be a variety of outcomes for players in Longturn games, depending on the game type. If a time limit is in place, the game will be halted at the pre-determined number of turns. If no time-limit is in place, surviving players can vote to end the game but at least 80% of players must agree to this on the forums.

There are three possible outcomes for different players across all game types:
- Victorious: a nation or a team have fulfilled the standard victory condition of the game type. Or a clear victory condition set by a poll (voted FOR at 66% or more) is fulfilled.
- Defeated: a nation is destroyed during the course of the game, or surrendered.
- Tie: a nation is still alive at the end of the game, but no one fulfil the victory condition.

At any time, a player can make a post on the forum if he want to surrender. This player can keep playing, but will not be concidered alive.

Standard Victory Conditions:

Team Game
- Teams are formed before the game begins
- Diplomacy is completely disabled between teams, and fully enabled within teams
- Victory condition is fulfil for the last team alive.

FFA Game (Lone Wolf)
- Diplomacy is completely disabled between all players
- Victory condition is fulfil for the last player alive.

FFA Game (Alliances)
- Victory condition is fulfil for alive players when the number of alive player is equal or less than the number of winners agreed upon.
- Limited or unlimited levels of diplomacy may be allowed between players (specific settings will vary between games; default - no tech/city/gold trading)

[kevin551]

A team game can be won by only one team by either:

Military defeat of all other teams.
Winning the space race (if enabled).
Surrender - all other live players have surrendered.
Another condition, agreed upon before the game started.

This has been the rule for longturn team games for quite a while - Only 1 team can win. This is the rule that existed for LT32.
I like this rule.

But some people want to play with alliances and diplomacy between teams allowed. In the past this made no sense because if you want to play an alliance game then just choose to play an alliance game and avoid the team games. The difference now is that we have tested using a fixed map with chosen starting locations. It worked really well. Choosing starting locations would only work in a team game. So I accept that a new variant of team games is possible. A new rule would need to be written,

- Team Game with Alliances can be won by one team or an alliance formed by a number of teams no bigger than was agreed upon before the game started, by either:


It is not a game I would want to play, but that is fine I will choose other games. And I like the wording of the existing ruleset better than the new one discussed here.

[maho]

The difference now is that we have tested using a fixed map with chosen starting locations. It worked really well. Choosing starting locations would only work in a team game. So I accept that a new variant of team games is possible. A new rule would need to be written,

I don't understand - how choosing startpoint can be related to "who win" rule wording?

[kevin551]

I don't understand - how choosing startpoint can be related to "who win" rule wording?

Choosing starting locations would only work in a team game. Choosing starting locations creates a better strategy game than random locations. Therefore people who want to play a better strategy game must choose team games. But some of these players who like strategy games also like alliances and diplomacy. At present the 'win' condition for team games specifies only 1 team can win.

Standard Victory Conditions:

Team Game
- Teams are formed before the game begins
- Diplomacy is completely disabled between teams, and fully enabled within teams
- Victory condition is fulfil for the last team alive.

Non-Standard Victory Conditions:

Team Game
- Teams are formed before the game begins
- Diplomacy is completely enabled.
- Victory condition is fulfil for any combination of teams left alive.

The standard game is for those who liked LT32 as it was. A strategy game that only 1 team could win.
The non-standard game is for those who wanted LT32 to be more focussed on diplomacy and alliances. A strategy game that any combination of teams could win.

Maho I took your question literally and answered it. If your question is really about how start positions make for a more strategic game then please ask the question in another thread. That is a more important topic than this one. But this thread is about the rules.

[Joris]

Keep crying det0r, if your alliance wanted, they could have make alliance with RAAR, Red Tide, The Church. Maybe even Edrim team.

You guys attacked everyone without thinking of the longterm consequences and ditched diplomacy. The art of growing a superpower without making too much enemies at the same time is a fine one, no kidding your alliance lost.

Team det0r started right next to team edrim, who had some aggressive starting positions. Quite early we conquered 2 of their players who were separated from the rest. Now their may have been a NAP between our two teams, but I was not aware of this when I attacked. I played the entire game under the impression that diplomacy was disallowed between teams. Which is why I wasn't happy when I saw other teams cooperating, giving cities to each other.
Maybe next time there is a teamgame there should be some clarification on what agreements 2 teams can have, diplomacy seems weird in a game where there is only 1 winner.


As for the council idea, I really like that. More experienced players should definitely have a veto, and gameplay-specific votes should definitely be decided as in a republic, not a democracy. (Churchill's argument against democracy comes to mind.)
I played with both edrim and det0r in a team in my 2 games, and would place 100% trust in them for making the best decisions in my place (the LT newbie).

[mrsynical]

Now their may have been a NAP between our two teams, but I was not aware of this when I attacked.

Are you serious? Do you lie or did Det0r lie? haha!

I played the entire game under the impression that diplomacy was disallowed between teams. Which is why I wasn't happy when I saw other teams cooperating, giving cities to each other.
Maybe next time there is a teamgame there should be some clarification on what agreements 2 teams can have, diplomacy seems weird in a game where there is only 1 winner.

Diplomacy mechanisms (sharing gold/science) was disabled within the game. Anything else is acceptable ... except "cheating" and "hacking" (whatever that means). It is not possible to have a rule that says I choose not to attack a certain person for now.

[edrim]

Now their may have been a NAP between our two teams, but I was not aware of this when I attacked.

You make my day Joris, try to get some medicine for you brain or something like that.
You where talking about this betrayal in your ally chat, you didnt even listen your Leader not to do or do specific things. You have played your own game once it was a team game and every team has their Leader.
Check what did you do to your Leader reputation when he has agree in some things and you have broken those agreements. Yoiu didnt betrayal by your own but by your all teammates.
Backstabbing is somewhow criminal here (but not abandon in rules), everybody works on their reputation. If you are doing things like that nobody will agree with you in future except your partners in betrayals.