#26 2012-01-09 12:31:49

monamipierrot
Player
Posts: 171

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

Kryon wrote:

I suggest we don't put any limit to alliances in LT30 and see what happens and then try to come up with a solution for LT31 only if LT30 had some unfairly large alliances.

I agree with Kryon, expecially on this. Due to the great number of players, I think it will be difficoult to manage alliances big enough to effectively rule. The bigger the number of allies, the weaker the internal strength of the alliance. Let's see what happens. I personally bet that some UN-like organization will finally rule the Game, and with the Game, it will decide who is/are the winner(s) and why.
(I only hope it doesn't end with some banal "finnish LTers" vs. "longturn.org LTers").

Offline

#27 2012-01-09 13:01:15

Aloril
Player
Posts: 8

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

akfaew wrote:

Damn, how the hell did space race get enabled? That's not right.

It's clearly disabled in the settings:
set spacerace=0

It should be set spacerace=disabled
Same for all other settings that used to have 0/1 and now have disabled/enabled.

Offline

#28 2012-01-09 14:59:09

Steelski
Player
Posts: 17

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

monamipierrot wrote:
Kryon wrote:

I suggest we don't put any limit to alliances in LT30 and see what happens and then try to come up with a solution for LT31 only if LT30 had some unfairly large alliances.

I agree with Kryon, expecially on this. Due to the great number of players, I think it will be difficoult to manage alliances big enough to effectively rule. The bigger the number of allies, the weaker the internal strength of the alliance. Let's see what happens. I personally bet that some UN-like organization will finally rule the Game, and with the Game, it will decide who is/are the winner(s) and why.
(I only hope it doesn't end with some banal "finnish LTers" vs. "longturn.org LTers").

I don't think limiting alliance size is a good idea, but if the number of winners is not limited, there will be absolutely no reason (apart from roleplaying) 1) to not be 100% cooperative with your allies, 2) to betray any of your allies, or 3) to not join a big and powerful alliance. Each of these choices would only dramatically reduce one's chances of "winning". A larger alliance is always more powerful - assuming equally strong players - than a smaller one, if no one has any reason to break the alliance. They would have, if number of winners was limited. This is why, to make a more interesting game, I think number of winners should be limited to something like (number of players)/7 [<--edit]. Then again, I know nothing, this is my first multiplayer game.

Last edited by Steelski (2012-01-09 15:13:24)

Offline

#29 2012-01-09 15:30:25

monamipierrot
Player
Posts: 171

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

Steelski wrote:

I don't think limiting alliance size is a good idea, but if the number of winners is not limited, there will be absolutely no reason (apart from roleplaying) 1) to not be 100% cooperative with your allies, 2) to betray any of your allies, or 3) to not join a big and powerful alliance. Each of these choices would only dramatically reduce one's chances of "winning".

You would be true, depending on what does it mean "to win" for you. Of course is different winning as being one of 20 who "claim" victory than being the last survival after a epic world war against everyone else.
If one takes to the extreme your assumptions (and there's no reason not to do it), than there would no reason for 2 teams not to join and make a bigger team. There would be no reason not to join altogether and then just kicking out the smallest ones only keeping sure the alliance still controls some 60-70% of world power/land, and then declaring victory. This way the game could end by T50.
If "to win" and not "how" is the only thing that really does count in a game, than we'd better play some jigsaw puzzle 20x20 with some Disney character on it: you always win, and quite fast.
To be in the biggest team help a lot winning, but:
1. You may be not important for team victory
2. you may be in a boring part of the world, covered by your allies, and where anything happens
3. you may not find correct how team leaders split war spoils among smaller allies.
4. If the 3 above still don't affect you (and I would wonder why), think that you gain much less of those d****d final points because of alliance size.

Simply, it's not just a matter of "honourable" victory, but of FUNNY victory, or even just FUNNY gameplay. Maybe I have a different idea of what's funny than most LTers.
I don't like easy things. And I don't like jigsaw puzzles. [well, there are those 10,000 pieces ones but... oh, no, please!]

Offline

#30 2012-01-09 16:55:20

akfaew
Administrator
Posts: 622

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

Kryon wrote:

We can not easily enforce max alliance size unless a patch is written in freeciv code

I wrote it some time ago, I posted it somewhere on the old forum.

Though in reality the only thing we would be limiting here is unit movement...

Offline

#31 2012-01-09 17:01:09

Steelski
Player
Posts: 17

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

monamipierrot: My idea of fun is not too far from yours. In fact I would prefer to play rather individualistically and aggressively. But I don't want to be overpowered by a powerful alliance early on either, so I end up joining one.

In case someone hasn't noticed: there is no penalty for changing research target, which means the research speed of an alliance scales pretty much linearly relative to the number of members. This really does force everyone to join a powerful alliance if they want to survive until midgame, let alone have any chance to be in a winning team. This encourages a boring playing style, imho.

Offline

#32 2012-01-09 17:08:12

monamipierrot
Player
Posts: 171

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

Steelski wrote:

In case someone hasn't noticed: there is no penalty for changing research target, which means the research speed of an alliance scales pretty much linearly relative to the number of members.

I'm not sure to understand this one. Can you elaborate or making examples? Thanks.

Offline

#33 2012-01-09 17:23:08

Steelski
Player
Posts: 17

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

monamipierrot wrote:
Steelski wrote:

In case someone hasn't noticed: there is no penalty for changing research target, which means the research speed of an alliance scales pretty much linearly relative to the number of members.

I'm not sure to understand this one. Can you elaborate or making examples? Thanks.

Example: with current settings, if you have 55/56 of pottery researched, you can switch to any tech, for example warrior code and have it at 55/56, thus completing next turn. Let's assume 10 players who are researching whatever decide to start an alliance at the beginning of the game. After they get in contact with each other, they can switch their research targets so that everyone is researching different techs, without losing bulbs. So when embassies have been built, every member of the alliance has essentially researched at 10 times the speed, if they organize research well. (Note also that when you learn a tech you are resarching in some other way than through research, you can move the accumulated bulbs to the next target, so temporarily researching same techs doesn't slow down total research much if at all.)

Last edited by Steelski (2012-01-09 17:39:09)

Offline

#34 2012-01-09 18:26:18

akfaew
Administrator
Posts: 622

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

Steelski wrote:

This encourages a boring playing style, imho.

I agree. But this is our first big game, let's see and learn.

It's obvious players will try to become the best they can with the rules the server enforces. We must thus develop rules that promote war, otherwise we'll be playing sim city, as we do now in ltex. AFAIK there is only one war in ltex.

Steelski wrote:

with current settings, if you have 55/56 of pottery researched, you can switch to any tech, for example warrior code and have it at 55/56, thus completing next turn.

Well, another setting we missed. It was always set to punish changing techs. Too late to change it though, as it has already been used by some.

Offline

#35 2012-01-09 19:09:25

monamipierrot
Player
Posts: 171

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

akfaew wrote:
Steelski wrote:

with current settings, if you have 55/56 of pottery researched, you can switch to any tech, for example warrior code and have it at 55/56, thus completing next turn.

Well, another setting we missed. It was always set to punish changing techs. Too late to change it though, as it has already been used by some.

We still can do a poll, after all people can change everything till the poll passes.

Offline

#36 2012-01-10 21:35:17

KG
Player
Posts: 26

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

I would like that tech penalty to be turned on. And very much.

Offline

#37 2012-01-10 23:46:10

det0r
Player
Posts: 166

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

akfaew wrote:

AFAIK there is only one war in ltex.

Yes, but fortunately I'm playing LT30 too. There will be (and are already) wars there :>

Personally I think the max number of players should be set to around 6-10. This will mean each player on the winning team must have ~200 cities. Alternatively, we should have enabled tech loss at a low rate (~40% loss and 40% rec) to discourage very large alliances.

Offline

#38 2012-01-11 01:53:13

kevin551
Player
Posts: 360

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

I too am really bored of the Sim City game style we are playing in LTeX23. Sadly I think LT30 is bound to head the same way. I hope to be proved wrong.

Offline

#39 2012-01-11 19:47:36

Marduk
Administrator
From: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 151

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

Some players are asking for polls and changes of settings, but I think we have to limit this. There's a phase of voting before the game start, after game start we should only fix unintended settings.

Any setting that was entered as "0" but should have been entered as "disabled" should be corrected if possible (this seems true for space race). Settings that were entered correctly but weren't voted on we shouldn't change now, otherwise there would be uncertainty throughout the game of what rules we'll be using. 

I agree with everyone who wants conquest/competitive and peaceful/simulation game styles to co-exist so nobody is forced to play in a way he doesn't like. The ranking list is there for those players who find it interesting but it doesn't influence the game. Every LT game should have an ending (if only to free up server space for the next game) and naming some players as winners has so far worked well as a way to wrap up the game. Again, some players will aim for this goal and others wont be interested much in winning the game, that's no problem. With both winning through conquest and winning through score points (when an endturn has been voted for) enabled it's possible for both the conquerors and the sim-players (if they can defend themselves) to play in their own gamestyle from start to finish. It will be a very interesting experiment to see which style will prevail in the end.

Offline

#40 2012-01-11 19:58:13

monamipierrot
Player
Posts: 171

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

Marduk wrote:

Settings that were entered correctly but weren't voted on we shouldn't change now, otherwise there would be uncertainty throughout the game of what rules we'll be using.

Correct, but I would still allow some 1-week-poll to exist and pass only with unanimity (or better, no one vote aganist). This would ensure fairness.

Offline

#41 2012-01-11 20:15:50

Marduk
Administrator
From: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 151

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

monamipierrot wrote:
Marduk wrote:

Settings that were entered correctly but weren't voted on we shouldn't change now, otherwise there would be uncertainty throughout the game of what rules we'll be using.

Correct, but I would still allow some 1-week-poll to exist and pass only with unanimity (or better, no one vote aganist). This would ensure fairness.

After the game start every poll would have to be checked to make sure it doesn't unfairly affect any players (for example if they already started to use some rule and then the rule is canceled anyway during the game). That's complicated, we shouldn't turn it into a habit.

But rules are not holy, if there's some issue that we didn't think about and that's really ruining the game then it should be changed.

But is tech penalty such a serious issue? I understand the arguments but I think in practice it wouldn't make such a big difference. If a big alliance shares all its techs it also becomes very easy to steal them. And with tech penalty enabled most alliances would still benefit by having a dedicated researcher, so a lone-wolf would always be at a disadvantage in a game with diplomacy enabled.

Offline

#42 2012-01-11 20:36:30

munk
Player
Posts: 36

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

monamipierrot wrote:
Marduk wrote:

Settings that were entered correctly but weren't voted on we shouldn't change now, otherwise there would be uncertainty throughout the game of what rules we'll be using.

Correct, but I would still allow some 1-week-poll to exist and pass only with unanimity (or better, no one vote aganist). This would ensure fairness.

I think he means the in-game voting system. Someone voted to "aitoggle" your nation today (presumably as a test). Theoretically, something like this could allow people to arbitrarily change settings or kick other players out if they could scrounge up the votes.

Offline

#43 2012-01-11 21:45:42

Marduk
Administrator
From: Rotterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 151

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

munk wrote:
monamipierrot wrote:
Marduk wrote:

Settings that were entered correctly but weren't voted on we shouldn't change now, otherwise there would be uncertainty throughout the game of what rules we'll be using.

Correct, but I would still allow some 1-week-poll to exist and pass only with unanimity (or better, no one vote aganist). This would ensure fairness.

I think he means the in-game voting system. Someone voted to "aitoggle" your nation today (presumably as a test). Theoretically, something like this could allow people to arbitrarily change settings or kick other players out if they could scrounge up the votes.

Actually I mean any voting - in-game or through the website -  after the gamestart. The in-game voting system is something we'll simply have to disable altogether if possible, I think nobody realized this was still enabled.

Offline

#44 2012-01-12 15:11:27

Steelski
Player
Posts: 17

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

Tech penalty might not help, but maybe making stealing techs more likely to succeed or diplomats cheaper and/or research even more costly than 200? That would help lone wolves and small rogue alliances to keep up with large tech sharing cooperations.

Offline

#45 2012-01-12 15:41:11

akfaew
Administrator
Posts: 622

Re: Shared victory - max alliance size

Steelski wrote:

Tech penalty might not help, but maybe making stealing techs more likely to succeed or diplomats cheaper and/or research even more costly than 200? That would help lone wolves and small rogue alliances to keep up with large tech sharing cooperations.

The stealing tech tactic (which communist nations are designed to emply) works rather well with LT29 and before settings, hopefuly it will work fine now as well. Well, except that communism is now greatly punished, because of bigger cities and imbalanced wonders.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB