Longturn Forum

I said it before game and I say it now:
In my opinion it's plain wrong to combine tech sharing and leakage in a 2 team game.
Tech sharing basically converts it into a 2 player game and you wouldn't enable leakage there.
That might be different with more than 2 teams, with tech leakage being less strong, or if tech
sharing by diplo dialog would have 100% success chance.
Now a word about delegations. Some player from team red ( allegedly cgalik, but given the
fact the issue isn't raised publicly that looks like arkan ) complained about using delegations
for tech sharing, violating the "idlers delegation rule".
For the record, we didn't violate that rule, because all players delegated by wieder were done
after the player indeed was idle. All delegations we have now are voluntarily and of course can be
removed by the respective player.
What's more, I don't think it to be an abuse of delegation to use it to transfer techs from one
player to another. Switching forth and back is solely done for tech sharing, nothing else.
To do it that way removes a lot of unfairness that is connected with questions like that:
a) some players that play permanent for others and control therefor more than on nation can do it anyway.
b) some players that came in as an replacement can't delegate at all (at least I think so)
c) some players more easily can be online at same time than others
d) some players are online just 2min/turn or so.
e) the need of 3.3 diplo dialogs on average for success isn't there on purpose, it's just a shortcoming.
f) the other team obviously benefits from fast sharing by tech cost dramatically coming down.

I will continue to use delegation for sharing, I hope my team will, and team Red also should if it sees fit their plans. Folks, this is annoying enough, don't let us cripple ourselves more than necessary.

I have no problem with delegation manoeuvreing for this purpose. It is a way around what is basically a bu"soft bug". Furthermore, I actually have no problem with any kind of delegation in a team game. It's a team game, ok? There are people who like planning and doing the economy, there are people who are willing to sit at the screen the whole day. There are all types in both teams. So, join the strengths and cancel the weaknesses. Play a good game.

As for combining leakage and tech sharing, I am more and more convinced that it is a good thing. It forces people to coordinate and find convoluted ways of using the least bulbs for the best result. May the better coordinated team win!

In my opinion, tech leakage is not a bad idea, it force some interesting strategies, however 4 attempts to technology transfer, all failed, are rather annoying stuff.

Let's see if and when we can fix the tech transfer issue. I'm guessing that it will be fixed soon enough. Just can't say when. It was implemented like that because there was no other way to reduce the tech stealing probability enough with just ruleset settings.

Tech trading in LT44 is an alternative way to do pooled research and allows more strategies and more planning compared to standard pooled research. Also in the mid game and in the late game the players will need to work together for getting new techs. A tech costing 10 000 bulbs will take some time to research even with good cities. One player doing that and the others some other techs will give the best outcome. I didn't check it but the last tech apparently costs something between 50 000 - 100 000 bulbs (fusion).

@Fran, Thanks for the post. A lot in it.

I see what you mean on no tech leakage. Personally, I am for both tech sharing and tech leakage, even in 2 team game. It gives some more strategy as to who to give the tech to, as it reduces cost for other team. Otherwise just losing bulbs is (in my opinion not my team's opinion) not enough of a downside of tech sharing. Several people on my team agree with you I will note. So it could go either way I think.

Regarding delegations, I purposefully first chatted with Zoltan privately and did not go to a forum post as I did not want to right to a "forum war." And we are working through it just fine. Getting a new server binary with separate option for 100% tech trade will make things much better.

Taking control of more than 1 nation, or a nation that isn't idle is against the current rules. I will note that there were players control several other nations who were not idle in T7, who had logged in already even in T7. I will not go into details publicly but check the logs and I can point them out to you on Discord if you are having trouble seeing them.

But as Corbeau said above, and I say the same, while it's against the current rules we are ok with it for this purpose. To be clear, I clarified and Zoltan agreed that pieces should not be moved in this scenario. Just accepting the dialog from other side. New server code will be great not to have to trade multiple times and this will not be a problem and we can go back to the rules.

Corbeau, I caution against allowing any delegation. If you allow one player to play anyone then it becomes not a team game but a best most dedicated player vs other best most dedicated player. Delegations should remain per the rules for your nation and one other, unless approved by admin. Two teams games should be which team can play the best game, so involving as many people on your team as possible, not as little as possible. Two team games are great where people can share and learn new strategies, not have someone implement their strategy on their nation.

cgalik wrote:
Two team games are great where people can share and learn new strategies, not have someone implement their strategy on their nation.

It would be kind of a self-contradiction on the one hand to stage a team game,
and on the other hand to start from the premise the team members are not
acting in mutual trust and common volition.
Delegations are a means for the team to act as a team, and not for one over-ambitious
player to win over another one.
And delegations can be great for sharing and learning.
I'm pretty sure we agree on that.

Yeah. I for one wouldn't want someone else to rule my nation and make decisions. Only make moves that may be needed at that moment. Otherwise, there is no point in me playing.

Yes, someone could make an army of idlers, call in friends only for them to become idle, but that would soon be discovered and dealt with. Like Wieder said, common sense applies.

But this is an academic debate because current rules forbid this. We could do it in another subforum.

wieder wrote:Let's see if and when we can fix the tech transfer issue. I'm guessing that it will be fixed soon enough. Just can't say when. It was implemented like that because there was no other way to reduce the tech stealing probability enough with just ruleset settings.

Tech stealing is a part of the game, why to prohibit it?
If talking about tech transfer, seems that it is buggy, it refuse transfer 6 times a row, but usually switching sides/players of agreement, can make trade successful. Same random number generated for each attempt?