small corrections in ruleset

elrik · Post by **elrik** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:19 am

There were so many changes in this ruleset that we forgot some server settings:)

- trade min dist -> 999
- chance to lose tech when giving 0 -> 20-25%
- chance to lose tech when receaving 0 -> 70-65%
- penaulty when getting tech from trade 0 -> 100%
- penaulty when getting free tech 0 -> 0
- penaulty when getting tech from conquer 0 -> 0
- base diplo chance 50% -> 70%

did i miss something? If you noticed some setting which we forgot please write in this topic.

monamipierrot · Post by **monamipierrot** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:56 am

elrik wrote:- penaulty when getting tech from trade -> 100%
- penaulty when getting free tech -> 0
- penaulty when getting tech from conquer -> 50 or 100% - to prevent conquer trade

If I understand well, when I receive a tech by trading it, I will lose 100% of bulbs I currently developed (in whivhever tech, I guess). Is it right?

elrik · Post by **elrik** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:51 am

Currently it is 0% and it must be changed. We can discuss about values... The question is what is first...

Chance of loosing or penaulty;)

monamipierrot · Post by **monamipierrot** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:22 pm

why not disabling completely tech trading/stealing/conquering?

Archont · Post by **Archont** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:37 pm

It should be done. I don't know why you are so harsh about tech trading, but complete probability of successful trade 0.6*0.2 == 12% seems some absurd trap for novice players. Am I correct in thinking that you may lose your tech trying to trade it while your mate will not receive it at all?

monamipierrot · Post by **monamipierrot** » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:48 pm

Archont wrote:I don't know why you are so harsh about tech trading

I understand that tach trading (or whichever trick to achieve the actual result of trading and sharing techs) could spoil a LT game.
In any case, tech trading should be completely enabled or completely disabled.

Archont wrote:eems some absurd trap for novice players. Am I correct in thinking that you may lose your tech trying to trade it while your mate will not receive it at all?

Yep, actually it is the most likely of the 4 (Received/Kept, Rec/Lost, NotRec/Kept, NotRec/Lost). Like this it is a trap for newbies and makes no sense. So, next time, please, DISABLED, full stop. (And disable ANY mean of actually achieving it as well, such as looting tech or stealing tech).

elrik · Post by **elrik** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:20 am

Currently you can steal/trade/conquer without any restrictions which is REALLY bad and must be changed in some way

It looks like we have now 2 possibilities to solve that problem:

1. by adding loosing chance - each side or both can just loose tech during ANY kind of exchange. Works good and brings some interresting possibilities like stealing from good player to remove his tech;) it is really fun option

2. by adding penaulty for tech exchange. with 100% value kingdom can easily reach -x bulbs:) This option force us to specialise in some way. Sooner or later someone has to focus on science in exchange for support/defence. It looks interresting too.

Both versions have its advantages and disadvantages but... I think that the best solution is mixing it and addind what is best from both.

- chance to lose tech when giving -> 25% (or 20%)
- chance to lose tech when receaving -> 65% (or 70%)
together there is 90% chance of loosing, that means that av. tech lv in game can be lowered. It is possible to use it on purpose as a part of tactic.

- penaulty when getting tech from trade -> 100%
no question, no free trade, forces us to think about what we want to do with our country, how do we want to develop and what tech do we really need

- penaulty when getting free tech -> 0
i must check wonders but if those 2 works same there are only 3 free techs in game

- penaulty when getting tech from conquer -> 0
i think that loosing chance is enough to prevent conquering for trade.

why not disabling completely tech trading/stealing/conquering?

With this settings it is interresting part of strategy

It should be done. I don't know why you are so harsh about tech trading, but complete probability of successful trade 0.6*0.2 == 12% seems some absurd trap for novice players. Am I correct in thinking that you may lose your tech trying to trade it while your mate will not receive it at all?

with settings i wrote about it looks like that:

1. (only when stealing) check action success (50% - should be a bit more in my opinion)
2. check if source loses tech(25%)
3. check if target loses tech(65%)
4. if 3=true and action=trade add penaulty for target

steps 2-4 are repeated for each tech in trade agreement

chances are:
1,1 - 0,75*0,35 = 26,25%
1,0 - 0,75*0,65 = 48,75%
0,1 - 0,25*0,35 = 8,75%
0,0 - 0,25*0,65 = 16,25%

monamipierrot · Post by **monamipierrot** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:31 am

elrik wrote: 1. by adding loosing chance - each side or both can just loose tech during ANY kind of exchange. Works good and brings some interresting possibilities like stealing from good player to remove his tech;) it is really fun option

I agree that - this way - stealing could be trasformed in some sort of "cyberattack": you have chanches to steal or just to remove the tech of the enemy. But you'll agree it is a minor feature.
What I'm still puzzled about is those low losing chanches you want for trading. Now they are high: tech trading doesn't make sense unless you are in a life-or-death situation and have no choiches rather than try the lucky strike.
With the new values, overall, the benefit is >0, so you will still want to try trading. The only difference with good old free trading is that there's just a "bad luck" chance in the trading. I really don't understand why enable this random, unrealistic and strategically meaningless "bad luck" when at the same time everybody seems to hate barbarians, pirates, huts and other "spices" in the game that involve (bad)luck and Meier in his infinite wisdom created for Civ.
I liked the idea of free stealing/trading/conquering tech.
Now I also like the idea of forbidden trading (and stealing and conquering).
I just don't like half-way solutions which complicate things without deepening the game.
About losing bulbs, again, I don't know: it looks meaningless and frustrating (should I wait to develop this tech and stop bulbs production before trading/conquering/stealing? Quite weird, unrealistic, useless)
If the aim of all this is to discourage limitless trading of tech, the way to go is only one: tech upkeeping.
May I remind you that in these ruleset there's a new rule that states that having an embassy with a player speeds up research of
all techs that that player already have. Am I wrong?

In short: I would give a try to the total banning of tech trading. I can't give you more leaking spoilers here but I already thought of a couple of strategies which could led to HARD specialization inside alliances, a new kind of specialization which couldn't paradoxically be thinked of in a (half)free-tech-trading environment (which led to good old specialization between scientists, bankers and military/prod).
So my vote is: disable tech trading, full stop.

elrik · Post by **elrik** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:02 pm

monamipierrot wrote:I agree that - this way - stealing could be trasformed in some sort of "cyberattack": you have chanches to steal or just to remove the tech of the enemy. But you'll agree it is a minor feature.

It works very good in reality:) We`ve already tested that. Iam not sure if it is just a mino feature

monamipierrot wrote: What I'm still puzzled about is those low losing chanches you want for trading. Now they are high: tech trading doesn't make sense unless you are in a life-or-death situation and have no choiches rather than try the lucky strike.

Now there is NO loosing chances:) lose chance 0, penaulty 0.

monamipierrot wrote: With the new values, overall, the benefit is >0, so you will still want to try trading. The only difference with good old free trading is that there's just a "bad luck" chance in the trading.

Hmm... I don`t understand that part... With settings i wrote about you have 26% chance that both sides will get tech, target will have bulbs penalty worth by tech cost(you can reach bulbs amount lower than 0). In 58% only 1 side will keep it, in 16% tech is lost. You can try to give that tech for the second time, or maybe give it back to orginal source but... once more with loosing chances and penaulty. For me it seems to be completely different that bad old free trading:)

monamipierrot wrote: I liked the idea of free stealing/trading/conquering tech.

Its just bad:) Tech lv is equall, game is MUCH faster. There is no need in specialisation.

monamipierrot wrote: Now I also like the idea of forbidden trading (and stealing and conquering).
I just don't like half-way solutions which complicate things without deepening the game.

disabling diplomacy/its tech trade part solves nothing. You can trade tech anyway. Thats why Maho invent that techlos patch.

monamipierrot wrote: About losing bulbs, again, I don't know: it looks meaningless and frustrating (should I wait to develop this tech and stop bulbs production before trading/conquering/stealing? Quite weird, unrealistic, useless)

fun, and working too:) There is no need of spending too much time on that, its simple (current bulbs - tech cost from trade). You can get gunpowder faster, but then you will have to gain those bulbs anyway:) Its your choice, to be a fighter but with hmm... limited weapon range or maybe a scientist with limited but well equiped army:)

monamipierrot wrote: If the aim of all this is to discourage limitless trading of tech, the way to go is only one: tech upkeeping.
May I remind you that in these ruleset there's a new rule that states that having an embassy with a player speeds up research of
all techs that that player already have. Am I wrong?

It is possible, i am not sure if it is on. I can`t remember game in which we used that option.

monamipierrot wrote: In short: I would give a try to the total banning of tech trading. I can't give you more leaking spoilers here but I already thought of a couple of strategies which could led to HARD specialization inside alliances, a new kind of specialization which couldn't paradoxically be thinked of in a (half)free-tech-trading environment (which led to good old specialization between scientists, bankers and military/prod).
So my vote is: disable tech trading, full stop.

With total trade ban specialisation is useless:) You can`t share with in LEGALL way...

monamipierrot · Post by **monamipierrot** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:27 pm

elrik wrote: With total trade ban specialisation is useless:) You can`t share with in LEGALL way...

I would more than glad to prove the opposite in the game. If you join my alliance, I'll tell you how.

Lord_P · Post by **Lord_P** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:17 pm

Well yes, two "Allies" who are technically at war can agree to steal technology from eachother, with the side effect of hardening thier cities against future espionage...
To discourage this I think the chance of diplomats getting captured should be increased (So it becomes expensive as many diplomats are lost). A (small) chance of tech loss when stealing it also discourage theft-trading and also be a powerful attack. To make it fair maybe there should also be a small chance that if the spy is captured one of the attacking players technologies is revealed (Only for nations that condone torture....but i guess that includes democracy too....).

Lord_P · Post by **Lord_P** » Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:27 pm

BTW I totally agree with adding the random element to tech trading. Free tech trading with no risk makes for boring games with huge research alliances.
Ideally all players should be pushed to ATTACK players who have technology that they want, rather than trading, to keep alliances shifting and the game moving.
Capture penalties and the possibility of tech loss will also mean long wars can stagnate research and developed nations can collapse as they lose the tech needed to support thier cities and units. Both of which are historically realistic.

Archont · Post by **Archont** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:38 am

Whatever decision will be taken, may I propose freezing ruleset in its current state after the first contact between any two nations is made. The rules should not be changed endlessly.

elrik · Post by **elrik** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:56 am

This settings were just a mistake, it should be set like that by default:)

kull · Post by **kull** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:52 am

agree with Archont! as soon we have a contact between 2 nations rule set must be freeze

elrik · Post by **elrik** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:14 pm

And it is frozen;) Just think about ones i wrote about like about current one;) Free trade is a change:)

Archont · Post by **Archont** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:25 pm

Maybe de iure, but we're all waiting when it happens de facto. : P

monamipierrot · Post by **monamipierrot** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:47 pm

elrik wrote:And it is frozen;) Just think about ones i wrote about like about current one;) Free trade is a change:)

What do you mean? Can we still touch it?
anyway, it looks like we have 3 options:
1. Free tech trading/conquering/stealing
2. Kind of discouraging trading/conquering/stealing by losingtech chances and/or by losing bulbs
3. Completely disabling tech trading/conquering/stealing

My vote, in order:

(3).
If not (3), then (1). Definitely not (2) for the reasons I gave above.

elrik · Post by **elrik** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:17 pm

I think that 1 is not an option. It is just bad and make so much mess. So choosing between 2 and 3? why should we cut something what can bring fun and tactical possibilities.
Anyway by 3 i understand tech lose 100% for target. which means that you can steal/conquer make an agreement but you will forget targeted tech every time. Maybe with small % for loosing for source it can be interesting:)

To make it perfectly clear for everyone:

1. free trade
- chance to lose tech when giving 0
- chance to lose tech when receiving 0
- penaulty when getting tech from trade 0
- penaulty when getting free tech 0
- penaulty when getting tech from conquer 0

2. mix
- chance to lose tech when giving 20-25%
- chance to lose tech when receiving 70-65%
- penaulty when getting tech from trade 100%
- penaulty when getting free tech 0
- penaulty when getting tech from conquer 0

3. ban
- chance to lose tech when giving 0 (20-25% for fun)
- chance to lose tech when receiving 100%
- penaulty when getting tech from trade 0
- penaulty when getting free tech 0
- penaulty when getting tech from conquer 0

Post by **wieder** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 7:53 pm

1. Trading with techs gives you a vast amount of tactical possibilities. It's really fun trying to make trades while figuring out if it's reasonable to trade with someone. This is not a good thing for someone without the skills to do the actual trading.

2. Introducing gambling may be interesting from a point of view. Complicating the game with trading penalties may help those players who do not master the art of making foreign relations. However the randomness sounds a bit strange while the random factor is removed from changing the government, barbarians, huts and all sorts of random stuff that does happen in the vanilla Freeciv.

3. Banning the tech trade (and preventing getting techs from conquering/stealing) would be the best option if it's something people really hate. If you don't like it, why just crippling it instead of completely disabling it? This is a great option and it doesn't need any explaining. It would also give us some really great strategies because everyone should care for his/hers country what it comes to techs.

Whatever the choice will be, please don't announce the change(s) to the rules in T57.

monamipierrot · Post by **monamipierrot** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:52 pm

elrik wrote: 3. ban
- chance to lose tech when giving 0 (20-25% for fun)
- chance to lose tech when receiving 100%
- penaulty when getting tech from trade 0
- penaulty when getting free tech 0
- penaulty when getting tech from conquer 0

I infere from the way you put it to paper that one can't "disable" tech trading/conquering/stealing and full stop.
Is it right?
If it is right, this way you can still try to steal/conquer/trade but you will just get nothing, am I wrong?
And also: giving/receinving chances is indipendent of the way you give/receive (trading, stealing, conquering, getting free tech....). Did I understand it correct?
So - the "20-25% for fun" means that you can try to sabotate by trying stealing AND hoping the enemy will lose the tech (althou you will not have it anyway). Correct?

And, I quote from the Changes post:

- Techs are cheaper if already discovered by other nations you have embassy with: tech_leakage = 1

I would like to know HOW MUCH cheaper are them.

I have always been a fan of free tech trading and now I changed my mind. Anyway, the reasons I would vote for 3 (tech trading disabled) are:
A - It is a totally new landscape, I guess.*
B - Simplify diplomacy which could be hard with 50+ players. Newbies with no diplomatic skills will have less disadvantage, thing that would balance the missed chance to catch up on tech level by stealing/conquering. Big alliances will be discouraged as well (zero benefit from tech trading).
C - MOST IMPORTANT: Tech differentiation (or "specialization", inside alliances). As research will be harder, be sure that many will choose radically different branches of the tech tree. E.g. If you just choose to focus only on military (which was already a good option with free tech), you still HAVE to choose between some branches which would be equally interesting for the guys of your defense department, but that would lead to radically different military behaviours and strategies and thus to radically different ways of playing. Give a glance to the tech tree and you'll agree with me. This darwinian differentiating/specializating behaviour will be enhanced by the actual nature of our oceanic world.*
D - It looks like there are many guys going to take over idlers. They already lost 9 turns. If we mix cards now and make some of us change his plans (althou nobody will take a strategy U-turn, I suppose), it will be slightly more fair for them.

And One thing. I vote for 3 AND I'm going for triremes, so nobody can claim I'm just worry about you guys trading techs before me. My vote is independent from my game playing, and is based only on what I think it will be more fun for everybody. I believe nobody will vote to favour his own strategy.

*LT29 was a team game with shared research. It had tech trading (between different teams) DISABLED but stealing and conquering tech made the tech level omogenic between different teams. And althou stealing and conquering had been disabled, team would have had benefit by not focusing on single tech branches, cause each member could cover one of a limited number (2/3) of different roles: the banker, the scientist, the production/military. The tech research would have been still omogenic anyway. This will NOT be the case of LT31 if we totally disable tech trading.

Lord_P · Post by **Lord_P** » Thu Nov 22, 2012 10:55 pm

mon ami, you have convinced me with C.
In a choice between a random half measure and no tech trading at all, no tech trading would lead to many more interesting differences between how players develop.
Also gold may become much more important in diplomacy and influencing other nations. Which is easier to manage than technology which can be re-traded and end up in your enemies hands.

monamipierrot · Post by **monamipierrot** » Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:12 am

Lord_P wrote:mon ami, you have convinced me with C.
In a choice between a random half measure and no tech trading at all, no tech trading would lead to many more interesting differences between how players develop.
Also gold may become much more important in diplomacy and influencing other nations. Which is easier to manage than technology which can be re-traded and end up in your enemies hands.

I'm glad that at last someone sees my point.

The only real disadvantage I can see is that it will be hard to catch up if you find yourself technologically and economically behind (because you're a newbie or you have been idling...). To get accepted in an alliance could thus be harder cause they can't "help" you with tech. The only way to be accepted could be once again specialization: develop fast sea units and be the alliance sentinel. And anyway who cares: after all in LT31 you have your own island and bad guys have to reach it and fight on every square inch of it to get rid of you!!!!

About the tech trading opportunity, I don't think it is just "bad". It's just that the "unmaterial" (i.e., zero cost for multiplying it) nature of techs implies MUCH more complex diplomatic and trade behaviours. Tech "value" can change from infinite to zero in a matter of turns - or even minutes. Very smart diplomats and traders can have many advantages, IF they have lot of time to dedicate to trade and diplomacy.
But all those head-aching variables can be grasped by a average-to-good human mind if the number of players or sides is - say - 5 or less. Otherwise, chaos and its most important variable (luck) become too important, even for the smart-with-lot-of-time-diplomat and this can be very frustrating.
I bet that brokers of financial stock markets - who are working with constant changing information about the economical world - could be excellent LT diplomats/traders (where "infos" is techs, cause both grow old very quickly). But for their dirty job (look at their face expression while working!) they earn thousands of dollars each week while they don't have a life as we (althou LT players) know it.
I'm not paid for playing LT. I vote 3.

elrik · Post by **elrik** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:07 am

Hmm... Its always hard to make a choice in such situation:) But i think that it is better to give more people what they can enjoy. With option 2 you can simply not use tech trade:) You have version 3 then. But if you like a risk and you have nothing to loose...

Then you can do it:)

Post by **wieder** » Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:20 pm

Elrik: The problem with the old rules was trading taking attention from making war. As I have understood it's best to have the rules balanced from a war point of view. Not for diplomacy or trade.

Have you decided what the rules are going to be? I didn't quite understand what you tried to say.

Since it's you who decides the rules, what are the rules going to be?