Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

For topics that do not fit in another sub-forum.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
swaq
Space Kraken
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:56 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#121 Post by swaq » Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:34 am

JonCST wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:40 pm
The Silent One wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:18 pm
I'm not playing a game where the players defeated in the previous game team up to take revenge in a 5 vs. 2.
Um. I can guarantee that is not what has been motivating my play. I team up based on who's willing to talk to me, who seems to be willing to act in good faith, and who i'm afraid is going to kill me.
I also am not playing for "revenge". I actually wanted to find different allies this game to mix things up but galaxy position wasn't ideal for that.

Magnate
Dyson Forest
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#122 Post by Magnate » Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:40 am

It's been a very odd game for me, not meeting anyone for so long. When I did finally enter the galaxy the first person I met was L29Ah. To be fair, he did offer me peace initially, which I declined without rancour, explaining candidly that I had only one expansion path. A couple of turns later he attacked with fantastic timing, taking the system from which I had just cleared out a space monster and blocking me in. I had cloakers and stealth which enabled me to survive for a few turns and discover quite how huge his empire is. He has played brilliantly, capitalising on a fabulous start (medium toxic in home system - instant 2nd colony). My diplomatic efforts have failed to persuade anyone else to distract him, as they are all busy with the seven-way angst chronicled above. He has now researched Neutron Scanners, and I have three choices:

1. Play to the bitter end and do what damage I can. I estimate it will take him 20-30 turns to wipe me out, unless someone else makes a huge dent elsewhere. I don't think I will cause him any significant harm, and he will get lots of free colonies.

2. Do what I saw swaq do last game and remove all my buildings and pops manually. This will not prevent him getting at least one of my colonies for that all-important +1 pilots. Probably two or three more.

3. Concede and have my pops mysteriously vanish, which denies him the pilots but leaves him all my homeworld buildings once he recolonises them. This is what happened to me when o01eg quit in the fourth game and might be the optimal choice. But I worry that it kind of looks like ragequitting!

On diplomacy, I'm with JonCST - it's going to happen. There is a difference between the peace/alliance mechanics in the game (not fighting, shared supply etc.) and the intention to work together. I've been in communication with Oberlus since I accidentally trashed his fleet, but we have no formal peace in the game. I would happily countenance a game in which each player could have only one in-game ally at any point, but don't think it's realistic to expect people to not communicate or work together.

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#123 Post by o01eg » Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:20 am

Magnate wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:40 am
It's been a very odd game for me, not meeting anyone for so long. When I did finally enter the galaxy the first person I met was L29Ah. To be fair, he did offer me peace initially, which I declined without rancour, explaining candidly that I had only one expansion path. A couple of turns later he attacked with fantastic timing, taking the system from which I had just cleared out a space monster and blocking me in. I had cloakers and stealth which enabled me to survive for a few turns and discover quite how huge his empire is. He has played brilliantly, capitalising on a fabulous start (medium toxic in home system - instant 2nd colony). My diplomatic efforts have failed to persuade anyone else to distract him, as they are all busy with the seven-way angst chronicled above. He has now researched Neutron Scanners, and I have three choices:

1. Play to the bitter end and do what damage I can. I estimate it will take him 20-30 turns to wipe me out, unless someone else makes a huge dent elsewhere. I don't think I will cause him any significant harm, and he will get lots of free colonies.

2. Do what I saw swaq do last game and remove all my buildings and pops manually. This will not prevent him getting at least one of my colonies for that all-important +1 pilots. Probably two or three more.

3. Concede and have my pops mysteriously vanish, which denies him the pilots but leaves him all my homeworld buildings once he recolonises them. This is what happened to me when o01eg quit in the fourth game and might be the optimal choice. But I worry that it kind of looks like ragequitting!

On diplomacy, I'm with JonCST - it's going to happen. There is a difference between the peace/alliance mechanics in the game (not fighting, shared supply etc.) and the intention to work together. I've been in communication with Oberlus since I accidentally trashed his fleet, but we have no formal peace in the game. I would happily countenance a game in which each player could have only one in-game ally at any point, but don't think it's realistic to expect people to not communicate or work together.
Looks like it was real to get help from JonCST if he agreed to "two-state solution" for Fluttershy instead of declaring war at me. Now he isn't capable to help anyone.

Moreover, now I need help from L29Ah, so I its impossible for me to help you either.
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-9.2, boost-1.72.0
Ubuntu Server 18.04 x64, gcc-7.4, boost-1.65.1
Welcome to the slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io. Version 0.4.9.
Donations are welcome: BTC:14XLekD9ifwqLtZX4iteepvbLQNYVG87zK

User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 1038
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#124 Post by The Silent One » Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:48 am

Magnate wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:40 am
I would happily countenance a game in which each player could have only one in-game ally at any point, but don't think it's realistic to expect people to not communicate or work together.
But if you can actually ally with as many players as you want, we should get rid of the "only two" rule altogether. If I had known that we have such liberty with alliances, I would have considered allying with Jon and/or Swaq instead of fighting them.
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#125 Post by o01eg » Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:03 am

The Silent One wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:48 am
But if you can actually ally with as many players as you want, we should get rid of the "only two" rule altogether.
And the game will successfully end when each player will be allied with each other :D
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-9.2, boost-1.72.0
Ubuntu Server 18.04 x64, gcc-7.4, boost-1.65.1
Welcome to the slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io. Version 0.4.9.
Donations are welcome: BTC:14XLekD9ifwqLtZX4iteepvbLQNYVG87zK

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1956
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#126 Post by Oberlus » Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:02 pm

The Silent One wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:48 am
if you can actually ally with as many players as you want, we should get rid of the "only two" rule altogether. If I had known that we have such liberty with alliances, I would have considered allying with Jon and/or Swaq instead of fighting them.
o01eg wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:25 pm
Sixth game will be with free diplomacy (no teams, alliance of two can win).
For me, the rule was rather clear from start: alliance of two can win, alliances of more than two players can't get victory until they split into smaller alliances and one prevails over the others. Free diplomacy.

I really thought you (TSO) didn't consider allying swaq/Jon because you were in position to conquer them and become the strongest alliance in the galaxy.
And that's why I see rather sensible and a very sound plan that alleryn is helping them. And I'll try to help Magnate regardless of the lateness for similar reasons: let L29Ah become fatter and you can sign in for defeat.

I hope, TSO, you can have a pleasant game in this current match regardless of this surprises.

Regarding the "remove the 'only you' rule altogether", I do disagree. The diplomacy game is way richer and funnier with it. If only one empire (no alliances) can win, it's also funny and rich but the component "I don't know if my partner will betray me" is lost (you do know he will betray you at some point or the game won't end). With "alliances of any size can win", the risk for "I didn't join a game to be bullied by the four players I defeated in previous game" is much bigger, because they can actually win the game all together. This (current) way, if swaq/Jon ally alleryn/Oberlus, each of us must keep an eye on each other's movements, on what they conquer or not, etc. because we will have to fight each other eventually. I'm having such a great time! I hope you can see it the same way.

User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 1038
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#127 Post by The Silent One » Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:42 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:02 pm
This (current) way, if swaq/Jon ally alleryn/Oberlus, each of us must keep an eye on each other's movements, on what they conquer or not, etc. because we will have to fight each other eventually. I'm having such a great time! I hope you can see it the same way.
*Sigh* I guess I'll have to. :)
So, [Jon], wanna make peace and slaughter [swaq] together [switch name at your own deliberation]?


No? . ... thought so
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

JonCST
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#128 Post by JonCST » Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:45 pm

Magnate wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:40 am
[...] I would happily countenance a game in which each player could have only one in-game ally at any point, [...]
That's good, 'cuz you're currently playing in one!

:lol:

Magnate
Dyson Forest
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#129 Post by Magnate » Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:52 pm

JonCST wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:45 pm
Magnate wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:40 am
[...] I would happily countenance a game in which each player could have only one in-game ally at any point, [...]
That's good, 'cuz you're currently playing in one!

:lol:
Apologies if I have misunderstood your joke, but I think we may be at cross purposes. I'm suggesting a change to the game itself, so that any player can only offer alliance to one other player, and cannot offer another alliance until he breaks the first one. That's not the same as the victory condition, I'm talking about playing as allies during the game. (For this to be most effective you would also need a limit on peace treaties too.)

JonCST
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#130 Post by JonCST » Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:01 pm

o01eg wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:20 am
[...]
Looks like it was real to get help from JonCST if he agreed to "two-state solution" for Fluttershy instead of declaring war at me.
[...]
The negotiations about Fluttershy were real and sincere. The declaration of war was due to your parking a warship on Alpharatz. If i tolerate one, i have no reason to complain about two, do i? And after two, well, there's no real limit to the number of your ships to enjoy the hospitality of my planet.

I requested you move your ships away from me, and you parked one on my planet.

I knew i would lose when i started the war, but better to go down fighting than to just let you build up your fleets on top of my planets before the eventual knife in the back.

Lessons:
  • If you're sincere about allying with someone, overtly or covertly, don't park warships on top of their planets.
  • If you do park warships on top of their planets, especially without agreement from them, don't expect them to believe you're sincere about peaceful intentions.
:x

J

Magnate
Dyson Forest
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#131 Post by Magnate » Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:02 pm

I decided that the optimal strategy was to concede and vanish my pops to minimise the rate at which L29Ah gained from my demise. I don't like that it works like that but I feel compelled to optimise since it is there.

My congratulations to L29Ah for a perfectly executed takeout. Good luck to everyone else - you're gonna need it!

JonCST
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#132 Post by JonCST » Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:05 pm

The Silent One wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:42 pm
So, [Jon], wanna make peace and slaughter [swaq] together [switch name at your own deliberation]?
No? . ... thought so
Talk to me about why it's in your best interest to do so, and what i get out of it, and i'll consider it, as i have all along.

Maybe suggest to o01eg that if you want me to help you, they might back off my planets so i have the resources and free ships to do so?

J

JonCST
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#133 Post by JonCST » Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:10 pm

Magnate wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:52 pm

Apologies if I have misunderstood your joke[...]
I think you understood the joke. I may not have realized that:
Magnate wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:52 pm

I'm suggesting a change to the game itself, so that any player can only offer alliance to one other player, and cannot offer another alliance until he breaks the first one. [...]
(emphasis mine).

That is indeed a different issue. I don't think it would address TSO's concerns that players can make covert alliances, which TSO perceives as unfair.

Adding those kind of restrictions to the game parameters is valid, and might be interesting to play under occasionally, but would not be my preferred game.

Everyone's tastes are different, i guess.

Jon

JonCST
Space Kraken
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#134 Post by JonCST » Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:19 pm

Magnate wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:02 pm
I decided that the optimal strategy was to concede and vanish my pops to minimise the rate at which L29Ah gained from my demise. I don't like that it works like that but I feel compelled to optimise since it is there.
Um. Why chose just one? Scrap all the infrastructure you can, then concede, if you feel that's what you must do?

J.

User avatar
alleryn
Space Dragon
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:32 pm

Re: Sixth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9)

#135 Post by alleryn » Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:55 pm

Magnate wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:40 am
don't think it's realistic to expect people to not communicate or work together.
Not necessarily suggesting it's a good idea, but eliminating the options for both peace and alliance, instead forcing all empires to be at war with each other the entire game, would make it significantly more difficult to work together.

Post Reply