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
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)

#136 Post by Oberlus » Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:52 pm

Magnate wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:02 pm
I decided that the optimal strategy was to concede
I'm sad I can't conquer you :evil:
No spirited fight back from you!

Edit: but I understand you

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)

#137 Post by JonCST » Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:13 pm

alleryn wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:55 pm
[...] 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.
It would be a very different game. Dumb question: are you also proposing no-in-game-communications?

If so, it would probably take several play-throughs before people figured out how to make covert alliances. Even higher levels of trust would be required to work together on something. Gifting of planets might become important.

I forget: can we gift fleets? That would be one way to communicate.

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)

#138 Post by alleryn » Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:16 pm

JonCST wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:13 pm
alleryn wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:55 pm
[...] 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.
It would be a very different game. Dumb question: are you also proposing no-in-game-communications?
If so, it would probably take several play-throughs before people figured out how to make covert alliances.
No that seems pointless. It's extremely easy to communicate out-of-game (probably easier than communicating in-game).
Even higher levels of trust would be required to work together on something. Gifting of planets might become important.
Given that you can't gift during a state of war, this would be impossible.
I forget: can we gift fleets?
Yes (if peace/alliance).

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)

#139 Post by Magnate » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:15 pm

alleryn wrote:
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.
Yes, I think that's called FFA (Free For All). I'd be interested in that type of game, though not necessarily every game.

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)

#140 Post by Magnate » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:16 pm

JonCST wrote:
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?
Because the clever bugger arrived over one of my Etty colonies on the very turn he got the tech to see it, with enough cap ships to strip its defences AND enough troop ships to take it. So I had to choose between denying him the Etty or denying him the buildings, I didn't have an extra turn to do both ...

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)

#141 Post by Magnate » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:21 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:52 pm
Magnate wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:02 pm
I decided that the optimal strategy was to concede
I'm sad I can't conquer you :evil:
No spirited fight back from you!

Edit: but I understand you
Yes I'm sorry, since both you and swaq put up such spirited defences in previous games. I did spend six or seven turns doing my utmost to do smash-and-grab raids while he couldn't see my cloakers, and reorientate my research and production to a guerilla footing, but he had 80RP - that I could see - to my 50 (and interestingly our production stats were almost identical), as well as 16 cap ships to my four, and once he got neutron scanners there was basically no way for me to have any real impact. In the previous games both you and swaq had much more mature tech and production before defeat was inevitable, so there was lots of fun to be had hitting back.

Never mind, it'll do me good to have a break - grateful if someone could send me an email when the next game starts ;-) - I'll pop back often to see how it's going though.

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)

#142 Post by JonCST » Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:27 pm

Magnate wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:21 pm
[...] once he got neutron scanners there was basically no way for me to have any real impact.
Idly curious: does this make you feel any of the following are true?

o Organic ships are underpowered
o Stealth is not worth researching
o Robotic hulls are so cheap and strong going with any other line is a waste

Especially now that stealth carriers have (possibly rightly) been nerfed, i can't figure out what stealth brings to an empire, unless it already have Very Significant Stealth from the starting species, and one is willing to spend basically all research to stay ahead of everybody else's detection strength.

Thoughts?

Jon

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)

#143 Post by Oberlus » Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:37 pm

JonCST wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:27 pm
i can't figure out what stealth brings to an empire
Stealth for ships gives you first strike: you attack 3 bouts, enemies with not enough detection attack only two, starting from the second one. That's more than +33% advantage for the stealth empire.
Planetary stealth: cheapest and easiest defence, you don't need to protect your planets from invasion, just worry about supply chain or stockpile.

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)

#144 Post by JonCST » Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:38 pm

alleryn wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:16 pm
JonCST wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:13 pm
Dumb question: are you also proposing no-in-game-communications?
No that seems pointless. It's extremely easy to communicate out-of-game (probably easier than communicating in-game).
That's one of the problems with the current implementation of the "chat". But, if the person setting up the game includes a condition that there be no out-of-game communications, most players would honor the rule, and many would think badly of any player who didn't.

*old geezer wanders off, mumbling about honor, integrity, honesty, and "kids these days..."*

J.

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)

#145 Post by Oberlus » Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:49 pm

JonCST wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:38 pm
That's one of the problems with the current implementation of the "chat". But, if the person setting up the game includes a condition that there be no out-of-game communications, most players would honor the rule, and many would think badly of any player who didn't.
I wouldn't count on "honour", someone could say "it's suboptimal to not communicate out-of-game so you implement a way to avoid it or I will use it".

A possibility:
For each player, assign random names and colours to every player and planetary system, and use a different rotation of the galaxy. And disable whispers.
Player A would see himself as "red 2fad3" and his north neighbour "blue jjshu2", but the north neighbour (player B) sees himself as "yellow 51jss" and has a neighbour to the west "orange aakks" (player C) and another to the east "blue jslla" (which is actually player A).
Would not work for the whole game but yes for most of the beginning, until friends can see enough of each others to deduce who is the friend that is PMing his data in the forum ("I have a system with 2 GGs and 5 outgoing starlanes, can you see me?").

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)

#146 Post by alleryn » Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:56 pm

JonCST wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:38 pm
alleryn wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:16 pm
JonCST wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:13 pm
Dumb question: are you also proposing no-in-game-communications?
No that seems pointless. It's extremely easy to communicate out-of-game (probably easier than communicating in-game).
That's one of the problems with the current implementation of the "chat". But, if the person setting up the game includes a condition that there be no out-of-game communications, most players would honor the rule, and many would think badly of any player who didn't.

*old geezer wanders off, mumbling about honor, integrity, honesty, and "kids these days..."*

J.
Fair enough, but the question was whether i was proposing no in-game-communications. No communications at all would be a reasonable proposal, but i don't think no in-game communications makes any reasonable sense.

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)

#147 Post by JonCST » Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:33 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:37 pm
Stealth for ships gives you first strike [...] Planetary stealth: cheapest and easiest defense [...]
While that's true in theory, the times i've tried it against Real People, the RP required to get stealth has meant being at a disadvantage in armor, weapons, and production.
Oberlus wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:37 pm
,[...] you don't need to protect your planets from invasion, just worry about supply chain or stockpile.
Until the opponent researches the next level of detection, and then they can see your planet, which has no defenses.

Or, at least that's what i'm hearing Magnate say happened in this game.

As i said, i tried it a couple multi-player games ago, and got slaughtered by opponents who researched detection.

And honestly, if you see an opponent using stealth, won't you immediately research detection?

Stealth research cost: Active Radar (AR) 100 RP; ED 100 RP, total 200 RP gives +20 to stealth

Detection research cost: AR 100 RP gives +30 to detection, so cancels +20 from ED for half the cost.

Next level: Neutron Scanner (NS) & RA = 600 RP (over and above the 300 already spent), gives+40 to stealth.

Interstellar Lighthouse (IL), costs 150 RP, and reduces stealth by -30, so AR & IL (total 60) cancel out RA (40) for 150 RP vs. 600 RP.

Also, NS gives +50 detection, so cancels out +40 from RA, at just 400 RP.

The next level of stealth is Sensors & Dimensional Cloaking (DC), which together cost 1.5K RP and add +60 stealth.

Add IL to NS, and you can detect ships with dimensional cloaking for 550 RP vs 1.5 K.

One could argue that the organic hulls add stealth, and this is true. Symbiotic hulls add +15, and Protoplasmic add +25. To reach Protoplasmic hulls costs almost 170 RP, vs the 150 for IL, which cancels out the hull bonus until one reaches DC.

Unless i'm missing something, the research cost economics of stealth vs. detection don't make sense. One usually has to research at least AR, and often NS (e.g. to see planets occupied by Laenfa or Sly) anyway. If your opponent is doing stealth, throw in IL, and you're ahead of their curve.

The only situation where i could see this working in favor of stealth is where one side has a big research bonus, and the other has a significant research malus.

Thoughts, errors in my arithmetic, counter-examples?

Thanks.

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)

#148 Post by JonCST » Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:41 pm

alleryn wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:56 pm
[...] but i don't think no in-game communications makes any reasonable sense.
[/quote]

Much like the "no alliances" setting, it's a possible way to play the game. Only makes sense if there's no out-of-game communication as well, though.

Jon

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)

#149 Post by alleryn » Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:57 am


Much like the "no alliances" setting, it's a possible way to play the game. Only makes sense if there's no out-of-game communication as well, though.

Jon
Guess i'm beating a dead horse here but i think that would be called "no communications" not "no in-game communications".

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)

#150 Post by JonCST » Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:14 am

alleryn wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:57 am
[...] i think that would be called "no communications" not "no in-game communications".
[/quote]

The former is a social convention, the latter is a server setting.

:)

J.

Post Reply