11th slow game wishlist

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

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Voker57
Space Kraken
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:46 pm

11th slow game wishlist

#1 Post by Voker57 »

I have several gripes with current longturn setup, so I though we could discuss them here. So, things I want changed for the next game:

* AIs take over for conceded players (if it needs a bigger server, how bigger in $?)
* Fixed version is used for entire game (bugfixes might be cherry-picked, windows... Anybody plays windows?)
* Proper HW spreading, I think it's random now? Spreading HWs like ends of spokes of a wheel could work.
* Remove Honeycomb
* No allied win
* Expulsion for missing two turns
* Expulsion for deliberately degrading the server's performance

Feel free to post what you'd like here.
Last edited by Voker57 on Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Team S.M.A.C.: destroying dreams of multiplayer 4x since 2017.

ThinkSome
Space Kraken
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:13 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#2 Post by ThinkSome »

I'd like

* no reasons for players to concede
* bugfixes only and/or 2/3 majority vote on every (or set of) commit(s) that is applied
* no upkeep
* 2* tech cost, 1-1.5* hull cost, 0.3-0.7* part cost, 0.5*building cost.
* Fixed teams
* monsters!

I've just managed to crosscompile boost-python, I might soon be able to build Freeorion for Windows.

User avatar
Voker57
Space Kraken
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:46 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#3 Post by Voker57 »

ThinkSome wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:20 am * bugfixes only and/or 2/3 majority vote on every (or set of) commit(s) that is applied
Fine by me, might be a bit bureaucratic but maybe only players in conference need to vote
ThinkSome wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:20 am * no upkeep
Are you insane?
ThinkSome wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:20 am * 2* tech cost, 1-1.5* hull cost, 0.3-0.7* part cost, 0.5*building cost.
I'd like to see some reasoning behind that
ThinkSome wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:20 am * Fixed teams
No.
ThinkSome wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:20 am * monsters!
No unless somebody overhauls them and spawns intelligently
Team S.M.A.C.: destroying dreams of multiplayer 4x since 2017.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3042
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#4 Post by Oberlus »

Voker57 wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:10 am * AIs take over for conceded players (if it needs a bigger server, how bigger in $?)
I'd like that too. It seems the only way to make it fair for everyone in every situation (when one is conquering another player's empire that then concedes, if empire completely fades off the conquering empire that put military effort into it does not get the benefits from such investment, it's really annoying; when a player that wasn't fighting anyone concedes for whatever reason and the assets stay there unprotected, nearby human players get a big advantage).
* Fixed version is used for entire game (bugfixes might be cherry-picked, windows... Anybody plays windows?)
I'd like to use v0.4.10+ with tweaked bouts per combat (PR#2962, it's FOCS only so it would be doable without Windows/MacOS builds).
* Proper HW spreading, I think it's random now? Spreading HWs like ends of spokes of a wheel could work.
We can use ring galaxy shape for that.
I would also like to change HS_MAX_JUMP_DISTANCE_LIMIT to 20. The reason is that with current value (10), algorithm only ensure that minimum distance even if the galaxy could allow much more. I once started a game in a galaxy with 50 systems per empire in which the four empires were all clustered in one side of the galaxy, allowing two of the empires to expand freely for ages while the other two were forced to fight for new colonies. Changing it to 20 does not create any problems, tested. Since game is created by server, only the server needs that change.


I don't want fixed teams.
Next game should be maximum one human player victory. And I would prefer diplomacy disabled (permanent war) so that groups of players cannot gang up temporarily to attack someone else except if both have different paths to reach. This couples well with ring shape where only two empires can attack any other one. But we should use HS_MAX_JUMP_DISTANCE_LIMIT>10 if we are using more than 25 systems per player, or we'll get that some players start packed up between two other and some will have extra space.


ThinkSome wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:20 am * 2* tech cost, 1-1.5* hull cost, 0.3-0.7* part cost, 0.5*building cost.
You want less chaff, but your numbers are batshit.
Must keep vanilla balance between research and production or all game balance goes to hell. So tech cost must stay as 2x part cost.
Since both colony/outpost parts and any other ship part share the same multiplier (part cost), you can't make chaff more expensive without also making scouts more expensive and colonization cheaper with respect to vanilla balance. And adjusting colony/outpost parts to be more expensive without also making weapon parts more expensive means you might be better off building early armies than going for peaceful colonization. Whatever you change means a cascade of game balance disruption.
We now have Arc Disruptor besides fighters to combat enemies abusing chaff, there is no real need to disable chaff strategies.
Also, we have now different output balance to properly test, I do want to try new vanilla statistics.

ThinkSome, I hope you can play in a ring galaxy with no teams. I'm also looking forward for you to finish your server (no need for Windows builds IMO) to play there with your fixations.

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#5 Post by o01eg »

Oberlus wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 7:54 am I'd like to use v0.4.10+ with tweaked bouts per combat (PR#2962, it's FOCS only so it would be doable without Windows/MacOS builds).
It's a game rules changes except stringtables. I suppose edited values should be calculated instead of written directly.
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-9.3, 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 0.4.10.1.
Donations are welcome: BTC:14XLekD9ifwqLtZX4iteepvbLQNYVG87zK

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3042
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#6 Post by Oberlus »

o01eg wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 8:01 am
Oberlus wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 7:54 am I'd like to use v0.4.10+ with tweaked bouts per combat (PR#2962, it's FOCS only so it would be doable without Windows/MacOS builds).
It's a game rules changes except stringtables. I suppose edited values should be calculated instead of written directly.
That's a long overdue change: values granted by techs, buildings, specials, etc. should be set up as macros in dedicated files and referenced from all other FOCS files, including the stringtables, so that balance changes don't force you to hunt for affected files in the whole scripting folder tree and also edit every language stringtable. PITA.

User avatar
Voker57
Space Kraken
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:46 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#7 Post by Voker57 »

Oberlus wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 7:54 am We can use ring galaxy shape for that.
I would also like to change HS_MAX_JUMP_DISTANCE_LIMIT to 20. The reason is that with current value (10), algorithm only ensure that minimum distance even if the galaxy could allow much more. I once started a game in a galaxy with 50 systems per empire in which the four empires were all clustered in one side of the galaxy, allowing two of the empires to expand freely for ages while the other two were forced to fight for new colonies. Changing it to 20 does not create any problems, tested. Since game is created by server, only the server needs that change.
The max distance sounds like could solve the problem! Unless python script goes into endless loop with it significantly higher. I don't like the idea of the ring shape cause having a central point could be very interesting.
Oberlus wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 7:54 am I don't want fixed teams.
Next game should be maximum one human player victory. And I would prefer diplomacy disabled (permanent war) so that groups of players cannot gang up temporarily to attack someone else except if both have different paths to reach. This couples well with ring shape where only two empires can attack any other one. But we should use HS_MAX_JUMP_DISTANCE_LIMIT>10 if we are using more than 25 systems per player, or we'll get that some players start packed up between two other and some will have extra space.
Agree on one human victory, but gang-ups are unavoidable, really. We discussed this before, humans can still cooperate, it would just be more tedious.
Team S.M.A.C.: destroying dreams of multiplayer 4x since 2017.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3042
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#8 Post by Oberlus »

Voker57 wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 10:44 am Unless python script goes into endless loop with it significantly higher.
Negative. Algorithm decreases the constant when no candidates are found, to minimum of 5 distance.
I don't like the idea of the ring shape cause having a central point could be very interesting.
There's no way we can get HWs placed at spokes of a disc galaxy shape, and even less for cluster galaxy shape. Unless you try and improve the python algorithm.
For galaxy shapes with central area, chances are there will always be someone's HW placed there and thus be surrounded by many enemies.
Agree on one human victory, but gang-ups are unavoidable, really. We discussed this before, humans can still cooperate, it would just be more tedious.
It's considerably more tedious, which is the point.
If you can (temporarily) sign alliance treaty with the empires that are behind you, they can traverse your space using your supply refuelling and on-supply repair techs to reach and battle the common enemy in front of you, also balling up in a single fleet against the common enemy disadvantaged fleet.
If you are forced to be on war with everyone, in order for those empires behind you to reach the common enemy in front of you will need huge amounts of fuel and be forced to not coincide in the same system with your armies. That's is not just more tedious, it means you are dramatically dwarfing the gang-up possibilities.
Any problem with making it extremely difficult for some players to play unfair?

If we are going to play with alliances, I prefer free alliances with up to 1/3 of total players for victory condition.

User avatar
Voker57
Space Kraken
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:46 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#9 Post by Voker57 »

Oberlus wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 11:01 am
There's no way we can get HWs placed at spokes of a disc galaxy shape, and even less for cluster galaxy shape. Unless you try and improve the python algorithm.
For galaxy shapes with central area, chances are there will always be someone's HW placed there and thus be surrounded by many enemies.
It's somewhat ok for someone to end up in the middle, but somebody improving algorithm to exclude inner worlds would be nice.
Team S.M.A.C.: destroying dreams of multiplayer 4x since 2017.

ThinkSome
Space Kraken
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:13 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#10 Post by ThinkSome »

Voker57 wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:35 am
ThinkSome wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:20 am * bugfixes only and/or 2/3 majority vote on every (or set of) commit(s) that is applied
Fine by me, might be a bit bureaucratic but maybe only players in conference need to vote
Actually, I now think the vote should be unanimous. Otherwise those against it might just stall the game as a form of collective punishment.
Voker57 wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:35 am
ThinkSome wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:20 am * no upkeep
Are you insane?
I just don't think this is the right approach to prevent/delay snowballing.
Voker57 wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:35 am
ThinkSome wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:20 am * 2* tech cost, 1-1.5* hull cost, 0.3-0.7* part cost, 0.5*building cost.
I'd like to see some reasoning behind that
It helps prevent chaff. Also see the other discussions on it being strange that
a simple flak cannon costs more than the ship it is mounted on. Though I agree
that one could explain that as the "flak cannon" being "flak cannon" + "support systems".

But still, I think the cheapest hull should still cost more than the cheapest weapon.
Voker57 wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:35 am
ThinkSome wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 12:20 am * Fixed teams
No.
I thought this was a wishlist?

ThinkSome
Space Kraken
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:13 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#11 Post by ThinkSome »

Oberlus wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 7:54 am You want less chaff, but your numbers are batshit.
Must keep vanilla balance between research and production or all game balance goes to hell. So tech cost must stay as 2x part cost.
Since both colony/outpost parts and any other ship part share the same multiplier (part cost), you can't make chaff more expensive without also making scouts more expensive and colonization cheaper with respect to vanilla balance. And adjusting colony/outpost parts to be more expensive without also making weapon parts more expensive means you might be better off building early armies than going for peaceful colonization. Whatever you change means a cascade of game balance disruption.
We now have Arc Disruptor besides fighters to combat enemies abusing chaff, there is no real need to disable chaff strategies.
Also, we have now different output balance to properly test, I do want to try new vanilla statistics.

ThinkSome, I hope you can play in a ring galaxy with no teams. I'm also looking forward for you to finish your server (no need for Windows builds IMO) to play there with your fixations.
The price of colonisation parts can be adjusted as well.

I can play in such a setting, yes. But I'd rather play in a fixed large teams setting where it is harder for one team to grow exceedingly large due to favorable starting conditions.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3042
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#12 Post by Oberlus »

ThinkSome wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 1:41 pm I'd rather play in a fixed large teams setting where it is harder for one team to grow exceedingly large due to favorable starting conditions.
Last fixed-team showed this expectation of yours is delusional.
Free diplomacy allows for the weak/unlucky to team up against the strong/lucky.
Fixed teams means you are stuck to what you got at start.

ThinkSome
Space Kraken
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:13 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#13 Post by ThinkSome »

Oberlus wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 1:54 pm
ThinkSome wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 1:41 pm I'd rather play in a fixed large teams setting where it is harder for one team to grow exceedingly large due to favorable starting conditions.
Last fixed-team showed this expectation of yours is delusional.
Free diplomacy allows for the weak/unlucky to team up against the strong/lucky.
Fixed teams means you are stuck to what you got at start.
And what prevents the strong ones from teaming up together? At least in a fixed teams setting the strong ones are required to help the weak ones on their team.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3042
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#14 Post by Oberlus »

The wish to win.

ThinkSome
Space Kraken
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:13 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#15 Post by ThinkSome »

The strong ones can win together.

Post Reply