Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

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

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#16 Post by o01eg »

BlueAward wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:07 am Another thing I am missing is actual settings if, say, I want to try something over the weekend. It's a chain of "what changed since last game" and not obvious to replicate fully. I guess the galaxy is "box"? Never played that one. Production cost - you set it up by changing both ships' cost and buildings' cost, right? Is Transcendence set to 10%?
Full options for test game present in https://github.com/o01eg/freeorion/blob ... config.xml
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-11.2, boost-1.78.0
Ubuntu Server 22.04 x64, gcc-12, boost-1.74.0
Welcome to the slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io.Version 2024-03-15.b3de094.
Donations're welcome:BTC:bc1q007qldm6eppqcukewtfkfcj0naut9njj7audnm

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#17 Post by Oberlus »

BlueAward wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:07 am Production cost - you set it up by changing both ships' cost and buildings' cost, right? Is Transcendence set to 10%?
Sort of. You set that in the "Balance" tab of the game options at game start. There are four relevant factors to set: tech cost ("research cost"), parts cost, buildings cost, and hulls cost (all these three are "production costs").


I think relevant settings for this game will be:

Systems per player: 46
Planet density: Medium.
Galaxy age: Medium.
Starlane density: Medium.
Research cost: 120%
Production cost: 60%
Monsters Frequency: Low (o01eg, we had medium on 20th game, right?)
Specials: Medium
Natives: Medium
Experimentors: Disabled
Planet Stability Baseline: 5
Extra-solar detection: enabled (ships can see what's around while on a starlane).


Not sure about Transcendence.

o01eg wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:45 am...
o01eg, and players, could we reduce a bit systems per player? We are talking of a 276 or 322 systems galaxy.
I'm thinking of making games a bit faster (the more systems, the longer the game).
Edit: also, maybe, setting research cost to 100% and production costs to 50%?

Also, if we get 7 players for this game, I think we need another player or another setting for diplomacy, because 3vs4 or 2vs2vs3 is unfair.
If we get 7 players, I suggest playing no-diplomacy (all people at war for the whole game), if that is OK for everyone.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#18 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:58 am
Systems per player: 46
Only ?
Are we not supposed to increase the number every game until it becomes interesting ?

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#19 Post by Oberlus »

What's the meaning of "interesting" in this context?
For me, last game was quite interesting, and the previous one. And I find it not very interesting that games take up several months to get to where influence upkeep is a problem.

Daybreak
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#20 Post by Daybreak »

Is not the several months more about the turns - I vote for a 32 hour timer this round

Daybreak
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#21 Post by Daybreak »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:58 am Also, if we get 7 players for this game, I think we need another player or another setting for diplomacy, because 3vs4 or 2vs2vs3 is unfair.
If we get 7 players, I suggest playing no-diplomacy (all people at war for the whole game), if that is OK for everyone.
Endhu may play, so 8 players.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#22 Post by Oberlus »

Daybreak wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:01 pm Endhu may play, so 8 players.
Daybreak wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:50 pm Is not the several months more about the turns - I vote for a 32 hour timer this round
If Endhu can do 32 hours, I'm more than happy.
But I think Endhu and maybe some of the others (including me) might have sporadic days in which we won't be able to play, and asking o01eg for delegation or turn pause every time will be a burden for him (I guess). Remember that each time Endhu or whoever didn't show up when the 48h were close to end, someone asked o01eg to pause game, so it is my understanding that a shorter timer won't accellerate turns.
On the other hand, if we set 48h but we play faster than that, no problem.

BlueAward
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#23 Post by BlueAward »

o01eg wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:45 am Full options for test game present in https://github.com/o01eg/freeorion/blob ... config.xml
Oberlus wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:58 am Sort of. You set that in the "Balance" tab of the game options at game start. There are four relevant factors to set: tech cost ("research cost"), parts cost, buildings cost, and hulls cost (all these three are "production costs").

I think relevant settings for this game will be: (...){snip}
Thank you, both. I actually missed the part where parts and hulls are separate setting. And singluarity of transcendence indeed looks to be 10% - I think I should use that setting in SP as well, actually :)

I tried those settings a bit and... boy, was it a rude awakening! Does the meta change!

One of unique things I love about FO is the duality of point cost and turn cost. However, changing the point cost and leaving turn cost (including things like organic armor growth!) changes the dynamics considerably more than something like game speed setting in Civ V.

I mean, in Civ V, things get sped up or slowed down thanks to scaling production and science cost, and growth, but since unit power and movement stays the same, the biggest impact really is on combat. Like the slower pace, the more action a unit can see before getting obsoleted, and can cover comparatively more ground (I mean if something builds twice as long, then relative to building speed, units can go twice as far, even though this is not twice as fast; and since you research better units slower, it also means the units remain viable all that time). And conversely, the lower build and research costs, the shorter window of unit's usefulness (though you can upgrade them, if you have coin)

Here, those considerations about units' (ships) movement is still true if research and production costs change (though growth rate remains unnafected, btw). But if turn cost stays the same, it changes things around in a more complicated way

I guess lowering point costs without changing turn cost nerfs organics in the early game. You cannot get to them any faster, while you can get faster to other stuff. I mean it was true previously as well, that you could research other hulls faster, but the question of production costs remained - did you have enough production to pump out those faster-researched units considerably faster than waiting for cheaper organics?

Though, in sparse galaxy with plenty of room to grow initially, and no apetite for zerg rushes, I guess organics can catch up a bit (though still get penalized in terms of armor at least).

On the other hand, getting to bigger guns (and hulls?) faster, obsoletes old technology faster, giving an implicit boost to things with better upgrade potential, so... fighters

I'm not complaining, just some musings. Need to adapt to survive :) Because that truly is different to default SP settings, on more fronts than I initially naively thought. Wonder what are others' thoughts about it

Have you played/considered leaving research costs intact, only lowering production costs? Have you considered tweaking turn costs as well (including armor growth)?

BTW I think what could really make games faster would be literally faster engines (or denser galaxy - shorter distances) and faster population growth. Faster RP and PP do that in a roundabout way (though it may be more fun to have bigger toys, sooner, too) But that would also be a different meta then

BlueAward
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#24 Post by BlueAward »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:58 am Also, if we get 7 players for this game, I think we need another player or another setting for diplomacy, because 3vs4 or 2vs2vs3 is unfair.
If we get 7 players, I suggest playing no-diplomacy (all people at war for the whole game), if that is OK for everyone.
That's why I said no worries about excluding me if I'm a fifth wheel for an even number of players.

Then again, even though team play may be more educational for me, I think I'd prefer every cephalopod for themselves, too. It is a dark forest out there! Though I imagine shadow diplomacy with secret protocols still would go around, wouldn't it? Molotov-Ribbentrop, yo! As in, no game supported benefits but you could still metagame and have some shady deals, I mean, gentleman's agreements? Can't say I enjoy such things but... don't hate the player

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#25 Post by Oberlus »

Guys, try and play with master versions as much as you can. I'm seeing some annoying bugs being hunted and I suspect there will be more. Any reports in the forums or github are welcome.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#26 Post by Oberlus »

BlueAward wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:07 pm That's why I said no worries about excluding me
No player left behind.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#27 Post by wobbly »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:58 am Monsters Frequency: Low (o01eg, we had medium on 20th game, right?)
I believe it was changed to Low after daybreak complained about nests being unbalancing. I'd like medium to test the new monster game rule setting, but any setting is fine (except none) for testing purposes I guess.

Daybreak
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#28 Post by Daybreak »

I wonder if Natives sould be set to high as well, last time Endhu had no natives in his section, while Oberlus and Wobbly had 2. I had 2, but found some more further away towards o01eg, who had 3 in his area. I don't think Lienrag had any.

Although if we play teams, then it is less of a problem, as we can share, unless they are natives we can't share.
wobbly wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 6:06 pm
Oberlus wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:58 am Monsters Frequency: Low (o01eg, we had medium on 20th game, right?)
I believe it was changed to Low after daybreak complained about nests being unbalancing. I'd like medium to test the new monster game rule setting, but any setting is fine (except none) for testing purposes I guess.
Not me
I am ok with Medium

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#29 Post by LienRag »

Daybreak wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:34 pm I wonder if Natives sould be set to high as well, last time Endhu had no natives in his section, while Oberlus and Wobbly had 2. I had 2, but found some more further away towards o01eg, who had 3 in his area. I don't think Lienrag had any.
I had two but they were not interesting for a Xenophobic Empire.
I could have been tempted by the Beige Goo if I could get it early but the high defense + Dyson forest made it unworthy of the effort.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Twenty-first game on the multiplayer slow game server

#30 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 10:01 pm I could have been tempted by the Beige Goo if I could get it early but the high defense + Dyson forest made it unworthy of the effort.
Much better to crash fleets against wobbly. Yeah.

Post Reply