Twenty-seventh game on the multiplayer slow game server

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

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

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

#151 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 11:26 am My stance about bugs is that it ain't that important who wins so I don't really mind, but I'll happily go with people's decisions on whatever.
My stance is that I play those games as a match of wits (basically, that's the point of a strategy game), so it's important to me who wins the game, as long as they win fairly of course¹.
But a game that was suddenly decided mid-game and against original agreement to be no-diplomacy-even-shadow is already a victory decided at random (where BlueAward wins by Transcendence) so whatever, I guess.

I will also go with people's decision on whatever.
I will insist that the decision is consistent, though (i.e, that it's a rule that will be applied equally on all similar cases).


¹ To be clear, when I organized boardgames play as a teen/young adults, there were two rules : 1 - you play fair 2 - you play to win the game
Who didn't agree to these two rules was not allowed at the table.
But here I'm not the organizer, so I don't make the rules.

BlueAward
Juggernaut
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

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

#152 Post by BlueAward »

I am fairly sure we didn't decide in the end to do no shadow diplomacy? I would have preferred no diplomacy at all, but I appreciate we started off saying it is allowed and it's bit weird to change mid game. Kinda fell down on o01eg saying he doesn't mind it, because has no technical means to ensure people don't talk (though I think if everybody agreed upfront, we would be honorable to uphold such agreement). I think this would require unanimous decision, not majority decision

That's my impression, anyway, and as far as I am concerned, you are free to do whatever deals you want. For one thing I can't be bothered to be bound by any strict nonaggression agreement cause it's counterproductive allowing others to grow safely for long while you yourself do spend resources on military, and then telegraphing your intentions to attack is just silly imho as well (unless these were preagreed house rules for everybody, then I prolly would enjoy these too).

I play to win, too (and bothers me when others don't, tbh). And I fail to see how reaching transcendence first supposedly is not a match of wits? And not like I think it makes sense to ignore military in the process

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5883
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

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

#153 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 12:43 pm But a game that was suddenly decided mid-game and against original agreement to be no-diplomacy-even-shadow is already a victory decided at random (where BlueAward wins by Transcendence) so whatever, I guess.
Was decided mid game?

I think it was more like this:
- Some players where not sure what were the rules (I myself didn't pay attention so I didn't know).
- Then some players asked.
- Some other players replied (LR, I didn't read any reply from you; if you don't like something, it's better if you voice it out).

I remember asking several times to be sure what was the consensus, and it wasn't clear (guys, you don't really like to be clear).

I know for sure that around half the players in this game are frantically sharing or asking for info in private, and trying to manipulate the others to pitch them against the others.
So regardless of what was "decided" mid-game, be aware that no one is respecting that "decision".

LienRag wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 12:43 pm To be clear, when I organized boardgames play as a teen/young adults, there were two rules : 1 - you play fair 2 - you play to win the game
Hmmm... And since no one said "let's play fair" in the first MP you joined, that's why you were a total gasliting jerk? Interesting...

BlueAward
Juggernaut
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

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

#154 Post by BlueAward »

o01eg wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:38 pm
LienRag wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2024 3:29 pm Shadow diplomacy is allowed or not ?
I think it's fine.
Oberlus wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2024 10:09 pm I'm OK with shadow diplomacy. I'll try to do it right without consuming lots of time, which means assuming LR as permanent enemy from start and let our cannons do the negotiations :twisted:
My assumption going in was per above, it is allowed. I think Skyflare started questioning it, but again, I reckon we didn't exactly reach conclusion that it is not allowed

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3548
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

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

#155 Post by Ophiuchus »

BlueAward wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 10:20 am
Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Jun 12, 2024 8:45 pm
BlueAward wrote: Wed Jun 12, 2024 5:31 pm stay stealthy in passive mode that claims they do not shoot in battle but no, it actually means they do not initiate battle but if third parties dish it out at the location, they are happy to join in despite the orders/stance.
What you describe sounds like Defensive Hide.
Passive stance should not fight at all, even if those hidden ships get shot to smithereens. If your ships were on passive stance and fighting that is a bug.
OK and what you reckon about this: fleets in passive hide, not visible to monster, over my planet. Monster engages planet, my ships jump into the fight. This again sounds like defensive hide, not passive hide! Maybe less controversial because in this scenario planet is mine, not third party, but still!
still sounds passive hide should not fight. Code sais for an armed ship ObjectCanAttack : return !fleet || fleet->Aggression() > FleetAggression::FLEET_PASSIVE

it could well be possible that fighter systems are not working correctly (i.e. should not launch fighters on passive hide). i did not see any check related to carrier aggression. Although i think that ObjectCanAttack filters all attackers including carriers when building the list of attackers (and later on also gets filtered), so should also work.

(side note: last changes in combat detection.. were merged in the weekly-test-builds-2024-04-14)

(another side note: the +1 shot boosts for weapon-x-3 techs to flak are merged, so will be in the next test build from master)
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

BlueAward
Juggernaut
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

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

#156 Post by BlueAward »

Ophiuchus wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 4:59 pm
still sounds passive hide should not fight. Code sais for an armed ship ObjectCanAttack : return !fleet || fleet->Aggression() > FleetAggression::FLEET_PASSIVE
Do you want to know something funny? CombatInfo doesn't hold fleet information so at that point all objects can attack, because you can't retrieve any fleet to check its stance. Need to add fleets to object map in CombatInfo constructor. Since I'm there, I'll try to fix this bug (I was not crazy!)

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3548
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

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

#157 Post by Ophiuchus »

BlueAward wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 7:04 pm
Ophiuchus wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 4:59 pm
still sounds passive hide should not fight. Code sais for an armed ship ObjectCanAttack : return !fleet || fleet->Aggression() > FleetAggression::FLEET_PASSIVE
Do you want to know something funny? CombatInfo doesn't hold fleet information so at that point all objects can attack, because you can't retrieve any fleet to check its stance. Need to add fleets to object map in CombatInfo constructor. Since I'm there, I'll try to fix this bug (I was not crazy!)
good catch. needs to copy the fleets (or the fleet aggression; or fetch it from universe_mutable_in aka combat_info.universe). :mrgreen:

and probably make an error message if there is a valid fleet id but the fleet cant be found.
Last edited by Ophiuchus on Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

BlueAward
Juggernaut
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

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

#158 Post by BlueAward »

Ophiuchus wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 7:50 pm
BlueAward wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 7:04 pm
Ophiuchus wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 4:59 pm
still sounds passive hide should not fight. Code sais for an armed ship ObjectCanAttack : return !fleet || fleet->Aggression() > FleetAggression::FLEET_PASSIVE
Do you want to know something funny? CombatInfo doesn't hold fleet information so at that point all objects can attack, because you can't retrieve any fleet to check its stance. Need to add fleets to object map in CombatInfo constructor. Since I'm there, I'll try to fix this bug (I was not crazy!)
good catch. needs to copy the fleets (or the fleet aggression; or fetch it from universe_mutable_in). :mrgreen:

and probably make an error message if there is a valid fleet id but the fleet cant be found.
yeah maybe fetching from universe is better, cause I copied the fleets into combat info, and it fixed it, but now I get fleets in the list of "initially cannot detect" combat message. Which can probably be fixed to ignore fleets. Then again, should that combat info even spoil there is something out there that you can't see and never seen cause it didn't decloak to fight?

edit: I've opened a bug for this https://github.com/freeorion/freeorion/issues/4955 - I don't exactly like my initial fix that it now shows fleets in the message "cannot initially detect", so feel free to comment there. I may still prepare different fix but would need guidance on how to proceed with this little conundrum

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3548
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

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

#159 Post by Ophiuchus »

BlueAward wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 7:57 pmThen again, should that combat info even spoil there is something out there that you can't see and never seen cause it didn't decloak to fight?
in my opinion the owner should get that message.
maybe enemies which are able to see it later should get that info. or just at the point in combat where the hidden ship gets uncovered.
i am not sure - are the combat logs the same for all clients?

with the right target condition, weapons can in principle target unseen ships/planets/fighters.
in that case it is not clear if that should be written somewhere
BlueAward wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 7:57 pmyeah maybe fetching from universe is better
either that or keep a list of all undetected passive ships. or dont add those add all (this will break once we have weapons which target unseen objects)
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

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

#160 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Jun 13, 2024 2:07 pm Hmmm... And since no one said "let's play fair" in the first MP you joined, that's why you were a total gasliting jerk? Interesting...

"Play fair" means "follow the rules of the game without cheating", and in an MP diplomatic wargame the rules are "betray as much as you can/need but don't bear grudges after the game".
Maybe I would have betrayed you in the end, who knows, but I didn't get a chance to do it anyway, and I certainly didn't gaslit you.
You accused me of doing "gunboat diplomacy" : well, duh, it's a diplomatic wargame, I'm there to kill you¹ and so are you, that's the name of the game, diplomacy is just another possible way to achieve that objective.

That's why I insist on highlander-style only when doing free diplomacy games by the by, it makes the above crystal clear from start, there's no confusion possible.


¹ You the Emperor, I bear no ill will to you as a player (though I do tire a little of baseless accusations)

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5883
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

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

#161 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2024 12:24 am Maybe I would have betrayed you in the end, who knows
You mean besides betraying from the beginning?
LienRag wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2024 12:24 am but I didn't get a chance to do it anyway
That's rich.
LienRag wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2024 12:24 am and I certainly didn't gaslit you.
:roll:
LienRag wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2024 12:24 am You accused me of doing "gunboat diplomacy"
No, I accused you of telling me one thing (cooperate, share species), doing the opposite (not sharing species with me, attacking me), and then telling me you didn't do what you did, and blaming me for your actions. You are a total gaslighter jerk. No matter how many years.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2023
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

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

#162 Post by wobbly »

Personally I don't find anything confusing about a set of game rules where co-operation is possible and I believe most others don't either.

If you are finding the concept of co-operation confusing to the point that you believe it to be impossible and betrayal to be inevitable that says a lot more about your personality than it does about the actual game rules.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

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

#163 Post by LienRag »

wobbly wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2024 11:29 am If you are finding the concept of co-operation confusing to the point that you believe it to be impossible and betrayal to be inevitable that says a lot more about your personality than it does about the actual game rules.

I am perfectly fine with cooperation, as I have proved in the team games I have played.

Creating a in-group through subjective reasons for the purpose of cooperating to kill an out-group (defined by it not belonging to the in-group) is called fascism (or at least bullying), and I am absolutely aware of its possibility, that's why I specifically insist on banning it in any game that I agree to play.

Note that it's not only the logical consequence of no-fixed-teams multiple-winners set of rules, it's something that I've seen deploy in MMPOGs (cough - 4chan/gamergate - cough) and something I certainly don't want to be part of.

That's why I'm adamant to only play with rules that remove all confusion and make clear from the start either the impossibility (fixed teams) or the necessity (highlander-style free diplomacy) of betrayal, so said betrayal is all fun and games and not something subjective which can provoke grudges.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5883
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

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

#164 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Fri Jun 14, 2024 12:59 pm I am perfectly fine with cooperation, as I have proved in the team games I have played.
Did you ask your partners? I know some would have liked to exit the alliance because of your egotistic behavior.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2023
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

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

#165 Post by wobbly »

Proved it to the point that I out right refuse to play in a team game where we are on the same side.

If an attitude of what's mine is mine, and what's yours is also mine, is co-operation then yes, you are capable of it.

Post Reply