Hi Maho,
A couple of questions about the deadlines you posted.
1. You put the deadline for signing up as Nov 15th. Is this an error? Given that we still have plenty of spaces presumably more players can still join. And Kontium just did.
2. You state the deadline for creation of votes as Nov 15th. I created 1 vote and 1 page on Nov 10th. You rejected these 2. I replaced them with 3 votes on Nov 14th. They wait as content(not published). I hope the deadline refers to my creation date and not the publication date. Correct?
Kevin
Well, deadline isn't mistake, but I simply had funeral and had no time to close submission.
Kevin - Janq asked me about deadline. I was sceptic about it first, but I think it's good thing. Noone said that we need to have full 30 players in game ....
I would suggest relaxing the signup date, but keep the poll creating date and start date fixed (for a non-team game)
Some people may not wish to play depending on poll rules.... Does it really matter if a couple of people sign up a 1-2 days before the game starts (for a non-team game at least).
Mrsynical
The sign-up date means that we get less idlers at the beginning of the game. Because we know exactly when the game starts noone will miss the crucial early turns because they missed the start.
the sign-up date means that we get less idlers at the beginning of the game. Because we know exactly when the game starts
Aren't Sign-up date and start date independent. Changing sign-up date shouldn't effect ilders. Changing the start date will.
I would suggest that the people who sign up latest are less likely to be idlers. Those who sign up earliest are more likely to forget or have something else come up...
This is my first time so i'm unsure of a couple of things. When we log on for the first turn do we all need to be on at the same time or does something else happen? I'm really looking forward to the game!
Ok, one more thing do we get to choose our own nations and leaders or is it random?
EDIT: What time does the turn change? I'm at GMT +8 but what time is the game set to?
Elrik has brought to my attention an oddity in the 2.1 combat code. It seems that Per removed the attack power penalty when a unit attacks with only 1/3 or 2/3 in PR#15809 (in March 2006). This means that in 2.1 based longturn games if a unit attacks with only 1/3 or 2/3 moves left it still has full attack power (as if it had 1 or more moves left) rather than a power reduced by 2/3 or 1/3 respectively.
There is also no server option or ruleset flag to restore the 2.0 (and earlier) combat rules. Nor has the documentation on the freeciv wiki (or anywhere else) been updated with the new rules.
Please reply here if you want to have the 2.0 combat rules restored, or at least made possible via ruleset/server setting and I will write a patch and raise the issue on freeciv-dev.
Hey Book,
I'm reading between the lines that you don't really agree with this change. It's a big-impact change, and while we all can get used to it, I wonder what is the reason for it?
I think the '1/3 rule' is analogical to a real-life situation and it results in more complex tactical decisions in freeciv (i.e. shall I attack now with 2/3 left, or shall I wait till next turn).
So, I'm definitely for bringing the '1/3 rule' back into 2.1 (it might be too late for this game - that's okay).
ste
I too would like the '1/3 rule' brought back into FreeCiv, as an optional setting.
The author of this code change states that the old (documented) '1/3 rule' penalizes new players who don't know about it. Yet his undocumented change to the rules had the exact opposite effect it penalized the experienced players who knew about the rule and didn't attack because they assumed the rule was still in place.
At the very least by making this an option and voting on it we all know what the ruleset we are playing really is.
I posted the patch to mantis, so it can be included in the 2.1 server code when maho gives it the go ahead.
Unfortunately since the modified combat code is used by both client and server (it is in the common/ directory) unpatched clients will show wrong win chance (in the info popup) if they have 1/3 or 2/3 moves left, the server is patched, and the tiredattackpenalty setting is set to 1. Other than in this situation, old clients should be compatible with a patched server (so I assume it is not really necessary to patch clients too).
Here's a link to the freeciv ticket if you want to see a non-hack way of fixing this problem (of course that method makes older versions incompatible, so it is only for freeciv 2.2), or if you want to leave a comment visible by other freeciv coders.
So, I'm definitely for bringing the '1/3 rule' back into 2.1 (it might be too late for this game - that's okay).
The patch allows the setting to be set at any time, so except for that issue with unpatched clients I mentioned, if maho were to patch the server and restart it could be done as soon as he finds time to do so.
Perhaps though it might be better to leave it for the next lt game when the rule can be put to a proper vote.
So, who is the Chief Idler? :) I have no idea why he need to idle the game after sign-up deadline, but it's obviously that the 10 days delay was not enough. :)
I have been inactive for a little while and I want to be sure I'm up to date on the status of ltxiv and ltex2.1.
1) We are 'no caravans'? I see caravans lost the poll 6 to 4. I would have voted for caravans, but I see that that would not have made enough difference to change the result. Is it too late to vote, anyway?
2) We are past Nov. 25 and I don't yet see any server settings, although I already see one quote about an idler. Has the game begun or are we still in limbo?
3) I know this isn't the appropriate forum but what's up with ltex2.1? Is the server completely down?
Thanks for the update. I look forward to getting into the games soon.
I would be happy to add new players up to the 30 limit before the game starts. The rule to close the subscription list 10 days before the start seems nonsense now that the game has been delayed.
I wanted to start it right now, I have everything prepared ... but ok.
Attention: I open subscribing time window, from now, to saturday (unknown hour, maybe it will be even sunday :D). So if you want to subscribe - you have about 2 days to do that.
I see that diplomacy is set to 3, "restricted to teams". Since we have no teams does that mean diplomacy is cancelled completely? I have not run across any other players yet and I figure I should find out sooner rather than later.
I went to settle my second city in a beautiful location to find that I was SOL because we have a citymindist 4 setting, and I had to waste a turn moving to another location. I didn't recall seeing citymindist in the voting polls at all. When I looked at the server settings, I noticed they are all ltxiii settings, including diplomacy 3. Is the standard operating procedure to simply keep every setting from the previous game that hasn't been voted on?
I certainly would have liked to have voted on some of the retained settings and I suppose that I will need to be more active in the future during poll season.
i understand -and i appreciate, that simple way of changing rules from game to another, but there is something annoying in this diplomacy=3 setting for a game without team.
Does that really mean that there is no way of making diplomacy here ?
A game where allies cannot share techs is gonna be very sad :(
If so, i suggest an exception to vote and change this forgotten setting ASAP.
Diplomacy was changed in LTXIII to remove the teleporting exploit. I am glad we did so. Strategy in this game surely must centre on no caravans and no diplomacy.
I wonder how do You want to teleport cara without cara;) It`s enough that there is no trade, diplomacy definately should be turn on. Now is FFA game not Team
Yes, but there were teams!
Actual teams made of multiple people. Now it is absolutely no diplomacy.
And, by the way, teleportation was restricted by "no city trading". No need of blocking whole diplomacy, isn't it?
On the whole I am against changing the rules after the game has started. Initial strategy and position was based on the ruleset when we started.
If we are going to change the rules then we have to also consider restarting the game.
The issue of teleporting is a major issue and it is not just about city trading or caravans. The vote on diplomacy sadly lacks all the links to the prior discussion on teleporting that came after LT11 and LT12. (BTW you can still look and see how each of us voted at that time, my position remains the same)
The teleporting issue is going to be a skeleton in the closet that keeps coming back to haunt us unless a proper patch against this exploit is developed. Those who know about the teleporting tricks will have a massive advantage over those who don't. And while we ban diplomacy many players will not be aware of its existence.
Just to be clear
1. I am strongly against changing the rules after the game has started for this issue.
2. I will vote for diplomacy if there is a vote but in the long term I want a patch that removes the teleport issue.
3. If we are going to allow new votes then I suggest we restart the game.
4. At that point I would add Book's new tired-attack patch. And increase the number of starting settlers to 5.
Kevin
I agree, that teleporting is an exploit, and being one, should be blocked. But I am not sure, if diplomacy=4 - because 3=4 in this case ( greetings to my math teachers :D) - is the price I'd like to pay for it.
I am also against changing the rules after game starts, but I accept it when it's a neccessity. And this is the case, in my opinion.
Ultimately, I'd prefer to write teleporting how-to manual, for making the chances more equal, than play single player game with 19 other nations I cannot interact with - what's the difference if they are human- or Ai-controlled, except playing better. I can do it without 19 people. This is not the reason we gathered here, to play single player game.
When there are fixed teams of size greater than one, diplomacy can be restricted, ok, but not when we play teamless game. We should block teleporting with other means, because setting diplomacy to 4, is the one very step before not playing at all - there won't be teleporting too, will it? We play Freeciv, because we preffered to interact with human players over playing original Civilisation I or II with AI players. Playing Freeciv without diplomacy, is like having a car with no starting the engine allowed. Like Freeciv without diplomacy is Civilisation, such a car is just an impractical trailer.
I agree, that teleporting calls for solving it permamently. Unfortunately, my knowledge is too small to produce a patch. I could alter the code properly and safely, but I need a little help to convert the changes into patch-like form. Solution, temporary with no shade of doubt, I see easiest to implement, is changing the function that handles units in case of breaking alliance, for it to recall disbanding procedure instead of relocating procedure. Crude, but effective in means of deterring nasty teleporters. As temporary it may be, it's definitely much more proper solution than writing teleporting manual for newcomers :)
I am aware of many shortcomings of my solution, you do not need to list them in haste :)
Still, I am against changing number of settlers. Both changes in diplomacy and patching ( including 1>move attack patch) can be done without restarting the game.
Explain me, please, what is the point of playing "single player" game at all.
Except, "you could have voted for different settings" , "game was started with these settings and it can't be modified" and ultimately "you are not forced to play this game" crap :)
it isn't single player game ..... we did it 10 games ago ( LT5) and it was very funny game. By the way, whole world was allied against one player, despites fact that diplomacy was disabled.
Ok, let me put it this way then.
Is my poll illegal or invalid, according to any of existing rules?
Is there any legitimate reason for you not to approve it to be published?
Yes, there is - I don't want to change rules when game is started without very strong reason. Your reason (you like diplomacy) isn't even a bit strong for me.
I don't know if my reason is legitimate enough for you :).
But even if I had no such reason - I wouldn't publish is, because it's invalid for me - it isn't clear what should I change in settings. Of course I suppose that I shouldn't write:
Should diplomacy be open to all = yes
into settings of civserver. I'm afraid it wouldn't parse it.
I expected some negative reasons, but more or less reasonable ones.
First is made on "I don't want" and "isn't [...] strong for me". If we throw away extremely subjective content, there is nothing left. For me you just said, "you will play whatever I see fit, period". Ok, but as a commentary: Poll is about getting the opinion of more than one man. Me liking diplomacy ( which is not true, by the way) is poor reason to change the rules,agreed. But my question was about the poll about changing rules, not about changing rules. Maybe the poll would give the result of "almost everyone wants it to be changed"? Would the reason of "vast majority likes diplomacy" be a bit stronger for you? We can't tell the results of the poll, before it's concluded. It won't be concluded, if not published.
Thus, it is not only illegitimate, but utterly egocentric.
It isn't clear what to change? Maybe actually reading the poll content would help. I am pretty much sure, phrase "changing diplomacy to =0" appeared more than once, by pure coincidence not appearing in the last line you seem to have read. On other hand, it appeared in title. Without using pictures, that could not be made clearer, I am afraid. Can we attach pictures to polls?
In simple terms: your answer crosses the line of nonsense here, a bit.
in democracy, everyone is equal, but someone is more equal than another :). like Marshal of the Sejm, or another chairman,leader,etc.. of house of lords, parliaments, etc....
I pay role of chairman of our "parliament", and I use my right to not publish this poll, as there it's about changing rules during game. Rule is that we don't change rules during game. We had some exceptions, but there was always very very strong reasons. This reason isn't even a bit strong in my opinion.
Sure it's subjective, as someone must judge it, and every judge is subjective. It's kind of question 'using which method of voting will we decide about method of voting'. We cannot decide about everything in voting.
If I hear strong and consistent voice of many players "we want to vote it, despite it's breaking rule", I will consider publishing it (after you fix it's formal weakness). But so far I hear only your voice, so it's only consistent - isn't strong nor doesn't come from many players.
It isn't clear what to change? Maybe actually reading the poll content would help. I am pretty much sure, phrase "changing diplomacy to =0" appeared more than once, by pure coincidence not appearing in the last line you seem to have read. On other hand, it appeared in title. Without using pictures, that could not be made clearer, I am afraid. Can we attach pictures to polls?
No, it isn't clear. I see 5 paragraphs of text, each one is rather big. So, if I should read them carefully to husk information what setting should be changed to what - then no, it isn't clear, even if you wrote it clearly between your blablah (sorry, but it's whole 323 words. If someone spend so many letters to justify his will to change one setting - then it's blahblah for me).
But it (size of explanation) would not not disturb me, if you clearly separate what you want to change and reasons. So, should we set diplomacy=0 would be ok. But should we make diplomacy open for anyone isn't ok, as I must read whole text, to find what exactly you mean by diplomacy for everyone, before I vote for it.
If I hear strong and consistent voice of many players "we want to vote it, despite it's breaking rule", I will consider publishing it (after you fix it's formal weakness). But so far I hear only your voice, so it's only consistent - isn't strong nor doesn't come from many players.
So let me add my voice: I support a voting.
=== 0h Marduk, thou art chiefest among the great gods! To destroy and to create; speak thou the word, and thy command shall be fulfilled. ===
I am supporting too, but only in condition that game will be restarted.
When you are placing your first cities you are doing it for best use of ruleset, and if settings are change this placement is usefull.
But i don't want to restart the game, because i'm satisfied of my city placements anyway and it seems Edrim is not ;)
Maho, why don't you open a first poll to show clearly if people want a poll to change to diplomacy=0 ?
It could be : if more than 66% of LT XIV players want a poll for diplomacy, we make it
I am satisfied of my city placement, but i did it knowing that there is no diplomacy and no caravans.
After changing it will be usefull for me to have cities there, thats why i want restart in order to changing settings.
Well, I see why we disagree about the legitimacy of the poll. I think you think about it as a major thing, the poll itself, but I think we can separate the poll, which is simply a question asked to players, and it's consequences, which is possible change in game rules.
We cannot decide about everything in voting.
I agree with that. But I strongly state: we can ask other players about everything connected to game in form of a poll. It is a way of gathering common opinion. I agree that someone should have more power than others when it comes to deciding, I do not question your leadership in this community, but I think, judging over what are the questions allowed to be asked, is a bit strict, don't you think?
I don't want to argue about "formal weakness" of the poll in question, I can fix it. Yet, I disagree with your opinion on that "formal weaknesses". There is one thing in bold and in larger font, and it it "Setting "diplomacy" to 0". It kinda sticks out. I don't want to argue about what's blahblah and what is not and why... but in normal life, do you read only underlined or printed in bold parts of things you sign? I will recall subjectiveness again: some people like things explained to them in most intricate details, before they decide. You like your questions to be oneliners, clearly. But it's still personal :)
To be honest, I can't imagine that diplomacy with no caravans is going to be any better than none of either.
I have explained before that I feel that no diplomacy and no caravans is a total discrimination against players who would rather accomplish either of the other two goals of the game besides conquest.
I am personally very upset by these game rules. Since I joined the longturn community eight months ago, I have been waiting for a (v2.1) regular game with regular rules, where I can govern peacefully AND manage to stay alive and prosper. First, we played a team game, where my team refused to let me play peacefully, and now we have no caravans or diplomacy.
With the traditional caravan method, (double trade for separate continents and double trade for separate civilization), a warlike civilization can have as much to gain from me by peace and trading than conquest.
Since we have chosen no caravans, (which I'd love to see a "re-vote" on, since I missed the first poll), it probably doesn't matter whether we have diplomacy or not, because I'm probably on my own anyway.
I would like to see some more voting on other issues if we were to restart, particularly citymindist. It seems like we keep legislating rules to keep the game fair, and every time, we simply restrict the types of available gameplay.
I would also like to see a vote for alltemperate = 0.
Well, don't get me wrong, but I think I'll withdraw the poll after all this fuss. I did not like to start the great movement for "lets re-vote everything". In my opinion, we should vote only things that are possible to be introduced/changed only by restarting the server with loaded savegame, if it's not possible to simply alter settings. If this is going in direction of restarting whole game, I am against :P
the only thing i'd like to change is diplomacy, because i assumed that getting from a team game to a FFA game would have implicitely changed this. Which is wrong.
If it leads to revote everything... better to continue LT XIV like this, and to prepare polls for LT XV.
After all, new settings mean new strategies. There is surely something to learn here.
I see that my last comment was enough to drop the conversation around diplomacy and these settings. I agree that after such a long wait, it is silly to go back to polling and wait even longer to play. I think it would be nice to start polling for ltxv as soon as ltxiv is started (ie: now) so that we can have adequate discussion of all the settings AND still start the game at a reasonable time.
Ultimately, I'd prefer to write teleporting how-to manual, for making the chances more equal,
Even if you write a manual - many/most people are not willing to spend 1-2 hrs a day shuffling cities backwards and forwards.
Unfortunately, my knowledge is too small to produce a patch. I could alter the code properly and safely, but I need a little help to convert the changes into patch-like form.
Assuming you comment your changes ... are the diff files not considered an adequate enough patch??
I had unix-allergy through my studies... which was very bad thing, I have to admit now. I should have fought this :). Avoiding unix-like systems while learning programming resulted in seriously crippling my practical abilities. I am good at writing programs that solve riddles, equations, but nothing practical it seems, like drivers... or independent packages :D
Unix doesn't have to be hard (although it can be). diff is a program which creates a file showing the differences between an original file and file B. "patch" can then be used to reconstruct file B given the diff file and original file.
The diff process is explained in detail via book's link or specifically here
I know, it is not hard. It is simply different... but I guess I was repulsed by the idea I am forced to work with it. You know, young and rebellious :) And in the end, like in most cases of adolescent mutiny, it proved to be very bad idea :D, I wasted lot of time, when I could actually learn something :)
There is no need to restart the game from the beginning, as nobody has already felt the lack of it, has he ?
To ban city trading is enough to avoid efficient ways of teleportation (not all but efficient). And with no caravan to teleport, there is not much interest.
So please Maho allow a poll on diplomacy=0, and only that so things don't get complicated and game continues with happy players :)
The important vote on caravans came at the end of the voting period. The outcome was a surprise. Having no caravan trade might make the game slower, or bias the game towards smallpox. Perhaps we should lower rapturedelay to 1 to balance this.
Another measure to lessen the likelihood of smallpox might be the 3 population points needed for each new settler. We could also vote on this.
In spite of all this fuss, and despite significant will to vote of significant part of population, I am cancelling it.
I'd like you to admit, it was not unclear, though :) - title really sticks out :D
Main reason I do it for, is:
I did not win the game playing alone, yet :)
edit: I will discard it... if someone tells me how to do it. :)
Hi Maho
I see the new code has been added here and on the server. Does that mean delegation is now working?
Also is it right that we are able to delegate to any longturn user not just the original players of the game?
Kevin
I had also wrongly assumed that groups of players working together could claim victory as a team in this game. But if you look at the rules. it clearly states
"the only outcome of a no-alliances game is 1 winner, who gets maximum points."
They are only rules of Marduk's ranking .... which is the only ranking, so is almost official, but however, is different in this point to site rules, where you can read:
Arbitrary players (with arbitrary win share) may be considered the winner of an LT game if they agree to it, and if all live players agree to it.
Yea the "battle of the rules" has never been finished ;)
I still think we should not allow more than one team to win the game, or in this case more than one player. Otherwise we open Pandora's box.
In LT14 two teams claimed victory together. I think they deserved victory, but I think we should not allow that in the future. If we allow it again then next time 3 teams will claim victory, and then half of the game gangbang a few sad loners etc. The "site rules" for example allow that 29 players ally, kill 1 player and then claim victory.
=== 0h Marduk, thou art chiefest among the great gods! To destroy and to create; speak thou the word, and thy command shall be fulfilled. ===
Comments
Team size =1
Hi Maho,
Without teams dead players get to see the whole map. To play a FFA game it is better to put each player into a team of size 1.
Kevin
Querying the deadlines
Hi Maho,
A couple of questions about the deadlines you posted.
1. You put the deadline for signing up as Nov 15th. Is this an error? Given that we still have plenty of spaces presumably more players can still join. And Kontium just did.
2. You state the deadline for creation of votes as Nov 15th. I created 1 vote and 1 page on Nov 10th. You rejected these 2. I replaced them with 3 votes on Nov 14th. They wait as content(not published). I hope the deadline refers to my creation date and not the publication date. Correct?
Kevin
I think that deadline is a
I think that deadline is a mistake, I just signed in.
Well, deadline isn't
Well, deadline isn't mistake, but I simply had funeral and had no time to close submission.
Kevin - Janq asked me about deadline. I was sceptic about it first, but I think it's good thing. Noone said that we need to have full 30 players in game ....
I would suggest relaxing the
I would suggest relaxing the signup date, but keep the poll creating date and start date fixed (for a non-team game)
Some people may not wish to play depending on poll rules.... Does it really matter if a couple of people sign up a 1-2 days before the game starts (for a non-team game at least).
Mrsynical The sign-up date
Mrsynical
The sign-up date means that we get less idlers at the beginning of the game. Because we know exactly when the game starts noone will miss the crucial early turns because they missed the start.
-I got Ham but I'm not a Hamster-
the sign-up date means that
the sign-up date means that we get less idlers at the beginning of the game. Because we know exactly when the game starts
Aren't Sign-up date and start date independent. Changing sign-up date shouldn't effect ilders. Changing the start date will.
I would suggest that the people who sign up latest are less likely to be idlers. Those who sign up earliest are more likely to forget or have something else come up...
Just my 2 cents.
Sign up?
Hi. Is it too late to sign up for this? Please let me know. Thanks.
Kryon
well, it would not be too
well, it would not be too late, if you created account and pressed 'sign me' button. Now it is too late.
This is my first time so i'm
This is my first time so i'm unsure of a couple of things. When we log on for the first turn do we all need to be on at the same time or does something else happen? I'm really looking forward to the game!
something else happen ....
something else happen .... :).
You can log in whenever you want. All you need to log in every [timeout/3600] hours to not loose a turn.
Ok, one more thing do we get
Ok, one more thing do we get to choose our own nations and leaders or is it random?
EDIT: What time does the turn change? I'm at GMT +8 but what time is the game set to?
nations - random name/login
nations - random
name/login - the same as in longturn.org
time - it's hour when I start game. Which means - random.
Thank you! Looking forward
Thank you! Looking forward to the 25th!
-I got Ham but I'm not a Hamster-
tomorrow ?
Would it be the begginning of a wonderful caravanless game :P ?
Will you tell us on this
Will you tell us on this page when we start?
It begins... hopefully soon
-I got Ham but I'm not a Hamster-
Tomorrow became capacious
Tomorrow became capacious term :). I'll start it today.
2.1 combat does not have 1/3 penalty
Elrik has brought to my attention an oddity in the 2.1 combat code. It seems that Per removed the attack power penalty when a unit attacks with only 1/3 or 2/3 in PR#15809 (in March 2006). This means that in 2.1 based longturn games if a unit attacks with only 1/3 or 2/3 moves left it still has full attack power (as if it had 1 or more moves left) rather than a power reduced by 2/3 or 1/3 respectively.
There is also no server option or ruleset flag to restore the 2.0 (and earlier) combat rules. Nor has the documentation on the freeciv wiki (or anywhere else) been updated with the new rules.
Please reply here if you want to have the 2.0 combat rules restored, or at least made possible via ruleset/server setting and I will write a patch and raise the issue on freeciv-dev.
References:
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket...
http://freeciv.freeforums.org/...
http://freeciv.wikia.com/wiki/...
http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/fre...
Starting Soon?
Are we going to start soon??
-I got Ham but I'm not a Hamster-
yes, this doesn't make sense
Hey Book,
I'm reading between the lines that you don't really agree with this change. It's a big-impact change, and while we all can get used to it, I wonder what is the reason for it?
I think the '1/3 rule' is analogical to a real-life situation and it results in more complex tactical decisions in freeciv (i.e. shall I attack now with 2/3 left, or shall I wait till next turn).
So, I'm definitely for bringing the '1/3 rule' back into 2.1 (it might be too late for this game - that's okay).
ste
Fixing the undocumented change to the '1/3 rule'
I too would like the '1/3 rule' brought back into FreeCiv, as an optional setting.
The author of this code change states that the old (documented) '1/3 rule' penalizes new players who don't know about it. Yet his undocumented change to the rules had the exact opposite effect it penalized the experienced players who knew about the rule and didn't attack because they assumed the rule was still in place.
At the very least by making this an option and voting on it we all know what the ruleset we are playing really is.
Alright I'll make a patch
Alright I'll make a patch and create a ticket on the freeciv bugtracker tomorrow.
I posted the patch to
I posted the patch to mantis, so it can be included in the 2.1 server code when maho gives it the go ahead.
Unfortunately since the modified combat code is used by both client and server (it is in the common/ directory) unpatched clients will show wrong win chance (in the info popup) if they have 1/3 or 2/3 moves left, the server is patched, and the tiredattackpenalty setting is set to 1. Other than in this situation, old clients should be compatible with a patched server (so I assume it is not really necessary to patch clients too).
Here's a link to the freeciv
Here's a link to the freeciv ticket if you want to see a non-hack way of fixing this problem (of course that method makes older versions incompatible, so it is only for freeciv 2.2), or if you want to leave a comment visible by other freeciv coders.
So, I'm definitely for
So, I'm definitely for bringing the '1/3 rule' back into 2.1 (it might be too late for this game - that's okay).
The patch allows the setting to be set at any time, so except for that issue with unpatched clients I mentioned, if maho were to patch the server and restart it could be done as soon as he finds time to do so.
Perhaps though it might be better to leave it for the next lt game when the rule can be put to a proper vote.
Thanks for the patch.
I will make a vote to add this patch to the next 2.1 game.
Maho,
can you give us some news about the start of LT XIV ?
It's written : "game start: Nov 25 2008". Have I missed the gap ?
So, who is the Chief Idler?
So, who is the Chief Idler? :) I have no idea why he need to idle the game after sign-up deadline, but it's obviously that the 10 days delay was not enough. :)
What's the status?
I have been inactive for a little while and I want to be sure I'm up to date on the status of ltxiv and ltex2.1.
1) We are 'no caravans'? I see caravans lost the poll 6 to 4. I would have voted for caravans, but I see that that would not have made enough difference to change the result. Is it too late to vote, anyway?
2) We are past Nov. 25 and I don't yet see any server settings, although I already see one quote about an idler. Has the game begun or are we still in limbo?
3) I know this isn't the appropriate forum but what's up with ltex2.1? Is the server completely down?
Thanks for the update. I look forward to getting into the games soon.
-Benjamin
10 days later...
I think 10 days is long enough, can we please start soon/now?
-I got Ham but I'm not a Hamster-
I know it's very late, but
I know it's very late, but could I get a spot in this game? There seem to be plenty of free places left.
=== 0h Marduk, thou art chiefest among the great gods! To destroy and to create; speak thou the word, and thy command shall be fulfilled. ===
I think you should be
I think you should be welcome, Marduk.
Maho ?
Allowing new subscribers
I would be happy to add new players up to the 30 limit before the game starts. The rule to close the subscription list 10 days before the start seems nonsense now that the game has been delayed.
Maho ?
hmm, okay ... I wanted to
hmm, okay ...
I wanted to start it right now, I have everything prepared ... but ok.
Attention: I open subscribing time window, from now, to saturday (unknown hour, maybe it will be even sunday :D). So if you want to subscribe - you have about 2 days to do that.
Can I still sign up
Can I still sign up please?
Thanks!
LTXIV: Diplomacy and other ltxiii settings
I see that diplomacy is set to 3, "restricted to teams". Since we have no teams does that mean diplomacy is cancelled completely? I have not run across any other players yet and I figure I should find out sooner rather than later.
I went to settle my second city in a beautiful location to find that I was SOL because we have a citymindist 4 setting, and I had to waste a turn moving to another location. I didn't recall seeing citymindist in the voting polls at all. When I looked at the server settings, I noticed they are all ltxiii settings, including diplomacy 3. Is the standard operating procedure to simply keep every setting from the previous game that hasn't been voted on?
I certainly would have liked to have voted on some of the retained settings and I suppose that I will need to be more active in the future during poll season.
It`s a standart way of
It`s a standart way of making new ruleset. Take old and and votes:)
http://www.longturn.org/how-r
http://www.longturn.org/how-re...
ok...
i understand -and i appreciate, that simple way of changing rules from game to another, but there is something annoying in this diplomacy=3 setting for a game without team.
Does that really mean that there is no way of making diplomacy here ?
A game where allies cannot share techs is gonna be very sad :(
If so, i suggest an exception to vote and change this forgotten setting ASAP.
I made a poll about that. It
I made a poll about that.
It just waits for publishing/approving by maho.
Diplomacy was not a forgotten setting!
Diplomacy was changed in LTXIII to remove the teleporting exploit. I am glad we did so. Strategy in this game surely must centre on no caravans and no diplomacy.
I wonder how do You want to
I wonder how do You want to teleport cara without cara;) It`s enough that there is no trade, diplomacy definately should be turn on. Now is FFA game not Team
Yes, but there were
Yes, but there were teams!
Actual teams made of multiple people. Now it is absolutely no diplomacy.
And, by the way, teleportation was restricted by "no city trading". No need of blocking whole diplomacy, isn't it?
Changing the rules after the game has started.
On the whole I am against changing the rules after the game has started. Initial strategy and position was based on the ruleset when we started.
If we are going to change the rules then we have to also consider restarting the game.
The issue of teleporting is a major issue and it is not just about city trading or caravans. The vote on diplomacy sadly lacks all the links to the prior discussion on teleporting that came after LT11 and LT12. (BTW you can still look and see how each of us voted at that time, my position remains the same)
The teleporting issue is going to be a skeleton in the closet that keeps coming back to haunt us unless a proper patch against this exploit is developed. Those who know about the teleporting tricks will have a massive advantage over those who don't. And while we ban diplomacy many players will not be aware of its existence.
Just to be clear
1. I am strongly against changing the rules after the game has started for this issue.
2. I will vote for diplomacy if there is a vote but in the long term I want a patch that removes the teleport issue.
3. If we are going to allow new votes then I suggest we restart the game.
4. At that point I would add Book's new tired-attack patch. And increase the number of starting settlers to 5.
Kevin
I agree, that teleporting is
I agree, that teleporting is an exploit, and being one, should be blocked. But I am not sure, if diplomacy=4 - because 3=4 in this case ( greetings to my math teachers :D) - is the price I'd like to pay for it.
I am also against changing the rules after game starts, but I accept it when it's a neccessity. And this is the case, in my opinion.
Ultimately, I'd prefer to write teleporting how-to manual, for making the chances more equal, than play single player game with 19 other nations I cannot interact with - what's the difference if they are human- or Ai-controlled, except playing better. I can do it without 19 people. This is not the reason we gathered here, to play single player game.
When there are fixed teams of size greater than one, diplomacy can be restricted, ok, but not when we play teamless game. We should block teleporting with other means, because setting diplomacy to 4, is the one very step before not playing at all - there won't be teleporting too, will it? We play Freeciv, because we preffered to interact with human players over playing original Civilisation I or II with AI players. Playing Freeciv without diplomacy, is like having a car with no starting the engine allowed. Like Freeciv without diplomacy is Civilisation, such a car is just an impractical trailer.
I agree, that teleporting calls for solving it permamently. Unfortunately, my knowledge is too small to produce a patch. I could alter the code properly and safely, but I need a little help to convert the changes into patch-like form. Solution, temporary with no shade of doubt, I see easiest to implement, is changing the function that handles units in case of breaking alliance, for it to recall disbanding procedure instead of relocating procedure. Crude, but effective in means of deterring nasty teleporters. As temporary it may be, it's definitely much more proper solution than writing teleporting manual for newcomers :)
I am aware of many shortcomings of my solution, you do not need to list them in haste :)
Still, I am against changing number of settlers. Both changes in diplomacy and patching ( including 1>move attack patch) can be done without restarting the game.
wow, what a large block of
wow, what a large block of text.
My opinion is - I appreciate your opinion - I will take it into account when launching LTXV :D.
Explain me, please, what is
Explain me, please, what is the point of playing "single player" game at all.
Except, "you could have voted for different settings" , "game was started with these settings and it can't be modified" and ultimately "you are not forced to play this game" crap :)
it isn't single player game
it isn't single player game ..... we did it 10 games ago ( LT5) and it was very funny game. By the way, whole world was allied against one player, despites fact that diplomacy was disabled.
Well...
Ok, let me put it this way then.
Is my poll illegal or invalid, according to any of existing rules?
Is there any legitimate reason for you not to approve it to be published?
If not, then please publish it.
Yes, there is - I don't want
Yes, there is - I don't want to change rules when game is started without very strong reason. Your reason (you like diplomacy) isn't even a bit strong for me.
I don't know if my reason is legitimate enough for you :).
But even if I had no such reason - I wouldn't publish is, because it's invalid for me - it isn't clear what should I change in settings. Of course I suppose that I shouldn't write:
Should diplomacy be open to all = yes
into settings of civserver. I'm afraid it wouldn't parse it.
I expected some negative
I expected some negative reasons, but more or less reasonable ones.
First is made on "I don't want" and "isn't [...] strong for me". If we throw away extremely subjective content, there is nothing left. For me you just said, "you will play whatever I see fit, period". Ok, but as a commentary: Poll is about getting the opinion of more than one man. Me liking diplomacy ( which is not true, by the way) is poor reason to change the rules,agreed. But my question was about the poll about changing rules, not about changing rules. Maybe the poll would give the result of "almost everyone wants it to be changed"? Would the reason of "vast majority likes diplomacy" be a bit stronger for you? We can't tell the results of the poll, before it's concluded. It won't be concluded, if not published.
Thus, it is not only illegitimate, but utterly egocentric.
It isn't clear what to change? Maybe actually reading the poll content would help. I am pretty much sure, phrase "changing diplomacy to =0" appeared more than once, by pure coincidence not appearing in the last line you seem to have read. On other hand, it appeared in title. Without using pictures, that could not be made clearer, I am afraid. Can we attach pictures to polls?
In simple terms: your answer crosses the line of nonsense here, a bit.
in democracy, everyone is
in democracy, everyone is equal, but someone is more equal than another :). like Marshal of the Sejm, or another chairman,leader,etc.. of house of lords, parliaments, etc....
I pay role of chairman of our "parliament", and I use my right to not publish this poll, as there it's about changing rules during game. Rule is that we don't change rules during game. We had some exceptions, but there was always very very strong reasons. This reason isn't even a bit strong in my opinion.
Sure it's subjective, as someone must judge it, and every judge is subjective. It's kind of question 'using which method of voting will we decide about method of voting'. We cannot decide about everything in voting.
If I hear strong and consistent voice of many players "we want to vote it, despite it's breaking rule", I will consider publishing it (after you fix it's formal weakness). But so far I hear only your voice, so it's only consistent - isn't strong nor doesn't come from many players.
It isn't clear what to change? Maybe actually reading the poll content would help. I am pretty much sure, phrase "changing diplomacy to =0" appeared more than once, by pure coincidence not appearing in the last line you seem to have read. On other hand, it appeared in title. Without using pictures, that could not be made clearer, I am afraid. Can we attach pictures to polls?
No, it isn't clear. I see 5 paragraphs of text, each one is rather big. So, if I should read them carefully to husk information what setting should be changed to what - then no, it isn't clear, even if you wrote it clearly between your blablah (sorry, but it's whole 323 words. If someone spend so many letters to justify his will to change one setting - then it's blahblah for me).
But it (size of explanation) would not not disturb me, if you clearly separate what you want to change and reasons. So, should we set diplomacy=0 would be ok. But should we make diplomacy open for anyone isn't ok, as I must read whole text, to find what exactly you mean by diplomacy for everyone, before I vote for it.
If I hear strong and
If I hear strong and consistent voice of many players "we want to vote it, despite it's breaking rule", I will consider publishing it (after you fix it's formal weakness). But so far I hear only your voice, so it's only consistent - isn't strong nor doesn't come from many players.
So let me add my voice: I support a voting.
=== 0h Marduk, thou art chiefest among the great gods! To destroy and to create; speak thou the word, and thy command shall be fulfilled. ===
Voting
I am supporting too, but only in condition that game will be restarted.
When you are placing your first cities you are doing it for best use of ruleset, and if settings are change this placement is usefull.
I'm supporting a poll
I'm supporting a poll too.
But i don't want to restart the game, because i'm satisfied of my city placements anyway and it seems Edrim is not ;)
Maho, why don't you open a first poll to show clearly if people want a poll to change to diplomacy=0 ?
It could be : if more than 66% of LT XIV players want a poll for diplomacy, we make it
City placement
I am satisfied of my city placement, but i did it knowing that there is no diplomacy and no caravans.
After changing it will be usefull for me to have cities there, thats why i want restart in order to changing settings.
Well, I see why we disagree
Well, I see why we disagree about the legitimacy of the poll. I think you think about it as a major thing, the poll itself, but I think we can separate the poll, which is simply a question asked to players, and it's consequences, which is possible change in game rules.
We cannot decide about everything in voting.
I agree with that. But I strongly state: we can ask other players about everything connected to game in form of a poll. It is a way of gathering common opinion. I agree that someone should have more power than others when it comes to deciding, I do not question your leadership in this community, but I think, judging over what are the questions allowed to be asked, is a bit strict, don't you think?
I don't want to argue about "formal weakness" of the poll in question, I can fix it. Yet, I disagree with your opinion on that "formal weaknesses". There is one thing in bold and in larger font, and it it "Setting "diplomacy" to 0". It kinda sticks out. I don't want to argue about what's blahblah and what is not and why... but in normal life, do you read only underlined or printed in bold parts of things you sign? I will recall subjectiveness again: some people like things explained to them in most intricate details, before they decide. You like your questions to be oneliners, clearly. But it's still personal :)
Diplomacy and other settings
I would like a vote on diplomacy.
To be honest, I can't imagine that diplomacy with no caravans is going to be any better than none of either.
I have explained before that I feel that no diplomacy and no caravans is a total discrimination against players who would rather accomplish either of the other two goals of the game besides conquest.
I am personally very upset by these game rules. Since I joined the longturn community eight months ago, I have been waiting for a (v2.1) regular game with regular rules, where I can govern peacefully AND manage to stay alive and prosper. First, we played a team game, where my team refused to let me play peacefully, and now we have no caravans or diplomacy.
With the traditional caravan method, (double trade for separate continents and double trade for separate civilization), a warlike civilization can have as much to gain from me by peace and trading than conquest.
Since we have chosen no caravans, (which I'd love to see a "re-vote" on, since I missed the first poll), it probably doesn't matter whether we have diplomacy or not, because I'm probably on my own anyway.
I would like to see some more voting on other issues if we were to restart, particularly citymindist. It seems like we keep legislating rules to keep the game fair, and every time, we simply restrict the types of available gameplay.
I would also like to see a vote for alltemperate = 0.
I agree...
...and want to give a try to this kind of game !
Well, don't get me wrong,
Well, don't get me wrong, but I think I'll withdraw the poll after all this fuss. I did not like to start the great movement for "lets re-vote everything". In my opinion, we should vote only things that are possible to be introduced/changed only by restarting the server with loaded savegame, if it's not possible to simply alter settings. If this is going in direction of restarting whole game, I am against :P
I agree with vonz,
the only thing i'd like to change is diplomacy, because i assumed that getting from a team game to a FFA game would have implicitely changed this. Which is wrong.
If it leads to revote everything... better to continue LT XIV like this, and to prepare polls for LT XV.
After all, new settings mean new strategies. There is surely something to learn here.
Pandora-poll
I see that my last comment was enough to drop the conversation around diplomacy and these settings. I agree that after such a long wait, it is silly to go back to polling and wait even longer to play. I think it would be nice to start polling for ltxv as soon as ltxiv is started (ie: now) so that we can have adequate discussion of all the settings AND still start the game at a reasonable time.
Ultimately, I'd prefer to
Ultimately, I'd prefer to write teleporting how-to manual, for making the chances more equal,
Even if you write a manual - many/most people are not willing to spend 1-2 hrs a day shuffling cities backwards and forwards.
Unfortunately, my knowledge is too small to produce a patch. I could alter the code properly and safely, but I need a little help to convert the changes into patch-like form.
Assuming you comment your changes ... are the diff files not considered an adequate enough patch??
Diff-what? I had
Diff-what?
I had unix-allergy through my studies... which was very bad thing, I have to admit now. I should have fought this :). Avoiding unix-like systems while learning programming resulted in seriously crippling my practical abilities. I am good at writing programs that solve riddles, equations, but nothing practical it seems, like drivers... or independent packages :D
How_to_Contribute
How_to_Contribute
diff and patch
Unix doesn't have to be hard (although it can be). diff is a program which creates a file showing the differences between an original file and file B. "patch" can then be used to reconstruct file B given the diff file and original file.
The diff process is explained in detail via book's link or specifically here
I know, it is not hard. It
I know, it is not hard. It is simply different... but I guess I was repulsed by the idea I am forced to work with it. You know, young and rebellious :) And in the end, like in most cases of adolescent mutiny, it proved to be very bad idea :D, I wasted lot of time, when I could actually learn something :)
There is no need to restart
There is no need to restart the game from the beginning, as nobody has already felt the lack of it, has he ?
To ban city trading is enough to avoid efficient ways of teleportation (not all but efficient). And with no caravan to teleport, there is not much interest.
So please Maho allow a poll on diplomacy=0, and only that so things don't get complicated and game continues with happy players :)
no, we still have military
no, we still have military units. for me it's fun ....
How about voting on rapturedelay too.
The important vote on caravans came at the end of the voting period. The outcome was a surprise. Having no caravan trade might make the game slower, or bias the game towards smallpox. Perhaps we should lower rapturedelay to 1 to balance this.
Another measure to lessen the likelihood of smallpox might be the 3 population points needed for each new settler. We could also vote on this.
Sorry, no voting about
Sorry, no voting about changing anything non-seriously.
Vonzgred, take out that pandora-poll :).
Weeell...
In spite of all this fuss, and despite significant will to vote of significant part of population, I am cancelling it.
I'd like you to admit, it was not unclear, though :) - title really sticks out :D
Main reason I do it for, is:
I did not win the game playing alone, yet :)
edit: I will discard it... if someone tells me how to do it. :)
New delegation routine
Hi Maho
I see the new code has been added here and on the server. Does that mean delegation is now working?
Also is it right that we are able to delegate to any longturn user not just the original players of the game?
Kevin
I see the new code has been
I see the new code has been added here and on the server. Does that mean delegation is now working?
I thought that it's obvious after my last information on longturn.org homepage
Also is it right that we are able to delegate to any longturn user not just the original players of the game?
Of course, limiting to players of game would unneccesary. Let's say Marduk wants to let his brother to play while he is in China again :).
erm....
Could you edit first sentence of last micro-paragraph? That's currently unclear, to say least :D
look who's talking! :). I
look who's talking! :).
I mean, that there is no reason to limit delegating control to players of given game. Is it clear enough?
team question
Do you all agree that, although there is no diplomacy in LT XIV, victory can be claimed by a team and not only by a single player ?
wrong assumptions
I had also wrongly assumed that groups of players working together could claim victory as a team in this game. But if you look at the rules. it clearly states
"the only outcome of a no-alliances game is 1 winner, who gets maximum points."
They are only rules of
They are only rules of Marduk's ranking .... which is the only ranking, so is almost official, but however, is different in this point to site rules, where you can read:
Arbitrary players (with arbitrary win share) may be considered the winner of an LT game if they agree to it, and if all live players agree to it.
Yea the "battle of the
Yea the "battle of the rules" has never been finished ;)
I still think we should not allow more than one team to win the game, or in this case more than one player. Otherwise we open Pandora's box.
In LT14 two teams claimed victory together. I think they deserved victory, but I think we should not allow that in the future. If we allow it again then next time 3 teams will claim victory, and then half of the game gangbang a few sad loners etc. The "site rules" for example allow that 29 players ally, kill 1 player and then claim victory.
=== 0h Marduk, thou art chiefest among the great gods! To destroy and to create; speak thou the word, and thy command shall be fulfilled. ===
sticking to the rules
I don't think we should change the rules once the game has started.
Maho's site rules allow a group victory. That is surely the primary rule.
But clearly any group winning the game will not gain any credit for it in the rankings.
WE in Pragua :)
I will be away from 07/05 to 10/05.
Marduk will play both LTXIV and LTXV for me. Thanks to him.