#1 Re: New Games » Possible solutions to fix the problems with tc moves » 08.12.2018 15:29:24

I guess I am too linear. I never would have thought of that tactic. I am in favor of adding a per user wait time. Would help the scenario you gave. Would also help with those that stay online a lot during a turn. Keeps you from being able to make a ton of changes in a single turn. Maybe something like 4 or 5 hours for the per user wait time.

#2 Re: New Games » Possible solutions to fix the problems with tc moves » 08.12.2018 02:25:36

Wieder - What problem are you trying to solve with these suggestions? I could use a bit of context. I thought that with unitwaittime (UWT) you were pretty much stuck to do nothing with your units for 10 hours after move. This means that if you move your units 10 seconds before TC then you can't do anything until almost the middle of the following turn. You and play with stuff your cities are doing mid-turn, but only so much of that is going to work in your favor as well.  This is honestly why I have never really understood the whole RTS thing that folks complain about.

#3 Re: New Games » Naming conventions for the LT games when they are being planned » 08.12.2018 02:21:53

Corbeau wrote:

Well, I'd like to keep LT(number) simply for tradition. So that we always know how many were played from the beginning and so that the veterans can say "my first game was...")

I can as easily state that my first game was C19-1 in the same way i could say that my first game was LT43. In this case I would be a veteran. I can still say, hey look my first game was the most awesome LT43 to a noob player who's first game was C19-3 or whatever. We can have a sticky message on the forum or something on the main website stating that as of xxyy date we moved from raw LT#s to a game type+date format.

#4 Re: LT47 » LT47 will be (hopefully) the first 2.6 game » 08.12.2018 02:16:10

Caedo wrote:

Actually, last I checked, you can just type in the tileset name in the respective field in the local settings dialog. No need for command line parameters or any of that jazz. See here.

I had no idea you could type a value in a drop down box in client settings. I've never tried. I'll have to check that out.

We will need to publish this to players and ensure we set the serv parameters appropriately so anyone can use whatever tileset they like for our games.

#5 Re: LT45 » Ruleset suggestions for future games. » 08.12.2018 02:08:37

Corbeau wrote:

Oh, so that isn't possible now? You can confirm it?

But is that actually a ruleset issue?

I don't know if it is a ruleset or code issue, but allies cannot send a caravan to an allied city help help his/her teammate build a wonder there. I would like to see this added.

I also like Hans suggestions. I am not sure I understand the ZOC issue though. The other 3 seem interesting.

#6 Re: LT47 » LT47 will be (hopefully) the first 2.6 game » 07.12.2018 01:44:07

wieder wrote:

What's the actual problem with 2.6 tilesets?

There are settings on the geological tab for map topology index. You can set isometric, hexagonal, both, or neither. If you set iso, then you have to use an iso tileset, if you pick both then you have to use either an iso or hex tileset. If you pick neither then you have to use an overhead tileset (managed via local client settings). They way things are in 2.5 now is anyone can use any tileset they like. 2.6 seems to lock you into one and everyone uses it.

wieder wrote:

It was an error to remove the trade bonus from fundamentalism. That will be restored to the new game and it should make funda almost as good as it was on LT44.


wieder wrote:

If we manage to pull off 2.6 there should be this cool new patch zoltan wrote for tuning down the global warming and also tuning up the nuclear winter.

Double awesome. I like the concept of super powerful nuclear winter.

wieder wrote:

The city working areas might be something that could be considered but maybe in more classic style? Like having them as classic ones in the start but allowing them to grow around the mid game. That would allow some new ways for planning the city locations while not really changing the game too much. Maybe getting a bigger working area once hitting size 17 or something like that?

I like that idea. Start with the classic 20 tiles around a city at formation. Maybe get to the current size that we play when the city is size 9 and then grow to something even bigger at 17 and maybe even bigger than that at 30?

wieder wrote:

Oh.. And the x y wrapping is one there will be but I mean adding the actual pole glacier areas to the game. Those are usually disabled.

Ok. Can we go over the poles? that is something I would like to see, hence the request for both X and Y wrapping.

#7 Re: LT47 » LT47 will be (hopefully) the first 2.6 game » 06.12.2018 01:18:35

There are some client issues with tilesets in 2.6 we will need to figure out. Right now we have players able to use any tileset they want. 2.6 has settings that limit that.

I like the idea of X and Y wrapped poles.  I also like a "classic" game. Can we add some of LT42's simulation to it though? for example instead of a fixed city footprint, go with an expanding one based on city size.

Can we do something about global warming being over powerful?

Bring back all the cool/fun features of fundamentalism from LT44.

#8 Re: New Games » Naming conventions for the LT games when they are being planned » 06.12.2018 01:13:23

I am not sure it really matters that LT42 started after 43, 44 and 45. That being said, I do like Corbeau's idea of going with game style in the name with a year and period included.

C for classic, E for experimental, T for team and S for simulation and then a two digit year and one digit identifier.

C19-1 = First Classic game of 2019
S19-2 = Second simulation of 2019
T19-1 = First team game of 2019

Don't rename to an LT#, keep them named as such. What is nice about this is if gives a nice sequence to the game IDs and you know natively when they happened.  Like right now I have no idea when LT30 happened.

The port the game runs on is really irrelevant. We publish that information on the game page anyways so when folks ask we can point them there.

#9 Re: New Games » Limiting the online time for a game? » 30.11.2018 01:44:30

This is a tough one. I assume you are thinking about thwarting RTS type activity for those that have more time available vs others who just pop in once a day and make their moves.

In early game, one or two hours is plenty of time no matter what kind of game you are playing. In late game that can be too little, especially if you are in a protracted conflict with large numbers of units to move with proper planning.

What if a person is playing two nations on a team game? Do you somehow get twice the time allotted? Or would the timer be based on nation?

At first blush I would say you don't do anything. I don't see that much of an issue with it.

#10 Re: LT45 » Delegations to zoltan » 20.11.2018 23:17:19

louis94 wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, I set my delegation to Hans at the very beginning in case I needed to delegate. Hans had only one player at the time. I don't think he ever used the delegation, and he probably didn't even notice. As far as I can tell, having the delegation set is not against the rules; using it in an inappropriate fashion is.

Thanks for the reply louis94. I agree with your comments regarding intent versus actual use, especially inappropriate use. My team ran into a similar situation. I had cgalik as my "default" regent at the start of the game. However, when he and I both needed to take on a perm idler cgalik suggested that I move my default regent to Mooreinstore to ensure that from the public's perspective it would only look like we each were operating under the 1+1 format. This is the main premise of my original post.

Tech exchange or any other function of a regent is only supposed to happen when the person is either perm idle or needs some help with being out of pocket for a few days. That is why we went with the 1+1(+1) solution. To allow say me to take on Mooreinstore if he was going to be out for a holiday or something and then revert back. All publicly commented here or on Discord. There is absolutely zero need for a regent to handle tech exchange. The live players have to coordinate!

My ask is that all teams with "extra" delegations get them cleaned up as soon as possible (with expected coordination via established comm channels). Maybe in the next 2 or 3 turns?

Teams need to learn to communicate in the best possible manner available to them. That is the ultimate challenge of team games and why I like them so much. We would not play if it was easy!

#11 Re: LT45 » Delegations to zoltan » 20.11.2018 22:44:40

I think there are a couple of issues here:. Outright banning is not the solution. Playing by the rules as established is.

     1. Players have more than one delegation set to them on the main LT game page in violation of the rules
     2. Players are exploiting this loophole to play for active players (in the same turn, especially)

If you sort the table of players + delegations from http://longturn.org/game/LT45/ you will see some interesting delegations by team

Team BLACK = dion, zoltan, Alfred, xandr, Joy, Lord_P, Kingi
     dion is zoltan's regent
     xandr is Alfred's regent
     zoltan is xandr, Joy, Lord_p and Kingi's regent
     I cannot speak to who is an perm idler for this team, but it does seem strange that zoltan would hold 4 regencies. This is in violation of the rules.

Team BLUE = cgalik, Temmikael, Livius, Mooreinstore, kunki, emilio, jwrober
     No one is regent for cgalik, Temmikael, Livius or Mooreinstore
     cgalik is kunki's regent
     jwrober (me) is emilio's regent
     Mooreinstore is my regent
     Kunki and Emilio are perm idlers, this is why cgalik and I play both these nations every turn. Notice we are also following the delegation rules by only holding to one delegeation each.

Team GREEN = sigur, rocknrolf, Hans_Lemurson, SKB, Corbeau, louis94, pieronjeden,
    Corbeau is Hans_Lemurson regent
    Dodo is SKB's regent (picked up an perm idler spot? I don't see a forum post agreeing to the delegation.)
    Hans_Lemurson is Corbeau, louis94 and pieronjeden's regent.
    I cannot speak to who is an idler for this team, but it does seem strange that Hans_Lemursonn would hold 3 regencies. This is in violation of the rules.

Team RED = chill, soon, kamBLR, Dim, ferg, petromax, BeckettTheGreat
     No one is regent for chill or soon
     Chill is kamBLR's regent
     kamBLR is Dim and ferg's regent
     soon is petromax regent
     wieder is BeckettTheGreat regent
     I cannot speak to who is an idler for this team, but it does seem strange that kamBLR would hold 2 regencies. This is in violation of the rules.

Team WHITE = shoter, ghamath, Orisson, nirti, kevin551, zoe, Wahazar
     No one is regent for shoter, ghamath, Orisson or nirti
     buggy is regent for nirti and kevin551 (picked up a perm idler spot - http://forum.longturn.org/viewtopic.php?id=1123)
     kevin551 is regent for zoe
     shoter is regent for Wahazar
     Team White, like Blue is following the rules with only one regent per player. They also got an external player to pick up an idler following the rules. Thanks White!

So, what am I to make of this situation?  It looks like 3 of 5 teams are bending the rules with regards to the use of delegations.

I can poor through logs and find evidence of the misuse of the delegations. Some examples have been posted on Discord as well.  For the game to stay fair and fun, I ask that all teams simply follow the rules! Seriously, it is not that hard. This is supposed to be fun. I can speak to the challenge of having players who do not want to be on Discord. I respect their decision and we collaborate in the chat line inside the game. It does make it much harder to collaborate, but we are making it work. Other teams should do the same.

Ladies and Gentlemen - Let's simply follow the rules. It is incumbent on all of us to do this as teams. This keeps the game play fair and as balanced as possible.


#12 Re: LT42 » There is a nation for regency in LT42. Who wants to play? » 20.11.2018 22:42:58

wieder wrote:

A very good post. Thanks!

There is however one or maybe tho things. First, I guess this should be on the LT45 forum maybe?

Thanks Wieder. I totally posted to the wrong forum spot. I have deleted my post and will put it where it belongs.

#13 Re: LT42 » The ruleset for LT42 » 18.11.2018 01:46:11

Corbeau wrote:

Alternatively, you can still join. There are idlers wink

What turn are you on? Has anyone been playing the idlers or would I be super behind?

#14 Re: LT42 » The ruleset for LT42 » 16.11.2018 02:13:05

I am not playing online, but is there a way to play the ruleset vs AI on my computer?

#15 Re: LT45 » Ruleset suggestions for future games. » 13.11.2018 03:25:22

Allow allies (team mates or traditional allies) to help build wonders in allied cities

#16 Re: LT42 » The signups for LT42 are now open » 08.10.2018 23:54:49

I am going to pass on this one. Maybe LT46 when it is ready or potentially Corbeau's new awesome ruleset when it is ready.

#18 Re: LT45 » Do not obsolete Trireme? » 23.09.2018 16:36:21

+1 for Wahazar's barge proposal

#19 Re: LT43 » "Economic stability front" team victory » 23.09.2018 14:14:10

The Cornish and Venetian people bow to the almighty Economic Stability Front. Thanks for keeping us in the game. It was fun while it lasted. Now we get to sit back and enjoy the rising seas and new beach front property!

#20 Re: LT45 » Do not obsolete Trireme? » 23.09.2018 14:09:23

I like the concept of a barge replacing trireme and just like trireme stays coastal and on rivers. To Hans point about having a unit carry cannon and artillery on rivers makes a lot of sense and I think the barge is a good tool for that. Maybe only hold 2 or 3 units max. Should also be able to hold engineers to transform land (e.g. modern day dredging).  What tech would provide the unit?

#21 Re: LT45 » The map settngs for LT45 (and LT44) » 23.09.2018 14:06:16

I also would like to see more islands and not one giant land mass. Forces the use of navies and make the game more dynamic. Not sure what setting(s) to change to allow for that.

I also see that steepness reduces from 40 to 30 in LT45. Does that setting impact how many mountains and hills there are? I think the mix of those in LT44 was just fine.

#22 LT45 » when will team members and start of t0 be announced? » 19.09.2018 00:12:34

Replies: 0

I know there was a delay in start, which is totally fine with me. Want to know how the team laid out and when we are going to start.

#23 Re: LT44 » Archers vanish with Gunpowder. » 01.09.2018 18:47:04

What was the downside of archer bombard?

#24 Re: LT46 » Harbour regen » 26.08.2018 17:03:49

I like this idea a lot. Makes sense from an historical perspective too.

#25 LT43 » picked up an idler, how does that show on ranking board? » 25.08.2018 17:21:16

Replies: 0

I was yee in LT43. While I was not part of the economic stability front, I did play. How does the ranking board handle when you pick up an idler? I would think I would get a 1 in the survived column and then what ever my final score was.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB