Hi, i started a new topic in 'New Games' called LT34 reading:
can you guys bring the polls back for LT34, seeing as there are lots of new players.
Discussions regarding internal consistency of game ruleset can run simultaneously.
Can you write what is your proposal to change for next game?
We will discuss it here and if there will be some of posts for it and some against we can make a poll.
So you want us to put the discussion here then?
Can you create a new forum for this topic 'LT34' in the 'Games' forums, because the discussion is already split between here under 'LT33' and in the 'New Games' forms.
By tradition/convention LT34 will be a team game, is that still right?
Last edited by evan (30.10.2014 00:33:23)
It would be nice to have the discussion on one place, but as long as discussion is going somewhere, it's a good thing I guess.
Yeah, LT34 is probably a team game. I only wonder how popular team games are. Would you like it to be a team game? Would someone prefer a team game or something else?
I can do it, maybe you dont know, but we are not playing couple of games in one time.
I dont know really why but as i remember it brings many confusions like you are enemy for death and ally with one real person in one time. some players are not able to get it right.
Another reason of that we are not going to start new thread is that we are playing here team and teamless games. Next game should be team game, last team game has still open wounds and i dont know if it is good time for start conversation about team game.
Maybe we can talk here about team game. For me teams making from some not knowing players (like in LT32) are out of my interesting. I could ba an admin in this game without playing on it.
So we have some ideas from previous games in history of LT:
-Teams from teams.
-Two team making in order of picking.
-Maho's algorithm of picking teams (my favourite)
-LT32 algortihm of commanders picking players and positions.
So first of all we need to decide if it will be a team game or teamless game.
If we will stay in teamless we will change some settings for sure because we have never played on same settings two games in a row. But this ruleset is quite nice, maybe wonders will be tuned up a little.
If you have any ideas what should be improve in this ruleset please make an idea, if it will be worth discussing i will open new forum for LT34 in this moment and we can discuss specyfic ideas in different topics.
No tech Exchange or techloss 100% was it this setting??
Yes we could discuss it, but this setting changing game very much.
I dont know if many players would play this game without idle with this setting.
Will the next game have a single continent, or will it be island based? How well did island based go with this ruleset in LT31?
I would like to play with tech trading disabled if it is a teamless game like LT33.
As for a team game, well i haven't played one so i'm reading through the forum to get a better idea of how they work.
If i had to vote now for either team/teamless i'd say team, to try something new, but i'd like to hear arguments against it.
There's a lot to read...
But i thought it would be good to bring it up now while there's plenty of time, that way people who might just check the forum briefly would see we were discussing LT34.
But in general, I can see you guys have been fine-tuning the ruleset for some time, so i'd like to make informed comments, and also avoid needless repetition. I'll read on...
If i had to vote now for either team/teamless i'd say team, to try something new, but i'd like to hear arguments against it.
Arguments presume there is a right and a wrong option. There isn't. It's a matter of personal preference. I, personally, prefer non-team game simply because, for me, Civilization is a simulation of nation building and leading, it presumes a lot of diplomacy which is taken away completely if you have a team game.
How about having 2 productions simultaneously. 1 production being for improvements and the other for unit building. Great idea if you ask me. What do others here think about this?
How about we make a new branch for freeciv for this game based off 2.3x. 2.5 has deviated way too far and is bug filled.
<Evan> Maybe once a game goes beyond a certain number of turns, say 100 or 150, the next LT starts. This would give a handicap advantage to newer players, since the veterans will have to concentrate on two games.
... ... ...
(T113 - 23:00:09) <Wieder> The problem with a 100 or 150 turn limit might be having 2 games running in parallel for a very log time. Let's say LT33 started when LT32 reached T100. LT32 ended around T230 +- few turns
(T113 - 23:01:49) <Wieder> With T150 it would be slightly better but still not that great and since LT33 probably ends before T150 it's not perfect either
(T113 - 23:07:46) <Evan> It has the benefit though of being simple. Also, it seems to be generally commented on hear that a lot of people don't read the ruleset changes before the game begins. This change could give the newer players more of a chance to see how things are working.
(T113 - 23:08:43) <Wieder> Yeah, that's true, it might work like that
(T113 - 23:08:58) <Evan> And if it makes things more of a challenge for the veterans... most of them would welcome the challenge wouldn't they?
(T113 - 23:09:16) <Wieder> I've also noticed that not only the new players usually leave the changes unread but also the old ones
(T113 - 23:09:16) <Evan> I've been meaning to spend some time on Trello, sorry.
(T113 - 23:09:43) <Wieder> Yeah, people like having challenges
(T113 - 23:11:46) <Evan> I suggested to Edrim that the diplomats could lose the 'ignore Zoc', he was thinking of the same thing. In the standard (1x) single player, it's not so bad. But with RTS and (3x), an army just standing by while an invading army simply strolls by is utterly absurd.
(T113 - 23:12:20) <Wieder> I commented that on Trello just before logging in
(T113 - 23:12:44) <Wieder> There might be some side effects and some very nasty ones actually
(T113 - 23:13:12) <Evan> I liked how you said the polls, if any, should be about self-contained or consistent groups, so we don't end up with unbalance.
(T113 - 23:13:45) <Evan> Eg, restrictinfra, if combined with no ignore ZoC, would be too much, etc.
(T113 - 23:14:09) <Wieder> Yeah, if people vote for some specific detail without really understanding how it will affect the gameplay, we might end up with some very conflicting rules
(T113 - 23:14:23) <Evan> Edrim said we should leave this for the forum, but a little bit is ok.
(T113 - 23:14:37) <Evan> Plus, it might encourage people to get involved.
(T113 - 23:14:59) <Wieder> I would prefer restrictinfra instead of removing diplos etc the ability to break the zoc because there is a reason why it's there for those few units
(T113 - 23:15:11) <Wieder> Talking is good
(T113 - 23:15:35) <Wieder> You can also copy paste game chat to the forum
(T113 - 23:16:23) <Wieder> It's so much easier to talk about this on a chat. Forum posts are nice but they are quite often walls of text and the focus is easily lost
(T113 - 23:17:58) <Evan> I agree, it's easy for people to skip it. As long as it's about the game. But i do I really think we need a new Topic for LT34 in the forum, especially since people who are already out of the game might pop by to have a quick look. And for everyone really.
(T113 - 23:18:46) <Wieder> Yes, we definitely need one on the forum. Or few if that's how people feel about it
(T113 - 23:18:57) <Wieder> It's a huge topic anyway
(T113 - 23:20:11) <Evan> It should be standard. The discussions about the next game, well in advance, in a defined area, and people can branch off to other threads when necessary. What are the side effects you're thinking about with ignoe ZoC, i probably haven't thought about them.
(T113 - 23:22:06) <Wieder> Basically you could paralyze the entire nation with some units blocking the access. That might be a powerful weapon. It would also be too easy to block the explorers from exploring and even capturing those with few units preventing them from moving away
(T113 - 23:23:02) <Evan> You can only have one explorer?
(T113 - 23:23:48) <Wieder> You can have more once you research seafaring
(T113 - 23:24:06) <Evan> Hmmm
(T113 - 23:25:52) <Evan> It seems ok to me, i've always played like this anyway in the single player. If you take the risk to send units out to block access, you might gain the advantage of containing them in an isolated position, but you might also lose you cities. A calculated risk. Not really a problem.
(T113 - 23:27:13) <Wieder> It would also allow some nasty tactics in the mid game
(T113 - 23:27:34) <Evan> There are many ways to prevent unfair advantages, but you can't stop the map generator from producing peninsulas.
(T113 - 23:27:47) <Evan> Like what
(T113 - 23:27:50) <Wieder> I could send out some units preventing someoen almost completely improving his land
(T113 - 23:29:38) <Evan> That's realistic isn't it. All units can move into a tile occupied by a friendly unit, so if you had a military unit there you could bring a worker there too.
(T113 - 23:35:15) <Wieder> Yeah... But then again that's one way of breaking the zoc again
(T113 - 23:37:19) <Evan> No, it wouldn't work if you wanted to go through enemy lines, because that first unit wouldn't be able to get there in the first place. I'll have to go now, can you paste this to the forum. I'll keep thinking about it all. I really think it could take a lot of the RTS/TC crap out of the game, which ruins it for so many people, even if a few do like it. It's not in the spirit of the game, which is turn-based.
... ... ...
<Evan> I've got time now, i'll paste it there.
Last edited by evan (24.11.2014 01:27:27)
Some more thoughts on when new games start...
I've read here and in the GT forum that the LT server is capable of running several simlutaneous games, so i think it would be a really good idea that if a game reaches a certain point, say turn 100, then the next game could start while the current game continues.
This would give an advantage to the players who are RIP, or are one of the smaller surviving players, because the dominant players in the current game wouldn't be able to spend as much time on it.
In the early stages of the game there isn't that much happening, but it can also be the most unforgiving time, where mistakes can be catastrophic. It's also much easier for more experienced players to get their head around ruleset changes, and adapt to the situation their new nation finds itself in.
Any rule changes to make the game more accesible for newcomers can be worked around by experienced players, whereas this change works through an effect that is external to the game: the players are human beings with lives, mostly. And if some players find it confusing and hard to follow ... well good, that gives us more intelligent players a way to make up for our lack of experience.
It would give the RIP and smaller surviving players something to look forward to, and then something to actually do, while the dominant players fight their war.
If some players are strongly against it, maybe the new games could be non-ranking, and the next ranking game waits until the last one is finished.
Most sporting leagues have things like salary caps, draft picks, etc to balance out the teams. I think this would be a good way, even a fun way to achieve this. I'd enjoy the extra colour it would bring to the current game, if LT34 were to start now.
Wieder noted that the problem might be having two games running in parallel for a long time. I suggest that this isn't a problem. A change in this direction would be self-regulating in favour of the weaker players, giving them the opportunity to become better players. And that makes the game better for everyone. More interesting. More challenging. More fun.
And it wouldn't require any coding, so it's simple in that respect.
Simple, but dynamic and interesting. And a little bit chaotic, like most free systems.
It would also mean that a current game could continue without holding up everybody else. This could allow more long term stategies. The delegation rules could be relaxed once a game moves 'into continuation', if it's technically possible that a player be active in one game but delegated in another.
It can be a very long time between games if you're RIP. I'm still alive in LT33, and still very much enjoying it, but i feel bad for all the RIP players, yes all of them, and all the smaller players who are now just observers of history.
The holiday season is coming up. Some players will have more time, some less, and some will delegate to spend time with their relatives. These people deserve our sympathy, but they shouldn't stop us from playing our next game.
On the GT forum it shows the 'most online' at any one time - it was just before the whole thing ended. How many people must come to the LT site too and lose interest through waiting. If the server is capable of doing it, we should do it.
Yes, if LT34 were to start tomorrow, it would be difficult for some, but that's the point.
If some just don't want to play two games at once, well, why does everyone have to play in every game?
Maybe they don't want to miss out on a game, and worry they might have to wait too long for the next one...
LT34 soon! (and no tech-trading)
Evan, you should learn to put some empty lines in your posts Like this:
Anyway, about the new game, I think the only thing needed to start it is for one person to raise his hand and say "I will organise it". What needs to be coordinated (or chosen) are ruleset, server settings and map, but someone needs to do the final job. I'm busy as hell in RL at the moment so I'm out or I'd already have done it, sorry.
About more games simultaneously, Evan said it, but it's worth repeating: if it's too much for you, don't join, simple as that. Some people complained anyway about LT33 having too many people.
Definitely restrictinfra. This is senseless. Anyone played Risk? With enough army, you can conquer the world in one turn. That's not a strategy simulation. Some people enjoy it, but LT33 is set that way, so let's have the next game different, please.
ZOC. Keep it for the spies, please. Maybe cancel it for diplos. That would be a compromise. Although, as was already said, if you have restrictinfra, then maybe this is not needed.
I'm also in favour of heavily limiting inciting revolt or even disabling it, but I don't know if that is possible.
Some new ideas:
Reduce cost of settlers. A lot. Maybe even set it to 1.
Reasoning: 1. realism, 2.gameplay
1. Having people turned into settlers is not "production". It's simply having some people pick up their stuff and leave. Ok, maybe need to produce some supplies, but there is already the limitation that a settler costs two population so that should be enough.
2. Game start is awfully slow exactly for this reason. This would speed it up significantly. Also, Wieder asked what would take for people to have a conflict earlier. Well, this would. A lot of early resources are spent on settlers. If they were much cheaper, people woldn't have anything else to buils but military and when you have a lot of military you get an itchy trigger finger
No tech sharing, stealing, conquering. How exactly does "tech leakage" work? Is it in the code or in the ruleset? It should definitely be on. That's a good way for slower players to keep up. Also, if there is a possibility to increase this effect it wold be great.
And definitely have x2 movement.
And, about people not reading and checking the new rules, screw'em. I am personally offering to post a note in the chat twice a day: "NEW RULES! READ THEM HERE: <link> IGNORE THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK!"
Last edited by Corbeau (24.11.2014 09:33:24)
Team game - I have no problem with it. Actually, I hate diplomacy, it's so time-consuming and I hate gossips and lies spreading around... In a team game, you don't need to do so much diplomacy. And even in a teamless game, when there's an amount of winning players bigger than one, you still should enter some team if you want to have a real chance for winning. However, I'm not against teamless games, I plan to play LT34 whatever of these two styles it be.
Tech trade off - I vote for this.
Running more games at once - good idea, it gives opportunity to play for RIP player and not wait months for a new game. Successful players may just choose not to play more than 1 game at once, to avoid confusing.
Reducing the cost of settlers - I like this Corbeau's idea.
I'd keep 3x movement.
Lower the cost of ancient and middle ages units - The game seems unbalanced in this for me. For a long time you can build only a few ancient units (sometimes you actually discover new tech faster than you're able to build their outcomes), then there's a wave of modern ages units. First, you spend months doing a very little, then your game may end in just few turns after a successful attack of your enemies. Modern units have much more hit points (not to mention other features), they should cost proper price in comparison with ancient and middle ages units. This may also solve the problem with lack of action and warfare during early period mentioned by Wieder.
Minimum distance between cities - I'd set it lower than 5. The map may be smaller, accordingly. The most of cities hardly can grow so much to be able to use all tiles around anyway. So why make the map so big, the travel distances so long and the game so prolonged?
Cancel the endless amount of MPs while using railroads - It's not realistic and it only increases the chance of killing a nation in a single turn.