"Standard LongTurn ruleset"

Planning and discussing Freeciv Longturn gaming
Corbeau
Elite
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:13 pm

Re: "Standard LongTurn ruleset"

Postby Corbeau » Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:08 pm

Actually, I'm asking for the exact files that Andreas is using to set up LongTurn games here. If they are not online somewhere, put here in attachment?

User avatar
AndreasR
Elite
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 10:26 pm
Location: Norway

Re: "Standard LongTurn ruleset"

Postby AndreasR » Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:09 pm

Corbeau wrote:Actually, I'm asking for the exact files that Andreas is using to set up LongTurn games here. If they are not online somewhere, put here in attachment?



This is the ruleset files used by Freeciv-web in the LongTurn games with multiplayer ruleset:
http://repo.or.cz/freeciv.git/tree/HEAD:/data/multiplayer

I would suggest we start by getting the x2 movement rate accepted into Freeciv:
http://www.hostedredmine.com/issues/654404

After the x2 movement has been accepted, then I suggest you create new tickets for the Freeciv project with proposed changed to the multiplayer ruleset.

Corbeau
Elite
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:13 pm

Re: "Standard LongTurn ruleset"

Postby Corbeau » Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:06 pm

Oh! So almost all wonders already ARE Small Wonders! Great! Then I am at peace :)

Just curious, why is Cure for Cancer a Great Wonder? It makes sense for Manhattan and UN, but CfC? An oversight?

cazfi
Elite
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: "Standard LongTurn ruleset"

Postby cazfi » Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:21 pm

Corbeau wrote:Just curious, why is Cure for Cancer a Great Wonder? It makes sense for Manhattan and UN, but CfC? An oversight?


At least it's documented as one of the remaining Great Wonders, so book has not simply forgotten it. It also behaves a bit differently from classic ruleset CfC.

README.multiplayer :
As for the remaining great wonders:

- Cure For Cancer: Costs 400 (was 600), and makes two citizens happy
in every city owned by _any_ player who knows "Genetic Engineering".

Corbeau
Elite
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:13 pm

Re: "Standard LongTurn ruleset"

Postby Corbeau » Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:32 pm

Ah, right, now I checked the description.

So, one player spends 400 shields and all players get the benefit? Where is the catch? Can other people's caravans contribute to construction?

sveinung
Elite
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:50 pm

Re: "Standard LongTurn ruleset"

Postby sveinung » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:23 am

Corbeau wrote:Can other people's caravans contribute to construction?

No.

Lexxie
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: "Standard LongTurn ruleset"

Postby Lexxie » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:52 pm

Corbeau wrote:4. Tech exchange seems to be a big issue in LT. With a lot more emphasis on diplomacy and alliances, this is a very big potential party-pooper. I don't like how this issue has been addressed so far and I'll propose my solution. First, the problems with two extreme options:

a) No tech trade.This is a problem because, once a nation lags behind, it is very difficult to catch up. TechLeak helps only a little bit; a smaller nation will remain backward forever simply because it can't get enough bulbs, period. So, basically, the game is decided too early, there is no real cooperation and the only viable strategy becomes getting as many cities as possible with no space for variety.

Most LT games recently had this setting which I believe is a pity because it removed an important component of the game and made cooperation between players at a very basic level.

b) Tech trade allowed. A huge problem with this is that te game basically becomes a popularity contest. Whoever gets the biggest alliance, wins. Also, a nation that joins this alliance will get all the techs without even trying, while someone who decided he's like to play alone will become hopelessly backward. So, the only way to win is to group up and become a part of a herd.



While I agree with much of it in spirit, the fixes might be worse than the problem. First, loner civilisations in real life do indeed suffer the exact same phenomenon. Second, the user experience of the game is already too "loneristic" and in fact that is the #1 main shortcoming of the entire experience, so we don't want to encourage that even more. Any "fix" should be super super mild, and even milder than that. Like, a transfer fee of 1 gold, that's how mild. Loners can still try to steal techs if they really want to be introverted autistic turtles, or just go play chess. But loners probably don't want to be loners!!! They just face a user experience and user interface that makes everyone seem that way and almost forces them to be that way.

So while I'm on this subject...

We do NOT want to take out the human/diplomacy aspect in the game or reduce it in any way. It's the most fascinating meta-aspect of the game that allows infinite strategic complexity and the ability to develop real world social and diplomatic skills, and to experience the "karma" of your diplomatic habits, skills, and methods. Penalties on tech sharing make the game even MORE loneristic. Just the opposite, it needs more social/human/diplomatic facets to come out in it. Communicating only through a dark purple text in a chat window that you have to scroll around to even see if someone talked to you... it has to be the worst aspect of the game. It should be easy to communicate, negotiate, write messages, do group meetings, and even just tell jokes about a mutual neighbour country. Right now the chat window is so bad, the game feels almost autistic and asocial like it's only for extreme introverts. It shouldn't be like that at all! A proper community feel would lead to more players, more donations, and more contributors to the project.

What would also be nice is a profile for a player. Give us a little avatar pic and a paragraph that explains your stance toward others. For example, "I prefer peaceful growth and cooperation but don't get involved in your defence, I do (not) share tech except when ...., If you send an explorer into my country without saying "hi" then he will be treated like a spy! Etc., etc., blah blah, each person can then be quickly looked at when you see their tile. Also idle status would be useful too. Idle 3 turns (Active in 54/62 of last turns).

~*~ * ~*~
~Lexxie~
++++++++

pungtryne
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:27 pm

Re: "Standard LongTurn ruleset"

Postby pungtryne » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:14 pm

I agree very much with Lexxie, but have some concerns about tech sharing too. This game is about building civillizations, and technological cooperation is vital in this. I disagree it's a popularity contest about finding biggest alliance. Sure, to be charismatic enough to find a good alliance is part of the game like it should, but an alliance is useless if one is unable to get this alliance to work for a bigger cause, leveraging game mechanics to everyones advantage. This is what makes longturn so amazing. One doesn't just use your own nations mechanics to win, but you have time to plan and use the power of everyone in the alliance to progress as fast as possible. A well coordinated alliance of 3 good players will easily beat 10 uncoordinated average players. And, does anyone sersiouly think they can win a 250-man longturn game alone? I'm all for letting people play just for themselves, but just like in real life (both on personal and nationlevel), this should of course be a huge disadvantage.

What i would like though is technology upkeep. That way a nation has to be sufficiently built out to just upkeep a high tech level. (If this were combined with bombers/stealth-bombers having a chance to destroy buildings in the city they attack, this would be extra fun because you could literarily bomb someone back to the stone age).

It's a big shame that trade routes are disabled, as this is another point where collaboration is important. Nations in real world that collaborate and have good trade agreements naturally do it a lot better than isolated ones, and this should be reflected in the game. Though it could be discussed wheter trade routes should be possible with players you are at war with.

As for speeding up the game, on suggestions might be to let ppl start with some cities and city defenders. In this case care has to be taken as to not make it unfair with how these initial cities are set up. Another thing to keep in mind is that not allowing tech share will significantly reduce the speed of the game.

The chat system is awfull, and make people use other platforms to communicate. It really would make the game better to make this better.

This games big strength is the combination of very good game mechanics combined with very good multiplayer gameplay. To take away collaborative aspects of this game, is to take away the richness and potential of the game. I want both of these aspects. If I just wanted good game mechanics I would play the AI.

Finally: I think there is room for several differnt kinds of longturn games on this page. Type 1 could have trading sharing and trade routes enabled, while Type 2 could have it turned off. Just these two differences, and it would feel like totally different games.

I wrote a bit of some of the same issues in another thread, but think the scopes are slightly different. viewtopic.php?f=20&t=75598

cazfi
Elite
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: "Standard LongTurn ruleset"

Postby cazfi » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:33 pm

pungtryne wrote:Though it could be discussed wheter trade routes should be possible with players you are at war with.
When traderoutes were originally disabled from various multiplayer game types, there was not much possibilities to mod trade rules. Since then there's many trade rules moddability improvements made to the freeciv engine. It would indeed be good time to check if suitable rules for longturn are now possible.


Return to “Longturn”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest