I've just decided to sign off from my 1st LT game, LTex2.1. Thanks to other players who made the game fun for me, especially Vonzgred!
LT is a lot of fun but I want to indicate the most serious problems. Fixing these would make LT even more fun:
- Double-move: Although Book's 10 hr block patch is useful it doesn't fix the double-moves for units loaded on ships. So, in practice double-move at turn change tactic is still alive.
- Borders: Once a player explored a land, it can see the border changes there, so it is not possible to sneak and settle near an enemy's base. This is almost the same with playing without fog of war.
- Diplomatic Chance: Last few games except LTXV had diplchance 80%. This is not as bad as I thought for city stealing b/c it costs a lot of money for size >2 cities. However, as me and others in LTex proved, high diplchance is very annoying due to tech stealing. In LTex eventually everyone (probably except a few isolated nations) changed their research to minimum as others easily stole their hard-earned techs. I am glad we reduced diplchance to %50 in LTXV, but I think the ideal value of diplchance is even less, maybe 30% as a 1000 bulb tech should cost way more than 30 shields.
- The unhapiness problem: This is a rare problem. Maybe I was the 1st player to discover it. When I reached 60 cities in LTex2.1 (in monarchy) my size 1 cities started to have 2 unhappy citizens. If I get 72 cities, size 1 cities will get 3 unhappy citizens, and so on. So I had to disband one of my cities and stop expanding or conquering. I had expanded all the time as I thought unhappiness could not become negative but apparently it does. Although there are many ways to reduce unhapiness, I think this is not realistic. It is already hard to manage cities with every citizen being unhappy and I am OK with that but it should not get worse than that.
- new players: I like that LTex allow new players and I understand that they start with average # of units. However, they start with too many ships and too close to existing players. And then they can easily wipe half of a nation off the map in a few turns. This is too annoying for an old player who spent hours investing in his nation. For example, in old servers of MMORPG games, new players start at level 1 even if the average player is level 40. It'd be much better if new players started with less units and most importantly only on empty land, or on the ocean but close to an empty land. And if there is no empty land, new players should not be allowed unless new land opens up either by an old player signing off or losing cities. Alternatively, the best solution would be to have the developers find a way to expand the map dynamically as new players are being added. This then would turn the game into a never ending MMORPG.
What do you think? I am eager to hear old experienced LT players' suggestions/comments. Let's discuss how we can make LT more balanced and more fun.
Kryon
great work book!
great work book!
How do I get a Civilization?
I have logged onto the server but it says that I am unattached. Not sure if I became an idler or not.
I have logged onto the
I have logged onto the server but it says that I am unattached. Not sure if I became an idler or not.
I would guess you are not idle. Although you have signed up for game, I think maho must manually assign you a nation...
Also the game is a bit messed up at the moment, so there is a high chance the game will be restarted.
some more respawners and
some more respawners and there will be much less techs in the board so we dont have to restart:)
I agree with most points,
I agree with most points, but in particular about the borders issue. It gives away much information which it shouldn't. But perhaps book as a Freeciv coder can elaborate on how difficult it is to fix this Freeciv issue.
/set borders 0
/set borders 0
Wouldn't that drastically
Wouldn't that drastically strengthen republican governments, killing their biggest flaw, units causing unhappiness?
It would make units outside
It would make units outside cities cause unhappiness.
a better solution?
book, removing borders is not the best solution as it weakens republic and democracy a lot. I like the border concept which brings territory concept and also makes minimap look good. Can you please tweak the code so that borders under fog of war are not sent to each client. it shouldn't be too hard to block information flow.
You underestimate the power
You underestimate the power of bad code design, but I will check if this is feasible...
could someone explain me
could someone explain me what is that famous borders bug? I had to miss something ...
Border changes can be seen
Border changes can be seen through fog of war.
it's very obvious for me.
it's very obvious for me. where is bug ?
borders
I repeat: "when we can see the border changes under fog of war, it is almost like playing without fog of war" which makes game less fun. i don't think this is what developers intended when they added the border concept to freeciv.
no, it's very far from
no, it's very far from playing without fog of war. You can still do lot of things your enemy won't see.
Eg - you can sneak with units, ships, etc.... noone force you to make forts and cities on enemy land.
Also, consider one turn as few years, even 100 years in ancient ages. Do you think that if eg. French found a city, English won't know about it during 100 years if they don't have spies?
I think if you don't send a
I think if you don't send a unit there, you shouldn't know about it. that forces the players to continuously monitor their territories which makes game more interesting in my opinion.
I think that borders are
I think that borders are kind of political informations, which propagates through the world by itself.
It's like you can know what's someone's diplomacy between other players, even if you don't know him. Simply, during 100 such knowledge spread through the world.
The info borders give
The info borders give through the fog-of-war is too detailed. You can pinpoint exact locations of cities that were built after you visited the area with e.g. an explorer in the bronze age.
Such information allows you to make detailed attack plans. I find this unfair, since the person settling the area could not have stopped that explorer because he didn't settle the area yet...
Two unrelated events (someone exploring a certain area, and someone settling the area many turns later) add up to an unfair advantage to the first player.
It might be arguable that it is historically correct as you do Maho, but it certainly is unbalancing for the gameplay (IMHO).
I believe as book says that it is not as easy fixable as it may sound. The awkwardness of the Freeciv code is one reason why I hesitate from trying to contribute to it...
I'll check the feasability
I'll check the feasability of changing the borders behavior and get back to you...
I implemented Kryon's
I implemented Kryon's suggestion as a server setting foggedborders; if enabled, clients do not receive border information for tiles they do not directly see. Afterall, it was not that hard to deal with and seemed to be alright in testing. Hopefully I have not missed anything critical (please test and report).
NICE
Great! Thanks Book! Maho, let's implement this in LTex. And let's have a vote for the next LT game. I believe most people will want this.
Awesome. If Maho implents it
Awesome. If Maho implents it in a LTeX then I'm happy to test.
If you want us to check out the source tree and try it locally I'm happy to do that too.
hi kryon
So i guess i can unsign LTeX too ;)
I agree about the borders : we shouldn't see them.
About unhapiness and power of new players, i don't.
May be it's just your strategy that doesn't fit.
Who needs 60 cities ? You spread instead of reinforce your empire.
In real life, big empires are not stable -they split (ex: Roman empire). But there is no revolution in LT game, just unhapiness.
big empire
I agree with the concept that every 10-15 city brings 1 more unhappy citizen to every city, however I don't find it realistic that this goes to negative numbers. how can a size 1 city get 2 or more unhappy citizens? I was ready to manage an empire with every citizen unhappy but not more than that.
Rather than causing
Rather than causing unhappies (which are a micro-management pain in the ass due to the awkward city worker interface and the less than ideal cma system), I would think that causing increased maintenance costs and corruption levels would be a more sensible penalty for larger empires. For example buildings and units could have higher upkeep the more cities you have, or the farther away they are, or something like that. I think civ3 has a similar game rule, it could be good to check it out and perhaps borrow from it. Of course this would require some adjustments to the freeciv internals...
book, this is an interesting
book, this is an interesting idea. we should discuss further and consider alternatives.
I'm looking at the citizen
I'm looking at the citizen "mood" code and from what I can tell I don't think you can have "2 unhappy citizens in a size 1 city". Can you explain a little about how this works? I.e. do you have to make the same citizen content twice (how can you tell?), or do you get another citizen in the same city (silly)?!
The worst case for citizens is that they all become angry. Maybe you just misunderstood the game rules here, since there are both angry citizens and unhappy citizens. The "happiness" ordering goes: happy, content, unhappy, and angry.
For small nations most citizens start content; for large civilizations they start unhappy. For gigantic empires they start angry, which is what I think you were being affected by in the game.
Makes sense
OK, I made an experiment. And it seems you are right. In monarchy when you reach 60 cities, your new cities start with 1 angry citizen. So you need for example two units in city to make that one citizen happy (or temple+mysticism, or 4 luxury). I was misled because of the wording in the happiness tab (which says 4 content, 5 additional unhappy). It should say "1 angry, 4 unhappy" or something like that. Anyways, that means after 60 cities, happiness does not (or cannot) get any worse. If I knew this, I might not have quit LTex :) Anyways, thanks Book for the explanation!
I might not have quit LTex
I might not have quit LTex :)
you can always return with new forces :)
- Double-move: Although
- Double-move: Although Book's 10 hr block patch is useful it doesn't fix the double-moves for units loaded on ships. So, in practice double-move at turn change tactic is still alive.
Am I correct that you still need to wait ~10 hrs?? It isn't as bad as making a landing 5 s before TC and moving aright TC.
- Diplomatic Chance: Last few games except LTXV had diplchance 80%. This is not as bad as I thought for city stealing b/c it costs a lot of money for size >2 cities. However, as me and others in LTex proved, high diplchance is very annoying due to tech stealing. In LTex eventually everyone (probably except a few isolated nations) changed their research to minimum as others easily stole their hard-earned techs. I am glad we reduced diplchance to %50 in LTXV, but I think the ideal value of diplchance is even less, maybe 30% as a 1000 bulb tech should cost way more than 30 shields.
I can't speak for everybody, but a lot of your tech was being leaked via the GL. High dipl chance allows even tech across the whole game (I think it has worked very well in LTXIV). New players also start with a good tech supply, so there is also less incentive to make new techs.
- The unhapiness problem: This is a rare problem. Maybe I was the 1st player to discover it. When I reached 60 cities in LTex2.1 (in monarchy) my size 1 cities started to have 2 unhappy citizens. If I get 72 cities, size 1 cities will get 3 unhappy citizens, and so on. So I had to disband one of my cities and stop expanding or conquering. I had expanded all the time as I thought unhappiness could not become negative but apparently it does. Although there are many ways to reduce unhapiness, I think this is not realistic. It is already hard to manage cities with every citizen being unhappy and I am OK with that but it should not get worse than that.
Seriously, what do you expect with 60 cities?? How do you expect to manage 60 cities (let alone 60 cities which are unhappy??). I am glad your size 1 cities were so unhappy :-)
- new players: I like that LTex allow new players and I understand that they start with average # of units. However, they start with too many ships and too close to existing players. And then they can easily wipe half of a nation off the map in a few turns. This is too annoying for an old player who spent hours investing in his nation. For example, in old servers of MMORPG games, new players start at level 1 even if the average player is level 40. It'd be much better if new players started with less units and most importantly only on empty land, or on the ocean but close to an empty land. And if there is no empty land, new players should not be allowed unless new land opens up either by an old player signing off or losing cities. Alternatively, the best solution would be to have the developers find a way to expand the map dynamically as new players are being added. This then would turn the game into a never ending MMORPG.
If the newbie is too weak, he is just going to get beaten up straight away (or have his boat sunk by a submarine before he has even moved) as has occured in the past.
Also, remember this is an experimental game.
thanks for the
thanks for the comments.
yes, it is as bad as landing 5 sec before turn change and moving 5 secs after turn change.
you don't know what happened between us and pipo's team. we kept stealing all the techs they did. I even stole techs from angry whom I made peace :) there is no point in wasting economy to techs when diplchance is high. it is better to max tax and spent the golds on production unless your alliance is very isolated.
as I said, I can manage 60 cities with all citizens unhappy. I was in monarchy, I put a defense in new cities, then built temple, then when it reaches size 4, I put a second defense. There are many other ways, however if I build 1 more city all my cities get 1 more unhappy citizens (more than their population) which I don't find realistic. Anyways, I don't expect anyone to fix this as it seems no one else ever had this problem before :)
I am saying newbies should start in an empty island instead of on the ocean near old players. If there is no empty island, either don't let new players until empty land opens up, or expand the map by adding new islands/continents each time a new player is added. This 2nd option would be awesome but it will be very difficult to implement.
I am saying newbies should
I am saying newbies should start in an empty island instead of on the ocean near old players. If there is no empty island, either don't let new players until empty land opens up, or expand the map by adding new islands/continents each time a new player is added. This 2nd option would be awesome but it will be very difficult to implement.
Newcomers are designed to be barbarians. Barbarians appearing on the new islands are pointless. And adding new islands isn't so easy as you think.
Thought I fixed that...
- Double-move: Although Book's 10 hr block patch is useful it doesn't fix the double-moves for units loaded on ships. So, in practice double-move at turn change tactic is still alive.
This was supposed to be fixed already in r5134, but it seems that there is such a tangle of interrelated situations and circumstances that I have made a mistake in that too.
I'm thinking of drastically simplifying the whole moverefill concept: if a unit moves in the last N seconds of the turn, it cannot move in the N seconds of the start of the next turn. And to solve the transported unit problem, I would make moves by the transporter count as "moves" for the units loaded inside it.
yeah, such solution would be
yeah, such solution would be better.
Also, I have found strange behaviour of moverefill in shortturn game we played with Ste. Settings was like in normal game, which means timeout 24h, moverefilltime 10h. Of course we were clicking endturn.
With such settings, we should be forced to wait 10 hours before we can move units in 2nd turn. But we were playing like no moverefill was there, and the only effect was that one of my units was unable to move, after it was wounded (it was worker). When healed, it got 1 1/3 moves and I could get it to city. It got full moves in few turns.
So, maybe I don't understand something with moverefill :).
Book, what do you think if we play shortturn someday, to be able to observe moverefill on-the-fly. You could even observe logs to see what is happening :).
It's clear now that mixing
It's clear now that mixing time-dependant rts elements with complex turn based rules is a recipe for disaster. The implementation is overly complicated and even so there are just too many interactions that I did not predict correctly, resulting in incorrect behavior.
I will see about simplifying the moverefill rules to the idea I mentioned previously.
ah ! Book. at last ;)
It's clear now that mixing time-dependant rts elements with complex turn based rules is a recipe for disaster. The implementation is overly complicated and even so there are just too many interactions that I did not predict correctly, resulting in incorrect behavior.
If you remember well, i suggested once a simple rule, which may not solve all double-turn tricks, but i think is really simple to code, and avoid the main trick : download before TC and strike just after TC.
This rule was : units can't enter or download into a non-allied territory n seconds (10 hours ?) before TC.
I can consider that when my ennemy is already in my territory, i know it and i am able to manage it.
If i don't, it's my fault. double-turn or not.
Problem with units coming from nowhere at TC is that the defender can't manage things.
What do you all people think of that ?
good idea. limiting attacks
good idea. limiting attacks only (instead of entering territory) should be sufficient.
right now double-move is still possible due to this: let's say some of a unit's moves are used at the beginning of a turn, and the remaining moves are used later in the turn. after the turn change, the unit gains the moves used earlier in the last turn.
on the other hand, book's patch can be easily fixed if it is modified as follows: when a unit has been moved at various times during a turn, next turn, it cannot be moved (that is, it cannot gain ANY of his moves) at least for 10 hours from its LAST move.
for example: my horse has 6 moves. If I move it five tiles close to the beginning of a turn, and spend the remaining 1 move 10 minutes before turn change, the horse regains 5 moves right after turn change under the current rule. If the rule is modified as I propose, the horse gains no moves until 9 hours 50 minutes pass after which it gains all 6 moves.
either sokrat's or my proposal would fix the problem. book, what do you say?
The problem with refilling
The problem with refilling moves individually is that units' move rates are not fixed but depend on a bunch of stuff, the most annoying of which is hp and veterancy. Basically units can sometimes magically get more or less moves when their hp or veterancy changes, and this makes implementations that focus on individual moves error prone and complicated, both to code and to understand for players.
To avoid all that I will instead use a much simpler system that does not try to track individual moves, but rather uses a timestamp+turn for each unit: if a unit moves its timestamp is updated with the current time and current turn. The server then checks each move request: if the timestamp turn is less than the current turn and the difference between now and the timestamp time is less than some value (i.e. the setting like moverefilltime), the move is disallowed.
As mentioned previously, units moving as cargo in a transport will have their timestamps updated whenever the transport moves. I suppose city building would be subject to the same rule, so as to prevent end-of-turn settling. Also, maybe if you press turn done with some units still "blocked" the server should warn you about it.
I should probably just code it instead of writing about it over and over...
Alright I committed the
Alright I committed the improved solution to the double move problem to the longturn 2.1 branch (and also removed all the previous changes due to moverefill). The new setting is called unitwaittime, and gives the minimum number of seconds that a unit has to wait between moves over a turn change. Try it out and report any bugs or mistakes if you find any.
thanks
great! thanks book. let's try that in LTex as soon as possible.
The new setting is called
The new setting is called unitwaittime, and gives the minimum number of seconds that a unit has to wait between moves over a turn change. Try it out and report any bugs or mistakes if you find any.
I'm presuming these updates are live in the ltex game. It seems to work and is nice that an explicit time is given when the next move can be made.
However, goto orders cannot be issued while in the frozen state. It means we have to log back to reissue commands for units which are currently frozen. Can this be overcome??
I guess. Let me think about
I guess. Let me think about the best way to do this...
Here are just some random
Here are just some random ideas I had mentioned previously on the freeciv forums in passing, that could perhaps improve longturn gameplay. They are just random brainstorms and since I won't have time to playtest them personally in longturn games feel free to take them or leave them as you like.
I find some of those wonder
I find some of those wonder changes very logical. however instead of a radical change to many wonders, I think we should discuss and vote for each wonder separately.
do you mean that the islands are too close to each other? when I first started LT I was shocked by the 3x moves, but later I realized that if the units had original moves, LT games would progress too slowly. However, I agree with increasing terrain penalties and reducing the number of mountains which I think is too many right now.
set foggedborders=1 This
set foggedborders=1
This setting can't be modified after the game has started.
So, I can't set it until nearest civserver restart.
I can't think of any obvious
I can't think of any obvious reason why bad things would happen if foggedborders were changed mid-game... I'll make the setting flexible.
foggedborders
book, have you made the foggedborders setting flexible yet?
Yes, I committed the change
Yes, I committed the change two weeks ago.
By the way, how is unitwaittime working out? Are there still problems with double moves?
Works ok
Well, new version has removed all the obscurity that was an issue with previous one - a great improvement.
I noticed only one problem. Some units are teleported by the gameengine on TC, for various reasons I guess, but the one I stumbled upon was city disbanding and settlers from that operation "appearing" in closest town. It seems the move occurs before your patch recognizes new turn, because these units start with 10 hours countdown, despite the fact, they were produced on the very TC we talk about.
I remember I also had a 10 hours countdown on engineer I did not move - but I am sorry, I did not remember the circumstances.
applied yet?
oh, i see. good to know that the land and attack bug is dead. are the borders in LTex foggy now or has maho not applied it yet?
It should be enough to
It should be enough to restart the server, then set foggedborders=1 once it is running. Let me know if there are some problems with it.
Restart needed once?
I am confused now. I thought you'd fix the setting so that it could be applied without restart. I guess a restart is needed only the first time, and later the setting can be turned on and off without restart???
Fixing as I used it means
Fixing as I used it means changing the source code of the server and recompiling. Obviously this has no effect on the running program, which must be stopped and the new version of the executable started in its place.
yes, after restart I can
yes, after restart I can change settings on the fly
applied
applied. Also applied to LTXV (we have little return to the past there, because I was unable to save current state of game, so I had to rely on save on the end of turn).
applied Did we go back in
applied
Did we go back in time in ltex game?
Even if we didn't something strange has happened. I have certain units, am currently building more of those units in my worklist, but in the tech tree I no longer have that tech, and I cannot select to build more of those units in my production list.
Anybody else notice the same?
I did not change anything
I did not change anything related to worklists or techs, unless somehow by mistake I clobbered some unrelated code when I removed the old move refilling stuff from savegame handling...
I got the same. Maho
I got the same. Maho respawned ( to the same team as me ) - he took all my techs and some of my techs dissapered. Next turn I would get those techs again ( because maho has my all my techs )
You didnt got techs next turn because you were in team with urgo for half turn and he was sunken immediately.
I got the same. Maho
I got the same. Maho respawned ( to the same team as me ) - he took all my techs and some of my techs dissapered. Next turn I would get those techs again ( because maho has my all my techs )
It was because of bug making newcomers in same team as someone else. I fixed it, so it shouldn't happend anymore.
Thanks
Thanks Maho! LTXV will be more fun now. What about the double move patch? Did you apply that also to LTXV?
The double move solution is
The double move solution is the 'unitwaittime' setting, which maho said is now running on the LTXV 2.1 server.
As some have noted, there is a slight problem in that units with goto orders will be "stopped" at the start of the turn due to having to wait, and will not continue moving automatically later in the turn. I'll check this out as I have time, since freeciv development is picking up lately (I also have some work I want to continue with warclient :)). If more people complain I will try to implement a potential solution sooner.
What about the double move
What about the double move patch? Did you apply that also to LTXV?
Yes. See news on main site about it
Nice
These two patches are really great. The old borders I had explored became fogged but when I explore a border, it stays unfogged. Did you somehow turn off foggy borders?
Kryon