LtXV - team game (30/30)
Sat, 02/21/2009 - 22:19 — maho
3rd 2.1 based game is going to start. Team game.
host: pagema.net
port: 5555
Use Teams tabs to specify your team preferences. Note: you can always change your team preferences until game submission is closed and game started.
Min team size: 2,
Max team size: 15, but I strongly encourage to not create teams bigger than 6.
If someone invite more than 6 players, then team calculations will be delayed, due to expensive calculations. Up to 6 players - calculations are online.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| settings.tar.gz | 34.65 KB |
Comments
cheers!
With astabd! Merry Christmas! )))
deadline
I remind you , that first deadline is today, and we have 2 conflicting teams - because Citral didn't accept Sasquash.
So all involved to Citral's team - if you don't want to be marked as idlers and excluded from game - please either convince him to accept Sasquash, or reject Sasquash, or reject Citral,
Or do something which will make teams non-conflicting.
You have approximately 10-12 hours to do that.
server is dead?
I think the server died a couple of hrs ago while a couple of us were connected ... I can no longer connect.
Delegation ... Dear Team 4,
I think you guys are strongly bending (not breaking) the rules regarding accessing multiple accounts - or at least not playing in the spirit of a team game.
The intended purpose (I believe) was to over come sharing passwords and to allow people look after accounts for people when they are away... I don't think the purpose of delegation is so that you can change your delegation a couple of times a day such that a member of your team is always awake .....
Some previous discussion is in the link below (yes I have access to more than 2 accounts at the moment - 2 of my team are away).
http://www.longturn.org/rules-...
What do you think???
Delegation ... Dear Team 2,
Thanks for pointing out the vote about password sharing - http://www.longturn.org/rules-....
I had assumed this vote was superseded when the player delegation patch was added http://www.longturn.org/change...
The password sharing vote was never added to the rules and I had forgotten about it.
In any case our team has delegated control to the only player on our team who is able to play regularly at the moment. This is a temporary situation. In my case I am on holiday, I can play occasionally - sometimes each day, sometimes not.
Our team is a strong team that is coordinating complex moves collectively. I have no problem that team members play part of my moves.
Your team seems to assume that the password sharing vote automatically applies to delegation. If that were true then your team is knowingly breaking the rule whereas our team is not.
Using the server settings
A comment for anyone trying to use the server settings in a test game. (Not to Maho)
Unless you add patches to the server some of the settings in the .serv file will fail. This causes the server to quietly reject this ruleset and revert to the default one.
To work you need to comment out the citytrading and move refill setting.
Maho perhaps a comment line above the setting such as
# this setting relies on the citytrading patch
Nice game
The Venezuelans surrender and capitulate to the combined forces of evil. :)
I lost interest/motivation near the end of the game. I admire the perseverance from our opponents to play it to the end. A victory well deserved.
Next LT game will be a break for me.
Teams tab bug?
I found something strange. Here is what I did:
1) Invited Kevapo
2) Canceled Kevapo's invitation
3) Saw that Kevapo was removed from my "I want" list
4) Invited Kevapo again
5) Got an "Already invited" message but Kevapo is not on my "I want" list
It looks like an invitation can not be canceled completely. And I don't know how to put Kevapo back on my "I want" list.
Start?
we have 30 players and it seems no one is changing their team preferences so I don't know what we are waiting for. I am looking forward to my first team game. Maho, what is the plan?
Sign me up.
Hello,
I'd like to sign up to take over an idle player.
Thanks,
Grendel
so I don't know what we are
so I don't know what we are waiting for. I am looking forward to my first team game.
A word of advice :-) Just because a game looks ready to start, or even if maho says he will start it soon, doesn't actually mean it will start "soon".
I wouldn't expect the game to start for many days (although I am really just estimating from past experiences).
game isn't ready yet - teams
game isn't ready yet - teams are conflicting still.
also, remember that 'soon' has different meaning in LT and in real world :)
workaround: please wait a
workaround: please wait a bit ... about 15 minutes.
working
it seems that you already invited Kevapo. Our team will be complete when Claus invites Kevapo.
test
test
eh maho...
you're Admin.
Please use your powerfull rights to accept sasquash.
It's better for you to take the tiny risk of uncontenting Citral, than to surely lead 6 players to hate you forever ;)
Be wise : use your power the right way...
I accepted Sasquash. Sorry
I accepted Sasquash. Sorry guys for keeping you in angst whether I would read my e-mail/RSS before Friday. :)
--
Never confuse movement with action.
first deadline is today All
first deadline is today
All conflicts resolved! Your system worked very well and much better than I expected. Great stuff.
Okay, so game will start at
Okay, so game will start at weekend ... probably this weekend :)
You know, 2.1.9 will be
You know, 2.1.9 will be release this weekend (i.e. tomorrow) and it will contain a ton of bug fixes and improvements. Maybe it would be good to wait a bit and upgrade before starting?
2.1.9
Yes a lot of important fixes. The server we are using now is 2.1.4 and it has many bugs.
2.1.8
2.1.8
2.1.8
Oh, you already updated LTex to 2.1.8?
diplchance
In the settings file, the diplchance is still 80 even though majority had voted for 50. Could you please change it? EDIT: ok, in the game it is 50
unfortunately - we have no
unfortunately - we have no idlers yet :(
Re: Delegation
What's different in a team game from a FFA game is that attacks are almost always made with units from more than 1 player on the team. Its sometimes difficult to coordinate to be online with 2, 3 or ever 4 other people at the same time in order to carry out an attack.
I don't think this takes away from anyone's enjoyment of the game, since everyone plays their own turn, but (I atleast) check to make sure moves have been made at the end of the turn.
If anything, it does add some enjoyment to the game. Today, elrik delegated his control to me to carry out an attack involving his and my units. I delegated my control to kevin so he could play for me, instead of just sitting there missing out on the fun.
Of course, coordinating attacks may not be a good thing, maybe you prefer to have players perform their part of the attack when they can, making some attacks slower and more methodical, possibly allowing counters by the defending team.
If you are of that belief, you probobly think that being able to switch over to a player who is being attacked to clean up or intercept units, or to bring in reinforcements is a good thing, rather than just having an attack played out against a defenseless offline player.
Obviously, there are ups and downs to delegation, as with anything. I think it only adds to the competitiveness and involvement of all players.
-canuck101
I personally only use
I personally only use delegation for which it was intended: when I am away.
I don't want to make an issue out of it because it is infeasible to check if people who delegate are really away. But it would suit people to use it for what it was intended.
As for the arguments you put forward Canuck: of course they are all true. Delegation makes it all easier and smoother. But I don't think that that's what delegation is for.
Either that or we should loosen the rules.
What's different in a team
What's different in a team game from a FFA game is that attacks are almost always made with units from more than 1 player on the team. Its sometimes difficult to coordinate to be online with 2, 3 or ever 4 other people at the same time in order to carry out an attack.
Isn't that why you end up sitting around until everybody is offline before attacking??
Don't ruin the aim for the delegation rule, or we just end up creating a system that stops this "abuse" and somebody else will work out another way for bending the rules.
Maho,
Could you limit (if you think like us 1 player playing 5 account is not normal) the number of delegations a player can receive ?
...To 1 ?
I'm thinking about something
I'm thinking about something like that.
re: delegation
I think that delegation should be used only when someone is away (vacation, holiday, hospital ....).
I will try to make some technical constraints, eg. automatical cancellation of delegation when original player log in.
Or limited number of delegations in time unit.
I disagree completely,
I disagree completely, especially in a team game.
I want to be able to delegate my control while I go on vacation and still play the odd time when I get the chance or atleast take a look at the situation.
I also think that, in team games, you should be able to share your delegation with another player throughout the game. For one, this makes coordinating and executing attacks easier, and more fun (when player by 2+ players instead of waiting for the other(s) to show up). Also, if the player mysteriously disappears without notice, you won't be stuck with an idle player, you'll be able to take control and keep the player in the game until he comes back.
-canuck101
server crashed, I have just
server crashed, I have just re-launched it.
BTW, I had transport but now I haven't. Did someone killed it or it's some server bug?
It was not a bug.
It was not a bug.
The delegation page
The delegation page says:
control delegation form, which will allow player to delegate his control to anyone when going to vacation, without sharing password
I don't see how taking control of a player who is actually already logged meets the intended purpose of "delegation".
canuck101 now controls entd (Human, Alive).
canuck101 now controls elrik (Human, Alive).
canuck101 now controls canuck101 (Human, Alive).
canuck101 now controls vonzgred (Human, Alive).
canuck101 now controls entd (Human, Alive).
canuck101 now controls canuck101 (Human, Alive).
canuck101 now controls elrik (Human, Alive).
canuck101 now controls vonzgred (Human, Alive).
(server prompt): 'save lastsave.sav.gz'
canuck101 now controls entd (Human, Alive).
canuck101 now controls vonzgred (Human, Alive).
canuck101 now controls elrik (Human, Alive).
canuck101 now controls kevin551 (Human, Alive). <--------------------------------
canuck101 now controls entd (Human, Alive).
Server: Kevapo has connected from ***.fr.
Lost connection: Kevapo from ***.fr (player Kevapo).
canuck101 now controls elrik (Human, Alive).
canuck101 now controls canuck101 (Human, Alive).
kevin551 now controls kevin551 (Human, Alive). <---------------------------------
Our team is a strong team that is coordinating complex moves collectively
Dam, no wonder you guys are doing so well, you are doing complex moves? Doh, should have thought of that one ourselves.
The password sharing vote was never added to the rules and I had forgotten about it.
If that were true then your team is knowingly breaking the rule whereas our team is not.
Oh, I didn't realised it was illegal to rob a bank. The means I don't have to go to jail right? That is why we are pointing out the "rules" to you now - or more importantly asking you to use delegation for the purpose it was intended for.
All the best if you want to play that way ... we can make a vote for maximum number of delegations for future games.
Sure, kevin was logged in,
Sure, kevin was logged in, but he wasn't at his computer when I took him.
short vacation to make a
short vacation to make a pee? dont you understand for what was this system of controling made? vacation man, is not when someone is out of computer, is like you are going to take a rest of your work for a couple of days
password sharing
There was a situation in start of a turn 142 in LTXV.
We (team4) dont afraid to attack when enemies are online and dont have to wait that they will be offline, for us pleasure of playing is much more important then wining.
But there is some people that break the rules and make mess in our community.
When "delegate control system" was implemented all we decided that sharing passwords is illegal (if you are going to vacation set a delegation), one mail per change delegation make a mess in my inbox because of some strage actions, but i dont care, it is legal, and they said they can do it and we should fuck off from delegation system and how their use it.
Ok, but next some lines show that some users of our community are still sharing passwords:
Server: elrik has connected from i5DB5093B.pool.tripleplugandplay.com.
elrik now controls elrik (Human, Alive).
Server: vonzgred has connected from i5DB5093B.pool.tripleplugandplay.com.
vonzgred now controls vonzgred (Human, Alive).
:vz you are alive:)
it is not entirely true
deadline is in monday:)
vonzgred now controls canuck101 (Human, Alive).
vonzgred now controls vonzgred (Human, Alive).
vonzgred now controls canuck101 (Human, Alive).
vonzgred now controls vonzgred (Human, Alive).
In those lines and screenshot, elrik control two nations (forward by vonzgred password) that where not set control to him, for me it is illegal.
Sharing passwords is Evil and prohibit.
In all internet games where password sharing is prohibit there is punishment for doing it.
In nearly all previous LT games this team who spent most of time online won, this is handicap for spent time that you have better chance to win if you are still thinking about game, but winning because of cheating is wrong and i dont want to play with cheaters.
It is a little bit boring
It is a little bit boring Edrim...
First of all it is a TEAM game everything is inside one team. Zgred was online during whole action but he has deadline of his job in monday and i didn`t want to interrupt him. Then we made our move MUCH later than you made your move. It WASN`T RTStype game!! You finished your moves and you STILL HAD TIME TO MOVE MORE INTO CITY! So our later counter attack didn`t change anything for your team. Sooner or later (i mean in the time we made it or 2 or 3 hours later) someone from our team would make the same.
"In nearly all previous LT games this team who spent most of time online won, this is handicap for spent time that you have better chance to win if you are still thinking about game, but winning because of cheating is wrong and i dont want to play with cheaters"
It is not true for yesterday situation couse you did you move before we made ours. The only units that were moved during attack were mine and kevins and we both were online!
It is not true for yesterday
It is not true for yesterday situation couse you did you move before we made ours. The only units that were moved during attack were mine and kevins and we both were online!
This is not the point that vonzgred units wasnt moved. The point is that you were loged into his account directly, this is not legal here, i dont care if you were moved his units or not, you were loged in into his account and this is cheating here since time the delegate control system was implemented.
So if you have so german
So if you have so german feeling about that rules(and about the rules general) we must change them a bit for team games. Couse now when armies are on whole world we can wait for an mirracle and everyone online or leave it to 1 person. Or change delegation all the time. But wait.... it was a problem for you too... I don`t care that your team couldn`t realy play as a team from the beggining(as you said to me once) it is not my problem. We could and we did and as i see it hurts.
I second that. I think
I second that. I think password sharing is illegal, anyone thinks different?
illegality ! Elrik's move is within current law.
The vote we had on password sharing came after LT10. The reason for it was that one team was using password sharing to log on to 5 accounts simultaneously. The importance of this was to prevent TC attacks.
What changed after the vote -
TC attacks are no longer so effective because of the unitwaittime patch.
Delegation has replaced password sharing as the means of sharing access. This allows sequential access to players, you cannot play both at the same time. I think this should be the only allowed method.
But the vote we had on password sharing specifically allowed 2 accounts. There was no rule about sequential or simultaneous access. And no rules about delegation. A new site rule needs to be created that bans password sharing entirely. Until that is done what Elrik did is not against the rules. A second new rule limiting delegation could also be introduced. I will vote against that.
He has logged in into two
He has logged in into two accounts in one time. I dont care if he moved units or not, he uses second account to get third account, in this way he used 3 account in the same time.
There is no need to be another rule talks about "simultaneous access", because in delegation control you cannot login simultaneous. You can be online only with one player and only that who has set control to you.
This method prevet to access more then one nation by one player , so what the hell was that?
For me this is very simple - we have delegation system = you cannot use sharing pass, am i wright or wrong?
Because if this "=" has same points that: you cannot, but if it is team game, or if more then 2 people want to control your nation or you want to login two natios in the same time you can use shared passwords. In this way situation breaks hole idea of control system.
All people knows that this is illegal, but some guys has theirs own prospect of it and still can use shared passwords.
So, no longer sharing passwords etc...
Edrim I think sharing passwords is wrong. Maho has stated that we should no longer share passwords and I agree with that.
The problems with shared password include :-
1. logging on to the website as another person.
2. logging into another game other than the one the person wanted you to access.
3. simultaneous access to the same game with multiple accounts.
The delegation system is a much improved way of sharing access.
But it is not 'illegal'. The site rules are what makes something illegal. Maho as site admin can impose orders on anything unilaterally, which is fair enough, but I think the site rules that are voted on collectively constitute the 'laws' of the game.
Ok Edrim so i really
Ok Edrim so i really appologize to you for breaking The Law. I am really sorry for doing that. I will not do it in the future and i will leave all my military moves to someones else who can legaly use both accounts(read person who has delegation). If i knew it is so big deal i wouldn`t do that. I just:
1. Didn`t want to interrupt someone busy with real work(at last it is only a game)
2. Make some military movement for the first time in last 2 or 3 weeks(i was busy and i didn`t have time for that before)
Once again i realy apologize if i interrupt any of your team action. It would be better to leave it to Canuck and make it 2 hours later. I really sory:(
I think you still miss the
I think you still miss the point.
I dont care if cancuk or anybody else maad a moves or not.
You dont want to accept that you did wrong, for me it is cheating and it will be allways.
I will not tell what can i do those time if you not log in to vonzgred account because it is not the point (we could do it much more as you know exactly because you know what did you killed in this city we own), discussion is about logging not about vonzgred works, moving or not moving units. It is like for example buying drugs, it nos not leagl whatever you want to do with them, maybe you want to throw them to river or keep them in treasure box all live long, but buying them and selling too is not leagal, and if you will be cut with them you cant say that you didnt do anything bad, because you did, and you exactly know that.
If password sharing is legal here what for is this playing with delegate control? What for are you spaming our inboxes by tons of delegating control mails? Just keep logging on others account if you think that you are playing well and didnt do anything bad (btw. is it good gramma?).
I appologised one post
I appologised one post higher and i told i wouldn`t do it again:) I definately took the point:) I made wrong, i destroy whole plan, used zgreds account to transport my units, i am a cheater:) But it was funny and i am not regret.
EOT
Maho, Maybe you should make
Maho,
Maybe you should make a feature that on the website you can view the logs of the in-game chat system. In that way, even when no one else is online, it is still not 'safe' to do anything that is illegal because people can see in the logs on the website the tracks.
I was thinking of a mechanism that publishes the game chatlogs directly into the drupal database and read it out with a small module.
Bye
Citral
Another suggestion: If we
Another suggestion:
If we want to ensure that people use delegation only when they are away, it should be such that when you have delegated your account, that you cannot take your own player without first un-delegating your account on the site.
Interesting ideas
Citral perhaps if there was such a system as you propose in the previous two posts we could see that you are logging on to a player who is 'away' and yet still manages to play himself occasionally.
My suggestions for
My suggestions for improvement of gameplay are not aimed at your team but at everyone.
That said, I presume MrS never rescinded his delegation to not spam your inboxes when he came back. But I could not care if he did.
I'm not in team 4, but I
I'm not in team 4, but I agree with you. Using delegation of account which holder isn't away - is definitively against spirit of this feature.
Delegation
So maybe the clue is to get posibility of login to someone who give delegation to his account, in this way it will be little more problematic to coordination using sharing pass on our community. Of course if it will be any kind of punishment for sharing passwords, because now it is not legal but not punishment for this.
I think that adding feature
I think that adding feature which allows to change homecity of a unit to someone else inside team will solve that. As for now it sooner or later units from every team member will be on each frontline and it is rather hard to get all members in 1 time to make attack. If we can change the owner of a unit this problem doesn`t not exist. I am not talking about city trading but only changing unit owner. And at last city trading inside team is not that bad too. The only war use of that is changing owner to someone in democracy. You cannot teleport units inside a team.
Return to delegation
Hehehe, i have read this by accident:)
In any case our team has delegated control to the only player on our team who is able to play regularly at the moment. This is a temporary situation. In my case I am on holiday, I can play occasionally - sometimes each day, sometimes not.<\cite>
and check what is on our woting in link, i will cite it:
players are only allowed to have access to 2 accounts at any time, their own account and an account which they temporarily manage for someone else. This 'managed account' should be listed in the 'vacation-idle-list' thread on the forum (http://www.longturn.org/forum/...), including the name of the one managing it.
In our game there is situation that one player has allowed to acces several accounts, and nobody has writen about being idle or vacation, like in this pee situation when someone was loged in and someone has control his player. This is no fun, because you are loughing from our community by doing this things.
Poll was about controlling only 2 nations but you are using it in bad way:P
I don't see this as being
I don't see this as being very practical in a team game. Right now 3 of us are unable to play at all, or atleast very very sparingly. In a team of 5, one account would have to be left idle and another controlled by someone without sufficient time to control it.
-canuck101
Beating a dead horse
I am in T4 - I think delegation in a team game is fine.
T2 however complains about delegation for live players who are not away.
Yesterday Sokrat (T2) played Citral's account at TC because TC was 3am European Time. Citral came on later that day. Citral has a perfectly good reason for not wanting to play at 3am - he has exams coming up. But T2 does not seem to be interested in such facts in their ranting about holidays.
As Citral stated earlier in this forum Maho can always check the logs to see who was online when.
away and not away
Didnt you read this thread regulary?
I am talking about this all game, that how delegation is using.
I hope that in "not team" game this delegation will be used literaly and it will be used only if someone doesnt have acces to net, not like this time below:
canuck101 now controls kevin551 (Human, Alive). <--------------------------------
canuck101 now controls entd (Human, Alive).
Server: Kevapo has connected from ***.fr.
Lost connection: Kevapo from ***.fr (player Kevapo).
canuck101 now controls elrik (Human, Alive).
canuck101 now controls canuck101 (Human, Alive).
kevin551 now controls kevin551 (Human, Alive). <---------------------------------
You two talking about not being on the net 3PM, but it is not a point, i am still talking about using delegation like sharing passwords.
Didnt you read this thread regulary?
Edrim try looking at the top post by MrSynical a member of your team.
The intended purpose (I believe) was to over come sharing passwords and to allow people look after accounts for people when they are away... I don't think the purpose of delegation is so that you can change your delegation a couple of times a day such that a member of your team is always awake .....
Or try this one by Citral
I personally only use delegation for which it was intended: when I am away.
Or try this one by Edrim
short vacation to make a pee? dont you understand for what was this system of controling made? vacation man, is not when someone is out of computer, is like you are going to take a rest of your work for a couple of days
And to beat the same old horse yet again I think it is fine to delegate your account to someone else if you don't want to get out of bed at 3am. (in a TEAM game).
Because these posts are getting so inane I will start a new thread to have a more sensible discussion.
I don't think it's fair you
I don't think it's fair you are making accusation there. I delegated my account fully according to the rules since I am unable to play right now. When I logged in shortly after delegating, I wanted to see the world map for the last time because it will be over soon.
I only took a look, I didn't move any units and you can confirm this because I was online for less than a minute. So get over it.
So why don't you surrender now then?
"It will be over soon." - Why not just end these arguments and quit now
yes i did it
I woke up at 3am to nuke your big fat cities, Kevin :P
What a nasty pleasure... but i'm tired now.
You know, i'm ready to surrender to team 4... oups sorry, to you kevin -you are team 4 ;)
Every time i meet you online, you play all accounts...
When my team mates feel like it, i give up : there is no city left worth to be nuked in my range :D
What's wrong with kevin
What's wrong with kevin playing all accounts? 3 of us have been unable to play for weeks, and I'm not sure how active Elrik has been. In a team game, atleast, I see no problem with a player playing multiple accounts.
-canuck101
What's wrong with kevin
What's wrong with kevin playing all accounts? 3 of us have been unable to play for weeks, and I'm not sure how active Elrik has been
[Flog horse]
That is because it is all bollocks. You have all been playing each other's accounts continually. You don't know how active Elrik is because you continue to play as 4 people playing 1 nation.
[/Flog horse]
He doesn`t know couse he is
He doesn`t know couse he is out right now as well:) What about me... In 2 week is a termin of birth of my doughter so i don`t have much time. I am ruling all my cities and more than half of mine units all the time. The rest are on frontline played by Kevin couse i definately cannot be online in exact time right now.
I am ruling all my cities
I am ruling all my cities and more than half of mine units all the time.
I think it is more accurate to say you adjust 1/2 of your units. You aren't certain that others don't do things in your cities and don't also move the back 1/2 of your units. I'm sure they will move them should you ever get in trouble.
The rest are on frontline played by Kevin couse i definately cannot be online in exact time right now.
I don't see why you feel you MUST be online at exact time?
Isn't the point of LT that we don't need to be online at the same time? Isn't the point of the random turn change and refill patch to prevent people connecting at certain times of the day?
Isn't the point of LT that
Isn't the point of LT that we don't need to be online at the same time? Isn't the point of the random turn change and refill patch to prevent people connecting at certain times of the day?
Absolutely right. If you imagine strategies that needs 5 players to be online at the same time to work... don't play LT.
Let's drink to the end !
And all delegate our accounts to mighty shiva-kevin ;)
...to see if he can make us win :DDD
Surrender by delegation is a two-edged sword.
Thanks for the game.
But be careful how you surrender next time.
Falling on your own sword is one thing, but giving your opponent control of all your nukes and potentially hundreds of partisans is a bit much. Kernow and Woj are lucky that I didn't take the opportunity to use all this extra help.
Falling on your own sword is
Falling on your own sword is one thing, but giving your opponent control of all your nukes and potentially hundreds of partisans is a bit much.
I think we understood the implications of surrender by delegation.
Don't try and tell me that we altered the course of the game for kernow and woj because of our surrender by delegation!
Falling on your own sword!
You are correct. It did not affect the outcome of this game. The point was to be careful in the future.
back into action... -- Never
back into action...
--
Never confuse movement with action.
Game Rules - Only 1 Team Can Win.
I would like to change the game rules so that only one team can win.
This could either mean a vote by the players in this game to change the rules in this game. Or by all longturn participants to change the rules for longturn as a whole. Maho / Marduk what is the procedure for changing the rules? And which of these options do you prefer?
Just place a poll regarding
Just place a poll regarding new words of this rule ....
But note, that Marduk has it's own rule in his own ranking, and it's his personal decision ....
poll on team rule
Yea let's have a poll, good idea Kevin. We can integrate the different rule lists bit by bit. If the outcome of this poll is based on enough votes then we can use the result in both rule lists.
I think the deadline of the poll should approximately coincide with the start of LTXV, it shouldn't be a quick 1 week voting. We could say that the deadline of the poll is 4 weeks or the start of the LTXV, whichever happens first.
=== 0h Marduk, thou art chiefest among the great gods! To destroy and to create; speak thou the word, and thy command shall be fulfilled. ===
Maho - 2.0 games?
Hi Maho,
Can I uninstall my 2.0 client? Will there be any more 2.0 based games?
hold on ... 2.0 games will
hold on ... 2.0 games will be played until there are players interested in.
I only need to apply delegate fixes to 2.0 code ....
Cheers. Delegation code
Cheers. Delegation code works well on 2.1.
there are still players
there are still players which didn't specify their team preferences.
Folks - please do it.
Hi Maho, Just a comment. If
Hi Maho, Just a comment. If players end up in teams they don't want to be in you might get idlers or bad experiences. I guess we should be a bit careful of being too prescriptive when assigning teams.
Hi Maho, Just a comment. If
Hi Maho, Just a comment. If players end up in teams they don't want to be in you might get idlers or bad experiences.
I don't understand, how come they would end up in teams they don't want to be, if condition to be in team is that all teammates agree to all other teammates inside team?
I guess we should be a bit careful of being too prescriptive when assigning teams.
I agree, but I completely don't understand why you have written phrase above?
Ok, I just didn't understand
Ok, I just didn't understand the algorithm you used. I should've just asked that question. Cheers.
I have no preferences
I'm new and have no team preferences. Will people like me be used to even out the number of players in each team?
http://www.longturn.org/node/
http://www.longturn.org/node/7...
enjoy:) you have to be logged into account. Please write there with whom do you like to be with
me too
I am also new to LT. I played many 1.14 games online though. I hope they will distribute us LT newbies evenly :)
I hope it too ... I also
I hope it too ... I also think that it will be ok if team with LT-newbies will be a bit bigger than team with core-players only.
Lt-newbies
LT-newbies with players that never play our LT game.
Another option is players newer win/get points:)
teams
we have 30 players and it seems no one is changing their team preferences so I don't know what we are waiting for. maho can you find a solution?
Members of the team I am in,
Members of the team I am in, for example, we are considering some changes, so I guess, now we have 30 people, the final forming needs to take place.
ok
ok, now it seems more teams have been formed. hopefully this will finalize very soon.
maybe specify deadline (1
maybe specify deadline (1 week from now), and if someone will be still unteamed or in conflicting teams - he will be removed from game/marked as an idler?
team forming system
Maho - I love the system to form teams! Hopefully it works out in practice.
I hope so. If it doesn't
I hope so. If it doesn't work - it means that I wasted about month of thinking and thinking ... :)
Using the team tab.
So far the new team chooser seems to work well. Thanks Maho its a great addition.
I encourage all the players who haven't yet gone to the teams tab at the top of this page to give it a try.
for fair teams
for teams of equal size a fair way of forming teams is to assign team captains (preferably with similar strength) and then the captains choose teammates 1by1
we used captains and
we used captains and round-robin choosing, and it wasn't the best method IMHO.
captain was forced to have someone he didn't like, and someone was forced to be in team/teammates he didn't like...
now we have chance to form teams where all teammates wants each other.
And, actually it should be
And, actually it should be mentioned first, captains were forced to be captains when they did not like to :D
i see
i see your point. well experience beats logic :) I actually like having freedom in forming teams but hopefully at least the teams sizes will be similar. If teams can ally that is not an issue though, can they?
If teams can ally that is not an issue though, can they?
We are voting on that at the moment, you will find a link above.
Obviously anyone can work together at any time but the vote asks you to decide if the final outcome can only be one winning team.
equal size teams
I also worry about unequal team sizes. In my opinion the team selector would be improved if it could be set to create equal size teams.
If we, the players, notice that some people try to create a huge team then ofcourse we can respond to it and band together, but there may still be situations in the game with big teams taking out small teams without any chance.
=== 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 wouldn't worry about it. I
I wouldn't worry about it. I think that teams will be equal or similar at the end of teams forming process.
I thought about "max team size" poll, or set such size in administrative decision ... but I think it's not neccesary, people will set their most desized sized teams by natural, rank-and-file process.
maho,
Do you believe in some sort of market natural regulation rules leading to the rightest balance ?
I'm afraid that the rational choice of anyone would be to join the biggest team -who would invite any new player, leading to 1 only team -victorious of course ;)
But as we are not rational, there may be 1 BIG team and plenty of small ones...
Anyway, it's a very interesting system of building teams and we will see what comes out.
If it won't work - we can
If it won't work - we can always limit size of team to given number.
Let's say - if there will be no good and balanced teams in a week, I specify that max team size = X and please modify your choice
How to join team
How to join any team?
There is only invite option.
If it's possible , someone could recomend which team to join:)
I'm little confused.
You create team with
You create team with teammates.
To create team invite someone, and once he accepts your invitation - you have created 2 people team. Then, when you both invite third person, and that third person will accept both invitation - bah - your team has now 3 players.
etc ... etc ....
You can also join any existing team by inviting all teammates. If they all accept your invitation, you're in team.
Where is Bkoltai9
Where is Benjamin? I would like to see him and his team of Pacifists :).
Last I recall, he was
Last I recall, he was against teamed games, maybe he decided to wait for ffa diplomacy game?
Team of Pacifists
If a minimum of two other players are interested in joining a team with a non-aggression pact, say so and I will consider to join in this game. There are a few other considerations I will also want for my team including commitments against nuclear war and pollution.
Holler back if you're interested.
Team of pacifists, environmentalists, and gardeners
I saw LTXV was 29/30 players and I took the last slot.
So far, MrSynical has expressed interest in joining me. We have not yet made any official arrangement yet, and one main reason is I am still waiting for at least one more teammate.
If anybody thinks they can survive without the use of aggressive war (we will still make defensive war, which will include capturing and/or destroying cities when required), we need at least one more player to make our strategy feesible, and it would be nice to see a couple more.
Email me if you're interested. Don't miss your chance to be a part of the greatest movement in (freeciv) history!
I don't think I'll join you
I don't think I'll join you this LT, but I'm sure willing to try it sometime.
--
Never confuse movement with action.
I don't think I'll join you
I don't think I'll join you this LT
A pity. Till next time! If you are sure, please unsign so 1 more person can take your spot.
Just to be sure: Citral, do
Just to be sure: Citral, do you mean you wont join Bkoltai's team, or that you wont join LTXV? I think you mean the former.
=== 0h Marduk, thou art chiefest among the great gods! To destroy and to create; speak thou the word, and thy command shall be fulfilled. ===
sorry for the confusion
sorry for the confusion there. My comment was aimed at bkoltai9.
So to make it clear: I will play this LT, but not pacifistic.
--
Never confuse movement with action.
Until next time...
There seems to be interest in a team of pacifists and everyone seems to want to try it for LTXVII. LTXIV has been very time intensive for me and I think I need a break before playing again. I've been keeping a national history with screenshots and text for every turn and it's already almost 1/3 gigabyte.
I'm unsigning myself from LTXV and I will rejoin in LTXVI or LTXVII. I'm sad to participate less in the community, as it has been lots of fun. As it happens, I have a life and family in the real world.
Until next time...
new poll
Maho, I just added a new poll for lowering diplchance. Can you please confirm it so that everyone can vote? Thanks
Okay, but please fix it
Okay, but please fix it first. Answers (options) don't fit to any question, because there is no question.
It looks like "I think current apple colour is bad. I like red apple. a)red, b) green, c)yellow". One can *guess* that he can choose colour of new apples, but it is not so obvious.
Anyway, did you read http://www.longturn.org/create... ?
done
OK I changed the wording. How does it sound now?
yes
and yes, I did read that tutorial.
great that you read it, pity
great that you read it, pity that you didn't use :).
Wow, what a feedback
Wow, what a feedback ....
Day after I posted info about deadlines - all conflicting teams disappeared. Great!
Could someone adopt JohnJ and pytoux? 2 players team is in rather hopeless position, even if teammates are very strong players.
entd, Sasquash are not in a
entd, Sasquash are not in a team now, so they can join each other and have a 4ppl team.
No, thanks.
My team-mate and I don't wish to be adopted. May be the other teams should take example on us, and split. :)
team
yeah why don't u join endt and sasquash? you don't want to last longer?
or
or we could distribute JohnJ, pytoux endt and sasquash to teams who have less than 6 players making sure each team has 6 players?
thy should distribute
thy should distribute themself
of coure not thy but they.
of coure not thy but they. Thou shouldn't distribute anywhere :)
Sasquash
Sasquash wants to join your team. You don't want?
O thou, lord of this beautiful website
Is there a rule stating we are not to form a 2 player team ? If yes, we'll comply. If no, we'll play the way we wish to.
Anyway, thanks for caring about us.