Accounts e-mail HP

Problems with alliances[& probably some other civ problems]

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek: :halo:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Problems with alliances[& probably some other civ problems]

Re: Problems with alliances[& probably some other civ proble

Post by morphles » Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:05 pm

The worst thing is players who carry alliances or wars from a game to another one.

So far I seem to not have seen that, but yes that is nasty as hell, and such sick fucks should be banned :P

Let's see this as a Marathon. Some may sign up with no chance nor intention to actually win. Actually they are going to give up when they will run out of energy and then celebrate they made it to the half marathon. They may want to run very fast at the beginning in order to reach the 1st km at the 1st place, and then run ot of breath. But yes, at least they are expecting to RUN. If you're goingto walk or dance or to ride motorcycle, you should either be not allowed, or be disencouraged.

Well I decline your proposition of accepting this as marathon :). Yes, I get the point and the reality, but it still discourages me from playing quite strongly. As such players introduce quite significant random factor for everyone else. Though I'm starting to think that games with multiple players, and even more with diplomacy will have very big luck factor. Which is why I would like to see team game, two team game to be precise, top-vs-bottom style.

I also still stand very very strongly behind my points of additional, (relatively)quick(as opposed to hundreds of turns to eradicate everyone or research everything to build spaceship) win condition, which in reality would not be likely to happen, but should give game a kick to move differently. Though... with loads of random factors game might end up ending much sooner than expected. But with timescales involved, maybe it is better...

Re: Problems with alliances[& probably some other civ proble

Post by monamipierrot » Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:38 pm

morphles wrote:People who do not play to win get on my nerves. You wasting everyones time. At least thats my opinion. You might not expect to win due to your skill or some such, but to not try to win... is despicable.

I would not be this radical.
Let's see this as a Marathon. Some may sign up with no chance nor intention to actually win. Actually they are going to give up when they will run out of energy and then celebrate they made it to the half marathon. They may want to run very fast at the beginning in order to reach the 1st km at the 1st place, and then run ot of breath. But yes, at least they are expecting to RUN. If you're goingto walk or dance or to ride motorcycle, you should either be not allowed, or be disencouraged.
In my opinion, the worst thing about alliance and the thing, is not players who play without a real intention to win. The worst thing is players who carry alliances or wars from a game to another one. This makes in-game alliances virtually locked: you're not going to stab anyone if you know you'll be a renegade in next matches. This makes game much more boring.

Re: Problems with alliances[& probably some other civ proble

Post by monamipierrot » Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:51 pm

ifaesfu wrote:Too much rumbling here. Settings, settings and only doable settings. The rest is a toast on the sun.

This section is called "General Discussion" about "Greatturn". General means general, so I think it is good if discussion are wide and address things from a large perspective. Other thing is if I went off-topic, and I already apologized for it.

Re: Problems with alliances[& probably some other civ proble

Post by Corbeau » Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:40 am

Oh, ok. I believe I've answered that. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Re: Problems with alliances[& probably some other civ proble

Post by ifaesfu » Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:22 am

Corbeau wrote:
ifaesfu wrote::cry: Once again no real settings. We have civ2-civ3, defaul, civ2, multiplayer,etc. rulesets and freeciv 2.4.2 client. Any proposition?


I'm not sure what exactly you mean.

I think it's crystal clear: is there any setting that you can use to try to (if not solve) decrease the problems of the alliances in this kind of games? But a real setting, something that you can do using the game options before a match or maybe changing one or two values in the ruleset.

Re: Problems with alliances[& probably some other civ proble

Post by Corbeau » Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:04 am

ifaesfu wrote::cry: Once again no real settings. We have civ2-civ3, defaul, civ2, multiplayer,etc. rulesets and freeciv 2.4.2 client. Any proposition?


I'm not sure what exactly you mean.

As for wonders, I'd also be in favour "small wonders", for reasons someone else already stated. A lot of players, disbalance, and some of them are useless in multiplayer game.

Basically, wonders as they are now were created for a single-player game and need to be revamped for FreeCiv. Making them "small", meaning non-unique, would be one way of doing it.

Re: Problems with alliances[& probably some other civ proble

Post by ifaesfu » Sat Apr 19, 2014 12:48 am

:cry: Once again no real settings. We have civ2-civ3, defaul, civ2, multiplayer,etc. rulesets and freeciv 2.4.2 client. Any proposition?
Anyway, I don't think the superwonder can change anything.

Re: Problems with alliances[& probably some other civ proble

Post by Corbeau » Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:24 pm

morphles wrote:Yes I do seem them as problem, not the presence or size or power directly, but that as I said after joining alliance there is basically negative incentive to leave it, thus alliances grow by accretion until all players/huge majority of players are absorbed; and they never leave. This all means that alliances do indeed consolidate large amounts of power and in so doing pressurize you to join one too.


This is perfectly normal human and group behaviour. It is well described and documented in political and social sciences and there is absolutely nothing that you will ever, ever be able to do about it. If you remove all mechanical benefits to an alliance, absolutely nothing will happen, everything you say here will continue happening. If you try to *destimulate* alliances by mechanical means, or try to stimulate "lone wolves", you will simply stimulate creation of "non-official" alliances that will be just as firm.

If you do anything of the above mentioned, it will be raping the mechanics, trying to coerce people into behaviour that is not natural to them and the game will lose a part of its appeal and flexibility.

This is how things are. You can love it or leave it. There are some things you can't tweak by tweaking rulesets.

Re: Problems with alliances[& probably some other civ proble

Post by morphles » Fri Apr 18, 2014 10:15 pm

What a hell?

Yes I do seem them as problem, not the presence or size or power directly, but that as I said after joining alliance there is basically negative incentive to leave it, thus alliances grow by accretion until all players/huge majority of players are absorbed; and they never leave. This all means that alliances do indeed consolidate large amounts of power and in so doing pressurize you to join one too.

I told you about real settings in very first post, where I explained rationale and possible solution in quite detailed way. As I said adding more victory conditions is easy (and I'm quite familiar with freeciv by now, worked on rulesets, with Lua even; also wrote a patch/feature albeit very minor so I can't really brag about it). Complicates game just a little while it should give much more complex and rich game play (when balanced). Various proposed settings, by or others, seem inadequate, and seem quite kludgy. So I do not see them as addressing problem in satisfactory way. If/when tech trading/stealing becomes tech bonus based, it could be used to improve situation, but still it would only slightly improve it (albeit in much nicer way than currently available "hacks").

So I'll reiterate: additional/alternative win conditions should be given a try.

Re: Problems with alliances[& probably some other civ proble

Post by ifaesfu » Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:49 pm

Corbeau wrote:Spoilt for you, maybe.
Like I said many time, a lot of this is a matter of personal preference. Don't treat stuff like this as universal law. The fact that you don't like something doesn't mean it shouldn't *be* like that.

Ok, it isn't a problem and it doesn't spoil the games. Why are we talking about it? Let's join together. ¡Viva la vida!

Morphles, do you really see the size and the balance of the alliances as a problem in games such as Greatturn, where there are many human players?
If so, what can be done with real settings?
I think there is no way to limit this kind of behaviour and that's why I use to propose settings that limit the power of the alliances. That's all.

Top

cron