Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » New Game Announcements » Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Wed, 02 April 2008 13:43   |
|
 jimroberts |
 | Petty Officer 2nd Class |
Messages: 52
Registered: March 2008
Location: Germany | |
|
> I'll play...when do you want races by?
When we get the players together, there are still details to discuss, then perhaps a few days for people to decide on the final form of their races. At the rate people are expressing interest, which is faster than I expected, maybe start about end of next week?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Wed, 02 April 2008 13:53 |
|
| m.a@stars |
 | Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| jimroberts wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 19:39 |
Is it more usual in SAH to find a non-playing host? I wouldn't mind hosting somebody else's game if a non-player would take over this one.
|
I'm not sure if non-playing Hosts are more common than playing ones, but I've seen them often enough. 
You could ask around, as a non-playing Host would solve the pesky problem of passwords, and you could probably find one with more experience hosting than yourself. 
Another common setup is to have a non-playing "superhost" creating the game and holding all the passwords, then have a playing Host (such as yourself) in charge with the "superhost" as "backup". 
That could also enable interesting things such as a completely "anonymous" setup, where no-one knows who else is playing which race or position, except the "superhost". 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Wed, 02 April 2008 16:15 |
|
| Micha | 
| |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| jimroberts wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 19:39 |
Is it more usual in SAH to find a non-playing host? I wouldn't mind hosting somebody else's game if a non-player would take over this one.
|
Not really common practice but you'll see it pretty often. The last few games I played had a NTP (neutral third party) holding the PWs. This for reasons like a complete anonymous setup, a team setup, a remapped universe, ... some in which the host was playing as well.
Having a NTP hold all PWs can also help if there are tricky "bug" situations to be looked at in various players turns. I've been asked myself a few times to do that.
Making the NTP "superhost" as in also giving him access to the SAH game page Host Utility can help out in some occasions as well, for example when the host goes misssing, or it can be handy when the host and NTP live in different time zones, for example to hold a gen when a player is experiencing PC trouble ...
Another example is that there are a few games running for which I hold .m files from all years sent out to the players, makes it possible to recover all scanned data and rebuild a .h file ...
I would recommend having a NTP holding PWs and/or superhosting, and if you like I would volunteer, trouble is I'll be on vacation starting this Friday till Sunday. First time vacation outside Belgium with my wife and two little girls.  France here we come! 
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Wed, 02 April 2008 18:45 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
It would indeed be hard to nail a more experienced "superhost" than Captain Micha.
Have a nice vacation, pal. But beware France is a big place, full of interesting things... Three days ain't gonna be enough! 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Thu, 03 April 2008 03:09 |
|
| Micha |
| |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 03 April 2008 00:45 |
Have a nice vacation, pal. But beware France is a big place, full of interesting things... Three days ain't gonna be enough!
|
Thanks. And, hah, doh! Of course till Sunday the week after.
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Thu, 03 April 2008 06:02 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| Micha wrote on Thu, 03 April 2008 09:09 |
Thanks. And, hah, doh! Of course till Sunday the week after.
|
Oh. Now I see.  Well, ten days sounds like a lot better vacation!
Hope you return ready to roll our new galactic bloodbath, unless we manage to nail another NTP in that time. 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Fri, 04 April 2008 04:35 |
|
|
|
I'm interested too.
Sulpholobus.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Fri, 04 April 2008 05:37 |
|
| jimroberts |
| Petty Officer 2nd Class |
Messages: 52
Registered: March 2008
Location: Germany | |
|
| Quote: |
I would recommend having a NTP holding PWs and/or superhosting, and if you like I would volunteer, trouble is I'll be on vacation starting this Friday till Sunday.
|
You superhosting is a great idea! Thanks!
After Sunday 13th Apr is OK by me. It gives us next week to sort out details and for those who want to to modify their races. I mentioned end of next week as a possible start in an earlier post.
I hope this isn't too late to catch you. I was away from SAH all yesterday: I would have looked in last night, but there were no email notifications of new posts, there must be something I don't understand about the notification system.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Fri, 04 April 2008 16:41 |
|
| Micha |
| |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| jimroberts wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 11:37 |
I hope this isn't too late to catch you. I was away from SAH all yesterday: I would have looked in last night, but there were no email notifications of new posts, there must be something I don't understand about the notification system.
|
Leaving in a few hours, happy to be at your service when I get back.
With regards to the notification system, IIRC it only notifies when replied to *your* post, not to the following ... Don't shoot me if I'm wrong, I hardly ever used it.
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Mon, 07 April 2008 10:25 |
|
| jimroberts |
| Petty Officer 2nd Class |
Messages: 52
Registered: March 2008
Location: Germany | |
|
We have ten players (probably - are you all still in?) and we want to start next week, but there is still stuff to sort out.
First, there's the dropout problem.
In other games I've been in, there has been a rule that people send in their h files every few years at least, and somebody has kept all the m files for the last few years, so that a replacement could get up-to-date history without too much trouble. I assume we can agree on a rule about submitting h files. So far as I know, if you send your h files to me, I can't get any benefit from them (even if I wanted to, which I don't), so would that be OK? We have a neutral superhost, but I don't want to offload too much work onto him.
There is also the question of how many missed turns makes a dropout. Once we get properly going, like after 2430 or so, I would like to say three missed turns (in a row) is a dropout. Near the beginning is more tricky. It is not unreasonable to submit orders in 2400 to take care of the first ten years then not again until 2410. On the other hand, sometimes there is a very early dropout. Any suggestions how to handle this?
Second, victory criteria.
Here's my original list:
After at least 100 years, at least four of
- 30% planets
- tech 25 in 5 fields
- exceed score 9000
- exceed second place score by 30%
- production capacity (resources) > 150000
- own 300 capital ships
- highest score after 130 years.
It has been sugested that 30% planets is too few, and that 30% more than second place score is also too low. I agree that these numbers would be too low, if that were all that were needed, but they seem reasonable to me in the mix. I don't expect anybody to get four of these criteria by 2500, but possibly several to reach three of them by not much later. Is this unrealistic? Adding "highest after 130" is supposed to stop the game then, because if there hasn't yet been a clear winner, there is nothing interesting going on except for battles between the top three or so races. I don't find that so interesting: it's a lot of work (for them), and there is a good deal of randomness in battle outcomes.
If we want to make it harder to win, should we perhaps drop "300 capital ships" and go for four of the others?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Mon, 07 April 2008 14:03 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
I've been testing and getting ready my race for this non-AccBBS game, so I'm still in.
About h files: I think Micha, Donjon, and other veteran "superhosts" have handled them in the past, possibly by tweaking the "send to" addresses in the mailed turns that AutoHost can send. I suggest asking their advice.
Dropouts: well... anyone using a crippled race, or up against much stronger neighbors, will consider dropping out as soon as they realize it. Some people will stick it out to the bitter end, tho, but others won't, and even the best of replacements can do little with an unplayable race. 
If a player goes "offline" without a hint of coming back, nor answering messages from Host or Allies, that's bad news... I've seen it happen even to races that were winning. 
My advice would be: testbed your race, every possible tweak for it, and your playstyle too. Not all races handle equal, not even if they are powerful by design. Shoot for a decent econ with reasonable tech, or the first neighbor with a decent econ and reasonable tech could wipe you out. 
Also, it is a rare or lucky race that can do well if neglected during its initial decades of development. So, why take chances? 
Finally, on to Victory Conditions: Not that they should be more than a hint of who should be declared winner, tho, but...
condition 1 can easily lead to 2, 6, 7, and even 4 and 5 becoming true. 
condition 3 looks harder to achieve, but that's only 1 of 7.
none of these conditions define an unbeatable winner, particularly against an united galaxy. 
last but not least, if after a reasonable time none of the two, three or four stronger races has managed to bloodily carve themselves a win, no Victory Conditions will adequately settle matters. Toss of a coin or popularity vote would be equally useful, so it's better to just let them decide how to declare who wins. 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Mon, 07 April 2008 14:22 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
I forgot to ask: what about Random Events? Will we have Mystery Traders, WormHoles, Alien Artifacts, Comet Impacts? Yes?
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Mon, 07 April 2008 15:02 |
|
| jimroberts |
| Petty Officer 2nd Class |
Messages: 52
Registered: March 2008
Location: Germany | |
|
| m.a@stars wrote on Mon, 07 April 2008 20:22 |
I forgot to ask: what about Random Events? Will we have Mystery Traders, WormHoles, Alien Artifacts, Comet Impacts? Yes?
|
Yes, because I would have to select "No random events" to prevent it: "Standard: None of the check boxes in Step 1 of New Game Wizard checked". Wormholes and MTs are fun. Comets, I'm not quite so happy about if one hits my HW early on: maybe we should take a comet hit on a HW as a reason to regenerate the turn?
(I don't want to respond to your comments on victory conditions straight away, perhaps we'll get more comments and I can try to summarise and reply.)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Mon, 07 April 2008 20:17 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| jimroberts wrote on Mon, 07 April 2008 21:02 |
Yes, because I would have to select "No random events" to prevent it: "Standard: None of the check boxes in Step 1 of New Game Wizard checked".
|
Nice.
| Quote: |
Wormholes and MTs are fun. Comets, I'm not quite so happy about if one hits my HW early on: maybe we should take a comet hit on a HW as a reason to regenerate the turn?
|
It could be put to vote, I guess.  
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Tue, 08 April 2008 17:46 |
|
| Kettch |
 | Crewman 3rd Class |
Messages: 8
Registered: April 2008
Location: Germany | |
|
http://starsautohost.org/sahforum/index.php?t=msg&th=238 7&start=0&rid=1199&S=e898a987c1d8b70d0a6f0482945 f6e3a
look it up there.
But I'm a little bit confused about the matter of restrictions myself.
If I get it right, chaff and split fleet avoidance is ok, anything else is forbidden.
But what is meant by 'battle board overload. Not nice, but I'd rather not forbid it. '
Does this mean, you should not do this, but you won't get punished if you do?
I'd rather have a clear rule here. IMHO Battleboard overload is something that is clearly not intended and it normally will only happen, if you clearly aim to do this. So it should be forbidden.
Just my opinion nevertheless.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Tue, 08 April 2008 20:13 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| Kettch wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 23:46 |
But what is meant by 'battle board overload. Not nice, but I'd rather not forbid it. '
Does this mean, you should not do this, but you won't get punished if you do?
I'd rather have a clear rule here. IMHO Battleboard overload is something that is clearly not intended and it normally will only happen, if you clearly aim to do this. So it should be forbidden.
|
Hm, yeah, I had somehow got "Battleboard overload" (a player-exploitable game bug) mixed up with "Battleboard crowding" (another kind of problem, but definitely not a bug).
Main trouble witn "Battleboard overload" is not that it can help someone to avoid losing valuable ships, but that it *does* crash Stars! itself during turn generation more often than not, sometimes unrecoverably. Nasty, that.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Wed, 09 April 2008 05:49 |
|
| jimroberts |
| Petty Officer 2nd Class |
Messages: 52
Registered: March 2008
Location: Germany | |
|
| m.a@stars wrote on Mon, 07 April 2008 20:03 |
About h files: I think Micha, Donjon, and other veteran "superhosts" have handled them in the past, possibly by tweaking the "send to" addresses in the mailed turns that AutoHost can send. I suggest asking their advice.
|
If there is some way for them to automate it, that's fine. But can it really be done? The h files are generated locally when we play our turns, not by the host along with the m files.
| m.a@stars wrote on Mon, 07 April 2008 20:03 |
Dropouts: well... anyone using a crippled race, or up against much stronger neighbors, will consider dropping out as soon as they realize it. Some people will stick it out to the bitter end, tho, but others won't, and even the best of replacements can do little with an unplayable race.
If a player goes "offline" without a hint of coming back, nor answering messages from Host or Allies, that's bad news... I've seen it happen even to races that were winning.
My advice would be: testbed your race, every possible tweak for it, and your playstyle too. Not all races handle equal, not even if they are powerful by design. Shoot for a decent econ with reasonable tech, or the first neighbor with a decent econ and reasonable tech could wipe you out.
Also, it is a rare or lucky race that can do well if neglected during its initial decades of development. So, why take chances?
|
Good advice, but we know there will probably be dropouts anyway. The practical problem is, how to detect them, especially early on, when neglect can lead to significant weakness, but it is also often possible to set up good multi-year orders.
| m.a@stars wrote on Mon, 07 April 2008 20:03 |
Finally, on to Victory Conditions: Not that they should be more than a hint of who should be declared winner, tho, but...
condition 1 can easily lead to 2, 6, 7, and even 4 and 5 becoming true.
condition 3 looks harder to achieve, but that's only 1 of 7.
none of these conditions define an unbeatable winner, particularly against an united galaxy.
last but not least, if after a reasonable time none of the two, three or four stronger races has managed to bloodily carve themselves a win, no Victory Conditions will adequately settle matters. Toss of a coin or popularity vote would be equally useful, so it's better to just let them decide how to declare who wins.
|
One of my aims was to set things up so that we play reasonably slowly but still get a conclusion within about a year. Highest score after 130 yrs is intended to achieve that, so if it comes out as a consequence of other criteria, that's OK by me. I suppose it means that you don't get a formal win by designing a race that ultimately becomes enourmously powerful, but only after 140 years.
If multiple winners pop up in year 100, the conditions were too weak. Do you see a danger of that?
If there is a winner by these criteria in 2525, but the second and third players are not far behind, that's not totally satisfactory either. I suppose, if it happens we'll have to discuss what happens next. These day, athlethes win races by 1/100 seconds: is being declared winner in Stars! one year ahead of the competition worse than that?
| m.a@stars wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 02:13 |
| Kettch wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 23:46 |
But what is meant by 'battle board overload. Not nice, but I'd rather not forbid it. '
Does this mean, you should not do this, but you won't get punished if you do?
I'd rather have a clear rule here. IMHO Battleboard overload is something that is clearly not intended and it normally will only happen, if you clearly aim to do this. So it should be forbidden.
|
Hm, yeah, I had somehow got "Battleboard overload" (a player-exploitable game bug) mixed up with "Battleboard crowding" (another kind of problem, but definitely not a bug).
Main trouble witn "Battleboard overload" is not that it can help someone to avoid losing valuable ships, but that it *does* crash Stars! itself during turn generation more often than not, sometimes unrecoverably. Nasty, that.
|
I concede this point. Battle board overload is so evil that it should be totally banned. (My original thought was, that if somebody is in a poor enough position that he can spare all the fleet numbers needed for this trick, we can cut him some slack. I see now that this was wrong: there can of course be significant battles without the leading players needing more than 256 fleets for other purposes.)
I never clarified punishments, either. Ban the player, set the race inactive, I suppose. It might well be impractical to get a replacement, since an evil player can change his password before trying to cheat.
I didn't ban SS population stealing: am I right that this can't happen in JRC4?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ten-player, diplomatic, large, dense, distant, standard (non-AccBBS), unrestricted |
Wed, 09 April 2008 06:55 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
| jimroberts wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 11:49 |
If there is some way for them to automate it, that's fine. But can it really be done? The h files are generated locally when we play our turns, not by the host along with the m files.
|
I don't know how it's been done in the past. Thus the need to ask those who know.
I do know that some hosts ask for h files to be sent regularly to them, just in case. Say, every 5-10 turns... That also helps spotting possible dropouts.
| Quote: |
Good advice, but we know there will probably be dropouts anyway. The practical problem is, how to detect them, especially early on, when neglect can lead to significant weakness, but it is also often possible to set up good multi-year orders.
|
Good multi-year orders can be perhaps setup, but if your neighbours are setting up *perfect* orders every year, you can wake up in a losing position just to save a few minutes in the most crucial and short turns.
What I do is set multi-year orders then tweak them every turn.
| Quote: |
One of my aims was to set things up so that we play reasonably slowly but still get a conclusion within about a year. Highest score after 130 yrs is intended to achieve that, so if it comes out as a consequence of other criteria, that's OK by me. I suppose it means that you don't get a formal win by designing a race that ultimately becomes enourmously powerful, but only after 140 years.
If multiple winners pop up in year 100, the conditions were too weak. Do you see a danger of that?
|
To me it's not a matter of who can reach the Victory Conditions, but more of who can beat their enemies to dust and claim a win regardless of who got what Victory Conditions achieved. Perhaps I'm being a bit bloodthirsty, but...
| Quote: |
If there is a winner by these criteria in 2525, but the second and third players are not far behind, that's not totally satisfactory either. I suppose, if it happens we'll have to discuss what happens next. These day, athlethes win races by 1/100 seconds: is being declared winner in Stars! one year ahead of the competition worse than that?
|
Yes, IMHO. Unless the other candidates agree to lose w/out a fight. If a credible "underdog" wants to challenge (and possibly defeat) the "official winner", then mere Victory Conditions shouldn't interfere.
| Quote: |
I concede this point. Battle board overload is so evil that it should be totally banned. (My original thought was, that if somebody is in a poor enough position that he can spare all the fleet numbers needed for this trick, we can cut him some slack. I see now that this was wrong: there can of course be significant battles without the leading players needing more than 256 fleets for other purposes.)
|
It can still happen as an unintended effect of chaff-sweeping or massive gating, thus the need to study the situation before issuing punishment. 
| Quote: |
I never clarified punishments, either. Ban the player, set the race inactive, I suppose. It might well be impractical to get a replacement, since an evil player can change his password before trying to cheat.
|
I've seen banning used to punish misbehavers. How many turns of banning would depend on the misdeed, of course.
| Quote: |
I didn't ban SS population stealing: am I right that this can't happen in JRC4?
|
So everybody believes, yeah.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Pages (6): [ 2 ] |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 01 06:28:54 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
