PlanetsCentral

Hi everyone,

just a quick question after the first dozen turns: the game set-up has all known problems of the "First Steps" games fixed. Do you have any more complaints about the starting conditions, host configuration, etc?

If you're all satisfied, I'll open more games with similar configurations.

--Stefan

Hi everyone,

just a quick question after the first dozen turns: the game set-up has all known problems of the "First Steps" games fixed. Do you have any more complaints about the starting conditions, host configuration, etc?

If you're all satisfied, I'll open more games with similar configurations.

--Stefan

I see no reason not to open another game or two. Do you have any ideas for new games, configuration wise that is.

I'll be watching for them. :)

Is it my browser or is the board having problems with some words?

streu in First impressions?:

just a quick question after the first dozen turns: the game set-up has all known problems of the "First Steps" games fixed. Do you have any more complaints about the starting conditions, host configuration, etc?

If you're all satisfied, I'll open more games with similar configurations.

I see no reason not to open another game or two. Do you have any ideas for new games, configuration wise that is.

I'll be watching for them. :)

The next ones will be PList games, one like this, one with PList 3 and all features.

Afterwards I will start integrating more host software (like: PMaster to play a classic "Echo Cluster" scenario, which AMaster cannot generate).

Edit: forgot to state the obvious: of course I'm not doing this for myself only, so if you have different game preferences, I'll see what I can do. It's just that starting with PList is what the server currently does best :)

Is it my browser or is the board having problems with some words?

Not that I know of. (Almost) everything the forum considers special is listed in the "Forum Syntax" box below the editor. The editor is a plain dumb textedit field, any highlighting you may see in it comes from your browser (spellchecker?).

--Stefan

Not that I know of. (Almost) everything the forum considers special is listed in the "Forum Syntax" box below the editor. The editor is a plain dumb textedit field, any highlighting you may see in it comes from your browser (spellchecker?).

--Stefan

It was the browser, not the board. In Firefox, everything looks good. Work hasn't upgraded above IE8 and Firefox is a no-no.

streu in Re: First impressions?:

Not that I know of. (Almost) everything the forum considers special is listed in the "Forum Syntax" box below the editor. The editor is a plain dumb textedit field, any highlighting you may see in it comes from your browser (spellchecker?).

It was the browser, not the board. In Firefox, everything looks good. Work hasn't upgraded above IE8 and Firefox is a no-no.

I have now checked with IE8. If your problem was that "it's" was displayed as "it's", that was indeed a bug of the forum software, I fixed it.

IE8 is intended to be a supported browser, although I don't test every bit with it.

--Stefan

Cherek in Re: First impressions?:

streu in Re: First impressions?:

Not that I know of. (Almost) everything the forum considers special is listed in the "Forum Syntax" box below the editor. The editor is a plain dumb textedit field, any highlighting you may see in it comes from your browser (spellchecker?).

It was the browser, not the board. In Firefox, everything looks good. Work hasn't upgraded above IE8 and Firefox is a no-no.

I have now checked with IE8. If your problem was that "it's" was displayed as "it's", that was indeed a bug of the forum software, I fixed it.

IE8 is intended to be a supported browser, although I don't test every bit with it.

--Stefan

DARN, I was going to blame Mickeysoft. Thank you.

Hi everyone,

just a quick question after the first dozen turns: the game set-up has all known problems of the "First Steps" games fixed. Do you have any more complaints about the starting conditions, host configuration, etc?

If you're all satisfied, I'll open more games with similar configurations.

The setup looks fine. Let's have a Plist 3 game :)

streu in First impressions?:

Hi everyone,

just a quick question after the first dozen turns: the game set-up has all known problems of the "First Steps" games fixed. Do you have any more complaints about the starting conditions, host configuration, etc?

If you're all satisfied, I'll open more games with similar configurations.

The setup looks fine. Let's have a Plist 3 game :)

I second that, just as soon as I find PList 3.0 and download it. :)

Frunobulax in Re: First impressions?:

The setup looks fine. Let's have a Plist 3 game :)

I second that, just as soon as I find PList 3.0 and download it. :)

Okay, here you have them:

• Phoenix 1 is your standard PList 2.4 game. The very same configuration as "Just a second".
• Pleiades 1 is a PList 3.2 game with all features enabled (Remote Control, Experience system).

Both games are set to auto-respawn when full. The names are stars/constellations that start with "PH" like PHost, or "PL" like PList, with the more complex name for the more complex game series :-)

Have fun.

--Stefan

Okay, here you have them:

• Phoenix 1 is your standard PList 2.4 game. The very same configuration as "Just a second".
• Pleiades 1 is a PList 3.2 game with all features enabled (Remote Control, Experience system).

Both games are set to auto-respawn when full... :-)

Have fun.

--Stefan

emphasis added.

OK, i have a question. i assume that "ship w/o fuel cannot move" means just that: including the Dead Parrot that can move 81 LYs at 'warp 9' for zero fuel used will not move w/o fuel. is this correct? thanks in advance.

GhostWriter

streu in Re: First impressions?:

Okay, here you have them:

• Phoenix 1 is your standard PList 2.4 game. The very same configuration as "Just a second".
• Pleiades 1 is a PList 3.2 game with all features enabled (Remote Control, Experience system).

Both games are set to auto-respawn when full... :-)

Have fun.

--Stefan

emphasis added.

OK, i have a question. i assume that "ship w/o fuel cannot move" means just that: including the Dead Parrot that can move 81 LYs at 'warp 9' for zero fuel used will not move w/o fuel. is this correct? thanks in advance.

GhostWriter

If my memory serves me correctly, it will not move. Even though it will use zero fuel, it must still have fuel on it to move.

cherek: If my memory serves me correctly, it will not move. Even though it will use zero fuel, it must still have fuel on it to move.

and, that is the rub. you (we) cannot move the Dead Parrot without risk of combat, which sucks. (pardon my "plain ugly English" [as my wife would say...])

requiring fuel to move also stops tactics like getting to a fuel source when you run out of fuel... giving a new meaning to the phrase, "Lost in Space."

edit to add: the real winner is Player 5. once he robs you, you are stuck right there until he sends a ship to capture you.

GhostWriter

cherek: If my memory serves me correctly, it will not move. Even though it will use zero fuel, it must still have fuel on it to move.

and, that is the rub. you (we) cannot move the Dead Parrot without risk of combat, which sucks. (pardon my "plain ugly English" [as my wife would say...])

requiring fuel to move also stops tactics like getting to a fuel source when you run out of fuel... giving a new meaning to the phrase, "Lost in Space."

edit to add: the real winner is Player 5. once he robs you, you are stuck right there until he sends a ship to capture you.

GhostWriter

Player 7 also has that advantage when a ship is drained of fuel while in a Web. Personally, I like the feature that a ship cannot move without fuel. I hate chasing ships in Gravity wells when they are drained of fuel.

cherek: Player 7 also has that advantage .. I hate chasing ships in Gravity wells when they are drained of fuel.

that is a very small gain when you consider that multiple players will lose ships in space because they cannot move w/o fuel...

cherek: Player 7 also has that advantage .. I hate chasing ships in Gravity wells when they are drained of fuel.

that is a very small gain when you consider that multiple players will lose ships in space because they cannot move w/o fuel...

IMHO, that is one of the few advantages players 5 & 7 have, to cause enemy ships to lose fuel. They shouldn't have to chase down a ship that is now out of fuel. Shoot, I wish my car would do that.

cherek: IMHO, that is one of the few advantages players 5 & 7 have, to cause enemy ships to lose fuel. They shouldn't have to chase down a ship that is now out of fuel.

considering that player 5 is the single strongest position in the game, and that player 7 is at least average in strength, that statement does not make for good logic...

edit to add: even player 7 should not have that much of a problem with a fuel less ship in his webs. after all, how far can you go in a web mine field?

cherek: IMHO, that is one of the few advantages players 5 & 7 have, to cause enemy ships to lose fuel. They shouldn't have to chase down a ship that is now out of fuel.

considering that player 5 is the single strongest position in the game, and that player 7 is at least average in strength, that statement does not make for good logic...

edit to add: even player 7 should not have that much of a problem with a fuel less ship in his webs. after all, how far can you go in a web mine field?

I can really say too much about combat for player 5 & 7. Years ago, a lot of PHost games used THost ship list. So I'm interested in seeing how player 7 fairs using PList. Someone had already grabbed player 7 in this game and in Pleiades 1 so I picked another race.

considering that player 5 is the single strongest position in the game, and that player 7 is at least average in strength, that statement does not make for good logic...

edit to add: even player 7 should not have that much of a problem with a fuel less ship in his webs. after all, how far can you go in a web mine field?

I would agree with you about player 5, early in the game. But player 5 can be quickly negated once economies get going with mine/Web fields, decloakers and poppers.

If a player is stuck in a Web field 0 lys. But if a ship is over a planet when a Web Field is laid over the planet, it can still move into the gravity well traveling at warp 1, if it has fuel or not. When I'm not player 7 and a Web is laid over a planet that I'm at and I know I can't sweep it, I head to the Gravity well. Once there, I dump all my fuel and me and player 7 play chase the ship around the planet at warp 1 or until my luck runs out and I hit a Web mine.

cherek: Player 7 also has that advantage .. I hate chasing ships in Gravity wells when they are drained of fuel.

that is a very small gain when you consider that multiple players will lose ships in space because they cannot move w/o fuel...

Well, couldn't they just have loaded their ships with sufficient fuel before?

When making the default configurations for PlanetsCentral, I checked a number of games, many from PlanetsServer and RCWorld, and a few others. 75% of them had zero-fuel movement turned off, so I turned it off for the defaults here. If there's agreement to turn it on for this game, I'll happily do so.

Personally, I found zero-fuel movement a source of annoyment. OK, you managed to drain them empty, and now they're running around you in the warp wells. You will definitively get them, but you have to spend resources (time, ships) just to achieve the inevitable. And if my ship runs dry in mid-space, zero-fuel movement doesn't rescue me anyway. I have to send a refueler, because the dry ship only makes 1 ly per turn (going 81 ly with an empty NFC/Dead Parrot never worked in PHost). There will always be the race between my refueler and your interceptor, no matter what.

--Stefan

streu: Well, couldn't they just have loaded their ships with sufficient fuel before?

i have been in many situations where fuel was at an extreme premium, meaning, in critically short supply.

streu: ...75% of them had zero-fuel movement turned off, so I turned it off for the defaults here. If there's agreement to turn it on for this game, I'll happily do so.

what is the criteria for changing a game in progress config option? IIRC, you stated "more than 50 percent", but a statement is not codified.

streu: because the dry ship only makes 1 ly per turn (going 81 ly with an empty NFC/Dead Parrot never worked in PHost)...

that is news to me. i have utilized for 18 years the zero fuel 81 LY movement.

bummer is an understatement.

what is the criteria for changing a game in progress config option? IIRC, you stated "more than 50 percent", but a statement is not codified.

Wouldn't that mean that you could turn off let's say FED shield bonus in midgame just because 6 players (or even less if there are less than 11 left) think that would be quite nice? Changes in running games should at least be "accepted" by every player.

streu: Well, couldn't they just have loaded their ships with sufficient fuel before?

i have been in many situations where fuel was at an extreme premium, meaning, in critically short supply.

streu: ...75% of them had zero-fuel movement turned off, so I turned it off for the defaults here. If there's agreement to turn it on for this game, I'll happily do so.

what is the criteria for changing a game in progress config option? IIRC, you stated "more than 50 percent", but a statement is not codified.

I believe I have not stated anything concrete yet, but I'd want a significant majority to change a game in progress. If I had to codify it, I'd say 2/3 at least. But definitively more than "one for, one against".

streu: because the dry ship only makes 1 ly per turn (going 81 ly with an empty NFC/Dead Parrot never worked in PHost)...

that is news to me. i have utilized for 18 years the zero fuel 81 LY movement.

bummer is an understatement.

That was Tim's HOST.

Right now, this server has PHost only. It's technically challenging to run Tim's HOST on an automated Linux system (but that's precisely the reason why I'll surely try it :-).

You can still fly around NFCs/Dead Parrots to carry cash around, and they will still not consume fuel. You just have to load them with a single kiloton to start the engine. This should be possible even when fuel is at an extreme premium.

That single kiloton is for the cockpit illumination, the seat heater, and the CD player. Those can run a loooong time until a kiloton (1000000 kilograms) has been consumed. But we know from Zefram Cochrane that Phoenix cannot start its warp flight without the right music in the CD player.

--Stefan

ComCitCat: ...turn off FED shield bonus in midgame...

that is a racial ability and should be untouchable. just like robbing, web mines, etc.

streu: ...NFCs/Dead Parrots to carry cash around .. You just have to load them with a single kiloton to start the engine.

the purpose was not only to conserve fuel, but also to prevent combat. that one kT of fuel allows combat. combat is what makes it a game changer.

streu: If there's agreement to turn it on for this game, I'll happily do so.

that won't happen. there is no reason to make the change.

streu: ...but I'd want a significant majority to change a game in progress.

IMHO, a two tier system would be fair. a simple majority for a simple thing like changing the fuel/no fuel ship movement thing. whereas, most changes should require that 2/3, or more, to implement the change.

streu: That single kiloton is...

a moot point, in PHost.

cheers

streu: ...NFCs/Dead Parrots to carry cash around .. You just have to load them with a single kiloton to start the engine.

the purpose was not only to conserve fuel, but also to prevent combat. that one kT of fuel allows combat. combat is what makes it a game changer.

[...]

IMHO, a two tier system would be fair. a simple majority for a simple thing like changing the fuel/no fuel ship movement thing. whereas, most changes should require that 2/3, or more, to implement the change.

Who decides what is a simple thing and what not? Above, you call it a game changer. Fed, Bot and Empire will probably consider it a minor thing. Pirate and Crystal will consider it more serious. Lizards, Birds and Klingons probably, too.

When thinking that to its end, I can find only very few things that are undebatedly simple/minor: approximately CPEnableRaceName, AllowAnonymousMessages, NewNativesPerTurn, and the schedule.

--Stefan

Hi, Generally it looks nice. One proposal is to limit Meteor impacts. They should not occur in the first 15 or 20 rounds. I was hit on my home world in one game after turn 3 and from my 3 million only one million survived with a happiness of minus 10. You can never recover from that..... Another tool is pone ally - i think Heiko made it for one of my games. It makes a bit easier to survive if you play against 3 or 4 player. The next thing i recoment is an unexplored map which ony comes up if you go there - it is quite exiting to maoever in the dark! An anonymous ranking is also a good thing to have there is a tool which only shows your battle mass in comparison with other players. If you come over a threshold for the victory conditions it can be displayed to other players.

deffli: One proposal is to limit Meteor impacts.

i know what you mean. i have played enough games to take multiple HW hits, one on the first/second turn of the game. and, i have seen others take that hit, as well.

not a pleasant experience.

any way to exclude home-worlds from the impact? that would be better than restricting Meteor impacts from the early game. say, for the first ten/twenty/thirty turns?

streu: Who decides what is a simple thing and what not?

good point. i accept your statement on this issue.

One proposal is to limit Meteor impacts. They should not occur in the first 15 or 20 rounds. I was hit on my home world in one game after turn 3 and from my 3 million only one million survived with a happiness of minus 10. You can never recover from that.....

On the other hand, good-bye to all mineral problems.

In PHost, meteorites give at most a 80 point happiness drop. If that was PHost, you already were down to 70 happy points, and got the baddest of bad lucks. That's probably the "counter event" to finding five million Bovinoids, Unity on your homeworld in turn 3.

I see your point; maybe I can find a solution (like no meteorites, but also no new natives, during the first "N" turns).

Another tool is pone ally - i think Heiko made it for one of my games.

I've put it onto the list already.

The next thing i recoment is an unexplored map which ony comes up if you go there - it is quite exiting to maoever in the dark!

ExploreMap is already on the supported add-ons list, it's just not in the current default configurations.

An anonymous ranking is also a good thing to have there is a tool which only shows your battle mass in comparison with other players.

Noted.

--Stefan

Hi everyone,

just a quick question after the first dozen turns: the game set-up has all known problems of the "First Steps" games fixed. Do you have any more complaints about the starting conditions, host configuration, etc?

If you're all satisfied, I'll open more games with similar configurations.

--Stefan

Since we are somehow further into the game now it might be time for further notices.

I am not too sure about it, but I guess that 80+x turns is too short. Dunno, really. :(

But I got the fealing that fighting is quite slow. Distances are big. So there is no way to really win a war until the end of the game for most players. At least not the wars which are fun to play.

As things are now I'ld suggest to play with end conditions like only 3 (4,5...?) players left with more than xxxxxx points or something like that. I simply think it's still way harder to plan such an end than our turn 80+x.

Since we are somehow further into the game now it might be time for further notices.

I am not too sure about it, but I guess that 80+x turns is too short. Dunno, really. :(

But I got the feeling that fighting is quite slow. Distances are big. So there is no way to really win a war until the end of the game for most players. At least not the wars which are fun to play.

As things are now I'd suggest to play with end conditions like only 3 (4,5...?) players left with more than xxxxxx points or something like that. I simply think it's still way harder to plan such an end than our turn 80+x.

well, having played games that lasted over 180 turns, i think that it takes at least 100 turns to really show who can win. Last Man Standing games also take care of "did you really win"...

CCC, RE: the paragraph containing "Distances are big":

it is not just distances that affect the game, it is also game costs and resource availability. i have/had multiple planets that are low/out of Ne with a regeneration rate of 1. unless you have another close planet with Ne, any other resources on that planet may take hens teeth to utilize. another issue that bugs me is having over 10k of a resource in the planet core with an extraction rate of less than 20. one solution to this issue would to have the host adjust the extraction rate, say each turn divisible by 10, in a manner that levels the ability to extract minerals with the availability of said minerals. however, this is probably an issue to discuss in another forum/thread, but i have never seen a question/thread regarding this issue.

that said, one reason to keep the games short is to reduce the number of drops by players. everything is a tradeoff.

thus, Streu, my hat is off to you for making this site/opportunity/resources available to players to enjoy.

GhostWriter

ComCitCat in Re: First impressions?:

As things are now I'd suggest to play with end conditions like only 3 (4,5...?) players left with more than xxxxxx points or something like that. I simply think it's still way harder to plan such an end than our turn 80+x.

well, having played games that lasted over 180 turns, i think that it takes at least 100 turns to really show who can win. Last Man Standing games also take care of "did you really win"...

If you decide on a different victory condition, I'll happily change it. It's your game, not mine. So far I have chosen the "turn 80" condition because it seems to be pretty common. The server can currently also serve a "player has 125 planets for 10 turns" condition, where the numbers are of course variable, and "planets" can be any number form the score chart.

A "last man standing" or "3 players remaining" condition currently does not exist, in particular because it's hard to decide when a player is really out. It could end in a pretty boring chase to hunt down these stupid two remaining Bird Men cloakers if the Birds happen to be the fourth-last player remaining.

--Stefan

If you decide on a different victory condition, I'll happily change it. It's your game, not mine. So far I have chosen the "turn 80" condition because it seems to be pretty common. The server can currently also serve a "player has 125 planets for 10 turns" condition, where the numbers are of course variable, and "planets" can be any number form the score chart.

Well I did not intend to change our settings while playing. I guess most of us - and especially the players on the top have adapted themselves to about 80 turns (I did for sure). ;-)

Dear Stefan, after playing a while i have recovered some more recommendations: The Building queue - building ships should cost less - i propose 200 kt build points per 100 kt and minimum build cost of 400. This is especially interesting for races with smaller functionality ships or cloning. The setting now rewards the passive players who only build bases and wait - the active players who fight and move and spend their money in the battle (and logically loose ships) are punished. My proposed settings are quite common and would make it more possible to go for the one or other strategy. An other option are stargates - there is one add on with stargates which can be destroyed and are only maintaining single connections - this would speed up the game.

Stefan

Dear Stefan, after playing a while i have recovered some more recommendations: The Building queue - building ships should cost less - i propose 200 kt build points per 100 kt and minimum build cost of 400. This is especially interesting for races with smaller functionality ships or cloning. The setting now rewards the passive players who only build bases and wait - the active players who fight and move and spend their money in the battle (and logically loose ships) are punished. My proposed settings are quite common and would make it more possible to go for the one or other strategy. An other option are stargates - there is one add on with stargates which can be destroyed and are only maintaining single connections - this would speed up the game.

Stefan

Stargates? Oh yeah, how I would love them, you cannot possibly imagine. Even better than Corellians which are able to tow while jumping. :D

For your other point, queue moves terrifical slowly. we are now about what 140-150? Isn't that quite long already?

The Building queue - building ships should cost less - i propose 200 kt build points per 100 kt and minimum build cost of 400. This is especially interesting for races with smaller functionality ships or cloning. The setting now rewards the passive players who only build bases and wait - the active players who fight and move and spend their money in the battle (and logically loose ships) are punished. My proposed settings are quite common and would make it more possible to go for the one or other strategy.

I analyzed several configurations when setting this server's defaults. 2/3 of them used 250/500, 1/3 used 200/400. It could be that my sample was biased (several PlanetsServer games), but I believe PlanetsServer configs were done by competent people also involved in making the shiplist.

Of course if you now bring me enough players (or games) that want 200/400, I'll happily lower it again :-) I have no deep mental connection to these settings, I was just assuming them to be good because they were used often.

An other option are stargates - there is one add on with stargates which can be destroyed and are only maintaining single connections - this would speed up the game.

This game has a few wormholes, which could serve as a stargate replacement. Adding more would be easy.

If you're talking about the Stargate add-on by Ilkka Virta / Vagabond, that one is PDK-based and would be possible to run on PlanetsCentral. But then we're back to the problem of filling up a few standard games before we can think of filling add-on-loaded ones.

--Stefan