PlanetsCentral

Just in case anyone bothers...

Just in case anyone bothers...

I do bother. In the previous games there was no clear decision on the matter. It brought unnecessary frustration for some players.

I suggest using the tequila scorer (ftp://ftp.circus-maximus.com/pub/VGAPlanets/Host.Addons/cact2001.zip). It favors both offensive and defensive play styles and can be easily configured to suit our needs. If all players agree with my suggestion I'll propose a draft configuration for futher discussion.

I suggest using the tequila scorer (ftp://ftp.circus-maximus.com/pub/VGAPlanets/Host.Addons/cact2001.zip). It favors both offensive and defensive play styles and can be easily configured to suit our needs.

I actually like the add-on (and especially the mood established by its documentation), and would like to try it.

However, for the short term, I have to play the killjoy: it's currently a DOS-only add-on. Source code is available, so it can be ported to Linux, but out-of-the box, it does not work.

That aside, adding a completely new add-on is a pretty bold move when we "just" need an end condition

--Stefan

I actually like the add-on (and especially the mood established by its documentation), and would like to try it.

However, for the short term, I have to play the killjoy: it's currently a DOS-only add-on. Source code is available, so it can be ported to Linux, but out-of-the box, it does not work.

Thank you Stefan for your involvment in the discussion. I know that the add-on is a DOS application. Being a programmer myself I can port and test it under Linux. So there are no technical issues here.

That aside, adding a completely new add-on is a pretty bold move when we "just" need an end condition

The add-on was invented by russian-speaking community long ago especially for no-diplomacy ranking games. And of course it was tested by many players in real matches. So we cant name it exactly the "new". The main question here is do we need to use external scorer at all? Will it bring new benefits to players and increase their interest in playing the game?

Personally I think playing competitive games "just for fun" with open end is not a good approach. There should be a clear goal which all players are agreed on and a different ways to achive it.

Let us wait for an opinion from others.

streu in Re: End Condition:

That aside, adding a completely new add-on is a pretty bold move when we "just" need an end condition

The add-on was invented by russian-speaking community long ago especially for no-diplomacy ranking games. And of course it was tested by many players in real matches. So we cant name it exactly the "new".

I'm not contesting the quality. My point: it's not just a scorer. It's an add-on with new functionality that has to be managed by the players. That sounds like "add Dan&Dave Jumpgate, player with most Jumpgates wins".

Of course if everyone's ok with that, no problem.

--Stefan

I agree that is not a good approach, to play a competitive game just for fun, thus I would like to have a clear end condition, but I would also prefer not to use a 'new' complexe addon for this purpose. I suggest a simple approach for this no-cooperation-game: If one player holds more than x planets for n consecutive turns, he (I think there is no she in his game...) wins. x should be at least 150, n at least 5

What do you think about this?

Vchc in Re: End Condition:

streu in Re: End Condition:

That aside, adding a completely new add-on is a pretty bold move when we "just" need an end condition

The add-on was invented by russian-speaking community long ago especially for no-diplomacy ranking games. And of course it was tested by many players in real matches. So we cant name it exactly the "new".

I'm not contesting the quality. My point: it's not just a scorer. It's an add-on with new functionality that has to be managed by the players. That sounds like "add Dan&Dave Jumpgate, player with most Jumpgates wins".

Of course if everyone's ok with that, no problem.

--Stefan

I suggest a simple approach for this no-cooperation-game: If one player holds more than x planets for n consecutive turns, he (I think there is no she in his game...) wins. x should be at least 150, n at least 5

What do you think about this?

I see no sense to play with 11 players for one winner.

There'd be second, third and other places.

And please, make difference between end condition and choosing the winner. For example, at planetsserver game ends after someone holding 125 planets for 10 turns, but PTscore was the scoring.

I see no sense to play with 11 players for one winner.

There'd be second, third and other places.

And please, make difference between end condition and choosing the winner. For example, at planetsserver game ends after someone holding 125 planets for 10 turns, but PTscore was the scoring.

Well, that's two times the same case isn't it? Though I absolutely agree to make that difference.

Taking that into account 150 Planets for 5 turns sounds for me as good as 125 for 10. I'm in for either, slightly prefering the first.

Count me in for the "hold 125 planets for 10 turns".

But we should expect a prolonged game (far beyond 80 turns). It is hard to obtain 125 planets in a no-diplomacy game when all races are active.

Hi all.

It's true we should consider the second and third places as well.

I vote for "hold 125 planets for 10 turns".

As for taking too long, well, just take the war to the enemy and destroy him

Count me in for the "hold 125 planets for 10 turns".

But we should expect a prolonged game (far beyond 80 turns). It is hard to obtain 125 planets in a no-diplomacy game when all races are active.

And please, make difference between end condition and choosing the winner. For example, at planetsserver game ends after someone holding 125 planets for 10 turns, but PTscore was the scoring.

PlanetsCentral's "planets" end condition currently uses number of planets for scoring, that is, in a "125 planets for 5 turns", the player with most planets gets first place.

Doing it PlanetsServer-style probably wouldn't be hard.

--Stefan

PlanetsCentral's "planets" end condition currently uses number of planets for scoring, that is, in a "125 planets for 5 turns", the player with most planets gets first place.

Doing it PlanetsServer-style probably wouldn't be hard.

--Stefan

I'ld find it fun to have a planetscount end condition but using PT-Score for ranking. Would that be a problem for the Host?

However I'm not sure if taking 125 planets is really that hard. We are quite a bunch of unbalanced players, and looking at the games played here if say 3 players quit early on - for whichever reasons - then well ... on the other hand if that's the case and one is getting 125 planets for rather free early on the game might be quite one sided anyway.

in a "125 planets for 5 turns", the player with most planets gets first place. --Stefan

Set 125 planets, or 150 planets, or turn 80, no matter.

"open end" is not acceptable

Set 125 planets, or 150 planets, or turn 80, no matter.

"open end" is not acceptable

Game is going on and we need something here. So I'ld like to make a count.

Win Condition 1 - 125 planets for 10 turns

1. Siba
2. ComCitCat
3. Vchc
4. wasp

Win Condition 2 - 150 planets for 5 turns

1. kaecki
2. ComCitCat

I guess that's what we can expect here. Streu will you pls change the end condition accordingly? Thx.

Furthermore Siba suggested to distinguish between end condition and score. In particular it would be an idea to end with the planets condition as above, but score via PT-score used as is the usual method here at planetscentral.

I'ld support that suggestion. Though if we don't get more feedback on this it's probably planetcount which will be our score. Simply because it is reasonable to do so regarding the end condition.

Game is going on and we need something here. So I'ld like to make a count.

Win Condition 1 - 125 planets for 10 turns

1. Siba
2. ComCitCat
3. Vchc
4. wasp

Win Condition 2 - 150 planets for 5 turns

1. kaecki
2. ComCitCat

I guess that's what we can expect here. Streu will you pls change the end condition accordingly? Thx.

Furthermore Siba suggested to distinguish between end condition and score. In particular it would be an idea to end with the planets condition as above, but score via PT-score used as is the usual method here at planetscentral.

I'ld support that suggestion. Though if we don't get more feedback on this it's probably planetcount which will be our score. Simply because it is reasonable to do so regarding the end condition.

I set the end condition to "125 turns, 10 turns", which probably comes closest to everyone.

It's a little embarassing that I hadn't thought of "planets as end condition, ptscore for scoring" as a possible configuration, so the server does not support that yet. If I find a solution until the end gets near, I'll add it to the game.

Oh, and have fun finding bugs in this end condition, I think it hasn't been used in a real game yet

--Stefan