Noobs & Vets: Rise of the AI Menace. EA, BI. Game Over. Team ACGHHS wins!

[Septimius Severus]

There were 5 players who resubmitted 2h files in the time immediately following the last hosting of turn 21. Outside of the (3-1) who staled, it was Pangaea, Neifel, and Arco who did so. However, it is possible that someone sneaked in a turn between the time I resubmitted the .2h files and the time the now current turn hosted.

Rdonj, you may tell me via PM who you suspect this was. I am very curious.

[Septimius Severus]

Please accept my apologies.

I had an unexpected and absolute ***** of a weekend and wasn't able to sort my turn or, frankly, much else in any regard. This shouldn't happen again, I'm now fully back up to speed.

Well Agema, I am glad your back, though I had to move forward with the game not having heard from you since the last hosting now well over 60 hours ago. No delay request, no nothing. As much as I knew it might hurt my team, I did not wish to delay any longer.

As a side note, in the future, I need everyone to adhere to our main post instructions regarding delays. If you are able to, a PM and post on the thread is required along with sufficient time to allow us to honor it.

[DrPraetorious]

I object strenuously to the fact that these replacement .2h files were not used. As I've explained to you *repeatedly*, if you're going to do a rollback, you have to let everyone resubmit their turns who wishes to do so.

In my case, I'm actually *at war with Lanka and Kailasa*!!! Even the knowledge that I'm *not* attacking them is potentially valuable. And no, I am not willing to take it at anyone's word that they submitted a turn without seeing my moves. There's an easy fix if you really want to do a rollback.

So, to be perfectly and unambiguously clear: allowing some people to submit turns after having seen the new turn, and not others, is *cheating* and in this case you cheated in favor of your own team. If this happens again I have to resign.

[Squirrelloid]

I really do have to agree with Dr. P here. You can't control for who looked at their new turn file - the only fair thing to do is let everyone who chooses to resubmit a turn file, or just let the stales stand.

[Agema]

I agree with Dr. P too.

Everyone can see the turns, and everyone can take appropriate action including those who staled - everyone must be allowed to resubmit their turn. Rollbacks can cause havoc and are tools of last resort, and have to be handled very sensitively.

We appreciate the effort you are putting in trying to run the game, Septimius, but whilst you are taking part in the game you must either allow conventional Dom3 metarules on these things or secure the explicit agreement of all other team captains to do otherwise (you can reasonably represent the Mysterios in a pinch). It is crucial the game is not unbalanced by accusations of bias. Luckily, I think in this case there has been minimal havoc, advantage or disadvantage, and I think we can move on.

[chrispedersen]

The question is a question of game balance.

Three people staled. Letting 9 people redo their turns based on game knowledge unbalances the game far more than letting 3 people redo their staled turns.

We attacked vanheim by surprise on turn 20. Allow vanheim to redo his turn, and I am sure my remote attack spells will encounter PD and fail. Its a HUGE difference.

Likewises, Dr. P's team is doing huge amounts of manual site searching. Thats 5 blanks you can redo.

The point of the rollback is to make the game *more* fair, not less. Allowing 9 people to redo their turn is *almost* as bad for the 3 people that were disenfranchised as the original stale, since those 9 players will optimize their turns.

Yes, I agree that those three people now have a small advantage. But three people with a small advantage is less disruptive than 12.

However, sept, wheneve there's a rollback I do think you have to allow a full measure of time for the fallout to settle. And finally, I don't think you should have made the decision. You should have left it with Gandalf, as you originally proposed.

On our team, Pangeae was taken over by shard (Thanks shard!) - and due to the time being pushed up - we were not able to advise him how to play the nation. We had critical things we wanted to do - send magic items to our team.

So we advised Gandalf and SS and SS was going to leave the decision to Gandalf. Now I think that our team was probably more damaged than anyone, but even so I think we all need to accept that #!@! happens and move on.

Dr. P; admins have to adjudicate what happens in a game. You can disagree with a ruling without calling it cheating.

[Septimius Severus]

I have done everything I can to prevent cheating in this game. I am ultimately responsible for ensuring no cheating occurs. Yes, I could have put 24 hours on the clock and allowed everyone to "cheat" by having an opportunity to look at the new turns and resubmitting their turns. I did not want that sort of delay considering how long the turn had already ran. I only wanted the 3 who needed to resubmit to do so. Anyone else who had appeared to have done so when I checked the turns recieved file, I merely extracted their original orders file and submitted that.

In the case of the 3 who staled, I did not have any of their original .2h files and to load up their .trn files would have been unethical with the exception of Lanka from my team. And in that case I did absoletly nothing but simply hit the end turn button, causing him to effectively stale, so I detrimented my own team to some degree just to ensure fairness overall.

I understand your objection, DrP, letting everyone cheat may have been the only fair way to handle it but I did my best to limit what cheating may have occured whilst also attempting to limit the time impact of this rollback for everyone else.

I did not want to do this rollback, you all know how time conscious I am considering how lenient the turn intervals are already. It was a difficult decision. Me and Gandalf did this rollback because it was the only ethical thing to do. Sort of like when you go into a store and see an advertised discount, but when you get to the register they tell you there was a mistake and that that particular discount has expired. The store manager/owner must really do the ethical thing and honor the advertised discount. That is why the rollback was done, even though I knew it might lead to issues.

In the future Gandalf and I will be more vigilante on making sure the timer is correct. And we shall do no more rollbacks unless there is a server error or a game bug. I did not want the first rollback because I thought it was unfair to the other teams and I did not want this one. But what is done is done. This has been a learning experience for all of us as Gandalf has put it. This is a very complicated game to admin, because of the number of teams and the issues we have faced. Gandalf is however only the host of the game, he is responsible for ensuring the timer is correct and that the server operates correctly, but I am responsible for keeping cheating in check. Allowing him to make that decision, I realized would be beyond the scope of his duties. As I realized that asking him to make the decision on a rollback or not was likewise not within the scope of his duties really unless there was a server issue as there appeared to have been.

[DrPraetorious]

Chris raises a legitimate question - and the only solution is to have no rollbacks at all.

To be perfectly clear - suppose Vanheim had staled. Do we then *not* do a rollback, because Chris delivered a surprise attack that turn? Is that fair? Does Vanheim get to see his turn if he staled, and not if he doesn't?

If we all have a chance to redo our turns, then at least Chris has the chance to attack different provinces, or another player entirely, etc. I agree that it''d suck for this to happen to Chris - but this is exactly what *did* happen to me and Illum., and we didn't even get a chance to change targets!

We certainly cannot make exceptions based on specific tactical situations in order to be "more fair". Either don't do rollbacks at all (which works), or, if you do a rollback, for technical glitch reasons or whatever in the future, let everyone resubmit turns before the rollback goes through.

[Septimius Severus]

No exceptions were made for any tactical situations. Just as in a rollback for a corrupt turn file by a single player that causes a server issue, only that player should be allowed to resubmit, not everyone else. If they or anyone else violates ethical rules, I am empowered as the admin to disqualify that player. There's many ways to handle a rollback and various arguments pro and con for doing it one way or another.

Everyone should be adhering to an ethical code of play just like your admin. Shame on anyone who has done otherwise. Take me for instance, I can look at anyone's turn file, I can look into other team's forums, but never once have I ever done this. Never have I been tempted either. I am even hesitant to look at my own teammates turns without their permission.

Edit:

Letting everyone have an equal chance to "cheat" is one way of being fair and we can do that in the future, but we'd also have to give everyone a fair chance to get another turn in meaning another 40 hour delay, 12 hours or 24 hours would not be fair to everyone.

[Gandalf Parker]

WOW. Forum posts, emails, PMs, etc all on this same subject. Let an old outsider toss some things in here.

(A) Everything has its pros and cons. Most of the games have someone making the decisions that is also playing in the game. Why? Because very few people are willing to host, admin, continually read the threads and forums, moderate, and generally keep up on a game they are not in (subtle hint). If this bothers you then feel free to start such a game.

(B) I dont want to sound snobbish but there are 2 levels of comments going on. Those that have, and those that havent. Well actually 3 levels since there are also those that have and have done it enough to be tired of it already. (Im referring to admining a game)

Now my personal take on all of it would be
1) move forward
2) avoid changes, unless absolutely necessary just move forward
3) the game belongs to the person running the game, everything else is please and thank yous
4) I am not the person running the game (I only carry out their wishes)
5) if I wanted to run the game (as if I had forgotten years of lessons in that area already) I would have started the game. I WILL support anyone who for some strange reason wants to take on admining their own game

DISCLAIMER: lack of sleep is making me grumpy or I would have worded this all nicer. Also Im no longer staff so pttthhhhfffff

[Illuminated One]

Eh, sorry I was one of the stalers, and noone attacked me, so I wasn't affected the slightest. Except that I got a chance to bid on the mercenary, that someone else got in the rolled back turn, but then I had no idea what he bid. So I was basically bidding under the assumption that someone else would do too, which I'd have done anyway. Or maybe not, I don't know. But after privately accepting the stale and playing the new turn, I can't go back from that.
I'd say lets just move on, unless someone can think of something better to do.

[DrPraetorious]

I agree that the best thing to do is move on from here.

[Septimius Severus]

Yes, I agree lets move on, another interesting debate nonethless and I glad to see that people care enough to participate. My decisions were calculated largely to keep things moving as quickly as possible at the same limiting the opportunity for inappropriate behaviour as best I could. I'm an unconventional admin and this game breaks so many conventions it is hard to keep track:

1. Conventional games use CBM.
2. Conventional games host via Llamaserver.
3. Conventional games have a hosting interval of 24 hours till turn 20 at least.
4. Conventional games are FFA type games, not team games.
5. Conventional games don't include AI opponents.
6. Conventional games have a single admin.
7. Conventional games don't require months of preparation.
8. In conventional games admins don't put in the amount of time and effort that has been put into this game.

And the list goes on.

So lets get those turns in my friends and enemies.:up: Where's my turn enforcer?:D

[Gandalf Parker]

heehee. I think about half of those are more "impression" than fact. :)
As for the rest, Im majorly in favor of unusual games and feel there is even more territory to cover. The only reason to seek a standard in the games is for ranking purposes

[rdonj]

Personally I do like games that do something a little different to keep things interesting every once in a while. It's like when I played starcraft. You can only play so many ffa games before you start to feel like you're just doing the same thing over and over. That's not really fun to me. It also doesn't help that I'm not really a competitive player. So I tended to gravitate more towards custom maps.

[Septimius Severus]

heehee. I think about half of those are more "impression" than fact. :)
As for the rest, Im majorly in favor of unusual games and feel there is even more territory to cover. The only reason to seek a standard in the games is for ranking purposes

Yes, one certainly gets the "impression" of that from looking at a sampling of the game theads on the Dom3 Shrapnel MP forum, which is what I was generally referring to. This is especially true for noobs who may not be aware of Gandalf's server or other games and options available. I bet if we were to look at the first page only, of the MP games thread here, we would find what I have said above to be true in 95% of the cases.:D

Personally I do like games that do something a little different to keep things interesting every once in a while. It's like when I played starcraft. You can only play so many ffa games before you start to feel like you're just doing the same thing over and over. That's not really fun to me. It also doesn't help that I'm not really a competitive player. So I tended to gravitate more towards custom maps.

Yes, cooperative games are so important but so rare (on Llamaserver anyway), and more unusual settings and pretender builds need to be utilized. Players should have choices among modded, unmodded Dom3, hosting platform, hosting interval, team or FFA, etc.

Our emphasis on team themes in the next game will hopefully bring something different without everyone trying to cover all the bases so to speak. This would leave interesting weaknesses and strengths. Everyone seems to go with variation of E and N blesses on their pretenders. I'd like to see some D9 or B9 blesses for once. Especially in a team who's theme is death or blood.

[Lingchih]

Rollbacks are always bad. Sorry, just chiming in. But rollbacks are indeed, always bad.

[rdonj]

Our emphasis on team themes in the next game will hopefully bring something different without everyone trying to cover all the bases so to speak. This would leave interesting weaknesses and strengths. Everyone seems to go with variation of E and N blesses on their pretenders. I'd like to see some D9 or B9 blesses for once. Especially in a team who's theme is death or blood.

It's crazy how many eXnX blesses are being used this game. Two players on your team alone ;). An e/n bless can be very nice, but is not always the best choice. There are some nations that frequently take death blesses, but a b9 bless is just not very likely to be seen. If the death curse wasn't mr negatable, maybe you'd see people take it, but there's pretty much no reason as it stands to go above b8.

What I'd really love to see is someone running an a9 bless and taking everyone to the cleaners ;)

[rdonj]

By the way lanka, pan, sauromatia - Get your turns in! *cracks whip*

After waiting so long for that last turn I'd really like to get rolling again.

[Squirrelloid]

By the way lanka, pan, sauromatia - Get your turns in! *cracks whip*

After waiting so long for that last turn I'd really like to get rolling again.

Eh, I like to hold my turn for this game ~20-24 hours just in case a teammate needs me to do something, to ensure the game doesn't host in the interim. But as my team is entirely in, and the team forums are silent, I suppose I can be bothered to submit my turn.

[rdonj]

I can understand the sentiment. My team is usually pretty good at getting all the talking done within 24 hours. Sometimes we do take a little longer, in which case I hold on to my turn until it looks like plans are finalized. My team seems to hold pretty similar hours though, and there's no guarantee all of you have that same luxury. Plus I get the feeling team ACGHHS likes to talk more than the rest of us :)

Anyway, we are just waiting on agema now.

[chrispedersen]

and we appreciate squirrel doing so....

[Septimius Severus]

Agema, give it up please. We should be in double time mode.

Players, give your admin a nice gift this holiday season.

I'm very easy to please.

All I want for Christmas is turn 40 in my inbox. :p

[DrPraetorious]

So, the upshot of the rehost: instead of a 1500gp event, I got a disease on my A3 jarl. And now, I have to decide if I'm going to let Yomi and Kailasa live, in order to pursue war with the rain of toads source (which I'm all but 100% certain is ACGHHS.)

[Trumanator]

Almost forgot this game.

A water pipe burst right over Frozen's computer today, sounds like its time to grab an alternate.

[chrispedersen]

Damn, go off to jury duty and all hell breaks loose.
Interesting tho.

Mictlan stands ready to auction off blood and nature.
Pm bids.

[shard]

Ah yeah I'm sort of the spoiler when we want to get any team discussion done, being in Japan GMT+9. I tend to ignore calls for team meetings at EST 7 or the like, whatever it is that EST means anyway....

[Septimius Severus]

Turn 22 Score Graph Highlights:

Province Leader: Ulm with 22

Most Castles/Forts: Mictlan with 6

Wealthiest Nation (income): Ulm at 2052 gold per turn

Gem Leader: Hinnom at 29 per turn

Top Researcher: C'tis at 2924

Greatest Dominion: C'tis at 319

Largest Army: C'tis at 1380

Most powerful nation based on above: C'tis, followed by Ulm

[chrispedersen]

Bids done. Bids for next turn commence.

[Lingchih]

Just get your turns done and in. I'm getting tired of waiting on you slackers.

[Septimius Severus]

Time to bump this thread.

Well, turn 25 and the AI Team looks to be on the way out. They do seem to have posed a challenge, at least for some of the players, and perhaps for some of the more veteran players as well.

Abysia has 0 provinces, but I am assuming they've not been officially eliminated yet since you generally receive a message about it when that happens.

Ermor is down to 8 provinces, Agartha has 7, and C'tis only 6.

[Squirrelloid]

Didn't you look at your shiny new turn? Abysia is dead now =)

[Septimius Severus]

Your right, correction Abyssia is OFFICIALLY dead. Poor Abyssia. How long can the other 3 AI nations hold out?

Will war break out again between the human teams before the rest of the AI team is completely eliminated?

In the end, only one team will be victorious. Who will that be? :confused::D

[Immaculate]

Could Micah and the members of the blessed ones please check out our boards and comment on what i wrote?

[Septimius Severus]

It is good to see the Dom3 MP and Mods forums still so active with new games organizing and starting, including some with non-standard settings. Diminishing interest (in the absence of a new release) would be a bad thing for the community as a whole I'd wager.

Speaking of interest, I hope everyone is keeping active teamwise and staying up-to-date on forum or other communications as much as possible. With the expansion phase of the game drawing to a close, there will be engagment sooner or later. No game in the NvV series lasted over 40 turns, but this game may break that record it seems. When to attack? Who to attack? How to attack? How much research is enough? Questions that teams will need to answer going forward.

Reminder to Captains: If your alternates have flown the coop (not unusual as time goes by) and there's been no reply to attempted communications, it is always wise to find replacements especially if you believe they may be needed at some point.

Game Note: I'll be posting a poll on the team forums as we near turn 30 regarding whether or not to increase the hosting interval to 56 hours. Please look for it and make your opinion known.

[rdonj]

Poor gorgon.

[Illuminated One]

What is the stance for a christmas break here?

[Septimius Severus]

What is the stance for a christmas break here?

We should hopefully complete turn 30 by that time, we will then have several options depending on the needs and wishes of the players and the availability of subs:

1. Move to the 56 hour host (if voted for) and/or otherwise remain on schedule
2. Do what we did over Thanksgiving (keep hosting active but remove the timer for a few days)
3. Shut off hosting altogether for few days over the holiday

Remember, if you vote for the 56 hour host that will remain in effect for at least 10 turns and is really independent of the holiday decision, though it is one way of buying a little extra time for both Christmas and New Years.

[Illuminated One]

Well, I'm not sure when I have computer access so I vote 2.
If I'm the only one I can also try to get a sub.

[Lingchih]

This time of year games are usually sent to an untimed quickhost, until the New Year.

[chrispedersen]

Unrelated question:

Did hosting go off correctly? Grudge states that he checked the hosting time yesterday; it had 44 hours till hosting; and that hosting occurred less than 44 hours thereafter.

[Squirrelloid]

I submitted with 2h showing on the hosting clock, fwiw.

[DrPraetorious]

I also vote for option #2.

[Immaculate]

option 2

[Septimius Severus]

Unrelated question:

Did hosting go off correctly? Grudge states that he checked the hosting time yesterday; it had 44 hours till hosting; and that hosting occurred less than 44 hours thereafter.

As far I can could tell there haven't been early hosting issues unrelated to quick host since turn 20.

This time of year games are usually sent to an untimed quickhost, until the New Year.

Perhaps, but of course it is whatever the majority of players want and the needs of the game dictate that ultimately will decide. Personally, I try to avoid notions of what is "normal", "usual", "customary", and or "coventional".

Players: Don't forget to vote on the hosting interval. Unless it is capped by vote it will continue to grow by 8 hours every 10 turns.

[Septimius Severus]

Hmm, I see the AI is still hanging around. It is as though they are mocking some of you "vets" who said the AI would be easy to defeat and stupid. It seems at least some players are playing whack-a-mole with a few of them. I check one turn and they are down by so many provinces, next turn, they are back up.

Aside from the artistry of Gandalf, the AI does have something going for it:

1. It can "think" and analyze all possible moves far faster than any human player. This gives it the ability to do a 100 province turn with all the micromanagment in seconds whereas even the best vets might need several days.

2. It doesn't need to sleep, eat, doesn't get tired, has no real life issues to worry about. It is relentless in the extreme.

3. I don't know the precise programming logic behind the AI's actions and what is actually filtered from it "such as unscouted provinces", but since it is the AI, it has the potential to "know" everything already, including every move you make. Sorta like playing chess with another player than can read your mind.

:)

[DrPraetorious]

I am almost certain that the AI doesn't see your moves. Put another way - on the occasions when I have rehosted a turn for one reason or another, doing different things, the AI has always* done the same thing(s) each time.

* There are funny things with how movement works, so I can't be 100% certain on this.

It may have super-scouting info or something, though.

Other than that, you're right about the micromanagement. The computer is a better small-force raider than most human players for this reason.

[Gandalf Parker]

3. I don't know the precise programming logic behind the AI's actions and what is actually filtered from it "such as unscouted provinces", but since it is the AI, it has the potential to "know" everything already, including every move you make. Sorta like playing chess with another player than can read your mind.

:)
Actually that is a very insightful awareness you have of a major part of AI programming.

Players always complain that "the AI cheats" and the programmer has "given" the AI too much info. But its the reverse. You are starting with a "player" that is internal to the game. So the problem is trying to remove information that the AI automatically has access to. In something as simple as the map you are talking about giving each AI its own virtual copy of the map instead of allowing it access to the games operating map which the program is working with at the same time.

Its only done really well in games that support bot players as game AIs. Ive worked on such before. Its something I dearly love and wish Dom3 would support. But then again, for a 2 man team whose main jobs is not game programming they did well.

==========
And I agree. The AI is doing better than I expected with so little help given to it. We are seeing the result of the simplest level of AI instructions. Choice of pretender, scales, magic, etc all from basic player-level instructions from nation guides posted here in the forum. Id like to see more Player vs AI vs Player games.

[chrispedersen]

Gandalf - is there anyway to investigate Grudges claims - that either the game hosted quick, or the website was in error on the time posted? (ie, difference between web and game?).

We got REALLY killed by his stale - its fine its part of the game. But I'd REALLy like to make sure it doesn't happen again, if its at all attributable to math, software, etc.

[chrispedersen]

It isn't the artistry of the AI that's keeping them alive- its the exigencies of the players.

ie., we're all fighting the ai's with one hand behind our back.
Or two.

[pyg]

Beware Caacrinolaas!

[Gandalf Parker]

We got REALLY killed by his stale - its fine its part of the game. But I'd REALLy like to make sure it doesn't happen again, if its at all attributable to math, software, etc.

The backup shows 16 turn files. That would have triggered the hosting.


Actually it should be much more correct since I finally got all of it (web, reminder timer, forced hosting, etc) running on the same single time setting. A file in the directory with just the number of hours between hostings and nothing else.

I can only check whats running now. There are two timer jobs running which were created by the last hosting.
107 Sat Dec 19 16:20:00 2009 a nav
108 Sat Dec 19 07:20:00 2009 a nav
One will run the "reminders" script to send out emails to anyone who hasnt turned in a turn. And the other will run hosting based on the xx-hours setting (with a check to make sure the ftherlnd file is older than xx-hours to avoid clashing with quick-host). It seems ot match the webpage.

[chrispedersen]

Gandalf, Sept

Please see my pm regarding this matter.

[Septimius Severus]

Gandalf, Sept

Please see my pm regarding this matter.

Chris, see my PM response. There did not appear to have been any early hosting server errors from what I could tell on my end.

Pyg, have you been hitting the sauce?

"Beware Caacrinolaas!" :confused::rolleyes:

It looks like we had 3 or so responses to the holiday delay options. I am going to edit the 3 options I mentioned as option 1 and option 3 were probably too extreme. If a delay or slowdown is desired by the majority of players over the holidays we'll likely do one of two things:

The question is when to begin and how long should it run so if we take Ling's suggestion about the customary year end period:

A. We can shut off the timer from December 24 - January 2nd. What scares me about this idea, while it sounds nice, is there is the possibility that no turns get processed at all if everyone doesn't submit. That's 9 or 10 days.

B. We can implement a temporary 72 hour (3 day) or 96 hour (4 day) hosting interval to cover the same period. This ensures that we get in at least 2 if not more turns over the holiday. If there is going to be a delay this would probably be my personal preference.

So I think I'll put a poll up on our forums asking two questions: 1, whether to institute a delay or slowdown in the first place, and 2 asking which of these 2 or 3 options people prefer. Then I'll put it to Gandalf as far as which may be easier for him to implement. This will give us something to work with in the meantime anyway.

[Septimius Severus]

DrP and Gandalf, yes that's what I was hinting at regarding the AI. Take a single player game on a single computer. The AI (comp) "knows" every action you take, every mouse click, every keyboard press. When the turn is processed it's gotta "know" your orders as a matter of course in order to process the turn. As Gandalf indicated, one of the challenge I'd guess in programming AI player routines is in dumbing down the AI (comp) enough by filtering out info it already has to simulate what an actual human player might know.

[chrispedersen]

Was there a delay request? Can they be made publicly, please?
I stayed up till 2 getting a turn in if I had known there was a 10 hour delay I would have gone to bed.

If there wasn't a delay requst things are definitely screwed up as there was only 6 hours when I went to bed.

[Gandalf Parker]

I was checking the web page frequently yesterday (as per our conversation) and saw no problem. I even posted the hosting time to this forum. I dont see a change and certainly didnt do one.

What browser are you using? If there is a lag for some reason anywhere along the line between your machine and mine, some browsers will pull up a cached image without telling you. Sometimes you have to hit the refresh button to get the latest copy.

[chrispedersen]

Gandalf, over most of yesterday.. I followed this web page and watched it count down as I was in discussions with grudge and squirrel.

I am familiar with cache and cookie clearing - as well as refreshing (and, in point of fact I empty all internet files on exit anyway).

When it got to 6 hours, I went to bed (at 2:00 am ish EST). When I got up in the morning it was up to 10 hours. I usually use IE8.0; but firefox is available as well.

[Septimius Severus]

Chris, I've not received any explicit requests for delays for the current or previous turn nor have I noticed anything amiss with the server or host, if there was something though, Gandalf would probably know about it. Wish I knew more.

Here's what I do know:

Get ye turns in! The new mantra is turn 30 by Xmas. :up:

There's two polls on our team forums and I want more votes! :up:

Don't let apathy decide things for you. :up:

I need 13 more votes on the holiday question. :up:

I need 8 more votes on the 48/56 host question. :up:

Thank you. :D

[GrudgeBringer]

I have been following this and your right, apathy is NOT the way to decide when to take the holiday break unless you just don't have anything to do but play this game.

Because of the coming arrivals of relatives, I will complete any and all turns that I would receive by Weds 12/23/09.

I could also complete 1 turn received on Monday 12/28/09 with a liberal hosting time and another received Thursday 12/31/09 agian with a liberal hosting time as relatives will be starting their departures.

And starting Sunday 1/3/10 I will be ready to receive another turn and be back on whatever schedule we have decided on.

For me this isn't a poll, I spend most of my home time (as do others), working at me desk OR messing around with the computer (this include turns, turns, turns).

My wife takes this very well and even listens to my tales of woe about this and other games. But Christmas is HER time to plan the family schedule, and as I just got married after a 28 year hiatis I think its fair that once a year (great guy huh!!)she set the schedule.

So for me this isn't a poll, this is how I will divvy up my time until 1/03/10 (But ya know I MIGHT be able to sneak down and get ONE more turn in while she is not looking if need be!!)

As far as the new hosting will go after that I abstain and will go with the majority.

[chrispedersen]

I'd like to just go no schedule, quickhosting only through 1/3

[rdonj]

I voted delay, shut off the hosting timer to do our best to accommodate people's schedules. That said, if people get turns in anyway it won't bother me in the slightest. I don't have any holiday traveling to do, so I am going to just be sitting around waiting for you slowpokes to get your turns in.

I would like to reach turn 30 by christmas also, but I am beginning to think that's unlikely :(

[Septimius Severus]

Everyone, make your needs/desires heard via the forum poll if you have not already. I'd like to cover the whole period (12/24-1/02) inclusive using one of those options decided by majority if we can. Everyone gets a say. :)

[chrispedersen]

I really don't think this is a vote issue. You have a number of players already indicating they have travel plans and will not be available.

Sure, you could let them stale -but it kind of ruins the whole point about playing players. Since you have 3+ players already saying they can't do it - just quikhost it and be done with it.

[Septimius Severus]

For some it may not be and I do understand believe me. We've got two players (Illuminated and Grudge) so far indicating sporadic internet access for the period. I've provided options that cover the whole spectrum of needs/desires/wishes as best I could. I will do my best to honor whatever is decided via the polls. If everyone casts their vote, what your saying will bare itself out anyway. ;)

[chrispedersen]

Suppose 8 people vote to keep going on a usual schedule. Are you really going to keep the game going when 5 people say they can't (won't) play?

[Septimius Severus]

Suppose 8 people vote to keep going on a usual schedule. Are you really going to keep the game going when 5 people say they can't (won't) play?

Let me ask you this by contrast, suppose 14 players vote against any delays, is it really fair to hold up the game for 2 players?

Anyway I don't think either of these situations are likely to happen. I am confident people will vote in the best interests of everyone taking into account the holiday and the needs of others as well. 96 hour turns or timer off will accomodate almost everyone fairly well over the holidays, and there is the 72 hour middle ground as well, so I am not worried about it really.

I am simply asking people to speak up and let their voices be heard in the forum and to use that venue to inform me of their plans/desires for both poll questions. I certainly don't want anyone making up anyone else's mind for them.

[chrispedersen]

[QUOTE=Septimius Severus;722711Let me ask you this by contrast, suppose 14 players vote against any delays, is it really fair to hold up the game for 2 players? [/QUOTE]

Yes.

Since 'liberal delays' was stated at the outset and its the norm to break for major holidays, yes, I have no problem with you just saying game is quickhost only.

[Maerlande]

I was going to jump in, but ....

Here's my view. Why on earth do we need anything fancy? Do like everyother game and turn off the timer for Christmas.

[Septimius Severus]

I was going to jump in, but ....

Here's my view. Why on earth do we need anything fancy? Do like everyother game and turn off the timer for Christmas.

Is every other game on this forum turning off the timer for the entire period from Dec 24th through January 2nd?

From what I can recall Llamaserver hosted games cannot turn off the actual hosting timer from the admin page (without special instructions to Llamabeast anyway), as far as I am aware they can shut off quickhost, postpose hosting or just increase the hosting interval. There is no option for removing the hosting timer completely, which we can do via Gandalf's server with his direct involvement. Essentially we'd be running only on quickhost but with no actual turn timer to ensure that hosting takes place, if option 2 wins out. That is all I am saying.

[Septimius Severus]

Originally, I was going to turn off the timer for 3 days over Christmas and 2 days over New Years, but frankly that might be alot of work for Gandalf so I figured we'd just let people choose an option and go with it for the whole period. Less work that way. If you'd prefer I stick with that original plan, that can be done as well.

Look, all I am saying is cast your votes. Lets hear what everyone thinks. To answer Chris' question, in the unlikely event the vote should come to 8 to 5 in favor of remaining on schedule, I would make a judgement call (since finding 5 subs might be quite difficult) and likely choose the 72 hour option. That way I give the majority what they want, but also give the 5 extra time to get their turns in. Everyone's happy.

I must say, I have to tip my hat to Chris. He's got the energy of a noob, the courage of Algae Nymph, and the wisdom of the good doctor. What gumption! What moxy! What gaul! Chris, I must have you for co-admin in game 2. And I encourage you all to keep the free flow of ideas and debate going (keeps our thread on top) :).

So let me clarify for everyone before you make your decisions (some already have). When I speak of turning off the hosting timer that means we will be effectively running on quickhost/fasthost only. In other words, the game will only host if everyone get's their turns in. It is NOT the same as turning off quickhost/fasthost which only means that hosting will proceed exactly at 48 or 56 hours, or whatever the interval is. Regardless of how fast turns come in. I apologize if anyway has been confused over my wording. I personally will be fine with any of the 4 options, though I lean toward the 72 hour interval over the entire holiday period mentioned to ensure at least some turns get in. But that is just me.:D

[Illuminated One]

Can I get a delay for the next turn (about 10h)? I have some computer problems and I probably won't get around to fix them before tomorrow evening.

Also this will be the last day that I can play a turn, so however you decide do it quick please. I'm fine with a sub as I said, but once I'm gone, I'm gone, that is if the snowstorm doesn't stop me.

[Septimius Severus]

Can I get a delay for the next turn (about 10h)? I have some computer problems and I probably won't get around to fix them before tomorrow evening.

Illuminated, see my PM, I am not sure whether you mean the current turn or 'next turn' like you said. If you are the only one leaving this early, you'll need a sub.

[rdonj]

Pretty sure he means this turn.

[Maerlande]

Let me ask you this by contrast, suppose 14 players vote against any delays, is it really fair to hold up the game for 2 players?

Absolutly ****ing yes!!!

This god damn game took two ****ing months to even start. Who gives a flying **** about two or six or twenty days delay? Mostly because it took you that long to learn what hosting required and to fart around figuring out how AI's work.

I can't believe we need a goddamn poll to figure out that people might want a break a Christmas.

Most of us play more than one game Sept. And we don't test our damn strategies in a team game.

[chrispedersen]

Can we turn off quick host for this turn? One of my teammates submitted an erroneous turn, and I'd like to make sure he has time to correct it (ie., that the game doesn't quick host on him).


(Asked with 12 hours till hosting).

[Septimius Severus]

Let me ask you this by contrast, suppose 14 players vote against any delays, is it really fair to hold up the game for 2 players?

Absolutly ****ing yes!!!

This god damn game took two ****ing months to even start. Who gives a flying **** about two or six or twenty days delay? Mostly because it took you that long to learn what hosting required and to fart around figuring out how AI's work.

I can't believe we need a goddamn poll to figure out that people might want a break a Christmas.

Most of us play more than one game Sept. And we don't test our damn strategies in a team game.

The point is Maerlande, this is your game, it is Viccio's game, it belongs to all the players, to everyone who waited 2 months to play, to everyone who is playing now. It can be handled several ways, I want to make sure everyone knows what the options are and has a chance to decide. This is not a dictatorship, nor an oligarchy!

If you have issues with the way I run my games or have done so in the past that is your right, but please don't tell everyone else what they must or must not do, especially myself. And players, don't let "custom", one or two other players, or anyone else tell you how the game should proceed or be run.

In reality, as I've stated, the question is not really whether a break is implemented but how it can be done. I've provided the option for continuing on schedule to attempt to be fair to all players, but as I stated I am confident that players will vote for a delay in some form or other. Llamaserver based games cannot shut off the hosting timer from the admin page, so to tell people that everyone is doing that is simply incorrect. Our game is a bit unique due to the hosting platform in that regard.

[Septimius Severus]

Chris, I've received your request to shut off the quickhost this turn. I hadn't received a response to my PM attempting to clarify Illuminated's request that I sent to DrP and Illum. In the absence of a clarification, I am asking Gandalf for a 10 hour delay on the current turn, so your player should have plenty of time to resubmit.

I will be shutting down the polls tommorow. Please get your vote in if you have not already done so on the 2 questions at hand.

[Maerlande]

Naw, it's not my game. I want out. Fast!

[Maerlande]

The Mysterios need alternates to step forward.

We are looking for Tam-Lin and Some1Lost if still willing to take the place of us tired old farts.

[chrispedersen]

Our team is good to go: host when ready Gridley!

[Alneyan]

Llamaserver based games cannot shut off the hosting timer from the admin page, so to tell people that everyone is doing that is simply incorrect.

</Lurks> No, all you have to do is set the hosting interval wide enough to cover the holiday break (240 hours or something like that), and/or postpone the current turn by a similar amount of time... You can't turn off the timer directly, but that's not necessary.

The only time you'd want to turn off quickhost is if you're going with a *strict* hosting schedule where deadlines are always on the same hour... and even then, it'd be better to let the turns host as soon as possible and manually push back the deadline to the hosting hour. I can't really see the point of fixed deadlines like that if hosting is automated, though (it's another story if you're hosting by hand).

[Illuminated One]

Ok, things are fixed, no delay needed.

[Gandalf Parker]

I can understand the request for turning off Quick Host. If a person is having trouble sending in a good file (corrupt, or serial number conflict, or bad turn number) they dont want the game to "see" that it has enough .2h files and host until they manage to send in a good file.

But PLEASE people be clear which one you mean. There are 2 possible host events. The Quick Host because all of the turns are in, and the forced host because the timer has run out. If you want to turn-off the Quick Host then do not word it something like "I want a 10 hour extension" since that will only add 10 hours to the forced-host timer.

For holidays, its usually only important to change the force-host. That way setting it to a long time period will not get in the way of hosting anyway if everyone gets their turns in.

But as always it boils down to 2 things. How many people does it take to hold up everyone else. And then the final decision I receive from the person running the game. (it does no good to discuss your votes with me in PM because I dont decide it)

[Septimius Severus]

Alneyan, is quite correct and bears out what I said, that Llamaserver based games can postpone, or change the hosting interval but cannot shut off the timer directly. We are however talking about shutting off the hosting timer completely via Gandalf's server, as we did over thanksgiving. The same effect can be acheived as Alneyan stated, on Llamaserver or indeed on Gandalf's server by making a 240 hour (10 day) hosting interval or postpoing by that amount of time.

Considering the period in question will run from November 24 to December 2 inclusive, that is 10 days where the server will not host a single turn unless every single .2h file is in. We could go the entire time without anything happening at all.

Considering the length of time involved, that is why I thought it best that everyone should have a say and provide the alternate options of 72 hour and 96 hour hosts. I have always strived to be as democratic and fair as I could (hence the endless polls), I would make the same decision if the request came up at any time of year regardless of whether the holiday be Christmas, New Years, Ramadan, Hanukkah, or any other.

Maerlande, or anyone else, I am sorry if you feel that I have not been sympathetic to the every individual need as best I could. Maerlande is a good player who keeps everyone up-to-date on his activities on the team forums (if you've played team games you know that is very important) every turn. It would be a shame to loose him or anyone over this. And I urge him and anyone else not to act rashly. Personally, I have put too much time and effort in to this game to throw it away over this. But that is just me.

[Septimius Severus]

We have an extra 10 hours to play around with since I had instituted a delay on Illuminated's behalf. He's now back, and we are waiting only for Sauromatia and T'C. By the gods, I think if we can get this turn in fairly soon, we shall reach turn 30 by Christmas! :D I will post the poll results shortly. I was planning on the holiday delay period to run from midnight on 12/23 to midnight on 01/02 (more likely as close as Gandalf can get to it).

[Agusti]

Hi. Septimus Severus sent me a message because maybe you could need a sub for some nations. I'm very interested and if you need someone you can count on me.

I'm a very serious player and won't let you down. I'm administrating some Dominions' games in Llamasever and i'm playing other games here and there so i don't want to give you any problems because i know how annoying is having players who dissapear without warning (stales, great delays in answering the e-mails or the turns, etc) ;)

Cheers.

Agus aka Haplo.

[rdonj]

Oh ye foolish blessed ones. Have you fallen so far as to give yourselves unto slavery under the vile ACHOO? You cannot begin to imagine the suffering this act of cowardice shall be rewarded with. As you experience the terror and despair that only Easy Slay can deliver, know that you die as dogs for your overlords in the north.

[Septimius Severus]

Agusti, you're account has been activated on our team forums, see my PM. We welcome any and all new players, especially those who are willing to take over nations.

The consensus on the 48/56 hour question was in favor of going to 56 hours at turn 31. With 10 of 16 votes received. I'll be posting another poll on hosting intervals as we near turn 40, next time with 3 options: Reverting to 48, remaining at 56, or moving on to 64.

The consensus on the holiday delay was in favor of shutting off the hosting timer for the entire period. 1 vote for remaining on schedule, and 2 votes for going with a 72 hour host. 10 of 16 votes received.

I am informing Gandalf with the results of the polls and instructing him to shut off the hosting timer at or around midnight on 12/23 and to restart the timer at or around midnight on 1/02 (technically 1/03). I think we can get this last turn in and hopefully 1 or 2, over the holiday period. If anyone is going to be utilizing a sub(s) or alternates and needs to change a player's e-mail address to receive new turns, please notify me.

I want to thank everyone who participated in the voting. I also want to thank anyone who may be leaving our game for participating in the game. They say this is the season for forgiving and forgetting, I wish this for all of us going forward and I personally will always be glad to play alongside of anyone at anytime. ;)

[Lingchih]

Lingchih withdraws from advisor position. If anyone want more details on the decision, there is a post on the Mysterious board.

[Squirrelloid]

uh, woh?

Sort of relevantly, ACGHHS seems to be short a player, if anyone wants to run Pangaea.

Fair warning, its not a terrible situation to learn some good practices, but the team strategy is fairly unified, so you don't really make decisions on your own - you engage in the team discussion and we try to arrive at the best strategy together.

[Squirrelloid]

I had some move orders (army attacking, all 3 commanders) fail to happen last turn. Not a major issue right now, but if it continues to happen it will be annoying.

[rdonj]

I have been noticing that bug an awful lot lately. It pretty much happens in all of my games sooner or later. Luckily I haven't had it happen in this game yet. Not that I've been having to do a whole lot of fighting either.

[Maerlande]

Taken from the original post.

Hosting Interval and Delays: First 10 turns @ 32 hours, 8 hours will be added every 10 turns thereafter with the maximum to be decided by consensus. Delay policy is liberal. Most delays (under 48 hrs) will be granted automatically if accompanied by a PM to the admin(s), a forum post, and a reasonable amount of notice. Alternates/subs should be utilized for longer delays.

I object strenuously to the administration's efforts to fuddle up the hosting requirements.

I clearly joined this game based upon the above policy from the original post.

Septimius,
Your inability to meet your original promises for this game has reached the point where the game is falling apart. You must figure out if this is a game that you admin or your private sandbox that you really hope folks will come hang out in.

Your own team has now lost two members due solely to your poor performance as a player and abuse of power as admin. Threatening your teammates as admin is completely inappropriate. You brought up my bad language from this thread into our team discussion and I refuse to leave it there. If you want to have an argument about the administration it's going to be public.

Your team's advisor has resigned. Partly over differences of opinion with you.

You effectively threatened to stale people over the Christmas Holidays. That is incredible abuse of power.

I recommend you resign as admin of this game. You are incapable of wearing both hats.

[rdonj]

Now all my games are mired in drama :(

[Squirrelloid]

Alright, who pulled the drama tag?

[Septimius Severus]

Hosting Interval and Delays: First 10 turns @ 32 hours, 8 hours will be added every 10 turns thereafter with the maximum to be decided by consensus. Delay policy is liberal. Most delays (under 48 hrs) will be granted automatically if accompanied by a PM to the admin(s), a forum post, and a reasonable amount of notice. Alternates/subs should be utilized for longer delays.

Maerlande, I don't see what in the above thread snipet you have quoted I have gone back on. I say the delay policy is liberal and then go on to explain regarding longer delays over 48 hrs saying that alternates/subs should be utilized for long delays.

No one is forcing anyone to stale, but for a period of 10 days in which the hosting timer is completely shut-off I think everyone who is in the game should have a say as to how they want to proceed. I suspect that since many games are Llamaserver based on this forum, they are either voting for 72 hour hosting intervals, 96 hour hosting intervals, or even longer. Some may not be doing so at all. So I wanted everyone playing to have a choice between the various options, since the game belongs to everyone in it ultimately.

I don't mind you continuing this debate here, I would always wish a free flow of ideas, and never want anyone to feel bullied into doing anything by anyone. I think everyone should think for themselves. But please if you do, lets try to refrain from semi-profanities and keep as things as civil as we can. I am not the moderator of these forums, but if you abuse, insult, engage in name calling, use foul language, I will certainly voice a complaint with the moderators.

We've all of us made mistakes, including myself as admin, it is a learning process and this is my fourth team game admining so I am undoubdetly learning as I go as well. I generally do not hold grudges and I would encourage all of us to not let schisms develop between each other. CBM or non-CBM, Llamaserver or non-Llamaserver, IRC or non-IRC participant, vet or noob. I would happily play alongside of you or Ling, or anyone else regardless of past disputes.

As Ling and many others can attest to, team games (especially large ones) not only require lots of time and communication, they are extremely draining as well, emotionally, physcially, and mentally. Doing two in a row is rough. And considering I am on my fourth game, I may well be losing my mind! :D :eek:

Because of our debates and discussions though, I have grown to respect Chris, DrP, and everyone else even more so, and I wish going forward, especially during the holiday that we all forget the past and commit to finishing the game and doing what we can to ensure everyone has a good time. That is what I play for ultimately (which may make me a bad team player), since for me, it is about just having fun and learning, and not an obsession with winning at any cost.

That said, let me take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy holiday and best of fortune in the new year. :D

[Maerlande]

rdonj: The drama should end quickly. It looks like an alternate has been found for me which should end my tirade. I won't continue an argument about a game that is no longer my concern.

Sept:
I'm deeply sorry you don't understand. I'm not going to try any more.

In regards to your threats to call the mods on me, don't bother. I'm reporting my own post to them. Then I will no longer have to care about your threats.

[Maerlande]

Done. I reported myself.

[Squirrelloid]

Not sure why that needed reporting. It was all asterized!

[rdonj]

Easy Slay, the Gorgon extermination specialists.

[Squirrelloid]

So, where's that holiday schedule? http://www.dom3minions.com/~nav/bin/nav_chk.cgi still shows regular hosting time.

[Septimius Severus]

The schedule is supposed to kick in around midnight, server's time (PST) 12/23. I wouldn't worry, I am sure Gandalf will get to it in time.

Looks like war has broken out between ACGHHS and the Deva's. Overt war anyway.

[GrudgeBringer]

I sent this in on the game forum (as I can't seem to post in the other forum) about a week ago, It is 2 PM Christmas eve and I am leaving for the Airport to pick up my wife and her folks. I will stick to the schedule I set down below as I never heard a word to the contrary.

As promised, I got the turn in on Weds, but I am not sure I can get this one in and Chris just has too much to do with us being a guy short.

C'mon guys, this game is NOT my only entertainment, or my whole life. It's Christmas and I have plans, end of story.

I will adhere to my promise below but can't promise any more than that. If you need a sub, I suggest you get one as no one has talked to me about it.

Have a Merry Christmas or whatever it is you celebrate in your own way.:)





I have been following this and your right, apathy is NOT the way to decide when to take the holiday break unless you just don't have anything to do but play this game.

Because of the coming arrivals of relatives, I will complete any and all turns that I would receive by Weds 12/23/09.

I could also complete 1 turn received on Monday 12/28/09 with a liberal hosting time and another received Thursday 12/31/09 agian with a liberal hosting time as relatives will be starting their departures.

And starting Sunday 1/3/10 I will be ready to receive another turn and be back on whatever schedule we have decided on.

For me this isn't a poll, I spend most of my home time (as do others), working at me desk OR messing around with the computer (this include turns, turns, turns).

My wife takes this very well and even listens to my tales of woe about this and other games. But Christmas is HER time to plan the family schedule, and as I just got married after a 28 year hiatis I think its fair that once a year (great guy huh!!)she set the schedule.

So for me this isn't a poll, this is how I will divvy up my time until 1/03/10 (But ya know I MIGHT be able to sneak down and get ONE more turn in while she is not looking if need be!!)

As far as the new hosting will go after that I abstain and will go with the majority.

[Frozen Lama]

gb- you are right. that's maerlande's whole point. if just a couple people are gone over christmas, its ok to delay the game for everyone. just put a freaking 100h extension on of something. we don't need a ****ing poll to decide whether people are allowed to be gone during christmas

[Septimius Severus]

gb- you are right. that's maerlande's whole point. if just a couple people are gone over christmas, its ok to delay the game for everyone. just put a freaking 100h extension on of something. we don't need a ****ing poll to decide whether people are allowed to be gone during christmas

No but polls are the best way (in my opinion) and fairest of handling decisions that affect all players for a significant length of time and of deciding democratically the implementation method. There really is no use going back over this again and again. I already know how you feel on the subject my friend.

Apparently Gandalf had misplaced or did not get my e-mail on the poll results and the holiday hosting schedule. I see that he has taken care of it though and I have sent him another e-mail. Everything is cool. If we can get 1 or 2 turns in sometime between now and January 3rd, well that would be good. If not, well we will just have to deal with it. Again, have a good holiday.

[Gandalf Parker]

Im old. And my mailboxs get ALOT of mail on alot of subjects. An email rolls off pretty fast. Its always best to send me a reminder ON the day you want a change. :)

[Septimius Severus]

Team roster change:

Agusti is replacing Maerlande at the helm of Kailasa on the Mysterios' team.

[Septimius Severus]

Team update:

Executor is reprising his role as team adviser for the Mysterios team.

[chrispedersen]

happy new year, all

[rdonj]

Happy new year.

[Septimius Severus]

Just a reminder that we are scheduled to resume our normal hosting schedule at or around 12:00 AM PST on Sunday 1/03 (midnight on Saturday). Currently there is one turn (Caelum) still oustanding for turn 30. Illuminated if you need more time let me or someone on your team know as soon as possible. The next turn may or may not host soon afterwards (depending upon where the clock was before we shut it down and how Gandalf is able to handle it).

I echo the previous poster's new year wishes and I wouldn't mind getting a fresh little debate going on the merits of diplomacy in team games and in FFA games as it applies to both. This is obviously something that probably won't be resolved anywhere, but I think ultimately it should probably be based on what all the players want in a particular game. Here's how I see the pro's and con's of allowing diplomacy in team and ffa games:

Cons:

1.Some argue that allowing diplomacy unbalances the game and can lead to ganging up on some teams/players.

2.Diplomacy can slow things down a bit, since ideally there would be no peace or lulls in the fighting due to alliances of some sort.

Pros:

1. Diplomacy is more realistic and closer to what one finds in the real world or even in a fantasy world such as Dom3, people are not machines after all and will do what they need to do.

2. Enforcing no diplomacy rules may be difficult, if two players or teams want to make an alliance, how is the admin to find out and enforce it if no one else finds out and the people involved don't tell?

3. Diplomacy can even the playing field between weaker/stronger teams/nations and also between less/more experienced teams/players and give the underdogs at least some hope.

4. Diplomacy is necessary because in reality, no game between humans can be perfectly balanced, there are just too many factors: skill level, game mechanics and national differences (as much as we try to do with mods and the like), leadership (for team games), experience, etc.

On the neutral front:

1. Since many victory conditions such as ours state that ultimately only one team/player can win, some say diplomacy may not really hurt since alliances are only supposed to be temporary in these types of games and therefore it does not matter.

Any opinions?

[Immaculate]

I will not be able to play dominions after january 7th. I will need a replacement substitute. Not sure what i should do in this situation.... i'll PM the alternates to start with i guess.

[Septimius Severus]

I will not be able to play dominions after january 7th. I will need a replacement substitute. Not sure what i should do in this situation.... i'll PM the alternates to start with i guess.

I'm sorry to hear that Immaculate. What a wonderful player you are/were. Are you leaving the Dom3 community permanently? What a loss for all of us. Yes, inform your captain so that he can find a substitute, PM the alternates and try to find a sub for yourself as well.

[Immaculate]

thank you for your kind words. I have PMed the appropriate people. I will be unable to play MP dominions for about 3 months but should be back in the spring.

[Agusti]

thank you for your kind words. I have PMed the appropriate people. I will be unable to play MP dominions for about 3 months but should be back in the spring.

Sorry to hear that. Now that we're going to war!!! ;)

I hope you come back soon and good luck.

[rdonj]

ACGHHS - You've only got 12 hours left before the game hosts. Please make sure your turns are in on time.

[chrispedersen]

Thanks for the heads up rdonj - very nice of you.
Squirrel has always been reliable, but I'll be keeping an eye on this as well...

[Squirrelloid]

WTF. I show the turn as having hosted, but I just checked a couple hours ago and it showed 11h remaining till hosting. It is very much not acceptable that the time remaining on Gandalf's page not be accurate.

I've been having some internet issues with uploading files all night, and a bunch of turns to look at, but I was about to look over my NaV turn one last time and submit it. Honestly, its only fair if the turn gets rolled back and forced-hosted after i get my turn in because it is very much not my fault that my turn wasn't in on time.

(I show this post 3.5h after Rdonj's. I show the server having hosted ~30min ago. 12-3 = 9h remaining, not hosted with me staling!)

[Squirrelloid]

Addendum to above post:
I have not looked at the new turn.

I have sent my 2h file to the team e-mail address, so there's an e-mail with a time-stamp that contains it as an attachment to verify time of 'submission'.

Sending it to nav@dom3minions.com is, at this point, without use since its not a valid turn until and unless the turn is rolled back. I am happy to fwd the archived 2h file from the team e-mail wherever gandalf would like it sent, and he can verify time it was sent if he so cares.

If there is no rollback, I'm done with this game. I will not play a game that cannot display or announce accurate hosting times. Its not that this stale sucks (though it does), its that it is totally unreasonable to play a game that advertises one schedule and operates on a different one. I don't want to deal with that. If the server tells me the game is going to host at X time (~8h from now), its really not ok for it to host at an earlier time.

[rdonj]

Yeah, I have the turn as well, with sauromatia having staled despite there still being plenty of time left on the clock when I last checked. 12 hours is generally not equal to 3, so there is clearly something going on here. This is a problem we need to get fixed.

I am against rollbacks on principle, but I can understand the frustration this causes. If we do a rollback, let's please keep it short and sweet. Us Devas are busy repelling hordes of invaders at the moment and we'd really like to get back to that.

[Septimius Severus]

Ha, we seem to be doing a rollback every 10 turns. Maybe we should schedule them regularly. :D

Generally, I am against any more rollbacks, especially for a single player, and especially given we've had two already. However something seems to be amiss this time with the server, I am investigating and will contact Gandalf.

The turn was NOT supposed to host till 08:00:00 AM PST on Tuesday, Jan 5th, those were my explicit instructions. The displayed timer last time I looked seemed to be on target as well. But I've got a fatherlnd file with a timestamp of Jan 4th, 10:44 PM and I show 2h files from everyone except Sauro. The last one to get in their turn was Pangaea at 10:43 PM. So something has occured.

We will likely know, hear something from Gandalf by tommorow morning/afternoon.

You all know I have always been in favor of honesty and fairness to all. I also expect honesty from all players. If a rollback is done, we must be consistent in our policy (last time we only allowed the three who were affected to resubmit).

If we do a rollback, ONLY SAURO will resubmit, and I expect and demand that Squirreloid, not revise his turn, not look at the new turn, but simply resend the old .2h file he should already have ready to go. If it discovered that Sauro has acted on any new information, I am empowered to deal with it appropriately. But I am sure that if done, Squirreloid will get it in quick and we will all move on. He will be honest. Right Squirreloid? :up:

[Squirrelloid]

I still have not looked at the new turn (since its not real, there's no reason to).

My turn is timestamped by the e-mail sent to my team's e-mail account, which can be forwarded as appropriate.

[Septimius Severus]

I still have not looked at the new turn (since its not real, there's no reason to).

My turn is timestamped by the e-mail sent to my team's e-mail account, which can be forwarded as appropriate.

Well, there ya go, it can be handled nice and easy if necessary. In fact, if Gandalf doesn't already have the old .2h file, it can be sent to him or me directly (my email is available on the team forums), without even bothering to put a few hours on the clock for him to do it (and thus avoiding reopening the old turn for submissions and preventing any sneaky business).

[Squirrelloid]

I still have not looked at the new turn (since its not real, there's no reason to).

My turn is timestamped by the e-mail sent to my team's e-mail account, which can be forwarded as appropriate.

Well, there ya go, it can be handled nice and easy if necessary. In fact, if Gandalf doesn't already have the old .2h file, it can be sent to him or me directly (my email is available on the team forums), without even bothering to put a few hours on the clock for him to do it (and thus avoiding reopening the old turn for submissions and preventing any sneaky business).

I cannot find your e-mail on the team forums. As i'm still up anyway, mind PMing me either yours or gandalf's e-mail (whichever you'd prefer i used)?

[chrispedersen]

just to chime in here, I've commented on this twice before - that it has hosted hours earlier than it was supposed to.

I still want to say thanks to gandalf for hosting..

[Gandalf Parker]

My apologies to Sauromatia. The game did indeed quckhost without receiving his turn.
All files are rolled back.

It actually happened due to one player sending in two different 2h files (16 files received of 16 needed so the stupid hosting script AI hosted). I will look into trying to add (yet another) check on player actions to the script. Now I understand why LLama has put so much time into his scripts.

Gandalf Parker

[Tollund]

That's not quickhosting, that force hosting without any sanity checks on the inputs.

[rdonj]

My apologies to Sauromatia. The game did indeed quckhost without receiving his turn.
All files are rolled back.

It actually happened due to one player sending in two different 2h files (16 files received of 16 needed so the stupid hosting script AI hosted). I will look into trying to add (yet another) check on player actions to the script. Now I understand why LLama has put so much time into his scripts.

Gandalf Parker

Ah. That would be me. I actually sent in three turn files for turn 31. I do this semi-frequently so there's no wonder that multiple turns have hosted early, if indeed this is the cause.

[Gandalf Parker]

That's not quickhosting, that force hosting without any sanity checks on the inputs.
Quite true. But we are writing this as we go.
The incident would have been handled automatically by direct connect. I never appreciated how many checks and balances Johan as written into the direct-server.
Or it could have been caught by a pbem game where each turn is manually processed by someone.

But trying to write a script to cover everything is "fun". So far Ive had to add checks for
A) corrupted .2h files (badly attached)
B) enough .2h files
C) no .2h files from previous turn hosting
D) matching serials
E) .2h being sent in that doesnt match the present turn

And now apparently turn files being sent for other games than this one.
And there are still 3 other requests for checks which have turned out to be more complicated than they seem worth.

Gandalf Parker

[rdonj]

Oh! I thought you meant multiple files for the same game, not different ones. That I most assuredly did not do.

[Gandalf Parker]

Oh! I thought you meant multiple files for the same game, not different ones. That I most assuredly did not do.

Nahh. That came up early on so I was already handling that. Players can send new turn files right up to the moment of hosting.

By the way, only quickhost is running now. Not forced timer as the webpage shows (another thing to work on today)

[Tollund]

The incident would have been handled automatically by direct connect. I never appreciated how many checks and balances Johan as written into the direct-server.

Checks and balances? That's basic programming! It would be utterly incompetent to assume that you should start hosting simply because you have the proper number of turn files without checking to make sure that all those turn files are both for every nation and that they aren't corrupted.

[Gandalf Parker]

The incident would have been handled automatically by direct connect. I never appreciated how many checks and balances Johan as written into the direct-server.

Checks and balances? That's basic programming! It would be utterly incompetent to assume that you should start hosting simply because you have the proper number of turn files without checking to make sure that all those turn files are both for every nation and that they aren't corrupted.

Heehee. Of COURSE it is. :) And manual processing of each hosting is probably best if you should ever decide to host a game yourself.

Care to let me in on what the next hangup will be before we receive one? That way I can start writing it in ahead of time.

Also, checks would not necessarily have fixed it anyway. What should be done with a check? How tyrranical should deleting a players sent file be? Whose responsibility is it to fix player errors? The server? the person running the game? the Team Captain? the player themself? If I were all of the above then of course things would probably simpler.

[Tollund]

Heehee. Of COURSE it is. :)
Care to let me in on what the next hangup will be before we receive one?

Since I don't know what your scripts do, then I can't be certain.

Also, checks would not necessarily have fixed it anyway.

Checking to make sure that there are actually 16 unique .2h files in the directory rather than assuming that every new .2h file is unique would have done it in this case. You should also be checking that the inputed .2h filenames match the expected filenames. I'd also want to check the timestamps to ensure that each file is newer than the generation time of the last .trn file. This will deal with players that only resubmit their own turns, but won't deal with players who don't redo their turns from scratch. There's no way to test for that automatically. But sanity checking your inputs is basic and necessary for any program that is going to be used with input that you don't personally control.

How tyrranical should deleting a players sent file be?

Well, if the turn file isn't for the right game then it shouldn't be used. If it isn't from the right player then it shouldn't be used. This one is tricky, as some people have multiple email addresses. It's also not really possible to deal with deliberate cheating such as spoofing your email to match somebody else's. So you can usually assume that, barring malice, a turn file for a specific nation in an email that identifies which game it is for will be for that specific nation.

Whose responsibility is it to fix player errors? The server? the person running the game? the Team Captain? the player themself? If I were all of the above then of course things would probably simpler.

The more people you try to involve in the process the more complicated it gets. Players are responsible for playing their turns and submitting .2h files. In a rollback situation they are responsible for redoing turns from scratch by deleting old .2h files. The admin is responsible for fixing other errors.

[Gandalf Parker]

Also, checks would not necessarily have fixed it anyway.Checking to make sure that there are actually 16 unique .2h files in the directory rather than assuming that every new .2h file is unique would have done it in this case. You should also be checking that the inputed .2h filenames match the expected filenames. I'd also want to check the timestamps to ensure that each file is newer than the generation time of the last .trn file. This will deal with players that only resubmit their own turns, but won't deal with players who don't redo their turns from scratch. There's no way to test for that automatically. But sanity checking your inputs is basic and necessary for any program that is going to be used with input that you don't personally control.
There were 16 unique files. One player sent a late_nation.2h then corrected it by sending their early_nation.2h which gave us 16 2h files in the game directory. Of course NOW I can see where it might have been a good idea to check for 16 early_*.2h files but Im trying to keep the script generic for future use.

The time stamps are considered in a way. Actually the 2h files are wiped clean by the post-host script each time. Players can send as many turns as they want to update their actions between hosting, the latest sent will always be used.

How tyrranical should deleting a players sent file be?Well, if the turn file isn't for the right game then it shouldn't be used. If it isn't from the right player then it shouldn't be used. This one is tricky, as some people have multiple email addresses. It's also not really possible to deal with deliberate cheating such as spoofing your email to match somebody else's. So you can usually assume that, barring malice, a turn file for a specific nation in an email that identifies which game it is for will be for that specific nation.
Exactly. At the moment the easiest thing is to check, and report. Thats done for the most part. Corrupted files, ascii attachments, bad serial numbers, quickhost check, time warning emails, and now apparently wrong game needs added. Im sure something else will pop up also. As far as the emails thing that also has shown itself. We have people using multiple emails, not to mention the team arrangments which means some turns come in as team OR from private email. So at the moment, checks only write to the report files or generate emails to specific static addresses (such as the game master)

Whose responsibility is it to fix player errors? The server? the person running the game? the Team Captain? the player themself? If I were all of the above then of course things would probably simpler.The more people you try to involve in the process the more complicated it gets. Players are responsible for playing their turns and submitting .2h files. In a rollback situation they are responsible for redoing turns from scratch by deleting old .2h files. The admin is responsible for fixing other errors.
Exactly. As an old internet server admin I tend to avoid being too much hand-holding (also referrred to as tyrranical) about users files and emails unless Im specifically asked to. This is not my game.

Im also forming a new opinion on pbem. I used to consider the benefit of pbem to be all on the server side. Direct connect is much easier for players, especially newbies. And it settles so many of these problems. The advantage was much less load on the server by not having to run continually. But now that so many checks are involved kicking off on each email received Im not so sure of that by the time every possibility is written in.

[Septimius Severus]

Squirrel, my e-mail and Gandalf's is being sent to you and your captain ASAP. You can either send it me or better yet Gandalf directly. As everyone is aware we shall know if any other "revised" turns were to have come in.

Let's get this done with quickly.

[Tollund]

There were 16 unique files. One player sent a late_nation.2h then corrected it by sending their early_nation.2h which gave us 16 2h files in the game directory. Of course NOW I can see where it might have been a good idea to check for 16 early_*.2h files but Im trying to keep the script generic for future use.

Then you aren't planning to bother fixing the bug even though you know that it exists? That it will almost certainly cause problems in the future? Why are you force hosting the game when you want to run it with the quickhost flag? That would have prevented the turn from being generated if the proper .2h files weren't there.

Im also forming a new opinion on pbem. I used to consider the benefit of pbem to be all on the server side. Direct connect is much easier for players, especially newbies.

Only if you are so condescending that you assume that newbies aren't capable of emailing a .2h file and saving a .trn file while they are capable of typing in an IP address.

And it settles so many of these problems. The advantage was much less load on the server by not having to run continually. But now that so many checks are involved kicking off on each email received Im not so sure of that by the time every possibility is written in.

Why aren't you letting the game itself perform some of those checks instead of forcing it to ignore the built in error checking?

[Gandalf Parker]

There were 16 unique files. One player sent a late_nation.2h then corrected it by sending their early_nation.2h which gave us 16 2h files in the game directory. Of course NOW I can see where it might have been a good idea to check for 16 early_*.2h files but Im trying to keep the script generic for future use.

Then you aren't planning to bother fixing the bug even though you know that it exists? That it will almost certainly cause problems in the future?

I will write it into the checks.
Actually now I notice that it was already in there. The problem would have appeared on the Turns_Check.txt available for everyone to view (the only check not listed there is the check for matching serials).

If you mean do I plan to delete files sent by players to Septimius game, then no. Not unless its requested. If it was my game I might but Im not completely sure how much hand holding I would want to do then either. Maybe if it was a newbies game.

Why are you force hosting the game when you want to run it with the quickhost flag? That would have prevented the turn from being generated if the proper .2h files weren't there.Thats a really insightful question. Unfortunately the pbem version only has one hosting option. --host. There isnt actually a quickhost for pbem. Its kindof written in by us.

Im also forming a new opinion on pbem. I used to consider the benefit of pbem to be all on the server side. Direct connect is much easier for players, especially newbies.Only if you are so condescending that you assume that newbies aren't capable of emailing a .2h file and saving a .trn file while they are capable of typing in an IP address.
I try never to be condescending. But there do seem to be many more discussions involved and problems arise. In every game of first players thre is usually at least one that have to be told where to put their files, where to find their files to send, to check their spam lists for missing files, how to zip in some cases, how to attach, how to rollback. Some even end up changing their mail service due to THEIR server being too tyrranical about checking users emails and files then correcting them.

Plugging in two settings (Server and IP) still needs some explaining but I cant seem to make it be as involved as all that.

And it settles so many of these problems. The advantage was much less load on the server by not having to run continually. But now that so many checks are involved kicking off on each email received Im not so sure of that by the time every possibility is written in.Why aren't you letting the game itself perform some of those checks instead of forcing it to ignore the built in error checking?I would if I could. But the only way I can come up with for that would be the old way we played SingleAge games. Collect all the turn files, open the game in server mode, turn in the turns myself one at a time, host, then shut it down to mail out the turns.

[Septimius Severus]

Tollund, good discussion, lets keep this thread #1. Keep that postin goin! :D Can you believe we are approaching 1,000 posts? Though I don't think the "condescending" remark was called for with regard to the job Gandalf has been doing or his intent.

I have not instructed Gandalf to delete bad turns, generally since correct turns would overwrite these in many instances at least. Also, maybe because I don't handle the server side and frankly the issue of wrong age .2h files being sent has not been a problem so far. But there is the possibility of all sorts of crazy things players can send in. An oversight, perhaps. Condescendence, I don't think so.

Gandalf has implemented quite a few checks in fact already. The lessons learned will be applied to future games I am sure. I for one am excited quite frankly at the prospect of possibly being able to play Dom3 via both direct connect and PBEM in the same game, at the same time, in game 2, if all works out.

[Septimius Severus]

Actually, I found PBEM easier for me as a noob, that direct connect business is still a mystery to me. Never even tried it. But I can understand that there can be many more issues regarding noobs and PBEM games, if not we wouldn't need a Llamaserver FAQ or anything of that sort.

[Gandalf Parker]

Well there are always some available on my server. :)
http://www.dom3minions.com/HostedGames.htm
The games with AIs can even be played by just one human player.

[Septimius Severus]

Well there are always some available on my server. :)
http://www.dom3minions.com/HostedGames.htm
The games with AIs can even be played by just one human player.

Well, what do ya know. I tried it and was easy to connect and get going (the network tab starts with the dom3 server address already in there), perhaps even easier than moving files around and so forth with PBEM. All you need is a port number and a premade pretender. Wonder if for slower connections though, PBEM would be the way to go.

Well a marriage of these two types of connection and play methods would be excellent if we can pull it off. :up:

[DrPraetorious]

So this is a new turn that we can actually play?

I got screwed over again with the rehost - had an air jarl and a good event, now no.

[Gandalf Parker]

Well there are always some available on my server. :)
http://www.dom3minions.com/HostedGames.htm
The games with AIs can even be played by just one human player.

Well, what do ya know. I tried it and was easy to connect and get going (the network tab starts with the dom3 server address already in there), perhaps even easier than moving files around and so forth with PBEM. All you need is a port number and a premade pretender.
Yep. Basically its the same as playing solo.

Wonder if for slower connections though, PBEM would be the way to go.
About the same actually. The game still operates the same way. Its not doing any more talking to the server than with pbem. All the processing is still at your end until you hit end-turn, then it sends it. But the instant send and instant receive of files makes it perfect for blitz games where a few people want to play the whole game in one day.

Well a marriage of these two types of connection and play methods would be excellent if we can pull it off. :up:
New territory. I wouldnt mind some email conversations with other people who have admined Dom3 games about how that can best be accomplished. Especially if they also know linux.

[rdonj]

Well of misery, huh?

[chrispedersen]

Well, we do have to *try* to keep up with you devas on gem production.

We know you guys are winning - but we *are* trying to make a game of it.

[Immaculate]

My replacement subs have yet to respond. What should i do? I really don't want to set to AI.

[rdonj]

Sure, we're winning on the graphs. But we're also winning on the hate, too :D And ACGHHS has much better research overall. I think we're pretty evenly matched at this point.

Of course, you guys are probably much closer to tartarian factories.

[AlgaeNymph]

I got turn 32 again, could I get a resend?

[chrispedersen]

32 is what we're on....

[rdonj]

Yes, 32 is the correct turn.

[Gandalf Parker]

32 had to be "redone" so yes you would have gotten it twice. Be sure to use the latest one.

[GrudgeBringer]

Do we reload the 'new' 32 and resend it in untouched or do we just do nothing?

[rdonj]

The new 32 should be played as any normal turn. I.E., do the turn from scratch and send it in. Make sure to use the newest turn 32 or you will screw everything up and we'll have to do another rollback :P

Just to reiterate: 32 is a new turn! Treat it as such.

[Septimius Severus]

My replacement subs have yet to respond. What should i do? I really don't want to set to AI.
Immaculate, I did want to get this rehost done and out of the way quickly so that you could at least get in one more turn before you went.

The burden of responsibility for finding replacements is generally split between the player and the Captain, with the primary responsibility resting ultimately on the Captain (since the Captain is in charge of the team). As admin I assist in this with alternates at the very beginning of the game and I also try to assist during the game as best I can without interfering too much.

Generally, setting a single player AI on a human team is to be avoided if possible. If a replacement cannot be found in the short term, other team members can receive and play your turn for you (although key violations may result) or worst case, it can be set AI, your fellow team members would then just need to cannibilize your territory as quickly as possible. We can also institute a delay if the other players are happy with it till a replacement is found. If the nation in question is small or not of much concern, your Captain may even opt for a few stales.

I've sent a few PM's out and will continue to do what I can to assist teams as much as I am able. Let's all do what we can to help out Immaculate and get another player into the game.

[Septimius Severus]

Rdonj and Chris are correct on the current turn and the method for handling it. The last .trn file in your e-mail is the one that you should use. If anyone has a question about whether they are using the correct .trn file (if you've deleted it by mistake or something), please don't hesitate to contact Gandalf or myself and we will be happy to provide you another copy of the current turn for your nation.

Chris, I am aware of your reporting of an earlier possible incident. Last time you mentioned it of course, I could not confirm, and based upon my observations I didn't see the problem so I had to rely on Gandalf's opinion. This time however, I did notice an issue with server and Gandalf confirmed it. I don't want you thinking I didn't believe you or anything like that. :)

[rdonj]

I don't think AIing immaculate is really an option. If he goes AI his entire team might as well go AI with him. TNN is the strongest position on their team, and the only one with anything resembling decent research other than TC. Without TNN I don't see how they could even survive much less win this game.

If it becomes necessary to set someone on their team AI, I suggest that it be TC, as they seem to be in a somewhat dire position at the moment. If not TC, then any other nation on their team EXCEPT TNN or they are screwed. And that player can take over for immaculate.

[Septimius Severus]

I don't think AIing immaculate is really an option. If he goes AI his entire team might as well go AI with him. TNN is the strongest position on their team, and the only one with anything resembling decent research other than TC. Without TNN I don't see how they could even survive much less win this game.

If it becomes necessary to set someone on their team AI, I suggest that it be TC, as they seem to be in a somewhat dire position at the moment. If not TC, then any other nation on their team EXCEPT TNN or they are screwed. And that player can take over for immaculate.

Yep, TNN is the whole team sort of. That is of course another option available to the Captain. It is the Captain's call ultimately. Algae is the boss. Hopefully we can all lend a hand and this won't be necessary.

Grudge, I'm curious as to your opinion. Which method of playing and connecting do you prefer? PBEM or direct connect.

[Immaculate]

i am so sorry for this confusion.

[chrispedersen]

I really feel that setting any team member to AI is a death knell for that team. Personally I'd rather the team captain cover the position until a replacement can be found.

[AlgaeNymph]

Playing both nations? I suppose I can do that.

[Frozen Lama]

Fear the CD key error!

[Immaculate]

i sent a message to you algaenymph- didn't you get it? Stagger lee will adopt one of the positions on our team.

[Stagger Lee]

Hey folks! I sent my email to AlgaeNymph and to Septimus Severus.

I will monitor this thread in case there's a problem.

I am a very new player and I'm looking forward to learning from all of you distinguished and accomplished players. And you too pyg - hello again! :)

Good luck to Immaculate. And thanks in advance to Gandalf - this will be my first time using his server.

[Immaculate]

I got the turn for Tirnanog this turn. The admins have to set the player e-mail to Stagger Lee's. Stagger- you get to watch what your army is made up of... the battle that it shows this turn is a pretty good idea of the firepower you'll be throwing around (well, one arm of it anyway). Hope you enjoy. I'm going to PM you a little secret.

[Gandalf Parker]

OUCH
Please dont judge my server by this game. :)
PBEM (Play by EMail) is abit experimental for me. Most of the games on my server play more like solo games.
http://www.dom3minions.com/HostedGames.htm

Gandalf Parker

[chrispedersen]

Huh, the game hosted?

On separate note (and for the third time request) can we update the header page so the link for stales works?

[rdonj]

God sept, you and your cheating. :P

[Septimius Severus]

Huh, the game hosted?

On separate note (and for the third time request) can we update the header page so the link for stales works?

Looks to me like all .2h files came in, last one to come in was Caelum. No stales. That is good.

Chris, the staling link on our header page works and is accurate as far as I can tell and the last time I checked. The only thing is it says turn '0' all the time. I've asked Gandalf to see if he could get that number to update regularly, but otherwise the staling information is accurate as of the current turn.

http://www.dom3minions.com/~nav/stats.txt

Statistics for game 'NaV' turn 0

Arcoscephale played this turn
Ermor is computer controlled
Ulm played this turn
Sauromatia played this turn
T'ien Ch'i played this turn
Mictlan played this turn
Caelum played this turn
Pangaea played this turn
Tir na n'Og played this turn
Fomoria played this turn
Vanheim played this turn
Helheim played this turn
Niefelheim played this turn
Kailasa played this turn
Yomi played this turn
Hinnom played this turn
Lanka played this turn

[rdonj]

Oh, and welcome to the game stagger lee. I wish you well, though not too well ;)

[chrispedersen]

Whose interested in turn 0?

[Septimius Severus]

Whose interested in turn 0?

I know, it says turn '0' but the stats therein are actually for the current turn. I don't know why. I've spoken to Gandalf about it.

Welcome Stagger.

Team roster update:

Stagger Lee will be replacing Immaculate as Tir na Nog for the Blesseds.

[rdonj]

Hey, you forgot to mark c'tis/ermor as dead. :)

[Septimius Severus]

Hey, you forgot to mark c'tis/ermor as dead. :)

Updating the main post now. Ermor is still alive. C'tis and Agartha are officially dead. Those poor souls. They fought the good fight and now they are dead. :shock:

[Squirrelloid]

I sent a substantial sum of gold to Mictlan which seems to have never arrived. This is rather unnerving.

Is Fomoria pirating our cash shipments, and his 'unexplained increase in wealth' is the result of his nefarious pillaging? Is the explanation rather more bizarre or simply benign?

Regardless, its demonstrable that, given the buys made in my submitted turn, it does not account for my income during that turn. My submitted turn also ended with 0 gold as would be plainly evident by someone examining the 2h file. As messages cannot be reviewed (seriously, whose bright idea was that? Its absolutely moronic), I can't actually look at the messages to confirm the message was sent as advertised, but the cash is most assuredly missing.

[Septimius Severus]

I sent a substantial sum of gold to Mictlan which seems to have never arrived. This is rather unnerving.

Is Fomoria pirating our cash shipments, and his 'unexplained increase in wealth' is the result of his nefarious pillaging? Is the explanation rather more bizarre or simply benign?

Regardless, its demonstrable that, given the buys made in my submitted turn, it does not account for my income during that turn. My submitted turn also ended with 0 gold as would be plainly evident by someone examining the 2h file. As messages cannot be reviewed (seriously, whose bright idea was that? Its absolutely moronic), I can't actually look at the messages to confirm the message was sent as advertised, but the cash is most assuredly missing.

How dare you Squirreloid! I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked! :shock: at such charges. :D

Seriously though, rollbacks may cause oddities to happen that is the only explanation I can think of. The only possible remedy to such things is to implement further rollbacks which would doubtless compound the problems. Rather than getting mired in rollback after rollback or rolling back multiple turns, we should probably just press on and try to avoid them in the future. It was for your benefit, although is was not your fault that it was needed.

[chrispedersen]

Sorry Sep, this isn't sufficient.

Not only did I not get money - we did not get magic items.
Restating this - at least two magic items were sent, that did not get received by any of our team.

We understand the problems that rollbacks cause but the cause of the rollback was not *us*.

However, in the interests of causing the *Minimal* amount of disruption to the game, we are willing to submit our turns to melnorjr or gandalf. We are willing to cancel or change only the transfer orders (transfer of gold, magic items). We are willing to have him do the changes, to guarantee that that is the only thing that changes.

[Squirrelloid]

I have bug reported this. It appears there is a 20 message limit, after which all further messages disappear into the ether. This is not documented *anywhere* that I can find, and there is no warning that the 21st+ message will not be received.

Re:Chris's suggestion
I am certainly willing to provide instructions supplemental to the manifest actions in my 2h file regarding sending of things to my teammates. The poor message interface makes this hard to correct without redoing the turn from scratch, unfortunately, but should a neutral party be willing to recreate my turn as previously done excepting the sending of some items, I will accomodate such a plan.

[rdonj]

Hey, you forgot to mark c'tis/ermor as dead. :)

Updating the main post now. Ermor is still alive. C'tis and Agartha are officially dead. Those poor souls. They fought the good fight and now they are dead. :shock:

Wow, did I say ermor? I corrected myself internally at least 3 times :/

Team ACGHHS issues...

Ugh! You're all just jealous about that longbow of accuracy I got off of a lucky event this turn, admit it :( Stop breaking the game, squirrel!

I am willing to grant you guys this rollback, but seriously, this is just too much. I am not looking forward to having to redo this turn (it's already basically done, pending some possible alterations tomorrow that probably won't occur). And I am certain there are people with worse turns than me. At least last turn we all knew there was something screwy going on before anyone even took a look at their turn files.

And let us make sure someone is willing to do your turn for you before we decide anything about a rollback. Also, let's make sure you didn't accidentally send the items to someone else. This can easily happen, and if it did there is certainly no reason to do a rollback.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I really hate rollbacks. I'm just waiting to see what my team is cheated out of getting this time.

[DrPraetorious]

The 20 msg. thing is a known bug and certainly not a rollback issue. There was a pre-rollback turn, did the items/money arrive during that turn?


I suppose that it isn't in the documentation, and probably should be. Sometimes people abuse it. But the Vet on your team certainly should've known about it.

[GrudgeBringer]

I don't usually get involved in all this as I am the least likely to come up with a solution (as I am computer challenged). And for the fact that I am on the team with Chris and Squirrel.

However, I spend as much time as anyone doing my turn , and to be honest with you I never realized the amount of Micro-management a team game would take (although I did help finish up one of these games as a sub).

I am NOT accusing anyone of anything OR am I critiquing Gandolph's server, but I have played games with these guys and know that when something is 'forgotten' or just plain missed, they just grumble and go on.

I am privy to the 'inter office mail' and trust me, they discussed EVERY possible reason why these things COULD have happened and was it their fault.

I don't want to redo the Dang turn either, but these are not SMALL glitches, these are Major problems for individuals and as a team strategy.

I don't think anyone has ever challenged my word when I give it in this game and I am the first to dismiss crying, and whining in a game.

In this case though it seems warranted, and we need to scrutinize what the heck IS going on as I also don't have the time to keep messing with this every turn as I am in other games also.

Just an opinion gentlemen from the peanut gallery, but if we are going to keep this game going....we need to address it NOW.

Thank you:(

[Squirrelloid]

The 20 msg. thing is a known bug and certainly not a rollback issue. There was a pre-rollback turn, did the items/money arrive during that turn?

This is from the last turn's hosting, which doesn't have anything to do with the former rollback.

As to it being a known bug... Known to whom? Documented where? I looked through the Bug List that is maintained by Edi and did not see a single mention of it. A search for 'message limit' and 'messages limit' of the forums revealed no pertinent hits.

In fact, given that I've seen 'overflowing your opponent's lab with sent items so he can't forge' listed as an exploit, which sort of implies you can send 50 items, I was rather surprised that this limit exists and had no reason to believe such a thing was so. There's even a post (from 2007) asking about reviewing messages that specifically states messages can be shown as 1-99 messages sent. 99 messages is a lot more than 20! That was the most relevant hit I generated on my forum searches, and it implies the exact opposite of what you're saying is a 'known bug'.

Surely you can't say that a bug which doesn't occur in the bug list, and cannot be searched for reasonably on the forums, is something that is particularly 'known' to exist - either in general or to specific persons. At least in my experience, a known bug is both well-documented and a description of the bug is readily available, such as in a sticky.

[DrPraetorious]

There's a limit of 20 outgoing and 20 incoming parcels, I believe. This isn't quite the same as messages. I've been making an effort to keep well away from the limit all game.

Point is, this isn't an error by the host or by the hosting machinery, it's an error *by the players* and we can't do rollbacks on that. This is one of the game's more severe and poorly understood quirks, but it's something you can and should plan around. If you failed to do so, tough.

So, obviously, I vote against / object to / do not want a rollback.

[Gandalf Parker]

As with most fiery arguments, definitions are needed.

One of the 20 message limit is a sending limit.
That is easily testable. Send 20 messages of just A and it will not let you send any more (be sure to delete them before hitting end-turn)

The Max Message Limit is a misleading number since it involves everything you see in the Messages display such as events, death match, castings, slave collection, etc. That number is quite high.

The maximum number of "player messages" between players is a separate limit and I dont remember what its set at. But its much below the max for the message display itself or the exploit for flooding would not be such a problem. The log records them as pmsg (there were 41 in the last hosting)

(and most of our rollbacks have been player error) :)
Player error is a pain for rollbacks. So is rolling back if the game itself does something screwy. But it isnt as big a problem as player manipulation. If it cant be verified that the player did something which the game ignored then it could be used to roll-back and get new random rolls on bad events or even battles. Im not saying this is the case. Im only pointing out that it can be bad precedent to rollback for things that cannot be verified as an error by the host IMHO.

[Stagger Lee]

You know, when I posted that thread last week - the one about the rollback that screwed up so many things and was turning a fun newbie game into a miserable chore - some of you were kind enough to answer with sage advice and lent the benefit of your years of experience just to help me.

And now, you're reenacting a soul-sapping rollback here, one can only assume for my benefit alone! Thank you for showing a poor noob how it should be done! ;)

[Septimius Severus]

I strongly doubt there would have been any cheating involved in the past turn (as squirreloid stated it was the turn before this one that was rolled back) especially since the only ones with access to all these files are myself, Gandalf, and Melnorjr. All four turns and the 2h files being sent to a single e-mail it is possible that a mistake was made by a player.

My turn, I did notice a slight oddity, but I can't be certain that I did not make a mistake and throw away something by mistake. My laboratory lost an item or two, but all my orders were carried out and I noticed no other odd behaviour. Despite this, though I think we should try to forge ahead, as Admin I've just got to keep things moving, grumbling or not. The game's important to me, but really I just love to play, but I am not really interested in haggling or squabbling over every single detail at the cost of risking everything else (and you guys know how much I loving debating) and winning is not paramount to me.

Therefore, I strongly advise against another rollback right now and that we play the current turn out and see what happens next turn. If there is any major oddness that takes place next turn, well then, we can look into a rollback or other measure that might be taken if the majority agree.

If this is not sufficient, well then you know we have a mechanism to handle this, it's called a poll (gotta love em). :) Depending upon the response to what I have said one can certainly be set up on our team forums. You guys let me know.

[chrispedersen]

There's a limit of 20 outgoing and 20 incoming parcels, I believe. This isn't quite the same as messages. I've been making an effort to keep well away from the limit all game.

Point is, this isn't an error by the host or by the hosting machinery, it's an error *by the players* and we can't do rollbacks on that. This is one of the game's more severe and poorly understood quirks, but it's something you can and should plan around. If you failed to do so, tough.

So, obviously, I vote against / object to / do not want a rollback.

First, you post that the bug is well known and well understood.
Then you admit that you *don't* know what the bug is, and the error is severe and poorly understood. And to date, neither you, nor the game administrator, nor Gandalf, nor any other team leader have displayed a consistent understanding of what the bug is.

Second. We are playing a game, the rules of the game are published - in the rule book and in the errata. We play by the rules.

When the game acts in manners that are not in accordance with those rules - then the game has been bugged. Just as if all of your casters suddenly became specters - or if recruits were no longer allowed. To say that you will vote against new turn submissions in one case is to say that you are against turn submissions in *all* cases.

We are playing to decide this contest by the rules, not to have the contest decided by bug.

Third. Roll backs are not to be taken lightly. Our team did not ask for a roll back on the turn when squirrels armies did not move. Think about that. His armies did not move. Thats a pretty big disadvantage -but we accepted it, noted it, and moved on.

Therefore, if we ask for a roll back at this time, the issue must be more serious.

Fourth. You believe that no rollback should be issued - as the vet should have known about it.

To answer that point, I have two responses.
A. No team is going to seriously disadvantage themselves by deliberatly putting themselves at a severe handicap. The fact that we did is pretty much prima facie evidence that we didn't know about it.

B. Not only vets have to know about this bug. Players have to know also. There is no way for a vet to review a turn and know that the player has exceeded the message limit.

Recapitulating: the game has been disturbed by a bug, which is acknowledged as severe and poorly understood. IT significantly affected the game. There is minimal to no downside to your team, or to the game as a whole in fixing it.

I don't understand your objection. IF the point is secure a victory for your team, why don't we just concede so you can have your victory?

If the point is to administer a contest of skill according to the rules as written -whats your objection?

[Gandalf Parker]

A bug not agreed upon is not necessarily a bug not understood.

There are bug experts. Such as in the IRC group. Maybe one of them would be willing to view the turn files we received and verify that it seems to have happened.

But unless they can point out something which might avoid it in the future, do you feel that you should roll back every time someone says something didnt happen with their turn? If its general to everyone then maybe it can be RPG'd as bad bureucracy.

[Squirrelloid]

There's a limit of 20 outgoing and 20 incoming parcels, I believe. This isn't quite the same as messages. I've been making an effort to keep well away from the limit all game.

Point is, this isn't an error by the host or by the hosting machinery, it's an error *by the players* and we can't do rollbacks on that. This is one of the game's more severe and poorly understood quirks, but it's something you can and should plan around. If you failed to do so, tough.

So, obviously, I vote against / object to / do not want a rollback.

And where is one supposed to learn of said bug? It doesn't appear to be documented anywhere. Its certainly not on Edi's bug list, not that comprehensive knowledge of the bug list can really be expected of everyone (but i've read the whole thing twice now). How can I plan around something I have no idea exists and have no method of learning about?

For the record, this rollback isn't going to be great for me. I'm going to lose a rather nice gold event, and given my scales its probably not going to happen again. I also won a combat that was by no means guaranteed, which would get re-rolled.

A bug not agreed upon is not necessarily a bug not understood.

There are bug experts. Such as in the IRC group. Maybe one of them would be willing to view the turn files we received and verify that it seems to have happened.

But unless they can point out something which might avoid it in the future, do you feel that you should roll back every time someone says something didnt happen with their turn? If its general to everyone then maybe it can be RPG'd as bad bureucracy.

My point was that, not only was I obviously not aware of said bug, there is no reasonable way I could have been aware of said bug since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned once on the forums in a way that is even plausibly searchable. Assuming I had any reason to suspect it existed in the first place.

As to the second, would you like to review my .trn file and .2h file from last turn - i can provide a list of everything sent (which can be confirmed as not on commanders or in labs) and purchases made (which can be confirmed by reviewing recruitment queues) and cash remaining (Starting cash - purchases = money sent by necessity). You could then review messages received by Mictlan and Arco and determine that exactly 20 messages were received, and which items were not among them.

[Septimius Severus]

Squirrel, if it is not a bug or bug related to these rollbacks what exactly are you suggesting it is? A Server error? Cheating?

Team ACGHHS. I've stated my opinion/resolve that we not do another rollback right now (lest we cause further issues or get mired down). Let's see what happens next turn and if this behaviour occurs again.

However, if you guys want and to be fair, Chris can send me a PM on behalf of your team I will open an offical poll on our team forum. That is the only way I know to decide this in the absence of confirmation by Gandalf of a specific server error. I am sorry guys but I am just the admin and don't handle server errors if this is one of them. I'm willing to eat my own issue just for peace and expediency sake.

Come now, we've been through too much together. :D

[DrPraetorious]

Wasn't Chrispedersen in Kingmaker? Or one of that series of all-age megagames? Every one of them had a rule to prevent this from happening. So anyone who was in any of those games (and this certainly includes the vet advisors if it doesn't include the vets) should know that there is an inbox limit.

There *should be* a rule in effect, in all large games, against trying to jam the inbox of an opposing player with crap (i.e., sending them 20 slave collars) to prevent them from moving items between allies. I just noticed that we don't have such a rule here - sending unsolicited items to members of an opposing team is an exploit and we should not allow it, and we should institute a rule against it.

That said, it's a well known exploit among anyone who played in any of the megagames. The exact hows and whyfores are only known by a few people (I think Hadrian did a study?), but this game has a lot of undocumented quirks, incl. the way movement works when two armies try to attack one another, for example. I'm sorry if people don't know all the quirks to the game, but as a *matter of principle* we cannot have rollbacks for people who don't know the quirks. You're right that the quirks aren't well documented and it isn't fair that you weren't told about them. Suck it up.

That said, best practice would be to post a poll on doing another rollback. I'm pretty sure the vote would be "no" but if you guys insist on this, I agree with Sept that we should post a poll.

[rdonj]

You know, when I posted that thread last week - the one about the rollback that screwed up so many things and was turning a fun newbie game into a miserable chore - some of you were kind enough to answer with sage advice and lent the benefit of your years of experience just to help me.

And now, you're reenacting a soul-sapping rollback here, one can only assume for my benefit alone! Thank you for showing a poor noob how it should be done! ;)

Yes, I know :( I was more or less okay with the first rollback we did, although really, a stale turn is not that big of a deal most turns. Personally I would have just eaten it. This one is... eh... we can't all seem to agree on what sort of error it is. I would rather have rolled back this turn in a way, because I think it's probably had more negative impact on the player in question. Rolling back BOTH turns in such a close timeframe is really grating on my nerves. I personally do not like rollbacks, both because they can bring up a lot of issues and because they also are good time wasters :P


I should have known when the turn hosted so quickly it was too good to be true.

[GrudgeBringer]

I joined this game because I wanted to learn from some of the best players in the game. All are well respected, and amaze me with the info at their fingertips on any question I would want to ask.

As Stagger Lee said, we just went thru this in a somewhat noob game called D+G (David and Goliath)as we have a mixture of semi vets and semi noobs.

We had to roll back twice as weird things were happening and finally got it right (one guy Lost a Capitol, got it back and lost it agian).

There was no poll, argument, or anger. They all just wanted to know how to fix it right and get on with it...which we did and everyone seems happy as there has not been one complaint.

I am disappointed that there is such a uproar over a Bug (or non-bug), and we have spent more time arguing over what we should do than it would take to roll the d*** thing back, tell everyone what the problem is and get on with it.

Ya know, if you take 10 kids and give them a ball and leave them alone....they will chose sides and make their own rules that even out the playing field for both sides.

I only say this because it seems that winning is more important than playing this game. And everybody is looking at everyone else like they are cheating or perhaps using tactics that are known to some but not others.

Well, the roll backs didn't affect me in one way or the other, and I am OK with another rollback. Is it because I am on that team? I submit that you look at my 'Friends list' I have only asked 1 of those to be a friend. The rest have asked me as I NEVER..EVER break my word in a game, even if I have to sit there and just click a turn because I am hemmed in.

I am disappointed that the people I admire most in this game don't have the sense those 10 kids have, and winning is more important than playing and perhaps teaching some of us how to be better.

I resign from this game effective yesterday, not because of my team, and not because of all of your bickering. I resign because you guys have forgotten how to make rules that even the playing field for all those 10 kids. If getting this good in this game makes me like this, then I will continue to ask my friends the questions i need to ask and stay with the semi noobs.

Thank you gentlemen for the lesson and good luck to all of you:sick:

[Gandalf Parker]

Personally I play mostly solo. On 3 different servers. I dont think there is a single long-running game that doesnt show some quirk. Even ones that crash the game during hosting (knock on virtual wood).

There is apparently some advantage to only playing blitzes for some people. The game ends with no quirks..

As for people who wish to leave I have no problem with that.
I tend to think to myself how interesting it will be when they start a game and manage it. :)

[chrispedersen]

Wasn't Chrispedersen in Kingmaker? Or one of that series of all-age megagames? Every one of them had a rule to prevent this from happening. So anyone who was in any of those games (and this certainly includes the vet advisors if it doesn't include the vets) should know that there is an inbox limit.

There *should be* a rule in effect, in all large games, against trying to jam the inbox of an opposing player with crap (i.e., sending them 20 slave collars) to prevent them from moving items between allies. I just noticed that we don't have such a rule here - sending unsolicited items to members of an opposing team is an exploit and we should not allow it, and we should institute a rule against it.

That said, it's a well known exploit among anyone who played in any of the megagames. The exact hows and whyfores are only known by a few people (I think Hadrian did a study?), but this game has a lot of undocumented quirks, incl. the way movement works when two armies try to attack one another, for example. I'm sorry if people don't know all the quirks to the game, but as a *matter of principle* we cannot have rollbacks for people who don't know the quirks. You're right that the quirks aren't well documented and it isn't fair that you weren't told about them. Suck it up.

That said, best practice would be to post a poll on doing another rollback. I'm pretty sure the vote would be "no" but if you guys insist on this, I agree with Sept that we should post a poll.

DrP: Everyone knows that you should not be allowed to overfill an opponents inbox.

You have to be making a conscious decision to misrepresent what the argument is about.

This isn't about sending 50+ items to an enemy, and having a policy to prevent that.

In a single player game it is no longer even possible (apparently) to guarantee over filling an opponents box.

As soon as you click on an item to send to a team member, (in excess of 20) the item vanishes, and even deleting the messages will not return it to you.

This is about sending 23 or 25 or 27 items, gems, or text messages, and having the items and gems *disappear*.

So for example if you send 5 types of gems to team member A, 2 items, slaves, and a text message, and slaves, 4 types of gems, 2 messages, and 7 items to team member b

---->items go away<-----

And no, frankly, after hearing you moan about luck events we're not just going to suck it up. Practise what you preach.

[Squirrelloid]

Squirrel, if it is not a bug or bug related to these rollbacks what exactly are you suggesting it is? A Server error? Cheating?

Its a game bug related to the message system that has an undocumented limit on the number of messages (parcels? whatever) you send, provides no warning that you have reached that limit, deletes further sent objects from the game without even bothering to tell you, and happily lets you continue to choose the 'send gems/items/etc..' action in the message screen.

I would class this as a severe gameplay bug.

[Gandalf Parker]

It does seem to allow you to make more messages beyond the limit.
The only warning is that the counter on that menu stops at 20 without advancing when you make messages above that.

[chrispedersen]

It does seem to allow you to make more messages beyond the limit.
The only warning is that the counter on that menu stops at 20 without advancing when you make messages above that.

What is this limit? Nowhere is there a mention about message limits.

Thats really better phrased as:

It really does seem be a bug. It does delete all items, messages, and slaves sent in excess of 20.

[Gandalf Parker]

Its there on the screen when you make the messages. When you send a message it says "1 message sent". It will say that up to 20. On the 21st message it wont increment saying it sent the message. Go ahead and test it now (then delete all messages before accidentally hitting end)

I agree that isnt very clear but Im not sure if it would be best to call it a bug if you want to post about it in the stickies.
It would be safest to call it a wishlist item and request that Johan have it not delete items that dont get delivered.

[chrispedersen]

Since squirrel reported it here, I've tested it many many times.
A limit which can be exceeded isn't really a limit is it?

[Squirrelloid]

Its there on the screen when you make the messages. When you send a message it says "1 message sent". It will say that up to 20. On the 21st message it wont increment saying it sent the message. Go ahead and test it now (then delete all messages before accidentally hitting end)

I agree that isnt very clear but Im not sure if it would be best to call it a bug if you want to post about it in the stickies.
It would be safest to call it a wishlist item and request that Johan have it not delete items that dont get delivered.

Deleting all messages will not return the contents of the 21st.

Also, there are plenty of display issues in dom3. It was not immediately clear that just because display stopped at 20 meant the actual number of messages sent was capped at 20. (For example: all of income, army size, and dominion have a maximum display value in the score graphs. Those values can be exceeded, but the scoregraph will flatline at that maximum).

Nor is deleting the contents the expected output in such a case - the expected output would be a return of the sent objects to the location from which they came (lab, treasury, etc..), and the game telling you that no more messages can be sent.

[Micah]

The reason it's not on the bug list is probably because everyone it happens to shrugs, learns their lesson, and resolves never to do it again instead of thinking to post about it. That was certainly how I handled finding out about the message limit.

And as Gandalf said, the message counter not incrementing tipped me off to it being fishy, so I went and tested it before submitting my turn. Again, never occurred to me that it was a severe bug, just another case of the GUI sucking.

[Gandalf Parker]

It might also not be on the bug list because some people have years of experience with Johan and Kristoffer. Some things are "it works the way I have it working". And pushing the opinion that its bugged is not productive. In fact, quite the opposite. On the other hand, making it a wishlist item and requesting a change has been known to be effective.

But its probably moot anyway with the new project they are working on so continue as you wish.

[Stagger Lee]

Did anybody notice Grudge just quit?

[Gandalf Parker]

Hopefully not.
Just quitting a game is one of the few things that create a reputation that does follow you from game to game without anyone arguing that it shouldnt. There are multiple things that could be done if someone wants out of a game.

[Squirrelloid]

It might also not be on the bug list because some people have years of experience with Johan and Kristoffer. Some things are "it works the way I have it working". And pushing the opinion that its bugged is not productive. In fact, quite the opposite. On the other hand, making it a wishlist item and requesting a change has been known to be effective.

But its probably moot anyway with the new project they are working on so continue as you wish.

What do you subscribe to, the Nelson School of computer programming? (You found the 'screw you' feature, HA HA!) In what world is the described behavior 'intended' or 'acceptable'?

I'm sorry, I really don't understand the 'its not a bug' camp. I accept shoddy UI despite it being for a game that costs quite a bit of money despite its age, but this type of program behavior should be considered unacceptable in a commercial product. But this is not just bad UI - bad UI is it being unintuitive on how to get the program to perform a particular action; it is not being misled that you've performed a specific action when in reality something totally different and unannounced had occurred.

Proper behavior in this case would just to stop you from sending a 21st message. Period. Anything else is a bug.

[Illuminated One]

Well, I think that the game eating stuff that it never sends is certainly buggy. I'd certainly say though if you sent more than 20 messages ssuming that the display no longer increasing after 20 was only a display issue that's your own fault.
If that wasn't the case then I think it's better to have a rollback than to get on with the game where one team is hit by a nasty bug. I personally hate rollbacks though, and if there is any way to recompensate for it in another way (i.e. a third party could check the messages and every team could send 1/4 of the missing money to you) this would be actually better.

[Frozen Lama]

My two cents- i agree with what GB said. and i think this game just needs to end. since i have had no sub yet, i've been playing my turns anyways, but at this point, it needs to be shut down. i will not be subbmitting any further turns, and i urge you all to just drop the game before people get angry.

[GrudgeBringer]

Yeah me too FL.

I appreciate the good advice Gandolph but I think i'll take my chances that my 'reputation' will stay intact if I quit this game. Everyone who has played with me or knows me has seen me fight on with Guerrila warfare after my last territory is gone, and it takes 2 to 3 small armies to pin me down. I don't quit games that are being played,

If not....I can always direct them to this thread, where the Titans and the Gods decided to do battle, but instead squabbled over points of the game that don't need to be argued over.

What the heck do you guys mean "you should have known about the 'bug' that's NOT a bug because some know about it. And they shrug their shoulders and go on"?


IF, it was SP you would already have written a report (or whatever you do) and started the game over after perhaps testing it.

Thank you Stagger for noticing my post that I'm sure was dismissed by the rest of the group as I am a mere mortal and not one of the 'Titans', and as I listen more and more to the rhetoric about this... the more I am determined to not be caught up in it.

I will not let my team or my Captain down as I will wait until a sub is found, lets just find it quick please.

I will use a phrase from Sports Center for you US players and one that will make no sense to our brothers in other parts of the world.....C'MON MAN!!!!!

[rdonj]

I joined this game because I wanted to learn from some of the best players in the game. All are well respected, and amaze me with the info at their fingertips on any question I would want to ask.

As Stagger Lee said, we just went thru this in a somewhat noob game called D+G (David and Goliath)as we have a mixture of semi vets and semi noobs.

We had to roll back twice as weird things were happening and finally got it right (one guy Lost a Capitol, got it back and lost it agian).

There was no poll, argument, or anger. They all just wanted to know how to fix it right and get on with it...which we did and everyone seems happy as there has not been one complaint.

I am disappointed that there is such a uproar over a Bug (or non-bug), and we have spent more time arguing over what we should do than it would take to roll the d*** thing back, tell everyone what the problem is and get on with it.

Ya know, if you take 10 kids and give them a ball and leave them alone....they will chose sides and make their own rules that even out the playing field for both sides.

I only say this because it seems that winning is more important than playing this game. And everybody is looking at everyone else like they are cheating or perhaps using tactics that are known to some but not others.

Well, the roll backs didn't affect me in one way or the other, and I am OK with another rollback. Is it because I am on that team? I submit that you look at my 'Friends list' I have only asked 1 of those to be a friend. The rest have asked me as I NEVER..EVER break my word in a game, even if I have to sit there and just click a turn because I am hemmed in.

I am disappointed that the people I admire most in this game don't have the sense those 10 kids have, and winning is more important than playing and perhaps teaching some of us how to be better.

I resign from this game effective yesterday, not because of my team, and not because of all of your bickering. I resign because you guys have forgotten how to make rules that even the playing field for all those 10 kids. If getting this good in this game makes me like this, then I will continue to ask my friends the questions i need to ask and stay with the semi noobs.

Thank you gentlemen for the lesson and good luck to all of you:sick:

I hope you are not directing this at me. Because my dislike of the rollback has nothing to do with wanting to win (actually I am the least competitive person in the entire world). It does, however, have everything to do with having an irrational hatred of rollbacks having seen the drama and issues they create in almost every game that they're given in.

I don't think anyone else is complaining about a rollback because they want to win either. Rollbacks are just bad business.


And no, frankly, after hearing you moan about luck events we're not just going to suck it up. Practise what you preach.

Eh? Sure, we've complained about losing luck events, but I don't see how that's relevant. We have never asked for a rollback because a rollback removed a very nice lucky event, or destroyed one of our really nice units. Dr P, for example, on the first rollback had a particularly good commander diseased by rain of toads which didn't affect it the first time around. I guess I just don't understand what this is about.


And for the record, I too have been significantly losing interest in this game, due in no small part to the rollbacks :P

[GrudgeBringer]

If you reread the post I just sent I think you will see that I am NOT singling out anyone. I am just disappointed that all this we are going thru goes on at the level of play that you super vets play at.

It doesn't go on in the lower games for the most part, but we don't know all the ins and outs like you guys do.

I think everyone is losing interest for one reason or another and I feel sorry for Sept and all those who worked so hard to put this together. But if you look back at this game we have had defections from some pretty heavy hitters as well as some lower on the totem pole.

Why....No idea, unless its the stress of the captains having to make sure we actually do listen to them and do amount of work put in each turn. And then have to roll it back.

I like my team and for the most part am in other games with each of them. I just don't like all the bickering between players as I also play with a bunch of them and we have good relationships which I will not allow to be torn apart because of a game I really don't understand. ALL I WANTED TO DO WAS LEARN ABOUT THIS GAME, I already know how to B**** about things.

[DrPraetorious]

I also think we are devoting far too much verbiage to this. Since it's clear that we're not going to have a rollback (thank G-d), we can move on.

And since we're here to learn about the game, we've learned: do not send more than 20 things to any player in any turn, or the excess will be lost. Coordinate this among teammates as needed.

[Gandalf Parker]

I can see where this might have caught some people off guard. If you dont use messaging in solo games, and it rarely comes up in such numbers in blitz MP games. But learning MP is at least in part this games initial descript.

[Septimius Severus]

Regarding any use of exploits, I doubt and would hope that no one has engaged in this sort of behaviour (stuff labs, etc). If winning is that important to you, hey you've got other issues going on, whether I've posted this or not.

The primary focus of this game is learning. Noobs learning by playing alongside of and against more experienced players. Winning is good but hey I just want to have fun, and frankly I have been having great fun and learning a great deal. Let's not let the lust for victory get the best of us or complain about possible bugs that may well be beyond our control.

I would call upon everyone to not act hastily and to honour the spirit of Baalz's pledge that you play till the end or at least stay in till a replacement can be found for you or your team concedes, dom3 bug or no.

If it were a server issue, that is a different story and we have tried to address them when they have occured.

We have completed the first stage in the game (expansion and conquering of the AI). The second stage is really only now beginning and promises to be the most fun and doubtless the most contentious part of the game. Teams will either die or concede at this point on.

I don't think it justifiable to call the game a draw over something that may or may not be a bug or limitation in Dom3, known or unknown. It is certainly not something I planned on or can really deal with. If it were a server issue or cheating, that is a different story. But failing that one team or another will have to be declared victor in this game in the end.

I have offered a poll of the players, that is the only fair thing I can think of doing. The team or player in question may say, well that is not fair, the truth is there are 16 players in the game and three other teams, we must let everyone decide.

Failing that, if a neutral expert on Dom3 bugs is available and willing to examine the .trn and last turns .2h files and reach a judgement I will allow this as well.

Hell, I'd even give gold to the team if I though it might stop the grumbling (rightly or wrongly, deservedly or not).

Let's keep our discussion constructive. If team ACGHHS simply refuses to continue or let this thing go and really wants to concede over such a thing, or won't agree to the above 2 measures, then there will be no rollback and the game will continue till the victory conditions as stated are met.

I may delay the current turn at my discretion and depending upon the response I receive from what I have stated. In the meantime, as for me, I'm checking in on my team's forum and playing my turn as usual just in case.

[rdonj]

Huh? As far as I know, grudgebringer is the only one who was talking about resigning. Is team ACGHHS seriously considering resigning over this rollback discussion?

Grudge - I didn't mean the post, I just meant the sentiments.

[Septimius Severus]

Huh? As far as I know, grudgebringer is the only one who was talking about resigning. Is team ACGHHS seriously considering resigning over this rollback discussion?

Grudge - I didn't mean the post, I just meant the sentiments.

Apparently, Yes, I've received a concession PM from Chris on behalf of his team. That is why I have posted this last message. I am asking team ACGHHS to consider my last post above/reconsider and send me a confirmation. Once I receive a confirmation, it will be final. I have provided and done all that I can do in the above post.

[GrudgeBringer]

Rdonj,

NO, I wasn't directing the post at you or anybody specifically for that matter.

It just seems that for the few hours I have to play this game and all the time it takes to do these turns, that one little mistake amonst players of this caliber can mean complete chaos for you and your team.

It is that chaos that has seemed to make this game a chore from all sides.

You know, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head who is on who's team and who has quit for one reason or another.

Dr. P, thank you for pointing out that I really have learned something valuble (besides what Chris and Squirrel have taught me about micro management and what it can do) to take with me into other games.

Thanks Sept for all the hard work, I hate to see your plans go awry because of a game.

Maybe it will become less tedious once we have moved on, I know it will for me.

Thanks agian to all:up:

[rdonj]

I meant SOME of the sentiments. Any of the sentiments. Anyway, it is kind of pointless for me to be quibbling over such minutia, I am afraid that is a habit of mine.


So, what's the state of things? If chris' team quits, are we going to set them AI and keep playing? Or are we just declaring the game over? This game just keeps losing credibility with every post :(

[Septimius Severus]

This is the situation as it stands:

Chris says that his team will likely not want to play on unless a rollback is done.

I have said, as admin I cannot countenance another rollback (espcially since we've just gone through one) unless their is a server error and confirmation from Gandalf, evidence of cheating, or other serious issue that I as admin and Gandalf as host and server admin have control over.

If a team or player has breached a built-in messaging limit in the game that has caused them to lose gold or items or a bug has occured (perhaps because of player actions) that is inherant in the game that is known about and that we have no control over I cannot order a rollback without all players consent.

I am going to open a poll on the subject on our team forums, I encourage all to vote. If team ACGHHS wants to bring in an expert to examine files to determine whether the limit has been breached that is fine, unless I hear from someone very high up that this justifies that we immediately do a rollback without all players consent, we go with what the everyone in the game wants to do via majority vote.

Gandalf is in agreement with me on this issue.

I will extend the current turn if necessary to allow all an opportunity to vote.

That's all I can do people. The decision rests with you all. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, the victory conditions as stated still apply. Last team standing who has not been defeated or otherwise concedes wins the game. Plain and simple.

Poll is opening now! :)

[Septimius Severus]

Another 14 hours has been added to the current turn timer to allow for voting and any turn submissions.

[chrispedersen]

This is the situation as it stands:

Chris says that his team will likely not want to play on unless a rollback is done.

Not exactly. Not one played voted to continue.

If a team or player has breached a built-in messaging limit in the game that has caused them to lose gold or items or a bug has occured (perhaps because of player actions) that is inherant in the game that is known about and that we have no control over

I do not understand your statement. Neither of those conditions are true. The bug is controllable. The only person that claimed to have some idea of the bug was DrP and he was consistently wrong on the details.

If team ACGHHS wants to bring in an expert to examine files to determine whether the limit has been breached that is fine, unless I hear from someone very high up that this justifies that we immediately do a rollback without all players consent, we go with what the everyone in the game wants to do via majority vote.

I really don't understand what you're asking me to accomplish here. What does "higher up" entail - anyone that is an acknowledged veteran of the game?

As I've seen the turns, anyone that examines the turns will conclude that the game did in fact eat items. But fine, I'll go see if I can trouble a vet to verify what squirrel has said, and that he thinks its worth a rollback. I do think it should be a matter of honor that squirrel doesn't lie, but.. ok.
:)[/QUOTE]

[vfb]

Chris asked me kindly to have a look at the turn. Sorry Chris, I am an IRC thug, not a respected member of the forums! http://www.slateman.net/images/gaming/gifs/sakura-dance.gif

Besides, this thread does not have enough drama in it. However, I will be taking this useful "Majority Vote" concept away from here, as I've got a bunch of minorities I need to go oppress. Thanks!

[DrPraetorious]

Could everyone please vote in the poll:
http://noobsvets.silverforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193

one way or another so we can move forward (or backward)? Right now, we've got a tie, of all things.

[AlgaeNymph]

For those of us who've stayed out of the drama, what's the short version regarding why or why not to rollback?

[Gandalf Parker]

One of the players sent messages with gold and items to other members of his team. 20 messages were sent and properly processed by the game.
(this much is verified by the game logs)

He didnt notice that the "## message sent" counter stopped incrementing at 20. In other words at message 21 it did not say "21 messages sent". Apparently he had not run into this in solo or blitz play (understandable I guess since those rarely involve so many messages)

Also they found out that messages over 20 do not return the items.

They feel this is a bug and wish to redo the turn. Im guessing to more selectively send fewer items and retain the lost goods.

Pretty much all of our rollbacks have been caused by player action so far.

The precedent is....
Since this is partially a "newbies learning multiplayer" game should "I didnt know" learning experience constitute a rollback and redo. Particularly if an incident is not easily verified. Possibly not a problem with this one but it opens a door for misuse later.

[chrispedersen]

I think a less pejorative shorter version is:

Squirrel sent more than 20 items and gold to teammates, amounting to almost an entire turns gold to one player; the items in excess of 20 were around around 50 gems worth of magic items.

The items in excess of 20 and gold did not show up.

It has been verified that this can occur.
Its a bug that has never been listed in any forum.

The proposed solution was to verify the problem did occur, and if so, run the exact turn files with the only difference changed or canceled "sent items" to teammates.

[Gandalf Parker]

Sorry. Didnt know the amounts lost. Thats part of the "hard to verify" thing.

And saying "bug" might be abit pejorative also. At least to Johan.
It has been discussed altho not as a bug. I find specific discussions of it which includes expert vets, and beta testers, and Edi (who handles the bug list). So it was known even if it was not listed as a bug. Altho I am surprised no one has added it to the wishlist to have it lock the menu and grey-out more message making when it hits the limit.

Im not sure what it would mean anyway. Do we roll back for known bugs? for new bugs that arent listed? Im not sure its one but Im also not sure what the point is if it was.

[Septimius Severus]

Im not sure what it would mean anyway. Do we roll back for known bugs? for new bugs that arent listed? Im not sure its one but Im also not sure what the point is if it was.

I too am concerned about this sort of precedent. I don't want to be rolling back again and again here. We will never get anywhere. But this is why it is important that everyone playing decide.

Now, has anyone else, other than squirrel, lost any items, gems, or gold through this message limitation quirk this turn? I.e. Have you sent anything that was not received?

The reason I ask, is that if a rollback is done, our policy generally has been to allow only the affected individual(s) to resubmit. If it comes to it, the least pain and time involved the best.

Turn out and vote if you have not already. Democracy only works if people get involved and utilize it. If anyone is unclear as to the question or the issue (I know I was) don't hesitate to ask as Algae has done. 9 votes so far, we should have at least 16 if everyone votes.

[vfb]

Yes, don't be racist, to the bugs. Please call them "features".

Sorry. Didnt know the amounts lost. Thats part of the "hard to verify" thing.

And saying "bug" might be abit pejorative also. At least to Johan.
It has been discussed altho not as a bug. I find specific discussions of it which includes expert vets, and beta testers, and Edi (who handles the bug list). So it was known even if it was not listed as a bug. Altho I am surprised no one has added it to the wishlist to have it lock the menu and grey-out more message making when it hits the limit.

Im not sure what it would mean anyway. Do we roll back for known bugs? for new bugs that arent listed? Im not sure its one but Im also not sure what the point is if it was.

[DrPraetorious]

I had misunderstood the nature of the bug, and this one is even more known. On the bug I thought this was about - if player A and player B both try to send 20 items to player C in the same turn, even if player C has plenty of lab room, sometimes it doesn't work. So don't do that.

Since it appears that the vote is going against me, the procedure I suggest would be - let Gandalf open up the one .trn file involved twice, and redo it from start (since that is the only way to get items back, they're still gone if you delete all messages,) restoring whatever orders Gandalf can see and the one or two most important messages.

This should only take a few minutes and then we can get on with this. But, let us give the remaining players time to vote in the poll if they have an opinion.

[Gandalf Parker]

No one other than Sauromatia lost messages this turn. I can verify that because the game log shows the 20 messages sent by Sauromatia and no other nation came close to 20 messages sent or received. (player to player messages since those are the only ones that count against the limit)

@DrP: Id suggest that Sauromatia redo the turn if thats what is voted. Of that he find a 3rd party if thats desired.

[chrispedersen]

I sent out messages to wraithlord, executor, and vfb.

Vfb declined inline, I haven't heard from executor, however wraithlord has very nicely agreed to help. As soon as we get an email address I'll be forwarding the turns to him, and to KO.

Edit: email address received. Wraith will do it tonight!

[Septimius Severus]

OK, I'm closing the polls, the results were 8(9 if Grudge is included) to 3 in favor of a rollback. Some of us may not be happy, I know me and Gandalf are not, and I know for sure DrP isn't but we must adhere to the decision. I am proud of all of you. We've handled this in a most civil and organized manner like adults should.

Gandalf has been informed to start the rollback, restore everyone else's .2h files except for Sauro and to only allow Sauro (squirrel to resubmit/redo). ACGHHS may opt for a neutral party to do the turn, but as long as Squirrel doesn't make any other changes, I'm fine with him doing it. The turn is to be sent directly to Gandalf. No other submissions will be allowed.

Lets get this done and over with as quickly as possible. While I frankly can't understand why any single player might send more than 20 messages per turn, it is possible I suppose. Lets avoid it and any more rollbacks in the future if we can.

Thanks.

[Squirrelloid]

Really sorry to have been such a bother.

I am happy to do the turn and let gandalf verify it is otherwise identical to the previous turn except for messages sent.

That said, I will not be able to do so until tonight sometime, so if someone wanted to repeat my actions and redo the messages with an appropriate number of things sent in the meantime, I'd be fine with that. Please coordinate with Chris as to the nature of the messages that should be sent. A review of our team forum by a neutral party would confirm which particular messages we know did not arrive, that they had been requested/proposed earlier, and that we were confused by their absence, if people want to be satisfied that we aren't ordering new sendings in response to the new turn.

[chrispedersen]

Thanks all.

[Septimius Severus]

Chris tells me Grudge was able to cast a vote, though apparently he still cannot use the message system (for reasons that I still don't yet comprehend). We shall therefore assume this to be the case in any future vote. 8/3 final tally.

Turn 33 Revisited. Looks like we are back in business and back again at turn 33. Generally on a rollback you expect two sets of turn files (the rollbacked turn (32) and the redo (33) but apparently Gandalf has just sent us the only the necessary one). I suspect that Gandalf has either decided to leave the forced timer off till the end of this redone turn (which we should be expediting) or till he can get a chance to set it.

At least 7 or 8 of us, had went ahead and sent in a our turns for 33 last time before we learned of the outcome of the vote (and to cover our bets :D). But it is IMPORTANT that everyone delete their old .2h files (which contains your orders for turn 33) from the folder. While Dom3 generally won't let you load up the old .2h file with the new turn file (you'll get a nagok gik fel) it has no control over what you do on your own, i.e. do not just send in the old .2h file done with the old turn assuming all will be fine. You MUST redo your turn to avoid any issues when you send it to the server and when it comes time to host.

If you've forgotten what you've done you can review the old turn and .2h before placing the new one in the directory and deleting the .2h file. This is just an FYI for those who may be new and for those of us who may have forgotten.

You'll notice that this time, the message stating C'tis has been vanquished is not present and are therefore still officially in the game, but it won't be for long I suspect.

[GrudgeBringer]

Well, the first time I saw the poll it wouldn't let me hit one of the choices.

Ten minutes later....I hit the wrong link and was back there, tried agian and bingo, it worked.

YOU don't understand why I can't post?

Try looking at through this end when I have to go thru 10 PM's with Chris and spend all his time (not to mention mine) giving and getting orders!!!

My wife thinks my Computer is haunted as it NEVER shows the same thing she gets on hers, and I'm to dumb to know how to change it.

[Immaculate]

i got the turn sent to me.
remember to set tirnanog to the new player please.

[Gandalf Parker]

The file came in JUST as I was logging off for bed. I hosted but forgot to restore the timers. They are back now.

The change of player I probably would have missed anyway. Restoring all files for the previous turn also restored the outmails file. I think I did a manual just now that worked. Let me know if it didnt. The outmail list is fixed for next hosting.

PLEASE everyone be careful to use the latest file sent. Even if you are only making the same changes you did last time and already sent. We need a new one based on this latest trn file.

[rdonj]

You did a manual what just now? I'm confused.

[Gandalf Parker]

Sorry.
I did a manual sending of one player file to a replacement player. The rollback also rolled back the send-out addresses file and failed to send that one file to the new person.

[rdonj]

Ah. Alright. Nothing I have to worry about then.

[Septimius Severus]

Well, the first time I saw the poll it wouldn't let me hit one of the choices.

Ten minutes later....I hit the wrong link and was back there, tried agian and bingo, it worked.

YOU don't understand why I can't post?

Try looking at through this end when I have to go thru 10 PM's with Chris and spend all his time (not to mention mine) giving and getting orders!!!

My wife thinks my Computer is haunted as it NEVER shows the same thing she gets on hers, and I'm to dumb to know how to change it.

Grudge your not dumb! Don't say such things about yourself. However, I don't think your computer is HAUNTED either. :D I do remember that you had been having an extremely difficult time accessing and/or getting the forum website and posting system to work correctly for whatever reason. I know me and Chris had tried to get you sorted out (I asked for a screenshot at one time) but I don't know what has happened in the intervening time.

A note to self and others, game 2 and 3 will state clearly on the opening post, NO ROLLBACKS unless a server issue or other event occurs that the admin and host have control over. Tis a difficult thing, you want to cover a lot of eventualities and try to cover as much of the rules of the game as you can in the opening post, but you have to sacrifice completeness for brevity otherwise you end up with a 10 page opening post that no one will read. I am sure that those who have admined games can understand what I mean.

I've updated the opening post to revise my ongoing evolution of what I think is at least a good general measure of what constitutes a Vet, Intermediate, and Noob player for our purposes anyway.

Veteran: 3 or more years of Dominions (not limited to Dom3) experience (both SP and MP) and/or Hall of Fame Member (Hall of Fame indicating extra-ordinary skill level).

Intermediate: 1 to 3 years of Dominions experience (both SP and MP).

Noob: 1 year or less of Dominions experience (both SP and MP).

The above can be further broken down (if necessary) into:

Green Noob: 6 months or less of experience (1 month or less = Fresh and Green :)),
Lower Level Intermediate: 1 - 2 years experience,
Upper level Intermediate: 2-3 years,
and Seasoned Veteran: 4 or more years of experience.

This usually can be determined in most cases by looking at a players Shrapnel forum join date (Space Empires and other games of course will throw this off).

Also experience alone does not take into account skill level but generally with experience your skill is assumed to improve. This also doesn't account for number of games played. But it's a reasonable guide I think.

[Squirrelloid]

I don't know, game bugs that have a severe impact should warrant rollbacks (and i would have supported another team in rolling back for this latest reason on that principle), especially if the game bug is relatively unknown (by a reasonable reader of the forums), extremely poorly understood, or impossible to control.

That said, given the nature and the scope of this game, and given there was apparently an issue in Preponderance with the message limit (according to Namad, people had to negotiate the value of a message in addition to the value of the goods being actually exchanged, which is crazy), I'm really surprised some vet didn't mention this bug before the game even got going, knowing that it would likely be an issue in a team game.

I would be curious to know how many teams' vets:
a: knew about the bug beforehand (chris didn't, Dr.P apparently had some inkling)
b: actually told their teammates about it beforehand

This particular bug is the kind of thing it would be really useful to point out in the OP of future games (of this style), because it will come up in a team game.

[rdonj]

A note to self and others, game 2 and 3 will state clearly on the opening post, NO ROLLBACKS unless a server issue or other event occurs that the admin and host have control over.

Good. Rollbacks for purposes other than fixing game killing bugs are generally a very bad idea. I only wish that had been the case for this game as well, as I am probably not playing anymore mp games for a long time and will definitely not be in any of the sequels.

@squirrel: When I found out how much you guys actually lost I was... disappointed. 50 gems? And what, 6-800 gold? Losing one turn's forging and some gold is, in this game, annoying, but not really a big deal unless you're absolutely fighting for your life. I don't think this game is hanging on such a fine thread, and indeed I don't think very many do period. What you guys lost was basically a drop in the bucket. The only scenario I could see your team's loss of said goods as being really important is in a duel scenario between two evenly or very closely matched players. And even then, I doubt it would have much impact on the overall outcome of the game.

I really don't understand why you guys made such a big deal out of it. As far as I can tell, in most dominions mp games unless a bug or weirdness hits more than just one player you NEVER see a rollback. This being the sole exception in my memory (which is not to be relied upon btw).



Dr. P knew about the bug, but didn't mention it. I was not aware of it myself and doubt anyone else on my team had any foreknowledge of the message limitation.

[Gandalf Parker]

Knowing and mentioning is always rough. Experts tend to settle into things "we all know" and not mention them. But THIS one would have be particularly hard. I learned of it years ago in my solo games but it doesnt come up much when all the other players are AIs.. And there arent really that many team games played so I dont think its the kindof thing that sticks to vets minds. I dont think it comes up much in blitzes.

"Ive got a mind like a computer. I will remember anything, as soon as you ask me."

[rdonj]

Yeah, even though many of us played the noobs vs vets series we never encountered that issue. We never had anyone sending out so much stuff in a turn. Maybe the vets did, but they never said anything about it.

[DrPraetorious]

Well, we didn't run into it because we knew about the bug :)?

I recall there was a discussion of the 20-send limit for the forge *****, but it didn't have a strong impact in the Noobs vs. Vets game in which I played *because* we got completely clobbered.

[Septimius Severus]

Speaking of Noobs vs Vets, some things did run a bit smoother, and you'd think that message limit, if it was going to have been tested, would have been tested with 12 people on a team. It might have been, if certain strategies had been implemented.

There were a lot of things in this game we were not expecting/did not know about. Some may criticize and say "Well you should have known". They said this of Gandalf, that he should have known that people would upload all sorts of weird stuff to the server. They said this of myself, that I should have known that AIs cannot be customized and played via Llamaserver. They said it of ACGHHS, that they should have known about this 20 message limit. There are/were just a lot of unique and challenging circumstances in this first game.

Still, we've overcome these challenges and we must roll with the punches. We're human after all, sometimes we get caught up in micromanagement and details, sometimes we are blinded by our own biases, sometimes the desire to win at all costs blinds us, but we regain our vision and right ourselves in the end.

If we are biased in one way or another we seek the opinion of the majority to neutralize it. If we get caught up in details we take a moment to see the big picture. And if our zeal to win overtakes us, we are reminded of what we are really here for. Play enough team games and you will learn to how to work with all kinds of players. You will learn the importance of compromise and teamwork, and most importantly, you shall learn to take it in stride and just have a good time.

I say, put whatever frustration or anger you may have to good and constructive use. Take it out on your enemies in the game. Make them pay! Let loose those dogs! It is time for blood to flow! Where is it? Where is the blood? :D