Muliplayer in c2c - welcome

[DRJ]

sorry DRJ for beeing so harsh

Ok cool I am not a resentful person, anyway.

Well I can think on no starting traits - if everybody other agree. I'm not used to such voting since I practiced mostly the approach that server chooses. But yeah GEM could be fine, starting on one landmas could be fine (but oldworld/eurasia then).

Then no America start if you disagree.

But we would have to pick either european/african or european/middle eastern or african/middle eastern or asian only leaders then I think, to start somewhat in reach.

developing leaders should be funny, pure traits is a must if I have to choose religious, I just have problems with no positive traits you suggested ;(
thereare plenty of leaders in old world so we may play our favorite traits in with starting with 2 positive traits. but let other ones speak - if there are crushing majority on starting without positive traits - I have to agree on these terms

Ok then, considering the majority really is for no starting traits and pure traits lets do that and both learn to live with it.

what about game speed? I prefer Normal because blitz is too fast but I like fast games anyway (snail is no/no for me) but if normal is still too fast we may be a bit slower. what you suggest? and nobody is against starting in prehistoric era?

In precolumbian GEM we can only start in prehistoric. What is the game speed of the other multiplayer games?
In single player I am used to Eternity (30-something turns for the first tech) so I think playing Marathon would feel like blitz to me.

 

[Galacticat42]

I usually play on Snail, so Marathon would be fast enough for me. Anything faster would be too fast for me.

 

[AIAndy]

I don't recommend using developing leaders in a multiplayer game at the moment as TB has not made the selection dialog multiplayer safe. So you will definitely OOS whenever someone selects a trait. Worse, the trait selection will not actually work and give you a trait unless it is your savegame that you load afterwards (so it is worse than the usual OOS).

 

[Thunderbrd]

I don't recommend using developing leaders in a multiplayer game at the moment as TB has not made the selection dialog multiplayer safe. So you will definitely OOS whenever someone selects a trait. Worse, the trait selection will not actually work and give you a trait unless it is your savegame that you load afterwards (so it is worse than the usual OOS).

Given they want to do this I figured I'd try my darnedest to get this sorted out this weekend.

 

[majaczek]

AIAndy explain?
we have just to reload after choosing traits or it won't work at alll no matter what?
more details?

 

[AIAndy]

AIAndy explain?
we have just to reload after choosing traits or it won't work at alll no matter what?
more details?

This is what currently happens when you use developing traits in a simultaneous multiplayer game (and it will happen in yours unless TB fixes it in time):
The player who becomes eligible for a trait choice gets the dialog. When he chooses, that only adds that trait on his own computer. All other computers don't know about it. That is an OOS state. So lets assume you save and load at that point. If you load the game that the player saved that got the trait, all will be fine (except of course if more than one player gets to select at the same time) but if you load the savegame of any other player in the game, the player that chose the trait won't have it and he won't get to rechoose either. So effectively he lost that trait (which is really bad as a trait is not a minor effect on gameplay).

 

[majaczek]

would it work in turn after turn?

EDIT: if not we have to choose without developing leaders and with starting positive traits, but I'll love to have developing leaders in multi

 

[Galacticat42]

So AIAndy, you're saying if we use any other way of playing the game (i.e. PBEM) then we won't have this problem?

 

[Thunderbrd]

I'm going to be trying to sort this out tonight - when are you guys wanting to get this thing started?

 

[Koshling]

So AIAndy, you're saying if we use any other way of playing the game (i.e. PBEM) then we won't have this problem?

PBeM is fine. That's how we are playing the two existing multi-player games. The only problem is it's an inevitably slow cycle, especially with people in different time zones.

 

[AIAndy]

So AIAndy, you're saying if we use any other way of playing the game (i.e. PBEM) then we won't have this problem?

As others have said, yes, this problem only exists in simultaneous multiplayer, which means that you have multiple computers playing at the same time and all of them have to have the same information about the game and that is what fails when you have an OOS.
There are probably several such OOS bugs in there at the moment but few others will happen as reliable as this one and the other ones usually don't cause that kind of major imbalance if you continue playing from the wrong computer.
Anyway, if TB adds the messages that selection popup result should have then you will be fine at that front.
And the others is a matter of catching the OOS bugs in a good position to fix them (if the visible OOS happens fast after the root cause then you have a good chance of catching that one from the logs).

 

[DRJ]

Considering we would be able to play with developing leaders I, too, would think the PBeM approach grants the most chillaxed action. And also my excessive micromanaging would be no problem for the other players. The Let's Plays of the participants would be possible (I plan to write one).

Sgt. Slick said he wouldn't do it, though

regardless, either playing method is fine with me but if I would be able to chose I'd say PBeM for stability and roleplaying fun. Diplomacy in between the turns is also more compelx I guess, with profound PM exchanges rather than hasty ingame chat - while other players are waiting for you to move...

 

[majaczek]

AIAndy - so play DirectIP without simultaneus turns will also fail for it?
I would Hate PBEM, but if someone managed to play this way I should be able too :F

so there's two more options - play without developing leaders or wait for fix.
so what we do now?

 

[Thunderbrd]

Well, mixed news on this front. I did debug the two problems that were on a higher priority than this one, but they also took a bit longer than I'd hoped they would so while this issue is up next, it'll be tomorrow's effort I think.

But do trust and believe that the bug I just fixed was truly annoying and painfully created very unfair situations with promotions. So it was good you didn't start with that in your game!

Anyhow, this is the next most important issue on the plate at the moment and I'm hoping it won't take all day to sort it out. Then you'll have a fairly stable platform to go forward with even if there's a few other minor bugs yet to sort out hopefully over the weekend.

And yes, sadly, even non-simultaneous turns would have a problem though it would probably get around the inability to simply reload the game from the player who just selected a trait.

 

[majaczek]

ah yeah - and I have a question: is alt_timelines enabled by default and if not - do we want them in our multi game, and how to enable them?

 

[Thunderbrd]

I believe they are enabled by default.

 

[majaczek]

okay 11:00 AM GMT we are going to begin soon. everybody ready, or at least present?

EDIT: just updated my SVN
we start with revision 5325 - newest - ok?

uuh i improperly packed the bug settings i would resend

 

[DRJ]

okay 11:00 AM GMT we are going to begin soon. everybody ready, or at least present?

EDIT: just updated my SVN
we start with revision 5325 - newest - ok?

I am here but I need some further clarification cause this comes a bit out of the blue - starting so quickly after all the preparation: you suppose we are starting today 18:00 middle european (Berlin) time right?

So is it PBeM then or Direct?

What about the gameoptions, will we just take those of the SVN so all have the same?

What combination of continents/civs we take then? You have to know that your beloved Tibetanian Leader is not in the precolumbian GEM civset I think.

I suggested Africa+Europe civs OR Africa+Middle Eastern OR European+Middle Eastern OR only Asian Civs (of course only American Civs has been vetoed for reasons unknown to me )

The Map is really big so we should try to start not too far away, I have to stress that...


EDIT: Oh I just updated SVN mine says 5326, So I think we have to use that as Strategy Only did fix/add some stuff since your last post ))

 

[majaczek]

would we play with developping leaders or no, considering current SVN bugs?
I'll send bug options soon, and starting options we may discuss further in lobby

edit: ninjad
we would play asia or eurasia or old world - to discuss open - may be asia only if you wish.
I hope preparation will finish before 2:00 PM of GMT, but I may wait if not everybody ready

 

[Hale_9204]

I'm ready to start, just tell me when and what SVN revision we use

@everbody: if you don't already know it, you can decide to download a precise revision of the SVN, not only the latest one. You just need to use the option TortoiseSVN/Update to revision... and then put the number of the revision