RTGPete Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 I wonder if it might be anything to do with the run-time needed for the other games of RTG - I think we can safely assume that Pete isn't running them all out of a mainframe computer with terabytes (or whatever they're called) of processing power. Players in the other games might not be as keen to be moved aside for the SNROTE game, after all. Sure, it would be nice if we could get things moving sooner, I'm with you on that all the way, but is that a practical answer in terms of RTG man-hours and equipment availability? I would be interested to hear from Pete or Russ on the topic. SN is independent from Victory! The Battle for Europe games, though we have been receiving a lot more non-email turns to key in (and print and mail out), and often turns come in late in the cycle that need to be entered. I could be harsh and make them miss the turn, but hate to do that. For run time, massive numbers of (in my opinion) utterly worthless screens have bloated the database considerably, causing a fairly significant slow down in normal order processing. Report generation has slowed mostly because of the screen issue (requires me to compress the database several times during the industrial run and snapshot creation) and very fast ships running circular convoy routes many times. I have been determined to let players solve the screen issue on their own as I really don't want to step in and take direct measures if I can help it - if the database bloats too much, it has the final say....but I still hold out hope that players will solve that issue on their own. Those who have figured out how to ignore screens know what I mean, but it takes time for more players to obtain the necessary technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfouasnon Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 Which would you hate more...people quitting because of the frustration with the turn generation , or people missing their turns because they sent them in late? It is obvious that it would be easy to simply put the due date to Tuesday and start processing on Wednesday , and then the players would have Saturday to work on their turns....I would rather have the Saturday to work on my turn than the Wednesday.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTGPete Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 Which would you hate more...people quitting because of the frustration with the turn generation , or people missing their turns because they sent them in late? It is obvious that it would be easy to simply put the due date to Tuesday and start processing on Wednesday , and then the players would have Saturday to work on their turns....I would rather have the Saturday to work on my turn than the Wednesday.... Heh, don't want anyone to get upset (for some reason, memories of Doctor Strangelove spring to mind). This is a tricky problem - my schedule pushes me toward the date as is, and moving it to earlier in the week only exacerbates mailing problems for the mailed-in player turns (they would have to get their turns mailed in two or more days earlier rather than just one, because Sunday is an off postal day and Saturday is a problematic mailing day for a variety of reasons). Far and away, the vast majority of the turns processed for SN have gone out before Saturday. It's only been fairly recently that some results have slid into Saturday, and I'm hopeful that it will trend back away from that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowKitsune Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 I wonder if it might be anything to do with the run-time needed for the other games of RTG - I think we can safely assume that Pete isn't running them all out of a mainframe computer with terabytes (or whatever they're called) of processing power. Players in the other games might not be as keen to be moved aside for the SNROTE game, after all. Sure, it would be nice if we could get things moving sooner, I'm with you on that all the way, but is that a practical answer in terms of RTG man-hours and equipment availability? I would be interested to hear from Pete or Russ on the topic. SN is independent from Victory! The Battle for Europe games, though we have been receiving a lot more non-email turns to key in (and print and mail out), and often turns come in late in the cycle that need to be entered. I could be harsh and make them miss the turn, but hate to do that. For run time, massive numbers of (in my opinion) utterly worthless screens have bloated the database considerably, causing a fairly significant slow down in normal order processing. Report generation has slowed mostly because of the screen issue (requires me to compress the database several times during the industrial run and snapshot creation) and very fast ships running circular convoy routes many times. I have been determined to let players solve the screen issue on their own as I really don't want to step in and take direct measures if I can help it - if the database bloats too much, it has the final say....but I still hold out hope that players will solve that issue on their own. Those who have figured out how to ignore screens know what I mean, but it takes time for more players to obtain the necessary technology. That being said, does SN:ROTE operate on a single machine? Or is it run on a network of machines? Even after the players "resolve" the massive numbers of screen ships problem, doesn't that still leave the "very fast ships running circular convoy routes many times" challenge? Curious is this one. -SK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahdi Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 Which would you hate more...people quitting because of the frustration with the turn generation , or people missing their turns because they sent them in late? It is obvious that it would be easy to simply put the due date to Tuesday and start processing on Wednesday , and then the players would have Saturday to work on their turns....I would rather have the Saturday to work on my turn than the Wednesday.... Heh, don't want anyone to get upset (for some reason, memories of Doctor Strangelove spring to mind). This is a tricky problem - my schedule pushes me toward the date as is, and moving it to earlier in the week only exacerbates mailing problems for the mailed-in player turns (they would have to get their turns mailed in two or more days earlier rather than just one, because Sunday is an off postal day and Saturday is a problematic mailing day for a variety of reasons). Far and away, the vast majority of the turns processed for SN have gone out before Saturday. It's only been fairly recently that some results have slid into Saturday, and I'm hopeful that it will trend back away from that. Looking at it in another way, what could "We" as players do to help with the turn processing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfouasnon Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 Pete , this problem will only get worse as time goes by , not better...you yourself have stated that there is some kind of later tech that will make screens ineffective...new empires are coming on line every turn , and it will be a long time before they get that tech . For a new empire to simply say it will not build screens , and then come up against an empire with thousands of screens is suicide for the empire without screens...if you want to make the screens go away , then I might suggest a Mk I screen ignorer ( give it a decent name , of course ) that is available pretty early in the tech tree.....presently you are running the risk that some of the European players quit playing because they are losing a weekend to do their turns , and I know of one player with many multiple empires who sends in very many turn sheets who is absolutely not amused at getting turns on Sunday ....but the problem is not going to go away unless you do something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Deependra Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 I would think adding an obvious screen killer to the game would severely disadvantage the players who have invested heavily in screens. At the moment, their screens are still useful against empires who don't know The Secret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfouasnon Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 And that is worth the game being destroyed , just because some empires have invested heavily in screens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTGPete Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 Fast convoys can be mitigated somewhat by reducing the data returned on their runs - I've avoided doing that so far, but have considered it: i.e. duplicate the SKIM code (as one example) and use the duplicated code only for Convoy Route runs. Take out most of the text that gets displayed. This would not change the functionality, but would dramatically reduce the amount of text that gets put to the disk, reducing both printout length and processing time. The downside is that for Convoy Route orders (especially LC, OC) you'd lose a lot of data. For those with 1500 page printouts, do you really care about that information? Hard to say. I haven't done that so far, but it is one possible solution. Screens - adding a low tech screen killer would certainly help eliminate the problem, but it would be very intrusive on empires that have built up their defenses over long periods of time. If they depend on screens, they'll die eventually because screens really don't work out well in the long term. A sudden introduction of a low-tech screen-killing tech, however, would certainly be viewed as direct intervention on my part that would probably out right kill some empires....not so good. I'll let the players deal with this issue so long as the database doesn't blow up (as with anything, all bets are off if the database jumps up and screams "Help Me!"). My overall philosophy has always been to keep my fingers out of things, and so long as the database doesn't dictate otherwise I'd like to continue that tradition. I do expect screens to hold a place in the history books, but I don't think they'll last too much longer en masse. Convoy Routes.....short of implementing a limit on fleet speed for Convoy Route runs (a drastic measure I've also avoided implementing, though it would certainly solve the issue instantly), limiting Convoy Route data return is one answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfouasnon Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 Again , doing nothing is not going to solve the problem....in fact , it has gotten us to where we are now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jemanari Public Relations Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 Any changes made have to be done so that they do not destroy the viability of player empires that have operated under the conditions as they are ( built up screening forces). Just as changing the day of the week turns are due might help some players out. It could also hurt other players. While getting rid of screen defenses might get your turn results to you a little bit quicker it could also result in a lot of empires getting royally screwed. As for convoy routes I think you could eliminate a lot of pages of repetitive junk if each convoy route result was dumbed down to something along the lines of Convoy route A executed the following priority steps : 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 10, 20. Put the responsibility of keeping track of amounts of material skimmed or moved onto the players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted October 18, 2008 Report Share Posted October 18, 2008 I think a start would be going from this: FROM COLONY6 [Priority 40] -----OC (Offload Cargo)----- OC: 138, 54981, Iron, 9999999, Light Metals, 9999999, Crystals, 9999999, Industrial Chemicals, 9999999, Gaseous Elements, 9999999, Radioactive Elements, 9999999, Precious Metals, 9999999, Water, 9999999 ** The Imperial Cargomaster aboard Fleet 138 #138 reports that he has no Iron loaded ** The Imperial Cargomaster aboard Fleet 138 #138 reports that there are only 100829 Light Metals(s) loaded into Cargo Bays-- offload quantity reduced accordingly 100829 Light Metals(s) are offloaded to the custody of the Population Group #54981 Port Authority as ordered 1.406578E+07 Light Metals(s) are now stockpiled in Imperial Warehouses at Pop Group # 54981 ** The Imperial Cargomaster aboard Fleet 138 #138 reports that there are only 17225 Crystals(s) loaded into Cargo Bays-- offload quantity reduced accordingly 17225 Crystals(s) are offloaded to the custody of the Population Group #54981 Port Authority as ordered 267228 Crystals(s) are now stockpiled in Imperial Warehouses at Pop Group # 54981 ** The Imperial Cargomaster aboard Fleet 138 #138 reports that there are only 6946 Industrial Chemicals(s) loaded into Cargo Bays--offload quantity reduced accordingly 6946 Industrial Chemicals(s) are offloaded to the custody of the Population Group #54981 Port Authority as ordered 1.437795E+07 Industrial Chemicals(s) are now stockpiled in Imperial Warehouses at Pop Group # 54981 ** The Imperial Cargomaster aboard Fleet 138 #138 reports that he has no Gaseous Elements loaded ** The Imperial Cargomaster aboard Fleet 138 #138 reports that he has no Radioactive Elements loaded ** The Imperial Cargomaster aboard Fleet 138 #138 reports that he has no Precious Metals loaded ** The Imperial Cargomaster aboard Fleet 138 #138 reports that he has no Water loaded To this: Fleet # 138 running convoy route "FROM COLONY6" [Priority 40] OC From Fleet # 138 to PG# 54981 100,829 Light Metals 17,225 Crystals 6,946 Industrial Chemicals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfouasnon Posted October 18, 2008 Report Share Posted October 18, 2008 1000% agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cestvel Posted October 18, 2008 Report Share Posted October 18, 2008 Convoy Routes.....short of implementing a limit on fleet speed for Convoy Route runs (a drastic measure I've also avoided implementing, though it would certainly solve the issue instantly), limiting Convoy Route data return is one answer. We suggest a simple way out of the convoy dilemma some time ago: Run the route *once* for real, save the results, just redo the results/things be done AP/conv-AP times. Print out *one* block stating: route xxx ran y times. maybe followed by a sum of items hauled in each direction. You might start it with the worst ones, the SKIM-only Convoyroutes easily. I think we can live with the lost sightings of the convoy routes on their later trips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Deependra Posted October 18, 2008 Report Share Posted October 18, 2008 Convoy Routes.....short of implementing a limit on fleet speed for Convoy Route runs (a drastic measure I've also avoided implementing, though it would certainly solve the issue instantly), limiting Convoy Route data return is one answer. We suggest a simple way out of the convoy dilemma some time ago: Run the route *once* for real, save the results, just redo the results/things be done AP/conv-AP times. Print out *one* block stating: route xxx ran y times. maybe followed by a sum of items hauled in each direction. You might start it with the worst ones, the SKIM-only Convoyroutes easily. I think we can live with the lost sightings of the convoy routes on their later trips. It will still have to check fuel consumption for each jump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.