[Game Update] - 182476

[V2C]

• Fixed bug where a Dwarf Star may never fade out in some rare cases.
• Fixed a crash in Mods screen.
• “/roll” command now accepts an optional [max] parameter.
• “c_announce” can now be used to send system messages to the chat area by specifying “system” as the category: e.g. c_announce(“This is a test!”, nil, “system”)

 

For full details on this week's update:

View full update

[CarlZalph]

11 minutes ago, V2C said:

• “c_announce” can now be used to send system messages to the chat area by specifying “system” as the category: e.g. c_announce(“This is a test!”, nil, “system”)

TheNet:SystemMessage(<string>message, <bool>onlysendtoselfshard) is the internal usage for those writing mods/addons/server utilities.

Edited June 25, 2016 by CarlZalph
Forum dupe removal. Added V2C comment.

[hyiltiz]

c_announse() is such a quick fix, nice! It was only mentioned a post ago. Now, speaking of the new cool /roll command, it is not actually RNG, since the 2nd player can see 1st player's roll outcome, then decides whether to /roll or just refuse to negotiate. That is dumb of 2nd player (and everyone later), but is also a result of a poor implementation of a decision making sequence.

On the other hand, something like this would be much better:

hyiltiz started a roll [with max 100]

[hyiltiz rolled]

[A rolled]

hyiltiz ended the roll [with max 100] %after everyone (hyiltiz, A, B) fighting for the eyebrella has already rolled

hyiltiz rolled 1

A rolled 2

B rolled 99

% so B wins the eyebrella!

 

In short, don't reveal the outcome until every participant (starter of the roll knows who they are) finished their roll.

c_announse() is such a quick fix, nice! It was only mentioned a post ago. Now, speaking of the new cool /roll command, it is not actually RNG, since the 2nd player can see 1st player's roll outcome, then decides whether to /roll or just refuse to negotiate. That is dumb of 2nd player (and everyone later), but is also a result of a poor implementation of a decision making sequence.

On the other hand, something like this would be much better:

hyiltiz started a roll [with max 100]

[hyiltiz rolled]

[A rolled]

hyiltiz ended the roll [with max 100] %after everyone (hyiltiz, A, B) fighting for the eyebrella has already rolled

hyiltiz rolled 1

A rolled 2

B rolled 99

% so B wins the eyebrella!

 

In short, don't reveal the outcome until every participant (starter of the roll knows who they are) finished their roll.

[artemiyME]

dumb question on creating shell executable files for announcing/shutting down/starting up multiple (7+) DST servers in linux: I want to be able to send c_announce ("") to all my server consoles though linux shell by just executing ./announce.sh file, is this new system message something that helps me with it? Also my proficiency in Linux executables is pretty dismal, my main problem is i do not know what is the command to tell Linux to get in DST console and execute command.

Edited June 25, 2016 by artemiyME

[SuperPsiPower]

WHAT HAVE YOU DOOOONE @V2C

[Clwnbaby]

4 minutes ago, SuperPsiPower said:

WHAT HAVE YOU DOOOONE @V2C

yeah I checked "Clayfish was here" to make sure it wasn't just our server and this seems to be everywhere.  Freaked me out at first.

 

4 minutes ago, SuperPsiPower said:

WHAT HAVE YOU DOOOONE @V2C

yeah I checked "Clayfish was here" to make sure it wasn't just our server and this seems to be everywhere.  Freaked me out at first.

 

[artemiyME]

5 minutes ago, SuperPsiPower said:

WHAT HAVE YOU DOOOONE @V2C

Oh i remember this bug, pretty funny its back

Edited June 25, 2016 by artemiyME

[Muche]

@hyiltiz, wouldn't it be better to settle such decisions with just one roll? For example 1-50 - player A wins, 51-100 - player B wins.

Or, with the new max option, set the max to the number of people participating and the result marks the winner directly.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Muche
double text fix

[hyiltiz]

4 minutes ago, Muche said:

@hyiltiz, wouldn't it be better to settle such decisions with just one roll? For example 1-50 - player A wins, 51-100 - player B wins.

What if there are 3 players? Technically, now you can do /roll 99 or /roll 3 to fix it, but hey, it requires you to always think about the total number and do some dumb math in your rusted (mine is rusted as far as math is concerned) head.

Also, what we have now is an informed decision making chain (Monte Carlo Markov Chain, MCMC) where whether the next event happens is dependent on all previous events. It is strictly not the same as people rolling their dice, then revealing their cup/mug (someone gonna call potato cup now) to see who wins.

4 minutes ago, Muche said:

@hyiltiz, wouldn't it be better to settle such decisions with just one roll? For example 1-50 - player A wins, 51-100 - player B wins.

What if there are 3 players? Technically, now you can do /roll 99 or /roll 3 to fix it, but hey, it requires you to always think about the total number and do some dumb math in your rusted (mine is rusted as far as math is concerned) head.

Also, what we have now is an informed decision making chain (Monte Carlo Markov Chain, MCMC) where whether the next event happens is dependent on all previous events. It is strictly not the same as people rolling their dice, then revealing their cup/mug (someone gonna call potato cup now) to see who wins.

[V2C]

13 minutes ago, SuperPsiPower said:

WHAT HAVE YOU DOOOONE @V2C

Will have a fix for this ASAP.

 

[smallishbird]

@V2C I think people at the character selection screen should be able to see system messages just like any other chat.

Edited June 25, 2016 by smallishbird

[Faintly Macabre]

5 hours ago, hyiltiz said:

Now, speaking of the new cool /roll command, it is not actually RNG, since the 2nd player can see 1st player's roll outcome, then decides whether to /roll or just refuse to negotiate. That is dumb of 2nd player (and everyone later), but is also a result of a poor implementation of a decision making sequence.

None of that is objectively true. It doesn't cease to be random number generation just because people can opt to be uncooperative, and if they wanted people to be able to be forced to roll, they'd have just done that. It's just a thing that randomly generates a number; the implementation is fine for its intention. If you want a loot rolling system, ask for one or write one.

[The Letter W]

5 hours ago, SuperPsiPower said:

WHAT HAVE YOU DOOOONE @V2C

dang they really revamped how insanity works 

[AnonymousKoala]

 

5 hours ago, SuperPsiPower said:

WHAT HAVE YOU DOOOONE @V2C

Why did they have to fix this? It breaks my immersion to have normal sized spikey trees

[CaptainChaotica]

That is freaky as HELL omg.  I would say that having things look huge to emphasise the insanity--like, paranoia, everything's all around me, it's overwhelming, AAAA!--would be damned effective...

....it would be really hard to program!  I mean, if something LOOKS way bigger than it actually is, how would you deal with hitboxes and such?  Do you go up to where the spiky tree's trunk would actually be on a normal-sized one and then start chopping, with the result that it looks like you're standing _inside_ the big version's trunk?

Intriguing questions, for something that is (a) a bug and (b) no longer in existence.  : P

...Notorious

[spiderdian]

It would be crazy if scary things started getting scarier as you get insane(just like beardlings/lords)

[artemiyME]

17 hours ago, hyiltiz said:

then decides whether to /roll or just refuse to negotiate. That is dumb of 2nd player (and everyone later), but is also a result of a poor implementation of a decision making sequence.

Rolling is like a lottery, if you enter the lottery - you have chance to win, if you do not enter lottery (refuse to roll) - you get no chances to win lottery. Everyone has same chance to win and numbers are random. What are completely random rolls have to do with people's poor decisions? 

Bottom line: if you do not roll you get no chance, that is non-negotiable. Typical gambling rules. 

[hyiltiz]

17 hours ago, artemiyME said:

Rolling is like a lottery, if you enter the lottery - you have chance to win, if you do not enter lottery (refuse to roll) - you get no chances to win lottery. Everyone has same chance to win and numbers are random. What are completely random rolls have to do with people's poor decisions? 

Bottom line: if you do not roll you get no chance, that is non-negotiable. Typical gambling rules. 

Agreed! However, what happened a lot in our latest over Day 850 Strictly Unprofessional Public server is the following scenario:

1. A guy A joins, and dies pretty soon (less than 5 Days);

2. Guy doesn't leave the server (not ask help for revive either), possibly looking for touchstone;

3. Since server is pretty old, we are very well covered and want to help out new players out;

4. Since everyone has their hands wet in something they were doing, no one really can go right away;

5. So we roll so that the one with the highest roll outcome goes to rescue the A ghost;

6. There are 10 other players on server, and the roll outcome looks like 46, 35, 67, 74, 89

7. Then remaining others just ignores rolling and waits for the one who rolled 89 to go rescue A;

 

Although it is somewhat reasonable since 89 is a pretty big number, other 5 players doesn't really want to take their chance. You could call it a shame, but hey, this is just a game to get ourselves happy and forget about life and rules and morality (well, not all of them).

Instead of pledging for players' morality, it would be better to only reveal the outcome AFTER everyone in the group (the one who started roll knows who are in the group) finished their roll.

 

[Muche]

It seems to me that the issue is with point 5 - some people decided to honor the result while others decided to ignore the result.
That is, it has nothing to do with the actual rolling system.

Also, using multiple rolls to detemine one player seems to be the remnant of table top games decisions, where usually D6 is used, so it's possible to use one roll to easily distinguish between 2, 3 and 6 possible values/players.

How about other decision making procedure that doesn't necessarily require multiple rolls (thus does not allow one participant to stall it all).
For example, there are 11 people on the server. You /roll 11 and the result will determine the player based on their index on the player scoreboard. If the result is the ghost player, you reroll.

This would work best if all players are participating. More people who are not participating could lead to more rerolls due to result being the not participating player.

Or just /roll N, where N is the number of participating players, and then just skip not participating players on the scoreboard.

[hyiltiz]

7 hours ago, Muche said:

It seems to me that the issue is with point 5 - some people decided to honor the result while others decided to ignore the result.
That is, it has nothing to do with the actual rolling system.

Also, using multiple rolls to detemine one player seems to be the remnant of table top games decisions, where usually D6 is used, so it's possible to use one roll to easily distinguish between 2, 3 and 6 possible values/players.

How about other decision making procedure that doesn't necessarily require multiple rolls (thus does not allow one participant to stall it all).
For example, there are 11 people on the server. You /roll 11 and the result will determine the player based on their index on the player scoreboard. If the result is the ghost player, you reroll.

This would work best if all players are participating. More people who are not participating could lead to more rerolls due to result being the not participating player.

Or just /roll N, where N is the number of participating players, and then just skip not participating players on the scoreboard.

This scheme seems to work and provide a workaround. Still 2 issues: a) the n+1 event (roll) is not independent statistically (well, no one seem to care about it here); b) before rolling u have to ask who is joining every time.

If, on the other hand, we used a scheme similar to the one I proposed earlier on this threat, then you do not need to know /all/ the participants beforehand. You can 1. propose a roll; 2. all participants roll; 3. ask if someone who wants to roll didn't roll yet through chat; 4. finish roll. This way, you do not have to know who is participating beforehand and their number. Also, you can agree on a rule that you will finish the roll after 10s of silence. Then, you never are gonna need to know anything beforehand, and just roll. Then you simply compare results.

 

[Muche]

Regarding the statistically independent event, are you referring to having to roll again when the result determines the non-participating ghost player? Is it not possible for extra roll to be had in your scheme as well when the highest roll was achieved by two players?

 

What is the difference between:

1. propose a roll; 2. all participants pledge their participation in the roll by running the roll command; 3. finish the roll

and

1. propose a roll; 2. all participants pledge their participation in the roll by saying it in the chat; 3. count the number of participants and do one roll

?

It seems to me that the only difference is between the system doing the counting of the number of participants vs. the roll initiator doing the counting.

 

[CaptainChaotica]

And none of this would work on me, anyway.  Unless I was already in the middle of a huge crisis, I'd just...quietly start looking for the dead person, and by the time anybody else in the group thought to ask me where I was, I'd be way out in the middle of nowhere.  Dice rolls?  Drawing straws?  Can't hear you; already rescuing.

It's just how I roll.

...Notorious

[artemiyME]

On 6/26/2016 at 7:15 AM, hyiltiz said:

5. So we roll so that the one with the highest roll outcome goes to rescue the A ghost;

I wouldn't roll myself to do chores, haha.... I mean I would, but you get the point. Technically you can't bind people to roll for things that they might not want to do naturally. It still works by same principle though: if you want in on a roll you get a chance, if you don't roll you don't get a chance.

Also, I think you were suggesting some kind of a "force-roll" system before, if everyone is forced to roll, how can you enforce person that won/lost to do what they were bound to do by roll?

[hyiltiz]

14 hours ago, artemiyME said:

I wouldn't roll myself to do chores, haha.... I mean I would, but you get the point. Technically you can't bind people to roll for things that they might not want to do naturally. It still works by same principle though: if you want in on a roll you get a chance, if you don't roll you don't get a chance.

Also, I think you were suggesting some kind of a "force-roll" system before, if everyone is forced to roll, how can you enforce person that won/lost to do what they were bound to do by roll?

Yeah, the scenario I described was to rescuing a newly joined ghost player. (Personally, I liked rescuing players.) When people were in the middle of doing stuff, they might not want to do rescue the ghost immediately, which requires the ghost to wait 2-3 Days (15-30min). It is not much if you are playing the game, but if you are a ghost wandering around aimlessly, even if I don't know them, I hate to keep them waiting. So, everyone is busy but someone needs to go immediately.

Now, about enforcing. If 5 players rolled and Player3 got highest roll outcome, but sill refuses to go, then it would purely be based on peer pressure and other moral rules. No one can actually enforce it. (Some might suggest weather pains, but I hate that thing to be used on players.)