View Full Version : Restarting Ladder Games - Yay or Nay?
I just found out I have very different ideas about restarting than some people do.
IM(not so)VHO a restart should only happen when a massive unbalancing factor is present in the map design. Most of the restart cases I have seen are not due to the map being massively unbalanced.
If AI's are at least 7 or 8 tiles away and they attack you and you die, I suggest not playing on such a high difficulty level. It is only on emperor and deity that they have such high numbers of start units, and such initial capability.
If you find yourself with slightly worse lands, or if you get MA'd to death by turn 100, it is part of the game.
For ladder purposes, I suggest that in all of these instances they are recorded as losses.
A decicsion to restart between two players is always going to be fine, but I felt it a good idea to share what I thought with you, and to see what you thought too.
FWIW, I have played on from several games comparable to the 'bad' side in restarted matches...
digger760
30-06-2003, 14:01
i think its between the two players. Any disagreements between 2 players is sorted out with the ladder admins.
quote:Originally posted by digger760
i think its between the two players. Any disagreements between 2 players is sorted out with the ladder admins.
Any game can be restarted if the players agree. I am not asking or proposing any changes to the ladder rules in that respect. Please read on...
What I am asking is that people understand why I personally will not allow restarts to my games unless the map is massively unbalanced.
I am also asking everyone to think about the issue and talk about when restarts are good and when not.
Does no-one here see the danger of restarting on a high percentage of games? The biggest problem will be when players play on Deity and build very little or no defenses early on. In a decent munber of these games they will be attacked (in part because they are so weakly defended), and they will ask for a restart. A player who builds sever warriors/spears will be punished for playing a more balanced game - they would be better off playing a farmer gambit and restarting if attacked...
These are real concerns, and not aimed at any individual, and not aimed at any current or recently restarted games. I raised this as a concern some time ago on MSM with several people, I just never got around to posting about it until now...
BTW, you can disagree with me if you want folks...
22 views and only 1 reply??
quote:Originally posted by anarres
IM(not so)VHO a restart should only happen when a massive unbalancing factor is present in the map design. Most of the restart cases I have seen are not due to the map being massively unbalanced.Massively? What is massively. I think it is about how much it will affect your gameplay and if both players agree the map sucks.
quote:Originally posted by anarres
If you find yourself with slightly worse lands, or if you get MA'd to death by turn 100, it is part of the game.Yup, as you know, thank god not all people do want to do MA-boomerang games... But at this point I agree.
quote:Originally posted by anarres
For ladder purposes, I suggest that in all of these instances they are recorded as losses.We are not talking about the losing-against-AI games, or are we?
quote:Originally posted by anarres
FWIW, I have played on from several games comparable to the 'bad' side in restarted matches...
As you stated in the other thread. You base your opinion on your own criteria here. These criteria are not shared by all other people. Other people might have asked for a restart in your cases...
I can't disagree with you anarres.
Restarts should be done in case of excessive unbalance in the game between the 2 human players.
In the case of farmer's gambits and getting jumped on by AIs, I don't agree. It is indeed one of the dangers of playing at high level and needs to be assumed by the players, it's not a good enough reason to restart in my eyes. It's just a loss. You will never get rid of the "luck"/RNG factor in a Civ3 game.
Part of playing well on high level is balancing a farmers' gambit with the need for military support. Leaving the option of restart "always open" would push towards forcing players to jsut one strategy in the opening moves and take some of the fun, and challenge, away from the game.
It does have a negative influence on the Ladder but also the way games will be played. Restarts should be, on top of the 2 players agreeing, reviewed by a panel (including the Map Maker and a recognized high level player) before being allowed , it's one of the way I see into finding a solution. Again the criteria for a valid restart would be a really unbalanced start between the 2 humans, taking into account : type of terrain, food, bonus ressources, luxes, geography.
Since we do not have that many games being restarted this should be easily feasible.
quote:Originally posted by anarres
[quote]Originally posted by digger760
Does no-one here see the danger of restarting on a high percentage of games? The biggest problem will be when players play on Deity and build very little or no defenses early on. In a decent munber of these games they will be attacked (in part because they are so weakly defended), and they will ask for a restart. A player who builds sever warriors/spears will be punished for playing a more balanced game - they would be better off playing a farmer gambit and restarting if attacked...
hmm... lets focus this on our games: that was absolutely not the case in our game I lost. But in our game right now I am strong compared to you while my units from turn 10 on die like flies against the barbs... You play it risky and see this as a tactic but you must know that if a Deity AI wants you dead in turn 30 there will not be much you can do apart from rushing some spears. And especially not when - in my game - you miss bronze working + warrior code and got the Greek hoplite as enemy.
I see this as pure and simple bad luck. No complaints whatsoever. But if you suggested a restart I would agree too. So, indeed, we need a general rule on this! :)
I partly agree with you, anarres.
I also think map restarts should be kept to a minimum, but as digger says ultimately it's a decision to be made by the two players involved in the game. Some players take the ladder and the rankings more seriously than others, and I can imagine that not everyone wants to spend their (limited) time on civ3 fighting from a backwards position knowing they'll probably lose no matter what.
It should be noted that when deciding to put in AI civs in a PBEM, you're not only fighting your human opponent, but also the participating AI civs, and any player should commit the resources necessary to handle the AIs at whatever stage the game is, just like in a single player game. That said, I do think that the sometimes *very* early AI rushes (ERIKK vs anarres game#3 is a fine example) should warrant a restart as no matter what you do there is no sure defense against them, the only thing the game result will depend on in these cases is whether your defensive unit survives the onslaught of AI free units. That doesn't involve much skill from either player, so whether you can speak of a winner/loser in such games is highly doubtful in my view.
You say that players could opt to play lower difficulty settings but I think you'll agree with me that most of the time the reason deity is chosen is to at least give the players some challenge in the early stages of the game, since most of the players at this forum seem to be pretty experienced and capable of handling deity AI, not to mention the difference in unhappiness and research costs between levels like monarch and deity.
I'd say just let players decide beforehand whether and how many restarts are possible during the game, and whether such restarts should have ladder consequences or not.
I think anarres is right.
I will always play on, unless I agree with my opponent that the map is not what we ordered for. In my match vs Jack Merchant we asked for a map with room to expand, but we both got only 4 cities. That's reason for a restart, but only when both agree.
I see an early sneak attack from the AI as part of the game. In my game vs Stapel I almost lost (I had one red-lined defender left). That would have been fine.
EDIT: But I must say that I play for the fun of the game more than to win. I see challenges in all sorts of situations. When I'm far behind I want to see if I can come back. When I'm isolated or surrounded by AI, that's also a great learning experience.
I'll always play on too. I think AI attacks are part of the game and I wouldnt want to remove a random element. If you want everything exact and predictable then go play chess.
I lost against Meli mainly, i think, because he had a better starting position - but so what. He played very well. I tried as hard as I could then conceded when i could do no more. We both enjoyed the game. Backs to the wall defense has its moments too.
I also ruled for a restart in a Meli v Killer game when looking at the random generated map as a neutral third party, it was obvious that one side had a vastly inferior start and that there was no real chance for a contest. 10 cities v 4 cities doesnt make for a good game.
We have experienced mapmakers who main job is to ensure equal(ish)starts. If your mapmaker doesnt do their job then that is grounds for restarting the game as in Aggies post above but otherwise no.
It IS just a game guys. Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose. Accept losses gracefully and celebrate the wins.
I haven't played any PBEM yet but I don't think restarts should allowed except in extreme circumstances. I agree with anarres and Skyfish on the farmers gambit - military balance. Obvious risk/reward interplay there. But I think Col's point is the more subtle/important one, starting position in terms of geography and terrain richness is very important. In my experience it is the biggest factor for an AI and I am guessing it is huge for humans as well. If people want to remove that from the game then they should probably play on a completely symmetric map. I think the key words here should be as anarres said: massive imbalance. Even then I would think a play to the bitter end mentality should rule, if one side wants to concede - that's a loss, what's the big deal? This goes for ladder games only, as other games are "just for fun".
But isn't the ladder there too compare how skilled players are in a game of civ3? Since getting warrior/archer rushed by the AI in 3000 BC(like, for another example, I was in tournament game 4-2), involves no skills whatsoever, IMO these games shouldn't be registered as ladder wins/losses as they only pollute the rankings.
I agree that the early AI rush is part of the game, but that early in the game, there really is only luck involved whether they attack or not, so if you think that's ok you might as well go and start random maps again and play on no matter what the terrain is, since that's also part of the game and only involves a lucky/unlucky RNG roll.
Taurendil
30-06-2003, 16:21
Early AI rushes are part of the game. Obviously. Wether a game ending like that in turn 30-50 was a fair match is an other thing. Many small things about a civ game are based on luck: combat, disease, ai expansion. All of these things have a small impact on the rest of the game. Early AI rushes on the other hand, are rare and potentially lethal. They destroy the entire game with 1 random number, or if you are 'lucky' they cripple you.
However, in the context of a competition you might need stricter rules. As it currently stands, the match result is in the hands of the victor. (the one who wasn't rushed) In my game against CB, he offered to call the match a draw, and i gladly accepted. You can hardly argue either of us did something wrong there. This is a fine way to resolve the problem, but not very fair competition. Now your score depends on how your opponent feels, not on how the game was played.
The other option is to enforce a result out of every game started. This would mean, as Anarres pointed out, that people would have to play a more balanced game. You could argue that it would encourage people to play a more warmongering game instead of builder. Wether that is a good thing, is again debateable. This option ensures a more fair ladder competition however, providing all the competitors can live with an occasional early loss, or seriously difficult start.
What option to choose lies in the hands of who is organising this competition. I'm guessing that would be Anarres and ProPain. Perhaps, as both of you are lefty libertarians, you might want to organise a poll around this.
I agree with Kemal here but also see the point from the others. Still, if you leave it up to the humans to decide they will go for a replay just because it is just a game as the player that is not destroyed by the AI does not want to win like that...
Well, what about choosing your civ?
Choosing a civ with Warrior Code or Bronze Working gives immediate defense, expansionist civs get scouts who often see early trouble. You can choose a civ without these starting advantages, but then you have to make up by researching/trading the techs early or building enough units.
If I choose a scientific/commercial civ (with crap start techs) then I am more likely to get stomped early. If I choose a militaristic civ I almost certainly can deal with an early rush no problem, although they have bad late-game advantages.
Are those of you who favour restarts saying I should always choose scientific/commercial civs (great late game but risky to start)??? That way if I get rushed I can restart.
quote:But isn't the ladder there too compare how skilled players are in a game of civ3? Since getting warrior/archer rushed by the AI in 3000 BC(like, for another example, I was in tournament game 4-2), involves no skills whatsoever, IMO these games shouldn't be registered as ladder wins/losses as they only pollute the rankings.
Over time won't this balance out Kemal?
quote:Part of playing well on high level is balancing a farmers' gambit with the need for military support. Leaving the option of restart "always open" would push towards forcing players to jsut one strategy in the opening moves and take some of the fun, and challenge, away from the game.
Sky, you hit my main point on the head (although I have other points too ;)), this is something that we should all consider. Farmer's gambit will become the norm, and people won't care about any defense, since they can restart.
The location of The Great Library can be more important than any other factor in the game. In two games now I have taken over 10 techs from capturing it, and 6 or 7 techs on many more occasions. This can swing the game from one side to another. If you have 3 AI close instead of 1 then you are 3 times more likely to take TGL and jump in tech, especially if you play for it to happen that way.
Jack vs anarres and ERIKK vs anarres #2 are both very good examples of unbalanced starts, in ERIKK#2 it was the map that was unbalanced (very similar to the ERIKK vs Killer, just restarted), and in Jack#2 it was an early (turn 20-something) AI rush that unbalanced it. I am sure I am not that much better than those two players, being in a shitty position did make me play to my best, but capturing TGL at the correct time and also the natural 'balancing' factor in tech costs saved me. It is possible for nearly all players to come back from starts like those that have recently been abandoned, and that is my point.
The one game I have restarted is my game vs CB. In that game we were on isolated islands, so no contact for a while. I had 1 AI with me, CB had the other 4. That was not going to be a fun game - builder game for me, and a huge tech deficit. CB would have had a hard early game against 4 AI, but a huge tech lead. It is worth noting that I would not have restarted if we were on a pangea as we would have made contact very early and at that point the game would be much more balanced. Islands meant that you have isolated starts - they have to be very evenly balanced to work out fair.
Maybe I make too many points in one post, but I think it is important to recognise that an early lead does not ensure a win, and that allowing restarts all the time will lead to weird playing styles. Again, I say that if you are worried about early AI rushes then you have to choose a civ with BW or WC, or not play on Deity, or play on Deity but adjust the AI starting units...
ERIKK, please respond to the "Farmer's Gambit" point. I agree that it is a hollow win to win by default (other player losing to the AI), but it is a win nonetheless. I think the disadvantages of allowing restarts for anything other than a hugely unbalanced map will skew the ladder in favour of those who play it risky and lose the gamble.
Don't forget - over time we will all be attacked early by the AI. Time will be the balancing factor here, why should we work around it?
I've been playing around with Always War type games for a few months now as anyone who lurks the CFC SG board must know. There is a distinctly different strategy that works in an AW game. If one uses this strategy it is very hard for the AI to rush you, I've played a number of AW games at Diety and have only been rushed once - in that game the AI capital that rushed me was 4 squares away. I've never been rushed on Emperor. I have lost to the AI quite early in the game (few hundred BC), but I wouldn't call those rushes - more like I got over-run by a dogpile. Remember in these games I have to declare war on contact. You just can't take the risk side of the risk/reward equation. That means no exploring and so no popping huts, no farmers gambit, etc. My point is that it is a choice to take risks, such as making early contact - and the rewards are obviously great (trades, alies, etc), but these choices put one in a more vulnerable position. If you are getting rushed by the AI with frequency maybe you should look at how you are playing the early game (note to Kemal, 3000BC is indeed very early to be rushed but IME it should be very rare).
Cartouche Bee
30-06-2003, 18:35
I think that games where one participant is rushed early and are wiped out should be declared a "no contest". This should have a standard turn cut off, like turn 40 or turn 50, but should go to a vote and be incorporated as a standard rule.
However, if a player chooses a Farmer Gambit type start then, I think that the player needs to accept the loss as a result of the gambit. We merely need to define the level of Farmer Gambit that disqualifies the player from the "no contest" mercy rulings.
We also need to define what would constitute an unbalanced start and then make it so that these games are never produced by the map makers.
Anyway, I usually start my games in an AW frame of mind, no farmer gambits from me but that is because I like to have at least basic defenses before I reach out too far. ;)
I like CB's proposal to declare very early AI rushes (killed within 40 turns, maybe earlier)as no contest.
EDIT: These would be killing in any game, farmers gambit or no farmers gambit.
Melifluous
30-06-2003, 18:58
Personally I just start games with a few risks,
I start with a kinda farmers gambit and normally build a granary before my first spearman.
In fact I normally wait for contact with other civs to buy Bronze Working etc etc...
However if I get rushed by the AI then thats it...
Game over.
I know the risks of such a gambit and would accept the consequences...
Melifluous
Taurendil
30-06-2003, 19:01
Just reiterating the main point from my last post:
You can either have every game with early rushes restarted, promoting the builder style, or you can have them all count, promoting the warmongering style.
Either way i believe one of these options should be set in stone as a rule, if you want to ensure fair competition.
The way I see it, getting rushed means you:
1- didn't build enough defenses
2- played above your level
3- got unlucky
(or all of the above)
When 1 or 2 applies I'd say you'd called it upon yourself. If 3 applies, bad luck will even out over several matches so no need to take special measures.
Personally I think a restart is only appropriate within 5 turns or so when one player has way better land than the other. Like in my game against KingReno where I started in lush grasslands, with a river and bonus resources and KingReno started in the desert. We restarted after turn 2 and decided to use the magnificent mapmakers [worship] instead of taking our chances with the Civ3 RNG again. So use the mapmakers and restarts shouldnt be necessary imo.
PP : restarts due to Map unbalance can and should happen at *anytime*. I.e. when your opponent has WM and can see your position and compare with his.
I believe everyone agrees on "Strong Map Unbalance" as a reason to restart without a loss.
The discussion is now on other types of restarts such as "Early AI rush". I must say I now agree with CB, Kemal, Aggie in that *some* times there's just nothing you can do about it and they are more a result of bad RNG then real skill. Also your opponent has nothing to do with it so to have it count as a win is unfair.
What do you all think of this proposal :
To create a "MapMaker Committee" in charge of judging "restarts games" in case of disagreement between players (and/or maybe 3rd parties). A restarted game would not be counted on the ladder, not even as a "draw".
The committee could also be called on to judge if an early AI rush is truly unfortunate or the result of a farmers' gambit on the side of the player and thus not be counted as a restart but as a loss. I dont believe set rules can be put down as to what is an early AI rush, the Committe will have to be trusted :)
Sky, why not let it even out over time? We will all be rushed the same. We also have the choice to play on a different difficulty where the AI can't rush. Why do people want to quantify the level of 'risk' a plyer has taken and measure that against some absolute measure? That is impossible to be fair on IMO. Much fairer to leave it to the RNG and time to balance.
Your way involves disputes and ruling bodies, something that doesn't sit well with me.
The only case I can think of for wanting a restart is the map being massively unbalanced. I see no need for a comittie here either, at least not in the first instance. I think a map maker mod can make a decision if one player thinks it is unfair and the other not, as long as that map maker is not the one who made the map.
I still think 2 players should be able to call it quits at any time, for any reason.
Lt. Killer M
01-07-2003, 11:13
suggestion: we remove some of the many AI starting units (yes, 11 warriors ad portas when I just produce my second is NOT about competition).
Say, the AIs get 1 warrior more at start than the humans. Woudln't that allow us to play on the high levels with 'usefull' AIs while allowing all players to play a reasonable-risk farmer gambit without giving grounds for restart? I mean, rushed by 3 Wariors - if you cannot defend against that then it is a just win for your opponent.......
Lt. Killer M
01-07-2003, 11:18
btw, about Eriks and my game:
I was tempted to say: go to hell and die - I used my lands better. You *should* have played differently then we'd be equal now.
But then I thought about the way the game had developed for Erik: he had started at the coast, back to the sea, not like me how could easily block off a littel land on the 'other' side from the AIs.
He had quickly met AIs and known he neede strong defences - thus cut short on land grab while I knew I was safe farming like mad.
Add to that the luck I had blocking off a peninsular from the AIs (except for a tiny Celtic city) by an isthmus town.
RESTART! I would have offered it if he hadn't asked.
Despite the actuall diferenc being small, the way the game had to run gave me a HUGE option now. And that is a massive imbalance despite the not too big one in lands......
Killer, check the map for anarres vs ERIKK #2, do you really think ERIKK's position was unwinnable in your game? IMO my position was worse in ERIKK#2 than ERIKK's was in your game...
(I am China, bottom left, ERIKK is Persia, top right).
Turn 51:
http://www.civ3duelzone.com/erikk2/pics/051.minimap.jpg
Turn 94:
http://www.civ3duelzone.com/erikk2/pics/094.minimap.jpg
Turn 112:
http://www.civ3duelzone.com/erikk2/pics/112.minimap.jpg
Turn 133:
http://www.civ3duelzone.com/erikk2/pics/133.minimap.jpg
Lt. Killer M
01-07-2003, 11:56
no, not unwinnable. And I'd be happy to comtinue the game - but OFF LADDER. This game had skewed odds.
Well in this game:
considering the map:
- first of all we expected the same condions
- he had like 10+ productive cities while I only a couple good cities
(got some jungle and desert cities in the few I had)
- killer can continue expanding to the east pininsula which he has blocked off.
- killer can easaliy fight a war agaisnt the Russians and/or the celts (only 1 front)
http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/ERIKK/2003629163932_minimap.jpg
note that Killers number of grasstiles after the expanding fase till turn 80 is a least 50% higher but more like 2/3 bigger. We both have desert but I also have jungles in the NE. I have 1 cow and 1 wheat and 2 lux. I dunno what Killer has but it will probably be much more...
Of course we can continue the game and see what happens. Maybe we should do that...
All in all Killer and me both concluded without any discussion that the map was not fair.
DrAlimentado
01-07-2003, 13:00
I agree with anarres and others. I'm against having a 40 turn or so 'freebie' period.
I think we should recognise that civ3 is a game of luck in many many things. I am not in favour of allowing restarts because of bad luck in the early game, tough titty I say. FWIW - I play my games fairly builder style and take the gambit, I haven't been crushed early (yet) in pbem but it has happened to me a fair few times in sp. The point is it is a gambit, if we allow restarts as a matter of course it will no longer be a gambit but a certainty. A grossly unfair map is another thing, but I'll get to that in a bit ;)
Regarding whether getting rushed early is a test of the players skill or not, well it is imo. Not to say that you could do everything humanly possible to prevent it and still get crushed, you could. But how you cope with an aggressive ai and what you do to invite their attack is part of the game. If you do 'everything right' on a fair map, and still get crushed by some sob AI, well shit happens, suck it up. Over time it will even out.
In a less hardnosed vein - perhaps some new difficulty levels would be helpful here, deity level rates with emporer starting units? All things are possible... It would be very easy to have a bix file with all the modified starting levels in it for mapmakers to use (I actually already have this with the deity light stuff in it...)
My constructive proposal:
The only time a restart can be asked for (this is a seperate issue to both players agreeing a restart btw - that is always ok I think) is if a player feels the map is grossly unbalanced. The appeal would probably go to a mapmaker who would examine the bix file. We would obviously need some discussion around what constitutes gross imbalance - I will say here that ALL maps are imbalanced one way or another, so it's a question of degrees. There dosen't need to be a turn limit as such on appeals as it's not a black and white issue, but the longer you leave it the less sympathy you get.
The biggest factor in early rushes imo is which ai civs you get as neigbours and how close they are. (and then the reasons why they are attacking you... like are they trapped for land, or have you got the only resources nearby etc.) As an aside - I notice that nearly everyone asks for random civs in their map requests, which is cool, but invalidates any appeal cos you got zulus/vikings/mongols/'insert agressive civ here' up your ass as opposed to India...
If you actually want unknown civs, but some balance between which AI neighbours players get then you have to explicitly state this in the map request.
There are plenty of other things to consider in 'balance' besides AI civ choice and position; terrain, resources etc. etc. Whatever we agree about restarts some discussion on what constitutes a fair map would be a good thing anyway. If someone else dosen't start a thread on this in the next couple of days then I'll start one up in the map-making forum, it'll be useful for map-makers as a point of reference as well as for players to know what to expect.
I'm down with anarres and DrAlimentado on this one.
I also don't think we should reduce the # of AI bonus units, if we did that then we would again be promoting a rush strategy - human rushing the AI that is. IMO, the AI needs two settlers and bonus units of at least Emperor strength.
Lt. Killer M
02-07-2003, 10:14
gothmog: then cut them to half - no human rushing AI and no AI rushing human too badly.....
I am eager to follow anarres and lets just only restart when the map has great inbalances... Let someone neutral decide (3rd party).
And, from now on: if you lose your cities early in the game that will be qualified as bad luck and costs you the game if you retire (like I did). Let's not mess with the AI starting units.
It seems like most people over here think this way. No poll needed IMO reading this thread. (But someone could make poll if he wants to..)
prettyvacant
02-07-2003, 20:37
quote:Originally posted by ERIKK
I am eager to follow anarres and lets just only restart when the map has great inbalances... Let someone neutral decide (3rd party).
I am against even this appeal to a third party; at the risk of being called a wooly liberal or whatever the idea of appeals / rules etc leaves me cold. I start from the position that we are all reasonable people, therefore appeals should not be necessary. Even if you can't reach an agreement you can either either play on or quit.
Also I would be dissapointed if a map maker made map had "great imbalances" and if you choose random and it bites - it was your choice.
quote:[And, from now on: if you lose your cities early in the game that will be qualified as bad luck and costs you the game if you retire (like I did).
Entirely agree. It is though imho up to your opponent if they want to claim the game. Just as well i think to agree this kinda thing before you start.
quote:Let's not mess with the AI starting units.
Why not? isnt it up to the players to decide in what arena they wish to compete. If someone wants regent but each AI to have a tank (hm perhaps thats not a good example) it can be done. Be innovative folks - challenge the map makers !! This is your pbem, you have the power - oops getting carried away here, better stop.
jack merchant
03-07-2003, 23:12
I sympathize with both viewpoints (ain't I sympathetic ;)) but I agree mostly with anarres and DrA. I've been rushed once and we agreed to restart, but in the replay I found out that it was possible to at least survive. It should probably up to the player who would otherwise take the win to decide whether or not a restart was justified/desirable.
Personally, if I survived the early stages, I would never ask for a restart even if my position was maybe in some way inferior. But that's probably because I don't lose any sleep over my ladder standing [crazyeye]
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.