Okie,
A few versions ago, I was able to pull a CIM, and look for all ports that were stuck at 50%. I'd make a list and then do a computer report on all of them to get them regenerating again (with script, of course). Since "Max Regen Per Visit" was added, when I try it now, it appears that some ports start regenerating, and some don't. Can anyone tell me if this is a change,bug, or bug fix? Do the ports have to be visited in person now to get them regenerating again? (which makes sense IMHO, but the old way was nicer when you had a ton of upgraded ports you were trying to manage...) Will a simple "PT" suffice, or do I need to trade something there? When does it check to see if anyone has visited that day? At midnight? Extern? or just after someone visits?

This is in GOLD MBBS mode btw, in case it matters... The board settings are 50% Regen per day, and 50% max regen per visit, so in theory, a 2 day regen. There is very little player activity in the game at the moment, so I don't think it's the players that are visiting the ports that are regenerating. I have a 100% map, and I can see all the ports (like I said, very little activity I think that the computer report is working for some ports, and not others. I have some CIM data, and I'm working on getting more, so I can figure this out myself...but any help here would be nice.


-Traitor
Visit http://www.tw-cabal.com

Nevermind. I got the answers I needed. There was a change, but I've figured out a new, 100% reliable way to handle it.

quote:
Okie,
A few versions ago, I was able to pull a CIM, and look for all ports that were stuck at 50%. I'd make a list and then do a computer report on all of them to get them regenerating again (with script, of course). Since "Max Regen Per Visit" was added, when I try it now, it appears that some ports start regenerating, and some don't. Can anyone tell me if this is a change,bug, or bug fix? Do the ports have to be visited in person now to get them regenerating again? (which makes sense IMHO, but the old way was nicer when you had a ton of upgraded ports you were trying to manage...) Will a simple "PT" suffice, or do I need to trade something there? When does it check to see if anyone has visited that day? At midnight? Extern? or just after someone visits?

This is in GOLD MBBS mode btw, in case it matters... The board settings are 50% Regen per day, and 50% max regen per visit, so in theory, a 2 day regen. There is very little player activity in the game at the moment, so I don't think it's the players that are visiting the ports that are regenerating. I have a 100% map, and I can see all the ports (like I said, very little activity I think that the computer report is working for some ports, and not others. I have some CIM data, and I'm working on getting more, so I can figure this out myself...but any help here would be nice.


-Traitor
Visit http://www.tw-cabal.com


-Traitor
Visit http://www.tw-cabal.com

quote:
Nevermind. I got the answers I needed. There was a change, but I've figured out a new, 100% reliable way to handle it.

[quote]
-Traitor
Visit http://www.tw-cabal.com


Care to share the change and the new, 100% reliable way to handle it?

quote:
quote:
Nevermind. I got the answers I needed. There was a change, but I've figured out a new, 100% reliable way to handle it.

[quote]
-Traitor
Visit http://www.tw-cabal.com


Care to share the change and the new, 100% reliable way to handle it?



The change is that running a computer port report NO longer gets a port regenerating. (at least not with the settings of 50%/50%) The way around it is to have our blues visit the ports manually. It's a ROYAL pain. I'm still doing some tests, and trying to figure a way around this. So far, I'm not liking the results. I either have to burn turns, or planet fuel ore to do the checking. It has caught us a bit off guard, since we had to completly change our port upgrade strategy to accomidate this, after we had already started upgrading a LOT of ports. I know it worked in version .49, cause we used it then, (about a year ago) and it was fine.

I was hoping that someone from EIS would say something about this. I WILL adapt to changes, but I wanted to know if this was an intentional change, a bug, or what? I looked in the readme files all the way back to TWGS ver .48 and searched the forums, and couldn't find anything addressing this.

So far, this tiny change has cost us millions!! (always wanted to say that



-Traitor
Visit http://www.tw-cabal.com

Presumably it was not intended that Port Reports set the ports regenerating. The setting is now actually interesting- i.e. you have to burn turns, and risk that you're spending turns getting a port above 50% only for an enemy to use it. Of course if you don't have a script to visit (whether by twarp, bwarp or ship transporter) each relevant sector it gets a bit tedious.

The other approach you can use btw is to only ever buy them down half way- that way they stay between 50% and 100%- or conversely, if they're well known by enemies, just trade them at 50%.

Dr. Bad

quote:
Presumably it was not intended that Port Reports set the ports regenerating. The setting is now actually interesting- i.e. you have to burn turns, and risk that you're spending turns getting a port above 50% only for an enemy to use it. Of course if you don't have a script to visit (whether by twarp, bwarp or ship transporter) each relevant sector it gets a bit tedious.


I figure that it probably wasn't intended. The change certainly does make things more interesting. I've tried a lot of different things to try to get ports rolling again, but so far, it seems that you have to visit each one. I'll let people know if I do find a short cut.

quote:

The other approach you can use btw is to only ever buy them down half way- that way they stay between 50% and 100%- or conversely, if they're well known by enemies, just trade them at 50%.

Dr. Bad


I'm still trying to figure out the best way of handling it. It's the Sell ports that are the real issue, since they generally need to be at more than 50% to pull off a Megga-rob.

I think we are developing a system that will work for us, but it's not pretty. Costs turns and fuel ore. And we have changed how we pick/build ports to acomidate this. The change really only makes getting the initial ports rolling more difficult. Once you get enough ports to keep your guys busy (30-60 ports) then it's not so much of an issue.

For maximum turn/ore efficiency, I think the best way is to always keep the sell ports at over 50%, and the buy ports at less than 50%. But that means we can end up with ports that have a lot of cash on them. However, once you get your reds enough experience, then they can just use Tripple RTR's to drain the ports of cash without even running the MR. It costs a few more turns, but then you could run these Mini-MR's every day. (Of course, that means that you still have to care about your alignmnet, since your reds will still need experience. One of my favorite aspects of the MR is that your reds and blues can ignore the alignment penalties of a mixed corp, since MR's require only -100 align, and exp is not a factor.) I'm still running the numbers on our test server, and hoping I can come up with something better.

-Traitor
Visit http://www.tw-cabal.com

Edited by - Traitor on June 12 2002 11:24:15 AM

Personally I'd just try to get one red sufficient xp to RTR as quickly as possible. Usually you have this after you've got enough ports set up- both from the port upgrades plus megarobbing each port once. e.g. he'll start at about 11k xp from SDT, setup 10 (32k) pairs at about 3.5k xp (a bit under 1k each for upgrading the xxS and the xxB, and a bit under 2k for the megarob on the first buydown). Now you have 45k xp- so about 20 turns used to RTR a full xxS (~2.7M)- on your average megarob you'll spend noticeably more than 20 turns dumping ore or orgs, so RTR is at least as good by this stage- plus most games you need many more than 10 pairs.

Even with RTR, alignment is rarely an issue- in most situations your CEO red stays red with 0 xp, Any other reds quit corp when they are done for the day and don't lose any xp.

Hope this helps,

Dr. Bad

quote:
Personally I'd just try to get one red sufficient xp to RTR as quickly as possible. Usually you have this after you've got enough ports set up- both from the port upgrades plus megarobbing each port once. e.g. he'll start at about 11k xp from SDT, setup 10 (32k) pairs at about 3.5k xp (a bit under 1k each for upgrading the xxS and the xxB, and a bit under 2k for the megarob on the first buydown). Now you have 45k xp- so about 20 turns used to RTR a full xxS (~2.7M)- on your average megarob you'll spend noticeably more than 20 turns dumping ore or orgs, so RTR is at least as good by this stage- plus most games you need many more than 10 pairs.

Even with RTR, alignment is rarely an issue- in most situations your CEO red stays red with 0 xp, Any other reds quit corp when they are done for the day and don't lose any xp.

Hope this helps,

Dr. Bad


Ya, I know about RTR. RTR is THE moneymaker...till you bust. Guess it depends on style really. MR is the most bang for least amount of work IMHO. RTR has more profit per turn, but you have to factor in the busts, and you have to rely on that one red to do the RTR's...you may end up with cash you can't get too sitting in a port. I like the felxibility MR offers. MR lets you keep everyone in the same corp all the time, and as long as SOMEONE stays red, you can be pulling in big bucks. After all, blues can run buydown scripts just as well as reds.

Of course, in a non-MBBS game, then we use RTR almost like you described. See my site, in the glossary page under D/RTR for how we do it in non-MBBS games.

-Traitor
Visit http://www.tw-cabal.com

quote:
I was hoping that someone from EIS would say something about this. I WILL adapt to changes, but I wanted to know if this was an intentional change, a bug, or what? I looked in the readme files all the way back to TWGS ver .48 and searched the forums, and couldn't find anything addressing this.


Historically, not all changes to Trade Wars has been posted in the TWGS/TW revision history for various reasons. This is likely one of those changes. The fun thing about playing Trade Wars (at least it used to be), was figuring out the little details of the game.

quote:
So far, this tiny change has cost us millions!! (always wanted to say that


Take nothing for granted. Only when you expect the unexpected will the unexpected no longer catch you unawares. In other words, just because it's been one way for a certain amount of time doesn't mean it will always be that way.

(Yikes, TW and philosophy...)

Lisa M. Wilson
aka Rave
EIS Product Support

quote:
quote:
I was hoping that someone from EIS would say something about this. I WILL adapt to changes, but I wanted to know if this was an intentional change, a bug, or what? I looked in the readme files all the way back to TWGS ver .48 and searched the forums, and couldn't find anything addressing this.


Historically, not all changes to Trade Wars has been posted in the TWGS/TW revision history for various reasons. This is likely one of those changes. The fun thing about playing Trade Wars (at least it used to be), was figuring out the little details of the game.


I can live with that. I've been adapting to undocumented changes in TW for the last decade or so. This is nothing new to me. The only real problem with undocumented changes is people can get killed when they fail to test every little detail everytime JP puts out a new rev. Or they try something they read about that doesn't work anymore.

quote:

(Yikes, TW and philosophy...)



Heh. Would that be Trilosophwar? Sounds like a new handle in the making...

Anyway, I test, and test, and test, and stuff still slips through. (And people wonder why there is no current FAQ for this game...)

-Traitor
Visit http://www.tw-cabal.com

quote:

Historically, not all changes to Trade Wars has been posted in the TWGS/TW revision history for various reasons. This is likely one of those changes. The fun thing about playing Trade Wars (at least it used to be), was figuring out the little details of the game.

Lisa M. Wilson
aka Rave
EIS Product Support


I find the undocumented changes. I don't mind figuring out how something works. I dislike having it change and not knowing that I need to figure out how something works. I feel it is especially unfair when a change is undocumented, and then some people are informed about them.

quote:
I can live with that. I've been adapting to undocumented changes in TW for the last decade or so. This is nothing new to me. The only real problem with undocumented changes is people can get killed when they fail to test every little detail everytime JP puts out a new rev. Or they try something they read about that doesn't work anymore.


I'm currently working on detailed FAQs/manuals for both Sysops and for players alike, as there should be few changes between revision .56 and TW v3 Final. At the moment I'm looking for some assistance working up information on red play. (Hint, hint, Traitor.)



Lisa M. Cutler
aka Rave
EIS Product Support

quote:
quote:
I can live with that. I've been adapting to undocumented changes in TW for the last decade or so. This is nothing new to me. The only real problem with undocumented changes is people can get killed when they fail to test every little detail everytime JP puts out a new rev. Or they try something they read about that doesn't work anymore.


I'm currently working on detailed FAQs/manuals for both Sysops and for players alike, as there should be few changes between revision .56 and TW v3 Final. At the moment I'm looking for some assistance working up information on red play. (Hint, hint, Traitor.)



Lisa M. Cutler
aka Rave
EIS Product Support


Oh. Well, since you asked...
I'll e-mail ya and go from there.




-Traitor
Visit http://www.tw-cabal.com