i have a configuration issue with a bbs i want to setup it want port 23 and cant be changed. in twgs for the game port 513 is avaliable. i want some feedback before i change to port 513 . would it work out or not to change from port 23 to port 513 so i can run my bbs in telnet mode? i stay on port 23 untill i decide after checking back here for messages concerning this issue. presently i have 4 active games and looking for feedback. the bbs software is virtual advanced and wont run twgs so got to keep them seperate. thank you. pat

TWGS will also allow you to set the connection port to 2002. Many sysops use 513 or 2002 as alternatives when port 23 is used by other applications. If you have a redirect set with the telnet addy including the port, it really won't matter what port you use. Port 23 is the telnet port by default, so if you use a static IP and any other port besides 23, they will have to add that port number to the addy. example 245.3.24.157:2002

yes.. i noticed port 513 is the rlogin port so i cant use that. so 2002 is the answer.. i will announce the change when i make the switch from port 23 to port 2002. that may be about a week from now. thank you for your help and suggestions.. susscan.com port 23 for now. when the telnet bss come online it will have a variety of message bases and several games like slots, bre and old bbs favourites from the past. i need to rewite bbs menus for use with tenet and not phone modems and it is startrek format it will have the standerd dos tradewars too seperate from twgs also

good news. i am able to resolve port configuration with the bbs. it will use port 513 telnet(not rlogin) and twgs will stay on port 23. the bbs is running but closed to taking users while i get it telnet ready. i will keep you posted as we progress. thank you. pat

I think your solution is great considering your situation. However, I don't particularly like using the 2002 port because it is actually 'unofficially' used according to the IANA. Check this url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TCP_and_UDP_port_numbers. You can often find unused ports in the list. I like using 5023 and 5024 (admin).

edit: hmm looks like my pet port number is also 'unofficially' used; see http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers.

due to bbs wanting port 23 the tradewars game server will be moving from port 23 to port 2002 on march 17th 2008 . the bbs will assume port 23 at that time. this will clear up a few inconsistancies on the system. soory if this causes any hardship on any one and your understanding in this matter.. pat susscan.com 2002

tradewars game server is doing ok on port 2002...... plan on rebanging several games soon for twgs...... bbs iss outpost 5a is for messages bases relating to startrek orientated messages and no games at the present time as cant get them to function. we are in the process of connection to virtualnet and issnet and local mesages hope to add fidonet soon and currantly have email accounts. everything is at no cost to bring these services to you. still ironing out the bugs.... bbs is virtual advanced by roland de graaf.. the computer is win2000 server a gig of ram dual cpu at a gighz speed 24/7 uptime and dsl connection. have fun .. pat

Why wouldn't you have the BBS connection be the front end to your TWGS? Everyone telnets into port 23 gets to your BBS, Signs up as a user, then from your doors menu route them to RLOGIN to your TWGS. That way you don't have to publish a telnet address and seperate port.

Because a lot of people hate BBS front ends where there is no direct connect addy for the TWGS. It hoses up relogs and makes getting back on a pain in the butt... I sure wouldn't play on a board that did that.

Hoses up relogs? you mean it prevents you from using a script to put you back on the server when you are afk? Prevents you from playing the game afk? That sounds like the PERFECT reason to have a BBS front end to me.

Sigh, not that old chestnut again. I can write a script to do practically anything, what it means is that the already paltry list of public scripts ya'll non-scripters rely on diminishes even more. If you want to make it harder on yourself, fine... go ahead. Seriously, go ahead... I'll just laugh when someone complains they got invaded AFK because their relog didn't work. "Waaah cheaters!! Cheaters!!" rotflol. SSDD.

Of course as soon as someone finds a way to lock up your BBS's socket code you can expect the real fun to commence. Yes, people do that these days... I've had another team DDoS the server's router to keep me offline before.

Anyway it slows down the relog and amounts to a general pain in the butt. People, in general (the vast majority) don't like that and won't play on it. There's already a smaller than average list of players... if you want to create a board that sits there and has all of 3 players a month go ahead, I won't stop you. But if you're actually trying to attract players you do need to listen to what the masses want.

For everyone else the answer is easy. Setup your BBS on one port, setup the TWGS on another (using telnet, telnet>rlogin) and connect the 2 whenever you want. If you want to tie down games to registered BBS players only (like for a BBS-wide turny) then setup closed games and manually add users pre-bang. IIRC, Vid used to do that (had to register on the BBS before you could join)... don't think he still does tho.

That works out well. You won't play on my server, and since us non-scripters rely on the public scripts that won't support the bbs, everyone will still be on the same level playing field. Anyone who gets invaded because they are AFK is just out of luck. If you want to better defend yourself, you should be at the keyboard.

And people are more than welcome to DDoS my router. there is nothing i can do about it and if it's going to happen, it will happen if i have a bbs front end or not.

As for listening to the masses, If the masses are afk script zombies then I will be ok if they aren't on my server. I'd rather attract PLAYERS to my server who will play and not just login and afk for 95% of their online time. If that means i have an empty server then so be it. I don't have to be the biggest or the best server, i put the server up so IF someone wants to join, they can. There are things that i really don't care for in the new version of Tradewars, but eliminating the ability to completely play afk is one of the best things they have done.

Well said. One of the best things about TW is that it is so infinitely customizable, a sysop can do so much with the settings, and players can vote with their feet.

ROTFLOL. So in other words anyone with overnight keytime is going to win w/o a challenge. Right on... =) Or if someone else that writes scripts feels like playing there they'll clean up w/o a challenge.

Oh, then there's that bug that lets you knock players offline whenever you want... that'd be really fun to use while you're invading. It's not the whole "it'll happen or not" thing... it's how people can react to it should it happen. If you can knock people offline and they can't relog... eww. Doesn't hurt me directly, but it's going to make the game really lame when even fewer players can compete.

The problem with the whole "script zombie" argument is that scripts even out the playing field in a way that nothing else can. Nothing in the new version of TW removes the ability to play afk... infact I guarantee that anything you add to try and remove that ability will only make it worse. AFK play evens a lot of scores and forces people to think "hey, if I hit that fig, I might get torped... maybe I shouldn't hit it until I'm lower on turns!" instead of just ewarping around randomly. It removes a lot of the carelessness. It forces people, myself namely, to actually think before I act. I like that, I like a challenge. Removing challenges just makes for a boring game.

Obviously it's your server, do as you want. I'm just saying... I hope others don't take it as a good idea to make the game more boring. It's already dang near impossible to find a good game these days, both due to a lack of competitive players and competitive attitudes... both contributing to each chicken-egg style.