@ Toyman , limpits can not be removed.

As for this topic .. marking the msl in bang would probly have strange effects to a script like Port fixer ...

Port fixer can move dock to next to fed and return from dock to fed among
other things.

This is the solution to path to and from fed to dock issue.
There are a few sysops using my script Port Fixer found below as attachment.

These options being suggested for MSL clearing could be problematic :
loss of figs besides extern , loss of ships placed in MSL , loss of planets in MSL.
Just to name a few ... Just run port fixer and give safe passage to those who
come into the game.

my 2¢

Have to agree with Vid here. Moving Dock Adj to Fed and making a oneway BACK to Fed in additon to a larger Bank pretty much solves the problem of getting to Dock and getting a scanner. Server Scripts clear DMZ's currently in some games. These are set to various levels for whatever the sysop wants now. A random sweep keeps from knowing the timing and the Red warp point can be put back after the sweep.

A server script could clear certain sectors of ALL density making them Clear Blind Warps.
OR Create new One Way Outs from DOck to beat a blockade...all these things have issues.

A DMZ could be set to Warp Outs only and this solves the Red jump point. But personally I don't see where the DMZ solves much. Proper edits prevent early game blockades. and Vid's port fixer which makes DOck a gas Seller and attachs Dock to fed along with a large bank account solves most of the rest.

If you want to make Blockades much harder then increase Fedspace to 25 or 40.

I think the point is that he doesn't want to require
scripts for stuff like this.

That too is not a problem .. put the feature into Tedit and then its a matter of settings.

Actually , it is done in Tedit by the script .. but if its setup in Bang then that would
solve alot of issues.

But as I recall , TWGS 3.13 can't seem to get the stock star dock port values right everytime either.

Check a non beta server CR stardock and see if its 3k each product.
For some reason it doesn't always stay what it was set to or get set correctly.

These suggestions are all nice and if they are agreed upon I hope they are put into
V4 and not V3.
This Beta is to clean bugs , not change the game.

Vid, I definitely understand your feelings about not wanting new features in v3, just bug fixes. And I agree with that. But there are a lot of things that have become a part of this game that are not directly supported by the game, things like clearing MSLs, truce periods, limiting grids, etc, some provided by server-side-scripts, some by server rules of conduct. Those kinds of things are part of this game, and where they've been done well, those games have thrived relative to other more "out of the box" sites. I feel justified in integrating some of those features into the game so that they're more accessible and also more efficient. But I wouldn't feel justified adding a new ship type or new Citadel level, as cool as that might be. The list of those kinds of additions is growing, but they're just better suited for a v4.

OK, and this may or may not be possible.

The way the server side scripts do it, the "Protected Fed Space" sectors do not encompass Fed space and move out from there, rather they are to the side, so there are open space sectors next to some of the fed space sectors, and that would satisfy the near Fed jumps for reds and near colonizing.

So maybe something like sectors 6 - 10 lead to Open space, sectors 2 - 5 lead to protected space when that option is choosen? And either real-time fed patrolled MSL only to and from SD, and SD must have at least 1 maybe 2 back doors for reds to access.

How does that sound?

Problem is server-side scripts are not the same. In other words, what one sysop does is not necessarily what another sysop does. For example, one sysop may protect (sweep) sectors adjacent to Fed sectors. We wrote our own to only sweep the MSL path from sector 1 to StarDock and don't touch all the adjacent sectors to Fed Space. I can also switch it to do other things, which includes removing anything from those sectors or any sector I specify. So when you say "how server side scripts do it", remember that there are different variations of scripts and things us Sysop's do. You'll need to be more clear as to which server or what specific script.

I'm not sure what having sector 6-10 in Open space is for. I may not fully understand your idea, but it sounds like this would make Fed Space smaller than it currently is.

All of that is certainly doable.

As far as having some near-Fedspace sectors that are excluded from a DMZ, I guess any one-way-in warps to FedSpace or MSLs would not be considered DMZ even though they're only one warp off. That's because the definition of DMZ would be a depth of N sectors OUT of FedSpace or MSLs, and not simply N sectors AWAY from. Does that make sense? So if you're guaranteed to have a decent number of one-way-in warps to FedSpace, that would solve some of these issues, right?

The suggestion has been made to put a scanner on the starter ship. Would that really solve this problem? Seems too easy.

The scanner may not solved all problems but it would solve some such as going into a game late and running into an L3+ or a large offensive fig drop.

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

"A man who has no skills can be taught, a man who has no honor has nothing."

That makes those sectors crazy valuable. With
only 9 possible sectors to warp in, can you really
manage 100s of 1-ways in? Otherwise, I'm going
to grid them out very quickly.



If people can scan before they move, then they
know not to hit large walls of enemy figs. It
doesn't stop a blockade, but it keeps people
from running into them.

We are really talking about 2 issues here.

Take Vid's Port fixer...It runs Fed into Dock AND back.....add the bigger bank account and buying gas and Solo player lockouts are history. A solo player could get back into the game and to his planets/bubble whatever with some ease.


Second issue. People getting in game and starting up (ppting) etc without dieing right away from a kill scripts,

Solution is..
1)Better cashing scripts
2)Being reasonable in there expectations on playing in a game which has reached mid/end stage.

A CLOSE game after 5 day feature or some such would keep new players from even starting.
IF your adding an OPEN game might as well add a CLOSE game feature as well.

DMZ's etc aside will not solve this issue.
MIGHT have limited value in SOLO play but I think the value is more perseived than real here.
Toyman's Builder game has them and I see no effect.

In a perfect world people would take responsibility
for choosing a locked-down game, rather than just
whining about it. Sadly, they don't. This is one issue
that can never be worked around, you can't beat an
aggressive player with a time advantage.

If you simply want a "locate dock next to fedspace"
option in the TWA, and a "stardock port class" option
in the TWA, then I think that would work just as well
as anything proposed here. While we're at it, how
about a "stardock defense level" in the TWA too? That
way we can harden dock to match fig capacity.

Well if they cant get in the game they cant whine.

Definitely some decent suggestions here. I definitely think there is and should be a point where a new player is not going to be competitive, and it would be polite for the game to make that known. Though I'm sure there are some players who would see that as a challenge, at least players would have fair warning and not be discouraged when they can't fly two sectors before being #SD#.

So an open day and a close day could be useful. If some truce rules are implemented in the game, these could go hand-in-hand with that, so maybe a game can accept players during build-up (or for part of build-up) but not after.

But I think this issue goes beyond just the question of how advanced a game is when someone starts. It has to do with the pace of the game, and the skill level of opponents and the complexity of tactics that will ultimately decide the game. And whether or not you agree that slower paced games with fewer turns and slower growth are any fun, those are the games new players need to start out in to begin to work their way up the learning curve. Cut-throat games do not show well. You can enter and die without getting a single glimpse into what makes this game interesting. That's why, if there is a way to create slower paced, less cut-throat games, it would be good to be able to rate them as such.

Would be nice to have an option to close the
game on a timer. Not sure if that's feasible.

Otherwise, they'll sit at terra and whine about
yesterday's #SD#.