Prom, I don't know why you need to keep making this so personal. Feels like you're doing a profile on me. Seriously, you don't know anything about me. Text is so impersonal.

What you're saying is that the work I've done on v2 is just not for you. Fine. But what's the point? Is that supposed to help me learn that the next time I invest my time in a free upgrade, I better make darn sure there's something in there for everyone? If you don't like it, don't use it.

And please stop psychoanalyzing me.

Booger, that is good advice, I agree.

Yes, but then you get into the "why" of this. It has very little to do with current play styles, it has everything to do with competing games. There's hundreds of multi-player games out there now, many of which are graphically amazing (and yes, graphics do matter). If you want thousands and thousands of players, you have to compete with them. We aren't.

The "niche" people keep trying to go for here is the retro BBS game thing. And frankly, that niche is tiny and boring. Nostalgia only lasts so long, do you really expect it to pull massive hordes of players for lengths of time?

The game market today is mostly 15 to 25 year olds. Most of them have never even seen a BBS. Their idea of retro is Quake. That's where the money is, that's where the numbers are. The BBS niche... it's never going to pull in the numbers. At one point, TW had the mainstream. BBS door games were the only multi-player game structure available, they were "high tech." That was 20+ years ago. Things change, we haven't changed enough.

This thread is a perfect example of why there needs to be a forum for debate that is hidden from anyone but members. How, in any way, does the last frew threads of this discussion promote TW or attract new players?

All good points, Sing. And if I was trying to draw in thousands and make money, this isn't where I'd be doing it. What I'm trying to do is conserve the game so that someone who wants to explore this old BBS game can do so in a way that is actually representative of what it was, not what it has become. When someone comes and looks at TW today, they get a false sense of what this game was. I don't care if they only look at it for a day, I want them to see it for what it was. There are many different things I'm doing to try to improve that situation. One is making the game more easily accessible in a private environment so that players aren't exposed to cut-throat games on public servers as their first look at this game. But another approach, one that I personally feel is worthwhile, is giving gameops the ability to support public games that actually play more like it used to play. Not because I think this will make this ancient text game into the next big thing, but because I want people who do explore the game to know it for what it was. It's what it was that is interesting, not what it has become. The jury is out, people. People don't like what this game has become, and those who do are the 100 or so still actively playing.

Now, that being said, I want to point out that other text based games that suffer less from the uncontrolled script and bot-driven play are doing better numbers in terms of activity than TradeWars is today. There is a niche for these games, but among those who enjoy that niche, TW has a reputation for being a broken game. There could be more activity. More than 100 players isn't really asking a whole heck of a lot, guys.

I've said this a number of times, but it needs repeating. 100 players is an estimate of the number of people willing to play on public servers. It's not an estimate of the number of people actually playing the game. But public servers are the public face of the game, and if it's possible to draw those other players out of private games and give them fun games on public servers, that generates energy and interest, and encourages people to take a look at this old, klunky game. And that's all I want. I want people to remember TW and to learn about it. I have other projects where I can earn my millions.

@BigD, I'm not ashamed of this debate. And it's no secret. Anyone contemplating playing this game is going to learn about this debate in the most harsh terms the first time he tries to play in a public game other than a tradehugs game. At this this debate shows some desire to address that problem.

I agree with you about the tendency for some to go negative and personal and to psychoanalyze. There's no call for that. But we don't need a smack forum for that, we just need to not do that.

Well, one... I was addressing Kav's "there were thousands of people!" argument. It's common here, but it misses the obvious.

Additionally, however, there are serious limits to what you can actually do with the game alone. There are layers beneath the game layer that have fundamentally changed the way the game works. The game evolved because of those changes, the best you can do is try to "approximate" the old style play (message queue delay, single node, etc).

But that won't take the game back to the 80s/90s, all it will do is shift the way aggressive players play the game... from defense to offense. You can change the balance however you want, but you can't undo the internet. Private games will help people select less aggressive players, if they want, but part of the old game was that you never knew who your corpies were or whether they were worth the risk of corping with. There's just some things you can't reproduce.

I don't know of any multi-player text game that's doing well in terms of numbers. Most of the ppl I know that leave TW do so because of the time requirements, not because of bots (altho bots are a common excuse, eliminating bots would not fix the problem).

My big concern here, in a nut shell, is that we'll target symptoms of the problem and fix them rather than the underlying issues. The underlying issues will just redevelop in a new way, and we'll be even worse off.

I agree that there's no need for a smack forum. Most of the members here would appreciate a place to state thier opinion freely without getting a warning for doing so, while others are free to do so with no consequences at all.
Hence the reason that I will post my opinion in this forum, but I won't touch open discussion now.

I understand that it may be impossible to achieve my goal. But for now, I have some time to commit and the desire to do it. That's all there is to it. Other than that goal, there isn't much that would keep me at this.

BigD, I wouldn't say that there were no consequences to the issue between you and Helix. Maybe not public consequences, but it isn't just ignored.

I'm glad you're back.

lol, nothing personal, no psychoanalysis, just responding in kind to your implications.

I'm not sure why the defensive posture over a statement where I said I haven't seen much to impress yet esp when I believe I probably said something to the effect that I planned on looking into it more.

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

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

I didn't mean to imply anything. I say what I mean. Any implication was inferred (and no inference was implied).

My irritation is based on your phrasing. Tell me that none of the new features or improvements appeal to you. That's fine. Say you were unimpressed, that's a whole different point. That's going out of your way to insult me. And I'll go out on a limb and say that if you walked up to Bill Gates and said you were unimpressed by Windows 7, he'd be irritated as well.

I love feedback on my work, but I do prefer that it not come off as rude. And that's not just me personally. Anyone who does anything for a living, have some respect for what they do and don't just dismiss them out of hand because you personally have no use for them. You're like a heckler. If you don't like the comedy routine, walk out. But don't go after the comedian. He's doing the best he can!

Are we done yet? ;) You caught me trying not to do "real work", and any diversion is a good diversion. But I gotta get serious for a bit.

As for the course plot proposal, let's get a look at it in action on the beta and then talk about real issues. And if you don't think any of this is worth the effort, nobody's forcing you to participate.

Really? What does the following mean?
"John Pritchett wrote: I'm exploring options. That may not impress you, Prom, but it's not about you at the moment."

To me it implies a self-centered egocentric person.

or

"John Pritchett wrote: ....But there are undeniable reasons to play the current game, not the least of which is TWGS itself, which despite what Prom says, is a valued tool for managing games.."

Where have I ever said or implied that TWGS was not a valued tool, or for that matter where have I said it was? Some would say that is a falsehood, but I would just as soon say you are mistaken in stating that.





I fail to see how "unimpressed" is an insult. The improvements/features don't impress me - do you want me to lie?



LMAO, heckler - I really haven't gone after the comedian in this case, but I have disagreed so maybe to some that is beng a heckler.



At any rate, the ribs have been on the smoker long enough and Jack-n-Coke have reunited to celebrate another hot day in KS. So back to real life.

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

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

OK back to, let’s give this a TRY and see what happens. It’s no secret that I do use scripts, mainly trading, hauling & colonizing – what I’d call the bare minimum to enjoy the game without getting carpel tunnel syndrome. All of the scripts you mention above, most likely the proposed OPTION will not be turned on in games promoting that type of play anyway. Many of those types of scripts are best suited for high turn or unlimited turn games.

I say we give JP the freedom without the grief to try out another OPTION that most of you will never use, but if the basic type scripts still run, some sysops may use this OPTION for their builders or regulated games.

I'm mainly interested to find out if basic scripts will run, which won't with the new change.

forums are about expressing opinions which are allowed to be divergent in nature. otherwise why post? i mean, god forbid someone insinuate something negative.

With minor tweaks, all scripts will run. As with all changes, if you can't script, then you're screwed until you get another scripter to fix it for you.

As for ztm changes, all of this is already obsolete. Some of us already have a functional workaround just in case. Once again, changes of this nature will only give us a larger advantage until those scripts find their way down to the public, then we'll be back to the same status quo.

We should avoid trying to "fix" symptoms of the problem, and there's no sense in getting into a developer v scripter war. We should be looking for core problems and fixing things at a more fundamental level instead.