Thanks for telling her that she can do as she pleases on somebody else's server. Does she have your permission to barricade Stardock on Rich's TWGS, too?

quote:Originally posted by colagada

Thanks for telling her that she can do as she pleases on somebody else's server. Does she have your permission to barricade Stardock on Rich's TWGS, too?


Nope. A player should always follow whatever rules the Sysop establishes on the server they're playing on. If they don't like those rules they should go elsewhere.

Agreed, and I do follow sysop rules.. the limpet issue isn't a rule.. it's not even an issue in this game. It became an issue when I tried to help answer a newbie question in a forum. Rich has yet to impose any rules on limpets other than they are allowed near stardock.


quote:Originally posted by Rave

quote:Originally posted by colagada

Thanks for telling her that she can do as she pleases on somebody else's server. Does she have your permission to barricade Stardock on Rich's TWGS, too?


Nope. A player should always follow whatever rules the Sysop establishes on the server they're playing on. If they don't like those rules they should go elsewhere.

Well, it is a very good question. But questions regarding what is and what isn't a bug are always going to have two distinctly different answers. The answer from those who think Tactic A is a bug and those who think Tactic A isn't a bug.

Providing there are no server rules against 0-turn limpet clearing, I don't see a problem with it.

quote:Originally posted by colagada

I doubt that the person who programmed TW coded it specifically to allow multiple limpets to be removed from a sector by entering and quitting the game. Perhaps the programmers can comment on it. I don't see where it says "bug abuse" or "cheating" anyplace. Perhaps you could post the whole article here?

I think the majority of playing tactics currently used weren't intended when the game was designed. For example, the description for a lvl 4 planet says that it takes so much ore you'll only be able to move it ever few days. Obviously it was never intended to be able to move a planet more often, but no one says that it's a bug.

It boils down to this: some players will do anything that they can get away with and have no remorse about it. Others feel that if it goes against the true nature of the game, then it's abuse. Most people fall in between those two points. I don't care either way. I'll do whatever everybody else is doing.

quote:Originally posted by Taz

Rev, I understand what your saying but our opinions on what a *bug* is are different, to me a bug is anything not intended by the original programming. What comes into question is whether or not a particular bug or 'Unintentionally Programmed Tactic' (to use a more neutral term) is acceptable with the players. I myself use the Red Tactics that are considered UPT's without any internal conflicts, mostly because they are so well known, found in just about any strategy guide, and built into most helpers. I am curious though, how many guides talk about this (I honestly don't know), and how many helper programs have a limpet removal script (I also don't know). You would know better than me. As for how well known this particular UPT is. Well All my limpets get removed from around SD in one day, however when I set 20-30 limpets at someone front door (after finding them from the one's around SD!), those stay and get tripped everytime that player logs on and goes out. I assume because of the journey they have to take to SD to clear them (because they don't know about the Limpet clearing UPT),or maybe they don't know that they are there, or maybe at that point they just don't care about their front door having a trip wire![:D]

Happy Tradin'

Taz's Underground



you simply can't argue that just because it wan't originally intended that it's a bug. first of all, you claim to read the mind of the author, which is impossible and therefore renders the argument invalid. but that's not all! second of all, there are plenty of game tactics in use today that are NOT bugs, but were clearly not originally intended as stated by the author in past interviews, e.g. sdt.

in summary, i think you need to revise your opinion on the definition of a bug.

quote:Originally posted by the reverend

quote:Originally posted by Taz

Rev, I understand what your saying but our opinions on what a *bug* is are different, to me a bug is anything not intended by the original programming. What comes into question is whether or not a particular bug or 'Unintentionally Programmed Tactic' (to use a more neutral term) is acceptable with the players. I myself use the Red Tactics that are considered UPT's without any internal conflicts, mostly because they are so well known, found in just about any strategy guide, and built into most helpers. I am curious though, how many guides talk about this (I honestly don't know), and how many helper programs have a limpet removal script (I also don't know). You would know better than me. As for how well known this particular UPT is. Well All my limpets get removed from around SD in one day, however when I set 20-30 limpets at someone front door (after finding them from the one's around SD!), those stay and get tripped everytime that player logs on and goes out. I assume because of the journey they have to take to SD to clear them (because they don't know about the Limpet clearing UPT),or maybe they don't know that they are there, or maybe at that point they just don't care about their front door having a trip wire![:D]

Happy Tradin'

Taz's Underground



you simply can't argue that just because it wan't originally intended that it's a bug. first of all, you claim to read the mind of the author, which is impossible and therefore renders the argument invalid. but that's not all! second of all, there are plenty of game tactics in use today that are NOT bugs, but were clearly not originally intended as stated by the author in past interviews, e.g. sdt.

in summary, i think you need to revise your opinion on the definition of a bug.


You are correct Rev, I don't know what the original intention was! And on that basis, I can't call this paricular 'object' a UPT, bug, etc. So I will call it a UUPT. (Unknown if Unintentionaly Programmed Tactic) just for the fun of it.[:)]

As far as my opinions as to what a bug is in general, I retain them. A program that behaves differently than intended is considered to have a bug.[:p] Of course different opinions is what makes the world go round.

Thank you for the commentary!

Taz's Underground

quote:As far as my opinions as to what a bug is in general, I retain them. A program that behaves differently than intended is considered to have a bug.[:p] Of course different opinions is what makes the world go round.

This is the beauty of Tradewars. So many modern tactics in this game were not necessarily thought of by the author when he made the game. Tradewars and its players can evolve and make newer, better, faster and fewer turned ways of doing things.

quote:Originally posted by SweetLittleGirl

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. Lets say I hit a sector with 25 limpets in it. If i sit in the sector and exit the game and re-enter the game, the old limpet drops off and a new one latches on... I was taught to clear sectors this way when there are massive amounts of limpets in a sector... I never suspected it might be bug use, just thought it was intended to work that way... That is what I'm trying to clarify, whether it is cheating or using a bug that no one seems to care about...or good game playing


quote:Originally posted by Taz

Because I have been out of circulation for 8 years, I can't tell you whats been happening through the last couple fixes, and versions. What I can tell you is that I have started playing over the past several months, and a common tactic I am known for is surrounding SD with Limpets. When they attach, and even when that player logs off, I still have a lock on them. I'm not saying that 'sometimes' logging off may work the way you describe, but it doesn't happen all the time, otherwise I wouldn't have a dozen or so Active Limpets while no one was even online. As far as utilizing a bug? There are far more beneficial bugs out there to worry about than the 5000 credits you save if you were able to do this, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over the morality of the issue.[;)]

Hope this helps!

Taz's Underground
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/tazunder


Yes you are right ..it is a cheat (bug) , but highly used.
Like you said .. in your defences you put 250 limps that would cost $$
and turns to remove.
But exit/enter game sequence and speed things up but doesnt use turns.
So my appion is take a turn to enter game >:)
that way you loose the price for 250 limps and they loose the credits for remove and turns like it use to be

Then get on to a more important issue .. no pod .. no capture .. I dont care if its manned or not.

This the old timers might remember .. scout marader ?? have carbo will travel <JK> cant capture me but I can map and explore faster
but you kill me .. carbo's might kill you ..
oh btw ..with 25k carbos ..I think any edit ship type edit could be fun >:)

Vid Kid <out>

P.S. now that I have gotten to the bottum of this thread ..
1 turn to enter game might be too much [:)]
maybe just one limpit till its removed .. then that tactic
would just use cpu cycles [:)] and the cost is proper for removel again >:)

<all done>

Limpet removal by relogging is a perfectly legal and ethical tactic. Costing one turn to log on would be one way to penalize the use of it.

quote:Posted by colagada:
Limpet removal by relogging is a perfectly legal and ethical tactic. Costing one turn to log on would be one way to penalize the use of it.


GOOD LORD PEOPLE, you dont need to change the mechanics of the game, just fix the bug. I still hold the opinion that if limpets are supposed to be "smart" enough to not all jump onto a passing ship at once, then they shure as hell would be smart enough not to die off when it met another of the same type and let the new one attach to your ship.

SHEESH[xx(]

I have been reading this thread since the start, and I have one question. What the hell is the problem? Get a life people. So what, someone is cheating by re logging in. Take a minute and think about just how insignificant this is. No one gets 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 turns because of it, nor do the limpet mines develop AI's and threaten to sue the site admins [;)]. You people crack me up. Hah.

Who cares what they are/are not _supposed_ to do. The real question is, is the current behaviour interesting/balanced. I'd say it is- people use limpets (so there's clearly still plenty of upside to using them) and they don't put 250 in every single sector whenever they have the cash (so they're not way too strong).

Take away their downside (that a whole bunch can be cleared cheaply) and they become way too strong- why would I not place a bazzillion limpets all over the place if I knew it costs me 10k, and you 5k plus at least 3 turns (worth about 30k-100k most games) to clear it.

quote:
GOOD LORD PEOPLE, you dont need to change the mechanics of the game, just fix the bug. I still hold the opinion that if limpets are supposed to be "smart" enough to not all jump onto a passing ship at once, then they shure as hell would be smart enough not to die off when it met another of the same type and let the new one attach to your ship.

SHEESH[xx(]

I still say the answer to this (and several other problems) is to change the logon process so that entering the game is not a sector entry event. As far as the game is concerned, my ship was already in that sector, what difference should my online/offline status make. I think it is ridiculous to log in to figs/mines/limps/navhaz/quasars just because I go offline. I am already in the sector, why should I have to reenter it?