*** I COPIED THIS FROM THE BETA FORUM SINCE IT HAS A WIDER APPEAL ***

i have a proposal that may appeal to a lot of people. there is a lot of talk about the possibility of restricting communication reception at certain prompts in the game. so, for example, on a port you might not "see" fig hits or subspace conversation. these kinds of changes drastically change how the game is played, and i understand the concerns.

my proposal is this: for changes as drastic as this, why not make them TEDIT options? Restrict Coms Y/N. there is a lot of precedent for this as seen in many recent releases. just look at the TEDIT "I" screen:

<6> Fighter Lock Decay : 1440 Min
<7> Death Delay : Yes
<8> Multiple Photon Fire : Yes
<9> Show Who's Online : Yes
<0> FedSpace Photons : No
<[> Minimum Login Time : 10 Min

all of those changes to the game were made optional to sysops. is that a reasonable proposal?

quote:Originally posted by the reverend

*** I COPIED THIS FROM THE BETA FORUM SINCE IT HAS A WIDER APPEAL ***

i have a proposal that may appeal to a lot of people. there is a lot of talk about the possibility of restricting communication reception at certain prompts in the game. so, for example, on a port you might not "see" fig hits or subspace conversation. these kinds of changes drastically change how the game is played, and i understand the concerns.

my proposal is this: for changes as drastic as this, why not make them TEDIT options? Restrict Coms Y/N. there is a lot of precedent for this as seen in many recent releases. just look at the TEDIT "I" screen:

<6> Fighter Lock Decay : 1440 Min
<7> Death Delay : Yes
<8> Multiple Photon Fire : Yes
<9> Show Who's Online : Yes
<0> FedSpace Photons : No
<[> Minimum Login Time : 10 Min

all of those changes to the game were made optional to sysops. is that a reasonable proposal?



Good idea cross posting this rev, i will also add my reply to this topic here...

This has already been addressed, and yes I agree and see no reason that those fixes that are deemed easy enough to implement as an option should be. The thing is also that v3 is close to the end of it's development cycle and fixing things by adding extra work to appease a small segment of players is not a viable option. But rest assured that as in the past those fixes preformed on v3 will be an option if making the option is feasible from a time and stability stand point.

quote:
The thing is also that v3 is close to the end of it's development cycle and fixing things by adding extra work to appease a small segment of players is not a viable option.


If there is a concern about extra work being added for v3 development, perhaps it would be in the best interest of EIS to leave game play as it has been for the past 6 years (at least!) alone and worry about changing the style of the play in v4? Wouldn't it be more prudent to try to just fix bugs instead of trying to fundamentally change how the game has worked for so long?

quote:Originally posted by the reverend

quote:
The thing is also that v3 is close to the end of it's development cycle and fixing things by adding extra work to appease a small segment of players is not a viable option.


If there is a concern about extra work being added for v3 development, perhaps it would be in the best interest of EIS to leave game play as it has been for the past 6 years (at least!) alone and worry about changing the style of the play in v4? Wouldn't it be more prudent to try to just fix bugs instead of trying to fundamentally change how the game has worked for so long?



Getting Trade Wars 2002 v3 to a final stable version that merges the strategic game play of the DOOR with the interactive play of the HVS version is the reason for the work in the 1st place, and also the reason that the game has 56 current revisions. The fixes that are being made are fixes to existing components and features of the game that either don't work, don't work as they were intended or work in a manner that was unforseen and detrimental to designed game play. The only extra work is trying to satisfy a handful of people who have become comfortable with these flaws in design while achieving the overall goal of the game development, and that is being done as well. This is not something new, if you look at the revisions history this pattern of development has been a work in progress over the entire development cycle of TWGS and v3. In that development cycle game play has been changed significantly and always towards the continuation of where HVS had taken the single player DOOR version to multiplayer interaction while trying to fix problems the HVS version encountered or overlooked. Because of the pause in development I think some people have forgotten, or weren't actually around when revisions were regularly made and see this as something new and drastic.

I am curious as to where you were playing Trade Wars 6 years ago that the game play was the same as it is today, v3 wasn't even compiled under 32 bit until sometime in 99 and to my knowledge the main version of Trade Wars 2002 being played in 1998 would have been MBBS 2.x, If i remember correctly the first major tournament game run on TWGS wasn't even until right around 3 years ago and i am confident that those who have played both versions would disagree at the notion that game play is the same today as it was then. On a side note I find it curious that some players who consider themselves high level players and claim to know what's best for the game, who like yourself oppose fixes towards classic game play, are apt to ridicule and insult other players when they base and voice their opinions on erroneous data, lack of research or exaggerated "facts".

I suggest if you are worried about being prudent that wait and see what these fixes are, and how they affect your game and then decide if you enjoy playing the game as it was fundamentally designed. Nothing is being altered in these fixes that will negatively affect the way that Trade Wars 2002 was intended to be played, they are also not intended to enhance any particular individual style of play, as has been stated over and over they are meant to get the game to its designed goal.

Now that you are aware of the game development goal, that being a stable v3 code merging the DOOR versions strategic game play with the HVS version's multiplayer interaction, perhaps you can offer some suggestions from your experience playing those versions as compared to the current version on what fixes you feel will help to achieve that result.

[quote]Originally posted by Rick Mead (teamEIS)


On a side note I find it curious that some players who consider themselves high level players and claim to know what's best for the game, who like yourself oppose fixes towards classic game play, are apt to ridicule and insult other players when they base and voice their opinions on erroneous data, lack of research or exaggerated "facts".[quote]

Players of any caliber who make authoritative or "instructional" posts based on erroneous data, lack of research, or exaggerations, and who have been asked repeatedly NOT to make such posts, and yet continue to do so, deserve whatever ridicule and/or insults they get.

Ans yes, many of us do oppose the goal of devolving to classic single player non-interactive tradewars.

quote:
On a side note I find it curious that some players who consider themselves high level players and claim to know what's best for the game, who like yourself oppose fixes towards classic game play, are apt to ridicule and insult other players when they base and voice their opinions on erroneous data, lack of research or exaggerated "facts".


show me a post where i ridiculed another player. and don't tell me when you said "some players" you weren't referring to me.

i'm trying to have a decent conversation here. now if you want to continue ad hominem (look it up) then lets just get res in here and talk about each other's mother and take it to the smack talk forum.

who cares if and where i was playing tradewars six years ago? does it make my position invalid? if the bbs i played on was totally unknown - does that make my argument wrong? whats wrong with saying, "i like where tw has come and i don't want to go back to a more classic version"? do you think i'm playing tradewars today and i'm bitter about it not being more classic?

address my argument, not whether i call myself a high level player or whether i'm a newbie. if my facts are wrong or my opintion is worthless, then just say so. you don't have to attack me.

quote:

On a side note I find it curious that some players who consider themselves high level players and claim to know what's best for the game, who like yourself oppose fixes towards classic game play, are apt to ridicule and insult other players when they base and voice their opinions on erroneous data, lack of research or exaggerated "facts".



I think rev was being fairly Civil. This is the way that you are however and It's come to be expected that you'll treat everyone like this. I remember YOU calling "Newbies" all sorts of things in the past and yet I dont see you here saying how you feel sorry for the way you have been (and still are going by your post). I have seen you tell a newcomer to a game that he just needs to quit because he sucks and yet YOUR going to tell us how the Spirit of the game is trying to be revived.

I would personally like to see you give an apology to rev for a reply like that, Tho I know it wont happen because you have never given one when it's due. I do expect you instead to delete this thread or remove the "offending" post.

quote:Ans yes, many of us do oppose the goal of devolving to classic single player non-interactive tradewars.


Statements like this make me wonder why I'm even attempting to debate my goals for the game. You can't possibly believe my goal is to return to single-player TW.

In fact, the entire tone of this "debate" is disheartening. For any of you who wonder why I haven't been actively involved with TW for the past two years, wonder no more.

Here's how it's going to work from now on. I won't bother reading any of the input from this forum. As long as I felt I could weigh the input and make my own decisions, I was willing to do that. But when the debate becames personal and derisive, I honestly have better things to do.

There will be changes. There will be new revisions. Either play them, or get out of the way for those who will. Personally, it won't effect me either way. I do this for love of the game and MOST of the players and gameops. For those who appreciate that, I'll continue to do what I can. For those who don't, you honestly won't be missed.

That was a little sarcasm The EIS definition of "classic" game play (my perception, based on recent posts from you and Gypsy) seems to be more geared towards role playing space empire building, and less geared towards real time multiplayer strategy/action, which is what the game is today.

quote:Originally posted by John Pritchett (EIS)

quote:Ans yes, many of us do oppose the goal of devolving to classic single player non-interactive tradewars.


Statements like this make me wonder why I'm even attempting to debate my goals for the game. You can't possibly believe my goal is to return to single-player TW.


jp - would you mind speaking to the topic? i mean no disrespect, but this thread isnt about that one-line quote in cherokee's post. it's about tedit options for revision 57 and following.

since you want to make the game appeal to as wide an audience as possible, doesn't it make sense to consider tedit options as a way to please everyone?

quote: Originally posted by Didaskalos

Ok look. I am starting to see some of the primary points of contention.

I don't think you do...

quote: 1. It is apparent that EIS has a goal (whatever the motivating factors may be). As it stands, EIS has been largely dorment, largely unresponsive, and putting it nicely, unorganized. That being said, Tradewars IS their product, Tradewars IS their responsibility. Because of the aformentioned lack of involvement for a reasonably long period of time, an entire 'civilization' for lack of a better way of putting it, has sprung from the last released version of the game. Part and parcel of that civilization is an entire cast of players, ranging from new to ultra-elite. Hundreds of thousands of man hours have been invested in the current game, ranging from scripts, to strategy, to edits, tournamentts, etc. In short, a very large investment of very real time and effort has been expended. As it turns out, the EIS crew now wants to make changes to this environment, and of course it meets resistance, which it expected. Unfortunately for those who have invested time and effort, EIS really doesn't care what the current patrons of the 'civilization' want, nor what experience they have with respect to how changes might affect the game. Here is a typical conversation between EIS and the commoners.

EIS: If we modify the current gameplay to meet the equivalent mathematical function f(x,y,z) = factorial(integral(sigma^2 * tan(integral(y)+z) - x)) then we will have met our goal.

Knowledgeable Player : If you modify it to meet those standards than the game will break down when x asymptotically approaches y

EIS : You don't understand what we want, just wait till we're DONE!!

Newbie : YES EIS!! I Agree! 2 + 3 = 4!!

Knowledgeable Player : Newbie please do not contribute irrelevant, incorrect information.

EIS : How DARE YOU Knowledgeable player! Everyone has a voice in this great game! You can't tell him to shutup! It's not civil. Now please sit your Butt down and wait until we're done.

Knowledgeable Player : Didn't you just hear what Newbie said?

EIS : Yes, I heard, but in reality, neither you nor him matter, as we know what we want, and you realistically have no input. But thanks for trying!

SUMMARY: There is an authority issue here. EIS owns the game, and as such feels no compulsion or responsibility to the current set of players. As a mask for this, EIS says that everyone's opinion is important, and being that the truly Knowledgeable Players are only a small subset of the playing field (which of course, is a normal distribution), EIS dismisses their opinion.

1(a). EIS had an announced break in development of v3 in order to pursue other avenues for Trade Wars as a whole, there was nothing unorganized, or unresponsive about it, it was stated all along that development had been paused and would continue at such a point as allowed, that point is now. As far as responsive people received their codes in a timely matter during that time for the most part and received technical support for the game during that period as well.

1(b). A civilization has developed? In actuality a community has been dismantled. What's the largest game you have played in over the past say year? How many of the current most known about public servers have a steady user base above 20-25, of those how many have interactive games were you find 20 or 25 people in the game at the same time say... end of week 2. the reality is that very few people have begun playing in the time period you are referring to and even fewer of those have stayed. the vast majority of people still playing this game our casual private social players, believe that or don't debate it, scream to the high heavens, but its a fact.

1(c). I don't think I understand your math equation here, is this some secret math compilation that you as a "knowledgable" player knows that can help EIS meet it's goal for v3?

1(summary). The only opinions that do not matter are those which are conveyed in a sarcastic, demeaning or derogatory manner. I am not sure if calling people outright liars falls into this category, you be the judge.

quote: 2. EIS thinks that by changing the game, not only will it meet its original game design, but it will appeal to more players, allow players to live longer, and ultimately, have a larger fan base. Knowledgeable Player, who has heard complaint after complaint that they ruin the game with scripts, macros, strategy, online time, etc etc sees this as a complete nerfing of the game as a response to newbie complaints. Knowledgeable Player says as much. EIS castigates Knowledgeable Player for being mean to newbies, being only a small section of the community, and for arguing. Knowledgeable Player says in short, 'this is a text game. appeal is limited by that fact alone. how could you really think about alienating the most dedicated players in hopes of getting those untapped masses of geeks to play? EIS says 'butt off. I'm closing this thread.'

SUMMARY : Knowledgeable Player thinks EIS is completely out of touch with reality.

2(a). EIS isn't changing the game to "appeal to more players, allow players to live longer, and ultimately, have a larger fan base". To the contrary it is fixing the game to appeal to the existing fan base, many of which who have stopped playing the game in it's current form. The real problem lies in the fact that the game was actually made too configurable years ago, it should have been left at a more default state somewhere in between an HVS configuration which allowed for very few options (longest warp path, turns, starting cash and selecting 0-5000 sectors basically was it) to what we have now which is 3 pages of options just for a basic bang, add in the extra options of tedit and you have an overwhelming amount of configurations for the average SysOp / GameOp to navigate and set in a balanced fashion.

2(b). No one has had to face castigation from EIS, but possibly your idea of sever punishment is as severely over blown as that of the opinion these fixes will in somehow devolve or "nerf" the game. All that has been pointed out is the treatment of those people that are deemed "less knowledgable" or "newbs" when they post some sort of incorrect information in a post from some "knowledgable players", yet one of these same "knowledgable players" posts a statement to support his opinion that is as exaggerated and unsubstantiated as almost any I have read from anyone. I see no flames being thrown at that, no "you are an idiot shut the hell up", maybe the same curtesy should be extended both ways. I personally feel that correcting someone in a forum in a polite manner is a more appropriate avenue then to burn them down. I also agree with what Cherokee said that people that post repeatedly misguided information do get tiresome and should be replied to in a more harsh fashion, but quite often the very first time an unknown person posts something that is wrong, even innocently, are pounced on and tore down, making other people reluctant to post in fear of being made to look like a fool if they make a mistake in their post.

2(c). EIS is not attempting to alienate anyone, EIS is trying, once again, to appease everyone it can with the final version of v3, but most importantly those in the fan base who have a dedicated time and effort and have a genuine love for the classic game and its spirit.

2(summary). "Knowledgable player" has actually no idea what the goal of v3 is, even tho its been stated repeatedly

quote: 3. EIS says 'we're going to change the game to remove bugs, stay true to HVS, and make sure the MOST people possible are happy.' Knowledgeable Player says 'OK, well then, why don't you make the more radical changes optional?'. EIS says, 'yeh, we might do that, if its minimal effort. We just want to get a stable release and stop messing with it. But, you know, you really don't matter, so just wait until we're done. Oh and by the way, don't tell newbie he is an idiot just because he is factually incorrect and has no experience, but decides to post in this topic.'

SUMMARY : EIS is alienating those who have been most responsible for the limited success and longevity of the current game model.

3. You repeat here the same points you attempted to make in points 1 and 2 saying EIS is basically lying and that we don't care what the "dedicated players" want, so go ahead and re read the replies to those points above.

3(summary). i am curious as to who you feel are most responsible for the "limited success and longevity" of the current model, i hate to assume but it would seem you are referring to those people that are agreeing with you here, and that is just ridiculous. The game has enjoyed the most longevity and is by far the most successful game of its kind (it could be argued that it is one of the most long lived and successful computer games of any kind). are you trying to say that its enjoyed these rewards mostly because of the current 25 or so players who play the game at highly competitive levels, surely you aren't. The game's success is the result of thousands of people who love the game (the original DOOR version sold over 30k registrations, HVS somewhere in the neighborhood of 1100). While most of these people are not still active in the game, their contribution isn't diminished. I agree that the current group of players you are referring to have had a big impact on the game, but to say its an impact that is the most responsible for the success is as far fetched as any outlandish statement i have read concerning this game. It could be argued that the elite players have imploded on themselves in the last few years as a matter of fact, given the current level of participation in "major games". It wasn't uncommon for regular everyday games to have 50 players major games upwards of 150 just a couple years ago, now where are those levels? Will the game ever get back to those sort of levels? I don't know, most likely not, but games from HVS that were regularly in the 150-200 player range dropped significantly down to as low as they are now during HVS's final stages and as work began on v3 they slowly climbed back to those levels and even more and more new players entered (most of the current high level players started playing the game during this period) as the game developed to a cross between the DOOR and HVS once that development stopped the levels dropped once again to the current levels, now its time to resume development along the path the development had been traveling to the eventual goal and hopefully some of those levels will rise once again. If it does happen won't be with new players it will be with old players who have left the game because they don't like the flaws in the current state.

in closing i will say that in the future if you want to post insults (especially to the people who run the forums you are posting in) at least have the curtesy to do it in the proper forum, if your only manner of debate is to call people liars and sarcastically insult them keep it to the Smack Talk forums, as this is a forum for SysOps and GameOps to discuss the game, not sling mud.

I thought you stopped work on TW v3 to "pursue other avenues for Trade Wars as a whole", not because you didn't like the tone of debate some 2 years ago.

Look, the point here isn't to make you disheartened. I don't think I was personal or derisive. Sarcastic sure, but I didn't realize I had to walk on eggshells here. I'll try to restrain myself in the future.

quote:Originally posted by the reverend

quote:
On a side note I find it curious that some players who consider themselves high level players and claim to know what's best for the game, who like yourself oppose fixes towards classic game play, are apt to ridicule and insult other players when they base and voice their opinions on erroneous data, lack of research or exaggerated "facts".


show me a post where i ridiculed another player. and don't tell me when you said "some players" you weren't referring to me.

i'm trying to have a decent conversation here. now if you want to continue ad hominem (look it up) then lets just get res in here and talk about each other's mother and take it to the smack talk forum.

who cares if and where i was playing tradewars six years ago? does it make my position invalid? if the bbs i played on was totally unknown - does that make my argument wrong? whats wrong with saying, "i like where tw has come and i don't want to go back to a more classic version"? do you think i'm playing tradewars today and i'm bitter about it not being more classic?

address my argument, not whether i call myself a high level player or whether i'm a newbie. if my facts are wrong or my opintion is worthless, then just say so. you don't have to attack me.


I wasn't attacking you and I am sorry if my wording gave the impression I was. I have nothing but respect for you, and I think you have done numerous and invaluable services for the game and rank up there with the contributions of any single player. I meant to make a point that when people make up statistics like saying the game play hasn't changed for the past 6 years and they are unknown people then they most always are attacked for doing so. And no, where you played Trade Wars 6 years ago or 6 days ago makes no bearing on your arguement, but you supported you argument by saying that game play hadn't changed in 6 years and that is surely invalid. No i see nothing wrong at all with saying "i like where tw has come and i don't want to go back to a more classic version"? but thats not what you said, and i did address your arguements, and i did say your facts were wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Doctor Who

quote:

On a side note I find it curious that some players who consider themselves high level players and claim to know what's best for the game, who like yourself oppose fixes towards classic game play, are apt to ridicule and insult other players when they base and voice their opinions on erroneous data, lack of research or exaggerated "facts".



I think rev was being fairly Civil. This is the way that you are however and It's come to be expected that you'll treat everyone like this. I remember YOU calling "Newbies" all sorts of things in the past and yet I dont see you here saying how you feel sorry for the way you have been (and still are going by your post). I have seen you tell a newcomer to a game that he just needs to quit because he sucks and yet YOUR going to tell us how the Spirit of the game is trying to be revived.

I would personally like to see you give an apology to rev for a reply like that, Tho I know it wont happen because you have never given one when it's due. I do expect you instead to delete this thread or remove the "offending" post.



Jon how I have or haven't treated people in the past or now has no bearing on this topic, or on this forum. I understand completely your perception of me, because I have never liked or respected you and have treated you accordingly. Regardless of my dislike for you personally, this is still a place for productive debate and I am more then capable to put aside any feelings I have for you or anyone else to that end.

quote:Originally posted by Cherokee-TLTT

I thought you stopped work on TW v3 to "pursue other avenues for Trade Wars as a whole", not because you didn't like the tone of debate some 2 years ago.

Look, the point here isn't to make you disheartened. I don't think I was personal or derisive. Sarcastic sure, but I didn't realize I had to walk on eggshells here. I'll try to restrain myself in the future.




No one was asking you to walk on eggshells, but the fact of the matter is it's not the best way to go about getting a point across by making fun of JP's work and vision for this game, couple that with the other thread that was closed on this topic where the same sort of backhanded remarks were made and then add to that being called blatantly a liar, I think it's obvious egg shells aren't what has been stepped on, but since you continued to reply with remarks like "didn't realize I had to walk on eggshells here" maybe it's not so obvious. If the intention was to close the avenue to discussions concerning fixes to the game before the final release, then it was a complete sucess.