quote:Originally posted by Supreme Galactic Overlord

Zoso brought up an interesting point that I'd like to explore. Originally this game was single node, as he said, which meant one player in there at a time. Also, when you do the CIM data yourself it doesn't SCROLL by as it does when a script or helper is gathering the data.

since when?

quote:
I'm sure if Draconis thinks long and hard about what I just said, he'll figure out what I am getting at. CIM availability is NOT evidence of the game designers planning on people running an "attack" script.


The CIM (look up what it means) was added for use by helper programs designed to interpret the data, you are correct that it was never foreseen that CIM data would be used in an "attack" script, which it is very commonly. Of course then again ship transport was never planned to be used for evil tactics like SST and SDT, those should probably be removed as well.


quote:
As for my macros, they are just fine. They are quite simple to write.

(sector)^ma10^mf1^mCd<

Anyway, I've been writing macros on the fly for many years. I can invade with them, attack with them, colonize, move product, and guess what I can HAGGLE with them too! Yes I said haggle!

You would think that my macro can keep me from being hit by a photon move or planet drop script, and on a good fast server they do me good often enough, but I'm telling you now, I get hit anyway, using macros to enter and exit the sector! Why this is I can only guess, however, I'm thinking that the SCRIPT the person is using has something to do with this!


I have no doubt that you do get hit the majority of the time, but I don't think because your skill level of avoiding a particular tactic employed by someone is a basis for any changes. The intent of where Trade Wars is going is not to dumb the game down so that players with superior skills are forced to play at the same level as players with inferior skills, the intent is to add a balance to the game so that players of close to equal skills are on an even playing field. The speed of computers and internet connections, combined with a game that is basically still designed to run on much slower dataflow and the fact that the people playing the game are much more technically savvy demands that adjustments be made to game play (along with the fact that the game has strayed considerably from its original spirit). But please trust me when I say that photon scripts are not new they have been around for a minimum 10 years of both the AFK and AT KEYS variety, and since almost the 1st day skilled players have been not only avoiding them but using them against the people employing them. I believe you could stop these players from using these scripts against you quite easily, or cost them a great deal of cash and/or time by just re-adjusting your macro and tactic.

quote:
I'm thinking that it's because I'm using SWATH! But, oh wait, you all chewed me out something fierce for criticizing SWATH, so I won't go there!


I don't think it has anything to do with either swath or the scripts being used against you, I think it boils down to operator error. Hopefully this thread will help you and others like you who believe that these types of scripts are in some way unbeatable, re-think that position and use the information available to you to be able to learn from a situation and turn a perceived weakness into a strength. This is after all a strategy game.

Concerning your "^m"

Were you running TWX between your helper/terminal and the game? With a macro so simple there is no reason you shouldn't have made it out of there. Might I suggest using a TWX macro (using *) next time as there is no middle man (helper) to go through. Though some have argued with me that zoc scripts are as fast or faster than TWX, I have yet to see it.

Now, everyone likes to assign macros to their F keys.....WTF people. Though tactically it has no effect, how much extra time do you have to spend going into your fkey setup and doin that ****. Heres a tip, keep notepad open and shrunk down to a small box in the corner of your screen, when you need a quick macro like that go to the notepad and type it, don't use ^m or *, just type the commands into notepad as you would type them in the game...copy and paste....simple as that. Oh yeah and Zoc users, you can set Zoc up to paste your clipboard in as soon as you click the right mouse button, no menus, worx great.

Personally all of my fkeys are only for permanent macros like attacks, navpoints, whatever. Oh but the attacks can change depending on the max of your ship....yes well I have zoc buttons setup to change those instantly (if the attack is a multiple of 1k), which will soon be available on my script page. Yeah this whole paragraph is a pitch....and im not even making money off it. lol

quote: It's the attack scripts primarily that are locking the "non scripters" out of the game early!

I guess "non scripters" has become the PC way of saying "newbie"
You don't need to be a scripter to dodge an attack script. Sides in the early phases of any stock-ish game there aren't all that many attack scripts in play - and nothing that can't be dodged with a little bit of forethought and a macro.

quote:Anyway, I've been writing macros on the fly for many years. I can invade with them, attack with them, colonize, move product, and guess what I can HAGGLE with them too! Yes I said haggle!

Bah, only I can do this

And contrary to the thread title... it's now an argument.

+EP+

quote:
Zoso brought up an interesting point that I'd like to explore. Originally this game was single node, as he said, which meant one player in there at a time. Also, when you do the CIM data yourself it doesn't SCROLL by as it does when a script or helper is gathering the data.


since when?
quote:

Woops, sorry allow me to retract that sentence. What i should have said was;
I'm not particulary sure whether the version of TW back in the mid 80's was capable of handling more than one node at a time, however most Sysops (BBS) only had the money/resources to allow one connection - hence one player at a time.
Rick maybe you could clarify whether or not TW was capable of more? As i recall, all of the places i played at during this time frame was through a 2400 baud modem, direct dial-up (local) to a BBS <evil grin> mostly pirate boards. I think radio shack at the time had some sort of drop down node filter that allowed more than one incoming call, but my memory is not as clear as it once was.

Zoso
Sysop - Mists of Ravenloft <circa 1986>
[}:)]

I've been following this thread, and I'm impressed that it hasn't erupted into a flame-fest (yet)

To answer the question of when TW became interactive, you have to consider the BBS door version and the HVS version separately. The HVS version was multiplayer interactive since it was first released. The BBS door version was non-interactive through TWv2, and interaction was the primary motivation behind TWv3. So the HVS version was released in about 1994, and TWv3 was released in about 1997. FYI, TWGS came out in 1998.

It's important to note that TWv3 has always attempted to stay very true to the gameplay of TWv2 and the HVS version. Most of the changes that have been made are specifically related to interaction. The HVS version defined most of these changes, and they really didn't do a very thorough job of it. And since I started working on the game, I've basically been taking a "when someone breaks it, fix it" approach to addressing these interaction issues. What I've found is that this incremental approach could go on forever. What I'm trying to do with v4 is take a broad look at how the game deals with realtime interaction and finally control it, across the board. You shouldn't assume that this will destroy the game as you know it. What it will do is give us much more control over how the game actually plays so we, both the developer and the players/gameops, can lock the game into a reasonably stable state, one that achieves a gameplay and balance that we all agree is most fun, and one that doesn’t change every few weeks as players figure out new ways to trick the system.

I would summarize my philosophy in the v4 changes like this. I want to stratify tactics so that advanced tactics are only really effective against advanced players. This is just common sense. If advanced players are able to employ tactics that completely squash beginning players, how are those players supposed to grow to become advanced players? Instead, ideally, I would want a new player to be able to explore the game universe (avoiding danger-zones, obviously) and become acclimated to basic gameplay even while the advanced players are engaged in mighty battles for control of the game. Obviously, nothing this new player does will allow him or her to be competitive against an advanced player. But that's not the goal of a new player. That player just wants to learn the basics. If advanced tactics completely lock down the universe so that new players can't even find out what StarDock is, there isn't much incentive for most new players to learn and grow to become advanced players. Because of this, the game tends to lock in a set of elite players, while being resistant to the progression of newby players to advanced.

One example of this is planet dropping. In v4, I intend to give planets their own movement delays to address this and other tactics. With these delays, planets will be just as effective for defense and trade/production, but less for offense. A slower planet can still be effective as an offensive weapon, but only against an unwary player. The key difference between the current system and the new system is in how a player can adapt to overcome the p-drop tactic. Currently, the player must learn to use macros and/or scripts, which I consider an advanced skill, to defeat the P-Drop tactic. But suppose the same player falls victim to this tactic under the new system. That player can, simply by recognizing the tactic, overcome it by adapting his or her play. The player learns and grows. That's the main difference. In the old system, the player has to not only recognize the tactic and figure out how to avoid it, but the player also has to figure out how to implement the counter-tactic at optimum efficiency, an advanced skill. You guys are arguing over the placement of a single space within a macro, and the new players haven't even figured out what a macro is. If that player hits this kind of wall on day one, what are the chances he/she will continue to play into day two?

In general, the advanced tactics should be more subtle in the ways they effect the game. Squeezing the most credits out of a turn is an advanced tactic, and over the long haul, it will separate an advanced player from a beginner or intermediate player. But the ability to gridlock the entire universe is an advanced tactic that is directed as much at the new player as the veteran. More so, in fact, because, as has been stated so many times, a veteran can overcome it.

These changes will be seen most directly, I think, with player-killer tactics. It's far too easy for an advanced player to locate another player and attack. I would prefer the game to tend to hide players until the player advances to a point where he/she can no longer remain hidden. Historically, TW has been a defensive-minded game. It has become far too offensive in recent years. The player killer skill has eclipsed all of the other skills. I would say that the other skills are more important in determining the winner of a game, but the player killer skill is the one directed at beginner players by advanced players. It allows advanced players to be bullies. Limiting this skill will open the game up to a greater audience, and that's the primary goal.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Galactic Overlord


No, but I thought the topic of discussion here was whether or not "scripts" are unbalancing the game! I don't see how running a "trade" script would unbalance the game and making it harder for non scripters to compete! It's the attack scripts primarily that are locking the "non scripters" out of the game early!

Furthermore, your first post mentions specifically that people who complain about dying on a script are just "too slow" at the keys. Thus, by this, the subject matter of the discussion is inherently "attack scripts" because I never got killed once by someone's trade or sst script



Okay, well, I think it is pretty obvious that advanced players can use CIM data better than newer players, and often use scripts to do it. But I'll conceded that CIM has nothing to do with killing by AFK scripts. Although you did give me a REALLY cool idea of a script that is a kill script using CIM data, so in a week, I'll retrack my statement about CIM data being used in a kill script. [:P]

quote:
Incidentally, why would you HAVE to read all the CIM data? I can skim my CIM data in a matter of seconds and determine all the useful information I need from it in that time, and yes, I have my helper and the game settings set up to pause while running CIM. In fact, I rarely USE my SWATH to process CIM because it doesn't work very well. I analyze my CIM data the way I've always done it, I skim it, and I use the back scroll.

Yes, someone who's got great scripts that analyze the CIM data for them, then execute the trading or stealing, or robbing, based on that information at "macro" speed are going to out resource me in a manner of minutes! Yet, are they really playing the game? I don't think so. Their software programs are playing the game and they haven't proved their skills above mine. IN FACT, if they ever had to go up against me without their scripts and helpers they'd get toasted because they cannot analyze CIM for themselves.

This is a very logical argument, and frankly, it's irrefutable!


Well as seen in later post CIM was added for helpers, so my point is also irrefutable! But in regards to the above, if you can parse 15k lines of data and track someone with it, by all means, you are better than my computer, and probably border on a 400+ IQ. Of course it depends what you use a CIM for. If you are checking for something, the amount of time it takes to find something in 15k entries is alot. But you may have mastered it, and I won't agrue that. I've tried, and have a fairly good head for remember numbers, but it takes me awhile to study CIM data and derive what I need unless I have very few ports in it. Same for Warp Spec. If you can watch a warp spec go by, and from this plot your course, you are probably way above my skill in mathematics, and memory.


quote:
Ok, I'll bite! Evidently you've come up with a "super" macro and a way to bypass the game's requirement that after you type in a sector number you have to hit the return key (ok well, not always of course, but my example was assuming you are warping to a sector that requires a return key, there are instances when it doesn't). Anyway, the above macro includes the BARE minimum characters, they are the commands required to execute the action if you were typing it manually. Now, if there is some way to "trick" the game, and type in less characters using a macro than a player is required to type when executing manually, well, then this sounds like something that I need to learn! It gives the macro user an even bigger advantage that the player who is executing using keys.


Sure, my super macro is below:
Always set CN2 = Off/No whatever it is.

Set CN9 = All Keys
m1234^Ma99^Mf1^Mcd<

Set CN9 = Space
m1234^M a99^M f1^Mcd <

Super macros complete. I was taught that when i first started playing, and asked the meaning of those settings. Didn't know they were anything super. Just what i assumed were average macros.

Now I have noticed that not one single person has refuted the other points of the original post. Should I assume that there is not argument against those? Should I assume than that scripts do not do any of the heinous crimes?

Jhereg

JP, i learned the hard way. i joined random games and they happened to be very competitive. i got smoked. but every single person who smoked me turned around and helped me out very much. maybe i learn faster than some people, but i dont think its that tough to learn how to make a macro or to learn how to avoid getting killed. with all that is available today, there is no reason a semi-new person can't compete with a veteran. hell, im no veteran (of twars) ive played off an on since forever, but the longest ive played consecutively is now, and that is only since march, before then i played for a while in 02, then a bit in 00, then a bit in 98, then early 90's a bunch (but thats different) i didnt learn scripts or macros till 02, but didnt play long enough or very often so didnt become very good. in march i came back and i sucked, i relearned everything and i would say i am a pretty good player now. u put me against "veterans" and i can compete toe to toe with most everyone. you just have to be willing to LEARN and PAY ATTENTION. im not on some super rare learning curve. i didnt get ANY type of "super script" up until a few months ago, and really, they arent used as often as most people (who dont have them) think (atleast for killing by me, and i can kill very well imo). planet drops arent all that effective until u get a lvl 6, and most of the time that takes a while, so if you are just starting and someone has a lvl6, you dont have much of a chance anyway. (assuming normal edits) new players who join a 20 day old unlim should not be babied just because they are new. its a 20 day old unlim, the game has been over for 19 days, heh. now if he joins a game 0 days old then let him do his thing, teach him, help him and he will stand a chance. its not that tough for a veteran or even a decent player to take a new player and turn him into a decent player. edits should not be changed so that players who are better and smarter than others no longer have such advantages.

look at it like this. does a junior high basketball team have a chance at beating an NBA team? NO, because the NBA team has been playing alot longer and understands the game much better. BUT the NBA team will teach the children and mentor them and when they are older, THEY can join the NBA. you shouldnt lower the baskets just because some people are shorter.

thats just my opinion but i am sticking to it. heh

Slim

Personally I agree with Slim Shady. Vader is trying exactly that right now. Hosting a game were more experienced players are here to help the newer players. The teams are probably 2-3 good players, and some intermediate and some newer players. Practice is setup for these people can learn the game, and understand how it all works. Now the people who complain about scripts, complain about competition, have a chance to learn more about it. Now I noticed that many of these people did not sign up. That tells me they are not interested in learning, but after a couple of times of this kind of game and they still don't play, than I feel I could solidly say that. Right now they simply didn't sign up for one game. But if they don't sign up, they are stating they aren't interested in learning, so why change the game so that newer players who don't want to learn should have it easier. I got my Butt kicked left and right early on. Heck Intrepid came into a game and photoned me 2 or 3 days in a row until I was so pissed. But he did explain what he was doing and how to avoid it. K3 came in and obliterated my base, it sucked, I asked alot of questions. I learned. I don't know many good players who won't help the newer people. Heck I can't remember the last game I actually played with all "good" players. I enjoy playing with newer people.

Just my 2 cents.
Jhereg

quote:Originally posted by Draconis


if you can parse 15k lines of data and track someone with it, by all means, you are better than my computer, and probably border on a 400+ IQ. Of course it depends what you use a CIM for. If you are checking for something, the amount of time it takes to find something in 15k entries is alot....
..... If you can watch a warp spec go by, and from this plot your course, you are probably way above my skill in mathematics, and memory.


No math required. All of the ports are laid out in a spread sheet style list, with percentages clearly visible. If you look at the data you can clearly see the ports that are being used (except in a high turn or unlimited of course where all the ports are being over used). A quick scan can determine ports that are ripe for trading, or ports that are being heavily traded simply by a glance.

As for plotting a course, I don't have to use the globals to do this, if I know what sector I'm going to and what sector I'm in I just hit C, then F, then return, then type in my destination, and I get a course! If I write a macro to plot numerous courses I get a ZTM style list of courses for ONLY the sectors I want.

quote:
Sure, my super macro is below:
Always set CN2 = Off/No whatever it is.

Set CN9 = All Keys
m1234^Ma99^Mf1^Mcd<

Set CN9 = Space
m1234^M a99^M f1^Mcd <


My eyes are hurting staring at your macro and trying to see the difference between them and the one I posted that you said would get me killed for sure!

Here it is again!

(sector)^ma10^mf1^mCd<

By the way, spaces don't do ANYTHING in my macros. I have yet to figure out what you guys are talking about, spaces in my macros do not affect one iota the command string! I'm still scratching my head on it. A space in a macro does not send a "pause" key command. How do I know? I've set my space bar to clear all pauses, then run a string with a space in it, and it did not clear the pause!

I'm thinking that like the asterisk thing, the space in a macro thing is an affectation of helpers! Straight macros don't recognize a space in the string!

Ok, ok, maybe I'm doing something wrong. I'm willing to learn, don't chew my head off, explain it to me

quote:Originally posted by Rick Mead (teamEIS)

he is trying to say that you need to add spaces to your macro to abort the displays... you really should do some research SGO you wouldn't incur nearly as much berating from others and only lose half of the arguements you get in, instead of all of them.



Ok, I must be really dense here, because I don't GET any displays to abort when I'm running my macros! I set my ansi and color off at all times (I rarely ever use them) and furthermore, I've placed spaces in my macros ever since I started hearing about them, they do not affect the way my string executes, neither do they affect the way the game is displayed. A space in my macros does absolutely nothing, no matter what my CN9 is set to!

I'm convinced that I'm falling victim again to what I term the "Swath" factor now!

If CN9 is set to SPACE, and you are adjacent to Stardock, and you send "nsps" to move to SD and land, the result will be this:
you move to Stardock, all planets, ships, traders, aliens, federals, etc. will be displayed, and the blurb about Stardock being the single largest man-made structure... etc.

If instead you send "n s p s ", the display looks like this:
Command [TL=00:00:00]:[870] (?=Help)? : N
<Set Course to NavPoint>

Choose NavPoint (?=Help) [Q] : S
<Move>

Command [TL=00:00:00]:[95] (?=Help)? : P


Enter your choice [T] ? S
Landing on Federation StarDock.

<StarDock> Where to? (?=Help)

Significantly less information is displayed. Try it.

+EP+

in some instances you have to put multiple spaces. the first space will abort display.. if you come to a pause prompt (after getting hit by a Qcannon) you have to hit space again. just one space wont work for every macro. when making a macro, rule #1. know wtf is going to happen when you use it. dont just assume since your sector entry macro worked for 1234 means that it will work for 2345. there are many things you have to take into account. i use cn9=space religiously and also put spaces in my macros and it always works for me. i *believe* 3 spaces is the max you really ever need to put in a row. i'd ask EP on exact # heh.
also btw your problem with not being able to abort displays is because you set cn1=off/no
when you set cn1=off/no you CAN'T abort displays. heh. try cn1=yes/on and use spaces it will work

Slim

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Galactic Overlord

No math required. All of the ports are laid out in a spread sheet style list, with percentages clearly visible. If you look at the data you can clearly see the ports that are being used (except in a high turn or unlimited of course where all the ports are being over used). A quick scan can determine ports that are ripe for trading, or ports that are being heavily traded simply by a glance.

As for plotting a course, I don't have to use the globals to do this, if I know what sector I'm going to and what sector I'm in I just hit C, then F, then return, then type in my destination, and I get a course! If I write a macro to plot numerous courses I get a ZTM style list of courses for ONLY the sectors I want.


I guess this probably why many discussions over this things occur. I was not referring to using the CIM for the stuff you are discussing using it for. I use it to track enemy movements, tracking which ports have been traded it, likely sectors for bases. I use the warp data to build a map, etc. Using CIM data for ports to trade at, I guess sure, but I usually always play with a mixed corp, so reds don't need many ports.


quote:

My eyes are hurting staring at your macro and trying to see the difference between them and the one I posted that you said would get me killed for sure!

Here it is again!

(sector)^ma10^mf1^mCd<

By the way, spaces don't do ANYTHING in my macros. I have yet to figure out what you guys are talking about, spaces in my macros do not affect one iota the command string! I'm still scratching my head on it. A space in a macro does not send a "pause" key command. How do I know? I've set my space bar to clear all pauses, then run a string with a space in it, and it did not clear the pause!

I'm thinking that like the asterisk thing, the space in a macro thing is an affectation of helpers! Straight macros don't recognize a space in the string!

Ok, ok, maybe I'm doing something wrong. I'm willing to learn, don't chew my head off, explain it to me


Okay, I think others have also explained it but I'll go for it also. A space aborts a display, (what the meaning of the cn9 setting really is aborting displays). If you were to send a string with a space were a display could not be aborted, it would do nothing. You have to first determine which displays can be aborted, and than put spaces in those places. For example, you can abort most menus, and most sector displays. For example: With a pscanner, push L in a sector with 5 planets. You get a display with planet info. Now, Macro the following "l " and see the difference.

Jhereg

Shrug, I think that Slim hit on the problem. I leave Cn1 and Cn2 off almost all the time because my macros work much faster that way (or so I believed all these years).

I started out using Ripterm. I used that software for many years, and was even able to compete with guys using Procomm and beat them! That's how I learned to use macros, using the "Help" file from Ripterm.

JP started the TWGS and I started using Riptel, which was a Ripterm telnet client identical to ripterm. I needed nothing more.

I tried Twars for Windows from about 1998 to 2000, but it was ghastly slow.

Then, I quit playing for many years.

When I came back I decided to try some helpers. I tried JTwat and hated it. Then I tried Swath and discovered the quick macro feature and the convenience of saving my macros to multiple assigned triggers. Been using Swath because of this one single feature.

When I started reading in these forums about the abort display commands using space I tried it immediately, and didn't see any results (probably because I missed abort display 101 where you have to have Cn1 to "On.") I'll try it again, and if it speeds up my string commands I'm going to be eating a tremendous amount of Crow!

Heh. Wouldn't be the first time.