John I can't type as fast as Sing, therefore with your logic I am going to be at a disadvantage.

What you are trying to do is is admirable but you are only one person and you don't have the time to properly respect the
user community which wrote the proxies ,the scripts, modded the games to attract new players.

I am sorry to say this but YOU let tradewars decline... first by your not fixing bugs.... yes I know you had other priorities,
then by your selling us out to Sylvien and now you have the nerve to come back to these forums and say I don't like the
direction tradewars is heading .... Well it is almost too late... cripple scripting and you will essentially KILL tradewars.

I'm targeting the more casual player who wants to spend a few hours per week and be competitive. That's how the game was back in the early days when it was played by far more people.

There are over 2,500 TWGSs out there gathering dust, about 300 active at the moment, so there are more servers than players. We could stand to have the problem of too many players for a change.

With this kind of distributed server approach, you don't have to worry about too many players. It's been estimated that there was a million people playing TradeWars back in 1994, based on the number of people calling BBSs and the number of BBSs running TradeWars. I doubt if it'll ever be that active again. But the point is, that load was handled because there were lots of different sites running it (about 14,000 registered in 94, probably many more pirated). Still, there is definitely a need for a "lobby" where people can find these games. Once there are more players, I see a greater need for that. With the work I've done to set up the TW Museum, I'm to a point now where I could set up just about anything we'd need for a game lobby. If there was one place to advertise, like jumpgate.tradewars.com, to bring everyone together, it would be much easier to demonstrate the activity around the game, and if there's a crowd, it'll attract more people. So I'm not worried about that.

Nod. I tend to think of those as very similar. Not entirely identical, but having
a way to enforce non-aggression would make the game more casual. It's hard to
deny that there's a demand for truce games. Servers with truces tend to see a
lot of game activity up till the truce ends, then most people leave.



Sure. I think that's a good idea, as long as it accompanies a time limit. Another
thought along the same lines would be a way to have a "daily" time limit, and a
separate "per login" time limit. It would help to prevent "line camping" the way
old modems had to. I've tried to recreate this mode informally by hiding the
"who's online" and setting a very tight TL, but that's just an approximation.

I think anything that can be done to decrease the time requirement is a positive
thing. Sometimes it's fun to camp online and play 24/7, not always tho. It
would definitely attract more casual play.



Well... if you hit figs, and I login and see those hits in my logs, I'll know
where to investigate. It certainly won't stay clear for long. You'd have to
hit a LOT of figs to make it difficult to find you, and that takes just as many
turns as it does for me to clear them.

If I can track down and kill someone running a trade route, guess what's going
to happen? Maybe instead of trading your own player, you can hire employees
(aliens, or alien-like stuff) that drop off their cash somewhere. You could then
pay for different employees, low experience blues, high experience reds, etc,
and the money they bring in would be proportional to their cost. Then you
wouldn't need to code PPT, SSM, SDT, whatever, into the AI. But, someone could go
hunting for your employee aliens and maybe kill them for cash.



I know you've hit a certain list of sectors. Even if fig msgs aren't in the logs,
I can run a fig report and compare the two. I probe this list, run a CIM and filter
out anything that's not blocked, then I very carefully grid those areas. We're
not talking about extremely limited turns, like 200 or something. Most turns games
are 600 to 1500. And it's not hard, if I use an unfigged gridder (BFS, grid to
closest on the list) I'll be able to do that in nearly optimal turns (ok, that's
an NP-complete salesman, but we can approximate w/ a greedy algo). Anyway, point
I'm getting to... it may take 100 turns, and it's more than worth it for a kill if
it shuts down someone's cashing. Drop a few limps, figs, whatever, and kill w/
traditional scripts from there.

Maniac, all I can say is you can't possibly know the whole story, and I don't feel inclined to make excuses to you. I will say that there was a battle on this forum between those who wanted the game "fixed" and those who wanted it left alone, and I decided the anti-change people won. Why? Because those who run small, private games can set their own rules, while those in these large, high profile games should be free to play the game the way they want to play it. Now, in hindsight, I see that it was a bad choice. I don't think the game would have declined as much had I addressed some of the more over-the-top scripting. And that's why I'm saying maybe I should give it a try.

BTW, exactly what bugs are driving people away? What could I have been doing all this time, except for battling the scripters, that would have kept people playing it? I'm drawing a blank on that.

As for Sylian, what "sold you out" are you talking about? $500? That's all I ever received from them. And the game they created, that's not the game I signed up for them to create. It's more like what we're talking about now. No, I got pushed aside, and short of a long court battle, there is nothing I could do about it. And part of that agreement was that I wasn't even able to support classic TW between 2006 and 2008. By that time, I was pretty entrenched in other projects and have just now been able to find my way back. Oh, and I will also say that the big shift in my relationship with Sylien came when members of THIS community convinced them that I was dead weight in their project, that they'd be better going it alone with the help of the of this communiity because, after all, it is "their game". Well, those who held that view, you got what you wanted. Hope you enjoy it. I personally lost a ton of time and effort and I'm still paying for that "mistake".

wait wait, i need some popcorn...

Sing, you're talking about tactics. Has nothing to do with scripts. If those tactics are bad, they are bad, and they need to be addressed.

And this idea that anything that can be done should be allowed, I can't believe you really think that. I said this before, but when this game was most popular, the design was very balanced, and it wasn't some random set of rules. It's not like Gary's game was the only game in town. Why did his game get played so much instead of Yankee Trader, Outpost Trader, Iron Ox, TEOS, Ultimate Universe, Galactic Armageddon, and Galactic Warzone (to name only a few), all TradeWars clones? It's because there was balance and the game was fun. Just to pick one game, Ultimate Universe had MUCH more open play, and it wasn't nearly as popular as Martin's version. Game design really is important. You can't just say "anything goes".

I could spend a lot of time arguing about this stuff, but I'm either a) going to have NO time to actually do anything or b) going to get discouraged by players who say "don't change it", but then turn around and say "you killed the game because you neglected it". At some point, I just need to follow my instincts and ignore people who think I'm out of touch or ignorant (not you, Sing, but others) about game design and do what I think is best for this game. It can't be any worse than it is.

Glad I could entertain you, Booger It is actually quite an entertaining saga. Stay tuned for more!

Nod. And if you scroll up... hehe, you'll notice what I said about getting into the tactic-counter tactic
battle. It's best to avoid it all together when possible. A person would have to establish a secure area
before running a route like that. A bubble, for example. That would be tough to do early in the game.



Didn't say allowed. I said that what is possible and legal by the sysop's rules is fine. If a sysop decides to
make rules against something, he/she is free to do that. But if the sysop doesn't make a rule against it,
and the game permits it, then I see nothing wrong with a tactic.



Sure, it's important. But if the game allows it, then it's part of the game design by default.



Agreed, entirely. Committees and debate can only achieve so much. Sooner or later, you just have to
sit down and write the dang code.

I hope you came out of this with a few good ideas to implement.

"Sure, it's important. But if the game allows it, then it's part of the game design by default."

You're a libertarian, aren't you

Probably 80% of the way the game is played today was not anticipated and much of it was not even possible. Look at pacing, for example. Back when decisions were made about this, modem speed set the pacing. The difference between a macro and a decent typer was minimal. As speeds increased, these differences started to appear. That doesn't mean that it was part of the design, just that it wasn't a known issue for a long time.

I have hundreds of fixes that I've done over the years to address tactics that have been discovered that were just too powerful. In 2004, I stopped doing that. There are a LOT of tactics that have come up since then that are just too powerful. I let the players maintain "their game" and decide for themselves what was and wasn't good. Now it's so unplayable that none but the few who made it like this are willing to spend time playing it. Had I continued to "fix" these problems as they came up, the game would be much different today, and I think much more interesting.

But that doesn't matter, because I'm committed to letting you all have your gameplay, as long as I can create some alternatives for others as well, so the game has a bit more broad appeal than a few hundred. And people like Maniac don't have to worry about me "killing" the game. This can only improve it, because I'm not touching "your game".

I was really hoping to benefit from the knowledge and insight of members of this forum, but I really wonder if that's going to just slow me down and keep me from doing anything (as has happened in the past). I think the truth is, this mode I'm talking about is not going to be for today's players, and it doesn't have to live up to any of their expectations. And either it will find its own audience, or it won't. But at least I will have tried.

this is the crux of the issue. tradewars as it stands is inaccessable to the bulk of the internet. the key is, when you try to set up a broad base appeal, you have to decide where to aim it at. thats where i would start. what the average internet gamer expects is a game that they can play and set up easily. one which allows competition, and where a lot of effort results in wins. as its currently set up, this game has a learning curve that is huge, a setup which is unwieldy, and a player base so skilled that hours of gameplay results in many escape pods. even if you can run scripts.

these players we have will not want to neuter their scripts, but joe butthead cant type in english, let alone set up a macro. to appeal to joe, you have to 'reconceptualize'. 'we' can only give you opinions based off of our experience, none of us have written a game that has been online for 20+ years. if you can do an update which pleases everyone, ill eat crow here... but you cant please everyone all the time. in fact, you cant please part of the people at all, people suck in general. if you can split it, so that there is a 'new' version but you can still play the old version (neither which will be like the 'original version')... well, good luck. im sure 'we' will help out as much as we can.

I've done it before. When Eleq suggested I create a version that emulates MBBS play, I did that as a special game mode. It comes with its own rules and settings, and once you bang a game under it, you can't change it, so players know what they're getting. That worked great. Now I can do the same thing here. Just make an "Oldschool" mode with whatever new rules I'm talking about, without changing anything about the standard game.

As for my target audience, I'm just looking for more than a few hundred players. Seriously, I said this before, but you can't possibly know everything that's going on, because I can't talk about it. But I'm not doing this to make money, and I'm not doing it to build a huge base. I'm doing it because I love this game (for what it was, not what it is) and I want to preserve that. It's what I always wanted out of this gig. TradeWars is living history. For you and some others, it's become a very different game, and that's "your game", and I don't want to take that away from you. But for a LOT of people, TradeWars as they knew it is dead. To that extent, I've failed miserably in what I hoped to do. Not because the game is buggy and not because it hasn't evolved, but because I allowed it to evolve on its own. What I'm doing now, the only point to it is bringing the game back for those who remember the way it was. And I think we have some good ideas about how to do that. I'm going to jump in and see what I can do.

I agree with you wholeheartedly in this respect. The game as it is now is NOT the game it once was. Some here will spit and cuss about changing anything, but once upon a time it was much bigger and more widely played. The game was just different. Now its changed, and its nowhere near as popular. If it is to survive, it HAS to change. You can't cater to the dozens here just to preserve their little kingdom they rule. As long as the current version of TW isn't made obsolete, frankly, you shouldn't spend TOO much time worrying what this forum thinks. That's my opinion. I've played since 1994. I have some perspective on what TW was and is. It was much more fun 10 years ago.

this. times 2.

Why was it more fun 10 years ago?
What has changed to not make it more fun?

When I first started I lasted till maybe my 3rd fig hit when some bad Butt #SD#'d me.

Now I might last till my 4th fig hit or even make it to dock, but I know what I have to do.
I L E A R N E D how to survive in this game and you know how I did it?

Same way I learned how to ride my bike.... EVERYTIME I fell over I got back on it and tried again.

Had I used this new fangled way of learning today when I learned to ride a bike I still would have training wheels
on and I would blame the Darn bike as being too hard to ride.




Call me old fashioned or whatever but how many people still play chutes and ladders? and why don't you?
Is it because it is so dumbed down that there is no challenge left in it?
PLEASE do not dumb down tradewars.

Tradewars is fun because it throws out challenges and when you "master" one challenge another one will emerge to pique
your interest.

Seriously, I'm not sure what the fuss is about, Maniac. I'm not touching your game mode. What's wrong with having another game mode? Is it just a matter of principle that only a certain group of people who can really appreciate TradeWars should be able to enjoy it?

And I play chutes and ladders every day. I also play chess. Both with my 4 year old