I got myself killed the other day, although I'm not totally sure how. One way or the other, I have plenty of cash on stardock, right? So I grab my new ship and head for stardock, figuring that i can replace my ship and I'll be in good shape, right? Not really. Instead, as soon as I warp into some sector that has a mine and 10 fighters, what do I see but one of the other players warp in and kill me, before I've even had a chance to recognize that there are fighters in the sector. WTF?!?!?! What can I do to get around this sort of bull?

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the world's not out to get you.

quote:
Unfortunately, there's not much you can do against reactive scripters other than play on TW servers which are set up to handicap reactive scripting with things like long seconds per cycle and low commands per cycle.

Four seconds is the longest cycle possible, and would basically result in fighter hit messages being reported 1 to 4 seconds after you hit them. It'd at least help, but still not stop the reactive scripting entirely, since people who use the one mine strategy know the player hitting the sector has to respond to an avoid query, then the fighters, then ANOTHER avoid query. I frankly think it's a bug that it asks twice about the avoid, but it makes a player type 5 or 6 things to finally get back to a prompt where they can move to the next sector, giving someone without auto-toll-pay or similar a huge disadvantage.

For things that'll stop reactive scripting entirely, you'll have to wait for version 4, which has been said to have more significant message delays from remote fighters.



Write a macro. Assume ^m = enter
m^may999^m^m
tag that on as many times as you ened to get to sd. For example, if the route to SD is 1 - 2 - 36 - 35 - 40 - SD you would start in sector 2 and send
m36^may999^m^mm35^may999^m^mm40^may999^m^mns

quote:
And exactly one mine would leave you dead.

Why? Because it'd ask you if you want to avoid the sector due to the presense of mines. Your macro would lose sync with the command prompts right there and do who knows what, possibly start moving to sector 999 if you ended up back at a command prompt at a bad point, or possibly leak the rest of its buffer on various other prompts, leaving you dead in the water for the half a second it takes for a reactive scripter to pounce on you and kill you.

So then what? Adjust the macro to handle mines? Hit a sector WITHOUT mines and you lose sync there again.

It might be possible to write a macro that just accepts default responses to every prompt to handle both mined and unmined sectors, but by that time the average player has quit at least that particular server, if not TradeWars in general...

The major problem I have with reactive scripters is it takes scripts to counter them. Macros just don't cut it most of the time. A game more accessible to those who cannot or do not wish to write scripts would be a welcome thing. Enter v4. Is it 2003 yet? ;>



I'm sorry, but please don't tell me I'm wrong if you don't know what you're talking about. When you get prompted "This is a mined sector, do you wish to avoid (y/n)" pressing enter will tell it no. Hence the enter sector, enter figs to attack, press enter to attack, press enter. In this case, if there is a mine, the second enter will tell it not to avoid the sector. If there isn't a mine, all it will do is display the sector again. Similarly, that's why you send ay999 instead of just a999. If there is a fig there, the y will do nothing, and you will attack the figs with 999 figs (or 99, or 9, however many your have). If there isn't a fig there, the y will bump you to your nav point menu, and the enter will bump you back out.

quote:
The major problem I have with reactive scripters is it takes scripts to counter them. Macros just don't cut it most of the time.


You are just plain wrong here as well. The good players you see, the ones who go into tournaments and win, can beat any reactive script with a macro. Not only can the good players beat these sorts of scripts, they normally don't even bother running them for most of the game, since all they will catch are newbies. In fact, there are times where a reactive script such as a p-warp photon will get you killed.

In conclusion, the problem isn't the reactive scripts, but rather your lack of knowledge. You will be more likely to remedy this shortcoming by asking to have it explained how something works, and you politely explain why you think it wouldn't, instead of taking the superior attitude that your post seemed to imply.

Deleted my posts since they were apparently completely, including MY OPINIONS, wrong. Remember, no one but Kemper is allowed to have an opinion.

On that note, reactive scripting is awesome and doesn't cause any harm to TradeWars or its ability to attract new players! Don't you forget it!

Edited by - Xentropy on April 23 2002 10:25:43 PM

quote:
Deleted my posts since they were apparently completely, including MY OPINIONS, wrong. Remember, no one but Kemper is allowed to have an opinion.


Hey, Kemper knows his stuff. Distill the wisdom from his harsh words.

But yeah, reactive scripts suck. There are a few players who are notorious for using them. It takes wits to move around in a universe where people are ready to jump on you. But like Kemper said, it's not hard to out-smart or just plain out-maneuver a script. Most scripts are dumb. Some of them can be tricked into killing the person using them. Others are predictable and can be exploited that way. Last game I played, we figured out that one corp was running an automatic, unattended p-drop script. We used macros to blaze in and out of their sectors and make them waste their ore and photons. (Unfortunately we weren't paying attention one time and another of their players came on and nailed us... but that's the breaks...)

Suddenly you're Busted!

quote:
Deleted my posts since they were apparently completely, including MY OPINIONS, wrong. Remember, no one but Kemper is allowed to have an opinion.

On that note, reactive scripting is awesome and doesn't cause any harm to TradeWars or its ability to attract new players! Don't you forget it!

Edited by - Xentropy on April 23 2002 10:25:43 PM


I don't care what opinions you post, but if you want to post facts, you had better make sure they are correct before you choose to contradict someone. I don't care if you think reactive scripts suck. I would gladly play in games that didn't allow them. I very rarely run them myself. What I had a problem with was you saying that the only way to counteract them is with another script, that macros wouldn't work. The worst thing for newbies is people like you, who think they know everytying, but really know very little.

quote:
The worst thing for newbies is people like you, who think they know everytying, but really know very little.


"Hi, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black."

quote:
Hey, Kemper knows his stuff. Distill the wisdom from his harsh words.


Takes a lot of distillation, but I can see his point. My problem is with the way he put it, that's all.

quote:
But yeah, reactive scripts suck. There are a few players who are notorious for using them. It takes wits to move around in a universe where people are ready to jump on you. But like Kemper said, it's not hard to out-smart or just plain out-maneuver a script. Most scripts are dumb. Some of them can be tricked into killing the person using them. Others are predictable and can be exploited that way. Last game I played, we figured out that one corp was running an automatic, unattended p-drop script. We used macros to blaze in and out of their sectors and make them waste their ore and photons. (Unfortunately we weren't paying attention one time and another of their players came on and nailed us... but that's the breaks...)


MOST scripts are dumb, yes. I'm sure your average pdrop script could probably be tricked into landing on an MSL 10 seconds before extern. However, a script CAN be written smarter, and I'm sure there is at least one situation in which a macro cannot defeat it. But even all that wasn't really my point.

Basically, given Crazyman's original question, he appeared to be the type of player looking for a game without reactive/defensive/etc scripts, the same type of game I enjoy. So, I recommended he find games with different settings and to keep an eye out for version 4, which will mean R.I.P. for reactive scripts.

Then Kemper swoops in, and god forbid I recommend someone do ANYTHING but conform to the "elite" way of doing things and learn how to make perfect countermacros and counterscripts.

Scripters turn a game with a 30 minute learning curve (if that), to a game with a learning curve large enough that most new players (read: anyone who didn't play the game pre-v3 and have some nostalgic reason to give it more of a try) quit within a few minutes.

If Kemper wants the TradeWars world to contain only players he can defeat, he's not at all like me, since I like a challenge, not a cakewalk. Therefore, I'd like to see as many newbies as possible lose their newbie status as opposed to losing their TradeWars player status altogether by quitting. That'd put more fresh meat in circulation, and more minds coming up with new strategies instead of making every game a cookie-cutter copy of every other game. Only the names change. If that.

quote:
...it's not hard to out-smart or just plain out-maneuver a script.


For you and Kemper, perhaps not. For the vast majority of people just trying the game for the first time, however, it is. I have attempted to draw enough dozens of friends and acquaintances into the game who have loved it on my private server, then went to a public server and ran into their first reactive script and quit forever, to know this to be a fact. Anyone who thinks TradeWars with reactive scripts is as accessible as TradeWars without is deluding himself.

Thank you, btw, Mongoose, for being rational and polite. That's all I ask.

quote:
Thank you, btw, Mongoose, for being rational and polite. That's all I ask.


Yea but your kinda rude in the way you say things .. so you shouldnt fault kemper ..
This idea that "elite" use macro's is wrong .. a macro will ALLWAYS beat the TIMING of the script .. It's still up to the user to have the knowledge to beat the scripter .. so as far as the scripts getting smarter .. that doesnt matter because 2 weeks of coding can soon be realised in 10 mins of play .. plus another 10-15 mins to think of some evil way to use it against the scripter .. and you have a date .. with them receiving your big stick at the end of the night .. I hate to say this .. but why would tw2002 appeal to "new" players .. you will not bring new players in and have them stay for verry long .. most get bored with it after a short while .. If you love tradewars (like kemper does) then you should learn to adjust a little .. Scripts might not be the way to go for you .. so be it .. but learning to beat a scripter is something that's important .. you had many other options rather than just expressing to SD .. CR CF G .. all come in verry handy when you are needing to get to SD and your solo .. if none of those prove wise then kempers way would be pretty good .. He was simply being straight forward with you about how you need to get to SD (you asked for a way and he provided the answer) (tho it could use some slight modifications) .. and IF kemper is wrong .. He will admit it ..not delete his post



<<Doctor Who>>

quote:
quote:
The worst thing for newbies is people like you, who think they know everytying, but really know very little.


"Hi, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black."



Unless you can show that I know very little about this game, this does not apply. That being said, tell me where anything I have stated as fact about this game is wrong?

quote:
Takes a lot of distillation, but I can see his point. My problem is with the way he put it, that's all.


Let's summarize this thread. Crazy asks "how can I get around being killed before I even know there are fighters in the sector"
You respond that there isn't much to do besides play somewhere else.
I respond laying out a solution without having to go find another game.
You tell me that I am wrong. You gives examples that do not prove me wrong.
I tell you not to correct me when I am right. I explain how I am right.
You throw a hissy fit.

Now how is it wrong for me to give correct information and back it up? Should I have allowed crazyman to believe that there is nothing he can do against reactive scripts? Do you think that letting him believe that is more or less likely to encourage him to continue to play?

quote:

MOST scripts are dumb, yes. I'm sure your average pdrop script could probably be tricked into landing on an MSL 10 seconds before extern. However, a script CAN be written smarter, and I'm sure there is at least one situation in which a macro cannot defeat it.



Please provide me one situation in which a macro cannot defeat a script.

quote:

But even all that wasn't really my point.

Basically, given Crazyman's original question, he appeared to be the type of player looking for a game without reactive/defensive/etc scripts, the same type of game I enjoy. So, I recommended he find games with different settings and to keep an eye out for version 4, which will mean R.I.P. for reactive scripts.



I took his question at face value. His question wasn't "where can I play where I won't have to worry about this" but rather "How can I get around this?" I answered that question

quote:

Then Kemper swoops in, and god forbid I recommend someone do ANYTHING but conform to the "elite" way of doing things and learn how to make perfect countermacros and counterscripts.



Where have I ever said anything about counter-scripts? All I did was answer his question, which you did not. YOU were the one who decided to start the "who is right game."

quote:

Scripters turn a game with a 30 minute learning curve (if that), to a game with a learning curve large enough that most new players (read: anyone who didn't play the game pre-v3 and have some nostalgic reason to give it more of a try) quit within a few minutes.



I have been playing tradewars for a year and a half. I'm not someone who came back to the game, the first game I EVER played was on 3.11.39 on one of the most competative servers around. The worst damage that could have been done is if people had told me "it is impossible to beat scripts" which is what you have been saying.

quote:

If Kemper wants the TradeWars world to contain only players he can defeat, he's not at all like me, since I like a challenge, not a cakewalk. Therefore, I'd like to see as many newbies as possible lose their newbie status as opposed to losing their TradeWars player status altogether by quitting. That'd put more fresh meat in circulation, and more minds coming up with new strategies instead of making every game a cookie-cutter copy of every other game. Only the names change. If that.



I would like to see as many newbies as possible lose their newbie status as well, that's why I told crazyman how to get by a reactive script, rather than telling him it's impossible and he should just go play somewhere where there isn't so much competetition.

quote:

For you and Kemper, perhaps not. For the vast majority of people just trying the game for the first time, however, it is. I have attempted to draw enough dozens of friends and acquaintances into the game who have loved it on my private server, then went to a public server and ran into their first reactive script and quit forever, to know this to be a fact. Anyone who thinks TradeWars with reactive scripts is as accessible as TradeWars without is deluding himself.



If you had taught them how to get past reactive scripts, instead of telling them it was impossible, they wouldn't have gotten killed by them, and they would still be playing. What do you achieve by telling someone it's impossible to beat a script?

quote:

Thank you, btw, Mongoose, for being rational and polite. That's all I ask.



All I ask is that you either make certain you are right before posting, or inquire about circumstances where you think someone else might be wrong. Instead of saying "and exactly one mine will leave you dead" say "wouldn't one mine leave you dead, because of the prompt to avoid the sector?" Telling someone flat out that they are wrong when they are not is definately not going to make them feel like coddling your feelings. If you want to have a discussion, i will discuss. If you want to dismiss me as wrong, I will prove that I am not, even if this involves proving that you are wrong. No matter how many childish fits you throw, you were still wrong, and I am even more glad I pointed it out.



Edited by - Kemper_3 on April 24 2002 9:17:35 PM

Another way to get to Stardock is to ask another player (blue) to twarp you in while you are under tow. In a friendly game I would help out a newbie in this way, and probally kick in a few credits.

Remember, its a game that should be FUN

Rand Al Thor, The Dragon Reborn
Let the Dragon ride the winds of time...

Edited by - Rand on April 24 2002 9:46:27 PM

quote:
quote:
Takes a lot of distillation, but I can see his point. My problem is with the way he put it, that's all.


Let's summarize this thread. Crazy asks "how can I get around being killed before I even know there are fighters in the sector"
You respond that there isn't much to do besides play somewhere else.
I respond laying out a solution without having to go find another game.
You tell me that I am wrong. You gives examples that do not prove me wrong.
I tell you not to correct me when I am right. I explain how I am right.
You throw a hissy fit.


You forgot the part where you used a personal attack after explaining how you are right. Which is the entire reason I have a problem with you.

From your first post:

quote:
In conclusion, the problem isn't the reactive scripts, but rather your lack of knowledge.


I rest my case.

quote:
YOU were the one who decided to start the "who is right game."


A hypocrite *and* a liar, nice.

quote:
The worst damage that could have been done is if people had told me "it is impossible to beat scripts" which is what you have been saying.


I never said impossible, I said unnecessarily difficult. Your answer to one script is of no real help, since the next script he runs into would then kill him, also. And the next. Macros aren't the simple and automatic panacea you make them out to be.

The rest of your post was more and more proof you never even read my posts because you use the word "impossible" repeatedly, so no need to refute it.

I won't be returning to this thread, since it's a waste of my time having a "discussion" with someone who lacks skill in reading comprehension and feels ad hominem attacks are a valid way to make a point. Yes, I realize I have lowered myself to your level as well, and this is another reason why I have chosen to remove myself from this thread.

I humbly apologize to everyone I have offended by my comments and opinions.

quote:
You forgot the part where you used a personal attack after explaining how you are right. Which is the entire reason I have a problem with you.

From your first post:

quote:
In conclusion, the problem isn't the reactive scripts, but rather your lack of knowledge.


I rest my case.



That is not a personal attack, that is a statement of fact. If you are getting killed by a script, your lack of knowledge is the problem. A personal attack would be something along the lines of "You're a greazy fat slob who wears his mother's underwear." At no point did I do this, all I did was say you don't know what you're talking about, which is what you continue to prove every time you post.

quote:
quote:
YOU were the one who decided to start the "who is right game."


A hypocrite *and* a liar, nice.


Whatever

quote:
quote:
The worst damage that could have been done is if people had told me "it is impossible to beat scripts" which is what you have been saying.


I never said impossible, I said unnecessarily difficult. Your answer to one script is of no real help, since the next script he runs into would then kill him, also. And the next. Macros aren't the simple and automatic panacea you make them out to be.



You said it takes a script to beat a script, that macros just don't cut it most of the time. I read that to say it is impossible to beat all scripts with macros. This once again shows your lack of knowledge. I still challenge you to find a script that I can not beat with a macro.

quote:

The rest of your post was more and more proof you never even read my posts because you use the word "impossible" repeatedly, so no need to refute it.

I won't be returning to this thread, since it's a waste of my time having a "discussion" with someone who lacks skill in reading comprehension and feels ad hominem attacks are a valid way to make a point. Yes, I realize I have lowered myself to your level as well, and this is another reason why I have chosen to remove myself from this thread.

I humbly apologize to everyone I have offended by my comments and opinions.



If you cannot contribute accurate information, it is probably best for everyone that you do not answer questions. As to lowering yourself to my level, perhaps if you lowered yourself to actually learning the game, you would in the future be able to make a worthwhile contribution.

I certainly don't want to get in between an arguement about the merits of scripts vs. macros or being kind to newbies. But there is one thing wrong with the macro you suggest Kemper.

quote:
Write a macro. Assume ^m = enter
m^may999^m^m
tag that on as many times as you ened to get to sd. For example, if the route to SD is 1 - 2 - 36 - 35 - 40 - SD you would start in sector 2 and send
m36^may999^m^mm35^may999^m^mm40^may999^m^mns


When you get prompted "This is a mined sector, do you wish to avoid (y/n)" pressing enter will tell it no. Hence the enter sector, enter figs to attack, press enter to attack, press enter. In this case, if there is a mine, the second enter will tell it not to avoid the sector. If there isn't a mine, all it will do is display the sector again. Similarly, that's why you send ay999 instead of just a999. If there is a fig there, the y will do nothing, and you will attack the figs with 999 figs (or 99, or 9, however many your have). If there isn't a fig there, the y will bump you to your nav point menu, and the enter will bump you back out.


If you hit a sector with no figs, just mines, the first prompt is "do you wish to avoid (y/n)". In this case "a" will be ignored, "y" will avoid sector and you will warp off to sector 999. An extra enter before "ay" will take care of that possibility, but what about beacons? If there are no figs, or offensive figs, "ay" will destroy the beacon, again leaving you at a sector prompt just before sending "999". I use "m(sector)^m^mayy999^m^m" which works most of the time.