Actually the 2 local helps when testing server side scripts, hard to verify it is all working if you can't be in to monitor it.

That's an interesting idea. Do you think there is any benifit to allowing, say, 2 or 3 players at a time in a game, or should it be either 1 or unlimited? I just wonder if it would be better to have a "one at a time" setting as opposed to an "active player count per game" setting.

Well, keep in mind that Command Center access doesn't count as a "connection".

Personally, I think it should be 1 or unlimited. I could see scenarios where a corp logs in, especially in a game without a time limit, in order to prevent another corp from logging on during an attack or similar.

Thinking more about it... it would probably be a bad idea to have a limited number of connections per game, unlimited time in the game. But that is just me.

Yeah, I think you're right that there are game edits where this could be abused. I envision it being used in more old-school games where you do have a very limited time online, more like it was on an early BBS.

Right, as I said in the previous thread, it has to be accompanied by a time limit. That's also
why I suggested a per-login time limit, outside of the daily time limit. That way it gives others
a chance to log in around this problem. Goes back to the old "line camping" issues during the
BBS years.

So is there any final decision on whether the free version will allow maybe 1 local and 1 node to test scripts or is it still final thats the 20$ version?

EDIT: $20 version, typo

I'm not sure if I understand your question, Mob. The free version (as I'm proposing, since none of this is final, just looking for feedback) would allow one active game, one TCP/IP connection, and unlimited Command Center connections. So you could have more than one game active at one time, but only one of them would be a telnet client or helper. The others would be the TWGS Command Center direct connection.

Thanks JP I had a long weekend so I can confuse myself often. I answered my own question thank you.

Back in the day you could also pay 1 reg code for 1 game and support 256 similtaneous users. The reg code was 400 bucks. I am speaking of the High Velocity Version of Tradewars. That versions greatest feature was live similtaneous play against others.

I enjoy your work, but feel you should really try to add some way to get back to multiplayer, not multigame. I normally run 2 games one standard and the other with custom ships, both games can run upto 64 similtaneous users (limited by worldgroup licence count). I hope you can add something in for us Worldgroup sysops so we can take advantage of your latest creation. If it is capable of true similtaneous player interactions I will be purchaseing the new creation.

Hopefully the cost wont be to high, I have already spent well over 800 dollars on tw registration codes.
If you need somewhere to beta test let me know.

Stoneslinger, I'm not sure what you're requesting. TWGS has supported player interaction since it was first released in 2000. And before that, the DOS BBS door that it runs started supporting player interaction in 1997. With the pricing I'm talking about here, to allow up to 100 simultaneous users on TWGS would be $80 (less if you've registered TW in the past).

It sounds like you have the HVS version. I don't have access to that code and I can't support it. But TWGS is intended to be a lower cost alternative to it. I even created a special login mode for MBBS/worldgroup games so you can integrate it with your BBS rather than running it as a separate server.

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding your point, because player interaction has been a part of this game forever.

Ah, but the problem is finding 100 players. And to do that, new players have to be attracted, which means breaking the current game, specifically making some of the current tactics no longer usable. For example the mine/fighter in every sector trick is wonderful for the person that does it, but you get into a game with newbies and pull it, and they aren't going to come back. Possibly the aliens and Ferrengi should be given minesweeping capabilities, in that if an alien hits something it can't handle, more come. Also the aliens are wimps (as are the Ferrengi). Or maybe a Fed who wanders killing everything that isn't in the same sector as a planet?

Wayne

Well, I really want to take a crack at a special game mode that's intended more for old-school and manual players. Since it'll be a different mode, I can have different rules that discourage the kinds of tactics that currently turn a lot of potential players off. I don't know if that'll increase player populations, but I'm convinced that the current gameplay is keeping people away.

Wayne, did you post a message on the museum about a helper by Woody Weaver? If so, I'd like to add that to the apps section but I can't find anything about it. If I could get the app itself, that would really help.

I guess the best way to put it is "the feel of multiplayer" isnt thier as in the HVS version. I know you don't have any of the source for that HVS version, but alot of Worldgroup sysops have problems getting thier bbs's to connect to twgs. Most sysop's use rlogin port:xx but the users find play rather clunky.
I have worked with one ISV and we have managed to get the rlogin module for worldgoup updated and works nicely with rlogin-->gameserv (v10.04.02).

The other problem I have found in the twgs version is nasty sysop's unleashing hoards of aliens on a new player, altho not much you can do about bad sysops. A regen rate setting for all alien types(good/evil) along with a home planet for each alien race created during big bang. Also some of the citadale/sector additions like in the web tw.

You may want to consider the licence packs's in groups of 8, 16, 32, 48, 64.... Most cable or low speed connections can handle 8-16 users, then if you want more for larger server.... cough up

Yes indeed a 100 player game, been a long time scince I've played with that many. Like that mine sweeper idea. Shouldnt that be job for the fed's? Altho distingishing between 1 mine 1 fighter deployed down a space lane and real sector defences will be difficult.