I keep trying... my entire involvement with TWGS was to help make it emulate the highly popular HVS MBBS version. But, somewhere in 2000 - 2002, players who prefered to write reactive trigger scripts to play the game for them convinced JP to make changes that allowed for that type of gameplay. (abort on space was NEVER a part of the HVS MBBS game)

So, I'm not the hypocrite you and others keep accusing me of being. I just enjoy playing an old text bbs game, and getting as close to the HVS MBBS model has always been my involvement with TWGS. It's really just that simple.

My point is that you can't realistically work on software a few hours at a time. It takes at least a few hours just to get your head in the right mode and re-familiarize yourself with the last thing you were working on.

No. It's definitely not an implied service contract, and there's generally not even an implied warranty. I'm not sure if the TWGS license explicitly disclaims implied warranties (or if it even has a formal license at all). But you can try before you buy, and when you buy any software, it's always foolish to count on it ever being anything other than what it was the day you bought it.

Because in my world, that's what people do when they're not happy with the software they have. I remember you harping on it. I don't remember you ever explaining it. But I will search your post history.

And... so what? You haven't explained how that fundamentally alters the game. Why is one timing right and the other one wrong? Because software is never allowed to change? MMOs go through all kinds of changes, some of them quite radical. The players whine about it for a couple weeks, then they adapt their strategies and go back to enjoying the game. JP does not owe you an unchanging game. Get over it.

Because they use scripts that depend on milliseconds accuracy and prefect timing to demolish their opponent before his script can attack back or even try to escape. I have no idea why the TradeWars community ever consider these types of tactics to be acceptable game play. Do you know of any other games that openly allow 3rd party helpers and/or full automation of game play?

Actually no, how it changes the game play is that it makes it impossible to fight other players either by hand or automated when both are online. Why is this such a hard concept for you guys to understand.

That's exactly the thing that makes TW interesting to me. But I still don't understand why people can't or won't adapt their tactics and scripts to suit the game.

Because I have fought other online players in v2. (Mostly been killed by them.) It may be different from v1 in some subtle way, but it is certainly not "impossible." So I know for a fact that you are exaggerating and blowing smoke.

I actually wrote a long response on this for Kaus, but thanks to Microsoft, it went into the bit bucket. I haven't had time to get back to it.

There are three considerations for timing now, and commands/cycle isn't one of them. That has been phased out. Instead, we have the command "sync delay", an actual delay, and simulated latency. Let me describe these a bit.

1) Every action in the game now has a "sync delay", which is different from a true delay in that the delay is only imposed as a minimum time between any two commands. So if the sync delay is 10 ms, if you attempt to issue the command a second time in less than 10 ms, you're forced to wait until 10 ms have passed before the command is processed. If you issue the command, then wait 10 seconds and issue the command again, no pause is imposed. So sync delays pace the commands, guaranteeing that they cannot be issued beyond a specified rate. The rate has been defined such that no single command, if repeated, will pull more than 5% of CPU. Many sync delays are as small as 2 ms, the minimum, though some are larger.

Sync delays are currently not configurable.



I am open to suggestions on which commands are running too fast or two slow.



The goal is for everything to run at about the same pace as it ran on v1.03, but for the pace to be locked in so that it no longer continues to get faster with improvements in hardware and network speeds.



The speeds will be as-designed rather than whatever a gameop's system happens to provide. A faster machine will provide room for more players rather than faster play for its players.

2) True delays are always imposed no matter how much time has passed between two commands. These are meant to slow down certain actions relative to other players. Ship attacks/moves are one example. There is an editor that allows gameops to configure many other action delays in a variety of ways. The minimum move delay has been 250 ms for many years. I experimented with allowing a much smaller move delay, but it has been unstable. I believe that 250 ms is a good official minimum, because it has been well proven over the years, but I am willing to allow gameops to "overclock" their server to support faster move delays, as long as they know that it can create instability.

3) A major factor on command delays is the emulated latency setting. It defaults to 150 ms. If a single command is issued, there will be a 150 ms delay before that command is processed. If the player has a 50 ms latency, then only 100 ms additional delay is imposed. This tends to level the playing field for players in regard to ping time. Of course, players with > 150 ms ping will still have > 150 ms ping, but the difference in their performance over that of players with < 150 ms ping will be less than it otherwise would have been.

If a burst of commands is sent in a macro or whatever, only the initial command will have this 150 ms latency. The remaining commands in the burst will be processed without delay, just as you would expect with true latency.



In the previous version, the delay for any command was a random amount from 0 to 250 ms. Now it is a very consistent delay as defined by the three kinds of delays listed above. The game has the potential to be many times faster than it was before, but the new delay system is designed to give the game a fast, stable, reasonable pace.

Most of them are using scripts that other people wrote.

Still waiting for an explanation of

1) Why the players who hate 2.0 can't just keep playing 1.03.

2) How any of the changes make player combat impossible as opposed to just different.

Granted, I can see how the changes might make combat impossible if you're limiting yourself to playing with old scripts written by someone else for 1.03, as Micro suggested. But if that's the situation, then you're just another skript kiddie and you don't have any real skill anyway.

Thats what you clearly dont understand and are unable/unwilling to process. I have no issues specifically with what Linda requested or the eventual v2. I take issue with making it unplayable for the entirety of his fanbase. And specifically her demeanor regarding the purposed changes/crusade to demonize scripters and our style of play.

The point is, you can STILL have your style of play, what was lost was the ability for a great many players to play their style. Adapt or die....

Now, the thing that has broken a lot of v1 scripts that have been compiled is the base timing of the v2 game. That was never one of the "features" or changes I requested, that was a change that JP wanted to make. I'm presuming it was to help make the game more stable given that the processing speed and broad band became a little too fast for the game to run without becoming corrupt now.

I know, I work with Xanos testing his scripts. And Toyman is correct, these scripts run on both v1 and v2. Xanos is a TWXProxy wizard! Our bot has been modified to work on both.

I too now play the highly scripted games. But without Xanos or someone else to create custom scripts for different situations or edits, I'd never be able to compete. I do enjoy these games, but cannot play that intently over a long period of time.

I provided links, quotes and statements addressing all your comments.

I am curious who the most of them in your above quote are though. I mean as far as I can tell outside the occasional Big D rant I'm the only one popping in here that still pushes against the tide.

You provided nothing of the sort. And it's utterly bizarre that you think you did.

There are links Mongoose, perhaps you should look again.

I see a lot of information about the details of what JP has changed. None of which addresses either of the questions I asked in this comment.