Is etemp-warp-1 a bug? Server analysis
Leonard Dickens
>[me:]
>[etemp warp 1 bug:]
>> It is simply a bug that never got fixed, either because someone
>>liked it,
>For the sake of argument, I will pretend it is a bug. So what? Is
>the game better for "fixing" it?
Yes.
First off, there is the realism problem. There is simply no SF or
commonsense way to believe in a ship that loses it engine and
therefore cannot stop. Beyond that, it boggles the mind even further
to try to understand how it is the ship cannot repair.
Second, there is the consistency problem. I know a lot of you think
this is completely unimportant, but I think the netrek VR should have
internal consistency. Allowing etemped warp 0 ONLY if orbitting is
inconsistent. Either orbitting for etemp should be disallowed, if we
really believe in a "stuck" engine, or ships should be able to stop.
Finally, there is the appeal to game complexity and interest. Right
now, etemp smacks of Netrek for Morons (tm). Simply put, there is NO
USE for warp 1 other than as a "I am fucked" sign. So, any ship at
warp 1 is either faking, or etemped. (Or is a cripple, normally only
significant for bases.) Ships may be at warp 0 for a number of
reasons. Allowing etemped ship to go warp 0 would significantly
compiclate the game for the other side, which is (IMO) a good thing.
>For this I haven't heard a good argument, basically it
>boils down to how much of a hose you think etemp should be. And all
Warp 0 or not, I think etemp is a big enough hose. It's too minor a
part of the game to have operate in a flatly unrealistic and
inconsistent way. It offends my sense of aethetics. Changing it is
cool for purposes of game complexity and interest; but the real reason
I am against it is that I think it is nasty and inelegant.
-Leonard
Joseph E. Beck
considering changing the "det enemy" code? I think I may have found
some gaps of plausibility in it.
> There is simply no SF or
> commonsense way to believe in a ship that loses it engine and
> therefore cannot stop.
The warp drive goes to a "safe" state and rejects any attempts to
change it. I think we sort of agree on this. But what is the "safe"
speed that the engineers picked? Warp 0, where planets can kill you
and you cannot dodge? Or warp 1 where you can't repair, but can
dodge, make it to a planet to bomb, etc?
> Beyond that, it boggles the mind even further
> to try to understand how it is the ship cannot repair.
You can repair, just not enter repair mode. Where does this ship get
it's power from? Hmm...and said warp drive is currently in a most
unhappy situation. Maybe there is not enough energy available?
> Second, there is the consistency problem. I know a lot of you think
> this is completely unimportant, but I think the netrek VR should have
> internal consistency. Allowing etemped warp 0 ONLY if orbitting is
> inconsistent.
CA goes warp 6. Hold even on fuel. Holds even on etemp.
CA goes warp 6.5. Holds even on fuel. Loses etemp.
CA goes warp 7. Loses fuel. Gains etemp.
And for the record, could you give me an explanation as to how detting
works?
> now, etemp smacks of Netrek for Morons (tm). Simply put, there is NO
> USE for warp 1 other than as a "I am fucked" sign.
And therefore?
> reasons. Allowing etemped ship to go warp 0 would significantly
> compiclate the game for the other side, which is (IMO) a good thing.
Complicate because someone who fucked up now has more options. You
know, I think the game would be more complicated if you didn't have to
slow down after taking internals.
> Warp 0 or not, I think etemp is a big enough hose. It's too minor a
> part of the game to have operate in a flatly unrealistic and
> inconsistent way.
I see, so major parts can be unrealistic and inconsistent? I think
the current penalty is fine, the the consistency mirrors the rest of
the game quite well (torps blow up on walls, ships bounce).
> It offends my sense of aethetics.
Well that's good enough for me! Er...anything else?
> cool for purposes of game complexity and interest; but the real reason
> I am against it is that I think it is nasty and inelegant.
So are the buddies. "nasty"? "inelegant"?
Your strongest argument is internal consistency, but I have problems
with walls acting in inconsistent manners, and torp detting being a
logical nightmare. But, since this is a minor point of the game
inconsistencies aren't allowed. Seems to be more personal opinion on
your part as to how the game should be, than anything else.
joe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
earth is 98% full. Please remove any excess inhabitants.
GCS/M/SS d- p- c++ l u+ e+ m+(--) s/++ n-@ h f+ g+ w++ t+ r y?
Alec Habig
>Lame. Why not just TURN OFF THE DAMN ENGINES?
Phhfffffbbbllltttt.
Your engines are melted. Warp one is just lightspeed, no? You've got no
engines to slow you down, so you're stuck with that "inertia" stuff.
The reason that you slow down _to_ warp one is that you need engines to
maintain above lightspeed.
Of course, this begs the question of how the hell you steer when etemped.
That's a change I might make - one can't steer while etemped, because you have
no engines.
Alec
"I canna break the laws of physics, Sir!"
Alec Habig
>Joseph E. Beck <jb...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>>leo...@cs.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens) writes:
>>> However, if you can dock/orbit, you can go warp 0. I can't think of
>>> any decent explanation for that difference other than in terms of
>>> bugs. Etemp is designed as a hose except for when you are near
>>> planets?
>>You can use the atmosphere to decelerate.
>
>Plain stupid.
Huh? Makes sense. See your car analogy below.
>Your engines are OVERHEATED. If your car engine is overheated you do
>NOT wander about the freeway at 10mph. You STOP the car before you
>ruin it. A little (only a little) realism injected into the game can
>work wonders. I'm not asking for having your hull damage go up if you
>insist on travelling beyond your etemp capacity (although it would be
>cool as an experiment). But going warp 1 when etemped is stupid
>(note: not plain stupid, just stupid).
Yo! Go to PHY101, go directly to PHY101, do not pass graduation, do not
collect a diploma. Newton's laws, man. Your car comes to a stop on the
freeway because there's all this friction stuff. Makes it stop. In space, no
one can hear you skid.
>Which brings me to another question: How does the code determine when
>to lift the etemp flag? Sometimes it only happens when your etemp
>returns to 0, sometimes it lifts earlier. Why?
When one etemps, they are etemped for some random amount of time, regardless of
what their current etemp does.
Alec
Steven R. Sheldon
>> There is simply no SF or
>> commonsense way to believe in a ship that loses it engine and
>> therefore cannot stop.
>The warp drive goes to a "safe" state and rejects any attempts to
>change it. I think we sort of agree on this. But what is the "safe"
>speed that the engineers picked? Warp 0, where planets can kill you
>and you cannot dodge? Or warp 1 where you can't repair, but can
>dodge, make it to a planet to bomb, etc?
Joe, I just have to point out that you've stopped making sense.
Ok, well maybe you never made sense to begin with, but...
The current system:
An etemped ship slows down to warp 1, and can only go warp 0 if they orbit a
SB or a planet.
The proposed system:
An etemped ships engines now have a max speed of warp 1.
>> now, etemp smacks of Netrek for Morons (tm). Simply put, there is NO
>> USE for warp 1 other than as a "I am fucked" sign.
>And therefore?
The proposed system adds greater depth to the game, then current system is
just plain stupid.
>> reasons. Allowing etemped ship to go warp 0 would significantly
>> compiclate the game for the other side, which is (IMO) a good thing.
>Complicate because someone who fucked up now has more options. You
>know, I think the game would be more complicated if you didn't have to
>slow down after taking internals.
I'm sorry. When I etemp it's not because I fucked up. I can't count the
number of times I have etemped because I forced my ship past the recommended
speed limit in order to kill a carrier.
Here I go, screaming in at warp 10, finally get the tractor and the plock
on the runnerscumming DD, and finally kill him, only to find myself mostly
damaged by his butt-torps, and etemped to boot.
And now you're saying that it is wrong for me to repair that damage in
order to prepare when the runnerscumming butt-torper comes back with a fresh
ship?
Bah, it's dumb. It serves no purpose other than to help out poorly skilled
people who can't get kills unless their opponent is etemped or mostly
damaged, or both.
>> Warp 0 or not, I think etemp is a big enough hose. It's too minor a
>> part of the game to have operate in a flatly unrealistic and
>> inconsistent way.
>I see, so major parts can be unrealistic and inconsistent? I think
>the current penalty is fine, the the consistency mirrors the rest of
>the game quite well (torps blow up on walls, ships bounce).
That's right. That's the boundary that surrounds the galaxy. You can get
past this boundary, but it requires special ships. :)
>Your strongest argument is internal consistency, but I have problems
>with walls acting in inconsistent manners, and torp detting being a
>logical nightmare. But, since this is a minor point of the game
>inconsistencies aren't allowed. Seems to be more personal opinion on
>your part as to how the game should be, than anything else.
Naw, it's just always bugged him, it's always bugged me. And I don't see
any reason to penalize people chasing carriers.
Ever see a runnerscum etemp? It happens, but not nearly as often as the
chaser, because the runnerscum get's to make the moves, adjust the speed,
weave and turn, the chaser has to overtake him.
--
Steve Sheldon [These are my own opinions]
Iowa State University ICSS Resource Facility by day
she...@iastate.edu ProMap, Inc. by night
Erik Lauer
>Joe Beck writes:
>>[me:]
>>> However, if you can dock/orbit, you can go warp 0. I can't think of
>>> any decent explanation for that difference other than in terms of
>>> bugs. Etemp is designed as a hose except for when you are near
>>> planets?
>>You can use the atmosphere to decelerate.
>
>Lame. Why not just TURN OFF THE DAMN ENGINES?
Oh come on. I have 95 etemp, and am in a warp 9 CA, can I
just turn off the engines to avoid wtemping? When I want to
get some fuel, I stop. Can I turn off the engines to decel so I
can recover more fuel? Apparently it is very unsafe to turn
off the engines.
Erik Lauer
>Your engines are OVERHEATED. If your car engine is overheated you do
>NOT wander about the freeway at 10mph. You STOP the car before you
>ruin it. A little (only a little) realism injected into the game can
>work wonders. I'm not asking for having your hull damage go up if you
>insist on travelling beyond your etemp capacity (although it would be
>cool as an experiment). But going warp 1 when etemped is stupid
>(note: not plain stupid, just stupid).
Does your car gain fuel while it is going slowly? If you are going fast,
and slow down do you still burn lots of gas while you are slowing down?
The first craft that comes to my mind as something that does not
really run out of fuel is a sailboat. If a sail gets torn, can you just stop?
Maybe you need a place to anchor or dock to really stop.
As to the special ability to stopping at a base or a planet - why can't
I go straight from warp 2 to 0 unless I am docking or orbiting?
I can see looking at the code, or considering what would make the
game more fun. The rules of the game are strange enough that I
don't see where you get intuition about warp 1 or warp 0 for etemped
ships.
Andy McFadden
>>You can use the atmosphere to decelerate.
>
>Lame. Why not just TURN OFF THE DAMN ENGINES?
Because then you'd just coast, probably at some really slow speed. Like,
say, warp 1.
Besides, it'd take 30 minutes to restart them. I mean, you can't change
the laws of physics.
>Therefore NEITHER side can say "that is how it was meant to be."
Which is why the discussion is irrelevant. The question is,
"what do we WANT it to be?"
The answer to this has nothing to do with reality or Star Trek. It's
whether or not a warp 1 etemped ship is desirable. I think it is, because:
- you can tell if somebody is etemped, and nail them
- you can dodge twink plink torps at warp 1
- you can fake clued players into thinking you're etemped
--
fad...@uts.amdahl.com (Andy McFadden)
"Our UNIX is bigger than your UNIX"
[ These are my opinions, not Amdahl policies. ]
Andy McFadden
>First off, there is the realism problem.
AAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NETREK IS NOT REALITY!!
AAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Second, there is the consistency problem. I know a lot of you think
>this is completely unimportant, but I think the netrek VR should have
>internal consistency.
Like ship weapon and shield stats that don't move in a nice mathematical
progression? Like DD plasmas that only do 75 when their shields are 85?
Like being able to refit when etemped but not when sorta low on fuel?
Like taking less damage when detting while running away than when detting
while running at the torps? Like ships that don't decellerate quite right
and sometimes miss the planet when you lock on at maxwarp?
Yes, there is inconsistency. But symmetry != beauty here.
>Finally, there is the appeal to game complexity and interest.
IMHO, the only important consideration.
> So, any ship at
>warp 1 is either faking, or etemped. (Or is a cripple, normally only
>significant for bases.) Ships may be at warp 0 for a number of
>reasons. Allowing etemped ship to go warp 0 would significantly
>compiclate the game for the other side, which is (IMO) a good thing.
The (IMO) part is important... it's all a matter of opinion. Which is
why it should be discussed to death and then voted on.
David Lyon
> leo...@cs.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens) writes:
Peon Cadet: Why not just TURN OFF THE DAMN ENGINES?
Professor: DO NOT TURN OFF THE ENGINES!
Peon Cadet: Why not?
Professor: It would be very bad.
Cadet #2: Will this be on the final exam?
Professor: YES!
Flt. Captain BB-1, Now at the Klingon Naval Academy
Andrew Markiel
> The warp drive goes to a "safe" state and rejects any attempts to
> change it. I think we sort of agree on this. But what is the "safe"
> speed that the engineers picked? Warp 0, where planets can kill you
> and you cannot dodge? Or warp 1 where you can't repair, but can
> dodge, make it to a planet to bomb, etc?
Actually, I believe Leonard's proposed fix is to set the mxwarp of an
etemped ship to 1, so that it can either go warp 0 or 1 at the choice
of the player.
This actually makes a lot of sense, since currently you have exactly
this choice if you happen to be near a planet or a base, but not in
open space. It gets rid of the "explode on the planet" argument as well.
> joe
-Grey Elf
mar...@callisto.pas.rochester.edu
Leonard Dickens
>leo...@cs.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens) writes:
>> First off, there is the realism problem.
>This is how I always lead off my trek arguments.
If you want to say this is a bad idea, say it.
>Leonard, is the INL considering changing the "det enemy" code?
No. It is a major, rich, and interesting part of the game.
>I think I may have found some gaps of plausibility in it.
Feel free to propound. I doubt it will do any good.
>> There is simply no SF or
>> commonsense way to believe in a ship that loses it engine and
>> therefore cannot stop.
>The warp drive goes to a "safe" state and rejects any attempts to
>change it. I think we sort of agree on this. But what is the "safe"
>speed that the engineers picked? Warp 0, where planets can kill you
>and you cannot dodge? Or warp 1 where you can't repair, but can
>dodge, make it to a planet to bomb, etc?
You have the mistaken impression I am advocating setting etemped speed
to 0. I am not. I am advocating setting etemped MAX speed to 1.
"Minspeed" (a concept not even represented in the server code as such)
should stay at 0, just like EVERY OTHER SITUATION IN THE GAME. HAVING
A "MINSPEED" OTHER THAN ZERO IS JUST PLAIN STUPID.
The "reason" you can go warp 1 is the subspace engines. (Remember
Star Trek? The patron saint/show of the hold netrek bitmaps?) The
warp engines are blotto. Warp 1 is actually just an approximation to
lower "warp" (1/2?) that subspace engines do. Using warp 1 was
necessary due to the inherent granularity of the game's representation
of player speeds. The reason why any speed at all is needed you seem
to understand: to allow the heroic etemped ogger to limp off the enemy
planet so he isn't killed by planet fire, or to limp to a nearby world
to repair/refuel, etc.
>> Beyond that, it boggles the mind even further
>> to try to understand how it is the ship cannot repair.
>You can repair, just not enter repair mode.
Uh huh! Read this aloud to yourself and see if it makes sense.
>Where does this ship get it's power from?
The same place it gets it power from while orbitting an enemy world,
where you can, in fact, repair.
>> Second, there is the consistency problem. I know a lot of you think
>> this is completely unimportant, but I think the netrek VR should have
>> internal consistency. Allowing etemped warp 0 ONLY if orbitting is
>> inconsistent.
>CA goes warp 6. Hold even on fuel. Holds even on etemp.
>CA goes warp 6.5. Holds even on fuel. Loses etemp.
>CA goes warp 7. Loses fuel. Gains etemp.
The second case only holds true if the CA is out of fuel, and is
indeed yet another of the netrek server bugs I intend to fix. This
one is far more clearly a bug, IMO, which is why I haven't bothered to
discuss it here.
If you find any more minor inconsistencies like this in the game, let
me know. They should be fixed.
>And for the record, could you give me an explanation as to how detting
>works?
Who cares? It is an important part of the game. Slight tweaks to
etemp aren't. How many times do you det torps compared to the number
of times you etemp? 100s? Maybe 1000s?
>> now, etemp smacks of Netrek for Morons (tm). Simply put, there is NO
>> USE for warp 1 other than as a "I am fucked" sign.
>And therefore?
Thus, it is Bad (tm).
>> reasons. Allowing etemped ship to go warp 0 would significantly
>> compiclate the game for the other side, which is (IMO) a good thing.
>Complicate because someone who fucked up now has more options.
Most of the time I etemp because I am holding a runnerscum while I
ogg, and his pathetic little scout or DD torps don't quite do me in.
So there I am 70 damage, no fuel, etemped. Did I fuck up? Do I
somehow not "deserve" to be able to repair like EVERY OTHER SHIP CAN
IN EVERY OTHER SITUATION?
>You
>know, I think the game would be more complicated if you didn't have to
>slow down after taking internals.
Really? I don't think most people would agree.
Sarcasm is not constructive. Attempting to demolish my position with
ridicule is not going to work; it will not go away so easily because I
believe in it.
>> Warp 0 or not, I think etemp is a big enough hose. It's too minor a
>> part of the game to have operate in a flatly unrealistic and
>> inconsistent way.
>I see, so major parts can be unrealistic and inconsistent?
Yes, like detting. Or like 8 ships per side, always there immediately
upon death. Or planets unable to be bombed if at 4 or less. Etc, etc.
>> It offends my sense of aethetics.
>Well that's good enough for me!
Good! Can I count on your support in the council?
-Leonard
Joseph E. Beck
> >> First off, there is the realism problem.
> >This is how I always lead off my trek arguments.
> If you want to say this is a bad idea, say it.
> >Leonard, is the INL considering changing the "det enemy" code?
> No. It is a major, rich, and interesting part of the game.
But...it's not consistent, not logical, and I don't like it. It fits
all of your criteria you listed in the last post (well, changing "you
don't like it" for "i don't like it").
> >The warp drive goes to a "safe" state and rejects any attempts to
> >and you cannot dodge? Or warp 1 where you can't repair, but can
> >dodge, make it to a planet to bomb, etc?
> You have the mistaken impression I am advocating setting etemped speed
> to 0. I am not. I am advocating setting etemped MAX speed to 1.
Thanks for informing us, I don't remember you mentioning it anywhere
else (feel free to prove me wrong). So you think etemping is not
nearly enough of a hose? I am tired of "logical" arguments about this
isn't "consistent". Give me a game playability reason for this
change.
> should stay at 0, just like EVERY OTHER SITUATION IN THE GAME. HAVING
> A "MINSPEED" OTHER THAN ZERO IS JUST PLAIN STUPID.
Captains should not be allowed to play around with hosed engines.
Allowing them too is just Wreck Stupid (petty insults or so kewl)
> The reason why any speed at all is needed you seem
> to understand:
If you want to be condescending, we can take this to email. I'd
prefer to keep this discussion a bit more rational.
> to allow the heroic etemped ogger to limp off the enemy
> planet so he isn't killed by planet fire, or to limp to a nearby world
> to repair/refuel, etc.
Yes, you understand why warp 1 is good.
> >You can repair, just not enter repair mode.
> Uh huh! Read this aloud to yourself and see if it makes sense.
It still does. There is a difference between repairing damage (which
you always do), and entering repair mode (when you are at warp 0 and
have sent the command to the server).
> >Where does this ship get it's power from?
> The same place it gets it power from while orbitting an enemy world,
> where you can, in fact, repair.
I could give some fuzzy arguments about thermo, and the difference in
temperature between the atmosphere and vacuum. But, that is
meaningless; I want to play netrek, not physics. But, if you want an
explanation, here goes: when you enter atmosphere you can dump enough
excess heat for your engineering staff to enter the warp core area and
begins repairs on your ship. Would *you* enter a warp core that was
in danger of melting down?
> >CA goes warp 6. Hold even on fuel. Holds even on etemp.
> >CA goes warp 6.5. Holds even on fuel. Loses etemp.
> >CA goes warp 7. Loses fuel. Gains etemp.
> The second case only holds true if the CA is out of fuel, and is
> indeed yet another of the netrek server bugs I intend to fix. This
> one is far more clearly a bug, IMO, which is why I haven't bothered to
> discuss it here.
After 5 years it becomes a bit more than a bug. You are changing play
style immensely. SC bombing becomes more difficult. You seem to have
this holy jihad to change things to the way they "should be" without
ever considering what is more fun, and what other people want changed.
> >And for the record, could you give me an explanation as to how detting
> >works?
> Who cares? It is an important part of the game.
Amen.
> Slight tweaks to etemp aren't.
What if it is important to me? Runnerscums? What about the extra
half warp? You think this is not important, while to a bomber it is
*life*. I think you are overestimating your qualifications to
determine what is important (I don't claim to know either) in netrek.
All I know is that you want to mess with the game, and change things I
(and apparently some others) want changed. You have provided no
arguments about how this will make the game more fun, but have tried
to argue logically within the realm of trek physics.
> >> There is no
> >> USE for warp 1 other than as a "I am fucked" sign.
> >And therefore?
> Thus, it is Bad (tm).
So you think that ships should not be restricted to warp 1? Even
after my CA takes 90 internals I shouldn't have to go warp 1, since
all it says is "I am fucked". Is this another proposed change?
> >Complicate because someone who fucked up now has more options.
> So there I am 70 damage, no fuel, etemped. Did I fuck up?
You took a calculated risk, accept the penalty.
> somehow not "deserve" to be able to repair like EVERY OTHER SHIP CAN
> IN EVERY OTHER SITUATION?
"deserve to be able to repair"? Do I "deserve" to be able to phaser
(when, say I have no fuel)? Seriously, plesae define "deserve". You
have taken a risky (that implies there is a serious potential penalty)
action. Now you grumble that there is a serious penalty?
> Sarcasm is not constructive. Attempting to demolish my position with
> ridicule is not going to work; it will not go away so easily because I
> believe in it.
Wow, and using "plain stupid" (something which has no place in a
debate) and being condescending will be profitable. Leonard, you make
statements like "there is NO USE for warp 1 other than as a "I am
fucked" sign." (I asked so what?) "Thus, it is Bad(tm)". How *should*
I interpret this? You have this mission in life to mold trek in your
own image, and have consistently refused to explain how it makes the
game more fun. But instead argue about trek physics. You make VERY
vague points (wonder how many people knew that you were proposing warp
0 or warp 1), logical coherency should apply to the game, well, only
to non important areas of course.
> >I see, so major parts can be unrealistic and inconsistent?
> Yes, like detting. Or like 8 ships per side, always there immediately
> upon death. Or planets unable to be bombed if at 4 or less. Etc, etc.
In your vision of the game, perhaps, not everyone else shares it.
> >> It offends my sense of aethetics.
> >Well that's good enough for me!
> Good! Can I count on your support in the council?
Sure, as long as you guarantee you'll do everything in your power (and
resign in shame if you fail) to make it so ships never have to go warp
1, since this also seems to offend your sense of aesthetics!
joe
p.s. Hugh, this WAS the moderate response.
Joseph E. Beck
(sorry if this is harsh, but I just got done reading Leonard's post
and still have this urge to ogg the opposition)
she...@iastate.edu (Steven R. Sheldon) writes:
> Joe, I just have to point out that you've stopped making sense.
> The current system:
> An etemped ship slows down to warp 1, and can only go warp 0 if they orbit a
> SB or a planet.
Yep.
> The proposed system:
> An etemped ships engines now have a max speed of warp 1.
I misunderstood Leonard's proposal. If you read my paragraph with the
belief the 2 options are "can go warp 1" and "can go warp 0" it should
make more sense.
> >> now, etemp smacks of Netrek for Morons (tm). Simply put, there is NO
> >> USE for warp 1 other than as a "I am fucked" sign.
> >And therefore?
> The proposed system adds greater depth to the game,
By giving you more options? Is a dangerous precedent. Allowing ships
with 0 kills to pickup 1 army also adds depth. Don't think it makes
the game more fun.
> >Complicate because someone who fucked up now has more options. You
> >know, I think the game would be more complicated if you didn't have to
> >slow down after taking internals.
> I'm sorry. When I etemp it's not because I fucked up.
Sorry, I was still speaking as the design engineer for the warp drive.
From his point of view the captain certainly fucked up.
> number of times I have etemped because I forced my ship past the recommended
> speed limit in order to kill a carrier.
Sure, you take a risk (how long will my engines hold, can I get them
down below 100 before i etemp) for a potential gain (will i doosh the
carrier). Now, I don't see why you think decreasing the risk half
makes the gam better.
> Here I go, screaming in at warp 10,
There's the problem! :-)
> And now you're saying that it is wrong for me to repair that damage in
> order to prepare when the runnerscumming butt-torper comes back with a fresh
> ship?
Sure. How does this sound:
I chase down a runnerscumming DD, and end up with 99 internals. I
can now only go warp 1. Are you saying it is wrong I can't go warp
9 to the fuel planet to prepare for the next one?
Obviously, the above is absurd, yet follows the same logical
structure. I'm not saying "you did the wrong thing" if you etemped,
all I am saying is that you gambled, and should be willing to face the
music. I don't see how making the music more pleasant makes the game
better.
> Bah, it's dumb. It serves no purpose other than to help out poorly skilled
> people who can't get kills unless their opponent is etemped or mostly
> damaged, or both.
Bah, it's dumb. It serves no purpose other than to help out poorly
skilled people who can't get kills or be useful without pushing their
drive past the breaking point often. Sorry if you're annoyed of the
parody, but I don't see the logical points being made.
> That's right. That's the boundary that surrounds the galaxy. You can get
> past this boundary, but it requires special ships. :)
So THAT'S why you fly DD's? :-)
> Naw, it's just always bugged him, it's always bugged me. And I don't see
> any reason to penalize people chasing carriers.
Then why have etemp? Basically, you are arguing the LEVEL of the
penalty. If you truly didn't believe in giving penalty torps would be
vector (to cancel the fact that the scummer is runn) and there would
be no etemp (since often the chaser has to react and cut across the
galaxy to stop the scummer).
> Ever see a runnerscum etemp? It happens, but not nearly as often as the
> chaser, because the runnerscum get's to make the moves, adjust the speed,
> weave and turn, the chaser has to overtake him.
(see above)
I can respect your position, you seem to be saying to ogging and
running carriers down is tough, so etemping should be made less
critical. At present I disagree, but it is definitely worth
considering.
5150
Andy McFadden <fad...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
>In article <2j76kf$6...@twinkie.cs.umd.edu> leo...@cs.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens) writes:
>>First off, there is the realism problem.
>AAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>NETREK IS NOT REALITY!!
"Realism, i said. Not reality."
I would think that any game would require a certain degree of realism.
If not a "common" realism, at least an internal sort of realism. Can
you argue that going warp 1 is better for the game than being able to
go warp 0 or 1? If so, what do you mean by "better"?
5150
--
Tired Wired
----- -----
WiReD talk.bizarre
Robert W. Hill
Etemping isn't a matter of screwing up (well, sometimes I guess it can
be). Its a matter of limitations of ship types. I don't typically
etemp my AS. On the other hand, I regularly etemp my CA.
I see the debate about strengthening on weakening the CA, because that
ship will feel the impact of the change moreso than any other ships
(except for maybe SB's, who can't repair because they've t/ped alot, or
had ships docked).
Oh, one more thing, lets stop talking "physics", because the game isn't
built around physics.
If this change is made, please change it because you feel it was a bug
(as I do) or because you think it will make the game better (I don't).
Rob
Tom Holub
) I chase down a runnerscumming DD, and end up with 99 internals. I
) can now only go warp 1. Are you saying it is wrong I can't go warp
) 9 to the fuel planet to prepare for the next one?
No, he's saying it would be wrong if you were unable to go warp 0 because
you are "too hurt to repair" or some idiotic thing like that. He's not
asking that he be able to go warp 9; he's asking to be able to go warp 0.
This isn't brain surgery.
)Obviously, the above is absurd, yet follows the same logical
)structure.
No, it doesn't. I think most grade school children would be able to
note the difference, although I'm not terribly surprised that you can't.
-Tom
Leonard Dickens
>> >> First off, there is the realism problem.
And yet you argue using it too. Could it be that you, too, believe
there is some (though not a lot of) weight to "realism" arguments?
>> >Leonard, is the INL considering changing the "det enemy" code?
>> No. It is a major, rich, and interesting part of the game.
>But...it's not consistent, not logical, and I don't like it. It fits
>all of your criteria you listed in the last post (well, changing "you
>don't like it" for "i don't like it").
You forgot #3: I think the etemp change makes netrek a better game.
Do you think a change to det-enemy would make a better game? What
change? If you really are not just blowing smoke here (which I think
you are but am not sure), I would be interested to hear your idea,
because I am aware that the way det-enemy works is not very
"realistic" or consistent.
>> You have the mistaken impression I am advocating setting etemped speed
>> to 0. I am not. I am advocating setting etemped MAX speed to 1.
>Thanks for informing us, I don't remember you mentioning it anywhere
>else (feel free to prove me wrong).
I admit, my post that started this thread was not clear on the topic.
I said:
|Currently, in the INL and most (all?) pickup servers, an etemped
|player cannot repair, except in orbit or docked, because he cannot
|slow down to warp 0. (Of course, he CAN still dock or orbit to get
|warp 0.
Of course, it was plain to me what I meant, and this shows something
of my mindset. If I had been proposing to eliminate etemped-warp-1,
then I would have mentioned it.
Nonetheless, there can be no question about what I proposing to anyone
who read/understood my posted server patch. As in any computer
program, you can describe a change in English all you want and never
make yourself clear. Always read code if possible.
>So you think etemping is not nearly enough of a hose?
No! NO!!!
My change makes etemp LESS of a hose. You can do EVERYTHING you
currently can, AND go warp 0 too, if you so desire. That, in turn,
allows repair just sitting in space.
>I am tired of "logical" arguments about this
>isn't "consistent". Give me a game playability reason for this
>change.
That being forced to go warp 1 is bad game design, in the sense that
it sends information to the other team that they should not have access
to. Namely, your engine state.
Beyond that, there isn't much to say about etemp, because as I have
pointed out several times now, it is RARE. "Game playability" will be
essentially no different with, or without this change.
>> should stay at 0, just like EVERY OTHER SITUATION IN THE GAME. HAVING
>> A "MINSPEED" OTHER THAN ZERO IS JUST PLAIN STUPID.
>Captains should not be allowed to play around with hosed engines.
>Allowing them too is just Wreck Stupid (petty insults or so kewl)
I am not calling you plain stupid, except indirectly. :)
And you did not respond to my (I think) very telling point. Allow me
to reiterate it. In netrek, EVERY ship can ALWAYS go warp 0, at ALL
times, EXCEPT if (a) etemped (b) not docked, and (c) no orbitting.
By the way, I find that "consistency" arguments are better than
"realism" arguments. So, your "realism" argument above ("Captains
should not be...") is a weak response to mine.
>> to allow the heroic etemped ogger to limp off the enemy
>> planet so he isn't killed by planet fire, or to limp to a nearby world
>> to repair/refuel, etc.
>Yes, you understand why warp 1 is good.
I think everyone agrees on this. Good.
>> >Where does this ship get it's (sic) power from?
>> The same place it gets it power from while orbitting an enemy world,
>> where you can, in fact, repair.
>if you want an
>explanation, here goes: when you enter atmosphere you can dump enough
>excess heat for your engineering staff to enter the warp core area and
>begins repairs on your ship. Would *you* enter a warp core that was
>in danger of melting down?
Your explanation does not answer my point. You made a point about
needing "power" to repair; if one believes that the power to repair
comes from the warp engines, then it would naturally follow that a
etemped ship might not be able to repair.
I shot this argument to hell by pointing out that the ship can, in
fact repair: it need merely orbit or dock. To preclude the obvious
followup, namely: "it gets power from the planet or base it is
orbitting/docked to", I specified that it is orbitting an ENEMY
planet, which presumably will not provide power.
>> Slight tweaks to etemp aren't.
>What if it is important to me?
You elided my discussion of frequency. Etemp is a very rare event.
Detting is not. It is very simple.
As a for instance: say that when scouts wtemped, they were forced to
fire one torp each 1/2 second, in the direction they are moving.
Would this seriously imbalance the game? No. Scouts almost never
wtemp. Would this strike me a unrealistic, inconsistent, and bad game
design? Yes.
Would there be conservatives arguing against changing it because it
has been in the server for 4 year?
>Runnerscums? What about the extra
>half warp? You think this is not important, while to a bomber it is
>*life*.
I am not planning to take the extra half warp, depending on the fuel
regen. I am planning to take the free engine cooling at warp 8.5.
Just because a ship is out of fuel does not mean that its engines
somehow become more efficient. I guess I will open another thread on
this topic, though, because it looks like you will want a vote on it,
too.
>I think you are overestimating your qualifications to
>determine what is important (I don't claim to know either) in netrek.
Look, as you pointed out before, there are no sacred prophets of
netrek. People make changes, and some are accepted, and others are
not. Presumably, good changes win out in the long run, but it takes
time. What are the "qualifications to determine what is important"?
I think I have as much or more of these than anyone else in the sport.
Consider, for instance, my early support and championing of
essentially all of the newest generally accepted server changes: lauer
plagues,,pingstats, and the DD etemp change come to mind. Remember the
fix to bug/feature in accel/decel rates? I found that and brought it
to the attention of the community, and got it fixed. Currently, I am
on what think is the right side of the 0/100, 33/67, or 50/50 debate
on the DI value of neuting versus taking. I could go on. About the
only issue I can remember being strongly on the losing side of is the
army-number issue 2 years ago.
There, an argument from authority! :) Having written that I almost
removed it because it sounds pretty self-satisfied, but then it IS an
answer, about the only answer that makes sense, to your query about
"qualifications". Any call for qualifications is essentially asking
for a resume', right? You cannot otherwise quantify quality.
>You have provided no
>arguments about how this will make the game more fun, but have tried
>to argue logically within the realm of trek physics.
I have done both. As well as arguing from "realism".
>> >> There is no
>> >> USE for warp 1 other than as a "I am fucked" sign.
>> >And therefore?
>> Thus, it is Bad (tm).
>So you think that ships should not be restricted to warp 1? Even
>after my CA takes 90 internals I shouldn't have to go warp 1, since
>all it says is "I am fucked". Is this another proposed change?
No, I am saying that ships should ALWAYS be able to repair, go warp 0,
and go warp 1.
>> somehow not "deserve" to be able to repair like EVERY OTHER SHIP CAN
>> IN EVERY OTHER SITUATION?
>"deserve to be able to repair"? Do I "deserve" to be able to phaser
>(when, say I have no fuel)?
No, phasering costs fuel. Moving costs fuel. Lots of things cost
fuel. It is a general principle of the game, a CONSISTENT and
REALISTIC one, I might add, that fuel is a limited resource. If you
don't have the fuel, you can't do it.
>Seriously, please define "deserve".
You "deserve" to be able to make a netrek action if (a) you can do it
in the default state of your ship, and (b) you have not made other
RELATED actions that risk loss of the first action. By "related
actions", I mean actions that affect the same simulated aspect of your
simulated ship.
Let us relate my notion of "deserve" to your facetious fuel example,
above. A fuel 0 ship does not deserve to be able to make a phaser
action, even though it can in fact make that action in its default
state, because it had made other related actions that risked loss of
the phaser: it did actions that are related in the sense that they all
used fuel.
My argument is that repair and engine state have nothing to do with
each other. As such, one should not affect the other. You deserve to
be able to repair at all times, in fact, because repair is not a
related action to any other type of action.
>You have taken a risky (that implies there is a serious potential penalty)
>action. Now you grumble that there is a serious penalty?
Sure, there should be risks and penalties in the game. These makes it
better and more interesting. My definition of "deserve" and "related"
above is an attempt to capture the simple idea that penalties should
be related as directly as possible to the risks.
So, wtemping causes loss of ability to fire. Running out of fuel
causes loss of ability to do actions that would cause negative fuel.
Etemping causes loss of ability to move. (Although not total, because
that is too much the hose. We agree on that, though.) Should wtemp
cause lack of ability to repair, except in dock or orbit? That makes
the same amount of sense as etemp, except that etemp happens to have
been implemented shoddily in such a way as that it is, in fact, so
related.
>You have this mission in life to mold trek in your own image,
See my netrek curriculum vitae, above.
>and have consistently refused to explain how it makes the game more fun.
Not so. I argued that two posts back, but since it is subjective like
everything else, you discounted it. Now I argue it again, in the
guise of "deservedness" and information flow. Which is basically just
an expansion of what I said the first time.
>You make VERY
>vague points (wonder how many people knew that you were proposing warp
>0 or warp 1),
I, in turn, wonder how many people DIDN'T know this. Could it be you
were in the minority?
And I don't think your points are any clearer, except the
conservatism. It is both easy and clear to say: "that is the way it
is; I like the way it is; don't change it." I hear you, loud and
clear. Beyond that, your attempts to counter my "realism" arguments
have been weak: atmosphere cooling?? Your attempts to counter my
consistency arguments have been mostly realism arguments, which miss
the point. (Go play with my concept of "deserve" above, and get back
me.) And your attempts to counter my game quality arguments have been
just as lame as the arguments themselves. Basically: "it would be
better". "Not". "Not^2". Etc.
-Leonard
Leonard Dickens
>I see the debate about strengthening on weakening the CA, because that
>ship will feel the impact of the change moreso than any other ships
I see it as strengthening all ships in certain conditions, namely, far
from their home planet. Etemping in home space is very rare, and
almost always a mistake. (Usually when you are returning to the home
planet to refit, and you aren't paying close attention.) Etemping far
from home is common when you have maxwarped half to almost completely
across the galaxy, followed by tractor action.
As such, I think the main effect of the change will be to slighly
benefit CA oggers, since BBs are too slow to get near enough an enemy
to pop their engine holding him. It will make it harder to get ogged,
then return and scum the kill, the change makes it a little easier to
ogg and a little harder to carry. You will see slightly more mutuals
following a successful ogg than you used to. This will give a slight
advantage to the winning team, since they are the team that has to go
the furthest to get to the enemy.
Scout bombers will get a slight advantage as well. Sometimes they
have to push their engines over the edge to beat a scum to a back
planet. A number of times I get to the planet at etemp 120 or so,
bomb, and get pinged by the scum who then runs away from my cloak.
There I am, unable to repair, low fuel, and a free kill if I uncloak
and show the world I am etemped. Having the option to sit there at
warp 0, looking casual, would help the scout bomber occasionally,
slightly.
-Leonard
Erik Lauer
>Most of the time I etemp because I am holding a runnerscum while I
>ogg, and his pathetic little scout or DD torps don't quite do me in.
>So there I am 70 damage, no fuel, etemped. Did I fuck up? Do I
>somehow not "deserve" to be able to repair like EVERY OTHER SHIP CAN
>IN EVERY OTHER SITUATION?
Every other ship can in every other situation???
If I am in a BB going warp 8, lose my sheilds, and want to go into
repair mode to fix them it will take me quite a long time to stop
(though a nearby planet or SB can get rid of 25% of the waiting time -
hmm, any other time being able to orbit/dock helps one repair?)
Wtemped ships can not det enemy torps - but somehow that seems
fair. I find it easier to get 100 fuel than to get to warp zero, so there
is usually less waiting time for this ability, in a way closer to every
other ship in every other situations. Of course normally one does not
det if there are no enemy torps around, but one normally does not go into
repair mode unless her ship is damaged.
As to it being a bug - if the game has been balanced and played with the
"bug" and there is no reason to suspect fixing the bug will improve the
fun and balance of the game, where is the incentive to fix the bug?
The whole etemp hose is a reason I sometimes take an AS instead of
a CA -- to me at least reducing the penalty of being etemped would
have some effect on how often I use different ships.
>Good! Can I count on your support in the council?
Of course! Instead of just making this change, you asked!
Neat idea!
>-Leonard
Erik
Andy McFadden
>>>First off, there is the realism problem.
>>AAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>NETREK IS NOT REALITY!!
>
>"Realism, i said. Not reality."
Hey, it's all very real to me.
>I would think that any game would require a certain degree of realism.
Like chess, checkers, poker, yahtzee, baseball, ...
If you substitute "simulation" for "game", your sentence makes sense.
However, then we get to argue about whether or not Netrek is actually
a simulation of something.
>If not a "common" realism, at least an internal sort of realism. Can
>you argue that going warp 1 is better for the game than being able to
>go warp 0 or 1?
No, I think warp 1 is gooder.
> If so, what do you mean by "better"?
I said "gooder", not "better".
Joseph E. Beck
leo...@cs.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens) writes:
> >This is a bad way to present a netrek argument.
> And yet you argue using it too. Could it be that you, too, believe
> there is some (though not a lot of) weight to "realism" arguments?
If I did not respond to your "points" you would undoubtedly claim I
was making this statement to dodge your argument.
> >But...it's not consistent, not logical, and I don't like it. It fits
> >all of your criteria you listed in the last post (well, changing "you
> >don't like it" for "i don't like it").
> You forgot #3: I think the etemp change makes netrek a better game.
> Do you think a change to det-enemy would make a better game? What
> change?
I do not think detted torps should hurt the enemy. Would this be
better? I think so.
> |Currently, in the INL and most (all?) pickup servers, an etemped
> |player cannot repair, except in orbit or docked, because he cannot
> |slow down to warp 0. (Of course, he CAN still dock or orbit to get
> |warp 0.
> Of course, it was plain to me what I meant,
No, it wasn't.
> of my mindset. If I had been proposing to eliminate etemped-warp-1,
> then I would have mentioned it.
People make different assumptions using english.
> who read/understood my posted server patch. As in any computer
> program, you can describe a change in English all you want and never
> make yourself clear. Always read code if possible.
Are you claiming that you could not state this change clearly in
english?
> >So you think etemping is not nearly enough of a hose?
> No! NO!!!
Oops, my bad. I believe this should have read "too much of a hose"
> That being forced to go warp 1 is bad game design, in the sense that
> it sends information to the other team that they should not have access
> to. Namely, your engine state.
This is also true for taking 90 internals in a CA. Going warp 1 gives
information about your hull damage.
> pointed out several times now, it is RARE. "Game playability" will be
> essentially no different with, or without this change.
Then why are you making a big deal about it? :-)
> And you did not respond to my (I think) very telling point. Allow me
> to reiterate it. In netrek, EVERY ship can ALWAYS go warp 0, at ALL
> times, EXCEPT if (a) etemped (b) not docked, and (c) no orbitting.
Shrug. Does changing this make the game more or less fun?
> By the way, I find that "consistency" arguments are better than
> "realism" arguments. So, your "realism" argument above ("Captains
> should not be...") is a weak response to mine.
I think:
fun>>>>consistency~=realism
> >Yes, you understand why warp 1 is good.
> I think everyone agrees on this. Good.
Good, we all argree on something, warp 1 is good. Therefore etemped
people should have to go warp 1. Well, it was a nice try :-)
> >explanation, here goes: when you enter atmosphere you can dump enough
> >excess heat for your engineering staff to enter the warp core area and
> >begins repairs on your ship. Would *you* enter a warp core that was
> >in danger of melting down?
> Your explanation does not answer my point. You made a point about
> needing "power" to repair; if one believes that the power to repair
> comes from the warp engines, then it would naturally follow that a
> etemped ship might not be able to repair.
You can get power from the heat differential between a vacuum and a
planets atmosphere. I'm sure there's some thermo law that says you
can. It's, like, totally valid.
> I shot this argument to hell by pointing out that the ship can, in
> fact repair: it need merely orbit or dock.
When it is docked it is clear where power comes from. I gave an
explanation for orbitting ships.
> followup, namely: "it gets power from the planet or base it is
> orbitting/docked to", I specified that it is orbitting an ENEMY
> planet, which presumably will not provide power.
They will cause their atmosphere to match temperature with space?
Harsh...
> >> Slight tweaks to etemp aren't.
> >What if it is important to me?
> You elided my discussion of frequency. Etemp is a very rare event.
Rare = Not important?
> Would there be conservatives arguing against changing it because it
> has been in the server for 4 year?
Possibly. Depends on what was more fun though.
> I am not planning to take the extra half warp, depending on the fuel
> regen. I am planning to take the free engine cooling at warp 8.5.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do us all a favor and talk it over with some other people first.
Thanks.
> Just because a ship is out of fuel does not mean that its engines
> somehow become more efficient.
Less fuel to drag means the ship can move more efficiently.
> I guess I will open another thread on
> this topic, though, because it looks like you will want a vote on it,
> too.
I'd just like it discussed. I don't see how losing etemp at high warp
necessarily makes the game more fun.
> time. What are the "qualifications to determine what is important"?
Admiral on at least 6 servers, not counting paradise and sturgeon,
and you must have won at least 6 INL championships.
> Consider, for instance, my early support and championing of
> essentially all of the newest generally accepted server changes: lauer
> plagues,,pingstats, and the DD etemp change come to mind.
Wow, so did most of the clueful netrek world. Now if only pingstats
would work. Btw, I think I did a lot more of the early headbanging on
pop schemes than you did, so nyah.
> Remember the fix to bug/feature in accel/decel rates? I found
> that and brought it
> to the attention of the community, and got it fixed.
Congrats for finding it, but most people agreed with it. Because it
made the game more FUN. Now there was somewhat more purpose to flying
DD's.
> Currently, I am
> on what think is the right side of the 0/100, 33/67, or 50/50 debate
> on the DI value of neuting versus taking. I could go on. About the
Are you 50/50 then? *Most* people I respect are there to.
> only issue I can remember being strongly on the losing side of is the
> army-number issue 2 years ago.
So you favored 90 minute games? Twink.
> "qualifications". Any call for qualifications is essentially asking
> for a resume', right? You cannot otherwise quantify quality.
Sorry, but a lot of people match everything you have described (except
finding the DD bug).
> >> >> There is no
> >> >> USE for warp 1 other than as a "I am fucked" sign.
> >> >And therefore?
> >> Thus, it is Bad (tm).
> >So you think that ships should not be restricted to warp 1? Even
> >after my CA takes 90 internals I shouldn't have to go warp 1, since
> >all it says is "I am fucked". Is this another proposed change?
> No, I am saying that ships should ALWAYS be able to repair, go warp 0,
> and go warp 1.
Then say it.
> My argument is that repair and engine state have nothing to do with
> each other.
Perhaps.
> >You have taken a risky (that implies there is a serious potential penalty)
> >action. Now you grumble that there is a serious penalty?
> Sure, there should be risks and penalties in the game. These makes it
> better and more interesting. My definition of "deserve" and "related"
> above is an attempt to capture the simple idea that penalties should
> be related as directly as possible to the risks.
So, you are lowering the penalty but saying the penalty shouldn't be
lowered? Do you propose etemps be lengthened? As it is you are
making them of shorter duration, and letting the person repair.
> Etemping causes loss of ability to move. (Although not total, because
> that is too much the hose.
It would be funny though.
> cause lack of ability to repair, except in dock or orbit?
Weapons systems don't provide power.
> >You have this mission in life to mold trek in your own image,
> See my netrek curriculum vitae, above.
Yawn.
>
> >You make VERY
> >vague points (wonder how many people knew that you were proposing warp
> >0 or warp 1),
> I, in turn, wonder how many people DIDN'T know this. Could it be you
> were in the minority?
Perhaps. It's tough to tell how many people went "oh...".
> is; I like the way it is; don't change it." I hear you, loud and
> clear. Beyond that, your attempts to counter my "realism" arguments
> have been weak: atmosphere cooling??
Thermo. Look it up some time.
> me.) And your attempts to counter my game quality arguments have been
> just as lame as the arguments themselves. Basically: "it would be
Game quality arguments? I'm still waiting for those. Please state
them in a nice concise paragraph. You are making etemp less of a hose
(change in game playability) without giving a reason why.
> better". "Not". "Not^2". Etc.
Not^3.
Still waiting for the "game playability" section...
joe
Brian Odom
>leo...@cs.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens) writes:
>>Lame. Why not just TURN OFF THE DAMN ENGINES?
>Phhfffffbbbllltttt.
>Your engines are melted. Warp one is just lightspeed, no? You've got no
>engines to slow you down, so you're stuck with that "inertia" stuff.
>The reason that you slow down _to_ warp one is that you need engines to
>maintain above lightspeed.
>Of course, this begs the question of how the hell you steer when etemped.
easy, use the steering wheel captain!
>That's a change I might make - one can't steer while etemped, because you have
>no engines.
oh no.... you do have engines, they're just too hot to function (no accel.)
so you must wait until they cool off, but this doesn't mean i shoudln't be
able to steer.... one doesn't need an engine to turn...
Alec Habig
>aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes:
>>leo...@cs.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens) writes:
>>>Lame. Why not just TURN OFF THE DAMN ENGINES?
>
>>Phhfffffbbbllltttt.
>
>>Your engines are melted. Warp one is just lightspeed, no? You've got no
>>engines to slow you down, so you're stuck with that "inertia" stuff.
>
>>The reason that you slow down _to_ warp one is that you need engines to
>>maintain above lightspeed.
>
>>Of course, this begs the question of how the hell you steer when etemped.
>
>easy, use the steering wheel captain!
(spin spin spin)
"Mr. Sulu, is this a Sit-n-Spin commercial or what?"
"She won't respond, Captain!"
>>That's a change I might make - one can't steer while etemped, because you
>>have no engines.
>
>oh no.... you do have engines, they're just too hot to function (no accel.)
>so you must wait until they cool off, but this doesn't mean i shoudln't be
>able to steer.... one doesn't need an engine to turn...
Sure does. One's lacking pavement, air, or water in space. These are the
things one uses to turn with on the earth. Up there, you gotta jet around to
get anywhere. Remember asteroids? Now there was a real man's space game.
Actually, somebody once hacked a netrek server to fly like asteroids - anybody
have those diffs laying about?
>>"I canna break the laws of physics, Sir!"
Alec
(Entropy)
Kevin M Bernatz
I guess I might as well add my voice to this hilarious thread. I've
been playing for over 1000+ hours and I have NEVER ever used a person's
speed to tell if they are etemped. It's all in the feel of the game.
Why would a person chasing you suddenly stop chasing you, allowing you
to get free and do what you wanted to do in the first place? Maybe if
they are a moron, but certainly not the clue that I'm used to playing
against. If you honestly look to see if a person is going warp 1 then I
think you need serious help. Changing the Etemp from 0 to 1 is
NEGLIGIBLE on game play IMO. The only real effect is that it allows you
to repair. However, I would MUCH rather be going warp 1 than warp 0 so
I think the benefit of repair is FAR outweighed by the fact that you no
longer can inch towards a planet to drop armies or dodge those torps
that are coming at you (anyone who can't dodge even SOME torps at warp 1
is not good enough to even notice the difference so you should just shut
up....this means you Tom*). As to whether I support the change, I
honestly believe with Leonard that it does look like it was just a hack
to the code. Personally, I don't think it will make that much differnce
to the game (how often do you really Etemp anyways? Maybe once or twice
max/INL game?). I'd say change it so that the code is consistent. Make
it warp 0 at all times. BUT as Joe pointed out (and Tom disagrees
with...with is enough to make ANY sane person side with Joe) the INL is
NOT the place to 'test' changes. I still remember the days when jmn was
making changes out the wahoo to the server and we'd get bugs every
fucking day. We have a nice working server. You want to test the
change get Alex to put it on bigbang. He's a cool guy and is always
willing to test changes that may make the game better. I know I would
be interested in seeing just what kind of effect it has on the game.
And speaking of changes to the INL server, why isn't base Wtemp =
150 now that calvin and bigbang are the two most popular servers in the
world? Since the INL server is supposed to be based on 'standard
netrek' servers you'd think that they'd have Twarp and 150 Wtemp. Kind
of stupid, huh? I'd like to see 150 Wtemp since I think the effect
would be about as much as the Etemp change....barely noticeable.
Twarp....well...the less said about Twarp the better.
-KB*
*Obtwink
*ObAsshole
Joseph E. Beck
>> Of course, it was plain to me what I meant,
>No, it wasn't.
really.
Leonard Dickens
> I guess I might as well add my voice to this hilarious thread. I've
>been playing for over 1000+ hours and I have NEVER ever used a person's
>speed to tell if they are etemped.
I take it you are not used to hanging around near the home planet in a DD
with 5 armies, scumming kills from CA oggers?
Also, I am curious whether you have info mapped to somewhere
reasonable. Obviously hitting 'i' in combat is not practical unless
you play with a bizarre keymap or a left handed keymap. I personally
check enemy speeds all the time, sometimes even while dogfighting.
>If you honestly look to see if a person is going warp 1 then I
>think you need serious help.
In the case of the CA ogger deep in enemy space, not. If he is
allowed to, he will go warp 0 following the doosh to try to get enough
damage back to mutual. If he is forced to go warp 1, semi-clued scum
like tywong will charge back out with a vengence to get the kill to
start carrying again.
>Personally, I don't think it will make that much differnce
>to the game
Me neither. But it is precisely this reason that I don't think
"testing" it will have any effect. We KNOW what it will do. The
question is simply to do it or not.
>BUT as Joe pointed out the INL is NOT the place to 'test' changes.
No, but I don't think of this as a test. It is clear what the effects
of the change are; it is clear that they are minimal; it is clear how
to make the change to the code. There is no testing about it, it is
doing.
>We have a nice working server.
Sort of. Alas.
I can GUARANTEE you that my 2 line etemp fix will not break it. How's
that?
>I'd like to see 150 Wtemp since I think the effect
>would be about as much as the Etemp change....barely noticeable.
Look for INLC elections coming soon to a network near you. This
should give us an opportunity to get the INL crowd show how it feels
about etemp, wtemp, the engine cooling bug, etc.
-Leonard
Alec Habig
>You want to test the
>change get Alex to put it on bigbang. He's a cool guy and is always
>willing to test changes that may make the game better. I know I would
>be interested in seeing just what kind of effect it has on the game.
Thanks, but I'd rather leave it be. Here's why :
Etemp is supposed to be a screw, which it does just fine.
Netrek-pseudo reality consistency check - your engines are shutdown, you're
coasting along, can't stop unless you airbrake on a planet or grapple a SB.
You can't go repair mode because you need your engines to effect good repairs.
(Note that I'm fully aware that one can still steer, so you must have some
control, and that you can still shoot etc., but I'm rationalizing here anyway).
Which brings me to my final point - what does a change add to the game? The
proposed change merely lessens the etemp screw. Just don't etemp :) It may or
may not have been intentional, but it works well. I will look to make it so
that you can't get the little 'R' flag while etemped, though, to avoid future
confusion on the subject.
Testing this change would be moot - as Kevin said, even he (Captain Hours)
doesn't pay that much attention to it, one etemps they etemps, oh well.
Alec
(Entropy)
Joseph E. Beck
> they are a moron, but certainly not the clue that I'm used to playing
> against. If you honestly look to see if a person is going warp 1 then I
> think you need serious help.
a kill, what ship type they are, and how fast they are going (not just
for etemp purposes). Someone who uses the playerlist wouldn't like
this I think.
> it warp 0 at all times. BUT as Joe pointed out (and Tom disagrees
> with...with is enough to make ANY sane person side with Joe) the INL is
> NOT the place to 'test' changes.
I just wanted this reposted.
> I know I would
> be interested in seeing just what kind of effect it has on the game.
Sure, a lot easier to argue when you have some data.
> And speaking of changes to the INL server, why isn't base Wtemp =
> 150 now that calvin and bigbang are the two most popular servers in the
> world?
Also note, they both have transwarp, and they both have modified
ships. Calvin has 210 torpcost AS, and BB has suped up BBs and DDs.
Not sure I want twarp, or the specific ship mods these servers have in
the inl.
> of stupid, huh? I'd like to see 150 Wtemp since I think the effect
> would be about as much as the Etemp change....barely noticeable.
> Twarp....well...the less said about Twarp the better.
But...it's on 2 of the most popular servers :-)
No-look Pass!
Joseph E. Beck
leo...@cs.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens) writes:
> >BUT as Joe pointed out the INL is NOT the place to 'test' changes.
> No, but I don't think of this as a test. It is clear what the effects
> of the change are; it is clear that they are minimal; it is clear how
> to make the change to the code. There is no testing about it, it is
> doing.
see if people actually LIKE THE MOD, and test it on a pickup server.
> I can GUARANTEE you that my 2 line etemp fix will not break it. How's
> that?
Didn't this CS wannabe Dijkstra make a similar (incorrect) claim?
> Look for INLC elections coming soon to a network near you. This
> should give us an opportunity to get the INL crowd show how it feels
> about etemp, wtemp, the engine cooling bug, etc.
Yeah, now if only reps had to face election each term (or once a year,
or...you get the idea).
No-look Pass!
Robert W. Hill
argument by Leonard Dic...@cs.umd.e
> > I guess I might as well add my voice to this hilarious thread. I've
> >been playing for over 1000+ hours and I have NEVER ever used a person's
> >speed to tell if they are etemped.
>
> I take it you are not used to hanging around near the home planet in a DD
> with 5 armies, scumming kills from CA oggers?
I take it you've never seen kevin play?
Rob
Kevin M Bernatz
\textdsversion{12}
\template{messages}
\excerptedcaption{Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.netrek: 11-Feb-94 Re: More
etemp argument "Robert W. Hill"@andrew. (497)}
\quotation{I take it you've never seen kevin play?
}
\quotation{Rob
}
Maggot :)
-KB
It's a sad day when even your roomie takes shots at you :) :) :)
\enddata{text,1924360}
Herbert Enderton
e-temped, that is NOT a bug. You ARE in repair mode, in
the sense that you cannot fire, and that as soon as you
reach warp zero you will begin to repair damage at an
increased rate. It is the same as when you are going warp
9 and hit the repair key; you don't repair much damage until
you come to a stop, but you are in repair mode nonetheless.
Please don't "fix" this. (I don't want to have to lean
on the repair key to make it work.)
Regarding the main argument (whether you should be allowed
to slow to warp 0 when e-temped), I am unconvinced by any of
the reasoning on either side, but my vote is to leave it
the way it is.
-- Red Shirt
P.S. And get rid of transwarp!
Steven R. Sheldon
>The R flag appearing when you hit the repair button when
>e-temped, that is NOT a bug. You ARE in repair mode, in
>the sense that you cannot fire, and that as soon as you
>reach warp zero you will begin to repair damage at an
>increased rate.
YES!
>Regarding the main argument (whether you should be allowed
>to slow to warp 0 when e-temped), I am unconvinced by any of
>the reasoning on either side, but my vote is to leave it
>the way it is.
Awww... But this is the first good argument I've seen yet.
>P.S. And get rid of transwarp!
Repeat after me:
####### ###### # # # ##### # # # ###### ######
# # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
# ###### # # # # # ##### # # # # # ###### ######
# # # ####### # # # # # # # ####### # # #
# # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # ##### ## ## # # # # #
##### # # ##### # # ##### ###
# # # # # # # # # # ###
# # # # # # # ###
##### # # # ### ##### #
# # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # ###
##### ##### ##### # # ##### ###
:-)
--
Steve Sheldon [These are my own opinions]
Iowa State University ICSS Resource Facility by day
she...@iastate.edu ProMap, Inc. by night
Courier
>In article <2j75mh$6...@twinkie.cs.umd.edu> leo...@cs.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens) writes:
>>>You can use the atmosphere to decelerate.
>>
>>Lame. Why not just TURN OFF THE DAMN ENGINES?
>Because then you'd just coast, probably at some really slow speed. Like,
>say, warp 1.
>Besides, it'd take 30 minutes to restart them. I mean, you can't change
>the laws of physics.
Good point there. Also, I'd suggest removing warp 0 (That is you can't fly
warp 0 unless you repair. You want an explanation for this? Well.. it's
obvious. You need the engines to convert your fuel into energy for torps
and phasers. If you are docked on a starbase or in orbit, you will get the
energy from the base or planet.
>>Therefore NEITHER side can say "that is how it was meant to be."
>Which is why the discussion is irrelevant. The question is,
> "what do we WANT it to be?"
>The answer to this has nothing to do with reality or Star Trek. It's
>whether or not a warp 1 etemped ship is desirable. I think it is, because:
> - you can tell if somebody is etemped, and nail them
This one is valid. The other ones aren't - if you could go warp 1 OR 0,
they'd still apply.
> - you can dodge twink plink torps at warp 1
> - you can fake clued players into thinking you're etemped
>--
>fad...@uts.amdahl.com (Andy McFadden)
<Courier>
Robert W. Hill
bug? .. by Steven R. Sheldon@iastat
>
> ####### ###### # # # ##### # # # ###### ######
> # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # #
> # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
> # ###### # # # # # ##### # # # # # ###### ######
> # # # ####### # # # # # # # ####### # # #
> # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # #
> # # # # # # # ##### ## ## # # # # #
>
> ##### # # ##### # # ##### ###
> # # # # # # # # # # ###
> # # # # # # # ###
> ##### # # # ### ##### #
> # # # # # # #
> # # # # # # # # # # ###
> ##### ##### ##### # # ##### ###
Yessir.
I agree. Can we all petition alec to remove it? I've asked, but he
really, really likes it:).
Rob
Nick Trown
You could always go to a server that doesn't have t-warp, like
wormhole... hint hint :-)
Nick