STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP (THE SEDG) (Sponsored by Flying Moose Technologies' Starweb Analyzer - http://flyingmoose.cjb.net) VOLUME 46 March 5, 2001 CONTENTS Feature Article – Starweb Behaviors Part 2 by Elliot Hudes Questions – The dropped player, I ships vs P ships SEDG Web Page URL The Captain's Log The Swap Corner – Trouble shooting – the common problems Correspondence FEATURE ARTICLE Starweb Behaviors Part 2 by Elliot Hudes Some other behaviours I've noted. THE WANDERING MAPPER Ever notice how some players after first contact will send a small key wandering about? If you have a neutral border and haven't allied then unless you've invited him in this is actually a violent act. You have been violated :-). Often when you confront them they say, "hey I was just checking out the map". The best defense with these players is to tell them on first contact which worlds you own. If they come in anyway then they have invaded even if it's a key of 1 ship. The information they find out can be valuable intelligence. Even if they don't use that information it can be traded to others who may use it against you. My best advice is tell them to leave or be shot (or captured). If they take that badly - to bad for them they have just become target #1 on your alliance hit list :-). How about if they say they are just Apostles planting a few converts for points. PULEEESE! Shoot them! If they had a key of 100 ships they would create 10 converts/turn and net 1 extra point/turn. That player is either a moron or a spy! NONAGGRESSION PACTS Of course to each player an alliance means different things and you really should talk and flesh out what you want from each other. But when a player says lets have a neutral border or a nonaggression pact what he is really saying is one of the following - 1)"I don't have the ships to kill you right now - would you mind waiting?" 2)"I don't think your good ally material (for whatever reasons) and I'm shopping around. Then I'm doing #1 above". 3)"Geez, I have traded everything I own already and I just don't want a fight". 4) I already have too many (character type of your choice) in my alliance and cannot ally with you. But that doesn't mean we have to fight! If your in position #3 - come clean - it could save your life because the other possibilities still keep you as a possible target should your paranoid neighbor decide to rescind the pact or have one of his allies take care of you. Possibility #4 has resulted in some neutral borders for me and sometimes my neutral neighbor have found common cause later in the game with a particularly nasty player common to our borders. ULTRA-AGGRESSIVE Believe it or not I have found one of these types recently. He was in one alliance but got cheesed off by some interpretation of the alliance agreement. He then chose not to honor the build orders for HWs he was given and subsequently declared war on a previous ally. All this was occurring while fighting my alliance. Presently he is fighting a battle with most of the players in the game. Since he is very vocal (via email) he has been sending taunts and barbs and generally entertaining the rest of us. He has made this one of the most entertaining games even if his longevity will suffer. But I believe there are some players who only play for battle and only grudgingly think of orders that would boost an ally's score. Sure, they don't mind if their ally wins the game but they are firmly focused on the military battle. These players are mostly pirates and a few berserkers. FRIENDLIES – OR FOLLOW THE LEADER TYPES It takes a while to figure these players out. They don't really come out and say it immediately but they are playing the game for the camaraderie it generates. If you ask to trade with them, they trade. If you ask to ally, they will ally. They will participate in the military ventures that come up in the game too. They seem like every other gamer you have ever met. You start to suspect that the Starweb game is taking a back seat to the email it generates when you realize that you are suggesting all the orders for him to generate points. That he really doesn't mind if all other allies make suggestions for him and he tries to dutifully follow them all. Or if you requests tons of ships for the war he doesn't even squeak even though it will hamper his ranking. Keep a look out for them because if you have an ally who just doesn't care how the game turns out as long as he has fun, then perhaps you don't need to worry overly much about getting him that extra PBB or Jihad kill at the expense of defense. He is also more likely to endure such plans as leaving a HW relatively defenseless if it means he can nuke somebody else's. MUST WIN-MUST RANK I hope that everyone has seen a bit of themselves in these descriptions. You may have tendencies from several categories and may even vary from game to game. I must admit that I have some terrible tendencies in this category. I don't have to win but if it's one of my 'RANKING' games then I must rank high. Don't get me wrong. I play games where I am solely military driven and rank be hanged, but I tend to play these games through an alternate FBI account. I often play each game with a goal in mind. I could be a high-ranking merchant who will hold back score for all his allies to catch up or a military berserker truly out to depopulate the web. The only thing I can suggest about this behavioral type is to forewarn you. No matter what you do, you should have an idea of your allies and enemies goals and what they will do to achieve it. I like to think I play honestly. If I say I won't leave you in the dust – I won't. I may tell you that I find it untenable to let an opponent win while I'm waiting for allies to catch up but I will be up front about it. I have seen players who must win and must rank just about at all costs. You usually find this out when there is a need for mutual cooperation and all of a sudden one of your allies seems to be holding back (to protect his position) or decides to push the win to ensure the pin despite ruining the chances to achieve your buddies other goals for the game. I must say it is much more fun to have an alliance tell you they have decided that they will push you the hardest as the best candidate to win over the opposition. THE LONER I have met players in the game who decide they don't wish to ally with you. At first contact they will either just draw a line in the sand that neither player should cross or even engage in some trade. The more paranoid players will immediately assume they have allied with others and are getting ready to organize your demise. That may be true :-). Occasionally it's a player (either green or experienced) that just doesn't like alliances. They don't want to cooperate for the greater good. They don't want to bow down to other's war plans or give up any autonomy. They just wish to see how well they will do in the game on their own. It pays to keep your ears open for these types of players. First, they can make great first targets and a quick homeworld for you to capture before anyone is able to stop you. On the other hand I've successfully kept a good relationship with such players while my alliance does battle with another. At worst, they remained neutral and no threat to my border and at best, they have joined into the battle creating their own front for their own personal profit. It is wise to be cognizant of this style because you may have a friendly relationship with a player but no formal agreements. If you are then attacked by an aggressive alliance you may find that the independents don't want to get involved. "Hey, it's your problem. They have never bothered me." I don't like this attitude because if the game goes long enough the loners will get picked off – especially in extra- long games. This type of playing is ideal in an Anonymous game and I recommend trying one just to see how well you do. For example, I don't think I'm over doing it or bragging to severely to say I'm pretty good on the diplomacy front. I dot the I's and cross the T's and can usually put together a decent alliance. But in an anonymous game – these skills don't do squat for me. Well, that's not entirely true. I know what message I want to impart potential allies it's just a matter of being able to use the correct Starweb body language to do it. Elliot Hudes Somnos@compuserve.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTIONS - Can anyone answer these? Regarding dropped players and what their ships will do. Rick Loomis adds the following. >John: >Second, I will guess that each world or fleet will always "CF" at some >non-empty, non-allied fleet or homefleet at its location, if there is >one; and if there is more than one, they will be fired at in rotation, >starting with the lowest numbered fleet, proceeding to the highest, >then homefleets. This is absolutely incorrect. If a ship does a "CF" order as it's turn, it will not ambush that turn, as it has fired. The program selects SOME unordered ships and gives them a CF order at some fleet the former player is not allied to. The rest of the unordered ships will ambush as usual. Rick Ron Ruemmler said: >> Elliot, You may have addressed this in the past, but I am often amazed at the number of experienced players who build P-ships on the worlds they capture. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rules, anything a P-ship can do it can do on the same turn it's created, while I-ships cannot be scrapped until the following turn. I've seen empire builders unable to scrap 4 home ships because one of them is the P-ship they dropped on turn 4. Any thoughts? Ron Ruemmler << Editor: Not only that but I can envision another reason for dropping I ships rather than P ships on the ground even if there is no industry present. Can anyone supply the scenario(s) for this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STARWEB EMAIL DISCUSSION GROUP - is now available on the web. Look for our new MAPPER'S SECTION on the SEDG Web Page. http://www.accessv.com/~somnos/sedg.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEATURE - THE CAPTAIN'S LOG 010127.0931-5 We Are How We Play Part II By Walt Schmidt walts@dorsai.org "It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business." - Mohandas K. Gandhi HOW WE PLAY THE GAME In the way of background...(tangential at best, but hey) The Childe Cycle - Gordon R. Dickson's "future history" of humanity's physical and spiritual development. Set centuries in the future, we see the development of the three Splinter Cultures, and the Others. The Dorsai - incomparable professional solders. The Friendlies - men and women of enduring faith and the mortal enemies of the Dorsai. The Exotics - philosophers and scientists who seek to know all there is to know. The Others - Dahno and Bleys Ahrens interstellar organization. In the way of background...II (on point) Elliot Hudes: "Friendlies - Or Follow The Leader Types. It takes a while to figure these players out. They don't really come out and say it immediately but they are playing the game for the camaraderie it Generates." I agree with Elliot, but only as far as he went. I would have said, "...they are playing the game for, AMONG OTHER REASONS, the camaraderie it generates." You see, using Elliot's terms, I am a Friendly. I play The Game for the same reason others build models. It is a game, and to the extent it does, I find many of the game's processes - relaxing. But at some point it can become (for me) work, or just plan unfulfilling. As an example - In a recent partners anonymous game, my partner missed several turns. Then I missed several. Considering whom we were playing against, our team was "dead in the water," so to speak. My partner found a standby that was raring to go. Me, and as I let the standby immediately know, had mentally invoked a "fog of war" attitude - I would not drop out, but my future involvement would be limited. So, as far as it goes... My name is Walt/WaltS/Nemo/Alter, and I am a Friendly! A GAME TO PLAY ...And what a game it will be! John David Galt, Lee Knirko, Roy Hamilton, and I are fixing to be in the Second Semi-Annual Captain's Challenge Game! This is a semi- monthly, email, dual-multi (each of us will play two different character types), 20,000 victory point game. All communications are allowed, and the only other requirements or rules are there aren't any - other than those printed in the Starweb Rules booklet. There will be seven of us in this game. So, will those three others of you who feel they are up to the challenge, who perhaps want to try out one of Elliot's behavioral styles, please send me an email at walts@dorsai.org . As soon as we have our seven, the game begins. 'Til next log - Shai Dorsai ! [HEY CAP - did you forget about me?] [No Alter, I didn't...] [?!?] Nemo ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEATURE - THE SWAP CORNER TROUBLESHOOTING The Starweb Analzyer The most common stuff! This next article makes a nice reference. You may not experience the problem currently but then all of a sudden an ally sends you a turnsheet that your analyzer just plain hates and rejects it. 1) CAN'T GET THE ANALYZER SETUP TO RUN A GAME 2) CAN'T GET THE ANALYZER TO FIND YOUR TURNSHEET 3) CAN'T GET THE ANALYZER TO FIND YOUR ALLIES' TURNSHEET 4) TURNS NOT PROCESSED AND NOT REPORTED IN THE PROCESSING WINDOW 5) OTHER TURNSHEET ERRORS REPORTED IN THE PROCESSING WINDOW A) NO VALID DATA/QUOTESTYLE ERRORS B) THE PROCESSING WINDOW REPORTS ERRORS INSIDE THE TURNS 6) MAP VIEW DOES NOT APPEAR The most difficult problems seem to be setting up a game to be processed and actually getting any turnsheets to be processed. 1) CAN'T GET THE ANALYZER SETUP TO RUN A GAME - Have you used the Setup Wizard and browsed to your turn 1 file? If so all the necessary game information should have been derived correctly and placed in the Game Edit window. Check this information (especially if you chose the 'Manual' selection). - Did you select an FBI account number presented (or create a new one)? - Did you put in the Game name EXACTLY as shown on your turnhseet? Even leaving out the '-' will foul it up. E.g SW1234 instead of SW- 1234. - Is your player name entered correctly? - Is the game path correct - pointing at the folder that you have put the turnsheets and map files for this game? E.g. c:/Starweb/SW-1234. - Did you check off the 'Show the Edit Game Profile dialogue when done'? This will allow you to see the setup information again - AND ADD IN THE PLAYER NAMES OF OTHER PLAYERS WHOSE TURNSHEETS YOU WANT RUN. 2) CAN'T GET THE ANALYZER TO FIND YOUR TURNSHEET Your turns are reported as not found in the processing window (Despite your knowledge that you own the turn sheets). Check the following: - Have you named the turnsheet properly? Only 2 conventions are allowed. Playername_t#.txt or playername.t#. So Turn 1 for Somnos would be named as somnos_t1.txt or somnos.t1. This must be spelled correctly. - Perhaps you have named your turnsheet properly but misspelled your name in the Game Edit Profile. - Have you placed the turnsheet in the correct directory designated in the Edit Game Profile Window? - WINDOWS 95/98 Hates you :-). If you have Windows 95/98 set to hide file extensions you may think you are naming the turnsheets correctly but may not be!! What may be occurring is that you designate a file to be somnos_t1.txt but it has a hidden file extension of .txt. In reality the turnsheet has the name somnos_t1.txt.txt, which is incorrect. To check this problem... i) Open any folder ii) Click on the menu bar ->View->Options iii) Now open the View tab iv) Under Hidden files -> Which radio button is selected? If it's 'Hide Files of these types' then deselect it by selecting the 'Show all files' option. v) Close the folder and examine your turnsheets. Are they named properly or did they suffer from double .txt extensions? 3) CAN'T GET THE ANALYZER TO FIND YOUR ALLIES' TURNSHEET In addition to checking the same things as in #2 above you must also check. - Have you added this allies' name to the list of 'Players you wish to process turnsheets' for in the Game Edit Profile? - Do you actually have the turnsheet? Sometimes you don't get every turnsheet or you may have pirated a turnsheet from a player only once. In this case the error reported is correct but of no consequence. 4) TURNS NOT PROCESSED AND NOT REPORTED IN THE PROCESSING WINDOW Have you added the player's name to the player list under Edit Game Profile? 5) OTHER TURNSHEET ERRORS REPORTED IN THE PROCESSING WINDOW A) NO VALID DATA/QUOTESTYLE ERRORS - i) Originally this was designed to alert you to Quotation marks in the turnsheet that would confuse the parsing of the turnsheet by the Analyzer. Presently the Analyzer will recognize 3 common quotestyles, which are characters in the left margine placed by email programs to indicate a quoted piece of text. The recognized Quotes are >, >>, and > . If any other quotestyles are used you will get this message and it will instruct you on how to compensate for these unique quotestyles. So if the turnsheet arrives and the quotestyle being utilized is >>> you can easily fix this. ii) However, this error also states that no valid data was found and will also be triggered by anything that disrupts the Game Identifying line in the Analyzer. This line is being used by the Analyzer to locate the begining of useful data (so it can ignore all that internet routing information and any comments above your turnsheet). It also uses this ID line to determine if one of those 3 quotestyles is active. The Game ID line looks like – Game SW-Z1230, Turn 5, [ORIN] If you receive a Quotestyle error you should check that your turnsheet has the Game ID line exactly as it should appear as I've seen many allies cut it off before sending their turn. iii) The absence of the line found above the world data on the turnsheet will also trigger a No valid data/Quotestyle error. This line is composed of the 3 spaces followed by 12 dashes. ------------ iv) The turnsheet is named correctly but is not a text file. This will generate a No Valid data/Quotestyle error. Many of the difficulties players have are that some email software and word processors seems to add many invisible characters (Outlook Express via Microsoft Word as its editor is famous for this). These characters will make the turnsheet unreadable to the Starweb Analyzer. If you are using one of these softwares it is suggested that you copy and paste your turnsheet into a player turnfile (such as playerturn.t#) directly or to save it as an ascii text file. Forwarding your turnsheet to other players with the analyzer will create the same difficulties. You should copy and paste your turnsheet into your mail if you use Outlook or the turnsheet will be unreadable by the Starweb Analyzer. To check if you have a turnsheet that is a binary (not text) file try to open it in a simple text editor (such as notepad) and see if any 'funny' characters show up. B) THE PROCESSING WINDOW REPORTS ERRORS INSIDE THE TURNS Usually a typo results in an unrecognized attribute error. In this case you should review this turn to see if you can correct it and then rerun the analyzer. A fatal error will stop the turnsheet from being processed. The Analyzer will tell you which turnsheet had trouble and the line number of the offending line. You will need to review the turn sheets fed in for the error. Basically you must remember that a turnsheet must resemble closely the FBI Starweb Turnsheet. Line noise, garbage information, missing information will result in error flags. - Information wrapping to a new line incorrectly - It will tolerate wrapping of anything after a comma or completely enclosed in brackets. It will not tolerate well wrapping in the middle of words or adding extra blank lines within a world's information. - Garbage information/typos. 6) MAP VIEW DOES NOT APPEAR In the processing window the final comment is on locating the map data file. -Was this file found? If not .... A) Have you done any mapping for this game yet? If not, don't expect a map file to be present. Once you create then save the map, a file will be created and future processing should indicate that it was found. B) You have mapped already? Check that you have a properly named map file in the folder you designated in the Edit Game Preferences. Put the mouse over the Save Map button on the Mapping Toolbar (beside the World Quick Information area) and the flyover help will tell you the current map file and path. Make sure that this file actually exists and has data in it. If not, you can open another map file using the Open Map file button or if you do not have any map files yet - you must create a map and save it. Perhaps WINDOWS 95/98 Hates you :-). If you have Windows 95/98 set to hide file extensions you may think you are naming the Map files correctly but may not be!! What may be occurring is that you designate a file to be SW1234.map but it has a hidden file extension of .txt. In reality the map file has the name SW1234.map.txt that is incorrect. To check this problem... i) Open any folder ii) Click on the menu bar ->View->Options iii) Now open the View tab iv) Under hidden files -> which radio button is selected? If it's 'Hide Files of these types' then deselect it by selecting the 'Show all files' option. v) Close the folder and examine your mapfile. Is it named properly or did it suffer from a .txt extension? -Check if the map file contains any valid data. It should start with a line stating 'Version:1' The worlds are listed followed by (X,Y) coordinates. E.g. W1(11,9). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CORRESPONDENCE In response to last issues Feature on Starweb Behaviors part I Bob Becker said: Hmmm, how about a combo? I always have this dream of winning a StarWeb game one of these days but I'm not holding my breathe. So until I actually get in that position I still play to win but if I can help one of my allies to score than I will go for it. In my last game I knew I was not going to win but I had the possibility of getting an ally to the top. I was playing an AC and loaded up one of my remaining keys with a large amount of ships and headed to where I was told the other AC in the game had a museum. I arrived and caused the world to go neutral and the game ended on the next turn. The results, my ally was number #1 and the other AC was #2. If I had not attacked this world it would have ended the other way around. Getting my ally to #1 made the whole game even more worthwhile. 1)Alliance to promote others score over your own. 5)Playing out of character. A warmongering Art Collector Bob Some feedback from Rick Loomis: >Starweb Behaviors > >Starweb is a game. Yes, I know that sounds trite and obvious but if >you keep this in mind you then have to wonder about how some people >play this game. > >In most games you play you seek to win. Whether it is Monopoly, >scrabble, chess or whatever. If one of the Monopoly players is >falling behind you don't try to hold back your score/cash or augment >theirs - do you? Imagine playing poker and folding with 4 queens >because your buddy hasn't won as many hands as you! Ludicrous! > >But the interesting thing in Starweb is there are many behaviors >that don't quite fit into the winning scenario. > The object of any game is to have fun. Most games have an "official" goal of some kind or another to be "the winner". Most people (especially men) play to get that "win". I used to occasionally play poker with a fellow who had "alternative victory conditions". He didn't play to win money. He played to see if he could annoy some particular other person in the game. If you could determine who he was trying to annoy, you could maximize your OWN personal victory (i.e. money earned). If you consider each Starweb game as a complete and individual game, (as the rules say you are supposed to do) policies like honest play, or sticking with an ally are "foolish". But if you consider "playing Starweb" as the game, maximizing your enjoyment over the course of many games increases if you can prove yourself trustworthy to the other players, and willing to consider THEIR enjoyment too. Rick Loomis Dave Benepe said: >> In your article about scoring you write: "Add to this that the Pirate is at a scoring disadvantage in any but the shortest of games." I can't believe you still subscribe to this opinion after L/29 For the benefit of the general audience, your statement should be qualified with "the Pirate WITHOUT ALLIES is at a scoring disadvantage...". David Benepe << Editor's note: David is right. He has earned the bragging rights for his role as a pirate in SW-L/29 where he brought in an impressive 25,169 points where victory was attained at 25,170 (and a 999 ranking). But we had to exterminate the rest of the web to do it :-). Jack Fulmer writes: Elliot, I've come up with a proposal for a Starweb rules change that could provide greater player control of merchant scoring. I've never heard this one before but maybe others have. Please publish this in SEDG. ************************************ A Proposal for Two Additional Orders in Starweb: I propose that Flying Buffalo add the following orders to the Starweb rulebook and program. "L = xxxxxx,yyy This order is issued by the owner of world yyy and declares player xxxxxx a loader but only at world yyy. Player xxxxxx is allowed to pick up metal but only at world yyy. X = xxxxxx,yyy This order is issued by the owner of world yyy and declares player xxxxxx not a loader but only at world yyy. Player xxxxxx is not allowed to pick up metal at world yyy." I further propose that the existing "L = xxxxxx" and "X = xxxxxx" loader and not loader orders be retained and that they supersede any loader or not loader orders given previously regarding specific worlds. Therefor if player WHIZZER had previously ordered one or more orders of the type "L = ZIPPY,123" a subsequent order of "X = ZIPPY" would declare ZIPPY not a loader at all WHIZZER worlds. Similarly if player WHIZZER had previously ordered one or more orders of the type "X = ZIPPY,123" a subsequent order of "L = ZIPPY" would declare ZIPPY to be a loader at all WHIZZER worlds. I propose that the other two cases of such global and world specific order pairs also be implemented. ************************************ I think this proposal makes sense because it would allow the non- Merchant to more carefully manage just how much metal the Merchant could load from the non-Merchant's worlds. Think about how this would affect your deal making with Merchants. Of course a merchant could gather and haul metal from his own or a third player's worlds to another player's homeworld just as under current rules. Possibly the programming involved would place certain limits on the sequence of these orders such as now exist for alliance and loader orders in multi-Starweb games. However I think the basic concept makes a lot of sense. I would welcome constructive comment on this proposal. Any comments from Rick Loomis would be appreciated. Jack Fulmer Rick Loomis responds: Jack, this is a lovely idea, but not one we can afford to program at this time. It would be very expensive, for very little change. Rick Well, that's it for Volume 46. Don't be afraid to submit articles or suggestions. They don't have to be long. Address your correspondence to Elliot Hudes at somnos@compuserve.com