HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ninja@halcyon.com (Jonathan Roy)
Subject: Re: Domes & server/client split...
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:12:04 GMT

ddickey@fizban.cray.com (Dan A. Dickey) writes:

You scrap them??

Sure do. I've not played in a game where moving domes were allowed,
nor do I think they should be allowed to more. I imagine
domes to be some sort of large scale improvments done to teh sector,
and I don't see how they can be moved. TOrn down once they
are finished, and then rebuilt someplace else, yes.


-- 
  F F  Jonathan Roy, Vice President, Free Access Foundation.    GEnie: J.ROY18
   A   Mail faf@halcyon.com for information, or FTP to halcyon.com:  /pub/faf/
  F F  "A server is a terrible thing to waste."    Internet: ninja@halcyon.com
 "Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design." - _RotJ_
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: sigma@picasso.ipl.rpi.edu (Kevin Martin)
Subject: Re: I wanna join!
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:16:20 GMT

vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>No shit. I had no problem running it on a NeXT, but I am having all
>kinds of problems tryng to get it to work on Ultrix (Dec-station). Here 
>is an example of a problem I am trying to work out. For some reason
>the RISC c compiler (a piece of shit in my opinion) doesn't pass
>floating point numbers between modules correctly:
>If you check out what's going on with dbx you find that 1.234 isn't
>what gets to foo(), but some strange number. Everything is prototyped
>correctly. Ultrix/RISC truly sucketh the big one.

I'm running on Ultrix V4.2A (Rev 47) and the following modules work fine.
I do remember encountering a problem like what you describe - however, it
was when I was compiling makeuniv under SunOS 4.1.1 using cc, or maybe it
was gcc.  The only thing that made it work was to compile WITH debugging
enabled (-g).

When in doubt, use doubles - things get promoted anyway.  Or pass by
reference.

m1.c
----
extern void foo(float bar);
main()
{
  float x;
  x = 1.234;
  printf("x = %5.3f\n",x);
  foo(x);
}

m2.c
----
void foo(float bar)
{
  printf("bar = %5.3f\n",bar);
}

cc -o m m1.c m2.c
./m
x = 1.234
bar = 1.234

>Also, whenever I use lint on my code I always the the remark that my
>'function argument is used inconsistenly'. ANy Ultrix gurus out there
>know what the fuck I am doing wrong here? Is thier version of
>C really this fucked... ARG...

Running lint on the modules above does in fact indicate that there is an
inconsistency.  Changing the declaration of 'bar' to be double eliminates
this warning and everything still works.  For maximum safety, you could
cast all float parameters to double as well.

Hope this helps.

-- 
Kevin Martin
sigma@ipl.rpi.edu
"We're gonna need another Timmy!"
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: skf5055@tamuts.tamu.edu (Shawn Keith Fox)
Subject: Re: Sector types in GB
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:12:35 GMT

In article <22647@venera.isi.edu> rlewis@venera.isi.edu (Roger Lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.050517.25520@tamsun.tamu.edu> skf5055@tamuts.tamu.edu (Shawn Keith Fox) writes:
>
>Well, there are a couple of things to keep in mind.  People who choose
>desert planets are likely to wind up with the dreaded METHANE ATMOSPHERE.
>When that happens, they have LOW compats with most every planet except
>about 33% of the deserts, and an even smaller percent of others.
>
But they also have high compats with all the methanes.
>
>Further, Desert worlds and desert sectors have far less fertility.
>Less taxes available, less tech gain possible from investment.
>Also, If everybody takes desert worlds, then the one person that takes
>Watery planets and sector types is going to have to do a lot less
>sharing/fighting.  Right MR? ;-)
>
I agree that deserts do have quite a bit lower fert, and that that is 
important, but in the later stages of the game (if we could ever get
a game that could get there before it crashed), the deserts become
a *huge* advantage, due to all of the res that is there (maybe I should
have posted that too?) :)
>
>I think that it is realistic that most sectors aren't TEEMING with life.
>If everybody knows that desert sectors are so prevalent, things will balance 
>out.  In fact, most experienced players take desert worlds, or at least
>desert sector compats;  Since most beginners take earth worlds and rarely 
>take desert compat, this allows the beginners to survive a little longer
>because they don't go head to head against the experienced players.
>
Realistically, I agree that there would be even less high fert sectors such
as water/forest/etc, but I am looking for a balance in the game, where 
there are approximatly even numbers of each sector type (plus or minus
due to randomness), and it is more expensive to have multilple sector
compats, therefore, there would be more room for large races, and one
or two couldn't completly dominate the game, because they couldn't live
on all of the sectors.

For myself, I usually leave newbies alone as long as they aren't trying
to take my planets, shooting at my ships etc, and tell them that, but
if they do....  They are fodder. :)

I think you should be limited to 3 sector compats, and the number of 
sector types be more balanced.
>
>Maybe the FAQ or Docs should mention it, but its not usually a big
>secret.  It's just one of those things you learn as you play.
>
Yeah, most people figure it out, I knew there were more deserts than
any other sector type (barring gas), but I didn't know that there
were 3 times as many desert as water.

Shawn Fox
MR

Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: nawesson@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: *** NEW GAME UPDATE ***
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:16:34 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620


		H    H          A         PPPP
		H    H         A A        P   P
		HHHHHH        A   A	  PPPP
		H    H       AAAAAAA      P
		H    H       A     A      P

		======== 16th October =========


	Game:      Heuristic Astronomy Project IV++
	Location:  client29.comlab.ox.ac.uk 2010
	Deadline:  Friday, October 16th 1992, Noon GMT
	Starts:    Friday, October 16th, 1992, 7pm GMT
	Moderator: Mark Woodgate, woodgate@uk.ac.oxford.comlab
	Code:      HAP version 4.1


I've been informed by the HAP GOD that 17 players have already
registered. Only 3 places remain as of 23:15 GMT Oct 13th.


To generate your race please use the racegen file at:

		client29.comlab.ox.ac.uk 2020.




See you there :-)
Paul.
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: skf5055@tamsun.tamu.edu (Shawn Keith Fox)
Subject: Re: GB for people with lives
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:05:13 GMT

>As it stands, GB can never be a popular game.  It simply takes too
>much time, governors or not, to appropriately control any race with
>more than a few planets.
>
>-Leonard

Well, I agree that GB will never be real popular, I don't think that 
adding a bunch of autoplay, robots or whatever really do anything
at all to improve the game.  People with good programming ability
should concentrate more on improving the game (ie removing bugs etc,
and then adding new stuff after all the bugs are fixed), instead of
messing around with things that play the game for you.

GB does take a lot of time to play, but if it only took 10 minutes
per day to play, I wouldn't bother.  Now, playing GB takes a great
deal of time expenditure, and experience to do well, this is the
way it should be.  The people who win are those who spend a great
deal of time on the game, not those who happen to be using the 
best program to play thier race all night, or play their race
the fastest (as is the case with Empire, and why I don't play
Empire).

Shawn Fox (skf5055@tamuts.tamu.edu)

MR


Xref: sparky alt.games.gb:1171 news.answers:3409
From: rlewis@isi.edu (Roger Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: Re: Sector types in GB
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:38:38 GMT
Reply-To: rlewis@venera.isi.edu (Roger Lewis)
Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California

In article <1992Oct14.050517.25520@tamsun.tamu.edu> skf5055@tamuts.tamu.edu (Shawn Keith Fox) writes:

>I don't know if anyone else knew about that there were so many
>desert sectors (I sure didn't), but unless something really 
>strange happened on my system, there are *way* too many of them.
>Guess it is no wonder that many of the better players I know keep
>choosing Desert compats. 

Well, there are a couple of things to keep in mind.  People who choose
desert planets are likely to wind up with the dreaded METHANE ATMOSPHERE.
When that happens, they have LOW compats with most every planet except
about 33% of the deserts, and an even smaller percent of others.

Also, you can take desert compat with ANY planet type.  I've found that
by playing an airless world for instance, I can get all the desert world
compats cheaply and NOT risk getting the dreaded METHANE ATMOSPHERE.

Further, Desert worlds and desert sectors have far less fertility.
Less taxes available, less tech gain possible from investment.
Also, If everybody takes desert worlds, then the one person that takes
Watery planets and sector types is going to have to do a lot less
sharing/fighting.  Right MR? ;-)

I think that it is realistic that most sectors aren't TEEMING with life.
If everybody knows that desert sectors are so prevalent, things will balance 
out.  In fact, most experienced players take desert worlds, or at least
desert sector compats;  Since most beginners take earth worlds and rarely 
take desert compat, this allows the beginners to survive a little longer
because they don't go head to head against the experienced players.

Maybe the FAQ or Docs should mention it, but its not usually a big
secret.  It's just one of those things you learn as you play.
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Feep's Ramblings...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:24:56 GMT

It seems to me that there ought to be a way for players to make vn's which
serve there own needs. Long before a race possesses the technological know
how to create a dreadnaught, it will be able to produce self replicating
spacefaring autonama with a low chance of becoming corrupted at each generation
and an infinitesimal chance of joining the other v's (i.e. most mutations result
in deaths). Its seems like a bad idea to make the von neumanns increasingly
powerful, without giving the other races the ability to create von neumann
devices of their own. Its just not plausible.

BTW, IMHO its also not a good idea to include things that come right out of
Bear books (or anybody's books). Its one thing to include the concept, but its
another thing to lift "instrument of the law" right out of there.

Jason W. Solinsky
From: skf5055@tamuts.tamu.edu (Shawn Keith Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: Playability of GB
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:08:14 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

>As it stands, GB can never be a popular game.  It simply takes too
>much time, governors or not, to appropriately control any race with
>more than a few planets.
>
>-Leonard

Yes, GB will never become *very* popular, because it does take a great
deal of time to do well in the game, but this is exactly why I enjoy
playing it.  To make GB popular, you would also lose most of the
people who play it now.  I like GB just the way it is (except for the
bugs of course) :).

A game that is easy and fast to play, also get to be no fun to play
easily and quickly.  GB is by far the best game I have found, and I
think that changing it is a bad idea, at least changing it to make
it easier to play, those who don't want to spend the time to learn
it, and the time to do well in it, should probably go back to playing
games on a PC, because that is not what GB is about.  GB is a game
that has many options, and many ways of winning, to take away some of
those to increase ease of play, makes the game less enjoyable.

Just my $1 (inflation you know) :)

Shawn Fox
MR
From: leonard@mimsy.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens)
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: Re: Alt.game.gb personals
Date: 7 Oct 92 07:08:11 GMT
Organization: Deep Thirteen, Gizmonics Institute

dennis james pund writes:
>
>   Well I was messing around with racegen today (it finnally works on my
>system ) and thanks to all those that helped to get it to work.  But I
>was createing a race and , correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think I
>should get more points added for -decreaseing- the mass of a race...Do I
>have a bad copy or something....

Maybe so.

Usually, descreasing mass should cost points.

However, due to the covariances, it is possible that if you have a
race with high metabolism and/or birthrate, and then lower the mass,
it will actually be cheaper.  The mass lowering itself costs points,
but it makes the other two attributes cheaper.  The effect is subtle,
however.

This makes sense if you think about it.  (Metabolism and mass are
inversely proportional in terrestrial species, as a rule.)  Which is
why I made it that way.

-Leonard
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: jsavage@wimsey.bc.ca (Julian Savage)
Subject: Re: Alt.game.gb personals
Organization: BC News and Mail
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:19:58 GMT

In article <60961@mimsy.umd.edu> leonard@mimsy.umd.edu (Leonard Dickens) writes:
>dennis james pund writes:
>>
>>   Well I was messing around with racegen today (it finnally works on my
>>system ) and thanks to all those that helped to get it to work.  But I
>>was createing a race and , correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think I
>>should get more points added for -decreaseing- the mass of a race...Do I
>>have a bad copy or something....
>
>Maybe so.
>
>Usually, descreasing mass should cost points.
>
>However, due to the covariances, it is possible that if you have a
>race with high metabolism and/or birthrate, and then lower the mass,
>it will actually be cheaper.  The mass lowering itself costs points,
>but it makes the other two attributes cheaper.  The effect is subtle,
>however.
>
>This makes sense if you think about it.  (Metabolism and mass are
>inversely proportional in terrestrial species, as a rule.)  Which is
>why I made it that way.
>
>-Leonard



I think what dennis james pund here means is that he thinks that he should
get more points to work with, which means that he thinks that lower mass 
is a disadvantage.  That is unless I am the one who misunderstands, and 
not Leonard.  

In any case, If I am correct, and dennis thinks that lower mass is a 
_dis_advandage, then he should realise that it is an _advantage_ by virtue 
of the fact that the only thing that mass affects (to my limited knowledge)
is the mass of a ship when it has crew loaded onto it.  Because it has less 
mass, it costs less fuel to send the ship off.  Hence, an advantage.


*************************
* Julian Savage		*
* jsavage@wimsey.bc.ca	*
* jsavage@sfu.ca	*
*************************
-- 
*************************
* Julian Savage		*
* jsavage@wimsey.bc.ca	*
* jsavage@sfu.ca	*
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: ddickey@fizban.cray.com (Dan A. Dickey)
Subject: Re: Domes & server/client split...
Originator: ddickey@aspen04
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 12 Oct 92 08:11:32 CDT


In article <1992Oct10.151934.16411@nwnexus.WA.COM>, ninja@halcyon.com (Jonathan Roy) writes:
> Autoscrap was only implemented for Y's. The way it worked was, once
> the sector's eff reached 100%, the Y automaticly scrapped at the
> update. This made building hundreds of Domes much more realisitic.
> (Autoscrap and threshloading for Y's is awesome!)
>  
You scrap your domes???!!
Why not just move them?  It takes what, a 23.something tech shuttle to do
this....you save a lot of resources that way.

> Some other ideas I wanted to throw out is things like:
>  
>  < = > for order/load/unload/fire commands. Such as:
>  
> load <ship> <commodity> <amount> <optional qualifier>
> load p f 1 f<1    This loads 1 fuel into all pods with less than
>                   1 fuel.
> unload s c 5 c>5  This unloads 5 crew from any shuttle that has more
>                   than five crew...
>  
> This sort of stuff is useful in a bunch of ways, but my specific
> thoughts are for mesos. (Since that's what I usually play. :)
>  
> Something like:
>  
> repeat 50 build p 1,1
> load p f 2
> load p c
> order p dest /Dest1
> repeat 50 build p 1,1
> load p f 3
> load p c
> order p dest /Dest2 f=3
>  
> And so on...

Again...more changes to the server...not needed.  We just need smarter
clients.  As the split is already made, keep the code where it belongs.
	-Hydra
-- 
---------
Dan A. Dickey      ddickey@cray.com
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: GB5.1 posted onto scam.berkeley.edu
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:15:09 EDT

I just posted GB5.1 to scam.berkeley.edu. This code is the ANSI-fied
version of GB as you know and love. There have been no game design
changes yet. The game I hope to run will have changes from the posted
code, but I decided to post it since it works (I have just tested
it out).

-Garrett



Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: u855203@geo.geol.utas.edu.au (Michael J Harlow)
Subject: Anyone want a part-time general for that HAP game ?
Summary: I could be persuaded to find some time to play..
Keywords: General HAP EXPERIENCED
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:00:15 GMT

I wonder if anyone would like a general to assist and advise on that
HAP game in the UK.  I have a little bit of experience in playing HAP,
at either MESO or Tech races.  Don't have much time, but being in
a +11 GMT time zone means I can provide coverage whilst others sleep.
I'm no longer a student (Yes I did pass, even though I played GB)
so I'm only available evenings or early morning, as I'm one of the rare
people who have a job.

Experience:
Caltech Spring Quarter 1991(?) Techy
HAP I (Kaleds - Techy)
HAP II (Mutant Sponges - MESO)  Moved idle race into top 10
HAP III (Scorpion - Assistant ) The Winning TECHY
HAP IV  (Tsunami:Thunder - MESO) Top race before crash
HAP IV++ (FlowerChild:War) The biggest most Scary MESO you have ever
                           had the misfortune to encounter :)
                           Just ask somebody who was there... and lived..
                           Needless to say... We won..
                           Maybe I shouldn't have built those 3000 pods on the
                           morning before the server crashed.....

Oh, I liked the way that HAP IV++ (morticia) started, updates every 36 hours
(not every 30 minutes).  It was over Christmas, so slow updates meant that
being away did not screw up race. With another general, you needed to log
in only every 6 days for threee weeks. By then everyone was active and
not too disadvantaged by having a holiday.  What I'm trying to say is that 
too many people try to rush into the fun middle stages of GB without taking
the time to build a solid foundation for your race.


So, anyone want to give me a little general position to fiddle with ?

Hey Richard !! (FlowerChild:Peace) you out there still ?
Lets get together and take over the universe again...


-Michael

--
Signature under construction....

Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: nawesson@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: *** NEW GAME FULL ***
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:11:12 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620



		H    H          A         PPPP
		H    H         A A        P   P
		HHHHHH        A   A	  PPPP
		H    H       AAAAAAA      P
		H    H       A     A      P

		======== 16th October =========


	Game:      Heuristic Astronomy Project IV++
	Location:  client29.comlab.ox.ac.uk 2010
  >>>>> Starts:    Friday, October 16th, 1992, 7pm GMT  <<<<<<<<
	Moderator: Mark Woodgate, woodgate@uk.ac.oxford.comlab
	Code:      HAP version 4.1


	    T H E     G A M E     I S    F U L L   U P


The game will be online at 5:00pm Friday as the code is still being
changed. All changes will be mentioned in the welcome.txt

See everyone on Friday.... :-)

Paul.
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: skf5055@tamuts.tamu.edu (Shawn Keith Fox)
Subject: a
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:47:44 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
From: ingram@stein.u.washington.edu (Doug Ingram)
Subject: About the FAQ...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:05:00 GMT

Hi, everyone.

	It has been a long while since I've played GB or had the time to
follow everything in the group, but I still keep up when I can on an
inconsistent basis.  I encourage those of you who find things in the
FAQ that are out of date to contact me and let me know what is wrong so
that I can fix them and keep the thing current.  The best way to do this
would be to "rewrite" the answer to the specific question and send your
new version to me as a replacement.  If I get vague comments like "I think
this isn't accurate." or "I think Terraformers can't have hyper anymore"
[Note:  I'm not saying this is true...just an example], then it is really
hard for me to confirm what you're saying and then rewrite the FAQ.

Thanks,
Doug Ingram -- Fnebish Legion (forever!) // ingram@u.washington.edu
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: Re: I wanna join!
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:12:42 EDT

In article <22577@venera.isi.edu>, rlewis@isi.edu (Roger Lewis) writes:
> In article <1992Oct6.201532.22019@slate.mines.colorado.edu> agrimm@slate.mines.colorado.edu (Snarf) writes:
>>Aww, don't listen to them...  GB is a very fun game, albeit a very
>>time-consuming one.
> 
> I have to agree.  People are just a little bummed cuz a game just died
> at NYU.  But the server works really well on some machines.  (It acts like
> garbage on mine unfortunately).

No shit. I had no problem running it on a NeXT, but I am having all
kinds of problems tryng to get it to work on Ultrix (Dec-station). Here 
is an example of a problem I am trying to work out. For some reason
the RISC c compiler (a piece of shit in my opinion) doesn't pass
floating point numbers between modules correctly:

module1.c:

extern void foo(float bar);

float bar;
.
.
.
bar = 1.234;
foo(v);
.
.
.
module2.c

void foo(float bar)
{
.
.
.
}

If you check out what's going on with dbx you find that 1.234 isn't
what gets to foo(), but some strange number. Everything is prototyped
correctly. Ultrix/RISC truly sucketh the big one.

Also, whenever I use lint on my code I always the the remark that my
'function argument is used inconsistenly'. ANy Ultrix gurus out there
know what the fuck I am doing wrong here? Is thier version of
C really this fucked... ARG...


> 
> We've had very long games WITHOUT DATABASE CORRUPTION on some machines.
> 
> The secret is not to waste too much time on the game, particularly when
> it's being run for the first time on a machine.  The games to bury
> yourself in are what I call sequel games.  Sequel games are games that 
> eventually end without problems and a new game is started to replace
> the old game.
> 
> 
> 

Agreed. I wish I still had my caltech account :(

-Garrett
From: skf5055@tamuts.tamu.edu (Shawn Keith Fox)
Subject: Playability of GB
Summary: GB rules, don't change it. :)
Keywords: GB
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:56:05 GMT


>As it stands, GB can never be a popular game.  It simply takes too
>much time, governors or not, to appropriately control any race with
>more than a few planets.
>
>-Leonard

Yes, GB will never become *very* popular, because it does take a great
deal of time to do well in the game, but this is exactly why I enjoy
playing it.  To make GB popular, you would also lose most of the
people who play it now.  I like GB just the way it is (except for the
bugs of course) :).

A game that is easy and fast to play, also get to be no fun to play
easily and quickly.  GB is by far the best game I have found, and I
think that changing it is a bad idea, at least changing it to make
it easier to play, those who don't want to spend the time to learn
it, and the time to do well in it, should probably go back to playing
games on a PC, because that is not what GB is about.  GB is a game
that has many options, and many ways of winning, to take away some of
those to increase ease of play, makes the game less enjoyable.

Just my $1 (inflation you know) :)

Shawn Fox
MR

Newsgroups: alt.games.gb