BSE Digest v195 #135 From: kerry@io.com (Kerry Harrison) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0000 BSE Digest Monday, 10 April 1995 Volume 195 : Number 135 In this issue: + BSE: CRLs + BSE: FGZ Warning + BSE: Master + Re: BSE: Master + BSE: a warning + Re: BSE: a warning + Re: BSE: Re: BSE Digest V195 ... + Re: BSE: CRLs + BSE: QSN(da...) + BSE: The Master + BSE: Crashed Mail Server + BSE: FOE + BSE:Intelligence in the AFT? + BSE: Thinking about starting? + Re: BSE: Re: BSE Digest V195 ... + Re: BSE: QSN(da...) + BSE: New Rules Question + Re: BSE: Thinking about starting? + BSE: Unarmed attackers + BSE: Re: BSE Digest V195 #134 See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the bse-list or bse-digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pkrauskopf@FALCON.AL.WPAFB.AF.MIL Date: Sun, 09 Apr 1995 11:22:25 -0400 Subject: BSE: CRLs Thad, Since there has been so much interest in the return of CRLs to the game, perhaps a brief discourse from you on why you guys decided against them is in order. Was programming the major factor in your decision? Is there any way you could use Research Complexes to implement the research system? Under BSE II, research was only half-assed implemented, and then faded away to nothing. I think that players are concerned that reseach may again get second class treatment. Phil K. ------------------------------ From: Jackmyster@aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 16:01:24 -0400 Subject: BSE: FGZ Warning To: ALL From: Lord Den of Earth, FGZ Ataman This will serve as the *only* warning to interested parties.<g> The FGZ plan on killing QSN...(in responce to their threats to attack NeverWhere) In short, firgure it out. If you have "Support/Defend" QSN...your a "target"...we will not aim our "fire" at anyone else. Just don't Support/Defen d the QSN, and there is nothing to worry about. Any parties loosing positions because of a their "Support/Defend QSN" order, can whine to someone else. This also includes long standing FGZ allies and those under the "Open Hand". Much Honor. ------------------------------ From: pkrauskopf@FALCON.AL.WPAFB.AF.MIL Date: Sun, 09 Apr 1995 16:36:05 -0400 Subject: BSE: Master I think RTG should be careful just what (if any) information they "announce" concerning the Master. The question shouldn't be "does the Master exist?" It should be "Has there been GM-interference with the Master?" After all, some in-game parties may be laboring to have others believe one way or another for their own in-game purposes. Phil K. ------------------------------ From: scragg@infi.net Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 20:01:08 -0400 Subject: Re: BSE: Master > I think RTG should be careful just what (if any) information they >"announce" concerning the Master. The question shouldn't be "does the >Master exist?" It should be "Has there been GM-interference with the >Master?" After all, some in-game parties may be laboring to have others >believe one way or another for their own in-game purposes. > >Phil K. > > Sounds like the same Phil I used to know. <grin> ------------------------------ From: scragg@infi.net Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 20:14:57 -0400 Subject: BSE: a warning This CRL thing and factory thing kind of reminds me of a conversation I once had with he whos name can not be spoken. It seems all the players wanted quite a few of the rules rewritten to suit them. Every time you know who did this a bunch of other players whined and complained loudly. In my humble opinion this led to GM burnout. The GM stopped giving a rats-ass about BSE and just milked all the whiney players for everything he could until another "Magic" opportunity came along. So, be carefull what you whine for, you may get it. AND I MEAN GET IT! Alos in my humble opinion I feel the players should have very little say as to the rules. When something is a major problem and makes the game less fun they should bring this to the GMs attention to be fixed. They shouldn't worry about every little rule detail. Now that BSE is under new management I'm sure RTG will actually playtest the game to make sure it's working right. They have done this with all their other games and I'm sure they will continue this practice. Oh by the way, used to do my share of whining but no more. It's just a game and I'm not going to have an anurism every time things don't go my way. Anyone who has a problem with that do what I did and stop playing for a few years and get a grip on reality. Joe Eckhout P.S. Sorry if I sound like condesending cuss or offended anyone. ------------------------------ From: Patrick McLaughlin <pmcl@cts.com> Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 18:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: BSE: a warning Joe, Having been there-then in 1982-83, I can assure you that if he who is spat upon too infrequently was burned out and uesless, it was a problem back that early. Had Mike continued to run Transhole turns, I'd have quit a lot earlier than I did.... Pat ------------------------------ From: HarryFlash@aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 22:27:02 -0400 Subject: Re: BSE: Re: BSE Digest V195 ... Dear Nick Van Rijn, Tsk, tsk, I find your smears against my character, and the characters of the fine citizens of IND Werth to be very sad. I can now understand the huge wave of anti-Quman sweeping the CP and the Transhole. Really, you have no one to blame but yourselves. Regards, Harry Flashman P.S. - Unlike the Qumans, IND Werth has no claims on any other systems in the CP or the Transhole. We don't believe that stealing other people's property is civilized. ------------------------------ From: RTGThad@aol.com Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 23:16:18 -0400 Subject: Re: BSE: CRLs Phil, The rules are so close to release at this juncture < and I mean close, close > that I really don't want to get into it until they are out for all to see. I don't have the time to be able to go through all the reasons, I have pretty much summed em up in previous posts. Given that we have said repeatedly that you guys will be able to do all sorts of research we would look pretty silly if we came out with a half-assed system, wouldn't we? <g> It's kind of funny in one respect that we changed from CRLs to simplufy the system, not complicate it, but again, wait till the whole system is available it won't be long now. The spirit of all the changes proposed in the original upgrade package has been retained and in the new rules. In some cases, we have had to modify based on our experience with the code, the players and running the game in general <none of which was available to me when I wrote the upgrade pack>. So, bear with us, no BSE rule is ever completely written in stone, but we believe that the system we have is balanced and good for the long term <research getting out of control can be real bad for a game>. Thad ------------------------------ From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 00:50:12 CDT Subject: BSE: QSN(da...) Jack/Richard, No offense intended to either side, but will y'all PLEASE shut-up and start shooting or make up and call it quits? Steve ------------------------------ From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 00:44:13 CDT Subject: BSE: The Master Jim/Wayne, etc, After ya'll dropped, fat-boy and I had some long drawn out verbal discussions (bordering on fights) about the Master, but bottom line was that he would always claim that the Master still existed. I'ld also like to hear from RTG if the Master still exists. I've heard from an EKN player about a "quest " that the EKN were sent on by fat-boy, but it turns out that after RTG took over and actually checked things, fat-boy had never set-up what the EKN were supposed to find.... basically a wild goose chase to suck down the dollars. Is that the case with the Master? Steve ------------------------------ From: PKRAUSKOPF@FALCON.AL.WPAFB.AF.MIL Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 08:31:59 -0400 Subject: BSE: Crashed Mail Server Evidently, our mail server here decided I didn't need any mail yesterday and today, so it took the liberty of deleting all my new mail for that time period. if anyone sent important mail to me during that time period, could you please re-send it? Thanks! Phil K. ------------------------------ From: "JASON GOFF" <JGOF4P1@S1.csc.peachnet.edu> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 09:34:27 EST Subject: BSE: FOE You mean I could lose access to double farm tech by supporting the IMP against the FOE? Oh, woe is me! Woe is me! Whatever shall I do? I guess I'll just have to give up and go home! (Sniff, sniff; Smell that? That's sarcasm) Somehow I've managed to do without the farm tech all these years. I imagine I can do without it now. One thing is sure; YOU'LL never survive to use it. Don Guido Jason Goff 11 Avalon way Riverdale, GA 30274 404-478-0945 JGOF4P1@S1.CSC.PEACHNET.EDU ------------------------------ From: Michael.Keane@maf.nasa.gov Date: 10 Apr 95 10:20:01 -0600 Subject: BSE:Intelligence in the AFT? On April 9, Alan Hatcher wrote: > Oh my! You mean we could be so horribly punished as to not be able >to buy stolen farm tech from you? Oh dear, I guess we'd just have to >pack it all up and head back to the Inner Empire if that happened. Oh >woe is the poor AFT, that we should be subjected to such cruel punishment. > > > AFT Research Czar > AFT Research Czar, Finally! A sign of intelligence in the AFT. I can see why you hold your current position. You seem to be the only member of your feeble organization to recognize your true place in the universe. It is unfortunate that your leaders are not bright enough to comprehend this basic truth. Slink back to the Inner Empire where you belong. Flee quickly and die poorly. V'Ril T'Bak, Ruler FOE Target ------------------------------ From: Ron Wentworth <ronw@tsd.itg.ti.com> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 10:52:29 -0500 (CDT) Subject: BSE: Thinking about starting? I'm thinking about starting to play and was wondering if I should start not or wait until the new rules come out? ------------------------------ From: Richard William Chiang <richc@uclink2.berkeley.edu> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 09:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: BSE: Re: BSE Digest V195 ... On Sun, 9 Apr 1995 HarryFlash@aol.com wrote: > > P.S. - Unlike the Qumans, IND Werth has no claims on any other systems in the > CP or the Transhole. We don't believe that stealing other people's property > is civilized. > Humanoid: To what systems do you refer to? Your knowledge of Quman policy seems extensive, but innaccurate. If you based your knowledge on a game, then I loath to be colonist under your control. Or is it based on some dream you got from deep space or extensive lotus use (ie out of character and innaccurate)? If the QSN have a spy reporting false information to you, I would like to rip each of his hearts out and we can share in the feast. The QSN have never started a war who's aim was to conquer territory unless you consider our claims on the Drell Homesystem. The QSN is an agressive race to be sure. With our assets spread throughout known and unknown space, we are concerned about being needled to death. You may consider us to overreact to small slights, but that is a matter of opinion. Werth Humanoid, the QSN have and will always be primarily a merchant race. But recent shifts in the Council have resulted in a policy change. We will no longer tolerate attacks on QSN assets and turn the other cheek. You would be wise to do likewise if all the talk I hear about the zero tolerance for IND positions is true. Zealoxx (with two xx not one) ------------------------------ From: Richard William Chiang <richc@uclink2.berkeley.edu> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 09:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: BSE: QSN(da...) On Mon, 10 Apr 1995 steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org wrote: > Jack/Richard, > > No offense intended to either side, but will y'all PLEASE shut-up and start > shooting or make up and call it quits? > > Steve > *SMILE* *NOD* ------------------------------ From: Richard William Chiang <richc@uclink2.berkeley.edu> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 09:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: BSE: New Rules Question Dear Thad/Pete: What happened to the talk on allowing different affliations to train others in their affliation advantage? Is that still going in with the new rules? Thanks, Richard ------------------------------ From: rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 10:01:51 -0800 Subject: Re: BSE: Thinking about starting? >I'm thinking about starting to play and was wondering if I should start >not or wait until the new rules come out? Aha! A Freudian slip! I think your subconcious is telling you shouldn't start now!!!! Oh, you want me to be serious? Start now. I sincerely doubt that the new rules will impact a beginning player AT ALL for at least the first five turns, and probably much longer. I have noticed nothing about changing the basic mechanics of the game. - --Russ ------------------------------ From: Ron.Kleinman@Eng.Sun.COM (Ron Kleinman) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 11:06:20 -0700 Subject: BSE: Unarmed attackers > Oh good...it's the "They were unarmed" thing (again). > It's not the FGZ's fault that the QSN leadership sent out two > "unarmed warships" to attack the FGZ in our own space....as > the QSN have already admitted.. Unarmed warships attacking the FGZ?? I'll bet Lord Den had to empty his sweat cup at least twice before his admirals brought him the news that after a long and bloody fight, the invaders had been destroyed. But it's not like the FGZ has ANY culpability in this incident. Nicholas Van Rijn QSN Blue Whale Merchant Person ------------------------------ From: Ron.Kleinman@Eng.Sun.COM (Ron Kleinman) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 11:03:05 -0700 Subject: BSE: Re: BSE Digest V195 #134 >>------------------------------ >> >>From: PEllisCaz@aol.com >>Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 23:47:30 -0400 >>Subject: Re: BSE: Questions for RTG >> >>On 4-7-95 Ronk wrote: >>> IMHO .. one of the most significant things that could happen to >increase >>the >>>amount of trade in the Periphery and elsewhere is (as has been >suggested >>for >>>other reasons) to simply allow factories that have been producing >good "X" >>to >>>get better at it over time (say to max of 125%). A change of >production >>>would cause the factory to be idle for 1-2 month (retooling), and >then to >>>revert back to 100%. >> >>Good idea, but for programing it could be a major *CENSORED* >> >>Besides RTG already addressed that issue with Special Production Colonies >> Fair enough. Then what about allowing colony governors to: 1. Forbid certain affiliations / specific ships from using their market. 2. Firing a 'warning shot' at a merchant ship entering orbit (enough to do minimal damage, not enough to terminate the ship). This would allow a variety of responses to express hostility between affiliations, short of all out war. Perhaps the QSN/FGZ situation could have played out as a series of trade freeze/warning shots, given such a flexability of diplomatic responses. Allied affiliations could support a war effort with such actions .. diplomacy possibilities get far more rich, interactons increase, etc. Doesn't seem like a major programmatic change. Regards, Ronk ------------------------------ End of BSE Digest V195 #135 *************************** To subscribe to bse-digest, send the command: subscribe bse-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@io.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-bse-list": subscribe bse-digest local-bse-list@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "bse-digest" in the commands above with "bse-list". Up