Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

A new group

5 views
Skip to first unread message

see....@anti.spam.fi

unread,
Feb 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/19/98
to

I've been thinking; would it be worthwhile to have a new group
rec.games.roguelike.dev

Comments?


--
<------------------------------------------------------->
< Sami Hangaslammi shang @ st (dot) jyu (dot) fi >
< University of Jyväskylä, Department of Physics >
<------------------------------------------------------->

Matt Chatterley

unread,
Feb 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/19/98
to sh...@st.jyu.fi

[rgr.misc added to Xpost]

On 19 Feb 1998 see....@anti.spam.fi wrote:

> I've been thinking; would it be worthwhile to have a new group
> rec.games.roguelike.dev

It might well be. I for one would support such a group (perhaps
rec.games.roguelike.programmer would be a better name, or
rec.games.roguelike.design). I'd encourage you to draw up an RFD for it
(see the documents posted by David C Lawrence in news.announce.* and so
forth, regularly).

Let me know if you need a hand!

--
Regards,
-Matt Chatterley
Spod: http://user.super.net.uk/~neddy/spod/spod.html


Jason Willoughby

unread,
Feb 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/19/98
to

see....@anti.spam.fi wrote:
: I've been thinking; would it be worthwhile to have a new group
: rec.games.roguelike.dev

Considering the traffic in rgr.misc... No.

Thomas Biskup

unread,
Feb 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/19/98
to

see....@anti.spam.fi wrote:
> I've been thinking; would it be worthwhile to have a new group
> rec.games.roguelike.dev

Might be interesting... if someone has to time to initiate the formal
process.

--
Thomas Biskup
ADOM maintainer >=====------------=====< ADOM 0.9.9 Gamma 8 available now!

Official ADOM webpage available at http://users.aol.com/ADOMDev/index.html

Azim Höhlenbear Wolfkrieg

unread,
Feb 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/20/98
to

On 19 Feb 1998 15:17:40 +0200, see....@anti.spam.fi wrote:

>I've been thinking; would it be worthwhile to have a new group
>rec.games.roguelike.dev
>

>Comments?
If there is a vote to do. I say YES
and BTW, when you see the number of msgs about devellopment, a new
channl would definitely be worthwhile!

Alex Simma

unread,
Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98
to

On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 16:05:57 +0000, Matt Chatterley
<ma...@mpc.dyn.ml.org> wrote:

>[rgr.misc added to Xpost]


>
>On 19 Feb 1998 see....@anti.spam.fi wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking; would it be worthwhile to have a new group
>> rec.games.roguelike.dev
>

>It might well be. I for one would support such a group (perhaps
>rec.games.roguelike.programmer would be a better name, or
>rec.games.roguelike.design). I'd encourage you to draw up an RFD for it
>(see the documents posted by David C Lawrence in news.announce.* and so
>forth, regularly).
>
>Let me know if you need a hand!

I'm interested. Having a newsgroup dedicated to the programming
issues of roguelikes might be awesome. Don't know how much trafic
it's going to get though.
Alex

William Henry Gilpatric IV

unread,
Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98
to

Alex Simma wrote:
> I'm interested. Having a newsgroup dedicated to the programming
> issues of roguelikes might be awesome. Don't know how much trafic
> it's going to get though.
I'm interesed.

--
FNORD - you can't see me
http://www.gis.net/~galt/
Hail Eris. All hail Discordia.

Felipe Villar

unread,
Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98
to

>> I'm interested. Having a newsgroup dedicated to the programming
>> issues of roguelikes might be awesome. Don't know how much trafic
>> it's going to get though.


Im also interested. Even if it doesnt get a lot of traffic it might be a
good idea.

Matt Chatterley

unread,
Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98
to

On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Alex Simma wrote:

[Huge snip]

> I'm interested. Having a newsgroup dedicated to the programming
> issues of roguelikes might be awesome. Don't know how much trafic
> it's going to get though.

> Alex

Theres certainly a fair amount of design/programming related traffic in
the misc group, although it tends to be a little sporadic. I'm under the
impression that there are quite a few folk who would be more willing to
discuss such issues in a specific group (or who were perhaps not aware
that the misc group is an appropriate place).

Cybernard

unread,
Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98
to

Felipe Villar wrote:
>
> >> I'm interested. Having a newsgroup dedicated to the programming
> >> issues of roguelikes might be awesome. Don't know how much trafic
> >> it's going to get though.
>
> Im also interested. Even if it doesnt get a lot of traffic it might be a
> good idea.

Isn't rec.games.roguelike.misc such a newsgroup?

Chris Dunthorne

unread,
Feb 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/21/98
to

In article <34EF01...@netpower.no>, Cybernard <hal...@netpower.no>
writes

>> Im also interested. Even if it doesnt get a lot of traffic it might be a
>> good idea.
>
>Isn't rec.games.roguelike.misc such a newsgroup?
Kind of. But it isn't dedicated to dev, people discuss it there because
it's the only roguelike newsgroup which isn't dedicated to a specific
roguelike game.

I for one would subscribe to rec.games.roguelike.dev(or whatever) even
if I wouldn't post there that much.

If you want to make sure that it gets a decent amount of traffic then
you should get lots of people from all the present roguelike newsgroups
behind it.

--
Chris Dunthorne - c...@tin-god.demon.co.uk
ADOM & Roguelike web page - www.tin-god.demon.co.uk

Subway Dragon

unread,
Feb 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/22/98
to

Cybernard wrote in message <34EF01...@netpower.no>...

>Felipe Villar wrote:
>>
>> >> I'm interested. Having a newsgroup dedicated to the programming
>> >> issues of roguelikes might be awesome. Don't know how much trafic
>> >> it's going to get though.
>>
>> Im also interested. Even if it doesnt get a lot of traffic it might be a
>> good idea.
>
>Isn't rec.games.roguelike.misc such a newsgroup?

I was under the impression that .misc was for rogue-likes that didnt have
their own groups, cross game discussion and general topics. When I get into
programming/tech discussions on MOOs it's generally considered bad form
unless it involves everyone present so I'd support a seperate group for
design/programming issues especially since I'm planing to try my hand at
one.

I now return you to your regularly sceduled NG.

______________________________________
| Subway Dragon oxx[==========- |
|Rule #47b: |
|If the gods are watching, the very |
/)| least we can do is be entertaining. |(\
/ )|-Dodge's Guide to Surviving Cyberpunk |( \
__( (|______________________________________|) )__
((( \ \> /_) -==(UDIC)==- | \ </ / )))
(\\\ \ \_/ / | \_/ / ///)
\ / \ /
\ _/ \_ /
/ / | |
/ / | |

KCMAGEE

unread,
Feb 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/22/98
to

>Might be interesting... if someone has to time to initiate the formal
>process.

Just out of curiousity: What exactly is the formal process?
-Kevin

"Catapultam habeo. (I have a catapult. Unless you)
Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, (give me all the money, I will)
ad caput tuum saxum immane (throw an enormous rock at your head)
mittam"

WillXNight

unread,
Feb 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/22/98
to

see....@anti.spam.fi wrote in message <6chbdk$v...@porri.cc.jyu.fi>...

>I've been thinking; would it be worthwhile to have a new group
>rec.games.roguelike.dev
>
>Comments?
>
I assume the ".dev" stands for development?
Might be useful. I'm considering writing one of those myself. Once the
Adom Frontloader project is completed tho.
[Although mine will be cyberpunk rather than fantasy]

Jason Willoughby

unread,
Feb 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/22/98
to

KCMAGEE <kcm...@aol.com> wrote:
: Just out of curiousity: What exactly is the formal process?

Draw up an RFD (request for discussion) with the group's charter and
whatnot, and submit it to news.announce.newgroups. The discussion is held
in news.groups, and any necessary changes are made. A month after the
RFD, a CFV (call for votes) is published. If the vote is 2/3 yes, and
there are at least 100 more yes votes than no votes, the group is created.

see....@anti.spam.fi

unread,
Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98
to

Thomas Biskup <r...@saranxis.ruhr.de> wrote:
> Might be interesting... if someone has to time to initiate the formal
> process.

I'm currently reading the instructions in the news.announce.* groups in
order to do this, but if there is someone who has done this sort of thing
before, I'd be more than happy to pass the effort to him :)

BTW. What would be the most informative name for the group?

rgr.dev
rgr.development
rgr.programming
rgr.design
...
(other ideas?)

michael

unread,
Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98
to

how about shorter names (less time to type?):
rgr.x
rgr.d


> rgr.dev
> rgr.development
> rgr.programming
> rgr.design
> (other ideas?)

Matt Chatterley

unread,
Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98
to sh...@st.st.jyu.fi

On 23 Feb 1998 see....@anti.spam.fi wrote:

> Thomas Biskup <r...@saranxis.ruhr.de> wrote:
> > Might be interesting... if someone has to time to initiate the formal
> > process.
>
> I'm currently reading the instructions in the news.announce.* groups in
> order to do this, but if there is someone who has done this sort of thing
> before, I'd be more than happy to pass the effort to him :)

Heh. I've done it before, and would never do it again on my own. I'm
prepared to help by reading through stuff etc and/or as second proponent
if you want, but I'll warn in advance that I do get pressed for time
(although I typically manage to answer all my email within 48 hours).



> BTW. What would be the most informative name for the group?
>
> rgr.dev
> rgr.development
> rgr.programming
> rgr.design

> ....
> (other ideas?)

'dev' is not very commonly used in newsgroup names that I've seen, nor
development - I'd say one of the latter two is going to be most
conventional. BUT, the latter two do not necessarily include each other,
while the second covers both.

Err. To cut that a little shorter (with a chainsaw), I would say
"development". :)

Darren Hebden

unread,
Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98
to

On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:59:20 -0500, michael
<ai...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:

>how about shorter names (less time to type?):
>rgr.x
>rgr.d

Doesn't "d" usually indicate "discussion"?

If you've not got enough time to type "development", I suggest you
restructure your life and take a nice long holiday ;-)

Regards,

Darren.

[Keeper of the Roguelike News pages]
[http://www2.krisalis.co.uk/wwwdheb/index.html]

David Grabiner

unread,
Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98
to

Matt Chatterley <ma...@mpc.dyn.ml.org> writes:

> Heh. I've done it before, and would never do it again on my own. I'm
> prepared to help by reading through stuff etc and/or as second proponent
> if you want, but I'll warn in advance that I do get pressed for time
> (although I typically manage to answer all my email within 48 hours).

I was the proponent for the second rec.games.roguelike.* reorganization
and for rec.games.roguleike.angband, so I'm willing to do this. (I
still maintain the Moria FAQ and provide some support for Moria; I
proposed r.g.r.angband because Angband was 80% of the Moria group at the
time.)

--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.

Matt Chatterley

unread,
Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98
to

On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, David Grabiner wrote:

> Matt Chatterley <ma...@mpc.dyn.ml.org> writes:
>
> > Heh. I've done it before, and would never do it again on my own. I'm
> > prepared to help by reading through stuff etc and/or as second proponent
> > if you want, but I'll warn in advance that I do get pressed for time
> > (although I typically manage to answer all my email within 48 hours).
>
> I was the proponent for the second rec.games.roguelike.* reorganization
> and for rec.games.roguleike.angband, so I'm willing to do this. (I
> still maintain the Moria FAQ and provide some support for Moria; I
> proposed r.g.r.angband because Angband was 80% of the Moria group at the
> time.)

Sounds good; I'd suggest you and the original person who suggested the
group (err, I'm sorry whoever you are, I can't remember your name :P) get
together to work things through. The original idea plus some experience in
the field should be a 'winning' combination. In theory. Heh. :)

Thomas Biskup

unread,
Feb 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/23/98
to

In rec.games.roguelike.misc see....@anti.spam.fi wrote:
> BTW. What would be the most informative name for the group?
> rgr.dev
> rgr.development
> rgr.programming
> rgr.design

Personally I like development best (or maybe dev) because it
incorporates both design and programming. As far as the sound of the
name goes I'd prefer 'design', but it's probably a bit too restrictive
:-^

J.B Cattley

unread,
Feb 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/24/98
to

>BTW. What would be the most informative name for the group?
>
>rgr.dev
>rgr.development
>rgr.programming
>rgr.design


Three rules when designing any kind of cultural artifact, from NG names to
choosing a phone number: cadence, cadence and cadence.

rgr.dev rolls far more easily off my own personal tongue than any of the
others. Also, it sounds so much more professional to have to word 'dev'
rattling round the place ;->

BTW, in case there's any doubt, I third the motion. (writing one of these is
one of my life's ambitions)

jbc

J.B Cattley

unread,
Feb 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/24/98
to

J.B Cattley

unread,
Feb 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/24/98
to

J.B Cattley

unread,
Feb 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/24/98
to

Paul Matlock

unread,
Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98
to

On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 19:32:55 +1100, "J.B Cattley" <j...@mpx.com.au>
wrote:

I too would definitely vote for R.G.R.development. There seems to be
a lack of any great development resources on the `net for people just
starting out.

Actually there is Roguelike news and all types of source code
available but sometimes that just doesn't cut the mustard for some
people.

Once again, count on my vote and if you need any help with the RFD
just email me...


Paul Matlock

mat...@mckenzie.mckenzie.edu
mat...@rocketmail.com

Kathy I. Morgan

unread,
Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98
to

Matt Chatterley <ma...@mpc.dyn.ml.org> wrote:

> On 23 Feb 1998 see....@anti.spam.fi wrote:
>
> > Thomas Biskup <r...@saranxis.ruhr.de> wrote:
> > > Might be interesting... if someone has to time to initiate the formal
> > > process.
> >

> > BTW. What would be the most informative name for the group?
> >
> > rgr.dev
> > rgr.development
> > rgr.programming
> > rgr.design

> > ....
> > (other ideas?)
>
> 'dev' is not very commonly used in newsgroup names that I've seen, nor
> development - I'd say one of the latter two is going to be most
> conventional. BUT, the latter two do not necessarily include each other,
> while the second covers both.
>
> Err. To cut that a little shorter (with a chainsaw), I would say
> "development". :)

Hi,

I'm a lurker in news.groups, where the discussion will take place if you
do go forward with the proposal. A note was posted there inviting
regulars of news.groups who are interested in roguelike games to come
over here and take a look at this thread. I don't know if I qualify on
either count, since I don't know anything about roguelike games and in
news.groups I mostly just lurk. However, I'm interested in games and I
have been watching the news.groups discussions for quite a while, so I
decided to accept the invitation.

To create a group, you'll need at least 100 Yes votes, 100 more Yes
votes than No votes, and at least twice as many Yes votes as No votes.
There are about 20-30 news groupies who automatically vote No on almost
every proposal. If those are the only No votes, you'll need about 130
Yes votes. If you can persuade the groupies that your proposal has
merit, a few of them will vote yes to counteract the automatic no's.

Two things you'll need to do to persuade news.groupies that a proposed
new group has merit are:

1) Come up up with a name that is acceptable to news.groupies. If they
don't like the proposed name, you'll get a lot of extra No votes. The
name should fit nicely into the existing hierarchies (all of the above
proposals should be okay on that score. It should have 14 or fewer
characters in the final spot (so all of them are okay there), and it
should be unambiguous and easy for anyone to understand. That means
newbies in their first day on Usenet have to be able to understand it,
or people who are not familiar with the abbreviation "dev." My guess is
the proposal wouldn't be likely to pass as rgr.dev and for sure wouldn't
pass as rgr.d since *.d usually means *.discuss. Here is what Kate
Wrightson, a highly respected news.group regular, posted:

Um, why can't you just call it

rec.games.roguelike.developers For roguelike game developers.

There is no need to abbreviate a word which fits into the
character-limit without abbreviation.

So, of the names I've seen mentioned,I'd recommend whichever of the
following you as a group prefer:

rgr.developers
rgr.development
rgr.design
rgr.programming

2) You're going to need to convince the news.groups regulars that there
is sufficient traffic in the subject to warrant a group and that
creation of the group will not adversely impact an existing group. That
means that you will probably need to persuade them that none of these
groups will be adversely affected:

rec.games.roguelike.adom
rec.games.roguelike.angband
rec.games.roguelike.announce
rec.games.roguelike.misc
rec.games.roguelike.moria
rec.games.roguelike.nethack
rec.games.roguelike.rogue

Demonstrating the interest can be done by just going forward to a CFV
(Call for Votes) and having the necessary votes to pass, but you're more
likely to get some sympathy votes from news.groupies if you can
demonstrate demand in advance of the vote. (For instance, do a search at
Deja News and report to news.groups that there were x number of posts
about roguelike development in the above listed groups and y posts
scattered amongst other programming groups. If there's a mailing list
that discusses this, mention it too.) Are there any alt.* groups where
roguelike games are discussed? (There aren't any on my server, but then
a lot of alt.* groups aren't carried by my server.)

You might want to crosspost an announcement of this discussion to the
other rgr.* groups, with followups maybe set back to rgr.misc. This
would give you an opportunity to find out if any of them object (and if
so why, so that could be addressed) and you might get additional
creative input and helpers for the formal RFD/PQ/CFV process.

I can't imagine anything about this proposed group that would be
controversial, other than maybe the name if you try for something so
short as to be cryptic, so if you can get 130 people interested in the
group and willing to participate in the creation process (at least to
the extent of obtaining a legal ballot and voting when the CFV comes
out), you should be successful.

kathy

Darren Hebden

unread,
Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98
to

On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 19:39:22 GMT, David Grabiner
<grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu> wrote:

>Matt Chatterley <ma...@mpc.dyn.ml.org> writes:
>
>> Heh. I've done it before, and would never do it again on my own. I'm
>> prepared to help by reading through stuff etc and/or as second proponent
>> if you want, but I'll warn in advance that I do get pressed for time
>> (although I typically manage to answer all my email within 48 hours).
>
>I was the proponent for the second rec.games.roguelike.* reorganization
>and for rec.games.roguleike.angband, so I'm willing to do this. (I
>still maintain the Moria FAQ and provide some support for Moria; I
>proposed r.g.r.angband because Angband was 80% of the Moria group at the
>time.)

Sorry to 'tack-on' in another direction but can anyone explain to me
the slumber of r.g.r.announce? I wouldn't call myself a long-time
veteran but I've yet to see a post there (either my own or from
others).

Also, would now be a good time to suggest bringing the omega group
back to the fold? I mean, alt.games.omega? It's way out in the
wilderness, no wonder it's so lonely out there... ;-)

David Grabiner

unread,
Feb 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/25/98
to

I've submitted a formal Request for Discussion to
news.announce.newgroups; it should appear in a few days.

KCMAGEE

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

>Also, would now be a good time to suggest bringing the omega group
>back to the fold? I mean, alt.games.omega? It's way out in the
>wilderness, no wonder it's so lonely out there... ;-)
>
>

Is it just me, or does it seem like the alt.* groups accrue far more spam than
rec.* groups (or any others for that matter).

William Tanksley

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

In article <6d0259$6...@inferno.mpx.com.au> "J.B Cattley" <j...@mpx.com.au> writes:

>>BTW. What would be the most informative name for the group?

>>rgr.dev
>>rgr.development
>>rgr.programming
>>rgr.design

>Three rules when designing any kind of cultural artifact, from NG names to


>choosing a phone number: cadence, cadence and cadence.

Actually, there's only one rule -- TRADITION. And strangely enough,
Usenet does have a tradition in this area -- "*.misc" groups are
accompanied by "*.programmer" groups.

There is a difference here, though -- we're not just programming an
existing system, we're developing new systems. So there's some
justification in the difference...

>rgr.dev rolls far more easily off my own personal tongue than any of the
>others. Also, it sounds so much more professional to have to word 'dev'
>rattling round the place ;->

Respectfully have to disagree. 'dev' is only professional sounding when
it's an abbreviation for something. Keep the NG name meaningful, and
we'll all call it rgr.dev when we're typing about it.

>BTW, in case there's any doubt, I third the motion. (writing one of these is
>one of my life's ambitions)

Here's not where you'll find the opposition :).

>jbc

-Billy

WillXNight

unread,
Feb 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/26/98
to

Development.
Yes.. Most definately Development.


Steven A White

unread,
Feb 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/27/98
to

In article <1d4zaqh.rr...@tok-ip186.polarnet.com>,

Kathy I. Morgan <kmo...@polarnet.com> wrote:
>1) Come up up with a name that is acceptable to news.groupies. If they
>2) You're going to need to convince the news.groups regulars that there
>is sufficient traffic in the subject to warrant a group and that
>creation of the group will not adversely impact an existing group. That
>means that you will probably need to persuade them that none of these
>groups will be adversely affected:
>
>rec.games.roguelike.adom
>rec.games.roguelike.angband
>rec.games.roguelike.announce
>rec.games.roguelike.misc
>rec.games.roguelike.moria
>rec.games.roguelike.nethack
>rec.games.roguelike.rogue
>
>
>I can't imagine anything about this proposed group that would be
>controversial, other than maybe the name if you try for something so
>short as to be cryptic, so if you can get 130 people interested in the
>group and willing to participate in the creation process (at least to
>the extent of obtaining a legal ballot and voting when the CFV comes
>out), you should be successful.
>
>kathy

I would propose that before anything is considered that
rec.games.roguelike.angband should be consulted. Even more
then r.g.r.adom. Angband generates variants like there
is no tomorrow. Adom doens't, and won't (Unless Thomas changes
his mind).

If you're going to argue they are just doing a variant and they can't
use this new group... "It's only for New Roguelikes!" Well, go ahead,
I'm sure it will be rather entertainingly unpleasant.

Also, assuming this thing does go forwards, do you want 80% of the
messages being angband Variant related? Because that's the way I see
it going. Either the group is an empty wasteland, with <5 posts a
week for most weeks. Or the variant authors will move over to there.
And that variant will most often be Angband.

Steven White / Duck and Cover!

David Grabiner

unread,
Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98
to

sa2w...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Steven A White) writes:

> If you're going to argue they are just doing a variant and they can't
> use this new group... "It's only for New Roguelikes!" Well, go ahead,
> I'm sure it will be rather entertainingly unpleasant.

The draft charter addresses this. Discussions which are specific to a
single game, such as "How do I get a unique monster in Angband to cast
spells more intelligently?" go in that game's group. Questions of
general interest, such as "What's a good algorithm for designing a
maze?" can be crossposted.

Sami Perttu

unread,
Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98
to

Thomas Biskup wrote:

>
> In rec.games.roguelike.misc see....@anti.spam.fi wrote:
> > BTW. What would be the most informative name for the group?
> > rgr.dev
> > rgr.development
> > rgr.programming
> > rgr.design
>
> Personally I like development best (or maybe dev) because it
> incorporates both design and programming. As far as the sound of the
> name goes I'd prefer 'design', but it's probably a bit too restrictive
> :-^

On the other hand, development doesn't include maintenance.
"Engineering" is the most general term that I can think of.

My preferences are:

rgr.programming
rgr.developers
rgr.meta

> Thomas Biskup
> ADOM maintainer >=====------------=====< ADOM 0.9.9 Gamma 8 available now!
>
> Official ADOM webpage available at http://users.aol.com/ADOMDev/index.html

--
Sami Perttu "Flower chase the sunshine"
per...@cc.helsinki.fi

Thomas Biskup

unread,
Feb 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM2/28/98
to

In rec.games.roguelike.misc Steven A White <sa2w...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> I would propose that before anything is considered that
> rec.games.roguelike.angband should be consulted. Even more
> then r.g.r.adom. Angband generates variants like there
> is no tomorrow. Adom doens't, and won't (Unless Thomas changes
> his mind).
> If you're going to argue they are just doing a variant and they can't
> use this new group... "It's only for New Roguelikes!" Well, go ahead,
> I'm sure it will be rather entertainingly unpleasant.

As I see the purpose of the new group it probably only should be for
"meta-discussion" of developing roguelikes, e.g. algorithms concerning
map generation, monster AI, etc. Specific programming questions
concerning a specific roguelike game IMHO still belong into the group
concerned with the respective roguelike game.

--

Thomas Biskup

unread,
Mar 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/1/98
to

In rec.games.roguelike.misc Sami Perttu <per...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> Thomas Biskup wrote:
> > In rec.games.roguelike.misc see....@anti.spam.fi wrote:
> > > BTW. What would be the most informative name for the group?
> > > rgr.dev
> > > rgr.development
> > > rgr.programming
> > > rgr.design
> > Personally I like development best (or maybe dev) because it
> > incorporates both design and programming. As far as the sound of the
> > name goes I'd prefer 'design', but it's probably a bit too restrictive
> > :-^
> On the other hand, development doesn't include maintenance.

But maintenance is something you do to established and working
games... which either have their own newsgroup (e.g. Angband, Nethack,
ADOM) or belong to .misc.

0 new messages