Re: manual bashing & lost-vanish-chance...

[Stan Shebs <shebs@cygnus.com>]

   From: bob@fla.fujitsu.com (Bob Carragher)
   Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 14:25:06 -0700

	Nothing is "self-explanatory" or "obvious" when it
	comes to complicated systems like x-conq.  There
	were a few game design options in one of the older,
	5.x xconqs that I never understood, although they
	were essentially tagged as "self-explanatory."

I did add in detailed descriptions for all the ones Massimo noted.
He's a theoretical physicist, has probably read too many textbooks
where the mystifying proofs were all labeled "self-explanatory"
or "obvious". :-)

	Please, for those of us who are slow and/or not up
	to speed on these kinds of sophisticated games,
	define all options, and if possible provide examples.
	Sometimes, there are assumptions assumed or intentions
	intended that are not known to many of us, and we will
	miss out on these subtle points.

I do need some help on this - I'm far too close to the code to know
what needs explanation.  Every so often I can get into the right frame
of mind, but not often enough.  What I *really* need is for people to
tell me what doesn't make any sense to them.  You don't have to
compose anything fancy, just "I don't get what this is for" or "how
can I do X" or "why can't I do Y".  Once I know what to focus on,
I can work up better descriptions.

							Stan

(Kind of scary to think that at 300+ pages the docs are too sketchy!)