On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Colin MacDonald wrote: > (snip the howto on borg client) Me personally I'd just crack a valid public RSA key and compile the private key into the client, that seems easiest. > IME, a borg will just raise the apparent clue level of a player, but only to > middling-competent. An actual clue player will do everything that a borg > does anyway, and better, because they can adapt their response to the > situation. > Yup pretty much. > That said, there are a few "info-borg" features that I feel might as well be > allowed, in particular showing army counts on-screen by default. The > argument that this gives an unfair advantage over people playing with > traditional clients is spurious; there's no reason why all clients can't be > trivially modified to do this, and limiting all clients to the minimum > subset provided by the oldest client is a fine way to ensure stagnation. > Agree 100%, especially with that last few words. This brings us back to the question some raised - who is responsible ultimately for deciding what features are acceptable and what are borg? Some might say that the players should have the ultimate say but that is not a good idea, as a vocal few can easily drown out the silent majority. Plus the add of any new info-borgish features should be geared to future players not the current players, many I'm sure who want to see newbies have to endure the same steep learning curve they had to suffer. Bill