[20:28:23] is everyone here? [20:28:48] uzurpator is here [20:28:54] Hyronymous is missing. But I don't think he'll show up. [20:28:56] Prof_Frink raises his hand to say he isn't [20:29:05] eXinion is here [20:29:15] orudge raises Prof_Frink's hand, just for fun [20:29:18] Zuu is here even thoght I said that i shuldent. [20:29:20] (other hand) [20:29:58] shuld we begin? [20:30:04] ok with me [20:30:10] yeah! :p [20:30:24] OK then, let's roll [20:30:31] weeeeee! [20:30:41] eXinion is rolling, rolling, rolling... [20:30:52] Hyronymus says he might be able to make it, but only for some half-hour or so [20:31:15] Have we all read the minutes of last month's meeting? [20:31:21] yes [20:31:23] hmm.. [20:31:26] sort of [20:31:34] not sure. [20:31:43] Don't know... I think I wrote them... (checking) [20:31:44] http://www.tt-forums.net//files/minutes-20040912.txt [20:31:51] no, 'cause the interweb is borked. [20:32:20] Anything missing from them? Anything coming from them that needs discussing? [20:32:57] Not really. [20:33:03] Zuu scans it now [20:33:08] eXinion does not find anything [20:33:34] reddit [20:33:51] Good. Next item. [20:33:58] * Documents [20:34:14] I hear we're up to around half of the old ideas dealt with already [20:34:15] eXinion did ideas 181-200 [20:34:16] [20:34:35] Evan has actually done his share of the ideas \o/ [20:34:59] Hellfire667 did 101-140 [20:35:29] I have a comment on Oliver's contribution though: [20:35:42] Zuu might want to do some at friday (have 2 hours lunch break) [20:35:59] are the remaining ideas accounted for? (that is: are all ideas assigned to someone [20:35:59] ) [20:36:08] Unfortunately, he's not here, but I would like him to fill in the ideas in the traceability matrix when he has added them. [20:36:15] uzurpator is curius what 'doing' and idea means [20:36:33] As far as I know, all ideas are assigned. But ofcourse we can shift assignments [20:36:48] uzurpator: google for dictionary [20:37:01] very funny [20:37:03] Hmmm... Arathorn hasn't done anything either... [20:37:07] yes - I've had trouble finding time to sit down and get through them [20:37:18] eXinion will do ideas 201 - 220 soon [20:37:36] I did too, but the 20 ideas were done pretty fast... although that wiki can be slow at times [20:37:43] uzurpator, we are taking the ideas from hte "ideas" thread, and putting them all in one place, where we can deal with them [20:37:49] mkay [20:38:05] uzurpator: check this link: http://jpl.yi.org/te/index.php?all=1 [20:38:07] eXinion, I'm concerned that you find it slow - this is on the SF servers, so should be relatively quick [20:38:28] I agree with eXinion here. [20:38:34] Sometimes the Wiki is really slow. [20:38:41] well, going back and forth between the gameplay and user interface is pretty slow and then finding, opening, editting and saving takes pretty long some times [20:38:41] there are two ends of a cable [20:38:47] for me SF wiki is pretty slow [20:38:55] eXinion is at a fast end [20:40:15] am I disconnected/ [20:40:18] ? [20:40:19] no [20:40:23] no [20:40:25] oh alright [20:40:27] Congratulatnios. You killed the conversation. [20:40:28] ok - speaking of documents - anyone read my DD 2.0? [20:40:32] eXinion wasn't receiving stuff :p [20:40:38] (except for hellfire) [20:40:42] DD? [20:40:46] desing doc [20:40:58] just skimmed the first pages. [20:41:00] uhm, don't think so....where is it? [20:41:00] desgn that is [20:41:07] design [20:41:07] DD 2.0: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=10822 [20:41:18] what he said [20:41:21] oh no, didn't look at it :p [20:41:26] but have read DD 1.0 more carefully. [20:41:38] wow - was the text file that big that it had to be compressed? [20:41:43] figures [20:41:52] rtf [20:41:55] it is in formatted *.rtf with pictures [20:42:02] hmm [20:42:08] open office doesn't display pictures. [20:42:19] I'll read it when it's available in a real format. [20:42:28] lol [20:42:28] that would be? [20:42:36] plain text, HTML, PDF, ... [20:42:45] PostScript even [20:42:54] sure thing - i bet that word 97 can save as html :p [20:43:06] Eww [20:43:10] Just make sure you take out the crap it puts in [20:43:17] Word 97's HTML is bad, although not quite as bad as Word 2000+'s HTML [20:43:17] (linux scum :p) [20:43:20] doc would be eavan better for openoffice i think. [20:43:31] than rtf [20:43:44] ill dl open office to reformat the doc if necessary [20:43:53] or post as a textfile - whatever [20:44:00] [20:44:00] As a guide, I typically avoid anything that has a .doc extension rather like the plague, but never mind. [20:44:00] .wri forever! [20:44:15] .tex? [20:44:20] :p [20:44:21] uzurpator: not necessary: I'll make a ps and pdf tonight. Ok? [20:44:37] sure - I'll be grateful [20:44:41] Thanks - I'll have a good read of it then [20:45:06] what more about documents? [20:45:20] uzurpator: What aspects have you dealt with in your document? [20:45:21] I think we should merge DD2.0 and the FRD. [20:45:41] chirho - anything I deemed necessary [20:45:45] Because the purpose of the two documents is almost the same. [20:45:48] but not enough yet [20:46:02] Is itmostly high- or low-level considerations? [20:46:10] i still haven't dealt with user interface for instance [20:46:33] medium level - no "there should be" or "we think it would be coo if" [20:47:04] So there is at least some discussion of implementation details in there. [20:47:17] some, pretty alot actually [20:48:03] In which case, we merge the requirements info into FR, and implementation parts into lower-level documents as we write them [20:48:30] ok - I'm all for it. [20:48:35] I noticed some stuff was missing in the FRD by the way... stuff like 'basic' bus and truck transportation [20:49:06] Gameplay - Vehicles - Road? [20:49:28] Ah right. [20:49:30] True [20:49:31] no, it said Gameplay-Vehicles-Automobiles in which only taxis were described [20:49:35] i gues the FRD is more like what peaople want to change. [20:49:37] Road vehicles have not been described yet. [20:49:42] eXinion added some but not all [20:49:58] First things first - we pull all the ideas from the old thread in. [20:50:07] Then we rearrange it into a usable document, and address the gaps [20:50:08] yes [20:50:49] pff - I had the impression that the original thread was more about little details. More like 'what we want TTD to be expanded with' [20:51:10] yeah exactly uzurpator [20:51:25] hence having to "address the gaps" that are left over [20:51:49] (OT: what does ppf stands for) [20:52:02] pff = sigh [20:52:02] :p [20:52:14] Try saying it [20:52:20] ok [20:52:24] that would be more like - build the core of the gamedesign and then add the silver lining [20:52:26] lol [20:52:47] Yes. Have you read the FRD, uzurpator? Or at least the TOC? [20:53:38] I did [20:53:43] We're working it this way to avoid "feature creep" when we move to real development, as well as generally speeding up the development once it begins [20:54:54] Overall FRD is not detailed, but a good start to add the details later. More of a template for more complete docs [20:55:21] It's not supposed to go into any great length of detail [20:55:34] I figured as much [20:55:36] It's meant to do exactly what it says on the tin - state functional requirements, no more [20:55:52] and it does that quite well [20:56:42] ok - what is the next topic on todays agenda - id I might ask [20:56:44] Once it's in a usable state, we can work on planning at lower levels - architecture documents, etc. [20:56:51] Then, a later document will be the ADD, the Architectual Design Document, which will map the requirements in the FRD to an architectural model, which will guarantee that the features that will be implemented will work. :+) [20:57:06] erlier we talked about voting which ideas to priroty, and which to erase. [20:57:41] shuld we do that when the FRD is done? [20:57:54] at this rate we'll start by 2043 [20:57:57] In terms of the FRD, for Phase I, we include as much as possible, and only throw out stuff which is entirely irrelevant to the game, or stuff which is going to be ridiculously difficult to implement [20:58:15] some ideas can be excluded right away [20:58:39] Exactly. Those being the unimplementable or irrelevant ones [20:58:41] so we will not care aout incompatibility beteween ideas. [20:58:51] Phase I being collating the ideas. [20:58:53] like those that are wayy of the scope of the game - like idividual salaries and such [20:59:27] aout = about [21:00:10] ok - i assume that FRD will be done when all ideas will be done? [21:00:12] Zuu: If we get two conflicting ideas, such as "you can buy out opponents" and "you can't buy out opponents" are both equally valid, and therefore both need to pass Phase I [21:00:13] Zuu: not yet. [21:00:38] ok, just wanted to confirm. [21:00:40] In Phase II of the FRD we deal with conflicts, gaps, and generally rewriting it [21:01:21] for phase ii to work, everyone working on it has to read the entire doc [21:01:53] that is not that difficult [21:02:04] no, but it takes a while [21:02:14] just skip the newspaper.. [21:02:30] But: it can be distributed among many people. [21:02:55] yes [21:03:07] eXinion, if ideas have been put in the right place, that won't be necessary [21:03:27] we can say "X has to look through these sections, Y ot look through these" etc. [21:03:30] chirho: yeah, but that'll have to be checked [21:03:50] well - some parts can be distributed. Once could assume that each part of the game (like trains or trucks) will be dealt with by a single person [21:04:04] so someone have to read the entire. [21:04:09] If we get clear conflicts, they raise them with the whole team. If there are higher-level conflicts, then we would need to hold for a while [21:04:39] @uzurpator: that is not quite true... track laying for trains or trucks is quite te same and needs not be done by two different persons [21:04:57] te=the [21:05:07] eXinion: even rivers can be regarded as a kind of track. [21:05:18] yeah, true [21:05:23] tracklaying for water :p [21:05:36] Now I know we've got some ideas from the database which have been held back to be cleared up [21:05:51] let's discuss 'm [21:05:53] by rule yes - but limits are different - for instance trucks may have different slopeness or curves possible. Also - it would be nice if a single person dealt with complete issue. [21:05:53] I've certainly got two, I can see from the table that Hellfire667 has at least one [21:06:12] besides - track laying is a interface issue, not design [21:07:18] yes, that's true [21:07:28] true, with right core design you can create 10 diffrent tracklaying systems. [21:07:53] @chirho: what table? [21:08:03] the traceability page [21:08:22] it says: retained: 2 [21:08:24] not three :p [21:08:43] Well, has anyone actually updated that? [21:08:48] eXinion has [21:09:08] Hellfire667 has [21:09:29] Zuu qonders if the table is the same as jpl's page for idas. [21:09:40] Someone (i.e. Evan) should count the ideas and update the table [21:09:41] Zuu wonders if the table is the same as jpl's page for idas. [21:09:46] I see four occurences of the word "retained" in the list as a whole [21:10:19] The first one was rather long, and deals with various kinds of disasters [21:10:32] #64 on the list [21:10:40] eXinion counted them Hellfire667, I counted 127, but it said 117 processed :p [21:11:37] Ah - I copied them here: http://tt2.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/User:Chris [21:11:40] 64 and 66 [21:12:32] eXinion had some duplicates too, but could not find the duplicate... but just said they were added :p [21:12:53] the ideas were in there, but I did not find the idea, not even in jpl's list [21:13:03] First of all, some of these disasters sound reasonable. [21:13:06] hmmm? [21:13:18] jpl heard a beep [21:13:18] :p [21:13:35] OMG. a meeting. [21:13:46] The train robbery might be something that would happen in the early years. [21:13:54] with horses? :p [21:14:10] Can we continue the discussion? We're talking way too long about two retained ideas [21:14:28] well, I haven't seen any discussion no them yet [21:14:37] people keep getting in the way with other things ... [21:15:13] eXinion thinks Hellfire667 does not want to talk about them now [21:15:21] Well, we talk about them now. [21:15:29] yes [21:15:30] That being the whole point of retaining them for discussion. [21:15:40] orudge [~orudge@orudge.users.quakenet.org] has quit IRC: Quit: You are the weakest link. Goodbye. [21:15:40] alright. [21:15:42] eXinion: yes [21:16:05] so what shuld we discuss? [21:16:09] eXinion finds disasters a good idea, but will never turn 'm on while playing [21:16:19] Idea 64 [21:16:21] Speaking of which, didn't somebody mention the 'September 11th all over again' disaster? Someone loses control of one of their Aircraft, which then crashes into a commercial building. [21:16:25] I'm thinking that the 9/11 repeat and the terrorist attack on a station are likely to be too problematic [21:16:34] Zuu agrees with eXinion [21:16:48] orudge [orudge@orudge.users.quakenet.org] has joined #tempire [21:16:48] L [TheLBot@lightweight.quakenet.org] has set mode +o orudge [21:16:58] Terrorism will probably offend some people. [21:17:11] why - a plane drops to the ground and destroys a building below [21:17:13] The train robberies might be interesting for pre-1950, with various measures you can take to reduce the chance of your trains being hit [21:17:34] a plane acident might be not that offensive. [21:17:42] uzurpator, planes being hijacked are so infrequent that it's not worth bothering with [21:17:50] crashing a plane will decrease the number of people that will travel by plane for a few years after that... [21:17:55] it is a fodder for a good scenario - 9/11 attack caused major disturbance - organize efficent transport by rail/bus until airlines recover [21:18:18] you mean like TTD has always done? [21:18:32] (drop rating to 0%) [21:18:33] a plane might crash for various reasons - terrorists are just one of them [21:18:37] TTD has? never noticed :S [21:18:42] low reliability might be another [21:18:54] AGain, IRL plane crashes are infrequent. [21:19:01] well, a crashed plane has low reliability (duh) :p [21:19:06] as are rail-crashes [21:19:20] We seem to get a rail incident every year over here [21:19:34] PAddington, Southall, Hatfield, Potter's Bar... [21:19:39] but they happen - and in the timeline of 100 or more years one is bound to happen [21:19:42] but some seam to like to play with disasters. [21:19:49] a few airplanes also dropped dead... [21:19:51] bad transport company :p [21:20:27] btw - deaths per passenger-mile is 0.2 for rail and 0.4 for air [21:20:47] aircraft are actually more dangerous then trains (cars lead with 5.4 :p) [21:21:01] 0.2 deaths per mile???? that's 2 per 10 miles.... that's 50 deaths on a 250 mile journey :S [21:21:01] is this discussion about if we shuld allow tereorism or disasters? [21:21:02] damn [21:21:07] To include a disaster which *might* happen once in 150 years of gameplay seems a little pointless [21:21:20] Coal mines used to subside all the times [21:21:24] disasters [21:21:34] that's true chirho [21:21:53] Hot dry spells might cause crop production to come down once in a few years [21:22:17] nonetheless - if a player does not service aircraft they shoud crash [21:22:20] chirho : yeah, that's the disasters we're looking for [21:22:23] Something like a plane dropping out of the sky would either end up as an Easter egg [21:22:24] I gues that some disasters can be added later. [21:22:42] or would happen so often as to become an annoyance [21:22:47] and all transport modes should have disasters that are unavoidable [21:23:11] like head-on crash for trucks or broken signal/derailment for trains [21:23:17] OK, so what "unavoidable" disasters can we have? [21:23:28] Error in command: Unknown command [21:23:28] Error token: zuu [21:23:28] Parsing stopped at line 1 , character 1 [21:23:28] zuu thinks that disasters shuld have a low priro... [21:23:28] Internal call stack: [21:23:28] L0::1: kvirc::parseSingleCommand [21:23:28] L0::2: kvirc::parseCommand [21:23:36] air: plane drops to the ground for whatever reason [21:23:40] Zuu thinks that disasters shuld have a low prirority. [21:23:48] Perhaps something like a disaster engine would be nice: it generates poisson distributed events and each time, a random disaster is chosen. [21:24:02] o god no, statistics [21:24:03] :p [21:24:15] rail: a vehicle derails and is destroyed with some other [21:24:21] Disasters would be pluggable. [21:24:38] chirho: car crashes. [21:24:51] If plane crashes are used, they would either be so infrequent as to be an Easter egg (and Easter eggs should be good things, not bad), or frequent enough that the player just gets pissed off [21:24:59] anyway - there should be tons of realistic disasters (coal subsidiance, earthquake, etc) [21:25:11] Derailments are not unavoidable [21:25:23] A such disaster module would be quite easy to add, since no other parts raly depends on it. I think. [21:25:26] and broken signals letting trains through is unrealistic [21:25:28] earthquakes are good [21:25:28] they are - look -> enchede [21:25:57] Derailments are not unavoidable. Period. [21:26:06] they are - period [21:26:16] let's vote :p [21:26:16] (railfan tells you that :D) [21:26:18] OK, what makes them unavoidable? [21:26:18] Leaves on line! [21:26:29] The human factor. [21:26:43] Exactly - so they're not unavoidable [21:26:44] random things that might happen - like a split rail due to a deffect that nobody has seen [21:26:56] I gues disasters would be nice to have, but is they worth the effort? [21:27:02] yes [21:27:06] eXinion thinks not [21:27:08] they spice up the game [21:27:12] Most derailments are avoidable - mostly by the driver paying more attention [21:27:25] but a control to set how often they happen should be devised [21:27:34] Track maintenance costs perhaps? [21:27:44] chirho - drivers have 'very' little control over trains [21:27:59] for track maintenence look DD 2.0 [21:28:13] derailments in recent years here have been caused by drivers going too fast [21:28:47] we've had one solitary incident of a track defect (Potters Bar), and that could have been avoided by proper construction and maintenance [21:28:59] anyway - derailments happen due to various reasons, for instance it was too hot, the track bent unde the weight of a train etc [21:29:04] techology fails [21:29:08] from time to time [21:29:10] In the Netherlands, recent train crashes have been caused by drivers driving too slow to be detected by the "ATB" system (which prevents trains running red lights) [21:29:15] by hiring good drivers in the game, you get less crashes... [21:29:34] And then we have car/train collisions.. but is that count as a disaster? [21:29:46] but have to pay more [21:29:46] yes - but not 'unavoidable' [21:30:22] Road crashes - we can throw that out, unless we are going to have private transport sharing the roads [21:30:45] Avoidable disasters is probably good. [21:30:52] We can assume that our drivers know what they're doing, and that a crash between two vehicles would typically involve a drunk private driver [21:31:01] lol [21:31:03] i say - leave them in - just like other things [21:31:16] anyway - chirho - why are you so against disasters? [21:31:17] or driver on mobile [21:31:29] uzurpator, wtf? [21:31:39] atm you oppose any diasters ^^ [21:31:40] Where the hell do you get the idea that I'm against disasters? [21:31:58] I oppose disasters that would be pointless [21:32:19] or those whose avoidability is so much that they're not worth including [21:32:19] i agree - no more UFO disasters [21:32:54] I think that there might be situations like old railway crossings where our drivers might do some mistakes. [21:33:07] UFO if anything should be an Easter egg - that's something someone might appreciate seeing. But I'd certainly not want it there as a common thing. [21:33:18] or when they catch a blown tyre, lose control and crash into a tree [21:33:20] A good disaster for the game is something that can happen frequently without becoming a bother [21:33:24] Just like those damn blimps. [21:33:43] So UFOs like the subs [21:33:50] yup [21:34:09] or something bigger that will have a major effect, but happens enough to merit being in the game [21:34:12] a good disaster forces the player to drop his current occupation and remedy the situation [21:34:31] Or UFOs like Virgin-liveried SpaceShipOnes [21:34:36] That might be true, but a good disaster is not one which requires oyu to replace that goddamn plane again [21:34:36] Like an earthquake or a mine collapse. [21:34:53] [21:35:11] So, dealing with the list we have here before taking new ones ... [21:35:21] BIG disasters should happen rarely, but minor things like crashed truck or derailed train - things that cause a break in operations -should happen [21:35:26] the 9/11 type thing goes [21:35:35] in a mine collapse it is not really necessary to do anything, you just finish your business and then delete the trains /trucks delivering coal [21:35:36] the nerve gas at station thing goes [21:35:45] Road Vehicle 231 crashed - do you want to replace: yes|no [21:35:59] the train robbery for valuables makes the document [21:36:06] That'd be good [21:36:10] yes, very good [21:36:14] cool [21:36:21] ships running aground goes [21:36:23] terrorist attack destroyed vehicle (ship/plane/train/truck) 21 : do you want to replace yes|no [21:36:28] (after all, they're ignoring your orders that way) [21:36:33] Fog - airport closed? [21:36:51] forest fire should stay, but not in the way mentioned in the idea [21:36:53] Prof_Frink: weather <--- difficult. [21:37:02] @Prof_Frink: if we implement weather changes [21:37:09] company 4 sabotaged your bridge at xxx [21:37:11] Hellfire667, highly-localised fog?8) [21:37:20] possible [21:37:29] uzurpator, such sabotage would be illegal, and should not be included in the game at all [21:37:39] 'twas what I was thinking [21:37:56] it HAS to be included to make the multimpalyer more head-on [21:38:07] ... or not [21:38:35] sabotaging your opponent (even if with minor things - like 'sugar in fuel' spell) has to be included imvho [21:38:35] depends whether you can sue their arses off [21:38:36] it makes the game more realistic, but there should be a switch to turn it off (if we include it) [21:38:39] why be destructive? [21:38:44] but at a risk of getting cought [21:38:48] and at dire costs [21:39:14] For a start, such things don't happen in real life [21:39:39] e.g. Virgin staff don't run around cutting the pantos off GNER trains [21:40:16] Zuu: atm TTD multi is very secluded - there is no real competition between players. Even competing stations at near industries are a minor nuisance [21:40:53] but are we building Transport Empire or Command and Conquer here? [21:40:55] some level of violent competition (sabotage for instance) has to be included [21:41:10] Will not sabotage be to much micromanagement. [21:41:11] Why? [21:41:38] shall we take a vote on violent competition then? maybe on the forum? [21:41:46] hmm - ok [21:41:54] try to avoid beeing sabotaged instead of creating a complex network. [21:41:55] To do so would give the idea too much credibility IMO [21:42:29] this things might not actually involve violence - but something to discredit the enemy, to drop his/her ratings has to be in (bribing, sabotage, price competition etc) [21:42:30] If you have to resort to violent sabotage to get on top, then something's wrong with the game [21:42:37] I think we should drop it. Let's build a constructive game. Not a destructive [21:43:06] Hyronymus [borgirc-nl@Hyronymus.users.quakenet.org] has joined #tempire [21:43:07] Zuu agrees mith hellfire. [21:43:16] sorry I'm late guys [21:43:17] eXinion agrees too [21:43:19] np [21:43:20] no problem [21:43:26] uzurpator disagrees [21:43:28] Wacky ISP day [21:43:30] I cna live with things like greasing the palms of councillors to improve your own rating, but we can't have things like blowing up bridges, bombing trains, cutting signals, etc. [21:43:40] i think we should bring the subject to the forums [21:43:56] Prof_Frink say nay [21:44:00] terrorist actions in a game? [21:44:05] what level of competition should be included [21:44:06] yeah [21:44:11] in THE game Hyronymus [21:44:13] no way [21:44:15] violent competition [21:44:16] :p [21:44:28] Hyronymus, no, not terrorism. Corporate terrorism. [21:44:42] you can't include terrorist actions in a transport simulator [21:44:57] maby we shuld discuss what chalenges we have for multiplayer before adding destructive stuff. [21:44:58] not even robbing a valuables train? [21:44:58] as a disaster - ofc we can [21:45:08] explain that to the people in Spain, chirho [21:45:10] zuu - I agree [21:45:35] Hyronymus, no, you misunderstood. [21:45:49] The idea being discussed is being able to sabotage your opponents [21:46:01] by blowing up their bridges, destroying trains, etc. [21:46:12] multiplayer cannot be as secluded as it is in TTD/Loco - it has to have very competetive nature - for resources, place etc [21:46:12] Hellfire667 still says "nay" [21:46:22] how realistic is that, chirho [21:46:27] Not at all [21:46:32] Zuu still agrees with hellfire. [21:46:40] which is why we're all putting it down, except for uzurpator who insists we put it to a forum vote [21:46:54] why include it then? [21:47:18] and now zuu suggested to see what extra's we habe to offer MP [21:47:26] before deciding anything right? [21:47:32] uzurpator, that'll now be some 6 people that have said no, out of 7 people that are active in the meeting. Still feel confident about a forum vote? [21:47:33] *have to [21:47:51] chriho - I agree - destroying trains IS a little far fetched. [21:48:14] How about an IRC vote on havig a forum vote? [21:48:21] lol [21:48:21] am I allowed to suggest something? [21:48:31] why not? [21:48:38] but nonetheless - competition hast to be much more then dropping a station next to competitior's station [21:48:48] that is all I have to say [21:48:51] I joined too late [21:48:55] but why not sabotage the track laying of a competitor [21:48:55] yes Hyronymus [21:49:07] Things like lucrative contracts... [21:49:17] so the forum discussion is not about "should we be able to bomb competition trains" but "how to fight competition" [21:49:26] or buying stocks in industries you want stuff from, so you get more of them? [21:49:32]