Anyone still here?
Jason A
Or should I turn out the lights when I leave?
--
-------------------------------------
Reply to for SPAM only
All others use:
m0ng0l . h0rde @ gmail . com
Remove spaces to send
Thank you
-------------------------------------
Tim Skirvin
> From any mecha game?
I am.
I'm curious what's really happening with Battletech lately,
myself.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/pics/ Skirv's Pictures
Sebastian Brocks
> I'm curious what's really happening with Battletech lately,
> myself.
The Jihad is in full swing, and a new base rulebook with lots of
clarifications and completely rewritten and including rules for pretty
much everything excepting Support Vehicles and Warships, full color and
hardback is coming out at GenCon.
Tim Skirvin
I've heard about this in vague terms on classicbattletech.com, but
I wasn't really sure what it entailed yet. What does it mean? Is it
gonna suck?
As for classicbattletech.com, I like the new design, but I miss
the "upcoming products" page.
And I'm not sure what I think about battlecorps.com either; I'm
subscribed, and I'm downloading stuff, but again, the interface is dodgy.
*sigh*
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/ Skirv's FAQs
Sebastian Brocks
> I've heard about this in vague terms on classicbattletech.com, but
> I wasn't really sure what it entailed yet. What does it mean? Is it
> gonna suck?
IMO, quite the opposite. We'll finally have one book with all the rules
in it for playing tournaments, no need to look up different rules in
different books all the time, plu lots of vagueness in the rules is
going to be eliminated, and we're getting some new equipment.
The price of $39.99 doesn't sound bad for a full-color hardback, either.
Cra...@gmail.com
Jason A wrote:
> From any mecha game?
Hey, I even posted a new design recently.
Mike Miller
Tim Skirvin
>> I've heard about this in vague terms on classicbattletech.com, but
>> I wasn't really sure what it entailed yet. What does it mean? Is it
>> gonna suck?
> IMO, quite the opposite. We'll finally have one book with all the rules
> in it for playing tournaments, no need to look up different rules in
> different books all the time,
Was this a problem? (I never really played with the L3 stuff.)
> The price of $39.99 doesn't sound bad for a full-color hardback, either.
True. I'm sure I'll buy it, but I'm dubious of a whole new
ruleset.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://news.ks.uiuc.edu/ UIUC News Server
Sebastian Brocks
>> IMO, quite the opposite. We'll finally have one book with all the rules
>> in it for playing tournaments, no need to look up different rules in
>> different books all the time,
>
> Was this a problem? (I never really played with the L3 stuff.
It certainly was for AT2.
Another thing it's supposed to resolve is lots of vagueness in the
language, there were lots of corner cases in the current rules we
stumbled upon when coding MegaMek.
David Damerell
>Anyone still here?
> From any mecha game?
>Or should I turn out the lights when I leave?
Last post I sent (which was about mecha gaming) was moderator-rejected, no
reason given, no reply to enquiry by email. That does not encourage me to
post.
My original version of this article was rejected for no Subject line tag -
which is true, but it's odd that the original was not so rejected. If I've
trodden on the moderators' toes somehow perhaps they could _let me know_?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Second Olethros, April - a weekend.
Cra...@gmail.com
Tim Skirvin wrote:
> True. I'm sure I'll buy it, but I'm dubious of a whole new
> ruleset.
It's not a whole new ruleset. It's a refinement of the current ruleset,
just like past BT editions only built on and refined their
predecessors.
Mike Miller
Cra...@gmail.com
David Damerell wrote:
> My original version of this article was rejected for no Subject line tag -
> which is true, but it's odd that the original was not so rejected. If I've
> trodden on the moderators' toes somehow perhaps they could _let me know_?
Replying a SECOND time since Fritz ate my first post for lack of a
subject line tag:
"I bet its just a modbot problem. Try again."
Either that or Fritz holds a grudge for your anti-virus program eating
his cyberdog when it piddled on your desktop.
Mike Miller
Devillin
Cra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > My original version of this article was rejected for no Subject line tag -
> > which is true, but it's odd that the original was not so rejected. If I've
> > trodden on the moderators' toes somehow perhaps they could _let me know_?
>
>
> Either that or Fritz holds a grudge for your anti-virus program eating
> his cyberdog when it piddled on your desktop.
No, it's not a modbot problem, it is a Google problem. Google has taken
it upon themselves to strip out all Subject Taglines on any message
viewed
or posted through their service. By doing so, Google has ensured that
any message so posted will be automatically rejected. We've tried
complaining to them, but apparently Google doesn't give a damn. The
only work around is for you to manually edit the tagline back into your
Subject. Your other option is to use either Outlook Express or a client
like Free Agent to use either your ISP's newfeed or a commerical
newsfeed.
Hope this helps.
Linwood
Tim Skirvin
*nod* I could buy that.
Is there a nice online Battletech simulator? Or even a
stand-alone one that has some decent AI? Playing good ol' CBT would be a
lot easier and more common if I didn't have to spend so much time rolling
dice; but I wouldn't object to owning the rulebooks so that I would know
more clearly was going on behind the scenes.
(I'm presuming that MegaMek is another Mech generator?)
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/friends/ Skirv's Friends
Cra...@gmail.com
Tim Skirvin wrote:
> (I'm presuming that MegaMek is another Mech generator?)
No, it's a turn-based, freeware version of the board game. It really
speeds up game play. Its difficult to use custom units (AFAIK), but it
has quite a library of published designs.
Mike Miller
Tim Skirvin
>> (I'm presuming that MegaMek is another Mech generator?)
> No, it's a turn-based, freeware version of the board game. It really
> speeds up game play. Its difficult to use custom units (AFAIK), but it
> has quite a library of published designs.
Oh.
Okay, fine, you've satisfied my complaints. (Jerks. *grin*)
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/posts.html Skirv's Posts
Cra...@gmail.com
> Okay, fine, you've satisfied my complaints. (Jerks. *grin*)
You can find out more here:
http://megamek.sourceforge.net/idx.php?pg=main
Like I said, it's free. It does have an AI if you want to play alone;
supports internet play; supports network play; and supports "hotseat"
play for multiple players on one computer.
Its helped revive my BT games because it is quite faster than
pen-and-pencil BT. The computer handles all the little rules.
Mike Miller
marshl...@yahoo.com
news:1144716314.6...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
But....Are they actually going to FIX all the inanities that FASA introduced
with Clan-Tech? Or even advanced tech for that matter?
Stuff like 16x1.12 for FF armor instead of just 18.
Clan Ultra cannons being more compact than LBs despite LBs being
specifically more compact.
yada...yada...
Oh yeah, and ditching the idiotic .25 ton is LVL3 rule. except, unless....
Cra...@gmail.com
> But....Are they actually going to FIX all the inanities that FASA introduced
> with Clan-Tech? Or even advanced tech for that matter?
Some inanities in game play will be fixed as they can without
significantly altering the game. Also, what you consider inanities
aren't necessarily recognized as such by the writers or the crowd of
playtesters.
Further, Total War isn't a new ruleset like DnD 3.0 vs 2.0, or SR4 vs
SR3. As such, stats of equipment is not going to change because there's
no way in hell you'll convince FanPro to rewrite every Technical
Readout affected by new stats for old gear. All your old tech readouts,
record sheets, and Heavy Metal software should remain
forward-compatible with the new game.
Mike Miller
Sebastian Brocks
> Tim Skirvin wrote:
>> Okay, fine, you've satisfied my complaints. (Jerks. *grin*)
>
> You can find out more here:
>
> http://megamek.sourceforge.net/idx.php?pg=main
>
> Like I said, it's free. It does have an AI if you want to play alone;
> supports internet play; supports network play; and supports "hotseat"
> play for multiple players on one computer.
You could also ask me, I'm one of the admins. Just an hour ago, I
released a new development version with support for most of the
equipment from MapPack: Solaris VII.
And for custom mechs, they work just fine. You can even use the files
generated by Heavy Metal Pro, or The Drawing Board (if you have a recent
verison and export the file to XML).
greetings, Sebastian
Cra...@gmail.com
> And for custom mechs, they work just fine. You can even use the files
> generated by Heavy Metal Pro, or The Drawing Board (if you have a recent
> verison and export the file to XML).
Cool! How do you use HMP mechs? My clumsy editing attempts on existing
files wasn't working well.
Mike Miller
Sebastian Brocks
> Cool! How do you use HMP mechs? My clumsy editing attempts on existing
> files wasn't working well.
You just stick them in the data/mechfiles folder, MegaMek should read
them automatically.
marshl...@yahho.com
news:1144877832.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> marshl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> But....Are they actually going to FIX all the inanities that FASA
>> introduced
>> with Clan-Tech? Or even advanced tech for that matter?
>
> Some inanities in game play will be fixed as they can without
> significantly altering the game. Also, what you consider inanities
> aren't necessarily recognized as such by the writers or the crowd of
> playtesters.
>
You really think having .25 ton lots being level 3, yet still having .25 ton
weapons and equipment in level 2 isnt inane?
> Further, Total War isn't a new ruleset like DnD 3.0 vs 2.0, or SR4 vs
> SR3. As such, stats of equipment is not going to change because there's
> no way in hell you'll convince FanPro to rewrite every Technical
> Readout affected by new stats for old gear. All your old tech readouts,
> record sheets, and Heavy Metal software should remain
> forward-compatible with the new game.
>
Really? They did just that when they made .25 tons level 3. It took a 3 page
errata sheet to make the changes.
Changing Ultra's crits would significantly effect only a handful of 'mechs.
If you go the other way and just reduce the LB's, you would only need to
list the units that have them.
Making FF easy to use would only add a couple pts to most units and easily
be added to the errata list for the .25ton change.
Its not that hard, and I dont even get paid for it.
Cra...@gmail.com
> You really think having .25 ton lots being level 3, yet still having .25 ton
> weapons and equipment in level 2 isnt inane?
I didn't say that. However, I don't share your opinion about LBXs vs
UACs.
LBX autocannons are not currently fluffed as being compact in the BMR.
In fact, LBX autocannons were specifically made of "light, heat
dissipating alloys." You know the problem with lighter alloys trying to
match the performance of heavier, denser ones? The structures end up
bigger and thicker because of the lower density. For example, an
aluminum vehicular armors are three times as thick as steel armor of
the same performance.
> If you go the other way and just reduce the LB's, you would only need to
> list the units that have them.
No, you don't just have to "list the units that have them." You also
need to correct the official tournament-legal record sheets, correct
future printings of the TROs, and alter the official construction
software.
FanPro is currently getting beat up on forums for not providing
official record sheets, or at least Heavy Metal files, for TR:3055-U
units. By altering the crits on equipment, you'd invalidate the record
sheets of every mech carrying the gear (and omnis seem to love UACs and
LBXs), putting FanPro back to square one over a minor fluff
interpretation issue.
http://www.heavymetalpro.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13805
Frankly, the easier fix is to retcon the flavor text about LBXs and
UACs, not rewrite the stats.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Cra...@gmail.com
Sebastian Brocks wrote:
> You just stick them in the data/mechfiles folder, MegaMek should read
> them automatically.
I seem to recall finding that protected previously. MegaMek will read
HMP files you stick in there?
Mike Miller
Sebastian Brocks
> I seem to recall finding that protected previously. MegaMek will read
> HMP files you stick in there?
Definately. It might have some problems with way-out-there mixed-tech
'Mechs (some equipment on them might not load), but generally, they work
very good.
Tim Skirvin
>> Okay, fine, you've satisfied my complaints. (Jerks. *grin*)
> You can find out more here:
> http://megamek.sourceforge.net/idx.php?pg=main
There has *got* to be a quick-start option in there.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/archives/ Skirv's Archives
William Ward
to reply to your problem that your forwarded to the moderators earlier
in the week, the message bounced back saying
Mail system error.
Recipient: <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Reason: Blacklisted site `[68.230.240.37]' [Irritated]
You might want to think about changing email providers,
since that came from my normal email....
Bill Ward
Co-Moderator
"David Damerell" <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:jtB*wn...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
marshl...@yahho.com
news:1144957798.5...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> marshl...@yahho.com wrote:
>> You really think having .25 ton lots being level 3, yet still having .25
>> ton
>> weapons and equipment in level 2 isnt inane?
>
> I didn't say that. However, I don't share your opinion about LBXs vs
> UACs.
>
Its not my opinion. Its how the original weapons were statted.
The UAC/5 went +1/+1
The LB 10-X went -1/-1
Somehow, in translation to clan tech(and for some reason the filler stats on
the IS cannons) the stats changed to UAC -2/-2, LB -2/-1.
Which makes no sense AND screwed up all forms of balance between the weapon
systems.
> LBX autocannons are not currently fluffed as being compact in the BMR.
> In fact, LBX autocannons were specifically made of "light, heat
> dissipating alloys." You know the problem with lighter alloys trying to
> match the performance of heavier, denser ones? The structures end up
> bigger and thicker because of the lower density. For example, an
> aluminum vehicular armors are three times as thick as steel armor of
> the same performance.
>
Thats true...except that LBs are short barreled 'shotguns' and UACs are long
barreled with SuperHD auto-loaders.
>> If you go the other way and just reduce the LB's, you would only need to
>> list the units that have them.
>
> No, you don't just have to "list the units that have them." You also
> need to correct the official tournament-legal record sheets, correct
> future printings of the TROs, and alter the official construction
> software.
>
Again, they've done it before. And if this is supposed to be a major rules
streamlining(more along the lines of 3.0 to 3.5), invalidating or retconing
should be expected.
> FanPro is currently getting beat up on forums for not providing
> official record sheets, or at least Heavy Metal files, for TR:3055-U
> units. By altering the crits on equipment, you'd invalidate the record
> sheets of every mech carrying the gear (and omnis seem to love UACs and
> LBXs), putting FanPro back to square one over a minor fluff
> interpretation issue.
> http://www.heavymetalpro.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13805
>
> Frankly, the easier fix is to retcon the flavor text about LBXs and
> UACs, not rewrite the stats.
>
> Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
The easiest would have been to actually have someone paying attention when
the stats were originally released. But this isnt the only mess that FASA
left for FanPro.
Sebastian Brocks
> There has *got* to be a quick-start option in there.
What do you mean?
Just host a new game, add your units, add a bot (or let a second player
connect), add units for him (if it's a bot) or let him add his units,
and start.
Tim Skirvin
You see, that's what I mean - that's not a quick start. I loaded
up the game, poked around a bit, and gave up without understanding how
anything worked. I should have been offered a tutorial mode, at least,
either a sample fight (either balanced or remarkably *not* balanced) or,
if possible, a simple "how to start" document.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/resume.html Skirv's Resume
Sebastian Brocks
> I should have been offered a tutorial mode, at least,
> either a sample fight (either balanced or remarkably *not* balanced) or,
> if possible, a simple "how to start" document.
You didn't get the popup after the first start about opening readme.txt?
That document contains answers to all of your questions.
Tim Skirvin
Yeah, and I followed it; and even following that advice didn't
make it easy enough for me.
Look - I know that, given enough effort, I could decipher the
software and become a proper model user. And I also know that this is an
open-source project, where if I have gripes I should be expected to help
out with them instead. But, quite simply, the program was opaque enough to
me at first glance that I simply closed it, with no intention of trying
again in the near future.
I'm not saying the program is bad; I'm just saying that it's not
user-friendly enough for a newbie to use. That's a problem, but not one
unique to your software...
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/cows/ Skirv's Cows
Sebastian Brocks
> But, quite simply, the program was opaque enough to
> me at first glance that I simply closed it, with no intention of trying
> again in the near future.
That's too bad, but from my point of view, I don't see the opaqueness.
What's opaque about clicking "Host a new game" to start a new game?
What's opaque about clicking "Add Unit" to get a unit with which to fight?
What's opaque about clicking the "Configure" tab to configure the game,
including the map used, the starting position, possible bot players etc.?
I don't want to be antagonistic, I just want to make MegaMek better.
Cra...@gmail.com
Sebastian Brocks wrote:
> That's too bad, but from my point of view, I don't see the opaqueness.
It's there. I had to bumble and stumble around with it, too.
> What's opaque about clicking "Host a new game" to start a new game?
Well, I usually look for words like "Start" or just "New Game." Adding
"host" to the usual terms adds all sorts of implications.
Sure, I "host" gaming groups for table top games at my apartment, and I
"host" parties, but "hosting" in computer speak has special internet
configuration setting IT confusion implications to it. When I click on
"host a new game," am I going to end up doing all sorts of network
hosting things?
That's why it's opaque to me.
> What's opaque about clicking "Add Unit" to get a unit with which to fight?
Add a merc unit, add a mech, add a tank? What kind of unit are you
talking about? The button is opaque.
How about replacing "Select Unit" with something clearer, like "Select
Mechs and Other Combatants" for a tab header?
> What's opaque about clicking the "Configure" tab to configure the game,
Configure what? Am I configuring those "host" settings, internet
connections, proxy settings, the AI settings, what's being configured?
The single word "Configure" has so many meanings that without detail
it's, well, opaque. It does nothing to encourage me to click on that
tab.
How about "Configure Game" or "Set up Game/Scenario"?
> I don't want to be antagonistic, I just want to make MegaMek better
Then put some pop-up explanations over the buttons. Give a handy help
button that tells you, from a pen-and-pencil perspective, how to start
a basic L1 or L2 game, then how to get more complicated.
Like the help file...wow. It needs help.
The intro is okay, but the first thing after that is computer speak of
no use to anyone who got the easily-installed game up and running.
Suggestion: Add a Table of Contents, or an ordered list of help topics
before discussing anything other than the Intro.
Next into the Help file, there's the Playing the Game section. It's
just bad. I'm told all these options of what I CAN do, but little on
HOW to do them. Great, I can chat, specify mechs to use, select map
settings, then play when everyone hits ready...HOW? And when I'm told
how, like in the second paragraph on maps, I'm not told that some basic
WHAT/WHY information, like that the maps being referred to are copies
of standard Map Set BT maps and that I can mix and match them as I
like. Instead, again, I'm given options with no context and how to do
them.
Suggestion: ...After reviewing the Help file some more, nevermind
rewriting it. Add a new help file, a tutorial that steps a person
through the commands to create a standard BT game. That would put the
game options in context. They can then refer to the current help file
for how to use the commands.
Game Play suggestion: offer a "cancel move" option. I sometimes click
in the wrong place and get a completely mixed up path.
Other suggestions: use some normal computer game terms in the menu.
Instead of "Host a New Game," and "Host a Saved Game," and "Host a
Scenario," try just "New Game," "Load Saved Game," and "New Scenario."
Mike Miller
Cra...@gmail.com
marshl...@yahho.com wrote:
> Which makes no sense AND screwed up all forms of balance between the weapon
> systems.
We're just going to have to disagree there. It's just one imbalance
among many as L2 weapons were introduced. And since the weapons work
fine within the rules, the amount of effort needed to alter the stats
isn't worth the trouble.
> Thats true...except that LBs are short barreled 'shotguns' and UACs are long
> barreled with SuperHD auto-loaders.
First, can you quote the short barrel/long barrel anywhere in the BMR?
Or even TR:2750?
Second, can you show that LBX weapons other than the original Star
League LB10X were meant to be short barreled? Book and page numbers,
please.
> Again, they've done it before.
When there were fewer TROs and Record Sheets to correct.
> And if this is supposed to be a major rules
> streamlining(more along the lines of 3.0 to 3.5)
The degree of change involved is not significant enough to warrant the
change of existing weapon stats. New weapons, yes. Altering old ones
isn't going to happen.
As for messes left for FanPro, it's not exactly a mess worth losing
sleep over. The weapons work within the setting. The only thing
disturbed is some aesthetics.
Mike Miller
Sebastian Brocks
>> What's opaque about clicking "Host a new game" to start a new game?
>
> Well, I usually look for words like "Start" or just "New Game." Adding
> "host" to the usual terms adds all sorts of implications.
>
> Sure, I "host" gaming groups for table top games at my apartment, and I
> "host" parties, but "hosting" in computer speak has special internet
> configuration setting IT confusion implications to it. When I click on
> "host a new game," am I going to end up doing all sorts of network
> hosting things?
>
> That's why it's opaque to me.
The problem is that you are starting a network host, and we need to
differentiate between the player startin the host, and the other player
sitting in front of his PC possibly on the other side of the globe, who
then has to connect to that host.
>> What's opaque about clicking "Add Unit" to get a unit with which to fight?
>
> Add a merc unit, add a mech, add a tank? What kind of unit are you
> talking about? The button is opaque.
It used to be "Add Mek", but then we added infantry, and tanks, and
protomechs and stuff, and felt that "Add Mek" was no longer appropriate.
> How about replacing "Select Unit" with something clearer, like "Select
> Mechs and Other Combatants" for a tab header?
Suggestion noted, but that much text does not fit into the button.
> How about "Configure Game" or "Set up Game/Scenario"?
That's a very good suggestion.
> Game Play suggestion: offer a "cancel move" option. I sometimes click
> in the wrong place and get a completely mixed up path.
That's already there, there just is no button for it.
Press the Esc button to cancel a whole move, or the backspace button to
do it step-by-step.
> Other suggestions: use some normal computer game terms in the menu.
> Instead of "Host a New Game," and "Host a Saved Game," and "Host a
> Scenario," try just "New Game," "Load Saved Game," and "New Scenario."
We somehow need to differentiate between connecting to an existing host,
and starting one. I don't think this can be done without
"network-speak", but I am open to suggestions.
thanks for your ideas, Sebastian
Cra...@gmail.com
> > How about replacing "Select Unit" with something clearer, like "Select
> > Mechs and Other Combatants" for a tab header?
>
> Suggestion noted, but that much text does not fit into the button.
The button's size is that fixed?
> We somehow need to differentiate between connecting to an existing host,
> and starting one. I don't think this can be done without
> "network-speak", but I am open to suggestions.
"Create New Game," "Load Saved Game," "Create New Scenario," "Join a
Game," "Add a Computer Player."
Mike Miller
Sebastian Brocks
> Sebastian Brocks wrote:
>> > How about replacing "Select Unit" with something clearer, like "Select
>> > Mechs and Other Combatants" for a tab header?
>>
>> Suggestion noted, but that much text does not fit into the button.
>
> The button's size is that fixed?
No, but it would mess up the layout if we made it that large.
>> We somehow need to differentiate between connecting to an existing host,
>> and starting one. I don't think this can be done without
>> "network-speak", but I am open to suggestions.
>
> "Create New Game," "Load Saved Game," "Create New Scenario," "Join a
> Game," "Add a Computer Player."
Those are very good suggestions, I'll include them right away.
Robotech_Master
so forth, you might check out Megamek.NET--another open source project
that puts Megamek in a campaign setting chatroom wrapper where you can
set up games with people in other factions. It's a lot of fun.
--
Chris Meadows aka | Homepage: http://www.terrania.us
Robotech_Master |
robo...@eyrie.org | Earn a free iPod and a free Mac Mini!
| http://www.terrania.us/conga.html
Winston Salem
<dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Quoting Jason A <mongo...@netscape.net>:
>>Anyone still here?
>> From any mecha game?
>>Or should I turn out the lights when I leave?
I've never stopped lurking, just posting.
willi...@cox.net
news:o4rl32dmkof6mftgu...@4ax.com...
And I'm still here moderating.
But don't you think 49 weeks is a bit long to wait to reply to the message?
There does seem to have been a slight uptick in messages over the last few
weeks, though.
Of course, nothing like the Heyday, back when we got 200+ messages PER DAY.
And all, or at least most, tangentially on target (as opposed to the time
when we were getting thousands of messages a day, all saying "Meow").
Seamus
willi...@cox.net wrote:
> Of course, nothing like the Heyday, back when we got 200+ messages PER DAY.
> And all, or at least most, tangentially on target (as opposed to the time
> when we were getting thousands of messages a day, all saying "Meow").
I figured it'd be a good idea to archive some of the MechForce-to-BT
conversions (because the earlier versions of MechForce had no armor or
engine restrictions) here on Usenet.
I've already posted a couple, but there are still others.
And of course, there are my Macross-to-BT conversions.
Kai Lanio
>>>> Anyone still here?
>>>> Or should I turn out the lights when I leave?
>> I've never stopped lurking, just posting.
> And I'm still here moderating.
It gots ilent here
but still there is S ome pulse ;)
How about starting some faqs?
Sadly Several webpages are Going down or are allready Down?
Jason A
Tim Skirvin
> It gots ilent here
> but still there is S ome pulse ;)
Hey, I'm still reading. And I'm probably going to update the
moderation software lately to give us a better queue system and more
general power...
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/history/ Skirv's History
willi...@cox.net
with EvilNet's recent demise, you can't get them from there, either. I
suppose I can ask Rebecca to post them to the group or to put them up at one
of her websites. The real problem is the FAQ, posting guidelines, painting
guidelines, etc., were all made during a different era of RGM, where we were
literally having to go through large numbers of posts every day, as opposed
to the couple a week that are legitimate and need to be hand moderated
(Fritz still gets the ones that are SPAM, and does a pretty good job of it).
Of course, that said, I had to moderate and approve two posts this morning
just because of this thread.
I've been considering trying to repost some Golden Oldies posts from the
wayback time of hundreds of posts a day... old enough that I archived them
back when I was at NASA, and still doing the old Rare Mech Times. Back
then, most designs ended up being critiqued. I've got some designs I
considered "Cool" with the Fluff text archived.
Bill
"Kai Lanio" <La...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:4603f84b$0$6392$9b4e...@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
Kai Lanio
> I've been considering trying to repost some Golden Oldies posts from the
> wayback time of hundreds of posts a day... old enough that I archived them
> back when I was at NASA, and still doing the old Rare Mech Times. Back
> then, most designs ended up being critiqued. I've got some designs I
> considered "Cool" with the Fluff text archived.
Not all Critique is Bad ;)
Winston Salem
I posted that a LOONNNGGG time ago.
I miss the good old days.
Is Camille still around?
Her posts ( and acid wit ) were a must-read.
Sebastian Brocks
> Is Camille still around?
> Her posts ( and acid wit ) were a must-read.
She sometimes posts on the classicbattletech.com forum, but I haven't
seen anything of hers in here in a long time.
Winston Salem
Pity,
she was very amusing, and I tried to never mess with her.
She carried a big vibroaxe, and wasn't afraid to use it.
Mike Henry
trolling nut.
"Kai Lanio" <La...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:460a12d4$0$20289$9b4e...@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...