| www.ClassicTW.com https://mail.black-squirrel.com/ |
|
| Which do we prefer as a community https://mail.black-squirrel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12244 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Strider_2001 [ Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here is the debated question....Which is better .55 with bugs and globals or .56 without some of the major bug ex bubble but no globals...Come on lets get some feed back and see what people really think. Strider |
|
| Author: | Res Judicata [ Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I want to be able to RUN Plocks with protection I cant do this any more THIS is a BIG BIG MISTAKE IMHO. I would hold a Pwarp lock, then get on FED COM or HAIL or SUB now I cant do this. I think this is a BIG MESS. JP plz consider replacing the GLOBALS.... We cant even hid on a port any more with out timing out. THESE CHANGES are not GOOD for TW... Res Judicata |
|
| Author: | Res Judicata [ Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am sick with these changes... Being able to TALK ON COMS, from just about any PROMPT was vital to my playing STYLE. I am just sick, this is not an upgrade but a disaster |
|
| Author: | Marduk [ Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thats funny Res .. I can hide on a port in .56 without timing out. Perhaps you should stick with the "no comms at the plock prompt" arguement .. you're starting to sound like Wildstar. |
|
| Author: | Traitor [ Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I like the changes in .56 so far. You can still hide on a port and not timeout. You can still maintain a lock and not timeout. |
|
| Author: | Marduk [ Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It seems that the only one who cant is Res. Comms aren't a necessity so if thats all it takes for Res to pansie out then he's a lot less of a player than originally thought. |
|
| Author: | Kavanagh [ Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
With respect, your post is ad hominem, it merely attacks another player without stating your point of view clearly. Reduced, you stated: "Comms aren't a necessity". Do you have more to contribute to the discussion or would you care to elaborate ? quote:Originally posted by Marduk It seems that the only one who cant is Res. Comms aren't a necessity so if thats all it takes for Res to pansie out then he's a lot less of a player than originally thought. |
|
| Author: | Didaskalos [ Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i'll elaborate for him. you're an annoying little twit. reduced, you said 'i'm a dumbass that acts like a child and tries to get people to argue.' |
|
| Author: | Kavanagh [ Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
grin. Is that adressed to me? quote:Originally posted by Didaskalos i'll elaborate for him. you're an annoying little twit. reduced, you said 'i'm a dumbass that acts like a child and tries to get people to argue.' |
|
| Author: | Rofellos [ Wed Feb 11, 2004 12:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Many corps I have played with like to use other messengers liek ICQ anyway. It makes sure there are no wrong com messages and lets you knwo when you have a message with a sound or flashing. Just a thought. |
|
| Author: | Strider_2001 [ Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Good point i rarley talk on comms i 90% of time use ICQ because i am paranoid that someone is listening in but at the same time it is a hassle to have to open another window. |
|
| Author: | Res Judicata [ Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
quote:Originally posted by Marduk It seems that the only one who cant is Res. Comms aren't a necessity so if thats all it takes for Res to pansie out then he's a lot less of a player than originally thought. Hey Marduckie I got your pansie hanging.... To even state comms arent a necessity shows your true worth to a corporation. NIL Res Judicata |
|
| Author: | Dr-Doog [ Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
quote:Originally posted by Res Judicata quote:Originally posted by Marduk It seems that the only one who cant is Res. Comms aren't a necessity so if thats all it takes for Res to pansie out then he's a lot less of a player than originally thought. Hey Marduckie I got your pansie hanging.... To even state comms arent a necessity shows your true worth to a corporation. NIL Res Judicata It would seem that you have already shown your worth. Posting all over EIS how you are done just because you cannot talk **** on fed com. All that says about you is that you are all mouth. By the way... did you figure our Mr. Mead's riddle? How you could help improve TWGS? I have not seen you ask around, but what I beleive he was hinting too was for you to stop paying your isp. That should do the trick. |
|
| Author: | Tradewarrior55 [ Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ok back to the topic. my vote .55. Its easy to Trash Res he puts a big target on his back. But he is right, they dropped the ball with this fix. Hey it happens, not saying it was intentional, doesn't really matter if it it was, the end result is still the same. In my opinion it set the game back. |
|
| Author: | Marduk [ Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ok then I'll rephrase. Comms at a plock prompt arent necessary. As far as i'm concerned if you lock yourself into a course of action comms can wait long enough for you to press y/n .. it's not my concern you cant ask your corpies for advice on which is the best for you to press. In reality in doesn't hurt my corp one bit that globals are disabled in some prompts .. I only have 2 scripts to alter because of it and my communication with my corp is hindered exactly 0%. Don't complain to me because you are to lazy or to stupid to find ways around the change. Before you're ignorant rantings I was neutral concerning the new update but now I'm all for it .. just because it seems to piss you off. and to Kavanagh .. my post states my views very clearly. (1)I can sit at a port w/o timing out as most everyone can .. except res it would seem. (2)Comms at the plock prompt aren't necessary. (3)Res is a pansie. (4)Res is an idiot. While I can see that points 3 and 4 could be mistaken for "argumentum ad hominem" clearly points 1 and 2 cannot. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|