SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

These are a few of my favorite games. Ever notice how all the good strategy games have interesting short acronyms? I've been playing mostly MOO3 lately, and of course, doing what I do best - making mods. =) Made a map for HOMM4 too that I thought was interesting.

I haven't played SE4 in a while now, and just downloaded the devnullmod. Wow. Geoschmo and Rollo, you guys are awesome! Considering getting back into SE4 again and maybe starting some modding again. There's so many new (and good!) changes to devnullmod though -- it will take me a bit to catch up =)

Anyway, just babbling and saying hi. Nice to see some familiar faces =)

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

Hey if your playing MOO3, can you post some of what you think are good points to the game. Strategies and other suggestions. I have posted a lot of negative things about the game and I would like someones point of view who enjoys it. I am interested in knowning if the game can be played and enjoyed and if so how you do it. I promise I will not debate the game in this thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I just want some positive feed back about the good points of the game. Thanks.

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, it's a struggle to enjoy MOO3, honestly. There's a couple reasons why I do:

1) I was a huge MOO2 fan. So there's some definite brand loyalty in there
2) I enjoy playing with numbers and modding. MOO3 is very moddable (much like SE4, in fact, but more obtuse about it)

Other than that, I mainly just am disappointed in it. The new patch that came out recently fixes a lot of my major gripes about UI, etc. and makes it at least playable.

If you really start digging into the data and read a lot of the Boards and FAQ's about how things work in the game, it can get interesting. The space combat faq made the game interesting again for me.

My biggest complaint about MOO3 is how much they hid behind the scenes. They give Users VERY little info on what's really going on and how to affect your empire. There's an incredibly complex engine hidden in that game, and in order to play it well, you need to understand what's going on inside the algorithms. Modding really helps me to do that (as it did in SE4 back when I made devnullmod originally =) ).

As for strategies, well, it all comes down to micromanagement, as it always does. People complain that all they do is hit "next turn". If you do, the game will run and your empire will do about as well as the AIs.

The key is keep a close eye on your planetary production queues and make intelligent ship designs. Be aggressive about attacking the AI or other players because it's hard to defend a system, even though orb bases and sysdef ships are much tougher than normal starships. They can be easily overwhelmed with moderate fleets.

Trade tech with AIs. It's actually possible with the new patch (they would always say no before). The AI in the new patch will actually attack once in a while now and is much more dangerous (yayyy! it was pitiful before). Make sure you keep a large amount of spies in reserve to protect against enemy spies (the economic spies are cheapest and protect as well as any other spy).

Specialize your planets. i.e. build minerals on very rich planets. Make farm planets where you can, bioharvesting planets are semi-rare. Make some industrial only planets that will become production powerhouses. Always build some recreation/gov/mil centers on your planets as morale is a serious problem later as overpopulation and enemy spies hit. Even then, you'll still have to occasionally move your oppressometer down and pump large amounts (sometimes ALL) of your cash into unrest control.

I'm not the best MOO3 player by far, but I'm getting better, especially now that I understand how ship designs work and how to make effective ones. The bulletin Boards help a lot with strategy, etc.

Anyway, not sure how glowing a review this was for MOO3. =) I enjoy it for my own quirky reasons, but I can understand why many, many people do not and are hugely, angrily disappointed with this game. *shrug*

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

I think one of the strongest aspects of Masters Of Orion 3 is the Multiplayer. I like the game because it is a challenge to enjoy and play, much like Rebellion was. Although Rebellion was a lot more fun.

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

Wow ! Devnullicus is alive ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Dis you try the AI Compain mod by JLS ?
It is a very fine piece of modding !

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

Actually, I have made the leap to MOO 3 with the release of the patch. I've been playing constantly for about a week now. The game is actually pretty good. What sucks rocks is the UI, which is ironic because they made so much hype about the 'cutting edge' UI during the development phase. There are jillions of things missing that we SE IV Users take for granted -- like statistics on how many of each ship class are in service, designs of enemy ships encountered in combat, ability to select particular types of 'events' reports out of your huge pile of notices at the start of each turn, and more. There is no way to turn off the in-game music fer cryin out loud! You have to just turn the volume down to where you can't hear it, but your CD keeps on spinning and using up your MTBF. Now that's an unfinished program! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

If you can find your way around all the jumping and swooping menu doodads to get at the game, it can be interesting. MOO 3 has it's own Version of 'neutrals' for example, called Magnate Races. Just like in SE IV, you can use other races to inhabit worlds your own race can't live on very comfortably. And when you build colony ships the colony will be of the same race as the dominant population on that world, so you can spread a particular race to particular worlds. Too bad there's no indication of what race dominates a planet on the main planet screen, so you have to go out of your way to a swooping dialog box and check before you queue up a colony ship. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Worlds are divided into 'regions' with differing characteristics instead of being one single homogenous zone. You can set what type of 'DEA' (economic zone) your regions have but everything else has to be done by the 'viceroy' AI. This gives planets a sort of 'SimCity Lite' feel. This is good, though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Unfortunately the little box that lists your regions on a planet is a tiny fraction of the screen space and hard to use. And why does everything have to be double-spaced to make the tiny window show even less information? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

The ship design window is a nightmare. I literally do not believe that they released a commercial game with a UI that primitive. It's literally worse than MOO 1. All the ship components are jumbled together in a single list with no set place for any of them. And they jump around as you add/remove things. The MOO 1 screen was better and the MOO 2 screen was vastly superior. Why didn't they look at it? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

In spite of the god-awful UI you still get a sense of the vastness of the universe being simulated in the 'black box' workings of the game. I'm still struggling to finish one game, but I guess the main reason for that is my refusal to accept the (broken) judgement of the AI for ship building. It does stupid things like assign battleships to tiny worlds that will take 20 turns to build them, while assigning ground units, ONE AT A TIME, to your main industrial centers that could build the battleships in 4 or 5 turns... SO I have to check all the build queues every turn to prevent stupid attacks.

Well, as you can see in every single paragraph here, it's a real love-hate situation. I sure hope the next patch is a massive UI revision as well as bug fixes...

[ June 20, 2003, 18:01: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

After reading about the new MoO3, I am very tempted to get the discs back out and give it another shot. But everyone describes it as something like love/hate...

I don't care for love/hate. I just might prefer to keep my broken heart and risk a lifetime of might-have-beens.

Yep, it's all over but the cryin'.

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

Hey Devnullicus http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ,
nice to have you back! I am very glad you like the Devnull Mod Gold. Geo and I tried hard to preserve the spirit of the mod (and I think we succeded), while updating and adding a few things. Most work has been done the the AI really and some of the changes to the data files have been done to make sure the AI can use the techs correctly.

The mod hasn't been updated for a while, but I am starting to get itchy fingers to implement a few of the suggestions from the DNM dicussion thread as well as make a new AI or two http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

Rollo

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

[quote]There is no way to turn off the in-game music fer cryin out loud! You have to just turn the volume down to where you can't hear it, but your CD keeps on spinning and using up your MTBF.[quote]

Copy the MUSIC FOLDER from the CD to /Master of Orion/GameDataSets/Classic_01/GameAssets/Common folder. Will stop CD spinning.

As for the ship design screens being a "nightmare". I agree they were a pain to use at first, but after using them quite a bit, they have become much easier to use & for multiplay very quick to design once you "get the hang of it". Not perfect, but then I haven't played a "perfect" game on a PC!

[ June 21, 2003, 08:09: Message edited by: eddieballgame ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is a really poor solution. A "no music" option in the game takes at most 2-3 minutes to code (if you are a slow coder).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be a great indication of extremely poor UI design. It should not require quite a bit of time and work for them to become any easier to use.

[ June 22, 2003, 10:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, don't pick on him, he never said it was a great way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is a really poor solution. A "no music" option in the game takes at most 2-3 minutes to code (if you are a slow coder).

Quote:

after using them quite a bit, they have become much easier to use

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be a great indication of extremely poor UI design. It should not require quite a bit of time and work for them to become any easier to use.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You have made it very, very clear that you perceive MOO3 to be one of the worst games ever made for a pc. No one can argue against your perceptions.
I will agree, there has been a lot of complaints about MOO3, many of these complaints have been addressed. Despite the "extra effort" needed to play this game, I find MOO3 very deep challenging, & fun. Thanks to the forums aiding in understanding this game, as well as "it's" moddability, MOO3 will probably survive for quite sometime.

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I wasn't picking on him, just MOO3 and QS. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You have made it very, very clear that you are willing to summarily dismiss all of it's multitude of problems and still claim it is a great game, when it is not. No one can argue against your perceptions. It goes both ways, you know.

I am sure that a few dozen patches down the road, the game will be decent. But it is not there yet. Of course, I assumed the same with Civ 3, and that never panned out. There is always hope though.

[ June 22, 2003, 17:59: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You may not have been picking on him directly, but you were picking on him, especially as the second post in this thread was a specific request for good reports on MOO3. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You have made it very, very clear that you are willing to summarily dismiss all of it's multitude of problems and still claim it is a great game, when it is not. No one can argue against your perceptions. It goes both ways, you know.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He at least didn't have the gall to imply that his perception is the only correct one, as you do: Eddieballgame said "I find MOO3 very deep challenging, & fun" (emphasis added) while you said "it is not" (empahsis added) - he qualifies things to show that it is his own opinion; you use no qualifiers, leaving things as implied absolutes, which denies the possibility that someone else could readonably have a different opinion. You appear to forget that "good" and "bad" when it comes to things designed for entertainment are entierly subjective.

[ June 22, 2003, 23:05: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

It is directly implied with every post made that what is stated in said post is the opinion of the poster with every post that is not obviously direct fact, such as stating that APBs do more damage than DUCs. This is why I do not add a lot of frivolous qualifiers such as "I think" or "it is my honest opinion that" to my Posts. Those qualifiers are implied by the very nature of this medium of communication. You are seeing implications where there are none.

It always amazes me when people that frequently post to forums fail to realize that Posts are opinions by default, not factual reports.

=0=

And now for a mostly disjoint subject. Do not take this as any sort of attempt to distract from anything. That is a direct absolute, by the way; no implications are necessary. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I'd make it a separate post but doing so would just pad my post count even more. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Apparently most of the other posters in this thread realize this (point in first section), as they also did not throw "I think" qualifiers onto their Posts. Look at BM's post for a good example. Not once does his post include any such qualifiers. It is filled with alleged "implied absolutes." I see no mention of this in your post Jack. Why is this? Why am I being singled out? Why do my Posts deserve special attack? Is it because you do not agree with me? I would hope not, but that is a very logical conclusion to be drawn from me being singled out here.

=0=

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only to you, my friend, only to you.

=0=

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, the irony. No, I was not picking on him at all. Why do you automatically assume that my disagreeing with his statements is a result of picking on him? That is an unwise assumption to make.

[ June 23, 2003, 02:52: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In your case, you were quoting him and directly contradicting, which is a different scenerio from stating your opinion on the subject at hand, as Baron Munchausen was doing. The format was one of 'no, you are wrong' rather than one of 'I disagree':
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You flat out contradicted him, rather than saying you disagree.

. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nah, BM's post was a different scenario, as I mentioned. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only to you, my friend, only to you.

=0=

Quote:

You may not have been picking on him directly, but you were picking on him, especially as the second post in this thread was a specific request for good reports on MOO3.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, the irony. No, I was not picking on him at all. Why do you automatically assume that my disagreeing with his statements is a result of picking on him? That is an unwise assumption to make.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm clearly not the only one who thought so - Mephisto mentioned it first, as I recall: <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Besides, you were saying outright that his solution was a bad one, offering no solution of your own, when he was trying to be helpful (to someone else, no less). How is that not picking on him?

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

You completley missed my points, you know.

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How so?

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

My main point was that Posts are statements of opinon, not factual reports. Do you agree or disagree with this?

[ June 23, 2003, 03:29: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Usually so - however, when specifically disagreeing with someone, especially via quoting, you are implying that the other person is objectively wrong when leaving out qualifiers that modify that nature.

Besides, you used the plural when you said I missed your points; that's only one.

Edit: And come to think of it - I did address that one a bit, I just didn't word it so that it was entierly obvious that I was addressing it: I mentioned that BM's case was a different scenerio and I talked about the format of your post.

[ June 23, 2003, 03:49: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

The presence or lack of direct quotes in a post is irrelevant. It is quite common to post implied opinions after a quote.

BM's post is not a different scenario (at least, not different enough in regard to this issue to be a relevant difference).

=0=

By the way, the "=0=" is a section break, as I thought I made very clear. Different sections were not parts of the same argument, and so should not have been bunched together. Please do not do that in the future. They were deliberately separated for a reason.

=0=

About "points"... I was giving out a free s? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Actually, you seem to have (marginally) addressed my other point(s), so... yeah...

=0=

Is there any point in continuing this? We have bloated down this thread enough already...

[ June 23, 2003, 03:49: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I just have to say this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You in no way indicated that the "=0=" were section breaks. You said the following at the beginning of the sentance that came after the first "=0=
. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">By no means did you make it "clear" that those were section breaks in the argument. Your simple statement of "And now for a mostly disjoint subject." does not say what the "=0=" were there for. You just indicated that you were moving onto another point.

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

Implication... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whie I suppose my wording when I said
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">may have been a bit poor, a direct quote is irrelevant; the relevancy comes from referring to another's post and contradicting that outright.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure it is - he was responding to Atrocities asking specifically for positive opinions (and he gave one), while you were criticising a workaround for a bug someone was complaining about. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What Ragnarok said, plus the fact that you referred to the first section from the second, so they clearly aren't too terribly separate. Besides, I was actually just running through your post and intserting</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">[/QB][/quote][quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
[QB]</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">anywhere I wanted to say something. I actually was treating them as seperate sections; you just didn't notice that.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I do belive this is the first time I have seen you directly admit a mistake - even as weak an admittal as it was. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure there is - it's fun; besides, I have said a few more things you might want to respond to. Also, I was editing a post of mine when you posted, and you may want to address it, so I'll repeat it here:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Edit: And come to think of it - I did address that one a bit, I just didn't word it so that it was entierly obvious that I was addressing it: I mentioned that BM's case was a different scenerio and I talked about the format of your post.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Also, you didn't address an earlier question of mine: <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[ June 23, 2003, 04:17: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">*bold portion inserted*

As stated previously, my post was a criticism of MOO3 and QS, not of Eddie or the workaround. It was a criticism of such a workaround being necessary, which is not at all a criticism of Eddie or picking on him, which is what started this whole line of argument.

=0=

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Obviously you have not read very many of my Posts, as I always admit I have made mistakes when I make them. Differences of opinion on subjective issues do not constitute mistakes (which is supported by things you have said previously in this thread, btw http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

=0=

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ack! So... are you my clone, or am I your clone? Hmm... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I am going to go with the former, as I registered over 1 year before you did. Pulling seniority on ya! Muahahahahah! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your later statement looked much more like you trying to duck an apparently valid observation that you were picking on Eddie; the original was (in my view, at least; apparently Mephisto's as well) you picking on Eddie. You appear to be trying to duck responsibility when you were called on it. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Obviously you have not read very many of my Posts, as I always admit I have made mistakes when I make them.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, you seem to usually just keep talking, getting into more and more obscure details, until the other person just gets tired and gives up. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ack! So... are you my clone, or am I your clone? Hmm... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I am going to go with the former, as I registered over 1 year before you did. Pulling seniority on ya! Muahahahahah! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You seem to have skipped the stuff that came after that....

Besides, there is more than just the one option of one of us being a clone of the other; there's also the possibility that two different people just happen to find some enjoyment from similar things; twins separated before memory can form; and possibly a few others I can't think of at the moment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ June 23, 2003, 04:54: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was not ducking responsibility, I was clarifying my statement. Am I not allowed to do that? I was not picking on Eddie, I was picking on MOO3 and QS. My statement should probably have stated that explicitly, but I was in a rush, so... sh*t happens.

Boy... I sure am starting to sound like a broken record. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That only happens when certain people refuse to accept my clarifications of less than optimally worded statements. When it is a situation in which I was wrong and not that I just worded something poorly, I always admit that I was wrong.

Also, ever heard of the filibuster? Keep on talking til they give up, and you win! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Note: this paragraph is a joke, not a serious response. It is in no way connected to my actual actions or reasons for posting things, just some more humor. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope. I included it in the first quote in that Last post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif A separate response would have been repetitive, so I did not write a second response.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But those options are no fun! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That only happens when certain people refuse to accept my clarifications of less than optimally worded statements. When it is a situation in which I was wrong and not that I just worded something poorly, I always admit that I was wrong.[/pb]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just for clarification, how many times has this occured? Can ANYBODY recall an instance when Fyron admitted error? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

EDIT: I reeeeeeeally need to start reading threads in their entirety (sp?) before replying to them... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ June 23, 2003, 05:45: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So ... are you saying it was actually an attempt at an apology? You may not have meant to, but you were picking on him.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You rarely say you are clarifying something you said earlier; you just contradict the person, saying you never said that (or similar, especially in instances when referring to a piece of information that was clearly implied (clearly as used in this instance: more than one person sees the implication of the statement)). For instance, in this thread, when Mephisto told you to stop picking on Eddie you just said:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You don't say you are clairifying a post; you don't say you didn't mean to come off the way you sounded; you just outright contradicted him, as though his observations aren't valid. However, it now appears that you assume everyone knows that you are clairifying an earlier post, when there isn't much in the your post to indicate that.

Sometimes you simply stop responding to portions of things; neither arguing against nor conceeding the point, moving on to other things which were mentioned instead. For example, something I have mentioned that you seem to have dropped:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whie I suppose my wording when I said

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth: In your case, you were quoting him and directly contradicting, which is a different scenerio from stating your opinion on the subject at hand, as Baron Munchausen was doing.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">may have been a bit poor, a direct quote is irrelevant; the relevancy comes from referring to another's post and contradicting that outright.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But those options are no fun! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Says you! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ June 23, 2003, 05:44: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

You are reading too deeply into things Jack...

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You're avoiding my points, Fyron.

[ June 23, 2003, 08:25: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

Note: Smilies disabled so this would post.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The closest I've seen him come was in the About BOB thread: <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Planet Bob (AKA New Earth), Kodos</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><hr>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><hr>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Did you see Andres' post right before yours?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><hr>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><hr>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm... well... umm... look over there! Its a distraction! *runs away*</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><hr>
He didn't actually admit it, even though there wasn't a way out of it. (Notes: intervening Posts removed to make it clearer; ordered as the printer-friendly view would make it.)

I did a search for Fyron's member number (1794) in the SEIV forum for "I'm wrong" and got two hits - neither of which was Fyron admitting he was wrong; they were both him quoting someone else. Further, "I'm" and "wrong" weren't connected; they didn't constitute a phrase.

So, I did a search for Fyron's member number in the SEIV forum again for "I am wrong" and got sixteen hits. The sixth (in the Converting Domed to No-Domed thread) resulted in this post:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, he doesn't admit he is wrong; he claims outdated information instead.

Another hit in the Revamping SEIV Ship Hull Sizes & Features thread yielded:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And what would you think they should weigh? 125 or 150?

Quote:

Concealed mount seems a little Uber. Tonnage 25%, structure 100%, and damage 90%? That is one hell of a damage ratio you're offering, and they can double as internal armour.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hmm... I may have reduced the wrong trait. The hit points are supposed to be 25%, not the space taken. The concealed weapon should take normal space.

Quote:

For the pre-fire bays, how are they working? have they tested out all right? I remember the problems with adjusting seeher range through mounts (it doesn't actually affect the characteristics of the seeker) but will the seeker launch even though it will wink out of existence?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They are designed against missile dancers and such. You can fire the seekers when they are out of range. The seekers move in, and hopefully hit them when they come in range to fire at you. If they are out of range when the seeker arrives at its max range (regardless of the mount), the seeker just disappears. No big loss, fire more! :) They would be more useful on Bases, which can't move to combat the missile dancing.

Quote:

Edit: P.S. I noticed that you aren't intending for the AI to use any of the special mounts. Are you planning to keep it that way? If not, how are you planning to balance it?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am not entirely sure. I might have them use the Heavy Mount because they can not react dynamically to a player using lots of emmissive or crystalline armor. The Heavy Mount is designed to combat such ships.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The portion of interest: "Hmm... I may have reduced the wrong trait."
It's about something he specifically did, and the most he will admit to is "May have" (the tenth hit on the search, by the way)

In none of the 16 hits on that search is Fyron saying "I am wrong." In the ones I don't mention here, he is saying that someone else is wrong, or "that is wrong" or he's quoting someone that uses the word "wrong" et cetera. It appears to be a sentence that hasn't passed his fingers in the SEIV forum.

[ June 23, 2003, 10:08: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

Jack, this is starting to go too far and is devolving into character assassination. I ask you to delete your previous post. If you refuse, then I ask a moderator to delete it (and then this one if a moderator deletes Jack's post).

[ June 23, 2003, 10:15: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How is it character assasination? You said: <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">All I did was dig up some of your old Posts where that wasn't the case. Anyone could repeat the search.

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

Its not entirely untrue that you have a problem with apologies or admitting you're wrong Fyron http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And censorship is not the correct way to deal with displeasing informations.

But you BOTH should stop it, right here. Before it gets worse.

[ June 23, 2003, 10:50: Message edited by: Roanon ]

Re: SE4, MOO3, and HOMM4
 

Ok, this thread has run it's course. I'm sutting it down now.

Geoschmo