aramike

Dunno. I think I'll look at the games first. Console games have always been, well, limited. Not referring to graphics, either -- more like scope.

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: LOL!! Mike, now you know what I got through when one coding bad idea doesn't work. LOL! You ain't lyin'!

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: OK Macon, great! You're banned and gone for good. see ya!I just love threats. Who's next? [ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ] I'm going to take your damned game and PLAY IT! See if you can stop me! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

quote: Originally posted by $iLk: Settle down man, after all - there isn't that much on there that you wouldn't tell your friends.Anyhoo, perhaps it will be funny when "shirley" registers and puts as reason why he/she bought the game is because they just wanted access to the new forum. Derek, respectfully I don't think this measure will keep them out, they are insane and obsessive enough to pay for BCM just to say they hax0red into your new "secure" forum although your point would simply be: SC : "And now that I have your money shirley I am going to ban you... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" And that would be that. Of course they could lurk... but I doubt that's what they are doing now... as Shirley said on the VE boards - "I can post there" So I dunno... Yeah, $ilk, but I've got a plan for that...

Dang it, forget the pooling idea. That wasn't extremely thought-out on my part. The recruitment idea is primarily what I'm looking for discussion. Oh yeah, and it's only a proposal looking for points of view.

quote: Originally posted by Cmdr Nova: How 'bout us that like our fleet? (Ep5 asked this earlier, IIRC)I joined Orion Fleet because I was given an offer. I was asked, I thought about it, then I said yes. I joined Orion fleet and I wouldn't appreciate it if I were moved.... That's just me, though. Don't like the pool idea. Nay, for me. Perhaps we should just purge the inactives, wait for the fresh BCM Newbie Recruit flood, double check the numbers and adjust as needed. First use the people that are volunteering/requesting to move. After volunteers, then we could work out a pool, or transfer system of some sort. Prime Fleet is currently thinking of 'dontating' some of their commanders to ISS. Let's just hope they're active. Did you miss half the thread along with the thread title? No one would be REMOVED from their current stations except as needed (which is already going to happen).

quote: Originally posted by Blades: *Ahem*Excuse me? Are you kidding? This has to rate as one of the worst ideas in the history of bad ideas. Ok, maybe thats a little harsh but here are my reasons all the same. While it may be a good idea to pool commanders from some fleets to help even things out, there is no way in hell I would ever agree to such a thing with my own organisation. Primary reasons being that I've spent the better part of two years building this fleet up to what it is and would be pissed beyond recognition if I had my people dispersed to fill the gaps in other fleets. That takes away all of the accomplishments of my fleet and the people who have served under me for all this time. It would be like punishing someone for being successful. That is dangerous if you ask me. I admit, If I were in the same position as some (if not all) of the other fleet commanders, I would probably welcome an influx from other sources. However, im not in that position because I have a healthy number of commanders, and do not want to divide them up and have them drafted to other fleets. I am against this 100%. A more sensible solution is to improve the recruitment efforts of the other fleets. This is somthing we at Orion are already trying to do, and have been doing with other ventures recently. (To those in the know, does J.O.C ring any bells?!?) Anyway, panic attack over for the time being. I eagerly anticipate strongly worded responses in this thread. *Ahem* It wouldn't REQUIRE your fleet or personnel to be disbanded. It would require SOME people to be moved around (as is going to happen ANYWAY, if you've been reading the threads). And look at the topic of this thread: RECRUITMENT PROPOSAL. Now if you'd like to tell me WHAT purpose it would serve for ONE fleet to have the MOST members, thus being the fleet to have the most GAME say? And when THAT happens, NO ONE will go into OTHER fleets. That is why ALL recruits should go where they are NEEDED, ACCORDING TO ALLIANCE. When I said to "pool" the existing personnel, I did NOT mean to remove them from their fleets, I meant to see who is where and move them where they are NEEDED. So calm the heck down! quote: Simple, I chose Orion for a reason, as it was where I wanted to serve. I passed Prime, because I thought they had enough Commanders, ISS is not where I wanted to be, and Wraith just didn't fit my liking, Insurgent or Earthcom, I was not.Uhm ok.... Under the NEW system, recruits would choose GALCOM, EARTHCOM, or INSURGENT. They'd then be organized into the main battlefleets (Prime, Orion, for example). The specialized fleets would then pull their people from these, if they are up to muster. That seems pretty REALISTIC, but, more IMPORTANTLY, it would be BALANCED. [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: Originally posted by $iLk: We could do like we did in kindergarden and place all non FC commanders into a pool and take turns picking (NOTE: INSURGENTS and GALCOM into different pools) UCV are seperate and can be whatever.SO in Galcom Pool you have what, 4 FC's? so they take turns picking 1 apiece until pool is empty. Of course to make this work you would have to purge the FDB except for FC's... WARNING: ONLY A DRASTIC MEASURE in the event of INACTIVE COMMANDERS. Oh the insanity... Actually, it would first require a fleet size prognosis. Shouldn't Prime have more than ISS? So, we'd come up with some relative sizes for each fleet. Then, we simply move who we have. As more commanders sign up, they go where they are needed.

I've been reading up on the disparities between fleet personnel levels, and thought I'd throw another alternative in there. Note: This is from the Aramike perspective, not an Insurgent's perspective. As of this moment (just when through the recruits), we have 219 people registered in the fleet DB. Out of those, 184 are in actual organized fleets (the remainder are undesignated). Looking at the fleet lists, there are some with tons of commanders, others with next to nil. Many of those are from the same alliance, which makes the problem even more ironic. I propose this: first, all alliances purge the DB of the elusive ghost commanders, who aren't actually active. They don't need to be in there to screw up our counts. After that is complete, ALL alliance personnel should be placed into a SINGLE POOL (this does not include Fleet and Wing commanders). From that pool, those people should be assigned evenly to all fleets. After this is complete, ALL future recruits would be ALLIANCE recruits. Then the powers-that-be would work together to figure out who needs who. EDIT: Or, as an alternative, the fleets are just evened out as need. Advantages: -Not only would this even out the fleet numbers, it would also be more realistic. If someone enlists in the Navy, they generally don't pick what fleet they want in. Rather, they generally only get to pick the service. -Fleets would be further equalized, causing a more even-handed gaming experience. -This would encourage activity between fleets and their personnel, as each recruit would require an assessment as to where he's needed. Disadvantages: -Some people will ***** about not being assigned where they want to. What do you all think? [ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: All fleet leaders need to send out an advisory to all members. If you don't hear from someone within, say, a week, delete them from the Roster.And the issue of transfering members from fleet to fleet, should be a co-operative effort between both FCs. If there is a conflict, I'll step in and bang some heads. Heh, boss, I had 2 Insurgent fleets do that two months ago.

OK, I've finally broken my VE silence. I've read TONS of flame wars on there previously, but finally the allure of harsh bickering took over. Ah, and it felt sweet.

You're at the VERY bottom of the system requirements. Personally, on that machine with Windows running I doubt you'll ever get the game to run smoothly. At any rate, if you can't find it in the FAQ or on this forum, odds are there isn't an answer. BC legacy products are no longer officially supported. And hey -- they're free.

Retired from the world of business. I think I deserve an early retirement.

quote: Originally posted by R_wilco: Now for my say...(I really hope I don't come off as a trekkie for saying this...) Anyone remember an episode of DS9 where they accidentaly go back in time to the classic star trek episode,"The Troubles with Tribbles"? They look at the klingons with very, very small head-ridges, someone says something like,"THAT'S a KLINGON?? but...but..his head!!" Worf says," It is a long story, we prefer not to speak of it...." My point: AHA! THEY SCREWED UP!! That implies that BEFORE A CERTAIN POINT Klingons did NOT have head ridges. And what am I seeing on this klingon they picked up from Earth?? Gee.... Otherwise, I thought the show was overall good, as pilots go, liked the vulcan chick, despite the fact that it's too cliche, and I thought some of the technology looked too advanced. The transporter, for example. Looked nothing like the transporters in the classic series, or even the movies for that matter. One last thing. REAL trekkies will recognize a ship called the "Akira" class, an awesome warship comparable to our Battlecruiser Mk. 3. But, the "enterprise" looks almost exactly like it, except that the nacelles are up instead of down. -EDIT Like my sig. says,"D'oh!!" I really ought to notice how many pages there are in a thread FIRST [ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: R_wilco ] I think that it was nothing but an inside joke. At any rate, it's FICTIONAL ENTERTAINMENT.

*Sigh* Just when you thought there'd never be an adult-oriented thread on this board... And based upon Star Trek, no less.

quote: Originally posted by Badgerius: I don't think it's a database bug, since entering double apostrophes ('') fixes it. It sounds like an HTML limitation. Anyway, there is a workaround. HTML doesn't return syntax errors. It's a problem with the PHP script that's reading the apostrophe as page syntax.

One thing I've got to say: Yes, the ship looks more modern than the original episodes and the Klingons have some headwork. But COME ON! This is TELEVISION, for the love of God. Now that they can do a WHOLE lot more with special effects, LET THEM. It's a LOT more entertaining that way. Heck, don't you think they would have with the original if they could have? If you're going to nitpick on that, they may as well make it so you NEVER see who the Enterprise is shooting at (like the original show), make the ship model shake like crazy when its on screen, etc, etc, et al. Now that they can do more, let them. Again, this is only entertainment. Take it for what it is. [ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

Moved to Legacy discussions.

Moved to Legacy discussions.

*Sigh* About to send you a private message with your username and password in it. Write it down this time. Oh, and you weren't even CLOSE.

Time to chime in... First, I have to say that I rarely liked anything Star Trek after the original series. Some of the Next Generation shows were enjoyable, and I watched those sporatically. I occassionally caught a glimpse of the other series but I HATED them -- too much melodrama, same things over and over again. Nothing spectacular and it certainly lost its adventurous edge. The Next Generation was pretty good in that it was the combination of the LATTER two series. It had the politics of Deep Space Nine and more adventurism than Voyager could even begin to have. Now, as for this new series, I REALLY liked it. The characters seemed more, uh, human than the last two series. They seemed to gel well and the adventurism is totally new. The special effects were way beyond anything done in earlier shows and the show was much more upbeat. I wasn't bored in this one as I was often in the others. And it wasn't as gratuitously and ridiculously philosophical as the other shows. Cheers for a good Trek show, finally. [ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: WTF?!?!?Did anyone notice that the 7 page Gold related threads is missing? Did someone delete it? [ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ] I was wondering that... Dunno. Try rebuilding forum stat file, may have fallen off index page. I'd do it but I'm on my laptop and don't have necessary addresses.

quote: Addendum:Jesus aramike have you been up all night? LOL! Yeah, I have work to do, a sick little girl, and an extremely exhausted wife. No rest for the weary.

quote: Originally posted by Menchise: OK. My arguments have been rebutted quite well so far. So, could someone tell me their opinion on why there is so much anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, including millions of Pakistanis who are calling Bin Ladin a "great man"? So far, the only explanations that I recall at the moment are the statements made by Bush and Blair at the start of the crisis, which, in my opinion (if that still means anything ), are best described as "hot air". Well, the primary reason is truly religion. If you read up on many of those nations, you'll see that most have "arabization" programs in place. Many of the citizen-leaders don't want ANYONE around that is not muslim in faith. The governments aren't the problem in this regard -- the people are, due to the attraction of militant factions (which can be easily correlated to the following of the Islam religious teachings by decent spin doctors). As a result of this, many factional-type militant governments have popped up, such as the Taliban. In that part of the world, religion is the greatest driving force so those who play to people's desire to practice faith are the ones who are heard. Unfortunately, the militants are the ones who scream loudest. Those militants, as a result, are HIGHLY anti-Jew in their sentiments. They do not want anyone in the area that does not share their faith, which is why Isreal must be well-armed. As for what Bush and Blair have said, those are highly factual statements. Research it for yourself, if you don't believe me. Middle-eastern terrorism is mostly based upon religious virtues, and they preach racial cleansing. That is not an Islamic teaching, that is a teaching that comes from extremist interpretations. Oil has little to do with ANYTHING in the area, as there are relatively few nations that actually produce any. OPEC isn't governed by most of the mid-east. Oil was just brought to light due to the Gulf War conflict.

My question is, would this thing allow you to continue using alternative graphics cards (PCI)? Edit: Nevermind. Doesn't look like I'd still be able to use the old Voodoo card. Looked good otherwise, but I need a 3D accelerator. It says it has an "integrated 3D accelerated VGA" onboard, but who the hell knows what that is EXACTLY? [ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]