1  ...  17  18  19  20  21  22  ...  42  |   Order by default

Jan 5, 2001, 2:15pm

[View Quote] > Not the same thing at all. Games where you can "level a mountain just by
> shooting at it" have that opportinity predefined within the level. AW places
> no such restrictions on the user, where they can build a mountain, delete
> it, replace it with a park bench, stick a pole in the middle of the park
> bench, build a house around the park bench and pole, delete the pole, etc.
> etc. etc. ... ad infinitum.

Good god you're fucking dense, grimble. First of all, AW doesn't even ALLOW shooting, jumping, or most other game environment interactions, so for you to say that AW places no restrictions on the user just shows you're even MORE clueless about AW and 3D games than I thought.

> As for games were you can build ... you can only build those things that are
> supported within the game and interaction with these "objects" is also
> restricted to what is supported within the game. AW provides an environment
> where there are very few rules, and therefore handles any activity in a
> generic manner. In the games you mention, the restrictions placed on the
> player represent the "fixed" aspects. You can only do what the game supports
> which falls well short of a user's capabilities in AW.

AW public building worlds don't allow building with ANYTHING, as you imply, but impose restrictions on unconvered land, the ground zero building limit radius, whether or not the world has an object registry, eminent domain rights, etc, etc.

> It is hardly surprising that these games perform so much better than AW due
> to the assumptions and subsequent shortcuts that can be made within the
> processing BECAUSE of these restrictions. With the generic nature of AW's
> concept, everything must be handled in a "correct" manner ... and that takes
> processing power. Here's an example (of the point - don't take it too
> literally regarding AW). Imagine a ten-pin bowling alley. The rules are
> strict here - if the ball hits the pins at a certain point, from a certain
> direction, the fixed starting position of the pins can be relied upon and
> the after-effects of the strike can be rapidly rendered BECAUSE of this
> fact. Now imagine the same bowling alley in AW ... where the pins can be put
> anywhere. Each object (e.g. the ball, the pins, etc.) must be handled
> discretely and all the impacts individually calculated and rendered before
> moving on to the next point in time (e.g. frame) because there are no
> assumptions that can be made. There is a massive overhead in handling
> real-world, flexible environments where rules are few and far between
> compared to those where the bounds of interaction are so limited.

You forget that AW has hardly any physics, and most 3D games don't have that detailed enough physics, but I'm sure if a 3D bowling game had an "alley/lane editor", the pins could be knocked down from whatever angle the designer wanted.

Stop acting so cluelessly inept and LEARN about things before attempting to communicate about them, eh? God damn.

[View Quote]

Jan 6, 2001, 4:42am

[View Quote] > Oh for F**ks sake......
>
[View Quote] And that's the problem, dipshit: AW ISN'Ta game, which is why it continues to flounder. AW has MUCH potential to be MORE gamelike, but Rick, JP, Roland, et al still don't get it.

> You would be scared of what I know pal!

<yawn> You haven't impressed me so far...

> are
> environment
> supports
> imply, but impose restrictions on unconvered land, the ground zero building
> limit radius, whether or not the world has an object registry, eminent
> domain rights, etc, etc.
>
> You're getting pedantic now ... running out of sound arguments? ... and you
> CAN build with anything ... in your own world. MAKE the object, USE the
> object. Pretty simple to understand I would have thought. What game allows
> you to do that then?

Level editors do, which is basically what AW is.

> due
> AW's
> takes
> certain
> and
> put
> before
> that detailed enough physics, but I'm sure if a 3D bowling game had an
> "alley/lane editor", the pins could be knocked down from whatever angle the
> designer wanted.
>
> Guess what "Here's an example (of the point - don't take it too literally
> regarding AW)" meant? E-X-A-M-P-L-E ... meaning a method of demostrating a
> point and "don't take it too literally regarding AW" meaning not necessarily
> relating to AW ... because is was an E-X-A-M-P-L-E of the P-O-I-N-T.

Well the point wasn't made because the example doesn't apply. <shrug> Back to Argument 101 with you!

Jan 6, 2001, 4:53am

[View Quote] [View Quote] Ah but some games allow for exactly this. While a true deformable level hasn't been made (to my knowledge), some games have deformable elements like blowing up things (buildings, smaller objects, parts of walls, etc), deformable terrain (should see more of it this year), etc. Why do you think saved games are getting bigger? ~1-10MB is common, depending on level file size, of course, but that should show you that not only is your character's position being saved, but positions and states of just about everything else in the level: enemies, animals, movable objects, broken objects, etc, etc. 3D games are getting more and more interactive all the time and that is where I see AW heading if only Rick, JP, and Roland can pull their heads out of their wanna-be "e-commerce" asses and get the picture before a REAL game developer simply does it themself, which is already happening.

>
> AW *is* tailored to a specific goal, namely a 3D chat program. AW itself
> does nothing special outside of that scope, all games and other things come
> from 3d party bots, which are specifically suited for a particular game.

AW isn't as much about chat as it is about creating. I've said it before and I'll say it again: AW is a multiuser level editor--period. But it still needs a lot of improvement before it can be a viable alternative to current 3D game level editors.

>
> That's a false assumption. A level is just a data file telling the game how
> that level is built. Nothing, except a decision of the creators of the game,
> prevents you from adding things. Your whole point, and excuse for why AW is
> behind 3D gaming, seems to be that you can add/delete/move objects when in a
> world? If so, this is silly at best.

....which can be a game in and of itself! Just look at all the puzzle games that involve moving objects...

> to
>
> Why do you think AW doesn't have a better scripting language? Not because it
> is needed for generality. It's mainly a lack of time.

....and vision. Rob Britvich seems to've taken AW's vision with him because Rick, JP, and Roland sure as fuck don't have one for AW--and, no, "e-commerce" is not a vision but simply an overhyped bandwagon catch-phrase that's dying along with the much overhyped .com mania of the past year.

Jan 8, 2001, 1:08am

You're not one to talk either, Mr. I-Won't-Release-RWXMod's-Source-Code-Because-I'm-A-Pompous-Ass. Your programming isn't that great either considering the ONE (1) program you've made, RWXMod, which is buggier than all-out hell. At the time I initially asked you about releasing RWXMod's source code, years ago, it could've been MUCH improved and a LOT more useful than it currently is. But, no, you told me off, ignored me, and generally stayed away from AW like a beaten-down whore.

And if your P3/866 system can't run AW3 faster than AW 2.2, you're a moron. Even my measily P233/MMX, 64MB RAM, ATI Rage 2 system ran AW3 MUCH faster. Get a fucking clue. You couldn't handle where AW was going (and the competition coming up all around you in terms of object creation and world building) so you split to, of all places, Ultima Online (talk about a step backwards).

Yes, AW may be run by clueless morons who have no direction, but at least AW is still running and being developed...and at least SOME "old timers" have stuck around to see it through. I still see GREAT potential for AW, but whether or not AW or a REAL 3D game reaches that potential has yet to be decided. However, until something better than AW comes along, I'll stick with it.

[View Quote] > There was nothing I could do besides what I did. Which I aint gonna enumerate but I
> did basically everything because Ron did almost nothing besides write some code and
> piss off everyone he talked to and Danny wasn't real busy either. And the morons at
> worlds had no clue nor would Ron talk to them, well he was hostile to me too I just
> ignored it. Later Roland came along and did all Ron's grunt coding work like a good
> soldier. God knows what the hell Ron did after that besides write some code about
> once every few months. I assume he was busy playing with his horses and playing
> chess or something. Or having a real good time telling Roland what to do. :) But
> Ron is not a planner or an architect or a designer, as witness the really
> fundamental flaws in the AW concept.
>
> Hostility? Nah just realism.Talk to someone who knows Ron sometime, he is a
> complete ass. And not a real good programmer either, nor is he sme kind of savant
> mathemetician as the article seems to imply. Let's face it, AW is not a big triumph
> of incredible technology, and it never was. The rendering stuff is all done with
> renderware and the reason the rendering SUCKS so much speed-wise is that nobody ever
> could get their shit together to do any basic culling. Well the biggest reason...
> I mean, the Renderware people TELL ya DON'T use this routine to render your scenes
> because it sucks, you have to develop your own routines to render things quickly.
> So when I had a 486 100 with a halfassed video card it rendered pretty close to the
> same frame rates I get now with a p3-866 and fast video card in any kind of
> congested situation.
>
> However Ron did something that was pretty cool at the time. So he deserves some
> credit for that I guess. I'm not a credit kind of guy. But Ron is. So give it to
> him, he needs it pretty desperately. But the article was ridiculous in the
> extreme. First of all, DANNY is not someone whose opinion you really want about
> ANYthing altho he is a pretty funny guy, I'll give him that. But he knows nada,
> zero, zilch about anything at all. Guy can't use an FTP program without 2 tech
> support people in a conference call. :) And Ron did something cool. That doesn't
> make him someone cool. He is as far from that as anyone I can think of really.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 8, 2001, 3:55pm

It's said laughter is the best medicine...and you must really be hurting from the truth.

[View Quote] > Heehee. :) You crack me up man.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 9, 2001, 2:18am

How do you figure? AW does NOT have 27,000 citizens--more like PERHAPS 11,000 which have actually paid. You forget many citizenships are free with worlds, won in contests/games, or otherwise simply GIVEN away by AWCI in promotions (Juno, Pepsi-sponsored 13th Floor opening, etc).

AWCI already states in its SEC reports that most revenue comes from universe server owners and worldbuilding/object design contracts.

[View Quote] > LOL though really I did some calculations and AWCOM makes over $540,000 from
> citizenships alone, so add in the world costs and that would put them at
> probably $600,000. But really when you think of it most of AW's cits build
> in AW so AW is really what the company is riding on. And I also found that
> AWCOM doesn't loose a lot of money when AW is down (only has to be 10 bucks
> at most an hour).

Jan 12, 2001, 11:00am

If you don't think some Juno reps got free citizenships out of the deal, you're cluelessly mistaken. At any rate, I never said Juno was a free promotion. YOU need to read correctly.

[View Quote] > If you read the correct sources, the Juno deal wasn't a free promotion as
> you classed it, and did represent a factor of revenue on the AWCI books.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 12, 2001, 11:00am

Yes, at most the light will shine 120m (the max visibility), so I don't think there's a need to put a restriction on the light command.

[View Quote] > Well, I would probably add it to the list, yes. I've already engulfed a few areas in light, but I think you have to be able to see the light object for it to have any affect.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 12, 2001, 11:02am

Good stuff? AW has lots of shit in it. The REAL good stuff is on other worlds. Try visiting some and get cultured.

[View Quote] > Drat. All the new commands -- looks like they will be restricted in AW. Prolly not in WAW but all
> my good stuff is in AW.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 13, 2001, 8:18pm

That would probably require a cell database rewrite since AW can't seem to handle "normally" rotated objects along the z-axis. However, since manually y-axis-rotated objects can give encroachment errors, there's no reason action-command-rotated objects can't as well. No "restrictions" necessary--just common sense programming Roland lacks all too well to me.

[View Quote] > Oh, that's right, now I know why, but it would be better if they could make
> it so it can't turn onto people's property and maybe same with the move?
>
[View Quote]

Jan 12, 2001, 10:58am

See, this is yet another example of Roland's ineptness. I mentioned MPEG3-encoded WAVs were possible in AW perhaps around at LEAST a YEAR or so ago. This twit doesn't deserve to be programming AW! He's so out of touch with what's possible with it.

[View Quote] > Is this really a Windows 95 issue, or something else?
>
> I was not even aware until today that you could encode a WAV file in MP3
> format and use it in AW 3.0. In fact, you can't, at least not on my machine
> (not in 3.0 or 3.1). But apparently this does work on some other systems.
> If it does, something within the OS itself must be figuring out that the WAV
> is not PCM but some other encoding instead and switching to that codec
> automatically, all without AW's knowledge. There must be some piece of
> software that you need installed on your PC for this to work. Perhaps a
> particular version of Windows Media Player or something like that.
>
> AW 3.1, as you know, uses a totally different sound playback system from
> 3.0. A .wav file is passed to DirectSound as just that...PCM encoded WAV
> data. If it is actually encoded as something else, it's not going to work,
> and wasn't intended to work. I'm not sure what to do about this, I'm not
> sure if it's possible or not to support multiple different WAV encoding
> schemes in DirectSound.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 12, 2001, 10:10pm

Yea, because I'd run circles around Roland's pathetic attempt at coding...

[View Quote] > hehehe... Guess now we know why Eep didn't get on the closed beta list
> *smirk*
>
[View Quote]

Jan 13, 2001, 4:58am

In finding bugs, Casay...

[View Quote] > Since when are you a programmer? Maybe I'm confused but I *think* you've
> said several times in here you weren't.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 13, 2001, 8:20pm

Um, newbie twit, this has NOTHING to do with AW, so stop posting it in AW's newsgroups.

[View Quote] > PLEASE GO TO http://forum.napster.com/ubb/Forum11/HTML/003873.html If u use
> naspter ITS IMPORTANT VERY IMPORTANT U COULD BE BANNED FROM NAPSTER IF YA
> DON'T READ IT PLEASE PASS THIS ON you can read about it at
> http://biz.yahoo.com/st/001121/20350.html

Jan 15, 2001, 6:48pm

Pipe it, kidtwit. Go build your patherically low self-esteem elsewhere.

[View Quote] > Dont you DARE start the twit thing again =)
> UEAK RaptorFox
> Public Relations, United States World Federation (USWF)
> raptorfox at uswf-aw.com
>
[View Quote]

Jan 13, 2001, 8:16pm

Um, there's nothing wrong with "finding bugs" meaning "run circles around...coding". Perhaps YOU should get a SLANG dictionary since English is obviously not your native language.

[View Quote] > He has Casay, :). Now all eep has to do is buy a dictionary. Hmmm,,,, "Yea,
> because I'd run circles around Roland's pathetic attempt at coding..." = "In
> finding bugs, Casay...". Coding=debugging.
>
> Say what you mean Eep. Be efficient.
>
> I just couldn't resist.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 15, 2001, 6:50pm

<shrug> Not my fault you don't understand common slang.

[View Quote] > Eep, nice try. LOL
>
[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 7:04am

Me either, especially considering all Roland and HamFon have to do is simply ignore those not on the closed beta list...but that would be too easy for them, I guess. Roland's a piece of work considering he made an excuse as to why NOT to restrict the beta AW to certain people because of the universe server programming involved--guess he doesn't know what he's REALLY talking about since such restrictions are now in place in such a short time, eh? Feh...with each statement he makes he reeks as much as Rick and JP do in their public dealings...and I am disgusted by it.

[View Quote] > anyone on a leaked copy of 3.1 gets it now, the 3.1 browser only lets in
> certian people, the beta team =\
>
> I don't see what the harm was...

Jan 16, 2001, 10:49pm

Exactly. Take Young Phalpha. Who the fuck is s/he? I've never heard of him/her before since perhaps a couple months or so ago...and I've certainly been using AW longer (summer 1997) and have been beta testing AW for almost as long too, yet that unexperienced twirp makes the closed beta over me?? The only reason Roland didn't "invite" me is because I give him the straight dope without all the fluff and ass-kissing most people give him. He simply can't handle the ONSLAUGHT of my dead-on RIPS of his pathetic coding attempt that he'd rather simply not even deal with me at all, which is also why he mutes me at TechTalks and doesn't respond to my telegrams. He's had his wittle feelwings bwuised by the truth and now can't build up his self-esteem enough to deal with it. Pa-fucking-thetic.

[View Quote] > Well, all I'm going to say is that, while the closed beta is a good idea, I
> don't believe that the best group of testers was really picked... a number
> of the testers seem to have little to no idea what they're actually doing,
> and seem to be reporting just about anything without actually thinking, then
> correcting themselves repeatedly by posting more messages, and so forth.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2001, 8:28am

What imagine fails to understand (as usual) is that a CLOSED beta test is not FOR inexperienced (note the correct prefix) people.

[View Quote] > sure - but that's no reason to leave out more experienced people.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 18, 2001, 4:09am

You JUST figured that out? Put yourself in my shoes and you'd feel the EX=
ACT same way. Roland, if he decided to actually LISTEN to me, KNOWS I fin=
d bugs months, if not YEARS, before he and others do. Hell, the twit didn=
't even know MPEG3-encoded WAVs could be played in AW even though I've be=
en stating it for years...YEARS! If Roland is THAT oblivious to my bug re=
ports, newsgroup posts, and TechTalk commentary, he TRULY does NOT deserv=
e to be developing AW--PERIOD. He has CONTINUALLY proven to me to have ab=
solutely NO design direction, NO innovation, and NO intuitivity. He is a =
mindless grunt, pure and simple--perfect for Rick and JP's easy manipulat=
ion. At least Ron had the decency to challenge Rick and JP when he did--a=
nd left when they wouldn't give in due to their bigotry. Roland, on the o=
ther hand, played it "safe" and decided to stay on as a lackey for the "b=
ig evil masters" because he was probably too scared to look for another j=
ob.

He's NOT a very good programmer either. Just look at a recent response to=
such a fucking SIMPLE GUI call regarding making the AW 3.1 Windows serve=
r: "It's probably easy to make the admin tool come up when you double cli=
ck the system tray icon." PROBABLY easy? It IS easy, Roland, providing yo=
u actually KNOW how to program Windows GUI, which you obviously SUCK at l=
ooking at the slop you've done in AW thus far (and HamFon's dialogs aren'=
t much better).

Anyway, I'm getting off track. Yes, I CAN be harsh...but sometimes the tr=
uth IS harsh and if people can't handle it they shouldn't even THINK abou=
t fucking with me because I will stick to the truth ALWAYS and it WILL co=
me back to bite them if they don't CONSTANTLY keep it in check. That's li=
fe. Deal with it. Suicide IS an option.

[View Quote] > heheh no ofence eep but you can be a little harsh :)
[View Quote] > wittle feelwings bwuised by the truth and now can't build up his self-e=
steem
> enough to deal with it. Pa-fucking-thetic.

> idea, I

> number

> doing,
ing,
> then
orth.
(and
> it
all
> of
just
> because
und,
> and
h of
like
> 500
y
> works,

Jan 18, 2001, 4:11am

Same way *I* tested it: by reporting bugs to people on the official beta test, like you, Agent, which I did. Duh. Don't make me smack you.

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Jan 18, 2001, 4:13am

Why should I be polite to him when he continually is impolite to me? It takes two to tango, Faber. I may be harsh at times, but if Roland can't handle the truth about what I say about AW, that's just too fucking bad because I'm not going to put up a front for him just so I can keep testing his shitty programming. Nope...Homey don't play dat. <thwap>

[View Quote] > Well, and being polite once in a while is no option i guess ?
>
> Even in your speech where you complain about him not inviting you to his
> beta list, you can't stop insulting him. It does seem he deals very good
> with it... apparently better than I do as I do not seem to keep my "ignore
> eep" up...
>
> "eep" <eep at tnlc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3A64EAB5.5EF44C53 at tnlc.com...
> him/her before since perhaps a couple months or so ago...and I've certainly
> been using AW longer (summer 1997) and have been beta testing AW for almost
> as long too, yet that unexperienced twirp makes the closed beta over me??
> The only reason Roland didn't "invite" me is because I give him the
> straight dope without all the fluff and ass-kissing most people give him.
> He simply can't handle the ONSLAUGHT of my dead-on RIPS of his pathetic
> coding attempt that he'd rather simply not even deal with me at all, which
> is also why he mutes me at TechTalks and doesn't respond to my telegrams.
> He's had his wittle feelwings bwuised by the truth and now can't build up
> his self-esteem enough to deal with it. Pa-fucking-thetic.

Jan 18, 2001, 4:16am

See? This is exactly just how clueless Imagine truly is. If she had one IOTA of intellect she would've realized I wasn't even RESPONDING to HER post, but to yours, Rolu. The twit also would have realized that just because she said SOME unexperienced people, it doesn't matter; unexperience is still unexperience and doesn't belong on a CLOSED beta test. Duh. Imagine won't be winning any Nobel prizes anytime soon...

[View Quote] > little note: it's epxeriEnced :-)
>
[View Quote]

Jan 18, 2001, 7:14pm

[View Quote] > Yes, but in my opinion, you shouldn't have to report bugs through "other channels". You should be on the beta list.

Well duh. :P

> Anyway, you know what closed beta means, Eep. You're not on the list, so you don't get to test the browser (online, anyway). Not a great decision, but it is what has happened.
>
> I don't really think that was the problem either. Many people were flooding Roland with bug reports, not knowing if they had already been submitted. Really, the browser/uniserver should have been doing this little check from the start of the beta.

No, people not on the list simply shouldn't have been sending bugs to Roland. *I* had restraint...

[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 10:57pm

Um, COF no longer exists; it's AWCI now.

And not everyone with AW 3.1 reported bugs...directly anyway.

[View Quote] > I've decided to post my monthly article here in the newsgroup since
> there's no feedback feature at AWNews.com yet. After all, what's the
> point of stirring the virtual melting pot if you can't hear the screams?
> :)
>
> ------
>
> Testing Beta
>
> beta n. - Mostly working, but still under test; usu. used with `in':
> `in beta'. In the Real World, systems (hardware or software) software
> often go through two stages of release testing: Alpha and Beta. Beta
> releases are generally made to a group of trusted customers.
>
> Recently Roland, COF's lead programmer, decided to officially "close"
> the closed beta test of AW 3.1 by restricting use of 3.1 to only those
> people who were registered for the closed beta. Why? It was because
> apparently a number of people had gotten their hands on 3.1 without
> actually being in the beta program. And how did Roland know this? These
> same people were bombarding him with emails and telegrams as to why this
> or that didn't work properly!
> My only question here is: What did these people expect? Didn't they
> know what "beta" meant? Didn't they know that 3.1 wasn't a complete
> program? Did they somehow think that "Oh, I know there's bugs in it, but
> they won't happen to me"? Or were they simply too impatient to wait for
> a full-fledged, working version of the program just so that they could
> "see all the pretty lights"?
> When I was first introduced to the concept of "beta", I learned that it
> was something to be feared. If someone had told me they had a copy of
> something like Photoshop 7, but it was only the beta version, I would
> look at them as if they told me they had contracted leprosy. Even though
> it may have all sorts of cool features, I would still avoid it like the
> plague. Although it may have all the goodies, it also has the potential
> to do damage to my system.
> The possibility of a beta program permanently damaging your system is
> higher than you may think. Just because the program works on the
> in-house systems doesn't necessarily mean it will work on all systems.
> This is the true purpose of the beta test. Not to give a select few a
> sneak peak at new features, but to make sure it works on all systems!
> Beta testers actually take a small risk in deciding to test a product,
> because there's no real way of knowing how it will act. It may run
> smoothly without a hitch, or it could do something horribly wrong and
> the damage couldn't be undone.
> Thankfully, I think Roland did the right thing this time by having a
> closed beta. This not only guarantees that less people will be affected
> if anything goes wrong, but also these are people who actually know what
> they're getting into. Not only that, but Roland can now actually find
> information fast and get things done in a timely manner, instead of
> having to sift through a million pointless posts and redundant questions
> by people who don't know any better.
> But some people never learn, I guess. The addition of lighting and
> moving objects was just too much for some people, and they had to have
> it now! So they cheated a bit and were able to see AW 3.1 in all its
> glory. Then it got yanked away from them, and they cried "What's the big
> deal? We weren't hurting anything!" Unfortunately, what you were hurting
> was Roland's ability to help those who were actually supposed to be in
> the beta program by flooding him with your inane questions and
> repetitive bug reports. And now it's been taken away from you because of
> that.
> I hope we can all learn something from this little escapade: Patience
> is indeed a virtue. Yes, AW 3.1 may be the next greatest thing from COF,
> and it may bring so many more possibilities to the virtual world. It may
> even be, and dare I say it, a step in the right direction for COF!
>
> But I can wait

Jan 17, 2001, 5:48am

AWCI is no rose, but it IS a name of an incorporated company (even if in the pathetic state of Delaware). You refer to AWCI incorrectly as COF--period. Feel free to come up with your own version of what "AWCI" means but to refer to them still as COF is just confusing to most people who don't know what COF stands for. You'll only serve to confuse people even more than AWCI already confuses them.

[View Quote] > Heh, you of all people, should know why I still refer to them as "COF".
> :)
>
> But, for the benefit of those who may not know: Until they can prove to
> me that they truly are a different company in the way they act and in
> how they treat their customers, I shall always refer to them by their
> old (real) name. A rose by any other name still has thorns.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2001, 5:57am

Mmm, gee, lemme guess: yet another go-nowhere universe server (uniserver)? I could've told you universe servers outside AW will eventually fold due to not being apart of the TRUE uniserver: AW's. I just don't understand why and how people can blow $10K on a uniserver that will NOWHERE NEAR be as popular as AW (which isn't all that popular compared to REAL 3D games). As much as I don't like how AWCI runs it, I'm not stupid enough to go off to another uniserver where the people I know and interact with on a regular basis in AW aren't. Until AW gets a "universe teleporter" or something with a way to handle contacts/telegrams cross-uniserver, I won't be leaving AW anytime soon (unless a better multiuser level editor comes along, of course).

Also, until AW gets more gamelike features (http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/improve.html for some) and programmability (like level editors), AW simply won't be customizable enough to attract people to WANT to stray outside its main uniserver...and even then I doubt people will have much incentive.

[View Quote] > How come now I goto Fandom, (Yes I know im a uni owner but I can play too)
> and I find its not more?
>
> http://www.fandom.com/worlds/ if you think im telling porkys.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Virtual Worlds have been indefinitely disabled.
>
> We apologize for any inconveniences
>
> Fandom.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> what the hell happend?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Vectorscape the only uni to give you a free cit and offer the chance of a
> free world too.....

Jan 17, 2001, 8:30am

"resulting IN [dig those prepositions] your Internet [it's a pronoun, you know] service BEING [yet another one] disconnected"

[View Quote] > Any more attempt to post bull** or crosspost to irrelevant groups on behalf of you will be reported to your ISP (shawcable.net and home.com) resulting your internet service disconnection.

Jan 23, 2001, 4:44am

It all adds up, fuckwit. Don't be a lamer like so many in these newsgroups are...

[View Quote] > thanks for sharing your opinion of me, Eep :)hmm you cant stand 3kb? I've seen worse..

1  ...  17  18  19  20  21  22  ...  42  |   Order by default