1  2  3  4  |   Order by default

Dec 13, 1998, 3:21am

We wil not be asking for a profit and besides it will give their board game free
publicity.
Besides, one will never know unless one does.

[View Quote] > Most likely you will get denied...
> DOn't think they are much interested in a game in Active Worlds that still wont be as
> functional as their cd-rom
>
[View Quote]

Jan 13, 1999, 4:18pm

Okay, I think this might be a workable solution. We can base the monopolies on
currently existing major established worlds and the property on them.

For example, we can say one monopoly is Mars and the properties included on it
are some of the sites that you would visit if you went to Mars.

Not all the worlds have to be COF worlds, but should at least be some well
established worlds with some appeal to them (no private or test worlds or worlds
like Bubba's place--well, you get the idea)
Perhaps we can use the worlds that portals at the AWGate for starters and add
others as the game becomes more popular.

The properties could be public places (not So-And-So's House) like a library,
mall, tavern, park, etc., etc. It might not be a good idea, either, to
include promotional worlds, because of copyright issues and that they might not
be there for years to come. I suggest mainly using worlds that are mainstays
in the community such as worlds that have been around for a long time and worlds
run by community organizations.

However we do it, we should make the rules adjustable to adding new worlds and
dropping old worlds that no longer exist for a length of time. We could also
make clear guidelines for worlds to be admitted to the game that so the game is
not over run with worlds and some world owners/caretakers will not be able to
claim that the game officials were using partiality or were unfair in their
decisions.

Some of the guidelines could be:

1. Only one world per owner with the exception of community organization worlds
such as AWU or AWCC, etc.). and COF worlds.

2. Only worlds that a) have been in existence for two years or more or b) belong
to a community organization. [b refers to all worlds ineligible by rule a]
(Rule A helps to create stable game component, otherwise you would have worlds
dropping in and out of the game constantly)

3. The number of worlds allowed at a given time must be a set number.
Applications will not be accepted unless there is a space available. The
number of worlds at any given time should be sufficient enough to include all
major worlds, plus some minor worlds.

4. Worlds based on holidays, such as Oct. 31 and Dec25 may be included for only
as long as the duration of the season it represents.

If this way is too much and there is difficulty finding people who will keep the
game current, then
we can just use COF worlds and a few other major worlds depending on the worlds'
stability.

I would like to do something like this, but I already have too many other things
going on at the moment in both RL and VR, such as college, textures web page,
web forum. Also, I don't have knowledge of bots and so forth.

[View Quote] > This is exactly why I suggested developing a game that is loosely based on
> Monopoly, but it really just buying and selling property in AW (multiple
> worlds). We don't have to have the same rules. We don't need any artwork.
> The players themselves are the game pieces. The bot is the bank, real estate
> agent, and auctioneer. This is about as tough as a trivia bot. Want to prime
> the bot's cache of locations? Give it the contents of the AW Yellow Pages.
>
> DrChandra/PK-37
> --
> Andrew C. Esh mailto:andrew_esh at cnt.com
> http://www.mtn.org/~andrewes - ACE Home Page
>
[View Quote]

Dec 13, 1998, 6:47pm

why not? isn't it the same program, with slight modifications?

[View Quote] > Can;t get bots into other Universes :) but if your looking for a object maker
> PICK ME! :)
>
[View Quote]

Dec 15, 1998, 5:10am

I was thinking about the chances of Hasbro allowing us to use their
trademark artwork and have considered uding a different, modern, version
of the game called Triopoly. This game is a much better game in my
opinion. I was reluctant to suggest (seriously) doing it instead
because it is not nationally known and the unfamiliarity might possibly
hinder its acceptance and might make the production of the 3d props more
difficult.

However, it is not impossible. It can be done, but it would require me
to publish the rule book on a web page and scan the game pieces so
someone can get a picture of what they looks like.
I will look at the board and see how much work it will take and see what
I can do. Since it has three levels, it will take a bit more time than
preparing a Monopoly game.

With this game, we will not have to worry about a well established multi
million dollar company frowning on our efforts. It is a local game,
but with a professional look and feel about it.

Dec 15, 1998, 5:13am

I looked in the instruction booklet and found the name of the company that
makes it. Reveal Entertainment, Inc. I will try to find their page
on the net and write them an email. Hopefully, they will be more willing
to let us use the trademarks.

[View Quote] > I was thinking about the chances of Hasbro allowing us to use their
> trademark artwork and have considered uding a different, modern, version
> of the game called Triopoly. This game is a much better game in my
> opinion. I was reluctant to suggest (seriously) doing it instead
> because it is not nationally known and the unfamiliarity might possibly
> hinder its acceptance and might make the production of the 3d props more
> difficult.
>
> However, it is not impossible. It can be done, but it would require me
> to publish the rule book on a web page and scan the game pieces so
> someone can get a picture of what they looks like.
> I will look at the board and see how much work it will take and see what
> I can do. Since it has three levels, it will take a bit more time than
> preparing a Monopoly game.
>
> With this game, we will not have to worry about a well established multi
> million dollar company frowning on our efforts. It is a local game,
> but with a professional look and feel about it.

Dec 15, 1998, 5:21am

I found their website. It is http://www.triopoly.com (Duh! :) )

[View Quote] > I looked in the instruction booklet and found the name of the company that
> makes it. Reveal Entertainment, Inc. I will try to find their page
> on the net and write them an email. Hopefully, they will be more willing
> to let us use the trademarks.
>
[View Quote]

Dec 15, 1998, 4:38pm

I have received a response from the makers of triopoly and they are
interested in working something out. We have a much better chance of
getting permission from them than from Monopoly since they are a growing
company and looking for ways to advertise/market their product on a
greater scale.

I will keep you updated.

Apr 26, 1998, 4:33pm

I think the reason he wants to redo the command structure, at least one
of the reasons, is that the animate command is impractical if you only
need one texture applied to the object. There is no problem if the
texture name ends in 1, but if it ends in a larger number such as 8, the
browser will download, or attempt to download, 1 through 7, which cuts
down on performance and adds unnecessarily to the cache. If the
ending number is 32, it cuts down on the performance big time.
I have complained about this and was told that he would put it on his
LIST(tm).


[View Quote]

Apr 26, 1998, 5:10pm

Wow, I never knew that. I will tell all my builders about that now, as
well as my co-world owners.

Thanks

[View Quote]

Apr 26, 1998, 5:19pm

I have tested it further and have found that it is hit or miss. some
textures it will work on and others it won't work on. It also does not
seem to work on "create animate tag=200 me" objects, although I have
only tried it on one.
I first tried it on gac10 by using gac10. 1 1 0 but it did not work.
When I deleted the "." it worked just fine.
Go figure.


[View Quote]

Apr 26, 1998, 5:22pm

AHHA! I figured out what I was doing wrong. I was typing gac10. 1 0 0
instead of gac10. 1 1 0
Thanks again. Sorry for ever doubting it.


[View Quote]

Apr 26, 1998, 5:26pm

I believe the reason you lost him is that you were stating the obvious
unnecessarily. I am sure that he was already quite aware of the way
animation commands currently work since he is an accomplished builder
and, if I am not mistaken, an instructor in AWSchool.


[View Quote]

Apr 26, 1998, 5:32pm

Well, if that is the case, I will give credit where credit is due.
Thanks, Eep.


[View Quote]

Apr 26, 1998, 5:34pm

But, that doesn't say a thing about his knowledge about animate
commands, does it? It might say something about his maturity or
emotional stability, but not his building skills.


[View Quote]

Apr 26, 1998, 5:36pm

I was probably mistaken.

[View Quote]

May 1, 1998, 9:23pm

Now, really, why would you want the appearance of a round world? The
does not appear to be round until you view it from high above the ground
(very high). Unless you have a city in the sky and have a huge
ground object, I don't see the point.


[View Quote]

Apr 26, 1998, 4:19pm

This feature would only work if teleporting was disabled. Otherwise
anybody could just guess from their current position what coordinates to
teleport to and end up in the room by trial and error.


[View Quote]

Apr 30, 1998, 3:56pm

There is another link on the page that leads to a dll download page.
The link kind of inconspicuous and has to be looked for but it is there.
Go to this link if you have windows NT 3.51 or higher.
http://www.microsoft.com/office/WINNT351Note.asp?prev=111111


[View Quote]

May 1, 1998, 6:37pm

I think a logical follow up to this would be the necessity for a command
or check box in the build window for forbidding temp objects in an
object's perimeter.



[View Quote]

May 1, 1998, 6:40pm

I suggested that a few weeks ago as well as over a year ago, but got
chewed to ribbons by you know who in the wishlist newsgroup.

Go figure!


[View Quote]

May 5, 1998, 7:09pm

Cutting their own throats? I don't think so! Risking their necks?
maybe! Taking a necessary risk? Definitely!

Most of the software products that you are talking about have other
avenues of distribution, such as boxed software. (COF, however, only
ships products upon request) They can charge more for their
products and wait for the customer to come along. In fact, they have to
charge more to cover packaging. They are well established and they
spend much more on advertising.
AW spends hardly anything, if anything at all, on advertising.
They don't need a "secure" customer base this early in the game, they
need a "bigger" customer base to generate revenue for advertising until
they can at least begin to have a budget for advertising.
I have known businessmen who spent every bit of profit that they had in
the first year or two of their business on advertisement and products.
They did no more than break even for those early years. After they
got through the crunch times, their business took off like wildfire.
COF is playing it too safe. They need to take more risks with their
customer base and with advertising.

The customer base needs to be bigger so that there will be more people
to tell others about COF's product. Sure, COF might be more secure
with the few faithful who are totally sold on the product, but the
faithful few do not make for a good selling point. Numbers, however,
speak louder. The faithful few do not convince newcomers of the
greatness of a product because the newcomer always has in the back of
his mind: "Hhhhhhhmmmmm, if it is so great, why aren't there more
people registering it?" and "If it is so great, why have I never heard
of it before? If it were so great, the company could afford more
advertising." Until, COF is no longer secure with the faithful few, it
will not grow bigger, just plateau at a mediocre level.

If a car dealer tried to sell me a car that I had never heard of before
and the only thing he had was a crippled version of it and a relatively
small amount of anecdotal testimonies to its performance, I don't think
I would be as inclined to buy it as I would another, more familiar,
brand car. On top of all this, he insists that I have to renew it at
full price each and every year!?! I don't THINK so!!
On the other hand, if he sold it to me at a greatly reduced price and I
owed nothing to him ever again, I might be inclined to make the impulse
purchase, even though I might drive it for a year and no more.

Henry Ford, for example, was not satisfied with having a few faithful
customers. He completely overhauled and more than doubled production
and made his prices more affordable to the average person. COF should
do the same if they want to follow in his footsteps.

In the very least, they should at least offer a greatly reduced (perhaps
25% or less) rate for renewals. This could be a good compromise and be
less risky, in my opinion. It might not appeal to as many as having no
renewal at all would, but at least it would appeal to many more than a
full purchase price renewal would.




[View Quote]

May 3, 1998, 4:24pm

I have already asked this and PJ said that it is planned for the final
release.


[View Quote]

May 3, 1998, 4:26pm

What about making a cul de sac street object?


[View Quote]

May 7, 1998, 11:04am

Seeing as how Shamus is no longer an employee at COF, the program
apparently left with him.


[View Quote]

May 7, 1998, 1:48pm

Nope, he posted in the newsgroup that he took another job.


[View Quote]

May 7, 1998, 1:49pm

perhaps you are correct. maybe I was getting them mixed up. Perhaps
we should ask them to be sure.


[View Quote]

May 7, 1998, 1:55pm

Wish they would post the list and check off items as they are released.
But, haha, I know the list is not an actual list, but just an imaginary
one inside Roland's head. Correct me, if I am wrong.


[View Quote]

May 8, 1998, 8:05pm

I may be strange, but I prefer the way it is. I tried the viscape 3d
world development kit demo. It has the ability to drag and drop and
resize objects by point and drag right in the world, but it does not
support online building (and the software does not support chat.
Also, the problem with dragging objects would be that of precision.
Keypad movement provides more precision for me and that is what I
prefer.
This could be feasible if there were a way to implement an auto
allignment which could be toggled on or off. This way, it could be
readjusted according to the surrounding objects.

Dean


[View Quote]

Nov 7, 1998, 1:06am

--------------9FA6C64F97B8091EA948D26E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yeah, like trying to teach me how to program in C+. It ain't
happening. The kind of commands that you are talking about belong in a
Computer Science text book, not on a simple building help file. Do you
wanna scare away people by all that?

Anyways, if these ideas are ever implemented, I would suggest they be
placed on a back page somewhere labeled Advanced Building Techniques for
Computer Geniuses.
:-)

[View Quote] > If they wanted to know about such advanced procedures they would have
> to learn, just like learning how to make RWX's :)-raiven- REINSTATE
> PROTAGONIST? ********HE******* quit
>
[View Quote] --------------9FA6C64F97B8091EA948D26E
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#B8FFB8">
Yeah, like trying to teach me how to program in C+.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It
ain't happening.&nbsp;&nbsp; The kind of commands that you are talking
about belong in a Computer Science text book, not on a simple building
help file.&nbsp;&nbsp; Do you wanna scare away people by all that?
<P>Anyways, if these ideas are ever implemented, I would suggest they be
placed on a back page somewhere labeled <B>Advanced Building Techniques
for Computer Geniuses</B>.
<BR>:-)
[View Quote] </BODY>
</HTML>

--------------9FA6C64F97B8091EA948D26E--

Nov 9, 1998, 4:52am

--------------0CB02581A69B392FA5EDC179
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I forwarded this message to COF

[View Quote] >
[View Quote] --------------0CB02581A69B392FA5EDC179
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
I forwarded this message to COF
[View Quote] <P><BR>probably no one anymore. . ...i havnt seen ANY COF employee post
an article in the newsgroup for about 2 months now...and i think maybe
only Lucrezia has abnything to do with it really . ..&nbsp; besides roland
posting with a bug fix beta message, theres hasnt been squat from anyone
at COF. . . .
<P>i'd kind of like to raise this question (it was a post in wishlist),
and im hoping that the moderator doesnt find it too out of line.
<P>COF, where ARE you ?? We never see any posts, we have no word from you,
all we have is Lucrezia occasionally stating something in here, and her
doing the newsletter. And, sometimes we "get word" from Razzle (if your
a PK) as to something . ..&nbsp; but, for all intents and purposes, you
have no community presence anymore . . ..
<P>It's kind of sad, because I dont get it. Does this have to do with legal
issues, and, if so, why not jstu say so and be done with it ? We the citizens
*need* contact with the company, because otherwise you get so much rumour
mongering . ..and, also, to tell you the truth, contact with COF makes
things in AW a little more tangible. Ie, i ahvnt been into AW for ages,
basically because i have found it has grown very very stagnant. . ..something
like the BallBot tho might fix this . ..otherwise. . .well, i have to say
it, it has been damn boring in the worlds lately.
<P>Maybe it's jsut me, but i dunno .,. i hear alot of it . ..and mainly
it stems from the feeling that COF is letting things go in their community
interaction . ...and that people think to themselves, "well, if they wont
communicate with us, then why should we both trying to communicate anything
to them". . .
<P>I dunno . .. jsut musings really . .. Im feeling a bit sad about all
the stagnation lately i guess. .&nbsp; I go into the beta group, and theres
nothing .. . and i look in here and there more of the same . ...things
jsut dont seem to be progressing anywhere . ..
<P>mmmm
<P>Fac.</BLOCKQUOTE>

</BODY>
</HTML>

--------------0CB02581A69B392FA5EDC179--

1  2  3  4  |   Order by default