 More news of Origins, yeah..I saw the good stuff |
  |
 Aug 5 2005, 12:24 PM
Post
#351
|
|||
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,498 Joined: 4-August 05 From: ADL Member No.: 7,534  |
Every deduction is just that, a deduction. Everybody knows that most information here is speculation. Even when the game mechanics are published, most opinions about the effects of the changes are mostly subjective. Those who dont know this shouldnt discuss. So your point is valid. But its the same like saying: "You know, when your are standing on the floor your feet touch the ground". Everybody knows it. No point in pointing it out. This (SR4) forum is for speculations (because SR4 is not out yet). Why not let people speculate? If developers wanted to stop speculations they wouldnt have things like NDAs. |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Aug 5 2005, 02:15 PM
Post
#352
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
My point is clearly labelling speculation as such is all that's needed to help avoid many misinterpretations. The problem is there are actual hard facts now available about this matter and not everyone is up to speed on what those are. This leads to misunderstandings. There's nothing wrong with speculation, just be helpful and ensure its clearly identified as speculation - especially when making a leap like Ellery did and especially at this point in time, when more hard facts have been made public but not everyone has caught on to all of them (or their implications). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 5 2005, 03:36 PM
Post
#353
|
|||
|
Grumpy Old Ork Decker Group: Admin Posts: 3,794 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orwell, Ohio Member No.: 50 |
Now Peter, come on. You know better. It's not speculating. It's jumping wildly to conclusions. :D Speculation is fine. What Synner is doing is trying to help stop people for judging based solely on the speculation and suppositions. Me, i think he should give up. He's just beating his head on the wall. Ellery has his opinions based on his speculations, and based on the few facts that have been presented thus far. As they are his opinions, he is not wrong. And after what, two or three months of this nonsense, I think it's clear that nothing will change his mind. Of course, this makes me wonder why he's still in here posting nonstop and repeatedly, but hey. It's his time and effort. Bull -- Enjoying his SR4 campaign immensly :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 5 2005, 04:27 PM
Post
#354
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 19-August 02 Member No.: 3,139 |
I've kinda lost track - but have you been play testing? Developing? 'Had a hand in guiding it'? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 5 2005, 05:09 PM
Post
#355
|
|
|
Grumpy Old Ork Decker Group: Admin Posts: 3,794 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orwell, Ohio Member No.: 50 |
Just playtesting.
And contrary to early reports, there have been a LOT of changes made based on playtester feedback. Bull |
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 05:10 PM
Post
#356
|
|||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,431 Joined: 3-December 03 Member No.: 5,872 |
wait, they changed the round to 6 seconds?? Can anyone tell me why. A untrained non-ninja parapalegic monkey could take more than one action in 6 seconds(or 2 simple ones or whatever they call it now), why the heck are they making the combat turn 6 seconds like oh so many other dumb combat rounds in other systems. I mean yeah sure, in my games pwang its 3 seconds and my problem is solved but this irritates me anyways. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 5 2005, 05:34 PM
Post
#357
|
|
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
Three is too long.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 06:02 PM
Post
#358
|
|||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,431 Joined: 3-December 03 Member No.: 5,872 |
yeah maybe it is, but its the best i can recall in games so far. Most games seem to go with either 10 or 6 seconds.(or god forbid the 1 minute old school d&d round, or my favorite the 1 minute out of combat 10 sec in combat round) So when i do my pwang the rules are changed maybe 2 secs I dont know. Only thing to work out is possible movement changes. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 5 2005, 06:04 PM
Post
#359
|
|||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Thank you for making my point for me. This is a perfect example of the misunderstandings that can come up from someone posting stuff they don't know and not labelling it as speculation. Somebody was privy to playtester information. Somebody deduced it was final, rather than one of several options being playtested. Somebody not only made an erroneous assumption based on incomplete data, but didn't stop there and decided to let the world know. And finally, somebody got it wrong, leading to confusion on the part of someone who hasn't been following all the thread. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 5 2005, 06:22 PM
Post
#360
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 527 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,118 |
This is where we seem to run up against your inability to distinguish "wild speculation" (or at least misinformed speculation) from common sense.
The combat turn, was, for the majority of SR4's playtesting, six seconds. It was reduced/reverted to three seconds during the last phase, just before SR4 was run at Origins. Someone operating on leaked information could have secretly observed the entirety of playtesting save for the last week and not known about that particular adjustment. Shadow was thusly misinformed based on his apparent access to slightly-or-greatly dated playtest material. I imagine if he'd even done some digging about the Origins game, he'd have been able to debase himself of this bit of false data. That is misinformed (or "wild speculation"). Ellery is making the crazy suggestion that a static target number system will work differently from the existing variable target number system, and is noting things she liked about the old system (or were present; she hasn't qualified whether she liked them or not) that will not be possible to replicate cleanly with static target number mechanic. How is this misinformed? Is there some kind of secret branch of mathematics where the SR4 base mechanic will work like the SR3 base mechanic in the situations she's described? Shadow's observations were based off of an old playtest document that was subsequently revised. Ellery's observations are based off of the science of mathematics. You're lumping them together in the same boat. How does this not strike you as odd? [edit] But, back to this ongoing argument... do you realize that attempting to counter her arguments with statements that amount to "no, it doesn't work that way" is at its basic level false? When someone's pointing out that which is essentially mathematical fact, you can't attempt to disavow it in your counter-point without compromising the validity of your entire stance. This should never have been an argument in the first place. Ellery said something that was true; her initial statement can be reduced to stating that it's a lot harder to resist a spell when your target number is six, versus five (~50% less successes harder). The only speculation that she engaged in was that the difference in force ratings, for spells cast in SR4, would not mirror the difficulty shifts that different force ratings presented in SR3. I think that speculating that the designers are not insane is acceptable. If her speculation were false, for instance, a SR4 spell that required 5 hits, or rolled 14 dice, cast at force 5, would require 10 hits, or the rolling of 28 dice, at force 6, to model the difficulty difference between resisting the equivalent force ratings in SR3. Given what we've been told (maximum dice pools of 24 being key here), the system would have to behave pretty crazily if this were the case. I share her speculation that it's not. Sorry for tossing thise whole bit in after the fact, but I just don't get where she's off base, and I figure if I start posting on this thread, someone's going to want me to justify just why I think what I do. This saves me the time of typing it up later. [/edit] |
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 06:40 PM
Post
#361
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,431 Joined: 3-December 03 Member No.: 5,872 |
Its good to here the 6 second round went away, its a totally minor issue but it would of grated on my nerves.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 08:02 PM
Post
#362
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Or maybe we're running against your inability to read my posts...
As regards this little gem, I'll just say that all you can claim is that "the combat turn was for the majority of your SR4 playtesting" was six seconds. I know for a fact that for the majority of my SR4 playtesting it was three. Go figure. But that's a discussion regarding our approaches to playtesting which is for another place and time (one which I'm perfectly willing to pick up with you off the board just like I have with other playtesters).
Let's start from the beginning. That is not what Ellery posted. For your enlightenment, I will repost (for the 4th time) what Ellery did post:
Please note there was no mention of the maths at that point and there are several erroneous conclusions drawn from that original "statement" and not identifying them as speculation (wild or otherwise). Furthermore in context this was a reply to someone else's post. I replied to this post and warned against making assumptions beyond what is known when the entire framework is unknown. Ellery focused on the maths issue, to which I replied by saying that even were that a correct deduction from the known elements of the system any remaining conclusion specifically on something such as the potential penalty to "starting mages to take cyberware will go down". Please note that at no point did I say his maths were wrong. Quite to the contrary. What I did say, by way of warning was that the system had changed and deducing further inevitably to wrong conclusions. To put it in your terms there is no "wild speculation" in that element of Ellery observation, there is plenty of what I would consider "wild speculation" in the remaining conclusions given what is currently unknown. I'll get back to this further down the line.
You are operating under the several incorrect assumptions and I suggest you reread my previous posts before making further unfounded accusations - you could begin with the post at the head of this page. You have obviously missed the point of my posts and misinterpreted them to boot. I am lumping them together because they both contain "wild speculation" you just don't seem to have read the original post.
Amazingly enough I haven't countered his statement with any such argument and I challenge you to produce a quote of where I have.
You are incorrect. That was not his initial statement, nor was it what I raised issue with. I suggest you reread my posts. Regardless, it isn't a point of argument and hasn't been for me. I have, again and again, reiterated the warning against making any further assumptions based on that conclusion given the number of elements the general is currently not privy too. I have gone so far as suggesting (I have yet to state anything definitive) for arguments sake that for all that's known elements of SR4s system could be so changed that they reproduce the same intrinsic value differential on a roll of 6, but that otherwise too many known factors impact the rest of his conclusions for them to be anything but "wild speculation". Sorry, but what I have not done is said "no, it doesn't work that way".
You are again incorrect. Ellery produced several conclusions in the original post, all of which are IMHO erroneous and misleading and are contingent on information not currently available.
If you are going to post on the thread after the fact it behooves you to actually read what has been posted. Here are a few select quotes for you to catch up:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aug 5 2005, 08:32 PM
Post
#363
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,078 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 67 |
Hey Synner, less posting and more brainstorming! ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 08:36 PM
Post
#364
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Hey, just getting this posting thing out of my system before I go on a three week vacation. I'll be coming back with a bunch of ideas though.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 10:09 PM
Post
#365
|
|||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
Evidence is very good at changing my mind. Well-reasoned arguments do a pretty good job too. Opinion, hype, and PR do very little for me.
Maybe I post here because Shadowrun is my favorite game, and I care about what happens to it, I want to know where it is going, and I find interacting with a subset of the forum members to be enlightening? Or maybe I do it just to irritate you. Take your pick.
My apologies--I am definitely wrong on one count. You've consistently said that speculation is fine. What I was trying to convey (and completely botched in my sentence above) was your insistance that all conclusions drawn are speculations, and deserve labeling as such. What you have failed to do (and continue to fail to do) is demonstrate mathematically why the conclusions I've drawn are not justified when other factors are taken into account. I've already explained why each other factor gives at most an effect of 20% or so, and there don't seem to be enough to add up to the 100% change between 5 and 6.
All right, fair enough. If this is your real complaint, then I can see your point. As long as you also insist that people identify material from Origins or some other source as being authoritative in that way, I don't have any problem with accurate reporting of the source of a statement. It's a little clunky, but it can be very useful in determining the confidence one should ascribe to a statement.
Well, the precedent is that SR developers try to enforce what is "average" verbally, and not in the rules. In SR4, supposedly skills of 4 and 5 were what I would consider "average" for someone who would identify themselves as having the skill. But numerically, it was often easy enough to buy up to 6, or 8, or whatever. And if the players buy up to 8, and the opposition has a skill of 4, they're just not that impressive. ("Lance Armstrong has a Body of 4 and Athletics 4 (Cycling 6)!") In some things, the rules trump developer intent, and this is one of them.
We know that attributes range from 1 to 6, with the strong implication that you can buy 6 at character creation time, at least if you're willing to make a few sacrifices. The people who are good are, therefore, going to have 5s or 6s unless the costs rise extremely fast (e.g. exponentially, which I find highly implausible given SR4's goals) or there are anti-synergistic effects (e.g. if one attribute is 6, the cost of all other attributes doubles--also rather contrary to SR4's stated design goals). The people who aren't good will have considerations other than their magical ability when considering whether to take cyberware, and that won't change. Now, it might be that at character creation time, magic ranges from 1 to 3, and that taking cyber would drop you from 3 to 2 (and from maximum force 6 to maximum force 4 spells). This drop would almost be equal to the TN5 / TN6 difference. But otherwise, I don't buy it. One might wish for characters with magic rating 3, but wishing does not make it so, and I don't see how to allow higher and not get it a lot of the time. I'd even be willing to bet that the mage archetypes included in SR4 have a magic rating higher than 3 on average. Anyway, if you have more plausible hypothetical scenarios to offer, I'm happy to consider them. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Aug 5 2005, 10:51 PM
Post
#366
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Thank you for conceding that, its one of the reasons I "bother" debating this stuff with you. Had this debate been with others I probably would have bowed out by now. Anyway, I'm sorry to say you are wrong again. I suggest you reread my posts. I have insisted that building further arguments from speculative deductions (correct or otherwise) without lack of information is a mistake and that at the very least they should be identified as such to avoid the type of situation we've just seen above because of Shadow's post (someone who I might add, also doesn't possess a "FanPro developer" under his name).
I have not failed to do anything of the sorts since I haven't even attempted it and it was never my intent. I have simply pointed out why your deductions could be flawed and hence why further conclusions are far speculative. For the sake of argument I also suggested that the system could be bent so that the relative "importance" is preserved (for the record your first example below matches the one I would have offered with some minor variations). As I've also said numerous times, and as has been ignored several times, I find nothing wrong with your maths. I find flaw with your analysis of the wider context especifically as relates to your "secondary" deductions.
It is one aspect of my complaint and one I've reiterated numerous times and which people have ignored. My other complaint, about your secondary deductions remains.
I would say you are correct in SR3. I believe SR4 will be better at this, but right now it's only a personal impression based on what I've playtested within my group - a bunch of commited and unrepentant min-maxers.
That does not exclude the possibility that anti-synergistic effects or equivalents aren't in place by other means. Or even that the cost of 5-6s rises exponentially or something similar. Either option and severl others would have similar effects but at this point I honestly can't comment further but I will say you're on the right track. BTW - SR4s goals are to simplify and streamline to its not so much how you do anything its at least partially how you present a concept or rule.
As I've mentioned in the previous page, it was mentioned at Origins that Essence loss to cyberware reduces directly from Magic as in previous editions (this was not expounded upon so "we" don't know the Bioware dynamic yet). At the very least this means that a starting character with an average rating in Magic runs exactly the risk you've pointed out. There are however other elements at work which make answering your question complicated without breaching my NDA - let's just say that in my experience a 3-4 Magic rating at creation will not be unusual for an SR3 type general practionner magician.
Again it boils down to how all the elements I've been mentionning again and again come (ie. variable Magic, break down of magic skills, Magic capping-force, roll of Magic in relevant dice pools, cost of spells at creation, etc, etc) together and the particular character concept you're building. Though you will undoubtedly be able to produce a Magic 6 magician in SR4 from what I've seen to be effective he will be far more specialized than any starting SR3 mage. And a SR3 style general practionner will tend to be a Magic 3-4 type (without cyber). However, this may simply be distorted perception generated by my game group play style and its one of many reasons why FanPro had numerous groups playtesting.
Time will tell, but last time I checked, I'd say you were right. Then again it depends on which archetypes make the final cut. For now your own two hypothetical scenarios present more than enough options, and I really don't have the free time to continue tearing down your conclusions when that was never the point - the point was to have people realize that the secondary conclusions you came to were speculative and could be flawed, essentially pointing out the error in concluding that 1+1+x is 3 (with the first 1 being your observation of the value of 6 and the rest everything else you've suggested). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aug 5 2005, 10:53 PM
Post
#367
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
and here i thought i'd finally gotten over my raging hatred of almost all that is SR4.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 6 2005, 12:58 AM
Post
#368
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
If you don't point out why it is flawed mathematically, and I am not seeing why your points alter the mathematics sufficiently, we are failing to communicate. I cannot convert a quantitative discussion into a qualitative one and retain the predictive power that one gains via quantitation. My conclusions are only solid because of the mathematics involved.
So if you're not interested in addressing the mathematics, I'll just say that I agree with (or accept) some things you've said and disagree with others. Going into more detail is likely to be fruitless since the core of my reasoning is explicitly not being addressed. (I'm not sure I quite understand your claim, since things you say do have mathematical consequences, but I'll take you at your word that this is unintentional.) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 6 2005, 04:36 AM
Post
#369
|
|||||||
|
Grumpy Old Ork Decker Group: Admin Posts: 3,794 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orwell, Ohio Member No.: 50 |
The porblem is, evidence isn;t going to change your mind. We've presented as much as we can, and I sincerely doubt that having the book in your hand is ging to change it any. You have some very deeply imbedded and erronous preconceived notions about what SR4 is and why it was done. Add to that the fact you obviously don't like anything that has been officially announced about the new system, and well... The fact is, SR4 isn't for you, obviously. I'm sorry for that. I hate to see fans unhappy with the product, even a product I only playtested. But if there's anything I've learned over the years, you can't make everyone happy, least of all the very diehard, very vocal online fan community.
I don't mean the Shadowrun forums as a whole, I meant the SR4 forum specifically. Or maybe you understood that's what I meant. Regardless, you seem to be very frustrated and very upset oevr the direction SR4 has taken. You complain incessently about everything that gets announced and shown, and you've sepnt days now arguing semantics with Synner. I guess I simply don't understand putting that much energy into what seems to be sheer negativity, unhappiness, and bitterness. Especially when that spills over onto others. And hey, you're not actually irritating me, so if that's your goal, you may want to find another. A couple months ago, sure. Not you so much, since you're at least articulate and not quite frothing-at-the-mouth :] But Origins and actually interacting with a couple hundred Shadowrun fans, only a handful of even occasionally read the Dumpshock Forums (Just to put into perspective how small a percentage of Shadowrun Fans the DSF really is), and seeing the positive reaction to the game, and flat out having a blast demoing it... <shrug> The negativity here doesn't actually bother me anymore. Because I realized it doesn't really matter. The game is good. And people will like it. And life will go on. Only it'll have a fixed TN now :) Bull |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 6 2005, 04:53 AM
Post
#370
|
|
|
Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,545 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gloomy Boise Idaho Member No.: 2,006 |
Or it will suck, Fanpro will go out of biz, and Shadowrun will be ruined forever. Take your pick.
I know, lets judge it on the cover art! |
|
|
|
|
Aug 6 2005, 04:55 AM
Post
#371
|
|||||||
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
Then why bother if you can't say anything.
How many of those people at Origins ended up not being playtesters, anyway? |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 6 2005, 05:03 AM
Post
#372
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
Most of them. They were open public games that simply required a single bog-standard ticket to play in.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 6 2005, 05:07 AM
Post
#373
|
|||||
|
Grumpy Old Ork Decker Group: Admin Posts: 3,794 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orwell, Ohio Member No.: 50 |
He asked. My original post was to Synner, to try and save him the aggravation of beating his head on a wall. He's apparently a masochist and likes it.
None. I'm talking about the folks who showed up for the demo's and games we ran, and for the seminar, and who stopped by the booth to ask questions and check out the playtest manuscript we had available to flip through. There were maybe two dozen freelancers and playtesters on hand as well, but they don't count. :) Bull |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 6 2005, 06:08 AM
Post
#374
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
Maybe you could explain what these incorrect notions are and why they are incorrect. I've already said what kind of things can change my mind. I don't believe that these are completely unreasonable standards.
I think I've concluded that already, but if we agree on this, are the incorrect notions a problem? Or is one of the incorrect and relevant notions you think I have that SR4 is in large part for SR3 players who prefer SR3 to most/all other RPGs?
I have not complained "incessantly" about "everything" that gets announced and shown. I complain about the parts I don't like, and often but not always point out the parts I do like. There are usually people around who insist that everything is to be liked, so I spend a lot more time explaining why I don't like the things I don't like (and why I don't think they'll probably like it either, after they've gained enough familiarity with it) than mutually rejoicing in the wonderfulness of that which has been anounced. Nonetheless, I am frustrated over the direction SR4 has taken. I am frustrated for three reasons. I am frustrated firstly because SR3 is my favorite game for reasons that do not apply to SR4, and therefore SR4 in all likelihood means the loss of my favorite game, a game for which I have bought every sourcebook since the SR2 BBB, have played for a huge number of hours, in which I've created characters who are dear to me, and none of which appears to have a future now. I am frustrated secondly because one of the design goals of SR4 seems to be to dumb it down to provide easier entry into the game without sufficient consideration given to development, growth, and benefit from thinking deeply about the game; the latter I value not only because it can be rewarding for its own sake but also because that depth teaches thinking skills that are valuable in all aspects of life. I am frustrated thirdly because there seems to be a widespread though not universal belief among playtesters and freelancers (as well as other forum members) that rules don't matter that much as long as they're sorta OK and simple/consistent enough, coupled with an apparent inability to understand the consequences of proposed rules and a predisposition to be as likely to object with ill-founded opinion to the contrary when the consequences are explained as to recognize their error. I think that a lot of this is more of a collective phenomenon than the fault of any individual (save perhaps Rob Boyle). The reason I'm still debating with Synner is that to me he appears to be very close to making the last kind of mistake (and to him, I appear to be making the mistake, but a mistake of a different kind). I'd rather not have people make that kind of mistake, not only because in a freelancer it can directly impact Shadowrun (which I still seem to be attached to out of habit), but because in society it is important to know what you know and what you don't, to understand the consequences of actions, and to appreciate the difference between opinion and analysis. The discussion Synner and I have had touches on all these things, where I am perhaps in danger of not knowing what I know and what I don't, and Synner is perhaps in danger of incorrectly estimating consequences and distinguishing opinion from analysis.
Actually, I think SR4 probably would make a great demo game. Almost everything that I complain about involves things that aren't readily apparent in stereotypical settings with little advancement and abbreviated character generation. All the streamlining, simplifying, and so on, however, is immediately advantageous in a demo. My worry for SR4's viability would be in staying power, not in initial adoption (well, plus the disenfranchisement of too many existing fans).
Maybe that was part of it, but if that was the whole thing you'd have sent him a private message. There's a reason why you posted it in public, too--maybe so you could say I was "beating my head against the wall", doing things that are "nonsense", and so on. If that was a diversionary tactic...well, maybe it partly worked. I can't say I appreciate it terribly, but it's a matter of opinion, and if you prefer that we have a mutually low opinion of one another, it's fine with me.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Aug 6 2005, 06:11 AM
Post
#375
|
|||
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
ouch ok, yeah, so pg1 sucks. Hopefully the other 359 or so will be better |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th November 2024 - 07:32 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.