26

General Discussion / Re: If you're wanting to return to WoW...

« on: March 14, 2012, 03:07:19 am »

And you do get aggro too

But if you're 100 feet over the guy's head, how does he aggro you?  And even if he does, does it matter when you're that high up and are moving faster than he can run? 

27

General Discussion / Re: If you're wanting to return to WoW...

« on: March 12, 2012, 12:34:22 pm »

Wow, to me, this sounds exploitable, but what do I know?    I mean, if you want to get to a certain quest objective, just hop on your mount, fly over all the mobs, land next to the objective, right-click, hop back on the mount, fly back out, deliver quest, get reward...

28

General Discussion / Re: If you're wanting to return to WoW...

« on: March 09, 2012, 07:01:39 pm »

I actually have an old WoW account from years ago sitting around somewhere, if I could dig up the username/password.  No real interest in playing it again though...

But I have to ask.  How do winged mounts work in that game?  I left before they were introduced.  I know they had winged quick-travel mounts but those were on rails.  If you get on a winged mount of your own, do you have complete free reign of the skies?  Can you control your altitude?  How high can you go?  Can you fly over any terrain anywhere and land wherever you want?  Can you land in the middle of the ocean or something?

...Am I asking too many questions? 

29

General Discussion / Re: If you're wanting to return to WoW...

« on: March 08, 2012, 01:58:21 pm »

Wow, insta-level to level 80...so tempting.

Problem is, I wouldn't know what to do once I got there.   

30

General Discussion / Re: COH F2P

« on: September 27, 2011, 10:44:34 pm »

I might try it once I have a computer that will play it.

31

General Discussion / Re: Edit / Delete Alternates?

« on: September 05, 2011, 10:04:01 pm »

I guess I could try to make the buttons graphically more obvious. 

32

General Discussion / Re: Edit / Delete Alternates?

« on: September 03, 2011, 11:08:22 am »

Is there somewhere else I should put the buttons?  I was trying not to clutter the main interface.

33

Flotsam and Jetsam / Re: Just for fun... a little japanese?!

« on: July 29, 2011, 11:44:56 am »

That's the weirdest romanization system I've ever seen...

34

Flotsam and Jetsam / Re: little fun game :P

« on: July 25, 2011, 12:30:29 pm »

G - Ginger pills

35

General Discussion / Re: Tis the season to give...Operation Christmas Kong

« on: December 17, 2010, 12:31:58 am »

Whatta you sorry about?  I'm just trying to help out.    It's a great effort.  I applaud you all.

36

General Discussion / Re: Tis the season to give...Operation Christmas Kong

« on: December 16, 2010, 01:18:31 pm »

As a side note, the links aren't working as-is; you don't need to put quotes in the [url] tags.  Just wanted to mention this to make it easier for people to click on the links.  You can edit the post or I can do it if you'd like.  Don't forget to fix up the http:// that the forums mangled.

37

General Discussion / Re: New SWTOR cgi trailer

« on: July 31, 2010, 08:41:00 pm »

As it stands now I'll be giving SWTOR a try at the earliest possible time.  Of course I can't say whether I will like it enough to remain, but I'm going to try it at least.

38

General Discussion / Re: Protecting Yourself Part 1: Definitions of Common Terms

« on: April 06, 2010, 05:46:35 pm »

If the info's already available online there's no reason to copy-and-paste (read: plagiarize) it on our own website.

39

General Discussion / Re: Hello

« on: March 04, 2010, 01:33:03 pm »

Hello!  Good to hear from you again!  ROK is going waaay back... 

- Ki

40

General Discussion / Re: Greetings Connor and Oldtimers of long ago.

« on: November 14, 2009, 01:31:44 pm »

Hi, Tira! Long time no see!  Are you enjoying historical ol' Colonial Williamsburg?

41

General Discussion / Re: Another Star Wars another Hope!!

« on: September 30, 2009, 02:45:35 pm »

According to the TOS, testers aren't allowed to talk about the game even if they get in the beta test.

Allowed disclosures:

- That the beta test exists
- That you are a member of the beta test

Disallowed disclosures:

- Everything else

42

Ceredwin's Cauldron / Re: A halfling rogue's journal.

« on: January 23, 2009, 04:16:32 pm »

Screen shot is posted. Not as zoomed in as I would have liked but I didn't want everyone to have to wait around too long.

43

Ceredwin's Cauldron / Re: A halfling rogue's journal.

« on: January 16, 2009, 02:51:40 pm »

(LOL!)  So true.  And I forgot to take screen shots!

44

General Discussion / Re: New Year's greetings from good ol' Sygil

« on: January 02, 2009, 08:10:03 pm »

I'd be willing to try it.  I liked UO, but part of what I liked about it was the interface which of course a 3D game won't have.  But, only a trial will tell. 

45

Flotsam and Jetsam / Re: Order of The Stick

« on: November 12, 2008, 03:12:25 pm »

We do have people of all ages in RBW, and many RBW members also have children.  We try to keep things PG 13 in the guild for that reason.  Having said that, I don't think there's any need to delete the topic. Just a notice is fine. Parents can preview the comic and make the decision on their own, and that's fine.

46

Flotsam and Jetsam / Re: Order of The Stick

« on: November 01, 2008, 05:56:38 pm »

Oh, I'm not saying they should take down their comic or anything.  I just meant if an RBW reads these forums and sees the link and thinks, oh, comic, and goes to read it, they might not know what they're getting into.  Even parents might not realize what's in the comic several pages down the line based on the way it starts.  That's why I just suggested a warning to them, is all.  That way they can judge for themselves if it's appropriate for their children.  *shrug*

47

Flotsam and Jetsam / Re: Order of The Stick

« on: November 01, 2008, 02:03:23 pm »

It was amusing up to the point where they started having sex and stuff. Since we're a family-oriented guild, you might want to put a profanity warning on the link, to warn parents not to let their kids read it.

Still, I will say the comic does a pretty good job at poking fun at some of the more silly D&D rules and conventions.

48

Flotsam and Jetsam / Re: Vista...

« on: September 15, 2008, 09:10:01 pm »

...just the basic OS with none of the bells and whistles...

With Windows there is no such thing.  Seriously.  MS considers Internet Explorer, Media Player, MSN Messenger, Outlook (now known as Microsoft Mail or something like that), and the Picture and Fax Viewer to be "part" of Windows.  (And I'm sure this list is incomplete.)

Point being, you can't GET a bare-bones Windows without all the fluff, it just doesn't exist.

This mostly started in the Win98 days.  Win98, you see, was just Win95 with Internet Explorer's DLLs integrated with the rest of the OS.  That's it.  That's why Win98's stability and security took a nosedive over Win95, because IE itself was insecure and unstable.

What I wouldn't give for a bare-bones Windows, seriously.  If I want a media player I'll install one as a separate application.  If I want a web browser I'll install one as a separate application.  If this was the case, Windows would be smaller, lighter, and more secure.  As it is, every security vulnerability in IE turns into a security vulnerability in the entire OS because of the dumb integration...

49

Flotsam and Jetsam / Re: Vista...

« on: September 15, 2008, 02:14:58 pm »

It's the very fact that people can make things like Wine (there's also a Mac (pre OS-X) emulator, I forget what it's called, Virtual PC or something I think; I tried it once long ago) is what makes me wonder why MS couldn't just make a Windows emulator for Vista and all of their future operating systems, freeing them from worrying about building compatibility in directly.  You know, make a Win98 emulator, a WinXP emulator, etc.  (Granted, WinXP has been fairly good with backwards compatibility thus far, so probably a single WinXP emulator would run all of the DOS and Win3.1/95/98 era stuff.)

Honestly, I think it's just an issue of time more than anything else.  It takes a lot of time to work out the bugs in such systems and they are too busy working on new OSes than looking back at old ones.  And there are always third parties to do it for them...

Also, I will admit emulators are far from perfect.  I remember a couple of things I couldn't run on the Mac one, because of limitations in the emulator (e.g. it wasn't emulating everything 100% accurately).  So there's sadly no perfect answer...

50

Flotsam and Jetsam / Re: Vista...

« on: September 14, 2008, 10:37:59 pm »

Most of the time when Windows crashes it's not strictly due to Windows itself, but another application or a device driver.  (Though, granted, many of these are preinstalled with Windows, so many people might not understand the difference.)  I'm not saying Windows is itself without bugs, but it's nevertheless quite stress-tested and most of the flaws are either in design or are buffer overflows (oh, how much MS could have saved themselves by training their developers early on about how to use strings/arrays in C).

The main reason I don't care to switch to Vista, besides the fact that it gives me nothing I don't already have, and besides the adage of, if it's not broken, why fix it... but primarily I don't like Vista because it's 3-D.  I don't want my OS hogging all of my 3-D hardware, thank you very much. My computer can't reliably run two high-end 3-D applications at once, which is the equivalent of what would happen if I tried to use Vista and run a 3-D game at the same time. As far as I'm concerned, an OS is supposed to use absolutely minimal resources and stay out of my way and let me run my applications. That's my view. Vista has gone in completely the opposite direction and that's why I don't like it.

Besides which, compatibility is a big deal with me.  I have no idea if Vista would run my old DOS programs but I'm glad I don't need to find out yet.  Of course, at this rate you'd think modern PCs could flat out 100% emulate DOS/Win98 with no speed loss so you have to wonder why they don't just do that instead of worrying about making the OS itself backward compatible...

Solving compatibility issues by using old hardware (e.g. old PCs) to run old software won't work.  Why?  Because you can't buy a legal copy of Win98 anymore, and soon WinXP.  And once MS shuts down the activation servers you won't be able to install or reinstall WinXP either, even copies that you legally own.  The only recourse would be to use a pirated/hacked version of the OS, which is not something I prefer doing.