Tsume Xiao

[07:05] Tsume Xiao: Nikki. [07:05] Nikki4 Aquitaine: rar [07:05] Tsume Xiao: Are those the same little glowy sperm particles from your generator things? [07:05] Nikki4 Aquitaine: yes [07:06] Nikki4 Aquitaine: I like my glowy sperm particles [07:06] Tsume Xiao: So your projectile.... is spewing glowy sperm... as it penetrates its target? [07:06] Nikki4 Aquitaine: Yes.

Trust me, I know what is in the armor scripts. Keep in mind the Prasidium should not, while fulfilling its proper role, be stopping to engage tanks. It should never stop moving until the drop point. Also keep in mind the purpose of an MBT in Second Life. It is an armored unit that is general purpose. It is good at everything, but not the best at anything. If you want to see something that can shred tanks, the little armored forward assault unit/IFV I made can shred them. But can it survive much punishment? No. I could compare it to an MBT, but it does not serve the same purpose. Same principle with comparing an APC to an MBT. The APC is a troop movement platform. It is ment to move troops and, if needed, clear the drop zone. The MBT is a direct-fire platform. It is ment to destroy enemy armor, suppress infantry, and In terms of the amount of rounds they can spit out, the MBT wins hands down when you have the ROWS online. In terms of which can do more damage with a single shot, the MBT wins hands down. In terms of explosive rate of fire, the APC's autocannon obviously wins hands down. In terms of Passanger ability, obviously the APC wins. Which is better depends on the situation. Seriously, there is no point in this thread. I'm pretty sure both of you have taken the Armor Training course. This means that you should both know which situation each vehicle is geared for.

[10:44] Huttser Ishelwood: Defencer Alert, we got one lonewolf and 0 defenders [10:44] Huttser Ishelwood: *Defence even [10:44] Agares Tretiak: Son of... [10:46] Tsume Xiao: Your call is important to us. Please stay on the line and the next available Jew will assist you momentarily.

This is comparing apples to oranges. The Tyrant is a general purpose MBT with a large main cannon, coaxial gpmg, and a second gunner option for a second ROWS based gpmg. The Praesidium is a APC with a pair of rockets and a autocannon. It has lighter armor, and is much faster, specifically because its task is to transport infantry while keeping them safe. They are for completely different purposes. This thread is rather useless. :/

Just throwing this out there. I'm pretty sure this thread was about the escalation of force when said force is not required. It is not about that we should not escalate force.

Ok. Here is the current shopping list. My Little Pony (Contacting Hasbro on Friday) -----From Amazon----- Headphones (already have these picked out) "Hoo-ahhs" Brand wipey things. Gold Bond Medicated Foot Powder - Blue Type Propel Brand Powdered Drink Mix Cinnamon Imperials Candy Chirstmas Nerds (Frosty Nerds) Beef Jerky Oreos Ballpoint Pens Q-Tips -----Locally Purchased----- Tan Socks (Surplus Store) "Bigass Paintbrushes" Door Hinges Padlock Locking Hinges (?) -----Other----- Ordo Thing (From Burr) I may make some stickers of the Ordo Logo. If you have any other serious ideas to contribute, please do. Also, if you want to contribute/chip in, please let me know

Well shit I'd want one of those. D: But yeah, if you wanted to send that here I could shove it in the care package!

Scarlet made some sculpted candy with the Ordo logo that I still have (he gave it to me to script it so it would hand itself out). I could rescript some of that. :o

Yes, I know., and I'm working on that. What irritates me is when the people who suddenly call for pertinence are themselves often are going on about useless and unrelated topics. The ARK raid was authorized without knowing that the target had been updated class wise. THat was determined after the fact to have been miscommunication/boards not updated. I didn't know the prior incidents, so I appoligize for the harshness. From my closed perspective it seemed like the response was overkill, due in part t not knowing the prior events. I didn't think losing by one point was an "utter failure" or "getting your ass handed to you". :< I could understand not being allowed to lead a raid back to ARK, but I was told that I wasnt allowed to lead any raids for a while. I guess I look back at Ordo so harshly because I want us to be seen as the standard for the community. It frustrates me to hear other groups talking about us doing things we should be above doing. ***EDIT*** @Mark Lol. Banana Fan. <3

Then why are you wasting space posting a useless response? Read it or not that is your choice, but sitting there and posting the fact that you did not read someone else post is pointless and childish. Do us all a favor next time and just don't post. We must have been watching different combat situations.... 1. SMG's and Assault rifles to start with... No. Several personnel deployed with semi-automatic shotguns, a few of whom were standing at the edge of the redzone immediately dumping entire magazines with little care. Due to their position, these rounds were also making it to the edge of the spawn. 2. Suppressive Fire This implies controlled firing specifically to suppress the enemy. Pissing out bullets in every direction and purposely maneuvering to shoot at hostile targets the instant they leave spawn is not suppressive, it's quite honestly pathetic and reflects terribly on us as a group. I was listening in on 39th Teamspeak, and quite frankly I'm rather disappointed in the fact that most of their comments were absolutely true. 3. Armor 39th Never deployed armor. They attempted to but it did not rez and they abandoned it. The one time they attempted to rez it, it was shot before it could by Ordo member. The 39th Personnel who attempted to rez the vehicle tried to rez the sit prim approximately 3 meters in front of the orange gate because they did not think the vehicle could make it through the force field. There was absolutely no reson ordo personnel to engage into what is considered the spawn area. On the topic of Aircraft, you are right. Aircraft can only really be fought with AA measures specifically designed for that purpose. 4. Light Arms There was never a need for us to have escalated. We out numbered them over 3:1 and there was no imminent threat of losing ground.

Our advantage come from not only training, but sheer numbers. The training means we can act smartly and defend with even your basic assault rifle or SMG. The numbers pose an issue to attackers because, instead of an equal force of better trained soldiers, we have about 3:1 of better trained soldiers. As for our build itself... the spawn exits and the ability and eagerness of Ordo to obliterate anything the instant it leaves is the Achilles heel.

I got a follow-up note from Priest this morning.... He is strange. Instead of candy or comfort Items, he wants hardware. o.o Once I finalize things with him, I will look over the list of suggestions, combine that with what he wants, and go shopping. Woo.

To play Devil's Advocate here: When we do this we cut our defensive numbers to create that raid team. Suddenly instead of 5 versus 15 that is seen with outside groups it is 5 versus 10. We also know our sim and, even if we don't admit it, have a different attitude because somewhere in our minds we know this is training and practice. We also know that, if we pull bullshit as attackers or defenders, we are pulling it on our comrades, and if it is bad enough, will go to our superiors from our comrades. What is more severe? Being banned from an enemy sim for breaking their rules (whether we actually did or not) or being reprimanded by our own command for our actions? George, Objectives stemmed forth from the fact that domination was subjective. Who says when it is achieved? When we leave after X time in those days, before sims had time limits, the enemy didn't see us as declaring victory because we dominated their forces, they saw it as giving up, as them besting our endurance, as them holding us off. Its all relative. Do objectives fix this? They could if people didnt build them in the completely bullshit ways we see. These disgustingly complex objectives serve only as a taunt to say "well you haven't won unless you achieve X conditions". It makes the attackers think there is a measureable victory condition to strive for. Are these impossible? Sometimes, and to most attackers they are. But look at Ordo raids. I can counter Mark's statements by an example of a recent raid to CDF. To win you have to get down into their base and blow up their core. To do that, you have to fight the multitude of spam-cannon wielding, massive chested, pants-buldge wearing giants who will often utilize armored mechs that increase the spam further. Look what Ordo did. We blew up their core. We did it by following all their rules, and within their time limit. We even did it when they pulled mechs, something they claim they only do in response to hostile vehicles. Hell, even an observer of the raid said that action was bullshit. Under other conditions thier sim is impossible. Under Ordo conditions, conditions that adhered to their rules, we won. We didnt say we won. We won without dispute. They can't say we broke the rules and they can't claim that massive explosion of their core that wipes out about 1/4 of the sim didnt happen. We even have a nuetral 3rd party as a witness. That is what objectives are for George. Measurable victory. What they have become is another story all together. I don't want to see sims without objectives, i want to see sims with plausible objectives. But the thought that they can actually lose? Good luck passing that as an ok scenario through most Militaries' heads. As for Ordo? Our objective system is actually quite balanced and well placed. By technicality it has been won by large raid teams (think 2142 size of 10+). The problem with our system? We have, to my knowledge, no qualifer of how long the points must be held to declare victory. Its some of our other defensive things that make people not want to attack.

Aryte, it is with all due respect I respond to the following. While it does depend on the definition used of "bending vs breaking" rules, I see and hear it happen way more often than it should. Most of the time it is smaller things, thankfully, but on some it is something rather large. Most of the time, these larger incidents are not the doing of the raid leader, but individual members acting out. If I try to speak in Vent/TS3, I am met with petty excuses or people who suddenly think that, despite their lack of focus, they are entitled to shout "COMBAT PERTINANCE" or "CLEAR COMMS" If I try to bring it up with the raid leader in IM's: Most often met with petty excuses. If I try to bring it up with higher ups, I get told off because it resulted in a victory so it was the right thing to do, or just seem to get ignored. It was after so many of these responses I just figured no one cared as long as we won (to an extent), so why should I continue to try and point things out if it just got me yelled at. If you want me to I will keep better notes on it. The most common excuses I hear are, in my mind, rather childish. they include "Oh well they never call us on it" or "well they are doing it". This irritates me quite often because just because they dont call someone on a rule every time doesn't mean they don't car about it or make it any less valid of a rule. Think of all the times someone mentions an enemy using an disallowed piece of gear and are met with "don't worry about it now". Does that change the fact that said piece of gear is against the rules? No, it just means we are too busy to deal with it. But if people read the rules and followed them, we wouldn't have to. The "well they are doing it" can be reflected with the usual "two wrongs don't make a right" saying. Just because they seem to have a rule against it for attackers doesn't necessarily mean there is a rule against it for defender, as broken as that may seem. Now, this is one of the points where, as stupid and contradictory as it sounds, there is a strange exception. I can think of two instances, and they both involve unkillable armor. One of these involved a technical exploitation of a wording loophole, and while they did complain, it technically did not state that 100HP was a limit for Armor (Cati vs Aequitas). Was this bending the rules? Technically no, but it probably wasn't the best thing to do diplomatically. Yeah, it was my suggestion and I will not lie Armor bullshit-ery is one of my hot buttons because of the hard work I put into armored systems. The other one is much more recent and nods to the explicit breaking of rules because "they are doing it". I am of course talking about the Chaos "possessed tank" used by Secondary Lionheart. Was it just for us to prepare for the next raid, for me even to put it together, an equal tank, now labeled as "[Ordo] Tyrant MBT - Spooky Possessed Tank" in my inventory? Am I a hypocrite for even considering such? Pretty much, and I can understand everyone having their limits. What was this a case of: Basically, that enemy tank was a case of "find a way to deal with it or leave". And, thankfully to both sides (especially Ordo because the spooky Tyrant is absolutely Ffffing annoying), it was a case of Secondary acting on his own accord. Last night / this morning we attacked chaos and both types of tanks they pulled, regardless of the driver, took damage and died. Were they filtered somewhat and is the hitbox still really small? Yes (mostly because he is using the freebie dev kit and didn't really modify it to fit, but I digress). But the point is that the case of bullshit-ery was limited to that one person. Furthermore, I lost all track of what this example was proving. TL;DR So what should we do? Follow their rules. Win. Take pride in the fact that we won by their terms. If their rules say no weapons with a capacity over 100, don't pull out a Negev or Arcus simply because "well they never check". Don't give them any legitimate reason to try and find fault in our methods. They can accuse of of "zerging" they can accuse us of "desperate combat tactics" and other immeasurable things that are subjective to their interpretation of the situation. They cant make a quantifiable statement on those. But give them something they can prove we did against the rules, and it hurts our credibility immensely. Granted, this mentality combined with past raids leads me to point at the following.... I have to point out an incident that happened to me personally, namely at Ark. The first Ark raid before all the drama between them started, and one could argue Mark's point that it was the response to this incident that sparked the drama. A summary of the situation: I was given auth to lead a raid to Ark. Their rules said equal numbers and certain equipment not to use. I refused to violate the rules and bring in reinforcements or allow use of weapons against their rules. Certain people tried to start internal drama during the raid from outside the raid (they have since been adjudicated), they came in threatening CiR's and trying to force more people into the team, which would as was pointed out, violate their rules. So what happened? Up until the ventrillo drama, and through it until the officer who had permitted me to take the raid out took over and told said people to get the Ffff out of the raid channel, and until said officer had us leave, it was a back and forth battle. Ark uses a random capture point system, first to hold it wins it, and it goes to X number of points until the "match" is won and the system resets. One of the points we didn't win was admittedly one sided as there was no cover for us and they could just zoom over and storm the place, but the global picture was an equal but alternating fight. We were tied and fighting over the deciding point and lost it before pulling out, there-by failing to meet the full victory conditions by one capture. Essentially the same as losing a basketball match by one shot. When we left I got a message from their command saying that they enjoyed the fight and hoped we would come back. I announced it, and was met with "well of course they thought it was a good fight, they won" What does this have to do with the quote? I was told I couldn't lead raids anymore until I proved I could lead raids successfully and utilize all that was available to me. By their sim rules, I did. Did we win? No. By their objective system we did not. Did I call it a win because "well it was impossible to win anyways so we win"? No. Were there any reports of problems during the fight or after the fight of Ordo members breaking the rules? No. While there were other circumstances around the incident in vent that probably contributed to the aforementioned decision, basically what it instilled in me was the following: Don't try and lead a raid if you are not willing to do whatever it takes to win. Quite frankly after that, since I won't bend/break rules to win (in that case, call in extra troops), I was put off even trying to lead raids. Granted back then the breaking of rules by certain raid leaders was much higher, and this same individual who tried to start drama in vent because I wasnt leading like them and according to their misinformation breaking rules, was one of the prime offenders, and I can say things have changed for the better. After this, because of the climate of certain people at the time, I stopped going on them because I couldn't stand their bullshit standards of warping the outcome so we always win and doing whatever it takes to win. I am glad things have so greatly improved. However, since that incident, I've lead one or two raids Would I like to lead more? Yes, I find it enjoyable and fun. But is it worth what I went through before when I didn't seemingly bring home an astounding victory? Absolutely not. As for what followed that raid, I don't know the exact details and only gotten bits and pieces from both sides, but the general picture I got was this: Ordo brought in a massive overwhelming raid force. Claims were made this was done because losing was not an option (which I doubt, but I can see to some degree why they would have thought that). Ark deployed all sorts of crazy bullshit that broke their own rules (beyond broke, shattered) and got rather defensive and nasty in IM's about the situation as it was going on. Ark supposedly spews autoturrets everywhere (they claim it was 2). Ordo member used flak on Infantry (they claim it was HE rounds). Bad shit happens, starts bad feelings. Bad feelings between groups progress for months before eventually settling down. We now approach, at least on some levels of Ordo, amicable terms. Without FRAPS, I will never know what fully happened there. But it seems like an example of what Mark was trying to point at. Does it happen tho this extreme every time? No, thankfully. Can you see some of the attitude he mentions? Yes. Me personally? I think his "people don't want to play in our server" analogy applies more to our defensive tactics. I've already gone on a rant about that as Agares can vouch (he either is a good listener or just tunes me out :< ).

Yes, that is what the database is/was for. So Muitorum can test stuff, and then its all in one place for curia. Adding the curia verdict to the database would make it a one-stop for anyone looking for information on a weapon.

I'm trying to keep this all as one package, and also I don't think sending chocolate to Afganistan is a great idea because of heat.

Ok, we used to have one, then a new one which was a different format, and now they are both gone. I have alot of the test results that I tested for the database backed up on my desktop computer and can re-post them. However, we really need to get something back-online for this, and I think we need to add a few things to what is displayed on the database. For example, I think we need to add a slot for Curia Approval so people dont have to search to see if a weapon was approved by Munitorum on the database, if it was also approved by Curia. Here are the fields I think that should be required: Name Builder Scripter Prim Count (Maybe, it would really only serve verification purposes) Idle Script Time Active Script Time Texture Intensity(?) Rate of Fire in RPM Capacity Reload Time Melee Range/Arc (This could just be a pass/fail field for ease of use. >4 or <=4, or whatever the field is) If the weapon is explosive or has an underslung Explosive Radius: Explosive Capacity: Explosive Fire Delay: (If single shot, omit this) Explosive Reload: N Verdicts Muni Approved [Y/N] Curia Approved [Y/N] If a Forum-Based Database is too difficult/intensive/not reliable, I can just keep a excel file as I have been doing OR I can set up a Google thingy. Lastly We need to get testing standards fixed. -Script Time Testing -Fire Rate Resting -Texture Intensity Testing Kisho and I have been testing the accuracy of Morh's script time utility thing of awesome and comparing it to readings from the old EM menu readings, and it has been within 0.05ms So using this is possible. Another thing that has to be fixed is the method of testing fire rate. I know I gave Nikk a fire rate tester that is much more accurate than some other ones due to how it works. Texture intensity has already been defined by Nikki ("Add up the numbers") and is pretty hard to screw up. Also, we need to reconsider classifications and if a Mono compiled core is a instant fail as it once was (mono has been fixed apparently). Also Also: We need a place to list things that have been blanket denied by Aryte, and clarify what "Banned" means. By Nikki's Project Mars definition, "banned" means banned from the sim entirely. I am willing to spearhead this revival, but it is definitely something we need to do. ***EDIT*** Restructure is in progress. The following is being worked on -Updated limits on acceptable criteria -MORE TESTERS. So Nikki can work on all the other cool shit she does. -More concrete, easy to understand format. -More defined testing procedures.

No, I am not. I wanted to get an APO first so when I contact them I can have that stuff ready as proof that I want it sent to a service member and am not just claiming that to get free shit. :P So ok. besides the attempt to get MLP videos. -Candy Any kind in specific? -Ordo Stickers for him to put on stuff (he said he wants to put our logo on stuff, I figured stickers would be easiest) -Headphones. (I have this taken care of as he wants something specific) Anyone else? Burr, would it be possible to get some logo'd gear for him? Also.... For those curious about the most recent contact: I asked what kind of charge would take out what was supposed to be a "safer" vehicle (the RG-31 is an MRAP). His said it was a 120LB HME that had been buried for several months, so there was no disturbed earth. Ffff. D: Anyways. Ideas. Go.

Just an update here. I have all the shipping address and everything, and he is really thrilled that Ordo has come together and is trying to do something like this. So, any ideas of what we should send?

Give me a few weeks and I'll have something amazing to put up here. As for now, the military ones I have aren't that great... D:

I'd have to go back 5 years to cover all the reasons. I'd say one of the biggest factors in why I stay is the friends I have made.

I will be a little late as my night class runs until 6:15SLT. D:

Looks like a bad month to be in the computer industry. D: *Edit* Its really sad that many people will never even know who he was or that he died, despite the profound impact he has undoubtedly had on their day to day lives.

Shizzerk on TS, after blowing up the reactor at CDF (while outnumbered by over 2:1 in guns, spamminess, and bust size) "I ate half my fortune cookie, put down the other half, and at the fortune"

Kisho this idea is absolutely fantastic. I would be fine with doing the legwork of buying and shipping the stuff. I'm going to ask him if this is ok and if so get his info. I'll keep you updated