tain.totalcodex.net

You can smell the vitriol.

VR you are a hopeless tool.

Please find another game to play, not only are you one of the most clueless myth players that has been around for more then a year or so.
Your also a hate filled forum trolling dork that responds to being called a "dork" with 5 pages of text

BTW i dont read anything you ever post VR! so keep wasting your time with that! GG!

Renwood TWA wrote:VR you are a hopeless tool.

Please find another game to play, not only are you one of the most clueless myth players that has been around for more then a year or so.
Your also a hate filled forum trolling dork that responds to being called a "dork" with 5 pages of text

BTW i dont read anything you ever post VR! so keep wasting your time with that! GG!

Renwood: Respond to the issue here. Provide us some enlightening evidence.

-DA

Of what? VR's toolieness? its well documented.

Death's Avatar wrote:Renwood: Respond to the issue here. Provide us some enlightening evidence.

-DA

Not going to happen DA. When Renwood is wrong about something he doesn't admit it or address people's legitimate questions, he just bloviates and insults the person who pointed out his error. Seen it before, I am sure we will see it again.

Renwood TWA wrote:Please find another game to play...

I would like to, in fact I am waiting for this new great game I have heard about that's supposed to be very Myth like but still completely original - it's called Myth 4: The Wind Age... perhaps you've heard of it?

Renwood TWA wrote:Pyro, i dont think if satchles hit the ground it will alter them in any way or reset them somehow. But then again i havent looked for this in fear.

Renwood TWA wrote:And now that i think about it the ground WONT reset them, because ive seen flaming stachles fly through the air and hit the ground, and if this reset (changed odds) them in some way they WOULDNT be on fire still after hitting the ground.

There are two satchel charge projectile tags. The sat we normally see is one and the sat on fire is the the other.

Initial Sat has these odds:
55% of sats catch on fire
45% of sats blow up immediately

Sat on Fire has these odds:
95% of sats on fire blow up in the next 0.5 to 2 seconds
5% of sats on fire will "dud" in the next 0.5 to 2 seconds
85% of blowing up on ground impact

To prove that ground impact does matter I made a test plugin. Sats on fire have a "Normal Frequency" of 0.85 (85%). This means that when it lands on the ground it has 85% chance of detonating/promoting and 15% of not. Sats on Fire have a "Media Frequency" of 0.0 (0%). So if the sat on fire landed in water, it will not blow up on impact.

This plugin has a solo map for only one purpose, to observe and better understand Dwarf satchel charges. This test map has a dwarf that is set in the air and uses inventory. There are 3 options. Each of the 3 inventory options replaces the special attack of dropping a satchel charge. The default satchel charge on fire has -0.004 for gravity, 0.5 for elastic coefficient, and a range of 0.5 to 2.0 seconds of lifespan. All of the 3 inventory options will allow the flying Dwarf to create satchel charges that are on fire and have half the gravity (-0.002), twice the elastic coefficient (1.0), and 6 seconds of lifespan. The default sat on fire has a "Normal Frequency" of 85%. This means that 85% of the time when it lands on non-media (non-water) terrain it will detonate. The default sat on fire also has a 5% chance of becoming a normal unlit satchel charge on detonation. The inventory options will create modified sats on fire to be able to see why and when sats blow up.

Default Special = 85% Frequency / 0.5 to 2.0 secs / 5% Unlit
Inventory 1 = 85% Frequency / 6 secs / 5% Unlit
Inventory 2 = 10% Frequency / 6 secs / 5% Unlit
Inventory 3 = 10% Frequency / 6 secs / 50% Unlit

The rest of this readme has additional information you don't need to read unless you have questions not answered in this section.

http://hl.udogs.net/files/Uploads/%20Us ... e_Test.zip

And why do you have something against VR? Maybe its just a misunderstanding, but VR is a good guy.

Maybe VR is a "good guy" twards you pyro, but he is well know to be an asshole to many other mythers for no reason other then his dislike of them.

notice how we are having an innocent disscussion about satchles and he feels the need dissagree with evreything i say, "even the sky is blue."
and "peaches are yummy"

-ren

Well I know why some people might dislike VR, but those people are either misunderstanding him, just plain jerks, or are jumping into the hate "the guy that is trying to correct me" bandwagon. You know how that whole hate this and that person bandwagon thing goes, Ren. You told me yourself that some people dislike you simply because others have. So you could relate. Besides VR was just disagreeing with your disagreeing of what I said about satchel charges. He wasn't the only one and yet you only target him. What's up with that? I actually read those long posts he makes, so I should know. They aren't a lot of fun but they have their reasons for being created.

Anyways, that test plug I made should be more than enough proof about what I said about sats.

Ill give you that "hate bandwagon bit" Pyro, BUT whenever i see VR online i am nice to him and he is just normal.

There is something about him and forums that he likes to be mean spirited twards some people on them.

next time i see him online i bet he wont say anything then as well, he saves it for forums for some reason.

Renwood TWA wrote:Ill give you that "hate bandwagon bit" Pyro, BUT whenever i see VR online i am nice to him and he is just normal.

that's because I am a nice guy and I don't hate you. IF you look back at my first post to you on this topic you will see I didn't ATTACK you. I wasn't being MEAN to you. Read it again.

Renwood TWA wrote:There is something about him and forums that he likes to be mean spirited twards some people on them.

I am sure that given your fairly civil server interactions contrasted with the vitriol and insults you have aimed at myself and others on the forums you can understand some dichotomy in that regard?

Renwood TWA wrote:next time i see him online i bet he wont say anything then as well, he saves it for forums for some reason.

That's because I don;t have an issue with YOU as a person - despite your perception I am not 'out to get you', I don't look for your posts to 'attack' you, I don't have a vendetta against you or respond to everything you say. I take issue with CERTAIN SPECIFIC things you say. If you say ridiculous things or make silly claims or leap from rationality while talking on forums OR on the server and I am around I'll probably address it. If you don't and are pleasant/normal/reasonable then we'll get along fine - on the server OR on forums.

SOME people communicate very differently on forums than they do in real life or in real time. They either say things they don't mean, are in a hurry to just get their thoughts down, or don't think through what they are saying or take the time to make sure that what they write is really what they meant - or they treat forums as a verbal conversation and just aren't used to having what they say scrutinized so closely. As a result, even when they don't INTEND TO, SOME people say some really outlandish things or tend to feel like they are being misunderstood. SOME people take things very personally and when someone disagrees with something they said or their logic they feel they are PERSONALLY being attacked. From what I have observed many people that fall into one of those camps seem to find me quite annoying. From our interactions, Ren I think you _might_ fall into both of these camps - which might explain at least SOME of your sometimes-perhaps-accurately-mostly-not perception of me.

Although you may not believe this, this is NOT intended as a criticism, just an observation - it is merely my perception of dynamics that may be occurring when we converse.

Always seems to be the same 4 people in "these kinds" of threads.

oogaBooga wrote:Always seems to be the same 4 people in "these kinds" of threads.

If you have a point to make please come out and say it directly instead of pretending to be above the fray while slinking around the edges of the conversation slipping little daggers of insinuation into the conversation when you see an opportunity.

Or you could take it at face value and realize what I said is entirely true. Unless you _really_ want me to get involved in this pointless diatribe over satchels and bruised egos.

Edit:
My point is that you mix like acid and bases. I try not to add my 2 cents and bite my tongue fairly often(have I been on the forums lately? nope!), but this time when I saw the ratio of "half-assed jabs" (dork) to lengthy meticulous over-the-top essay responses (to being called a dork) it just makes shake my head. That head-shaking turned into a glib post, granted.

oogaBooga wrote:Or you could take it at face value and realize what I said is entirely true. Unless you _really_ want me to get involved in this pointless diatribe over satchels and bruised egos.

Just the satchels man. Talk about the god damned satchels. Tell ME ABOUT THE SATCHELS.

Pyro provided what I though was solid evidence. Ren said he thought it was wrong. Pyro made a test plugin (cause fear numbers weren't enough for everyone). You know myth things very well Oog. What's the word on satchels? I want to see some evidence about how they work and how they explode!

Validate validate validate!

-DA