|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:22 am
The Library of the Brotherhood Update:
The Library of the Brotherhood has been recreated in order to use it as both a RP Thread with RPing in a Library for those who are interested and a thread to post stories, poems, etc.
The old Library of the Brotherhood has been locked and moved to the Historical Threads Subforum, which was originally created by Allectus. For those who have posted stories in the Library of the Brotherhood and wish to repost those stories again, which was only made by 6pack1, tynierewriter (ex-member) and X_Diego_X, that should be simple. You may find your stories in the locked Library of the Brotherhood (OLD VERSION), which you can just copy and paste your story into the new Library.
Also, a new chapter of BOS History to chronicle the history between Oct. 22nd, 2004 to January 19th, 2006. That means all of the BOS History is accounted for from it's birth on Dec. 14th, 2003 to present day of January 19th, 2006. For those interested in reading this new writing of BOS History, I'd appreciate any feedback posted here on what you think since I personally wrote it and to inform me if it's a correct recollection of events or not since we want it to fairly correct so that newer members can read about the great history that this guild has went through in it's long course of over two years and still counting. This helps them better understand the hardships the guild has been through and how strong it's support is, that it'll always be here for it's members, no matter what the tragedy or hardships, that it'll pick itself up and keep going even stronger no matter how many times it stumbles.
Thank You for your time and patience in reading this update.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:42 am
Sir, i will be missing due to family problems and i don't know when i will get back
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:51 am
Ah Yes.
I am moving into my new apartment soon, so I may be without internet for a good while.
I'll try to post after this during the move on when I may get my connection back, but I don't make any promises, things are a bit hectic as of now, so Don't hold your breath.
But If I drop out again, don't eject me, I'll be back after my affiars are once again in order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:03 pm
Vincent Darkholme I think we're all confusign szie and amss wtih the death claws in terms of armor. Alright, for arguement's sake, lets say to protect a human from small arms fires takes 1" of steel. Now for a human, that woudl probably be pretty damn heavy and hindering, with the average frame standign 5'10" tall, and that full suit weighing a few hundred pounds. Now, since we're not goign to be fightign other gun-wielidng deathclaws, we PROBABLY won't have to armor a deathclow for mutnitons in equivilent ot it's siuze, suire the odd revier party will probably point a tank at them on occasion, but it's not hard for a claw to move faster then a tank's turrent can pivot, so we don't need to consider that grade of muntions. So, in our hyptothetical world, 1" of steel is all you need. Now, for a deathclaw to wear a 1" steel breastplate woudl be in eqvuivical size and weight fopr hte 9' tall beast, be liek you or me wearign a moderatly thick sweater. In terms of weight at least. So, with this in mind, it woudl actaulyl be EASIER to make more flexable and mobile armor for deathclaws then a person, BECAUSE of their greater speed and strength, and plain size. It's always been easier to make something bigger more complex then somethign smaller. So, I agree that makign the basic armors isn't goign to be a problem for the claw or the maker, but I'll have to put some more serious thought ot anything powered beyond a few half-baked concepts. Ok, assuming it takes an inch of steel to protect against small arms fire, if your covering a nine foot tall beast, thats heavy as hell. Yes, I know death claws have extreme strength, and I know they can carry it, but it would definately slow them down. Now, if your talking about a breastplate, that is possible, but still not very effective. If your in a fight with a deathclaw, and assuming you take the time to aim, your not going to be shooting at the chest. As for the visor, i suppose the deathclaw sences are adequet. Finally, tyshalle, deathclaws are definately not stealthy. They're fast, but not stealthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:01 pm
Ah, Thank You SHCdoomed and Vincent Darkholme for your abscent notices, you'll be safe from removal if another guild cleanout occurs, but hopefully, you'll be back before then and that your leaves be relatively short.
Good Luck on the move Vincent Darkholme, I know moves can cause alot of stress in trying to get everything packed and in order for the move, then setting it right back up in a new place.
Hopefully your family problems are resolved SHCdoomed, my best wishes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:10 pm
ChibiSarafan Ok, assuming it takes an inch of steel to protect against small arms fire, if your covering a nine foot tall beast, thats heavy as hell. Yes, I know death claws have extreme strength, and I know they can carry it, but it would definately slow them down. Now, if your talking about a breastplate, that is possible, but still not very effective. If your in a fight with a deathclaw, and assuming you take the time to aim, your not going to be shooting at the chest. As for the visor, i suppose the deathclaw sences are adequet. Finally, tyshalle, deathclaws are definately not stealthy. They're fast, but not stealthy. If you would take a moment to review the Deathclaw stealth stats with me, either with Fallout 2 or Tactics (not sure about the 1st) you'll notice that by nature, they are the stealthiest thing in the Fallout universe, huge or not, they move silently and unseen. Damn things had no trouble at all sneaking up on my character with perception 9, the beasts are nothing short of giant ninjas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:33 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:56 pm
Well, in fallout tactics atleast, they have no sneak skill. When making a multiplayer character, the base deathclaw template, without perks or tagskills, has a low sneak level. Deathclaws even have more small weapons skill then they have sneak skill (why, i dont know). But i did come across something else when i read the description for deathclaws. They're vulnerable to fire. Maybe we can make some sort of lightweight enviromental suit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:09 pm
ChibiSarafan Well, in fallout tactics atleast, they have no sneak skill. When making a multiplayer character, the base deathclaw template, without perks or tagskills, has a low sneak level. Deathclaws even have more small weapons skill then they have sneak skill (why, i dont know). But i did come across something else when i read the description for deathclaws. They're vulnerable to fire. Maybe we can make some sort of lightweight enviromental suit. Ever seen a Tiger? How about a Puma? That;s one big animal (Tigers weigh in at 800lbs and about 7' from nost ot rump) The tiger alone can ambush an entire herd of Gazelle with minimal camoflauge, and lets be honest, a Gazelle has better percetpoions then your average SEAL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:24 pm
Again, both of the Deathclaws I just re-checked in Tactics, start with it as a taged skill and their base levels are 80% and 100% = mad sneeky
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
egyptian_vampiress Captain
|
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:47 am
Not that this has anything to do with the...discussion at hand but General,
I like the New Chapter. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:05 pm
mebbe it would be simpler to say that the head of R&D could ban those who post frivilous or stupid posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:06 pm
but see then you have to feel bad about who you ban
its better in my opinion to say everyone is banned and then make exceptions then to say everyone is welcome and make exceptions cause then the exceptions feel wronged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:05 pm
Tyshalle Again, both of the Deathclaws I just re-checked in Tactics, start with it as a taged skill and their base levels are 80% and 100% = mad sneeky Those deathclaws just happen to be sneaky, im talking about the base template in multiplayer, but whatever. Even if im right, Im obviously not going to get any support for a project to increase stealth, so theres no point in this arguement. About the R&D, I think if the head gets banning privilidges, then the head has to be elected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:20 pm
Linak Dekhyper but see then you have to feel bad about who you ban its better in my opinion to say everyone is banned and then make exceptions then to say everyone is welcome and make exceptions cause then the exceptions feel wronged. I'd take up the rules with Fenrir Fenix since he'll be creating the thread. In my opinion, it would be about the same as your preference, since stating a project and asking permission to use the facility would be a good way. Of course, people who are denied may become hostile or abrasive in some manner or cause resentment. But that's how it is with "elite" systems that doesn't allow everyone in or makes exceptions. "You made a exception for him, but not me", etc. So no matter what, by making a rule where either everyone is banned and requires permission or a rule that everyone is welcome and banning some will cause problems and resentment. Which is why I'd say take the rules of the Research and Development Building when it's created up with Fenir Fenix since he'll be creating it and most likely the head of it. Since whoever creates it basically has to head it since their the only ones really with access to changing the first posts, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
