|
|
|
|
 |
March 4th, 2004, 01:53 AM
|
 |
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,624
Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: AI Tag Standardization Proposal
I'm fairly certain it is only the 20 tags. If so, please post about it.
In the case it's 20 - there's not enough to create any sort of real standard system...
|
March 4th, 2004, 02:52 AM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Posts: 4,547
Thanks: 1
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Re: AI Tag Standardization Proposal
Since we most likely have only 20 tags, how about making the SECOND digit specify what type of component it is, and the FIRST (the zero/one/two) specify the grade of component?
If only Aaron would make it 999 tags or something... it would have been SO easy to do that instead of 20 
__________________
The Ed draws near! What dost thou deaux?
|
March 4th, 2004, 03:08 AM
|
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 538
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: AI Tag Standardization Proposal
So you want the capacity for 999 tags ?
|
March 4th, 2004, 03:19 AM
|
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,624
Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: AI Tag Standardization Proposal
Quote:
Originally posted by Ed Kolis:
Since we most likely have only 20 tags, how about making the SECOND digit specify what type of component it is, and the FIRST (the zero/one/two) specify the grade of component?
|
I suppose. It might not work for every mod, but perhaps most.
Technically, it only gives 2 Versions for each type of component - but then some components might be given multiple "second digits" - such as armor which I suspect will be the biggest employer of ai tags (especially if leaky!). |
March 4th, 2004, 03:23 AM
|
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 538
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: AI Tag Standardization Proposal
Yeah that leaky armour is something that comes up alot
ANother reason i would like to see armour expanded more and refined and the leaky armour thing modified say for a Version 2 realise.
Version 1.91 really doesnt represent the end effort though - or we could just leave it as is and move to waiting for SE5
|
March 4th, 2004, 03:23 AM
|
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,624
Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: AI Tag Standardization Proposal
Although 20 seems low, you'll actually be hard press to put them all into action, unless you start having 3 "grades" of every component.
|
March 4th, 2004, 03:26 AM
|
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,624
Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: AI Tag Standardization Proposal
Quote:
Originally posted by Paul1980au:
Another reason i would like to see armour expanded more and refined and the leaky armour thing modified say for a Version 2 realise.
|
Seriously. Will you knock it off with Version 2 release stuff, it's not going to happen. 
At the very most, we might see a 1.92 if this memory error problem turns out to be a significant bug, but other than that, SE:V is going to be the only pot on MM's stove.
And it's much welcomed...
[ March 04, 2004, 01:27: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ] |
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|
