Updated the FAQ

Fyron · #1 March 16th, 2005, 08:35 PM

Does the ID number exploiting really need to be in the FAQ? It really doesn't matter, and it greatly detracts from the "game" aspect of SE4... There is a point when over-analyzing the minute details of the game takes any possibility for fun out of it. Of course, whether this point has been reached or not is a matter of personal opinion...

Perhaps this should be moved to a new thread if it is going to spark lengthy discussions...

Slick · #2 March 16th, 2005, 08:47 PM

*sigh*

No lengthy discussions, please. Fyron, the instant you feel like you are reading something that is over-analyzing and taking the fun away for you, just stop reading.

Slick · #3 March 16th, 2005, 08:53 PM

Great research, douglas. I'm sure that took some time to test.

Fyron · #4 March 16th, 2005, 09:05 PM

I was talking about the ship ID number stuff, to make it clear...

Slick:
You can delete posts now. Just hit the "Delete this post" button when editing the post you wish to delete.

douglas · #5 March 17th, 2005, 02:20 AM

Same sector, and that option was disabled. Also, I got a log message each time enemy presence prevented the operation specifically stating that it couldn't be done because an enemy was there - except for the create storm trial, where it told me I didn't have enough supplies, even though the ship had 6 engines and a quantum reactor. Moving one sector away to an unoccupied spot fixed that problem, so I'm quite certain that error message was giving me the wrong text.

Fyron · #6 March 21st, 2005, 03:55 PM

In the interests of keeping the hyperlink version of the FAQ up to date, I plan to write a little program to auto-insert all of the necessary HTML formatting. Would you be interested in this for the official post on Shrapnel Slick?

Slick · #7 March 21st, 2005, 05:41 PM

possibly if it isn't too much extra work. as of now I have many new sections and am in the process of filling out some of the areas that are sparse. I am also in the middle of cutting/pasting from numerous threads on the forum (with credit to the authors).

the part that may make an auto formatter fail is that I am also putting in many cross references. i.e. ".... see also section xx.xx.xx". which would be great for links, but probably require manual editing. if i have to manually edit all of those, it just won't be worth it.

Fyron · #8 March 21st, 2005, 06:27 PM

I am sure I can figure out something. New line requirements are handy.

Caduceus · #9 March 21st, 2005, 07:35 PM

I may not be a great player, but I am a good spell-checker and grammar-checker. If you need a second set of eyes on this sucker let me know.

Slick · #10 March 21st, 2005, 09:18 PM

Thanks for the offer. I usually correct spelling. **Most of the time I let those "armour" and "colour" spellings stand as is, even though the game itself spells "armor" and this _is_ an American game** [insert evil laugh]. All kidding aside, as far as grammar goes, I usually only fix it when it is really bad or causes the entry to be wrong/unclear. Minor infractions give the FAQ its flavor of community contribution. Flavor? Flavour?
I always correct any spelling/grammar that might embarrass the author since that's never the intent of including a quote.