Viewing Posts

Suicide Junkie · #1 November 9th, 2001, 05:59 AM

quote:
Nope nope nope...
I'd much prefer it as oldest first, newest Last. That way, you can actually follow the FLOW of the discussion without having to do a stutter-step-scroll to read long Posts.

The only time this order has ANY advantage is when you were the starting poster or where involved in the discussion from the beginning, and there is no need to review the original question.

The worst thing, though, is when the post goes onto a second page. Then I have to click on the page button to read the original question and figure out what the people on page 4 are talking about!

I love this system.
Even threads I'm not involved in, I check out the first & Last pages, then later, everything new is at the top.

A while ago, I imagined that the best system would be half&half, with newer Posts going down the page, and newest Posts on page one.
Pages should probably open showing the bottom of page 1 (newest post)
Today, I don't think so anymore.

I have 1152 x 864 resolution running, so I can get reasonably long Posts entirely on screen. Even if not, it dosen't bother me.
Scrolling up to the next post is essentially automatic for me now (I have no problem switching gears to other Boards, even if I'm doing both simultaneously)

This forum style simply feels like home.

Always, an option to set the preferred viewing style would be best, but I'm pretty sure that if it was an option I would not have tried it.

Tricorder · #2 November 9th, 2001, 06:07 AM

Well, the best thing would be for this board's settings to have an option for that format, new to old or old to new. Then everyone, including me, would be happy. I prefer to get into a thread and see the first part of it, what the thread is all about, FIRST, then read down/forward. This is natural. You don't read a book from the back to front, do you? Or a newspaper article from the bottom to the top?

I want to read naturally from top to bottom, dammit

tkobo · #3 November 9th, 2001, 06:16 AM

I dont use fighters or missiles for that matter, because to me they both seem quite useless in the average combat.

But I would like to add some questions to the list.

Can fighters be trained like ships ?

If fighters cannot be trained,wouldnt making them trainable be a good idea ?

What happens to a fighter that survives a combat that none of the ships capable of carrying the fighter do not ?
Is it stranded in space ?Does it die ?

tkobo · #4 November 9th, 2001, 06:18 AM

Hmm ,that was odd. I had the Questions about fighters post opened,clicked on reply and my post ended up here ????

Suicide Junkie · #5 November 9th, 2001, 07:33 AM

quote:
This is natural. You don't read a book from the back to front, do you? Or a newspaper article from the bottom to the top?

Personally, I read the front page to see whats new, then flip right to the comics

.

capnq · #6 November 9th, 2001, 07:18 PM

quote:
Can fighters be trained like ships ?

I don't think so, but I'm not certain.

quote:
If fighters cannot be trained,wouldnt making them trainable be a good idea ?

I doubt it; fighters don't tend to survive very many combats.

quote:
What happens to a fighter that survives a combat that none of the ships capable of carrying the fighter do not ?
Is it stranded in space ?Does it die ?

It survives, but is stranded in the system. It can still move from sector to sector within that system.

------------------
Cap'n Q
My first SE IV mod! Hypermaze quadrant
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"