Page 1 of 1
New Tactics Sub-Forum
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:08 am
After reading joannaardway's comment about this in "Taking the Initiative
," I decided that we really need a Tactics forum somewhere at SSC.
Duxburian has been writing a ton of (superb) articles about tactics recently, and those threads could easily form the core of the new forum. You can find them under "Water Fights
Yes, I'm pretty sure SSC has a non-forums "tech" articles section, but this would be much less awkward and, I believe, more used. I keep a tab of the forums page open at all times (which is why I'm always, supposedly, logged in), but I know that I haven't been to the main SSC site in a long
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:35 am
The only problem is when I can't think of any more tactics articles to write, such a forum won't see much activity. These are articles which will ultimately find their most views on the SM v2 site's Water Wars section, which is one of SM's primary focus points. The general community overall is weak on war-related stuff, especially tactics. People would rather talk about stock gun models than fight wars, sad, but that's how it goes. Look at my poll at ISCF: there are only 2 hardcore teams there, and I can name both.
Would I support a Tactics forum? Yes. Would it be successful? There are doubts. Are tactics a strong point of SSC? Not all that much. Hence the theory that a single place cannot cator to all needs equally. I conduct and will conduct most tactics-related stuff at SM, since that is one of its focuses.
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:52 am
No one even uses the warstories subforum. There are alot of stories in the main forum, though. It's fine the way it is.
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:55 am
Well, if you don't think we can support a Tactics section, then there probably shouldn't be one--even Physics is constantly disregarded. I don't mind if you'd rather work on SM, which, no offense, could use a bit more attention for the new version. And, though I haven't used iSc much, I remember when it was just about the only thing that I used--it did have quite an information section. Recently, I've been more on the technical side, but I think this might make me take a look at iSc again. I'll probably join their forums before or during the summer, but I won't have much time. It's a shame that I don't use even SM as much as I could.
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:57 am
m15399, I didn't see your post, though I saw you in the active users list. Thanks for the comment. I guess this has pretty much been settled anyway.
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:32 pm
Tactics have not been given justice on any large site since...Hydrowar and GnG. The future SM will have Tactics and Wars in general as its central strongest point, like SSC has Tech and iSc has Reviews. [Of course Tech will still be important to SM as well] The old site has no focus, and the new site is to be so massive as to take extreme amounts of time and energy. The original release date was supposed to be January! The new one is June, but I have a feeling that it won't be done until August at the earliest. More realistically, it may be done on the 1st of January 2007. We shall see.
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:42 pm
Maybe you can close SM v2 until it is
completed, given that currently, it isn't very much finished. Once it has
been completed, you could unveil it to the public, with all the links and everything complete, at a set date.
As I said, I'll try to broaden the number of sites that I visit (regularly). If I do so by the summer, I should be in good shape to hang out at the new SM when it is completed. By the way, can you make SM v2's background a little lighter? It can be hard to see some links and such the way v1 is--that's my opinion, at any rate
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:17 pm
The problem is, php pages do not display like html. You have to open the php online to see what the page looks like, then go back to the file text and edit. Therefore, I have to have pages online in order to see that they display correctly and/or if I like the layouts. I do all SM code manually in Notepad.
The lighting has to do with your computer. I have mine set to a brightness where the site displays perfectly. There is a huge difference between a black background and a dark, dark grey one. I have tested other shades and other colors, SM's background only looks good in pure black. It is meant to have an underground, unofficial kind of feel.
SM v1 is going to disappear somewhat soon, hopefully this week. If I'm lucky with bank hours, free time, and Paypal, Ben will have his 50 megs back and SM will have its 1000, new domain name, and new forums set.
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:57 am
Hmmm...I will certainly tinker with the lighting. I agree that grey is bad, but maybe a green or red tint, or something similar, would make it a bit more interesting. Just think about that.
How come you haven't been able to move the forums so far?
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:14 am
Can't believe I hadn't noticed this thread before.
As to my thoughts on a new tactics sub-forum, I don't think we get enough posts on the subject of tactics to warrant that. The physics forum mainly was made so that people know that physics does exist and to better organize the forum, in fact, I hadn't expected it to be as popular as it has been. If someone other than Duxburian starts posting loads of tactics-oriented threads, I see no reason why we couldn't make a new sub-forum in the future.
How come you haven't been able to move the forums so far?
From what I know, you first have to pay InvisionFree to get a database backup. You can use the database backup to move the forums to another location. That can and will take time. The real reason I believe that Duxburian hasn't moved the forums yet is that he hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) bought the hosting yet.
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:25 am
Well, it's okay if there's no new sub-forum. I'd rather have Duxburian spend his time writing tactics article over at SM (no offense, Ben), further specializing that site and allowing all his articles to stay in one location. I'm spreading out my forum viewing anyway (I signed up at iScF the other day), and I don't mind having to go to SM to look at tactics.
EDIT: Now I wish I had voted for the second option instead
! But that's why you leave polls open for discussion--to formulate much more educated opinions.