Poll

Looking for what people want/must have to participate in an FGC.

Use of megamek to resolve duels/trials (see option 15 for larger battles)
10 (6.5%)
Don't want megamek involved at all
8 (5.2%)
Don't care about the use of megamek
6 (3.9%)
Inner Sphere and/vs. Clan
10 (6.5%)
Clan only
9 (5.9%)
IS only
9 (5.9%)
Prior to 3rd SW
6 (3.9%)
3rd SW
9 (5.9%)
4th SW
10 (6.5%)
Clan Invasion
9 (5.9%)
Dark ages
11 (7.2%)
Resource management
17 (11.1%)
Tech advancement
14 (9.2%)
Random events
17 (11.1%)
Use Megamek for larger battles (invasions/assaults)
4 (2.6%)
Would be willing to GM/co-GM
4 (2.6%)

Total Members Voted: 27

Voting closed: 26 June 2013, 15:35:06

Author Topic: FGC options  (Read 19141 times)

Klingon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 112
FGC options
« on: 27 May 2013, 15:35:06 »
Looking to test the waters for what the masses want for an FGC. Vote for as many options as you want. suggestions welcome, although the later they're added, the less impact they'll have on the outcome.

Klingon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 112
Re: FGC options
« Reply #1 on: 27 May 2013, 15:41:24 »
And I've thrown in my input. For my part, I really don't care, except that Dark Ages holds less interest for me than a week-old dead possum.

WONC

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 762
  • Don't Stop Believin'
Re: FGC options
« Reply #2 on: 27 May 2013, 17:01:21 »
Thanks for the poll, Klingon! It'll be nice to gauge what sort of game people would want to play, as well as to get a rough estimate on how many people would even be interested in it.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

"Being tactful in audacity is knowing how far one can go too far."
Jean Cocteau

The Once & Future WiseOldNovaCat

Arkaris

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 235
Re: FGC options
« Reply #3 on: 27 May 2013, 17:12:03 »
And with my vote, clan only takes a big lead...

Crunch

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1107
Re: FGC options
« Reply #4 on: 27 May 2013, 17:14:58 »
Ummm.... don't you think the use of megamek as it has been used in the last several FGCs should at least be an option.
Quote
It's really, it's a very, very beautiful poem to giant monsters. Giant monsters versus giant robots.
G. Del Toro

Klingon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 112
Re: FGC options
« Reply #5 on: 27 May 2013, 17:36:48 »
Ummm.... don't you think the use of megamek as it has been used in the last several FGCs should at least be an option.
Wouldn't that be "Use of megamek to resolve duels/trials"?

Terminax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1185
  • Never despair. Never surrender.
Re: FGC options
« Reply #6 on: 27 May 2013, 19:53:04 »
I dislike Megamek immensely. I don't want to have to schedule games, figure out settings and whatnot. I'm a busy person with a wildly changing schedule (security + handyman) and I can find time to write story posts, figure out budgets and give orders during work breaks or what little downtime I've got free.

The Succession Wars to Clan Invasion are the most enticing eras to me, but I'm not terribly fussy about era. I'm also not too fussy on factions. I can run anything from a Successor State to a Clan to a Periphery nation to Independents, Pirates or Mercenaries.

Resource management, yes. It needn't be complicated just enough to force decisions between military expansion and other things.

I absolutely will not play unless I can control my own faction. I don't want to play under some faction head and be constrained to his wishes. I don't want to be told because I haven't played with some person's game before that I can't run my own faction and I have to play under somebody else to prove myself. Uh-huh. Just give me the rules, let me have a faction and I will play it. Nothing disinterests more me from playing a game more than having my hands tied before I even get to play.

Crunch

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1107
Re: FGC options
« Reply #7 on: 27 May 2013, 22:50:21 »
Wouldn't that be "Use of megamek to resolve duels/trials"?

That seems to omit "use of megamek to resolve battles and invasions" as has been done in the past.
Quote
It's really, it's a very, very beautiful poem to giant monsters. Giant monsters versus giant robots.
G. Del Toro

Arkaris

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 235
Re: FGC options
« Reply #8 on: 27 May 2013, 22:51:37 »
I dislike Megamek immensely. I don't want to have to schedule games, figure out settings and whatnot. I'm a busy person with a wildly changing schedule (security + handyman) and I can find time to write story posts, figure out budgets and give orders during work breaks or what little downtime I've got free.

While I love Megamek to death and play it nearly every free second of my life when my wife is not nagging me about the next thing I need to clean around the house; I have to agree with Terminax.  I play in 2 megamek campaigns, where there is a GM and 1 player, and finding the time to get together with that one other person is sometimes daunting.  I have had one campaign on hold for nearly 3 weeks now because me and that one other individual just have not had time to get together and play a game that is still on turn 6.  Taking what might be as many as 20 people who live globally and expecting any two of them to be able to find time to play an hour long game during any given week, is a near improbability.

Klingon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 112
Re: FGC options
« Reply #9 on: 27 May 2013, 23:23:14 »
While I love Megamek to death and play it nearly every free second of my life when my wife is not nagging me about the next thing I need to clean around the house; I have to agree with Terminax.  I play in 2 megamek campaigns, where there is a GM and 1 player, and finding the time to get together with that one other person is sometimes daunting.  I have had one campaign on hold for nearly 3 weeks now because me and that one other individual just have not had time to get together and play a game that is still on turn 6.  Taking what might be as many as 20 people who live globally and expecting any two of them to be able to find time to play an hour long game during any given week, is a near improbability.
The way it was handled in the FGC I was in, was that the default method was "simple resolution"; if both factions had someone that could meet and hash out a megamek battle to decide something, the results were binding, but if they either couldn't meet up sometime during the month, or either or both didn't want to, the GM's dice made the call.

Klingon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 112
Re: FGC options
« Reply #10 on: 27 May 2013, 23:26:04 »
That seems to omit "use of megamek to resolve battles and invasions" as has been done in the past.
Gotcha. Once you were more specific, I understood, and agree; it's been added. Because it is at the end, away from the other MM options, I also added a kind of footnote to make it more obvious.

WONC

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 762
  • Don't Stop Believin'
Re: FGC options
« Reply #11 on: 27 May 2013, 23:32:26 »
The way it was handled in the FGC I was in, was that the default method was "simple resolution"; if both factions had someone that could meet and hash out a megamek battle to decide something, the results were binding, but if they either couldn't meet up sometime during the month, or either or both didn't want to, the GM's dice made the call.

That's similar to how I would want it used, if at all. MM should be an option for those players who agree to do so to resolve character vs character Trials, but not in any way mandatory for the game at large. The turnover time alone would be crippling to a game, without even considering all other options.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

"Being tactful in audacity is knowing how far one can go too far."
Jean Cocteau

The Once & Future WiseOldNovaCat

Orion

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 599
Re: FGC options
« Reply #12 on: 28 May 2013, 13:00:47 »
Given my time constraints these days, I'm unlikely to play, but I'd really like to do so if I can free up the time.  My requirements would be:

1. No clans - them being present means I'm not interested.
2. Prefer 3rd SW timeframe, but would consider something up to 3039.  Not interested in replaying the 4th SW.
3. Resource management should be a factor.
4. If I have to use MegaMek, I can't be bothered. I'm writing a story, not playing a game. My lousy gaming skills should have no affect on how the story goes. I'd prefer it if whoever (person, group, whatever) runs the thing just reads everyone's contributions and then makes a fiat decision on battles.  They can use MegaMek if they feel the need, but the individual contributors do not.
5. Rather than everyone taking a major faction, break it down so that we are at a lower level.  Play regiments, merc units, single planets, etc.  Do the invasion of a single planet, not of the CapCon.  Small groups are better than big groups.
Game mechanics are a way of resolving questions in play, not explanations of the world itself.

Klingon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 112
Re: FGC options
« Reply #13 on: 28 May 2013, 18:21:06 »
Given my time constraints these days, I'm unlikely to play, but I'd really like to do so if I can free up the time.  My requirements would be:

1. No clans - them being present means I'm not interested.
Might be accommodated.

2. Prefer 3rd SW timeframe, but would consider something up to 3039.  Not interested in replaying the 4th SW.
Might be accommodated.

3. Resource management should be a factor.
Might be accommodated.

4. If I have to use MegaMek, I can't be bothered. I'm writing a story, not playing a game. My lousy gaming skills should have no affect on how the story goes. I'd prefer it if whoever (person, group, whatever) runs the thing just reads everyone's contributions and then makes a fiat decision on battles.  They can use MegaMek if they feel the need, but the individual contributors do not.
Likely to be accommodated, based on what I'm hearing so far.

5. Rather than everyone taking a major faction, break it down so that we are at a lower level.  Play regiments, merc units, single planets, etc.  Do the invasion of a single planet, not of the CapCon.  Small groups are better than big groups.
Now you kinda leave the realm of the FGC. The whole idea is it IS the Inner Sphere, or Clans, or what have you. You might play a smaller part, but the head honchos are almost certainly going to be PCs. If you are looking for a game that's scaled down, you are probably not looking for the FGC.

Fatebringer

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3401
  • 138th Mechanized Infantry The Chicago Division
Re: FGC options
« Reply #14 on: 29 May 2013, 09:44:17 »

One of the first reasons I came to this board was because I played in a Gencon game, one that per the description could affect the storyline of the actual universe. Years later I understand they do not take the results of just one game, but different cons. Still, the concept that my playing of this game could affect the big picture in our story is what led me to playing in the previous FGC's.

Clan, No Clan. That is not a deciding factor for if I will participate, but I already have places I can go if I just want to write a story. I want to be able to play the game as well and the only way to realistically represent this is thru Megamek because we cannot meet like a local group does.

As Klingon said, the FGC is not about the small scale. I like building something that I cannot manage in any other setting and based on the vote, 12 out of the 18 that have voted so far also like this part of the FGC and want it to continue. That is just my 2 Kerenskies.

Star Captain Jared Siegel ~ Clan Snow Raven Forum
"If every mech was built like in MWO, we'd all be carrying ammo in our feet..."

Orion

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 599
Re: FGC options
« Reply #15 on: 29 May 2013, 09:49:22 »
Now you kinda leave the realm of the FGC. The whole idea is it IS the Inner Sphere, or Clans, or what have you. You might play a smaller part, but the head honchos are almost certainly going to be PCs. If you are looking for a game that's scaled down, you are probably not looking for the FGC.

Well, I see the FGC as a type of email campaign, not as a faction size determinant.  That is, it's all about players taking the roles of head honchos and making strategic decisions, not doing tactical wargaming.  This can be done playing out the great houses, nations in a balkanized backwater planet, or even battalion commanders in a planetary invasion.  I understand that great house tend to be what have been used in the past, and now know it is what you plan to use this time, but I don't see that as a requirement of the system.
Game mechanics are a way of resolving questions in play, not explanations of the world itself.

Fatebringer

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3401
  • 138th Mechanized Infantry The Chicago Division
Re: FGC options
« Reply #16 on: 29 May 2013, 12:20:22 »
From what I was told, long ago the game was just a bunch of players playing the heads of the Clans, but they played the odd game to settle conflicts that inevitably arose and from there it rose into much larger Strategy and Tactical based game. That is what I jumped in on.

Sure, you can apply modifiers and roll dice for immediate resolution, but this is Battletech. Goes to figure people wanted to play the game to settle resolutions instead. I've seen many times where the conflict had to be simrezzed out because the game was never able to be played in Megamek or because people chose to let the dice decide since the only hope they had was a simple resolution critical, and that was cool too.

It all comes down to what we can agree we want and at the very least it looks like keeping track of resources and units for nation development seems to be something we want.

Star Captain Jared Siegel ~ Clan Snow Raven Forum
"If every mech was built like in MWO, we'd all be carrying ammo in our feet..."

WONC

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 762
  • Don't Stop Believin'
Re: FGC options
« Reply #17 on: 29 May 2013, 14:20:46 »
The FGC was an outgrowth of an old PBEM game from back in 2001-2002. It (the PBEM) was set in 3062 initially, and each player took over only one faction for the game. There was a real disconnect between those of us playing in the Homeworlds and those people playing in the Inner Sphere, however. Everything was managed through orders sent to the GM or one of his subordinates, but the overhead was terrible. Players were required to submit once per week to the Email pool, which ultimately started to be abused by players leaving those players they were attacking out of the loop. However, the Clan players (don't know about the IS players) did use an old chat program to hold live Grand Council sessions. It was a bit of a hassle, yes, but from the perspective of RPing it was amazingly fun and engaging. The first game ground to a halt after several months due to player retention issues, but it was a fun few months nonetheless. Plus, I got to experience how butt-kickingly awesome the Hell's Horses could be to play around with. Hell, I think I still have the player's copy of those rules laying around here somewhere, but they're incomplete without the GM version I'm afraid.

The second attempt to run the game moved the year back to 3055 (ran the Jags that time around). This one barely made it a month, as the GM had RL issues and rules problems manifest themselves in force. The complexity of his rules were such that it wasn't possible for him to bring in any other help, and the game ended. Shortly thereafter, a few of us on the boards decided to start up a purely RP game based a bit on the failed PBEM. The idea caught fire, the forum exploded, and a phenomenon was born. Over time, the game evolved to add the different elements the PBEM had tried to contain, but the overlarge scope & shifting player base are what, in my opinion, finally broke the beast's back.

I personally worry about making the scope so large as to include all the Successor States and Clans, based on my past experiences. Am I saying it would be impossible to do? No, just that I worry about the effects of overreaching on what we want the game to be. That's my reasoning for stressing simplicity.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

"Being tactful in audacity is knowing how far one can go too far."
Jean Cocteau

The Once & Future WiseOldNovaCat

Arkaris

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 235
Re: FGC options
« Reply #18 on: 29 May 2013, 16:38:31 »
What is the maximum player base you are looking at WONC? 

And what is the maximum number of factions you would like to see? 

How many additional factions do you want the GM(s) to handle? 

In your scope and outlook, what do you think the minimum/maximums are for these questions... there is not a wrong answer to any of them.

WONC

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 762
  • Don't Stop Believin'
Re: FGC options
« Reply #19 on: 29 May 2013, 20:20:08 »
I don't really see the need to cap how many players there are, or even necessarily how many factions are involved. If you had enough GMs set up to manage certain groups, then there'd really be no reason to limit people's options. The problem comes from trying to get enough loyal volunteers to act as GMs, so that it all doesn't fall back on a small group again. The choke point has always seemed to be how much the GMs can handle, how complex their tasks are, and how many players they are required to oversee. Ideally, a game that encompassed all of the Inner Sphere, Clan Homeworlds, and the Periphery would have a minimum of six GMs to split the workload. Preferably, a team of nine GMs (two per region with one to oversee/troubleshoot/deal with inter-region interactions) would work best, but there again getting dedicated people to step in and do the work could be a problem. That all sounds very bureaucracy heavy, though.

Again, I come back to my personal view that a smaller scope game would be the best for all sides. The Inner Sphere in 3039 could work, as would a pre-Invasion Homeworlds game (while limiting the number of people needed to function as GMs). With the Clan-only game it would be a no-brainer to have one player per faction, but there again you'd be limiting the potential for involvement (even a post-Klondike game would only have 20 factions/players to go with). The same problem exists if you play an Inner Sphere only game with one player per faction. In some cases that could be worked around (each player getting a major region/duchy/province within a faction with the faction head title being mostly honorary, or in the case of something small like Rasalhague, the whole faction is under a single player) but it still makes me wary.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

"Being tactful in audacity is knowing how far one can go too far."
Jean Cocteau

The Once & Future WiseOldNovaCat

Terminax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1185
  • Never despair. Never surrender.
Re: FGC options
« Reply #20 on: 29 May 2013, 21:40:15 »
I don't believe it is realistic to expect that large of a GM staff when gathering the three GM staff the Admin/Mods are wanting for a FCG has been a major stumbling block in moving forward.

In my experience, the only large scale games with that kind of staff I've seen work were LARPs with a dozen or more players for every staff member and they're a different kind of beast than forum gaming. From what I've seen here and elsewhere, forum gaming typically involves twelve to fifteen players in total, with maybe up to three GMs but usually just one, or two and/or players who contribute to running the game.

Here's a game model I can see working:

Quick Synopsis - A Strategic High Level Game where each player takes control of a faction - House, Clan, Periphery, Independent, Mercenary or Pirate. A Player who chooses a large faction such as a House or Clan or Periphery can (and be encouraged to) take on additional players but give those players some measure of freedom in pursuing their own agenda in concert or against the main player. Prospective things to track - military forces, transportation capabilities, worlds and industrial resources. In addition to at least one non-playing Head GM, there should be at least one additional GM for every ten players.

The level of detail involved for each of the things to track requires more discussion but I'll put it aside for the moment because it's more important to establish the time period first, as that'll change the what needs to be tracked. In the spirit of inclusiveness, I think a time period with the Inner Sphere and Clans would be ideal as it would mesh with the greater player base.

Klingon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 112
Re: FGC options
« Reply #21 on: 30 May 2013, 01:46:32 »
"willing to GM" option added, to seee how many would be willing to GM. I know that there's a considerable amount of overlap, in that people usually wouldn't GM something they wouldn't play, but once we figure out how many would GM, we can narrow that down further. If 6 would GM for a Clan invasion, for example, and only 1 for an IS only, that's useful to know.

I can't see how to edit my poll answers, but I'd be willing to GM anything I'd play.

Terminax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1185
  • Never despair. Never surrender.
Re: FGC options
« Reply #22 on: 30 May 2013, 01:55:17 »
Unless there is a way to change one's voting that I am unaware of, adding that option only works for the people who haven't already voted.

I'd rather play than GM, because I rarely get to play but I can GM. With only nineteen voting people to account for there is absolutely no need for six GMs.
« Last Edit: 30 May 2013, 02:03:08 by Terminax »

Klingon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 112
Re: FGC options
« Reply #23 on: 30 May 2013, 02:43:10 »
True, but the poll's only been open for two days. :P

Savage Coyote

  • CamoSpecs
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2898
  • 저는 미술 선생님 입니다.
Re: FGC options
« Reply #24 on: 30 May 2013, 07:19:25 »
The original FGC was born somewhat from Warner's PBP (play by post) roll-playing stories, that then morphed over to the clan side of the board.  We bickered in character and declared duels, used MegaMek to settle them, and bragged and accepted our shame in equal measures.  Once people started doing the "but, you character was a 2/3 last week and now he's a 1/1?" everything got official and GM'd.  I played through, uh... three or four of them I think (the original, the 3048 one, and the 3065 one.)  Once MegaMek was taken out so some of the not-so-good BattleTech players could play their faction and feel like they were actually winning, I lost interest.  Anybody can run their mouth for hours on end, but it's funny when they actually have to back it up or they *gasp* have to actually earn their gains, and not just have a free hand because they chose the super uber awesome faction that wins 95% of the time in fiction for the given era.

That said, Clan/IS balance can be an issue and was always a thorn in the side, as far as MegaMek was concerned.  I never played in the AccountantTech version so maybe it was handled better by abstraction?  I had a lot of fun with the several I played in, but more than likely I won't have time to do another one.

Terminax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1185
  • Never despair. Never surrender.
Re: FGC options
« Reply #25 on: 30 May 2013, 07:42:11 »
Yes but the people who've already voted are likely the majority we're going to see. Heck out of the nineteen voters, only seven have identified themselves and posted their thoughts onto the thread and that's assuming everyone who has posted, voted. The only clear majority items we have is resource management and random events. Everything else is minority positions and it's hard to know how to read some of those answers as result of the polls format. It looks like we'll lose about half dozen players no matter which way we go though. Probably gain just as pick ups when the game format is nailed down. Assuming we lose another ten percent from the usual attrition, we're looking at around a max of 15 players plus whatever GMs we get and that's for the most popular choices only. Probably a dozen or less for the less popular choices.

I think the better way, is to talk to the pool of people willing to run a game, figure out what they'd want to run and get them to agree on a pitch to form a game around and then present that to the greater forum. If it flies it flies, if it don't it crashes down on the pile of bodies already in the abandoned games pit.

Arkaris

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 235
Re: FGC options
« Reply #26 on: 30 May 2013, 08:48:14 »
I think the better way, is to talk to the pool of people willing to run a game, figure out what they'd want to run and get them to agree on a pitch to form a game around and then present that to the greater forum. If it flies it flies, if it don't it crashes down on the pile of bodies already in the abandoned games pit.

I completely agree.

I am willing to co-GM any kind of game to help get this project off the ground.

Orion

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 599
Re: FGC options
« Reply #27 on: 30 May 2013, 14:50:01 »
The original FGC was born somewhat from Warner's PBP (play by post) roll-playing stories, that then morphed over to the clan side of the board.  We bickered in character and declared duels, used MegaMek to settle them, and bragged and accepted our shame in equal measures.  Once people started doing the "but, you character was a 2/3 last week and now he's a 1/1?" everything got official and GM'd.  I played through, uh... three or four of them I think (the original, the 3048 one, and the 3065 one.)  Once MegaMek was taken out so some of the not-so-good BattleTech players could play their faction and feel like they were actually winning, I lost interest.  Anybody can run their mouth for hours on end, but it's funny when they actually have to back it up or they *gasp* have to actually earn their gains, and not just have a free hand because they chose the super uber awesome faction that wins 95% of the time in fiction for the given era.

For me, including Megamek kills any interest.  I'm wanting it for the role-playing and collaborative story elements, not so that I can play Megamek.  If playing the game is that important, lets just organize a round-robin tournament and forget the story completely.  I don't see why anyone should have to back up creating a story with tactical gaming, or why the two should even be connected in any way.  I don't care how good someone is at gaming, only at their ability to tell a story.
Game mechanics are a way of resolving questions in play, not explanations of the world itself.

Klingon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 112
Re: FGC options
« Reply #28 on: 30 May 2013, 16:45:28 »
For me, including Megamek kills any interest.
That's fine, but that's you.

I'm wanting it for the role-playing and collaborative story elements, not so that I can play Megamek. 
As things currently look like they're going to stand, no one will be required to play megamek if they don't want to, but your hangups shouldn't prohibit others from so indulging.

If playing the game is that important, lets just organize a round-robin tournament and forget the story completely.  I don't see why anyone should have to back up creating a story with tactical gaming, or why the two should even be connected in any way.  I don't care how good someone is at gaming, only at their ability to tell a story.
And as far as I can see, you're the only one who doesn't see how the two can be reasonably connected. Playing a game out in Megamek gives one the 'hands-on, I did it' feel that typing out "I kick his butt" in a forum post lacks. I'm not decrying your stance, only saying that the vast majority don't agree. You can play a role that won't ever get to megamek if you want, say the FS Intel chief, what have you, but if the FGC itself allows megamek, your gaming interests simply will not be served by joining the FGC. And as things stand, no one will be forced to use megamek, but will certainly be allowed to do so if they wish.

Fatebringer

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3401
  • 138th Mechanized Infantry The Chicago Division
Re: FGC options
« Reply #29 on: 30 May 2013, 16:57:13 »
One reason I prefer to be a bit more hands on is that I do not abide fiat in my story. If you think your wolves can beat me just because I play a Snow Raven, prove it. I do not want people citing stories and errata. How can I play a might makes right Clan Warrior if I cannot prove mine from time to time, Quiaff? And it goes the other way too. I lost out on my chance at a Trial of Absorption against another Clan because I challenged someone to defend their bid that they could stand a chance at defeating someone at three to one odds. The lucky bastard got a TAC Ammo crit that cooked off two more ammo bins. In one shot he did a shake and bake on my pilot and I had to withdraw from the bidding because he proved his bid was valid and my objection that was based on the fact that I felt he had surpassed a reasonable cut down was not, and our story proceeded with much needed resolution for a critical conflict in the story.

 

Star Captain Jared Siegel ~ Clan Snow Raven Forum
"If every mech was built like in MWO, we'd all be carrying ammo in our feet..."

 

Register