Prev: RE: House rules? Next: Re: [FT] PBLs

RE: [SG] Stargrunt.com (was: House rules?)

From: "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@d...>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 09:46:32 -0400
Subject: RE: [SG] Stargrunt.com (was: House rules?)

Here is what I would like to see:

1)FAQ. I know that you said that you had some negative feed back, but
this
was valuable. Perhaps it could be color coded for [OFFICIAL] responses
and
list suggestions?
2) Collected house rules. These were also valuable.
3) Scenarios/AARs. These are helpful to new players (like myself) in
getting
an idea for what works and what does not. And what is balanced.

I agree with Roger, the guest book and interactive stuff was nice, but
not
necessary. The most frustrating part of it was the inability to update
the
information once it was put into the system. I have added 2 interactive
sections to my web site, a links page and a glossary page, that is
updateable by the public. I did this to save myself time with links that
people have sent me. Interactive stuff can be a great time saver, but is
often just fluff. (At some point I will have an interactive ship design
system, but that DOES take time to write and debug).

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Sadler [SMTP:webmaster@stargrunt.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 9:09 AM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	RE: House rules?
> 
> > With the demise of stargrunt.com, another fallout in the .com
> > wars :) I am at a loss for all the good house rules collected
> > there.  Such things as breaching walls and the alternate rules
> > for detachments.
> 
> Geez, so many people lamenting the closure of my website! :)
> 
> > Is there another page with this information?
> 
> Looks like I may have to re-open the site sooner than I expected, for
> those
> of you hungry for Stargrunt stuff. :)
> 
> Any suggestions for what _should_ be on the site, people? I'm open for
> ideas
> here!
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> Jeremy Sadler
> Webmaster - Stargrunt.com


Prev: RE: House rules? Next: Re: [FT] PBLs