Editing User talk:PerkinsC
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision
Your text
Line 1:
Line 1: ==Welcome== ==Welcome== Welcome to BattleTechWiki and thanks for helping with the ''[[Catapult]]'' article. It'd be great if you stuck around to help! Please feel free to introduce yourself at the [[BattleTechWiki:New user log|new user log]]. If you want to continue to improve BattleMech articles, you may wish to sign up at [[BattleTechWiki:Project BattleMechs|Project BattleMechs]]. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:16, 1 March 2008 (CST) Welcome to BattleTechWiki and thanks for helping with the ''[[Catapult]]'' article. It'd be great if you stuck around to help! Please feel free to introduce yourself at the [[BattleTechWiki:New user log|new user log]]. If you want to continue to improve BattleMech articles, you may wish to sign up at [[BattleTechWiki:Project BattleMechs|Project BattleMechs]]. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:16, 1 March 2008 (CST) − − == Awards Section == − − === Awards board === − − Hey, PerkinsC: I saw you hadn't given yourself the Edit nor TIS ribbons, so I added them to your main page for you. Please place them where ever you find they fit best. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC) − − === Weapons and equipment lists === − − Mr. Perkins, the changes you just made to the [[Weapons and Equipment Lists]] page look great. The tables are a lot easier to follow now. When you have a chance, put this in your awards board: [[File:AP.jpg|All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon]].--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 16:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC) − == Infantry Weapons by Faction == == Infantry Weapons by Faction == Line 44:
Line 33: :Could be that the Writers Flubbed it, that would not be the first time... wait, which disrepency?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC) :Could be that the Writers Flubbed it, that would not be the first time... wait, which disrepency?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC) − == Requests ==+ == Advance & Experimental technology levels == − === Advance & Experimental technology levels === Hi Cameron, I have question. Are you going to create or expand any articles regarding new "level" system for BattleMechs, Weaponry, & etc.? I just recently added [[Serpha#Custom_Configurations|Serpha Ranna]] from [[Jihad Turning Points: Sian|JTP: Sian]]. The configuration includes Advancce and Experimental technology. I left links for such future articles. I was wondering since you been plowing along with such related articles that you were going to be writing up something along those lines. Like basic intro or explination of Advance and Experimental Technology weaponry. Like Large Variable-Speed Laser is consider an '''Experimental''' Tech weapon while Thunderbolt 20 launcher is consider a '''Advance Technology''' weapons using those rules. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Hi Cameron, I have question. Are you going to create or expand any articles regarding new "level" system for BattleMechs, Weaponry, & etc.? I just recently added [[Serpha#Custom_Configurations|Serpha Ranna]] from [[Jihad Turning Points: Sian|JTP: Sian]]. The configuration includes Advancce and Experimental technology. I left links for such future articles. I was wondering since you been plowing along with such related articles that you were going to be writing up something along those lines. Like basic intro or explination of Advance and Experimental Technology weaponry. Like Large Variable-Speed Laser is consider an '''Experimental''' Tech weapon while Thunderbolt 20 launcher is consider a '''Advance Technology''' weapons using those rules. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Line 52:
Line 40: ::Have done a page for each book to have the Rules levels ... Planning on doing a page for each of the Tech Level variants--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC) ::Have done a page for each book to have the Rules levels ... Planning on doing a page for each of the Tech Level variants--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC) − === Armor Article Request ===+ == Armor Article Request == − Hi Cameron. I recently added some variants missing in some of the Aerospace fighter articles. One of the variants for the [[Corsair (Aerospace Fighter class)#Variants|Corsair]] has Heavy Ferro-Aluminum. We don't have listing for that type of armor. Its recent "new" armor type used exclusively for Aerospace fighters. Do you think you can add one? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC) + Hi Cameron. I recently added some variants missing in some of the Aerospace fighter articles. One of the variants for the [[Corsair]] has Heavy Ferro-Aluminum. We don't have listing for that type of armor. Its recent "new" armor type used exclusively for Aerospace fighters. Do you think you can add one? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC) ::Light Ferro-Fibrous, Ferro-Fibrous, Heavy Ferro-Fibrous have their Equivelents in Ferro-Aluminum, Shouldnt be too much of an effort for me to build those Pages--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) ::Light Ferro-Fibrous, Ferro-Fibrous, Heavy Ferro-Fibrous have their Equivelents in Ferro-Aluminum, Shouldnt be too much of an effort for me to build those Pages--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Line 61:
Line 49: :::The Support Vehicle Armors are fairly basic... if you go with the rules, Tech Levels A-F, and Barrier Ratings 2 (20% of the effectiveness of Standard Armor) through 10 (100% as effective as standard Armor). The Canon only goes so far as to give the Mass per point for each tech levels barrier Rating. Tech Levels D, E & F have the Masses being a matched percentage of the Bar 10 for that tech level, Tech Levels A, B, & C are more complex with no clear progression in the Tech level as you pass through the Bar Ratings... I am unsure how i should handle this... listing the known ammo brands at each tech and bar rating will go a long time towards this... along with referencing known and suspected materiels--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) :::The Support Vehicle Armors are fairly basic... if you go with the rules, Tech Levels A-F, and Barrier Ratings 2 (20% of the effectiveness of Standard Armor) through 10 (100% as effective as standard Armor). The Canon only goes so far as to give the Mass per point for each tech levels barrier Rating. Tech Levels D, E & F have the Masses being a matched percentage of the Bar 10 for that tech level, Tech Levels A, B, & C are more complex with no clear progression in the Tech level as you pass through the Bar Ratings... I am unsure how i should handle this... listing the known ammo brands at each tech and bar rating will go a long time towards this... along with referencing known and suspected materiels--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) − === Citation needed === + == Awards board == + + Hey, PerkinsC: I saw you hadn't given yourself the Edit nor TIS ribbons, so I added them to your main page for you. Please place them where ever you find they fit best. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC) + + == Citation needed == Good morning, Cameron. The question has been raised as to the source material of the relationship between the [[Gunslinger]] and the [[Highlander]]. If you would, please link a ref to that statement on the Highlander article (and then remove the verify and citation need tags). Thanks, man. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Good morning, Cameron. The question has been raised as to the source material of the relationship between the [[Gunslinger]] and the [[Highlander]]. If you would, please link a ref to that statement on the Highlander article (and then remove the verify and citation need tags). Thanks, man. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Line 67:
Line 59: :It's more of a question of the structure of both machines. I am not sure if the fluff has ever '''stated''' the relationship. but it is definitely implied by the similarity of artwork and main guns. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC) :It's more of a question of the structure of both machines. I am not sure if the fluff has ever '''stated''' the relationship. but it is definitely implied by the similarity of artwork and main guns. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC) − === Equipment Request ===+ == Equipment Request == Hi Cameron. Hope things are well with you. Since your bit keener on equipment sort of things. Is possible for you to do small equipment article for Fission Reactors. Their found in the TacOps book. If your not able to write it up, i'll try do it myself. Thanks! -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Hi Cameron. Hope things are well with you. Since your bit keener on equipment sort of things. Is possible for you to do small equipment article for Fission Reactors. Their found in the TacOps book. If your not able to write it up, i'll try do it myself. Thanks! -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC) − − ==Man-Portable Weapons Question== − Hello Perkins, Do you have any plans to solidify the Man-Portable weaponry? I noticed you re-doing alot your old categories. I was hoping to link some articles that need some connecting. Namely Man-Portable or Battle Armor scale Plasma Rifles. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 20:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC) − − ::red link the articles with the name from the book , when i get the time to do things from home i will be working on it... I create the Articles with the Infantry and BattleArmor Scale Weapons in the two part per tech base info box I kludged. Well, trying it out again... --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 22:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC) − − − ==Infantry Platoon Creation Rules== − − Have started working on [[User:PerkinsC/IPCRWorksheet|Formula Worksheet]] for [[Infantry Platoon Creation Rules]] Based on last published version in [[Combat Operations]]. Cribbed from BV worksheet and editing as i go. Follow-on would be creating the [[User:PerkinsC/WeaponsConversionWorkSheet|Infantry Platoon Creation Rules\Weapon Conversion Rules worksheet]].--Cameron 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC) − :Cool. Glad someone finds the worksheet useful.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC) − ::Now, if i could get it working... could be tonite, but probably will be tomarrow, after get home after work--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC) − − ==Note about Placeholder data in Work Sheet== − − Suggestion: try the Game Rules type div tag from MASC to get the cauthionary note to stand out.--Cameron 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC) − :Huh?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC) − − <div style="background-color:#FFFFE0; border:1px solid #666; margin:1.5em 0 .5em 0; padding:0 .5em 0 1em; -moz-border-radius:.5em"> − The 100 listed for Armor points and Internal Structure points, and the 14 listed for Heat Points, are placeholders. They don't contribute anything to the formula and should be replaced with the information from the TRO.</div>--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC) − :Ah. The light dawns.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC) − ::Grin--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC) − − ==Infantry Images== − Hy Cameron, the infantry images came from [[Technical Readout: 3085]], [[Technical Readout: 3085 Supplemental]] have a lot of new images, but (TRO3085Supplemental) falls under the moratorium.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 22:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC) − :Thanks... good to know that there is a reason to buy the new books.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC) − − ==Request== − Hey, what do you think would when we cooperate by the personal equipment, or what doyou think about it. I have to many items the sources and pictures. [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC) − − :vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche − :Zusammenarbeiten klingt gut, sollten Infanteriewaffen das gleiche Niveau der Abdeckung haben, dem BattleMech und Träger Waffen (Schlachtfeld-Waffen) tun anbrachten. Wie Sie denken, dass wir BattleArmor Waffen behandeln sollten… Unterschiedlicher Artikel für BA & Infanterie-bewegliche Waffen (einfach und frei) oder der gleiche Artikel mit den unterschiedlichen Abschnitten (erschwert aber frei), der gleiche Artikel mit gemischtem Notfall (einfach aber Verwirrung, BA betrachtend IST, BA-Clan, Inf IST & Inf-Clan.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC) − − :Working together sounds good, infantry weapons should have the same level of coverage that BattleMech and Vehicle Mounted Weapons (BattleField Weapons) do. How do you think that we should handle BattleArmor Weapons... Seperate Article For BA & Infantry Portable Weapons (easy and clear), or same Article with Seperate Sections (Complicated but clear), Same Article with blended Stats (simple but confusing, considering BA IS, BA clan, Inf IS & Inf clan. − − ==Templates== − vonbabelfish -ich spreicht und fursteh eine sehr kleinne bissen deutche − Ja [[Template:InfoBoxWeapon]] ist, damit aller BattleTech Spiel-Notfall für Infanterie-Waffen passt, einschließlich Technologie & modernisiert; Verwendbarkeit. Ich plane, zu redigieren [[Template:InfoBoxRPGWeapon]] damit aller BT Notfall Kopie/Paste vom BattleTech Blatt mit den RPG-spezifischen Feldern ist, die hinzugefügt werden. − − Yes, The [[Template:InfoBoxWeapon]] is updated so that all of the BattleTech Game Stats for Infantry Weapons will fit, including Technology & Availability. I plan to edit the [[Template:InfoBoxRPGWeapon]] so that all of the BT Stats will be copy/paste from the BattleTech Sheet with the RPG Specific Fields being Added.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC) − − :Hy Cameron, i jump in, i want to add the InfoBoxWeapon template to [[User:Neuling]]s new created Weapon articles, i hope there not be sub-stubed by the admins, the wiki standard of Neuling's pages is very hmm, i hope to bring the pages up to flow, and i hope we meet sarnas Manual of Style. Greetings--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 18:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC) − − ::Thanks much--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC) − − ==Page formating== − Hy Cameron, i think you have a formating failur on your Infantry Weapons List page, i can not show all table rows in the article.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC) − − :not sure what you mean, there are supposed to be some blanks in the table--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC) − − ==New Support Weapon Article== − Hi Cameron. This [[Gauss Cannon (Grand Mauler)]] was posted recently. Can you check this out? You've been doing the infantry support weapon stuff, i don't have [[Lostech]] handy to check it out. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC) − − ::Looks about right for that source, moving to /RPG3e (from MW3e, LosTech, CBT Companion or Combat Equipment, or the House Handbooks) pasting cleanup tag and infobox from [[Help:CreateInfantryRPGWeaponArticle]]. Creating page with BT Stats info box. − − == Enhanced ER PPC == − − Perkins - Respectfully - I do not feel it was necessary to essentially delete my work and copy it to a new article setup as a "sub-article" for the ER PPC page. At the very least, we could have shared a discussion on the merits of presenting the information in this manner. Also respectfully - It is my humble opinion that the technical/game information should take precedent over the "production" information as far as the infoboxes go. If there has been a consensus to support otherwise, I will certainly bow to it. As it stands, the current infobox you put up there is simply a collection of incomplete information and unnecessary "red links". May I ask if we could reach some reasonable accord on this? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 00:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC) − − :I agree with the technical/game information taking precedence, that is why the discussion section for the enhanced model was moved to a new page for the enhanced model with the new stats. the alternative would be Clan, Clan Prototype, and IS stats for each section--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC) − − :: Wait - so every version would get its own page??? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC) − − ::: Re every version Getting its own Page the Clan and innersphere versions are traditionally handled on the same page (i disagree with this, but -shrug- its been done since Technical Readout 3050) but the prototype is a different, earlier weapon and could conveievably have a prototype IS and Clan Model. I found out with the Infantry Weapons that 4 Different models on the same page was cumbersome, at best. And an eyesore at worst.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC) − − :: Cameron - Please look at the cleanup I have performed on the [[Enhanced ER PPC]] page. I have pulled the irrelevant production data, which is cumbersome and unneeded. Rarity ratings are not completely irrelevant, but they were simply introduced only in recent works and may be completely abandoned a couple of years from now. I have also dropped the category redlinks because they do not exist, nor is it suggested they will someday be made. Please - if you are going to completely change how we present material on the wiki, please start a discussion about it first. Thank you. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC) − − ::: I actually put some of the data in the info box rather than the "Hey Rube, Did you perhapse miss this part" (rapier size of sledge hammer) of copying the help text (too much collateral damage, and the target didn't even notice the problem). if I do anything on it in future, it will be moving the original misplaced text section to discussion then pasting the help text to the discussion section.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC) − − == Production and Availability Informaiton == − − The Production and Availability information are technical / game information and is available in most of the new source books, but i am not sure for that particular weapon.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 18:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC) − − : Cameron - This is what I am saying : The TECHNICAL game information should come first. The production info should come second and should be cleanly presented. I would respectfully have preferred discussion on this matter before every weapons page on the site was changed. It will take forever to clean them up. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 18:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC) − − :: The information definately does Not belong in == Technical Specifications == in the text of the article, it belongs in the info box because it is Technical Game Information and not in-universe information. I have been going behind the people doing == Technical Specifications == in the main article space and pasting the Technical Details section of the [[Help:CreateWeaponArticle]] in hopes that they would clean up their '''own''' mess. Availability, Introduction, Loss, and Recovery Dates are Technical Game Information. As is the Type of the Weapon, etc.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC) − − ::: Cameron - Respectfully - I differentiate between "Technical Specifications" and "Production information". Would you at least agree that "Technical Specifications" should be listed first? [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 23:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC) − − ::::"Respectfully" is something you say when it is anything but...just say what you say because i either interpet it as you want me to (any thing but), or contrarwise as a softener that i do not read it as - ROFL. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC) − − :::::I say it because I do value your contributions to the wiki; I simply wish we could openly discuss these Infobox changes before they are widely implemented. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 17:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC) − − ::::The info box controls where that information is placed, move it up, move it down, do what you want, but you need to edit the InfoBox template and then it will move it on all pages simultaneously regardless of the order of the text prompts... i think (may wait until the next edit). As to where it should be, the availability information has always been towards the top of the info box, all that has changed with Total Warfare/Tech Manual/Tactical Operations/Strategic Operations/A Time of War is that the Tech Base and Availability has expanded into Tech Base, Technology Level, Introduction date, Availability dates, Extinction Dates and Reintroduction Dates. With the Choose One in the Help File, it is quite literally telling the Editor to make a Choice... if some one would, it would be a simple X/X/B instead of what it looks like with someone pasting the information out into a seperate section in the text. Much Better than unavailable/unavailable/common or a thousand times better than what it looks like now.--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 13:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC) − − ==Creature Infobox== − Hy Cameron, when you have time, please take a look on this [[Template:InfoBoxCreature]], fix somethings if you want, and give me a little feedback. Greetings--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 17:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC) − − == Hi, have advice? == − − − I'm kindof new to this wiki, but have been into BattleTech for awhile. I am only a teen.<br /> − What do you think of what I've written? − − [[Shockers|Shockers Mercenary Command]]<br /> − [[Shockers CH1]]<br /> − [[Shockers CH2]] − − == Userbars for Project: Infantry Weapons == − − Hey, I'm negotiating with HikageMaru about making various userbars. I saw your request [[Talk:Gallery: BTW Userbars|here]] and thought I'd need a bit more guidance. Can you provide pics you could see being used on it. Also, we'll be making two, if he accepts the commission. Do you want the Lead & Member ones to be identical, or how? --[[User:Revanche|Rev]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC) − − == The soon to be extinct weapon charts, got a list? == − − Not sure if you still use Sarna.net, but... I was wondering if you would have a copy of all the pages you did similar to the Gm Whirlwind/5 and the Armstrong J11. − − It seems they may not have a place here, but I have a use for them as it would help eliminate quite a bit of work that I would otherwise need to do. I'm working on a MW5-Mercs mod with lore-based weapons, and the infantry-scale charts. I find that they would heavily help me establish some baselines, given that the stated typical max range of an autocannon in BT is 2,000 meters (and Mech Rifle about 3,000 meters), in giving me ranges in which the kinetic element is still effective to delivering damage in addition to the explosive element for AC shells. Please share the names of the weapons you've done, I can pull them up on the wayback machine, if you have a newer version in another form (excel, fan-TRO-ish-thing, etc) do share. If you still do that project elsewhere, I can swap the data I've gathered so far for other aspects of the weapons.--[[User:Koniving1|Koniving1]] ([[User talk:Koniving1|talk]]) 05:32, 28 September 2019 (EDT)
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Welcome== | ==Welcome== | ||
Welcome to BattleTechWiki and thanks for helping with the ''[[Catapult]]'' article. It'd be great if you stuck around to help! Please feel free to introduce yourself at the [[BattleTechWiki:New user log|new user log]]. If you want to continue to improve BattleMech articles, you may wish to sign up at [[BattleTechWiki:Project BattleMechs|Project BattleMechs]]. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:16, 1 March 2008 (CST) | Welcome to BattleTechWiki and thanks for helping with the ''[[Catapult]]'' article. It'd be great if you stuck around to help! Please feel free to introduce yourself at the [[BattleTechWiki:New user log|new user log]]. If you want to continue to improve BattleMech articles, you may wish to sign up at [[BattleTechWiki:Project BattleMechs|Project BattleMechs]]. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 18:16, 1 March 2008 (CST) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Infantry Weapons by Faction == | == Infantry Weapons by Faction == | ||
| Line 44: | Line 33: | ||
:Could be that the Writers Flubbed it, that would not be the first time... wait, which disrepency?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | :Could be that the Writers Flubbed it, that would not be the first time... wait, which disrepency?--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | + | == Advance & Experimental technology levels == | |
| − | |||
Hi Cameron, I have question. Are you going to create or expand any articles regarding new "level" system for BattleMechs, Weaponry, & etc.? I just recently added [[Serpha#Custom_Configurations|Serpha Ranna]] from [[Jihad Turning Points: Sian|JTP: Sian]]. The configuration includes Advancce and Experimental technology. I left links for such future articles. I was wondering since you been plowing along with such related articles that you were going to be writing up something along those lines. Like basic intro or explination of Advance and Experimental Technology weaponry. Like Large Variable-Speed Laser is consider an '''Experimental''' Tech weapon while Thunderbolt 20 launcher is consider a '''Advance Technology''' weapons using those rules. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC) | Hi Cameron, I have question. Are you going to create or expand any articles regarding new "level" system for BattleMechs, Weaponry, & etc.? I just recently added [[Serpha#Custom_Configurations|Serpha Ranna]] from [[Jihad Turning Points: Sian|JTP: Sian]]. The configuration includes Advancce and Experimental technology. I left links for such future articles. I was wondering since you been plowing along with such related articles that you were going to be writing up something along those lines. Like basic intro or explination of Advance and Experimental Technology weaponry. Like Large Variable-Speed Laser is consider an '''Experimental''' Tech weapon while Thunderbolt 20 launcher is consider a '''Advance Technology''' weapons using those rules. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 52: | Line 40: | ||
::Have done a page for each book to have the Rules levels ... Planning on doing a page for each of the Tech Level variants--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC) | ::Have done a page for each book to have the Rules levels ... Planning on doing a page for each of the Tech Level variants--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 14:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | + | == Armor Article Request == | |
| − | Hi Cameron. I recently added some variants missing in some of the Aerospace fighter articles. One of the variants for the [[ | + | Hi Cameron. I recently added some variants missing in some of the Aerospace fighter articles. One of the variants for the [[Corsair]] has Heavy Ferro-Aluminum. We don't have listing for that type of armor. Its recent "new" armor type used exclusively for Aerospace fighters. Do you think you can add one? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
::Light Ferro-Fibrous, Ferro-Fibrous, Heavy Ferro-Fibrous have their Equivelents in Ferro-Aluminum, Shouldnt be too much of an effort for me to build those Pages--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | ::Light Ferro-Fibrous, Ferro-Fibrous, Heavy Ferro-Fibrous have their Equivelents in Ferro-Aluminum, Shouldnt be too much of an effort for me to build those Pages--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 61: | Line 49: | ||
:::The Support Vehicle Armors are fairly basic... if you go with the rules, Tech Levels A-F, and Barrier Ratings 2 (20% of the effectiveness of Standard Armor) through 10 (100% as effective as standard Armor). The Canon only goes so far as to give the Mass per point for each tech levels barrier Rating. Tech Levels D, E & F have the Masses being a matched percentage of the Bar 10 for that tech level, Tech Levels A, B, & C are more complex with no clear progression in the Tech level as you pass through the Bar Ratings... I am unsure how i should handle this... listing the known ammo brands at each tech and bar rating will go a long time towards this... along with referencing known and suspected materiels--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | :::The Support Vehicle Armors are fairly basic... if you go with the rules, Tech Levels A-F, and Barrier Ratings 2 (20% of the effectiveness of Standard Armor) through 10 (100% as effective as standard Armor). The Canon only goes so far as to give the Mass per point for each tech levels barrier Rating. Tech Levels D, E & F have the Masses being a matched percentage of the Bar 10 for that tech level, Tech Levels A, B, & C are more complex with no clear progression in the Tech level as you pass through the Bar Ratings... I am unsure how i should handle this... listing the known ammo brands at each tech and bar rating will go a long time towards this... along with referencing known and suspected materiels--[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | === Citation needed | + | == Awards board == |
| + | |||
| + | Hey, PerkinsC: I saw you hadn't given yourself the Edit nor TIS ribbons, so I added them to your main page for you. Please place them where ever you find they fit best. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Citation needed == | ||
Good morning, Cameron. The question has been raised as to the source material of the relationship between the [[Gunslinger]] and the [[Highlander]]. If you would, please link a ref to that statement on the Highlander article (and then remove the verify and citation need tags). Thanks, man. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC) | Good morning, Cameron. The question has been raised as to the source material of the relationship between the [[Gunslinger]] and the [[Highlander]]. If you would, please link a ref to that statement on the Highlander article (and then remove the verify and citation need tags). Thanks, man. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Line 67: | Line 59: | ||
:It's more of a question of the structure of both machines. I am not sure if the fluff has ever '''stated''' the relationship. but it is definitely implied by the similarity of artwork and main guns. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | :It's more of a question of the structure of both machines. I am not sure if the fluff has ever '''stated''' the relationship. but it is definitely implied by the similarity of artwork and main guns. --[[User:PerkinsC|Cameron]] 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| − | + | == Equipment Request == | |
Hi Cameron. Hope things are well with you. Since your bit keener on equipment sort of things. Is possible for you to do small equipment article for Fission Reactors. Their found in the TacOps book. If your not able to write it up, i'll try do it myself. Thanks! -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC) | Hi Cameron. Hope things are well with you. Since your bit keener on equipment sort of things. Is possible for you to do small equipment article for Fission Reactors. Their found in the TacOps book. If your not able to write it up, i'll try do it myself. Thanks! -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 15:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||