Frak! You don't even know how to frakkin' write frak?!

And frakkin' why is that an excellent idea like this one is pounded so much?!

I was raised with the original BSG and I loved it. Scratchbuilt vipers, draw cylons all the time and grow up talking about that. I'm a fan.

But I must clearly state that the new series is ten times better. And the frakkin' word frak also makes it better.

Didn't I told myself I was stop posting in the art arguing thread?!

If you were doing what you said you were doing, then you aren't average at all. Clearly.

But, being simple geometric shaped images, the way SP is animated and mixed with the script is far from simple or mediocre. Is high comedy, by my standards.

All humour is made at the expense of someone else´s dignity. There is dignity and dignity, of course. Bugs Bunny is cruel and incapable of feeling sorry for anyone, all together with that sweet bunny face.

Charles Chaplin and Buster Keaton make humour at the expense of themselves and their dagnity and we love it.

If humour is used to show our personnal and social hypocrisies, I don't care if it is at the expense of someone or if it is cruel. If it is to sustain those hypocrisies, racism, xenophoby or other things we consider inhuman, then yes, I agree with you.

Okay. This is a very old complex discussion. I'll just say this more two cents of opinion and leave it at it.

The concept of art is subjective. The first greeks who made the pots we now consider amazing works of art, didn't had the concept. For them it was work. Pretty to sell.
Art doesn't have to be difficult or crafty. Some of it is, and we admire that, but it is not necessary to be true art. Mozart didn't have any difficulty in composing. Yet...
Not liking a piece of art doesn't make it lesser of a peace of art. And I don't feel that I have to like it because everybody says its a work of art.
I wouldn't waste a million in a painting, because if i had a million I would have better things to do with it.
But I sitted for two hours admiring "La Liberté guidant le peuple" from Delacroix.
Doing a piece of art with simple mechanics requires sometimes more knowledge of the universe than doing it the hard way. Can I put here the good phrase: "Simple but not simplistic?"
Pop art uses the multiplication of themes and the technological capacity of our society to express itself, but the multiplication of themes and the technological capacity is not in itself art.

I teach young children, so please, name me one that can make south park and I point her as a genius.

The dark side, yes. All good comedies, since the greek theatre, passing through Shakespeare and ending in the "Comedie Noir" were about the dark side of people and societies. Why do you think comedy was invented? To laugh about the powerful without the powerful put the critic in the jail or... worse. Vulgar? Some, yes. But some look like being cruel and vulgar and are just trying to maintain our eyes open. About being clever and witty? Well, you can see Duffy Duck and Bugs fighting innocently each other and pretend that the world isn't changing. That old models are dead, that we have to deal with new perspectives, new problems, new ways of scaryig us, or you can deal with it laughing. I prefer the last one.

Its your offer, It's legit, I won't try to convince you out of it. But if someone try to sell you a true Van Gogh, say, for about, ahhh... 3000$, okay 5000$, please hold it for me because I would buy it... I know it is a loosing business, but I'd do it... No problemo.

Sure, Jim. Welcome to a long line of people who said the same about a new approach to art, a new way to do things, and a new language. Let's see...

Andy Warhol: "Puting different horrid inks in a sucession of Monroe's pictures not only it is not art, as it is a dubious complement to the actress Marilyn Monroe". Victus Burns

Piet Cornelis Mondrian: "As an artist, this man should be very well cared. In a mental institution".
I really don't like Mondrian. But he is in the history of art and the french gentleman that made this generous "critique" not only is it not, as we don't even know or care to know his name.

I could go on and on, but I lack the will. Enough said that its perfectly fine to not like a thing. But to confuse "not liking" with "lack of art qualities" is a long step.

South Park is, IMO, to say the least, inspired. It's a "to the bone" social "critic" on the modern western society. The animation art of south park concerning cartoons, is as much an art revolution as the impressionism was a revolution to painting.

Popular culture and popular tastes isn't the same. There are crap popular tastes and the object of those tastes will not be part of popular culture. That doesn't mean that I like everything. But there are things I don't lack for personnal reasons and still I can give it value as popular culture.

But the best thing is to make it both accurate and fun.

And its possible with a little effort. When I'm playing a game and a rule contradict good sense I don't care if the universe is a fantasy one or a simulation of reality, I just have to change the rule, or if the rule is an integral part of the game engine, I let go the game in a whole. Example:

The Game of Hammering the War Fantasy: You charge, so you strike first. You charge against spears and you strike first. Very unrealistic, even for a fantasy game. I let it go.

So if you have a game where a fighter is as easy to shoot as a blue whale and the other is as difficult to shoot as a fly...
A good system is simple without being simplistic. Where did I hear this?

How would I diferenciate classes? In dexterity. I would make it simple:

Thrust per turn at different speeds, half round up to make a slip, double to make a loop:
Fighters - Light   Medium   Heavy   Assault    Corvette
Speed     
1-3----------1--------1-------2--------2---------3
4-6----------1--------2-------2--------3---------3
7-9----------2--------2-------3--------3---------4
10-12-------2--------3-------3--------4---------4
13-15-------3--------3-------4--------4---------5
16-18-------3--------4-------4--------5---------5
19-21-------4--------4-------5--------5---------6
22-24-------4--------5-------5--------6---------6
25-27-------5--------5-------6--------6---------7
28-30-------5--------6-------6--------7---------7

Thust wold be used to turn, make side slips and loops and to speed up and speed down. If a ship didn't speed up or down it would keep the same speed. The amount of thrust a ships gets is decided by the type of engine and the mass of the ship.

How easy or hard is it to hit a ship? I don't know, it depends on the system you want to use. I'd use a D10 system.

6+ to hit modified by:

Aspect of target ships (tailing, aproaching, diagonal)
ECM suit (weak(+1), medium(+2), strong(+3))
Speed (zero(-3), 1-5(-2), 6-10(-1), 11-15(+1), 16-20(+2), 21+ (+3)
Distance (point blank (-2), short (-1), Medium (0), Long (+1), very Long (+2)

I like these.

Damage: Fast and furious. If you can hit - you can damage. If you are able to put your fighter in a good position and you hit, it's very frustrating and "not funny" not to be able to deliver damage. Even if it is a little amount of it.

And I like the system degrating style of damage, salted with the occasional catastrophic damage.

Once again, just ideas.

Okay... You can call the firing squad. I deserve it...

I don't ever say: "In my times X or Y was better." I say this is better or that is better. But the wonder is something we bring (or not) from our childwood, wanting it or not.

Sure... Sure... the world was soooo... much better without electricity... 

I grew up with "Conan the boy in future", and I suppose that this (and we can't call it exactly anime) cartoon (and we can't call it exactly cartoon) moulded all my universal fantasy. I remember playing with an old steam watertank in a empty field three km from my house and it was my spaceship, house, end-of-the-world refuge. It was awesome. It is still awesome. My children will find it awesome. And I hope to see itwith my grandchildren.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhNErIJI9Zg

Thanks, Go0gleplex. I'll try it, maybe tomorrow.

One more question. Is it easy to convert the mech from Battletech into Wardogs?

I love cartoons, Dugan. The greatest achievment we ever done as a species was to maintain a part of us children. Biologically speaking, every evoluted individual of a species learns while it is still a infant. As soon as it gets into the adult state it looses the ability to learn. Several very interesting experiments on this were done with chimps. The human species is the only one that retains "childwood" into it, maintaining its capacity to learn. It also gives us "humour", "mischief" and a "sense of wonder". If you loose these traits, you're old. Thus, cartoons!

It would be good. Though I have those two and a dozen more, there isn't one space fighter game that I consider perfect to me. I played a lot of Silent Death and like it a lot. But movement always have been the weakest part of all the systems.

I think it could be hex based without hexes. Every player had some cardboard hexes and would make the path of the fighters in the table with the hexes. That would give a lot of freedom to the game.

I do think that movement could be made by iniciative card or die roll. I like the iniciative card system. Every pilot has a card attached to him. So when the card is draw, the player must move tha ship of that pilot, but the good thing is that pilots have a tactic value, and they can spend it to put back the card in the deck and draw again.

Fire should be simultaneous, except when a pilot wastes a tactic point to fire first.

Movement, IMHO, is the core of every system. If movement is good (Starmada AE is the high point in this, IMO) all the rest is aceptable. I would link movement with class, being light is worst in guns and armour and it's good in maneuverability. The more the speed, the more difficult is to maneuver. But a lighter fighter is more agile than a heavier.

It wont work well that way, I'm afraid. You see if you can only hit a very light fighter (D4) with a 1 in any dice, the margin for modifiers is minimal and a D4 fighter in a optimal range is only hit by a D4 weapon 25% of the times where a D6 fighter is hit 75% of the times, making it be 3 times bigger that the D4 fighter. All the other fighters would suffer a hit always. Unreallistic and not a good mechanic. But do keep trying, because you do have good ideas.