Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Allen Schultz <darkdruid@*****.COM>
Subject: question on VR 2.0 rules
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:42:01 -0700
Is there still a limit on Active Memory like there was in VR?
-- Allen Schultz
Message no. 2
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: question on VR 2.0 rules
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:13:58 +0100
Allen Schultz said on 21:42/15 Oct 97...

> Is there still a limit on Active Memory like there was in VR?

Only in the sense that it's based on the time and/or money you have at
your disposal. It's not based of the MPCP rating anymore, though, so in
theory you could have several billion Mp of active memory in your deck.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Turn into nothing less than nothing new.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 3
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: question on VR 2.0 rules
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:50:14 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 00:40:13 EDT, darkdruid@*****.com writes:

>
> Is there still a limit on Active Memory like there was in VR?
> -- Allen Schultz
>
Yes, the MPCP x 10 (IIRC). There are ways around this, but they require some
tricky thinking.

-K
Message no. 4
From: Barbie <barbie@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: question on VR 2.0 rules
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:01:47 -0500
At 16-Okt-97 wrote J. Keith Henry:


>Yes, the MPCP x 10 (IIRC). There are ways around this, but they require some
>tricky thinking.

Have you a page reference, I can`t find that ruling.

--

Barbie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evil Overlord advice #50:

My main computers will have their own special operating system
that will be completely incompatible with standard IBM and
Macintosh powerbooks.

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 5
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: question on VR 2.0 rules
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:47:03 -0400
In a message dated 97-10-16 13:07:02 EDT, barbie@**********.COM writes:

> >Yes, the MPCP x 10 (IIRC). There are ways around this, but they require
some
> >tricky thinking.
>
> Have you a page reference, I can`t find that ruling.
>
Oh yeah, sure, -MAKE- me dig out the book after I put it away writing up the
old implant stuff...sure, okay....

<some 15 minutes pass>

okay then, there's a rule change I must have really overlooked. I know what
I was thinking of, the old (MPCP x 50) for Active and (MPCP x 100) for
Storage limitations and similar rules for Cranialdecks. Wow, what a thought,
-potentially- unlimited active memory, as long as the programmer can make
those target #'s. Damn, but that is frightening.

Perhaps then there is -no limit- to how much active memory a deck can
have...wow

-K (who learned something new today ;)
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: question on VR 2.0 rules
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 21:36:08 +0100
Barbie said on 19:01/16 Oct 97...

> >Yes, the MPCP x 10 (IIRC). There are ways around this, but they require some
> >tricky thinking.
>
> Have you a page reference, I can`t find that ruling.

I don't think it's there. Under VR 1.0 rules, there was a maximum memory,
but I remember that once I got VR 2.0 I spent some time looking for a
maximum (after I noticed that the Active Memory description didn't give
one) and I couldn't find it.

It could be somehting to do with the poor layout Bull keeps talking
about, though :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Turn into nothing less than nothing new.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 7
From: Lady Jestyr <jestyr@*******.DIALIX.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: question on VR 2.0 rules
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:13:35 +1000
> > Is there still a limit on Active Memory like there was in VR?
> > -- Allen Schultz
> >
> Yes, the MPCP x 10 (IIRC). There are ways around this, but they require some
> tricky thinking.

*cough* Pardon? Wow... I must have missed somehing. Can you give me a
VR2.0 page # on that one please?

Lady Jestyr

-------------------------------------------------------------
"No more drugs for that man!" - Dietrich, Face/Off
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elle Holmes jestyr@*******.dialix.com.au
http://jestyr.home.ml.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 8
From: Ray & Tamara <macey@***.BRISNET.ORG.AU>
Subject: Re: question on VR 2.0 rules
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:06:03 +1000
> okay then, there's a rule change I must have really overlooked. I know
what
> I was thinking of, the old (MPCP x 50) for Active and (MPCP x 100) for
> Storage limitations and similar rules for Cranialdecks. Wow, what a
thought,
> -potentially- unlimited active memory, as long as the programmer can make
> those target #'s. Damn, but that is frightening.

Not really. That ICON Bandwidth really starts to get bloated if you use all
of this potentially unlimited active memory.

NightRain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMAIL: macey@***.brisnet.org.au
Message no. 9
From: Allen Schultz <darkdruid@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: question on VR 2.0 rules
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:17:25 -0700
Thanks to all those who responded.

On 16 Oct 97 at 12:13, Gurth wrote:
> Allen Schultz said on 21:42/15 Oct 97...
> > Is there still a limit on Active Memory like there was in VR?
> Only in the sense that it's based on the time and/or money you have
> at your disposal. It's not based of the MPCP rating anymore, though,
> so in theory you could have several billion Mp of active memory in
> your deck.
_____

Email: darkdruid@*****.com

There will be a time when loud-mouthed, incompetent
people seem to be getting the best of you. When that
happens, you only have to be patient and wait for
them to self-destruct. It never fails!

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about question on VR 2.0 rules, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!