Originally posted by WellzyC

RvR

 

not War's crapshoot wanna be rvr.

DAOC rvr.

I agree, that was my first thought. Meaningful RvR with at least three sides.

I also want meaningful crafting. DAoC had meaningful but mind numbingly boring crafting. SWG had meaningful but interesting crafting that was worthing dedicating your one and only character to playing.

Seems fairly simple to me. You can have two factions with a neutral faction willing to aid the highest bidder. Then just use in game mechanics to make helping the losing faction more rewarding. Yes, the larger side would logically have more resources, but jobs offered by the underdog would be tougher which would call for a higher reward, after all, a smuggler would demand more money for a riskier job.

Just a thought on how a two faction game with a neutral faction could work. Of course you would also need some measure of what it means to be losing, and it would need to be dynamic enough to adjust the rewards in real time. And balance isn't so hard since the neutral faction doesn't really need to be balanced as they would bounce from one side to the other. So there are still only two sides to balance.

There are only two ways I could see permadeath working. The first is if death is insanely rare. And I think that would sort of defeat the purpose. Second would be if characters required practically no time investment and were little more than pets you could throw away, once again defeating the purpose.

I like tough death penalties for PvE (like EQ used to have).  It keeps you on your toes in risky situations and makes PvE a little more fun. But in PvP, I like lower penalties because you want to encourage PvP, not discourage it.

Originally posted by OkhamsRazor

Ogres existed in western Faerie takes for centurys before Shrek . Pandas with martial art skills existed nowhere before Kung Fu Panda . The only way the majority of people would find Ogres unacceptable is if they had some resemblance to Shrek . What a poorly thought out arguement in defense of the Pandarians .  I've seen some silly threads in my time but this had got to be up there with the silliest . Ah well it takes all kinds to make a world but thankfully theres not too many like this or we would all still be going around with square wheels now .

Actually, Pandaren dates back to April 1st, 2003 as an April Fools joke. Kung Fu Panda was released in 2008.

Not that I'm taking sides in this argument (I don't play WoW and have never played other than a free trial), but they are a part of the lore of Warcraft and they do pre-date Kung Fu Panda.

Just wondering because hearly every time I see his name in a news story it is preceded by "Christian conservative"

Now I know that a vast majority of the US media simply hates conservatives (never mind that conservative doesn't mean the same here as it does there). You see the conservative or right wing extremist label on any criminal that has any conservative leanings, but you don't see comperable labels for criminals with liberal political leanings. The media didn't call the unibomber a left wing extremist, and they even tried to pin the Giffords shooter as a conservative long after his real political leanings became known. It is just something that we have come to expect from our biased US media.

But before conservative in all these articles is Christian. It is the very first thing you learn about this guy, so you would think it is the most important thing about him. And if it is, you would think everyone would know what church he regularly attended, or what religious groups he might associate with. They would know who his pastor is and maybe even have some recordings or transcripts of his teachings. Maybe they would even have him on record talking about how Norway's chicken are coming home to roost. The media here was very cautious about refering to the religion of a guy who shot his fellow workers while shouting allah akbar, so they must really have something good on this guy in order to put the Christian label above all others. Or maybe they just hate Christians even more than they hate conservatives...

What church did this guy attend?

I think DAoC had the balance between crafted and quest/raid gear down the best. Quest/raid gear was the absolute best gear, but because of the way stats worked, you couldn't really make a well balanced outfit from just quest/raid gear. And if you wanted to PvP, balance was important. So you went after those quest/raid items you wanted and built a custom suit of crafted armor around them to give you the best combo of stats and effects. That said, the crafting itself was tedious as hell.

This is where SWG did well. Crafted items were useful, and crafting was interesting. Not all crafted items were the same because there were some random factors and all materials weren't the same. Materials had their own stats, and different items used different stats. On top of that, materials were different depending on the planet, and they changed from time to time.

And the best crafting in SWG was bioengineer. You had to get samples from live creatures. It was a balancing act between stats, effects, and creature levels. And just to make it real fun, there were no factories for creatures, so no two were exactly alike. I haven't played every game, but of those I have played, nothing compares to being a bioengineer/creature handler. The thrill of crawling up to a wild creature that could kick your butt and poking them with a needle, to the fun of taming and training your own creations. I do miss SWG.

Originally posted by Xzen

Meh death penaltys are just timesinks that prevent you from playing the game. Overall harsh death penaltys are bad game design as it keeps you from playing the game for too long.

Games are just times sinks that keep you from participating in real life. Games with harsh death penalties are just better time sinks.

Without the lows, there are no highs.

I've played a lot of games since EQ and DAoC. Most were quite fun. But after a month or two or three they became redundant. There was little failure, and failure didn't really feel like failure, it was just no big deal. So it isn't that I like death penalties, but without them victory just seems inevitable and meaningless.

On the other hand, I'm not so big on large penalties for PvP. Just fighting another human is already more exciting than facing a computer generated foe, and PvP is more fun with more people in the fight.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Welcome to your new America ladies and gentlemen:

The security agents will be happy to give you all a "good-bye grope" before you board your plane.

Is this a TSA official or a doctor checking for a hernia?

And how long before 'turn your head and cough' becomes 'bend over and spread your cheeks?" ;)

Originally posted by Hekket

Originally posted by Enigma

Originally posted by Hekket

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Hekket

Originally posted by Enigma

Originally posted by Wickedjelly

I think the whole "outrage" by some over the new security measures is ridiculous.  Some of the same people bitching about these measures would also be complaining if another incident happened on the planes saying there wasn't enough being done.

The only people I feel having a valid complaint about the body scanners are people that actually work on the airlines due to how often they have to go through these machines.  Then I could see a concern about the constant exposure to radiation.

Far as the patdowns go...so what?  God forbid they take whatever steps necessary to make sure the airlines are safe.

 

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Let me know how that quote works out for ya next time you're plummeting from the stratoshere to the ground in a hundred thousand tons of burning steel.

 This comment just reeks of ignorance. Body scanners will not stop terrorists from blowing up planes. They cannot even see anything INSIDE the body. As we are dealing with " suicide bombers" body scanners should have no effect on whether or not someone can ingest, implant or insert a bomb into their body and then board a plane. Nope does nothing for that, so I see this as not only ineffective but also creates a false sense of security. It is your sugar cube, not real solution.

 

Name the last time a suicide bomber tried to smuggle a bomb on board an american plane through ingestion.

Name the last time a suicide pilot hijacked a bunch of planes and slammed them into various American Icons.

Your ignorance is astounding

 

Good job not answering the question.

Here let me spell it out for you again: 

Name the last time a suicide bomber tried to smuggle a bomb on board an american plane through ingestion.

I understand the point you're trying to make but it still doesn't answer my question.

Let me know when you find an answer.

Name the last suicide bomber who successfully smuggled a bomb on board a US plane through one of the airports now using these scanners and pat downs.

Originally posted by generals3

Originally posted by n2sooners

So who is being more anti-science, someone who believes a higher life form can create a lower life form, or someone who thinks it is okay to kill a feotus because it isn't an individual human life?

I go for answer B : the one who thinks it's ok to kill a feotus. This quite simply because "killing" is totally unrelated with science as science does not provide morals.

Nice try but no , please try again.

So what you are saying is:

1. Life can not be created except by chance.

2. A feotus is either not living or not human (unless you are making the argument that few pro-abortionists make that it is just perfectly fine to terminate a human life if it is an inconvience to you).

So who is being more anti-science, someone who believes a higher life form can create a lower life form, or someone who thinks it is okay to kill a feotus because it isn't an individual human life?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html

Originally posted by sif-lawd

Fox News actively raises funds for Republican candidates.

Say what you will about MSNBC, but they do NOT do that for Dems.

MSNBC doesn't need to raise funds for democrats, they are a 24/7 commercial for democrat candidates and their positions.

You know, I have played MMOs off and on for over ten years, and while I keep hearing how MMOs don't take any "skill" I have yet to play one where there weren't good and bad players regardless of level and gear.

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by n2sooners

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by sif-lawd

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by sif-lawd

Originally posted by slashbeast

This bill is justified and I support it 110%.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Well said.  The hypocrisy of conservatives is never more pronounced than with this bill.  Arguing against the left for stifling citizens' rights... then backing this bill when it directly restricts citizens' rights.

The great hypocritical machine in action.

This doesn't restrict any rights. No one is sacrificing liberty for security. In fact the only thing happening is people are being arrested for *GASP* breaking the law of being here illegally.

Umm... yes it is.  I'll try to make this as plain as I can so you can follow along.

 

Before:  Any US citizen can walk, jog, stroll, shop, etc... down the street in AZ without requiring any proof of ID.  That is their right.

After:  Any US citizen that is walking, jogging, strolling, shoping, etc... down the street in AZ without proof of ID is against the law if a police officer catches them.  That is a restriction of rights.

My argument has NOTHING to do with illegal immigrants.  I think they all should be shipped out of here when caught and any business that hires illegals should be fined heavily. 

However, no matter how much you argue against it, this bill is a direct restriction of the rights of any US citizen that enters AZ.

Here is the bill. Read it.

I saw nothing in that bill that invalidates my claims.  Nothing.

My claim still stands:

Before:  It was not illegal to not have proof of ID on you if questioned by officers.

After:  In AZ, it is now illegal to not have proof of ID when questioned by officers.

It's a restriction of people's freedoms and rights.  Plain-and-simple!

What else do you expect from the brigade that screams about "liberty" when they only mean it for certain people?

Typical conservative hypocrisy at its finest.

Again, a point which is continuosly ignored by opponents of this bill is the Arizona bill mirrors, almost exactly, the Federal law in which aliens must register and carry documentation at all times and present it when requested. This bill only reinforces the Federal law on a state level. It's because the law at the federal level is not being enforced is why this bill has come to fruition. Four more states have announced they will pass similar laws.

You people simply stick your head in the sand and do not wish to see illegals are costing this country in billions for health care costs, school costs, social costs, etc. When they cross our border without permission, they are criminals, no matter their intent.

Remember the quote, by true liberals of the 60's and 70's, is "when the leaders fail to lead the people, the people must lead the leaders." Our leaders are not enforcing our laws - the people are now. This is what is right and what the people of this country - not the racist opponents of this bill want.

Again, a point which is continuosly ignored by proponents of this bill is the Arizona bill does not mirror, at all, the Federal law in which US Citizens DO NOT have to carry proof of ID on them at all times.  This bill is restricting the rights and freedoms of US citizens just to aim at the justified hatred against illegal immigrants.

You people simply stick your head in the sand and do not wish to see that this is restricting the rights and freedoms of US citizens that either live in Arizona or wish to visit Arizona. When any US citizne cross into Arizona and do not have the proper ID, which is not required by any Federal law for any other purpose except for driving, when questioned by law enforcement is considered a criminial.

Remember the statements by conservatives who rails against liberals and state that liberals are taking away our rights and freedoms.  Yet, the very AZ law does this and many conservatives are proponents of the bill.  conservative hypocristy yet again.

So your assertion is this: You have a run in with immigration officials. The official demands to see some identification. You say no. Then they say, "Alright sir, you are free to go, have a nice day."

No... this has nothing to do with immigration officials.  This has to do with common police officers REQUIRING US citizens (I'm not even including illegals in my argument) to carry ID on them at all times (before, they didn't have to for menial tasks), for fear of any citizen being targeted by police, who would request ID and being a criminal if the citizen doesn't have any ID.

And, before any of the proponents jump down my throat on this and state "they don't do blind searches!", my point refers to two things:

1. Police request ID during any potentially criminal questioning.  Before, citizens didn't have to carry ID on them during menial, non-driving tasks.  Now they do for fear of doing something stupid, getting questioned by police, and having no ID to present, which automatically makes them criminals.
2. You all claim that the police will follow this to a "T" and won't do any searches of citizens for ID outside of the bill's requirements.  You all place way too much faith in the lack of corruption in today's police force in many cities.  To give police even more power is to make them even more susceptible to corruption.  Of course, conservatives claim the same thing for government (giving government too much power is a bad thing as they are... "corrupt"), yet AZ is doing that very thing with this bill.

How does this have nothing to do with immigration officials? You claim the law doesn't mirror the federal law and you claim that before this law officials had no right to demand identification from someone in an altercation. So what are you saying now, federal officials don't count? Are you saying you only need to carry ID when you know you will have a run in with a federal official? What exactly are you trying to say?

This law is just like the federal law and the only difference is that you might get off with a ticket (which I bet would be dismissed if you showed up in court just like a ticket for not having proof of insurance on you if you get stopped). If a federal official demands ID and you don't have it then you will be detained.

And yes, this law could be abused just like every other single law on the books. Police are only human and some of them aren't good humans. Same is true for federal officials though. But your argument that the law shouldn't be on the books because it might get abused only makes sense if we were to wipe every single law that could be abused off the books which would basically be all of them.

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by sif-lawd

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by seabass2003

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by sif-lawd

Originally posted by slashbeast

This bill is justified and I support it 110%.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Well said.  The hypocrisy of conservatives is never more pronounced than with this bill.  Arguing against the left for stifling citizens' rights... then backing this bill when it directly restricts citizens' rights.

The great hypocritical machine in action.

This doesn't restrict any rights. No one is sacrificing liberty for security. In fact the only thing happening is people are being arrested for *GASP* breaking the law of being here illegally.

Umm... yes it is.  I'll try to make this as plain as I can so you can follow along.

 

Before:  Any US citizen can walk, jog, stroll, shop, etc... down the street in AZ without requiring any proof of ID.  That is their right.

After:  Any US citizen that is walking, jogging, strolling, shoping, etc... down the street in AZ without proof of ID is against the law if a police officer catches them.  That is a restriction of rights.

My argument has NOTHING to do with illegal immigrants.  I think they all should be shipped out of here when caught and any business that hires illegals should be fined heavily. 

However, no matter how much you argue against it, this bill is a direct restriction of the rights of any US citizen that enters AZ.

Here is the bill. Read it.

I saw nothing in that bill that invalidates my claims.  Nothing.

My claim still stands:

Before:  It was not illegal to not have proof of ID on you if questioned by officers.

After:  In AZ, it is now illegal to not have proof of ID when questioned by officers.

It's a restriction of people's freedoms and rights.  Plain-and-simple!

What else do you expect from the brigade that screams about "liberty" when they only mean it for certain people?

Typical conservative hypocrisy at its finest.

Again, a point which is continuosly ignored by opponents of this bill is the Arizona bill mirrors, almost exactly, the Federal law in which aliens must register and carry documentation at all times and present it when requested. This bill only reinforces the Federal law on a state level. It's because the law at the federal level is not being enforced is why this bill has come to fruition. Four more states have announced they will pass similar laws.

You people simply stick your head in the sand and do not wish to see illegals are costing this country in billions for health care costs, school costs, social costs, etc. When they cross our border without permission, they are criminals, no matter their intent.

Remember the quote, by true liberals of the 60's and 70's, is "when the leaders fail to lead the people, the people must lead the leaders." Our leaders are not enforcing our laws - the people are now. This is what is right and what the people of this country - not the racist opponents of this bill want.

Again, a point which is continuosly ignored by proponents of this bill is the Arizona bill does not mirror, at all, the Federal law in which US Citizens DO NOT have to carry proof of ID on them at all times.  This bill is restricting the rights and freedoms of US citizens just to aim at the justified hatred against illegal immigrants.

You people simply stick your head in the sand and do not wish to see that this is restricting the rights and freedoms of US citizens that either live in Arizona or wish to visit Arizona. When any US citizne cross into Arizona and do not have the proper ID, which is not required by any Federal law for any other purpose except for driving, when questioned by law enforcement is considered a criminial.

Remember the statements by conservatives who rails against liberals and state that liberals are taking away our rights and freedoms.  Yet, the very AZ law does this and many conservatives are proponents of the bill.  conservative hypocristy yet again.

So your assertion is this: You have a run in with immigration officials. The official demands to see some identification. You say no. Then they say, "Alright sir, you are free to go, have a nice day."

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by deviliscious

 

Are you seriously using the wiki as a " source"? LOL And you are saying that Landlords are not business owners?

---

 

Yes, I used it as a source. Not sure why you act like all of a sudden that Wiki is totally unreliable. It's perfectly acceptable for the medium we are using as a forum. I've seen you use sources that make it look like the most comprehensve catalog in history, so don't try and play that card, lady.

Back to the issue which you tried to deflect.

 

You claim that a Republican put forth a measure that was cracking down on businesses as if that's what really happened. You totally misrepresented what was IN the proposal.

 

 

The crux of it was nothing more than denying people access to services, housing, education and whatever else. That bill was targeting the illegals but did NOTHING to target the business owners, which was the point. There was only "CONSIDERATION" to POTENTIALLY take action against business owners in that town. Do you seriously think those rightwing businesses owners would have tolerated a REPUBLICAN approving sanctions against THEM??? If you believe that, then there's probably a reason you think Bush fans, teabaggers and Fox are good sources of info.

 

 

 

That "action" against owners hiring illgeals was taken out, but they left the rest of the stuff in the proposal. That was nothing but a sham disguised as getting tough. Listen, so I can make it simpler in plain terms:

 

Illegals don't come to the U.S. to rent houses.

Illegals don't come to the U.S. to use your swimming pool.

 

Illegals don't come to the U.S. to steal your stuff.

 

 

Illegals come to the U.S. for a JOB to make money. Business owners like them because they don't have to pay taxes on under the talbe workers, or they pay them less with no benefits knowing the I.D. they brought was false or VERY questionable. Most of these business owners are crying foul in the daylight, but when the spotlight is off, they are hiring them left and right.. yes, right there IN TEXAS.

 

 

Fine owners heavily for hiring them, and when illegals come, they won't get any jobs. Then they'll go back home. You can't rent an apartment in Farmers Branch or ANYWHERE ELSE in the U.S. without.. wait for it... MONEY.

Okay, I have read some of your posts and I want to get this straight. I am making these assumptions based on what you have written and I just want to make sure I have it right.

First, your position is that republican politicians and their voters don't support and would never go after businesses who hire illegals. I am not sure where you believe democrats and their supporters fall in this, but the assumption can be made that they would be more supportive than republicans and their supporters, is this correct?

Second, I have seemed to notice that you and others on the left love using sexual slurs against those with whom you disagree politically, why is that?

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Dekron

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by n2sooners

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway became the highest ranking officer to break publicly with President Obama in his push to repeal the law that bans gays from serving openly in the military.

"I think the current policy works," Conway told a Senate panel reviewing the policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." "At this point... my best military advice to this committee, to the [Defense] Secretary, and to the president would be to keep the law such as it is."

---

 

I"m sure all the Slave owners during the Civil War said the same thing.

There is no comparing the two. Gay rights is nothing in comparison to slavery - nothing. Gays are not slaves (no, I am not speaking of the Mr. Slave argument). No one holds, or claims, ownership over an individual who is gay.

Bad, bad comparison.

 

Try harder. I didn't say gays are slaves. I said the same argument can be used to justify slavery.

The statement was, it works, and if it works don't change it.

Slavery worked.

If we use that logic, then we would still have slaves.

It worked right? The cotton got picked right?

The point is not that gays are slaves. The point is that just because something works doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it the ONLY thing that can work.

What if it was the opposite, and there was no DADT policy? Would the General go, well, we've got gays openly in the military, and it works. If it works, don't change it.

Somehow, I think not.

These countries figured it out. I think the US can have just as good a military as these countries:

 

* 2.1 Argentina
* 2.2 Australia
* 2.3 Austria
* 2.4 Belgium
* 2.5 Bermuda
* 2.6 Brazil
* 2.7 Canada
* 2.8 Czech Republic
* 2.9 Denmark
* 2.10 Estonia
* 2.11 Finland
* 2.12 France
* 2.13 Germany
* 2.14 Ireland
* 2.15 Israel
* 2.16 Italy
* 2.17 Lithuania
* 2.18 Luxembourg
* 2.19 The Netherlands
* 2.20 New Zealand
* 2.21 Norway
* 2.22 Peru
* 2.23 Philippines
* 2.24 Romania
* 2.25 Russia
* 2.26 Slovenia
* 2.27 South Africa
* 2.28 Spain
* 2.29 Sweden
* 2.30 Switzerland
* 2.31 United Kingdom
* 2.32 Uruguay

 

 

Are you saying the US has a military inferior to those countries? Because I believe the US military is the finest in the world.