Originally posted by zaxxon23

 

Originally posted by Phos

Not EVERYTHING has been tried yet.

....

- Phos

 

Player Looting - I believe very strongly in player looting in pvp, and I used to be a strong believer in actually being able to loot equipment the player possessed.  However, seeing alternative arguments to this, I must agree that a player who spends a lot of time to get a great piece of gear should not have the possibility of losing that gear to another player (especially considering lag and game glitches).  Therefore I think the optimal solution is to of course have players drop coin (from their own personal stash), but to also treat them as a computer mob, and assign drop rates and treasure classes for items according to the player's pvp level/experience.  e.g. A top knotch pvper has a very very small chance of dropping epic type loot that you could also get from monsters, seperately from that player's individual gear.  I think this solution meets the needs of heavy pvp'ers, who would like rewards for killing other players, while at the same time protecting players who get killed in pvp.

Totally agree with Phos. It's all about options. A game with those features, if done well, would keep players for years.

The big thing I would add is to have quests which are part of the game world and actually affect things. So instead of everyone getting the same quest and it making no sense, certain town features need supplying to work, so for example the pub needs you to collect ingredients before he serves certain drinks, or the forge needs fuel. The amount needed can go up with the number of citizens. Once the features have enough supplies the quest is not available for a while and if left undone, it stops working.There could also be kill X number of beasties, but only when those beasties are threatening the town (and this should be a real threat in some way, which only happens now and again) - and there are limited number of beasties. Making quests like these so that only lower level players gain any experience will also give newer players something to do which immediately makes them feel like an important part of the town community. It could also give the player government more things to manage.

I quoted Zaxxon to talk about Player Looting. There should be some way of preventing too much player looting, but I think it shouldn't just be a coins only system. A way that was used in some MUDs was to have some means of protecting your items - a rune that prevents another player picking a particular item up, for example. It could be an expensive business, but it would allow players to protect their most valuable items.

Originally posted by Agricola1

I still find that female smurf strangely attractive even today, do you think I need therapy?

Here's a theory for you.

Generally speaking, I'd agree with you. There are some good reasons why we should be working to reduce our dependence on oil, whether or not humans are contributing to global warming.

I can see a genuine issue though if such measures are pushed through on a global scale. Western nations have already been doing their share of poluting and have done very well from it and it seems pretty harsh to force developing nations into a position where it becomes much harder to catch up.

Another problem some people have is that the issue is considered to be just another way for governments to give themselves more power through public fear.

Other than that, as Draenor points out, oil is a seriously big and influencial business.

3 threads in the last 60 constitutes "A LOT"?

I don't think that's a good idea either. Religion is a subject which is interconnected with many others.

I don't really understand your problem. If there's a topic which I don't want to read, I don't read it.

Originally posted by Agricola1

The trouble is that god deals in absoloutes, so everyone can't be right to some extent. To say everyone is correct to some extent is a sin and heresy, try going to Mecca on a pilgrimage and telling them that the Christian faith is as right and good as Islam. You'd be stoned to death before you could say "Jihad".

Since you don't believe in any gods, I will assume that what you're saying here is that religious people deal in absolutes, which of course they don't all do. For certain intolerant fundimentalists the suggestion that people of different religions may have certain things right might be sin and heresy, but that's not to say it therefore isn't something that can be speculated.

Other religions tolerate eachother, they don't agree with eachothers beliefs but put on a facade that they do since war for religion is no longer as popular as it once was. Also people choosing a god that suits them? sounds a bit odd doesn't it? "I don't like what god says in that book, but this one suits my lifestyle better", trouble is each book claims to be the definitive way to live your life so how do you decide which is the true word of god?

 You can agree to disagree and still love your neighbour.

As far as choosing a god goes, the only judgement any of us can trust ultimately is our own. People will follow what seems to be true to them.

By logical I mean that after looking objectively at the supporting evidence of there being a supreme omipotent being that rules the universe, it's logical to say that there is not even any circumstantial evidence. In fact there is more supporting evidence to the theory that we're being visited by extraterestrial beings than there is to say a god exists. However religon is never objective as it is built on a foundation of prejudicial faith, so a religous person is not capable of being objective. They're clouded by their faith, a faith that is there because of their own mental weakness so they use it as a cripple would use a crutch.

If there was no circumstantial evidence then it would be logical to say that. I would say that hundreds of thousands of personal testimonies claiming an experience of God would tick the circumstantial evidence box for starters, and there's plenty more.

When someone converts to a religion from atheism, how is there any faith to cloud their judgement? Anyway, surely we all have various beliefs and all have our own bias on different matters. Someone who doesn't believe in God could also lack objectivity if he insists on there being a material explanation for everything.

I see most religous people as mental cripples unable to handle the real world without their faith hit to keep them afloat mentaly. I remember once going to the red light district and seeing three Bhuddist monks spending the faithfulls donations on whisky and whores. At 6am they were doing there rounds collecting food and money for the temple then chanting and meditating all day in anxious wait to spread the faith again that night. I salute them as they see religion for what it is, a way for people to take advantage of the mentaly weak in order to enrich themselves.

You believe in god? Well that's fine just remember when they pass the collection plate around that you're helping those poor hard working women that god loves so much.

Just as with anything else, just because someone has come to a conclusion on something, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are being arrogant, because another person came to a different conclusion. The arrogance comes in when you think that your belief makes you better than another person, because for instance your belief means you are stronger mentally than someone of another belief or that your belief makes you more objective than another person. It could even be argued that people who do that are clutching at anything to help them feel superior and more secure, like a cripple would use a crutch.

Originally posted by hercules

omg my first ever post is still alive and not even archived yet.WOW 2003 it was.

Sorry have to perform necromancy here

Well, do you think it brought back the glory days?

Originally posted by endzo

my new pc is new but really crap it has 1gb ram it think but i only see 760mb

anyone no how i can improve it i only around £60 spend

Is that 760mb free or in total? Windows and anti-virus software alone will often leave a 1gb system with around 760mb free - that's pretty normal.

Originally posted by Agricola1

What I always say to my mother who's a closet Christian, atleast when I visit her anyway, is,

Take Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Bhuddism.

They all have different explinations about god and heaven and hell and describe these places and gods differently. What I say to her is, my point is that they can't all be correct now can they? Only one philosophy can be true (if any) and it would be very arrogant to believe you're correct whilst the others are misguided. Wouldn't it be more logical to say that your all following a false God or Gods with false beliefs created by people like you and me many years ago?

Ofcourse many people try to pretend that they can all be correct, but having read the Bible and the Gita and the Quarran I know this isn't possible. Only one can be the winner, my money is on them all being a steaming pile.

1) In what way would that be "more logical"?

2) Why would "it would be very arrogant to believe you're correct whilst the others are misguided" apply to a theistic position and not to an atheistic position?

Originally posted by Ghost12

The Who/Van Halen: Wont Get Fooled Again (listening to it right now) 

Van Halen did a version or The Who did a version with Van Halen?

Originally posted by Aragoni

Originally posted by EggFtegg

Originally posted by Aragoni

                                    "Religion is the opium of the masses"

We cannot prove that there is no God (and the religious people can't show the opposite) so we cannot deny that it's possible. However, what we do know is that there is no Abrahamic God, there is no Aztec God and so on. How can we know that you might ask? We know it because Humans evolved from another species, and no religion say that "Once upon a time Humans evolved from........", instead the religions either involve clay or something else which is absolut bullshit when they talk about the creation of men

P.S. Sorry for my crappy english + grammatics.
P.P.S. "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"
P.P.P.S. Americans, Cthulhu for president 2008. Why would anyone vote for a lesser evil?

I don't follow your logic. You're dismissing certain gods because those who believed in them millenia ago, did not have the benefits of modern science and had a different understanding of how we came to be?

Huh...? I'm dismissing ALL gods since no religion at all says the same thing as science. Of course, I could understand those who worshipped Gods before the science, the truth, showed how mankind came to be but not now.

I assume when you say religion you are referring to religious texts, because there are many religious people who believe in evolution. Belief in God doesn't automatically mean belief in a several thousand year old creation story.

Originally posted by merv808

and now you have people that want to complain that there are character classes in games. Yeah, just let every character be able to do everything....If that happens get ready to see grouping die for good because this eliminates the need for them and its also kills a very important part of MMORPGs the role-playing part.

You should try out Ryzom. Every character can potentially do everything and yet going solo is far slower than group play. The key I think is that you can't really heal yourself, so you need others. Last time I was there, role-play was very much alive and well.

Originally posted by Airspell

  ORLY ? You should be aware that the main doctrine hasnt changed much, and what has changed has been a desperate attempt to connect with changing trends in order to stay in power and control peoples lives a few decades longer.

If you look at Free Churches and all of the non-state denominations, who is it that your are accusing of seeking power and control and to what purpose?

Originally posted by Airspell

 Heh I think kill makes sense, it is as broad enough as possible for the religious leaders to interpret it any way they like.  That is the point of religion.

Just curious from your posts....you are aware that the church (in its many denominations) has moved on from medieval times?

Originally posted by Aragoni

                                    "Religion is the opium of the masses"

We cannot prove that there is no God (and the religious people can't show the opposite) so we cannot deny that it's possible. However, what we do know is that there is no Abrahamic God, there is no Aztec God and so on. How can we know that you might ask? We know it because Humans evolved from another species, and no religion say that "Once upon a time Humans evolved from........", instead the religions either involve clay or something else which is absolut bullshit when they talk about the creation of men

P.S. Sorry for my crappy english + grammatics.
P.P.S. "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"
P.P.P.S. Americans, Cthulhu for president 2008. Why would anyone vote for a lesser evil?

I don't follow your logic. You're dismissing certain gods because those who believed in them millenia ago, did not have the benefits of modern science and had a different understanding of how we came to be?

Originally posted by Airspell

 Yah imagine if someone got a misprint "Thou shall not spill"

Well even "Thou shalt not kill" is actually a slightly misleading translation (kill what?  What if your country is at war? Does it include ants and should we watch where we tread for fear of hell?). Modern bibles use the word "murder" which is believed to be much closer to the original meaning.

Originally posted by War_Eagle I agree, a lot of it seems like conjecture and stretching.

 

However, what if one thing he says is true?  Even one little bit of the article has some validity to it?  If that's the case, then it shatters the whole idea of the Bible and the New Testament being the "word of God".  Right?  Like Gnomexxx said, once you start saying it's the word of God you've opened up a whole new can of worms.

If people would start looking at religious doctrines in a realistic sense, then maybe religions around the world would stop suffering from the insanity that literal readings is causing.  That's where fundamentalism comes in to play and people start doing outrageously wild things.

It's time these texts (all religious texts) start being inspected and viewed for what they really are.  Not seasoned with a blind eye and "faith" to make them more palatable.

I tend to think that those who see the bible (or other religious texts) as a perfect work and God speaking to us directly are either likely to become disillusioned or perform circus contortionist acts of reason to explain discrepancies and apparent contradictions (which often make sense when the historical context of the texts is studied).

In my opinion, and from reading the bible, it appears that the Christian religion wasn't ever supposed to be solely based on a book. It's a relationship, not some test in studying a book to work out the rules so that you can try to follow them and judge those that don't.

If people see the bible as God's ultimate and complete message to man, it's no wonder many would want little to do with such a confusing being who clearly suffers from all man's foibles.

I'm not sure it's so much about being a spelling nazi as being put in a position of having to read some posts three times and translate the various wrong spellings and poor grammar in order to understand what the person is saying. I have a whole list of common errors which bug me, but for now I'll just give the obvious:

your = belong to you

you're = you are

Oh, and while I'm at it...If someone is looking for a game to try, don't throw a bunch of acronyms at them. If they've never played it, then "try VGSOH, SOR or DOAC" ain't gonna mean a lot to them!

Fun game....got it in just under 8 mins. I was doing great until it threw Kaliningrad at me.

Draenor's comment reminds me of that joke about the purpose of war being to teach Americans geography.

Originally posted by gnomexxx

Here, I'll give you guys a little snippet just to get you interested in clicking the link to read the whole thing...

-------------------------------------------------------

Just what is Christianity?
The important question then to ask is this: if the New Testament is not historical, what is it?
Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that "it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions". This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament.
Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the "seven wise men" of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poet Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.

Just a few points I have found relating to these older texts alleged to have been copied to make up part of the New Testament:

Firstly, should these passages be so apparant, why only brief and vague references here? This would be pretty damning evidence and considering the number of websites that can be found making similar claims, why are such supposedly direct comparisons only ever hinted at and not ever spelled out clearly and well referenced for people to see for themselves?

Narratives from the Mahabharata - This is the suggestion that Jesus was largely based on writings about Krishna. I've found no evidence of these texts having the similarities suggested. This site on the subject is well worth a read.

The Phenomena and the Hymn to Zeus refer to the same quote. Both this quote and the Epimenides one are quoted intentionally by Paul in Acts 17. I can find no other link between the NT and these texts.

Thais is a play by Menander which may well have been known to many at the time. There is indeed a biblical reference, but again it's Paul. In 1 Corinthians, Paul writes "Bad company ruins good morals" which is a line from Thais, and would have probably become a common saying of the time, in the same way as some of Shakespeare's writing is proverbial to us today.

So, to sum up the main thrust of the article: Christianity (and Jesus) did not exist until Constantine and the council of Nicaea brought together a collection of ancient writings from accross the civilized world and essentially created the New Testament, which included writing the gospels. They invented Jesus Christ from Hesus and Krishna and threw in a bit of Horus and Mithra for good measure, in order to create a religion which would unite the various religious factions in the Roman empire.

The author states that "the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7). That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine" . Note the added [New Testament] - surely if we were talking about the New Testament as a whole, we wouldn't expect to find a complete text preceding the council of Nicaea which is when it was collated? Actually (and this is pretty telling of the author's citations in general) the Catholic Encyclopedia is very clearly referring to the gospel of John in that quotation (seen in this link).

When we look at the dates of the texts we have of other New Testament books, we see that many, if not all, predate Constantine. (Link).

While Constantine did summon the council of Nicaea, the bishops who attended were Christian bishops because, as many historical documents testify, Christianity was already a thriving religion at that point. The aim was to bring some kind of unity to the religion. Constantine's motives in this are certainly debatable. While he did legalise Christianity and stopped the persecutions, whether he totally embraced the religion has been called into question. It would not be unreasonable to make the suggestion that he was attempting to gain some kind of influence over a fast growing religion which Rome had been unable to quash, no matter how many Christians they turned into charcoal or cat-food.

Apparantly, the author of this article, Tom Bushby, also wrote a book "The Bible Fraud" in which he describes a historical Dan Brownesque Jesus (as opposed to Hesus Krishna). There's a critique of this book here.

One last link - a wall of text which hurts my eyes about the credibility of the bible.

Edit: Yay! post 1000