Bartimaeus

Again, I agree with you...in theory. When I actually know the reason for "dumbing it down"...which is so the AI can actually use the same tools that I'm given as a player, making the game more difficult and fair...and when I know that it's danged near impossible to implement it in a way that will serve the gameplay (i.e. making human-like decisions, which is really what it comes down to when dealing with such an incredibly messy AoE spell like Fireball in a BG-like game), I unfortunately have to side with the developers. It is better than the even more idiotic decision to treat the player and the AI differently by creating an AI-only version of the spell that doesn't affect their friendlies while forcing the player to use a version of the spell that does, which is what many other developers would do (and what many have done in similar situations) to shortcut (i.e. cheat) their AI being able to do what the player can do. I want better, but even though it's been over 15 years since BG released, AI is still just not where it needs to be for that to be realistic. As such, I can perfectly understand why this is what we're getting.

I actually have to disagree, based on extensive playing of Baldur's Gate. Oh sure, YOU'RE throwing Fireballs at groups of enemies left and right because you have perfect control over where your characters are, and you have tools (stealth, invisibility, Wizard's Eye, reloading, etc.) to see where enemies are in advance, which makes it even easier to use them if you decide to play it smart and cautious. But how often did the game ever actually throw a Fireball at YOU? It was pretty darned rare...and when it happened, they usually blew up many of their own dudes, most of whom are much weaker than your characters and are seriously injured or straight up killed by it. Even worse, if you know whom they're targeting (and the game tells you in the battle log as well as visually sort of), you can even use it against them by rushing that character into their midst while they're still casting it, causing them to blow up themselves and any allies they have in the area. So, in theory, I agree with you...but in practice, the player is generally just too smart/has too many tools to really be effectively caught by something like a Fireball, if the AI even had the tools to cast it properly to begin with...which, even using AI-enhancing mods, it really just doesn't. It's extremely difficult to program proper fuzzy logic that the AI can use to make intelligent, cost-effective decisions dependent upon the exact scenario like a human player would...and like a human would in real time. As a side-note, most (although not all) spells like Fireball are not a "pure physical/elemental force": they are magical in nature, and consequently subject to magic resistance in addition to the normal elemental/physical resistances, and therefore may work differently depending on the exact nature of the spell. That's the in-universe explanation for D&D, anyways.

All of that I will readily agree with...but in D&D, it is not an inherent attribute of spells, and the reasoning as to why it isn't seems like it was thought out and makes sense (to me, anyways), hence the counterargument. For a new game with a totally new spell system, yes, O.K., fine. Truth be told, I think I am very unlikely to like this game's ruleset at all to begin with, if Pillars of Eternity is any indication, so it really hardly matters. D&D 2nd & 3rd/3.5 hold a special place in my heart, and these seemingly half-baked and identity-less (compared to D&D) systems just ain't gonna satisfy my desire for a BG-like game, so whatever.

Um...except in D&D, arcane magic is a learned practice that requires mastery in controlling the Weave, and for most arcane spellcasters, that means relying on using written spells that do a very specific thing. To make Fireball, a very basic (yet powerful) elemental spell, ignore friendlies, I would imagine it would require a complex rewrite of the spell which would probably knock it up a few levels. So really...I can't much see the argument.

See: Fireball vs. Horrid Wilting. Fireball is awesome for being a level 3 spell. Horrid Wilting is pretty good for a level 8 spell that has mildly increased damage (1D8 per level instead of 1D6), same area of effect radius, but doesn't hurt friendlies.

Hopefully it's resolved soon...

what the hell why isn't that censored but so much else that is very arguably milder is

If Ledecky is as great next Olympics as she is now, then we can probably expect her to be more of a name that's known, particularly with Phelps gone. Until then...

https://twitter.com/AP/status/765667569583984641 "BREAKING: IOC strips Russia of gold in women's 4x100 relay from 2008 Olympics after Chermoshanskaya tests positive." (Apparently, old results from a drug test, new methods to test them.)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/08/15/nfl-prepares-to-use-brady-precedent-to-force-cooperation-with-ped-investigation/ "The obvious headline from the letter sent Monday by the NFL to the NFL Players Association regarding the Al Jazeera investigation is that the league has threatened to suspend Packers linebacker Clay Matthews, Packers linebacker Julius Peppers, Steelers linebacker James Harrison, and free-agent defensive lineman Mike Neal if they don’t submit to interviews by August 25. The deeper message comes from the NFL’s use of the precedent created by the Tom Brady suspension, appeal, and litigation to threaten the players with suspension for failure to cooperate with a league investigation." Players risking perpetual suspensions over substance abuse claims by a third party...when they have repeatedly failed to fail any of their drug tests. Once again, here's hoping for a long lockout come 2020. In the mean time, the two Packers have repeatedly said they're completely fine doing the interviews, it's the NFLPA that's been holding it up, so I am not very worried about them. Nevertheless, what nonsense that you can now risk getting permanently banned from the NFL for claims some random person with no authority and no confirmed connection to the players in question made.

My first answer was, "So I don't die." But then I realized, all other things die - or at least can die - too, and so your premise is wrong to begin with.

What? Why? If you're of an Abrahamic religion, you believe that God will either return to Earth or end all things in some manner or another anyways. Regardless of your immortality, I think God should win here and he renders judgement unto you as he does all others. If you're Hindu or Buddhist, you'd just be allowed to keep living your one life instead of living out many different ones. I can't think of many specific faiths where you believe you really lose if you're immortal.

There seems to be a few adages advising against living forever...which just seems silly to me, because I would take immortality in a heartbeat. These adages probably only exist because nobody actually CAN live forever...so there's little point in trying to or thinking you can/will. Ye' olde philosophers would probably feel a bit differently if actually presented with the option, however. Boredom? That's the worst you can come up with? Pshaw. Some people seem to be bored their entire lives - not me, I am one that is personally never bored, no matter the circumstances - ...but that doesn't mean they want to die. I can't see how that would change with immortality.

oh, so that's what we're talking about

Yeah, so unlike countries like poor Russia that can't get away with doping, the U.S... ...wait. (...with no real reference point to compare against, it's pretty impossible to say where the USADA is more or less effective than other anti-doping agencies, anyways.)

The United States is actually one of three countries that compete at the Olympics that provides zero - zero - funding for training its Olympians. It does give a small monetary reward for winning golds at $15k, I think it was, but it's a relative pittance, particularly compared to some other countries that give upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars (and smaller reward for winning silvers and bronzes). The U.S. Olympians certainly have other advantages that some poorer countries don't have...but they could easily obtain those same advantages simply by sending their athletes to the U.S. or other Western countries to train (...and some of them do do this). So yeah...

https://streamable.com/0s9a actually, phelps loses to lochte, apparently

and that's 22 for phelps maybe he should come back for the 2020 olympics

The day I noticed Ocarina of Time had an E rating is when I realized parental ratings are complete baloney. As a wiser man than me put it, "Is this game rated E for horrific imagery and gore?".

Um...because a lunatic is just that: a lunatic. Trump, however, is running for president...any lunatic actually deliberately making threats is obviously worse in regards to their personal character than in Trump's off-the-cuff remark (not that he really seems to make any other type of remark...), but until they're running for president, who cares? The only people that should be concerned are the police and the Secret Service (unless they're deliberately ignoring said lunatic for political reasons, in which case it then becomes our concern).

but what if I want you to use rodent avatars instead

I don't denying it, I am just pointing out that you are by that giving up a part of your independence. In EU is desire to supply resources from cheapest source, but by that we are giving part of our independence to hands of few who control such sources. Far fetched comparsion but still relevant i think You never actually established how it's "giving up your independence" in the first place, though. As far as I'm concerned, the ability to have self-driving vehicles will increase independence, not decrease - people who do not enjoy actively driving will now be able to avoid doing so the vast majority of the time while still being able to use their own vehicle that they can direct at their whim, as opposed to having to currently use public transportation that they do not control...public transportation that is woefully lacking throughout most of the U.S. Laws will still require that the person sitting in the driver's seat have a valid driver's license and be able to start driving at any moment, and self-driving vehicles have a manual override...so what exactly are you seeing as a "loss of independence" here?

A great many people do not have the options that you have to realistically give up having to drive their own vehicle. Furthermore, as Hurlshot's posts were evidence enough of, there is obviously going to be some overlap between the people who cannot realistically stop driving their own vehicle and people who do not like to drive (or at least do not like to drive in some circumstances). Consequently, you can see how there might be a desire for self-driving vehicles. I'm not aware of the American car industry's attempts at destroying public transportation. I mean that literally: I am ignorant of the subject. Do you have any links so I can see how that came to be? Public transportation over such a ridiculously large landmass was always going to be a struggle...so I'm curious as to how it was deliberately made worse.

And where do you live, exactly? Unless you live in the middle of a legit city, buses are very often either not a realistic and/or timely method of transportation for way too many people. Given that Hurlshot mentioned driving on a freeway, I would guess he does not live in the middle of a real city, otherwise he would not need to drive on a freeway to begin with. I also personally despise being in a bus, so the point is rather irrelevant to begin with.