AGX-17

Yeah, I guess someone with an anthropomorphic boar fetish would say that. OH BUUUUURN

Weren't you trying to get Vermivorous the Invincible to spawn? Uh... gee, I dunno . I joined my brother's game, and I'm not sure exactly which quest he was on. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Vermivorous though. All I know is we fired a lot of bullets into the one we did kill, heh. It's not a quest, it's a hidden raid boss. You have to go to a Varkid area and let at least one evolve a bunch of times without killing it, the chances of it evolving increasing with the number of players and number of varkids present, and even then it's miniscule. It's the exclusive source of some head skins that, by virtue of their source, are equal in value to lv50 orange guns. Anyway, the most popular/common area for people to try to get it to appear is in the Caustic Caverns is why I asked.

I want to see the opposite. I would like to see someone who is constantly used as the human shield get pissed off at everyone after a while. After all being the guy/girl whose duty is to be beaten with weaponry would probably make one feel negative, especially if their were others who rarely get harmed. The idea there was that the tank is some noble, selfless person who wants to protect his/her comrades, not somebody who's a slave or sociopath or whatever. I mean, you wouldn't be rolling with the heaviest armor and a shield and join a team of felt-clad mages and expect them to be able to take a hit and survive. That sounds like the premise of a bad G/PG comedy movie where some former pro wrestler becomes a baby-sitter, but without the saccharine transformation from embittered meat-head to lovable giant.

What's the problem? It's possible to have the Steam version not require Steam? Might as well do it. Btw, it would actually be reduced lengths that are gone to, as they wouldn't need to implement Steam DRM. That's a time-saver, not coster. That doesn't mean that achievements won't register, it would just then be up to the player whether they cared to receive them by having Steam running or not. More player control, more customer satisfaction and appreciation. Both parties are happier. I don't see why you wouldn't just go for a GoG version, then. Most Steam users have Steam running all the time, anyway. There's not really an issue there. The vast majority of Steam releases include the Steam API specifically for the Steam API, and like you said, they don't have to use it, but they choose to.

I agree, but I think the player's choices in terms of RPing should be the deciding factor. There shouldn't be characters who are universally begrudging about their joining you because of orders or duty, it should depend on how you play your character. If a character's personal morals are a given set of values and you play your character in a way that aligns with those values, the character should be agreeable, if not happy to help, whereas other characters with other beliefs and priorities might have the opposite reaction. A situation which could be changed by RPing a different sort of character with different values and so forth. The idea of relationships being affected by in-combat actions is something I've wanted to see in RPGs for a long time. If you've got some character constantly acting as a human shield for another (who is not a sociopath who only sees others as convenient tools to be used,) the characters should have a stronger relationship. Especially considering these games tend to be combat-focused.

Why does nobody read words like "personally I think would be more"? Also, it's not DS system, it's your basic 4ed system and it does not explain how buff times will be handled or how will they avoid the long prebuffing which happened always in IE games, which is what most people here are interested in (probably). It doesn't matter what your personal opinion is when the devs have already decided on a system wildly different from your opinion of what they should use. And I did read "personally I think would be more" and that grammar is gibberish.

It's not rude to state facts. I've always liked the concept of archery in video games, but it always falls short in terms of game design, sometimes literally, but mostly figuratively. Necromancers don't create things. Anyway, if archery is going to be viable (before taking ammo into consideration,) ammo needs to be limited. If you get unlimited armor-ignoring soul arrows it's not very balanced. If you've got multi-classing, a ranger who dabbles in magic should be able to apply some kind of basic enchantment to their arrows on the fly (or nock, more specifically,) rather than, say, paying a professional to enchant all their arrows en masse or buy pre-enchanted arrows. Heat-seeking arrows? Really? Did you really just suggest that? What happens when your party is in an ice cave full of ice golems? DERP. Hell, what happens when your ranger is behind your party? DERP. DERPETY DERP DERP.

Covered Dada in an art class, spent the whole 3 hour, 50 minute class in despair because some late teen-early 20s kid in it was talking to a middle aged woman about his beliefs that plate tectonics is a lie and the Earth is expanding, and that there are black holes at the center of the Sun and Earth (which, obviously, is the cause of the Earth's expansion.) My head still hurts. Dada was a welcome catharsis, but I don't know what can cure that kind of stupid. I did ask, and he has never taken a physics, geology or astronomy class. And has no intention of ever doing so.

...You lose. Race already designed. http://eternitywiki.com/File:AumauaWizard.jpg

Normally I wouldn't say that should be in an IE-type game, but given the fact that there's no combat/action-based experience gain, players could potentially go for long stretches without ever leveling up, so there is some appeal to some generalized advantage for additional laps. Something like starting with extra points to invest in attributes or skills, extra money, etc.

You're right, any ol' retard can get a Law degree from Syracuse University. All you're doing is making immature ad hominem attacks on a person so you don't have to actually argue your position with reason, logic or evidence. You'd get a big fat 'F' in a debate or philosophy class for this assignment. This is Fox News-caliber posting.

HAHAHAHAHAHAOh, you. *fey handswipe* Sorry but the truth is PC graphics are indeed being held back by current gen consoles. It is why Crysis 3 looks no better than Crysis 1 (which is a 6 year old game now) because they wanted to make sure they can port it to 360 and PS3 easily. When devs forget about PS3 and 360 and start focusing on PS4 and 720, the standard goes up for PC as well, and we will leave this 7 year limbo that saw no substantial visual improvements in games since 2006 Have you ever played any PC games with a decent gaming rig after PS3 and 360 came out? Apparently the answer is "no." There are unmoddable console to PC ports that have dramatic visual improvements over console versions (Sleeping Dogs being one of the most lauded examples.) Even a standard console to PC port still allows for high level anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing, with much higher framerates. And that's not even counting moddable games like Skyrim, which can be drastically improved with better shaders, .ini tweaks, higher resolution textures, etc. You don't appear to have a clue what you're talking about. PC hardware has left consoles in the dust during this generation. The next gen of consoles will use current (or slightly older,) PC hardware (after all, these consoles were designed in the past couple of years.) And PC hardware will continue to improve as this new gen of consoles stays static. The only time a PC port of a console game (which is unfortunately the standard in this age, not that you seem to be lamenting that, as a console zealot,) is graphically equal or inferior is when the people doing the porting are too lazy to make the game utilize the strengths of PC hardware or push its limits.

If a game is available for both Windows and Linux, and we already own it on Windows, does it apply to both? (Similar to Mac OS and Windows before) Depends entirely on the game. If it's free like TF2, then sure. I guess. I'm trying Ubuntu out just to get that stupid Penguin in the hopes that it will be half as valuable as iPod earnubs. Which it won't, because the TF2 economy is designed to **** me.

No. But there are plenty of nude orc female mods, apparently. Because that is just so wildly arousing, boar-faced green women: Are you saying you don't find female orcs hot? Thats a little racist don't you think Hey, remember Redguards? The obviously-based-on-African-American race who are not very smart but pretty strong and they have high stamina, which makes them excellent for menial labor? Hey, it was Bethesda who made it, not me.

Weren't you trying to get Vermivorous the Invincible to spawn?

HAHAHAHAHAHA Oh, you. *fey handswipe*

Went to meetings, received Game of Thrones S2 Blu-Ray set. About to ruin my sleep cycle with it. Should be working on report due Friday.

What the hell is an "Arkonaut"? I see way too many mentions of physics and modern knowledge of astronomical phenomena here for a game revolving around souls and magic, two things for which there is no evidence of existence in the world of physics. I'm sure the devs already have their own story in mind. Generally you start with a basic, broad story outline and then fill in the details as you proceed, you don't just ignore the narrative stage of the development process until the forum users start spewing brainpuke onto the boards in the hopes that some choice bit of undigested slime looks tasty to the writers. I don't really see astrology or other magical events affecting some political situation as particularly original. I can't count how many fantasy games and stories usually revolve around some great supernatural evil and not simply humans in conflict. There are only so many things a person can do, or imagine doing, and "novel" ideas are really just twisting old ideas into different forms. Hell, look at Skyrim, for instance. Terrible writing, but plotted just like you suggested. Initial story presented as human civil wa, then it gets interrupted by ZOMG DRAGONS HAVE RETURNED NOW THAT THE THOUSAND YEAR SEAL HAS BEEN BRO- see? They did the same thing in Dragon Age: Origins. All you do in this formula is put faction "X" and faction "Y" in conflict, then throw supernatural threat "Z" in and SHOCK OF SHOCKS, only Protagonist "A" and his/her plucky band of adventurers can defeat the great evil! Maybe "A" is the godhead. Maybe "A" is the Legendary Hero Reborn. Maybe "A" is just some schlub who likes to grind for XP. It doesn't matter, it all boils down to a few basic scenarios: Hero defeats evil in spite of human conflicts, or Hero resolves conflict in some way, allowing humanity (and the peripheral lesser races that sided with Hero first,) to fight the Great Evil together (while still allowing/forcing Hero to slay the Great Evil personally.) In games that are trying to be "DEEP" or different sometimes "A" is the Great Evil, or gets to fill the Great Evil's shoes instead of throwing the ring into Mt. Doom. In the end, the end doesn't matter as much as the process of getting there.

I've never seen the appeal of using the Earth maps for Civ games. Uncertainty about what's over that next hill is just such a major element of early-mid gameplay. The "fractal" map script tends to make terrain that is fun to play on, IMO. Because they're all real-world civilizations (although some don't count as civilizations by the definition of the word.) You really see no appeal in playing at changing history? Carthage burns Rome to the ground and salts the earth, enslaving the few survivors? Han China repels the Mongol hordes, or the Mongols successfully conquer Japan? Or a Native American civilization like the Inca conquers and colonizes Europe? Besides, the real world is a beautiful place full of wonders to explore, anyway. You could spend your entire life travelling the world as a nomadic sightseer and you'd still never see everything in a thousand lifetimes. Anyway, exploration in an unknown environment can indeed be fun, (unless you have a Carthaginian Settler and Warrior heading north across the mostly empty continent to a really sweet spot with a river flowing from mountains into a sea with rich fisheries, with marble and gold within easy reach of a well-placed settlement, only to run into a barbarian horde of 15-20 units without "Raging Barbarians" on, True story,) so why not just go all the way and let players create their own civs, and face off against randomly generated or fictional opponent civs? That would honestly add a lot more depth and fun to the game, especially if you're fond of unpredictability/novelty. Obviously the players would be drawing from a limited pool of bonuses, but there'd have to be more bonuses than possible civs to decrease the predictability of it. As it stands, every civ is a known quantity for experienced players, even if you do "Random Personalities."

Got back into Civ V with mods, playing some stupidly giant mod Earth map which is dramatically larger than the largest possible unmodded map size. Unfeasible concept unless someone makes a mod to allow cities to expand beyond one hex and increase the maximum border limits, it's just that big. But at the same time I downloaded it because the largest Earth map was stupidly small in the standard game with G&K. So. Maybe I should tell Firaxis about this experience.

Did you decide to go with Brick, or someone else? I know that technically there should be no difference between the two, but both hubby and I could swear that no matter how much more shield you may equip, as soon as you go out in combat again, they seem to take it all off in one hit regardless, and more health somehow feels sturdier overall. Hence why I often feel like they're "cheating." lol. ....but yeah, it probably is mostly the shock attacks - and first-shot critical hits against you. Which enemies seem to get fairly frequently. But even in that case, I still think health is somewhat more important, since if that first crit. against you takes away all your shield, you're not left with relatively piddly health to try to escape/find cover with. And once you get past the first half of the game, I feel like there's a lot more shock-wielding enemies. It's not possible, to my knowledge, for enemies/NPCs to get critical hits in BL2. But for the most part, elemental weapons are rare in the hands of enemies in a normal run.

nope. It's thread about future warfare. NATO is most powerful military force in the world, but with huge amount of weak points. This is huge bureaucratic machine, very inert and retarded. Because this even small flexible army or group of freedom fighters can defeat them (if they use asymmetric strategy). It's contradictory to state that "NATO is most poweful military force in the world" if they're "inert and retarded" and "even small flexibly army or group of freedom fighters can defeat them". There's no logical consistency, all the videos are simply your standard implicit statement "look at our mighty superior Russian culture and technology, inferior NATO Western degenerates!", as expected of Yet Another Russian Inferiority Complex Thread™. Really, if you didn't have one, 90% of your posts wouldn't be Russian nationalist propaganda or anti-American/European insults. It's the fearful dog that barks the most.

I have some difficulty accepting this. A PoS weapon is still a PoS weapon, even if you've wielded it for a decade. Some weapons are simply going to be better than others. A masterwork weapon may remain perfectly viable against lesser foes for the entire game, but you should run into significant difficulties against the more potent enemies. Maybe you need to be a level or two higher to face the same foe with your trusty, but ordinary broadsword. Pointe þe Firste: If your character is a fighter they should be proficient in certain weapon types, why would a trained soldier with combat experience suffer penalties for using a weapon they're already trained in the use of? Even if they weren't trained, the fact that they have a class, and it's the Fighter class, implies that they have experience with fighting. Maybe choose a weapon class that they prefer/are most experienced or comfortable with, but give a combat penalty to weapons outside of that category. Pointe þe Seconde: A steel sword isn't necessarily a POS, but the broader concept of a low-level base, unenchanted, non-sentient weapon leveling with the character is absurd. Especially if P:E's setting has materials stronger than steel available.

They've already stated pretty clearly that there isn't going to be any XP-per-action model. Meaning no XP for kills or for picking locks or pockets or persuasion (unless that act constitutes the completion of a quest.) With a fedora hat on and whip at his side. Indiana Jones wasn't a slave driver. And fedoras on nerds is one of the worst looks that exists. I think Feargus is intelligent and worldly enough not to wear a fedora. Besides, he doesn't have the glasses, ponytail and douchey half-goatee that completes the look.

Old news, never took off.