JFSOCC

it only works as a faraday cage if it doesn't touch you. if the metal touches the skin at any point, it no longer defends you from the electrical currents.

I actually liked what I saw here: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64587-josh-sawyer-gdc-next-10-talk/page-5?do=findComment&comment=1387307 And while it may be from a different game, the idea that you could reduce gear to it's components (in this case ore) and then have that as raw material for your own constructed items. (with the mods available to you limited by your knowledge, in the example the person knows how to make masterwork and hardened edge mods on the gladius, made from steel) I think that's an interesting (if not so atypical) method of adding crafting.

Well, I like playing chess, despite the movement options and skills and abilities of each piece being pre-set, completely locked in, and with no randomization, I have yet to play the same game twice. I've been in some incredibly tense situations in chess, ones that I sometimes still managed to survive. And all that, without any randomness whatsoever.

Well, taste has to be developed, which means coming into contact with new and different things, something most Amateur DJ's won't be ready for just yet. Maybe this is more to your liking? This is my favourite classical piece, I may have already posted it in an earlier iteration of this thread, I don't know. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZifjMBELgL4 There are more performances on youtube, but this one was the 4th found in a cursory search. for comparison So both have parts of the performance I don't like.

yes, I believe so, but it's not doing so well, unfortunately. I don't know what the paypal totals are, which is how I backed it, but it looks like it won't make its goal.

http://www.uitzendinggemist.net/aflevering/56551/Prinsengracht_Concert.html Sarah Chang in 2008 in a public concert in Amsterdam, still very beautiful.

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/vjpsy/til_blueeyed_people_tend_to_have_a_higher_alcohol/ there's where I originally read it. again, I can't make any claims as to the veracity of the article. "looks legit" although there's now a big "inaccurate" flair tagged to the thread, so probably not.

I don't know HH, I think knowing full well that that spell always hits for x damage, and you see a spellcaster capable of casting that spell, and you have a character which cannot take that hit, the certainty doesn't negatively affect the challenge. You're going to be tense, keeping your weaker character away until that spellcaster is dealt with. The threat isn't removed, so the challenge isn't removed.

Who says there is only one method to complete the task? There is starvation in the empire of Hungry, you can: Work to end the war which is a drain on the resources of the nation Improve the farming practices to suit the colonies different environment, increasing crop yields and preventing crop failure Set up alliances with neighbouring nations to trade against the food-shortages Use the hunger to take over (parts of) the empire and claim them for yourself Let the damn peasants starve and recruit new people to settle the colonies, eventually the pioneers must get it right without my help. Evacuate the starving masses to more fertile pastures, deeper in-land, away from the coast. Create surpluses in summer to help in winter. Increase the fertility of the land by supplicating a deity concerned with fertility or farming. Fight the neighbouring nations and take their resources for your own! I'm sure you can come up with different solutions yourself.

The biggest risk in that is making probability ranges too small, or not at all. There's a reason D&D uses a d20, imagine how fun it would be without the dice roll. People wouldn't still be playing it. Imagine if swords always hit, to prevent "to hit" rolls missing. So damage and HP is adjusted accordingly. Then again, your sword ALWAYS does x damage. Nothing more, nothing less. Crits are gone too, too much random. Everything's all fixed. Wouldn't it be the most boring RPG in existance? Yes, yes it would. No, it would just need more carefully crafted challenges. You would still have variation with AI and skillsets.

I managed to figure it out, I've already got my key.

I got the same thing. I've only ever had a hangover once, and it was over pretty quickly. I've read that people with blue eyes can handle their alcohol better than others, (which is why it's easier for them to become drunks) I don't know if it's true, but it might explain it for me.

talk to a psychologist or psychotherapist. Even if they can't cure your depression, they can help you bear through it.

Deddo Sushi (Dead Sushi) A campy zombie film where the zombies are sushi. No, really. It's really bad, incredibly obvious, and hilariously over the top. I loved it. But you have to be in a cheesy mood if you want to enjoy it. Only a repressed oversexed culture like that of Japan could bring forth something like this! (take that how you will)

Your post,first on this page,proposes a task-like climactic battle,but it isn't all that different than "fighting ultimate evils". Messier's post below shows some fine examples.. that aren't all that different except for that "kill everyone",when you think of it. It's still You vs. big bad enemy/group. All the choices that are really relevant are left for that moment,which kinda nulls the whole process of getting there,IMO. You're right, my examples were in a different direction. I still think a grand task is something you can do. It might involve no combat at all. two different alternative solutions, do not confuse.

this is where telegraphing and monster identification come in. "Oh, this is a Modular Slime This is the second time I've come across it, so I know what to expect" You don't have to know the exact data, as long as you learn that certain enemies apply certain skills and tactics. Every time except the first time when you come across a Blubberman you'll know (provided you're skilled enough to pay attention) to keep these bastards out of melee range, and especially away from your fighters. Your skill and strategy would improve as encounters will continue to get more combinations of AI behaviours for you to deal with. No number has ever got to be shown, and you would still have the information you need to tactically assess the situation and beat the encounter.

Shadowrun Returns uses a checkpoint save system if you haven't tried it yet. Shadowrun Returns is a nice enough game, but players consider the checkpoint saves to be one of the major faults. Once you proceed to the next level you can't redo your choices. One clusterf*ck and you may need to replay an entire level or be seriously gimped if the mission has multiple levels. Choose the wrong companions or bring the wrong consumables and at best: play the same level again and again until you succeed, or at worst: you need to restart the whole game. Personally I'm fine with it... it's more fun to me to have to live with your choices and for them to mean something..... and for there to be a bit of tension in the game... If you have to save scum then the game is too hard and the save scumming is an infinite lives cheat. (baldurs gate at level 1)... shadowrun was a bit on the easy side if anything..it would have been way too easy if you could save anywhere. and what is the point of ever even having a fail condition to anything if you can just keep doing it again till you succeed? might as well play skyrim and never fail at anything.... I think the main way to prevent save scumming is from having failure not be immediately apparent. For instance, you need to quietly infiltrate a mansion, steal valuables, retreat. During the quest, you are spotted, you kill the guard, but fail to hide the body. While you can still complete the quest, later on, the body which you have left on the crime scene leads back to your organisation, having stolen the items no longer matters, it's over. But you only find out that you failed after quest completion. Your game isn't over, but your progression with said faction is. too bad. If you add failure as a normal outcome, I think there would be a lot less save scumming. especially since if you do this in style, even such a defeat can seem like a natural outcome, rather than quest failure needing an instant reload. You don't even always need to tell the player why they failed. Let them figure it out themselves. THAT is what leads to replayability.

It's the debate between difficult and punishing. If a player can reasonably be expected to be capable of defending himself against being one-shotted, even if it is not easy, then that's difficult. If a player can be overcome without reasonable expectation that he or she can defend him or herself against such defeat, then it's merely punishing, and bad game design. If there is ONLY ONE way to defend yourself against such a defeat, then that negates all strategy and tactics. Single solution encounters are unfun, and also bad game design. But from what I've heard, a lot of effort is being put in decreasing probability ranges, precisely to prevent these situations. A good thing, in my opinion.

Just steal the banner design tool from Guild Wars and I'll be very happy. http://guildwars.wikia.com/wiki/Cape Something along those lines

I thought the big one was going to be this week?

I'm OK with expecting at least a decent standard of intellect from players. That means a little ambiguity is fine. If the player can't figure it out, that's really too bad. I'm not saying quests should be absolutely cryptic, but ambiguity allows a player to react as he would: Doing what he or she thinks should be done, rather than what the game tells him or her what needs to be done.

Except that Torment backers with a Wasteland 2 add-on or tier got it too. really? I haven't heard anything about that, and I did back Torment:ToN with Wasteland 2 add-on

That sounds like the history channel to me.

Maybe you could complete a great task instead.

I got frustrated, I got angry, I lashed out at the wrong person.