Gfted1

Those that are fiscally responsible?

Watching my daughter play a Panda Monk has inspired me to dust off my mage and see about leveling to 90. Its been so long I dont even remember the keyboard shortcuts any more. Wonder if Im still in my guild.

Hey, if he doesn't have Xcom still, let me know. I just recently purchased the bundle and already had Xcom. You sir, rock. Bendu said all his are gone so Ill PM you my Steam ID.

Oh well, thanks anyway.

Which one did BruceVC take? If XCOM is still available, I'd be interested.

No worries.

Blizzard announces “freemium” online trading card game.

I think if Cyprus falls it will tempt Greece to default also and after that...I dont know, maybe a domino effect on the PIIGS. Cyprus does have an out though, seems they are willing to sell oil resources to Russia for the 10B loan.

I see, youre just trolling me. You win, I fell for it.

But now you feel they shouldnt? Fair enough. Unless, of course, you think an archer should go through the entire game with naught but his standard attack. Especially in a world of superhuman soul powers, I would think your abilities would take the effectiveness of your arrows SOMEWHERE beyond the effectiveness at which you started. But maybe that's just crazy talk. *shrug* /p> In the same post you quoted I already accounted for improving damage. Also abilities as exampled by TsugaC make sense. A plain arrow suddenly increasing in damage because you are fighting a tougher foe does not. Okay, I don't know how else to say this. I'm not inferring secret meanings with my words. I'm using words that mean things to say exactly what they mean. The amount of damage YOU (the character) are capable of inflicting, using the same tool you have been using (the arrows), should increase as you improve, regardless of whether or not the tool you're using improves. How does that suggest arrows that nonsensically scale their damage for no apparent reason? And if you already accounted for improving damage, then how is my talk of improving damage confusing and/or questionable? And is insulting my intelligence twice in a row (once by assuming I'm opting for nonsense, and once by condescendingly trying to point out that my clarification doesn't work because my point is nonsense, and that now I'm saying two different things) really a more constructive option than simply asking, "Wait, you're not talking about arrows scaling in damage, are you? Because that would be silly."? There there Lephys, bestill your rage and wipe the spittle flecks from your display. I honestly read that as you would like to have "the exact "same" arrow" cause more damage as HP of foes increases. You also conveniently added in that its now the PLAYER improving, not the tool. Perhaps if you articulate your thoughts better your arguments wont have to evolove and there will be less misunderstandings.

Durlag's Tower is no joke.

Xbox 720 demands installed games and always-on activation leak suggests.

I dont follow. First you said: But now you feel they shouldnt? Fair enough. In the same post you quoted I already accounted for improving damage. Also abilities as exampled by TsugaC make sense. A plain arrow suddenly increasing in damage because you are fighting a tougher foe does not.

Yeah, I identify long time posters by their avatars too. When he and Gorgon changed its like they disappeared from existance.

Yikes, its currently trading at $17.09. How does that work, does that mean they have lost over 2/3 of the value of the company?

I dont see why arrows should scale just because HP increases with levels. A 1d8 sword is still a 1d8 sword no matter youre fighting a street mook or dragon. Adding enchants/elemental/exploding is fine but a plain arrow that did 1d4 should always do 1d4.

I dont get it. Id love to fire a belt fed machine gun.

True dat. In P:E it would be absolutely pointless to chase them down.

Its in the first post:

And if you die he rests it on your face?

Meh. Fleeing mooks, while realistic, only serve as something you have to chase across the map to kill. For no experience.

My bad, I scrolled down to the notes and references section and clicked link 6 instead of clicking the number 6 next to that statement.

Note that one does not need to be in an emergency condition to be admitted to a hospital. Hmm, a strange stipulation and scanning the website that reference 6 points to I didnt see anything related to that. Anyway, I guess in that case you can walk out and walk back in with a new emergency?

You mean a different emergency that befell the patient after being admitted for the current emergency? Can you snip out the part you are referring to?

*sigh* Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act