Valsuelm

Newer isn't always better... Insulation improvements aside, your average house built in 1801 is typically going to be standing a lot longer than the average house built in 2013 and will be more structurally sound in almost every way, even though the 2013 house will hold it's heat better and be more easily rewired for electricity than it's 1801 counterpart. With most things as time goes on there are improvements available. Not often enough these days however are those improvements incorporated without sacrificing something else, and often needlessly (housing construction is a good example of this, though skyrocketing costs of the better materials in relation to your average person's income and the currency (inflation is bad, very bad) has a bit to do with this.). Improvements or not though, all too often some folks are trying to reinvent the wheel. With all improvements considered, as far as houses go, I'd generally rather have a house built towards the end of the 19th century or beginning of the 20th as you'd get the most bang for your buck in materials with such a house and houses built then were still built to last, yet upgrading windows and insulation to modern standards is generally no biggie. And as far as CRPG games go, and all 'improvements' considered, I'd rather have a game from the 90s. There are many more games from that decade that stand the test of time than games of the last decade. Too many of the 'improvements' of modern RPGs (both PnP and CRPG) consist of shallow balance acts at the cost of substance done by folks lacking from imagination. A good game stands the test of time. And with all of the modern improvements to video gaming available there are very very few things I'd alter in many of the great games of the past such as Baldur's Gate or Planescape Torment (or Chrono Trigger, Link to the Past, Starflight 1/2, nethack, FF6, et al) and they'd mostly if not entirely have to do with improving graphics and UI (namely just higher resolution art (what would have been nice in BG:EE) and better inventory management (something I still have yet to see be done very well in any CRPG excepting WoW (where an addon called 'arkinventory' does the job)). Dragon Age is a good example of a game that, while good on it's own, falls far short of the spiritual successor to the IE games, and is not something I'll be playing again, where I very likely will be playing BG 1/2 and PST at some point again in the future. And his analogy does work...

I was referring to AD&D 2nd edition (that which was used for all but one of the IE games), though 1st edition would also work, as there is very little difference between the two editions (2nd edition was mostly the same as 1st minus boobies and demons (due to so much bad publicity about these things being in 1st edition during the 80s)). 3rd edition wasn't really called AD&D anymore but just D&D, and it wasn't until 3rd edition that some basic things were overhauled in a manner that was more often not for the better in my opinion. I also definitely very much prefer the 2E IE games way of rolling stats.

I've played all previous IE games as well as other D&D franchise games on what's usually called the 'D&D Hardcore rules' difficulty. Since PE is obviously not going to use these rules I do hope that there's a recommendation by Obsidian on which difficulty to select that most represents an equivalent to the "'D&D Hardcore rules"" difficulty found in the IE games as well as NWN2, and I very much hope that equivalent exists in PE.

I wouldn't even say it was cool then. It really didn't feel right in the game imo. But it was much more tolerable and much much less annoying than the inyourface implementations in some other games (ie: Dragon Age or The oh yea my character is a male sloot Witcher). That some have come to expect 'romance' and want them so much in their CRPG that there's as many threads in this forum about this subject.... well, to them I say go out and get a "Romance, Marriage, Pregnancy and having Children." in the real world, and perhaps you might not be clamoring so much for such things in this or any other game. There are games such as The Sims that are much better suited for folks who wish to pursue eromances and efamilies than a CRPG game, especially one that is aiming to be a really good one.

It's a fairly disrespectful way to refer to folks who support you or you would like to support you methinks.

The extent of crafting I'd like to see in this game is the extent of crafting we saw in the original IE games. While it was somewhat novel and interesting some years ago when we first started seeing crafting in just about every RPG type game that was made, I find crafting ala you see in MMOs, NWN2, D3, Witcher, etc to be tedious and largely a waste of time. Crafting was actually one of the final nails in the coffin of my MMO gaming career, and it's by far my least favorite feature in NWN2. I'm beyond burnt out on crafting, and I know many other folks (two of which backed this game but don't ever go to the forums) who also are. Give us alchemists or blacksmiths, or the like to go visit with really rare things to craft something special, sure. Don't give us tons of weeds, ore, plans, etc to pick, mine, or make.

How plentiful currency is should depend almost entirely on the game environment. What I do not want to see no matter how scarce it is in inflation of this currency such as we see in Blizzard games.

Of all the game systems I've seen out there (and I've seen most of them), IE games did intelligence (and overall the other stats as well) the best. Reason being, because of all the PnP game systems I've seen out there AD&D did intelligence the best. Up to a point, I do like the manner in which Palladium has both ME (mental endurance) and IQ (intelligence quotient), however that system scales very badly after a point (though house rules can nip all the issues in the butt).

The original expectations set was something like the end of December beginning of January. We're now almost in July with the last official update on this in March, which at the time lead me to believe that the fulfillment site would be up soon. I'd generally be totally cool with the fulfillment site not being up for quite some time yet, however expectations were set, have not been met, and silence is all that I've seen on it, and that's kinda not cool. An official update in regards to this would be nice, and I'm ok if for some reason the fulfillment site has been pushed back, just please let us know and try to avoid setting expectations that won't be met in the future.

Here. Here. And Here. Would also note that EVERY libertarian I have met has at least a small obsession with her, but I really don't have a way to showcase that evidence(other than go around interviewing every libertarian I have meant and putting that interview up on Youtube, but I'm a bit too lazy for that.). I know more than person that self describes themselves as a libertarian that does not think highly of Rand at all.....

So you're saying that crime and corruption in Venezuela are actually to his credit? I think it's more an argument he's so incompetent that having an authoritarian dictatorship didn't even deliver one of its usual benefits, but to be fair you really need to move on to the totalitarian dictatorship to get a handle on crime. Whether you like Chavez or not, he was anything but incompetent. He was one of the only leaders of a nation on the planet that wasn't incompetent and had the best interests of his nation in mind. Though you somehow have it in your head that he was an authoritarian dictator.... Stop yum yum yumming up the propaganda fed you about leader X being evil to justify your nation's imperialism and do a little homework. He was not, and you'll find that some others aren't either. I'd say the current and last President of the U.S. is closer to that role than Chavez was.

You can compare anyone to anyone, or anything to anything. While there are similarities between the three, as there are between those three and a great many other leaders throughout history, Chavez didn't go on about what Stalin is most infamous for: that being staging an organized mass scale murder of citizens of his nation, and Hitler and Stalin may be similar in that they are both fruits, but they were as different as lemons and cherries. Anyone who thinks Chavez is akin to Hitler, Stalin, or Mao is incredibly mistaken, naive, ignorant, and thoroughly brainwashed.

She sounds just like 90%+ of the other total incompetents on Capital Hill.... This 'sequester' stuff is utter BS. That some people aren't getting paid and the White House is closed is ridiculous on levels beyond epic when we're still sending hundreds of billions overseas, buying tanks to use against US Citizens, subsiding all sorts of private industry we shouldn't, various corps are paying little to no taxes, and the list goes on to the point if someone made a comprehensive one it'd probably reach the post cap on this forum before it was complete. The whole thing is PR and propaganda, and anyone not calling that out that works on Capital Hill is part of the problem.

I have been following this story. Hugo Chavez was a bit of a mixed bag from a good leadership perspective. There was no doubt he did a lot of good to uplift the poor people in his country and ensure the middle class got a good deal. But he was vociferously anti-western and didn't allow any fair political contestation in his country. He controlled the press and what his citizens really knew about the state of the Venezuelan conomy. He had no issues with aligning imself with anyone opposed to Western countries like North Korea. But he definitely had an entertaining and flamboyant personality. Who remembers the one time at the UN when he accused George Bush of being the Devil and leaving behind the smell of sulfur ( it was embarrasing but funny the way he said it) His war on some of the press was the result of the failed US sponsored coup in 2002. The press he's reported to have suppressed in most of the western media was bought and paid for propaganda by those who are pro foreign (especially US corporate) interests, and much of the upper class elite in Venezuela that benefits from the foreign oil interests there at the expense of most of the rest of the people of that nation. I recommend watching the documentary 'This Revolution Will Not Be Televised'. The raw footage of the puppet government that was put in place for a little while during the coup, and the footage of the 'free' (foreign owned) press that backed that coup speaks volumes.

Eh. It wasn't necessarily hostile, though I don't know his intents. There are a great many brainwashed Americans, but the per capita brainwashed rate is at least as high in almost every other nation on earth as it is in the U.S., and in many places much higher. The next global spanning war will be fought with nukes, biological weapons, and other weapons we have yet to see, some of which may be arguably worse than nukes. It will also be fought conventionally, and manpower will take a much larger role than many would think. Unlike past major wars it will have few determined lines, meaning you will be unsafe almost anywhere. The sources of some of the nukes as well as other very ugly attacks on large civilian populations will be both indeterminable in some cases and false flagged in others. It will be hell on earth. And the U.S. will be very defeatable. They are very defeatable. So is NATO. And as time goes on they will become moreso if the trends of the last few decades continue as the west is pissing away it's industrial base (a crucial factor in a war). Those that could potentially do it, won't though as it will start a war that ultimately almost no one will win. More and more though it looks like that war is coming as the 'leaders' of this world are mostly made up of bought and paid for lunatics who are constantly beating the war drums. And of course the economy is collapsing almost everywhere, currency wars are already underway, and trade wars are on the horizon. All of which historically leads to hot and heavy warfare on a scale the world hasn't seen in well over a half century.

That doesn't make it right. Income redistribution or any kind of personal income tax at all doesn't strengthen the economy in any way. Anyone who thinks so fundamentally doesn't understand how money works, or how the tax system works, and are naive to just how corrupt the system is. Would it be better if income was distributed more equitably throughout the populace? Most definitely. Income tax however is not how to achieve that. nor is it what it's currently used for. The video above presents nothing to anyone who even half way pays attention to what goes on. The one thing it offers is the final sentence 'The reality in this country is not at all what we think it is'. True, but not true. The guy who made the video is a communist, and the ideal he describes in the video is communism, not socialism. (Though the only major difference between the two is that socialists are generally just in denial of what they are (and many other things), someone who considers themselves a communist is usually at least honest with themselves.) He assumes everyone was as stupid as he was, so he says 'we'. 'Some of us' or 'Most of us' would be more accurate, this is the not true part. The very true part is that it is not at all what most think it is. If you want to wake up to what's really going on. It takes a lot of work. I recommend starting with any of the following documentaries you can find on the internet relatively easily, but eventually watch them all, and then start doing research from there on your own. Anyone who understands how the modern western monetary system works knows that personal income tax, or most any taxes at all on the National level on it's populace are little more than devices of control and leverage, and illusory ones at that. The bad thing is that so many buy into the illusion. Documentaries: The Money Masters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfpO-WBz_mw The Secret of Oz Money as Debt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41rUS465X8c The American Dream The Banker's Cabal (this one can be hard to find) Note: These are just the tip of the iceberg and I'd recommend doing a lot more homework than just watching them. But if you understand what's being presented, and doing so might not be easy as they present a reality that flies in the faces of what most believe (but most believe in fantasy), you'll understand that income tax is an evil that does not go to be used for what most people think it's used for, and a solution to no problems of the common man. Also, if you had a decent American History teacher in school and paid attention, much of what will be in the above Documentaries will tug at your memories from those classes. Unfortunately, most people are not lucky enough to have good history teachers, nor do most pay enough attention in any class. The documentaries focus largely on the U.S., however most of what they present is true for almost every nation in the western world these days.

It's not fake. it's a legitimately horribly written article, like so many others. The headline is very misleading and isn't backed up by what's in the article itself or reality in any way.

It does have something to do with it, but you don't need to be a millionaire to have it affect you. The problem is (and this depends on the nation abroad you work in), that in many places you get double taxed. If you live and work in England for example as a U.S. citizen you'll pay local income taxes, and then the IRS will expect you to pay them as well (though last I knew it was at a reduced rate). So in the case of many people in that article they're probably not fleeing the U.S. due to tax issues (as some high profile folks in France are for example), but already living and working in the U.K. and are tired of paying local taxes AND sending taxes back to the IRS. The same thing happens within the states. Some states that have state income taxes will expect you to pay income taxes on your income even if you earned most or all of it in another state if you reside part time or on paper in that state. While other states will expect you to pay their income taxes if you work in their state but reside in another. And some states (these days I'd wager all of the states that collect income taxes), expect you to pay in both situations. In some cases it's lead to lawsuits between the states themselves and individuals on who gets the right to tax individuals income. ie: there have been numerous issues over the years between New York State, New York City, and the various states around it (like NJ., Conn. and PA.) over who gets to tax the income of a person living in one state but that drives over the border to work in another. At some times people were expected to pay both taxes. What the situation is currently I don't know. Why I say it depends on the nation you live and work in is that some nations (most of Europe) it's harder to not let the IRS know what you're earning due to modern banking regulations, whereas in other nations it's relatively easy to not let the IRS know how much you didn't or did make, and you're free to attempt to hide your earnings. The IRS really shouldn't be taxing people on wages abroad. They didn't used to. Then again, I don't think the IRS should be taxing anyone's wages ever or that it should even exist, but that's another much larger subject. It shouldn't be hard for most people to imagine some resentment on behalf of anyone that's required to send taxes off to somewhere they aren't currently residing in, especially if that person is paying those taxes on top of the taxes that they're expected to pay where they are currently residing.

You're comparing the UK to the USSR? I never realised the UK was so similar. No, it was an analogy. Like most any other analogy, a direct comparison is not made, but a relative one was.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way most of the time, we are just too good at medically dragging out the lives of people in poor health. Unfortunately? Too good? Dragging out? If one day you or someone you care about is in poor health, and likely would have died without modern medical intervention, I doubt you'll look at it that way. Malcador's statement and attitude is disgusting, and demonstrates an infantile over simplified understanding of what he talks about. I hope you don't share it. FWIIW I think you're presenting an overcomplicated view of one of the most ancient problems Monkey MkII has ever faced. I've been through terminal illness with loved ones. The most important thing any of them realised was that they were losing less than they thought. Having their illness dragged out is EXACTLY what upset them most. I can still hear the whirring of the morphine pump... I didn't present anything overcomplicated.... however I think you might look at things oversimplified if you think what I said was even a smidgeon complicated. Not everyone wants to rush into death's door, no matter how physically and/or mentally taxing whatever condition they may have. As much there is similarity between various end of life scenarios, each is unique. To each their own. Some wish to live on despite conditions others would find unbearable, some wish not to. Some want the Morphine or the like, some would rather suffer anything than to submit themselves to what morphine does. The choice, should be theirs. And I don't begrudge anyone for reaching for or rejecting the Morphine.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way most of the time, we are just too good at medically dragging out the lives of people in poor health. Unfortunately? Too good? Dragging out? If one day you or someone you care about is in poor health, and likely would have died without modern medical intervention, I doubt you'll look at it that way. Malcador's statement and attitude is disgusting, and demonstrates an infantile over simplified understanding of what he talks about. I hope you don't share it. Hah, the hell are you talking about ? Was a jab at people sneering at these folk, ultimately in my experience it's boiled down to that concern over any altruistic sense. I was referring to this: Nah, they care. It's their tax money being wasted to treat the scum that eat this food, after all.

The article is mostly bunk. While many Americans may be looking to leave now more than ever, I doubt any of those looking to live in England over the U.S. are doing it solely for tax purposes. That said, the tax issue is a legitimate one. However, an American looking to flee to the U.K. over taxes or anything else is like a German in the 30s looking to flee to the U.S.S.R. for a better life. Situations can vary person to person though, and all is relative, so to each their own.

Constructive Criticism: Paragraphs are your friend if you want people to read what you write, and they allow you to organize your thoughts better. I humbly suggest you break up the above wall of text into a few more easily readable paragraphs.

If only that were true...

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way most of the time, we are just too good at medically dragging out the lives of people in poor health. Unfortunately? Too good? Dragging out? If one day you or someone you care about is in poor health, and likely would have died without modern medical intervention, I doubt you'll look at it that way. Malcador's statement and attitude is disgusting, and demonstrates an infantile over simplified understanding of what he talks about. I hope you don't share it.