Humodour

Jaheira was more awesome in BG1.

Ah, ic (if you want to play a little, try This little training-tool Just enter the regex under "Suchmuster"*, the text you want to apply the expression to under "Eingabetext"* and klick on the button "Zeigen"* on the left hand side) Today I trained, then worked a while and now I'm working on convincing myself to begin learning for the next examn... *: meaning "search pattern", "input text" and "show" Hey, thanks man! I was using the Python interpreter (similar to Haskell - allows on the fly commands) but unlike Haskell it doesn't allow pressing up to cycle through previous commands, so it's all copy paste - rather slow. This should be quite helpful. I finished the programme, btw. It uses a set, has a simple non regexp url filename function now, and writes all the images as full links (http://blah.com/blah/image.gif) even for ones like ../image.gif. I'm going to add a GUI and a function to optionally download some or all of the images found, so it might actually become a semi-useful programme!

Considering Windows 7 will likely be superior to Vista, and you won't be switching in the next couple of years (because you said when it becomes usable), so 7 will be out, I guess that means you'll never use Vista. :D

Really? In NSW we use guns to kill zombies.

I think FIFE is an excellent idea! The world needs a decent open source 2D isometric engine; for both RTS and RPG. If this thing is still around when I finish my CS degree, I'd love to contribute. I'm guessing the language is C/C++ using openGL libraries? I think the graphics courses here are taught in C/C++, so I'm sure I'll pick up the basics at uni. In the meantime I think I'll continue mastering Python. I've mostly ignored FIFE because I was under the impression it was just an engine remake for Fallout (like with the IE games).

Yes, half-assed comes to mind. But it *is* just an expansion after all... You can't target an improved invisible creature, so you can't remove their immunity, I believe that's the problem? True Sight? Anyway, ToB was originally meant to be BG3, but they seem to have just gave up and did a half-assed Xpack instead. That's why I installed Ascension - hoping it'd add a bit of life. But as it stands I'm struggling to find purpose to continue BG2 normal - it's all just too easy... but more than that, it really is boring. Maybe I've just played chapter 2 way too much. Yea, I'll go to spellhold and sort things out. Wild Mage Wiiiiiillllld.... Mage See how easy a time of it you have when, right in the midst of a battle, your Mage casts fireball x2 on your party. Haha. Last guy I had was a wild mage. They are actually very fun! About as powerful as a sorc too (moreso even) because of Nahal's Reckless Dweomer. I was casting level 8 spells mostly successfully (or at least casting fireball on the enemies or haste on the party instead) and I was only level 9 or so. Tigranes: Oh? Fighter/Druid is one of the most powerful classes. If you can get past her character she's one of the strongest NPCs (which isn't saying much I know, since Bioware made some crappy NPCs and classes for them). Best things about the IE games by far is two IWD1 spells: Malavon's Rage and Mordenkainen's Sword. Feeling bored? Run into a mob and cast Malavon's Rage and watch them chunk to bits. Feeling flighty? Whip out Mordenkainen's Sword and deal 5-30 damage AT RANGE. If you're a fighter/mage you also get the extra attacks per round. Hahaha. God I had fun with that. It's like +3, too. Man IWD1 in general was an awesome combat game and all-round fantasy adventure. Edit: That said there was some pretty damn fun Torment spells which elude me right now.

Well booze, drugs, sex and rock n' roll are all easy here in Aus! Woo! I'm hoping out for Turkey's reform of Islam. It's the revolution Islam needs, with Turkey the right country to do it.

According to some Dr.Dolittles out there, cats do that to show to their servants (yes, the family are servants to them) on how to hunt properly. And there's also the "being a show-off"-factor involved. Yep. Some suspect the cats do it because they think humans incapable of actually capturing their own food. Either way, there's definitely a "look at me, I'm useful!" factor. Are you serious? If you did, then I can't say I blame meta.

Stop trying to stir up resentment man. Vampires and werewolves make productive members of society most of the time and you know it! It's a small minority that ruins it for all of them.

I'd prefer if she were in Dr Who.

If using regular expressions, "context sensitive" is probably not the word you were looking for (because regular expression can, in an enhanced form iirc, describe context sensitive languages, which is a class of languages following complicated grammar rules) Ooooh, yeah! I remember fiddling around with those, actually. They're expressions with stuff on either side and a nested expression in the middle, yeah? IIRC they were rather complex methods of defining rather simple languages, usually (always?). Python has some cool data structures, one of them being a set. Just toss the image names into a Set -> voil

Oh, if anybody was at all interested, here's the code I ended up with. Tonight I learnt: regular expressions, file writing, sockets. You call the function like this: getImages('http://obsidianent.com') It will create a file in the same directory as the programme. The log file will have the date of the retrieval as well as the website it retrieved it from. Meanwhile the file will be called 'Image Log obsidianent.com.log'. If you run it for the same domain more than once, it appends to the existing log file. Tomorrow I might make it provide full image links instead of context sensitive ones, but that's why I made it print the url in the log file also. import urllib import re from time import gmtime, strftime def getImages(url): if url[-1] != '/': url += '/' sock = urllib.urlopen(url) pageSource = sock.read() sock.close() fileName = 'Image Log %s.log' % urlParse(url) logFile = open(fileName, 'a') logFile.write(htmlParse(pageSource, url)) logFile.close() print 'done' def htmlParse(pageSource, url): imageList = re.findall(r'<img[ \S\s]*?src=["\']([ \S\s]*?)["\']', pageSource) #for v in imageList: # if v[0] == '/': # v = url + v return '\n' + strftime("%a, %d %b %Y %H:%M:%S %Z") + '\nSource website: ' + url + '\n\n' + '\n'.join(["%s" % v for v in imageList]) + '\n\n' def urlParse(url): domain = '' domainTuple = re.search(r'(http://)?([\w.]*)|(\b)', url).groups() for v in domainTuple: if v: domain = v return domain You'll need Python to run it: http://www.python.org/download/ If you notice any bugs or things I could do better, tell me! Edit: I just noticed I need to remove duplicate images, too.

Hmm, yeah, they're equivalent to finite state automata, aren't they? Edit: Screw this. I'm just going to make a program instead and learn along the way. That's so much easier. It will strip everything from file except image tags - of the <img> (and corresponding XHTML) kind. This will be fun!

Stupid hey? Check the aggregate reviews that console gamers gave DX:IW compared to what the PC gamers gave it. Check the more simplistic controllers of console games, check the difficulty in doing more complex tasks, modding, optimising the game, etc on a console (controller), and I honestly dare you to tell me that console gamers have exactly the same mindset, expectations and tastes as PC RPG gamers, or even PC gamers in general. Moreover, the streamlining process was directly attributed by various IW devs to be due to Eidos's desire for a game that would appeal to console gamers more - a 'triple A' game supposedly. There is a definite notion in the industry that console gamers want less complexity and more 'streamlined' almost arcade-style games they can just pick up and put down as the whim arises; whether it is true or not is not the actual point of contention. Console games are different, not necessarily dumber. But trying to force a PC game to appeal to console gamers as well means you're not marketing either niche exclusively, which aside from rare gems produces games which don't appeal much to either audience (DX:IW); better to pick one and stick (and port later if you will, as with DX1 or ME). And good job using Diablo as an example of why unlimited ammo is a good idea. Yeah, that's exactly what we want Alpha Protocol to be like.

This caught my eye: So basically the only way to determine if two regexps are equivalent is proof by exhaustion? So would that make this an NP problem? Hmm. Interesting - I've done a bit of work on finite state automata and Kleene algebras, and it was a bit of a head spin. I wish I'd taken that course on formal methods in programming now. Wait, which is it?

They tend to come down of their own accord when you leave them alone.

I wouldn't want to see Torment converted to the BG2 engine. For starters the round lengths are different (which I think is hard-coded). But also, what would it accomplish? Heck, I prefer bare IWD1 without HoW, too. I don't think HoW adds to the game - I dislike the new BG2 avatars, I think the Xpack transition is disjointed and incongruous with the OC, and I don't like HoW's idea of "randomly throw a bunch of mundane +4 weapons in the Kuldahar shop". Maybe I should stare intensely at Sawyer for that. That guy has a point, though - Glitterdust probably would have worked.

Personally I prefer when devs are mostly silent on their projects. A few reasons, but namely that too much transparency can ruin expectations (e.g. produce negative hype about a feature that sounds not-so-good, but actually works well in the game), as well it also often gives fans a false sense of control or importance in the decision making process. I think ultimately it's better if developers remain in a position of promoting their game rather than explaining their decisions; so there is still room for them to interact with us on these boards, but perhaps not in the capacity Xard desires. This is all true for developers who actually know what they are doing, of course. If this were DX:IW, I'd be telling them (and I did) to listen to the ****ing fans because dumbing the game down for the console market is a stupid ****ing idea, thank you very much. I still hold hope that Obsid is 'streamlining' the game because they actually want to accomplish some nifty RPG device. But if it is just to dumb it down for the console...

I'm bored so I decided to learn about regular expressions and file IO in Python.

Yes, half-assed comes to mind. But it *is* just an expansion after all... You can't target an improved invisible creature, so you can't remove their immunity, I believe that's the problem? True Sight? Anyway, ToB was originally meant to be BG3, but they seem to have just gave up and did a half-assed Xpack instead. That's why I installed Ascension - hoping it'd add a bit of life. But as it stands I'm struggling to find purpose to continue BG2 normal - it's all just too easy... but more than that, it really is boring. Maybe I've just played chapter 2 way too much. Yea, I'll go to spellhold and sort things out.

In my mind the thing we may not be banking on is that a system other than combat accounts for the variety and strategy lost to unlimited ammo. Say, this occasionally referenced superspy/superhuman abilities and feats system. Still, I suppose even then I'd still want limited ammo (nothing wrong with even more variety and strategy options).

Complexity is only good if it brings something to the game. The thing I'm hoping for is that Obsidian is removing unnecesary complexity as I outlined in my earlier post. Ammo is only usefull as a game mechanic if it is scarce and/or has great variation by design, if such a design vision has never been present in AP then it is only logical to remove it. The article that mentioned unlimited ammo also mentioned introducing things gradually to make the game easier to get inot, this suggests that there is complexity in the game, just not in the ammo department. I remember back in the days of the development of DX:Invisible War when it was first announced that IW was going to drop the skill system and aug system used by Deus Ex. A lot of people really screamed and whined that it was a horrible thing to do and would diminish a lot of what made DX such as interesting game. And at the time, I was one of the people who said: Trust the developers. They must know what they are doing. Even though they appear to be reducing the game from the original in a bad way, they will do somethign to make up for it. And you know what? I was wrong. And all the people who screamed and whined like babies were absolutely right. The developers design decsions completely hosed IW. Ever since then I've come to believe that gamers actually have a claerer understanding about what makes games fun and intersting than developers do. Mostly becuase gamers are generally only driven to desire fun games while develoeprs think about things like marketing and demographic appeal and maximizing sales potential. Does anybody think IW is a superior game to DX? This is exactly the reason I'm not liable to support an unlimited ammo decision. As soon as I hear "Obsidian is trying to streamline everything" I think back to the exact same words spoken by Warren Spectre and co about DX:IW, which as you state did not turn out well. That said, I wouldn't say gamers have a better idea of design - just that sometimes there are issues that you should really listen to them about (and sometimes really shouldn't).

[quote name='H

I just watched the first part of Silence in the Library. Hah, funny episode. I like Moffat's style. My other favourite episode this season was The Doctor's Daughter.

I have my favourite weapons that I would like to pre-dominantly use through the game. For instance, the ones I take with me along for the mission. If those "run dry" Then I would need to find another weapon somewhere or stay out of sight/trouble so I don't actually need a gun. So having limited ammo would add greater depth to the gameplay, tactics, and how realistic the developers wish to make the game. As I've stated in another thread I prefer mostly realism in action games. But I'm not going to miss out on a great game if it isn't 100% realistic. But then-again, I wouldn't buy it if it isn't realistic enough. Things to consider when playing: - Do you take extra ammo at the expense of extra weight? - Do you have enough ammo to run through levels guns-a-blazin'? - Would you really go in guns blazing if the bullet damage is realistic (which I read it is), meaning you can die pretty easy?! - Can you pick up more ammo/weapons along the way? - Do you save you ammo for emergencies? - Would you really throw your gun away if you were a spy infiltrating somewhere? After all, you aren't supposed to be there and wouldn't want to leave a trace. Like I said, limited ammo can add a variation of different game play styles, where-as unlimited only ever encourages one, run-and-gun. Which in my opinion isn't really fitting for a "spy" game. I know; I was agreeing with you.