metadigital

There should be more ways to depose a foreign government ... inciting or performing a putsch or ever assassinating the whole cabinet (on a plane flight or some such, so that there is a chance the event will be regarded as an accident). After all, that would allow for less national army fontal assaults. (Okay, it's going to invalidate all the techniques currently employed as balancing: combat of units that are production objects from the past years' of each civilization ... so what?! It'll be just like a Community Chest card in Monopoly.)

Well, it's not difficult if the developers planned to use the variables from the beginning, and set up some sort of Object Oriented Design. I would always do that, because the probability is very high that the variables used to identify / differentiate / leaders, as well as discriminate their actions and even measure their progress. That way, any attribute can be quickly added to any of these AI task centres, without needing to add the entire processing thread (as in the case of non modular design).

Then again, one chop of the Dragon Sword and every opponent is toast, too (except Walton Simons

Ender, what do you like so much about MW? I thought the spell creation was well done. The fac that you could create your own magic items, and make unlimited power ones, was a real benefit. Ditto with Darque's "uzi". But, as Tingling says, that has little to do with the arcane magic range in D&D.

I'd say that the best way to make sure that cloaking doesn't completely destroy game balance is to make it less than flawless. The Predator Cloak in AvP2 comes to mind. It didn't hide you from Aliens, and if you stepped into the light, moved too fast, or touched someone, humans would spot you (as in get an approximate notion of your position). And there was a coherent explanation as to why using certain weapons would deactivate your cloak. Not that it mattered much because a single charged plasma shot could take out almost anything, but you get my point. " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I like that idea, too. I got the distinct feeling that a lot of the biomods in IW were just there to flesh out the range of biomods, and not for any real game balance. Also, the combat system suXX0r3d. I have nothing against a neat Robocopesque targeting system would be good for auto-aiming, but there seemed to be contrived randomization in the targeting system. And dodging bullets is the silliest idea since Wonder Woman ricocheting bullets with her arm bands, fired at her from a firearm within twenty feet.

I'm sorry, my OE account doesn't seem to be translating your post correctly. WTF?

If the game handles multiple variables, then it isn't much of a stretch to have the AI make decisions based on those variables. Unless the developers don't programme it.

Agreed. Even the "Americans" led by Abraham Lincoln (back in Civ2) used to get expansionist on my border ...

I found that one of the most lame things in DX2 (alongside the ten square meter military bases). As soon as you fired a shot, your cloak magically went off. It's probably one of the worst introduced game balance gimmicks in a game, ever. Talk about detracting from immersion. In Deus Ex it was perfectly balanced, because you could not have both Cloak and Radar Transparency simultaneously. But since they allowed that in IW, they had to introduce that cheap mechanism to prevent the game from becoming a cakewalk (even more). ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes you're right. The best compromise would be that the shot fired would give a fair indication of your position, like a lit match in a WW2 trench ... third guy to light his cigarette is dead; so too third shot and everyone can triangulate your position (regardless of silencer). So the answer is only allow one of two/three cloaking technologies at any time?

I like this idea. That way, you can have, say, Atton as your co-pilot to help your PC as they are trained up in piloting, for example. True, there were very few encounters that had ended with the PC tactically withdrawing ... a mad mob atacking, like the Onderon battle, but with more opponents so there was no way to win, would be a nice twist.

1. Ours is not to question why ... 2. The Romans used tar-covered boars, set alight, to counter the Cathaginian's master weapon (elephants). 3. Is this refering to the comparison in the previous point? In any case: magna veritas, et pr

Have you been staring at the polygon models again? I told you, you'll go blind ...

Metaphor or not, I surely wouldn't like being compared to a pig. Personaly, I like the one: Quos Deus perdere vult, dementat. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's not meant to be a compliment. Yeah, I like that one very much, too; I was waiting for a good time to use it. :/ Incidentally, my translation has that: quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat (or, alternatively, quem deus vult perdere, prius dementat, for Whom to replace "those whom").

So your pessimistic ability to "see" through the authorities and their all-knowing, all-powerful and all-controlling influence on us will mean that you, too, are soon to be *disapeared * ?

I'm just wondering if It's something I've seen or not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's okay, I'm just teasing.

To answer the first assessment, no, I do not. You're simply "reading between the lines", and doing so in a rather inacurrate manner to boot. Regarding your second assessment, you're dead wrong. Completed both expansions with numerous characters, and spent a few too many weekends with that game than what I would have wanted to, in hindsight. Yes, they do. And D&D has those effects, and more. Many more. Especially if you expand your horizons beyond the PHB. Here's some spells from BG2 with unique effects not mentioned above, for example: Timestop. Simulacrum. Spell trigger. Spell Sequencer. Stoneskin. Skull Trap. Polymorph Other/Self. Any continous AoE spell. Mirror Image. Improved Alacricity. Imprisonment. Disintegrate/Finger of Death/Power Word: Die and similar spells. And finally... Goodberries, the best spell in the saga. This assessment is faulty, regardless of wheter you choose to count summoning spells in a single category (Gate and Summon creature IX being the same thing) or not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And don't forget Summon Familiar! :cool:

Do you have a link to that ? The name isnt familiar but I've seen tons of anime that I couldnt name anyway. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ... for research purposes, of course.

Wow. Yeah, I really liked Twilight Zone and Outer Limits. The newer series weren't always as good as the Rod Serling originals, though. (who can forget the manequin's release day?)

That's too harsh Meta " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not really. (A favourite line of my fathers was, in English, "Strawberries to pigs".) I guess people in asian cultures might be offended by the comparison to animals, but then again it is a metaphor.

Or just a lot of "convenient" dark passages. Such contrivances would detract from the immersion, because there is no way an army base is going to have a nice dark alley next to a manhole cover from a drain that neatly tunnels under all the perimeter fencing ... But there is no reason why the PC can't have some sort of cloaking abilities / properties; especially if they are circumvented as soon as the PC attempts offensive action. That's a fair balance, IMO.

I'd be more concerned about the spec of the PC, not the OS. And if you are running 98 on a new PC, then I can't understand why.

You can't kill off the hero of the narrative like that!

February 17, 2001 - Has The Practice Jumped the Shark? By Kimberly Potts

1. Steve mentioned them as an example of the difficulty reconciling polemic viewpoints. 2. Not sure what your point here is, if indeed you are a nihilist, because surely money is power, and if there is nothing but this world (as nihilists believe) then there is no consequence for getting and keeping it any way possible. Whether the indiviuals are happier is a good question, whether they are happier than you is obvious. 3. "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." Princess Leia to Grand Moff Tarkin, ANH.

If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion. George Bernard Shaw Irish dramatist & socialist (1856 - 1950)