Gromnir

I think I got around 18 character transfers lined up (of which i might have gone through with 2 or 3 at full price) Leaving a few toons behind to play with old friends, but the bulk is moving to the pve servers (mostly harbinger and shadowlands). Bastards still wont let me transfer toons to Red Eclipse. haven't played for many months, but we got a few characters on harbinger. am mostly jedi covenant. might play a bit... at least until white march arrives for poe. HA! Good Fun!

am not gonna yet again indulge in this debate save to reiterate our initial oblique point. crpg "romances" has become, almost by default, the companion side-quests such as has been popularized by bioware. this redefining o' romance is, in our opinion, unfortunate. the genesis poster says "romances" and folks know what he/she is referencing. not too long ago, relative speaking, we suffered multiple pages o' insanity as we tried to explain to a modern gamer why the ravel relationship with the ps:t protagonist had as much right to be labeled romance as anything we has seen from bioware. the suggestion that ravel's love for tno qualified as romantic content woulda' been much easier to accept in 1999 than it is today. crpg romances is, for many, the companion sidequests that has the climax o' the romantic arc being, well, climax. am believing that accepting such a limited definition of crpg romance is having a tendency to dilute and diminish an otherwise compelling and powerful option for writers and developers. so endeth our efforts to hold back the tide. HA! Good Fun!

dear lord. you again is misattributing your mossad drops... from al-jazeera. HA! as has been noted many times, the breakout options is what has been the focus o' the nuclear weapons program o' iran. isis is unambiguous and refers to iranian efforts as a "nuclear weapons program" frequent. you use israeli findings from al-jazeera (still tickles us considering your reflex dismissal of wsj) out-o'context. that iran ain't working on the actual weapon is in agreement with rand, and isis and even the iaea who is all take as given that not only were iran working on the weapons until 2003, but that their activities regarding breakout options has likely continued since that time. in fact finding alternative explanations that would explain iranian actions is far more in need o' proof. we posted the quotes above 'cause they is from a source you find credible enough to use, and the source is not being shy that iran's efforts in advancing a nuclear weapon program is alarming and destabilizing to the region. is considerable proof o' an active iranian nuclear weapon's program. from heavy-water sites to spherical geometry studies, there is a large body o' evidence. you don't find such proofs as been offered by various sources to be compelling? okie dokie. is a bit hypocritical in light o' your pakistani stand, but am never having seen anybody accuse zor o' being unbiased. oh, and go ahead keep ignoring the unwillingness o' iran to allow inspections is monumental obtuse. again, play ostrich if you will. wanna deflect now that is obvious how ridiculous (and frequent self-defeating) were zor comments? fine. #1 failure of the deal to address concerns: inspections "Iran would have also defeated a central tenet of IAEA inspections—the need to determine both the correctness and completeness of a state’s nuclear declaration. The history of Iran’s previous military nuclear efforts may never come to light and the international community would lack confidence that these capabilities would not emerge in the future. Moreover, Iran’s ratification of the Additional Protocol or acceptance of additional verification conditions, while making the IAEA’s verification task easier in several important ways, would not solve the basic problem posed by Iran’s lack of cooperation on key, legitimate IAEA concerns. Other countries contemplating the clandestine development of nuclear weapons will certainly watch Tehran closely. "With a seven month extension, there is plenty of time for Iran to address all the IAEA’s outstanding concerns. Moreover, an approach can be implemented whereby Iran can choose to admit to having had a nuclear weapons program, or at least accept or not publicly dispute a credible IAEA judgment that it had one, and allow IAEA access to key military sites, such as Parchin, and to critical engineers and scientists linked to those efforts. If no such concrete demonstration is forthcoming during the extension, a deal should not be signed. If it is, the deal should not offer any significant relief from financial and economic sanctions until Iran fully addresses the IAEA’s concerns." --your isis guys isis observed that any nuke deal should be contingent 'pon, 'mong other items, "5) Iran’s binding agreement to intrusive and comprehensive inspections that are at a minimum as stringent as those outlined in the IAEA’s Additional Protocol (to the comprehensive safeguards agreements states must implement under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty), plus additional measures that reflect that Iran has been found in noncompliance with its safeguards obligations." and 2: enforcement "The agreement’s primary enforcement mechanism, the threat of renewed sanctions, emphasizes a broad-based asymmetry, which provides Iran permanent relief from sanctions in exchange for temporary restraints on Iranian conduct. Undertaking the “snap-back” of sanctions is unlikely to be as clear or as automatic as the phrase implies. Iran is in a position to violate the agreement by executive decision. Restoring the most effective sanctions will require coordinated international action. In countries that had reluctantly joined in previous rounds, the demands of public and commercial opinion will militate against automatic or even prompt “snap-back.” If the follow-on process does not unambiguously define the term, an attempt to reimpose sanctions risks primarily isolating America, not Iran." -- from the recent kissinger and shultz letter. the biggest concerns previous to the deal were realized. the deal offers no genuine intrusive inspection ability that could determine if iran is complying, and the west has given up its enforcement capability save for direct military action and... appeals to the humanity o' the iranian people? regardless, we must once again thank you for your contributions to the thread. your dismissal o' scaremongering were much reinforced by your observations that the saudis could/would buy nuke weapons off-the-shelf from pakistan. wait, that doesn't make any sense at all, does it? HA! Good Fun!

Ignoring emotions is kind of the definition of being rational. That's not actually how rationality works. Emotions provide people with motivations - rationality is the task of addressing one's emotional motives in a way that is self-consistent with what one knows. Without emotions, there isn't even a reason to be rational, much less to be anything else. A person who finds romances in games to be un/pleasant, and therefore does/n't want them to be present in those games is being rational, regardless of whether or not that's an experience anyone else shares. (This post is brought to you by existentialism - it first arrives on the stage, and then you get to decide what to make of it.) tl;dr Spock wasn't logical, he was just a lazy utilitarian. post is, we assume, brought to us by internalism more than existentialism. in any event, even adhering to a hume kinda notion o' instrumental rationality, one may critique the dime-store philosopher if there is no consistent utility function that is resultant from their actual choices and behavior. lord knows we do not wanna lay down and play dead for the weberian zweckrationalität. HA! Good Fun!

am suspecting that what you mean is that you is curious as to whether or not for poe obsidian added any bioware-style, optional and tangential mini-games with a focus on a sex-me-up resolution. answer: no. HA! Good Fun!

wouldn't God almost necessarily be black? God makes man in his image, and first man is from Africa, so... plus, with john huston being dead, who other than morgan freeman could play the role o' God? am thinking God would have prescience to consider casting choices. HA! Good Fun!

is best advice, but is it actual good advice? you shrug and move on... to what? chances are that the folks who brought up the white privilege angle ain't gonna just let it go. you can try and ignore the white privilege stuff, but if everybody else is wanting to address how your pov is inherently suspect, then the chance for meaningful progress diminishes. use well-considered arguments and oft-quoted scientific studies to get back on track only takes you so far, 'cause the studies and statistics approach is gonna get you roped into trying to explain economic and educational disparities that will likely open you up to further accusations. so you shrug and move on, and is effectively silenced 'cause the debate is altered. in any event, racism is not easily quantified. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/27/-sp-racism-on-rise-in-britain?view=desktop is an interesting article, but the methodology were having folks be interviewed and asked to what degree they were racist. ... anybody see problems? HA! Good Fun!

so, how did that make you feel when you were accused o' white privilege? did you wanna defend self? were there a response you could provide that were convincing your detractors that your arguments were worthy o' consideration in spite of your unfortunate (HA!) birth? did you perhaps feel that you were being ignored for no reason other than the color o' your skin? we mentioned in the other thread just how counter-productive is the labels. bring up white privilege or racism and it is so easy for the constructive discussion to die. racism exists. hell, white privilege, while a silly kinda term, might exist. but honestly, so what? in most cases, the label is not helpful. discuss recent events in cincinnati (attack of a white guy by multiple folks on july 4 or the recent shooting of a black motorist by a white cop) w/o having the discussion become one 'o white privilege or applicability o' racism is near doomed. HA! Good Fun! ps in interest o' full disclosure, Gromnir has, more than once, felt irritation when we hear a bunch o' upper middle-class white guys take a moment while dining to be solving the problems in ferguson or baltimore over their prime rib or caesar salad. "they don't know..." when we start to think such thoughts, and when we feel the anger rise a bit, we needs check our self.

http://www.gamereactor.eu/news/331603/Pillars+of+Eternity%3A+The+White+March+coming+%22soon%22+%26+%22also+soon%22/ "It's another area that unlocks on the world map, and you can freely go back and forth between the White March areas and the base game areas at any time. You can bring all the good loot that you found from the White March areas, back into the base game. You can bring the companions back, back and forth. So yeah, it's very open-ended." nothing earth shaking. HA! Good Fun!

ISIS? the ISIS that reported that iran's nuclear program, "Threatens international peace and security, undermines the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT], and threatens to spur proliferation elsewhere in the region"? that ISIS? oh, and you didn't bother reading the footnotes, eh? you still got other pacharin problem to deal with. which brings us to the obvious: why not allow inspectors to confirm? iaea is concerned as is others. so why not allow inspectors? your link shows that there is no evidence that the explosion had anything to do with a nuke development, but then why be paving over and disallow o' inspections? "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has asked to visit this site based upon information it received from member states and its interviews with a former Soviet nuclear weapons expert linked to this site.1 Iran has so far refused to allow the visit and in the meantime undertaken extensive building and site modifications that complicate the IAEA’s verification responsibilities under the Iran/IAEA comprehensive safeguards agreement." oh, and use ISIS is, much like your protest that pakistan could sell the saudis a bomb off-the-shelf, is hurting you. "Iran regularly denies the IAEA access to military sites, such as Parchin, a facility where high-explosive experiments linked to nuclear triggers may well have occurred. Iran continues to refuse IAEA requests to interview key individuals, such as Mohsen Fakrizadeh, the suspected military head of the Iranian nuclear-weapons program in the early 2000s and perhaps today, and Sayyed Abbas Shahmoradi-Zavareh, the former head of the Physics Research Center alleged by the IAEA be the central location in the 1990s of Iran's militarized nuclear research." david allbright, president of ISIS other zingers from same source: "The primary goal of a comprehensive solution is to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is indeed peaceful, against a background of two decades of Iran deceiving the IAEA about its nuclear programs, including military nuclear programs. This long history of deception and violations places additional burdens on achieving a verifiable long term agreement, including the need for any agreement to last for about 20 years. " "At this point in time, it is not certain that Iran would rely entirely on the covert pathway option for fear of getting caught again as it did in building the formerly secret Fordow facility, and long before it has enough weapon-grade uranium or separated plutonium for nuclear weapons. The revelation about the Qom enrichment plant was highly damaging to Iran’s international credibility." "Iran poses by far the most important and immediate Middle East nuclear proliferation challenge for the United States and the international community. Iran’s advancing nuclear program violates U.N. Security Council resolutions, threatens international peace and security, undermines the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and threatens to spur proliferation elsewhere in the region." "Addressing the IAEA’s concerns about the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear programs is fundamental to any long-term agreement. Although much of the debate about an agreement with Iran rightly focuses on Tehran’s uranium enrichment and plutonium production capabilities, an agreement that side steps the military issues would risk being unverifiable. Moreover, the world would not be so concerned if Iran had never conducted weaponization activities aimed at building a nuclear weapon. After all, Japan has enrichment activities but this program is not regarded with suspicion. Trust in Iran’s intentions, resting on solid verification procedures, is critical to a serious agreement." "We recommend that the United States and its allies impose maximal sanctions pressure on Iran prior to Iran’s reaching the critical capability to produce enough weapongrade uranium (or sufficient separated plutonium) for one or more bombs before the production of such an amount can reasonably be expected to be detected by the IAEA or Western intelligence services. " "Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei often declares that nuclear weapons violate Islamic strictures. His denials are not credible." "Thus, there is widespread evidence and agreement that Iran has worked on developing nuclear weapons and that some of those activities may have continued to today." http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/update-on-ir-5-centrifuge-issue-taking-stock/8 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11288503/US-should-stop-Iran-buying-material-for-Arak-nuclear-plant.html http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/ISIS-estimates-Iran-could-build-a-nuclear-bomb-within-a-month-329718 you do know how to pick'em. HA! Good Fun!

Are you really that obtuse, or do you simply not want to understand what Gromnir wrote? Constructing the actual warheads is just one part of a nuclear weapons program. Much of it is building up infrastructure, technology, human capital to be able to construct the warheads (and put them straight into missiles without delays). So yes, you can have a nuclear weapons program that prepares and optimises everything else first, and saves the warhead construction for last, so that - with everything optimized - it can be done much quicker. That's what the "Iran is x years/months away from nuclear weapons" reports from Western intelligence services mean: If Iran were to start the warhead construction now (which they aren't, yet) how long would it take them to finish? The more they prepare and optimize the infrastructure, the shorter that time becomes - at some point it may become so short that they can go ahead and do it without anyone being able to stop them anymore, and at that point they probably will do it. (Or why else go through all that trouble?) I think it is you who have missed the point about the nuclear program. The point is that a lot the Iranians do is indiscernible from what you would in a civil nuclear program. The reason they have much of the infrastructure themselves is largely in because they were frozen out of the global market in the first place. You cannot for any moral reason prevent a country from having a civilian nuclear programme. well, you can be moral justified in stopping the civilian use if they is using such to hide what is obvious a nuclear weapon's program. sure, some o' what the iranians is doing is indistinguishable from what would be a peaceful nuclear energy program, but a considerable amount o' what they is doing ain't. please, you gotta be ridiculous obtuse to believe that iranian activities at fordow and parchin (y'know, where were that explosion followed by the paving over once investigators asked for access) and elsewhere is peaceful. and yes, if one bent over backwards and went full ostrich mode like zor, you could explain away the heavy-water facilities as being peaceful, but they make far more sense in the context o' weapon construction. as kgambit's iaea numbers show, the iranian efforts actual make far more sense when viewed as pursuing weapons as 'posed to peaceful use. heck, the iaea has noted that some o' the "spherical geometries" studies being conducted is baffling to the iaea unless looked at in context of weapons development. am understanding that the current (previous) efforts to prevent iranian nuke weapons development has reached a point o' serious diminishing returns. the iranians is already having pushed their breakout options such that continuing sanctions is having limited impact. fine. argue that continued efforts is pointless and while we disagree, we is at least conceding that iran weapons development is so far along that efforts other than sanctions were needed. military? clear not an option at this time. nevertheless, the economic stick were not having the desired impact, so it made sense to try the carrot instead, yes? fine. am agreeing a change in policy were needed, but trying to pretend that the iranians were not pursuing nuclear weapons development is require a level o' childish naivete or willful obtuseness that is detracting from your arguments rather than bolstering. HA! Good Fun!

There is common sense in the people. in all of recorded history, has anybody been foolish for underestimating the common sense o' people? HA! Good Fun!

is more lies? again, yes, the warhead development is not progressing. you can have a nuclear weapon program wherein you ain't actual constructing the warhead. US sources were clear that fordow were a facility for developing nuclear weapons... scroll back up and read the linked. the rand piece were stressing the breakout options approach o' the iranian nuclear weapons program. according to rand, both tehran and the US believe that US intelligence would discover actual construction o' a nuclear weapon, so iran is doing everything short o' that. develop delivery systems and increase capacity to make multiple weapons. shorten time it would take to produce the weapons. furthermore, even the iaea has observed that there is compelling evidence that iran's nuclear program has clandestine nuclear purposes. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057796/UN-Compelling-proof-Iran-building-nuclear-warheads.html it takes a special level o' obtuseness to continue pretending that iran has not been pursuing nuclear weapons development. and while a variety o' foreign leaders attempt to save face by applauding the deal in public, (although as we noted, egypt and uae is sending mixed signals, even if you don't like usa today and wsj sources) http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/05/18/a-global-no-to-a-nuclear-armed-iran/ but yes, your selective ostrich routine is familiar. use al jazerra for your source on mosad? and you can actual try and complain 'bout wsj? HA! investors is less concerned with politics than is most, and the pieces offered is as often as not, articles related to foreign investment. but hey, go to a rag that is funded by qatar. heck, its links to the muslim brotherhood caused numerous defections as recent as 2013. *shrug* some things never change. HA! Good Fun!

am gonna clarify, just a tad. racism is a problem. sexism is a problem. homophobia is a problem. at some point, those problems gotta be faced and discussed. am having met folks who tell us that there is no "real" racism in the US these days, other than a few extreme examples kept alive by aryan brotherhood and the like. am needing to disagree. the isms exist, but the label discussions has made it so that it is easier to pretend that there ain't no "real" isms. am thinking hurl mentioned that his students have a tendency to see racism and sexism everywhere. if he didn't say that, we apologize earnestly. nevertheless, that observation matches our own experience. college aged and younger kids is so likely to see sexism and racism that the terms lose meaning. is not just kids neither-- is pundits that do the same. yeah, we do gotta face the issues. at some point we gotta admit that racism still exists and that it ain't limited to cross burning rednecks. the thing is, in a free and open society, there ain't no institutional apparatus to quick and effective change what people believe. discussion o' racism by a tv panel or an op-ed in the washington post doesn't combat racism. do a gi-joe style psa on racism? even education in schools is slow and frequent self-defeating. sure, somebody like hurl teaches his kids how wrong is racism, and then you go into the school cafeteria and sees how the kids is often segregating themselves. change racism you were taught by parents and friends since you were old enough to make sense o' the following: get more jobs and a better future for minorities.... and to a lesser degree, women. is still a glass ceiling in various industries. when the minority, driving his bmw outta his gated community, is confronted by a gap-toothed, trailer park hillbilly claiming expertise on eugenics, the situation is laughable and near painless. is an exaggerated example 'course. not need have bmws for minorities to make situation better. more jobs. better future. a better future don't require that the future be better than what white folks got. noticeable better than now would make a big difference. regardless, we nevertheless believe that the current sjw climate (not blaming sjw folks alone for that) has resulted in an almost paradoxical dilution o' terminology while at the same time increasing polarization o' viewpoint. HA! Good Fun!

modern ism debates annoy us. taking from the linked opine, am agreeing that socioeconomic issues is paramount, but is also true that there is historic race-related advantages and disadvantages that has resulted in modern economic disparities. am recognizing that non-whites were disadvantaged +50 years ago. ok. fix the problem, discuss, and fix. start blathering about white privilege and the real issues get lost. functional attack some guy for no other reason than that he were born with Y chromosome and that all his grandparents were white is &*$#ing messed up. attack somebody who didn't actual do anything wrong and who has no way to defend himself is only gonna lead to understandable animosity towards the attacker, and the attacker is likely a minority or women or liberal. your average middle-class white kid did not go to exeter and get a near auto-admission to ivy league schools. yeah, the ultra-wealthy get advantages we cannot hope to legitimize to those who got nothing, but that is true regardless o' race or gender. take some moderate conservative white guy and tell him that he should feel bad 'cause o' white privilege and chances are he is gonna react defensive... and he is gonna be freaking justified for feeling defensive. is stoopid arguments when sjw and modern notions o' a host o' other isms is discussed. instead o' discussing anything meaningful, we discuss the legitimacy o' the damned labels? that is utter idiotic. real solution: find some way to give all children two loving and supportive parents. all major social ills would disappear in a couple generations. am only partial joking. HA! Good Fun!

am gonna agree that the chanter is better suited towards a tank role. you need take cautious attack and the shield talents before you are at all effective in a tanking role, but you will eventual have impressive deflection. furthermore, chants is not interrupted by your standard attacks, so while you are beating ogres with your tiny hatchet, you are also building up phrases. ... the thing is, am finding that we don't much like the chant mechanic unless we have multiple chanters in a party. and we don't like multiple chanters in a party. with 2 chanters, each alternating their chants in a mirrored fashion, we can keep our party constant under the influence o' 2-3 phrases, depending on linger. otherwise, if we want constant and dependable phrase coverage throughout a battle, we is reduced to a single phrase. 2 chanters is ideal for making most use of phrases. unfortunately, we don't like chanters enough to use more than 1. wait for invocations to become available is kinda antithetical to our gameplay philosophy. the relative lack o' flexibility o' the chanter is difficult for us to embrace. even so, we admit that a 2-chanter party can be most efficacious. also, there is a certain irony in the fact that the classes that get lore are able to make less use o' the skill than most o' the classes that don't get lore. fighters, monks and rogues get no class bonus for lore. but those non-spell casting classes have the highest base accuracy. well, when lore is used to cast spells, you use class accuracy math. therefore, a monk, rogue and fighter is actual gonna be more dangerous when successful using a scroll than will a mage, priest or chanter. go figure. you not need many points in lore to take advantage o' most scrolls, so is actual our strat to give lore to everybody, but especial the high accuracy classes. HA! Good Fun!

the most annoying aspect o' the stronghold attacks were a bug. if you utilized an aoe damage attack on whatever were attacking your stronghold and one o' your hirelings were hit, the hireling would become permanent hostile towards you, even beyond death. what we means is that if your goldpact knight hireling were made hostile by getting hit by a friendly fire fireball, you could not remove the hostility. ever. kill the knight in battle and then rehire? well, guess what, the new goldpact knight is hostile. worse, a few o' the special hirelings seeming couldn't be dismissed, so you would have a permanently hostile hireling at your stronghold, and any hireling that were in visual range o' the hostile hireling became hostile as well. were a mess. we would need sneak into our stronghold to get to the treasury or dungeon level if we did not wish to initiate a combat. luckily, the bug were fixed after the second or third patch. repelling attacks from either the endless paths or from roaming bandits or leaden key can be handled auto or manual. if one wishes, you can return to your stronghold and repel attacks with your party o' companions plus the keep hirelings. one is also able to have the stronghold defend itself, but buildings get damaged during auto repels and the repair costs is excessive. we have pushed security very high and still been attacked. am not certain what is the mechanics. am pretty confident that by clearing levels o' the endless paths you can eliminate the possibility o' specific kinds o' attacks. get deep enough and you will never need deal with skeleton or troll attacks. am not sure how deep you need clear to grant safety from endless path generated spirit or vythaxixizizxklzx(whatever) incursions. perhaps security lowers the chance o' attack, but am pretty certain that +50 security don't eliminate the chance. we always push security and then prestige in the hopes that will help reduce the dungeon escapees, but... *shrug* the mechanics is opaque, which is another flaw. HA! Good Fun! ps we will note that a few o' the stronghold attacks can be challenging, depending on your level. is conceptually not a horrible feature.

as there is still no news, we observe a few o' our issues with the stronghold. the stronghold ultimately were 'bout as exciting as a take-out menu. sure, there we loads o' options, but most o' em were having little appeal. the warden building were giving value 'cause the bounties were offering much in the way o' cash, experience and equipment. the curio shops and gardens were worthy too. most o' the other stuff? *shrug* am understanding that the stronghold were 'sposed to be a sink, but we saw only a very limited number o' options as providing value. on the positive side, it sounds as if the rest bonuses is getting increased significantly and the duration o' stronghold bonuses will be lengthened. also, while josh noted that many folks dislike strongholds, we do not believe that the poe stronghold is gonna change anybody's opinions. the ordinary interactions we had with the stronghold were annoyance factors. while off doing some quest, we get a message that we will be attacked in 3 days by trolls or skeletons or levitating, psychic, spider-people. heck, perhaps we get a message that in spite o' the fact that we got over 40 security and as many hierlings as possible, one o' our prisoners escaped. am still not certain what triggered the special goods merchant, but hey, after functional waiting 20 game hours before we got another opportunity to buy his stuff, he offered us nothing we would actual wanna use. sure, is not as if we were forced to buy, but perhaps offer us 3 options and let us pick one would work a bit better to be ensuring we would get some value from the so infrequent special goods merchant. converse, the "fun" o' the stronghold were extreme limited: a few o' the bounty battles were challenging and the ogre hierling had a couple quirky comments to be making. the most common interaction with the stronghold were a rather mechanical opportunity to pay for improvements, and those improvements were offering a prestige or security value, neither o' which ultimate meant much to us. the aforementioned prisoner aspect struck us as being woeful underdeveloped, and as noted earlier, am not certain how the escape chance were generated. even so, the prison/jail were actual one o' the few stronghold features, other than warden bounty fights, the struck us as having the capacity to be entertaining. take folks prisoners and potential ransom them, or sell 'em to slavers or shady animancers... which were a redundant descriptor as far as we could tell. prisoners actual offered some feedback when prompted. were one o' the better features, but it were underused. is an ideal place where a couple minor quests could' been added... or perhaps give select prisoners a chance to join as unpaid hirelings, who might then escape or betray you or whatever. "now what?" ok, so we buy all the building options. what else is there to do for stronghold? fight off some o' those annoyance battles? candlekeep led to something. sure, candlekeep were likely too much as it were critical path necessity, though you could avoid doing any candlekeep and still have a positive nwn2 game conclusion. nevertheless, even if the obsidians didn't wanna have their limited quest pool tied to the stronghold, there shoulda' been at least one quest or event that made a meaningful check o' your prestige/security levels. had us working towards... nothing. possibility: depending on prestige/security, there could be three possible stronghold ultimate encounters. wouldn't need be a quest per se, but mere some kinda recognition that your stronghold efforts had been leading somewhere. hell, for folks that like in-game recognition, you coulda' added a title to the character based on their stronghold resolution. regardless, shoulda' been a resolution, and some kinda payoff, even if the payoff were extreme minor and the resolution were hardly final. am thinking we mentioned earlier in another thread, but a major domo or seneschal appointment might be worthy o' consideration. the stronghold got dull. fine. the thing is, once started, you cannot opt out o' the stronghold responsibilities. reach twin elms and perhaps you get the opportunity to functional retire from direct control o' the keep. you would continue to get rest bonuses, but turns would effective be stopped and taxes and hierling paydays would be handled behind the scenes. regardless, you could effective opt-out o' all the turn-based functions o' the keep by appointing a chamberlain. then again, our wants is so much different than nakia that we can see the problem. have addition o' maids or cooks. have chapel become dedicated to eothas instead o' berath. such stuff would improve our stronghold experience not at all. has gotta be difficult for developers. HA! Good Fun!

am genuine surprised that Gromnir has not purchased the iwd ee. to us, iwd were more fun than bg... better looking and sounding too. am unsure why we didn't pull the trigger on iwd ee. that being said, we woulda' paid $100 per game if the ie ee games utilized iwd2's d20(ish) rules. we played d&d as far back as the white-box edition, but am admitting we were never a genuine fan o' the ad&d system, particularly 2.0. 3.5 edition, sans all the splat books, were our favorite d&d incarnation. HA! Good Fun!

ah, the mindless criticism o' wsj as a source. but heck, congrats on the deflection. is so far away from your initial nuttery regarding the absence o' reasonable fears regarding the iranian nuke weapon program and claims of "scaremongering." HA! Good Fun!

And to illustrate further how you work back from your conclusion rather than forward to it: numerous middle eastern countries means... two; Saudi Arabia and Israel, hate this deal. The governments of Turkey, UAE, Qatar, Oman, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan (not technically ME, but an Iranian neighbour), Jordan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Lebanon have all welcomed it, to one degree or the other while Kuwait, Bahrain and Yemen haven't commented so far as I can find. So, numerous nations = two, but the two that happen to support your position. so, outright lies, eh? we showed multiple times how your nonsense o' presenting russia's (dwindling) currency reserves were hardly making sanctions and the russain economic crisis a matter o' laughable concern. and again, the 6-12 months were always a worst-case scenario offered by economists we linked to rebut the notion that the matter were joke-worthy. the specific 6-12 months figure were never essential. am not sure why we are surprised. your claims o' paysite shenanigans were mostly linked to kurdin, by which time you had complete gone off the reservation. kurdin, a russian economist of much repute, specific noted that western sanctions were hurting and would continue to hurt russia. is difficult dealing with you. russia did not simple shrug off sanctions. you made classic correlation v. causation mistakes regarding oil impact and you complete ignored contradictory info from sites you linked to. hell, you even misread the darn bloomberg graph you offered. *shrug* as for middle-eastern nations opposed to the deal, 'course Gromnir is most concerned with US allies. saudi arabia and israel is foremost o' opponents and is the ones who most hate the deal, but egypt has expressed concerns and while the uae has sent congratulations to iran, they also have shown concern over an arms race issue in the middle east. syria? well, am actual concerned more with syrian rebels as getting assad outta power is better for the west and the US. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/03/08/iraq-iran-nuclear-kerry-dempsey-/24602807/ http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-parries-questions-on-iran-deal-from-arabs-as-well-as-israelis-1424475437 HA! Good Fun!

am not criticizing. am more curious about a sequel implementation. how would one improve given what we have seen? for instance, we see some question positioning o' the stronghold on the crit path. similarly, we could see divorcing any mention o' stronghold responsibilities from the critical path. how would such impact gameplay? thats what we were kinda discussing, yes? is not genuine white march news, so is kinda off-topic, but if folks wanna genuine consider future improvements, am game... as it were. HA! Good Fun!

has always been our understanding that the lengthy summer break for US schools is a holdover from days o' yore when so very many families were involved in agriculture. am not even certain where we heard such. funny thing is that our experience growing up were that harvest times were busiest, and just before winter as we scrambled to prepare for the cold months. we didn't do much schoolin previous to high school, but we did notice that particular with math, the approx 3 month summer break were enough to result in skill degradation. individual school days seemed over-long to us, and we suspect the summer break woulda' been better shortened, and winter and spring breaks lengthened. particular when we lived in a rural wasteland, the school day were excessive long. took almost 2 hours to get to school. similar to get home. school day itself were 6 hours. even our high school days were long, and that were with negligible transportation time. typical had sports practice before and/or after school o' multiple hours. and as hard as it may be to believe, we were having a paper route in highschool, so... 'course we only genuine got 'bout 5ish total years o' formal primary/secondary education from which to base such impressions. HA! Good Fun!

going to the stronghold and doing the critical path quest is not optional. that is a good thing, no? place the stronghold at a critical path quest point that cannot be accidental overlooked means that the player will be guaranteed to have stronghold features available to him, regardless o' the desire to use. is too much paternalism? dunno. optional or not, the stronghold required considerable developer resources and were a stretch goal. perhaps have stronghold be part o' raedrics hold quest and there is the possibility that folks will miss. am understanding why developers wouldn't want the option to miss. in any event, all o' the stronghold features is optional. you do indeed need fix eastern bastion... for free. fixing forces you to use stronghold interface at least once... no accidental mss. is that single critical path construction transformative? do you need become embroiled in stronghold by fixing the eastern bastion? you need not use any additional stronghold features. you don't need rest. you don't need hirelings. you need not build a single hall or hedge or wall beyond the initial freebie. you don't need concern self. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

oh sure, we get that the overall moviegoing experience may be less pleasant than watching at home. we mere state that it is ordinary to get carried along by crowd emotion. heck, watch football games can be more enjoyable at home, particular as we is a bears fan. we see at least one bears game a year, and we invariably do so in november or december. spend 3 hours freezing our californian candy arse off while sitting/standing next to some 300lb drunken clown who splashes us with cheap beer.. not that expensive brews would make better. and truth to tell, we can see the game far better on a HD tv in our own home. got tickets 15 rows back on 45 or 50 yard line? fantastic, but am still staring at monstrous monitors as much as the play on the field when teams is near goal line, 'cause angle is giving us a distorted perspective when teams is in scoring position. etc, regardless, when crowd gets itself whipped into a frenzy and you got more than 60k people all screaming or holding their breath or praying to God, Allah, Buddha or The Great Mother Spirit for all we know, it is... compelling. have walked outta theatres kinda liking movies w/o knowing why. am suspecting that palpable audience emotion contributed to our initial positive impressions o' the flick in question. or maybe we is just too darn sociable for our own good. HA! Good Fun!