Gromnir

*snerk* Not hyperbole. I was being serious. that is what makes it funny. HA! Good Fun!

and those necessary portions were quite adequate developed in poe and will no doubt be developed in white march. developing the stronghold functions and features more than the critical path required is what folks is complaining 'bout, yes? hire henchmen and build a church and fight off intruders is all optional stuff beyond the scope o' the critical path. the stronghold is a significant feature, even if it is optional. makes sense that the stronghold would appear along the critical path to guarantee that all players became aware o' it, yes? HA! Good Fun! True again, Luckmann, but the Stronghold still feels to me like an unfinished project, a sop tossed to the backers, a token of the strongholds in BG II. Maybe I am being irrational but the place feels dead to me. I tried saying I just wanted to go to Defiance Bay and then spent an hour trying to see if by some chance another path opened. I had no luck. we likely already responded to you in our rather extreme edit... precognition on our part? we were disappointed in the stronghold, and in the future, we would expect better from obsidian. am not satisfied with the stronghold as-is. however, we get the reasoning and the rationale provided by obsidian as to why the stronghold were not more robust. a rational explanation for failure does not diminish the failure, yes? HA! Good Fun! Highlight by me. The fact that I failed to complete a project because I had a headache does not change the fact that I failed to complete the project. My boss would probably say that I should have reported being ill and turned the project over to someone else. If he/she is not very sympathetic I could even lose my job. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=5#post447063225 is obsidian's fault. no quibbles. however, given the implementation issues... *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

and those necessary portions were quite adequate developed in poe and will no doubt be developed in white march. developing the stronghold functions and features more than the critical path required is what folks is complaining 'bout, yes? hire henchmen and build a church and fight off intruders is all optional stuff beyond the scope o' the critical path. the stronghold is a significant feature, even if it is optional. makes sense that the stronghold would appear along the critical path to guarantee that all players became aware o' it, yes? HA! Good Fun! True again, Luckmann, but the Stronghold still feels to me like an unfinished project, a sop tossed to the backers, a token of the strongholds in BG II. Maybe I am being irrational but the place feels dead to me. I tried saying I just wanted to go to Defiance Bay and then spent an hour trying to see if by some chance another path opened. I had no luck. we likely already responded to you in our rather extreme edit... precognition on our part? we were disappointed in the stronghold, and in the future, we would expect better from obsidian. am not satisfied with the stronghold as-is. however, we get the reasoning and the rationale provided by obsidian as to why the stronghold were not more robust. a rational explanation for failure does not diminish the failure, yes? HA! Good Fun!

and those necessary portions were quite adequate developed in poe and will no doubt be developed in white march. developing the stronghold functions and features more than the critical path required is what folks is complaining 'bout, yes? hire henchmen and build a church and fight off intruders is all optional stuff beyond the scope o' the critical path. the stronghold is a significant feature, even if it is optional. makes sense that the stronghold would appear along the critical path to guarantee that all players became aware o' it, yes? HA! Good Fun! ps keep in mind that Gromnir wanted more from the stronghold. we complained, as did many others, that the stronghold were relative disappointing. the thing is, the obsidians mentioned that there were problems with the stronghold development and josh further explained, in a rational way, why more resources were not redirected to make the stronghold better. we were disappointed by the stronghold. josh giving us rational explanations don't change the fact that the stronghold failed to match our expectations. the implementation problems related to the stronghold sure as hell weren't Gromnir's fault. we blame obsidian. nevertheless, we get it. we understand that the stronghold, an optional feature disliked by many, turned out to be more complex and difficult to implement than the obsidians expected. while all the functionality that obsidian wanted to include with the stronghold were prohibitive, we needs nevertheless consider the zero-sum problem for improving what we got in the core game. what would we have sacrificed to improve the stonhold? what existing and working functions would we have improved? we get it. still, we too want obsidian to do it better.

am admitting we hadn't considered the "donation" aspect o' mods... likely 'cause we weren't aware of such. huh. monetary transactions being functional facilitated by a developer or publisher's website, regardless o' whether they is called donations, is a curious problem we may explore a bit. HA! Good Fun!

is hardly handwaving http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/national/06-Jun-2015/no-one-is-getting-our-nukes-not-even-saudis http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/saudi-arabias-nuclear-bluff/2015/06/11/9ce1f4f8-1074-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html but your deflections, mischaracterizations and flat-out irrational and self-defeating response is... tedious. again, a pakistan that would actual sell nukes makes the deal less appealing to the US and other coalition governments. am waiting for you to realize that the suggestion that pakistan would sell nukes to the saudis is one o' those scaremongering tales you is s'posed opposed to perpetuating. is genuine bizarre trying to discuss rational with you. HA! Good Fun!

josh is rational. this can be a problem because while every poster believes he is rational, most is not. one need only review respec and per-kill xp threads to see just how difficult it is for a rational person such as josh to communicate with earnest gamers who do not want to hear a rational response, or any kinda "no" related to their desired features. the stronghold is optional. once the developers decide that the stronghold is optional content, how much resource allocation is reasonable given that it is optional and a frequent disliked option based on feedback and actual viewing o' gameplay? we boardies regulars perhaps got a distorted notion as to what is the gaming behavior o' the average gamer as we are shouting back and forth with other relative hardcore gamers. josh, and obsidian, needs at least be aware o' the average gamer, yes? you may not agree with josh assertion that the stronghold is disliked by many, but he likely gots access to far more data regarding the ordinary habits o' the typical player o' crpgs than does anybody posting on these boards w/o a developer tag. so, the stronghold is optional and disliked by more than a few, and game development is zero-sum. to provide a more robust stronghold than what we got, additional resources that were invested in other aspects o' the game would need to have been reallocated to developing the optional and much disliked stronghold. so, what part o' the existing game does one trim to fill-out the stronghold? etc. josh is rational. people don't actual respond well to rational. rational comes across, as often as not, as arrogant and condescending. so, we got some sympathy for josh, even if we often disagree with him. am suspecting that we has disagreed with josh more than any current regular boardie. we can disagree and criticize. we will disagree and criticize. am not having any particular problems with josh as a developer save for his writing contributions, and such complaints is necessarily 'bout esthetic as much as (more) than they is rational. HA! Good Fun! ps the stronghold was a kickstarter stretch goal and as such were necessary, but optional and disliked by many and...

sports & music. maybe not as manly as golf though. ... ok, am forced to add the following two scenes is actually a better book, written back before "YA literature" became an insult. HA! Good Fun!

this bunch o' josh links is related to the stronghold. is msotly describing why the stronghold cannot/should not be made more pivotal http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447867960 http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447869576 http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447870176 http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447871673 we should perhaps simple create a link to SA so folks can read the feedback that they get... and we don't. ... am not bitter. do we sound bitter? HA! Good Fun!

shadysands klingon war song in the music thread got us recalling such stuff. maybe rewatch this eve. were not a great adaptation from novel to movie, but we enjoyed it... for the most part. Gromnir ain't exactly a tolkien-level scholar when it comes to beowulf, but we did teach an art o' the narrative class that included the poem as well as tdkr (as well as other works.) got a soft spot for beowulf. HA! Good Fun!

am not certain why, but the klingon thing reminded us of the old rankin and bass orc war song from rotk is criminal that peter jackson didn't add it to his movie version. HA! Good Fun!

whew, please, no accidents, I just learned Magnanni makes Kenneth Cole look like a two-bit street cobbler. Neither of whom offer canvas Darth Vader loafers, so, only Vans for those morning walks to the driveway in a bathrobe to pick up the newspaper. they are nice shoes, but new leather, even custom fit, is a bit... uncompromising. within a few days these shoes will be as comfortable as an old pair o' bunny slippers, but today we can take our pulse simple by thinking 'bout our feet. and as far as accidents, gk vomit would need to have pH on par with alien blood to damage these things. is cheap leather you need worry about. the high quality stuff is durable. wish we had some bunny slippers. HA! Good Fun!

why on earth post a link that shows that pakistan did indeed reject requests for military aid from the saudis? sure, the saudis did ask for troops as well as airpower and ships, but the pakistanis offered NONE o' those things. weren't as if they were forced to make an all-or-nothing choice. the saudis, who did not commit to a land campaign, could not even get air power support from pakistan. again, did the saudis get air support from pakistan in their air campaign? no? well, ok then. *shrug* "There's a lot more evidence for that than there is for Iran having an actual and active weapons program" well, no, if you had read the links we offered, you would realize that iran having a nuke weapons program is a given. iranian protests regarding sites such as fordow http://www.nti.org/facilities/165/ is just as difficult to swallow as were pakistanian protests related to north korea. am not sure what your claims regarding china have to do with the current issue. did we miss you now proposing a 3-way deal between saudi arabia, china and pakistan to get nukes? but again, we already noted that surreptitiously selling tech is a whole different scenario than actual selling nukes or weapon-grade plutonium. saudi arabia, thankfully, can't do much with nuclear weapons tech. they simple do not have the infrastructure and the personnel to do anything with the kinda tech that north korea likely received from pakistan. and the fatwa stuff is actual kinda more complicated than you suggest http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/11/27/did-irans-supreme-leader-issue-a-fatwa-against-the-development-of-nuclear-weapons/ but all o' this is a matter o' us continuing to go in circles while you miss the point(s). if we assume that pakistan actual would sell nuclear weapons to saudi arabia based on conjecture that ignores recent pakistani behavior regarding much less controversial conventional military support, that only increases the danger o' facilitating an iranian nuclear program. HA! Good Fun!

https://twitter.com/jesawyer/status/622122220987387904 saw this at SA. gotta give credit where it is due, eh? HA! Good Fun!

our interest is next to zero regarding a mod forum. oh sure, particular with an obsidian games such as kotor 2, as well as black isle's ps:t, we has made extensive use o' mods, but am pretty much end-user. such mods, from our pov, spring magical-like into existence and then we chose (or choose not) to risk downloading and installing. is an admitted myopic and selfish perspective. the thing is, it seems as if the modders is the folks least needing forum space. any game popular enough will eventual spawn modding sites, and the folks at such sites will then compete and/or cooperate far removed from Gromnir. the modding guys is, from a technical perspective, quite capable o' running their own sites and fora. yeah, a quasi-official modding sub-fora located in this place would be ideally located to bring together the mostest number o' potential modders, but am wondering how much o' a need there actual is. also, and we hesitate to mention this, but mod forum problems is... different. we saw with the recent pj and sensuki nonsense just how much questionable ethics can result in a spill-over onto multiple boards. well, as silly as were the codexian brouhaha regarding review ethics, modder ethics issues is more volatile. once you get modder A accuse modder B o' functional theft, there is no end o' headaches and hurt feelings. we do not have much genuine ethics concerns on a fan forum. is the inevitable free speech/censorship claims that don't have much bearing on a board like this one. perhaps less frequent, but more serious is the recognition that not all mods is impartial or objective... or complete sane. *shrug* you get what you pay for with unpaid moderators. even so, we don't have "ethics" issues. he stole my ______. is a whole different scenario and one we don't want the moderators to need deal with. HA! Good Fun!

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=575#post447862346 btw, take it for what it is worth, but after a rather considerable hiatus, josh is current posting often and vigorous at SA. HA! Good Fun!

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=575#post447859766 http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=575#post447859766 http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=575#post447861425 somebody suggested that they cannot read linked SA posts. is anybody having difficulty? we can post the text if there is a genuine problem. HA! Good Fun!

we can only lead the horse to water so many times. force the simple beast to drink becomes an exercise in animal cruelty rather than education. heck, matt516 and elerond in this very thread tried to help you, and amentep tried clarification recent in another. *shrug* in any event, http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=575#post447859766 q&a from josh on SA (sunandspring) Q: Doesn't the respec thing make the thing with those soulbound weapons using any weapon specialty redundant? Now if you don't have the greatsword spec and you want to use the greatsword, you can just redo it and get that talent. (josh) A:Retraining isn't a selective re-allocation of individual Talents, Skills, and Abilities. You're effectively tearing up your character sheet and rebuilding from level 1. I don't think it's a good idea to require players to do that if they didn't have the prescience to know that their class' soulbound weapon was going to be in a different category. HA! Good Fun!

a bit o' the chaos never hurt entertainment value, but am gonna admit that the article read more like a teen's stream o' consciousness diary entry than an essay or article... with the teen author in desperate need o' his/her ritalin, and perhaps a time-out. that being said, such a style can be entertaining. am not a woody allen fan... at all. is no woody allen film that makes our top 20. however, mr. allen's writings is funny and insightful in spite o' the fact that they, as often as not, have no discernable raison d'être and will lapse, inexplicably, into the literary equivalent o' an acid flashback. HA! Good Fun!

Yeah, I understand that, and I think in general it's a fine balance change that'll mix things up for most of the classes. I'm mostly annoyed at the effect it'll have on the paladin. Even with the buffs from 1.06, I still don't think that paladins have any real niche besides stacking defenses. With the deflection drop, that's really going to decline in efficacy, such that fighter regeneration will be a significantly preferable option. I'm not asserting that deflection tanks aren't going to function, for the record, or that paladins will be unplayable. But there won't be anything they do best, anymore. /le shrug our mileage from the paladin is different, and the 2.0 change will only require a minor alteration for us if we wish to retain similar deflection bonuses to what we current see. no, we will no longer be able to stack 2 defensive attributes, but our current favorite tank has 15 perception and 15 resolve, with a 19 in intelligence. if we want to mitigate the loss of perception deflection benefits, we can easily add at least 4 additional points to resolve without needing make any race or background changes. yes, those four points won't erase all the bonuses we would get from perception buffed from food, spells and gear, but most of our defensive efficacy comes via talents, abilities and faith and conviction bonuses. that will not change in 2.0. on the negative side, faith and convictions becomes even more integral to a paladin tank and a companion paladin tank becomes even less of an option than it currently is (or is not) assuming no changes have been made to companion faith and conviction bonuses. we don't play solo, and our ideal party configuration has multiple support characters and an off-tank. we have never depended on the invulnerable single tank, so this change affects us very little. nevertheless, we do understand that for other folks who went a different direction with their paladin or party composition, this change will require... changes. HA! Good Fun!

Stop it. It's getting awkward for everyone, Strawnir. Like a drunk uncle at a BBQ. why do you continue to you post definitions when doing so hurts you. you still have no grasp o' strawman and when you tried posting definition o' hypothetical, you clear failed to read the entire definition. *shrug* as we noted earlier, your reading comprehension is... suspect. there is an obvious reason we posted not only the post in which you used "hyperbole," but your immediate preceding post. maybe you can puzzle out the problem you created for yourself. you are comical obtuse, but we continue to try and help. staying on-topic, we will observe that josh is posting with considerable frequency at SA after a bit o' a hiatus. perhaps he finally has free time to do so? pure conjecture, but we will take as a good sign for no other reason than wanting a good sign. am also satisfied if resolve is the lone option for attribute buffing deflection. pure tanks were, we suspect, never intended to be as functional invulnerable as they currently are. seeing as how foes will suffer and benefit same as does the player from the changes to attributes, we suspect that a few battles will involve at least minor tactical changes. HA! Good Fun! ps am wearing newish magnanni loafers at the moment. they ain't quite been broken in, so we would actual welcome an "accident" that would require us to grab the adidas cross-trainers from our gym bag. let us roll up our pants a bit first.

oh, the hypocrisy. regardless, it is a good thing that an optional respec feature will be available with 2.0 and any further poe offerings. shoulda' been included at release. HA! Good Fun!

... HA! Good Fun!

saudis weren't asking for boots on the ground from pakistan... and we are not talking just arms but nukes. bad analogy all the way around. and yes, pakistan would definitely balk at actual selling nukes. pakistan has adamantly denied that they actual helped north korea, though few believe their protests. so in an actual analogous situation, with surreptitious aid, how many decades would it take for the saudis to generate their own plutonium as did the north koreans? saudi arabia, as noted already and tacitly agreed to by even you, doesn't have the capacity to develop their own weapons even with aid. going in circles. your analogies are... labored. regardless, and again, the possibility o' a middle-east nuclear arms race, with pakistan actual selling nuclear weapons to saudi arabia, is one o' the least plausible nightmare scenarios being presented by the media. if you wanna argue that such nonsense as pakistan volunteering to become a pariah state by selling nuclear weapons to saudi arabia is a legit concern, then you are actual supporting one o' the more frightening and least plausible arguments for rejecting the iran deal. HA! Good Fun!

its pretty much a given that nobody in islamabad would be so reckless or stoopid as to sell nukes to the saudis, but hey, if you wanna help perpetuate such stuff, be our guest as it only increases the dangers, real and imagined, o' the iranian nuke threat. heck, the saudis couldn't even convince pakistan to join their air campaign against yemen and you see a real possibility o' purchasing nukes from the same source? HA! Good Fun!