Gromnir

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!

many fears expressed in the press do strike us as unfounded. for instance, the notion that saudi arabia would respond to relaxing nuclear program limits on iran by developing a nuclear program o' their own strikes us as comical. iran is hardly a world-striding technological juggernaut, but saudi arabia lags far behind iran. who in saudi arabia would develop their program? is not as if saudi arabia can import experts to develop a nuke program. short o' somehow buying nukes from other powers, we don't foresee saudi arabia as joining some kinda imagined middle-east arms proliferation race any time soon... am talking decades removed from even contemplating such a thing. so yeah, there is a few bogeyman being created w/o much basis in reality. regardless, if you thinks iran hasn't been working on developing nuclear weapons thus far, you are being naive. again, working on nuke weapons includes the "breakout options" as discussed in the linked RAND report. belief that iran will discontinue their efforts now that the coalition governments are committed to lifting sanctions and unfreezing accounts is laughable myopic. other than direct military force, the coalition governments abandoned what little leverage they had to discourage iranian nuclear weapons development. the kissinger & shultz article we linked above points out the myriad problems related to any kinda enforcement o' the terms o' this deal. wth, the US couldn't even secure the release o' 3-4 "hostages," as part o' this deal. am wondering if john kerry had to assume the position to broker his deal. regardless, if you ain't concerned, then you ain't been paying attention to the middle-east, and iran in particular. HA! Good Fun!

estimates we seen reported, such as the 2012 RAND studies, suggest iran is at least 1 year away from development of nuclear weapons, and that they could not accomplish such a feat w/o the US discovering their efforts to do so. that being said, iran's efforts have not been directed at creating an actual weapon but rather to improve its "breakout options." iran has been working towards shortening that 1 year timeline for weapon development, and improving the potential number of weapons that could be produced in addition to working on more mundane aspects such as delivery systems. the more obvious way to look at the scenario is that the current sanctions and multi-national agreements to limit the iranian weapon program has worked thus far. given iran's dishonesty regarding their nuclear program (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-02-25/iran-nuclear-talks-reflect-history-of-war-and-deceit http://security.blogs.cnn.com/?s=parchin) reasonable folks is gonna be suspicious 'o iranian claims. HA! Good Fun! ps found the rand linky http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2012/RAND_MG1180.pdf

What are you worried about? That Republicans if they win the election next year will change the negotiations terms...or something else ? http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-emerging-iran-nuclear-deal-raises-major-concerns-in-congress-and-beyond/2015/02/05/4b80fd92-abda-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/arab-states-fear-dangerous-iranian-nuclear-deal-will-shake-up-region/2015/07/14/96d68ff3-7fce-4bf5-9170-6bcc9dfe46aa_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-blasts-iran-deal-as-dark-day-in-history/2015/07/14/feba23ae-0018-403f-82f3-3cd54e87a23b_story.html so, a number o' arab nations is concerned about an emboldened and enriched iran in the middle-east, and israel, the only dependable US ally in the middle-east (ever) is also concerned and angry. but hey, at least obama got guarantees that iran would not develop its nuclear capacity, right? no? so, we got what amounts to a capitulation to demands by tehran while playing hardball with Congress? huh? but hey, before the next election, oil prices is likely to drop and a new market will be opened up for a multitude o' american businesses. HA! Good Fun! But in this argument you are completely missing the most important part about the deal. This deal is an investment in the Iranian youth. dear lord. HA! Good Fun!

Hyperbole anyone? Your post is an egregious exaggeration my fine feathered friend Obama had to deal with a broken USA economy, 2 military ground occupations and loads of global animosity. Obama will be handing over a recovered USA economy, no more military ground occupations, an aerial military campaign and less animosity. Bush trumped him by far your obama appreciation is genuine, yes? the economy initial goes belly up 'cause o' a variety o' factors, including the failure o' other major economies. irresponsible and borderline fraudulent lending practices were, in our opinion, the most noteworthy mistake that contributed to the economic downfall and we can blame those failures on both republican and democrat Congresses over past +15 years. so, what did obama, as President, actual do to improve the economic situation? stimulus? gonna have as many (more actual) economists arguing that stimulus helped not at all and actual contributed to duration o' the economic downturn. so, what else? the economy did what it does and, for the most part, fixed itself as legislators and businessmen reacted after the fact and with disturbing listlessness. obama didn't make the economic problems, but neither did his predecessor (can field compelling arguments that if any President is to blame, clinton would be the guy) and he sure as heck didn't fix anything. other major domestic issues? well, racial tensions is, perhaps ironic, higher now than when obama took office. the thing is, obama's power to respond to such stuff is actual limited. yeah, he could be more vocal and use his non-Constitutional power to set agendas by being the most visible member o' the Federal government to change the national dialogue. perhaps to our benefit, obama has embraced a kinda limited response philosophy throughout his tenure. the President has been extreme cautious in handling race issues, which necessarily means that he has done very little. the root cause o' the racial tensions is economic in nature, and while obama weren't the 'cause o' the bad economy, he sure as hell shoulda' been aware that the economic downturn would hurt the poorest segments o' our nation. campaign promises regarding nsa spying on Americans? HA! obamacare? is honest far too early to say whether obamacare is success or failure. foreign affairs is where Presidents get far more impact, so is better to look at his legacy on foreign affairs-- accept that Presidents get far too much credit and blame for domestic issues. china... obama specific made promises that he would take focus off the middle-east and make bolstering alliances with asian nations a major goal o' his Presidency. so, how did that work out? obama were promising to shut down guantanamo. uh... well, am guessing you can say he kinda/sorta half-succeeded there. the average european citizen sees obama as less threatening than former Presidents, but our actual relationship with european administrations has cooled in light o' the various spying scandals. romney (not our favorite Presidential candidate) warned that russia were a genuine and emerging threat during a debate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/20/flashback-obamas-debate-zinger-on-romneys-1980s-foreign-policy/ obama dealing with russia has been embarrassing. (as an aside, you can let video continue to hear some funny facts 'bout obamacare promises... depending on how it loads for you.) the middle-east. *groan* am in agreement that getting out o' iraq were good. How we got out o' iraq led to predictable problems. am not joking just how predictable given various military reports on the dangers o' an accelerated withdrawal from iraq... but honestly, am not gonna once again go into how obama's dedication to a hands-off approach has been a complete and utter failure. but at least the US is still liked by sub-saharan african nations... right? no? ... sh!t HA! Good Fun! ps obama made numerous campaign promises to native americans before and after he were elected. many/most indians (the current pc term) is members o' bia recognized tribes: domestic dependent nations. is a legal fiction used to describe US relationship with native peoples, so is not genuine domestic or foreign affairs. in any event, the tribal law and order act as well as the indian health care improvement act has drawn as much criticism as acclaim, but am gonna concede that obama has done more than previous administrations, although not enough to actual improve conditions for most native peoples. the problems is too big to be handled without serious dedication and ther ain't no motivation for a President to fix indian problems.

is good points. we only went to the obsidian main page 'cause you mentioned the poll. can't recall the last time we accessed the main page. however, am not suggesting that our behavior is typical. that being said, there were a similar favorites poll on this board, yes? am recalling that the percentages and choices were similar. eder, at least, were the favorite. HA! Good Fun!

is not a problem for Gromnir, but obsidian creative impulses has gotten them into trouble in the past. making games is a business. traditional publisher and developer dynamic requires that the developer reach certain milestones if they wanna get paid. ... a creative endeavour that gots literal dozens o' folks working on bits and pieces over a considerable span o' time is kinda a wacky notion to Gromnir. our limited managerial experience makes us at least sympathetic to the problems o' keeping a group o' different persons and personalities working on the same project while needing meet uncompromising deadlines. am guessing that games is more like big architecture projects wherein your creativity better shine bright and big early in development 'cause thereafter the process o' realizing the concepts is dirty and ugly and requiring much toil and sweat. some guy on a big building project realizes halfway through construction that there were a better and more elegant way to do X? tough. is likely too late. you got schedules to keep and people to pay and many sleepless nights ahead o' you w/o even contemplating making major changes once the actual building is well under way. the thing is, obsidian, as is typical o' creative types, has a tendency to wana make their games better, and they seeming tend to underestimate just how much effort their changes is gonna impact their schedules... or they don't make sure they get changes in writing. am not doubting that obsidian thought that white march would be further along than it is, but keep in mind, poe itself were set for a 2014 release. the obsidians, in an attempt to make game better, add and change features and content and whatnot. those changes have ripple effects. given that there ain't no publisher or milestones to concern themselves with, we suspect that the obsidians is even more concerned with getting things right as 'posed to meeting initial target schedules. am not the least bit concerned or surprised that an obsidian project w/o a publisher is seeing some slippage insofar as meeting initial deadlines. let 'em take their time and add/change features that they believe will make the game better. we want good. a few extra months for good is a cheap price to pay. HA! Good Fun!

Baldur's Gate 2 tends to get a lot of praise, but I always preferred Baldur's Gate in every way except mechanically. And this includes the music. Damn I love that tune. That said, I do really like the music for PoE, for the most part, but I can agree that it doesn't exactly get you stoked. Design in BG tends to be rather bland. The City of Baldurs Gate was a inconsistend and thoughtless mess. "Hey guys, let's throw all things medieval and ancient in the mix!" Bland, maybe, but I kinda liked that. It felt more down to earth and not so out there. ... have no idea what that means. in any event, like bg or bg2 is a matter o' opinion, so is tough to attach value to such choices. however, we will note that the many differences 'tween bg and bg2 came about 'cause o' the responsiveness o' biowarians to feedback from fans. the party companions received far more development in bg2 precisely 'cause o' fan demand for more such interaction. largely empty wilderness maps were criticized with little opposition by bg fandom, and the biowarians listened. grandmastery and ranged weapons were too powerful in bg, so developers made alterations to those features in bg2. following the release o' totsc, we heard appeals for more robust locales and quests such as were related to durlag's tower, and far less o' the one-room encounters as were common throughout bg city and other villages in bg. etc. is opinions, but like or not, the biowarians listened to the opinions voiced by fans at the time bg2 were being developed. *chuckle* 'course, listen to fans is a double-edged sword. sure, fans managed to get portrait art changed and the dopey feralan kit dropped even after the biowarians had implemented or developed, but fans also made complete arses out o' themselves during the npc creation contest. HA! Good Fun!

well, it is possible for the least liked and most beloved character lists to be identical. durance and grieving mother, as examples, would appear to be polarizing characters-- folks like or hate. HA! Good Fun!

don't use it. if it offends, for whatever irrational reason you concoct, don't use respec. limiting the availability o' respec would defeat much o' its value. 2.0 will not be the last patch or the last change after all. in addition players, due to the rather endemic disconnect between the actual implementation o' talents, spells, powers and abilities vs. the descriptions o' such as contained in tooltips and the manual, will continue to reasonable rely on such false descriptions to their detriment. regardless, whether the role-play abrogation occur due to developer error or misapprehensions on the part o' the player, to have a role-play saving feature work as "a one-time respec upon loading a pre-2.0 save," would be utterly myopic. the only rational explanation we has seen for opposing the presence o' an optional respec feature is limited to resource allocation. the difficulties o' adding such a feature after-the-fact to an existing game could present significant resource costs. obsidian being more aware o' actual costs o' implementation than any casual observer, went ahead and added an optional respec feature that has absolute 0 potential to impact the gameplay or enjoyment o' any sane and rational player who does not choose to use it. HA! Good Fun! ps does anybody posting know how respec will actual work in 2.0, or is preemptive criticisms based on guesses?

http://www.henryakissinger.com/articles/wsj040715.html HA! Good Fun!

given the depth and breadth o' changes that is arriving with 2.0, this is a welcome improvement that maintains the integrity o' poe as a role-play game. we will not need have our player concept invalidated 'cause o' developer whim or error. have us need restart to maintain role-play or gameplay continuity, regardless o' the fact that we invested +40 hours into the game? as between burdening the developers so that they need add a respec feature, or burdening the player who has invested tens of hours into the game, am thinking the choice is obvious. good move by obsidian. HA! Good Fun!

you got a point. am honest not certain what mature means nowadays. am knowing that we don't want the average male 6th grader's notion o' mature to be the test, but am equal certain that our notions is different than the typical obsidian poster and the ordinary crpg gamer. a definition that is embraced by only a handful o' folks is not gonna be particular useful to the gaming community as a whole to be identifying games one might appreciate. arterial blood splatter and t!tillation o' prurient interest is not part o' our definition o' mature, but am gonna admit that making a crpg that meets Gromnir notions o' mature is unlikely to sell. throw in the towel and concede that mature is synonymous with the US tv rating o' MA? perhaps your favorite show gets MA rating. well, guess what? so does a$$y mcgee. HA! Good Fun!

How the heck do you complain about Will Smith, a legitimate actor with tremendous range, when Jared Leto looks like a keebler elf with a drug problem? will smith does show ability, but am curious about range. he has been playing variations on the same character for awhile now. when final credits roll, we suspect we will be saying to our self that we liked will smith's character better when thomas hayden church played it in the horrible spider-man 3 film. leto... well, heath ledger's joker is a tough act to follow. personally am not impressed with what we has seen o' leto's joker thus far, but part o' the problem is that we got nicholson and ledger in our head... and we got frank miller's tdkr joker as kinda our ideal notion o' the character. perhaps you think o' bruce timm and mark hamill's joker? doesn't mater. point is most o' us know the joker character already. leto has gone a different direction. good for him. do what folks expect is doomed to mediocrity, but that also means his likelihood for failure increases. leto were excellent in dallas buyer's club, so am gonna go into this with a relative open mind... as open as we can be given he is playing a character that has so much history in film and print. HA! Good Fun!

were never any question that short-term gains exist. drop in oil, particularly before the next elections, will make many folks happy. being able to sell coca-cola and happy meals in iran will look good on cnn news bites, but many other businesses in the west will be thrilled at the chance to get a piece o' the new market. that being said, it is tough to sell anybody on the notion that the current investigation scheme is anything other than bad joke. unfreeze assets, lift sanctions and oh that nuke program that is worrisome to israel, the west and other arab nations... well, we will actual help develop that program w/o any genuine method o' enforcement o' deal terms or investigation to guarantee that yesterday's threat ain't today's reality. given the stated goals o' the administration as recent as february, we cannot help but see the deal as more a matter o' capitulation than any kinda successful negotiation as bruce suggests. for appropriate obsidian board context, lando calrissian would be embarrassed for john kerry and his... deal. you are correct that the west didn't have much o' a bargaining position, but the influence o' the US in the region has taken a serious nose dive in recent years, so we have less sympathy for the tough position the administration were in vis a vis iran. "short term benefits to the iran deal is obvious. potential long term problems will be an issue for future administrations here and abroad. isn't particular fair to those future folks, but such is life, eh?" gonna stand by that observation. HA! Good Fun!

oh, there is no question that we believe this administration has been a complete joke insofar as middle-east/north africa foreign policy is concerned. you mischaracterize our responses regarding syria but am admitting that Gromnir has been highly critical o' the obama administration in its handling o' libya, syria, israel-gaza, and iraq. yeah, there is now a possibility that iran will be less hostile towards the US, but our relationship with regional powers such as egypt and saudi arabia has gotten worse. "As part of their investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme, IAEA inspectors will also be able to request visits to military sites. However, access is not guaranteed and could be delayed. Iran will have the right to challenge the IAEA request and an arbitration panel will then decide on the issue." --from bbc ... uh... so inspectors can request access, and such requests may be challenged. well, isn't that just swell? to guarantee that iran is complying with the terms o' the deal, we got inspectors that need request access and can be denied? tell you what, why not save those overworked inspectors headaches and leave inspections up to the iranians themselves? is gonna end up with functional the same result as self-regulation, so why the pretense o' inspections? sorry bruce, but unless there is details we ain't privy to, this deal looks like the most recent in a long line o' administration middle-east foreign policy blunders. but personal? is nothing personal 'bout it. HA! Good Fun!