Gromnir

I've seen similar remarks a few times and I don't understand it. Why not just wait until the second part is out? As far as I can tell, the only difference is that now you can play something a bit earlier if you want to. I think it has to, do with a) Obsidian promised a meaty expansion, with none of the modern DLC shenanigans, and then decided to split it up (which feels a bit like modern DLC shenanigans). To hammer the point home, Obsidian hasn't even confirmed if non-backers will have to buy each part of the expansion separately, or they will have to pay once to get the entire expansions (which the old nickel-and-dime DLC strategy). b) Sure, you can make yourself wait, but releasing the expansion in parts sends a signal that it should be played now. It's like exploits in computer games, yes you don't have to use them, but if using them is the optimal strategy, then you are more likely to use them, even if it diminishes the fun of the game. c) Since the expansion has been cut in 2 means that the story and the content of the second part must be cleanly split from the first part, instead of organicly integrated. This could very well not be a problem, but the possibility exists, and that diminished the expansion as a whole. We'll see when the expansion is released. pretty much disagree with everything. splitting don't "feel" like some kinda dlc ploy at all. feels like the developers want to get material out quick enough so that players still care. am suspecting we miss your (b) critique complete, but we see © as nothing more than assumption... and is "organic" the new "proactive"? regardless, even if there is a single over-reaching expansion story, we suspect it would hardly prove problematic to break the content in twain as there will be inevitable and natural breaks in both content and narrative. consider any ie game or ie game expansion (save the ultra-brief HoW or luremaster content) and we can see obvious places to halt content and story advancement... could even do it "organically." *snort* as an aside, given the lack o' certainty regarding respec, Gromnir is hesitant to continue playing any o' our current saves. HA! Good Fun!

one more request for the expansion: reset companion attributes to the release date versions. were kinda quirky that companion attributes were initial far more perception heavy. one suspects that the companion attributes were set before obsidian purged the perception accuracy bonus during the beta. with 2.0, perception will once again be universal important, if not vital. as such, the original attribute spreads for companions (aloth and grieving mother in particular) appear better than do the current attribute allocations. so, reset companion attributes to the way they was on day 1 o' release. HA! Good Fun!

stopped reading. we agree that deflection is far too important compared to health, but if the reason you is averse to the current attribute system is 'cause it offends your role-play preconceptions, then we need not read any further, and we hope that the obsidian developers do not bother doing so. relative impotence of constitution= bad viability of non-traditional attribute load-outs resulting in grognard discomfort = good. it were a GOAL o' developers to allow players to explore unique and non-traditional builds. the classes themselves were initially not built to conform to traditional crpg conventions. differing from expectations is not a flaw. that being said, the poe implementation o' constitution, as with so many crpgs that has reloads, is a relative weak attribute. HA! Good Fun! ps am gonna note again that this is another example o' something so simple and inane as the naming choice for classes led to player inability to accept poe differences. what a terrible and predictable shame.

hamilton and jackson would both be on our list o' most detestable American political figures. that being said, Gromnir's list would raise eyebrows seeing as how we got lincoln and jefferson on our list too... though jefferson is on 'cause o' his Presidency alone. lincoln's Presidency did more to limit personal freedoms o' Americans than any before or after, which is kinda ironic given that he were also the great emancipator. yeah, the civil war were terrible, and no president woulda' emerged with his hands clean from that conflict, but the way he trampled on the Constitution during the war is overlooked by your average school teacher and more than a few scholars. jefferson were a kook and a hypocrite. kookiness were no big deal, but his abuses o' executive authority were legion. HA! Good Fun!

... wow. this thread went all codex right from the start. am gonna suggest it be locked as some folks can't seem to control their more embarrassing impulses.

am recalling that Gene Hackman, an academy award winning actor known for his serious roles (save for a tiny bit-part in Young Frankenstein) was asked why he played lex luthor in the 1978 superman movie. were an interview contemporaneous with release o' the film that posed the question. hackman kinda shrugged and said something to the effect that the film's producers came to his house with a dump truck full o' money... wasn't a hard choice at all. HA! Good Fun!

what an odd post. most conservatives in the US is not catholic. those that is look to the Pope's opinion on climate change the same way they would regarding a papal announcement regarding his favorite football team. 'less the Pope says that catholics go to hell if they don't sell their cars and start using public transportation, why would they care? am not certain why most conservatives would care about Trump candidacy. confederate flag is more a geographical oddity and less a political one. 25% o' American men is gop. 24% o' American women identify is gop. why do you believe the average conservative cares whose face is on the $20 bill. the difference between conservative and liberal is that the conservative wants to keep more of her $20 bills and the liberal believes that the government can be trusted to make better use o' more o' those 20s. martha washington were on legal tender in the past. the ridiculous sized sacajawea dollar didn't send conservatives into collective apoplexy save for when they accidental paid for something thinking it were worth a quarter. obamacare surviving SCOTUS does bother many/most conservatives, but the decision is actual not bad for conservatives. the Justices is more concerned with the integrity o' their legal philosophy than they is with politics. a willingness o' SCOTUS to get... creative to keep legislation alive is not a bad thing for conservatives. seems to be a misconception 'bout the Court ruling concerning same-sex marriage and why most conservatives dislike it. oh well. most conservatives we know ain't the least bit bothered by same-sex marriage... 'course we don't know that many religious zealots neither. bristol palin? okie dokie. that being said, conservatives did get knocked outta their shoes by the SCOTUS decisions. were a rough week for some. am s'posing that other than the Court cases, the most significant item on your list were the removal o' various Confederate items from major retailers, 'cause that sudden made such items more expensive. we kid. is no significant item on the list other than the cases. HA! Good Fun!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gimmick is not complicated HA! Good Fun!

if you don't understand how that too is a gimmick, then you is missing the point. the star wars characters do not get or need development. they exist only on the surface. as the reader is even unconsciously aware o' the archetype, the author need only develop the character just enough so that the audience can make a connection between the star wars character and the archetype role it fulfills. kotor played with the star wars gimmick by inversion. frequent we had the archetypes reversed, but the complete reversal made them no less recognizable. gimmick. with many kotor characters, the developers offered no more than the gimmick, such as in the case o' hk-47. the writers were aware o' the gimmick. they admitted the gimmick which you reject. other characters, such as jolee bindo, were developed more fully. the thing is, hk-47 were the most popular o' the kotor characters, and other crpg writers took notice o' the popularity o' hk, and dogmeat and other gimmicky characters. the belief that the initial hook were vital became accepted fact by folks like avellone. you is resistant to the "gimmick" terminology? fine. label however you wish. results is the same. rainbow bears or snarky assassin droids or construct rogues is having less than subtle initial hook. is gimmicky, but that ain't a flaw if it is only the start instead o' the totality o' character development. HA! Good Fun!

oh, is not all that weird. as we noted, little kids learn to do it at an early age. "mary stole a cookie too." it seems that the human animal is, by nature, a petty and spiteful creature. efforts to deflect may likely prove impotent, but those who is facing punishment or reprisals for their misdeeds do not wish to suffer, or at the very least, they do not wish to suffer alone. hurl, having successfully completed all those child psych courses to become a teacher is no doubt aware that kiddie brains do not develop the necessary connections for complex morality til they is pre-teen... and possible later. kids is all psychopaths-- they got an excuse. unfortunate, adults has difficulty unlearning behaviours, so instead they justify. point out the misdeeds o' our fellows is no longer the churlish behavior o' pint-sized psychopaths in need o' a nap, but instead a matter o' fairness, equity or some other ****amamie gobbledygook. ... just a theory... and only slight joking. HA! Good Fun!

agreed quote self is gauche, but what the heck. HA! Good Fun! ps "I don't think the writers on either KOTOR fully understood the universe they where writing in" sure they did. it helped that the writers knew exactly what universe they were working with and just how reliant star wars were on the gimmick characters.

hk were not gimmicky 'cause o' being a droid. his gimmick were that he were a droid doing the meat-bag schtick. heck, even Gaider conceded that hk-47 were a shallow character and the rogue assassin droid in marko ragnos' tomb were added to kotor in part 'cause o' what he could not do with hk-47. HA! Good Fun! Star Wars was quite deliberately built around archetypical characters, and droid intelligence is pegged at about the level of a smart dog anyway, they are not fully independent beings. HK-47 has the "meat-bag schtick" because it was programmed that way by it's former master, as a joke. It is no more a "gimmick" than Eder's desire to pet furry animals. What you actually have something that is very common in it's setting behaving in a way that is perfectly normal for it's type (i.e. following it's programming). What you actually have is forumites making the assumption that any character made of metal that kills things must, perforce, be the same character. the writer o' hk-47 disagreed with you 'bout the gimmick aspect. *shrug* hk-47 were a one-trick pony... a funny reversal o' c-3po. it were a gimmick, albeit an effective one. HA! Good Fun!

much as the union fought a bloody war in part to abolish slavery, the guy who wrote amazing grace spent the last years o' his life working to abolish slavery in england. is actual particular appropriate to have amazing grace sung at such a politicized event 'cause it shows that any can be saved, but first you gotta come to grips with your past and your sins. john newton's path to redemption were long. the south, as a whole, could possibly learn something from his example. HA! Good Fun!

ranger improvements http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=560#post447052650 rope kid posted: I'm still working on ranger abilities, but I've made changes to the animal companions already: * All animal companion weapons have 5 DR bypass. * All animal companion armor gains 2 DR every 3 levels instead of 1.5 every 3 levels. * They used to gain 3 Accuracy and +15% damage every 3 levels. They now gain 5 Accuracy and +20% damage every 3 levels. * Faithful Companion was doubled to a +30 bonus vs. Charm/Confuse/Dominate with 5 seconds taken off the duration. * Resilient Companion now adds 3 DR and an additional point of DR every 3 levels. * Vicious Companion stacks an additional 3 DR bypass. also, josh observed that there were numerous unforeseen implementation issues in poe that prevented a more robust stronghold feature. he seemed to think that improvements to the stronghold would come about IF a sequel were developed. HA! Good Fun!

is why we added 2 honorable mentions... seemed fair that way. HA! Good Fun! ps embarrassed that we didn't have the lockheed c-130 (including the ac 130h gunship) on our list.

It seems they don't feel that the equal protection clause requires a protected class to be valid. And it is seems the opinion of the majority that marriage, same-sex or otherwise, falls somewhere under "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," "liberty," or "the equal protection of the laws." If you have to be a protected class to avoid discrimination in marriage, that would be even sillier than the idea that stupid people could be protected against discrimination in applying for jobs. "it would be sillier" is not an argument o' legal merits. you aren't discussing law. am sorry, but you simple ain't. there is a long line o' cases that tells us what Constitutional equal protection and due process means. trying to discuss using tale logic or your understanding o' english meanings is misplaced. equal protection does not mean that everybody is treated the same... as hard as that concept is to grasp. if there is a rational basis for treating folks different (and rational basis is likely not what you think it means neither-- is an extreme low threshold) then government can treat you different w/o fear o' Constitutional repercussions. gonna repeat: rational basis is an extreme low threshold... is pretty much "Government Wins." we has a definition o' marriage that has, as even the majority concedes, endured for millennia. can anybody reasonable suggest that same-sex marriage has always been a fundamental right and we only just realized that today, thanks to the enlightened guidance o' 5 lawyers? or has the growing support o' same-sex marriage been a slow evolution, advancing in fits and starts as community opinions has changed? those seeking special consideration in the present case is not part o' a suspect class deserving heightened scrutiny-- period. same-sex marriage were not a fundamental right at time o' bill o' rights or with the adoption o' amendment iv. so, what changed and when? point out when and how the Constitution changed. with Loving we can easily identify the Civil War Amendments as having brought about a sea change in the law, though the definition o' marriage itself were still the millennia old one that were repeated in case law and law dictionaries. so, show us the Constitutional change that makes a Loving kinda paradigm shift possible? SCOTUS came up with a wacky four principles argument (the reasoning o' which even Gromnir don't fully understand) to excuse their "new insights" related to Constitutional protections regarding marriage. ... Justices is not elected. even so, they can stymie the Executive and Congress. WE, The People, allow SCOTUS to have so much power over democratic elected representatives because o' the belief that these wise men will do no more than interpret the law. again, we believe that same-sex marriage should be a right, but it ain't granted in the Constitution. perhaps it SHOULD be in the Constitution, and we would happily advocate adding it to the Constitution, though change individual state law strikes us as the easier route. bad law is not made less repugnant 'cause the Justices seek to bring about what we personal believe is a good change. ps am aware we already mentioned, but is worth repeating that the SCOTUS majority opinion does not primarily use equal protection reasoning to makes same-sex marriage the law o' the land. for lay folks, is understandable that you is gonna gravitate to a phrase such as "equal protection" but if you wanna defend the decision o' the Court, you gotta start mentioning due process. is our last post in this thread. no good can come o' further dialogue. is so very difficult to explain how we can be disappointed by the Court in spite o' the fact that we is in favor o' same-sex marriage. to Gromnir, the majority opinion is a mess o' tortured legal reasoning, which is why it offends. nevertheless, to any casual observer it would appear that we is some kinda bigot that hates homosexuals, minorities and puppies. no good can come o' further explanation.

interesting list. Gromnir top 3: 1) P-51 2) Sopwith Camel 3) F-15 edit in honorable mentions: A) SR-71 would deserve our #1 overall spot if we compiled list based on kewl points alone B) P-26 Peashooter-- best name HA! Good Fun!

your understanding is flawed, because the Constitution does not protect same sex marriage. we got civil war amendments that specific mention race, color, and previous condition and those classes (a term o' art and not some kinda spurious label) 'mongst others, get special protections. btw, we had already had same sex couples make this attempt shortly after Loving. failed. brought up through Minnesota Courts. not all classes get the same constitutional protection, which makes sense, no? after all, do you want stoopid people to claim that they is being unfairly discriminated 'gainst when seeking a job and cannot pass a mandatory test? how 'bout obese firemen or Rich people... can't forget them. imagine all the laws that target wealthy folks that would need be expunged 'cause wealth need survive heightened scrutiny. oh, and is perhaps amusing that the solicitor general tried your tack, 'cause substantive due process o' the US Constitution were a doomed option based on considerable precedent. due process has been used to uphold same sex marriage in State courts, but that is 'cause those courts used the State Constitution's due process laws and not US Constitution. color us surprised then when SCOTUS largely ignored oral arguments and instead used due process... with some kinda equal protection "synergy" as J.Roberts called it, seeming as confused as Gromnir when trying to explain the majority decision. is bad law. that is not good law and it ain't good history. shame on those who believe otherwise. SCOTUS is not s'posed to dress up the due process clause as if it were some kinda $25 whore and let her pleasure the Justices new friends. the Constitution, not the Court, protects minorities from the tyranny o' the majority. is a terrible fact that if you ain't identified by the Constitution as deserving protection, then you don't get any special treatment, but that is Democracy. change the Constitution or change the laws if you wanna give new protections to those who deserve but don't receive the kinda love you thinks they deserve. use the process. HA! Good Fun!

Can you explain why this is not a good law? Please go into details if required around the failure of process you can read J. Robert's dissent if you wish. like it or not, the question that came before the Court is not a new one. marriage is a right, but the legal definition o' marriage has been established and settled for a long time and currently more than half o' States in the US do not recognize same-sex marriage. it is o' course, perfectly reasonable that as society changes, the People may change such definitions, but that is the role of legislators and not Justices. "The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become. "Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer." the Justices of the Court decided that their will and wisdom were greater than that o' The People. perhaps the wisdom o' 5 Justices is more admirable than that o' the people o' the United States of America, but the Constitution does not grant the Court the power to subvert the will o' the people in a case such as this. there were no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage before today. 5 Justices thought that there should be such a right so now there is such a right. the process were subverted.

this were the job o' legislators and not judges. is not good law even though we agree that marriage should be a right granted to all regardless o' sexual preference. applaud the result, but lament the failure o' the process.

hk were not gimmicky 'cause o' being a droid. his gimmick were that he were a droid doing the meat-bag schtick. heck, even Gaider conceded that hk-47 were a shallow character and the rogue assassin droid in marko ragnos' tomb were added to kotor in part 'cause o' what he could not do with hk-47. HA! Good Fun!

the only surprise we got were from kennedy. some similar issues were addressed in NFIB, wherein kennedy joined the dissent which observed that redefining a mandate-with-penalty as a tax to save legislation from itself were beyond the scope o' judicial authority. "we must, if "fairly possible", construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than unconstitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). but we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not." (pardon us if we misquote) today, the Court, or perhaps the solicitor general, were allowed to fix otherwise broken legislation. is the kinda thing that is gonna make any textualist scream in fury, but right or wrong, the Justices all acted consistent with previous opinions, save for kennedy... who is notoriously unpredictable. HA! Good Fun!

it is indeed possible that the folks at bethesda is insane, as we believe most game developers and publishers is loopy. however, as to pricing o' the pre-order, it ain't crazy to charge 60 euros if folks is actual willing to pay 60 euros. that you wouldn't pay 60 euros is complete inconsequential. HA! Good Fun!

... we had never considered that recognition o' civil war era southern slavery were somehow lessening or eradicating other instances o' American failures related to live up to promises made in our Constitution. converse, Gromnir sharing links 'bout the current conditions at Pine Ridge, conditions which is significantly worse than gaza AFTER the recent israeli-gaza conflict, doesn't change the history o' the American south. blame game is kinda childish. little kid gets caught stealing a cookie and then observes that his sister and/or brother also stole a cookie. is the ploy o' a pre-teen. am thinking we should expect more from each other, yes? HA! Good Fun!

chis avellone, god rest his soul (we joke 'course as chrisA is not dead but merely departed) observed that the initial character hook were the most important aspect o' character development in a crpg. we disagree, but am not thinking he were too far off the mark. the initial hook is not dialogue content alone as visual and voice acting contribute much in a modern crpg. would hk-47 have been embraced same by folks if the voice actor were different? dunno. chrisA went to extremes and created rainbow bears, but we suspect that he were justified in his belief that the initial hook were pivotal. unfortunately, far too often, obsidian companions don't get developed beyond the hook. fit the entirety o' character development on the back o' a ****tail napkin? there needs be more. is the initial hook for devil gimmicky? sure. so what? if character is initial intriguing AND gets the development it requires to grow beyond the gimmick, then we approve. if the gimmick is the entirety o' the character, then we will be disappointed... again. aside: is not as if chrisA were the only writer who saw importance o' the initial hook. heck, tolkien thought the character name were mostest important aspect o' character development... which explains a few things. HA! Good Fun!