Gromnir

you are already being rewarded as a completionist w/o gairnulf's poorly considered gold fixes. as a completionist you are getting more xp and more gear. you are getting more gold too. gair wants useful stuff on which to spend the extra gold. we know that the completionist needs to feel like he is being rewarded-- that has always been a problem. the completionist is more likely to be the guy who complained that the game were so darn easy. well, gosh, as a completionist you were able to hit the level cap 2/3 o' the way through the game and you had the bestest gear possible. the game is gonna be easier for the completionist. so why make the problem worse by allowing the player to overcome quests by paying for success. why make the problem worse by making special stores available that only the completionist could possibly afford? Gromnir is fully aware that you need to feel like your efforts is being rewarded, and they is. you is getting 1007 and xp. sure, you also got a big ol' pile o' gold you can't use, but so what? finding Useful stuff to buy is making an unavoidable problem worse. for your excess gold, the developers need ways to make you happy with pet rocks and canisters o' peppermint scented air. gold SINK. HA! Good Fun!

unintended irony is always best. HA! Good Fun!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2015/03/05/390754346/boris-nemtsov-he-directed-his-words-against-putin-himself "I haven't seen any real hypothesis. Lets face it: Boris Nemtsov was shot on one of the main bridges of Moscow just 100 meters from Kremlin, which is heavily surveilled by the security cameras, which is under control of the Russian power institutions. If you try to do a photo op at the Moscow bridge where Boris was shot you would immediately face a policeman. "By now we know that for four days, nonstop, he was followed by different cars. We know whoever conducted the killing told his driver to go home, and he was going back to his apartment on foot. We know there were four bullets — one went directly into the heart, another directly into his head, another one in the liver, and another one in the stomach. All shot from the back. "Police came to the place of the killing in 12 minutes. They immediately announced a special measure to get the car with the killer inside. They managed not to get this car, and several days after Nemstov's murder no one [has been] caught. "They don't know, or pretend they don't know, or don't want to catch anyone. So really, you know, it's just a joke. "So there are two hypothesis: Either the so-called Russian law enforcement can't do their job — except for following the opposition, tapping their phones and putting peaceful opposition leaders into jail — or they don't want to do their job, and that suggests that they were part of this plot to kill Boris."

well, to be fair, if you is using steel posts, you drive 'em without digging a hole... but that clearly ain't what woldan were talking about. Gromnir has spent considerable time creating and repairing barbwire fences, and we almost never bothered with concrete as the wire provides most o' the support. back-fill holes with dirt or a combo o' pea gravel and sand is typical sufficient. however, we did get a chuckle o' picturing woldan trying to drive wooden post fencing with a sledgehammer. HA! Good Fun!

dex inexplicably properly adjusts spell casting speed, but not weapons. however, at the moment, we believe increase dex actual slows weapon speed. HA! Good Fun!

one wonders what answer we could get from a complete honest ben roethlisberger or kobe bryant. heck, ray lewis somehow became a genuine role-model after legal problems were forgotten. perhaps such advice would go something like, "don't worry kid. you can get away with anything as long as you only do it once." HA! Good Fun!

*sigh* yes. it is a bad option to be able to complete quests by paying. the quests invariably provide rewards. if the quest has no reward, the incentive to pay to complete is negligible. you do not seem to understand the notion of a gold Sink. am not sure how we can explain any better, but am suspecting that you understand and simply do not agree. paying gold to make your character more powerful is fraught with perils. in a game with a large % o' optional side-quests, the problem becomes magnified because it is Inevitable that the completionist will acquire more gold and 1007 than the critical path player. the game can be successfully completed by the critical path player. the difficulty o' the game is such that the critical path player will be able to overcome all critical path obstacles. rewarding the completionist with gold that he can sell for power (direct or indirect) is The Problem. am sorry, but this is axiomatic and we is repeating our self. the aim is to find a way to give an attractive Nothing to the player for their gold. find a way to make the player happy that they received a pet rock or a canister o' peppermint scented air after they drop their gold down the sink. the excess gold, the gold that a critical path player could not hope to acquire, should not result in meaningful gains for the completionist. HA! Good Fun!

you weren't unclear. we would be against the potions precisely because it were "really expensive." if is something the critical path player is not envisioned as being able to afford, then we don't want such stuff in the game. BUYING success is the opposite o' the goal o' a gold sink, and making the game functional easier for the player who has acquired lots of 1007 (i.e. done the side quests) is resulting in the game being made less challenging for the folks who most likely already have the best gear and more experience. HA! Good Fun! The assumption that I mean for such a solution to be used on a critical path quest is wrong. I was thinking about any quest that can have multiple solutions. I thought it's common sense that a solution to a quest which involves the player compensating for his lacking in some skill by buying a buff should only be one of at least two solutions. it weren't our assumption that such a thing would be available in the critical path. such is a complete irrelevant consideration. have an item available to a player because o' gold that is NOT available to the critical path player because o' expense or any other reason creates the disparity we noted earlier. what we said was, "if is something the critical path player is not envisioned as being able to afford, then we don't want such stuff in the game." doesn't matter when/where you make available. being able to pay for superior ability or increased powered is bad for all the reasons we has now repeated numerous times. you wanna giving something o' value to the player for their excess gold. that is the problem, not a solution. HA! Good Fun!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/24/jameis-winston-s-rape-accuser-tells-all-in-sundance-documentary-the-hunting-ground.html

we will read the link. regardless, am knowing that heinlein were an extreme misunderstood guy. am always hearing the story about how he tried to beat the snot outta arthur c. clarke 'cause clarke public criticized the US SDI project. we also hear folks argue whether Heinlein were libertarian or conservative. johnny rico, the protagonist o' starship troopers which were written in 1959, is revealed late in the book to be filipino. however, the book appears to suggest that political leadership should only be held by those who has volunteered for military service. many commentators were confused by heinlein as his political views didn't fit in neat boxes. *shrug* more important than what a man says is what he does. is a number o' articles about the relationship o' heinlein and philip k. **** but they is typical covering the literary aspects o' the respective writers. philp k. **** wrote a bit about heinlein in the introduction to one o' his books. "Several years ago, when I was ill, Heinlein offered his help, anything he could do, and we had never met; he would phone me to cheer me up and see how I was doing. He wanted to buy me an electric typewriter, God bless him—one of the few true gentlemen in this world. I don't agree with any ideas he puts forth in his writing, but that is neither here nor there. One time when I owed the IRS a lot of money and couldn't raise it, Heinlein loaned the money to me. I think a great deal of him and his wife; I dedicated a book to them in appreciation. Robert Heinlein is a fine-looking man, very impressive and very military in stance; you can tell he has a military background, even to the haircut. He knows I'm a flipped-out freak and still he helped me and my wife when we were in trouble. That is the best in humanity, there; that is who and what I love." from our pov, heinlein were a bit o' a kook. his notions regarding sex and personal freedom can seem almost comical. at the same time, we believe heinlein were a very bright guy and we would be doing our self a disservice if we were dismissive o' heinlein because we disagreed with some o' his more extreme beliefs. perhaps most significant is that from everything we has read, it appears that heinlein were a compassionate man who were having genuine integrity. men such o' heinlein is, sadly, rare. and we still can't imagine a faithful movie version o' the moon is a harsh mistress. HA! Good Fun!

well, the pre-draft combine already occurred, which were only interesting 'cause a borderline draftable cb had a broad-jump that were exceeding the world record. april 30, 2015 is day one o' the draft. aren't you all tingly with anticipation? or not. however, we post today as we read that brandon marshal is being traded to the jets. the mercurial wr with diagnosed bi-polar disorder and manic depression is going to the jets. the jets? okie dokie our first reaction were that the trade also signaled that cutler were likely to be cut before march 12, but 'pon reflection, there is both football and monetary reasons that might justify the bears holding onto a lame-duck qb for an entire year. dunno. regardless, we now have a 2015 nfl thread... unless one already exists. HA! Good Fun!

you are becoming a bit predictable with your imaginings o' what other folks must believe, though your amusing attempt to define romance for all promancers is still your best/worst work so far. ah well, some folks has a ridiculous difficult time with the most simple o' lessons: keep your eye on the ball. maybe stun didn't play baseball as a kid... or cricket, or rugby or football or golf or whatever. HA! Good Fun! ps it woulda' been funnier if your first example were pong. two paddles, kept apart for all eternity, but fighting for some kinda connection... etc.

we got a roasted brussels sprout recipe that we only serve once per year. poured over the roasted sprouts is a cream-based sauce that requires gorgonzola cheese, shallots, crushed pecan fragments, browned butter, fresh squeezed lemon juice (lemon zest optional) and a significant amount o' heavy cream. ten minutes after introducing the sauce to the sprouts, the vegetable matter becomes a soggy and unpalatable mess, and there is no way in hell to refrigerate roasted sprouts or the sauce. additionally, while we s'pose that roasted sprouts has health benefits, our recipe is admittedly a side-dish sized coronary event. no more than once in a year. HA! Good Fun!

There were No romances in PS:T, Biowaresque or otherwise. Get that through your thick, stubborn skull already. Edit: Well, unless of course, your definition of Romances in pre-2000 video games is: "omg omg omg. Ravel Loves my toon, therefore, PS:T has romances." Well? Is it? Um...why wouldn't it be? It is a romantic story element in any case. If that counts then, as I have said 100x in this thread, then PoE may yet have a romance. If what you want is Bioware romances it will not. That is that. am reasonably sure that he has no idea what he is arguing or why the distinction is relevant. bruce is smarter. so too is valmy. however, those o' you who is showing more insight than stun is an increasing large group. unlocking circles o' zerthimon should result in a significant greater ego boost than leaving stun baffled. going nerdtastic, we believe the lesson from the 4th circle o' zerthimon is the most applicable to stun's plight... but the 6th also has relevance. HA! Good Fun!

we suspect that bruce is smarter than you. so, Gromnir suggests that not only were there romances before 2000, but they were better? bruce admitting that there were romances in games before 2000 does not change the fact that he wants current crpg developers to include tangential and optional mini-game/side-quest companion romances such as bioware popularized. bruce, being smarter than stun, would likely not wanna concede our point that pre-2000 romances were better, and he would be aware that the mere existence o' such romances as the ravel and tno romance sub-plot from ps:t doesn't impact his lobbying for bioware-style romances to be included in games being developed in 2015 and beyond. bruce would surely not wanna agree with Gromnir that the tangential and optional mini-game/side-quest romances is mechanically flawed and that doing romance such as we saw attempted in ps:t is a superior approach compared to the one he is advocating. we suspect that bruce would recognize that you mindlessly railing against Gromnir regarding the existence and nature o' ps:t romances is asinine given that you s'posed don't want tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game romances anymore than does Gromnir. 'course we suspect that bruce is smarter than stun. HA! Good Fun!

you weren't unclear. we would be against the potions precisely because it were "really expensive." if is something the critical path player is not envisioned as being able to afford, then we don't want such stuff in the game. BUYING success is the opposite o' the goal o' a gold sink, and making the game functional easier for the player who has acquired lots of 1007 (i.e. done the side quests) is resulting in the game being made less challenging for the folks who most likely already have the best gear and more experience. HA! Good Fun!

I dunno. Why does a guy firing off shots in Disneyland get all the attention from security? I guess with you calling everyone out on everything, I should randomly start questioning Bruce about the stuff you're saying. *shrug* Also... you continuously group all "promancers" into one collective hivemind with the exact same thoughts and ideas on things, yet I'm the person taking "potshots" at "the anti-mancers"? Name one time I've said anything against "the anti-mancers." Do you represent all people who don't advocate romance? Or do you just represent yourself? You can call out people left and right, to the point of no longer even caring what it is we're discussing, as long as someone "isn't doing it right," but heaven forbid anyone "grill" you with questions? My goodness, sweet child... stun is a hoot and complete devoid o' any kinda sense on this topic. bruce is dogged about romance. bruce genuine likes biowarian tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game companion romances. ... can't have much o' an argument with bruce. he likes the romances. period. he doesn't try to deny the existence o' romance in games previous to 2000. he doesn't try and define what all promancers want. bruce has never tried and tell us that, "Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not." but heck, even if he believed such nonsense, he would recognize just how pointless such a definition is 'cause he would still want the tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game companion romances... 'cause ultimately stun's attempts to define promancy for promancers (does that make sense?) is meaningless. stun has said some ridiculous stuff: "Romances in video games can be any type of affectionate communication, or any type of love, professed or otherwise, be it via dialogue or otherwise, requited or not, reciprocated or not, with the player character or not." "There's no such thing as a non-reciprocal romance." "There's no such thing as an unrequited romance." etc. the longer the thread gets, the more ridiculous stun will be. bruce, on the other hand, likes the tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game romances. bruce believes that the romances make crpgs better. Gromnir disagrees with bruce, but what is the point o' telling a person that the thing they like, even when doe well, isn't very good. bruce disagrees with Gromnir regarding the quality o' romances; he likes the biowarian style romances even so. *shrug* there isn't anything to argue with bruce 'bout that would require more than a post or two. stun, on the other hand, creates fodder as he goes... and again, Gromnir Loathes the biowarian style tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game companion romances. as far as biowarian style romances being included in poe or poe expansions and sequels, stun and Gromnir want the same thing... and we still see stun as obtuse to the point that we has a hard time comprehending him. bruce has been given a hard time by Gromnir regarding romance. such stuff is maybe comprising a post or two o' mockery. HA! Good Fun!

In a video game there isn't. There can't be. When you need Larping, or some other form of headcanon to create the illusion that romance between the two characters is occurring, then you've already failed. And the promancers will let you know it we are finally back to where we were before you tried to mislead and distract. congratulations. unfortunately, you aren't contributing new. there is no such thing as unrequited romance or non reciprocal romance. and there is no such thing as unrequited romance or non reciprocal romance in a crpg because, "there can't be." well golly, how might anybody argue with such a well-formed and enlightened response? *snort* is funny. HA! Good Fun!

is not an idea we would want implemented in poe. sorry, but the idea is bad for same reason as we observed about gear. the guys who do more than the critical path is already likely to have better gear than the crit path player and they may level a bit more. even so, the game is meant to be beatable by the crit path player. you is simple adding ways to make the game easier for a player with money. boost mechanics and stealth and athletics through gold rather than leveling? is a bad idea. sure, there is gonna be skill boosting gear in the game... we expect that. however, to have a mechanic wherein leveling limitations can be functionally overcome with gold is bad. gold sinks is fine. a gold well is bad. the sink should have the player voluntarily divesting themselves o' excess currency without gaining a gameplay benefit by doing so. we suggested pay for a customizable coat of arms. some folks would pay considerable gold to see their custom coat o' arms on their shied or arour or perhaps on banners outside their keep. having a customizable coat of arms does not make game any easier for the player, but it would take gold from the player even so. HA! Good Fun!

it is perfectly fair as the thread had been merged Before you and stun made your relative faux pas. and as we noted already, "'course that ignores the fact that what stun did were abandon his untenable argument with Gromnir, and sudden argue stun v. promancers, wherein he came up with a definition o' what promancers consider romance w/o actual being able to point to anybody that actual supports his definition." so again, regardless o' the time and method o' merging, you mischaracterized. your fraudulent misrepresentation o' a Gromnir quote remains a complete separate issue. and now to stun... *sigh* "What? I did no such thing. I did the OPPOSITE. The subject here is, and always has been, about video game romances. It was YOU who decided that such a topic was too narrow, and so YOU branched off and began talking about Love; Romance in literature; how T.S. Elliot and F. Scott Fitzgerald define Love etc. etc." you musta' missed where we quoted you. am not certain how you could miss that. you said something stoopid. we called you on it. you fought needlessly. then you attributed a definition o' romantic love to imaginary promancers, a definition nobody has embraced. want us to quote your silly romance definition too? "Now then, lets get down to the brass tacks here. We are no discussing Love. We are not discussing romantic stories. We are not even discussing romances that occur in old books. We ARE discussing video game romances. Do you have a definition of what constitutes a video game romance or NOT?" great. finally. now we can get back to this nonsense: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70723-the-official-romance-thread/?p=1576847 whether it is novels or games, you are still wrong. "There's no such thing as a non-reciprocal romance." "There's no such thing as an unrequited romance." you are still wrong, and if you again backtrack to some ridiculous invented notion o' what you thinks all promancers Really mean by romance, we will laugh our self right outta our chair. whether is games or novel is not helping you. you are making yourself into a joke, and you don't even realize it. HA! Good Fun!

Never said otherwise. What i said however is that you and others reproach somebody to get back to the original matter of the discussion. and Gromnir observed that you not onlyy intentional misquoted us but mischaracterized stun's mistake, so much o' the rest o' your post.... *shrug* wanna talk about romance in general? that IS what the actual op topic is... in case you still hadn't recognized that fact. HA! Good Fun!

Lol Choosing to ignore the nonsensical ramblings of this forum's premier white noise producer, should not be interpreted to mean that an 'untenable' argument with Gromnir has been 'abandoned'. you complete changed the subject being discussed. your only explanation for doing so were that you were responding not to Gromnir but to your imagined definition o' romance from the promancer pov... or perhaps from the non-op poster. you were a bit confused on the matter. it were embarrassing. and no, Gromnir is not gonna provide you with his personal definition o' a romantic story. as we noted elsewhere, quibble over the minutae o' the definition is pointless. we objected to the following bit o' stun silliness: "There's no such thing as an unrequited romance." our definition is a distraction and doesn't in any way impact the silliness you backtracked into regarding some weird kinda generalization for promancers. you said something asinine. am not sure why you can't just man-up and admit your obvious mistake. HA! Good Fun! ps pardon us, what actual started your descent into madness were the following: "There's no such thing as a non-reciprocal romance." for all practical purposes, the differences is unimportant, but we expect you will wanna fight the detail.

we don't know any details about the expansion, but you can pay for it today. HA! Good Fun!

There's no debate, there's originally dudes who ask for the romance mechanic, this dialog mini-game which is about making npcs lose reason and sanity. Then people decided to talk about love in storytelling in general, 'cause the original discussion has ended a long time ago. I don't see how it's a stoopid thing to talk about the original subject of a thread. I think it's actually in every forum cores rules of the history of internet forums all over the web. However nobody ever really reproaches people to denature the concept we're discussing, at the point where it's absolutely pointless to talk about it. But, again, let's pretend the point of this thread was about romance in story-telling in general. Then let's witness that the one and only thing that keeps this discussion alive is that nobody, at all, still talks about romances as game mechanics. The original subject of any romance thread in the galaxy. Where do you see backpedaling in stunt messages. I'd rather say he sticks too much to the original debate which is over since several months. But then again how could I reproach him to stick to the original debate since the new one... isn't one at all. somebody isn't paying attention. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70723-the-official-romance-thread/ you may now correctly observe the original subject o' the thread. 'course that ignores the fact that what stun did were abandon his untenable argument with Gromnir, and sudden argue stun v. promancers, wherein he came up with a definition o' what promancers consider romance w/o actual being able to point to anybody that actual supports his definition. "Fixed." sorry, but not fixed. your attempted quote clear left something outta Gromnir's post 'cause what you fraudulently misrepresented as a Gromnir quote requires an extra infinitive... or two. "These "romances" you find good in ps:t, again, are just a matter of good writing." your point? am suspecting you complete missed our point that romances existed before the mini-game side-quests. they were indeed the product o' well-written character interactions. we noted elsewhere that the optional and tangential side-quests/mini-game romances is presenting a particular challenge for writers http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70723-the-official-romance-thread/?p=1576523 specifically: "in any event, the thing that prevents the tangential and optional companion romances from being anything more than pap for the slobbering promancers and the gibbering sjw crowd is the thing that makes 'em acceptable to Gromnir: they are tangential and optional. try and think o' a decent story with romance wherein the romance were complete tangential and coulda' been optional. ask a rpg writer to create a good romance arc. fine. now tell him/her that he must complete the entire arc with a half-dozen dialogue encounters and the entire romance must be optional and tangential to the main plot. "... "@#$%. @#$% U." it were our point that romance plots and sub-plots existed and were well-written in games previous to september 2000. the mechanic o' the tangential and optional side-quest/mini-game romances actual make writing compelling romance more difficult. am suspecting you is being intentional obtuse where stun simple flopped into his mess... but then again, perhaps we give you too much credit. HA! Good Fun!

you know, while we cook with a wide assortment o' alcoholic beverages such that we have a rather well-stocked liquor cabinet and wine rack, we do not drink booze. the thing is, we were always told that there is terrible peer pressure to drink and yet we only experienced some o' that once we got... old. the only folks that ever genuine pushed us to drink were our wasp bosses and our rugby mates... and the rugby guys backed off once we explained that we would break the nose o' the first guy that tried to force a drink into us as part o' a silly hazing ritual. typically when we mention that we don't drink, folks just say, "that's cool." we did have a roommate in college who 'pon hearing o' our reluctance to drink asked us, "well then, how do you talk to girls?" he were complete serious. as an aside, our friend/roommate were a 300lb offensive linemen with father issues. a couple o' times a year his parents would drive up from malibu to visit him at Cal. our friend's parents were quite wealthy and they would invariably take their son to an expensive restaurant when they visited. after dinner our friend would abuse peach schnapps-- it were a ritual and we did not pry. in the morning we would learn what were on the menu the previous night as _____________ repainted our bathroom with bile, schnapps and perhaps lobster or rack o' lamb. our desire to experiment with alcohol did not increase when we went to University. HA! Good Fun!