Cantousent

I wonder how much of that is sour grapes, though. I've heard howls of pain, hate, and anger about every new version of Dungeons and Dragons since Second. ...And there were probably people who bitched about changing to first edition from the boxed sets, only I didn't hear it. I will say that 4E looked a lot like it was going into an MMORPG kind of talent tree thing, but I never picked up the books or the game. With the computer taking care of the numbers, the edition doesn't matter as much I don't think.

How much would you say the player base is hardcore Star Wars fans as opposed to other folks. I don't mean that as a value judgment. After all, taking advantage of a strong player base is smart. I just wonder how much the game expands the MMRPG market.

I thought ToEE was kind of lackluster, but I liked it nevertheless. I enjoyed IWD 2 quite a bit. Even moreso, I loved IWD . I think IWD 2 suffered a little from being switched to something close to the actual 3.0 rules in the middle. At least that's how I remember it. I agree that the IWD series did the puzzles better than the BG series with the exception of the TotSC. If I remember it right, that's where they placed the tower flush with traps and doppelgangers. That place was actually spooky. I didn't think the 'story' was better in BG, what with the godspawn savior of the universe starts out as a lowly peon but becomes.... blah blah blah, but the NPC interactions were fun and you certainly missed that in the IWD series. I'm one of those crazy folks who actually liked what they did with Imoen in BG2. ...And BG2 definitely gave you a chance to make some NPC decisions a la PS:T. I've avoided DA2, but I have it on good authority that DA2 is better than the reviews would suggest, so maybe I should take a gander and see how Bioware pulled that off before getting too into a prospective remake of an old game.

Thanks, Gfted. I'm going to stay on the monk then, since most of my gaming these days is done solo. If I have time later, I'll spruce up the ol' demon huntress and get into some multiplayer games. One thing I have to say about the wizard, though, is that she has tons of great aoe and crowd control abilities. Between blizzard and timestop or nova, I think you can really slow 'em down. Do the companions ever do enough damage, have enough buffs, or provide enough crowd control to make a difference in which one I choose? The way I see it, the templar is a basic meat shield, the scoundrel is the highest damage (which isn't saying much), and the enchantress has the most cc like effects. ...But I haven't really paid that much attention, so maybe I'm not seeing it right.

That's a good heads up Red. I've managed to sell some of my low level rare gear for 200k or so, but then the well dried up. It has a lot to do with the number crunching for the level of the gear. Stuff that pops dps is probably more popular lower levels and stuff that pops survivability with maybe some solid help dps-wise probably sells for higher levels. That's just a guess, but I haven't spent much time at auction. I love my vengeful little demon hunter vixen, but she just doesn't have nearly the survivability of my monk at the same level. Of course, I've only played her to seventh level, so that could change. Even my monk is only into the second act. I'm hoping to get some time just to grind out the levels soon, though. I'm really torn. I've decided I don't want to invest my my nightmare mage, I prefer my demon huntress, but I think the monk might be a better bet for my eventual sojourn into hell and beyond. I hate to dither, though, so I'll have to decide which way to go. I might give my demon hunter til level 15 or so see if she shines.

The point was that someone might get a bonus for inviting a friend. I know that WoW gives bennies to folks for getting friends to play. Everyone I know plays WoW and so I figured I'd throw it out for the people here.

Yeah, Demon Hunter looks cool to me, but I don't want to replay every character on normal. Maybe I should cut my losses on the wizard and just dedicate myself to learning the ropes on the Demon Hunter. I want someone with excellent range dps and solid survivability and a bit of crowd control.

Sent away. When I get home, I'll check to see if the invite is there. If I play ten hours and still want to play, I'll shell out for a full month and then play it by ear. If it can't hold my interest for ten hours, I can't imagine it was ever going to be the game for me anyway. Either way, I'll have to share one more ToR noob experience in the thread after I've played a bit.

I'm officially willing to give it a shot now that it's free to play. Is there some sort of incentive to give someone a trial? If so, I'll take one from one of you guys to give it a shot. I probably won't team up as I don't know that I'll keep playing, but I'll create a character and play for a month on your trial membership if it will benefit anyone. If so, give me a holler and let me know.

New technology doesn't make us more sensitive or better people. Easier access to greater numbers of 'friends' doesn't make up for the lack of personal contact. I would say that the anonymity afforded by technology encourages us towards less tolerance rather than more. It's our responsibility to make sure we police ourselves on the internet, not only because it's good for other people but just as much because it's good for our own person. Even in actual warfare, the ability to kill people by use of remote control drones depersonalizes the target to the point where it might as well be a video game. That won't help us evolve to these spiritual beings of goodness and light, the idea of which I find often promoted by rather intolerant people in the first place. Nevertheless, online or in the grocery store, most people are pretty decent to one another. Yeah, you have gulags and gas chambers and atom bombs, but we've done a remarkably good job being good to one another. There will always be conflict over resources on the physical side and ideology on the spiritual side, but most of the time we just live our lives and go about our business.

See, no matter how bad (or more appropriately, laughable) the message, I think it's important to let the other guy talk. After, all, like I said earlier, a lot of folks on this board would love to see freedom of speech confined only by their own whims, which they would undoubtedly defend as purely sensible. It's not that I want to see obnoxious posts. It's just that I don't trust a small vocal minority to draw the line for us. ...And, for the most part, online gaming isn't all that bad. If you don't go out of your way to dwell on the jerks and don't take up your time answering their every obnoxious and intolerant statement, most games aren't really that bad. The worst is PvP, of course, but I don't know why someone who plays a game meant to visually simulate the carnage of war would be upset about someone beating his or her chest and acting like tarzan or, as also happens, being nasty to others based on his or her dubious concept of reason.

I actually worry about enrage timers for Diablo. The other bosses went down quick enough, but Diablo took a while to defeat with my wizard. I'm going to take a hard look and maybe (heaven forbid) number crunch the stats to see what could put ol' Diablow down faster. Otherwise, I still don't think nightmare will be that bad for the boss fights. For both my wizard and my monk, only getting completely and utterly surrounded, usually by being careless, meant real danger.

I usually like mages more than anything else, but she certainly didn't pack the punch I expected. On the other hand, maybe I just picked the wrong skills and runes. I played a little bit on nightmare and it didn't seem hard, but the part around Tristam could be lulling me into a false sense of security. I'm not one to worry about bragging rights and playing on the hardest setting. I just thought it was a bit too lenient. From what you guys are saying, I should plug away a bit longer on my main character and see how it plays. Fair enough. :Cant's broad grin icon:

I laughed. out. loud, ya bastard. As for you, Neutral, I wouldn't classify my attitude as rationalized passivity. In fact, while I can't speak for anyone else, I would say that I'm quite active in that I believe our essential right to speak is more important than our feelings. In my experience over the years, most truly nasty exchanges have been mutual. Yes, one person might have started it, but it continued by reciprocated responses. The other observation I will make, and Kirottu mentioned this also, is that truly nasty exchanges tend to be personal rather than race/sex/sexual orientation based. The exception is religious discussions which tend to devolve into wide spread mayhem very quickly. In most terms of service I have seen, excessive bigotry can lead to censure or ban by the company running the servers. That's perfectly fair. Private companies should have the right to police behavior on privately owned servers. One caveat: the freedom of speech in the US generally means something more permissive than the laws in many countries. Canada, for instance, is far more restrictive. I respect the stance in Canada, but I disagree with it. A free exchange of ideas is absolutely vital in a representative government. It's not that I'm passive about the issue. It's that I'm entirely and actively against unnecessary restriction of speech, even when I despise what someone else has to say. Of course, I'm going to visit someone from Canada next month, and I don't want to get myself in hot water by disparaging the great nation of Canada in any way. :Cant's tongue in cheek icon:

I don't see a problem with game publishers or social media sites enforcing regulations. No one is forcing people to buy the product. If you don't like manner and severity of the regulation, don't buy the game. That's true of every aspect of the game. If you find games in which angels and devils fight over the fate of humanity, don't buy Diablo. If you don't like games where people kill one another, don't buy Modern Warfare. if you don't like talking pieces of lego, don't buy Lego Universe. If the government forced me to buy the product, I would demand a much greater say in what that product was or did.

I think my problem is that the ideal is more important than the actuality for me. I want to protect freedom of speech, but it really takes a lot to get me angry. So, I'm arguing for freedom to be a nasty even though I tend to try not to be so myself. I think the biggest problem with the internet is that in real life you'd either have one backing down or a fight and subsequent intervention by bystanders or authorities whereas in the internet, folks can get away with almost anything. I guess I just hope that people will police themselves rather than requiring someone else to police them.

The laws that address speech are two things this organization is not, at least in the United States: 1. Used sparingly and 2. Enacted by elected representatives. If this group were an elected body that used it's power sparingly and took pains to protect the rights of minority views, I'd be all for it. That's not what it is. It's a group of self appointed autocrats. Contrast that with how you and Fionavar run this very board. You allow great leeway in terms of speech and yet it's really not all that bad. A lot more freedom and yet a lot less restrictive. EDIT: You know, think I overstated the goals by a bit. I don't really think that the organization wants to be autocratic. I just think the movement is misguided. Also, Gorth, in all the time I've been posting here, even though less lately, do you really think I've acted like a bigot or been hateful to other folks? I just believe freedom should trump personal feelings. I believe that we cannot 'change the nature of a man.' We're better off going for the stated goal of the organization, namely vowing not to be dickheads, without actually making a big deal about it.

Yeah, but do you really want some outside group to decide what speech should be allowed or not? As for you, Delfosse, I tried to skim over my comments and see what popped out at me. I would say that I got to 'flamewar' and 'Gromnir,' broke out in a cold sweat, and then couldn't skim any longer. Weird game, but now I'm curious.

I don't normally get involved in these big internet navel gazing issues anymore, but this one caught my eye. As I see it, the problem isn't bigotry anyway. By use, bigotry generally refers to individuals who show marked intolerance towards groups of people. For example, a bigot hates gays, blacks, Jews, or some other minority group. The problem with the internet isn't nearly one of bigotry, which is itself by and large incidental in these large gaming communities. The problem with the internet is complete and utter nastiness on a personal level. I know, from PMs and comments and other things that some people online despise me. In real life, I tend to get along with folks. Also, in real life I'm a big, mean looking son of a bitch and most folks who talk big on the internet would spend a lot of time mumbling and looking at their shoe laces if they met me in real life, which is also sad considering I'm such a softy at heart. Anonymity, lack of consequences, and (if we were to be honest) the demographics make rudeness more common in online gaming, but I'm usually surprised that people are generally pretty decent to one another online. When they aren't, it's actually quite easy to avoid or ignore them as long as you don't get into a snit and insist on responding in kind to slights. Back, a long time ago, I used to get into epic flamewars with Grom. Of course, at some point in time, who didn't? lol Anyhow, would I get into a flame war with him in real life? Probably not. I'm a nice guy and he's probably quite personable in real life. ...And if I did tangle with him, he'd probably beat me up. After all, I was in great shape while I was in the Navy, but now I'm a fat middle aged white guy with a heart condition. :Cant's wry grin icon: The upshot is, most folks who suffer abuse lead with their chins and then refuse to put the other person on ignore. It takes two to dance and that is nowhere more true than on the internet. The other thing I'll point out is that I'm not comfortable with someone else deciding what is or is not bigotry or appropriate speech. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean that you can say what you want. It means that you have to accept that the other guy can say what he wants also. When we say one group can engage in speech without any consequence and another group should be denied the same right, we're diminishing our freedoms. I have literally had some ignoramous on this board tell me I was a racist because I would not vote for then candidate Obama. I didn't get mad. I don't know that I said much in response at all, simply hoping the ignorance of his statement would be evidence enough to defend me. If this person had his way, I'm sure that he would come up with a standard of free speech that would mean more or less speech that agreed with his view. That is no freedom at all for anyone other than the person who decides what should be free or not because, when you accept that those freedoms come from anywhere other than God or nature, you relinquish those freedoms. The underpinnings of our basic human rights and freedoms relies on the fact that they come from beyond human authority. So, for that reason if no other, I don't want some internet vigilante group deciding what would make me a bigot or not. After all, some people would say I'm a bigot based solely on the fact that I'm a practicing Roman Catholic. How's that for enlightened tolerance for ya?

Yeah, maybe I'll go forward with my wizard and see if higher difficulties are more challenging. I suspect the wizard might be the hardest character (either that or I'm playing her wrong). I used to play on the lan all the time, but now my ol' skool lanning buddies want to play Dungeons and Dragons when we can get together instead (which would actually be a good thing except for the way they like to run the game, which is a separate topic altogether). The upshot is, sitting around drinking beer with friends, ordering some pizzas, and making fun of each other when we die is the best way to play Diablo. It's just not the same without all those things. Still, the game was fun enough to finish once and I'm still slowly plugging away at it. I don't tend to buy stuff at auction, but I might get more into that sort of thinking once I really need better gear to survive. Meanwhile, I'm just wondering if this is going to be the last game in the franchise. It seems like it's all wrapped up to me. No more Diablos?

I've only finished the game on normal, mostly because I can't take the proper amount of time to play. A couple of observations: 1) The game is easy. I never died in a boss fight. The only times my mage died was getting surrounded. ...And, having tried the monk before I even came here to see, I can say that I agree with the assessment that the monk is far easier in the first part of the game, which I started recently. I'm going to create a hardcore demon hunter or barbarian next, I think, but the monk, in my limited experience, might be the best hardcore character. 2) The game is kind of boring. I'll probably play one more run as something other than the boring ol' monk, like I said. I have almost a million gold off of low level rare auctions, which I think is ridiculous. Still, it's entertaining enough to give one or two characters a try. Probably the demon hunter.

I'll probably have to buy this one. I'm going to wait a few days to see what folks here say and then, reading on and between the lines here, I'll see if it's worth a shot. I don't always agree with folks on this board, but I do have a good feel for how the biases fall.

I agree with a lot of what you said, Super Cal, but the fact remains that the structure of the game, and the requirements of badges (or points or whatever they're using now) are high enough that you have to have something more than just guildies to grind dailies. I haven't played for a while, but if things have changes significantly, I'm sure you'll let me know. Frankly, I think the game has been a haven for elitist pigs for a long long time. I do think trade channel has been aweful for a good while, but that was true even before the extensive lfg function. Now, I will say that looking for raid was just starting to be functional when I left but, if I read gifted right, lfr still doesn't cover the very latest end game raids. If that's the case, you still can't be a complete and utter ****head or you won't last in a guild. On the flip side, even without lfr, stupid asses fixating on loot drops diminished the game. Frankly, I have still never never fought over loot drops in any game. In defense of folks who have complained about loot drops, I can say that I've seen some punk assed **** in regards to deserving people getting screwed by good ol' boy loot masters in raids. Hell, I've been one of them, but bitching about virtual loot drops is beneath me. I know I'm a little on the lubricated side right now, but that doesn't change a damned thing about the essence of what I've said. EDIT: For my sins, I probablly will try ToR. I think Bioware has had their good and bad moments, but I've heard enough good stuff to give it a chance, even though I expect it will be briefly.

I will point out that I even let you try to kill Blank, and without letting him know you were, but I still thought you were a bastard! lol

Eh, I dont know about that. While I agree that there is much less "community" and you do run into a huge pile of tards in LFG I think LFG/LFR is an adequate tool to prevent people from hitting that wall. I mean, I dont have to be your buddy to down bosses. Although I do wish raid finder didnt stick you in those lower difficulty raids. If SWTOR had this tool from the beginning I would probably still be playing. LFR obviously wasn't around back when I did the experiment I described, but I don't see it doing anything at all socially - it merely advances the effectively solo play experience one more step before encountering the same wall. By that note though I'll have to admit my experience with LFR is minimal - I did it for the first two to three weeks of its release but left it because it was neither fun (partly because of the anonymous nature of LFR and partly because Dragon Soul is a terribly designed raid) nor necessary to fuel normal (and subsequently heroic) raid progression. I did not use the tool at all for my last three or so months of WoW. Admittedly my last month was literally just logging on for a raid twice a week, bang my head against questionably designed hardmode bosses and logging out straight after, and doing absolutely nothing else. Was good to get heroic Spine on literally the last day of my subscription though. I just popped in to take a look around and noticed this. I haven't played World of Warcraft for about a year now, but LFG was in place for some months before I closed my account. I don't think it had much of an impact one way or the other in terms of group cohesion for most folks. The reality is, if you want to stay in the running for current end game raiding, you had to grind out more dailies at the start of each expansion than most guilds could provide in members. Hell, half the time you were LFG with other guildies. As a healer, I was in demand with guildies, so that might have impacted how I experienced it, but it didn't make any difference, you had to grind grind grind anyhow and lfg just made it that much easier.