Namutree

Really? The prohibition of marijuana is 10,000x the problem that recreational marijuana use is. I'm going to go out on a limb and say your statistical analysis might be a bit off. I'm for intelligent legalization, but there are a ton of problems that need to be addressed. The DUI question alone is a huge puzzle. It was hyperbole. I didn't mean that literally.

Really? The prohibition of marijuana is 10,000x the problem that recreational marijuana use is.

As I already said: It is not a 'conservative' vs. 'liberal' or whomever issue. Never has been. While that statement is true; Bruce mentioned conservatives in relation to prohibition. So I talked about prohibition supporting 'conservatives' as they incorrectly deem themselves. I wasn't trying to imply that only the 'conservatives' are for prohibition. Let me ask you this. If a state pushes a law like prohibition or forced racial segregation on people; should that blatant violation of their personal/private property be acceptable?

Not to mention that the "rebel" (yeah right; obviously the Millennium Falcon is an empire owned ship. It's previous owner, "Lando Calrissian" leads a city which came under Empire protection shortly AFTER the Death Star was destroyed; coincidence?) ship didn't even fire at Vader. It fired on a nearby Tie fighter for no apparent reason, and it veered him off course. What are the odds of that? 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000? If it really was a rebel ship it would have fired on the lead ship since it was the most able to shoot down the rebel fighter. Wake up SHEEPLE!!!

Gamers are an ISIS full of Hitlers. That's why we got Chong to be a nazi back in the good old days.

To be fair the Articles of Confederation era of the US was only ever meant to be temporary. The founders themselves would be the ones to end the idea that the states are sovereign. As for your concern for state's rights: The usefulness of state's rights is only really a result of a deeper problem; the government governs too much. When the founders established our legal system they intended for the US to develop towards John Locke philosophy, but we lost our way (mainly due to Christian zealots). Deal with the lack of John Locke, and you'll fix the problems with the federal government. Personally, I don't see what's so great about state's rights. Sure, in this case it give us more freedom, but what if weed was federally legal? Would you support an individual state's right to ban it? I say f**k that. I'll accept state's rights only when it conforms to John Locke philosophy; otherwise 'state's rights' can give us things like Jim Crow. I agree but I suppose you have to have some exceptions like Heroine which most countries criminalize and don't allow you to legally consume because of the addictive nature of the substance Nope, no exceptions needed. Most of our history there was no drug prohibition at all, and that position conforms to our founding values. Anyone accepting less than NO prohibition of any kind is both wrong, and NOT a conservative (in the US). They can call themselves conservative if they like, but it's a lie.

Some people hate that for some reason. This post might finally shed light on why.

It's f**king bull**** that weed (or any drug) is illegal. One would think that the self described, 'conservatives' would be interested in traditional American values, but no; they're just statist radicals. The government has no right to determine what we do or do not consume.

If that's the case then forget what I said. I was under the impression this was a standard area.

It matters as general exploration shouldn't be as dangerous as exploring a dungeon. There is one case in BG1 where they can be a threat because there are like 10 of them in this one spot. Besides that 1 instance; they are never a threat. In BG1 there are areas that must be crossed to access the primary cities of the game. There are also zones near these cities. These are the basic game world where players are expected to operate in order to complete the game. These areas should operate the way I have stated previously; trash shouldn't be a threat to a mid-level party in these 'basic' areas. On the edges of the world map however, things are a lot more dangerous. The plot never requires or even suggest you should go to these areas. As a result; it is more acceptable to make these areas challenging as noob players are unlikely to visit them. The 10 Ogre location is in such an area. The Basilisk Den is a good example of a difficult area that is off the beaten path. Had there been Basilisks just below Beregost; it would have been horrible. There is no way new players would be ready for that kind of challenge. Even if they were; they might be more in the mood to go to Neshkel than be so seriously challenged. Best to keep the idea of challenging trash mobs away from basic areas like Dyford Crossing.

Maybe engagement should be a special condition that only special monsters and warrior classes can do. As a result, you could still use engagement to protect your weaker units, but most enemies won't do it to you so you can still retreat. Also, there could be a limit on how often you can engage an enemy per battle. Maybe once the enemy has paid the disengagement cost (a free attack) you can't be sucked back into it. Combine that 4ward's idea that engagement should require a melee attack (I don't think the attack should need to land) and you have a mechanic that is much less annoying, but still fulfills it's basic purpose.

A) Winter wolves pose no threat to a mid-level party. B) Umberhulks aren't found outside, and it is generally understood that the game should be tougher in a dungeon. C) Ogres don't pose a threat to a mid-level party. In 1 section of BG1 they do, but that was a high-level area far off the beaten path. D) On the main paths back and forth they were just a casual romp through gibberlings/wolves/gnolls. Are you suggesting that Dyford Crossing is a special high difficulty area?

Maybe she's joking?

Getting butthurt over the inclusion or lack of inclusion of kiting gameplay. Imagine that. Who's butthurt over the lack of inclusion of kiting gameplay? As of now kiting is very possible in poe.

Nothing much more to add here. Guess I'll have to admit a certain casualness regarding combat. If I have to really think about all the resources at my disposal to get through a single thrash mob without losing a party member thats just draining on my enjoyment and patience. If playing on easy and normal it should be the other way around, with a mid level party against random nature critters it should be, more or less, optional to activate spells and abilities. By this I mean that it should be near impossible to die but using spells, items and abilities still reduces the damage your party takes and speeds up the encounter. Exactly. Just to add insult to injury; they won't even give xp. The question isn't going to be how many casuals rage-quit, but rather how many don't.

Maybe the mods are giving you a different impression of the IE games than what they really were.

That's right. Over here it's usually called the French and Indian war.

Right, the intention was to create a mechanism where enemies could not freely waltz around warriors. That's all this statement provides. This is known. In a game where tactics are exalted (one of the three Pillars), why would they deliberately toss out or ignore weapon reach for a mechanic about tactical positioning? Your citation and following argument are not persuasive that engagement is intended to function outside of weapon reach. Every mechanic, desirable or otherwise, suggests that positioning is a significant factor in PoE combat. The questionable choice to have moment delay cool-downs, engagement itself, various class abilities circumventing engagement, weapon reach. These are all things were positioning is mechanically significant. To deliberately ignore weapon reach in a mechanic purposefully created to create tactical movement considerations would be beyond bizarre. My first point was that they weren't going for simulation. The update doesn't talk of realism or the game making sense; only that they thought that gameplay would be better with engagement than without it. So no; engagement is not a 'simulation' feature. The second point is that weapon reach is NEVER MENTIONED. Do you know what that suggests? That it doesn't matter. Weapon reach affecting disengagement has never been implemented. Do you know what that suggests? That it doesn't matter. There is no reason whatsoever to think weapon range is ever going to be a factor in disengagement attacks.

This is only more evidence that my thesis that trash mobs should be easy (at least for a mid-level party), and special battles should be difficult. Many casual gamers will rage quit over the very idea that they could actually die to trash mobs at mid-levels.

Yes, yes, lovely drawing. Where's the direct quotation with a link that engagement is deliberately designed to ignore weapon reach? I don't want to be wrong in this, true. Not for the sake of ego, but for the sake of this game. Engagement deliberately allowing characters to strike beyond weapon reach is ridiculous. Citation first please. Smug gloating later. This is from update #44: Rules of Melee Engagement: Proof that engagement isn't meant to be simultionist- Melee engagement is a solution to two common problems in the Infinity Engine games: melee characters' inability to control an area and ranged characters' ability to "kite" melee characters. In the Infinity Engine games, melee characters could be quite powerful in toe-to-toe combat, but many opponents found ways to foil those characters with little difficulty. Fast characters could easily rush around a slower melee character with impunity and ranged characters could backpedal perpetually out of reach. Note that 'realism' or anything like that was never mentioned. There is no proof that weapon range wasn't supposed to affect disengagement, but such an idea was never mentioned. Also such an idea hasn't been implemented. This suggests that it was never intended. Until further notice, we should be talking about engagement as though weapon range isn't a factor; as this is most likely the case.

If engagement is designed to work independent of weapon reach, then I will most certainly, if woefully, eat crow.

Unfair? What if I want to just sit at the inn and drink beer because thats the kind of adventurer I am - I will be seriously under-leveled - is that fair? It's completely fair, since any game that lets you sit at the bar and drink - day in and day out - will never place your character in danger for doing so. That is to say, a level 1 adventurer who wishes only to sit at a bar and drink, does not NEED to gain levels. His continued survival is guaranteed. The same cannot be said for combat or questing. Not necessarily so - if it is to be an alternative then the possibility of alcohol or food poisoning , falling off unsteady barstools, engaging in risky sex, the threat of bar room brawls, and other such pitfalls must all be accounted for! Food/Alcohol poisoning probably won't be in the game. Nor will players be falling off bar stools. Engaging in risky sex also won't be in the game. Bar room brawls; if in the game should give xp. So... Yeah, no xp for drinking in a bar.

A Republican president would've kept some troops in Iraq until they were no longer needed, instead of recklessly throwing away all the sacrifice. So... Eternity. The sacrifice was thrown away the moment it was made. The longer way stayed; the more we'd be sacrificing.

I would.

Yu-Gi-Oh the Abridged Series reference noted...