decebal

Jmods confirmed offhand weapons will be p2p only. No surprises there then..always something to lure ftp'ers into buying membership Wouldn't be surprising if everything outside of an ultimate and a filler in every skill being members only, either.

I'm ready for my dual wielding crossbows.

That's not a tl;dr, that's an assumption. And a very ill-informed one at that. Anyway, barring any "PC is superior" comments (which it is if you like modding, and shelling out cash to make an amazing rig), the game franchises you like define what console you should get. Like Halo and Gears of War? Go for a 360. Like Uncharted and Killzone? Go for a PS3. For me, personally, I preffer the ps3, I won't deny that. I've been in love with the Resistance series because Insomniac isn't afraid of making things hopeless to the point that the main character has to be killed. Also, the ps3 has a higher limit on the number of players it can support in one match for many games (MAG, R2), although I'm not sure if that's a hardware thing or a developer's choice. The only weakness I've seen lately with the PS3 architecture is that it is a lot more rigid in RAM usage, which led to lag (thankfully fixed) in Skyrim. The fact that many multi-platform titles tend to be ported over to the PS3 also means that sometimes they don't pay as much attention to the final product (with Bethesda being the main culprit here). Then again the PS3 has half the RAM the 360 has, so it's bound to happen from time to time. I'm not that great when it comes to computer hardware, but from what I see the problem isn't the fact that the PS3 has half the RAM, it's that its RAM is split into 256 MB for the XDR DRAM, and 256 MB on the GDDR 3 card for video memory, while the 360 uses the same 512 MB GDDR 3 memory card to achieve both processes.

It's definitely not just you, I am merely stating something I've noticed about the PS3 that I find enjoyable. I know, that in those 30 vs. 30 TD's, I will have 5 Fareye snipers ready for me to cross their sights, 8 Wraith [bleep] spinning their miniguns ready to burst my face open, 5 more Marksmen ready to take me out before I can take them out, 6 Augers observing me through walls, the occasional Rossmore shotgunner or Splicer wreaking havoc whenever you go indoors, a Bellock user wreaking havoc and pain from atop a building, and a couple of Bullseyes tagging you, with a few carbine users waiting for your corpse to be lifeless so that they can loot their 40mm grenades. Not everyone likes this chaos (which is why you only see about 2 matches like this on the R2 servers), and some people preffer the more calm Skirmish mode where you gain points in smaller squads (similar to MAG), but I just love that feeling when you dodge bullets like Spiderman :mrgreen: . That's kind of the reason why I never got into R3. Of course though, some people do preffer the smaller 8 vs 8 games, which is why many developers opt to go that route instead. As I've said, it really is a matter of personal choice.

Good luck on your goals, nice to see someone still playing F2P RS :thumbsup: . And fyi, there were no rares removed by Jagex because of the duping glitch, as there was no way of telling which ones were real, and which ones were fake.

That's not a tl;dr, that's an assumption. And a very ill-informed one at that. Anyway, barring any "PC is superior" comments (which it is if you like modding, and shelling out cash to make an amazing rig), the game franchises you like define what console you should get. Like Halo and Gears of War? Go for a 360. Like Uncharted and Killzone? Go for a PS3. For me, personally, I preffer the ps3, I won't deny that. I've been in love with the Resistance series because Insomniac isn't afraid of making things hopeless to the point that the main character has to be killed. Also, the ps3 has a higher limit on the number of players it can support in one match for many games (MAG, R2), although I'm not sure if that's a hardware thing or a developer's choice. The only weakness I've seen lately with the PS3 architecture is that it is a lot more rigid in RAM usage, which led to lag (thankfully fixed) in Skyrim. The fact that many multi-platform titles tend to be ported over to the PS3 also means that sometimes they don't pay as much attention to the final product (with Bethesda being the main culprit here).

English, Romanian (amusingly enough, although Romanian is my mother tongue, I speak English a lot better), and French (although I usually have to ask people to repeat what they just said when I speak to them).

WOL is not developed by Jagex. They just publish the game. I know that. What I am wondering is how a game such as 8Realms is shutting down its servers, yet War of Legends is still going after being on the market for a while. I remember being part of the beta for WoL and how, although hyped up, people did see that it was just another Evony clone.

I've been saying the same thing to my friend, but he still believes the Thunder will win in 5... I should've placed a bet against him :razz: .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AQr06ZUlR0& I don't usually listen to dubstep, but when I do, it's Zeds Dead.

Should it come down to this, though? I respect Jagex enough to say that this scenario would most likely not happen, but looking at what they've started doing with the SoF, they aren't that far away from reaching this point.

I understand everybody hates the SoF. My point is that they're overreacting. You get two free items a day. If you want to pay money, you can get more. If you don't want to "waste" your money, then don't buy more. As far as other people go-- what they choose to do with their resources is none of your business. People would be less upset if they worried more about themselves and less about everybody else. And if this SoF issue is upsetting everybody that much, then they have the option to quit and choose a game that offers better gameplay and customer service. It's pretty obvious that Jagex isn't going to significantly change their ways any time soon. Either deal with it or get out. I don't have any sympathy for the people complaining about an issue that they can choose to abandon at any given time. The people complaining about these updates are usually the ones that are too lazy/stubborn to adapt to change. I don't know about the others, but the reason why I hate the SoF isn't because of the fact that it's a cashgrab (admittedly, I never liked companies that do things for the money), but because this is not part of the values I used to respect in Jagex. I used to respect Jagex a lot because they were willing to say "Look, we understand free players don't like membership stuff, so we won't be stuffing them with messages to become a member". I will get a lot of hate for this, but I also liked the balls Jagex showed when they tried eliminating nearly all rule-breaking on that fateful day on Dec 10, 2007. Then they sold their souls to the Devil (I don't even feel like I'm exaggerating one bit). They pulled a full 180 and started posting membership benefits every way I am looking, they started "silently" promoting RWT, they relaxed on the botting rules to the point that I can't cut a single damn yew tree, and then I see Jagex saying that they still "listen" to the players. They aren't listening to us, they are listening to the jingling of our wallets. In short, I feel cheated. It's like that moment in the hospital when the doctor tells you it won't hurt one bit, then the next 5 seconds are excruciatingly painful as the nurse misses the vein.

I have to agree with this one. I had to read The Stranger for school, and although I found it to be moving at a very slow pace at the start, the ideas running through his head, his indifference to his fiancee, his emotionless (yet emotional) actions all make a character that I respect due to the peculiarities of his personality. I know this sounds strange, but I feel like I am partially like him... Buck (Call of the Wild by Jack London) I still remember when I was seven and my parents bought this book, telling me that I will really like this (I was going through a stage where I watched Animal Planet a lot when it first came out). I couldn't stop myself from reading it. It is so childish having a loving animal as a main character, however the ruthlessness he had to endure and his feral personality made Buck stand out in my childhood. Bernard Marx (Brave New World by Aldous Huxley) Although I can see John being more likeable to some people, Bernard stood out to me because he was rebellious in a way, however he still bowed down to the social customs he hates. The fact that he feels inferior due to his height, but does not realize his other shortcomings also make me find him more likeable, as strange as it seems. Man, I really love these sad characters, don't I :???: ?

So, if this game crash and burned, how is War of Legends still going?

While this was a lackluster E3, I still can't wait for Last of Us, Watch_Dogs, and Dishonored.

I heard about it a few months later when I first found Tip.it I believe. :mrgreen: Tbh, greatest, and saddest, glitch in rs ever, behind the phat duplication glitch.

Organization? Yes. I find their front office to be great, and Doc Rivers a great coach. Team? No. Ray Allen is classy, but Garnett taunts like a gorilla, , and Pierce just generally flops for offensive fouls, then complains the other way when he gets an offensive foul for the same thing. As for the upcoming Finals, I really have no clue who's gonna win. The Heat are entitled for at least one championship, but the Thunder has blossomed into a homegrown juggernaut. The fact that their big three (Durant, Westbrook, and Harden) have all been drafted by the Thunder just shows how great the organization is at choosing the right pieces for a team.

I'm thinking this was just his one bad game in many, but I didn't like his efficiency that game ( 8 of 24 FG%, 0 of 3 from the three-point line, 4 of 7 from the free-throw line). Fortunately, his other games showed that he doesn't just shoot a lot, but also efficiently (58% FG% in the other games where he averaged 20+ points). His consistent assists also show that he isn't afraid to pass the ball, however his turnover rate is all over the place (4.6 per game so far, twice that of Chris Paul). I can see opposing teams take advantage of that.

Not quite, I said that people either become married or become outcasts.

Muggi, you're preaching the Bible in a Mosque. You won't convince most people in this thread. However, I do believe you have a point, seeing that today's society allows an individual to be independent enough from others to procure almost anything they need or want through money. The problem though is that we are still a gregarious species, that prefers to live as couples due to tradition and mentality. Because of this reason, people marry nowadays; whoever disagrees with this succumbs to pressure and eventually marries, or becomes a pariah in society (one day, you will succumb to this too, Muggi, don't forget that). If the mentality of society doesn't change to accept polyamorous lifestyles, then the advantages of being in polyamorous relationships are diminished, because of the anxiety and depression that arises will make a polyamorous individual a lot less content. By the way, some might disagree, but this is probably the most interesting discussion I've seen on this thread.

I was skeptical at first too, there's been several players that have had a couple 'hot' games but other then that they've been average. He might face some troubles when he greats matched up against a younger faster team. I'm not too worried about that, he has D'Antoni for a coach, the guy runs his players as if their life depended on it. If he can survive in that style of an offense, he won't have much trouble against faster teams because of the pace he's already playing at. I'm more worried about the fact that other teams now have his number. As I'm typing, coaches and scouts are probably perusing game tape, trying to find weaknesses in his play. They'll get some good strategies against him, and then he'll have to adapt. Don't forget that star players can easily hit 50+ points if left alone (see Kobe in 2006 when he dropped 81 points on the Raptors), but when constantly double teamed, they'll be forced to get rid of the ball prematurely, weakening their impact on the game (using Bryant as an exmaple again, back in the '08 Finals, the Celtics used to double team Bryant as often as possible, with even quad teams to make him pass the ball).

I admit, I wasn't too sold about Lin until yesterday's game. Now that I have seen what he is capable of, I am a big fan of him. Although he is now a target by the other teams, let's see how he can handle that.

I preffer the sword + shield combo. I'm a walking tank that can do 500 damage in one hit, without having to wait for any casting, with enough armour on me to take on giants as if they were skeevers. Although, I admit, I like the pretty lights a Fire Mage can make =P~

Freud focused on matters which were taboo at the time, such as the idea that everyone has incestual feelings. His methods were also very un-scientific, seeing that it was hard to test his theories. Just put it this way: would you listen to a guy that said you think of penises, cocaine is a wonder drug, and that you want to have sex with your mother?

A society where people are in open relationships? I think I read a book about that... Anyway, my view on this: monogamy is human nature, looking at the fact that there are quite a few species of animals that engage in monogamous, however marriage is a creation of society to keep stability and order within it. The only problem with this though is that marriage was not originally built for loving relationships; it was built as a form of financial agreement between two families. Men in many societies used to give dowries to the family of their betrothed. If the dowry is accepted, then the woman's family is a few goats richer, the woman has someone to provide for them (seeing that women, during those times, were believed to be most useful at home), and the man can now have progeny. However, nowadays society has evolved in such a way that it romanticizes marriage, while the original reason why monogamous marriage existed (an exchange of goods and a form of protection) has largely been nullified because current society allows for people to live freely on their own, without running into any financial troubles. This change in society's norms means that people are much more able to cheat and have affairs, because we don't rely on our spouses as much anymore, however we still live with this notion that a marriage lasts forever, and that we have a "significant other" to care for. In my opinion, this leads to a "role confusion" in society as a whole where people are expecting something out of their life (marriage), and then they realize they have no need for it, therefore they engage in extra-marital affairs. This is not "abnormal", it's just an adaptation of society.