User information for m00t

Real Name
m00t
Nickname
None given.
Email
Concealed by request
Description
m00t
Homepage
None given.

Supporter

Signed On
March 4, 2003
Total Posts
418 (Amateur)
User ID
16358
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
418 Comments. 21 pages. Viewing page 8.
Newer [  1    3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18    21  ] Older
11.
 
Re: No subject
Apr 14, 2008, 19:48
11.
Re: No subject Apr 14, 2008, 19:48
Apr 14, 2008, 19:48
 
I read somewhere that Atari is expecting this game to sell 2-3 million copies.

Um, good luck with that. The game may turn out great but unfortunately, quality != sales. Survival horror is a relatively niche genre, after all. Some may point out RE4 as a counter-example except that just reinforces my point. RE4 was action horror, not survival horror. It wasn't until the series really focused on action that it really gained mainstream appeal.

I hope Alone in the Dark does well but I highly doubt it'll do as well as Atari is expecting.


But it's based on the critically acclaimed movie by Uwe Boll. HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY BE WRONG?!?!

----
And for those of you that just simply don't get it, that was sarcastic and intentionally inaccurate.

28.
 
Re: WoW Bot
Mar 26, 2008, 14:00
28.
Re: WoW Bot Mar 26, 2008, 14:00
Mar 26, 2008, 14:00
 
if they just implemented a bot check/security feature like many of the free online downloading services,
What's interesting is that WoW China I believe does have a lot of features like this to make it more difficult for trojans to figure out what your password is and steal stuff from guild banks. I wonder why they don't do it in the US also.

25.
 
Re: People always have, always will...
Mar 26, 2008, 13:43
25.
Re: People always have, always will... Mar 26, 2008, 13:43
Mar 26, 2008, 13:43
 

Over a 5 year period I netted about $40,000 from buying/selling online game items/accounts. I don't care if Blizzard doesn't approve, I'd do it all over again in a heartbeat.


This I generally don't care about. The only reason it concerns me is that it is a motivator for people to develop trojans and hack peoples' computers/accounts. Once real money is involved, people will go to ever greater lengths to get some of it at the expense of innocent people.

Other than that, buy/sell/trade by all means.

21.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 26, 2008, 13:04
21.
Re: No subject Mar 26, 2008, 13:04
Mar 26, 2008, 13:04
 
Well I think it's pretty cut and dry. It's a private game on private servers and you AGREE to their rules when playing the game.

I don't quite agree with Vivendi's way of approaching the guy, but they do run a business.


This just gives them carte blanche to ban people from the game. It isn't necessarily grounds for a legal victory, particularly with a Copyright slant to it.

14.
 
Re: RAM
Mar 26, 2008, 11:24
14.
Re: RAM Mar 26, 2008, 11:24
Mar 26, 2008, 11:24
 
I'm willing to bet that's a gross over simplification of the actual complaint...

As for bots... they impact the gameplay of other players rather significantly. I don't think blizzard cares if people who use bots stop playing (otherwise why would they ban them?)
but they do consume CPU / net resources.

Likewise they're often used by gold farmers. Gold farmers tend to try to monopolize some segments of the in-game market and force players to buy from them at high rates and then in turn try to get people to pay them real $ for the gold they've gained through the AH so that people can afford the AH prices driven up by gold farming...
And once real $ is involved, people will go a long way to get it, leading to a lot of account hacks and trojans for stealing passwords.

So it's not *just* that people are botting and he created it. It's part of a broad spectrum of abuse that is partially facilitated by the bots.

8.
 
Re: World Domination system
Mar 25, 2008, 16:57
8.
Re: World Domination system Mar 25, 2008, 16:57
Mar 25, 2008, 16:57
 
Risk basically divides up the world in to a collection of Territories. Each territory has some quantity of units on it that are assigned to defend. On your turn (In Risk anyway), you can take some of the units on a territory and attack an adjacent territory and the units guarding it. In Risk you could attack as many times per turn that you wanted as long as you had the units available. You just wanted to make sure you didn't leave an area too poorly defended as you often did not have a mass of units on territories farther from the front lines.


Rise of Nations also had a mode like this, as did one of the Dawn of War expansions, though obviously not on Earth
This comment was edited on Mar 25, 16:58.
1.
 
No subject
Mar 21, 2008, 22:14
1.
No subject Mar 21, 2008, 22:14
Mar 21, 2008, 22:14
 
World's hardest game: 8/30 so far. Some are pretty hard.

14.
 
Re: So What Is The Combat Like?
Mar 19, 2008, 14:56
14.
Re: So What Is The Combat Like? Mar 19, 2008, 14:56
Mar 19, 2008, 14:56
 

edit: Looks like it's all space combat like Homeworld. I've never tried one of these. Not sure I'll like it. Guess I could try it out...


Honestly, it's a lot more simple than Homeworld. The 3rd dimension is mostly for look and feel and has only a small bearing on gameplay. Generally you don't spend much time worrying about it. The only times I really notice it is when my ships path over/under a star or when two planet nodes are very close to each other.

Overall it's pretty fun. It's a fair bit different from CoH in that you'll probably focus mostly on your capital ships and lesser units are generally expendable (though you should still try to not lose them...). The scale is quite a bit larger with some maps spanning up to 5 star systems.

Homeworld was a bit more hardcore sci-fi in its implementation. SoaSE is more relaxed.

7.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 18, 2008, 13:15
7.
Re: No subject Mar 18, 2008, 13:15
Mar 18, 2008, 13:15
 
Except for the government which, contrary to popular belief, provide some useful services. Like road maintenance. I hear folks use roads now and then. Public defenders. (In theory) oversight and prosecution of corporate abuses. Oh, and gas subsidies that keep the cost of fuel under $8/gal for you to use on the roads, even though such subsidies probably just make it impossible for alternative energy solutions to compete (though a lot of the patents involving those are in the hands of oil/car companies who have a vested interest in them being uncompetetive... but I digress). Ultimately there needs to be some form of government, I think we can agree on that and the government is not a commercial entity (though should be fiscally responsible) so taxation in some form/amount is necessary. I believe taxes should largely be collected from and spent on services based on who uses them (IE, someone who doesn't own a car should be taxed less than someone who does or more specifically taxes collected from them should be spent less on roads than someone who does own a car. Not 0% on roads as they do benefit from their existence, etc.)

So really it's just a matter of how much responsibility you want the state to (officially) have. (universal healthcare or privatized healthcare? industry regulation or free hand of the market?)

Different things work better for different people/countries. And purely more wealth for everyone does not equate to better living for everyone.


7.
 
Re: Inaccurate transcription.
Mar 12, 2008, 15:34
7.
Re: Inaccurate transcription. Mar 12, 2008, 15:34
Mar 12, 2008, 15:34
 
Thousand dollar graphics cards? Is he talking about like...2 8800 Ultras in SLI mode or something? I can't think of a single card that costs over $1000 with the exception of maybe this one PNY card I saw, but I don't think it was for gaming. Could be wrong though. *shrug*

Yeah, he was specifically referring to SLI type solutions of "More Money = More Performance" with the same generation of hardware.

6.
 
Re: First Game
Mar 12, 2008, 14:27
6.
Re: First Game Mar 12, 2008, 14:27
Mar 12, 2008, 14:27
 
Agreed with all below. It's pretty slick. Need to practice more though.

Warning: Any maps larger than 'small' will probably take a few hours at least to play.

8.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 6, 2008, 18:38
8.
Re: No subject Mar 6, 2008, 18:38
Mar 6, 2008, 18:38
 
Besides, why would they advertise when their games sell millions of copies anyway?

Most of the ads I remember on battle.net were for Warcraft books and the like. I imagine with the Blactivision merger they'll ad(d) activision properties to the mix so they can leverage blizzard's success.

10.
 
Re: I've been debating...
Feb 2, 2008, 18:52
10.
Re: I've been debating... Feb 2, 2008, 18:52
Feb 2, 2008, 18:52
 
How do you mean they haven't listed most of the changes in 2.4? What stuff have they missed out? Looks pretty thorough to me.

I mean, we've heard nothing of the nerfs that are coming with any buffs. Don't have the official patch notes, and if you read some of the sources you'd note that they say "this is some of it".

I'd rather they just post the patch notes for what they have now as patch notes on the test forum than sprinkle it all over and make people hunt for it. It's pointless and annoying.

5.
 
Re: I've been debating...
Feb 2, 2008, 02:04
5.
Re: I've been debating... Feb 2, 2008, 02:04
Feb 2, 2008, 02:04
 
They haven't listed most of the changes in 2.4. They're just teasing the community at this point. Kind of annoying really, how they spread it randomly through the forums.

4.
 
Re: You know...
Jan 10, 2008, 17:35
4.
Re: You know... Jan 10, 2008, 17:35
Jan 10, 2008, 17:35
 

You know a game was released with an insane number of bugs and other issues when it is still being patched after 162,950 patches years later.

That being said, the game is actually awesome when using one of the latest patches, worth digging out of the bargain bin if you can find it.


Yes, *but*, these patches aren't from the developer. The developer is gone, this is one guy (or a community effort, not sure) who's fixing things on their own time. I'm not sure how much of this is filling in stuff they felt lacked or all genuine bugs. pretty cool though. The game is fun an d interesting for sure.

12.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 8, 2008, 18:26
12.
Re: No subject Jan 8, 2008, 18:26
Jan 8, 2008, 18:26
 
Level 70 enchants can only be placed on gear level 35 or higher.

Non-enchanting things don't have those restrictions though, like the leg buffs. I think the head and shoulder ones cause the item to become soulbound when used, not sure though, I don't twink much.

25.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 28, 2007, 00:45
25.
Re: No subject Dec 28, 2007, 00:45
Dec 28, 2007, 00:45
 
Lest some people forget, a lot of Americans are first and second generation still. There just happen to be a lot of people not in America that we do in fact like.

I'd be very pissed if my "leaders" went around bombing them just because they could and I strongly doubt I would be alone.

20.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 27, 2007, 22:13
20.
Re: No subject Dec 27, 2007, 22:13
Dec 27, 2007, 22:13
 
Way to Godwin the thread.

Seriously, no where near as bad as Hitler. Even saying such garbage really weakens your argument.

And GG on the reading skills, I didn't say the US had little to lose, I said Musharraf did.

16.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 27, 2007, 20:59
16.
Re: No subject Dec 27, 2007, 20:59
Dec 27, 2007, 20:59
 
They have no track record so far, but the saber rattling between India and Pakistan continues to this day. If Pakistan was under a real threat of invasion by, say, us, I think they would be forced to use them. Otherwise, what's the point in building them in the first place? They are there as a deterrent, if you don't have the will to use them, there is no use in their existence.

And no, saying that someone who *already has nuclear weapons* would use them if attacked is NOT the same as LYING about someone having them and saying we must stop him. Pakistan's weapons likely would NOT be the grounds for any such attack (otherwise people would just say 'yes, we knew this a long time ago when we were allies, why did you do nothing then?). Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm insinuating that it would be a really dumb move to attack Pakistan because they actually do have the capability to strike back effectively, if only against our allies and our immediate invasion forces. It's a deterrent to attack, not a weapon they are likely to use on their neighbors for conquest (particularly when India, the USSR, UK, US, and Israel can all strike back). This is another key difference between Pakistan and Iraq. Iraq used (in the past) their weapons (bio/chem) offensively. Granted they had no hope in striking us directly and were largely ineffective against Israel, and at the point before the war had none left and we knew it...

Yeah, he did take power in a coup. This is not unusual for a lot of US allies. I mean, look back in the last 60 years. How many coups did the CIA instigate to put someone in power? It must seem like the good old days to them...

The USA has stirred the pot in the Middle east for far far too long. It is because of this that a large segment of the population there despises the US. Our arrogance and abuse of their morals and trust went a long way to creating people like Osama Bin Laden. It doesn't make their actions right or justified, but it certainly does give them a motive. Granted, we're not alone in this, but only a few other nations have been quite as fervent and willing to meddle in the affairs of others so readily.

14.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 27, 2007, 19:44
14.
Re: No subject Dec 27, 2007, 19:44
Dec 27, 2007, 19:44
 
One strategic difference between Pakistan and Iraq.

Pakistan really does have nuclear weapons. As does India.

If we mount an offensive against Pakistan, do you think they would hesitate to use them? They might not be able to hit us, but they could probably hit Israel and certainly India. What do you think India would do in that situation?

Then again, Musharraf is pretty buddy buddy with us now, for all we know, it was a CIA operation that killed Bhutto (wouldn't be the first time CIA has done something like this). I think Musharraf had a lot to gain and little to lose regarding killing her, and given that he and the US are , in general, pretty close, chances are, if he carried this out, we knew about it ahead of time.

There's also the Taliban to consider. She used to support them openly when she was Prime Minister. Recently (possibly to get US support) she has been publicly critical and anti-Taliban, so they certainly have reason to go after her.

And finally there are conservative Muslims in general who would have a general distaste for a woman in power, especially one that touts reform in policies towards women. Conservative muslims have gained a lot of power thanks to our shindig in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan.

So yeah, there were a lot of people against her. She also was accused of large scale corruption during her time as prime minister and a lot of evidence to back it up. Not to say Musharraf is in some way better, or that she didn't have a lot of popular support among less extreme muslims and the more liberl side of the international community. It's just a lot of things to stack up against one person and muddy the waters quite a bit when a tragedy like this does eventually happen. :/

This comment was edited on Dec 27, 19:47.
418 Comments. 21 pages. Viewing page 8.
Newer [  1    3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18    21  ] Older