Wow

[shadow735]

<font color="yellow"><br />Warlock PvP = Easymode. <jk /> <br /><br />The one thing that I have learned in WoW as a PVP'er is that PVP is more about knowledge and skill than gear. Sure, gear helps someone even the score if they lack some skill or knowledge. But, gear isn't the most important thing in a match. (That's in Battleground play. I haven't done arena yet but I hear gear is a much more potent force there than in battleground matches because, let's face it, arena is about killing someone else, not capturing and holding an objective.) </font><br /><br />I totally agree with you there in PvP gear helps a lot but the deciding factor is skill, both in knowing your character as well as knowing other classes, the only problem with that is in BG's things happen so fast that its sooo easy to get confused and noodle fingered.<br />When you have 3-5 people on you its crazy.<br /> I love how my heart pounds when that happens. Its great training though.<br /> I havent done Arenas but from what I read things would be more organized and easier to develop technique in how to take classes down.<br />in PvP Warlocks can own most classes, Rogues and Hunters are hard for me, more so rogues, with hunters its a 50/50 thing, if they get the jump on me they can take down my hps fast, with rogues I lose 90% of the time unless I can get a DC off.<br />Also I am demo specc'd so I dont have fel concentration so a spell that takes 3 sec to cast can end up taking 10.<br />I am looking fwd to the expansion because I will fix that issue.<br />But yeah I am at the point now where I am group locked in that im building rep and running heroics so its all group oriented now which is very fustrating. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">Sunforger - Diablo 3 would be heaven..... </font><br /><br />For all practical purposes, it's already out - "Hellgate: London" Developed by the original Diablo team and qualifies as a DiabloIII with the same type of skill tree climbs, loot runs, etc.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This game is purely about skill which makes all the other online games pale in comparision.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I thought that Guild Wars was all about creating a female character just so you could undress her? <br /><br />Totally boring, totally repetitive, and totally geared toward sexually frustrated teenaged boys. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[lsbd]

bingo. And what fun is playing a MMORPG that you can max out your character in a couple of days? most of the fun of the game is in getting there.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">Kalstang - SWG sucked. Period. Well...the crafting system was good...but thats ALL it had going for it. If you actually wanted to advance you HAD to group up..and even then it sucked.</font><br /><br />When SWG first came out, it really was a good dose of eye-candy. They also tried to mimic natural fauna habits which I had never seen done before. Yes, other games had walkpaths and twitch behaviors for their critters. But, in SWG you could approach a herd of bantha and they'd form a defensive circle with the bulls on the outer ring and the calves in the interior. THAT was amazing. Also, there were plenty of times I was out mining and a herd of some non-aggro beast would be grazing nearby. Occasionally, one of the young of the herd would cautiously approach my camp, sit and stare at me and skitter off whenever I made a move... only to come back later and skirt around the edges of the camp, clearly curious about me. That was something nobody had ever done effectively in unscripted encounters. It was part of the animal's psuedo-AI behavior and it was done with remarkable effect. It's little things like this that make artificial worlds worth visiting.<br /><br />The problem with SWG at first was.. there simply wasn't any darn content. SWG used Anarchy Online's "Mission Terminal" strategy to get content to players and it was terribly boring. Missions were always similar and were written badly with no sense of storyline at all.<br /><br />The original combat system was a pretty good attempt at combating latency while giving a sort of FPS feel. Que'ed action sequences helped that but after awhile it became monotonous. Every encounter was "hit action 1,2,3,4,rinse,repeat." It was a decent idea but failed somewhere during implementation.<br /><br />I think there was a lot learned in the industry by the experiment called "Star Wars Galaxies." Here's some things I think developers learned:<br /><br />1) A good crafting and non-combat profess <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[shadow735]

OMG that would be a great addition to WoW if mobs had some AI like non agroo pret curious, would be cool to if agrroo mobs had some sense as what type of power you have so they run instead of fight.<br /> Might make thing interesting.<br />maybe in dungeons have a animal be so curious about you as to follow you.<br />lost strays be follow you and if you feed them they bond. That would be cool. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[sunforger]

<font color="yellow">For all practical purposes, it's already out - "Hellgate: London"</font><br /><br />Really???<br /><br />I could've sworn that I watched a trailer and it looked like a FPS...<br /><br />Maybe I was thinking about another game.<br /><br />I'll have to check it out now.<br /><br />Thanks.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Hellgate: London has FPS-like capability but you can also zoom out to an isometric view just like DiabloI+II.<br /><br />I picked it up to take a look at it and see what they've done. Basically, it <b>is</b> DiabloII++. It may not truly qualify for a DiabloIII title because it doesn't do anything dramatically different than DiabloII. It is DiabloII upgraded in a post-apocalyptic demon infested London. Catchy graphics, an item upgrading system and a psuedo crafting system. Random item generation, common, rare, unique, epic items, rare monsters and the standard DiabloII loot runs. There is the option of online play similar to DDO but free. Players meet in a common area that is instanced (probably to better balance server load) but can still join the same group and enter the same adventure instance. A paid subscription gets you free expansions, Elite level instances (IOW "Hell Level") and access to "Special events" run for paid subscribers. But, you don't have to pay to play online with friends. That part is free. This is a new model and everyone is anxious to see if they can pull it off. Many people are doubting they'll be able to provide enough incentive for people to keep paying the subscription.<br /><br />There are six classes divided into three general groups - Two each of melee, casters and ranged (gun) classes. Two of those classes are pet classes. Deviating somewhat from the standard MMORPG Holy Trinity, there are no "healer" classes. Groups can be up to four players. (I think)<br /><br />All in all, it's not bad. But, they need to do some work on the instance randomization engine and put some different tile sizes in there. The random tiles for instances seem to be a little bigger than old DiabloII which results in even more "OK, I've seen this type of area before" type of instances. It seems fairly clean and not buggy but there are reports of some problems in certain areas. These should be patched out fairly quickly.<br /><br />The biggest issue i <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[sunforger]

Thanks, I checked it out last night and from the looks of it, there's no way my cpu can run it smoothly (I think).<br /><br />I pay alot of my money into console systems, 360, ps3, wii, and just can't bring myself to buy a new computer.<br /><br />I just need a bare bones system with a good processor and 1 or 2 pci express slots.<br />Could prolly find one for cheap but I'm lazy <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[bearack]

I purchased a nice PC off craigslist recently for only $600. AMD duel processor with 4 gig's rams. Each processor is running about 3.2 ghz and them I bought a radeon 800 plat edition video card with 256m external memory off ebay for $50. Most everything runs like a dream. I saved about $1500 going this route. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I keep an eye of gotapex.com<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[shadow735]

I bought a Dell XPS 710 duocore with 4gigs ram 1600 bus and 2mg internam motherboard type thingy 256 nvidia video card I run Wow with everything max and highest resolution screen, it looks awesome on 24" ultra sharp monitor I never ever, ever get lag even when I am in Shattath city and there are a bizzillion people there, but then again the total price was over 3k<br /><br />I still have a lot of upgrade capabilities only thing I dindt like was the tower is three times bigger then a normal pc and weighs 75lbs, then again it has two huge fans in it.<br />basically its a monster.<br />Hopefully it will last 5 years before I need to upgrade again but the way tech works it will be more like 2 years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

I'm a fellow WoWhead, too. 70 mage, in Uther realm, raiding kara, gruul's and zul'aman. I haven't played any other ones, so I can't compare. My buddy plays DAoC and swears by it. He tried WoW for a couple days and didn't like it. He also said it was too "cartoonish" as someone else put it in a previous post. He's trying to convert me, but i've invested too much time into my toon to give it up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[Astronoid]

<p>Well.....&nbsp;&nbsp; in my mind I just figured out the system of existence, partially </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Here goes</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>a universe is strucutred by other universes, and that is structurd by others...&nbsp; etc... this is infinite...&nbsp; and well...&nbsp; as they move outward they pull apart, but when they pull apart the matter in it becomes an energy state that can not exist within the forces around it, multiple strectched universes combine together forming matter again... and this goes on infinitly, from our perspective the universe had a big bang, but that was merely the transition of energy from universes........&nbsp; the reason it stays relative: it combines the energy of multiple universes every time it is pulled apart, always creating matter. &nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Anyways I just had this thought.... so I wanted to post it.... merely so I could get credit for it if it ever were to be introduced... and accepted....&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>this post is basic but that is because I just had the thought.....</p><p>&nbsp;Also I do realize how close this falls within Archimedes Plutonium's idea concerning the universe, but mine is sligtly different... &nbsp; </p><p>So...... WOW&nbsp; &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img src="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h234/orgling/smileycollabpngzz6-1.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </div>

 

[Astronoid]

Question.....&nbsp; has anyone figured out the "volume" of the vacuum of space in our known universe, excluding matter.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img src="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h234/orgling/smileycollabpngzz6-1.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </div>

 

[Astronoid]

<p>now I know someone might say well if it is infinitly increasing in size, wouldn't the universe be infinte in size, and here is the answer......</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>and its werid....</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>We are proportionaly infinite in size, it is a matter of relativity, if the universe was comprised of matter that was infinite in size we would be infinte in size, we would not know what we were looking at and have nothing to gauge it against, because we would not see the other universes.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Here is another thought.... &nbsp;&nbsp; if my mental calculations are correct, we could never reach a universe we structured, it is a variant energy state.... &nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img src="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h234/orgling/smileycollabpngzz6-1.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </div>

 

[Astronoid]

<p>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>and also, in the case this is discovered relatively soon, and someone beats me to the mathematical communication of it, well.......&nbsp; I would like to at least be mentioned, so people do not think I am insane.........</p><p>Also......</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Please if you have nothing nice to say..... try and not say anything.... you can debate it... sure.... &nbsp; but if your going to be rude...&nbsp; please, refrain.... &nbsp;&nbsp; anyways....&nbsp; I am posting this on here so it can be recorded....&nbsp; so there is a small chance that one day I will be mentioned...</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>= )</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Sorry for the multiple posts. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img src="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h234/orgling/smileycollabpngzz6-1.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Question.....&nbsp; has anyone figured out the "volume" of the vacuum of space in our known universe, excluding matter.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Astronoid</DIV></p><p>Well, the radius of the known universe is 46 billion light years, you should be able to work out the volume from that, based on a spherical model of our "observable" universe, where we are at the centre. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[Astronoid]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, the radius of the known universe is 46 billion light years, you should be able to work out the volume from that, based on a spherical model of our "observable" universe, where we are at the centre. <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thank you </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img src="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h234/orgling/smileycollabpngzz6-1.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </div>

 

[Astronoid]

<p>I just caught what you said...&nbsp; radius and us being at the center, of the observable...&nbsp; = )</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>If there was a force exponentialy larger than our own universe, we were a part of the quantitive structure of it, and it was expanding in conjuntion with ours... it seems simple enough to apply an equation that would demonstrate our relative size in relation to the one we structure. &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>This would be done by rate of expansion in relation to our mass in relation to the universe we comprise, assuming that the dimensions of that universe(and all energy within it) were a certain multiple larger tha ours.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The rate of expansion is highly important, in this equation. &nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img src="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h234/orgling/smileycollabpngzz6-1.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </div>

 

[Astronoid]

Also... assume that the universe we structure is so massive that we are merely a quantum state in relation to it.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img src="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h234/orgling/smileycollabpngzz6-1.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </div>

 

[Astronoid]

<p>I now know what I am about to say is similar to Archemides Plutonium's idea on existence, but I need to lay it out, instead of our universe being a plutonium atom, we are, in my opinion, part of the structure of another universe, but as a quantitive variable.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>As universes expand they "tear apart" when this occurs there are many which tear apart at a time, then those many all come together to form new dimensions of matter. &nbsp; This occurs at different variables of time,&nbsp; so infinite universes are tearing apart and reforming infinitly. &nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>There is a system... which is what I am more concerned with...&nbsp; the system that makes it all function... Nobles system of inequality....&nbsp; = ) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img src="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h234/orgling/smileycollabpngzz6-1.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </div>