Quote fromActually, Paul chose a life of celibacy. He explains that in a letter he wrote to a different Church.
Yes and so did the men who swore celibacy and to priesthood and turned out to be pedophiles. If I were to take the farce further, it can always be said Paul swore celibacy because he got turned down by a lesbian.
But I guess that's something plain offensive to many of my christian friends, so I do apologize.
But it was just to prove a point that celibacy means nothing.
How can a person claim to be redeemed of sin if they are still living a life of sexual immorality, which the Bible calls sin?
I do not quite understand this point. Are you saying that being a homosexual is a sin. I know now that according to the bible it is. But tell me what you think- bible aside?
Because with the bible regarding homosexuality as a sin, it becomes a religion exclusive to heterosexuals.
This falls under free will. Not a will that was created in us. I'll get into that a bit down below.
I really don't believe that the point I mentioned falls under free will.
A person does not choose the colour of his skin nor the colour of his eyes. He is born with it.
Just as a homosexual or a straight guy is born one.
Let's put science and genes aside.
If homosexuality was a choice- which sensible person would make such a choice?
With the amount of discrimination, hate and prejudice against them, nobody reasonable would do so.
And it would be quite preposterous to say all homosexuals are unreasonable people. If it were the case, homosexuals would be a very small population...a bit like psychopaths and not in the amount they are today.
I take a strong/aggressive stance against such discrimination because one of my best friends is a lesbian. She has 2 different jobs to be able to make ends meet as she looks alone after her small brother. On her free days, she still finds time to visit the orphanage and home for the elderly. I find her to be a wonderful person and I just can't bear with shit that people come up to her her just because she's gay. As long as they don't know, she's the best person in the world, but as soon as they know- it's like real shit!
But if it is rewritten, would it then cease to be the Word of God? Yes.
It has always been the word of man. Sorry about that but the book was written by man. Jesus did not dictate each word while the people wrote.
I personally believe Jesus was an awesome guy. It is more from a feeling that actually reading anything about him(though reading did contribute).
I don't think he was God, he was a man- a simple one which makes him so much more incredible for what he did. I believe he fully deserves the praise and respect he gets.
Anyway my take on religionS
I turn my head to one side and I see some christians hating/condemning homosexuals in the name of God.
I turn to the other side and I see some muslims blowing themselves up in the name of Allah, killing people while shouting the name of God.
And then there are hindus burning mosques and muslims burning temples as revenge against each other...all in the name of God.
However to me none of them is taking God's name. They are simply resting on religions' cushions.
Religion to the weak-minded = fanatics
Religion to the wicked = more power as they control fanatics.
Religion has become the poison of our society. Despite it all, i do not view religion as bad. It is just a tool which in the wrong hands can become dangerous. You can use a knife to cut your vegetables. You can use the same knife to kill a person.
Religion according to me is good. I'll explain how.
A man just broke his leg, which now is in a cast. He needs a crutch to get around.
And that crutch is religion in my eyes.
The man's leg will heal eventually at a point when he will no longer need the crutch.
He can now walk freely. He can now run.
Alas many people become attached to the crutch and are reluctant to leave it. To a healthy man walking constantly with a crutch, that crutch becomes eventually his handicap.
My point is that religion as a foundation can help you form your ideals, morals and philosophies in life. But at some point, you have to realize and open your ideas and start to run- as a free man.
1
Their fault.
Overall, I did not get the feeling from the games I've played, nor had I had many people complain about other MMO's that the illegal gold farming ruined their game. Much more often, F2P, Freemium, MT's, and other forums of LEGALIZED cash shop is what ruins games, the illegal one is too small scale. Just like private servers don't make people leave non-private WoW.
You cannot combat gold farming by legalizing gold farming in a loot based game. Just doesn't work. At least in EVE skillpoints and personal skill limits things by a huge margin, but not here. Here, loot is everything. You can't just sell it. Jeez, I'd rather have a strong soulbind system.
1
Problem 1: This will disrupt the gold market, as a huge portion of the playerbase will rarely use it, and all rare items will be sold on the real market, meaning the gold market will be mostly useless. Who will not sell their super rare drop for money, except the very people that will buy it? Instead of having a healthy simulated market economy in a game world we're going to have a stressful Wall Street it seems where playing the market stopped being an option and became a necessity.
Problem 2: This is effectively, hands down, pay-to-win. Direct, legalized in the most basic form. It's worse than EVE because in EVE the price is set by CCP and the ratio is pretty bad, + the things you can do with the money are limited anyway, while here players set the prices which will screw everything over. And DIII is heavily a gear based game. Forget about PvP. Forget it, it's GONE.Except Diablo's drop system is built around the fact that you find items you can't use and need to trade them for items you can use, which means you're OK up until the point the items are rare enough that people start selling them for money and want nothing else.
List tags are malformed.
1
No.
Your example is faulty because you're comparing Diablo 1 to McDonalds it seems. For me it's more like this:
Joe spent a while going to this little non-franchise burger shop in his home town where they made really nice burgers, because they loved their craft. Then some friend took him to a 4-star restaurant. The restaurant looks a lot nicer, with waiters and everything, and the burger may even look prettier w/e. It is backed by this rich famous company that has access to all this, I don't know, cutting edge technology. It also costs a lot more. But the burger still tastes the same, if not worse.
Good graphics design trumps technology every time and SCII and DIII are proof of that IMO. Especially these games also suffer in the audio department (I'm not talking about Matt Uelmen). If they could update resolution and color palette on SC1 + add all the mechanical modifications (auto-mining, etc.), I'd rather play that. SCII is slow, WCIII'ish, and has awful sound work and animations compared to the original. Among newer titles, it's greatly inferior to AoE III, for instance. The only reason it gets anywhere for me is because it's, well, SC.
The collective consciousness also runs after the most recent fad out there and demands the latest little thing because it's considered cool. I don't know why you bring up the collective consciousness here since it's extremely dumb. I'm not talking about whether most people will like Diablo III's design. This is very hard for me to judge since I lack figures on SCII.
The collective standards sees only shaders and nothing else. They do not see design at all, for them it does not exist.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I believe you should be aware that I am not a die hard Diablo fan at all. I am here because I like the series, just like any other series, and looking forward to it. My expectations for DIII are not different from expectations for SW:TOR or TES 5. But my expectations are typically high, both for gameplay and design. I can accept a game that doesn't meet my expectations, play it, and enjoy it, but it will lose the title of great game for me, and I want every game to be great.
Which means I'll whine about graphics, cooldowns, and everything else.
1
1
I'm saying you shouldn't be able to spam anything significant (try to spam anything in DII at lower levels).
Yes, there should be no best skill. What you're describing occurs with cooldowns as well. In MOBA's, it even has a name. It's called the Ultimate.
That's not even my logic, that is game logic as old as games themselves. Why would they not cost more? Why do we have a resource then if they're not going to cost more? How else to compensate?
I just replied to that.
IF YOU SIT YOU SHOULD DIE.
And, again, that occurs with cooldowns as well. Give me an example that doesn't also occur with cooldowns. That's one of the issues - it's redundant. Mana fullfills the task of "cooldown" just fine, except it's a choice. Cooldowns don't leave you a choice.
There's nothing difficult about that. It is just a tradeoff. You want to cast a spell that kills half the room, spend your mana orb. Nobody is forcing you to cast it.
Because Blizzard's argument was to use cooldowns to prevent ability spamming, which means some abilities are inherently better than others, which leads to a rotation.
The only way to prevent a rotation is to make skills independent of each other in power.
I don't appreciate being told where to use a spell, and neither do min-maxers. It doesn't matter what the spell is designed for, it can be used for anything.
You need to bring up examples of what spells you're talking about. This "spells from the wiki" gives me nothing. All I heard about being spammed was teleport. Again, teleport was not an issue in any game with CC, and doesn't need a cooldown, but teleport is a special case anyway. I've been told that they are doing it to prevent 1-skill spamming, which means they're still using the WoW model.
Probably because I didn't say that.
I presume the videos were made prior to the whole cooldown idea.
But imagine if every fight went leap-mortal strike-hammer something-insert 2 more spells here-repeat.
These spells should not exist. To me, these spells are just bad design.
If you're in a tough spot/overwhelmed, you should die, end of story. I thought this game was supposed to be difficult? I don't recall any games where I had a spell specifically as a cop out, wtf?
Seriously, what are these spells really for? I don't want to have any skills I am not constantly using in every fight excluding single target spells for bosses. Pretty sure these skills are actually first thing you use in battle, so that they get off cooldown faster. If you have a cheap spell that kills half the room you are not going to wait to cast it.
1
Further proof we need respeccs before the game gets flooded with minmaxers who think they're some hot shit because they know the phrase "you suck, please uninstall" and have too much time on their hands.
There are no problems with respeccs except psychological patologies some people have in their heads, for which I do not feel compelled to be held responsible for.
2
Think before you post, please.
It's quite essential for staff to have beta access on a fansite, though, otherwise they're out of the loop and when your forum members have keys and you don't that's pretty stupid if you ask me.
The staff here is not that large so it's not that big of a deal, there should be plenty of leftover keys.
Or, not keys. If they don't use keys they'll probably use something else that will be distributed similarly.
@snared
Can you point me to a link where it says that the entire beta includes no SP in any way, shape or form, and is 100% on battle.net?
2
A better comparison would be MMO instances. The largest MMO instances I'm aware of are 40, which is a group of 8, and many people complain about those because at that point you are nothing more than a goon who follows commands of a leader. From what I've seen, the preferred groups are 5 to 10 because there's more camaraderie and you don't feel as a goon as much. Some people like doing a 40 group sometimes (don't ask me why), because it feels like a big accomplishment or something, I always felt I only accomplished shit if I did it by myself so I dunno. But from what I've seen, 40-player instances aren't exactly the peoples' choice and after WoW there's a stronger soloer and small-grouper trend.
People being attracted to the world of thousands of people is a very different matter. Diablo would require an over-world and I don't think that's necessary, although it would make trading more interesting.
I personally never found zerging interesting because the more players there are in a room the less I matter, or, if it's balanced properly, everyone just dies constantly. This is not going to be Diablo II where you can turn on the game do /players 8 and level really quickly. This is where you do /players 8, you are going to die (hopefully). And it's very difficult to find 5 competent players, let alone 8. With no extra reward? Not happening.
Even WoW's low level 5-mans are not balanced you can blitz through them with just tank and healer lol.
I would generally limit my room to 3-4-5 players if I made one anyway but the reason an 8-cap is negative in my opinion is that they would have to use skewer balancing (in the form off, multiple monster HP by 5), rather than smart balancing for each individual setting. I.E., if the 8 cap is in, the 8 cap is attempted to balance, the rest is kinda on the wayside. And if the whole difficulty of 8-player is how long you are going to hack on monsters or how long you're gonna stand and regen HP, that'd be a big disappointment.
1
Blizzard will encourage grouping with various things such as quicker killing of enemies, more XP, more items, the usual.
As much as cooping can be fun with the right people, I always solo a considerable amount of time due to my pace of play and I would ask that you do not try to encroach onto my style of play in a game that, honestly, began more as a single player game than a multiplayer game.
2