Brasil

Is this going to be a print magazine or an online publication? And you can't go wrong with science-fiction reviews, analysis, etc., like what goes on at [url]www.somefantastic.us[/url]. ~_^ Advice columns and all are interesting, but why not cater to the nerds, as well? There are far more Trekkies out there than backpackers, after all.

There are a few things that aren't clear at all. [u]1) Dom[/u]. Who is he? Or rather, [i]what[/i] is he? We're given description of him throughout the piece, and his actions, mannerisms, and physical traits all give the impression that he's human. And up until the very end of the story, that's a reasonable interpretation, because there's virtually nothing in the piece that suggests otherwise. But when he's part of what is revealed to be some type of intergalactic extermination company...I begin to have doubts that the exceedingly human description of him fits at all. So...is he an alien or isn't he? Or does it even matter? He has a ship, apparently, and there's no real connection or parallel ever established between him and the Italicized, brief snippets of humanity. He's definitely the exterminator, and humans are the roaches, but I need more than what you have, because there's just very, very little detail going on here. [u]2) The plot itself[/u]. I get the sense you need to hide 90% of the details so the ending works, because the global extermination angle is all the story has--and really, it's all the story wants to do. I don't even think Dom's personal life is terribly important to anything. I mean, you've got global thermonuclear holocaust on one hand and then on the other hand, just some bumfuck, boondocks exterminator with a fat-ass and a mustache full of egg salad. Maybe it's just that Dom's description doesn't click, but I think the more interesting "character" right now is the global thermonuclear holocaust. We know something bad is going to happen from the "evacuation" inserts, and it's clear that bad something is what the story is ultimately heading toward, and global thermonuclear holocausts are fun as hell to write about--especially when you can get down on the ground-level with the characters and witness them freaking out. That just doesn't happen here. The most compelling parts of this story aren't anything about Dom or Jackson; the most compelling parts here amount to no more than a few paragraphs out of 2,000 words. Dom's a fat, intergalactic exterminator who likes egg salad. Okay. [u]3) The tone[/u]. But the world below is about to be entirely incinerated by nerve gas and neutron bombs, introduced by an LED that reads "YOU ARE SCREWED." That shit is funny, because it's the right tone for the piece. Problem is, it only gets out there at the very end, and we don't see any of that black comedy at all during Dom's scenes, which is probably why Dom just isn't very compelling at all. He's got no bite. His Van has bite. He doesn't. Does he even have a darkly humorous streak in him to begin with? It certainly doesn't seem like it. To summarize, I guess my biggest concern here is that there's a lack of a truly compelling focus. The perspective is just so, so removed from the action of the piece that it's hard to feel anything. I didn't care about Dom at all. I kept expecting there to be something more about his character [i]during[/i] the piece, not [i]after[/i]. He just comes across as an exceedingly dry humanoid exterminator who for some bizarre reason that doesn't even relate to his life from how it's told in the narration...installed a huge "YOU ARE SCREWED" LED on his van. I think you have a few options here: 1) You can re-work Dom so that he's the focus, that the dark comedy of the premise actually comes through, instead of just a glimpse at the end. 2) You can revise the story to focus more on the evacuation on the planet, and really make us feel the terror (and you could still work in the dark comedy..."YOU ARE SCREWED" is very Dr. Strangelove, by the way). 3) Or you could do a combination of those two, and give Dom a closer experience with the "roaches." If he treates fellow (aliens?) that way...imagine how he'd act around humans that are nothing more than roaches to exterminate. Might be interesting, and would provide some interesting juxtapositions between humankind and alienkind (that is, if Dom is an alien). Incidentally, you need to decide if Dom is an alien or a human, because it doesn't seem lik there's a clear idea on your part regarding what he really is.

I'm going to give this thread a swift kick square in the groin. The way I see it, the other thread, "Costumes of Halloweens Past", isn't really relevant yet. Plus, earlier in this thread, I posted a teaser of my costume for this year, so all the more fitting to link the pics! [center][img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/AlexMelissaHalloweenParty1.jpg[/img] [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/AlexMelissaHalloweenParty2.jpg[/img] [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/AlexMelissaHalloweenParty3.jpg[/img] [/center] Hopefully you aren't terribly scarred. Yes, I had been drinking...a bit that night. I've got a nice pic of Elwood stored on another computer here, but I can't access it right now...grr... EDIT: Found it [center][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/HPIM0966.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/HPIM0964.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v151/madsatirist/HPIM0967.jpg[/IMG] [/center]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]I played around with photoshop a bit and figured it out. You're right, the quality of the vector/path really sucks! Actually, I do have illustrator, but haven't tried using it yet (stupid me). So can you tell me how to do it in illustrator?[/color][/QUOTE] Like I said, it's been a while (about 2 years now). I have a vague memory of using one of the Pen tools in Illustrator and adding points around the image, both on the outer contour and inner contour. Then I think it's all a matter of going to a normal selection mode, and selecting the entire vector line shape. Just be careful to not accidentally grab one of the points and skew it all to hell by accident, lol.

The final stanza now is one of my favorite things I've ever read on this messageboard--especially in OB Anth. It's so precious, and it's cute as a button, too...and there's a great dry humor about it. Regarding the rest...I think it sounds fine. It's rough around the edges, but I don't think you really need to be concerned about that, because the problem isn't with your poem. It's with the format itself. Technically, ballads like that (The Wife of Usher's Well is a good example of what I'm talking about) aren't even following the ABCB rhyme scheme. The first stanza starts out fine. It's entirely an ABCB. But then you read the rest of the poem, and it no longer remains ABCB, because if it remained ABCB, we wouldn't be lapsing into...what, DEFE? And then GHIH and so on. I guess one could argue that it's not specifically ABCB, that ABCB is merely just a simplified representation of what the overall rhyme scheme is in the ballad...but even then, there should be some consistency. So yes. The problems I have with your piece here aren't due to the piece itself, more the structure than anything else. Nice work, Petie. You do make Link sound like Shaft at times, though. "Put an end to crime." He's one bad muthafu--er, he's like Samuel L. Jackson.

It's been a while since I've had to work with vectors, but...apart from the "select color range" option...I don't think there's any way in Photoshop to do what you're looking to do. I know Adobe Illustrator has some fantastic vectoring tools (and outlining like what you want to do is so incredibly easy in Illustrator). But as far as I can remember, Photoshop is pixel-based, so vectoring isn't something it's designed for. Closest you can get is selecting the white, then going "Inverse," or trying to manually isolate the black areas with the Polygon Lasso tool. Now that I think about it, the polygon lasso tool is probably your best bet in Photoshop. That said, no matter how you select it in Photoshop, you're going to be losing image quality. For a really crude and rough explanation, It's going to be picking up the actual pixels, rather than the location of the pixels. So...yeah. Unless someone knows some more tricks with Photoshop, I'm not sure you have many options when it comes to actual vectoring.

The way I see it, I'm more than willing to beat-up that wheelchair-bound, quadriplegic, asthmatic 4th grader girl because I can. Why shouldn't we? I'd go as far as to highly recommend using McDonalds as a means to that end. Buy a Happy Meal, you can beat up that wheelchair-bound, quadriplegic, asthmatic 4th grader. Buy a Chicken McNugget meal and that female dwarf with the speech impediment is yours for the bashing. A Quarter-Pounder with Cheese will give you a decrepit and feeble retiree who just so happens to be wearing adult Depends, so you won't have to worry about them making a mess when you start throwing punches around. It just makes sense, I think. Targeting AmazonWoman: bad idea. Pushing old ladies down staircases: good idea. [center][i]Use discretion...[/i] [i]when selecting your foe![/i] [/center]

Where The Daily Show lampooned the traditional anchor format, Colbert Report sets its sights on No-Spin Zone and fires mercilessly. Stephen Colbert was made for a show like that, I think, because he can mimic and satirize the egotism inherent in O'Reilly and his ilk and never come off as annoying. It's a consistent scathing attack that doesn't cross the line, and it's very interesting to see Colbert pulling it off so well. That's not to say I doubted he could; I'm just amazed at how well he became the character. It isn't even the same Colbert we saw on The Daily Show, too. You can watch Colbert Report and see an accurate portrayal of Bill O'Reilly. Or Tucker Carlson. Or Chris Matthews. Or Joe Scarborough, or Pat Buchanan, or even Geraldo Rivera at times. Colbert nails the tone and deliveryas far as I'm concerned. And his desk is a flippin 'C'! I'm impressed. Very impressed by Colbert Report.

It does feel different from beginning to end. In the opening paragraphs, it seems like your focus is on the occupation quality of the entire scenario; for example, the Stormtroopers, marching, riot gear, gas masks (I love the feel of that, incidentally. Half-Life 2 has a similar vibe. Very effective.), etc. And I think "The street is eerily empty. Eerily quiet. Just goddamned [i]eerie[/i]. Fuck" is where that occupation tone changes. After "Two hours ago, you wouldn't have recognised the place", it's no longer about some militaristic, alienated, quasi-governmental soldier occupation anymore. It's now about the chaos of a riot, with the police making arrests and such. When that focus changes, we lose the occupation dynamic, I think, because the way I see it (and I take it you kind of see it the same way), an occupation is only an occupation when the streets are deserted, and if your ending is presumably based on the idea of an occupation (which would make sense, given the narration in the beginning), then once the tone changes...that ending won't make sense. At times, it almost seems like there are two stories going on here. The first is the alien-esque occupation. The second is the chaotic riots. But I think those two elements can still work together very well. There are some fantastic visuals (especially the glitter and make-up tears, the bent wings, etc), that really need to be utilized. To ignore them would be a crime, methinks, because those 90-pound girls are a major focal point to the entire event. In many ways, they're what makes the juxtaposition work so well. It's Riot officers vs 9th-grade girls, essentially. I'd like to see what you could do with that angle, because what better wake-up call to those obnoxious little girls than getting handcuffed? I get the feeling that the story is reversed. The focus isn't the occupation, necessarily. The focus is the dichotomy of the wannabe and the police. The occupation works as an opener, but the horseshit distracts from what really grabs the reader: Tweeny girls getting arrested, handcuffed, with tears smearing their glittery make-up. It's a slap in the face to children who try to grow up too fast. And what is Luke, by the way? For all intents and purposes, he was a child who had to grow up real fast. There's a parallel to those 90-pound fairies, isn't there? Take that theme and run with it. See where it goes. I think that's your story right there: kids growing up too fast.

[quote name='Mitch']I will only comment concerning this quote. And briefly, I will say this: I do realize art and business have been shaking hands unsteadily for quite a while. However, I have my feelings about writing and business being together, and you have yours. It is fruitless to argue because our opinions of this matter shall not be swayed: you, nor I, are fickle.[/quote] My point is that you were saying or implying that writing has just recently become a business, and I was pointing out that it's always been like that. Replying with "you have your opinions and I have mine" is irrelevant and unnecessary, because your opinion is straight-out wrong, and you wouldn't have made such a statement originally if you took the time to do the research (or if you really cared about being correct and making accurate statements in the first place), simple as that. Make no mistake: my issue was not that you have those views; my issue was that you were taking those views and applying them solely to the current state of the industry, as if modern times is what originated that trend. If your views are based on that (blatantly) incorrect assessment, however, then, yes, I do have a problem with your views. [quote]Down below here I'm not even arguing, but just stating what I've already stated vaguely before (when I was saying it was abrupt and felt like it needed more):[/quote] And I'm going to reply to clarify what's going on here. [quote]Well, you need to realize this is only one part of what art club would be. This is why I was saying I need to expand it more. Fight Club and its movie adaptation are fully developed ideas. The novel is hundreds of pages long. This story is only a small part of something I could make bigger. It's the rough of an idea that shaped in my head. You're being much too overly-critical and need to realize how small this is and how bigger it could be if I went about developing it. Do you seriously expect it to be a fully developed idea right off the bat? Of course not. You're being facetious. Although nothing seems to be happening, that's because in this piece there is only a short amount of it covered. The above that I quoted is the direction I need to take this piece in.[/quote] Overly-critical? Facetious? lol. I was pointing out glaring errors in both the ideology and construction of the piece, Mitch. That's hardly being insensitive and that's hardly making fun of you. That's being [i]realistic[/i]. And honestly, when you say something like "but overall I think this was a wonderful idea that I executed nicely," what do you expect people to expect to see? You're saying how good it is, how well executed it is...how wonderful the idea is. The piece wasn't all that great for the reasons have stated above. The execution wasn't all that great for the reasons have stated above. The idea wasn't all that great for the reasons stated above. The piece is too short, yeah. But given the "iffy" idea to begin with...I don't even know if this will sustain a longer piece; it already barely sustains a few pages, then sputters out too far before the end. I don't know if it's capable of a longer piece. I'm not even seeing an Oscar Wilde/English Decadent angle here...and the Decadent movement is the closest literary relative to what you want to do here. So...not to sound "overly-critical" or "facetious," but I don't think there's any hope for this piece. lol

[quote name='Mitch']And the end-all function of any business (which is what writing has been turned into) is to make money.[/quote]This sentence makes my eyes hurt, Mitch. And it really pisses me off, too, because you really need to do more research if you think writing has only recently been transformed into a money-grubbing empire. "Has been turned into" seems to point to those types of sentiments. I have neither the time nor the inclination to spell it out for you, but...Christ, man, you really, really need to take a look at the past 1500 years. [quote]About the only way to "make it big" as an artist/ writer these days is to sacrifice a lot of what your words say and do as your editor tells you to an extreme. And when you make it big, and if, you have to be generally good-looking and become the businessman for your publisher. This involves going on a tour throughout the country, reading from your published material so that the publisher can make money. If you don't make them enough money, then you're likely to be dropped altogether.[/quote]Let's see...you need to appeal to a readerbase, go on book tours to promote, read excerpts on those book tours, be somewhat presentable. Forgive the bluntness, but, dude, what in the hell did you expect? That you could show up in torn jeans, a stained shirt, oily hair, read random words from the pages of a tattered MEAD notebook on a corner in a major city...and get published? I [i]guaran-freaking-tee[/i] you those requirements were never, ever, [i]ever[/i] a literary requirement that just sprung up during the last 20 years. [quote]Poetry, too, is even worse here in the US. If something isn't in high demand, then it isn't going to be made. Poetry has little to no demand here in the US. Thus there's probably many poets out here in the US, but who do it on side. Just go outside and ask someone if they like poetry. [b][u]They'll either laugh at you in the face, say that's stuff for kids, or give you a vacant stare[/u][/b].[/quote]Which is no more juvenile that condemning an entire industry for something that's been prevalent for as long as writing and the public have co-existed. [quote]In Russia, though, they value their poets so highly that when one reads, sometimes they fill a whole stadium and there's as many people there as come to the football games here. But people rather like their bread and circuses, I fear.[/quote]So why condemn writing and the industry as a whole, when there are still places that value literature? [quote]When writing this, beforehand I had an idea of a harsh society (somewhat like 1984) where artists are obsolete and hated, and so they have to hide. Being that an artist would end up at the lowest tier of society in this society, for being what he is, he would end up being a transient. And so they would form an underground and hide behind the facade that they are simply bums, and so the upper tiers of the society would go about their lives ignorant and blind to the words and images these artists created that showed how wrong their society was. Then I was sitting there at lunch, and fight club hit me, and then the two ideas merged together. Anyone who's a serious artist in our society, who completely devotes most of their energy towards that end, isn't going to have a job at all, but instead they'd be bums. Unless, however, they were lucky and somehow "made it big" which involves mass producing a smile anyway, so the quality of their work would be destroyed nearly anyway; that is, unless they were to develop a cult status (a la Chuck). So that's why they're all bums: because they are serious artists, and an artist has no value to a society that's all about consumerism and has little to no need for art whatsoever. I'm not trying to justify what you see: that it's self-indulgent. But I do think you're overlooking a lot of what it's about. Like I said, I'll change it so he loses: I really don't care. It's a pretty minute detail that has nothing to do with what the story's about. You're getting too caught up in it in my opinion: notice how the fact that he won fills little to no space in the story, but instead the story is all about what I've pointed out above. I guess the message does come down to the fact that I'm going to keep writing even if it has no value in general to my society, in a sense, but it's a lot deeper than that as I've shown. Fight Club, the book and movie, are all about a hatred of consumerism. The main narrator of the novel/ movie is a had-been consumer: he worked his cubicle job and purchased more and more [i]things[/i]. Tyler Durden is the antithesis of what the narrator had been. "The things you own end up owning you" and so on and so forth. There's also a lot of pessimism and nihilism mixed into this message as well, but overall that is what fight club is about: it's about people who were pissed with their life and its rampant consumerism and endless focus on money, and so got it off their chest by physical means. It was like a self-help group. Remember earlier Marla and the narrator going to those self-help groups, being around those sick people, and how they became addicted to it and needed to feel wanted? That's what fight club was. A self-help group with a very destructive nature. In this regard, Asphy, I think you missed the main message of what Fight Club is about, and thus overlooked much of what this story tells, too.[/QUOTE]And you've just illustrated one of the precise reasons why literature "inspired" by film never works--or rarely works. I don't think the respective ideologies of Fight Club and this piece are similar at all, honestly. Fight Club and the Decadent movement in Victorian England are similar. On a good day, one could make an interesting analysis of Tyler Durden and Oscar Wilde. But I never get the sense at all that the main character of your piece is motivated by anything remotely similar to the social conditions that prompted Tyler and Oscar. I don't feel anything from this main character. His motivation--correction, his [i]narration[/i], feels completely artificial. Jack's narration in Fight Club never felt this artificial. This piece, the message, the construction...it all feels forced as hell. And you're missing a huge, huge distinction between your piece and Fight Club, Mitch: Fight Club was a destructive (and self-destructive) self help group whose mantra was basically stamped on the cover of the film: Mischief, Mayhem, Soap. The Space Monkeys were going out and destroying things. They were actually lashing out. Their anger, frustrations, reactions, and actions made sense because they were targeting the things and institutions that pissed them off so much. Basically...as screwed up as the Space Monkeys were...they were still adhering to the principle that formed the Space Monkeys. What does the group in your story do? They hang out in a basement and hold write-offs. Where are they actually lashing out? Where's the publishing house destruction? The building collapses? The bombs? The violence? These are things that made Fight Club what it was: sociopolitical revenge. There's nothing of that in this piece, which is a major reason why it feels so lame. There's nothing happening. We're told what the conflict is...but we don't see it. We're told what the group's philosophy is...but we never see it. We see everything in Fight Club--and that story is being told by a schizophrenic, for Chrissakes. I suppose the only similarity to Fight Club is the underground "fight" sequences, but given the blanks, the inconsistencies, the scattered themes of the piece...one underground "fight" sequence just isn't enough. Am I the only one here who sees no point at all to this piece? Am I the only one who sees a barebones attempt at a plot...a severely malnourished and underdeveloped concept and execution?

Same here, Dagger. Sometimes times out, other times very, very slow.

[QUOTE=Warmaster]Well, it seems you are much more stubborn than I realised. So, I am dropping the issue. I don't really care enough to discuss it, because you are obviously much more willing to write 2 screen-lengths about something you know next-to-nothing about than go ahead and actually try it. I rather just run into your oh-so-powerful Mesmer in PVP sometime and pound you into the ground than try to convince you here and now that you don't know what you're talking about. Honestly, if you think you can just sit on your arse and hypothesize how to defeat guild builds of top-ranked guilds, then I wonder why you're not at the top of the GvG ladder yourself, haha. Anyway, I'm through with this discussion. If this thread turns to something interesting, I'll return to it. For the time being, I'd rather just play the game.[/QUOTE] Warmaster, if you were willing to provide a cogent, specific argument and an analysis of what skills are going to work for and against that strategy, I'd be more inclined to agree. But as it stands, your entire rebuttals were little more than self-contradictory rubbish. If you want me to see your side at all there...you needed to explain why your team build wasn't using Mesmers, Necros, or Rangers to act as the anti-Casters. You needed to explain why using a HamWar as caster disruption was somehow better than letting the true anti-Caster classes do their jobs. And you never, ever did any of that. You needed to explain why a HamWar shouldn't look to disrupt Wars, even if it's just the KD and Weakness side effect. Instead of doing that, all you did was flip-flop between HamWars being used for disruption or major DPS. You gave absolutely no specifics regarding the team build you were using, apart from an occasional reference to another guild's team build. Come on. I don't know what I'm talking about? I know next-to-nothing? You were posting meaningless and vague arguments and trying to pass them off as worthwhile. When you're talking about a Monk triplet, for example, and not even realize that two Power Blocks are going to completely ruin that entire set-up? Come on, man. Even I know not to overfocus like that. Some builds require overspecialization. That Monk triplet is not overspecialization. It's nothing more than opening up an entire strategy to Power Block, and you can see it just as well as I can. You make it pretty obvious you hang around GWGuru forums, by the way. [quote name='Sciros']Gentlemen, seems we have a natural Sherlock Holmes on these forums -_-[/quote] No, Dmitry. You dropping the name of one GWG member is hardly making it obvious. What makes it obvious is the downright lousy debate methods in your posts here and 95% of the posts over there. Let's be honest here. The only way most of those people over there can reply is if they are able to misrepresent the point of the post they're replying to. You were trying to pull that same kind of garbage here. So until you're prepared to actually have a discussion with sound, reasonable, and valid arguments and not merely relying on vagaries and misrepresentations, don't waste my time, or anyone else's time. Simple as that.

Warmaster, there was never any disagreement on a War functioning for high DPS. Apart from particular highly-specialized Ele or Ranger builds (or Mesmer), there's little else that can match the DPS of a War. DPS was never an issue here. It was never a basis for anything I've been saying, because here's how the discussion went: You initially said that HamWars are good at disruption and thus that's why they target squishies and casters. I countered that with they're completely overshadowed at all forms of disruption by Mesmers, Necros, and Rangers. You followed by making a distinction between being a HamWar "nuisance" and the total shutdown possible from Mes, Nec, Rang, as if the HamWar disruption goal is justified because it's nothing more than looking to disrupt. But the problem there--and a point I did raise earlier--is that if the so-called "support" classes are going to out-perform the HamWar in the general idea of "disruption," why should the HamWar even try to disrupt in the first place? At that point, he's doing nothing more than pretending to be anti-Caster. Now that's pretty much indisputable right there. A HamWar running up to a caster because that HamWar is going to do some disrupting is mind-bogglingly misguided, particularly when there are Mesmers, Necros, and Rangers on that HamWar's team. Objectively, the HamWar is useless in that context. But when I point that out, the HamWar's goal is suddenly major DPS? Come on, dude. lol More and more, the more you describe this entire tactic--regardless of how much experience, how many wins, etc--it's had...the only two ways it's going to be effective are as follows: 1) There are no Mesmers, Necros, or Rangers at all in the entire battle. 2) There are, and they don't know what they're doing. If you're running on a build that is similar to the highly situational 3-Monk, Ele, War build you've been describing here...the only reason it's working is because the teams you've faced didn't have properly-operating Mesmers, Necros, and Rangers. I guarantee that if I had my own personal group of 2-3 Mes/Nec/Rangers...the 3-monk system will get destroyed. All it'll take are two Power Blocks (and honestly, speaking from personal experience playing Mes, no self-respecting Interrupt Domination Mesmer will not bring Power Block) and a handful of Interrupts and then that opposing build will have no healing, no prot, and very, very limited Hex/Cond removal. If you've got a HamWar going after casters to do minimalist disruption at best, then that proves to me that your team just simply does not have true anti-Caster capabilities. Your HamWar doing disruption of casters is a War pretending that he's a Mesmer. He's pretending that he's a Necro. He's pretending that he's a Ranger with a short bow and Interrupts out the wazoo. If you're forgoing the disruption after I've explicitly stated why HamWars suck at it when there are anti-Caster classes working, and instead of disruption, you want the major DPS a War is good for, here's where Weakness (no matter what skill it's coming from, mind), Pacifism, Shadow of Fear, Sympathetic Visage, Spirit Shackles--certainly, the entire list I posted earlier--comes back into this discussion. What good is a HamWar who's only doing 33% of his total damage output, who's now attacking at 50% of his total attack speed, who's missing at least 25% of the time, and losing energy each time he misses, who's losing all of his Adre and 3 energy each time he connects with a hit...you get the idea by now, and I think you got the idea a long time ago, which would explain the recent meandering about, hopping from topic to topic. What I'm talking about here isn't 1v1. What I'm talking about here is the fact that you're depending on Monks to keep you alive and not considering just what the opposition can really do to you if they know what they're doing--not to mention what the opposition is going to be doing to your Monks, as well. To put it bluntly as possible, I'm not the one focused on 1v1. I'm not the one saying how the War can Control-Click to announce those Hexes and Conditions so he can keep swinging away and remain [i]solely[/i] focused on that [i]one[/i] squishy caster he has in his sights. The fact that I'm considering what other classes are going to be doing--and what I would do if you ran up to one of my casters--is proof enough that a 1v1 is not my focus here at all. Fact of the matter is, while the HamWar may be the king in War DPS...he's also the most vulnerable to just about everything. He has minimalist and average disruption and if played in a Mesmer/Necro-free environment, he's going to be the best disruptor you'll see. But once a Mesmer, Necro, or even a Ranger steps in...that HamWar just became a burly lump of meat swinging a Hammer. And he's only effective when he's able to swing that Hammer. His DPS depends on being able to swing that Hammer, just like all Wars. But, drawing upon The Matrix phone analogy, other classes can take away that War's DPS if they're so inclined...and they will be so inclined. A Hex/Cond removal Monk can only do so much. And they can only do very little when you've got a team (even just two) of Mesmers, Necros, or Rangers working together. The War makes himself a target by going after a Monk? He shouldn't enjoy what happens after that. I can see an AxeWar or even a SwordWar going after a Monk. Their abilities are more tailored to fast damage infliction while simultaneously having melee attacks that will disrupt spells. Savage Slash, for example. But a HamWar? Whose KD/disruption skills border on irrelevant to a spellcaster to begin with? If they want to kill things, fine. But if you've got a character who can disrupt and KD...and cause true anti-Warrior conditions (Weakness, for example) while they're at it...they should consider targeting the Wars, because that's where the KDs will be most effective, and that's where the side effects will be most effective. This isn't about "OMG your purpose is to inflict Weakness on that Warrior," a point which I explicitly clarified previously. This is about using the HamWar for what he's good at: KDs. His DPS is an incidental, as far as I'm concerned, because a solid Mesmer or Necro can make him a lame duck in terms of DPS. Given the HamWar's slower attack speed and dependence on a type of "pause*HIT*pause*HIT*pause*HIT*" rhythm...leave the massive DPS to an AxeWar, because he won't suffer like the HamWar will from so many of those delicious anti-War Hexes, Enchants, and Conditions. To sum up...I'm not missing anything here. I'm not missing the point of Wars at all, and I'm not speaking from limited experience, either, Warmaster. I'm speaking from extensive experience playing the *true* anti-Caster/anti-Warrior/"gonna f-ck you up real bad" classes. The more and more we discuss this, the more and more I'm convinced that entire 3-Monk/Ele/War build is completely one-dimensional. It has one or two particular strengths, but it has two flaws and vulnerabilities for every strength. And I'm more and more convinced now that those flaws and weaknesses have not been considered by the designers; had there been consideration given to the dangers of a Monk triplet with individual specializations...there would be no Monk triplet with individual specializations. "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" is pretty relevant here.

[quote name='Warmaster']If you really think that your job as a hammer war is to go vs. other warriors and inflict weakness on them, then go for it, but you'll be doing the rest of your team quite a disservice by ignoring so much of your potential.[/quote] That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that if you're going for disruption, why not disrupt those who will actually care about the side effects? Disruption is disruption either way. You either disrupt casters or you disrupt physical attackers. Using KDs, it doesn't matter whom you're going up against. With competent Mesmers, Necros, and Rangers...the HamWar doesn't need to give two shits about the opposing Monk. I've played Mesmer and Necro extensively since August Beta of 04, and I'm more than able to guarantee that a Monk isn't going to be doing anything for most of the match when I can have fun--especially when my own Wars keep the opposition off of me and my fellow spellcasters, the opposition being other Wars. What I'm saying is that a HamWar Caster-hate is totally irrelevant and useless when the Mesmers, Necros, and Rangers--the anti-Casters of the game--know what they're doing. It goes like this: My fellow Mesmers, Necros, Rangers and I have made the opposing casters' lives miserable. They can't do anything. They've been Power Blocked, Interrupted, Dazed; they've learned how cruel Mark of Subversion, Guilt, and Shame are. Concussion Shot has become the bane of their existence, as has Epidemic. What could a HamWar possibly do there to further debilitate the opposition casters that those Mesmers, Necros, and Rangers couldn't do 10x better? I'm not talking about killing casters here. I'm talking about shutting them down in such a way they might as well be dead. This isn't speaking in hypotheticals. This is speaking from a guy who's been playing the "f-ck-you-up" classes for a long time now. ^_^ [quote]To sum up the whole "Necros and Mesmers being better at anti-caster," I'd like to point out that shutdown is all well and good, but your own mesmers and necros are targets of shutdown as well. Something needs to actually *kill* the opposing players. That's the Warrior's job ^_^[/QUOTE] Exactly why I said earlier that the only real threats to Mesmers and Necros are other Mesmers and Necros. And that's why I see the target priority currently as kind of silly. Monks aren't the top priority. Mesmers and Necros are, because if your offense is getting shut down (and we've both seen the horrors of coordinated duos of Mesmers/Necros), that Monk isn't going to fall. It's why Mesmer is listed as the more advanced class of the game: it requires a level of attention and a metagame that transcends most other professions--except Necros, because those two classes function on similar wavelengths. Teams I've been on have wrecked Korean teams in Tombs because I know how to use Mesmer and Necro. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying I was the sole reason the Korean team fell within 30 seconds. That's not what I'm implying at all. I'm saying that when played well, Mesmers and Necros rule the battlefield. There's simply no contest. What was the quote from The Matrix? It applies here. lol "Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call when you are unable to speak?" Same principle applies here. Mesmers and Necros can take away any phone you may have, because they can take away your ability to speak.

[quote name='Warmaster']Just keep one and use a Ranger's Winter or Greater Conflagration to add the versatility you need. If elemental damage is important at the time, then you're probably going to take such a ranger with you anyway.[/quote] Largely, it doesn't matter to me. When I need Ele damage, w00t! Largely, I don't. Either my Furious, Zealous, or Ebon do just fine. Plus the Ebon is the War Pick (and customizing the pre-order items...that was a surprise. I never thought it was possible.), so I've got +20% damage on there. A few smidgens off from max damage isn't as bad as people say. I'm not noticing any difference. [quote]Well, many people will tell you many different things, because it's all about what you play. In PVE, they're tanks, but in PVP, I'd say they're the main damage output. Warriors are capable of far more consistent DPS than any other class, and by quite a margin. As long as they don't go defensive, that is. If I may humbly disagree, I find myself targeting the Monk, followed by the Mesmer, then Necro, then Elem, then Ranger, and finally Warrior. Warriors have armor that's basically built to withstannd melee attacks, and the armor penetration of Elems as well as the DoT hexes of Mesmers and Necros are what is best suited for taking them out. As a Warrior, I target everyone but other warrirors ^_^ (until they're the only ones left standing). I find the same is true with teams that go against us; I'm always the last to really be taken down. I agree that a really good Mesmer and a really good Necro can make your job as a War downright miserable, but if you have a condition/hex removal Monk on your team, just call out your conditions/hexes with ctrl+click and keep swinging away. That's why many good 8v8 teams have 3 monks. One for healing, one for protection, one for condition/hex removal. But, we're not talking about the warrior "shutting someone down" (although a good War/Mes *can* ^^), or at least I wasn't. I am talking about warrior damage output, and no matter how you slice it, no other profession can match it. Warrirors are victim to damage reducing hexes and snares and such, but as I said above, an attentive Monk will keep those things off the War and let him do his job ^_^ In PVE, I'd have to definitely agree that most warriors are best at just being "tanks," essentially getting in the way of the monsters attacking the healers. In PVP, however, there are better ways of stopping the warriors who are after your own monks and mesmers. A simple "cripple and move on" is sufficient, as welll as Ward vs. Foes, or Enfeebling Blood, or Ethereal Burden, etc. Weakness by warrirors is, well, sub-par compared to other methods of protecting your vulnerable teammates. Not to mention that it's quite slow. A warrior can't even come close to "damn near negating" another warrior's DPS. Weakness might hurt your regular swings, but they do nothing agaist the bonus damage of special attacks, so if they are running well-put-together adrenaline build or, god forbid, a Flourish-based energy attack build, Weakness will barely affect them. If you want to stop another warriors with your own, I suggest "cripple and run," I really do. Deep Wound is not a defensive skill, it's an aggressive skill ^_^ Why would you even bring it up in the situation you are describing and then try to analyze its effectiveness in defense? Actually, I hate it when a sword warrior hamstrings me in order to let his monk and mesmer run away and have the mesmer hex me into submission. Also, as a warrior myself I use cripple as an offensive tactic. I run in, cripple the monk, and then watch him stumble his way nowhere as I chop him up. KD *is* disruption. We're not talking about distanced disruption like what Mesmers and Rangers are capable of. KD warriros aren't for "shutdown," they're for just generally being a huge nuisance to a monk as well as a damage machine. KD is good because it keeps them from running, and it may occasionally stop a skill (especially if you time it right and watch their skill use bar). More importantly, perhaps, KD increases the output of Aftershock, which is why the KD/AS build is so popular (and bloody effective) in PVP. Indeed, I use Backbreaker myself in my Hammer War build ^_^ You're talking about specifically using it against Warriors. But this whole time I have been telling you, leave the anti-warrior fighting to other professions. They're better at it. I can't believe you'd even consider to waste an Elite slot on inflicting weakness on a warrior when a Necro's Enfeeble costs 5 energy and is nearly spammable. Hammer Wars aren't for shutdown. What they "disrupt" is the attempted escape of their targets ^_^ by timing knockdowns well. Belly Smash is seriously one of the worst hammer skills ever, unless you're playing PVE and farming Griffons or something ^_^ Warriors never surround my hammer war in PVP. Try a condition-stacking Ranger, Sword Warrior, or Axe Warrior build, and you'll never go back to Hammer ^_^. Hammers DO get the short end of the stick when it comes to condition stacking. The adrenaline charges for their moves are just way too high for that sort of strategy in comparison to how efficient other ones are. Well, you *can* play your Warrior in that role, but then I think you are not utilizing him to the best of his abilities. Other professions can use far fewer resources to get the "temporary reprieve" than what a Warrior would spend. At least in PVP. ^_^ All of the Hammer elites are high-adrenaline. A 10% Furious mod will save me a turn almost ever time. Oh, and of course Berserker Stance is a must. Hmmm... a Victory is Mine Hammer Warrior... I don't think I like it very much. May I offer some suggestions? First of all, ViM is primarily for gaining back energy (the life is nice though), and Hammers are best when you have lots of adrenaline, not energy. You can use energy-based attacks such as Power Attack, but those attacks help Swords and Axes more, actually (Ensign figured it out one day). ViM can be used like an instant Flourish to maintain DPS and keep you alive as well ^_^. To that end, a far more efficient build (and one that is much better at staying alive on top of that) is a W/E Earth tank that uses a Sword, (or a W/N condition stacker... though W/Ns are way worse at tanking if they focus on that stuff). Go 10 Earth, 14-15 Tactics, and the rest Swordsmanship. Then take Balanced Stance, Desperation Blow, and Sever. Those first 2 take 5 energy each, and ViM covers for that quite nicely (especially since Desperation Blow inflicts a condition every time and very efficiently for a warrior). Balanced Stance will keep you from falling when you use it, and it's a very high-damage attack on top of inflicting conditions. The rest of the skills, I'll leave for you to figure out ^_^. A level 16 in Sanctum Cay... well, I've been using a Warrior for over 500 hours at this point, and won 2 GvGs yesterday with my Hammer War. I don't want to say that experience means everything, but please consider my friendly suggestions, as I only use what's been working best for me ^_^.[/QUOTE] Warmaster, I wanted to go point-by-point here, because there's a lot of good stuff going on in your post, but I wanted to sum up and then reply. Basically, your point is that a Hammer War focusing on KD/disruption shouldn't be targeting other Wars because other classes' (Nec and Mes) are much more able to handle playing Anti-Warrior. Further, a Hammer War is concerned with damage output, and targeting another War is going to have a drastic effect on that damage output, due to the War's "armor vs physical." Further, because a Hammer War's condition infliction is sub-par when compared to other characters, the Hammer War's main concern should be acting as it's designed to: KD/disruption, as you said, "the attempted escape of their targets by timing knockdowns well." So far this is an appropriate summation, I trust? A Hammer War acts as a nuisance to casters, because it's foolish of the Hammer War to act as a nuisance to anyone else, due to the above-stated reasons. So, basically, a Hammer War should target squishies because other classes completely overshadow the Hammer War in targeting other Wars. A Hammer War needs to get up close and personal to be a threat to those squishy targets. He needs to be able to swing to be a threat. As he approaches the squishies, he enters the "danger zone," where he becomes fresh meat for any Mesmer or Necro or Prot Monk carrying Pacifism. All it takes is Cripple, or Pacifism, or Shadow of Fear, or Sympathetic Visage (on the HamWar's target), or Price of Failure, or Empathy, or Enfeeble, or Spiteful Spirit, or Spirit Shackles, or Ineptitude, or Clumsiness, or Enervating Charge, or Lightning Javelin, or Glimmering Mark, or Blind (from either Blinding Flash, Throw Dirt, Ineptitude, Glimmering Mark...that list goes on and on)...and then all that careful planning that HamWar and his team just did goes right out the window. Five of the above skills are from Mes. And we all know just how many Mes Hexes there are. Five there are Nec. A few there are Ele. Those are just off the top of my head, and you could probably find them in any good Mes/Nec/Ele skill set that would anticipate the War running up like that. There are at least 7 Hexes there, a handful of conditions, a KD, and an Interrupt or two. Keep in mind that's just scraping the surface of those three profs, and not even touching Ranger. Explain to me why it's a good idea for a Hammer War to put himself in that kind of position, even with a 3-Monk support team behind him? In a matter of seconds, it seems highly likely that War is going to be Hexed fifteen different ways, inflicted with 3 or 4 conditions at once and 8 Hex/Condition removal skills are going to be adequate...am I missing something here? On top of all of that, compare a HamWar's disrupt abilities to those shutdowns of a Nec, Mes, or Ranger...and that HamWar's disruptions are just as ineffective as if you compared the HamWar to a Nec, Mes, or Ranger in the context of disrupting a War. So why target Monk (or any squishies)? Mes, Nec, and Rangers can shutdown casters long before the HamWar will get there, and I think the HamWar's goal is ultimately irrelevant because of that. Disruption or not, the HamWar just gets shown-up when it comes to caster-hate. And you're absolutely right, too: he's just a nuisance. Just like he'd be a nuisance to Warriors if he went after them. You're a HamWar concentrating on KD/disruption. How is that going to be any less effective when played against a War? Let's not forget that since you're concentrating on KD/disruption, you don't care about status conditions, so the Weakness condition of D.Hammer is merely an undesired perk for using that skill. That's "undesired" in the sense that Weakness isn't why you're using the skill, by the way. Oh, at equal levels in Hammer and Curses, D.Hammer and Enfeeble inflict the same duration of Weakness. Something to think about, especially when playing the HamWar. You're in HamWar for the KD/disruption, right? The KD/disruption happens with anyone you go up against. D.Hammer is a KD and it also causes Weakness. Using it against a War is not useless at all, especially considering you can get the same duration as you'd get with Enfeeble. You're knocking someone down anyway. Why not make that someone a character that will actually suffer? My reply here is exceedingly rambly, because I'm pretty exhausted, but I'm not seeing any real, convincing argument why HamWars should only target casters, because the reasons given for the caster-hate can be utilized in a case against using HamWars for caster-hate. Do you get what I'm saying here? HamWars target casters because Necs and Mes are better for anti-warrior...but Necs and Mes are also exponentially better for anti-caster, as well, so the same logic used for the HamWar Caster-hate can be used against the HamWar Caster-hate. The entire case for HamWar Caster-hate does not support using a HamWar for Caster-hate. And plus, isn't there Dwarven Battle Stance for HamWars handling disruption? One stance has the potential to make an entire skill set useless. 30 second recharge, but still.

[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]First of all, [b]Intelligent design = Creation[/b]. Intelligent design calls for a Creator, and "author" of existance. The creator can choose any method in how he creates, meaning "POOF!" things can be created out of nothing, and it's possible for things to be manipulated to create other things. Creation includes natural processes and physical laws. The creator is not bound by these laws because he created them (no kidding!). There is intelligence and wisdom behind the way natural processes and physical laws work so elequantly together. So why is intelligent design so "laughable" as a faith if it is responsible for creation? I've been doing a bit of reading and came across an excellent book: [u][b]The complete idiot's guide to Understanding Islam[/b][/u]. I will quote several passages because it explains the creation theory well. Anything ring a bell people? The So that means that God could have created the universe in six segments, each of which could have been several billion years. And each which could have varied in length as well (yes Brasil! God created time, he has the ability to manipulate it to his liking, so anything is possible and he does not need to be consistent if he doesn't want to!) Also, note that the six days mentioned do not include the creation of life, even though they theoretically could have included it because the "days" could have varied in length. I personally agree it is indeed possible that God could have evolved creatures from a single organism. But I also equally think it's God could have just created them individually , because he doesn't need to make things evolve to obtain "fitness" and diversity to begin with (he might simply choose to). I also think that humans were created because God states in the Qur'an that humans were made in the best fashion (ahsani taqweem). Therefore, we have always possesed great intellect. We were "perfect" to begin with. This does not leave room for the idea that we evolved from inferior creatures that could not speak and had inferior intellect to our own. Maybe bones of beings like the famous lucy show what humans looked like in early times, but if that is the case, those beings certainly were not inferior to today's humans. And those beings certainly did not evolve from even more inferior creatures similar to apes. Also, maybe certain humans evolved to look like those creatures, if they had been placed in severe conditions that required a more animalistic anatomy. Also, as I mentioned before, a certain tribe of wicked people was turned into apes, so that could explain this phenomena. Now before you assert that if humans were on earth for only tens of thousands of years, that it doesn't provide enough time for evolution in humans to occur, let me ask this: If God is indeed the author of existance, then could he not alter things as he wills? Could he not speed up the evolutionary process? Could he not allow more mutations to occur and create an even greater selection pressure? Also, could God have not created the Earth in a short amount of time, and becuase of his supreme power make it seem like it is very old. He would have complete control over the chemical and physical processes that occur that we use to measure the age of the Earth. Honestly, if there is such things as a creator, ANYTHING is possible! But for science's sake we can stick to observing nature with the notion that physical laws remain consistent.[/color][/quote] Chabi, do you even realize what argument you're using here? Do you even realize what the fundamental theme in those excerpts is? It's the Uncaused Cause argument. Two pages ago, I explained why the Uncaused Cause argument is a lame defense of Creationism/I.D. I thought I had made it pretty clear, but I guess since you're again using it, I didn't explain it clearly enough. I'll recap quickly: The Uncaused Cause (as it relates to this topic) is a religious cop-out. The variations of the Uncaused Cause argument include "God is excused from the laws of _____ because He created ______," "It happens because God makes it happen," and "The rules don't apply to God because He is the Supreme Being and doesn't need to adhere to the rules." Do you get what I'm saying here? Uncaused Cause is just another way of dodging potent criticisms of religion. Instead of actually countering the criticism with the same type of logical assessment the criticism is based on, Uncaused Cause merely retorts with "Well, God is beyond our comprehension, so therefore the criticism is invalid." Or, "It is because God made it like that." That is the fundamental reasoning behind any variation of the Uncaused Cause defense. Some say it has no weaknesses, so therefore it's a solid and logical defense. Bull. lol. It's nothing more than proving X with X., which is not a valid defense. I can't see how (or why) you're still trying to make your point, because it was broken down days ago. [quote][color=#004a6f]A change in these physical laws results in the supernatural, and that alone is the concept that needs to be left out of science. [u]Anyway I have to agree with Adahn on this. Theologians cannot impose their religion on others in the science classroom, but science should not be taught in such a manner that it completely and utterly denies the existance of a creator, because it fails to disprove it.[/u] The evolution theory is taught at a very early age. My little sister was only eight when she was learning it! Adahn's right, she is at a very impressionable age, and does not have enough knowledge to make an informed decision. If you think that I.D should remain in religion or philiosophy classes, then these subjects need to be taught at an early age too, not just in high school or university (ofcourse from a completely neutral standpoint in public schools).[/color][/quote] [i]Then why are you supporting including I.D. in science courses?[/i] Regardless of "disproving" the existence of a creator, [i][u][b]are you able to give any concrete evidence that a creator exists[/b][/u][/i]? There's concrete evidence that macro-E and micro-E exist. More and more, scientists are figuring out what was happening at the beginning of Earth's lifespan (and the universe's lifespan, as well). At this point in time, given the relative infancy of evolutionary theory, you expect schools to include Creationism, simply because science is still too young to give definite answers regarding the origins of life? I deny the existence of a Creator, but I'm no Evolutionary Biologist. Should I automatically be touting Creationism because I don't buy into some ancient mythology? That's the argument you're using: If someone doesn't believe in the existence of a Creator, and completely and utterly denies the existence of said Creator, and can't prove a Creator doesn't exist, that someone should start including Creationism/I.D. in his or her usual discourse. Now, honestly, I think you should have taken Jordan's advice two pages ago. [quote][color=#004a6f]I know that you will never change your mind about I.D, simply because you stick to the opinion that science is quantitative and objective, and refuse to accept the fact that [u]creation can be looked upon in a completely logical and objective way[/u]. The [b]fact[/b] remains that [u]the universe cannot exist with a creator[/u]. Until someone disproves this, all your atheistic ideas of existance remain subjective. [/color][/QUOTE] What "Fact" are you talking about? lol. I could very easily point to Tralfamadorianism or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and say the same thing. No offense, but your argument is completely meaningless. lol And Creationism [i]can't[/i] be looked upon in a completely logical and objective way, because the [i]very concept itself[/i] is [b]completely illogical[/b] and [b]completely subjective[/b]. Is it coincidence that only religious people believe in Creationism, while Atheists do not? It's no coincidence. Do you know why? [i]Because the belief in Creationism is entirely subjective[/i]. Creationism is not fact. But Evolution is [u]not[/u] subjective. Those who deny the existence of Evolution are the same people who were hunting down Galileo and Copernicus because they were challenging the Geocentric universe. I sound fairly harsh throughout the reply here, but I keep seeing the same religiously-founded rebuttal points over and over again, long after the idea behind them has been debunked, and it's just getting annoying. It seems like even the most fundamental counter to I.D., the fact that it depends on superstition and mythology, has been completely ignored here, and [i]that[/i] is really getting absurd. [quote name='Adahn']You are advocating the teaching of a theory in an anti-Christian manner in public schools. We have shifted from a heavily religious school system to what is becoming an anti-religious one. Is neutrality on the issue not enough for you, Brasil? Is there no middle ground, no compromise in the war between the secular and non-secular in schools?[/quote] Anti-religious? What are you talking about? Anti-Christian? lol. Try [b][u]non[/u][/b]-religious. The problem is that Fundamentalist Christians and Pro-I.D. groups see non-religious and see a threat. And frankly, not to sound indignant or glib, but I don't blame them, because if my entire belief structure was built on 2500 year-old, outdated religious doctrine most likely written out of fear and ancient superstitions, I'd be scared when modern technologies start plinking away at it. [quote]The Christians are going about this all wrong. They are abusing their social power here. The teaching of ID will resolve [i]their[/i] conflict, but even if they succeed it will cause more conflict and division. This is why I stated that it was [i]a [/i]solution, however incomplete and temporary.[/quote] Adahn, you need to start fighting the Pro-I.D. groups then, if you feel that way. You're a smart guy, and you see the problems here. Join us...fight the power. lol [quote]If it were so silly and bizarre, the Christians would be laughed out of every formal debate and every courtroom. As it stands, they hold so much social power over the country that no matter how silly and bizarre their ideas are, their power gives them validity in the eyes of the public.[/quote] Just wait for the backlash, because I guarantee you it's going to be insane if Christians today keep going the way they're going. It's going to be the 1840s all over again, except those revolting aren't going to be Catholics; they're going to be everyone else. [quote]You take my use of the word 'problem' and apply too strong a meaning to it. For your benefit, I will call it a social conflict. Using the new word, I will attempt to describe the situation again without arousing your preconceptions of what a social "problem" constitutes. The Christians have their panties in a bunch because their interests are being threatened. From their perspective, the teaching of evolution in schools as infallible is damning the souls of millions of children. Their response's purpose is to remove this threat, but the greedy SOB's are biting off more than they can chew in suing for the teaching of their ID theory.[/quote] No, when you say "social problem," the implication there is something like gang warfare in the inner cities. I didn't apply too strong a meaning to anything. You mis-used a word. lol And like I've said time and time again, religious perspective is historically, certifiably insane. I don't respect much of religious perspective, because of that whole "Here's Today. There's the Dark Ages. You're farther back that way" timeline. [quote]If science gets its way and continues "damning the souls of millions of children" (from the Christian perspective), the conflict will not be resolved. If the Christians get their way and can "save the souls of millions of children" with their ID theory, the conflict will not be resolved. If the manner of teaching evolution presents it as a fallible theory, providing children with a [b]choice[/b] to believe it or not, the conflict is resolved for the Christians and the scientists, though unsatisfactorily for both parties.[/quote] And gasp, what is happening? Christian parents are taking their children out of public schools, children are being excused from class when the Evolution unit is started. Christians have it pretty damn good already. That's why they need to start getting screwed over entirely. [quote]Scientists screw Christians: Scientists continue their teaching of Evolution in a manner that makes it appear infallible. Christians screw scientists: ID is taught in schools alongside Evolution. Scientists and Christians both screwed: Evolution is required to be taught as fallible, though an understanding of its mechanisms and applications is required of the students. I thought it made sense.[/quote] Misformatted arrows (and the arrows in general) do not represent screws. I'm no moron, and even I couldn't see that whole "Getting screwed" aspect. All I saw was "Scientists arrow Christians," "Christians arrow Scientists," then a jumbled spacing on two lines. [quote]Brasil, if the Christians get screwed, is that going to stop them and solve the conflict? We both know that the answer is that it will not. Do you not think it feasible to explore possible solutions that will [i]actually[/i] bring about a resolution to the conflict?[/quote] Give a mouse a cookie, Adahn, give a mouse a cookie. The mouse needs to get completely screwed. [quote]P.S. Shinji is a hippie.[/quote] No, Shinji has common sense.

Warmaster, you can check online and see the buzz is still happening. lol. If you're really desperate, turn on G4TV. I recently saw a roundtable with some id software head honchos, and they're still talking about Revolution's controller. IGN and Gamespot are still running pieces on it. More and more games are being added to the "Tentative Games" list every couple of days. And I think it's incredibly likely that the types of discussions we're having here, what types of gameplay we can see, what's possible, etc., are the same types of discussions game devs are having. Everyone is excited about this. I think it's very likely that Peter Molyneux will bring Black & White to Revolution. Even during a videoconference, he was figuring out what could be done with the game mechanics and the Revolution controller. He has a habit of talking a bit too much, but his ideas there were solid. We can be assured that Zelda Revolution will rock our world, because you know that it's going to be designed around the controller. Twilight Princess being the "last traditional Zelda game" is going to be entirely accurate. We may have movement with the joystick nunchuk, but swordplay is not going to be hitting the A button over and over again. After Revolution, I doubt any swordplay in any game will ever be hitting a button over and over and still well-received. It depends on how the new gameplay fares, obviously, but what doubt do we have? ~_^ Nintendo has been the only company going in the right direction the entire time. If left to Sony and Microsoft, gaming would be totally exclusive; non-gamers and casual gamers would be almost completely alienated. Come to think of it, it's come close to that in the past few years. Instead of streamlining the UI and input, we've gotten more and more buttons. Games are rarely even an N64 controller affair anymore. Even if Revolution comes in third, it's going to change the industry for the better.

[quote name='Warmaster']Well, I'm definitely going to stand firm on the side of GW being more about PVP than PVE. Considering how much more enthusiasm and effort ANet has been putting into keeping the PVP scene "balanced," and considering that they have always referredt to GW as a "competitive RPG" as opposed to an "MMO," and considering my personal discussions with the developers (which I won't really go into, just explaining what has formed MY opinion), I'd definitely say that they have put more love into PVP than PVE. WoW, on the other hand, is what you get when a developer puts some serious effort into the PVE aspect. But, no point in really arguing this; there's enough PVE AND PVP to go around for everyone, and you can really treat the two as huge, separate games. I play PVE more, but enjoy both.[/quote] They're churning out more and more PvE content. There's talk of adding in PvE Guild features. There's a push from the community for more PvE character customization, and from what we've seen in interviews, that's very likely. I look at the content balance right now and I see much more variety in PvE. You have various types of battles in PvP, but that's about it. PvE, on the other hand, there's much more to do. Time-wise and content-wise, PvE is not getting left by the wayside, nor is there a focus more on PvP content. I agree that there's more than enough on both sides, but content-wise, and what's on the horizon in terms of updates and expansions, neither gameplay type will be getting more attention than the other. Ultimately, things will be pretty balanced, and I think the only reason we see a PvP inclination right now is the majority of the whiners are "hardcore" PvPers--and Elitist ones, at that. They're unhappy regardless of what's done, lol. [quote]1) If you already have a 10% Furious Hammer, then get an Elemental damage hammer for PVE (against Titans and Dwarves and such), and sell the rest. That's my suggestion.[/quote] Already have two Ele damage Hammers. One Fiery, the other, Ebon. Both max damage. [quote]2) Conditions important to Warriors are not the same ones important to Rangers, especially considering different builds. But, one condition that is important to both warriors and rangers is, in my opinion, Crippled. For a warrior, it means your target can't run away, and for a Ranger, it means your target can't close in on you for melee damage. Hammers don't cripple ^_^. The second most important condition for a warrior is, I believe, Deep Wound. Not only does it take away a sizeable chunk of HP, but it also reduces the benefit of healing that the target receives, which essentialy is a boost to your DPS for all intents and purposes. Other conditions that warriors can inflict are weakness and bleed, and neither are all that critical really. As a warrior, you usually attack soft targets, and they don't use melee attacks, so why care about weakness? Weakness is a condition that necromancers inflict on other warriors to protect their own and their teammates' arses. Leave it to them; they have Enfeeble and such, which is way more efficient than something a hammer war can muster. You gave me a loaded question there, when you asked what hammer mods does a KD hammer war who's *LOOKING TO INFLICT A FEW CONDITIONS* need? Well, if you're a KD hammer war and you are looking to "inflict a few conditions," then you're really looking for trouble. Leave condition stacking to the builds that are meant for it. Hammer wars are for knockdown disruption and high melee damage. Let them do what they're best at. You discuss how Weakness reduces the damage output of a melee character. However, what you do not consider is that hammer warriors should NOT be going against other warriors. And if they are, they're supposed to rely on the *anti-warrior* aspects that their teammates bring along, such as Necro curses or Mesmer DoT hexes. Hammer warriors are not good anti-warriors unless they are W/N themselves, and W/N hammer builds... well I've never seen a single one worth my attention. Really, I'm curious as to what Hammer builds you and your buddies use and what format you play, since you really seem to have thought out your 1v1 Warrior duels ~_^ But, hey, if you seriously think that weakness-lengthening hammers are so awesome, then please tell me your IGN and I'll sell you a whole ton ^_^ PS: Do you even know why I consider 10% Furious to be the best for a Hammer warrior? Also, I wanted to add that Devastating Hammer is frequently used as the hammer war elite not because it iflicts weakness, but because compared to the other KD skills in a hammer war's arsenal, it's just about the cheapest (unless you want to lose all adrenaline with Hammer Bash ^^). Oh, and if you *truly* want to put a melee fighter out of commission, there's a condition that puts weakness to shame: Blind.[/QUOTE] All of that is well and good, but regardless of the weapon type, what is a Warrior's role? The Warrior is designed to get in the thick of things. As a War, you're not going to be targeting squishy targets, except the errant Monk. No intelligent War is going to go up against a Necro or Mes, no matter what the rest of the team is doing. It's veritable suicide if the Nec or Mes knows what they're doing. Let's face it. The only threat to Nec and Mes is other Nec and Mes. No War going up against an Ele is going to have the same kind of success as a Nec or Mes will, or even a Ranger. All a Ranger needs is a short bow and one good Concussion Shot, for example. (Incidentally, I don't know why people dislike C.Shot so much. It's absurdly useful, especially with a higher Expertise. 25-->12? Yes please.) Wars are designed for one thing and one thing only: getting in-between the squishy targets and those other Wars trying to kill them. Basically, they're Intercepts. I think that's why so many Wars just suck at what they do, because they think they can carry the team. But they merely augment the team. To that end, a Warrior that can also inflict particular status conditions that inhibit (or damn near negate) the damage output of an incoming aggressor is a tremendous benefit to the team. You can Deep Wound and Cripple all you want, but if that attacker is already swinging away, Deep Wounding him won't help mitigate the damage being inflicted. Plus, an Axe War has 3x the number of Deep Wound skills. Cripple will be useless (unless you intercept beforehand, but that's best left to a Ranger or Sword War anyway). A Hammer War specializes in KDs and disruption, yes. But the KDs and disruptive skills of a Hammer War are completely overshadowed by a good Necromesmer (either combination) or Ranger...Interrupts, anyone? ~_^ Devastating Hammer is the best choice for KD with a 7 Adre cost, but why use D.Hammer when you're going after the squishies? After all, we are both agreed that Weakness doesn't matter for casters. If you're going Anti-Squishy (now that's a fun term!), Backbreaker or Earth Shaker is going to be a better option, even if it costs 3 more Adre. With B.B. or E.S., you've still got the KD (B.B...4 seconds, which is not bad for caster-hate, and E.S. is AoE KD, which is nice for grouped caster-hate) and you're not inflicting a condition that ultimately doesn't matter to your target. D.Hammer vs Squishies is a waste of a skill slot, I think. But if you're acting as a Hammer Intercept? D.Hammer is fantastic, because not only are you going to disrupt the attack speed, you're also mitigating that damage output for when that foe gets back up. It's a two birds with one stone situation, basically. That's not to say Hammer Wars can't do KD/disruption, but in the thick of things? I'd say let the Mes, Nec, or Ranger handle disrupting those casters. They're designed to do that. Hammer Wars can, but by the time they're swinging at those casters, a Mes or Nec could have already shutdown that Ele or Monk. Three, maybe four Hexes and they're not going to be doing anything. Let's not forget the Rangers doing interrupts and Ranger/Mes or Mes/Ranger is a frightening thought for casters. And then it keeps coming back to the question of if other classes are tailored for disruption and interrupts, why have a Hammer War do it? Why not focus on Intercepts, or behaving like the Meatshields Wars are designed to be? Hammer Wars are a really neat idea because on top of having the KDs, they have the important anti-physical condition inflictions, including Blind, which, interestingly enough, is a side effect from Belly Smash (though the recharge on Belly Smash is a bit long), which is best utilized against a knocked-down foe, which is exactly what happens with D.Hammer, which is a skill that causes Weakness, which is a physical damage mitigator, which is best used against characters who depend on physical damage in order to be useful on the battlefield. So when all is said and done, Hammer Wars don't get the short end of the stick when it comes to condition infliction. Necs overshadow them, of course, but Necs (and Mes) overshadow most professions in the game when it comes to shutdown. But a Hammer Wars role isn't to inflict continuous conditions, right? Their condition infliction is only temporary. But Wars are designed to act as the buffer, to provide a moment for the squishy targets to get out of the way. They provide a temporary reprieve (at least, designed to) for their squishy allies, and inflicting temp Blind and Weakness is certainly one of those temporary reprieves. Regarding your question about why you like the 10% Furious mod...Hammers have the slowest swing time. Adre is gained through either taking damage or giving damage. Furious mods double Adre gain occasionally. Hmmm...I wonder why you prefer Furious Hammer Mods. Berserker's Stance may prove useful for building Adre. Ends if you use a skill, but if you're just using it to charge, the increased attack speed plus boosted Adre gain for 10 seconds isn't bad. Recharge is 30, but for building Adre...I can't see that being an issue. To answer your question about the build, currently I'm fooling around with a Counter Blow/Mighty Blow/Disrupting Blow/ViM/Belly Smash build. Level 16 W/R in Sanctum Cay, and yes, I did go for a run. ~_^

[quote name='Adahn']The key words used here are "nearly completely". I'm all for scientific discovery, but there is a problem in the teaching of evolution. It is taught as infallible. It is taught in a manner that denies the possibility of any creation theory. If Evolution is able to provide evidence that denies the possibility of Creation, then I'm all for throwing religion down the crap chute. However, since disproving religions is impossible (I think), it should not be presented in schools as the final word on the origin of life and humanity.[/quote] It's already disproving religion, though. The very nature of the story of Creation is getting plinked away at as the years go by. But we shouldn't even need Evolution to know that 90% of religious canon is fictional at best. For all intents and purposes, religion proves itself (the vicious cycle we all know and love) and it disproves itself. [quote]Children are very impressionable. If you teach them Evolution in a manner that disproves religion, they will probably believe you. You remove their choice to think and decide for themselves. Until Evolotion disproves religion (again, impossible, I think), it should not be taught in a manner that removes the children's choice.[/quote] You do realize that suing school systems so they institute I.D. is removing a child's choice, too, right? What's it going to do to the child when they're hearing about divine intervention in a science course? What's that going to do to how they view science--and how they view the rest of the world? You talk about preventing removal of choice...but you're shoving a doctrine in their face that has absolutely no grounding in reality: "Hey kids! This is an alternative!" But it isn't an alternative. I sound really glib throughout much of this, but the entire Pro-I.D. debate is just so silly and bizarre that I'm having a hard time respecting anyone who would even consider exploring the idea in anything other than a Philosophy or Religion course. [quote]This is a social problem, Brasil. You must understand that while Christianity is a religion, it is also a very large and influential social group. The Christians as a social group saw their interests in danger. ID was their social response. If you can show me how Christians don't function as a social group, and also how ID isn't their social response to Evolution, then my argument will be invalid. If you see the problem for what it truly is (a social one), then you will realize that "religious or spiritual doctrine or ideologues in the classroom" is unnecessary in order to solve the problem. If Evolution isn't taught in the manner I have described so many times, then the Christians' social interests will no longer be in danger. The problem will be resolved without requiring talk of religion. So long as the Christian social force is a dominant one in the United States, we must cater to their social desires. I, for one, am not personally concerned with the outcome of this 'debate'. I do not share the Christian social perspective. I do, however, find the confrontation between the "Scientist social group" and the "Christian social group" interesting. The scientists [i]want[/i] evolution to be presented to children as a way to disprove religion. The Christians want their ID theology to be required to be presented to children. What I propose disappoints both groups, and that's the beauty of it. If Evolution is presented as fallible, neither group gets what it desires, yet the problem is resolved.[/quote] It's not a social problem. A social problem is something like drug abuse, homelessness, child abuse...you get the idea. A bunch of Fundamentalist Christians getting their panties in a twist because public schools (READ: non-private; READ: non-religious) aren't teaching a religiously-founded doctrine. Adahn, don't present this as an issue that's a threat to society. It isn't. It's a threat to Fundamentalist Christians who still haven't grown out of the Dark Ages, just like it's a threat to Catholics who hate Protestants. [quote]Let's have the scientists and the Christians walk away from this with their heads down. Fix the problem without screwing only one group, because the way the argument between the groups is set up now, either one getting its way screws the other. In order to drive my argument home, I'll illustrate it for you. If my illustration is offensive, I apologize. I will (regretfully) make it as unoffending as possible. Option A: Christians------>Scientists Option B: Scientists------>Christians Option C: ------>Scientists ------>Christians Here I can ask a question of the rest of you viewing this thread. Which option (A,B, or C) would be most satisfying for you? If you say "option D", then you're a hippie. Nobody is coming out of this without getting screwed.[/QUOTE] It's not that your illustration is offensive; it's that your illustration makes no sense whatsoever, even after you've explained it. And you know what? To answer your question... The Christians need to get screwed on this one.

[quote name='Lrb']I'm not sure what suits me. All I am saying is that I dislike the graphics. It was more of a statement then a reason why people shouldn't play this game. I'm using it as a point as to why I dislike the game. Do you catch my drift?[/quote] I just think that vague, meandering "I don't like it but I don't know why" types of answers suck in any context, for any context. When someone says "the graphics are good, but they're not me," then can't even explain what is them...I tend to laugh, because I'd hope most people would at least know why they dislike exceptional graphics. The style in GW is some of the best I've ever seen, and their concept artwork is absolutely breathtaking. [quote]Game-masters. I'm not sure if that's what they're called in Guild Wars, (it's been a while) but they are basically customer service.[/quote] You need to start reading GW forums, dude. The GW equivalent of "game-masters" are the devs themselves who can appear in any instance they want, whenever they want. If there's a particular bug or graphical glitch they're particularly interested in observing while it's happening, they can pinpoint [i]your own[/i] location within [i]your own[/i] instance of the explorable area and "beam" themselves in. If you read up on the game before criticizing it, you'd find that your original criticism of the "GMs" was absolutely absurd. [quote]By Arena-Based I mean that the game is mostly for going out and fighting. I just don't like that sort of thing.[/quote] This still sounds very vague. What MMOs aren't for mostly going out and fighting? WoW? SWG? CoH? Are you telling me you still have level 1 characters in WoW because you hang out in the tavern all the time? lol [quote]If you paid more attention to my post you would see that I said Role-Playing servers on WoW. I can honestly say that on any RP server on WoW, I have never seen any WTB/WTS spam. I've never played SWG so I wouldn't know.[/quote] I did pay attention to your post, and I still stand by my original response. You're basing a broad generalization about two MMOs on one smaller aspect of one of those games. You hang out in Role-Playing servers in WoW, and because you don't see the "WTB/WTS" spam chat in there, the entire WoW community is automatically better than GW's? That's like saying Goose #1 is Blue, Goose #2 is Blue, Goose #3 is Blue, therefore, all Geese are Blue. I guarantee you that the only reason you don't see the "WTB/WTS" spam chat is because you hang in the RP servers. Get into the full game servers and you'll see something horrible. And you never even touched upon my other point there, too, the one about skill discussions. How does that work in a RP server, exactly, anyway? Is it all Middle English "Bringe farth theat skilre soe wer maye dfete owr fooes"? Or...gasp! Is it "OMFG don bring dat skill! it suxs!" What's the Metagame like? Is there a Metagame? [quote]Actually this is a reason to judge the game. It means that the customer service will be the same as all their other games. And the customer service is what I had a problem with.[/quote] Okay...and how did you have a problem with the customer service of GW? I'd like to point out that the developers themselves (ArenaNet) are the ones monitoring the game, not NCSoft, and I'd also like to point out that the developers themselves (ArenaNet) are the ones who can do just about anything they want, including popping in an instanced zone to check something out with players. That customer service? Or was it something to do with actual billing? I'd then point out that GW has no monthly fees, so you can stop playing any time without having to cancel your account. Was it something to do with GW at all? If it wasn't, how does a negative experience with a different game altogether affect how you view GW? I could see disliking City of Heroes because it's utter crap and the combat sucks, but hating GW because it's published by the same publisher? Come on. lol [quote]What's that? ^-^;[/quote] You need to read this thread right here, dude. [quote]First of all I was talking about WoW's RP servers only. like I said before. Second of all, I'm not judging the whole GW community. I'm speaking generally here.[/quote] You need to learn what the word "generally" means, then apply it back to your original criticisms and previous posts. It's pretty clear to me you're making broad generalizations here...and how are you not judging the whole GW community? You just got done talking about how "8/10" of it sucks. How much have you actually played? "Once in a while"? Come on. lol [quote]And to end it. I thought it was rant worthy. Q_Q[/QUOTE] It was more a short snippet of a haphazard, inaccurate ramble. Warmaster, GW isn't more about PvP. Given that the end-game currently after Ascension still has a few hundred hours of gameplay easily, while the end-game PvP is mainly just GvG and Tombs/HoH, I don't think it's quite accurate to say GW is more PvP-oriented. With regard to your hammer discourse, I'll say a few things real fast: One, what if I already have a Furious Hammer? Two, what are the two conditions most important to Warriors (and Rangers)? There are only two. Three, given what some particular Hammer skills do, and what status effects they inflict on Knocked down foes, what Hammer mods would make the most sense for a KD Hammer War who's looking to inflict a few conditions? Four, you can augment a Hammer War's damage in a variety of ways; you can augment their defense in a variety of ways; you can augment their health in a variety of ways. More damage, more defense, and more health should not pre-empt other mods, especially status effect mods. Think of it like this: Inflicting those two most important conditions on a physical damage-based enemy will allow you to both out-damage and out-health that enemy. A few extra points of armor penetration will give you a damage boost, but if there's nothing to mitigate the incoming damage, you're still taking heavy injury. In that scenario, it's going to become nothing more than a race against the clock. Similarly, an extra 30 health or an extra 7 armor isn't going to matter when the enemy's damage output is still roaring at full strength. Get what I'm saying here? You know the two golden conditions I'm talking about if you've played Warrior or Ranger at all.

[quote name='Warmaster']^_^ well then, if you feel so strongly about it, how about you say something new about the Revolution or its controller that hasn't been talked about to death on every forum already? I mean, we're all dying for some information here.[/quote] I don't get what you're trying to do here (if you aren't trying to be some lame troll, that is). I get the sense you're posting in here just to argue or to be a nuisance, because you're saying there's nothing to talk about, but the very fact that Revolution has caused such a buzz in the industry should key you in that there's something to talk about here, or in other words, that there's a topic. Revolution's controller and the philosophy behind it have created such a stir that even non-gamers are excited about it. Case in point: I'm good friends with the department of the English Department here at Rutgers. She's around 45, I think, but you would never guess that. She's a grandmother, too, and I still can't believe it. I stop in there every so often to chat and catch up, and being the dork I am, the conversation sometimes drifts to games. Turns out, though not surprisingly, the men in her family (her husband, her sons, her son-in-law) are keen on different aspects of video games. The younger generation...Generation H...are hardcore FPS/Halo devotees who feel right at home with the Xbox controllers and all manners of shooting games. The older folk--those who grew up with Atari and NES, some even with experience with SNES--are turned off by the Halos because there's so much going on they can't keep track of everything on-screen and controller-wise. I describe Revolution to Dee (we're on a first name basis, by the way) and she gets interested. Really interested. I guarantee you that when Revolution launches, her interest will simultaneously double when she sees the software, and also spread throughout her family. So here Nintendo has a system and a controller that excites developers, media, gamers, non-gamers, and even grandmothers. Nothing to talk about? Lack of a topic? Don't make me laugh.

[QUOTE=Lrb][color=#333333]*Start Rant* I hate this game with a firey passion that would melt hell. Actually it isn't [i]that[/i] bad. But I [i]do[/i] dislike it. I have some good points too...[/quote] *chuckles* Just for fun, let's have a look-see. [/color][color=#333333][quote]I dislike the graphics. They are good but they don't suit [i]me[/i].[/quote] [/color] [color=#333333]What does suit you? I don't know if personal taste really holds credibility in a discussion about objective quality. [/color] [color=#333333][quote]The GMs are horrible. They just aren't helpful in any way.[/quote] [/color] [color=#333333]GMs? [/color] [color=#333333][quote]It's arena based. I hate arena based games. It just isn't much of an RPG.[/quote] [/color] [color=#333333]Arena-based? You're going to have to be more specific here, lol. Are you referring to the actual PvP arenas? Or "sectioned" or "instanced" PvE? [/color] [color=#333333][quote]The community sucks. 8/10 players on GW are just all around jerks.[/quote] [/color] [color=#333333]Yes, because you never, ever see "WTB/WTS" spam in Local chat in WoW or SWG, haha. Or "OMG why u bring taht skill?!?1" [/color] [color=#333333][quote]I hate NCSoft. Just because of a little thing that happened between me and NCSoft, I hate them.[/quote] [/color] [color=#333333]I don't see why the company who publishes the game has any bearing on how you react to the game. People don't dislike SWG because of SOE. They dislike SWG because it's become substandard in many respects. SOE has something to do with that...but there's more on the dev side, rather than publication side, and I don't know anyone who says ArenaNet is a substandard dev team. [/color] [color=#333333][quote]Also, I forgot to mention that the Character is pretty bad. Everyone looks the same. o.o[/quote] [/color] [color=#333333]Then you haven't seen QKT. [quote]Anyways.. that's why I dislike Guild Wars. Other then that it's okay to play once in a while. But if you want a really good playing community then go get World of Warcraft and go on a Roleplaying server. You'll find that 9/10 people there are extremely kind.[/quote][/color] [color=#333333] World of Warcraft has the same type of prepubescent, hyperactive, hormone-driven, angsty little boys as GW does. Or any other MMORPG for that matter. If you're going to characterize the entire GW community like that...you need to play GW more, man. [/color] [color=#333333] [quote]*End Rant*[/color][/QUOTE] lol, sorry, but I don't really see that as a rant.

Malinon's Skull Crusher might be nice for Duncan. Hmmm...yes, I think it will do nicely. He's collecting quite a few nice hammers. ^_^

[quote name='Warmaster']there is no topic to discuss[/quote] I think Peter Molyneux, IGN, Gamespot, Hideo Kojima, Shigeru Miyamoto, Reggie Fils-Aime, id software, and EA might disagree with you. Not to mention Square-Enix, Peter Jackson, Tom Clancy, Retro Studios, HAL Laboratory, Capcom...the list goes on. No topic to discuss? The entire game development community sure as hell thinks there's something to discuss, and they're professionals in the actual field.