Gaizokubanou

Say they cap the roster to 12. What then? You can still get free newbies every week in full squad force, which weakens all the individuality from the adventurers. Say they put pricing on getting new adventurers... well then, that's a potential failure state right there. Say quirks can't even be removed. Then you would just throw out really bad ones and the adventurers at that point becomes too much of a cannon fodder, which is something I don't think you want. Right now I think the problem isn't that quirks don't stay around long enough, it's that the units (adventurers) holding onto those quirks have so little to be invested in because they can be replaced for absolutely no risk (even though technically that's how it is in all games as they just require time for you to replay the game but that little distinction of game failure state really drives the point well IMO). We need a reason for that lvl 3 adventurer to hold dear to us, because losing that dude should mean something mechanically other than minor inconvenience (I mean all losses in games are that but you know...). So it's not that sense of urgency is the goal... it's just a surefire means to giving adventurers high value to be attached to.

Right now all of the problems seem to boil down into simple fact that there is zero pressure for you to progress in this game. If this game adopted say, Xcom like mechanic where all missions progressively got harder and you needed to keep veterans alive, the current capacity of sanitarium could be used as is without game becoming trivial. But right now you can just get free units and cycle them through bunch of level 1 dungeons to max out your town (which is IMO the real progression in this game, and it only goes up) at your leisure. This game badly needs some sort of failure state.

I would try to go with my best estimate of what would come off with least unnecessary friction based on whom I am speaking to (even if that means giving some ground that I may be right to stand on). If no estimate is found, just falling back to most humble version I can think of. Like an example... at my previous minimum wage job, some co-workers would joke to me about how I know martial arts. I could go and confront them about how that's insensitive and whatnot but I just go along with them cause they got a tough lot in life as is with a minimum wage jobs in a country that speaks different first language, and the jokes felt completely harmless to me (clearly racist jokes, but harmless) as they were generally really nice to me. But at the same time I would sometimes 'ask' them to not slack off (first, I'm not their boss, just co worker so it would be out of place for me to issue out any orders (guess what though, someone else did and that guy made everyone's life much harder for no reason) and turned out I got lot more hearing time when I was asking rather than telling) when they could cause the work at some level is evaluated on whole so some people slacking off can get some nasty management level shitstorm to tickle down to everyone. This is assuming that my message's main point is something other than an insult of course, cause then at that point it's all about maximizing harm and I'm already off the rails at that point. And I do fall off the rail so this isn't me trying to say "oh you ought to be more like meeee", just what I think we all ought to do.

Yes, doing the proper thing doesn't mean that others will treat you back the same. It's rough out there. And I sure get bitter and very rage-y myself. Maybe this is old news to you but one line of thought that helped me a lot was this one saying from Talmud... "Live well. It is the greatest revenge." @SuperBIasedMan, Yeah, all those are fair things to say. My thinking was politeness in actual core attitude, not the coverup that's used as a way to sneak in insults and whatnot. An example would be "hey that's wrong of you to do that" vs "What a fucking asshole to do that". We see a lot of the latter (not even addressing the person in question to point out the error, just abusive gossiping). Or another way to put it, get the message out while doing best to minimize potential damage. Or to put slightly nation-'bashing' spin to it, be the stereotypical Canadian.

Right. The proper thing to do is politely point out the problem, not jump into "HEY LOOK AT THIS ASSHOLE EVERYONE" which is what lot of 'Twitter-argument' ends up boiling down into with series of "." retweets and everyone trying their best to be snarky one liner because that's what internet and Twitter popularized.

That's one hell of confusing sentence You agree that it might not be breach of contract, BUT that it would be hard to argue that it was a legitimate contract??? BTW the situation regarding that winner should be looked at through sweepstake regulations, which is completely different from contract and the laws regarding it varies a lot (hence you see why lot of sweepstakes and contests are region limited).

I just got this game and been enjoying it a bit, but it bothers me a lot because this game currently lacks failure state, which makes it oddly 'easy' of a game to play.

I also apologies for bit of snarky response without explaining why. I thought you were trying to flamebait. On that "interview", wow that's some cringeworthy way of asking questions.

I played Black and White 2 with zero preconception about who he is and what the series entailed other than you get to control this giant creature and build town. I thought it was fun, like 7 or 8 out of 10 fun.

lol I have yet to gain access to that article. Must be one hell of an interview (for either good or bad, IDK) for the site to be that borked.

I googled his name and got few hits in regard to two cases with Alexandra Miseta. Are there more?

Right. Lot depends on the circumstances, as it should. Like say, SWATing a known airsoft gun collector while he is streaming and showing off their collection is probably close to murder attempt (sorry the hypothetical is bit oddly specific but you know what, considerations for these issues of attempted murder should be specific as possible) as the risk of death just skyrockets. Evidences pointing to firm belief that SWATing will likely result in death would also push it towards attempted murder (along the line of ineffective method). But SWATing on its own, as of right now with about 0.1% chance of innocent death, shouldn't qualify as attempted murder. It certainly deserves steep punishment to serve as deterrent and SWAT breaches could use bit more vetting then just going after any random information, but that second part is a different issue.

Lives can be ruined by callout culture, and arguably completely 'innocent' lives. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?hpw&rref=magazine&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=1 Because of my own train of thought, I find the last part about how most of callouts are mostly attempts for approval to ring true. Maybe that says something uniquely flawed about myself, but given how nasty some callouts derail into and ultimately boils down into bunch of people self congratulating themselves for how right they were, I think it warrants a thought or two. Edit: To clarify, I don't find them equal. But I am worried about callout culture slowly becoming worse and worse.

Way to miss the point...

That link doesn't really tell us exactly what constitutes "innocent death"... like, is it including innocent deaths from justified raid (because it's keeping separate tab for raid against innocents)? Also it shows 40 deaths in 2014 (or is it 40 raids that had deaths? again too vague) out of what it claims to be about 40,000 raid per year (that estimate is taken from that site as well). 40 out of 40,000... I say common knowledge looks right based on that link. You can't claim attempted murder for 0.1% probability (which doesn't sound right, like number looks way too low but I'm using the numbers your link provided).

I've been to Texas few times (3 trips for friends' wedding), and the diversity there is bit mixed from my limited visits. Like, you go to cities or bit of high density (relatively speaking to rest of the state) population centers and you can find lot of mexicans or other non-whites. But where my friends lived, it was the whitest towns I have ever seen while living in USA, granted my limited exposure to USA is primarily the tri-state area where I think diversity must be pretty high comparatively to rest of USA.

Yeah, that word now is way too loaded in meaning that trying to label something as 'terrorism', despite dictionary accuracy, is just not fair for many criminal activities (this last bit wasn't sarcasm, I sincerely meant it as not all criminal activities and its participant are equally guilty (huge difference in degree in crimes and guilty, etc.)). No. They clearly put the victim under very dangerous situation, but common knowledge is that SWAT or other equivalent paramilitary police forces are fairly well disciplined and doesn't just go around guns blazing so the more likely expectation is that no one dies but just gets their house breached. If SWATing victim were to die during a raid, the person who called it in is most likely be guilty of manslaughter-being grossly negligent and causing loss of life. You can be convicted of murder for setting up a situation so that police kills your intended victim (there was a case like that in criminal law book). But I am certain that criteria for passing that up to 'murder' is higher than SWATing. In that case I mentioned, what the guilty party did was, repeatedly made phone calls to his neighbor, taunting him (the neighbor was admirer of general Patton so his calls were like "You and general Patton are faggots") to confront him (the caller) with a gun if the neighbor had any guts, then called the police multiple times reporting that his neighbor was disorderly with firearm. The police came few times but the neighbor wasn't there so this guy continued doing this until his neighbor came out drunk with a gun, was confronted by the police, then got shot and killed by the police. So in that case, two factors that separate it from most SWATing that I have read about are 1. repeated attempts until death took place 2. intimate knowledge of his victim, which allowed him to create a specific situation (get the victim drunk with a gun in the street, to be confronted by police who are responding to a call about a disorderly person waving gun in the neighborhood).

What an awesome show. BTW Endless Legend did that hexagon with province combo system to the letter.

Interesting observations about HW2's campaign Sno. I don't recall it being all that difficult but last time I played it was... back when it came out so can't really say how reliable my impression of it is. All I remember is that I made lot of missile-beam frigate and ran this deathball style fleet, just sniping enemy ships one at a time. And that the campaign had 2 wow moments, one is when I had to fight that giant stationary fort and two is when I first get the battleship.

Is it play-efficient to preserve your heroes? It doesn't have to be the best choice, so long as it's not super sub-optimal (equivalent of sabotaging yourself). More I think about it, I'll probably get it either way to study it.

Right, but I don't believe that social order and the authority of many states are maintained purely through this threat. And it shouldn't play a big role anyways outside of some rare police state cases or in times of political strife and uncertainty. For example, let's just take myself as an example. Every decision I take that leads me down to living out a relatively docile subject life for my state isn't based on ruthless calculation of "can I get away with XYZ from state's retaliation"... almost all of the considerations are so far removed from "will the SWAT come and punish me with force if I do XYZ" because I'm so habituated into defaulting my decision making within a scope that is far removed from there. Things may trace back to this threat of force, but that's not the actual motivation for order and authority is what I'm suggesting. And yeah, property rights are super important so it's probably a good place for further analysis.

Right, it is a very abstract discussion but I think it ended up there because it went from the question of legitimacy of violence against state and Gormongous' point was that it should not be automatically disqualified as an option because state is violent by definition. And I think the specific and abstractness is warranted because most of us are discussing this under the assumption that default state of group of people is that they are non-violent towards each other, and on top of that the social norms of our current ultra high density civilization demands that most of remain even less violent than ever before, so the question is about exception, which should be quite narrow.and abstract. Maybe that assumption of mine is totally off though, cause every time I read Gormogongous' post, the vision of state I have in mind based on his/her post is where bunch of people are commiting ritualistic violence every day and occasionally takes few days off. I assume it's just a breakdown in communication somewhere because that would be too strange of a claim.

Ooo that bolded bit might be a deal breaker for me. I will still look further into the game but thanks for the explanation.

Really close to purchasing it, I just need to know just exactly how the end game plays out and scales. Like I really want the ability to bling out your party. I get that game isn't about some crazy number scaling (and I really appreciate that, I hate number inflation) but scaling something along the line of say, FTL would be awesome.

Pretty simple, post a single sentence composed of a lie and a truth, with a simple game for everyone else trying to guess the lie and the truth apart I'll start it off with this. "Once I went to Australia and got hit in the head with a boomerang"