Biowraith

And he gets one of the best introductions of pretty much any TV character ever.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK4adJHpQWI)

The way I look at it is there's basically 3 components to a person's evil: their intent/motives, the severity of the suffering/harm they inflict, and how widespread the suffering/harm is.

Obviously which of those a person places most significance on will dramatically affect who they consider the most evil overall.

For me intent is the least of those - I more or less define evil as what someone is willing to do to achieve their goals. The indifference Nemesis displays as he wipes out an entire world - that the inhabitants are of no consequence to him at all - is a different type of evil than Phipps' sadism, but it's no less terrible in my view.

Most of the bad things Nemesis has done probably have included in there somewhere stuff on a similar level to the bad things Phipps has done (or incited). e.g. the poisoning of small kids - given Nemesis' weaponry tends to involve fire, explosives, and poison gas, it's pretty likely his enterprises have included the poisoning of children somewhere along the way - he may not have specifically decided that he'd like to poison some children today, but he's gone ahead with mass murder knowing that children would be poisoned as part of it. And those children will have suffered just as much as the kid(s) Phipps poisoned.

The main question here is whether the scale and indifference of Nemesis' evil trumps the sadistic delight Phipps takes in his own.

(Personally I rate Nemesis as the most evil, as the suffering of the victims is pretty similar in either case, but he's got *way* more victims and not just due to success rates, his plans necessitate it - the reasons why he's inflicting that suffering do nothing to reduce it. I think Phipps is *nastier*, but his overall evil is dwarfed by Nemesis)

I'm waiting for Heart Blast myself.

In fairness, only one sentence of your original post dealt with Mac client performance issues. The majority of it dealt with the discouragement of a former subscribed player trying to enjoy the game (or at least determine if enjoyment can still be had) while under the restrictions placed on a free account - i.e. not having access to the VIP paid features. And the majority of *that* dealt specifically with IOs and trying to play previously IO'd characters using SOs.

It's not entirely unreasonable for people to come away from that thinking you're another returning player wanting their old subscriber experience for free, even in the presence of disclaimers stating you're not interested in that argument.

And maybe a speed boost.

I hope for one or the other to show up at some point, though I have a suspicion the former would be limited to teamup teleporter trials, and the latter tends to provoke extended arguments about non-unique names.

Like a lot of internet slang, "pay to win" is not necessarily used to the strictest definition of the phrase. Its common meaning is "pay to be more powerful" or "pay to win more easily", but those just don't sound quite as snappy.

Internet cornball for you!

Not sure if your terribly serious reply is because you thought my post was serious, but in case it is: mine definitely wasn't.

But only for 13 episodes, and then it's done. Which I'm actually ok with, despite it being probably my favourite sci-fi show of the last 10+ years. I think there's something to be said for not going on too long, and having a firm pre-planned end point.

And Supernatural is an example of that I think. I gather season 5 was the originally planned stopping point for the show, and while I more or less enjoyed season 6 (haven't seen 7 yet, stupid UK tv) there's definitely a part of me that thinks they should maybe have called it a day after 5, ended on a high note so to speak.

(but Supernatural is definitely worth checking out, it's a lot of fun)

To be honest, I was taking it that for the purposes of this thread that everyone quitting is an acceptable outcome. It's why I bothered to log in and post my own - I'd not advocate for them normally because I know the only way(s) to make them happen likely would result in lots of people quitting, but in this thread that's not an issue.

Fwiw, I couldn't help but give it at least a passing thought once you asked, though with the disclaimer that this is indeed just passing thought, and I'd not actually expect the devs to go ahead with it:

1) Obvious answer, which is the really draconian hate, burning hate option: the new merged super-server has a higher character cap of, say, 50 characters. You get to pick which characters you transfer to the super-server, and the rest are just lost.

2) Slightly less draconian solution, but probably as much hate, burning hate (for slightly different reasons): the new super-server does not have a cap on the number of character slots you can have (or it's high enough to accommodate max slots on every current server combined) but only, say 50 slots are enabled to start with (or some lower value modified by slots purchased/earned under the old servers). All your characters carry over, but you have to pick which 50 are initially enabled - to enable the others you'd need to buy character slots much like vip-switched-to-premium players do now (moneys for teh game!).

3) Kinda oddball convoluted solution: cap of 50 characters, but the excess characters aren't deleted, they're held in a kinda holding pattern. You can use what are currently server transfers to swap an active enabled character with an inactive disabled character (VIPs still getting their free "transfer" each month).


As I say, wouldn't seriously expect any of that to happen , and I'd certainly not bother to argue for any of it in a serious discussion thread on the subject, but since we're doing this things that'd get you hated thread, there's my barely thought out answer (if anyone bothers to shoot those down I won't take the time to defend them)

Oh, I haven't given it that level of thought - I'd need to be in a position to be making it happen before I put in that kind of effort