Iodine

Oh ... lookie here ... I can't wait to go back through all the posts in this thread to see how many feathers are leftover ...

... you know from all the crow that's being eaten.

They said it would/could never be done, would upset the AT balance, kittens would die, whatever ...

How you like me NOW?

My Crossover dreams are coming true, you silly fanboy apologists! Begone, and let the rest of us play!

Cheers!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's right, we here at the City of Heroes/Villains community welcomes everyone who has a Mac to come try out the wonderfull game we PC Users have been playing for the past five years.

Yep. All ten of you.

[/ QUOTE ]



/signed SM~

[/ QUOTE ]
I know what you mean.

The CoX "Community" isn't known for it's magnanimity. Official forums are read-only to non-subscribers (how many subs now - 10,000?) CoX posts at other sites like VGN tend to be more bot posts than users. The game has lots of competition and will soon see more in its specific genre. You'd think an opportunity to include more players in the fray might excite the Cartel. With grace like that, perhaps the forums should become even more exclusive.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want a fast maccish way to check the server status, I threw together a COH Server Status Dashboard Widget (that click downloads it, I don't have a pretty page describing it)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, Don! What a great widget! Cheers!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyone seen a way to run this full screen on a second monitor?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way I have been able to run it on another monitor, is while using my laptop I close the lid of the laptop. With an external mouse, keyboard and monitor hooked to the laptop and the laptop lid closed, everything is now on the external as the primary monitor.

[/ QUOTE ]
I use my MBP with an external 24" DELL LCD monitor and use this screen as my primary. CoX Mac BETA runs nicely on full screen on the external monitor. I haven't tried windowed mode yet though.

I could close the lid, but I've found that when I did so, the DELL LCD wouldn't enter sleep mode when the system went into standby. It does if I simply leave the lid open and turn down the brightness to minimum (black screen / off).

Another annoying issue with operating with the lid closed (or open for that matter) is having to disconnect and reconnect the external mouse on wake up after standby sometimes. Any suggestions?

[ QUOTE ]
... Even a nub like myself can go back and find that supression was added due to people using it to exploit the mechanics of the PvE game...

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, you could - if you lived in a vacuum, oblivious to everything else that was going on after the release of I4.

Sorry, but ignorance would have been bliss only if the majority of folks playing during those days remained silent. If it weren't for the involvement of everyone ELSE back then, the travel power suppression compromise would certainly have been more heavy handed than it is today.

Travel Suppression is here to stay, unfortunately, and I have learned to deal with it. However, I won't agree with "nubs" trying to re-write history justifying it.

Let's play a game though:

Imagine you are fighting a horde of mobs in the game. You successfully deafeat 3 or 4 of them, but there are just way too many left over. Your health is slipping away and your skills to mitigate any damage are insufficient for this group. You are near a zone border and two police drones. You decide to flee and the mobs follow you. You make it to the drones and they dispatch the remaining mobs with ease. After you rest, you head back into the zone and find another group of similar mobs near the entrance and repeat the sequence of events again.

Tell me. Isn't this exploiting the PvE mechanics of the game?

How about all that herding of Freakshow to a fiery defeat in dumpsters in the Dreck mission by a Fire Tanker?

Tell me. Isn't this exploiting the PvE mechanics of the game?

Why haven't the devs corrected some other commonly exploited PvE mechanics in the game? Risk vs. Reward seems much more skewed with some of THESE examples than with jousting a mob around a building corner.

Live in a vacuum too long, and your brains will get sucked out of your ears, sir.

[ QUOTE ]
I did read in a thread that has been removed about Jousting in PvP that Statesman replied to.

I am sorry I did not save it now - why? It was the death knell for smoothly flowing travel powers.

In the thread Statesman was discussing an arena battle where scrappers were jousting and landing Crits and running. He said then something would be done - it was SUPPRESSION.

Uh, for the apologists - Malta, Tsoo, CoT and all the other mobs in the game do not start 100 threads on jousting being unbalanced.

PvP players did.

[/ QUOTE ]
And so we come full circle to the original argument. IMO, not only was the PvP community responsible for travel suppression post I4, but some PvPers today want to take it even further by disabling certain powers when travel powers are activated or even inhibit travel power functionality completely in a PvP zone, don't they?

I'm all for letting you guys self-flagellate, but some folks clearly can't see beyond their nose around here. Since our resource-limited dev team is more likely to make global changes instead of PvP ones, I'll try to kill a few extra myths around here to keep travel powers from getting the nerf bat in PvE - again.

[ QUOTE ]
Its a completely different animal to say you aren't happy with travel power suppression from saying I don't like this change and its all the fault of X...

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is. Fortunately, I've covered both bases. To remove all ambiguity, I'm not happy with travel power suppression and I believe PvP jousting is the reason it was implemented.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you're amused. However, I'll reiterate for the sake of clarity that I don't believe travel powers ever were in any way being "exploited" in PvE. In fact, I believe travel suppression wasn't even REMOTELY a PvE consequence.

[/ QUOTE ] There's a common fallacy that many players, across almost any MMO, operate. Allow me to dispell it:

Just becacuase something doesn't change after an update doesn't mean the devs are happy with it.

There have been many powers in this game that the devs have not changed for several issues, but they knew it was a problem from the start. There are still things like this.

I won't speak for the devs and say how they speficially felt about jousting in PvE...but I will say that they have explicity talked and designed and modified this game around a risk vs. reward model. Penalty-free travel powers substantially skew the risk vs reweard in PvE. I am of the belief that PvP just forced them to deal with the problem sooner rather than later.

I realize it's in vogue to blame PvE changes on PvP, but it may not be accurate and may actually be detrimental to understanding what the real reasons are.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a fair argument. I won't dispute the premise.

However, I don't believe risk vs. reward was ever a significant consideration with the PvE game (insofar as the travel powers were concerned) until AFTER they started dancing the PvP two-step in Issue 4.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No need to apologize, especially since there isn't much you've said to discount my opinion. Strangely enough, none of the strategies you've mentioned that supposedly "exploit" the mechanics of the game are considered game-breaking enough to warrant a "fix" from our dev team for some reason. I wonder why ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on what? You're opinion? You're welcome to that ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. My opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
... but simply saying I don't believe the earth is round doesn't make it so. The devs have consistently said this was an exploit in PvE, based on what evidence do you counter that?

[/ QUOTE ]
I know what they've said. On what evidence do they support their assessment that it was an exploit? Haven't we seen some of the excuses already in this thread? Simply saying it was an exploit in PvE doesn't make it so either. I'll summarize by reiterating that the timing they chose to address the matter undermines their credibility on the issue in my view.

Our devs' vision is just fine for you & you may gladly follow them wherever they take the game. However, some folks aren't as happy with some of the decisions they've made, and it's a privilege to add my voice where appropriate. It doesn't make us wrong. It makes us different and no less credible than you.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I have to chime in with Thorizdin. I myself also used the travel powers, with BOTH Ranged and Melee archetypes to my advantage, and, I still do.

[/ QUOTE ]
No need to apologize, especially since there isn't much you've said to discount my opinion. Strangely enough, none of the strategies you've mentioned that supposedly "exploit" the mechanics of the game are considered game-breaking enough to warrant a "fix" from our dev team for some reason. I wonder why ...

Oh that's right ... the issues don't appear to have much of an impact in PvP combat.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with using your travel powers to your advantage in either PvE or PvP. Superman does. Spiderman does. The Flash does. Nightcrawler sure as hell does. Insert your hero name here. If the supposedly broken mechanical limitations of animation and reaction time by either player or mob won't change in this game, why should the travel powers change? For PvP balance?

I strongly believe that just because they were called travel powers shouldn't imply they should only have been restricted for travel use. Travel Suppression was a mistake made long ago that some folks either just don't remember or care about anymore, apparently. I do.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many folks (like me) disagreed with this facade and called it what it truly was, a significant correction of a PvP problem that significantly affected PvE playstyle. My sarcasm above clearly reflects my chagrin with the devs' answer to jousting. There were no problems with PvE for 4 isssues. As soon as PvP reared it's ugly head, all of a sudden it was all about how unfair we had been exploiting the AI of all those poor NPCs. Thank you, very much, Dread Lords.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, its funny I keep seeing people post this and it always make me laugh. I certainly exploited travel powers in PvE with my Blaster (first character) and suppression is more likely to be negated in (team) PvP via buffs than it is in PvE. I can't say what the devs "true" motivations are/were, but to claim that there was no PvE justification for making changes to how travel powers operate in combat is false. Would if have been changed if PvP were never introduced? I don't know, but at a minimum the situation is more complex than you've presented it.

*anti-smirk*

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you're amused. However, I'll reiterate for the sake of clarity that I don't believe travel powers ever were in any way being "exploited" in PvE. In fact, I believe travel suppression wasn't even REMOTELY a PvE consequence. Ironically, it wasn't until folks were getting pwned in the Arena when the devs starting justifying how imbalanced the PvE had become. The only things complex about this were the dance steps to sell it, sir.

This is a superhero/supervillain MMO. At a "minimum", comic lore does not support what our dev team justified needing to be done to travel powers. IMO, PvP balance is what supported it and PvE play fell victim to the excuse. We appear to disagree. And while that's ok, I feel compelled to distinguish your use of the term exploit from mine in the proper context.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
are two ways you can do it. First, you can give travel powers disadvantages in PvP. The devs were probably on the better track when they had flight have a tohit debuff.

[/ QUOTE ] I emphatically agree with this. It is absolutely beyond me why the devs did not slap a 100% Acc debuff (which also lingers for 10 seconds after being shut off) on Super Speed, Super Jump, Flight, and Teleport. Travel suppression was the wrong way to deal with this and it still is. It continues to feel illogical in both PvE and PvP. At 100% debuff, it would take a full team to ovecome the debuff, and the other team would have access to the same options.
[ QUOTE ]
The other thing you can do is create more ways in which maximum effectiveness tends to automatically preclude travel

[/ QUOTE ] I would not use that approach beyond the Acc debuff. Instead I would make it so that some powers cannot be activated with travel powers on. This will preclude SS/SJ Empaths from avoiding the travel penalty despite providing tremendous beneift while avoiding attack. If Empaths want to keep SS/SJ on the entire time ...not a problem. You just can't get away with drive-by Fortitude or Heal Other or Ressurect, or any other single ally buff; AoE's heal/buffs I would allow. Travel powers should also turn off any Toggle Debuffs as well. You wanna run? Go ahead...you just don't get to debuff someone while traveling at 80mph. I think this would be a vast improvement to PvP and also mitigate a lot of the cheese builds/tactics people employ.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel the need to point out that these particular perspectives revolve around the premise that travel powers should have some inherent disadvantages in PvP. I have no problem with this premise. Once travel suppression was implemented for both PvP AND PvE, I took exception - and still do.

It took 4 issues to FINALLY deal with that TERRIBLE, risk vs reward exploit in PvE with the travel suppression "compromise". Imagine how horrible our beloved game would have been if all that PvP jousting hadn't uncovered an attrocious, game-breaking PvE flaw in CoX! We might not even be here to talk about it!

Many folks (like me) disagreed with this facade and called it what it truly was, a significant correction of a PvP problem that significantly affected PvE playstyle. My sarcasm above clearly reflects my chagrin with the devs' answer to jousting. There were no problems with PvE for 4 isssues. As soon as PvP reared it's ugly head, all of a sudden it was all about how unfair we had been exploiting the AI of all those poor NPCs. Thank you, very much, Dread Lords.

About the only thing good about the decision to enable travel power suppression, IMO was that they DID end up removing the -ACC penalty from flight.

[ QUOTE ]
That's like going to a busy, loud nightclub and screaming over the loudspeaker system "Please keep it down, I'm just here to read!"

[/ QUOTE ]
I very much enjoyed this analogy. I am thankful the PvP in CoX is consentual. If I do not wish to PvP or be subjected to PKing, I do not enter the zones that allow this to happen to me. Period. Until there is something different introduced in this game that provides an increased incentive to enter the PvP areas, I plan to leave the sharks feed on themselves. I am not alone.

[ QUOTE ]
PvP is a much broader subject than people here are defining it as.

[/ QUOTE ]
If broadening the subject brings you comfort and joy, more power to you. Softening the definition of this aspect of game play may convince some folks of the relativism of the behavior, but most folks (with maybe the exception of some engineers and programmers), can call a spade a spade around here.

PvP in the MMO genre means player vs player combat. There will need to be a few more brilliant essays written or several hundred thousand more paying accounts in CoX before the rest of the industry will consider the unique PvP perspectives of a niche superhero MMO.

[ QUOTE ]
... you are a bit naive if you think any potential mmo publisher can ignore loot forever or not try to do what is successful just because they want to be different...

[/ QUOTE ]
While you're in the mood for a little realism, I'd like to point out that CoX has been without loot for 3 years and is apparently still "comfortably in the black".

As such, adding loot now in I9 is not about addressing long term growth and lower subs. IMO, it's about introducing content that builds on the mechanics of features already in the game. This has the effect of reducing the amount of resources needed to release a new issue and frees up some real talent for the MUO side of Cryptic.

Once the other white meat has been cooked, we might start seeing some talk about EATs, new power sets, and hopefully, Crossover. Until then, I predict it'll be spreadsheets and spreadsheets of phat lewts that will amaze and thrill 20% of the player base.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I specifically went for an example that most people wouldn't think of as PvP. "Pedantic" is, I suppose, deserved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pedantic is not the word I'd have used, but it certainly isn't inappropriate.

Comparing auction houses to PvP suggests one of two things. Either some of the nifty invention salvage items and recipes will only be available in one or all of the PvP zones. Or our dev team has been buried in spreadsheets too long and is a little overwhelmed at the moment.

I would personally rather Team CoX's scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning skills were keenly focused on ways to keep the majority of us entertained. I don't think the majority of this player base cares two shakes for the meaningless PvP in CoX, Castle.

[ QUOTE ]
... So yeah, there are at least two separate teams within Cryptic, at the very least to avoid being sued by Microsoft.

[/ QUOTE ]
Makes sense. However, if so - I fear one of the two has been allocated quite a few more resources than the other - inhibiting CoX's potential.

[ QUOTE ]
…First off, your example doesn't fit your argument, as the 10%/90% issue is one of economics, not Vision(TM)…

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I think they are very much related. It’s both. But you are correct, there’s a lot of quibbling going on.

[ QUOTE ]
… I think a balance needs to be struck in those situations. A "10%" feature shouldn't be a constant addition, but on an occasional basis, it seems appropriate to give an incentive to a small portion of the player base...

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless the cost benefit analysis determines that said feature was an unacceptable compromise between their vision and what was implementable, though right? Got it.

[ QUOTE ]
… I think Statesman stated it as an intended feature, not a promise per se. Developers of any stripe rarely promise anything until they know it can be done.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then it should never have been an “intended feature” then right? Frankly, I don’t see much of a difference between intending to implement Crossover and promising it. But … whatever … let’s “quibble” about that if/when Mr. Emmert ever decides to clarify his remarks. I’m hoping he still “intends” to implement it.

[ QUOTE ]
First, the silence by the Devs is hardly "deafening". They have, in the past, addressed the question of crossovers. That they haven't said anything recently doesn't mean it's abandoned; it just means there is nothing new to report. I suppose they could give us a weekly update saying "Nothing to report", but there wouldn't be a lot of point to it...

[/ QUOTE ]
If our dev team was a tad more forthcoming with what was being planned and what was still on the table, weekly updates might be a bit overkill. However, since new updates are released maybe twice a year, I think it’s perfectly acceptable to get an update on features supposedly not abandoned at LEAST as often as the Issues are released.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, MUO is highly unlikely to be a relevant factor. With a few exceptions (Statesman has a managerial position on both teams), they have separate development teams -- and have to be maintained in a way that doesn't interfere with one another. NCSoft is funding City of Heroes. Microsoft is funding MUO. If MUO's development were to interfere with the development of CoH, NCSoft would have grounds for punitive action.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, not even buying this one on eBay. I remember what we have been told. However, I think it would be naïve to look at CoX in a vacuum. Nothing I've read suggests Cryptic is planning to draw down and focus more on MUO - though I would be naive to believe Cryptic wasn't at least distracted by MUO. Considering how slow the trickle of new stuff is being introduced, and that we are constantly being informed of the lack of resources to do X or Y for the game, I have a legitimate concern about CoX's future.

Two separate Cryptic teams? Yeah ok. Whatever you say. At this point, I'm thinking once MUO releases, we'll start seeing some plans for new powersets or an EAT. After all, geko might just have some free time to Crossover back to his old desk.

[ QUOTE ]
Third, the argument that they are only interested in implementing that which is easy and cheap is disproven by the inventions system in I9, which would be neither easy nor cheap to develop.

[/ QUOTE ]
I’ll have to disagree with you here too. What they are planning with inventions doesn’t appear to deviate much from existing mechanics. It may not be easy, but it’s certainly cheaper than delivering on “intended” features.

[ QUOTE ]
And this isn't a case of wanting to consolidate just low-population servers, as DAoC did.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is. Serdar Copur may not be looking outside of the ideal, perfect box, but I am - and I'm not alone. That was the point.

[ QUOTE ]
Even the lowest population server is not "woefully under-populated". And consolidation of population -- besides the technical questions of what to do with duplicate names, overfilled character slots, etc. -- sends the wrong message, that the game is dying.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or it sends the message that this design team can adapt to declining subs. It would demonstrate a gratitude to those players still around far more effectively than any veteran reward, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Consolidating a few servers doesn't solve any of the problems of having multiple servers, and it only mitigates one -- the problem of finding teams at off-peak hours.

[/ QUOTE ]
It would do far more than that, and I suspect you know this – considering your cherry-picked premise is arguably false. The problem isn't endemic to the number of servers themselves, it's the relatively low population on some of them. There are ways to mitigate the doom associated with duplicate names and the assortment of other copouts Team Emmert apparently has no resources to address. I'll just add that clustering needn’t be the permanent adjustment to “core infrastructure” that some fear could easily be damaged. Once MUO goes live, and folks realize CoX is a better game, the option to restore the cluster to individual servers could potentially be an option.

[ QUOTE ]
A "compromise" that leaves most of the problems untouched, and slightly mitigates one problem, while introducing others, is not a viable compromise.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you believe a compromise will create more problems than it solves, I can understand why you wouldn’t want to be proven wrong. Fortunately, there are other perspectives that can counter your doom with a tad bit of pragmatic optimism.

[ QUOTE ]
But core infrastructure normally doesn't obey those kinds of rules. Adding things to the server environment to allow for cross-server activity is the sort of thing that when its done wrong, is like turning to the Dark Side: forever will it dominate your destiny.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just as long as you don't equate "core infrastructure" with AT or power set balance, we can agree.

I would rather the design team was focusing on ways to address the low pop issue than cop out because the risk of doom is too great or that the "one server" concept is out of reach.

I'll also suggest that most "mistakes" that are perceived around here tend to be very subjective and relative to this player base. The more it dwindles in size, I'd expect the team to think a little bit more outside of the box.

Since we appear to agree that there are different ways to be "right", I am suggesting in context with CoX that there is more to be gained by compromise for the "stapler" consumer - than doing nothing at all.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is it about engineers and programmers having a very hard time working compromise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, Or Not At All, is a general rule of mine professionally also, with the exception of handling emergencies (the rule there is Right And Now: Or I Kill You).

I imagine people would prefer if the people who designed their bridges, elevators, aircraft, life support systems, anti-lock brakes, and other optional areas of everyday life tended to think similarly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure. I imagine they'd also prefer that these brilliant folks could tell the difference between a levee and a levitate spell. There's quite a colorful line you draw between engineering optional entertainment and engineering critical safety items affecting real life.

Still, considering how many safe and viable ways there are to engineer and build a bridge, I hope you aren't suggesting your way is always "Right" and trumps your competitor's or that because your boss or his boss bid lower for the contract, you are somehow less attentive to getting it "Right"? Or perhaps your own colleagues are clearly inept - suggesting a line of code would better fit here than there? "My ("right") way or the highway" is an arrogant luxury that few can afford because it undermines more than it gains in efficiency in my experience.

No, perhaps programmers just aren't used to social engineering? Given the choice to datamine for another 6 months or compromise, which choice would a programmer make? How about the NCSoft subscription bean counters?

[ QUOTE ]
There's a difference between saying "this isn't good enough" and being a perfectionist. To take your example of flight poses, the original implementation wasn't good enough; it was not an acceptable compromise between their vision and what was implementable.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the problem, isn't it? Matt Miller once said (in reference to EAT's for example):

"From a production standpoint, when given the choice between an expensive feature 10% of the players will get to see and enjoy, and one that 90% of the players will get to see and enjoy, it’s almost a no-brainer."

Frankly, I see Vision(tm) getting more in the way of progress than economics and time tables. You'll forgive me if I take exception to what realistically defines an unacceptable compromise in this game? Or are you really willing to put the 10% / 90% ratio to test on a few features this playerbase has long requested and may never see?

[ QUOTE ]
(Your other example, hero/villain crossover is a design issue regarding balance more than a case of programmatic difficulty. From what bits and pieces we've heard, it's almost trivial from a programmatic standpoint, but they're still looking into issues of balance and intended design.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope so, because it sure does look like our dev team would rather everyone forget the notion of a Crossover feature (even though it was Mr. Emmert himself who I understood promised this would be added to the game. Or am I mistaken about this?)

Nevertheless, balance is a laudable goal. There is considerable, noteworthy discussion and counterpoint on this at the thread referenced in my sig line. Please visit. Suffice to say, I am of a mind at this point in CoX's life that balance in this game, while laudable, isn't as big a priority or as game-breaking or tedious as many make it out to be. Based on the deafening silence by the devs, I'd surmise they've reached the point (with all the MUO distractions) where they think that if it isn't easy and cheap, they aren't interested in introducing it.

[ QUOTE ]
In this particular case, though, compromise itself really isn't a viable option. The desired goal is a single server. There isn't a compromise possible there -- you either have a single server or you have multiple ones. There isn't an in-between state. (And this isn't a case of wanting to consolidate just low-population servers, as DAoC did. The desire he stated was for all servers to be one.

[/ QUOTE ]
We disagree. Rather than do nothing and spend nothing – which is what production would rather do, I believe consolidation or clustering is a viable compromise between leaving the servers woefully under-populated and everyone playing on one server.

[ QUOTE ]
Now think about how long its taken to do some of those issues...

[/ QUOTE ]
Please. I’m trying to remain positive. Nostalgia will only make me crankier.

[ QUOTE ]
The most difficult thing to develop that I would like to add to our game is a completely new database architecture which allows every single player who plays CoH & CoV to be able to play on the same game server. This means no more server selection screens, no more re-rolling because your real life friends are not on the same server as you, and no more trouble finding a group at 3:00 AM because everyone else is sleeping. It’s not an impossible endeavor but my programming team assures me that there is nothing more time consuming and complicated that we could develop for our game at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Throw in the towel much? You see, the problem I perceive from this programming/production team is that they work in absolutes. It's an anal-retentive flaw I see all the time at work with engineers. Everything must be perfectly prepared, and complete. If a feature they're working on cannot be fully realized, it's shelved (in this game, that means for a long time). I have a problem with this. What is it about engineers and programmers having a very hard time working compromise? Or does the fault lay at production's feet or higher? This mindset has prevented the release of features like flight poses, and any Crossover.

I really do hope there is someone other than the fans thinking outside of the box around here. After all, if Mythic can figure out how to cluster low pop servers, so can Cryptic. This is better to pursue than doing nothing at all, because it's too HARD to do perfectly.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Global: @Eminent Domain
Location: Hamden, CT


[/ QUOTE ]
Global: @SimianSyphonics
Location: Milford, CT


[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, 2 from CT. I thought I was one of the few/only one from here.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are out there... though I am the only person that I can think of that plays. Either I don't have any friends or the ones I have aren't into gaming or comic books.

[/ QUOTE ]
Think again.

Global: @Iodine
Gender: Male
Age: 40
Location: Norwich, CT
Height: 5'11"
SG Affiliation: Paradigm
Most Recognizable Server Toons: Iced Tease, Dr. Iodine, Chest Cold

[ QUOTE ]
Matt Miller for president in '08!

[/ QUOTE ]
That's sweet, but it's about time for a President with not only a good memory, but the cajones to confront the press, media, critics, & nation States with destructive agendas gone out of control. Without these skills, we may as well vote Hami in and become his next devoured victims.

If you're gonna go OT, do it right, will you?