jjbrr

To be fair to D3, Diablo 2 wasn't nearly the game it is now before the expansion. I see you didn't play D2, but before the D2 expansion there weren't runes or runewords, fewer elite unique items, poor endgame (Act 4 was short in D2 as well). It took even longer to implement more runewords, skill synergies, annihilus diablo, then even longer for the uber tristrams. Yes, D3 endgame is nothing but a grind (but hey, if you do it well you can make money). While D3 failed to meet most people's extremely lofty expectations and probably fell way short, I'm still optimistic with expansion, PvP in 1.04, buffed legendaries, fixed MF swap stuff, and hopefully more engaging endgame, D3 still has a lot of room to grow. Most of these things have already been announced or strongly hinted at by many sources, and I expect a fairly strong resurgence when blizzard patches them in. There are a lot of gripes about D3 aside from the poor endgame (seriously, why are we playing 4 difficulties of the same content instead of 60 levels worth of new content?) but I still feel like I got my money's worth out of it (and I still enjoy grinding inferno with 5 stacks an hour or two a night, even though the 5 stacks thing is a broken gimmick. for those who don't know, MF doesn't affect the affixes on the guaranteed drop, so your guaranteed drop with 5NV is worse on average than just stacking MF and killing champs in high-density areas and restarting. kripp never figured this out, somehow.).

I played a PoE beta a few months ago over a weekend and enjoyed it. It's much clunkier than D3, but the skill tree and character customization is fascinating and the endgame is infinitely more robust. Also recommend it, though at the time it still felt very, very much like a free game. I know they've made lots of changes in recent months, so they've likely mitigated that a good amount.

bbf drama is my favorite drama

Right, my point is Colorado happens and everyone starts crapping on America for gun laws, but doesn't it seem drugs/poverty/gangs/culture/education/whatever are the real problem? My list, which admittedly is cherry-picked (but from Reuters UK) suggests that in the last 5 years, these sort of public, mass shootings have caused MORE deaths in Finland than in the US. Is it much of a surprise that the UK doesn't have much gun violence given it doesn't have much gang violence? What are the gun murder numbers like in Mexico or some Latin American countries? I just think it's very wrong that Colorado happens and people start hurling their gun control opinions at everyone as if that's actually the issue.

Is this a gun law thing or a gang violence, drugs, street violence, poverty, culture thing?

Show your work? I believe you about gun murder rates, but I'm curious how much different it really is, particularly when adjusted for population size. As far as mass shootings, I'd argue it's not different. From a Reuters Article about mass shootings: The US has a population of 312M, those other countries combined have a population of 232M I'm told (but a quick google search suggests this is wrong. whatever the number is, the point stands), so on a total per capita basis you don't see much difference.

Google "Responsible for the overall management/coordination of all aspects of company business at a location including production, sales, technical support, customer service, human resources, safety and administrative activities; plans and directs these functions in order to meet operational and financial goals for the location" and it's readily apparent that this is taken from a template. It was pretty clearly written to be entirely generic.

Well, I fail to see why such an event would be attractive other than that it would perhaps be more serious than the other free tournaments available to everyone, but maybe I'm missing the intended goal.

BBO points aren't specific to the ACBL. Non-ACBLers can also win BBO points. http://www.bridgebase.com/help/v2help/masterpoints_bandp.html "Serious" competitions have been seemingly successful on BBO, so that's not out of the question, but comparing them to the Ryder Cup or Cavendish, except in the sense that they're by invitation only or something, seems wrong.

i haven't tested to verify, but i think i recall this working last time the issue arose. thanks for reminding me.

i'd bid 3C the first time. sounds like E has a club void or something and an otherwise awful hand on this auction.

I'm kind of a big deal. I have a lot to say.

i'm likely very dumb, and i may be misunderstanding your technique, but entering new text in the box has been unsuccessful for me.

Given that said entrepreneur has an entire subforum dedicated to "suggestions for the software" i'd say yes, he is very interested in people suggesting ways to improve how he runs it. trolls gonna troll i guess.

I hate making a new thread about this, but I can't seem to locate the thread about web version bug suggestions. OK, I didn't look very hard. feel free to merge this post into it. If I type a message in the chat box that is more than a line long then decide to delete my message, the chat box stays two lines long, covering up any subsequent messages I receive from anyone. Any way to fix this or are my options to like send a message to someone else and then click back on the original sender?

What if, in my hypothetical, the rating system is working exactly as it was intended and some other reason is why the opposition seems so bad? Some examples of reasons why this might happen: - People have inflated their ratings because they want to be "experts" and play against better competition - People aren't as good as they think they are and the level of skill at the table is actually at equilibrium Some examples of why the current self-rating system isn't effective: - People have inflated their ratings because they think they're "experts" and want to play against better competition - Many people aren't as good as they think they are So unless it's very difficult to inflate your rating...

And since you mention chess ratings, I had a chess teacher when I was quite young who was, at the time, quite highly regarded nationally. One year he was the reigning national amateur champion or something and he was telling us that he had to keep his rating down so that he could continue to compete in that category. I may be getting some of the terms wrong, but I guess there was a certain USCF rating above which one could no longer compete as an amateur. Anyway, the point is this practice was apparently quite common. I assume there were monetary incentives for doing so, but I don't really know. Maybe the thrill of victory is his thing and he's content beating up on the minnows. For those supporting a BBO rating system to improve the "Help me find a game" feature: Were the system to be implemented, what would you do if, for whatever reason, you were consistently matched with players whom you deem well below your skill level?

Really? Let's start here I guess! I can understand why BBO wouldn't want its members "despising" other members.

People are rude on BBO when the scores are completely meaningless. How do you think people would behave if the scores bore some real meaning?

Just because a lot of people want something does not make it right or good. In this case I think a lot of people want something that would have a very, very negative impact on BBO as a whole. And anyway it just baffles me that people support such a parasitic site as bboskill. Pretty sick.

if you need a website to tell you how good you are at bridge...

eh. im such a fish at the auction house. yesterday i bought like a 240 dps dagger from the AH (which was like double the dps of the dagger that got me through nightmare diablo) for like 27000 gold. Today at work I thought about it, refined my search a little bit when i got home, and just bought a 540 dps dagger with strength for 125,000. hopefully i can use it to start farming hell mode, though all of my gear needs serious upgrading.

i would take the email about his email being broken to your supervisor. ETA: perhaps even add that you feel guilty about being unprofessional and the message, but that the situation as a whole is far worse.

To be fair, any serious player with both a collection of spare high level gems and low level socketed gear probably already finds normal and nightmare modes ridiculously easy. However, yeah, not having level caps on gems is just retarded. One doesn't even need a spare collection of socketed stuff; one just needs a low socket weapon and a high level ruby. It makes the early game useless and opens the door for some weird glass cannon PvP when they roll that out, which doesn't sound fun to me but might appeal to others. Edit: and bring back jewels for crying out loud! c'mon blizzard. jewels were a great part of the game.