Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
-
Content Count
1546 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX
-
-
I've been playing DoD since the very early betas. I think my favourite version was 2.0 (that was the big change which introduced MGs, deploying, stamina etc.)
1.1 is definitely better than 1.0 though. The MGs are better (though not as good as 2.0 - MGs were amazingly good in 2.0, really really nerfed for 3.0, same 3.1, slightly nerfed for 1.0(wallshooting), made a little better for 1.1)
I don't play as MG, but fighting against good MGs is great.
I miss heutau too. And bleeding. Those are the two things I want back most, I think.
As DoD has gotten more popular, its been getting simplified for all the newer, CS style or quake style players... .very bad thing IMO- I don't want CS in WWII.
Steam isn't that bad now. People don't realise the logistical difficulties that it faced when it first started.
Most of the 'cheap' exploits are fixed now. The only one that remains is the 'change direction and the game thinks you have stopped = accurate shot' bug, which the team claim to be unable to fix.... hmm.
Very, very good mod though.
-
Arcanum
-
Theres no problem with asking for the AI to not be able to see through things they shouldnt.
The problem is asking for things to stop bullets which do not actually stop bullets.
A single sandbag will not stop a bullet. AFAIR you need about 0.8m of sandbag to stop a 5.56 round - obviously varies with type of round. Branches, twigs, leaves, DO NOT stop bullets. They might deflect them... they might not.
What do you want? The AI not to see through bushes? Fine, thats already been requested in countless threads.
Bullets not to go through bushes? No.
-
The adoption of Christianity by Roman civilization wasn't a significant factor in its decline, do some research before you make ridiculous statements. I never stated that religion is the SOLE cause of morality.You certainly implied that. If religion isn't nessesary for morality (which it's not, by your own admission) - why is religion so necessary?
Quote[/b] ]c.Of, relating to liberalism. d.Liberal. Of, being, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, esp. in Great Britain and Canada.
Word of advice, if you are going to use a dictionary to support your position, its not a good idea to invalidate it in the same sentence by stating that its inaccurate.
Word of advice, If you're going to argue, try not to post things that agree with what the other person said.
Dictionaries are not 100% perfect (especially ones created by fundamentalists like Webster, an extreme christian who changed the meaning of many words, whose main project was his own version of the bible) - but in the main they are fine.
Which I've given. Now post your definition of 'liberal' as I already asked, and 'Conservative' since that will probably be wrong as well.Quote[/b] ]I just read it and No you didnt. I just asked you to post the definition of "liberal" as in the dictionary as it pertains to your argument.
Quote[/b] ]The discussion in a "previous post" was related to Denoirs list of liberal and conservative ideals and the values they represent and not the definition of liberal and conservative as per the dictionary. That was your contribution.
The values that liberal ideals represent are exactly those that I posted. What part of this is not getting through to you?
Quote[/b] ]Huge cut and paste lifted from the first few google resultsWhich is nonsense. This is not the place for discussing irrational beliefs. Go to a religious debate board (and PM me the link if you really want to continue it).
Quote[/b] ]Actually, while I have read the bible on a few occasions, I am not able to cite verses off the top of my head, so I was genuinely interested at gaining an insight into your argument. It is unfortunate that you found that as an opportunity to ridicule me.
I don't expect anyone to be able to cite verses of the top of their head. What I would expect from someone who has read their own book is that they know the basic content of the book, the basic message conveyed in each part; in short, a rough knowledge of the book. Which you don't.
People like to claim the bible is nothing but sweetness and light, but the truth is there is a lot of disgusting, violent, hate-filled nonsense in there. (yes, in the NT too.) If you don't know that, you haven't read it very well, because its very apparent.
Quote[/b] ]I just thought it was ironic that you accused me of being ignorant and yet mispelled the word. BTW, conservatives don't wear panties only liberals and women do.
Theres a chance of misspelling almost any word. I frequently mispel the as 'teh' but that doesn't mean I don't know how it's spelled.
-
'I wanna get high' - Cypress Hill
'Hits from the Bong' - Cypress Hill
GZA stuff
'Drugs' - Kool Keith
'Pack The Pipe' - The Pharcyde
Don't worry about language or stuff like that, this isn't a game for prissy school girls. Adults don't get offended by the occasional 'naughty' word - people grow out of that by the end of primary school.
-
I use trees for cover all the time. I don't know what you are talking about.
Vegetation (bushes, small branches of trees etc) should NOT protect you from enemy fire.
The AI seeing through these things is a completely different issue and not relevant. Take it to the AI thread, but it's already been mentioned many times.
Everything that should protect you from fire in OFP already does, and some things that shouldn't so much do already.
If you don't want shooting the weapon to damage the player, say that. There's nothing wrong with the cover afforded by OFP right now.
-
I take it here you are implying that Christanity was the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire, now that's ignorant.I suggest you read a number of available texts on the subject, that is in case your interested in real reasons and not quick retorts. There were inumerable factors involved in the decline of Roman civlization.
One of which was the widespread adoption of Xianity. Of course there were other factors.
Amazingly off-topic, however, given that you brought that up as some sort of defence to your laughable statement that religion is the sole cause of morality. Which it is not.
Quote[/b] ]I know quite well what liberal means.
No, I do not think that you do. I know what Denoir's definitions are and I totally agree with them.. I'd be interested in what your definitions are, because if you think 'liberal' = not religious (as you seem to) then you are mistaken.
Read a dictionary. Although not always correct, they are valuable.
Quote[/b] ]Liberal :
# Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
# Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded
Quote[/b] ]I pointed you to Denoir's list of liberal and conservative ideals to you show you the basis of this discussion. If you are interested in repeating the definition of the word "liberal" and your interpretation of its application in this discussion like a parrot, at least present the definition in its entirety.
I posted the definition in it's entirety as it pertains to the discussion in a previous post. Did you miss that?
Quote[/b] ]My "ignorace" may astound you but your ignorance may astound us all. I take it that you are making references to the Old Testament. There is another part of the bible referred to as the New Testament that changes (whew, that's progressive) many things including new ideas such as treat others as you would want to be treated, Love shall be the whole of the law,etc. The slave owners that used the bible as a defense for slavery often refered to slaves as being the descendants of Cain. Not a lot of credibility there.
Please do, list your references.
So you don't know where the references are from. I thought as much. Yet another 'believer' who does not know his own book.
As this is not a bible discussion, I'll not comment on the OT/ NT thing apart from registering surprise that a perfect, omniscient, etc etc god ... changed his mind... - and that your favourite fictional character, Jesus himself, would disagree with you - claiming many times that he WAS NOT changing the old testament laws.
So here are some references to people who used the bible to 'justify' slavery, just to show you.
[slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry
Here are some passages from the New Testament
People still being sold into slavery in NT times...
Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."
Priests owning slaves...
Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"
In the King James Version of the bible, the meaning of the greek word 'Doulos' - meaning 'slaves' was changed to 'servants' - one of the many huge changes that were implemented in this version, so as to please the King (who I'm sorry to say was Scottish)
Jesus regards slave ownership as normal and does not speak against it...
Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
St Paul instructs slaves to obey their masters as they should obey Christ...
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
I think that's about enough for just now. Remember, these are all New Testament references. Its obvious that slave ownership was not looked down on at all by the characters in the story (Jesus et al) and was regarded as normal.
There might be spelling errors in this post too: I type quickly. Don't get your panties in a twist about it.
-
Quote[/b] ]Explain the tranformation of Roman civilization when Christianity was adopted. Religion many times is the force that gives a particular culture its values.Certainly. Almost immediately after the widespread adoption of Xianity, the Roman Empire fell.
Do you think that there were no rules before the adoption of one make-believe sky fairy instead of several?
Quote[/b] ]In any case read the above quotes as these definitions of conservative and liberal ideals are being discussed. Follow the thread next time.In any case, realise that if the entire population is religious, liberal means 'differentlt religious' or 'amenable to changing the religion slightly' or 'Not quite as intent on burning people alive because their book differs by one punctuation mark on page 502'
Follow the facts next time.
Quote[/b] ]The belief in the superiority of the white race is not a value that fits into your above definition of conservative ideals. In fact it was due to this, that it is irreconcilable with the tenets of Christianity and slavery was discarded.Despite the fact that the christian bible condones slavery in numerous places, even going so far as to lay out a system of relatives worths for different slaves and suggested methods of punishment.... your ignorace astounds me. The bible was one of the chief defences of the slave owners, claiming 'well the bible says it's ok'
If you want references, I'll give you them, but then I'd have to assume you haven't actually read the book yourself and are just taking it to say what you think it does... like thats rare..
-
Its important to note that many religions hold these same values. Most of these religions including Chrisitianity pre-date the American Revolution and the French Revolution. They are part and parcel to every major human civilization.Liberal = amenable to change
Conservative = doesn't like change.
That is ALL that the words mean.
Morality and values are part of civilisation, and not religion. Religions like to incorporate them, but they are independent of religion.
Quote[/b] ]The reason that these values born in religion continue are that they are essential to the sustainability of human civilization.
They aren't born in religion.
Quote[/b] ]Yes it can, but I believe you would have a hard time explaining that devout religionists were actually liberals in disguise and since they are the ones that founded the U.S.....
'liberal' doesn't nessesarily mean that someone is irreligious, it means they are amenable to change. In a highly religious population, those who wanted change would still be religious.
Try to get your facts straight tomorrow then.Quote[/b] ]This will be my last post for the while (no really)
But I'll be back tommorrow, hope to discuss other issues as well. Thanks. -
Would you look at the size of your head!
You did not! You are NOT the first person to think of that. Anyone who plays coop thinks of that the first few times they play. And I'll bet the team thought of it while they were making it too.
FFS, stop being such an arrogant child.
'waaaahh I thought of that first! Shut up! yes i did! waaah!'
-
Everything in OFP already provides cover from fire.... what are you talking about?
Tree trunks protect (better than they should) from enemy fire.
The only (mild) problem is explosions going through relatively thick walls - however they should go through thin interior walls, and for example fences.
-
Actually having the ability to draw freehand on maps was MY idea originally.Holy big massive heads batman.
It wasn't your idea. Loads of people have suggested it far before you, and loads of people have came up with it independently.
In fact, I'd bet the dev team came up with it when they were making OFP but didn't put it in because its harder to do than simply placing markers. (time constraints.)
-
I heard that return to castle wolfenstein is forbidden in germany. Also all games with swastikas, nazi posters and so on are forbidden in germany. is it true?
No, its just modified. Instead of the Swastika, the banners are of a cult of the iron wolf or something.
-
I hope Bush isn't elected for the first time, but I fear he will be.Religious fundamentalists = bad government.
You really should move back in time to the USSR, I think you'd be happier there. Here in America we welcome religion though.
Anyway, looks to me like Bush is going to win. The democrats haven't been able to pull out a strong candidate this time around and all they've really got to run on is "Hey, don't you guys hate Bush too?"
A nation that was built on the principle of the seperation of church and state, and freedom of religion (and from religion) for all != Welcoming religion.
You're free to believe in whatever sky fairies you like, but it should not influence your government policies (as it heavily influences Bush's)
-
I hope Bush isn't elected for the first time, but I fear he will be.
Religious fundamentalists = bad government.
-
*edit* and from the way George Bush speaks, you would sure think he believes he has a divine right:Quote[/b] ] I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.That was actually Bush Sr. that said that; however there are other statements Bush Jr has said which indicate he feels the same way (plus a LOT of religious crap in his campaign)
-
...that is turn based.
-
I concur.
Having 2 maps to switch between in realistic mode might be a bit much tho, not sure about the need for 1:5000 maps since they can be zoomed out, giving roughly the same feature.
I'd also like an option to have no yellow boxes at all, for the uber pros - just map references in orders. But I think that'd be too much for most players - who don't seem to know how to find where they are on a map.
-
Yea build it yourself, don't buy dell or equivalent crap.
-
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Green Party Candidate (87%)
3. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (77%)
4. Socialist Candidate (74%)
5. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (71%)
6. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (68%)
7. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (67%)
8. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (66%)
9. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (59%)
10. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (57%)
11. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (52%)
12. Libertarian Candidate (46%)
13. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (36%)
14. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (32%)
15. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (13%)
16. Bush, President George W. - Republican (8%)
17. Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural Law (7%)
I read the green party info link and I agree with more of it than the rest of them. So that's fair enough.
-
If you are standing still and get shot with a M16 at 10-15 meters in the chest, won't the power of the impact push you to the ground?No. Too many movies for you.
Quote[/b] ] Will you be able to accuratly return fire in 1-2 seconds?Maybe. Depends where you are hit, and how much adrenaline you have in you.
If the round didn't kill you and just went through soft flesh, probably.
-
Firearms don't cause more violence either, its the stupid idea a lot of Americans (and others to a lesser extent) have that they must be used for home defence that causes the trouble.
In countries such as Canada or Switzerland, which also have huge amounts of weapon ownership, they don't have nearly the same problems - because they don't use them as cheap burglar alarms.
-
AkM times have changed. 50 to 60 years ago families lived together more closely and death was more of an everyday thing, it came naturally with generation exchange. Furthermore people experienced death during wars, lack of medical supplies, all in all everyone had more chance to observe and experience death with his own eyes and emotions, death as it is in realityNowadays that is no longer the case. Generations live very much seperate from each other, hospitals reduce the risk of sudden death, and the logistics of the mortician has become so service oriented that we dont see people die, the only thing we see is a few death notices in the newspaper.
And yes therefore DEATH has become a totally abstract thing for the younger ones and all they learn about it is from either what we tell them, what TV tells them or what the games tell them. A child playing ego-shooters all day might be too open to adapt the image of death as being portrayed in the game!
Do you see my point?
So you see the problem as children not realising what death is.
And you propose to solve this problem by removing any more references to death in media.
Great idea, einstein.
PS times have not changed.
Its rose tinted glasses.
Old(er) people have been complaining about 'how things were better back in the day' for as long as human civilisation - THEY WEREN'T. YOUR MEMORY IS FALLIBLE.
Violent games don't cause more violent crime. Stop claiming they do without any evidence.
-
I reiterate that children are their parents responsibility and should not be playing games/ watching movies rated too old for them.
Quote[/b] ]AvonYou used the word "if". You have doubts if it did happen?
No. It did happen. I was treying to make you think about it.
I suppose I should have said 'If it did happen, which it did..'
Day of defeat
in OFFTOPIC
Posted
It's not an SMG, it's the first ever (supplied to troops) assault rifle. IE it fires a rifle round, not a pistol round like an SMG.
Theres nothing wrong with using the MGs on the hip, it's not impossible.