@Arkandel said in RL things I love:
One of them was "who is Gotham? why is Batman trying to save him?" by a guy's wife... who laughed so hard he was 'asked' to sleep on the couch afterwards.
I am pretty sure if I had been the guy it would have ended the relationship. Not by my choosing but i would be unable to not back that periodically for the rest of my life until the point where she would kick my ass to the curb. All considered it might be a fair trade.
I think it comes down to how do you define awesomeness, in a league with 31 teams, I would put him in the top 6 GMs, Yes below Holland, Lamariello, and Bowman who would be my pick for top GM currently and Top Coach ever. So he is better than 4/5 of those in his position.
I have no problem using awesome to describe someone who is in the top 20 percent of his field. (Granted this discounts hockey GMs of non-NHL leagues, but I follow none of the minor nor the Euro leagues enough to even begin to form opinion on them.)
@Ganymede
No cups in general would be a point against the GM I agree in this particular case I do not.
The three years before he got the job they missed the playoffs and in the seven years he has been on the job they have three appearances in the conference finals and one in the finals, each of those three years they lost to the eventual champions. Overall play off series record 7-4.
I don't see that as a bad record to point to, now if he never manages a Cup win as a GM that would be knock given his position or if after missing the playoffs this last season they continue to do so it is likely time for a change.
I don't think he is the best GM but he I would consider him better than most.
Lack of cups does not equate to a lack of awesomeness.
After all if you had to have a Cup to be awesome wouldn't that counter a lot of your Ovie case earlier?
In a team sport lack of championships does not mean a whole lot to me concerning individuals, best example is not from hockey but from football Dan Marino never won a Superbowl, Trent Dilfer did but there should be little question on who was the better QB.
I have a few answers for favorite game, first as a kid, Axis and Allies, it was my gateway drug into war gaming, and it was complex without being confusing to upper elementary student me. Granted it could turn into a forever game. It was the game I was thinking of when I mentioned writing down everything to pause the game we had to do that a lot with Axis and Allies.
Favorite of my college years, Republic of Rome, love that game and the style in general of co-op and competitive mixed, you have to work together just enough to not let the system beat you while still trying to maximize your personal chances to win. I also liked that you could have multiple winners or zero winners.
Post College games I split in two, long and short for long War and Peace it is a really old game that is Napoleonic and well done but to play out the 1805 to 1815 campaign takes roughly the 10 years it did in real life. For short games Britannia which is also the newest game on my list.
As you can tell my tastes run toward traditional war games over Euro games which for the most part I have a hard time getting into.
For games that I own but have never gotten a chance to play but would love to I have the Thirty Years War (card driven version since I am sure there are multiple games with that title) and Twilight Struggle.
@Darinelle said in The Hockey Thread:
@Monogram Well if you don't want a local team and of the three that used to be local Detroit was your best option, but bleh Detroit, then you should clearly be a Tampa Bay Lightning fan, since Stevie Y was the best part of the Red Wings and is now the TBL GM.
As someone who has hated the Wings for as long as I can remember, I do have to grudgingly agree with this, Steve Yzerman is and always has been awesome.
@Auspice said in RL things I love:
The biggest issue now with Avalon Hill is 'do you have the hours in the day.' So many of their games take so damn long to play.
That is why tablets exist you record what units are in what hex, etc and make sure everything that needs to be is noted and then finish playing next time. It's like saving a game with out the technology.
Note: By tablets I meant the paper kind, I often forget the other kind exist as i did in this post.
@Arkandel
Oh I believe he didn't intend to get caught and wishes he hadn't but I do not believe that he hasn't been able to sleep or eat.
There is is a world of difference between those two positions.
@Arkandel said in The Basketball Thread:
Dude, can you get more soft?
You believe that? Not the soft part but the quote. Kevin Durant is basically a brandbot although one that can't seem to hit the right answer.
He twitters a shot at his former team, then got called on it, now he is trying to mitigate that calling out and get some sympathy which is failing.
I don't think he actually feels bad about the tweet but is just trying nbot to look like a bad guy when what he really should do is go full on Charles Barkley-esque heel and revel in the hatred of (opposing) fans Ric Flair style.
I would say it depends on the stats the person using it for justification has, for example if they are playing someone capable of running a business that $20,000 could be used as seed money for a new enterprise.
Depending on the setting though I think hard coded resources can be a good thing but not really for modern settings. After in RL my purchasing power has very to do with the money I have in my wallet or the balance of my bank account but how much credit companies think I can borrow and pay back with interest. That is why credit card companies will give away all sorts of shit on college campuses to get students to fill out apps, not because the students have money now but because of the potential earning. (And likely poor decision making that will lead to a significant portion of those earnings becoming profits later.)
@Rucket said in The Hockey Thread:
Wizards? Yeah we'll get that 8 seed and then get knocked out in the first round.
Sorry to break up a good rant but you do realize the Wizards are likely a third to fifth seed in the east and have make the second round three of the last four years, so they would place more with the Caps as being a solid second round knock out not a first.
I know they have said the right things so far but I am not sure that Paul and Harden will blend smoothly right away. Both are best being ball dominant and that has the makings for some learning time being necessary. I think the best non-GSW team in the west is the Spurs still. If you look at the playoffs last year that series was over with the Leonard injury granted I don't think the spurs would have one without the injury but I think they could have one a game or two and made it a series.
I am not really hyped about the season as a whole. I am unreasonably excited about the likelihood of the Twolves making it back to the playoffs for the first time sine we had Garnett.
Big picture I expect it to be a lot like last year, Warriors just have too many pieces and without an injury I do not see anyone taking four out of seven from them. I think they regress a little bit so the finals might be closer and they likely will drop a game or two in the west, but last year they ran the table in the western conference and came pretty close to that in the finals before winning 4 games to one.
The east could get tricky the Cavs lost talent while the Celtics gained it but until someone beats a LeBron team in the east I can't pick against the Cavs. After all LeBron has been on the team that one the east 7 years running and besides the Celtics there is no one close to them in the east. I am not sure the Celtics are there yet, though I do expect the ECF to be the highlight of the playoffs.
I also hope that the Twolves fall valiantly in the playoffs rather than embarrassing themselves once they get there.
@Ghost
I hated the Redwings before seeing that picture, and while I would not have thought it possible but it manages to make me hate them more.
@Arkandel
I have to agree with you there. Never played saga system online but have played it table top a few times, never been a big fan of it, and player discontent with it has actually lead to our group using the old WEG Star Wars for a system when we get the space opera itch.
Semi-related to the topic at hand, I have always been curious how FS3 would work for a Star Wars game. Biggest issue would likely be the force but since I always play pilots is SW anyway...
To get back to a D&D-themed game though, is a system that important as long as it's not primarily aimed at going into dungeons to kill things and loot their corpses for gear?
What could get me excited about a MU* on Faerun for example is the chance to play in the setting; as long as the mechanics don't get in the way of doing that, should we not be more concerned about whether the system matches the game's goals rather than what the system is in a vacuum?
To me it depends, there are three basic selling points to a game for me, Story potential (which to me includes setting), RP availability, and system. The First two can very hard to get to get a read on if new to the game and not going in with a group, the third is the one most easily known at the outset. So while I will definitely place it as the least important of the three factors I mentioned in a MUSH, coming in fresh it is the one that I can get the most solid and detailed info about so it tends to be the one I make decisions on.
@Gingerlily
I love rolling composure to see how my character handles (ICly) unexpected situations, though I have noticed the people I RP being fairly split n the issue, some love it because it takes the scene to unpredictable places (which is my main motivation for doing it as well) some are take it or leave it, some complain the ooc message ruins their immersion, and than one who I rarely play these days, would get actively upset and that is one of the reason I think we play less is that our styles in regard to that did not mesh at all.
The reason I think In Nomine is considered a different beast is that it is based on a French game published by Siroz (a French gaming company) so likely has other issues attached to things as well.
@n0q
I don't mind Four Color as a term to describe a comic book itself because that does give a meaning. Four color art does look a lot different than modern printing techniques so it is a valid descriptor, much like calling a motion picture from the right era a CinemaScope movie, it details a part of the process used in creation and gives an idea of how it will visually look.
Calling the story content of a comic book four color drives me bonkers for the reason you mentioned it includes everything from a decades long era so really tells you nothing about the content. Just like if I told you a movie was shot with CinemaScope cameras it would tell you nothing about the content of the film. Well except that is would not be about any RL events that happened after the technology was no longer in use.
@WildBaboons
Four Color references the printing process used in the late fifties and early sixties that relayed on four colors of ink hence the name. So you have a lot of people that use the term to mean silver age, however since the process was mainly used into the mid-80s it can also be legitimately counted on to mean Bronze Age stuff as well.
Add it that it was all comics that used the process not just superhero ones that muddies things further.
Fun fact: the four color process is why the hulk changed from gray to green, it was too hard to get a consistent gray tone by mixing the colors so they in the second issue they changed his color to green because they could do a constant green.
Edit to add: Here is a neat link that gets into the technically aspects of comic coloring http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sgrais/comics_color.htm
Note Neat is a highly subjective term, but I did find it very interesting.
