Messages

I want to say more discretionary income is best in the hands of the rich, but that isn't true.  The middle class is the country's biggest source of consumption, while the wealthy tend to use their discretionary income on investment.  Low income earners have very little effect on consumtion and investment.  A temporary tax cut won't help the economy, because it won't change spending behaviors when they their taxes going to go back up.  If anything, it will slightly help people pay off their debt.  Permanent tax increase on the other hand make people feel poorer and less willing to spend on consumtion or investments.

Also, it seems hypocritical to say someone else should pay more, while asking for a tax cut for oneself.

That's true-but who says the governments job is to make the economy as efficient as possible? Sure, an efficient economy is good, but isn't it worth sacrificing efficiency in order to provide necessities for others?

Also, Craig, it's a common misconception that the Bush tax cuts were made for the rich, in reality they shifted the tax burden towards the rich. (Data comes from the CBO)

Polls show that Romeny is better liked then Obama when comes to the general population and when comes to independents.  Conservatives don't even have to like Romney to vote for him.  The conservatives voters hate Obama enough that they will vote in droves for anyone to replace Obama.

I'm expecting a split republican vote between Romney as the candidate and Paul as a third party candidate. The only incumbent who hasn't won in the past twenty-five years was George Bush I, and that was only because Ross Peirot decided to run.

First, many of the people who like Ron Paul don't like actually know what he believes.  People vote for him because they believe he represents the libertarian ideology.  I find it similar to many of the people who voted for Obama in 2008.  Many of the voters didn't know Obama's record or platform, yet they still voted for him because he represents "Hope" and "Change".  Fun fact: Ron Paul is the congressional representative of my district.

Your point being? They voted for him because they believed he was a libertarian. Regardless of what Paul believes, that means the Republican party is shifting to more libertarian views.

Second, the Democrats and the left are fear mongers.  They are propagating that the Republican party is now "radical", so people will support Democrats inorder to stop the "radical" republicans from destroying the world or whatever b.s. they come up with.  It only seems that the conservative base is farther to the right because the far-right has become more vocal then the silent majority.  The majority of people are not part of the tea party or occupy wall street, yet the media spend much thier focus on these more vocal demonstrations.

Sorry, but this post seems a bit biased to me. It's hard to have a debate when someone accuses the entire other side of using b.s. I'm going to say the same thing that I say to everyone who thinks a certain party is 'lying': Get out of the competitive spirit, and consider the possibility that most politicians are genuinely working for the good of the nation. Both the party you support and the other party.

I'd say Obama is going to be the winner, hands down. No really respectable republicans are running. (alliteration...whoo!) I don't think any of those candidates will be able to challenge Obama in the GE. I think the most interesting part about the caucus would be that almost 50% of people under 30 voted for Paul. That could mean a huge change in the Republican party will come soon, as the young are supporting libertarian views. It also seems that the Conservative base has grown more radical over the years, so...I think it's coming.

Interesting, to be certain, but not very trustworthy. I'll start at the beginning.

First of all, the article mentions the Thunderbird. It is true that the description sounds like a pterodactyl, but it certainly isn't what I'd call an 'eyewitness account'. Most Native American stories are based off of real creatures, but that does not mean they all were. Also, it fails to explain the fact that no fossils of pterodactyls have been found that have dated back to any time in the last 65 million years. The article claims it is an 'eyewitness account vs. rocks', but this is far from the truth. A story is not the same as an eyewitness account. (Also, to be honest, I'd believe a rock, because a person can lie, while a rock...) I'll also ask this: If people looking for proof of evolution are quick to accept false evidence, (as they have in the past) wouldn't those who are looking for proof against evolution be just as quick to accept false evidence against it?

The article also mentions the Behemoth. It states "That's a remarkably good description of the dinosaur formerly known as brontosaurus (now called apatosaurus)." Now then, this statement really makes me distrust the article. The brontosaurus was not the same thing as an apatosaurus, a brontosaurus was a mistaken combination between two dinosaurs. I'd expect the author to recognize the difference, and the fact that they don't makes me question their research. However, I digress. The Behemoth's description itself is what really gets me. The article, as quoted above, says it's a good description of the apatosaurus. However, there was very little description regarding the look of the creature, and I disagree with the author. I think it's a rather poor description of an apatosaurus. The Leviathan seems to be a bit more trustworthy, as it has a better description, but as there are no other descriptions or drawings of the Leviathan, I doubt it ever existed.

Later on, that article makes some pretty suspect claims. For example, "The discovery of living plesiosaurs would tend to discredit the theory of evolution." That is not a true statement. The discovery of a plesiosaur would not discredit evolution any more than discovering a new type of butterfly does. I know I shouldn't be citing Wikipedia, but I really don't have the time to find respectable sources for these two links, so I hope you'll forgive me. First of all, there are things known as Lazarus Taxons. A Lazarus Taxon is an organism that disappears from the fossil record and reappears later on. A good example is the Coelacanth. The Coelacanth was a fish that was believed to be extinct, until rediscovered in 1938. Its discovery did nothing to discredit evolution, as would the discovery of a plesiosaur. Note that it would be unlikely, as very few Lazarus Taxons exist, but it certainly would not be impossible for plesiosaurs to exist without us knowing.

While I'm on the subject, I believe that a quick mention of the Moscow Monster is in order. The monster was discovered in Russia, and originally thought to be a plesiosaur. After seeing a picture of it, it's easy to see why. However, after viewing the specimen, scientists concluded that it was actually a Beluga whale. So, the situation of the fishermen mentioned in the article certainly isn't the only time a marine animal has been mistaken for a plesiosaur.

As far as dating goes, radiocarbon (or carbon-14) dating has been proven to be accurate. If you're claiming that the dates it gives are wrong, we've got a completely different subject to debate.

So, in conclusion, the author makes some false claims, has some pretty suspect descriptions, and completely ignores the possibility of being biased while constantly talking of his opponent's bias...I'm going to call FAKE on this one. It's a good attempt, but it is poorly researched and makes spurious claims.

Ok, time for me to pop in with a suggestion: Multiple types of shadowlings. The basic shadowling is an assassin, but I'd love to see shadowling healers or shadowling guardians make an appearance as well. Another suggestion-make sure you can play single player mode! A lot of competitive online games just don't have enough players to consistently find a match, and you shouldn't be limited. If it has a map editor, and if its possible to allow users to upload maps, (which can then be downloaded by anyone else with the game) it can conceivably have a huge amount of content.

It's an old thread, I know, but considering there are only 5 threads in this subforum, I don't think it's worth making a new one.

My two cents on this one: TRPG1&2 is the most powerful hero. My reasoning is simply that of accomplishment.

By the age of 18, the TRPG2 hero has killed the Shadowling Queen, who is considered a diety by many. Even though she isn't really a diety, that shows shes pretty tough, to say the least. The TPA1 hero is pretty good, to say the least. However, I just don't think that hero has accomplished enough to be considered 'powerful'. Winning a tournament (Even a grand tournament) is big, but considering that there's no mention of it anywhere in SoG, I'm inclined to believe it wasn't that amazing. Besides, if it was, I doubt the people of Ravinale could be tricked into believing all psy are evil. After all, they hosted a tournament that attracted hundreds of psy, it's not like those with the gift are unknown to the people of Ravinale. Duvalier is a good candidate as well, but to recap-The hero of TRPG2 killed Nelis at the age of 18. At the same age, Duvalier was learning mind blast. Now, he may have progressed in ability quickly-but he also has one of the best teachers in the world, quite possibly the TRPG2 hero himself.

Am I the only one that thinks the sudden arise of prokaryotes seems just stupid?

First. How, how would a cell form? And how likely is it that SOMEHOW DNA also formed. Ribosomes, flagellum, pili, cytoplasm all came with it in a neat little bundle called life. Out of nowhere?

Well, through many, many years of evolution. And yes, pretty much out of nowhere.

Second, how did it survive? You may or may not realize it. But there are very very few foods that weren't once living. Meat, Cereal (grains), apple and orange juice.

That one's easier-autotrophs. Organisms that make their own food. IIRC, chloroplasts are thought to have originally been prokaryotes that were absorbed by eukaryotes later on. So it's possible that chloroplasts were formed from the original prokaryotes, and those prokaryotes used photosynthesis (or a similar process) in order to survive. Everything built up from there. There are very few foods that weren't once living-but you can make sugar from inorganic materials.

Life comes from life. If there was one prokaryote cell how could it have survived as the only cell on the planet? No trees, no grass. Those didn't come til about 2 billion. BILLION years later.

That's true, life does come from life. According to experiments, however, life can come from inorganic material. The question I would pose is this: How many times did this happen? If life can appear once on the atmosphere of early earth, why can't it happen multiple times?
It survived, as stated above, by making its own food. There weren't any predators at that point.

The entire thing is a theory. Why is it even taught in schools? It's stupid. I can understand teaching proven science, but not mere theories. Clearly, cells exist. Water exists. Trees exist. But you can't teach a theory made up by a bunch of scientists on what happened billions upon billions of years ago!

True, it is a theory. However, gravity is called a 'theory' by the scientific community, and I doubt anyone would dispute that gravity is real. It certainly isn't infallible at this point, but it is the most intelligent guess we can make at this point in time, which is why it is taught.

Hey Gath, I spent some time playing, and I couldn't seem to get this bug to occur in the current version of the game. I do remember it happening in one of the older versions, though. Are you playing off an older saved game file, by any chance?

Yes, I did have the older version when it occurred, so that's probably it.

In TRPG1, Noctus mentions a rebellion of shadowlings when you meet him. In TRPG2, Cerzak says the queen kills female shadowlings to make them 'dependent on her for survival'. Cerzak says 'us' even though he is a spriggat. So, were spriggats originally supposed to be shadowlings, or am I missing something? (Assuming Cerzak's dialogue was originally meant to be the dialogue of a shadowling)

It took me about twenty minutes.

Let s = starting level, t= level you want to train to. Where t>s. We are given that when s = 1, the cost starts at 25.  Hence, the total cost is the following sum:

25s + 25(s+1) + ... +25(t-1) = 25(s + (s+1) + ... + (t-1)) = 25 ([1+ 2 +... + (t-1)] – [1+ 2+ ...(s-1)]) = 25(t(t-1)/2 – s(s-1)/2) = 25(t-s)(t+s-1)/2

This is how you derive the formula.

My version of the formula was derived in a similar fashion.

The amount needed to train to the next level, assuming x is the next level, is x-1(25). (If I want to train to level 6, it costs 125 gold. x=6, the next level. So, 6-1(25)=125.) Following this progression...
(x-1)25 + (x)25 + (x+1)25 + (x+2)25, and so on. If you add up these values, you get the following table.

Number of levels to train:  Gold required:
1                                      (x-1)25
2                                      (2x-1)25
3                                      (3x)25
4                                      (4x+2)25
5                                      (5x+5)25
6                                      (6x+9)25
7                                      (7x+14)25
8                                      (8x+20)25

And so on. So, we already know the 25 is constant, and the coefficient for x is equal to the number of levels you want to train. Here's the tricky part. If you'll look back at the table, you'll notice there's a relationship between the number of levels and the second number (I'll call it y). In every instance, y=the number of levels multiplied by a number. However, this number has a pattern. The modified table below shows this pattern. n=the number of levels to train.

Number of levels to train:  Gold required:        Y value
1                                      (x-1)25              Y=-1 times n.
2                                      (2x-1)25            Y=-0.5 times n.
3                                      (3x)25                Y=0 times n.
4                                      (4x+2)25            Y= .5 times n
5                                      (5x+5)25            Y= 1 times n
6                                      (6x+9)25            Y=1.5 times n
7                                      (7x+14)25          Y=2 times n
8                                      (8x+20)25           Y=2.5 times n

The pattern is fairly obvious there. The question is, how do you use that data to find Y? Well, for every n value, you can find the number you multiply n by (z) in order to find y by using the same equation. Z=(x-3)/2. Then, you just multiply that number times n, so Y always equals zn, or, when you plug in the formulas, n((x-3)/2). Then, you just put that equation into the original. I used different variables, but it works either way.

So, perhaps you're like me, and try to find out how much gold it takes to reach a certain level of 'whatever' for your characters. What I mean is this: I want to train Luca from her starting abilities (Level 6 Psy Power, Level 5 Psy Defense) to 15 psy power and 20 psy defense. How much gold do I need?

I've taken to calculating exactly how much, using a calculator. It works like this-in order to get from level 6 psy power to level 7 psy power, it costs 150 gold. The next level will cost me 25 more. (Level 7-8 costs 175 gold) So, the simple way is to add them all up. In this case, 150+175+200+225+250+275+300+325+350. Just in case you can't do that in your head, the answer is 2,250 gold. Not impossible to do, but it takes a bit to type that all in. So, because I was bored, I decided to come up with an easier way to do it. And thus...my leveling formula. Here's the formula:

[(a)(x) + a((a-3)/2)] X 25.

Simple enough, right? Good.













Ok, I guess that requires a bit of explanation. Here's how it works:
a=The number of levels you want to train.
x=Your current level +1
You plug the correct values in for these two variables and you'll get the right answer. An example will help, so I'll use that formula to figure out how much gold it costs to train Luca from 6 power 5 defense to 15 power 20 defense, as described above.

First, I want to train my level 6 psy power to level 15. I want to train 9 levels, so plug 9 in for a. (The desired level minus the current level, or 15-6)
My current level is 6, so x=7. (6+1)

If we plug those values in, the equation becomes

[(9)(7) + 9((9-3)/2)] X 25.   To solve it...
[63 + 9((6/2)] X 25
[63 + 9(3)] X 25
[63 + 27] X 25
90 X 25
2,250

If you'll remember from before, 2,250 gold was what we discovered was necessary using the addition method. Now, to try the second problem...
I have 5 psy defense, and I want 20.
a=15, the number of levels I want to train.
x=6, my current level + 1

[(15)(6) + 15((15-3)/2)] X 25
[90 + 15(12/2)] X 25
[90 + 15(6)] X 25
[90 + 90] X 25
180 X 25
4,500

Just to check my work, the addition method is 125+150+175+200+225+250+275+300+325+350+375+400+425+450+475, which equals...4,500. Check for yourself, if you don't believe me.

So, there it is. Just plug the numbers in to figure out exactly how much gold you need to reach a certain level!

If you have any questions, or notice a mistake in the formula, let me know.

When talking to Al'al, I bluffed and got him to accept my money, then went to Arman and got him to teach me to move faster. Later on, I killed Al'al. Now, after mission 4, Arman is no longer in the HQ, and when I ask Griffin about him, Griffin acts as if Arman was killed by the Black Rose. However, Arman is still usable in battles and trainable from the Nameless One.

Alright, just went through a battle, and Arman is there. He is usable in battles, and trainable at the Nameless One's, but he does not appear at HQ and when I ask Griffin about him, Griffin has the same dialogue as he would if Arman died. So, it's definitely a glitch, but nothing major.

I just started up a new runthrough, as I've waited a few months to see what kind of new content Craig has cooked up. Anyway, when talking to Al'al, I bluffed and got him to accept my money, then I got Arman to teach me how to move faster. I thought that, if I took this option, Arman would live. However, I got past mission 4 (parents), and he has been killed by the Order of the Black Rose. Is this a glitch, new addition, or am I just mistaken in thinking this path let Arman live? (I killed Al'al later on, if it makes a difference.)

Also, if this isn't a glitch, how can I keep Arman for the whole game?