Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Feiya

Caineach's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. 5,970 posts (5,975 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,970 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Does the nature of it not being grass roots somehow change the disgruntled attitudes of the people, or the valid ideas they were putting forth?

Yes.

Because people take that anger and use it to convince them that a lot of other false things are true

Right, but we are discussing the people who noped out when the tea party revealed its crazy, not those who stuck with it and got dragged under.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The rice cooker presented for VP...
Sorry, what is the meaning behind this insult?

Watch the John Oliver clip


Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.
Yes, am one.

Not me.

Given Bill's repeated public philandering over about a 30 year time span during his time with Hillary, I can surmise one thing.

She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power (cause she sure isn't staying with him for the money, the kid's sake, or his repentant new self). People who like power that much scare me.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming going on. There are numerous possible reasons that have nothing to do with access to power (which if the case would be completely unnecessary now). Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to ever ascribe any one single driving factor, frankly your theory is childish in its simplicity.

Edit: To make my support more transparent, if I had to just pick two completely unequivocal reasons why I support her she is the only candidate who is both not anti-vaxx and not a climate change denier. Those two things disqualify every other candidate, before we even get into economic policies, civil rights, etc.

Not sure why you think bernie is anti-vaxx. Quick google search shows he has openly criticized the movement as selfish. Not to mention climate change was a big part of his platform about how economic interests screw the little guy.
He's talking about Stein.

that makes more sense. The original comment was refering to the primaries so I was confused.


Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.
Yes, am one.

Not me.

Given Bill's repeated public philandering over about a 30 year time span during his time with Hillary, I can surmise one thing.

She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power (cause she sure isn't staying with him for the money, the kid's sake, or his repentant new self). People who like power that much scare me.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming going on. There are numerous possible reasons that have nothing to do with access to power (which if the case would be completely unnecessary now). Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to ever ascribe any one single driving factor, frankly your theory is childish in its simplicity.

Edit: To make my support more transparent, if I had to just pick two completely unequivocal reasons why I support her she is the only candidate who is both not anti-vaxx and not a climate change denier. Those two things disqualify every other candidate, before we even get into economic policies, civil rights, etc.

Not sure why you think bernie is anti-vaxx. Quick google search shows he has openly criticized the movement as selfish. Not to mention climate change was a big part of his platform about how economic interests screw the little guy.


CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm willing to grant that some individuals got sucked in with good intentions and then driven out as the crazy became more obvious.

Which had to be by the time of the town halls in the summer of 2009, at the latest.

Oh, sure.

I have no doubt that lots of people believed they were part of a 'grass roots movement' seeking to empower the populace. It's just that... they weren't. The Tea Party was never any such thing.

Does the nature of it not being grass roots somehow change the disgruntled attitudes of the people, or the valid ideas they were putting forth?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
One thing about something which started (didn't remain for long) as grass-roots as the Tea Party is that it isn't hard for any group who wants some clout to grab the name.

There never was a 'grass roots' Tea Party.

Rather, the Tea Party was a Koch Industries front group founded in 2002 (as a splinter of their 'Citizens for a Sound Economy' front group dating back to 1984), that was partially co-opted by Ron Paul's campaign for a few months in 2007, then further grown by Koch through support from their 'Americans for Prosperity' front group...

By the time it achieved any sort of national recognition (i.e. February 2009) it had been a corporate run front for nearly a decade.

That may have been true for the organizational level, but its not how the people who were early fans actually saw it. It grew too large, too quickly, for the message to be consistent, so a lot of people saw it as something very different from what it eventually coalesced into. Some early Tea Party rhetoric was very similar to Occupy Wall Street. After about 6 months though, a lot of people left because the inmates were running the asylum.

I'm not sure where you put the 6 months point. A lot of people may have left, but more kept flooding in for the first few years at least.

As far as I can tell the "Tea Party" name first got broadly applied to the Tax protests in 2009. At that point it was already a weird amalgamation of Rand Paul supporters with those stirred up by Palin. Rand had earlier events linked to the Boston Tea Party, but it didn't really become the name of the movement until 2009, by which point it was already far from the Rand roots. Fox picked it up and Beck started promoting it and we were off to the races.

A lot of the early rhetoric was anti-banker and especially anti-bailout. That's really the only similarity to Occupy that I ever saw.

I pulled the 6 month number out of my ass from when I remember my libertarian friends who loved the movement start to flee it. I first heard about it from them, not news, and I wasn't really paying attention to politics at that point, so I can't really say. By the time Palin was involved, they had all already become completely disillusioned with it.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Caineach wrote:
That may have been true for the organizational level, but its not how the people who were early fans actually saw it.

Rich people using angry rhetoric to stir up support to get people to vote against their own best interests is a tradition as old as america itself.

Yes, but early on there were enough intelligent, coherent, voices that it took a little while for the angry rhetoric to become consistent.


There is a Charmander spawn about a mile and half from my house (the 2nd and 3rd closest pokestops), at the town library. I need to head over there at some point.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
One thing about something which started (didn't remain for long) as grass-roots as the Tea Party is that it isn't hard for any group who wants some clout to grab the name.

There never was a 'grass roots' Tea Party.

Rather, the Tea Party was a Koch Industries front group founded in 2002 (as a splinter of their 'Citizens for a Sound Economy' front group dating back to 1984), that was partially co-opted by Ron Paul's campaign for a few months in 2007, then further grown by Koch through support from their 'Americans for Prosperity' front group...

By the time it achieved any sort of national recognition (i.e. February 2009) it had been a corporate run front for nearly a decade.

That may have been true for the organizational level, but its not how the people who were early fans actually saw it. It grew too large, too quickly, for the message to be consistent, so a lot of people saw it as something very different from what it eventually coalesced into. Some early Tea Party rhetoric was very similar to Occupy Wall Street. After about 6 months though, a lot of people left because the inmates were running the asylum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grey Lensman wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
I got curious about Susei no Gargantia... But I'm not a fan of series about giant robots... So I lost interest. :/
Whigh is funny, because it's not a show about giant robots. It has them, but that's not what it's about.
Krensky is correct; Gargantia isn't a giant robot anime as that genre is usually defined.

It does, however, start off looking like one in the intro. Someone who isn't overly aware of the series as a whole can easily mistake it for one.

That said, I recommend the series highly. The giant robots serve the plot rather than being the plot.

I would actually recommend the show for people who do not typically like giant robots. They need to get past the first episode, but after that I think it more resembles a slice of life anime than a giant robot one.


Sundakan wrote:
Slight segue, did a walk through DC today and caught more varied Pokemon and hit more Pokestops in a couple of hours than every other day since I downloaded the app combined. It's kinda ridiculous.

Good to know. I'm visiting DC on Wed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
MewTwo is probably in area 51 or in some nuclear power plant.

heard someone GPS hacked into area 51 and found nothing


Digitalelf wrote:

A couple of honest questions here...

What does wanting to stop illegal (and that is THE key term here), illegal immigration have to do with racism?

And what does wanting to secure our borders with any kind of wall (be it an actual physical one or electronic one) have to do with racism as well?

I mean, most any country in the world will arrest and deport a person (at best) who crosses into their country illegally.

Yet it seems that there are those that appear to not want any restrictions at all placed on coming into ours, and say that it is a bad thing to want to know (via documentation) just who is coming in.

I've heard it said before when the right speaks on the topic of illegal immigration that this country was founded on immigration, totally ignoring that the person specifically said "illegal" immigration. I am sure there are those on the right that really do want to just totally close this country off and be an isolationist nation, but the vast majority of those on the right just want to stop those crossing into our country illegally; and if it takes a wall to do that (because nothing else seems to work), why is that a bad thing? Such a wall is not meant to stop immigration, just illegal immigration.

9 times out of 10 the person saying it thinks anyone of hispanic decent is an illegal.

A wall wont actually be effective. There is way too much land for it to work in any kind of realistic scenario, and the costs are astronomical.

It ignores the reality of the situation, that there are already millions of people in this country illegally and that it is not feasible to deport them. We don't have the infrastructure or manpower to do it.

It is generally motivated by complaints about them stealing jobs, which probably wouldn't happen if the person saying it was actually good at and willing to do the job in the first place.

In the rare cases where they actually are stealing work, it is because they can't find normal jobs so they are forced to resort to places that are willing to do it illegally, which will generally be places looking to undercut US labor laws. Allowing them to work legally will reduce the black market and actually put US workers on the same footing, and generate tax revenue that can be used to alleviate the many issues caused by large numbers of people hiding from the government.

In general, it is a terrible solution to a problem that would be fairly easily solved by letting the people stay legally.


A begrudging respect for Ted Cruz was not what I was expecting out of the GOP convention. As much as I despise the man, I do respect him for his comments on not being a "servile puppy". Though he never was one to follow the rest of the GOP, rarely is he in the right when doing so.


Kolokotroni wrote:
I wonder how skewed the player levels are. Obviously until Niantic makes some changes (which they said they are working on at the moment) being in an urban center will level you much faster. Even Casual players are over 15 for the most part unless they just picked up the game around here.

Casual players around here are ~7


Kolokotroni wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Yeah, at this point almost every gym I see is using eevee evolves. At my desk I catch maybe 5-10 a day. I've found a half-dozen or so places that eevee is almost always there, and myself am sporting 10 CP 1K+ eevee evolves.

Interesting, they are good at taking gyms, not so much at holding them. Most of the gyms around here are held by exeggutors, snorlax, gyrados, or dragonnites. With the occasional seemingly comical but actually kind of clever chanseys (low cp but crazy high hp)

I have yet to see a single one of anything you named. Once again, I think we are seeing the huge disparity in how this game is playing out in major metro areas vs elsewhere.

Really? Interesting. I guess things will shape up differently in different areas. Where I work Gyrarado are sort of easy to achieve with a little time (took me a little over a week for my first on with just lunch break walks along the water). But basically no eevees. I am sure availability matters, though I think most dragonites, and snorlax are coming out of 10k eggs.

Also player density. If 1 in 20 players is level 20+, then NYC will have thousands of players that high while I will be one of a few dozen in my area.

That being said, pretty much everyone here has eevee evolves as their strongest pokemon. They are more common than caterpie. Aside from an unusually strong pidgeon and random Magmar, of the 12 pokemon I have over 1K CP, 10 are eevee.

I spent a day trying to find magicarp and caught like 2, walking along the Hudson shoreline.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Yeah, at this point almost every gym I see is using eevee evolves. At my desk I catch maybe 5-10 a day. I've found a half-dozen or so places that eevee is almost always there, and myself am sporting 10 CP 1K+ eevee evolves.

Interesting, they are good at taking gyms, not so much at holding them. Most of the gyms around here are held by exeggutors, snorlax, gyrados, or dragonnites. With the occasional seemingly comical but actually kind of clever chanseys (low cp but crazy high hp)

Also, Sara you should do what a friend of mines daughter did, she set up a refreshment shop since a sign just outside their yard was a popular pokestop. Industrious little Tike that one.

I have yet to see a single one of anything you named. Once again, I think we are seeing the huge disparity in how this game is playing out in major metro areas vs elsewhere.


Yeah, at this point almost every gym I see is using eevee evolves. At my desk I catch maybe 5-10 a day. I've found a half-dozen or so places that eevee is almost always there, and myself am sporting 10 CP 1K+ eevee evolves.


from what I can tell, attacks have stats that you can't see. Most notably, attack speed, which affects how quickly you can mash the button. I haven't done any experimentation though.


Krensky wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Does anyone know if anyone in the anime industry is going to start putting titles out in 4k or 8k resolutions?

* Shrug

4k is ploy to make you buy a new TV and sell more LCD glass. Unless your eyes are waaaay on the outer edge of human capability or you are sitting so they're a foot or two from the screen (and quite likely both) you'll never notice the difference between 1080p and 2160p.

If like most people your eyes are five to ten feet from the screen, spend the money on a OLED screen with better electronics rather than the 4k one.

I was at a demo comparing a 4K TV to a standard TV. I thought the standard TV looked better, and that was close up. You could see a little difference in resolution, but I thought the color balance wasn't as good, which is where they are supposed to really shine from what I understand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Anyone watched that new 'Ajin' anime on Netflix? how is it?

I thought it was really good. They take an interesting premise and run with it. Only problem is it very much cuts off halfway through the story. I hear season 2 was greenlit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
So, is the Gargantia anime any good?

I really enjoyed it as well.


Sundakan wrote:

On the flipside, I have three people in my household, most of which are usually playing it simultaneously. If I catch something, or someone else does, they tell me where it is, and I can still go get it.

Usually the CP is different (hilariously, despite my brother's level being higher, I usually get the higher CP 'Mon), but the same type.

This has been my experience. I caught a magmar at the park, then told my brother and 2 other people they had to go down the hill a little to see it, and they were all able to catch it.


Jiggy wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
I think I managed to find it *just* before it disappeared. Just a minute after I caught it two cars came by searching for the same thing, but they weren't able to find it.
Actually, I think the reason they couldn't find it is because you caught it. Near as I can tell, the only way to catch the same pokemon as someone else is if the second person initiates the "battle" process before the first person has finished catching it.

I haven't noticed this to be true at all


crowdsourced pokemon finder. I got it to work for a very short time last night, but they are hammering google maps harder than google allows without approval.


Matrix Dragon wrote:
Apparently Pokemon Go is now suffering from a DDoS attack. I figured it wouldn't take very long before that happened.

Or it was Saturday and it just opened in parts of Europe


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Fire stations, apparently.
Is there any evidence for this? The only reliable charmander spawn anyone has found so far in the nycpokego reddit is at the museum of natural history, with the apparent explanation that charmander likes checking out the dinosaur exhibits...

I've been told that Knolls Atomic Power Lab has Charmander, but getting them is a federal offense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Not to be a dingus, but everyone reading this knows the difference between a Fiduciary and a Financial Counselor, right?

Kind of. I don't have either one, so I haven't boned up recently.

What does it have to do with Johnson's economic policies?

I'll let John Oliver explain the difference. It has to do with retirement planning, not Johnson's policies.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really want to know what is leaving red streaks on the TP.


Matrix Dragon wrote:
Has anyone else been having trouble with their pokemon finder today? I seem to be suffering from a bug that prevents it from properly showing how far away pokemon are from me. Everything shows as three footprints, even when I am right on top of them.

Pokemon I can see don't even show up on my finder today, and everything that is there is 3 feet away


For me, a lot of it is the ability to binge watch. I can't keep up with most series coming out weekly when I can just wait a few weeks, binge watch a months worth, and then wait a few more weeks.


Jiggy wrote:
Dang, maybe I need to actually start trying to learn to throw curveballs, then.

I have never actively tried to throw a curveball and gotten the bonus, but I will randomly get the bonus for normal throws all the time.


Ssyvan wrote:
Does anyone know the purpose of throwing a curve ball? I can do it pretty reliably now, but I only rarely get the curveball bonus (which is the same as a Nice bonus).

Supposedly it has an increase in capture rate, but I don't actually know if that is true.


bugleyman wrote:
Rosita the Riveter wrote:
The way I see it, the House isn't going Blue...
I was under the impression that was a real possibility?

No. Its too gerrymandered for there to be a change until the next census.


Rosita the Riveter wrote:
The way I see it, the House isn't going Blue, and is not going to let Clinton or Sanders govern any more than Obama. That means a presidency about foreign policy and executive orders, because that's what the president can do without Congress. From that perspective, Clinton is definitely the more qualified candidate. It's not that I don't agree with Sanders as to what we need to accomplish (if not specifics as to how), but Sanders has almost no foreign policy chops, and Clinton does. I also like Clinton for taking a more hawkish military attitude while not going full bore "Make the Middle East glow in the dark" like Ted Cruz, and balancing the need go deal with ISIS with acceptance of Syrizn refugees trying to escape those murderers. On the executive order front, I expect a continuation of Obama, which is probably the best we can hope for. I don't see much of what Sanders wants to do being doable by executive order. The more I think about it, the more I do trust Clinton, which is why I voted for her in the primary.

By your reasoning, Hillary is one of the last people I want in the White House. Clinton may have lots of experience with foreign policy, but that doesn't mean that it has lead her to make the right decisions. Generals have commented that she was almost universally the most hawkish person in the room when she was Secretary of State. Considering one of the biggest complaints about Obama from the left is his proliferation of drone strikes, and she is considered markedly more likely to advocate use of military force, a lot of people consider her foreign policy to be a hindrance more than an asset.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Caineach wrote:
It may change my mind if I ever see a gym with more than 3 pokemon, but right now I find gyms to be incredibly dull. Mash 1 button as fast as you can, then hold it down. Hope the servers allow you to resolve the fight (well over than half the time the 1HP bug happens to me) and the GPS doesn't randomly move you out of the radius (particularly bad for the nearest gym to me at work. I beginning to think they may intentionally screw up location services on campus).
The gym outside my office was held by my snorlax and 6 other valor pokemon yesterday, was under siege for more then 6 hours until around 7pm when I guess most people went home. We kept it until about 6am the next morning. Went up and down between level 10 and as low as level 3 for a while until I went home around 7.

You're in NYC.


I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree Kolokotroni. I think the lack of meat and emotional attachment will give this game a very short lifespan in the general public and then a significantly smaller dedicated fanbase limited to specific types of players. The only places that will maintain critical mass will be major metro areas and tourist locations, with small pockets of players in mostly an equilibrium outside of that. I think you will start to lose critical mass as early as the end the month in the majority of the country.


It may change my mind if I ever see a gym with more than 3 pokemon, but right now I find gyms to be incredibly dull. Mash 1 button as fast as you can, then hold it down. Hope the servers allow you to resolve the fight (well over than half the time the 1HP bug happens to me) and the GPS doesn't randomly move you out of the radius (particularly bad for the nearest gym to me at work. I beginning to think they may intentionally screw up location services on campus).


Kolokotroni wrote:
You are missing the part where fighting over gyms is fun. Its likely gyms will have bigger impact in time, in particular controlling a gym will allow you to trade with fellow members within a certain radius, and also it will likely matter for events. But the fact remains people are having fun crowding around monuments and other public locations shouting and generally having fun fighting over gyms. Is there more Niantic should add? Absolutely. But you don't need massive in game rewards if the activity itself is fun. Granted I wouldn't be unhappy if the rewards were improved, and I am sure they will be. For now Niantic is just figuring out their business model as it is a strong diversion from typical freemium games.

No I'm not, and I think you and I have a different idea of fun. I don't particularly find button mashing 1 button fun. This social aspect is only happening in notable places and extreme population centers. I have yet to see more than 3 people ever "crowded around a gym", even in the metropolitan areas near me (where I see dozens of people walking finding pokemon). Not to mention, that will fade when people start asking the question "what's the point" and looking for an answer besides bragging rights. This game basically has everything needed for a fad, with none of the things needed to sustain the community. Lets hope that it will last long enough for them to bring the game out of the effectively beta state it is in now while they still have a community.

Kolokotroni wrote:
This is certainly a big departure from the source material, but once you get used to it, why is this an issue? It makes new catches exciting, and in and of itself keeps the game fresh. Catching your 30th pidgey can yield a far better pidgey/pidgeot then you already had. If you only needed one of each pokemon the base mechanic of the game (wandering around catching pokemon) would lose its value almost immediately.

You and I have very different ideas of exciting. I think this makes it repetitive and boring. There is no excitement in the 300 pidgey, and when I catch a nidoran, instead of getting excited, I think "great, only 20 more to go", or "eh, I need so many I can skip this one and it wont really matter". I have already lost all the attachment I had to that first Jolteon I evolved, since within 2 days she is now obsolete. In the base game you wander around with a team and level up that team. The repetitive trash gave you a reward for your existing pokemon, allowing you to build an investment in those pokemon. They have basically managed to kill any emotional attachment you have to your pokemon. I mean, we are talking about source material that encourage people to transfer their pokemon through generations. My buddy recently traded some pokemon to our friends kid that were half again as old as the kid, and he was telling stories about them. So far, aside from bragging rights about how much playtime you get to have, this game doesn't have any real meat to invest you in anything. Its playing off group nostalgia to get people together, but without the social interaction there is no meat to the game.

Quote:

They are already working on the rural urban issue, and many rural areas have had added pokestops and better spawns. Its very likely you are right and few of their beta testers are in urban areas. But I don't see how this is a mechanics problem. Its maybe leaving a part of their market under served. But since the game is literally all about collecting lots of people into public spaces playing a cell phone game, its not crazy that they focused on places with lots of people and lots of cell phones (Read:Cities).

In terms of strategic decisions, they focused their testing on the areas that were most conducive to the games success and popularity that would bring in a massive user base almost instantly and create a lot of publicity (Thousands of people playing together in Manhattan or in Melbourne Australia make for attention grabbing headlines).

Again, I certainly am glad they are putting effort into improving the game for rural players, but focusing on cities (where communities of players have already formed and have the best critical mass for the base game mechanics) is hardly a bad strategic choice.

My point here was that if they actually had a compotent game designer these questions would have been asked early and the problems identified early in the design stage. Asking how players interact with your game is question 1 in formal game design. The fact that so many simple questions seem to have been missed makes me wonder if anyone involved has actually studied the art of fun. There is a reason game design is now a college major at major schools.

Quote:
Obviously its possible this could end up a fad. But I personally don't think it will take a ton of work to keep it going. All they have to do is have events periodically, add in trading, add more pokemon over time and eventually allow direct player battles(all of which are in the plan).

They better do it soon. I don't see this game really lasting more than a few weeks before sharp declines in user base.


Jiggy wrote:
Caineach wrote:
...some of the terrible mechanics in this.
Like what? I'm not too far into the game yet (only just hit 6th level, haven't tried a gym), but so far I haven't run into anything and thought "Wow, that's dumb". My only complaints so far have been the bugginess (the app freezes sometimes, etc) and that there's a lot of the game that you have to figure out for yourself because they don't tell you how it works. But for the actual mechanics themselves, I haven't noticed anything really bad. What parts are you not liking?

They thought really hard about tactical level decisions but not enough about strategic level ones.

The game didn't know what it wants to be or how players would interact with it. It is set up as a territory control game like Ingress, but instead people want it to be an exploration game. The 2 aspects of the game only interact in 1 direction, with the exploration feeding into the territory control. But...

There is literally 0 point in controlling a gym besides bragging rights. Sure, you can collect the daily bonus for having a gym, but that amounts to 10 cents per gym and less incense than if you spent that time getting pokemon. If you try to get more than 3 gyms, by the time you get to the 4th you are probably going to be kicked of at least 1 of the previous ones, because it is fairly trivial for 1 person to take down a gym in less time than it takes you to travel to a new gym and take it. Instead, you can pay $1 and get about the same reward as you would get for a week of controlling gyms. They seem to consider gyms to be the end goal, but the rewards for it is lackluster and once people realize it that aspect will greatly fade to only a small group of people who particularly like that aspect of the game.
This could have trivially fix it by giving rewards relevant to the exploration and collection game for controlling territory. For instance, get 10 candy of the type of monster you have in the gym, and when you train a gym get 1 or 2 of the monster you use. Perhaps have some generic candy that you can use to evolve any monster.

The basic mechanics cause you to treat all your pokemon as disposable. In the JRPGs, you could level up your early pokemon and they would be relevant for you throughout the game. Your starter could realistically be in your end game team. Here, you starter is more or less worthless, since in order to level him up you need to find dozens of identical ones that will be innately better because they will have a higher starting level. This game encourages you to treat all of your pokemon as completely disposable, since you will always find better ones later.

The rural-urban disparity makes me think that no one involved in making or beta-testing actually lived in suburbia, let alone a rural area. There are all kinds of simple metrics that they could have set up if their beta group was large enough: how far do you travel to find a pokemon, how long between player interaction with the game (pokemon, gym, pokestop), how quickly you leveled based on region. All trivial metrics for them to measure that they clearly didn't pay attention to before launch.


Its quite clear Niantic doesn't make JRPGs from this game. I question if they even have actual game designers on their teams, or just a bunch of tech people, based off of some of the terrible mechanics in this.


Just went from 17 to 19 popping a lucky egg and evolving trash pokemon to their middle stage


Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Well, I'd hesitate to say without qualification that modern games are better, but ootherwise, yeah.
Name an old game that isn't available today that you would want to play.

I could list a number of them, largely older console games. A few PC ones come to mind as well. Skies of Arcadia, Snatcher, OGRE, etc.

You're completely missing the point though. Lots of the games on the release schedule for 2016 have been and look like they will be awesome. Lots have been horrible disappointments. Lots have been total garbage. This has always been the case, but to say that modern games are better without qualification means, for instance, that you're saying the rather mediocre Star Ocean: Integrity and Faithlessness is better than Star Ocean: The Second Story.

Star Ocean Second Story, available new on PS4.

Skies of Arcadia I can agree with. That game was awesome and from what I can tell hasn't been re-released since the gamecube. Never heard of Snatcher or OGRE.


Sundakan wrote:
What does that have to do with what he said?

Because he put forth his comment as a counter to the idea that this is the best time for gamers. In order for this to not be the best time for gamers, the old great games would have to no longer be available. The vast majority of them are, with more coming out and being re-released all time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Well, I'd hesitate to say without qualification that modern games are better, but ootherwise, yeah.

Name an old game that isn't available today that you would want to play.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Out of curiosity, does anyone know why they decided to change how pokémon battles work? I understand why catching pokémon doesn't involve a battle due to the nature of the game. But why did they make gym battles into a swiping game instead of the standard Gameboy style gameplay?

I wish I knew. I wish they just ported the gameboy mechanics over entirely.


Jiggy wrote:

Okay, let's talk moves.

So I figured the only use of duplicate pokemon is to trade in all but one to get candy to evolve that one. So at first I was going to start just looking at which one had the highest CP and trade in all the rest. But then I noticed that some of them had different moves, and I wondered if I should be accounting for that. Does it matter what moves a pokemon has prior to being evolved, or will the moves just get started fresh upon evolution anyway? How much should I care?

Also, how do I read the moves? There's a number on the right for each of them, and some of them have 2-4 blue bars next to them. What does all that mean?

From what I can tell, a pokemon gets completely different moves when evolved and I have found no connection yet between what they had in prior forms and what they get. I am by no means crunching numbers on this though. Personally, I don't care at all yet.

The blue bars indicate how often they can be used. The more bars, the less time it takes to power 1 charge up and the more charges you can have. More bars also tends to be less powerful.

Having more than 1 powerful pokemon of a single type allows you to put 1 in a gym and still have a backup for battle. Your not likely to have many of the rare guys that soon, but pigeons and rats are common and effective.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

So, all in all, it's sounding like I need to be really aggressive in catching as many pokemon as I can, rather than being "picky" like I was back when I was playing Red/Blue twenty years ago. Seems that evolving any given pokemon is going to require catching and "selling" one or two dozen of the exact same kind, so I need to grind like crazy if I ever want, say, a Pidgeot or a Hypno. Plus, catching more pokemon (even if I already have duplicates) is the fastest way to level up, which seems to be important.

So basically, catchCATCHCATCH is the name of the game. Am I understanding this right?

You are correct, catch everything you can. No one should be picky unless they are almost out of pokeballs and then they should be moving heaven and earth (well mostly themselves) to get more. Weak pokemon give you candy to evolve/power up better pokemon. And they are easier to catch. I am grinding out magikarps at the moment (you need 400 candy). I get excited when I see a 10cp magikarp.

Plus, there are the achievements that rely on numbers.

I have yet to find a good place to reliably find magikarp. Walking along the riverfront so far hasn't been that great for them. I've gotten quite a few out of eggs though.


Jiggy wrote:

So, all in all, it's sounding like I need to be really aggressive in catching as many pokemon as I can, rather than being "picky" like I was back when I was playing Red/Blue twenty years ago. Seems that evolving any given pokemon is going to require catching and "selling" one or two dozen of the exact same kind, so I need to grind like crazy if I ever want, say, a Pidgeot or a Hypno. Plus, catching more pokemon (even if I already have duplicates) is the fastest way to level up, which seems to be important.

So basically, catchCATCHCATCH is the name of the game. Am I understanding this right?

yes, except for the fact that since pidgeys are one of the biggest trash pokemon you can get a pidgeot day 2 easy. Evolve pidgeys and weedles all day long for the XP, even if you don't plan on keeping the higher level ones at all. I've sold a couple pidgeots already.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
13. PAY ATTENTION TO WHERE YOU ARE GOING. Don't walk into traffic or wander into a gated community. Stay out of private property, poke stops should only be on public property. If there is one that is on private property, report it with the bug link in the app. Alsp be as alert as you normally would going out into the world. If going out at night make reasonable judgement calls about safety. Traveling in groups is not only fun, its also a good idea to avoid issues that can pop up when traveling through parks and other secluded locations at night.
My work has 8 pokestops and 3 gyms on private property. No way I'm reporting it.
Private property you are permitted access to is fine. For instance there are a series of poke stops in fort hood. If you are allowed in fort hood go for it. If you are not, but but pokemon is not an excuse whne you are arrested :P

They are a 1/4 mile past a security gate that you need an onsite sponsor to get through. You can barely see the pokestops from the nearest public access property. There are a few thousand people onsite, so the gyms have been changing hands pretty frequently

1 to 50 of 5,970 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.