Killing_You

Okay, fair warning guys. I'm probably going to be absent for this whole day phase. I've got a 3-day weekend, and it's all being set up for D&D.

Oh, for- ##vote investigate Shade

##investigate Shade I don't take to kindly to people being immune to my rolecop ability.

Alright, checking in real quick before I go to D&D Weekend Extravaganza (as per usual :v). I'm still of the mindset that we're dealing with three factions: Status Quo, Pluralism, and Civil War. Bit unsure as to where my suspicions lie, however, aside from where people have voted. Speaking of, I investigated Jeod last night. His decision to vote Radical Status Quo struck me as odd in combination with his nationality, so I wanted to see if his ability/abilities also leaned in that direction. And my investigation suggests... he's not a threat.

More likely to get the option they want without risking too much instability. Why would two factions have a similar goal, but one just wanted the diet caffeine-free version?

That's interesting, and I can see why you would want to keep quiet about it. However, I don't think this ability really clears you (as evidenced by the vote wagon on you), but I don't quite think it's enough to condemn you. Yessir. I can see someone's abilities and items by checking them at night. I'm not so sure, given that the options are essentially "Light/Heavy Status Quo," and "Light/Heavy Reform." I think it might be more likely that there's three: One that wants to maintain the status quo, one that wants to peacefully reform, and one that just wants to set the guns off. There's probably more nuance than that, though.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but "Trap" doesn't seem like a non-hostile ability.

@Wallywood I think this would be right up your alley.

I'm leaning that way as well, honestly. I'm still not quite sure what does what, but if I were to guess, an economic reform might have the least potential to go horribly wrong. Especially since we're keeping the peace and whatnot. ##reform economy

Welp, mostly caught up now. Still kind of lost. As such I don't necessarily want to make a rash decision and discover the consequences later. So, I'm going to think it over, and later I'll vote for what reform seems like a better idea.

Here as well, though just to check in. My Monday thing is a go, and probably busier than usual, so I figured I'd check in before bed rather than try to find some time tomorrow. I'll be here Tuesday for hammer, though. Also going to wait until then to do a full overview; I'm admittedly a bit lost, but when I have time I should be able to figure it out.

Exciting. Won't be able to join until Monday, possibly Tuesday. My weekends are still D&D heavy, and I may or may not have stuff to do on Monday. I'll be sure to at least check in, even for a moment, on Monday, even if I have more pressing matters.

Great minds think alike, I suppose.

So before long, I'm planning to make a 5-part series on how EA has handled the C&C franchise. The first part will be establishing the franchise as a whole, as well ad defining what makes a "true" C&C game, before I examine Generals, C&C3, RA3, and C&C4 in the second, third, fourth, and final parts, respectively. For this first part, I'd like to ask you guys: What do you think makes a "true" C&C game? What elements need to be present in order for a game to be considered a "true" entry, and how important are these elements to you? Keep in mind that there is a difference between a "true C&C game" and a "good C&C game." For example, Generals is considered to not be a "true" C&C while still being praised as a great game, while RA3 seems to hit the mark as far as being a C&C game goes while also falling short of being good.

Hi. Put my name down, I'm ready!

By jove, this man's a genius! Dare I say, this is the best idea I've heard since selling your car for gas money! Jeffrey! Hire this man right now!

I didn't mean any of that. I'm sorry.

Well, that escalated quickly. Also, howdy RoolCock. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Let me try to fix his post... (Yellow is punctuation/capitalization/spelling corrections I've done.) TL;DR seems to be, "It could be cool, but it might change the game too much to be good."

Punctuation is your friend.

It's all about picking the right unit for facing enemies, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of both. Sure, if you run across a tank as a lowly Rifle Soldier, you probably won't have a good time, but as a Rocket Soldier? Different story. Having a loadout of 1 or 2 weapons each may seem boring, but to me it just makes it easier to grasp what they can do and where they should go. When the base is under attack and I have to make a snap decision of what I'm going to get to defend my base, I don't want to think in terms of loadouts. I kind of agree with the purchasable repair tools, though. It is a bit annoying to spend 200+ credits on a unit to help defend, only to throw it away because the base needs to be repaired.

By the time I saw this, there was already a Cop and a Tracker claim, and you didn't state a result if you were a role cop/watcher/whatever, so I concluded that you might have been a doctor. It was enough for me to not kill the tracker in case you protected him.

Man, that was close to happening, too. I initially wanted to kill Jeod (since I knew that the cop was no threat), but after rereading D2 I thought Nodlied was softclaiming Doctor, and was worried that he'd block my NK.

Translated for your convenience. Further proof Liten is a nutter.