It is entirely based on external factors and has nothing to do with Blessed Hammer, it does not need to be nerfed.
... I really like Paladins. The fact that they're finally the dominant class means you all can sit there and cry about it, we had to put up with Barbarians and Amazons for the darndest time, boo hoo on you that you all fell and we rose.
Eh, really, when was the last time you played? Blessed Hammer is definitely not the only viable Paladin build running around, not by a long shot. It's still one of the strongest and by far the most universal attack in the entire game. Is there anything wrong with asking for a decent balancing job?
Oh, and did I ever say "BAAAAAAAAAHHH PALADIN UBER HAX, NERF STICK"? Didn't think so.
That's odd, when I played Hammerdin's Max damage was in the 15-18k damage range (2 soj, maras, hoto, hoz, enigma, arachs, shako, anni, torch, 9 Pcombat gcs, Warcry, and Skill tree)
That doesn't change the fact that hammerdins were way too good.
Really I found a few major problems with diablo 2.
Eh, I was sure something could hit 40k...maybe it was my imagination though :p.
That's bull and we all know it. Take away the level 99 cap and you'll either have to place a cap somewhere else (might as well be 99 anyway then), or you'll face the absolute absurdity of characters with no maximum level. Hell, it's hard enough to get to level 99, and people still manage to do it very easily. If you present someone with a greater ability to break the game, they WILL do it, and it will suck for the rest of us.
Huh? How does a level 150 character affect your game? It doesn't make the game harder, or easier, and it doesn't do anything to the BNet economy.
As to Hammerdins: Once again I blame immune to physical. Take that away and you'll actually be able to use some other Paladin builds.
When was the last time you played this game?
Hammerdins can deal upwards of 40k Magic damage, which only one enemy can be immune to (undead Magic immunes are still hurt by it). That's stronger and more universal than any other attack in the game, by any character.
And Phys immunes have never really been a problem, since most well-built characters have good secondary options (even if they are item based).
This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of why people here are upset. I don't think anyone is upset at the OP. People are upset about their money being re-distributed.
If you can explain to me why I should be forced to pay for other peoples education when no one helped me pay for mine, maybe I'll agree with you - but right now I'm effectively being punished because I was born too early. I got zero help from the gov't when I was going through school, and now I'm paying out to help others. Is this fairness?
Oh yes, "I had to go through ****, so everyone else should too." Your idea of "fairness" is laughable, at best.
A state tries to completely physically wipe out a minority inside its boundaries?: Genocide. That's what the Nazis did with Jews, Gypsies, Homossexuals, and Communists. Thats what was put into trial in Nuremberg. So no, the Nazi regime was not a Terrorist regime (not particularly aimed at you).
Are you defining the word, or the action?
A state is at war with another state, or there is a civil war inside a state. One army is conducting military operations aiming at the destruction of the opposing military forces.
One military force (say a platoon) decides to bomb a civilian area where the enemy is suspected to be hiding -screw that, just bomb the area, I'm not entering there to look for the enemy-. An officer is pissed at those sneaky guerrilas and orders his soldiers to raze a village?: War Crimes. (Cases in point: Vietnam, Gaza, Lebanon).
So the difference between a war crime and a terrorist act is only that war has been officially declared?
A group without the military might to directly engage its opposing party choses to hide among the civilian population of its ethnicity/political belief and targets militaries of the opposing party in order to strike fear and demoralization on the enemy troops?: A Guerrilla (Cases in point: La resistance, FLN and the other anti-colonial forces, Hizbollah, Hamas.
Same as above, but instead of attacking the military forces, you attack civilians not directly related to supporting the opposer military machine: A terrorist group. (Cases in point: Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, the Algeria GIA in the 90's).
So by your definitions, Al Qaeda is no longer a terrorist group, they are Guerillas.
Okay, one thing that is basically repeated over and over again is that "Terrorists aim to create fear by attacking civilians and non-military targets". Don't take that word for word, but that's the general idea. Now here's a question for you:
If those "terrorists" instead had a fully equipped military force capable of waging war against countries like the US, would they still be suicide-bombing subways?
I think we can all agree that if any of the currently labelled terrorist groups/nations actually tried to fight a direct war with any nation with an advanced military, they would be wiped out in weeks (if even). So, with that understanding, is terrorism truly the ideology of the terrorists, or simply the only available means?
Also, just another comment. Under a lot of your definitions, the USA would have been a terrorist nation during the Vietnam war. Would you agree with this?
imo, animated shows can't be translated into live action... look at the atrocity that was the Scooby Doo movies. look at Keanau Reeves playing Spike Speigel in the Cowboy Bebop movie.
it's ridiculous to try to.
I fail to see how turning an animated show into a movie is any different than turning a comic book into a movie. The problem is purely with the interpretation and translation into live action.
Okay, something's really been irking me for a while. Why is it that a platoon of soldiers attacking a group of "terrorists" is considered a military act, while the same group planting a roadside bomb is considered an act of terrorism? Why is firing a missile into a populated city considered an act of war, while hijacking a plane to do the same is a terrorist attack?
As far as I can tell, terrorism is nothing more than war with limited means. Can anyone say differently?
how does lions eye diamond work in this deck? I know you crack it in response to tutors in other decks but hows it work in this one?
what about adding 1 lotus petal, 1 dark ritual
You cycle a card (or multiple), then float the mana in response. With a decent consistency, there's a very high chance you'll chain-cycle into a Misery, which you can play with your floated mana.
Heh. At what point in the war, pre-Stalingrad, did it seem even remotely possible for the Russians to defeat the Germans? They're called "turning points" for a reason.
This is relevant how? Once again, we're talking D-Day vs No D-Day. Stalingrad had long since passed before the Allies even set one foot onto Western Europe. The German forces were already backpedaling before they had to worry about being assaulted from two fronts.
Besides, purely in hindsight, we can see that a German victory was very questionable.
While this is true, Soviet strategy and tactics all too often boiled down to "drown the enemy in men." It's no wonder that the German-to-Soviet death ratios usually heavily favored the Germans.
Soviet officers were also too frequently afraid of their political officers, and were unable to exploit German weaknesses effectively for fear of being deemed politically unreliable.
A Soviet victory in Europe without the Anglo-Americans is definitely possible, but it would have resulted in many more deaths.
Not that Stalin cared, of course.
As far as I see it, there is no "definitely possible" about it. At what point in the war, post-Stalingrad, did it seem even remotely possible for the Germans to defeat the Russian?
Ah, missed that, okay.
On the second, I'm pretty sure it was a significant drain, but I don't have any sources on hand, nor am I too worried about digging them up. I'll quietly continue believing this unless I'm shown sources to the contrary, and if not, I'll look into it some years from now when next I remember while my curiosity is back to its compulsive norm.
For transportation there was a significant amount of resources used, but the death camps themselves needed very little German labour.
It's not so simple. Allied forces in North Africa and Italy put pressure on the Axis to push resources to the south, and an invasion on the western border puts pressure to defend that border, too. It's not just the invasion itself, it's the resources committed to defending a border because of the notion that the enemey is going to do so in the future.
I thought we were discussing what would have been if there hadn't been any involvement in the first place, not if they'd stopped after having started.
Not to discredit the greatness of the Soviet armies, but I'd say most of the German problem was that they put so much effort into exterminating the undesirable population. Gas, munitions, engineering, everything was put towards killing more people in camps rather than towards killing the enemy outside their borders.
I'm pretty sure the argument was that opening the Western front was not necessary for German defeat. Arguing what would have happened had the war been Germany vs Russia, and nothing else, is rather pointless.
If I remember correctly from previous readings, the Soviet Union came in from one direction, while the Americans came in from another - granted, the Soviet Union was taking more of the brunt of the fighting.
Yes, but the Americans (and British and Canadians) only opened the Western front after the Russians had the German's retreating and severely crippled. Even if the Americans did not get involved in the war, the outcome would not have changed.
Which is a VERY GOOD thing, considering that the Russians, while the enemy of our enemy, were the next enemy.
Why would it be favorable for the Soviet Union to have total control of Germany, again?
Completely irrelevant. We weren't arguing that the Western front wasn't a good thing, we were arguing that it was unnecessary. The war would have ended within a year, Normandy or not.
Untrue. The russians would have taken berlin within 2 years of when they did anyway. After the battle of stalingrad the germans never took a step forwards on the russian front. Sure, it would have taken longer as more troops would have been shunted back to poland, but they'd have lost. The western front was little more than a side show in the european war.
Definitely agree here. The Germans had lost the war the moment the Russions started pushing them back. The only thing the Western front did was speed up the victory a little, and stop the Russians from claiming more territory.
Again untrue. The Japanese were without a navy (they had, at the time of the bombing of hiroshima, aprox. one naval vessal, total, that wasn't in port in japan and more-or-less without fuel. (although that ship - a sub - did manage to sink the ship that had just dropped the nukes off that was on the way back to the US, due to complete incompotence on the behalf of the ships captain)). The Japanese airforce was pretty close to gone, and what was left was more-or-less incapable of intercepting the american bombers anyway (they flew too high). And the Japanese government was *this close* to surrender.
Yea, if invaded they'd have put up a fight, but I doubt as much as claimed. But even if *not* invaded they'd have surrendered within 12 to 18 months. Probably less. Certainly not decades. The war was pretty much over in the pacific at the time you guys dropped the bomb.
Much of this is said with the advantage of hindsight, though. The Japanese fought tooth-and-nail over every single island, and while I can agree that dropping the nukes was not necessary, at the time the US military had no way of knowing that the Japanese were close to capitulation. The war was being won, yes, but from their standpoint it would've been ridiculous to assume that mainland Japan could be taken quickly with minimal losses.
I disagree. Dropping it on some semi-inhabited island close to Japan and saying 'the next one hits a major population centre' would probably have worked. And I'm pretty sure they knew how potent the bombs were (given they had, you know, tested them and all).
edit: because there is something you all seem to be missing. It isn't the raw death count per se that makes nuclear strike so devastating, although that is part of it obv. (I say this because the tokyo firebombing, at the night of its deadliest, caused more casualties than the bombing of hiroshima - at least the immediate casualties). It's the fact that *one bomber* can do this, and you can realistically never stop it (or not in that day and age).
Of course, how many bombs did the US actually have that were functioning? I don't know myself, but in most cases in war, when you have limited resources the best strategic action is not to waste them so idly.
This is ignoring the morality of bombing civilians, though, but I don't think any of us would disagree that using the nukes on major cities was a morally incorrect choice.
The Allies would eventually win, the mainland is heavily dependent on outside supplies is it not? Plus, with carriers completely surrounding the island, 24/7 bombing would have to lead to something...
I'm very sure after American helped bail out Europe, they would be pretty eager to help us out in Japan, Britain would most likely send ships/planes/etc to help.
That's what I meant when I said "the Japanese pioneered kamikaze attacks, imagine what they would do if faced with being defeated on their own soil?"
They would use every last available soldier, to his dying breath.
Soldiers from the European theatre would most likely be given a rest, then sent in, while replacements/troops who hadn't seen much action in the European theatre would be the invading force of the Pacific.
I have to point out the massive impracticality of Europe getting involved in the Pacific theatre. Completely ignoring the fact that naval ships would have to circle two continents (cutting through the Mediterranean, since there's no way in hell they'd go through Soviet waters) to get to Japan, their navy was ill-suited for that kind of warfare (and by they, I obviously mean Britain).
Island-hopping, aircraft carriers and long-ranged bombardment is vastly different than anything used in Europe. Do you really think that Britain was in any sort of shape to start pumping out new weapons en masse?
Eh, really, when was the last time you played? Blessed Hammer is definitely not the only viable Paladin build running around, not by a long shot. It's still one of the strongest and by far the most universal attack in the entire game. Is there anything wrong with asking for a decent balancing job?
Oh, and did I ever say "BAAAAAAAAAHHH PALADIN UBER HAX, NERF STICK"? Didn't think so.
Eh, I was sure something could hit 40k...maybe it was my imagination though :p.
Huh? How does a level 150 character affect your game? It doesn't make the game harder, or easier, and it doesn't do anything to the BNet economy.
When was the last time you played this game?
Hammerdins can deal upwards of 40k Magic damage, which only one enemy can be immune to (undead Magic immunes are still hurt by it). That's stronger and more universal than any other attack in the game, by any character.
And Phys immunes have never really been a problem, since most well-built characters have good secondary options (even if they are item based).
Oh yes, "I had to go through ****, so everyone else should too." Your idea of "fairness" is laughable, at best.
Are you defining the word, or the action?
So the difference between a war crime and a terrorist act is only that war has been officially declared?
So by your definitions, Al Qaeda is no longer a terrorist group, they are Guerillas.
If those "terrorists" instead had a fully equipped military force capable of waging war against countries like the US, would they still be suicide-bombing subways?
I think we can all agree that if any of the currently labelled terrorist groups/nations actually tried to fight a direct war with any nation with an advanced military, they would be wiped out in weeks (if even). So, with that understanding, is terrorism truly the ideology of the terrorists, or simply the only available means?
Also, just another comment. Under a lot of your definitions, the USA would have been a terrorist nation during the Vietnam war. Would you agree with this?
I fail to see how turning an animated show into a movie is any different than turning a comic book into a movie. The problem is purely with the interpretation and translation into live action.
As far as I can tell, terrorism is nothing more than war with limited means. Can anyone say differently?
You cycle a card (or multiple), then float the mana in response. With a decent consistency, there's a very high chance you'll chain-cycle into a Misery, which you can play with your floated mana.
This is relevant how? Once again, we're talking D-Day vs No D-Day. Stalingrad had long since passed before the Allies even set one foot onto Western Europe. The German forces were already backpedaling before they had to worry about being assaulted from two fronts.
Besides, purely in hindsight, we can see that a German victory was very questionable.
As far as I see it, there is no "definitely possible" about it. At what point in the war, post-Stalingrad, did it seem even remotely possible for the Germans to defeat the Russian?
For transportation there was a significant amount of resources used, but the death camps themselves needed very little German labour.
I'm pretty sure the argument was that opening the Western front was not necessary for German defeat. Arguing what would have happened had the war been Germany vs Russia, and nothing else, is rather pointless.
Yes, but the Americans (and British and Canadians) only opened the Western front after the Russians had the German's retreating and severely crippled. Even if the Americans did not get involved in the war, the outcome would not have changed.
Completely irrelevant. We weren't arguing that the Western front wasn't a good thing, we were arguing that it was unnecessary. The war would have ended within a year, Normandy or not.
Definitely agree here. The Germans had lost the war the moment the Russions started pushing them back. The only thing the Western front did was speed up the victory a little, and stop the Russians from claiming more territory.
Much of this is said with the advantage of hindsight, though. The Japanese fought tooth-and-nail over every single island, and while I can agree that dropping the nukes was not necessary, at the time the US military had no way of knowing that the Japanese were close to capitulation. The war was being won, yes, but from their standpoint it would've been ridiculous to assume that mainland Japan could be taken quickly with minimal losses.
Of course, how many bombs did the US actually have that were functioning? I don't know myself, but in most cases in war, when you have limited resources the best strategic action is not to waste them so idly.
This is ignoring the morality of bombing civilians, though, but I don't think any of us would disagree that using the nukes on major cities was a morally incorrect choice.
I have to point out the massive impracticality of Europe getting involved in the Pacific theatre. Completely ignoring the fact that naval ships would have to circle two continents (cutting through the Mediterranean, since there's no way in hell they'd go through Soviet waters) to get to Japan, their navy was ill-suited for that kind of warfare (and by they, I obviously mean Britain).
Island-hopping, aircraft carriers and long-ranged bombardment is vastly different than anything used in Europe. Do you really think that Britain was in any sort of shape to start pumping out new weapons en masse?