Originally posted by Stake from Jate Farm:

Originally posted by Anatolia:

Report that you found a rather substantial amount of money on the street to the police?

Ate you stupid?

Or maybe he's just being considerate of the fact that someone else lost this money and they might really need it instead of automatically going for the selfish option? If nobody claims the money after a period of time you''ll get it, so if someone does find a large amount of money just on the ground you should probably bring to a local station.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZxtOGSJ7lc

Father Ted - It's a comedy about two priests who have been exiled to a parochial house on a a small Island on the west coast of Ireland. I've watched it so many times now and it never gets old.

Originally posted by Stake from Jate Farm:

It's mixed because the devs were extremely vauge about most of the features, so that made people think there was more then there actually was.

The port is garbo, tho. Ship controls like ass and it takes a GTX 1080 to run above 60, and there's hitching.

Again, they explicitly stated the game was multiplayer. Nobody thought anything, Sean Murray said on multiple occasions, the game was multiplayer.

Originally posted by 🎀 A_COCO 🎀:

Originally posted by Keyes:

Your ping isn't only affected by the distance between you and the server. While your ping is generally based on location and distance from servers, if your bandwidth is low/network is congested to the point where your connection cannot handle the required bandwidth for the game then packet loss can occur as well as latency between sending packets of data. Your ping will still be whatever it is to the server as it's based mainly on distance, but with the congested bandwidth there will be delays/queues creating "lag" and "latency" for your packets and such to a server. It would be worth it for Zennock to go about seeing what and who may be using up bandwidth on his network and see if it would be possible to lower it to create loss congestion.

We already found a place where we had equal ping, doesn't matter. Even if someone in his house is using up brandwith with something, it's not like they're just going to stop.

It would still be helpful for him to know in the future that's not entirely impossible for him to do anything about him improving his ping, although taking another look at the distance to Myanmar to Japan 200MS doesn't seem unlikely even if Bandwidth were not an issue. Would depend on the network infrastructure on either end too, but 200 should be fine for a MOBA.

Originally posted by 🎀 A_COCO 🎀:

Originally posted by Zennock:

Mate. You're the one with the grade A net. Mine tops 250 kbps at max and I usually average a 100 ping only at SEA.

I average 70 around here, and ping isn't a big deal in DotA until you start getting to 200 and above, and ping has to do with distance from server to the players. So just put the server somewhere in the middle of us. Also my internet is used for multiple things by others. So it goes down to about average cause of it.

Your ping isn't only affected by the distance between you and the server. While your ping is generally based on location and distance from servers, if your bandwidth is low/network is congested to the point where your connection cannot handle the required bandwidth for the game then packet loss can occur as well as latency between sending packets of data. Your ping will still be whatever it is to the server as it's based mainly on distance, but with the congested bandwidth there will be delays/queues creating "lag" and "latency" for your packets and such to a server. It would be worth it for Zennock to go about seeing what and who may be using up bandwidth on his network and see if it would be possible to lower it to create loss congestion.

Dank Oldschool Runescape memes.

http://i.imgur.com/xjZrwIT.jpg?1

Originally posted by Stake from Jate Farm:

Originally posted by Pepsiman! #BackFromVacation:

Wait what's missing?

Something about multiplayer features that people misinterpreted as MMO

Nothing was misinterpreted. Sean clearly stated direct multiplayer was a feature.

Originally posted by Sir Illic:

Originally posted by Keyes:

If you get any of them there's only a few DLCs that worth buying for EU4 at least. Victoria/Hearts of Iron are like 5-10€ for the whole thing. Crusader Kings 2 AFAIK is soaked in DLCs I think, although I don't play it much so I'm not sure if they're important.

Is Hearts of Iron 3 worth getting? I'm pretty sure I can't run the 4th one, and I like the WWII setting.

Hearts of Iron 3 is fairly different to Hearts of Iron 4 in some ways. It's the same time frame (1936-1946, although you can continue playing after that date but new technology won't come along, there's mods for both games for that though.) although Hearts of Iron 3 is a bit more linear in that things tend to come out historically, for example Operation Barbarossa often fails, the same countries typically end up sphered and influenced in the same way but ahistorical stuff is still very possible, like Luxembourg taking over everything. In Hearts of Iron4 things are less restrictive and a lot of odd stuff happens, like the British having a naval invasion in Pommerania or the USA invading Crimea. It's possible for a historical result to occur but fairly often things go ahistorical, and achieving strange goals can be a bit easier like turning the USA into a single party communist state. If you prefer more historical stuff it can be a bit annoying, I don't mean to say ahistorical is bad or anything but unfortunately it happens way too often. If they can patch the game in the future to have a balance between HOI3s historical direction and HOI4s sandbox style it would be great.

Hearts of Iron 3 is a lot more complicated in ways too, like managing the order of battle of units and their chain of command from divisions to army groups etc. I think it also simulates supply routes too, when managing fronts you have to make sure your supply lines aren't cut or else your divisions will run out of ammunition/weapons etc. In HoI4 you just assign divisions to field marshals/generals and place them under theatres, it's alot more simplified. I also can't remember whether or not if it simulates supply lines or not like HoI3, I don't think so anyways.

One thing I believe HoI4 is a little more complex with is actual supply/production. You have to individually produce weapons, jeeps, support equipment, artillery pieces etc and make sure you either have enough in reserves or be able to produce a surplus amount to keep your divisions maintained. I don't believe HoI3 went into that detail and just has its supplies under a generic heading. Both have similar ish tech trees although Hearts of Iron 3 has more individual techs i.e "Small Arms" and "Launchers" where as HoI4 puts them under Infantry Equipment, I'd have to double check to be sure though.

All in all, Hearts of Iron 3 is generally much much harder to get into since it's fairly complex in some parts and the UI is a bit dated, and generally has more details (I.e historical flavour events, political systems are much more detailed) and Hearts of Iron4 is more streamlined and easier to learn although it lacks details in places which HOI3 enjoys. Apologies for any typos, on mobile!

Originally posted by Sir Illic:

Originally posted by Remedy >tipofthehats.org:

Not websites, but guides. In-game guides maybe :>

I'll give them another look.

Originally posted by Keyes:

If you love history stuff try out some of Paradox's Grand Strategy stuff, the sessions on those could at least take you a week sometimes to finish!

I really want to try out Paradox's stuff, but the amount of DLC scared me off. Although I might pick up Europa Universalis when it's on sale.

If you get any of them there's only a few DLCs that worth buying for EU4 at least. Victoria/Hearts of Iron are like 5-10€ for the whole thing. Crusader Kings 2 AFAIK is soaked in DLCs I think, although I don't play it much so I'm not sure if they're important.