Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 32

Author Topic: Starsector 0.65a (Released) Patch Notes  (Read 232399 times)

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4323
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #120 on: September 25, 2014, 06:32:21 AM »

Oh, the Shielded Cargo Holds hullmod - how does it work? Does it reduce detection chance per hullmod present in the fleet? Or is it dependent on the cargo space of the ship that has it equipped? Depending on the answer, there could be ways to exploit it, E.G. equipping a bunch of shuttles with it.

Quote
Removed speed penalty after winning battle

But... why?  :-[

That way you can just keep on farming smaller fleets, without fear of a bigger fleet catching you after battle. The way I see it, the hit to burnspeed after winning a battle means you have to carefully pick your targets. Which to me adds to the fun of the game. And from a roleplaying stand point, I think even a victorious fleet first has to get back into formation again, and prepare to fly off at full burn speed. It only stands to reason that such preparations take some time.

It's kinda compensated for by other changes.
- You'll have a harder time hunting down small fleets because of the tug/injector changes.
- You'll have less reason to hunt down smaller fleets because fighting doesn't yield much supplies anymore.
- You'll have much less reason to grind, since there are other ways of making money (trading).
- Carrying too much supplies/fuel you looted from a previous battle reduces your speed to 1. (Why is this not gradual, though?)



Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

nomadic_leader

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #121 on: September 25, 2014, 08:12:00 AM »

  • Added chance for an investigation event to be triggered by player use of comm sniffers

Is this a completely random dice roll at each clock tick as soon as the sniffer is online? The problems with such mechanics are  1. Opaque to the player and 2. Utterly beyond their control. This combination may result in frustration. Randomness that you can either affect or predict is good, randomness you can neither affect nor predict is bad.

I suggest the sniffer have a period of time during which it cannot be caught, adjusted by some skill from the character screen. A progress bar somewhere on the intel screen could show how much time you have left on your sniffer(s). After that, if you don't uninstall it (remotely or in person as balance demands) THEN the dice rolls for investigations start.

This is my first forum post. I've got a few other suggestions about current gameplay as well, which I will post in the appropriate subforum.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5855
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #122 on: September 25, 2014, 08:21:01 AM »

Quote
missile changes

This makes me incredibly excited. The two missile slots on a Lasher or Wolf just got much more deadly. And the missile pods! 4 Sabots or Harpoons per pod is... impressive.

Also, I might kiss you for the swarmer change. I already used them for anti-frigate work to help pressure and finish - now they are going to be truly deadly. Also: Broadsword's can handle frigate armor now. Muah hah hah.

Overall, this looks truly excellent.
Logged

Bjørn_in_the_Sector

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
  • Have a towel, just need a ship...
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #123 on: September 25, 2014, 10:59:40 AM »

ship skins

yessssssssssss! this is such a cool addition.
Logged
Executive Creative Director of Naysmyth Armouries Mod (Very WIP)

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2924
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #124 on: September 25, 2014, 11:36:25 AM »

  • Tri-Tachyon no longer hostile to independents
Aww, there goes my justification for always declaring TT to be evil and worth attacking.

  • High Intensity Laser now fires on achieving full charge (instead of starting to fire at partial effectiveness immediately)
Any chance of pairing this with a damage increase?  Or maybe a slight increase in the armor penetration power of beams in general?  The change a version or two ago where armor could get a higher overall damage reduction was mostly good, but really hit beam usefulness pretty hard, especially the HIL (and phase beams).

  • Fixed bug in StatBonus that was applying the flat bonus after the mult bonus (the correct order is: percent, flat, mult)
Huh.  Can you give us an example of where this makes a difference?
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 19384
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #125 on: September 25, 2014, 01:00:11 PM »

Skins:

These are just a shorthand for defining new hulls. The game takes the .skin file and creates a new hull based on that; for almost every purpose within the game, it's treated as an entirely separate hull. You can't change skins for a ship once you have it, for example. "Skin" might be slightly misleading as it encompasses more than just appearance. Skins can, for example change/remove weapon and engine slots, change the OP/deployment points/price, add/remove built in hull mods and weapons. Skins can not change the bounds or weapon slot locations, and also can't change the ship's system (the latter, at least for the moment).

The one exception to skin hulls being treated the same as other hulls is they can share variants via the "Manage Variants" dialog, provided the skins are inter-compatible - i.e. they didn't change ordnance points or weapon slots.

Here's an example skin for the pirate version of the Buffalo:

Spoiler
{
   "baseHullId":"buffalo",
   "skinHullId":"buffalo_pirates",
   "hullName":"Buffalo",
   "descriptionId":"buffalo",  # optional
   "fleetPoints":5,
   "spriteName":"graphics/ships/buffalo/buffalo_pirates.png",
   "removeWeaponSlots":[],       # ids
   "removeEngineSlots":[],       # indices, as engine slots have no id in the .ship file
   "removeBuiltInMods":[],       # hullmod ids
   "removeBuiltInWeapons":[],       # weapon slot ids
   "weaponSlotChanges":{
      "WS 001":{
         #"angle": 0,
            #"arc": 210,
            #"mount": "TURRET",
            #"size": "SMALL",
            "type": "BALLISTIC"
      }   
   },
   #"builtInMods":["comp_armor","comp_hull","degraded_engines","faulty_grid","destroyed_mounts"],
   "builtInMods":["shielded_holds"],
   "builtInWeapons":{
    },
}
[close]


Changes as of September 24, 2014
  • Wolf, Lasher frigates: now have frontal shields, to better work with their front-facing firepower

Quote from: Alex
  • Pilum: improved top speed and acceleration. Can still be dodged effectively, just harder. Deadly vs non-omni-shield frigates w/o PD


You are a terrible person.

Thank you! (In my defense, I've also improved the AI for dealing with missiles using front shields a *lot*.)


Only thing I might suggest taking a look at before the update is the "Stabilized Shields" hullmod. The way it currently works, it sees automatic use on any ship where Stabilized Shields is cheaper than an equivalent amount of vents (like the Apogee or Sunder, for instance). Although it's not OP or anything, it seems a little too easy to get access to, requiring only a 1 point investment into Applied Physics. Maybe move it up a little bit in the skill tree to make it require a bit more dedication to get (like rank 3-5 or something)?

Fair point, but in all honesty, I don't think this is high priority enough to where I'd want to look at it now.


I read the patch notes but I didn't see anything about this, but will it be possible to specialize factions towards certain commodities (for example via average abundance or price)?

The supply/demand is based on the market conditions your markets have, so yes.


And will there be a way for haulers to be nerfed in terms of smuggling capacity in a similar way to how the new hullmod works, ie extra thin cargohold?

And could you make cargoholds discriminate specific items, such that for example my faction's hauler could only carry supplies and fuel but no commodities? Or maybe only supplies, fuel, an "energy cells" commodity and guns?

No to all, though you could probably code around that if you really wanted to. As far as the player, though, cargo capacity is cargo capacity. I can't really imagine doing something like "X of your capacity can only be used on Ore", etc.


This could tie into a sort of mechanic for stations and planets you own that are under attack. An enemy fleet hovers/orbits around a station or planet with the status of 'attacking' or 'suppressing', and you get a notification of the event in progress, and your control over it measurably goes down over time until you fend off the attacker.

Yeah, without committing to any specifics, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about.


Back when .6a was in development you released the WIP starfarer api a bit early so modders could get a head start on supporting the massive changes in that patch. Would you consider doing so again since it's looking like .65a will be an even bigger compatibility breaker than .6a?

Definitely. Sort of want to hold off on it until I've had a chance to plow through some stuff in the API requests thread, though.



Really glad to see that you're still polishing combat, the AI and missile changes should mix things up again. (I'm just afraid that the Cerberus is completely at the mercy of missiles now.)

It was really driven by campaign playtesting, but yeah, it feels good to go back to that an polish thing up a bit. I have high hopes for the ship AI improvements; fixed some really nasty bugs that were responsible for a lot of the needless losses.

As far as the Cerberus, the Vulcans are surprisingly good PD. With a good loadout, it can solo a harpoon-armed Lasher or a Pilum-armed Condor under AI control, though it might take a hit or two in the process. But yeah, a missile-rich environment is generally unhealthy for it, though this is also the case for other ships.

Oh, and... did you really double weapon end engine health again, so it's now quadrupled? Or did you just forget that you already listed that change in the June update?

Just for engines this time around. Might play with it some more, though.



Sounds so great.

I am also salivating at the Lasher / Wolf frontal shield change and the impact pilums (pila?) are going to have on their rear ends.

Don't know why that stands out amongst all the other things, but it does :)

Adds interest to the choice of frigate, I guess. At the minute Lashers and Wolves are a safe option in so many ways.

You know, even if this is technically a nerf, it makes the Wolf so much more fun to play. The reasoning behind the change was to remove the control conflict that having omni shields on a ship with a significant portion of its firepower on front-facing hardpoints, which is especially an issue for frigates (and other ships that turn quickly).


Quote
Removed speed penalty after winning battle

But... why?  :-[

That way you can just keep on farming smaller fleets, without fear of a bigger fleet catching you after battle. The way I see it, the hit to burnspeed after winning a battle means you have to carefully pick your targets. Which to me adds to the fun of the game. And from a roleplaying stand point, I think even a victorious fleet first has to get back into formation again, and prepare to fly off at full burn speed. It only stands to reason that such preparations take some time.

Yeah, that's still a concern, but as I mentioned earlier, I don't think the tradeoff is worth it right now. In the future, I think some other mechanics (that I'm not prepared to discuss!) might take care of this neatly, so this isn't something I'm punting on long-term.



The shielded cargo hullmod makes me think: if the customs patrol doesn't trust you (maybe you've been caught smuggling before, or they've been swamped with illegal goods lately), they should insist on a boarding inspection. Obviously much harder to hide contraband from, and if you decide to fight after letting them on, you've got armed marines on your ship that could mess your crew/CR levels up or even take it over entirely.

Or is that too unfun a mechanic?

Actually thought about it; decided it was too complex in many ways. The chance for contraband to be found is higher if they're suspicious btw.



Oh, the Shielded Cargo Holds hullmod - how does it work? Does it reduce detection chance per hullmod present in the fleet? Or is it dependent on the cargo space of the ship that has it equipped? Depending on the answer, there could be ways to exploit it, E.G. equipping a bunch of shuttles with it.

It's based on the cargo capacity of the ship that has it. Also, you can't equip anything with it, it's only available as a built-in on certain hulls and skins.




  • Added chance for an investigation event to be triggered by player use of comm sniffers

Is this a completely random dice roll at each clock tick as soon as the sniffer is online? The problems with such mechanics are  1. Opaque to the player and 2. Utterly beyond their control. This combination may result in frustration. Randomness that you can either affect or predict is good, randomness you can neither affect nor predict is bad.

I suggest the sniffer have a period of time during which it cannot be caught, adjusted by some skill from the character screen. A progress bar somewhere on the intel screen could show how much time you have left on your sniffer(s). After that, if you don't uninstall it (remotely or in person as balance demands) THEN the dice rolls for investigations start.

This is my first forum post. I've got a few other suggestions about current gameplay as well, which I will post in the appropriate subforum.

I get what you're saying, but I think the magnitude of the event is a large component here. The consequences of a "guilty" result are minor - a slight reputation hit. On a more general note, even if something is purely random, if you have the choice of which gambles to engage in, and can make enough of them, then the outcome is essentially not random. What I mean is, if you have one 75% chance to win and 25% chance to lose, that could be bad (it could also be ok, if this was the culmination of a set of bad choices/lost gambles). But if you make 100 smaller bets with similar odds, then the outcome is fairly predictable despite being technically random.

Also: hi, and welcome to the forum!



  • High Intensity Laser now fires on achieving full charge (instead of starting to fire at partial effectiveness immediately)
Any chance of pairing this with a damage increase?  Or maybe a slight increase in the armor penetration power of beams in general?  The change a version or two ago where armor could get a higher overall damage reduction was mostly good, but really hit beam usefulness pretty hard, especially the HIL (and phase beams).

Hesitant to mess with this, to be honest. So far in playtesting beams seem to be doing quite well, though I haven't done too much with larger ships yet.

  • Fixed bug in StatBonus that was applying the flat bonus after the mult bonus (the correct order is: percent, flat, mult)
Huh.  Can you give us an example of where this makes a difference?

Not anywhere in the current version. Came up when I was adding something, don't exactly remember what.


Why have them at all now if they lost most of their main purpose? How USEFUL is ONE more burn speed? Have you ever tried to catch up to a ship when you are one point faster? How long did that take in?

Many times in the last few days; somewhere around 10 seconds or so. As a side note, it kind of feels like you're taking one change, looking at it, and then assuming everything else will be done in the worst possible way so that this change is horrible. I assure you, that's not the dev process :) Not to say that occasional mistakes won't be made, but still. I'd also invite you to read what I wrote in response to your similar question in another thread.
Logged

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4927
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #126 on: September 25, 2014, 02:37:08 PM »

Looks solid :)

Really like the changes to the way CR / supply works; I think that sounds like a good balance between some realism and good gameplay. 

Would like to second the call for a bit of buff for the HIL; it's just not useful enough as a pressure weapon at its current DPS and it's completely out-classed as an offensive weapon by many other things, even in the relatively-rare position of large Energy / Universal turret.

The missile changes sound great.  Would be cool to have a missile PD with AOE in the mix to counter with :)

On prices; I'd slope the Cruisers up to 3X and the Capitals even higher, maybe 5X.  In Vacuum, a Frigate's roughly 1:20 vs. a capital, when weapon prices are considered; that feels like a real progression and a huge loss if you lose one.  That said, if you're slowing progression via getting a Faction to be happy enough with the player to allow for purchase, like EV Nova did, that's another way to skin that cat.

Lastly, now that there are patrols... what about some dynamic military events?  When I think of "patrols", I don't think if a large task force on a mission to interdict or destroy another faction's base; that kind of event is something I'd really like to see happen in the sandbox, so that things don't stay static over a game.
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

Cosmitz

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #127 on: September 25, 2014, 03:34:00 PM »

I absolutely love and also am scared of the retooling done but scraping down a feature and remaking/redesigning requires serious commitment to the vision and i trust Alex's vision on the game. Most of the changes do make sense, even if some seem drastic, (full removal of speed penalty after a fight).

- CR/supplies/repairs was always complicated, and we merely got used to it in the patched up form. Uomoz's managed to make the system work and an economy on it, even through the roundabout way it was used as. Will have to see it in play, but a return to the 'arcade' no-penalty flying around seems a bit like a step backwards. If we will have integrated hullmods on ships that make it suck actual supplies when moving around, why not just stick to making it a game element as it is now? Either way, may just have to see it in play.

- Pursuit changes make sense, but a huge issue was always with Burn Drive ships or fighters. You need something that can overcome those, and with the changes, overcome those /now/ before the get off the board, which may prove impossible.

- "Made fleet movement slightly less inertial (2x acceleration)". I was always bugged with the sector map movement.. slingshotting around and such. Glad to see this is getting a look over.

Overall, these changes are massive, and done most likely to fit in with the new parts of the game. Will love to play when it's out, and mod makers have a huge reworking in front of them.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 03:36:59 PM by Cosmitz »
Logged

Okim

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
    • View Profile
    • Okim`s Modelling stuff
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #128 on: September 25, 2014, 11:23:54 PM »

Quote
These are just a shorthand for defining new hulls. The game takes the .skin file and creates a new hull based on that; for almost every purpose within the game, it's treated as an entirely separate hull. You can't change skins for a ship once you have it, for example. "Skin" might be slightly misleading as it encompasses more than just appearance. Skins can, for example change/remove weapon and engine slots, change the OP/deployment points/price, add/remove built in hull mods and weapons. Skins can not change the bounds or weapon slot locations, and also can't change the ship's system (the latter, at least for the moment).

Can I delete/create a ship with specific skin or change the current skin for a ship using API? For example via dialogue options (like conversions are achieved in Ironclads now)?

One more question - I suppose that I don`t have to create a new entry for each skin in ship_data.csv file or specific .ship file for it? If so - how do I define the new OP or price for it - I haven`t noticed any such lines in your example? I currently can`t see the difference between creating a new .ship file + entry in .cvs and making a new skin.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2014, 12:11:58 AM by Okim »
Logged

Okim

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
    • View Profile
    • Okim`s Modelling stuff
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #129 on: September 26, 2014, 12:10:39 AM »

Quote
Quote from: Zudgemud on September 25, 2014, 12:50:16 AM

I read the patch notes but I didn't see anything about this, but will it be possible to specialize factions towards certain commodities (for example via average abundance or price)?


The supply/demand is based on the market conditions your markets have, so yes.

So technically you can specify via supply/demand that a particular market is specialized in producing stuff out of some raw materials (in other words - has higher demands for raws and no demand in produced stuff at all as well as other non-participating in production goods)?

Tartiflette

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3354
  • Toss a coin to your Modder, O' valley of plenty
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #130 on: September 26, 2014, 04:27:13 AM »

You can't change skins for a ship once you have it, for example.
Awww  :(
Well I suppose it still simplify the custom dialog option I was going for. Uomoz's mod already allow to modify ships and I was going for something similar. Skins will probably help getting the possible modifications.
Logged
 

LazyWizard

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1352
    • View Profile
    • GitHub Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #131 on: September 26, 2014, 07:24:31 AM »

  • Revamped new game creation dialog
    • More unified UI feel
    • More interesting/impactful choices

Is this new dialog easier for multiple mods to hook into? I feel that was the major flaw with the old CharacterCreationPlugin system.


Quote
  • Markets will generate mercenary fleets when stability is lower. Some of these may actually turn out to be pirates.

Does this mean they will appear to be Independents and reveal themselves once you encounter them, or is it just a random chance that a spawned fleet will be pirates?


Quote
  • Missile overhaul

I'm excited about these missile changes. I look forward to dying many, many times due to outdated muscle memory. ;)
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 19384
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #132 on: September 26, 2014, 12:22:10 PM »

Lastly, now that there are patrols... what about some dynamic military events?  When I think of "patrols", I don't think if a large task force on a mission to interdict or destroy another faction's base; that kind of event is something I'd really like to see happen in the sandbox, so that things don't stay static over a game.

Right, patrols are in-or-near system stuff, so there's not a whole lot of miltiary activity going on unless hostile factions share a system or, say, send trade fleets to a neutral market that's in a hostile system. Any kind of higher-level military dynamics are well outside the scope for this release.


- CR/supplies/repairs was always complicated, and we merely got used to it in the patched up form. Uomoz's managed to make the system work and an economy on it, even through the roundabout way it was used as. Will have to see it in play, but a return to the 'arcade' no-penalty flying around seems a bit like a step backwards. If we will have integrated hullmods on ships that make it suck actual supplies when moving around, why not just stick to making it a game element as it is now? Either way, may just have to see it in play.

I touched on this earlier, but basically: I think having an exception is simpler than having a rule. (Also, it's not no-penalty as crew consumes supplies, and hyperspace travel consumes fuel.)

- Pursuit changes make sense, but a huge issue was always with Burn Drive ships or fighters. You need something that can overcome those, and with the changes, overcome those /now/ before the get off the board, which may prove impossible.

I'm ok with certain types of ships being very hard to chase down. It actually seems like a good way to add some diversity into the gameplay and add more reasons to go with different types of ships.


Can I delete/create a ship with specific skin or change the current skin for a ship using API? For example via dialogue options (like conversions are achieved in Ironclads now)?

By removing and adding a new fleet member, I'd imagine.

One more question - I suppose that I don`t have to create a new entry for each skin in ship_data.csv file or specific .ship file for it? If so - how do I define the new OP or price for it - I haven`t noticed any such lines in your example? I currently can`t see the difference between creating a new .ship file + entry in .cvs and making a new skin.

Right, no new entry in ship_data.csv. There are fields for OP and price in the .skin file; didn't realize that the example I picked didn't include them. Most of the fields are optional.

There's very little functional difference between creating a skin and a new .ship file plus entry in .csv. The main point is that a skin takes maybe a minute or two to add, and is much easier to maintain if the base stats of the ship, bounds, nodes, etc need to change.


So technically you can specify via supply/demand that a particular market is specialized in producing stuff out of some raw materials (in other words - has higher demands for raws and no demand in produced stuff at all as well as other non-participating in production goods)?

Right. There's a good chance you'd be able to use existing market conditions to create whatever you want, actually. Here's what the economy config for a simple ore mining outpost looks like:
Spoiler
      {
         "entities":["corvus_IIIb"], # Barad B
         "faction":"pirates",
         "size":2,
         "startingConditions":[
            "ore_complex",
            "free_market",
            "outpost",
            "uninhabitable",
            "population_2",
         ],
      },
[close]
      
      
Each of the conditions has associated supply/demand. For example, ore_complex will add ore/rare ore supply and requires crew and heavy machinery.


Is this new dialog easier for multiple mods to hook into? I feel that was the major flaw with the old CharacterCreationPlugin system.

In theory, yeah, since it's done using the rules.csv system. In practice, it's a bit limited because the number of options you can present at a time is limited by the dialog layout. I might have to add scrolling to the options element, if I can figure out how to make that look nice.

Quote
  • Markets will generate mercenary fleets when stability is lower. Some of these may actually turn out to be pirates.

Does this mean they will appear to be Independents and reveal themselves once you encounter them, or is it just a random chance that a spawned fleet will be pirates?

The pirates spawn independent, go off somewhere, fly the Jolly Roger, and then head to a pirate base. After that, they'll raid using their selected base as a... base. And eventually return to their market of origin with any plunder.

I'm excited about these missile changes. I look forward to dying many, many times due to outdated muscle memory. ;)

I've been on the wrong end of this a couple of times. Usually it's, "oh, I've won this, can relax now" then BAM.
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4323
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #133 on: September 26, 2014, 01:31:30 PM »

I've been on the wrong end of this a couple of times. Usually it's, "oh, I've won this, can relax now" then BAM.

Say, do you enjoy playing this Starsector game as much as I do? Because sometimes, in situations like those, I can't help thinking to myself: "This... is really damn fun."  ;)
Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 19384
    • View Profile
Re: Starsector 0.65a (In Development) Patch Notes
« Reply #134 on: September 26, 2014, 01:34:41 PM »

Quite possibly :) In this particular case, there's also a healthy dose of "being happy with the AI" thrown in - when it dispatches me in a manner that can only be described as "clinical".
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 32