Lulu

I didn't like putting all the posts in one thread, since that seems rather disorganized to me when I imagine people trying to reply back to hellos, you know what I mean? Say hello to one person, then another, umm. . . I did think separating the them into countries might be interesting at first, but it's also like separating people into groups. I kind of think it might make each thread a nationality-based clique, maybe; and it'd feel kind of odd to just invade a thread full of people from one country to say hello then, ah, if you know what I mean. So I just went with the old one About the deleting topics thing. . . Why are we deleting them? Are there too many, that it takes up too much space, or is it just too unorganized?

Well, the ones that were just put as statements without the "usually," "never" or "always" (yeah, I don't know what you call those. . . okay, they're adverbs of frequency, I looked it up DX) worked for me, because then I didn't find it conflicting for something to be "generally" "never" or "always (the case)" usually, and so on, and I didn't have to focus on whether I agreed about the extent of which the message was so. So for the example I used earlier, "Use of violence in any form is unnecessary and never leads to anything fruitful," I wouldn't be troubled if it was "Use of violence is unnecessary and does not lead to anything fruitful." But I can see what you mean when you say they give a better impression of the belief you want to convey when they have those. . . adverbs of frequency. Do you want feedback on whether we think the results are accurate? :-D. . . 2.1- My top color is blue (omniscience). I do like knowing things, but I'm not sure if I esp. care about it more than peace, freedom, power, and nature . I suppose that's why I got close enough scores anyway. 2.2- My top two colors are blue and green (neutrality in perspective and potential realization). Hmm... I did say I'm neutral, as in, vague and uncertain about things, but I don't mean in the sense of indifference about whatever happens. Although I'd like to uhh, come to my full potential. Whatever that would be, heh. 2.3- My top three colors are blue, green and white: "Believes in harmony. Believes that everything has something to be appreciated and they can all fit together somehow without anything being left out. Hates discord brought about by Black and Red." Hum. . . sure, I like harmony, and I believe there's a balance to everything that's needed. I don't really know if, ah, I create harmony, though. Yup, I believe there's something to be appreciated in everything. I don't know if "they" can all fit together, though, even if the former is true. I don't think black and red (individuality and having fun) are wrong, though people, who, ah, do things they think are fun (talking) while disrupting me annoys me, and I tell them to stop. Being an individual seems a good thing to me, though society's general will means the majority, so if you go against it too much, then you're causing more people pain. 2.4- The sum of my positive/negative scores is 130: "You have some character. You display some qualities (other than your looks, performance, grades, wealth) that make you stand out a bit. People still regard you as perfectly sane and normal, but with a slight but distinctly interesting and/or annoying personality (depending on their preferences). At this level, the 'philosophies' of you colors will likely click to you, while some others start to seem questionable." Hmm... I guess so, though I think I see how each color philosophy makes sense. Have fun writing your twenty-some articles. I'm sure it'll be interesting, just time-consuming, right?

lol T_T blue again. If you mix blue and green. . . you get turqoise! I'd rather it more green than blue though >_> you know, pale green, 66CC66 or 339900 or 339933, similar, you know? :/ Just concerning the aesthetics part, you know. Order from highest to lowest: blue = 85 green = 45 white = 0 black = -55 red = -75 I assume white is zero, but there isn't a bar nor a score under it that says it is 0. I can assume it is 0 because when I tried decreasing the points I gave one message by a unit, the bar did appear with the score 5 under it, and when I increased the points I gave that same message by a unit, the bar appeared with the score -5. It kind of tripped me up, because even if it's 0 the bar should appear on the graph. Otherwise, it looks like I received -1000. :/ I guess it just doesn't recognize/register the value 0. . . Anyway, seeing it at the scale shown on the graph, and seeing that you can get as much as 1000 (or as low as -1000) for one color, I suppose I actually got pretty similar scores for all of them. I always was one to be uncertain. For some of the messages I wasn't sure how to answer. It was a bit troublesome that they were put like statements, or even worse if they had "always" or "never" in them, since I generally believe there is no certainty like that. So when one of them was like: "Use of violence in any form is unnecessary and never lead to anything fruitful," I felt like putting 1, or disagreeing, for I disagree that violence will /never/ lead to anything fruitful; on the other hand, I generally believe that violence shouldn't be used, so I thought about putting 3. Now that I think about it, I suppose it can sort of make sense for something to "usually" "never" lead to anything fruitful, but it still perplexed me (you missed the "s" for lead there, the subject is singular; if you ever modify this 1st part, you should add that "s" in ). I think most of the time I ignored the specific "never"'s and such, and just put points according to the general underlying belief, though not always. ~_~ It's just my problem. For the same reason, I never used 5, or "This message is always true in any situation," except for "We can't really judge anyone whether they are right or wrong, good or evil, for such concepts are inabsolute and varying," which of course is paradoxical (I chose 5 for it because I believed it reflected my belief that nothing is certain, but choosing 5 contradicts that very belief). lol >_>; In any case, I bet my score may be inaccurate due to the reasons listed above. I still look forward to the analysis, though, so : Go! Go! Explanations go! Oh, another thing: every time I entered a number, the definition of that number came up. It was useful to remind me, but it was also bothersome to have to press backspace every time I wanted to enter something. Not /that/ bothersome, but eh.

Jeh~ no soy artistica, y no dibujo, pero. . . I doodled. I'm afraid I didn't include Glaistig's "magnificent" part-goatness. What? What goatness? There's no goatness! I only did her uh, human torso! Honest. . . ! Again, I don't draw, so no complaining. Well, I drew the body's shape first, and then I remembered the robe, and uh, I was doodling in pen (obviously), so I scribbled it in, and some places have lines that shouldn't be there :-D but I don't draw, I'm free.

Just some questions Glaistig and I had @_@: 1) The page and announcement says that whether you follow up with the voting after clicking the link is monitered, but the bug was about being able to click the same link several times, so uh, which one is monitered? If it's the former, then are other things I want to clear up. The following things, really. 2) Glaistig and I have the same IP address, so sometimes the voting sites disregards one of ours vote when the other has voted already. Does this matter? If the monitering thing checks whether your voted is counted after you have clicked the link to a voting site, then wouldn't that mean one of us might be confused for not following up? :/ 3) I use the additional boni that come with clicking the links (VP primarily) usually when my stats are already at max, so I try to click the links as quickly as possible so as to have more time before the regen cicle brings my stats back to my max., meaning, I click all of the links one after another and then click to vote at the sites after I have used the VP/VE I wanted or when the regen cycle resets. I mean, I have no idea how the monitering works in any case, but if there's something like a time limit that they have to see the vote count go up or something, then that might get me confused as a non-voter as well. :/ Should I just use the click-and-vote-right-away process all the time, or does it not matter? Huh. . . I suppose I might've made a new topic rather than posting here, but eh. n___n

I heard somewhere from someone that I don't remember that a ritual still works when your creatures upgrades as long as it still has the ability/target option as was assigned to it in the ritual, because they go by creature ID, not name/level. I don't know if I ever verified this, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it works. . . and I don't get how spamming a ritual wouldn't make sense while a button that allows you to recreate it would. If, uh, that was what you wanted. DX Granted, there's a certain convenience in just clicking a button after a ritual breaks rather than spamming several beforehand, though really, making several before it breaks isn't bad either, if you want to keep the same def. rit, so that you don't have to worry about not knowing when it breaks (I think some player suggested an alert for when that happens) except that when eventually all your spammed rituals break, you wouldn't be able to make it again with one click like you would with a recreate button. But I still don't see how a recreate button would be of any more use than spamming one ritual if ruined rituals due to upgraded creatures are the problem. Urk. . . I never did learn how to present my thoughts in an organized, clear manner. About the recreate button again; I said before that there's an appealing convenience in it, but I also see the having-to-go-through-several-buttons process as a sort of way to prove that you know the ritual you want to use again. Although I suppose that's actually not all that smart since it can't be that hard to remember a ritual in anycase. But it's also a penance for the ritual failing to work (win), and muh. . . I remember there were other issues and ideas discussed, but I either never figured what exactly they were about or did and then let it out of my brain. >_>; I do that a lot, sorry.

Hola yo no hablo espanol bien, pero soy una estudiante y estoy apriendo espanol. . . mas or menos. Pero, pues, porque capitalizas tu tus palabras en el medio de tus frases? D: Nunca capitalizo "anime" cuando lo uso. Debo? Yo se que hay muchas series del anime con subtitulos en espanol en YouTube, y entonces pense que uds. las ven tambien. Cuales son las series tu viste? Sin embargo, benivenidos a Magicduel. . . . tuve que usar el diccionario de la Red mucho. >_> mi vocabularia. . . Tambien, probablamente hube faltas. Eh, spanish. *feels cool for using spanish, no matter how much consulting of the dictionary was need* 8D

Excuse me: Not a relative friendship, I'm afraid. lol . . . Huh, Khalazdad? Your High Chancellor.

Happy Birthday Akasha~. I think I read that she's 23.

lol MB must've done it. >_>

The use of magic and principles isn't out yet for the normal players in MagicDuel, I think. It'll be out eventually.

Well, I thought life was a cycle like: live -> die (decay) -> be part of new living organism (live). Right? Though if we get into the rearranging molecules thing, then it's more like a continuous thing rather than a cycle, eh. . . I don't know about these things anyway. >_>;

And he's missing his cape. And his hat, too. :lol: . What's with that? All right, all right, no more heckling.

Urk. . . (edited and modified for Glaistig's comfort) Anyway. Welcome.

lololol, Khalazdad, when did Wodin gain glasses? XD . . . He doesn't really have glasses, does he?

"Salutations." "Salu-what?" "Salutations." "What are they? And where are you?" "Salutations is my fancy way of saying hello." D: I'm so. . . being able to recall this. Anyway, welcome to MD.

Hallo you guys (both Mashus and chertan). Have fun.

Well really, we aren't supposed to request specific things for ourselves, only "suggest." 8D (same thing) Your consideration appreciated; don't forget to include the hags, por favor.

Wodin seeks to make war on the shades. Not far from here he trains an army for this purpose. We attack them on sight, also, trying to improve our access to parts of this world and to improve the abilities of the creatures ttached to us. But no measure of understanding is sought. We encounter one shade who tries to communicate - it gives us a small cube into which we are imprisoned; it seems to carry us to a different version of this place where the spirits of the dead can talk. Marind speaks to us then in a fae carnivale. At no other time do the Shades speak in this realm. We wonder about the nature of the Shades. Some call them evil - and yet they have never attacked us directly. Some call them morally neutral but dangerous - the Knator Commander is in this camp. Other say theyseek only power and energy. None name them beneficient. The nature of the shades may reflect our own nature. We do not know how we came to be in this place; is this the heaven or hell of another plane? Limbo? Why do we start formless then gradually develop bodies? If we can answer questions about the shades, perhaps we will know more about ourselves. Thus we stand by the gates of Necrovion, exhorting the Shades to contact us. We offer them energy - if they need heat, we have it; if they can feed on eggs, we have them. Our vigil is steadfast. - Khalazdad (Plainer speech by Glaistig:) I agree with Khalazdad. We know very little about the shades, only given the story of various adventurers from Marind Bell. Yet the first real task in tutorial is to defeat these shades, without any attempt to communicate our need to cross the path they are blocking. Shades are cute. I will not stand to begin a war against them until I know the purpose and necessity of it. In order to attract the attention of these shades, we are asking players to gather before the Howling Gates to stand vigil and offer eggs (birds preferred) as sacrifice. Please spread the word if you'd like to join the mission. Also, we're interested in recruiting the help of omegaweapon, simplyzero and Morpheus. Out of all, only simplyzero has logged on in the past few days, so please contact Khalz if you see ome or Morpheus. EDIT: Yeah, this is Glaistig who accidently posted on Lu's account n_n; It's okay, she can add her own thoughts here, I guess.

Well then, I suppose it's more of a too many losses than wins thing as the fundamental problem rather than a too many people not trying to get balanced thing. (and I just realized that all that honor-stuff to figure out who had 100 more losses than wins; Glaistig reminded me that the balance is in their profile. >_> In that case, then wouldn't the only sure way to ensure that the overall game's balance is even be to give a loss only when a win is counted and the other way around, like others suggested? Players leaving the game could affect that balance, though, I suppose. Still, maybe if we use Firban's idea too then we can still sort of have the different types of battles like victories and wins, defeats, and retreats, differentiated by rewards, while having the if-one-wins-the-other-loses thing. Would that be possible?

Oh, I think there's enough. Otherwise, why does it seem like 9 out of 10 players give me neg. honor when I'm nearly balanced, not even perfectly balanced yet? All right, here: 1. I have 50 more losses than wins. 2. We qualify the players whom you say are not multitudinous enough to bring others to getting more losses as those with 100 more losses than wins. 3. How much honor detracted from an attacker who has more wins than losses than the person being attacked (negative honor) is calculated as the absolute value of the difference between attacker's (a) difference in wins/loss and the attacked's (b) difference in wins/loss divided by two: honor detracted = ldifference in wins/lossesa- difference in wins/lossesbl / 2 Honor detracted when I attack people with 100 more losses than wins = (l50-100l)/2 = l-50l/2 = 50/2 = 25. So, by how I calculate it, people with 100 or more losses than wins give me -25 honor or worse (yes, that was an unnecessary step-by-step explanation). Now I go and do a nice study using this information to see how many people around have 100 or more losses. So I count all the MP5's at Willow's and the Gazebo of Equilibrium online, and also record how many give me -25 honor (really, I counted online and offline MP5's all over the maps, but those results weren't favorable they're probably all from back when everyone had wins anyway, hnn) : 11 out of 15 MP5s gave me -25 honor or worse, meaning 11 out of 15 have 100 more losses than wins. Well, that's just numbers if you wanted them. Just a one-time log, not the average, eh. But I say, I don't believe so many people have such losses than wins because it's difficult to balance their wins/losses. From my experience, it's a bit hard, but overcome-able; what's really hard, instead, is keeping your determination because you have -500 honor and 0 rewards from battles as a result of attacking others with worse ratios. I'm pretty sure there are enough players at this point with bad ratios that others are slipping into it because of it, at least partially; I feel the influence. Even now I'm contemplating giving up on my goal of balancing myself if I can't attack others and keep a high enough honor. It is a bit hard to do, when 11 out of 15 players are so. /: Anyway, I make a brief plea: if you have more losses than wins but can balance it more than you are, yet do not feel the need because of the honor issue and such, well, then you are part of the problem. Let's all even up and be able to have that bonus for balanced ratio, please. And, were there any errors in my thinking? O: Not sure. EDIT: 1) No need for calculation, next time just check the profiles. :') 2) It seems like neg. honor is calculated differently than what I originally thought, though I'm not sure how exactly they're calculating it now, so this study is inaccurate. It might be more like, 15 out 15.

Hallo and welcome. (: Yeah, and you'd better avoid Glaistig especially; she's the nasty type that acts helpful and intelligent (though we aren't fooled by the latter in her case) to create a good image and bring down the guards of others, then viciously attacks, criticizes, and bashes whatever it can find fault in to make others humiliated. Flamers, that sort of stuff. Keep away from her, don't direct anything at her. (:

I think it's supposed to be like that, but Glai and I are on together all the time.

Well, that might be a bit unfair but I don't know really how much it's is used. I don't really think dst is Venger or working with him; right now he likes to mess with the heads because he has nothing else to do, or so he says, and when he gathers heads, he doesn't lose to only Venger. I know No one took a lot of heads from dst here and there. Otherwise, I assumed that they were all using the gather-heads-log-off method to stay off the chart until they had a lot and could gain a big lead over the others. They might have used 2nd accounts, but I wouldn't know.

Well yes, figuring out rituals will allow you to beat someone, but having weaker creatures and less stats (though the latter matters less when your opponent has many heads) is a disadvantage. Not having a multi-attack lifestealer, or an all-attack creature can matter at times, I would know. "Use your brain," eh? Well, you need tools for you to make use of your brain, sometimes. When your tools really, really suck compared to the older players, it matters, I imagine. :l But anyway, the head contest is still a competitive contest; to win you /are/ supposed to try really, really hard; breaking down VE, finding ways to defend your heads, that's part of the competition. And I don't know, this time there doesn't seem to be many participating, but last time it seemed more so (maybe because I was competing against them). This time around, well. . .