aluminiumtrioxid

It's still a ****ing idiotic statement. Meaningful tradeoffs are necessary to create meaningful resource management. "Player patience" is certainly a resource you could tap into and use as the basic currency for your meaningful tradeoffs, but that solution is suboptimal because it's fundamentally a meta-currency, disconnected from the closed internal economy of your resource management system.

I dunno, trying to maximize the amount of happiness that results from your actions sure sounds like a workable practical definition of "good" to me, but I guess it doesn't really count unless you also make your own life miserable in the process? "Good" doesn't have to be stupid.

The design philosophy where the optimal outcome in any given situation can be obtained by not engaging with the situation at all seems counter-productive to me if one's goal is to produce interesting gameplay.

[citation needed]

Wow, this topic quickly turned into a ****ing ****show.

Faerunner: "It annoys me when bisexual people (and fictional characters) who don't announce every waking moment of their lives that they fancy both men and women are straitjacketed into 'gay' or 'straight' even when information to the contrary is readily available." You: "You're just looking to be offended! Keep your filthy identity politics out of gaming! If you want people to acknowledge your status as a bisexual, you must be wanting special treatment!" (literal quotes from your post) All this histrionics over somebody basically saying "dude stop calling someone gay when they're not". Because this request is apparently perfectly reasonable when the person in question is straight, but becomes "identity politics" to be fought at all costs if they happen to be bisexual. Also, apparently you seem to be having difficulties with the grammatical construct called "impersonal you". That is okay. Many people struggle with mastering the nuances of English. Let me offer some help.

Apparently wanting people to not call you something you're not is incompatible with wanting to be treated like a person. Gotcha.

*Godwin

Such a definition, of course, would be perfectly valid.

...For a (not exactly outrageous) 10% ratio of gay/bi characters, you'd need a grand total of 40 straight NPCs in your game. I'm reasonably sure most games have that many in (at least implied) heterosexual relationships. Is it likely that you'd be travelling with LITERALLY ALL TEH GAY in your corner of the world? Well, not particularly. Is it compatible with representing them in realistic numbers? Sure it is! Luckily there are many, many examples of historical societies where homosexuality was more accepted than in 16th century Europe, so a game set in a weird and exotic island chain with a bunch of definitely not European-leaning cultures can elegantly sidestep this issue Well technically, "none of your ****ing business" is an answer (and one she readily gives).

Because the entire point of doing good is not expecting a tangible reward for it?

Legally in her republics. But just bz youre not fertile doesnt mean your not female or male. A lot of people on earth are infertile. But always still man or woman. I'm not sure she'd find it productive or relevant to think about herself in those terms, though.If SHE thinks or not. SHE is. I don't think one's professed gender identity is irrelevant specifically in the context of a romance, even if you personally think that the dangling fleshy bits are all there is to the issue and everything else is fiction or delusion.

Legally in her republics. But just bz youre not fertile doesnt mean your not female or male. A lot of people on earth are infertile. But always still man or woman. I'm not sure she'd find it productive or relevant to think about herself in those terms, though.

I just love the implication that giving female characters more romance options is somehow bad and wrong (because SJWs)

I'd argue it's a bit too straightforward, in fact. The ability to cast spells as if you were one level higher is such a marginal gain at higher levels (a whopping six percent increase at level 15! amazing!), it might as well not exist.

Would you have a link to any of those? I'd like to check them out. Alternatively, any recommendation for easy to learn image manipulation software :D I tried this one, and bounced off super hard, but who knows, it might work out for you. The site also features a slew of premade maps if making your own seems like an insurmountable challenge (as a general rule, I think it's faster and easier to grab a working substitute than it is to make a map from scratch).

learn to recognize the first warning signs of stroke

is a pretty big "if," no? and ciphers are current only bounded by their focus generation. a current poe cipher can cast infinite spells if the encounter lasts long enough. also, keep in mind you aren't actual using an actual encounter as an example. can you think o' any battle where you had the opportunity to cast spells 36 times? Well yeah, that is pretty much what I meant by "can't use most of my abilities to their full extent". Even 9 is way too many, in fact. I'm not against the new system, but to me, it feels like the current design is not particularly concerned about problems that will emerge in high-level gameplay. am not actual seeing the problem as you do. but am also not starting with the assumption we will see the same kinda spell advancement as poe 1. for all we know, you might have a total pool of 8 or 9 spells you might cast per encounter, regardless o' level. but am thinking you have backwards. the thing is, currently, following a rest, your wizard, priest and druid have their full range o' spells available to them. so in poe 1 is where we is certain a wizard can cast literal dozens of spells during a single high-level battle. the current mechanic is the one which is busted for high-level gameplay. a wizard, immediate following rest is a whole different order o' magnitude o' power than one following a couple encounters. you gotta see how that reality makes encounter design and challenge more difficult, yes? HA! Good Fun! I think the current system is also pretty thoroughly busted, yes. I actually like the proposed changes! But that doesn't mean it's a magical cure-all or that it will solve the problems of the current system without spawning a dozen issues of its own.

is a pretty big "if," no? and ciphers are current only bounded by their focus generation. a current poe cipher can cast infinite spells if the encounter lasts long enough. also, keep in mind you aren't actual using an actual encounter as an example. can you think o' any battle where you had the opportunity to cast spells 36 times? Well yeah, that is pretty much what I meant by "can't use most of my abilities to their full extent". Even 9 is way too many, in fact. I'm not against the new system, but to me, it feels like the current design is not particularly concerned about problems that will emerge in high-level gameplay.

The thing I'm more worried about is the sheer number of tools per-encounter casting will give casters at higher level. A fighter - even a fighter purposefully built to rely on active abilities - usually has no more than 6-8 total uses of active abilities. With a level cap of 18 and presumably the introduction of 9th level spells, by the end of the game, casters can throw 9 abilities around per encounter at minimum, and up to 36 if the current system (4 uses of spells per level) holds. To me, that doesn't sound like a system that promotes carefully considered tactical decision-making, it sounds like a convoluted mess where I won't - and really, can't - use most of my abilities to their full extent.

Well, there are mapping programs, but they tend to be either so bad at communicating their features that it's easier to just work in an image manipulation software of your choice which you can already use and is more flexible and powerful anyway, or have very little in the way of widgets which results in same-y, boring maps.

A Utopian ideal that young people tend to cling to? My favorite summary is "Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Communism is the equal distribution of poverty.".

Which is the exact reason why science in the Middle Ages was far more advanced than it is today. How could we possibly hope to ever reach the lofty heights of technology and understanding our forebears had? I am not following, are you arguing that science and technology is hindered by the nuclear family? Clearly your inability to understand what I meant must be the result of a lack of traditional upbringing and consequent failure of education.

It was just an example of the Federal government overriding the will of the voters who actually PAY for the schools whose districts they live in. Allowing the governed to have a say in their governance is a radical concept I know. But I don't want this to turn into a discussion on the merits of ID. It was just an example. Then either bring up a better example, or accept the fact that a lot of people aren't going to shed any tears over the big bad federal government not letting snake oil salesmen peddle their garbage at public schools.