Creslin321

Now this is true, and it's something I considered. Because FoF projects from your wizard, so you have to get him in the fray. Whereas fireball has a longer range. The problem is I think they went to far. IMO, fireball is a level 3 spell, meaning it should already have some advantages over a level 1 spell. Also, the damage difference is so extreme, that when you take damage reduction into account, fireball becomes nearly useless.

Okay cool, so I'm not the only one that thinks this lol . I've also noticed a lot more of this imbalance in spells as I perused through them. For example, Noxious blast, and Fireball. Both level 3 circle AoE spells. Fireball does 27-37, and that's it. Corrosive blast does 32-45 AND it sickens AND it's longer range. :/ lol

So I don't know if you guys noticed this, but it seems like fan of flames (ie burning hands) does WAAAY more damage than it should when compared to other spells. To give perspective here, fan of flames is a level 1, fairly large conal AoE, and on my level 6 Aloth, it does 42-58 burn damage. Meanwhile, fireball, a level 3, circle AoE does 27-37 damage. Or take Necrotic Lance, a level 2 SINGLE TARGET spell that does 37-48 damage plus 17.7 over time...meaning a total of 54.7-65.7 damage. Which is just a bit more than the level 1, very large AoE fan of flames, which does all its damage instantly. Is this the way it's supposed to be? I mean, one would think that the level 3 spell would at least do damage on par with the level 1 spell.

That would be truly disappointing if true. Not because I'm dead set against it being removed. No, I don't care about that. But there's the small matter of a character breaking bug that's preventing me from playing the game right now, and I would be down right pissed if Obsidian put this as the higher priority. I don't think this is as much of a PR problem as it seems to us who closely follow the game. Also, I don't think removing this takes any technical effort on Obsidian's part. So I wouldn't be concerned it is affecting bug fixing at all. Removing it would still be a patch, which would still require testing and going through whatever Obsidian's and the vendors' process is for releasing a new build. So if they pushed out an emergency patch to fix this, it would indeed delay crucial bug fixes.

I'm going to explain this once, which you will no doubt ignore. How high is the possiblity of there being an actual killing spree against men by "SJWs"? Ok, how many times has the panic defense actually been used by murder defendants? Also, are you going to post here again or did you make an account just for that? So are you arguing that somehow this joke is contributing to the actual murder of transpeople? That sounds like a slippery slope if I ever heard one... Look, I'm not arguing that bad things don't happen to transpeople, they definitely do. But I'm pretty confident that this joke has nothing to do with those things, and will never have anything to do with those things. This isn't a hill I'm going to die on. I'm just pointing out it's a little disingenouous to make them equivalent. I don't think that they believe that people posting #KillAllMen are ACTUALLY going to kill all men. But I do think that it's hate speech regardless. A little off topic, but do you think that uttering an anti-Irish slur in America and say, the N-word, today, are equivalent? I'll chime in. No, but that is amazingly american-centirc. This game is released in more than just America, so your specifying down to just America seems... strange. Yes, I know. I was just trying to cut down the possibility of an evasion by making the situation more specific. Look, I know what you're getting at here, you're trying to say that because of the specific history of the US, that anti-black slurs are "worse." But honestly, I don't know if that's true. Anti-black slurs are definitely more unacceptable in the US, but are they worse objectively? I would say no...hate speech is hate speech. Just because a group of bigots has not persecuted another group YET, does not make it "okay" to spread hateful rhetoric around. And to give perspective, imagine you are in Northern Ireland during the Troubles...what slur to you think would be more dangerous in that environment? Anti-black or anti-Irish?

I'm transphobic. Every time I'm driving down the highway and I see a Mack truck...I just think it's going to turn into Optimus Prime, and I crap myself .

I'm going to explain this once, which you will no doubt ignore. How high is the possiblity of there being an actual killing spree against men by "SJWs"? Ok, how many times has the panic defense actually been used by murder defendants? Also, are you going to post here again or did you make an account just for that? So are you arguing that somehow this joke is contributing to the actual murder of transpeople? That sounds like a slippery slope if I ever heard one... Look, I'm not arguing that bad things don't happen to transpeople, they definitely do. But I'm pretty confident that this joke has nothing to do with those things, and will never have anything to do with those things. This isn't a hill I'm going to die on. I'm just pointing out it's a little disingenouous to make them equivalent. I don't think that they believe that people posting #KillAllMen are ACTUALLY going to kill all men. But I do think that it's hate speech regardless. Of course, now that I think about it...there was Valerie Solanas, so violence from this crowd isn't completely unheard of...

I'm going to explain this once, which you will no doubt ignore. How high is the possiblity of there being an actual killing spree against men by "SJWs"? Ok, how many times has the panic defense actually been used by murder defendants? Also, are you going to post here again or did you make an account just for that? So are you arguing that somehow this joke is contributing to the actual murder of transpeople? That sounds like a slippery slope if I ever heard one... Look, I'm not arguing that bad things don't happen to transpeople, they definitely do. But I'm pretty confident that this joke has nothing to do with those things, and will never have anything to do with those things.

Yes, the fact that someone that actively promotes genocide and someone that was a former neo-nazi got the ear of Obsidian so easily is pretty disturbing, the minimum background check should reveal this, the fact that veteran game developers with 20-30 years of experience in the industry bow down to the wishes of these people are clearly crazy (and yes promoting genocide is crazy) is pretty telling, these demands should have been dismissed immediately after people saw where they coming from. I'm looking forward to when this thread progresses to its natural conclusion and consists entirely of speculation over Zoe Quinn's sex life. The only people who have brought "that discussion" up in this thread have been anti "that discussion." Do me a favor and count how many times the word 'SJW' has been spoken in this thread. It's worthy of KiA. That term existed long before what you are referring to. And really, sometimes I'm tempted to use it myself. Not because I want to be derogatory, but just because I want a word to refer to the far-left authoritarian crowd that normally pushes for things like this. What is a less offensive term for them? Would progressive work?

While I actually am personally pretty much wholly against censorship in virtually any form, I do agree that people should feel free to challenge the notion that censorship is always bad. Ironically, treating "censorship" as some magical thing one must agree is evil is ITSELF censorship. That being said, the reason I am against it is that people are ultimately pretty stupid. Throughout history, we've always been wrong about pretty important things, and it's complete hubris to think we aren't wrong about important things now. There are always going to be uncouth, "unacceptable" thoughts that are, in fact, actually correct. In the future, people will look back at us in disbelief that we were so certain of our virtue in believing X, when Y was actually obviously true all along. The kind of mob-based censorship we're seeing lately is predicated on the assumption that we've got it all figured out. In some cases, some of the stuff that we've supposedly got all figured out is incredibly, impossibly complex. It needs to be ok to talk about these things, because we are inevitably wrong about lots of them. Oh I completely agree with you. I am definitely on the "leave it in" camp here. I just saw people arguing back and forth trying to show that this is and isn't censorship, so I wanted to put out there that they are arguing in the wrong direction. This is definitely censorship, the argument is whether the censorship in this case is justified. And like you, I would say it is not justified.

Yes, the fact that someone that actively promotes genocide and someone that was a former neo-nazi got the ear of Obsidian so easily is pretty disturbing, the minimum background check should reveal this, the fact that veteran game developers with 20-30 years of experience in the industry bow down to the wishes of these people are clearly crazy (and yes promoting genocide is crazy) is pretty telling, these demands should have been dismissed immediately after people saw where they coming from. I'm looking forward to when this thread progresses to its natural conclusion and consists entirely of speculation over Zoe Quinn's sex life. The only people who have brought "that discussion" up in this thread have been anti "that discussion."

Gamergaters, you mean? I would say it's whoever is trying to utilize fear and shame to enact some kind of agenda driven change at the moment. And right now, that seems to be the people who are trying to get this censored. I never got why we have to try to turn everything into an "us vs. them" dichotomy. Why not talk about the individual issues instead?

It's definitely censorship, but I think the flawed assumption here is that all censorship is "bad." For example, I'm pretty sure that just about any major website would not allow the KKK to write articles for them. Is this censorship? Probably. Is it "bad?" Definitely not. If that's censorship then the term is absolutely meaningless. That makes not allowing me to use your forum account to post my political opinions censorship. Here is the definition of censorship from Wikipedia: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. Now, the situation I painted clearly meets that definition. And that's my main point, censorship is just a term to describe something. It is not inherently good or bad. So in my view, it isn't sufficient to just argue that something is bad because it's censorship. You have to prove why it's bad.

It's definitely censorship, but I think the flawed assumption here is that all censorship is "bad." For example, I'm pretty sure that just about any major website would not allow the KKK to write articles for them. Is this censorship? Probably. Is it "bad?" Definitely not.

I don't really think the joke you mention about the black woman, and the one in the game are really analogous. The one about the black woman hinges on the idea of racism. The only reason someone would be very upset if they slept with a black person is if they are racist...and I think we all agree that it's not really acceptable to be racist. But the one in the game is about sexual preference. As far as I know, we are still able to have sexual preference without being some kind of "ist." I mean, just because I don't want to have sex with men, doesn't make me homophobic. And vice versa for a gay person. Basically what I'm saying is that someone should always be free to have their own sexual preferences. And I don't think we should ever get the point where we persecute anyone who isn't bisexual for being homo or hetero phobic. They're only not analogous if you force them to not be. The guy in the original limerick doesn't necessarily hate men and the guy in my example doesn't necessarily hate black people; but the former does hate the idea of sleeping with a man and the latter does hate the idea of sleeping with a black woman. There's nothing wrong with not being attracted to men and there's nothing wrong with not being attracted to black women in my opinion. Yes, but as a straight man, to hate the idea of sleeping with a black woman specifically, you have to be racist. To hate to idea of sleeping with a man, you need only be heterosexual. My point is that there's nothing inherently wrong with being heterosexual, there is something inherently wrong with being racist. This is why those jokes are fundamentally different. Also, I agree that there is nothing wrong with not being attracted to a person based on race or whatever. But the situation presented here is assuming that the person already slept with the black woman, and the only way they would be all upset about it after the fact (at least that I can see) is if they are racist.

I don't really think the joke you mention about the black woman, and the one in the game are really analogous. The one about the black woman hinges on the idea of racism. The only reason someone would be very upset if they slept with a black person is if they are racist...and I think we all agree that it's not really acceptable to be racist. But the one in the game is about sexual preference. As far as I know, we are still able to have sexual preference without being some kind of "ist." I mean, just because I don't want to have sex with men, doesn't make me homophobic. And vice versa for a gay person. Basically what I'm saying is that someone should always be free to have their own sexual preferences. And I don't think we should ever get the point where we persecute anyone who isn't bisexual for being homo or hetero phobic.

A lot of people have been making good arguments as to why the joke should stay, and I just wanted to compile some of the better ones, and some I've thought of myself, here: 1. Content that is part of a fictional world is not necessarily representative of the author's actual viewpoints. Just because a story contains "bad stuff" like racism or whatever, this does not mean that the author actually believes it. And authors should be free to write about bad stuff if they want. 2. The joke is more at the expense of the Ligthbringer(sic) than it is at the expense of the man he slept with. The joke says nothing explicitly bad about the man he slept with, for all we know, Ligthbringer(sic) may have been really drunk and bedded a regular homosexual man that he thought was a woman. 3. You have to make a few major leaps of logic to find offense in this joke. The only arguments I've heard as to why it's offensive is that it perpetuates the stereotype that all trans people try to "trick" straight people into sleeping with them. So first, I didn't even realize that was a stereotype, second, you have to make the following assumptions in order to come to this conclusion: A. That the slept-with person in the joke is trans. B. That he maliciously tricked Ligthbringer(sic) into sleeping with him. C. That the representation of this one person should be extrapolated to all trans-people (which is, in itself, not a good way of thinking). So there is a heck of a lot of reading between the lines you have to do to even take offense at this joke. 4. The joke can be equally interpreted to be offensive towards men. After all, Ligthbringer(sic) kills himself like a moron after he sleeps with a man. Is this trying to say that all men are prideful morons, willing to take their own lives if something shames them? Clearly, this is a ridiculous argument, but it's essentially the same argument that the folks who take issue with this joke are using. 5. Content should not be censored just because someone finds it offensive. Art really needs to be about free expression. Once we start policing content based on whether it offends "X group" we are putting great limitations on what can be expressed.

Ah awesome thank you!

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/59974-update-021012-project-eternity-known-information/?p=1185160

Does anyone know if party members "on the bench" are supposed to get exp like members you have actively in your party do? I'm starting to notice that, at least with my created adventurers, this doesn't seem to be the case. Does anyone know the official word on this?

I have the same problem. I really wish there was a console command to remove active effects. At least with that we could fix this ourselves while we wait for a patch. Do you know if it the ability still works or is actually being suppressed? ------ I think it actually works, but just one stack of it. The issue is that you can't turn it off, ever.

I have the same problem. I really wish there was a console command to remove active effects. At least with that we could fix this ourselves while we wait for a patch.

--------------- I don't think so, but there IS a mod that allows you to respec your characters. I linked it earlier in this thread, it's called IE Mod.

That's just about everything. Everything up until the moment that the game lets you control their level advancement. So wouldn't be able to change her Archery talents either, since her narrative, her banter AND her storyline revolve around the fact that she was one of her tribe's premiere archers. She's always going to be a ranger no matter what you do. And besides, what's to stop me from giving her nothing but melee talents when she levels up naturally in my party anyway and then making her a melee fighter? Is Sagini going to "object" to me giving her melee weapon talents? Any game where the player has control is going to have some degree of ludo-narrative dissonance. Honestly, I think you're just being really nit picky at this point. Not every single statistical thing in the game is going to fit the narrative. For example, the fact that the same stat that determines how much damage a wizard does with his spells, also determines how likely he is to bend iron bars with his hands. I don't think that "under specific situation XYZ the player might do something that could make a companion behave different from their narrative" is a good reason to completely shut a feature out. I mean, there is clearly a continuum here, and I wouldn't want to let people turn Aloth into a dwarf fighter, but little things like speccing your archer into melee isn't that huge of a deal. Especially considering that you can do that already...

In that case, my Sagani scenario can occur. ------------------ So then just have the respec solution not let you change anything about companions that could be involved in the narrative like Sagani's pet, or a companion's homeland or background. Once again, this isn't that hard to implement.