Elerond

Meh, could've been muuuuch better, but instead it barely touched the surface. I wasn't even sure if the author saw anything wrong with the industry as it is. I would guess basin on his writing that he is mostly contend with current status quo, particularly because his confirmation bias (jumps to conclusions) seems to favor current standing instead of movement asking change.

Most typical foot soldier armament through history before mass adoption of gunpowder based weapons were spear, side sword and shield. Although halberds and similar two handed weapons replaced spear and shield as main weapon when heavier armors started to become regular occurrence in battle field. Sword was dominant choice for civilians as side arm, because fights where civilians need weapon were usually against unarmored opponents and side sword is convenient for civilians to carry and it is very effective against unarmored opponents.

But isn't half of gamergate opposition exactly against this?It seems to me that since journalists chose solidarity over competition then they would naturally reject any attempts of outside control. Self-regulating bodies aren't about competition but tool to keep hold on ethics even highly competitive environment. Current model for most of the publications is that it is for consumers and advertisers to decide if content is ethical enough for them. In self-regulation model there is body that customers and other publications can complain that one or more publications have broken ethical standards that members of that self-regulating body have promised to uphold and then that body checks if that is case and if they fine that publication has broken those standards it gives that publication fine and that publication has to print out article of the breach that it has done. In market regulating model there is no general ethical standards that publications have promised to hold, but instead it assumes that consumers will abandon those publications that don't follow ethical code that their consumers want them to follow and that advertisers go where consumers go. I don't have even tiniest clue what gaming press especially in US thinks about self-regulation model and consistent ethical standards for all the publications. But even though self-regulation model don't stop market regulation model from working as well, it don't stop many people especially members of press from thinking that all kinds of regulation of press is threat for freedom of press/speech, but I think Finnish self-regulation model works quite (but I am not member of press and I don't have close ties to any member of press so I can only judge from consumer's point of view) well and it has not stopped Finnish press' freedom to been ranked, by members of press, having highest levels of freedom of press in the World.

One possible way is to out voice harassers and to show public support for those that got harassed regardless of what you personally think about their views, instead using typical internet debate policy and claim that there is harasser in both sides. Because giving active support for those who oppose you both lessens impact that fundamentalists that languish in your cause have and it also make your arguments seem more reasonable to those that aren't part of the argument. Although it is often problematic to utilize such tactic in large scale in internet debates as participants don't usually are in connection with each other outside of debate threads and there usually aren't any clear leadership for participants, although this is unique to internet debates as many civil unrest movements also suffer from it like for example Occupy Wall Street and protests in Ferguson have shown.

Fundamentalists that use GG as their reason to harass and as way to spread their causes cause similar PR problems for GG than what individual journalist cause to gaming press as whole, especially when it looks for public eye that GG as whole don't intervene in such behavior or don't seem to actively trying to stop such behavior. Which I would guess make many see/feel that GG movement accept such behavior and therefore at least indirectly supports such behavior. And because people want to pigeonhole everything behind simple terms GG becomes anti-feminist/-equality/-acceptance movement in eyes of public that don't really care to take their time to get know what really drives most of the people in the movement. You can see similar generalizations happen all the time in issues where there are fundamentalists involved. So GG movement needs to do PR work and try to find ways to lessen voice of fundamentalists that use their cause if they don't want those previously mentioned traits to be associated with them. One thing that I would like to see in gaming press is that they would establish The Good Journalistic guidelines and found self-regulatory organ that would seek that press follows those guidelines. Similar model that for example Finnish and other Nordic countries presses use instead of purely market driven regulation, but as most of gaming press is US based I don't see that such thing could ever become industry wide thing, as US press is very vehemently against any sort regulation, even voluntary one done by press themselves.

If those encounters in Dyrford village, encounter with ogre and encounter with cultist leader give any inclination how encounters are designed in rest of the game then that is already the case. Addition Bestiary XP can cause light change to this as I don't think that there is, at least currently, peaceful way to fill your bestiary.

It seem that my twitter will be full of articles about this in coming days, so I decided that I will post every single one of them in here, just to share my pain Here perspective from one that says they are feminist and nerd and a game towards #Gamergate. Attitude is quite negative towards gamergate movement. http://feministing.com/2014/10/06/we-must-dissent-intel-bows-to-gamergate-campaign-to-silence-feminist-video-game-critics/#14126309037441&action=collapse_widget&id=3864697

It is rather great isn't it ? At least it is long. In previous thread there was demand for objectivity, so in that spirit I thought to link it here after I read it to give people here opportunity to have different view to subject so that they can maybe step one step closer to objective view about subject.

http://jonstonechannel2.tumblr.com/post/99246356388/why-bother-with-gamergate #Gamergate explained from point of view of its opposition.

Firstly, I think a lot of users don't actually read through the whole user policy, and that's why it's useful that this sort of thing is at least put up for discussion so people can be aware of it and form an opinion on it. What you say is true, and there are many reasons why it's handy for Microsoft to collect this data in order to optimise their software, and it's not necessarily a sign that Microsoft is wanting to spy on individual people. I think what it boils down to whether you trust Microsoft or not. Not just in the sense that they may use the collected data for the wrong purposes (well, they will search history for advertisements, but that is nothing new these days sadly), but also whether you trust them to be able to keep the collected data out of the hands of a third party. If you are willingly installing preview version (as product in question is technical preview of Windows 10, a version that is not meant for end user use, but check out and test features, which is why you need to register in MS insider program to get access to it) of their software on your computer, one would think that you have at least some sort of trust towards them. As general rule I would always recommend people to read contracts they sign, as they are legally binding in most of the cases even if you didn't read them.

Obsidian did five different magic systems Wizards full Vancian (some spells become per encounter instead of day in later level) Priests and Druids user per day spell, but no spell book management (some spells become per encounter instead of day in later level) Chanters minor passive buff spells that increase magic resource over time which can used to cast heavier spells Ciphers have mana resource that they gain by doing damage to things with soul. Paladins passive auras. And then you of course can argue that some of fighters' barbarians' rogues' rangers' monks' abilities are magic based.

Party of 6 wizards? It went relative well as I said. Although I cheated better gear and XP boost. Your front line wizards can use heavier armors and protective spells that make them quite durable And they can use cone spell effectively kill enemies. Back line can work as long range battery throwing AoE damage and debuff spells. Your party need lot of micromanagement as default attacks of wizards aren't that effective, so you need to relay on your spells quite lot. I didn't play whole beta through but only Ogre quest.

All classes were designed so that they have useful role in the combat. Priest were designed to be support characters, which is role they do quite well in my opinion, even though I feel that chanters and paladins are better choice for support character, because of their passive de/buffs, where priest is much bit too high maintenance support character for my taste. But I have find out that with my play style priest is most effective when I use them as debuffer that makes rest of my party much more deadlier. Healing spell I have find out to be somewhat useless, because I don't usually need restore endurance to any of my characters before fight has ended and then endurance regenerates in seconds to full. Not really no. Let's say you make a party of 8 Wizards. What chance do you really have in the game? Would you be able to enjoy it? I doubt it. How do you make party of 8 wizards? Party of 6 wizards does reasonable fine, as you can do front line and back line wizards whose spells compliment each other. I would say that party of 6 priest is could have some what more harder times, but maybe not as at least currently you can combine same buffs and debuffs from multiple priest which means that you can drop enemy's accuracy to 0 and rise you own accuracy so that you do only critical hits in one spell casting turn, which means that enemy can't hit you and you should be able to dispatch them relative quickly.

I don't say that MS don't have nefarious intentions for data they collect and collect it shady ways, but data they mention to collect is data they have to actually collect to make system to work. Like for example speech-to-text service uses internet/cloud based services to assist in speech recognition, and to use such service to assist speech recognition Windows needs to sent recorded sound file to said service over internet and said service needs to process it, which means that MS collected that sound file consisting your voice for at least little bit of time so that their assisting service actually can work Same goes for anything that you write in Windows search bar, as it also search from net using bing/or some other search service, so things that you write in that search bar needs to be sent in the search service, meaning that MS collects that data so that they can sent you back results from that search service. And addition to these data collections that MS need to do to make their services work they also collect some use data from technical preview users to see what programs, files etc. they use and how well Windows can handle them. This is done according to MS to help them to find problems in Windows 10 and optimize its performance and that these data collection features will not be at least compulsory part of Windows 10. And MS tell users of technical preview that they will do these things, so that people know that they will collect these pieces of data. But anyway MS is evil so I wouldn't stop anybody who wants bash them.

Media outlets are everything from big companies (which in certain forms can even hold religious beliefs in US now) to entities that are run by single individual, but anyway they have right to freedom of speech and express any views they want. Media has right to produce any content they see fit and consumers have right to consume any content they see fit. If media outlets didn't have right to free speech government would have right to tell them what to write, which one could argue to be much bigger risk to any objectivity/neutrality that media outlets have as whole. To make media give people comprehensive picture about things, there is option to everybody to create their own media outlet that produces content from other perspective and it is to consumers to decide which media outlet gives them best coverage about subjects that they care about. Media outlets obligation to their readership is to produce content that their readership wants them to produce and their readership has right to move to read other media outlet if one don't produce content they want. Objective media doesn't exist and it can't exist because all content is produced, edited, approved and consumed by subjective persons, which means that all content that has even little bit complexity in it becomes a subjective piece. As even deciding which things are news and which isn't is subjective procedure, which means that even news that focus only objective facts about things are actually exposed to subjective judgement of someone/s before they are shown to people.

I don't see issue any different from campaigns to get advertisers remove their ads from site or just not reading sites because you don't like personal opinions of one of their writers. Media outlets have right to freedom of speech in same way as any other organization, which means that they don't have any obligation to write things they don't want to write. And it is their readers to decide if their coverage is wide, deep fast enough to matter them. Freedom to change what media outlets you read is one of those main principalities of capitalistic media, where belief is that reader/watcher/listeners will change their media outlet to another if their current one don't serve them right. Objective media is similar to unicorns that both sound fantastic but in reality neither actually exist.

Right now, from what I tested yesterday, you can put 4 enchantments on a weapon (armor or shield). The "Exceptional" is a single enchantment. I need to verify if the DT Reduction count has one, I don't remember. So you can add 2 more enchantments on that Estoc. Also, the enchant button on the weapon always show up, you need to go in the enchant panel to see that you can't put more enchantments on a weapons and try some enchantments (nothing is telling you that you reached the max anywhere). When I try enchant it, the known recipes list don't show +weapon mods selection, so I can't add any enchantments on it. Same thing has happened also other equipment that should be enchant-able, which is I think it is bug, but I can't be sure as I don't know for sure that I should be able to enchant it (and those other items). It work fine for me, I just enchanted a rapier, some armor and an exceptional estoc. Might want to open a bug (with your output_log.txt file and probably a screenshot), seems like your enchantment UI isn't working properly. It works for some items, but with some items +weapon mods is missing. Which I now know to be a bug for sure because after loading game today I could enchant that exceptional estoc, but weapon that I enchanted in last play session was missing +weapon mod from its known recipes list. I just don't know what causes it and how I can replicate problem, as it don't seem to be tied on any singular item, but some other factor. So I probably need to play current build with couple time more with different character and see if I can pin point source of problem before I write bug report about it.

Standing enemies are much more important on battle field than downed enemies and often it is better just heavily injury enemies than kill them, because wailing enemies in ground lower morally of enemy troop usually more effectively than dead enemies and after battle wounded enemy soldiers force enemy army to spent their resource (food, beds, dressings, etc.) and men power to take care of them, where dead soldier get only buried or carried home. And wounded enemy soldiers if left behind by their 'friends' can be taken as prisoners and interrogate and then ransomed back or exchanged to prisoner taken from your side. Of course modern military practice don't necessary work in all the scenarios that come up in PoE (as there is dragons, giant beetles etc. things that modern military rarely fight against), but they at least give some incline why someone would not just finish off downed enemy.

I would guess that they have plans to add more, but they aren't currently very high in to-do list for artists.

They could use exploration xp for that, by awarding player xp if they reach the room/whatever is behind the locked door/trap field/etc..

Difficulty level is different from game mechanics in that way that it changes how rules and mechanics in game work and so creating different challenge for the player Players can challenge themselves by deciding not to use certain mechanics or rules that developers are given them, but that has little to do with developers letting players to do what they want and more that developers didn't offer enough challenge modes for players. Selecting higher or lower difficulty level isn't as itself way to play game in more or less efficiently, but it can change what is most efficient or lest efficient way play the game. And in my opinion player electing not to use some mechanics in the game don't make original design better even if it makes game more enjoyable for the player.

Right now, from what I tested yesterday, you can put 4 enchantments on a weapon (armor or shield). The "Exceptional" is a single enchantment. I need to verify if the DT Reduction count has one, I don't remember. So you can add 2 more enchantments on that Estoc. Also, the enchant button on the weapon always show up, you need to go in the enchant panel to see that you can't put more enchantments on a weapons and try some enchantments (nothing is telling you that you reached the max anywhere). When I try enchant it, the known recipes list don't show +weapon mods selection, so I can't add any enchantments on it. Same thing has happened also other equipment that should be enchant-able, which is I think it is bug, but I can't be sure as I don't know for sure that I should be able to enchant it (and those other items).

I find it bit strange that you can enchant that Exceptional Estoc, I think it is bug also but I am not sure.

Save-scumming is not problem as itself, but it can become problem if using save-scumming is most efficient or in worst case necessary way to play the game, then one could argue that there is something wrong in how game mechanics are designed, especially how rewards and punishments are designed. In WL2 it is not necessary, main quest cannot be stopped by a random roll (outside of combat :D). It is not necessary, but in many cases it is most efficient way to play the game, because of high reward for successes and heavy punishment for failures design ideology that game uses. But save scumming is not necessary problem in WL2, as game is designed so that players can save-scum if they want, meaning that it's feature that designer of the game were fully aware of and decided to included it any way, so it is intended feature that is purposefully included in the game, so its existence is problematic only if it makes game feel less fun to play, which is thing that depends on individual that you ask about it.

Save-scumming is not problem as itself, but it can become problem if using save-scumming is most efficient or in worst case necessary way to play the game, then one could argue that there is something wrong in how game mechanics are designed, especially how rewards and punishments are designed.