Elerond

Alright 1. you are advocating FOR having 4-5 abilities that basically do the same thing? That's not wasted space or potential in your mind? 2. While you certainly are free to hate on the class roles in other games, what I suggested is nothing like the swiss army knife you are implying. With my suggestions, they would still have no aoe, no healing. Just my thoughts I don't particularly agree that they all do the same thing. How are an interupt, a blind, a hobble and a finishing move the same thing? They're all melee attacks on a melee class but otherwise they all add different debuffs that have different tactical advantages and may be more or less applicable to different opponents. And I'm not "hating" on anything (come on, we're both adults, let's not descend to that level) but I'm happy that support classes have utility and damage classes do damage and I'm not particularly sure I'd agree we need to see any saturation of that dynamic. What you're advocating is giving rogues less moves that deal tidy damage and more "misc", I just don't particularly agree is all. I'm not really trying to convince you, so much as offer a contrasting opinion. They still do the same thing : increase damage. It's not like you use blinding strike just for the blind debuff then move on to another target. Instead you will use crippling strike or blinding strike, depending on the target defense, to increase your damage then finish your target off. The actual debuff doesn't matter as long as it let you hit really hard (and interrupt as an added benefit). Now strike the bell and sap both interrupt on a graze instead of a hit, so i guess that makes them a little bit different but that's not much. I use them also to decrease enemy's ability to strike back, like for example Blinding Strike (blinded gives -10 to accuracy) or Debilitating Strike (distracted gives -5 to per [aka -5 to accuracy] with bonus that enemy gets also flanked status) are good initial strike abilities as they not only let your rogue do more damage but also ensure that enemies are less effective in striking back. But you can also use them just for debuffs in multiclass builds like Spellblade (rogue/mage) and Mindstalker (rogue/cipher) in order to make you spells work better, like for example to use eliminating blow for initial strike in order to debuf enemies resolve as it gives shaken enemies around the initial target, making it easier to dominate them etc.

There is still some thousand US troops (official number is ~5000 I think) there because of the intervention against ISIS which started in 2014, even thought USA's military actions mostly consisted of airstrikes they still performed some land missions, like assasinations and rescue operations. Although in Febuary of this year it was again annunced that US will start to reduce number of troops in Iraq.

It is special in-game item for the backers

I think that they have not actually released it yet, but it shows up on the list because it is added in steam and we have marked that we own it.

Isn't those chanters minority in Iranian parliament? I mean that if such would mean declaration of war, then Finland and Russia would be in war currently, as there are members in Russian parliament who openly say that Finland don't have right to independency and is part of Russia and there are members in Finland's parliament that Russian owned parts of Karelia belongs to Finland and Finland should take them back with force if necessary. I mean threating and boasting with hardline views against foreign powers is quite common thing all over world to gain political points in domestic politics especially when it comes to extremist wings of parliaments/governments/etc.

PoE gets its inspiration from Baldur's Gate and other Infinity Engine games, which have their own distinct set of features and themes that determine what kind of gameplay they offer. D:OS gets its inspiration from Ultimate series games, which have their own distinct set of features and themes which determine what kind gameplay experience they offer. Meaning that even though both are isometric western RPGs they still offer very different gameplay experience. I mean it is like comparing Europa Universalis 4 to Civilization 6 and say that they are in competition with each other because they both are empire building strategy games with historic twist, even though they both offer very different gameplay and thematic experiences.

Streach goals in crowdfunding are specific and concrete goals (as opposed to the underlying goal - a better game) used as enticement to get people to contribute more money, the vast majority of which will go into the basic development of the game. Some of them are robust game mechanics (theoretically the relationship system), others are throwaway tchotchkes, and so on - their monetary cost to implement may differ, and so do their subjective value. If you are disappointed that the sidekicks do not live up to your expectations, that's fair enough, but to feel like you've been insulted based on "their cost" is taking it a bit too far. Yes, but like I already said in another comment, back in POE 1 they implemented the stronghold system and the endless paths of caed nua with a 200.000 goal, I don't need to be a programmer to know that the endless paths and the stronghold system were a far bigger implement than 4 custom portraits. Stronghold was not 200.000 goal but something they promised to do if their Kickstarter achives certain amount of money. They put things in the goal points which they thought would interest people to give money for the project not because implementing those features cost that much money. As they only predict how many people they can hire for the project and how much time those people have to do things. Also in case of both stronghold and endless path and also in case of second big city Obsidian under estimated how much work they need which is why Obsidian wasn't able to implement them in the extent they hoped and which is reason why they were more careful with their stretchgoals in deadfire's campaign

A) Money comes from general economy via taxes calculated by bureaucrats working for government and made official by said government. Money is distributed for people by another set of bureaucrats whose job is to determine who gets benefits and how much. Kickstarting new grand scale benefit system most likely means that government usually needs to increase national debt, print more money (in those rare countries where government still has power to print money freely by their own wish) or take money from reserve funds depending mostly on which approach bureaucrats working for government think to be most efficient for general economy or political agenda of ruling parties in government. After benefit system (Universal Basic Income in this case) has been kickstarted government needs to just adjust tax rates in such way that there is enough money flow to pay benefits and possible pay back the debt or put money on reserve funds and in case of printing money they need to monitor inflation rate and in case that economy doesn't grow faster than money loses its value to inflation then they need to make adjustments on interest rates or do some other actions to keep inflation in bay. In case of replacing multiple benefits systems to universal income, there are billions of dollars worth of money that is freed from those systems to general economy, which will compensate quite big portion of money that is needed to run universal income system, especially when we are speaking about country which constitute already guarantees certain level of income for all the citizens of said country, which is why there are already benefits systems in place and governmental organisations that make sure that everybody gets at least that minimum income guaranteed by said constitute and government's watch dog organizations who are paid to seek out people who try to molest said systems. And because in some cases benefits are paid by governments of municipalities and some cases they are paid by national government there are official whose job is to move people from one benefit system to another in order to make budget look nicer even though such moving of people on paper does not have any real benefits for the country or municipalities. Meaning that current benefits systems are inefficient and there are lots of shadow cost in them that are difficult to calculate as those cost are spread in hundreds of different budgets by national government and governments of municipalities. It is predicted that adopting universal income system will actually free most of the money needed to run it from current benefit systems which it would replace.

I wonder why it didn't work. Just because that failed doesn't mean that the concept is a fail, we'd need to know why they pulled out of it before making any judgement. As with anything, there are ways to do it that work and ways to do it that simply don't, or it could be factors completely unrelated to the concept of basic income. Because our government didn't give it a change in first place, as they didn't even really do a experiment as they only did small scale selection where they replaced some people's unemployed benefit with basic income and then they started immediately to write new unemployed benefit model which they activated in start of this year which failed completely and now they try to fix it with idiotic quick fixes that don't really do anything productive or beneficiary to anybody, but at least we get thousands short courses for unemployed people so that government can pretend that they have activated unemployed seek jobs that doesn't exist. How could Finland manage to "give it a chance" though, without it just being some temporary experiment? Unless it's some sort of nationalized fund, that money is just going to come from indebted future generations. Already most entitlements are stipulated on consistent growth. It cost aren't as big as they seems from first look, because most of that money comes back to country's coffer via multilevel taxation, which is how we keep our social benefit systems running already. Basic income would have move lots of different benefits under one benefit, removed most of the welfare traps, which keeps people in benefit circle. Biggest obstacles to taking it to use are that there are some optional benefits that are necessary to keep addition to it and that it needs massive starting capital which either needs increase in government debt or taking massive cut from our pension funds. Even though those can be paid back relatively soon after system starts its economic system it is still something that politician like to avoid doing. But by giving chance I mean testing would it increase economic circulation as low income workers would have more money to spend, which would mean that companies cash flow would increase and that increase for their goods and services could increase number of jobs they can offer, which would decrease our big unemployment population, which would help in economic growth. But our government was not interested any of such experiments so basic income talks will move to next government as current is failing in all their job creation attempts.

I wonder why it didn't work. Just because that failed doesn't mean that the concept is a fail, we'd need to know why they pulled out of it before making any judgement. As with anything, there are ways to do it that work and ways to do it that simply don't, or it could be factors completely unrelated to the concept of basic income. Because our government didn't give it a change in first place, as they didn't even really do a experiment as they only did small scale selection where they replaced some people's unemployed benefit with basic income and then they started immediately to write new unemployed benefit model which they activated in start of this year which failed completely and now they try to fix it with idiotic quick fixes that don't really do anything productive or beneficiary to anybody, but at least we get thousands short courses for unemployed people so that government can pretend that they have activated unemployed seek jobs that doesn't exist.

Ships are most effective when they are on open sea and not docked in port, so moving/mobilizing those ship maybe just cautionary measure but it would not be out of real of possibilities that Russia has mobilized them in order to make them ready to try counter possible missile attacks.

They were only nation that did their revolution right way, as they first wrote constitution to give people rights and after that they elected new government, which had work in confines of new constitution.

My understanding is that Critical role cast voices some of the companions and addition to that they made voice sets for player made characters using voices that they made for their characters in CC's campaign one. I would note that they all are professional and talented voice actors that are cable to do multiple different and distinct voices and they often voice multiple characters in games which they are involved.

I don't know about that, as in Finland you (a civilian) can buy anything from small caliber pistols and rifles to rpgs, large caliber cannons and howitzers if you have reasonable reason to own such weapon (like filming war movie, weapon collecting voluntary reserve schooling in case of big guns). There are 1.6 million legal owned fire arms in Finland (about 30% of adult population owns a firearm). Between 2003-2011, 17% (185) of all homicides (1091), were committed with firearm (41% of the cases knife or some other edged weapon was used, in 23% of cases no weapon of any sort was used), from which half are legally bought and owned. Big sunk of illegally owned firearms were originally legally bought but have changed hands without doing proper paper work, but also lot of firearms used in homicides have been either stolen or borrowed from their legal owners. In robberies using of firearm is less frequent phenomenon than in homicides, as firearm is used only in 6.3% of robberies. Meaning that it is difficult to say if gun regulations prevent law binding citizens from owning a firearm and how much said regulations effect on crime rates. Wonder what kind of reasons they get for someone wanting an RPG. I know only two people who have got permit to by RPG, one is military officer who run voluntary reserve schooling camps on his free time and he got permission to buy aging rpg's from military to teach people in reserve how to shoot with one. Second one is prob manager on who acquires military probs for move productions, he got permission to buy a rpg for documentary film that wanted to show what kind destruction it does. I think that it depends how you count it. If you count only people who are primary owners of firearms you get 12%, if you count people who have permission to use those weapons then you get that 30%. Because it is often easier to register family's hunting rifle's for example under one person and register other family members co-users of those rifles. As it lets you buy hunting rifles for your kids and they don't need to worry about notify police about their holding location when they move out from their home to go university for example and they can still go to hunt hunting seasons if they want. Also shooting clubs sometimes are registered owners of their members guns because those members don't want to have gun safe in their homes, which means that on paper gun range owner is marked owner of their guns, even though they are really just provide storage for those guns. Such arrangement is done because registered gun owner needs to be able to let police see the gun if any time they ask, which means that if registered owner would like to store their gun on gun range they would need to have access both gun range and gun safe there 24/7. They carry Nephropathia epidemica aka vole fever as it is called here. Which is not very deadly disease as only 0.08% of people who get die, but as about 1700 people get it every year, death toll eventually rises.

I don't know about that, as in Finland you (a civilian) can buy anything from small caliber pistols and rifles to rpgs, large caliber cannons and howitzers if you have reasonable reason to own such weapon (like filming war movie, weapon collecting voluntary reserve schooling in case of big guns). There are 1.6 million legal owned fire arms in Finland (about 30% of adult population owns a firearm). Between 2003-2011, 17% (185) of all homicides (1091), were committed with firearm (41% of the cases knife or some other edged weapon was used, in 23% of cases no weapon of any sort was used), from which half are legally bought and owned. Big sunk of illegally owned firearms were originally legally bought but have changed hands without doing proper paper work, but also lot of firearms used in homicides have been either stolen or borrowed from their legal owners. In robberies using of firearm is less frequent phenomenon than in homicides, as firearm is used only in 6.3% of robberies. Meaning that it is difficult to say if gun regulations prevent law binding citizens from owning a firearm and how much said regulations effect on crime rates.

They will most likely just close company's accounts and cancel all the store credit cards that they have issued to company's customers, which will cause quite lot problems for the company

Thoughts? Seems weird to be coming down from a bank, on the other hand some banks give you a gun when opening an account. Policy-wise, I think it's fine. I'm all for tighter gun restrictions. Banks have put similar restrictions for example for porn and legal gambling quite lot. And sometimes they are just jerks and close accounts, without giving any reason or warning, for businesses involved in mentioned industries. Usually banks target industries that aren't seen favorably by society.

Threatening to fire or firing people who are tasked to investigate him

Video clip of Fox news' development in issue of talking with North Korea https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/974450928714747906

Hong Kong is currently autonomous state of China with lots of privileges that other part of China do not have and Chinese can't actually freelly move to Hong Kong, which is why there are people in China's political leadership that want to end that and assimilate to be same as other parts of China. But because of those privileges and Hong Kong's history being British territory there are lots of western companies in Hong Kong and they don't want see Hong Kong's status to change which is why our governments have been opposed China's actions to take Hong Kong's autonomy and privileges away. Yeah Japan has materials, facilities and know how to produce nuclear weapon in very short period of time, they may actually even have nukes even though they claim opposite, same fashion as Israel.

Interesting discussing. I dont think China will conquer Japan you greatly underestimate Japan. Japan dont even need USA to defend vs China. Australia would likely make their BETA military alliance with Japan to full military alliance if China will harass them. Australia is not a poor country. I am sure they can increase the military budget if the demand rises and Japan is constantly increasing military budget already. Hong Kong? Their autonomy is already taken away step by step and there is nothing you can do about that unless you want to start a war with China and nobody wants to attack China based on whatever happens in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is doomed anyway its fate is sealed and it is doomed. Taiwan? Taiwan is an interesting chapter. History goes that communists stayed in mainland and nationalists moved to Taiwan. Taiwan has been very stubborn in resisting main land China. Regarding Taiwan future I find it very hard to predict for some reason don't know why Taiwan seems to do better then say Hong Kong with China mainland authorities. Taiwan is so much resisting so I would not sign out the possibility of civil war Taiwan vs mainland. I think they mainly try diplomacy. If China tries to take Taiwan by force there will be war and Taiwan hates China: Yes China can go have their wargames with Taiwan that would result in massive military casualties to China mainland and a destroyed Taiwan not a great way to improve China economy and in the aftermath there can be lingering guerilla warfare with terror attacks from pissed of Taiwanese people who have lost the war. Who speak about China conquering Japan? China has now for quite long time wanted to build military bases closer to Japan in order to have more military threat towards them. If you think that Taiwanese or Japanese hate China that is quite mild comparison to hate which lots of Chinese feel towards Japan, because of what Japanese did for Chinese in WW2. It is historical issue that still causes lots of disputes between China and Japan. If you look Finnish attitudes towards Russians and then increase disdain/hate by ten folds you may get picture of how lots of Chinese feels about Japanese. In war between Japan and China, China would eventually win because of it fast larger resources (over 10x more people, much more natural resources, much more factories and other production facilities, larger capacity to produce ships, air planes and missiles. And not vulnerable to total aerial and naval blockade), but if China actually tried to conquer Japan, that war would end in usage of nuclear weapons which would make whole thing pointless. So there is quite low change that such war will ever happen in any other form than in form of a cold war. In war between China and Taiwan, China would most likely just blockade Taiwan and force it surrender by bombarding it if outside forces don't come to help Taiwan. China lets currently Taiwan keep its partially recognized state (Taiwan isn't currently fully independent country because China claims sovereignty over, which makes diplomatic relations with Taiwan quite complicated, which is why only 20 countries actually recognize Taiwan as country) because they don't want jeopardize their trade and other agreements with other countries, but that attitude would change if USA broke one of those agreements for example by attacking to NK. Also Taiwan's stubbornness to resist China isn't necessary in magnitudes that you think, because there are big sunk of Taiwanese who actually want Taiwan to become part of China (20-30% in polls but under actual military threat it could rise or lower somewhat). Yeah, China taking over by force Taiwan and Honk Kong and other territories it wants would hurt its economy and foreign relationships, which is why they have not done so, but even though economy is big factor in political decision it isn't only one, which is why we even talk about USA's possible strike/war with NK. Or why we, rest of EU and USA have several kinds of sanctions towards Russia. Why we have trade restrictions towards China and lots of other countries which human rights situations we don't approve. Meaning that you should not underestimate China's willingness to hurt their economy in order to forward their other political/ideological ambitions.

China is worlds 3rd biggest military power after USA the first and Russia second. Japan do not want to threaten only NK. Japan wants to threaten China so they have said. Japan has done military alliance with Australia... Japan is the country that is most growing in military power currently in the region. China do not want war with USA to much to loose in that war. In addition if China and USA would start full nuclear war against each other that would be the end of mankind. But would USA declare war to China, if China takes away Taiwan's and Hong Kong's autonomies and taking direct control over lots of world's electronic manufacturing or if China takes over Senkaku Islands and builds their military base there in order to make it easier to strike to Japan there, or if China increases their naval power South China sea and so on? And what would Australia do if China threatens to block their imports and exports? Meaning that China and USA don't need to go in full on war in order to have fight over things that effect big economical and political impacts.

I honestly don't know. First there was the sudden (though I guess in hindsight it would have been predictable) offer of one-on-one talks with Kim Jong Un, then silence (no confirmation or anything) from NK, then Trump decided now was a good time to reshuffle his cabinet, which is going to delay the talks. It's definetly possible that Kim was also worried that Trump might do a pre-emptive strike after the Olympics, but the talks up the stakes and make it more likely for things to go wrong. Now he's putting in Pompeo who is a real hawk on NK and Trump is rumored to be possibly putting in Bolton to replace McMaster as National Security Director, and he's even more of a hawk than Pompeo. So, really, it depends on Trumps mood and the time of day. edit: On Hillary, yeah, she really needs to just disappear from the radar, metaphorically, because she isn't helping anything. Kim's offer for talks is strategic move to make it harder for US do pre-emptive strike, because it would look quite badly for US to do strike against NK after they have offered to participate in denuclearization talks, especially China would react quite badly to such strikes in their sphere of influence and they would use them as excuse for either military or economical actions against USA. Also there is quite little to gain, outside of some possible domestic political points, from strike NK even if they have ICBMs capable to delivering nukes to continental USA and nuclear warheads to arm them with. So even though Kim seems like nutty leader, he seems to be much better politician than Trump at least in this issue, considering that Trump gave quite additional power for Kim by not just acknowledging his offer but boasting how big deal said offer is. Here is what I think you go wrong and you are from Finland like me so I don't consider you an super expert, not saying I am super expert but I was curious about USA people thoughts on the matter. China would not attack USA if USA attacks North Korea. There is risk of China envolment of course if whole region erupts into chaos Japan currently even have a valid more or less military alliance with Australia and that military alliance is pretty much against China. Japan really hates China and Japan has steadily grown as military power in recent years. If China attacks USA we pretty much have a hornet nest World War 3 on horizon. Look I have played Battlefield 3 and was thinking of maybe buying cheaply Battlefield 4 that is USA war against China and Russia. I tell you what if China attacks USA on basis that USA attack Northkorea then Japan and Australia will support USA they hate very much China. China best interest in conflict USA vs NorthKorea is to stay out of the military action. Best response it is pretty much about Trump what he decides also if he decides war there will be war and I don't believe one minute China will declare war on USA if USA attacks NorthKorea and don't accidentally attack China forces. If you realistically want to eperience USA vs China war then you can buy Battlefield 4 computer game. China does not need to declare war to USA to attack it, because there are lots of contested territories that China want to take under its control but has not done so because agreements with USA and its allies. But if USA attacks on North Korea which China sees at its protectorate, China will at least attempt to take some of those territories, because even though they have been relatively passive world power so far they will not ignore attacks on areas they see to be part of their home territories. People often ignore China's domestic politics, but in case of striking North Korea, those politics would play quite big part and force China's leadership to take action even if they don't necessary want to do so. Also you should not underestimate China's military power on its own home turf and how much economic leverage they have.

I honestly don't know. First there was the sudden (though I guess in hindsight it would have been predictable) offer of one-on-one talks with Kim Jong Un, then silence (no confirmation or anything) from NK, then Trump decided now was a good time to reshuffle his cabinet, which is going to delay the talks. It's definetly possible that Kim was also worried that Trump might do a pre-emptive strike after the Olympics, but the talks up the stakes and make it more likely for things to go wrong. Now he's putting in Pompeo who is a real hawk on NK and Trump is rumored to be possibly putting in Bolton to replace McMaster as National Security Director, and he's even more of a hawk than Pompeo. So, really, it depends on Trumps mood and the time of day. edit: On Hillary, yeah, she really needs to just disappear from the radar, metaphorically, because she isn't helping anything. Kim's offer for talks is strategic move to make it harder for US do pre-emptive strike, because it would look quite badly for US to do strike against NK after they have offered to participate in denuclearization talks, especially China would react quite badly to such strikes in their sphere of influence and they would use them as excuse for either military or economical actions against USA. Also there is quite little to gain, outside of some possible domestic political points, from strike NK even if they have ICBMs capable to delivering nukes to continental USA and nuclear warheads to arm them with. So even though Kim seems like nutty leader, he seems to be much better politician than Trump at least in this issue, considering that Trump gave quite additional power for Kim by not just acknowledging his offer but boasting how big deal said offer is.

Probably why you're on the outside, I guess. But really they should just up and leave Atlanta, might as well complete the overreaction circle and Hartsfield isn't that great an airport. Wonder if the people in Georgia would wonder why their state decided this was something worth leaning on a private company for....but then again it is the South. Georgia was already in it way to remove said fuel tax credit, so this is case where Delta took easy PR points by removing discount that nobody really used and Georgia's legislature tried score PR points by supporting NRA by promising action that they already decided to do, which may backfire against them as now other states' legislatures have opportunity to score cheap PR points by promising relatively cheap tax initiative for Delta and massive PR victory if Delta actually decides to move.