teknoman2

And I bet Geralt would win in a sword fight with either Marx or Adam Smith as well. So I guess we can close this thread. they say politicians do to the people what they are too old to do to their wives

Geralt in The Wtcher explained it in the most precise way Power, sex, sex, power... It all comes down to one thing: f***ing others

AMD FX-8350 with Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 pro Rev2 4GB Kingston hyper X DDR3 1600 250 + 500GB WD HDDs Corsair VS 650 Gigabyte 990XA UD3 AMD HD7770 1GB LG LED 22M35

since someone anti-graze mentioned the priests that raise DEF with their spells eaarlier. how would eliminating graze, make a fight against a priest with a huge DEF buff less tedious? well here's an extreme idea on how to make the game less log spammy an tedious: if roll+ACC-DEF > 89 the enemy dies (or you die if the enemy rolled) with a roll of 100 being a critical (ignore 50% DEF), else it's a miss. no hp, no damage rolls no stamina, no healing. whoever is lucky enough to get that roll first wins the fight

if ACC is 6 or more than DEF you dont miss, you get more crit and the chance to graze reduces if DEF is 6 or more than ACC you dont crit, you miss more often and the chane to hit decreases so if you try to kill someone with 15 more DEF than your ACC, you will miss and graze a lot with rare hits. isnt it better to be able to slowly grind down the enemy's health than just miss all the time and pray for a hit? it's better to make slow progress than just wait for the one lucky shot that may win the fight... at least for me

i also think that if DT>damage then damage = 0 but graze has to stay. there is no valid reason for it not to let's say you have 10 acc, a weapon that does 10 damage and do 5 attacks vs 10 def with 0 DT with the current system you get hit, miss, graze, hit, graze for a total of 30 damage. it takes 5 lines in the combat log and 13s to complete all 5 attacks with what you propose it would be hit, miss, miss, hit, miss for a total of 20 damage. it takes 5 lines in the combat log and 13s to complete all 5 attacks now explain to me how the first is attrition and log spamming and the second is not

i dont remember what the last console game i bought was or when, but it was for Sega Master System (first and last console i ever had) as for PC it was Battlefield 3. it was a preorder so i got it at release day

in our world there are humans. they are categorized by certain visual criteria that are comon to part of the world they are from, but they are all humans. amauma however, are not a different type of humans... they are NOT humans! they are as different from humans as lions are different from goats. and as azrael said, humanoid is a term that describes something that vaguelly resemples a human in it's form, but is not a human

US was not always the big bad satan... it became when it started to stick it's nose in everything and especially after the WTC incident when the geniuses at the WH PR department made a speech for the president that practically said "we start a war against islam"... not a country, not a terrorist group, but an entire religion in the end, the main thing is that the US government made a huge mess with the previous wars, and now they need to start a new war to fix it. and after that they will probably need to start a new war because this one will have caused some other problem

Those guys weren't sweet puppies and have repeatedly supported terror through financing and other acts. The assad family regime is part of the reasons why hezbollah is one of the biggest crime and terror organizations active today. http://www.standupamericaus.org/world-events/hezbollahs-bank-world-wide-crime-syndicate/ where in what i wrote did you read that they were good people? i said they held the leash of organizations like hezbollah, al quaeda, ISIS etc within their own countries, and these orgs are now loose. I don't really see where you are going with this, whats the difference between a sadistic maniac holding the leash of a mad dog and a a free mad dog? Don't worry i will tell you that part. Its the hot chicks Isn't it funny what name the mirror picked for gaddafi? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/libya-colonel-gaddafi-supported-terror-149208. Do you remember what the news papaers said about obamma and his red lines a few years ago regarding intervention in syria? And did you read why hezbollah became such a prominent crime organization in europe? I will give you a hint, its because of of some explosive parties in the 80's... because the sadistic maniac can back down if you threaten him enough or can be "persuaded" to keep a low profile at least for a while. the mad dog cannot! any attempt to stop it without puting it down will just make it more aggressive.

Those guys weren't sweet puppies and have repeatedly supported terror through financing and other acts. The assad family regime is part of the reasons why hezbollah is one of the biggest crime and terror organizations active today. http://www.standupamericaus.org/world-events/hezbollahs-bank-world-wide-crime-syndicate/ where in what i wrote did you read that they were good people? i said they held the leash of organizations like hezbollah, al quaeda, ISIS etc within their own countries, and these orgs are now loose.

indeed they did all sort of things any proper dictator would, i do not defend them. i said that if you kill their master and dont have someone capable to hold their leash, the dogs will run pampant. if you look at the situation now, i dont think it's any better than when they were alive... it's actually worse in all these places we have: civil war, minority massacres, ethnic and religious cleansings... and in a much larger scale than these evil men ever did they were by no means any better than scum, but at least they kept the rest of the scum in check... and the rest are way too many

tl;dr version as long as humans are humans, nothing will change in the world. they will just repeat the same actions for the same reasons on a different scale each time

To be fair, whilst the status quo in Iraq and Libya aren't that amazing it's not like Saddam or Gaddafi were saints either, Saddam was involved in some genocide, and Gaddafi had the whole ex-terrorist thing going. i did not say they were saints... i said they held the dogs on a leash. and seriously do you think that Libya is better now that most of it's infrastructure is destroyed and a civil war is raging, than it was when Gadafi had free schools, free hospitals, no unemployment and an economy that had no debt to foreign countries? maybe they will have democracy in a few years, or a new dictator will rise from the ashes of the war. either way, the country will never recover without borrowing an exorbitant amount of money from foreign banks and that will lead to a cycle of bankrupcies with the population living in permanent poverty Sadam Husein became the dictator of Iraq with the blessing of USA to fight against the new islamic government of Iran that overthrew the former king and friend of the US. when he decided to expand into Kuwait, where major US oil companies had business, there was operation desert storm to stop him. when later he decided to trade his coutry's oil for € instead of $ (a serious loss for USA's economy), since all of it was sold in europe, the US invaded for the second time under the excuse of WMDs and killed him. any genocide he comited had nothing to do with the invasion, because the US government does not give a dime about any genocide if it does not involve the economic interests of the state or major US companies. just think of how many genocides may be happening right now, and nobody cares because nobody can profit. Al quaeda and ISIS were rebeling against Assad's rule in Syria, and in a moment of genius Obama said let's help the rebels... rebels that were for over 10 years enemies of the US. fortunatelly they did not (because someone with a brain happend to be in the army and pointed the fact that they were about to help their own enemies), and spared themselves from both further embarasment and ISIS having control of both Iraq and Syria as for ISIS... the grunts are brainless religious fanatics that have willingly forsaken every shred of free thought and will, and are ready to die for the glory of islam. idiots who die because a priest told them to... a priest that takes orders from the higher ranking clergy that shares the glory of money with their oil magnate bretheren and the military industry, that profit immesurably as the fools on the streets kill each other for a place in heaven.

Gadafi, Sadam, Assad etc were the people who had the strength to hold all the wild dogs of their respective countries on a leash. NATO killed most of them and now the dogs are loose and thirsty for blood.

Nazi was the short version of the Nationalist Socialist Party. a political movement formed by Hittler that won the election in 1938 (i think) and became the government of Germany. so yes, nazis were socialists and by using socialist policies the turned Germany from a bankrupt ruin with over 80% unemployment to a superpower. of course, since power corrupts, eventually they turned the government into a military dictatorship. as for what fascist are... humans! i have the habbit of analysing human behaviour for fun, and i came to the conclusion that fascism is the human nature itself. no human is capable to accept what he cannot understand or is different from himself beyond a certain margin... at most he can tolerate it if not inconvenient. therefore humans have created a zone called normality and everyone tries to fit in. compared to the not so distant past, that zone is a bit bigger, but everyone outside the zone is a social outcast that is usually just ignored or scorned. so generally speaking everyone is a fascist just by being human, but what we call a fascist, would be the person who thinks that everything outside the zone has to be eliminated, and has a very strict definition of what fits in

if i was from scotland, i would vote no... realistically speaking, they had nothing to gain from spliting up from the rest of UK

i just want to make a clarification here, in case nobody said it already. comunism is not USSR! that was a military dictatorship, that used comunism as a front to keep people from rebeling. same goes for china, north korea and others the teachings of Jesus were about comunism (he who has 2 robes, should offer 1 to whoever has none). comunism is about equaly sharing the work and the reward of that work, instead of having 1 guy collect 99% of the reward and the rest divide the remaining 1% while each did the same amount of work. unfortunatelly, the second is closer to the human nature, because in the end, all that matters to me is me and all that matters to you is you

for once obsidian got a bug right

could be... i dont play the beta myself and i dont know if there is any other factor that further reduces the damage

1d100+acc-def if the result is 1-5 you miss if it is 6-50 you graze if it is 51-95 you hit if it is 96-100 you crit the 21-12=7, is because it was a graze. if it was a hit it would have shown 9 and if it was critical it would be 11

According to your beliefs, sure. Alternative take: Now, which of the 2 invented that idea that it was invented? Clever people or convinced they were being clever by Satan? Not wishing to start a religious debate on the forum but find that atheists speak of their beliefs in the same absolutes as the faithful so need to redress the balance. Back on topic: If it were known for a fact, many people would change their ways, but as others stated, the worst tend to be convinced they're right. In D&D land, there are evil gods for the evil people - do well enough for them and you'll do well enough in the afterlife, so there's still room for the alignment system. In PoE, there's no alignment - what do we know of the afterlife there? - are there 'evil' gods? or are there gods of war or something that would reward acts of 'glory' that the victims would call 'slaughter'? im not an atheist... i just dont believe in the fairy tales religions tell about the "invisible man in the sky". because i dont know who or what god is, but he is definitly not something as small and petty as the limited imagination of humans 2k+ years ago made him out to be.

not really. in the real world, you are either a wolf or a sheep. the concept of heaven and hell was invented to give to the sheep something to hope for (the sheep will have to endure a hard life but will be rewarded, the wolves will live a good life but will be punished)... and as a means of mind control to deter them from trying to be wolves (stay in the mud and never try to make your life any better if you want the eternal reward) now which of the 2 groups invented it (the sheep to justify their plight, or the wolves to make the sheep obedient) does not really matter in a world where heaven, hell, gods, demons and so on were proven facts, why would anyone bother living at all?

my thought on this, is that a per kill xp system does not work with the concept of the game and it was a good decision to remove it. in a hack n slash type of game, per kill xp serves a function as the point of the game is to kill stuff, and in certain cases the game even rewards you for killing in a spectacular or gruesome way or for how fast and how many you killed and so on. in a game that is based on choices and how they affect the the protagonist, his friends, enemies and even the world itself, having per kill xp will create a mechanical dilema for the players that is outside the scope of the game, as killing certain characters will provide extra xp compared to making another choice, making it a no brainer for most to make an example. you hunt a criminal for his bounty. once you have him cornered, you get 3 choices 1. kill him and take something of his a proof 2. capture him alive and take him to jail 3. accept his offer to give you the proof you need to colect the bounty and let him go each option would give you 500xp. if per kill xp was on and killing him gave an aditional 500xp, then why would anyone choose anything besides 1? or if 1 gave the 500xp for the kill and no quest xp, you would choose 3 and kill him after the conversation had ended. at least 80% of the players would do that. by not having per kill xp, you can make your choice based on who your character is and not on how much xp you gain or lose by it EDIT another solution that would satisfy the "per kill xp junkies", would be to completely remove all enemies outside dungeons or quest related areas and have the quest xp divided among the enemies as kill xp. so if you have 10 enemies in a dungeon and the quest you do is worth 1200xp, you get 100xp for each enemy killed and a 200 xp quest reward once it is over

Yes. It also hurts replayability for people like me, who like to try and discover and play overpowered and underpowered builds for both role-play purposes and experimental purposes. not exactly. a player with good conversation skills, will get out of certain situations easily by just talking. however when he comes across a situation where there is no room for words and steel must be drawn, he imediatelly has a disadvantage because he has not invested in combat skills on the other hand, a guy who relies heavilly on his martial prowess but is the strong silent type, will be forced to fight enemies (even those he cant defeat), because he will be unable to pick another option when the time comes that is the sort of balance Josh talks about. depending on your build, some parts of the game will be easier while others harder or you can make it so it all has about the same difficulty be it big or small