Ninjamestari

Actually, I think the cow just said 'moo'. ^^

If you ask me, ciphers should just start at max focus and then passively regenerate it during combat. I never liked this you need to attack stuff to gain more focus thing. Then you could turn soul whip from a passive into a modal that adds 20% raw damage to your attacks, or maybe simply converts the damage you do to raw damage, but costs focus for every swing. You could also then add secondary effects to your soul whip, such as life drain, a chance to stun or even increased range. Oh, or you could make soul whip into a modal that *replaces* your main hand weapon and you'll use the soul-whip instead, the power of which would be then determined by your level and attributes, and perhaps some talents. This could look visually awesome, just imagine Raziel's Soul Reaver from SR1 and SR2, but instead of a rigid sword, you'd have a fluid whip. Then there could be the obvious talents that modify it's behavior and other properties, and instead of deflection, the target should use reflex to defend against it, due to the weapon being immaterial and going right through any shield and armor, leaving dodging it the only viable option of defense.

Agreed, merchants lacking worthwhile items is a huge part of the reason why gold is so worthless in the game. Coupled with the enchanting system that incentivizes not spending gold at merchants and waiting until you find that super powerful item you're better off enchanting in order to save resources. I think there needs to be more special items at merchants at the same time as the whole enchanting system requires a total overhaul.

Pigs that swing pigs against pigs that shoot pigs out of their pigs? :D EDIT: the final boss could then be the odd boar that breaks the pattern ^^ EDIT EDIT: Complete with the appropriate *snort* and *squeak* sounds of course!

While I do find the co-op option incredibly interesting, I have to agree that developing it isn't worth the opportunity cost. Now if they'd figure out a way to make co-op happen easily, like if they make some side project that requires multiplayer components and the project is similar enough that the co-op portion could simply be implemented without much of a hassle, then hell yeah, but I wouldn't start developing that feature just for this game.

It wasn't, he's baiting you.

The sign of intelligence I'd say. No one should be ashamed of a sound mind.

People often don't realize that medieval times weren't *that* backwater economically, especially when we start to speak about the 11th and the 12th century. People actually did have money in those times and they did have 'shops'. A village smithy was still more likely to produce equipment at demand rather than stockpile it around for sale though. Hell they even had banking back then. The late middle ages don't really differ that much from the renaissance in economic terms.

There's fantasy and then there's fantasy. I don't mind a more fantastic sword as long as it is within reason and not on some Final Fantasy level of ridiculousness. Actually FF is so utterly ridiculous that I wouldn't even begin to approach that. Also, if the sword looks special, there has to be reason for it.

Everyone does go on side rants from time to time! But sometimes people let them go when they see others aren't enjoying them! And the next time I read observations on how things *are* I suspect I will annotate them with my stories of men who beg for cuckolding and strapons. I'm not saying that *all* men should *always* take on submissive roles *or else*, and I think assuming that is quite ludicrous. I seriously hope I don't come of as someone stupid enough to think in black and white. Nevertheless it is a trend worth noticing. But I'm going off rails again so let's leave it at that. Whether or not people enjoy what I say is not my responsibility. I speak of things that interest me and I strive to do so in a rational and reasonable manner. And as far as your slightly provocative (notice that provocative doesn't necessarily mean bad) counter example goes, yes, there are men like that, and denying their existence isn't beneficial to anyone. People who form a group define the group, but the group does not necessarily define the people belonging to that group. If you identify too strongly with general groupings like gender or a political group, you'll just render yourself incapable of ever truly understanding those groups.

I have to disagree with you on that, this whole grieving mother thing could be a very interesting discussion.

Everybody goes on side rants every now and then, and those side-rants don't get any real attention. This subject matter doesn't really deserve any special treatment; the reason I went on that rant was simply to bring out another viewpoint for a person in a relationship, I thought the viewpoint might be useful so I shared it. And I don't make observations about how life should be, I don't think any mortal can really claim that sort of wisdom, I make observations on how things *are*. I have noticed a trend that women tend to be happier in feminine roles and women who seek to fill a masculine role tend to become nervous wrecks, it is an observation. I'm not saying that *all* women should *always* take on feminine roles *or else*, and I think assuming that is quite ludicrous. I seriously hope I don't come of as someone stupid enough to think in black and white. Nevertheless it is a trend worth noticing. But I'm going off rails again so let's leave it at that. And if I'm completely honest, I wouldn't mind hearing people rant a bit more, I've found that people bring out their most interesting ideas and thought patterns during those rants, and I would never judge someone for slipping out a rant every now and then, as long as it is made in good enough taste of course. Listening to someone's rants gives me insight into how their mind works, which lets me better device a communication strategy that will lead to a more productive and efficient exchange of ideas, so while everything is best done in moderation, don't be afraid of slipping out a little rant every now and then. At least you don't have to worry about that with me, even if the rant is slightly off-topic.

How on earth am I behaving badly or treating others disrespectfully? I've merely criticized your behavior in polite language, as you've criticized others'. I've responded to an ongoing series of posts, as you have. I don't think disengagement here is necessary, but if you believe that it is, shouldn't it be you who ceases to respond? I am not interested in PMing you or anyone else on this forum. I wasn't referring to you specifically, perhaps I didn't clarify that well enough, but if you're not interested in having a discussion then don't keep talking. If me or my views are attacked and disputed, I am within my rights to defend them and I *will* respond. But why won't you respond to me specifically, rather than only engaging with people who are speaking in inflammatory ways and then complaining about them being inflammatory? I've set forth my criticisms of your behavior. (I don't know anything about you personally, and the substance of your views on non-fictional life are of no interest to me, as my standpoint is that it's irrelevant unless tightly tied to gaming concerns). It's fine enough to reserve the right to defend yourself, but if you do, it's a bit hypocritical to try to hush up the opposition by shooing them to non-responses and PMs. I must have missed them, being occupied responding to these blatant attacks on my character so I hope you can forgive me that. It is not my intention to dismiss valid points or respectable criticism, but I am only a human and I can't always notice everything. As you can see I've been dealing with a lot of volume. The one point you made on this page is about me talking about gender roles; what I have attempted to do is to explain the certain natural expectations people have when dealing with female characters, and the disconnect between what is presented by a game and the player's understanding of reality erodes the sense of immersion. I went into details about gender roles so that I could make specific points about games, such as it being important that the strong warrior woman is represented as an exception rather than the norm. Pallegina is a perfect example of this; her character design respects reality and thus she is one of the most engaging characters in the game. Our notions of reality are deeply interconnected with our ability to immerse into a piece of fiction, and since the disconnection people feel with the game causing them to not even finish it is a very strong theme on this thread, everything related to that is highly relevant. Gender roles obviously are only a small part of this, but it got blown out of proportions due to all this drama. Again, I hope you forgive me for not noticing your arguments and giving them attention earlier. If I still missed something, feel free to remake your case. This subject matter interests me a lot and I'll be happy to discuss it.

How on earth am I behaving badly or treating others disrespectfully? I've merely criticized your behavior in polite language, as you've criticized others'. I've responded to an ongoing series of posts, as you have. I don't think disengagement here is necessary, but if you believe that it is, shouldn't it be you who ceases to respond? I am not interested in PMing you or anyone else on this forum. I wasn't referring to you specifically, perhaps I didn't clarify that well enough, but if you're not interested in having a discussion then don't keep talking. If me or my views are attacked and disputed, I am within my rights to defend them and I *will* respond.

So, what about the bits of this that aren't a personal spat between the two of you? Katarack isn't the only one who's been irritated by your posting. Personally, I think it's one thing to post about gender and gaming. I'd much prefer it be in its own thread, rather than half the threads on the board, but gender and gaming at least has to do with games. When you start with asides about the place of men and women in modern, real life society, it veers far from the subject matter most people are here to discuss. I suspect it's fine by you if it's only you doing it and expressing your own views. Would you really want to frequent a gaming forum where dozens of other commenters were constantly sharing anecdotes about their friends in support of various social and political views, sidetracking conversations about mechanics and storylines, if the sidetracking views were ones in opposition to your own? Some of this seems more appropriate to another section of the forum, and some of the rest of it seems like it might be best if you started your own thread about it, where people who were interested in the topic could engage with it there. I am not responsible for your irritation, and you do not have the right to determine what I can and cannot speak about just because some lines of thinking lead me to subjects you don't like. You being irritated is your own personal problem and doesn't give you any special powers to not treat others with respect. I'm not the one who keeps bringing this topic up again and again and again. If you don't wish to derail this thread further, then don't keep responding to non-topic issues. Being irritated is not a valid reason for bad behavior, and an adult person must recognize this. If you disagree with something I say, then do so in a respectable manner and share with me your reasoning. If you're afraid that your questions and arguments would generate drama and wish to avoid that, and you're truly interested in discussing it, then I'll be happy to exchange ideas via private messages. Being irritated is not a valid reason for bad behavior.

In essence, a disconnect the game mechanics have with the fantasy and the 'reality' of the world. This I think is another example where the concepts the game uses ought to be rooted more firmly in reality. The whole pre-casting thing revolves partially around a similar issue; the inability to cast a spell unless you're in combat feels arbitrary and disconnects the player from the fantasy. I really can't stress the importance of this point enough; building strong game mechanics based on concepts that are firmly rooted in reality is fundamental in delivering a strong immersion through the game-play. This is why some games can get away with a not-so-good story phasing while others cannot; if the game-play itself provides a strong connection to the fantasy, then having longer periods without scripted interactions, story-related or otherwise, can actually not only be much more tolerable, but also reinforce the immersion and the player's connection to the game rather than taking away from it.

Oh, wow. Wow. Jesus ****ing...wow. I have to go now. I have to go before I get banned. Wow. Just...****ing wow. Jesus christ, you are a ****ing piece of work. Wow. ****ing......wow. Hounding your for days? Trying to bait you into an argument? Before yesterday I had a grand total of four interactions with you. I don't even ****ing know you, dude. I don't know you or ****ing care about you at all. I flipped my **** because of your insistence on inserting your vile ****ing politics into every post you make when all I want to do is talk about video games. That's it. I could give a **** about you as a person and I sure as **** don't care enough to "hound" you or "bait" you. You're *not* that important to me. Honestly, nobody on this forum is more than a name to me. I don't know any of you or care to. Seriously, dude. This is nuts. I mean, I'm schizophrenic. What's *your* excuse? I've been pondering a few moments now whether to respond to publicly or privately, but since you don't seem to be a completely isolated case, I'll do it here. This is not a mental hospital. If you truly are schizophrenic, you do your own condition a serious disrespect by hiding behind it and using it as an excuse for your abhorrent behavior. You are responsible for how you conduct yourself regardless of your mental issues, and there are mental institutions in every major western country to take care of people who are clinically unable to do that. Since you're not in such an institute, judging from the fact that they rarely allow patients to freely use the internet, you must consider yourself capable of controlling yourself within the public space and with making such an assumption, you choose to be responsible of what you say to other people. Now the kind of venom you have sprouted here against me is completely inappropriate and hurtful. I absolutely detest people trying to silence me through insults and accusations when I have done nothing to warrant it. I have shared my views in a very polite manner, especially with you, and you having this personal issue with me and trying to ostracize me and bully me to silence is simply disgusting behavior. Hate me, but do it somewhere else, and if you're having some sort of psychotic breakdown, at least have the decency to apologize afterwards. And if you truly cannot control yourself, then public space is truly not a place for you, and if you ask your doctor he will confirm that. The liberties and rights to express our feelings and emotions publicly come with the fact that we are fully responsible for what we do and say. If you are unable to carry that responsibility, then you should not be having the associated rights either. Being a schizophrenic does *not* give you the right to bully, insult and publicly degrade pther people.

Hah, I didn't know I was *that* attractive ^^

The easy way and the right way are very seldom the same thing. If a moderator isn't willing to put in the effort of getting to the bottom of these sorts of situations, then he isn't really willing to put in the effort to do his work. The vast majority of people here can keep the conversation civil, and silencing honest conversation in order to placate the poisonous element is a grave injustice, and it is definitely not something you want to do if your aim is to have a healthy and respectful community. The people who can have a civilized conversation shouldn't have to suffer because of the people who can't. The good news is that if Mr Katarack has truly ignored me, then the problem here should solve itself shortly, and if he keeps me on his ignore list, then this scenario in all likelihood won't repeat itself anytime soon.

The problem with that approach is that it will eventually just keep eating away the subjects that can be talked about, and thus eat away from the whole community. Katarack has been hounding me for days now, trying to bait me into an argument. I try to respond to him in a civil manner, and he keeps insulting me, accusing me of misogyny and all sorts of vile stuff. If talking about the real issues a game has is too controversial a subject for the forum of that game, then that forum doesn't really serve any real purpose. If we cannot expect an adult person to be able to keep their emotions in check, then the fault lies with that person. The thing that truly poisons communities is by letting people exercise power over what can and cannot be talked about through getting triggered and getting temper tantrums. A moderator doesn't serve his purpose by trying to make his own job as easy as possible; that is a failing. A moderator serves his purpose by trying to intervene in topics that seem to be getting out of hand, like Gfted did, and to identify poisonous individuals. Pretending that everyone is equally innocent or equally guilty is the worst kind of fallacy someone in a position of authority can make.

I actually did earlier--NinjaMisogynist is the very first person on the Obsidian boards I've ever ignored, so congrats on the accomplishment--but my point still stands. He can't hold a coversation without going off about SJW's and how gender equality is evil. He's going to start spewing about how women are breed mares whose only purpose is to spew out children again, and more explicitly. It will *only* get more explicitly misogynistic and less-and-less related to video games the more we let it happen. We don't need this ****. This board had a *great* culture and a *great* atmosphere and environment. This place is awesome. One thing we absolutely do not need or want is his ilk regurgitating this venom all over the boards. This needs to be cut off at the root *now*. If NinjaWomanHater want's to talk about video games, that's all fine and dandy. But you should slap his ass with a warning every time he starts to spew his bile. I'm getting a bit sick of being insulted by you at every turn. I've been nothing but courteous with you, but you keep calling me a jackass, accusing me of being a misogynist and overall being an incredibly vile person towards me. I have had enough of this, *you* do *not* have the authority to determine which topics are appropriate here and I am *not* going to avoid subjects just to placate you. Hate me all you want but keep it to yourself, as that hate of yours, *that* is something that is not appropriate in the least, period.

Just to clarify You can argue point 1, though most of us will not concur. As for point 2, have you considered seeing a psychologist about your inability to separate gender politics from anything in life? Apparently up to including stat mechanics in video games. I promise politics had nothing to do with anything relating to the gameplay, mechanics, or character building aspects of Eternity. Your inability to see the connecting pattern is hardly my failing; it is there. I understand that you don't like the thoughts I have introduced in this thread, but I would still advice you to not show such blatant disrespect towards a fellow man. You're not doing your own views any favors by acting like that.

The issue was about immersion, and then it went forward to the stat-system, and then I speculated about the political roots of that stat system. Having female warriors doesn't bother me if they're well written characters. Pallegina was interesting, and I'll probably have her rejoin my party in deadfire. Hell, I even liked Cassandra and Vivienne in DA:I, a game I otherwise loathe. The problems begin when you make the strong female the norm in the game, or try to weasel the mechanics in order to normalize something that isn't normal. A warrior woman is an interesting character precisely because she is an exception; if she's the norm however, the immersion will quickly eat a lot of dirt. That part encapsulates my thoughts on the subject *perfectly*.

I think there are way too many spells in the game as is, most of them are just doing the same thing with slight variance in flavor anyway. Removing the spell-level concept completely would be a good thing, and would allow for a more meaningful set of spells to be made. Pillars of Eternity is one of the very few games I've ever played where I didn't find a single spell to my liking.

How does it follow that encounters having fewer enemies necessitates enemies having more health? Necessitate, no, often leads to that anyway, yes.