Jump to content
  • Sign Up


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

165 Excellent

About Heresiarch

  • Rank
    (4) Theurgist


  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer

Recent Profile Visitors

217 profile views
  1. I have returned to Deadfire after almost a year-old hiatus and tried to revive the very first build I tried. A Soulblade/Assassin with Whispers of the Endless Paths who specialized in removing enemies even before the battle starts in earnest. As fun as this "backstab them with a ballista" build was, I wanted to do things differently (and less RNG dependent) and add more control and survivability to the build. So, I made a Soulblade/Trickster with a single weapon to make my Backstabs and Soul Annihilations more reliable. I was also planning to take plenty of CC and defensive abilities, as well as a few shreds for long range and AoE damage. However, I soon found out that single weapon accuracy buff really doesn't compensate for the drop in damage compared to a two-hander. It takes considerable time for me to build back focus after a Soul Annihilation. In the end (just a few levels in) I started thinking that maybe my Mindstalker build wasn't the best or that Beguiler didn't really fit the bill or taking one-handed weapons was a mistake. Any pointers on building that type of Mindstalker (any working Soulblade) are very welcome. Saying that this build takes off at later level is welcome too, provided that it does take off, of course.
  2. Yep. It's not a conversion per se, the bonus changes the ranges on the hit table. So your 10% to hit conversion + 10% to crit conversion nets you 10% of misses converted into crits ceteris paribus.
  3. Don't get me wrong, I dislike Skyrim as much as the next guy. I think there's hasn't been a decent TES game since Morrowind (which was absolutely awesome) and I know that plenty of die-hard TES fans would wholeheartedly agree with me. The quests just don't cut it. Morrowind had good writing and interesting story lines, Oblivion had Dark Brotherhood quest line and Skyrim... well, Skyrim had a nice character creation screen and an engaging crafting system. Still I don't understand how you can even compare Skyrim to PoE. It's like comparing Alien Shooter to CoD. They have almost nothing in common. And let's face it cRPGs could never boast a terribly wide audience, so the fact that PoE wouldn't sell a million copies shouldn't come as a great surprise to anyone, let alone Obsidian themselves.
  4. Your total inability to read and comprehend whatever it is I am saying is almost funny. Except it is not. No one has been able to provide absolutely indisputable peer-reviewed studies by even handed people on those issues with resorting to some form of fallacy or relying on non-absolute disputable information that can't be 100% confirmed. Thus all things are likely false. Duh. EDIT: I think looking for or asking proof on an internet forum is silly for something as complex as many of these social issues are. We don't prove people wrong/right here as much as spout our opinions at each other. Congratulations. Here is your intellectual dishonesty of the month award. I am sure no one else has put so many lies in so few words so far.
  5. You are not reading. You quoted the very post where I demonstrated that wording is not the reason for my disbelief in their scientific method. Your argument is subject to confirmation bias, just as the article in question. You want to prove me wrong and cling to whatever shred of phrasing I sue in a futile attempt to undermine the whole argument without addressing its core. Ironically enough, you are the one in denial here.
  6. Oh, I know what Modern Racism Scale is. But I have no idea what "ambivalence concept was used to demonstrate the construct validity of a relatively nonreactive scale of racial prejudice-the Modern Racism Scale" means. How exactly did they "demonstrate construct validity"? By showing that there is prejudice in 81 white student from their university without proper control groups to account for other contributing factors? Are you having a laugh? Trying to obscure that your conclusions are meaningless behind obscure terms doesn't work with me or with any other person who studied natural or formal sciences. Also I like how you ignore the bulk of my post because you cannot refute it. Their scientific research techniques are absolute trash, that's the main reason why I disregard their findings. Their inability to formulate their conclusions in a way that actually makes sense only adds to my skepticism. The fact that they have been cited a lot only means that sociologists are bad at critical thinking and understanding scientific method. If you think that my preference for facts is a demonstration of bias, well, it's not really my problem, is it? I am no expert on global warming, but I know there are several contributing factors. Frankly, I am yet to see a study that proves that the bulk of gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth atmosphere is largely attributable to greenhouse gases. Why do you ask?
  7. Well, I guess if you really just stick your head in the sand and not pay attention to what's going on in Ferguson and South Carolina, I suppose this can get you started, assuming that you're acting in good faith and want to learn something and not asking for scholarly articles for the sake of asking for scholarly articles, and that you will actually read at least the abstract, and respond accordingly about whether actual, peer-reviewed literature is a high-enough bar to meet your standards of "evidence." Institutional racism against black people in the process of hiring, cited 317 times (unfortunately it's not free to view the whole paper). Systemic racism (a book, not a paper), cited 489 times. Institutional racism against black children through labeling language sets as "pathological," cited 549 times. I will be very curious to see how you will respond. I don't care so much about the book, but I will be very curious to read the contents of the articles. To bad they are behind paywalls, right? If you'd be so kind as to provide me the text or to summarize their approach to scientific research, I would be able to tell you much more. You did read them yourself, I assume. From the abstracts I can tell you that the Harvard article sounds like cryptic BS, but I'd love to know what they mean by "existing genetic inferiority and social pathology models". I would love to know where they exist and how exactly their existence reflects on the contemporary society. The abstract of the article on SAGE is riddled with weasel words. Let's take for instance, "ambivalence concept was used to demonstrate the construct validity of a relatively nonreactive scale of racial prejudice-the Modern Racism Scale". The only thing I can tell the author is this. Aside from that their biased and non-representative sample is way too small to draw conclusions about the behaviour of the whole population of the US. But most importantly they lack a control group to control for the fact the white and black people, indeed, belong to different races. They should have conducted an identical experiment to demonstrate that black people harbor no similar prejudice against white people. Otherwise they cannon claim systemic oppression, can they? Last but not least, without the actual text I have no way of telling if they haven't gone into logical fallacies and non sequiturs, which many sociologists love these days. Are you eager to hear more?
  8. Wait a darn minute, youre trying to trick me aren't you? If theres one thing this thread has revealed through peering deeply into our navels is that its totally ok to discriminate if you are part of an oppressed group. And that you can shut the hell up if not from said group. Are you trying to tell me that's a moronic position? You're purposely trying to act like a retard, aren't you? I never said it was ok. Never. But bringing up black on white racism as some sort of retort towards institutionalized racism, as happens time and time again in every discussion, is a laughable tactic to diminish systemic racism. It's just a tactic to avoid having to discuss the systemic racism. Nothing more, nothing less. And it's pathetic. Say, since you're so well-versed on the subject, maybe you can link me a scholarly article with empirical evidence that supports the existance of nationwide institutionalized racism in any country of the Western World? You know, to prove that such a thing even exists.
  9. While I am a bit disappointed with how Pillars turned out, I don't regret a cent I spent to back PE. Moreover I would certainly do it in the future if Obsidian decides to crowdfund again.
  10. I dunno if you're trying to be funny, but that is exactly what Christianity has done for centuries. Exactly my point! And theres absolutely nothing wrong with that as they were once themselves discriminated against. Its so simple. I am sorry to tell you that, but the irony of your words is lost on some folks. They believe that if you call your own way of discrimination "affirmative action", it suddenly stops being bad. All hail the allmighty doublethink!
  11. Jeebus. This is so elementary it's in introductory textbooks. It's like you're asking me to link to a peer-reviewed article demonstrating that the Earth goes around the Sun. But here you go, about 800,000 references: [ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=racism&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= ] First, let me fix that link for you:https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2011&q=racism&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 See a pattern there now? Secondly, I see you have blatantly left out my point about hard evidence and facts and absense of baseless assumptions and logical fallacies. Well played, mate, well played! Thirdly, I find it hilarious that at first you quote a book on me and than, when asked to be more specific, you quote google search (sic!). Next time if you want to troll someone you should include an additional step - a reference to a national archive! That's bound to give folks a hearty laugh.
  12. You do realize that you're asking me to prove an entire academic discipline to you in a forum post? You do realize that's exactly like the young-earth creationist asking you to prove general relativity to him in a forum post? Please, do not compare sociology with physics. I am STEM graduate and it insults my STEM-graduate feelings. Just kidding. Actually I have a wide educational background. I am not asking the impossible, I don't expect you to prove sociology right. It would be dumb. All I want is a single article from a peer-reviewed source that contains evidence of existing nation-wide institutionalized oppression based on race (or even sex, I am not picky) in any of the Western-world countries. I mean, if the problem is so widespread and grave there must be tons of evidence (and scientific studies) out there to prove its existence. Don't you agree?
  13. I find it extremely hard to believe that someone can make this statement without being ironical. SJWs get to define "systemic oppression", find the group they consider the most oppressed and let only them talk. All the while they advise others to **** off and don't mess in their racism discussion, because they do not belong to the proper race. Truly that's comedy gold, mate. You are making stuff up.Give me a coherent definition of systemic oppression and I'll be more than willing to debate that. Problem is, people like you are usually solely interested in disparaging those who are having constructive conversations about these issues. You don't actually have a definition in mind because you are talking out of your ass. Prove me wrong. EDIT: I forgot to mention that the bit about only letting the most oppressed talk is an outright lie. In this and other threads about the limerick I have personally told people off for transphobia, homophobia, racism and ableism. I'm willing to listen to all of those groups because they have serious issues worth talking about. I'm not interested in hearing about how affirmative action is really just oppression of white people, because that is utter bull****. So you want me to prove to you that I know what I'm taking about, because you assume I'm talking out of my ass. Because you supposedly know a lot about "people like me", the group which, I assume, includes everyone who doesn't share your opinion. And then you say that you are all for having a constructive conversation. I get it, you are a natural born comedian! I'm sure the irony of your own words would be lost on you again. Just let me state in no unclear terms that I have no desire to converse with people like you or to provide definitions for the terms you operate with. Moreover, I find the whole notion utterly preposterous. That is not true. The sociological definition of racism is in broad use among academics who study society, i.e., sociologists. You'll find it or something like it in any introductory sociology textbook. This one, for example. It is based on broad and extensive research going back more than 50 years or so. It is also in use among a large group of non-academics interested in social issues. All that is fact. That you believe the sociologists are wrong is neither here nor there. The definition is still in broad use and asserting that it's not won't change that. You will also need to do a good deal more work to demonstrate that they're wrong than simply asserting that it's "pure sophistry." Edit: Added citation. You think I have to prove them wrong and I think they have to prove themselves right in the first place. That's how science operates. But wait, antipositivist sociologists don't believe that. Well, too bad for them and their theories. Don't cite the whole book on me, mate, give me some original research! Something crunchy with hard evidence, statistics, facts, and irrefutable logic. Without fallacies and affirmations based on nothing at all. That's what I mean by "citation needed". Until such evidence comes to existence academics who study sociology can study it all they want. But I'm not taking their theories on faith, nor am I taking any advice from them on how I should behave. If I feel an urge to listen and believe I'll go to a Sarkeesian seminar.
  14. @PrimeJunta Read my post. What I am trying to say is extremely clear in the context. But in case you are lazy, let me reiterate. That sociological definition of racism is pure sophistry. It does not cite any reliable sources and as such only reflects author's fantasies on the subject.
  • Create New...