Chilloutman

Cool, yesterday I played it for like 5 hours without issue, today I load it up and it crash after few seconds, argh! I also noticed that steam set up automatic updates to yes even when I set it to not update it. Dont know what to do know, if its ¨update it¨ or if there is other reason...

hmm now I am torn, go with single blade or 2 blades? as sentinel I will probably not have those cool feats as weaponmaster for dual wield. Do I get bonus to single blade at least?

Question - double bladed saber is affected by dual-wield or dueling feats?

well I remember that I was unnable to switch any companion into Jedi, I hate how you can miss some dialogues if you dont carry them around, especialy if I dont know where these pop up for each of them

Thanks, hints are welcomed, even tho this one is not particulary clear

yep, as guardian, dual wielding was quite op and I remember that consitution was good for best implants, but not much left in me, i am thinking about single blade sentinel now, just killed HK unit one peragus and heading to that republic ship

any hints on what not to miss, eg some esential skill that provide me super item i cant use without? I was thinking about sentinel character. I already complete game once long time ago as guardian so I want something different.

cool, I already looked on that in kotor thread, if that is all I need feel free to close that, thanks Rosbjerg

Hello fellas, I know there is Kotor forum down below but seems quite dead now, if moderators decide feel free to move it there. I would like to ask you what mods do you suggest to run with Kotor 2. I would like only mods that fix missing/cut out content and/or are relly good to not have. Thanks

But you dont belive they can cast fireballs, command plants or protect you from lightning right?

I'm confused by this. Is the sheer existence of machines, and essentially hand-held cannons, somehow supposed to nullify the vastness of nature? "Someone's invented the cotton gin... ALL THE TREES AND WILDLIFE ARE GONE NOW!" I'm not going to tell you to like guns in fantasy settings, but, beyond that, you're claiming that they somehow objectively clash with both fantasy in general, AND nature/druids? you are taking it to extreme, to me age in which sience is starting to take place, shamans, druids, chanters etc seems little outdated. thats why i like if setting is more in ¨dark age¨. Its like Three musqueteers meet Asterix and Obelix.

In the npc backer survey you could also choose moon godlike, that's the reason they are called moon godlike in the wiki. Thanks Prometheus, do someone know if there is more information about Ondra deity? Edit: the quote is from the current thread in the Something Awful forums. here(behind a paywall).

Hello, can anyone post here where and how Josh confirmed moon godlike race? I just spotted it on wiki but link to source leads to forum where I dont have any access. Thanks

I got it quite simple/complicated I hate small statued characters - no dwarfs/orlan/whatever they call them here I hate pink color - we will see but I already know that cipher is out then I hate class that seems out of game world - eg. druid in world where are guns, possibly machines - but this is ok for companions I hate white knights - anyone similiar to Anomen I dont like guns in fantasy settings So i am going to play rouge - thiefs are in all ages as for companions, I will see, Edeir seems ok, that monk guy will be probably in, I will see if pristess willl be interesting, not sure about paladin lady, definetely no female dwarf ranger, elven guy will be probably in, oran cipher is out Nothing is carved in stone tho

Oh yeah, I loved first game, got stuck in some mission where I was unnable to penetrate some station shield even with full set of anti-shield rockets

Less reading, more playing. We are mostly grown ups here, we can keep in check ourselfs

I am quite new to this, can someone please tell me if I would like it if I enjoy EVE? I played Freelancer and its quite ok for fighting but doing trading in it was boring as hell. And I dont like first person look in large ships, is there some strategic view for flying bigger/capital ships? Thanks guys

Oh so much discrimination, I never got good results from teachers because dont have correct cleavage

Did you dated here during she got banged by professors for B+ or after?

This might be slightly (fine, entirely) off topic, but did you forget to switch accounts again Gromnir? No I am not Gromnir, but that HA! Good fun is so irritating after each his post that I have to mimic it to flush my frustration with it out

Nah. They face less discrimination, certainly. But as to who faces "derogatory" and "dehumanizing" treatment? How can you even being to quantify that? "Specific forms" is my real point there. I'm not contesting for a single second that everyone in the world can be the target of terrible things done by other people. But how many forms of derogatory and dehumanizing treatment have specifically targeted the straight white male? Compared to, say, black people, or gay men? That's what I'm getting at. This doesn't really help your argument, though. Every white male who has ever been through US military bootcamp has been dehumanized and faced with derogatory comments. Every white male who has been through high school in the United States has been dehumanized and faced derogatory comments. You keep using these two words, but I think you want to use other words. You're basically saying that white men don't get insulted or treated like ****. Of course they do, and it is usually from other white males. Focusing on this is waste of time and effort. You are actually insulting the intelligence of people who follow and study the issues of sexism and misogyny if you are suggesting that on an average men go through the same amount of abuse, either physical or verbal, that many women are subjected to in real life and the Internet And I will join him, you cant talk about intelligence when mentioning student of gender studies HA! Good fun

Oh come on now. In a physical sense, you're correct. In an emotional sense, you are absolutely wrong. Not everyone has a thick skin and a detached perspective, but that doesn't make them any less important. And we've got to remember what Louis CK said in a standup special a couple years ago--"I'm a white man. You can't even hurt my feelings!" Most of the filth that gets thrown around the internet isn't aimed at the straight white man, which most of us posting in this thread are. So I don't think we can get inside the heads of people who are the targets of much worse abuse than we'll ever suffer and say, "What's wrong with you? That shouldn't hurt." I get you can somehow know if user is male or female on forum, but for god sake how you know what ethnic he is? starting to be madness here. For me internet user is internet user, I dont judge them differently. I know that some guys like to 'white knight' when womens are around in discussions but I am for equality and I someone type something stupid I will react same no matter if its women, chinese are inteligent ape

Yes, this is a big part. I don't think anybody suggests a conspiracy with malicious intent among those who uphold the status quo. But regardless of the intent, the resulting system is unjust and wasteful. I have no trouble believing that the small proportion of women in, say, senior management positions, is largely due to tendency of employers to hire people from their own peer group for such jobs. But I believe "Social Justice" activists are making a mistake when they then jump to the conclusion that this discrimination happens evenly along gender lines, leading them to massively overestimate the benefit that average men gain from this employer behavior, and underestimate the amount of new injustice added by the quotas they demand. The demand for legally mandated quotas is based on the assumption that the peer group from which the employer prefers to fill senior positions is defined by gender: ingroup: the ~50% of the population that happens to be male outgroup: the ~50% of the population that happens to be female When it is in fact much more plausible to assume that the line is drawn like this: ingroup: the ~0.001% of the population that went to the same elite universities, frequents the same private clubs and events, has the same business connections, etc. as the employer outgroup: ~100% of all women and men Sure, the ingroup may consist mostly of men, but that is of no benefit to men as a whole, and not something that men as a whole should "pay" for But unfortunately, 'class-think' clouds the judgement of "Social Justice" activists - everything is immediately treated as a property of (or an effect on) a gender/racial/social 'class' as a whole, with little to no thought on whether such a generalization is at all justified in the case at hand. (It almost never is.) Oooh, see this is where it gets fun. Your statistics are way off, and in fact the "social justice" types I actually know would argue that you're completely ignoring the effect that race (amongst other things) has in particular. The dominant bias is towards white (cis) men followed by white (cis) women. (So actually it's you at fault for flawed generalisations it would seem.) Also, the arguments for the "quotas" (& they're actually a very small portion of the total) is that once you have diverse groups actually in those positions then the latent biases should dissolve and the systemic disadvantaging should be less of an issue. (Essentially the theory goes that once it's not just heterosexual white cis men from economically privileged backgrounds in positions of influence then things should hopefully balance themselves out.) It's certainly flawed, but it's better than nothing. Nothing occurs in isolation, and to disregard other factors is a disservice. (I also have no idea what on earth you're drawing the idea of "elite universities" and "private clubs and events" from when the prejudices/biases are present at every level of employment/education.) [Women in STEM fields have been present for centuries and yet consistently suffered erasure/abuse despite attending those same "elite universities". Don't think that's so easily explained by your hypothesis.] No-one said it happens entirely evenly nor did they say it happens exclusively on the basis of gender. I mean, if you're using "social justice" instead of "feminist" (& even there, there's intersectional feminism as an ideal taking into account other forms of discrimination/disadvantaging) surely you'd know it's not focused on gender alone. Its all nice and dandy but what about me? Do you want me to persecute because I am male white? I don't get job because someone else is acting wrongly? Never hear of such protection of collective guilt

Well, speaking for myself as a man, when I am in a game (or on a forum) and I see some guy making a stupid comment to a woman I put this jerk on my ignore list. I don't try to start a discussion with him on why I think he should change his ways because if I did he would probably spam me with expletives. I also really don't see how I should be held responsible for jerks just because - and excuse me for putting it crudely- I happen to have a sausage between my legs and they do too. You have raised a good point and that is the normal way most people deal with issues where people are offensive, they ignore or block them and there is nothing wrong with that as many people don't like to be confrontational. But sometimes that emboldens bigots and they think they can act with impunity. So nowadays in most circumstances I confront people who are being offensive, its not always easy to do but I truly feel its the right thing to do. And of course it depends on the environment. For example I wont challange one of my customers around certain issues as I have to respect the customer relationship So double standards for anonymouse internet forum but good boy before 'moraly shady' customers? just teasing

To be clear. I agree that abusing female members of forums is stupid, ugly, retarded. On the other hand creating own 'women' area sounds 'un-needed' as long as mods keep eye on abuse report to quickly get rid of unwanted members. What is point on going on forum where you will not speak to 80% of population? on Woman equality note someone put out (probably Bruce as I learned to know him) I put aside clear difference of our bodies. I was yesterday on lunch with one of my colleague (women around 30) During conversation I make some misogynist joke and we start debate abou women equality. At start she stated that she thinks that she want to be treat equaly as male. After while she admit that she likes when mens open her doors, that she likes that her mate repair her car, take care of garden and house, giving her presents, taking her home by car from work... and she realise she would not want to do all those things equally. Not that she cant do them but she likes more things as they are. And honestly I do like those things for my girlfriend and would feel uncomfortable if she would be totaly equal as me. I live in EU. Not long ago someone in Brusel come up with idea that there will be quota on minimum number of womens in Management positions in private companies. This in my eyes vilify both men and women as some guys will not get job even if they are better then other female. On other hand as women I would feel strange that maybe I am in that position because of my skills but my genitalia. Forced equality is really bad thing in my eyes. By creating more protection to one group make them 1) hated by others 2) degraded them because they cant take care of them-selfs Sorry if it is too offensive for someone