injurai

I made this attempt a couple of months ago according to the various sources: https://forums.obsidian.net/uploads/monthly_02_2017/post-52304-0-45324700-1486033731.png Because you beat Obs to it, this is now my canon.

I'll be honest I have not a single sense of orientation in this world. Deadfire is both the tropics and closest to the coldest places... Deadfire is made out to be big, but not bigger than the continents.

Funny how Ydwin brings us together for general discussion. Happened with the last Ydwin thread too.

Speaking of the sloop. I'm excited to see what the finalized version of it looks like. The wip left a lot to be desired. also something something Ydwin blah blah blah

There is a difference between taking a passenger ship and owning your own. I guess since you are already a party and earn revenue from your hold you basically a lord. Might as well buy a ship I guess.

Is it obvious?

Wait, we start with the ship? First, why do we know that. Second, we should get it early but at the end of the prologue.

Are they from Minnesota?

What a shame.

Might have been the single best action the studio took early in it's life. I remember a the EE totally changed the games perception. From a rather intriguing eurojank title, or future cult classic. They gained confidence and a better heading from fan feedback which directly influenced their direction with 2. I remember being stunned by the dynamic rp systems when it had it's first showing.

This thread has been of the various topic variety for a while now.

I'm trying to think of one... I guess D:OS has coop.

Remember how that worked for Diablo 3? And that was a "real-time without pause" game. Allocate resources to the core content.

I don't think that example similar at all. A name is just a name, pronouns denominate belonging to some category. They generalize over that category. So if someone keeps calling you something that you're not, that would be annoying. Imagine someone incessantly calls you a ballerina. In one case it's because your a professional soccer player who keeps feigning injuries, the other is because your the smallest most effeminate guy on the soccer team. Repeated use in the latter case could be considered harassment. Especially if the person knows you don't like it. The former is just mocking your behavior. Forget about what legally such repeated behavior should be called. It's certainly something we would call not nice. In a high school setting we'd call it bullying, professional we'd might call it harassment. Pronouns are both used to denominate the category of sex and gender. The former being concrete and very well defined, and the later I personally believe poorly and inconsistently defined. So if someone uses pronouns to denominate sex, then end up confronted by a co-worker or student who expects them use to denominate gender in relation to themselves, you could find yourself at an impasse. Personally I'd rather have people acknowledge pronouns can be used either way and not restrict themselves to denoting just sex or just gender. As long as the person doesn't have to reach for pronouns beyond he/she/they when denoting gender. Doing that, I feel, as a civil courtesy seems like it nets you the trade off that you can still debate what gender or self-identity really is at the neurological level, rather than having the science per-codified into law. You don't protect people by harassment by defining what gender identity is. Instead you extend courtesy. At that point you do no wrong to investigate, debate, or challenge the nature of gender, and those who are upset have no grounds to claim they are personally attacked. Just like flat-Earthers can't claim discrimination because people don't agree with their belief of the world. I'll throw the bone though, that there are a non-negligible amount of people in the campus setting who will throw around obscure pronouns at faculty an students in order to cultivate oppressive experiences with which to virtue protest by. I'm really not trying to coddle or level with those people. Part of the reason I have my approach to pronouns as I do is that I think it's important to cultivate an attitude that nips their game in the bud, and to disarm them. At the same time taking the higher ground and not devolving to any form of bigotry against identity. I'm really more concerned with keeping the English language robust and keeping open a free debate over the actually nature of things. Because I don't think people really know what their identity truly is, not enough to make a claim on how identity works. But I also think they are free to explore to find how they want to live, whether it's to their detriment or benefit.

My first contact with him was a discussion on philosophy of mind with his colleague. That public confrontation which went somewhat viral had just happened a week prior, which is probably why this older video got posted. I only learned of the pronoun debacle after first watching some of his older material. My first impressions of him were actually quite high, his lectures and work were gripping. Of course some of the stuff I lack the expertise to make a value judgment one. But I'd say it was fascinating non the less. As for the pronoun stuff. I think there are a lot facets surrounding the entirety of the publics debate around it which could deem bike-shedding (look it up if you don't know.) I think there is some degree of redefining language going on that is unhelpful. Which causes confusion. Then we have this whole issue of micro-aggressions. I agree they exist, we call them slights, and they've existed since forever. At the same time you shouldn't project intention onto someone falsely. I certainly can't understand the mental gymnastics that people do to justify actually aggression to counter perceived and projected slights. Then you also have the jury still out on lots of topics relating to the brain. So many sciences based claims based on how gender works seems premature. Many people with non-traditional gender identities seem to base them off of a theory of how gender works, and debating that underlying theory is taken as an attack on there identity. Which it shouldn't be. I wish the discussion revolved more about why we should extend human decency to people even though gender isn't fully understood. I wish the theory on what constitutes identity was less absolutist and people were more comfortable saying I'm not sure what my identity is instead of having to first find it, justify it on the basis of some scientific model, then politically defend that model as a means of guarding ones own identity. But this is not unique to gender, people do this will all forms of faith, science, and politics. In lieu of a lot of this, I feel Peterson get's some things right. Namely people shouldn't be compelled to use any arbitrary preferred pronoun, but I think using the appropriate he/she or singular-they is important. Repeated refusal not to can be seen as harassment. Most people change their fashion to signal how they lean, so it's not like you have to remember too hard. If singular-neutral-they still isn't good enough for you, then I'm sorry but you are being unreasonable. But I don't think it's that many people really thinking that. Even if the law is nominally flawed, there is so much badly written law out there that never get's upheld, I doubt it's a problem. The problem tends to lie in how people behave, now in how the law promises people will behave. Further I don't understand why Jordan doesn't offer to help flesh out the law and improve the grammar and semantics in ally with these people, instead of having to take it to a public shame match. But I guess he gets his kicks being a public intellectual... I'm certainly not convinced by all he says. He draws an interesting mix of liberals who are sick of shoddy appeals to emotions by their kin, and conservatives looking for a secular justification for holding onto traditional faith. Just given his age and time in the academic world, he's considerably more coherent than your average person (along a certain variable, b/c he can also devolve.) He knows how to more properly engage in a debate, given his near reverence of the logos it's no wonder. Sometimes I feel he is trying hard to live out the archetype of the martyr, or maybe the ubermensch. I agree there is a lot of perhaps truthful wisdom on the human condition that is millennia old. I'm not so sure I agree with him that we should continue to uphold that knowledge via the use of traditional symbolism and religious figurehood. I'm all for better interpreting the mindsets of the past. At any rate he seems correct on enough and studied on enough to merit listening to at least to suss out the meaningful bits yourself, but he also seems like he is his own worst enemy. No wonder because he believes in striking a perfect balance of chaos and order.

The way I'd personally like VO resources distributed: Partial VO for the story, and quests. When VO is used in dialogue. Use it for all of the text in a given "spurt" of dialogue. Meaning when you choose a response. Once the NPC replies, either it should be all VO or all non-VO. Conversations don't have to be all VO, just don't break up an active flow of discourse. Then save a somewhat descent amount of VO for ambient voice variety. I'd rather that conversation which I had 2 hours ago lack VO, than hearing the same ambient things all the time. Or just make ambient VO scripted one time deals. I agree that Skyrim's repeated ambient dialogue was pretty damn poor.

Sorry to hear that Katarack. As much as games can be a negative distraction, they can be incredibly therapeutic. Particularly good rpgs, and PoE is up there when it comes to places I want to slip away to.

Oh so the white circle is their hearing range. Duh! Don't know why I didn't put 2 and 2 together. Minor grip, I think the white ring is a little too thick. Maybe it's to stand out when there is a lot going on in the scene, but too bold of signifier seems to only add to clutter imo. I know it's a work in progress. Functionality wise the feature is very welcome.

Life is the real rpg, gotta pay your respects to the original.

Basically just as you stealth and cross from being out of sight, to still hidden but crossing into an npcs line of sight. The perimeter defining their line of sight appears as a thick white ring on the ground. That way you can know where to move keep out of sight. The typical character specific stealth indicators under the character also flash to show you are starting to be revealed.

Or just about everything that flaps in PoE1. Oh right, I wasn't thinking about enemies when I wrote that. But hover flying while in combat makes a little more sense then doing it while everyone else is just standing around relaxing. Or maybe WoW birds are just that extreme. Never stop training! But I like what Obs is doing.

I sort of assumed the two where coupled. The animation as a speed up and slow down time depending on how far an entity is commanded to move. Yeah, distance would probably work better since the warm up time is pretty short to keep entities responsive. Just enough to give nice animations really. Hopping is preferable to WoW's flap in place pet birds.

My guess it will be dependent on movement speed in the end.

I totally agree with this. Partly I think it has to do with seeing even further technical advancements, that the "half-way steps" to where we are now don't quite impress as much. It's the other meatier content that stands out to me when looking back. It's a similar way to how I view Mass Effect 1 and 2.