Gromnir

people got vast different expectation levels regarding choice and consequences. deadfire will be story-driven. as such there will be a number o' essential plot points which result in gameplay bottlenecks. sure, the developer can increase the illusion o' player vitality by making it possible to complete plot points non sequential, but chances are good you will finish the game by confronting The Ultimate Bad Guy after having completed a number o' essential critical path quests. the conclusion o' the game will no doubt provide the player with multiple resolution options, but you will need resolve earlier plot points in a limited/limiting and predictable manner. if is story driven, then one must needs make certain plot concessions. the developer's ability to provide the player with meaningful choice is gonna be finite and will be most obvious in the tangential and optional side quests o' the game. how one advances and completes an optional and tangential side quest doesn't affect the critical path save to a necessarily trivial degree. how one chooses to advance and complete side quests is where such choices will be most obvious. deadfire is not a sandbox game with a marginalized critical path story. much o' the game will involve the player advancing The plot. game feedback suggests players want good writing. almost by necessity, a player is less likely to see meaningful choice where they typical most wish it-- the critical path. as an aside, Gromnir has numerous times made the somewhat radical suggestion o' having a variable villain/antagonist/obstacle. have early game choices result in one o' multiple complete different antagonists being the UBG for the player's game would be a significant departure from the current story-driven scheme. imagine a poe wherein early choices would alter complete the villain. for example, thaos, lady webb, and iovara could be distinct ultimate antagonists for a reimagined poe. developer would be able to retain optional side quests with only slight variations, but the critical path would diverge into distinct paths at some early point. with a bit o' creativity, the developer could utilize the same critical path maps for much different antagonists, but the stories would be genuine unique. from a practical pov, such a game would need be shorter. is only so many developer resources and Gromnir is suggesting multiple critical path development. even so, am thinking it is axiomatic that if you want more choice in a story-driven game, you need accept more abbreviated critical paths, or significant reduced optional side quests. regardless, deadfire is gonna be story-driven and will likely have a similar % o' optional and tangential side questing as did poe. as such, one should not expect a dramatic change in meaningful choice 'tween poe and deadfire. developers will do what they can to increase the illusion o' choice, but is only so much they can do in a story driven game. HA! Good Fun!

Well good play to him, but if someone is going to publicly call me out as what amounts to a liar with what is the most pathetic strawman I've ever seen (so much so that a stiff breeze could knock it over) just to get the final word in, what reaction does someone like that expect? Consider me trolled, baited and my points weakened by proxy, which I think is what he was looking for anyway. complete aside, as a point o' personal privelage: more irony, though it seems more like hypocrisy. in your mostly unresponsive laments, you kept telling us there were nothing wrong with criticising when we never suggested or implied such. as somebody who has criticised obsidian, and a number o' other developers for decades, we sure as hell ain't suggesting criticism o' a developer after having played a game for X hours is verboten. the majority o' our poe posts, following release, were criticism. we sure never suggested in our posts, or even by our actions, a wrongness in criticising a game well and long played. we have criticised obsidian regarding poe and will continue to do so. never implied or stated otherwise. nevertheless, you spent considerable effort knocking the stuffing outta that manakin, eh? however, to lose confidence in a developer such that one need make a draft card burning kinda show o' their refund demand for deadfire is extreme weird from one such as jojo seeing as how the lack o' confidence comes regarding the sequel to a game you literal spent hundreds of hours playing, and possible similar time discussing. how many posts alone does you got in the poe builds sections o' this board? you played, and kept playing the known bugged and broken poe for years. you made dozens (hundreds?) of posts regarding the rules minutiae o' poe in the builds section, and you did so for years. given just how much entertainment you seem to have squeezed outta poe, your lack o' confidence regarding the developer o' its sequel is just plain weird. at best such a public display o' angst is weird. HA! Good Fun! ps our response is limited to seeming reflexive straw man conjuring. will not even touch the other fallacies or issues raised by jojo, but the peculiar need o' many violators o' straw man fallacy to themselves invoke the logic fallacy never fails to annoy us. so go ahead and continue to rage, but accuse Gromnir o' straw man is worst kinda hypocrisy... or possible just more theatre.

as we said, we got no problem with quitting bad games and buggy developments/developers. is a vast catalog o' games which Gromnir dumped after some indefinite period o' time. 5 hours. 10 hours. perhaps 20 hours. however, even with your recharacterization o' poe play experience to explain playthroughs, you got a complete play o' a long game plus multiple abbreviated runs totaling more than 100 hours. plus how many years posting on poe forums... a game you is s'posed disappointed with. plus posts such as the following: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/88940-is-potd-going-to-actually-be-tough-rant-on-the-games-balance/?p=1840548 so progress from non hard to solo is a bit different than implied earlier in this thread. can also show all the poe build contributions you got from over multiple years on the poe boards. is more than a few such builds which speak o' playing quite deep into the game, so... does seem you are wallowing in the drama a bit. have our self quit games and developments and at most such stuff involve a post o' criticisms with nary a backwards glance, but as we noted earlier, everybody is different. will note you complain o' folks recognizing your drama strikes us as a bit dishonest but additional self indulgent. drama. +100 hours and years o' board contributions to a game you didn't get enjoyment from? *chuckle* am lucky if we play one such title every few years. is the bleeding brass ring, not evidence o' fail. are you really out? fine, Gromnir is definite done with this. HA! Good Fun!

got no problem with a person rage quitting over bugs. lose confidence in a developer 'cause o' game stability or mechanics fails is reasonable. this thread is a bit on extreme end o' the drama queen spectrum for Gromnir, but everybody is different. however, am feeling the need to make one observation o' the ironic sort. genesis poster obvious played poe for many hours. got multiple potd runs and solo runs and whatnot. ... lose confidence in the developer after seeming hundreds o' hours invested in their title? not just one, but multiple runs and plays o' poe to get to the point o' lost confidence? most o' the mechanics issues the genesis poster describes is old, so he has been playing, and seeming enjoying, a busted game for a long time. he hasn't simple been playing but has been replaying poe for a long time. play a game so long and so many times and then lose confidence in the developer is a bit... weird. lose confidence in a developer who obvious succeeded in bringing so much gaming enjoyment to him? weird. HA! Good Fun! ps is more than a few games we quit after 5, 10 or even 20 hours. most games? find a crpg developer who can provide us hundreds o' hours o' gameplay and multiple runs o' their title is serious win in our book. am not a fan o' bugs and stability issues, which is why we never buy traditional titles 'til at least 6 months and a patch or two following release, but if we can get as much enjoyment outta a title as the genesis poster seeming got from poe, then am having a hard time seeing such a scenario as a bad thing.

never understood much o' the poe paladin criticism. regardless, am getting a strong sense o' déjà vu. https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85343-post-30-paladins/?p=1789585 at least a half dozen similar threads we coulda' linked. HA! Good Fun!

Well, that depends on the porn star. Stormy Daniels is still mind boggling the democrats couldn't beat trump given the legion of skeletons jammed into his closet. yeah, hillary clinton were an unappealing alternative, but c'mon man. had us close to channeling ed harris more than once. HA! Good Fun!

we got it. just noting, as we did earlier, how much difference muscle weight changes the equation. HA! Good Fun!

craig heyward, while in college, played at 'tween 260 and 280 with a measured height a smidge under 5'11". the pre-draft combine weigh-in had heyward tilt the scales at 300, but he managed to drop to 250 by mid april. ended up being drafted first round. in the pros he ballooned up to as much as 340. heyward even did a tv commercial... with a shower scene. sadly, ironhead passed away due to cancer at the age of 39. even so, he were a rare kinda fine specimen. HA! Good Fun!

am tending to agree, but two serious observations to an otherwise silly issue: 1) old person weight is different. muscle is dense. fat is not. is hardly a secret trump excercises little and old people tend to lose muscle regardless. porcine trump weight is not gonna be resulting in equivalent muscle-to-fat proportions as shady. have met more than one 5'10" to 6' 70 year old guy who weighs ~200 and has a gut which is making 'em look 9 months pregnant. 2) is ez to lose water weight... quick. given trump knew exact date he would be getting his checkup, and given just how much o' his weight appears to be fat, lose 10-15 pounds through diuretics and a nice long sauna visit would hardly surprise, yes? so, perhaps something closer to ~255? HA! Good Fun!

https://www.c-span.org/video/?439881-1/us-senate-debates-fisa-bill&vod cspan uncut footage from US Senate for jan 17, 2018. jeff flake speech begins at 18:16. for those less conspiracy oriented, one can find the full transcript and speech in entirety at the following site. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/17/full-text-jeff-flake-on-trump-speech-transcript-343246

relying on past developer comments, humor based 'pon pop culture references is likely verboten; no gilbert & sullivan or pirates o' the caribbean. am predicting big head mode, and similar such stuff, will remain optional. as noted already in this thread, the developers intend to be less oppressive with deadfire and we expect more attempts at humor. regardless, obsidian success at eliciting laughter will be, we suspect, mixed. humor is not only highly subjective, but due to cultural influences, it travels poorly. nevertheless, a crpg such as deadfire is gonna be dozens of hours in duration and unrelenting grim or serious for such a time frame is punishing. if not humor, then writers need use other options to deal with inevitable fatigue which would be resulting from tonal monotony. some humor for deadfire is desirable, but mileage is gonna vary from individual to individual. HA! Good Fun!

beta testers have difficulty recalling what deadfire were like the first time they loaded up the beta. am recalling voiced consternation from any number o' players. with a couple o' months and possible dozens o' hours playing, deadfire doesn't play for a seasoned beta tester and hardcore poe fan the way it is gonna play for most folks. the video appears to be a "most folks" intro. am recalling boeroer describing early struggles with deadfire until he understood the penetration mechanic. game became easy for him once he saw the numerous penetration exploits available, but first play weren't matching expectations based 'pon reading descriptions and listening to developer feedback. boeroer, last november, would be starting deadfire considerable ahead on the learning curve than the ordinary new player o' poe, but even he were confused by changes... and multiclassing offers more pitfalls than does penetration. build a bad multiclass is easy and if you is new player making reasonable assumptions based on reading ability descriptions to guide your choices, you could end up suffering for it. the video is from november 20 2017, near two months ago, and is likely a better representation o' what new players will face as 'posed to beta tester feedback being offered here and elsewhere. sure, beta folks know how powerful is a few mc combinations. beta folks know which class synergies is effective and potent. *chuckle* now go back a couple months and recall all the wailing and hand ringing from some 'cause a paladin couldn't get sword and shield style w/o taking fighter... as if a barbarian/paladin needs sword and shield to be powerful in defense. am not agreeing with all in the linked video, but the fact the video is from earliest beta is noteworthy. HA! Good Fun!

early scheduled streams had corresponding threads on this board with folks posting queries they wanted obsidian to address during twitch streams. am not actual certain what were the obsidian standard for responding to such questions; "well thought out queries" is an elastic standard. additional, recent twitch streams were announced mere hours before the actual event, so... or the developers could turn back the clock/calendar a couple years and return to the reality in which developers actual respond to posts submitted on Obsidian forums. developer posts at something awful or reddit instead of replying to fans at obsidian's boards is only mildly insulting to the most dedicated fan segment who has been posting here for years. not every fan is a hardcore follower o' the pillars franchise. is reasonable for the developers to respond to both casual and hardcore fans during twitch streams. am not expecting twitch formats to change overmuch. however, is equal reasonable to have obsidian developers respond to a few obsidian board questions by posting responses on the obsidian boards. wacky solution? HA! Good Fun!

the beta is misleading. got half total power levels and thus ~half total abilities available. at the moment there is relative few class customization opportunities for a single-class character, but those options is gonna increase. sure, multi-class will also have more options, but there is gonna be a kinda floating point where many single classes become increasing competitive, and if poe is like any other game with levels, am suspecting particular for dedicated casters, the point o' competitiveness will come later rather than earlier. the beta format also camouflages early game awkwardness for many multiclasses. sure, is more than a few current power builds being touted as soopergrooveykewl, but those builds typical ain't impressive 'til level _____ and level _____ is rare 1-5. need combine x abilities from class 1 with y abilities from class 2 for the multiclass to outshine singles. those abilities ain't always available at level 1. am also gonna observe how current, even with the awkward betaness people misbelieve is indicative o' the game as whole, am personal keeping our created joinable npc casters vanilla, and am also likely to do so with paladins in spite o' paladin uberness when multiclassing. the next level powers is often too good to forgo entirely. sure, our main character might be a priest/monk or priest/paladin o' some flavor, but if am doing so, then chances are am gonna also want a pure priest in our party as well. the next power level is indeed a big advantage for single classes. also, as is so often the case, the obvious solution is unpalatable. a few multiclass combos is indeed disproportionate powerful, but nerf the particular powerful multis a bit makes more sense than attempting to increase single efficacy. increase efficacy o' singles is only gonna lead to new and unexpected multiclass problems. one o' the reasons why universal talents + multiclass is such a horrible idea is 'cause o' the balancing problems which will inevitable ensue. however, powerup the single classes is the exact same kinda stoopid. where a handful o' powerful multis is tainting the well, it makes far more sense to fix the mechanics which is making the mutis so powerful. the singles ain't performing poorly in the beta, regardless o' what a few folks would have you believe. can make an entire party o' single class characters and roll-stomp your way through the beta. however, relative to a few o' the mutis, the singles cannot keep pace. so fix the limited mechanics issues which is busting the multis is the reasonable solution. also, keep in mind many/most beta folks is not casual poe players. had to pay extra to beta. beta testers is hardcore poe fans. when it comes to breaking the game, hardcore folks is ideal. with more than a few such folks having already invested hundreds o' hours in the beta, they is finding exploits and bugs which even the developers and the qa testers ain't gonna see. is a great resource for obsidian to get so many additional testing resources who is paying for the opportunity to do so. 'course the hardcore folks is not gonna be the average user. the hardcore folks play the game at the margins compared to ordinary purchasers. what a beta user sees as some kinda vast gulf 'tween single and multi-class efficacy could go complete unnoticed by a more casual player. the single class is able to do 3.1 dps with a _____, while a mc does 3.5. such distinctions is frequent important to beta folks, but for most players it means battles may be a couple seconds longer for a party composed o' single classes v. one built 'round multis. so what? the problem ain't the problem many is suggesting it to be. HA! Good Fun!

I also think it's interesting that even before the fake news era conservatives already distrusted the majority of news sources In the 90's CNN was oft referred to as the Clinton News Network, largely because Wolf and co. would often spend time figuratively doing on the air what Monica did in the office. Never heard of that. Conservatives and Trump supporters did use that during the campaign as an opportunistic way to mock Clinton or CNN. Aye. A resurrection of an old trope. CNN was considered bias by many back then. One wouldn't know this of course if one only ever watched CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, etc, but if one had conversations with actual people with working brains.... That said, the bias wasn't near as blatant as it is now. Back in the day CNN et al were much better at pretending to report news objectively. The emperor's clothes came completely off during this last election. For anyone with eyes and a functional brain to compute what they saw (if they were looking), they will not forget. so, one couldn't tell cnn were biased by watching cnn or other networks? however, if folks "had conversations with actual people with working brains" (i.e. fellow tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists) then the bias sudden became obvious? this kinda nonsense is why val is so darn funny. again, check our linked articles. cnn did not evidence any kind o' measurable or discernable ideological lean 'til somewheres 'tween 2006-2008. makes sense 'cause at the time mass market tv news polarization were a new phenomenon and cnn were largely competing with the big three networks who were also ideological neutral. fox's post 2000 success were the apparent driver for other cable news outlets to begin attempting to find an ideological niche. msnbc, as noted already, initial tried to compete with fox for conservative viewership, but after a few years they surrendered and shifted left. the reason why ordinary folks wouldn't see a cnn bias in the 90s is 'cause there were no significant bias. am personal agreeing with gd 'bout our lack o' sympathy regarding news bias. virtual every US president has complained 'bout press bias... thank goodness. lincoln's battles with the press were legendary and while trump has threatened to change libel laws (HA!) or even jail journalists, lincoln actual carried out midnight raids 'gainst the press and journalists, raids which were reminiscent o' scenes from the movie V. reporters got no duty to be neutral or unbiased. we don't lament the non existent good old days when individual reporters were neutral. we want reporters to be passionate and invested. the thing is, the internet has changed the equation and am admitting we were wrong 'bout cause v. effect. linked articles show how the abundance o' news options now make it increasingly possible for viewers/readers to ignore alternative viewpoints and opinions. bias has always been part o' reporting, but the widespread alternative FACTS nonsense is new and so too is the ability o' news consumers to voluntarily encase themselves in a functional news echobox. we assumed polarization were news outlets responding to increasing polarized populations. particular during times o' social upheaval, news outlets natural respond to consumer desire for news which reflects their ideological leaning. more recent it has been the media which actual created the polarization rather than responding to it. the change is disturbing even if we do not advocate government interference to alter the dynamic. regardless, val is wrong. HA! Good Fun!

I also think it's interesting that even before the fake news era conservatives already distrusted the majority of news sources In the 90's CNN was oft referred to as the Clinton News Network, largely because Wolf and co. would often spend time figuratively doing on the air what Monica did in the office. myth as one can see from our linked articles, in the 90s and into 2000 cnn were 'bout as ideologically neutral as possible. HA! Good Fun!

two articles worth reading regarding the ideological impact of cable and internet news since 2000. https://web.stanford.edu/~ayurukog/cable_news.pdf https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2009/iyengar-redmedia-bluemedia.pdf am knowing they is longer than typical internet infobytes, but will at least post the conclusions. This paper provides estimates of both the influence of slanted news on voting behavior and the taste for like-minded news in the context of cable television news in the U.S. The key ingredient in the analysis is the use of channel positions as instrumental variables to estimate a model of viewership, voting, and ideology evolution. We show instrumental variables estimates that watching FNC increases the probability of voting Republican in presidential elections. We probe the instrumental variables assumption by correlating channel positions with observables: demographics which predict FNC viewership, demographics which predict partisan vote shares, pre-FNC partisan vote shares, pre-FNC partisan donations, and local satellite viewership of FNC. We estimate a model of consumer-viewer-voters who choose cable subscriptions, allocate time to watching news channels, and vote in elections. The tastes for news channels are partly determined by the closeness of the news channels’ estimated ideology to the individuals. Individual ideology evolves towards the estimated ideologies of the news channels that a consumer watches. We use the estimated model to characterize the degree of polarization that one can attribute to slanted cable news consumption, to measure effects of cable news on elections, and to assess the positioning strategies of the cable news channels. Our estimates imply increasing effects of FNC on the Republican vote share in presidential elections over time, from 0.46 points in 2000 to 6.34 points in 2008. Furthermore, we estimate that cable news can increase polarization and explain about two-thirds of the increase among the public in the US, and that this increase depends on both a persuasive effect of cable news and the existence of tastes for like-minded news. Finally, we find that an influence-maximizing owner of the cable news channels could have large effects on vote shares, but would have to sacrifice some levels of viewership to maximize influence. Future research could go in a number of directions. The use of channel positions as instrumental variable could be useful in other studies of how media consumption affects behavior. One could also use channel position variation to study the cable news channels in more detail by examining specific programs, e.g. “The O’Reilly Factor,” and specific issues like abortion, gay marriage, or government spending. In a different direction, studying the causes and consequences of the divergence in estimated ideologies seems fruitful.40 It would also be useful to test, refine, or expand the specific model we employ for belief updating after media consumption. For example, one could allow for a joint distribution of influence parameters and tastes for like-minded news in the population. and No matter how we sliced the data—either at the level of individuals or news stories— the results demonstrate that Fox News is the dominant news source for conservatives (the results presented above are equally strong if we substitute party identification for ideology). Although Fox’s brand advantage for conservatives is especially strong when the news deals with politicized subjects, it also applies to subject matter typically not associated with partisan division. Indeed, the most surprising of our findings is the substantial level of polarization in exposure to soft news. The emergence of Fox News as the cable ratings leader suggests that in a competitive market, politically slanted news programming allows a new organization to create a niche for itself. Recent theoretical work in economics shows that under competition and diversity of opinion, newspapers will provide content that is more biased: ‘‘Competition forces newspapers to cater to the prejudices of their readers, and greater competition typically results in more aggressive catering to such prejudices as competitors strive to divide the market’’ (Mullainathan & Schleifer, 2005, p. 18). Thus, as the audience become polarized over matters of politics and public policy, rational media owners stand to gain market share by injecting more rather than less political bias into the news (Gentzkow & Shapiro, 2006). The recent experience of MSNBC is revealing. The network’s most popular evening Countdown with Keith Olbermann—conveys an unabashedly anti-Bush Administration perspective. The network now plans to ‘‘to showcase its nighttime lineup as a welcome haven for viewers of a similar mind’’ (Steinberg, 2007). When the audience is polarized, ‘‘news with an edge’’ makes for market success. A further implication of voters’ increased exposure to one-sided news coverage is an ‘‘echo chamber’’ effect—the news serves to reinforce existing beliefs and attitudes. During periods of Republican governance, for instance, criticisms of the incumbent administration conveyed by mainstream news organizations can be dismissed as evidence of ‘‘liberal bias’’ thus further increasing partisan polarization. After the revelations in the news media that the Bush Administration’s prewar intelligence claims were erroneous, Democrats (when asked whether the U.S. had found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq), switched to the ‘‘no WMD’’ response by a factor of more than 30%. Independents also switched, by more than 10 percentage points. But Republicans remained steadfast in their beliefs affirming the presence of WMD—between June 2003 and October 2004 the percentage of Republicans acknowledging that the United States had not found WMD increased by less than five points (Iyengar & McGrady, 2007; Kull, Ramsay, & Lewis, 2003). The importance of source cues to news exposure and the resulting ‘‘reinforcement of priors’’ effect will only grow as technology diffuses and consumers increasingly customize their online news menus. Our results are consistent with the argument that Internet technology will, in practice, narrow rather than widen users’ political horizons. Although an infinite variety of information is available, individuals may well limit their exposure to news or sources that they expect to find agreeable. Over time, this behavior is likely to become habituated so that users turn to their preferred sources automatically no matter what the subject matter. The observed behavior of Republicans in this study may be attributed, in part, to their 20 years of experience with a favored news provider, thus reinforcing their informationseeking behavior. As Democrats and politically inclined independents also begin to establish media preferences, consumers will be able to ‘‘wall themselves off from topics and opinions that they would prefer to avoid’’ (Sunstein, 2001, pp. 201–202). The end result is likely to be a less informed and more polarized electorate. Selective exposure is especially likely in the new media environment because of information overload. New forms of communication not only deliver much larger chunks of campaign information, but they also facilitate consumers’ ability to attend to the information selectively. The audience for conventional news programs is hard pressed to avoid coverage of the candidate they dislike because news reports typically assign equal coverage to each. But when browsing the web, users can filter or search through masses of text more easily. Thus, as candidates, interest groups, and voters all converge on the Internet, the possibility of selective exposure to political information increases. As we have found, people prefer to encounter information that they find supportive or consistent with their existing beliefs. end as hard as it may be to believe, fox and msnbc were much more ideological centric when they got their start, but fox's rating/commercial success from polarizing their content led to others following suit, albeit to a lesser degree. msnbc actual were more conservative than cnn 'till 2004 when they threw in the towel with their efforts to out-conservative fox. 'course fox arguable created the polarization we is now seeing as endemic, and as more sources such as breitbart offer increasing narrow news offerings, voters as a whole has become more polarized as well. the polarization trend only appears to be increasing. cable news and the internet really is making you dumber. HA! Good Fun!

terrible metaphors. general opinions is never wrong. did you like? did you dislike? is no way Gromnir or anybody else can claim your general taste impressions is wrong. duh. problem is when fans tell your perfume maker how to fix. your perfume is too perfumy. oh so helpful, eh? what is developer gonna do with such feedback other than to note the customer didn't like... which is actual helpful in a limited way. others observe how the perfume smells too much like whale puke, so perhaps add shark pi$$. get a few dozen self appointed amateur perfumers respond to limited early release how the perfume really needs an infusion o' shark pi$$ to improve. if the perfume maker doesn't add more shark pi$$ they is ignoring customers? oh, and by the way, almost as many folks is likely telling the perfumer how the perfume smells too flowery and others is telling the perfumer it is the bestest perfume ever. so the perfumer is hoping to sell to tens o' thousands o' units, and the couple dozen people who regular contribute to their online message boards is significant 'cause? oh, and aire du vomi is not a new perfume. is old perfume with alterations made after developer considered Years of messageboard feedback and hard sales and usage data. so, gonna ignore years o' data and feedback 'cause a few dozen superfans reached a kinda-sorta consensus that more shark pi$$ is what the perfume needs? also, shouldn't need repeat, but... is not individual fans who is stoopid. many individuals provide useful feedback but such has nothing to do with consensus or whatnot. message board consensus is not particular significant. idea is not made better by fellow grognard agreement. also equal significant is the recognition, again, that idiocy o' fans collective should not marginalize general impressions feedback. like and dislike can't be wrong even if folks is misattributing causes. fans don't like playing paladins in the original poe beta? a dislike is not right or wrong. listen to fans regarding what is specific wrong with the paladin is gonna be confusing and contradictory, but developers should listen. take advice regarding how to improve the paladin is dubious at best. even so, general feedback says paladins is unfun and in-game data shows people ain't actual playing paladins. poe developer gonna be satisfied with people not playing paladins? am hardly suggesting fan opinions 'bout paladins should be ignored. contrary. never suggested 'cause fans is collective stoopid they should be ignored. is boeroer conceit which results in such a conclusion and not anything Gromnir said. how many times has we said in this thread alone, "listen to fans is good"? ignore fans is bad, but listen too much is equal bad as history suggests... and the value from fan feedback is likely not what boeroer believes it to be. HA! Good Fun!

am gonna add one thing by noting how exclusion ain't so much protection o' innocence or future innocence. rules 'which set guilty free when govt violates rules ain't so much 'bout protecting the innocent as is 'bout protecting rights of everybody, innocent or guilty. is the kinda thing which should make gd happy 'cause makes rights more important than justice or even people. we go to great the lengths in this country to protect intangible ideals from government interference, even to the point we is protecting wrongdoers, evildoers, from the State. HA! Good Fun!

negative: a pence presidency would make daily wh news conferences boring 'cause executive activities would be predictable. positive: nuclear holocaust during a pence presidency seems far less likely. tough choices. HA! Good Fun!

Ehh Gromnir. Am glad that you feel relieved. And at same time am saddened. Your reply style more and more resembles that of Litter-Bearer fan type (that is described in the bottom part of this article).There is really no need to be that highbrow and condescending. That said, I'll see myself out, as am no longer interested in the subject of this thread, nor in continuing such discussion. well, if you is gonna resort to convenient categorization/marginalization based on tv tropes website, then am believing a bit o' condescension is warranted. heck, the category you indicate don't mesh well with the fact we observed how fan idiocy were only a collective issue rather than individual. in any event, as somebody who has been posting for decades here and elsewhere, our criticisms is widespread. we sure as heck haven't held our self up as some kinda one true measure o' game goodness. our opinions is no more relevant than yours-- never even implied otherwise. but take your opinion and Gromnir's and a handful o' others and somehow pretend as if an imagined consensus from the few dozen beta regulars is meaningful is the worst kinda arrogance. max feels victimized? *chuckle* so too has any number o' others and groups AND developers. our most harsh game related criticism has, in point o' fact, been directed at developers, as folks such as josh and david gaider and others could attest even if such a reality don't mesh with max's hasty marginalization efforts. that said, we will concede how even w/o reply/quote silliness, you have managed to draw us off-topic and make your response little more than a complaint 'bout Gromnir. clear weren't reply/quote which were problematic. HA! Good Fun!

agreed... but is difficult for many to accept the injustices which results. “for the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.” HA! Good Fun!

the bundy folks is bad guys. doesn't matter though. US system is a bit weird. most o' the rest o' the civilized world do not let bad guys go free 'cause the government made a mistake or acted unlawful. govt. malfeasance is not a "get out of jail free" card virtual anywheres but the US. may not be logical, but there is wisdom in the US system, even if we personal do not like it. to discourage future malfeasance by the govt., bad guys is allowed to walk free when government is a wrongdoer. doesn't matter if the defendant is a bad guy as govt bad actions trump. bundys is bad, but it don't matter in this case. government can't get away with doing wrong 'cause it is later shown the victim o' the govt wrongdoing were also a bad guy. the State is held to a higher standard. there is any number o' practical disadvantages to being a defendant in a criminal proceeding. however, there is many systematic advantages to being the defendant. with competent counsel (if the defendant is able to afford such) there is much challenge to getting a conviction o' even the obvious/clear guilty in the US system... which like it or not, is part o' the design. should never be surprised when bad cops or bundys or evil drug dealers go free. the system is consciously rigged to favor such folks. HA! Good Fun!

yes. "if developers is convinced by a good argument from the boardies, then numbers shouldn't matter. if is good for the game, then do it. and sure, sometimes player ineffable feels and emotions is actual as important as is cold, hard facts or well crafted logic. can't dismiss the gut impressions o' the mob before or after release. even so, am thinking the obsidians realized, too late, that trying to make everybody satisfied tends to be resulting in nobody being complete happy." am suggesting the developers need step back from reactivity. don't go all absurdism on us and pretend as if such an appeal means developers should complete ignore any and all advice. HA! Good Fun!

*sigh* already explained. listen to fans is good, but listen too much to idiotic fans can hurt the game. we gave numerous examples o' questionable choices not made 'cause developers genuine believed such changes helped the game, but 'cause developers were caving to fan demands. vancian casting were never 'posed to be in poe, but a small group were extreme vocal, so obsidian changed. numerous post release builds o' poe saw the developers attempting to walk balk that decision before vancian were finally exorcised in deadfire. insofar as vancian casting, how many builds and years did it take the obsidians to final get back to where they started 'fore they mistaken listened to a small number o' overrepresented fans? ain't the fan's fault. as you note, developers is asking for fan feedback. the problem for developers is board fans not only represent only the smallest portion o' total game fans, but trying to glean useful notions 'bout fan consensus from a homogenized group which is nevertheless myopic, irrational, unreasonable, self contradictory and frequent idiotic is o' questionable merit. even when fans do appear to reach consensus, one must be dubious 'bout arriving at conclusions based 'pon such consensus as fans do not appear to realize what it is they has requested. so what is the fluffy drivel 'bout? again, developer reactivity feels like a good thing. however, often such reactivity is the very thing which hurts the game and ultimate angers fans. developers need be careful 'bout too much reactivity. HA! Good Fun!