Gromnir

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!

in our experience, most people believe as do boeroer. unfortunate, history teaches us how most people is wrong. particular for entertainment, give folks what they claim to want is doomed. at best, match expectations results in a product which is derivative and uninspired and dull. is particular difficult for crpg developers who got a product which is gonna require tens o' hours o' time investment by the player. hard to be fresh for +20 hours. is a few comic examples o' fans not knowing what they want... the single most common demand from boardies during bg2 development, other than bug reduction, were an appeal for less 'o the bg1-style wilderness maps. fans wanted more durlag's tower and less one-map-south-of-beregost nonsense. not kidding. were not even a close call for most common appeal. durlag's tower portion o' totsc were representing the sea change 'bout which the bg2 fans were clamoring. unfortunate, bg2 is released and sudden we see loads 'folks complaining 'bout the dearth o' exploration. heck, we were genuine shocked by how many folks complaining 'bout bg2 lack o' exploration were also the same folks demanding less bg1 wilderness map mowing. so even if developers thinks they got some kinda clear consensus from fandom, there is a good chance the fans simple got no idea what the heck they want. *chuckle* immediate following the initial deadfire beta release, we saw many demands for a return o' the universal talents. how could the developers believe reducing customization options which were available in poe would be a good idea for deadfire? 'course the developers explained how over the past few years one o' the most common complaints regarding the poe classes were lack o' differentiation-- players were tending to take same/similar universal talents regardless o' class. deadfire beta created more differentiated classes. turns out class differentiation ain't what folks actual wanted even if they were demanding. yeah, sometimes the problem is folks who know what they want do not realize how what they want is self-contradictory. 'course other times the difficulty facing developers is simple the reality o' the inevitable fail o' matching expectations. folks can't ask for what they do not know. can't like something you ain't experienced. unfortunately, if obsidian cobbles together a frankenstein o' stuff bob or mary enjoyed and wants from a host o' other games or entertainment sources, the results is gonna be so much regurgitated pap. perhaps obsidian gives bob and mary poe 4.0 with elements o' fallout and witcher iii and whatever is the crpg flavor o' the week at the moment. great? no. derivative. tired. dull. listen to fans, but don't trust they know what they want, 'cause chances are they do not. HA! Good Fun!

so, it appears you did want to get "into it." as we noted 'bove, were clear not simple a matter of mislabeling as you did selective choose... and the google search were precise the problem for you, which would explain why you didn't link. most such google search definitions for generic do not include denotative derogatory. google search is part o' your problem, not your rescue. you used a mislabeled and, in hindsight, anomalous dictionary definition to refute ninjamestar. try and reverse so is Gromnir error is amusing. Upon searching for "generic definition" on Google, the result I get *does* list the derogatory form as a definition for it. Likewise it is seen in the Oxford dictionaries site: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generic I didn't feel further clarification was needed, but fair enough, since you're so bent on making a fuss out of it. ofcourse the definition you selective listed is at the oxforddictionaries site. we linked the oxford site earlier to point out how your efforts, intentional or otherwise, were misleading. https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/95496-inherent-flaws-in-soulbound-items/?p=1968447 "I've always known it as a derogatory term when used in a derogatory fashion, and it is recognized as such by all dictionaries I'm looking at. " again, no. you cherry picked. oxford is actual the outlier from the dictionaries you were likely looking at. https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/95496-inherent-flaws-in-soulbound-items/?p=1968620 is becoming spam with Gromnir need having relink previous posts from mere a page past. in any event, took you two days to correct your original misleading post, but am guessing you deserve some kinda credit for doing so. am suspecting you will need continue this... one wonders how long you can maintain the charade. HA! Good Fun!

so, it appears you did want to get "into it." as we noted 'bove, were clear not simple a matter of mislabeling as you did selective choose... and the google search were precise the problem for you, which would explain why you didn't link. most such google search definitions for generic do not include denotative derogatory. google search is part o' your problem, not your rescue. you used a mislabeled and, in hindsight, anomalous dictionary definition to refute ninjamestar. try and reverse so is Gromnir error is amusing. am only continuing 'cause you cannot seem to let it go. am not certain why we always need be the grownup in these situations. HA! Good Fun!

more awkwardness. example: we reply 'bout holy meditation casting time... observe how the problem ain't pregnant cast times but rather disproportionate short durations for a few such spells. is nothing inherent unbalanced with a level 1 single-person buff taking long to cast. only becomes an issue if melee folks is attacking multiple times for big damage during such a casting time, particular when the duration o' the buff lasts little longer than the cast+recovery. why cast the spell priest is gonna contribute much more by simple using his/her own melee weapons during the cast time? the payoff from the spell is only gonna come close to evening out if it has a long duration. 'course such a disagreement and discussion takes us further afield o' the point o' the thread... and much further than the direction o' Gromnir's posts which you is now s'posed responding to. however, we will observe how such illustrated disagreement does serve to undercut the consensus notions you embraced earlier regarding casting times. even so, am relieved you found clarification regarding our point regarding idiocy o' fan collective. baby steps it seems. HA! Good Fun!

adjective adjective: generic 1. "..." 1.1 "..." 1.2 derogatory lacking imagination or individuality; predictable and unoriginal. naughty boy let google light the way... at least this once. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generic sure, generic can be derogatory, but am suspecting we weren't only person to be surprised to see "1." for such a definition. HA! Good Fun! That was due to trying to cut and highlight what I wanted to. Quoting in this forum is... Weird. At least for me. It took a few tries to get it to look close to right. It's not that I was putting it as the primary definition, simply as *a* definition, which is the one used above. 10 second fix. and yeah, by labelling as "1" (unnecessarily we might add if you were simple posting a definition rather than the definition) you were being misleading, particular as you didn't bother to include the link, as did Gromnir. maybe a mistake. maybe not. HA! Good Fun! If you want to twist a minor detail into a deliberate attempt to mislead or misinform the rest, suit yourself. I'm not getting into this again. "The lady protests too much, methinks."-- hamlet, act 3, scene 2. dunno, this quote thing don't seem so difficult to us, but if you wanna actual protest, then we will continue. welcome. in addition to the clear mislabeling o' the definition, you chose the one readily available online dictionary definition which actual included a derogatory aspect for generic. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS699US699&ei=-E9SWt38J8eV0gKD8ILgDg&q=generic+definition&oq=generic+d&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l7j0i10k1j0l2.13117.14178.0.16155.4.3.1.0.0.0.187.540.0j3.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.542...0i67k1j0i20i264k1.0.czqc4hYKPmY dictionary.com merriam-webster cambridge etc. so, you cherry pick a dictionary definition which provides a derogatory aspect for generic denotative as 'posed to mere connotative, and then you mislabel and fail to provide linky. to a reasonable onlooker it would appear as if you tailored your response for effect... and you got caught. no biggie... but don't do it again. john 8:11. quack. HA! Good Fun!

adjective adjective: generic 1. "..." 1.1 "..." 1.2 derogatory lacking imagination or individuality; predictable and unoriginal. naughty boy let google light the way... at least this once. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generic sure, generic can be derogatory, but am suspecting we weren't only person to be surprised to see "1." for such a definition. HA! Good Fun! That was due to trying to cut and highlight what I wanted to. Quoting in this forum is... Weird. At least for me. It took a few tries to get it to look close to right. It's not that I was putting it as the primary definition, simply as *a* definition, which is the one used above. 10 second fix. and yeah, by labelling as "1" (unnecessarily we might add if you were simple posting a definition rather than the definition) you were being misleading, particular as you didn't bother to include the link, as did Gromnir. maybe a mistake. maybe not. HA! Good Fun!

That's logically true. Fans can be idiots. Uhm, sorry for nitpicking, but you said "can be idiots" (which is true), and not "we are idiots" (which may not be true).Also (in this context) it would probaly make sense to use "shortsighted" instead; because besides having low intelligence, it's also possible to arrive to wrong conclusion by not having enough/correct input data. That said I salute your call for improved transparency. Unless you meant unanimous consensus, don't you exagerate a bit?- topics with high consensus: casting speed, impact of melee vs ranged, beta 1 injuries being too severe - topics with average consensus: general talents, penetration system (some players still favor the flat and/or gradual approach; but still the majority as finding the iteration of AR vs PEN as being too abrupt) - topics with low consensus: MIG/RES vs STR/RES I'd just add that it's great when fans' input and wishes are constructive, concrete and taking an advice or pov, instead of the occasional enforcing form. reply/quote to small portions? is how these debates devolve as folks lose track of larger issues and then quibble over tangential details. we will note how we do believe it is fair to refer to fans, as a whole, as idiotic. am not speaking of individual posters, but of fans, collective. from pov o' the developer, the fans is self-contradictory, irrational, unreasonable AND myopic. as a group, those qualities, presented consistent, would be justifiable described as idiotic. will also disagree 'bout your perceived and arbitrary levels o' consensus. casting times is, for example, far less a consensus issue than you may believe. take a look at summoned weapon threads for example. like it or not, is including a cast time aspect and is not consensus. also, a few folks such as Gromnir who suggested the real problem for casters were the penetration mechanic and overpowered synergies available to many melee builds making casters appear weak by comparison, has begun to suffer fatigue and reduce posting. developers already heard us, so is no reason to beat the horse to death as those demanding shorter casting times has done. regardless, we stand by opinion the developers should be careful o' listening to fan feedback. at some point, listen to fan must end for a good game to result. HA! Good Fun!

adjective adjective: generic derogatory lacking imagination or individuality; predictable and unoriginal. "generic dance-floor fillers" naughty boy let google light the way... at least this once. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generic sure, generic can be derogatory, but am suspecting we weren't only person to be surprised to see "1." for such a definition. HA! Good Fun!