Namutree

I would argue that Fascism is just as much a socialist ideology as communism is. When talking about Nazis I would say they were socialists. If asked what kind of socialist; I would say fascist.

Fascists do not support property rights at all. That's not a mixed system. It's just a socialist one. It's a different approach than most socialists, but the core idea of socialism, the opposition to private property (Or all property for some variants); is 100% untouched. The core idea of capitalism, the respect for property; is 100% gone.

It's not just the poor economics of those regions; it's ideology. Countries that are not sympathetic to the concept of property rights are easily taken over by dangerous socialists.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry at this. It was only made worse by all the youtube comments agreeing this is definitive and irrefutable proof of it being rigged. Laughing is better.

I don't think that was the point. The fascists never respected property rights at all. They were just socialists; which is what they claimed to be. Sure, some of them had corporations, but they were ultimately government managed. I think western Europe would be a better example of a combination of capitalism & socialism. Western Europe has many of the goals and some of the policies of socialism, but a certain amount of respect for property rights.

Nor is that the goal of the socialists. The Nazis did implement socialistic policies, had no respect for property, and called themselves socialists. If they aren't socialists; no one is. I'm perfectly happy with my land; socialists want to take it away. Why? Because it allows me to be in control of my own life. As Naurgalen has said, people should rely on each other.

Without the stoning and death part. Even most hardcore christians have abandoned that practice. Not all of them are happy about that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAvcDsERw78

Yes, I miss the alignment system. I like the new reputation system too though.

Wasn't it a goal to make the powers easier to understand than the IE games? Because right now it's harder since the game hides information from us.

You guys should insist on devolution. May be you'll wind up with the kind of Federalism that's supposedly guaranteed by our Constitution. In related news, a significant percentage of Americans would like to secede: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0HE19U20140919?irpc=932 The idea of secession has really skyrocketed recently. It'll never happen, but it is weird.

I feel that base Skyrim is far better than base Oblivion. Yet I feel that mods do more to improve Oblivion than Skyrim. In other words: Vanilla Oblivion vs Vanilla Skyrim: Skyrim wins. Oblivion with mods vs Skyrim with mods: About even.

yeah, like I keep saying Simulationism can die in a fire. A healthy dose of Simulationism is the only thing that separates good games from MMORPG bull**** combat. I don't think the IE games were very realistic, but they had fantastic combat. Pillars of Eternity would do well to emulate them.

Go along with the story until after you get your first shout. Don't bother roaming about until after that point. Also, don't invest in a lot of skills in the beginning; go with a clear theme. Also, at really high levels magic sucks since you can't increase your magic damage, so avoid magic if you intend to be really high level. Another thing; don't invest points into magicka. One can easily use enchantments to make spells cost next to nothing, or even free. So... Focus on health. I could go on for a while giving good advice if you want, TrueNeutral.

The animal companion is not as effective as a normal character in melee. Right now the ranger is too weak and needs an upgrade. Hormalakh's idea is a bit too powerful, but the concept is sound.

I wanted to say how great this idea is again! Sorry for spamming, but it's so awesome! Difficult to balance unless they made these upgrades more tame, but still really cool!

Go along with the story until after you get your first shout. Don't bother roaming about until after that point. Also, don't invest in a lot of skills in the beginning; go with a clear theme. Also, at really high levels magic sucks since you can't increase your magic damage, so avoid magic if you intend to be really high level. Another thing; don't invest points into magicka. One can easily use enchantments to make spells cost next to nothing, or even free. So... Focus on health.

Freakin' awesome!

Ah. That makes more sense.

It happens to the best of us. Except for Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. He never misses a word for some reason.

That's a great idea!

Usually a dog My neighbor is one (among other things) and he has several Hunting Dogs. I completely understand your point of view, but you have to think about it from a usefulness perspective. The concept of favoured enemy was removed in D&D 4E in favor of this: That's much more useful as it gives you something every round if you're attacking your quarry, as opposed to only if they are the right type of monster. I think this approach should be kept in Pillars of Eternity. They could also make it so that when the Ranger and the Animal Companion are both attacking the "Marked Prey", they both get the bonuses, rather than just the Ranger (if that's not how it already works). Marked Prey should be brought up to at least Level 2, if not Level 1. As I have said, it would only be a talent that would merely be an option. If you think something else would be more useful; go ahead and choose something else. I feel that a hunter talent would make the Ranger much more interesting. I agree that marked prey should be improved; since the Ranger is clearly under-powered. EDIT: I get that the concept of a favored enemy was scrapped, but they can easily bring it back. Right now the Ranger is lamest class, and being favored against animals would make it much more interesting.

I suppose you could argue that if you wait for a good opportunity to use it you may never get to, but that doesn't really hold water because nothing is stopping you using it at the tail end of an encounter and getting the same benefits you would have from using it at the beginning. But blowing it at the very start is not optimal play - it's getting less out of the ability than you would if you waited for a good opportunity to use it. If you wait the enemies will live longer and thus do much more damage. So using the abilities at the tail end of the battle is not nearly as effective as using them right away. Also, as I said there are a few exceptions.

It's just gamey nonsense. As is much of the game. If that kind of thing bothers you; an IE style game simply isn't for you.

I would include enemies like the beetles and spiders as animals, and they are a pain. Also, almost all hunters have an animal companion. Rangers themselves are like hunters. What do hunters do? They associate with nature, usually have tracking skills, and kill with projectiles like a bow or firearm. Often with an animal with them. Sounds like a Ranger to me.