Namutree

I've read The fountainhead. I've read Anthem. I've read Atlas Shrugged. I've read The Romantic Manifesto. I've read We The People. Ayn Rand is a sentimental moron and Objectivism isn't objective.

This was attempted in Fallout 3 by Bethesda at demands for harder enemies. It's ****ing awful. It can often lead to little to no options on how to approach the situation. Certain Super Mutants in the game could two shot you because of this, meaning that your approach was always to cower behind a wall as your companions handled it, or you absolutely positively needed to aim for their gun and shoot it out of their hands ASAP. I would not recommend it, cause it's more frustrating than challenging to see all your stats you've acquired not matter and then have every character forced to use the same strategy. I don't know about the Fallout 3 case; so I can't say if it was awful or not, but this could be done well in PoE quite easily. Here's the enemy: It's attack is lower than average, but as I said it ignores 90% percent of defense. What do you do to deal with this? If you have tank(s) take off their armor off and focus more on offense. This would work well enough. If you don't have any tanks this enemy won't pose any problem at all. Just take it down with DPS. If you have mixed builds: This enemy will be only a small issue; again just focus on DPS. If your tank focus is CON rather than PER or RES he/she should still be pretty useful. With a wizard you could just confuse it. Then kill it while it's confused. I don't see why this would be awful.

I don't like how he uses 1 through 10 rating measure. I prefer a 1 through 5 rating. I'd give PoE a 4/5. Good, but not great. The expansion might change that though.

This is a simplistic picture of a phenomenon that is quite complex. In addition, you are working from some assumptions. Chiefly, a) that thieves act rationally, in the sense that that they can accurately judge the optimal risk/reward ratio in the different courses of action available to them, and b) that thieves are pushed to thievery out of choice and not need. We know that (a) is simply not true. Prison inmates are known to have a lower IQ than average (1) (2), which translates into a markedly worse ability to judge the idoneity of a given course of action. This can lead to people making seemingly "dumb" choices that land them in prison. In addition, Dunning-Kruger is a mechanism which may help explain why less intelligent people consistently believe they can get away with crime. Do you know WHY criminals tend to be people with lower IQ's? I'll tell you; because intelligent people do a risk vs. reward judgement as to whether they will steal. The fact that dumb people have a poor ability to weigh risk and reward properly doesn't mean most people can't. Get rid of prisons and the risk side of the equation would be dramatically reduced, and thus the number of intelligent people willing to steal will skyrocket. This differs from narcotics as they provide their own disincentives already. Based on the very nature of these dangerous drugs as no one rational would ever use them. Thus laws against them are futile. You can't dissuade the irrational with reason. Again with the intelligence argument. Get rid of the prisons (without replacing them with some other punishment mechanism) and you'd have to be an idiot not to steal. You'd have a lot to gain; with very little risk. BTW: Most people who steal do not do so out of need. They steal because stealing is beneficial if you're not punished. Very unfair. Nature really screwed morons over. Oh well. That's life. It also saved a lot of countries from being conquered. You can turn it around and unified resistance can backfire in a fight you can't win. See the fate of Carthage for proof of that. If you can't put up a unified resistance however, you WILL be conquered, and the fate of the conquered is usually grim. Not to mention you will then be forced into a society with a government anyway; only now you truly have no say in what kind of government you get. Without a government the circumstances will be: You're screwed against a foreign power and at their mercy.

Here's a quick list of things that should be included in the expansion to PoE. 1:PoE could really use some enemies that hard counter. Perhaps an enemy with attacks that ignore 90% of defense.An enemy with a big special defense boost against ranged attacks. An enemy that does heavy recoil damage against characters that it him with melee attacks. An enemy that dispels all magic buffs or de-buffs around it. How about an enemy that temporarily loses it's naturally very high defense every time it's attacked? Take your pick, but add something that really requires an adjustment of battle plan. This will help resolve the issue of the player coming up with a single good team strategy and using it over and over and over every fight. The player will need to adjust their strategy for the fight. Just make sure that if you do add these types of enemies, try and add a way of know their epic weakness or strength before facing them. 2: At least 1 new side area available in act 1. I felt act 1 was a bit too constraining. Adding an extra area that the player can access right away would really help PoE. 3: Add 1 new class. Besides the obvious value of having a new class; having 11 just bothers me. I want an even 12. 4: Add special stronghold battles that give you much more time to resolve, but add a few more enemies. 5: Include short quests such as a man that you can insult. If you insult him; he challenges you to a one-on-one duel which is really easily won if you accept. Maybe some lady with a funny hat. You can convince her to give it to you in various ways.

I think it comes down to the rules simply being too lax, by and large. Even if you don't hit, you Graze, and the feedback you get on it is more or less "Eh, it hit, I guess". With no Immunities, no hard counters, and no major resistances, you can really just barge through the game like a drunken fool and just sorta headbutt your way through encounters, even if you suck - and if you don't suck, you'll just do tank and spank from start to finish, which is even worse. PoE consists of all these loose parts and mechanics that could be good on their own, but when they all come together, it doesn't play very well, imo, like the no-combat-xp.. but then you still have bestiary xp, lockpick xp, and trap xp... or the idea that combat should be a decision in some cases, yet with the unlimited stash, the infinigold merchants and the enchanting system, you want to kill everything anyway... or the excellent ideas of the generalized attributes and armours, yet the bonuses end up pigeon-holing you as either tank or dps, or all the mobility things to deal with engagement, yet it just ends up with you not wanting to move or adjust due to the many compound penalties and risks. There's still a lot of potential here, but I think it's all just.. too easy and doesn't all interact with all the other stuff very well. Imagine going through any of the IE games like that. Yeah, you sucked at the beginning, and you died to those gibberlings, and you had no idea how armour worked, but by the end of the game, you'd learned the ropes because you had to, and adjusted, reacted in combat over and over, and been weaned of your noobhood. In PoE, I don't even pay attention to what things do, or how they do it. This thing knocks them down? 'aight. This thing dazes them? 'aight, I have no idea what the penalties for that is, but it seems to work. ... I really have no idea what the penalties for daze are, yet I use it all the time, because it's accessible and it does something. It seems to matter, but I have no idea how much or if I really need to use it or not. Yes, I can check in-game, but I'm not in-game right now, and my point is that I never felt that it mattered for me to remember what it does. You can't even hover over the Daze of enemies to see what it does to them specifically, it's just an icon amongst all the others and a quick little timer timing down; was it supposed to last for just 5 seconds? Is that a Graze or a Hit? A Crit? No clue. I guess it did something. Such tactics. Much strategy. This. So friggin' true.

Yet for some reason a lot of people just insist the wizard is weak. I've been using two wizards and they are so OP they just break the game. I use fan of flame when I'm low level, Confusion when I'm high level. Super effective.

It's not, but the suggestion of committing suicide because one accidentally has intercourse with someone of the same sex is ... troubling, on all kinds of levels. It can be humorously troubling, ala Dave Chapelle and "grape drink" Don't you mean "purple drink"? Grape drink - it's got sugar, water, and purple! It's not, but the suggestion of committing suicide because one accidentally has intercourse with someone of the same sex is ... troubling, on all kinds of levels. It can be humorously troubling, ala Dave Chapelle and "grape drink" Don't you mean "purple drink"? Grape drink - it's got sugar, water, and purple! Just re-watched that skit. My memory was flawed. It is grape drink.

It's not, but the suggestion of committing suicide because one accidentally has intercourse with someone of the same sex is ... troubling, on all kinds of levels. It can be humorously troubling, ala Dave Chapelle and "grape drink" Don't you mean "purple drink"?

The kamehameha joke in the beginning failed as the effect was yellow. This ain't no DBZ Budokai 1. Kamehameha should be blue.

Would it be okay if they weren't in love? The limerick likely refers to such a case.

Could you give an example of someone who isn't a bigot and who refers to people as unnatural? No, but I don't recall anyone being called unnatural; I recall an activity being called unnatural. Namutree I consider you are a rationale person so I'm missing your reasoning on this one What activity is unnatural? A man having sex with another man ..or a man having sex with a transgender person ? Neither. It was a different user whom suggested that man/man homosexuality was unnatural. I actually argued that it is natural, but I also argued with Serdan as to whether saying man/man homosexuality was unnatural is bigoted. EDIT: It has been an exceptionally productive use of my time if I say so myself.

Could you give an example of someone who isn't a bigot and who refers to people as unnatural? No, but I don't recall anyone being called unnatural; I recall an activity being called unnatural.

Nope. Saying that *blank* (fill in any noun you like) is unnatural does not automatically have negative connotations as to be natural is not automatically good, and to be unnatural is not automatically bad. The car example was fine as it demonstrated that unnatural doesn't equal bad. What? Just... what? Using the rhetoric of bigots is a predictor of being a bigot. Do you actually disagree with this? It's certainly evidence that the user of said statement is a bigot. The statement itself is not bigotry however, and it's use isn't exclusive to bigots. This is why I asked what he meant by: The answer to my question for him could make clear what the intention of this statement was. I don't want to assume he's a bigot if he isn't one.

How evil for Obsidian to not magically be able to read his mind and preferences. The devils!

Have you been living under a rock? It's the language used by bigots when they advocate for making homosexuals second-class citizens. Yet he didn't advocate for making homosexuals be treated as second class citizens. So obviously that's not always the case.

Homosexuality occurs in nature. This has been observed many times in the past and will be observed many times more in the future. There is nothing in nature that precludes it, and nature itself provides the means in which it happens. Sexual attraction is a natural occurrence, and sexual contact with the object of said attraction is a natural occurrence. The term nature refers to a few things: The broadest sense- Something that occurs or exists in the physical world. Homosexuality definitely qualifies for that. The usage regarding things that occur or exist without human intervention. Again, Homosexuality qualifies as many animals engage in homosexual activity without human intervention. The usage regarding something that exist despite human intervention- Again, Homosexuality qualifies as even the many attempts by humans to eliminate homosexual activity have failed in various societies.

Those blinded blind people double can't see. If a faith healer tries to heal them they need twice as much faith.

SIJW's are as annoying as SJW's. EDIT: Scratch that. SIJW's are 15% more annoying. Rounding down of coarse.

Is it really? It's not like saying something is unnatural is the same as saying it's bad. Cars are unnatural, but I don't have a problem with cars. On what basis is it not a natural activity? It occurs in nature.

I think the expansion could help fix that by introducing enemies that fall into the dreaded, "hard counter" category.

I don't know about impossible, but at the very least seems improbable.

I take no pride in anything I didn't have a hand in personally, and I don't care about something as silly as a common language. Language is just a tool for communication; I don't care how communication is accomplished as long as it is accomplished. EDIT: Oops. I was trying to edit the last post, not make a new one!

That really depends on the motivations for the crime. Arresting people for crimes like drug use is folly since the common motive of using drugs isn't long-term profit, but rather immediate enjoyment. Arresting thieves does reduce theft however as most people weigh the risks vs rewards in regards to crime motivated by rational profit. If people knew they wouldn't be imprisoned for robbing a store, you could bet robbery would be far more common. ...wow. That sentence there gave me the willies. Unified for what? Unified under what criteria? And make people conform to it under threat of violence? Sounds a lot like fascism. Unified for defense. Having a government ensures your society will fight as a single entity. Michigan likely has less military power than Canada. If the US had not maintained itself as a single unified society; there would be no certainty that if Canada were to invade; any one would help us. We would just be overrun and conquered; what would our fate be then? That would be up to Canada. If we're unlucky we get forced into slavery and all our land taken from us. If we're lucky we get absorbed into Canada and made into second class citizens for a few decades. Remember what happened between the Native Americans and the US? They were a collection of micro societies. How did that work out for them?

It doesn't have to be some one who rules over me. It needs to be some one who rules over those whom would steal from me. A government is a useful tool for mutual protection. Governments also use the power of force to keep society unified. Without a government to hold society together it will very likely disintegrate into a collection of weak micro societies unable to achieve anything of importance. Note that no society (that I'm aware of) without a government has ever been powerful or prosperous.