KoboldOfArtifice @ KoboldOfArtifice @ttrpg.network

Posts

4

Comments

62

Joined

2 yr. ago

Historical accuracy is not racism. Choosing to identify yourself based on the racist actions in your history is.

To drive it to the extreme, it would be like saying that Germany depicting Jews being gassed on their new flag isn't racist, just historically accurate.

Sadly this doesn't work if one of the parties is threatening to do all they can to break down the democracy before you get your chance to see the results at the next vote.

The point being made though was that the languages are well shown to be genuinely related through a common ancestral language from which they both deviated, just as have most languages in Europe and parts of the Near East. The connection is tangible and quite real, not something just based on some few similarities.

Wizards don't actually commit spells fully to memory, at least not typically. The times they do they have to be simple and are called cantrips.

Scribing a scroll to learn a spell is the wizard copying the scroll into their spellbook, requiring expensive magic ink that costs money.

Paradox has long maintained a DLC policy based around their permanent improvement and development of their games. I don't get what is greedy about genuinely expanding their games with content that wouldn't have been in the base game and charging money for it. Some of the DLC may indeed be on the more expensive side, but calling their entire policy greedy is simplistic and just trying to bunch them in with companies trying to rip you off. Sure, there's been cases where some of Paradox DLC has been egregious, but frankly, the standard case is that they clearly added onto the game that otherwise wouldn't have been there at all.

To propose one of the titles where this works best is Stellaris. I genuinely mean it, take a look at that games post release development and tell me that Paradox is being genuinely greedy. Just because something is long term profitable doesn't make them necessarily immoral.

Something about that airship idea tickles my memories of playing Final Fantasy, so I can't say no to that. It's also something that would certainly garner massive favour, while not making the characters feel overly powerful beyond reason. Especially once the airship has plenty of limitations for being a prototype it's fully under DM control and still feels incredibly cool, I imagine.

Thanks for the idea, I think it's really shaping up.

That is an excellent idea. Together with the other stuff I read here, I think I know what to go for. I love the idea of the character trying to garner favour with the idol only to end up being ripped off when he is on the path to his grand goal. Thanks a lot for the idea!

I agree with your statements, I've made the mistake of pre planning too much before.

What concerns me more is having a plan on how to set his character up for that journey of creating such an item. When they say legendary, they mean an item that would become renowned for having been created, maybe not necessarily truly legendary. The characters primary motivation is to prove themselves the equal of their long-standing idol artificer.

I guess what bothers me is the fact that I have a thorough idea for engaging character quests for all the other players. I have thought of personal storylines that each player gets to explore that will lead their character along some plot line based on their backstory. It's only the artificer that I can't think of something overly compelling for.

The claim that tensions between those holding power in the capitalist system and the growing communist forces caused the second world war is a pretty hot take as someone who grew up in Germany. Do you have sources on professional dissemination of the facts that arrives at this conclusion? I'm genuinely curious because I hadn't heard of that interpretation yet.

I am just barely at the start of Shadowbringer now and I've been playing for more than two years now. I personally really enjoy having an MMO to continuously play next to other games, but it definitely doesn't help with my backlog either, lol

It's very fun. I also really enjoyed the sequel, even if it felt like it lost some of its charme and attention to detail in exchange for scope and combat depth. Felt a little harsh to switch to the next one, but I had a lot of fun either way.

I admire your ability to keep track of all that. I actively play FF14 to fill my MMO slot and then some other game that is my mainstay at the time. If I dare even touch another serious title, it tends to completely push out the prior one, so I have been really trying hard not to start another bigger game while I'm not done with the last one.

It's how I've been playing Yakuza 0 for the last entire year, coming back every half eternity. I really need to just sit down and play a title or take forever.

Shogun 2 and older games massively lose out on the UX. Especially in combat, the games have much less quality of life.

Furthermore, the newer games simply work towards a somewhat different audience. The studio has clearly picked up on the success of Warhammer and after stumbling both through all of Three Kingdoms and the launch of Troy, they seem to have firmly settled towards the more fantasy direction which is counter to the philosophy of the earlier games.

While I certainly support trying out the older titles too, calling Troy a simply worse game than the older titles is a bit reductionistic and definitely has a personal bias and may be somewhat misleading, even if your advice was in good faith.

My first leveled Tank was Gunbreaker, my first leveled DPS was Mechanist and I am myself now working on Sage to fill out my "shoot guns at it to solve your problem" Trifecta.

You're thinking of the right game. You had a pet that was pretty much a massive bipedal animal monster that you could train. Depending on what you do with them, when you reward them with food and petting and when you punish them by slapping them, they'd change their behaviour. You could teach them to either farm food off of fields or eat villagers when they were hungry, whatever you wanted. It was a really fun feature, at least for six year old me.

I find it unrealistic to not believe that a future in which we must not necessarily work a large part of our time to gain a living is possible, but believe that somehow you can halt the progress of technology. Instead of directing the outrage against your government and making them acknowledge that before too long automation will make any form of large scale employed a mere farce, you'd rather hope that corporations would be nice and not employ AI generated artwork to make their images.

This technology is on its way to benefit everyone unless you allow it to be monopolised by those who wish to do so. AI empowers their users to do what could have only been done by many people together before, for prizes that are relatively negligible. The fact that AI uses other people's art as input doesn't mean it just repackages other people's content. That's the same as saying that normal artists are just repackaging other people's content because they learned by looking at the art of other people and seeing what works.

The learning process employed in Machine Learning and the learning process that humans engage in is not fundamentally different. While it might not be the exact same set of mechanisms, in the end it just boils down to seeing what works and making things similar to that. That's what humans already do.

The model trained on all the data, if well trained, does not contain the data to reconstruct any of the images used to make it

Something that may be relevent is the application of completely self learned models. If an AI were to be able to learn making art without using human art (just human input on the quality and tagging of created pieces) would you feel better about that replacing artists? Because that is certainly something we will see in the future too. Back in the day when AI started beating the best Go players in the world the critique had been that it hasn't surpassed humans in skill, as it has learned from humans to be so good. So they made a version that only learned by playing against itself with no human input at all. There's nothing stopping art to be created in a similar way, as long humans give the input on what they like and what they don't.

I don't believe that the joy one feels during the creation of a piece of art necessarily is relevant to the qualities of the artwork. From the perspective of the end user, the artwork may look exactly the same, be it made by a person or AI (even if it had to be more advanced than what we have right now).

It is true that it would be a pity if the joy of self expression vanished as artists lost their ability to create art, but AI won't cause this. It will simply remove the ability to be paid for it and making something into your job tends to suck the joy from it more than it adds it.

The only shot there really is for artists is a future in which they don't need to work for a living and if that isn't a possibility then their chances are already gone in the long term. I'm not saying I'd enjoy any of that. But there is no reasonable future in which this technology isn't expanded and the industry refuses to use the incredibly improved methods of creating art.

Beyond that, you would be taking away the right of new groups of people to express themselves. People already are gaining access to a fork of expression they never had before through AI. Why do they not get the right to use AI in things they create? Even if it's as the basis for their own work or even if it's already the finished product.

What the AI does to create the model which is used to generate artworks based on prompts is not fundamentally different from what humans do when they learn in general. Humans see examples of things and synthesize the idea of what makes up these things. While machine learning models aren't exactly mimicking the human learning process, there isn't magic involved in either and both do nothing but reprocess what they have been given as an input. Humans are no more original than that.

Why do these artists being replaced have a right to make money with their art? Why didn't all the other professions that became obsolete through technological advancement have the same right?

Were cars invented with the aim to make wagon makers obsolete? Were cameras invented to make realistic painters obsolete? They were both, just as all other things, invented because they do something that people want to happen in a way that is easier and more accessible.

Why don't I have a right to have easily affordable art in my works and express myself in a way that I couldn't because I can't afford to hire an expensive artist or learn to make it myself through many hours of work?

And how are other artists not profiting off of artist's efforts by learning from their art and replicating styles, techniques and other such things?

Why are you not instead angry at the fact that an artist even has to make money to do what they want? Why aren't you angry at the fact that anyone has to turn their passions into labour to survive?

If you don't feel like people should be able to make a living off of not working at all, how do you suppose humanity shall move forward in an environment in which anything is starting to be automated? Should be half technological advancement now and forever, fighting tooth and nail against progress? Or should we accept what is inevitable at this point and focus on creating a society in which the common person still has a place?

That all sounds really dramatic and escalating, but many people approach this problem from an emotional position. No one has the right to make money from anything they do. No constitution in the world grants such a right. Making money isn't considered a human need in general. What I do agree with is that artists should be able to live their life and make art. That's what you should desire and fight for.

Neither have they the choice of what format others use. The point here was that the apps are to blame for not supporting the format, not the format for not being supported. It's a common format nowadays.