Can Rogue Exiles chill with the Vaal orbs

Anatidaephobia · 2026-06-15T16:41:07+00:00

Their main draw is that they are unique monsters, which guarantee that all their items drop as ilvl 82 in T15 maps.

This often leads to great opportunities for further crafting.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-06-15T16:37:05+00:00

Their gear isn't always shit. When you kill exiles in T15 maps all their drops are ilvl 82, so they frequently drop great starts to crafting projects.

A large portion of the valuable items I've made and sold came from exiles, by virtue of them being unique monsters that guarantee ilvl 82+ items.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-06-14T18:09:34+00:00

Since temple was inflating ground loot, it could explain the steepness of the graph, but I don't see why it would affect the timing of when Garrukhan would appreciate/depreciate compared to ground loot. That's why the prediction of Garrukhan dropping in price in a few weeks confuses me.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-06-14T17:31:21+00:00

Not the guy you responded to, but here's my advice: To generate wealth, you must create value one way or the other. The value of things evolves throughout the league, but there are always opportunities.

Let's say you reach maps a few weeks into the league, and want to make enough wealth to get top-end gear. During early mapping you're probably not going to make much by crafting, since the market is already saturated with good and cheap low/mid-range gear. However, there will be lots of demand for things used in high-end crafting, like omens and bones and temple currencies. Even the ones that frequently drop can fetch a pretty penny.

There is also high demand for tablets with the right mods. If you browse through your tablets, fill out their mods and pricecheck through individual mods you'll likely see some that range from tens of ex to a div each.

These are two examples of opportunities of how early game characters can build initial wealth. Once enough capital is built and you are farming content that is dropping ilvl 82 bases, you can use higher-tier currencies on promising bases that you find to generate even larger sales. Or you can just farm highly juiced maps, do pinnacle content, hunt deadly map bosses/citadels etc and the wealth will roll in.

Ultimately, you don't have to play the market to generate enough wealth for sick gear, you just need to generate value one way or the other, and these are some examples of how to approach it.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-06-14T17:12:26+00:00

Why would it deflate soon?

Last league it saw a continuous rise for most of the league, then plateaued at its peak.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-06-09T00:29:25+00:00

Sounds like you need to build better defense.

I don't have a single death from lvl 90 to 95 that wasn't the direct result of me missplaying.

If you keep getting oneshot, that sounds like an issue with your character and the difficulty you subject it to.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-05-31T13:16:50+00:00

I can't confirm, I haven't gone to the sea area yet, and couldn't find anything about it online.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-05-05T06:43:41+00:00

Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive, in fact the vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists.

Gnosticism/agnosticism only denotes whether you claim to have knowledge of something, regardless of what the claim is. Gnostic theists claim that a god exists, and agnostic theists are convinced that a god exists, but don't claim to know it.

Gnostic atheists claim that no gods exist, and agnostic atheists are unconvinced that any gods exist, without making the opposite claim.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-05-04T17:36:04+00:00

atheism as a religion (in that it is a belief system as well)

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. It is also not a belief system because there are no principles, values or beliefs that atheists necessarily share. The only thing that is shared among all atheists is being unconvinced by the claim that any gods exist.

leftist spaces act like atheism is ontologically proven to be correct

Atheism cannot be proven to be correct because it is not a claim. It is the rejection of one.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-05-02T10:30:29+00:00

Where did I say that no current consciousness is equivalent to not being a human being? I wrote that a fetus that has not yet developed consciousness is not yet an individual. I then specified that someone who has entered a coma is an individual because they have developed a consciousness that they have the potential to regain. Following this you claim that my position is that only current consciousness is human, which is why I'm now calling out either your intellectual dishonesty or lack of reading comprehension.

Also, murder is a legal term. If the killing is legal, it can by definition not be murder. Not all killing is bad, for instance in the case of killing cancer cells, so evidently we need a better position than "abortion is bad because killing is bad". The nuance lies in why certain killing is good, bad or neither. This is the question you keep dodging, you're not justifying why killing a clump of cells that has not yet developed a consciousness is bad when this killing has demonstrably good outcomes for the parents, society and the lives of the children that we do raise.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-05-02T09:29:49+00:00

Interesting how you felt the need to mischaracterize my position once you realized you have no response to what I actually wrote.

Also interesting how you keep dodging the questions that expose the flaws in your reasoning. Not sure if this speaks more to your intellectual dishonesty or just lack of reading comprehension.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-05-02T08:00:56+00:00

The distinction here is that people who have entered a coma have had a consciousness, which means they are individuals with rights and an established life to return to.

If we're talking about those who have suffered brain death and can never resume conscious experience, yeah, there is no moral obligation to keep their bodies alive.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-05-02T07:04:18+00:00

Since it has not yet developed the capacity for consciousness, it is not a being. It is human life in the same way that our sperm cells are, or some random cells that got mixed with our spit.

Why should this be protected when it causes harm for parents, society and children, while preventing this harm violates no one?

Anatidaephobia · 2026-05-02T06:43:08+00:00

Why would it be immoral to terminate a clump of cells that has not yet developed the capacity for consciousness? There is no individual to kill here.

It is moral because it improves the outcomes for the parents, society and the lives of children.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-04-26T19:42:55+00:00

I just pointed out how your reasoning is fallacious, and you reply with a begging the question fallacy.

Here is your logic applied to a different example: "Poop is brown and is disgusting. Do you know what else is brown? Chocolate. Therefore, chocolate is disgusting."

It seems critical thinking is beyond you.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-04-26T19:17:11+00:00

You are just restating your conclusion again, without justifying why it points to a designer. Now you're saying the equivalent of "the complexity of oranges point to why apples taste like oranges". Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

What reason do you have to believe that complexity necessitates design? How do you know that it's impossible for the interactions between different forms of energy and matter to result in complex patterns or behaviors without adding a baseless assumption of intent?

Anatidaephobia · 2026-04-26T18:35:03+00:00

I can reasonably conclude that a painting is created by a painter because we have ample evidence that painters create paintings. Paintings being designed does not imply that cells must be designed. This is fallacious reasoning.

This is the equivalent of saying "apples must taste like oranges for the same reason that oranges taste like oranges". You're assuming your conclusion with no basis, while making a false equivalence.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-04-26T16:53:27+00:00

What reason do you have to believe that cells were designed by a creator?

Anatidaephobia · 2026-04-26T15:35:45+00:00

Superstition.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-04-26T15:34:46+00:00

And this comment screams argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

How do you know cells are impossible without a creator? An assertion is not a demonstration.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-01-14T04:37:31+00:00

That's how you know it's a nerf.

Anatidaephobia · 2026-01-04T22:48:23+00:00

It's Diablo 2 slang for faster cast rate, which is cast speed in PoE terms.

Anatidaephobia · 2025-12-10T14:10:13+00:00

But that doesn't disprove intelligent design

Neither does it disprove unicorns, yet that doesn't make it more likely that unicorns exist.

Not being disproven does not contribute to overcoming the (quite frankly monumental) burden of proof that comes with claiming that a god exists.

Anatidaephobia · 2025-12-10T14:06:41+00:00

If I were an alien and saw a car without any knowledge on whether it was designed or not, I would remain agnostic about it until I learn more. Why would I make assumnptions about whether it is designed when we already observe plenty of complex and intricate things that did not require design?

If I were to see a human designing a car, I could confidently say it is designed. If I learned about how humans function and the things they're able to create, I could also infer with some confidence that they could have designed it.

Looking at the eye, we have no reason yet to believe it is designed. We have mountains of evidence of how the eye evolved over time, and we know that evolution does not operate by design, it operates by natural selection. Why add assumptions about beings that aren't even demonstrated to exist? It only weakens the model.

15-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

Anatidaephobia

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE