*i

ToddMcF2002, while it is perfectly fine to critique aspects of games, please do so in a polite and professional way.

Quote: I have some things i really don't want in Avernum: EFTP, the mechanic in Avadon where an enemy is close to you and you and him can only move one space. That began to be very annoying, because my Blademaster was a terrible archer and Nathalie got all the good bows. The stop after one space is about balancing combat, and preventing total mobility on the part of either side. You can actually form a front line in many cases to keep your spellcasters safe. Also, it makes running away more difficult. Finally, it makes archery actually useful. I don't see a flaw in the game design because of your Blademaster. Jeff gave you the option in the system to allocate the points to make him a good archer. On the other hand, if, after allocating 8 skill points into archery, he was still a bad archer with a respectable bow, then you have a point.

AethirWeb - Graphics are not free; they are actually quite pricey. Jeff has to pay real artists for these things. This is not laziness, but good business sense. Flashy graphics have never been the focus on these games for the simple reason is they cost too much to justify the few extra sales that would result. He does the best with his limited resources, and things slowly improve in this department.

I believe it is a small experience boost.

If you want to progress the game, you have to return to Avadon.

At the bottom of every screenshot (except the map one) is the "task bar", and two of the buttons look to be the traditional mage and priest spell icons. Unless these are placeholders, it's likely the mage/priest dichotomy is preserved. We have yet to learn about the details of how spells are given out, whether it be Avernum/Geneforge purchasing or Avadon skill purchasing style.

Thus far, Jeff seems to have retained a "Mage" and "Priest" category from the screenshots. Perhaps beneath that are sub-levels where certain skills enhance certain spells. If not something like that, then, yes, we're back to Exile I where you quickly run out of spellcaster things to invest.

She will not join you if you decide to unseat Redbeard.

Death Knight, you know that you can retrain your characters (without using cheat codes) in Avadon?

VCH, please watch you language and be polite.

This is getting off topic. It ends now. Also, let's try to keep these boards family friendly.

Dantius: Semantics, as you said. I think the intent of my statement about where we don't want this discussion going is clear.

Let's all try to avoid statements that could provoke nationalist hostilities, okay?

Yes! Welcome back Lilith! Sorry I forgot to make a thread. Been busy lately. She pretty much got modded just as I was walking out the door.

My vote is to keep the password functionality out. It always was easy to defeat in the past, and plain silly in the days with source code access. A BoE scenario is not your online bank account, and there are legitimate needs to players to look at coding to get past puzzles and such if that makes their experience more fun.

No soup for you!

Solberg, I think the part that is subjective and could be construed as an attack on Catholicism is where you stated it has done the most damage. Since you have no objective way of quantifying damage to science or other smaller Christian sects, this becomes merely a matter of opinion. I don't think you crossed any line, but you are starting to encroach into that gray zone where discussions could easily turn into offensive.

Tarl disappeared not long after releasing Tatterdemalion if memory serves. By the time the Ikonboards, precursor to these, materialized, he was long gone.

You will not be able to find him until late in the game. Don't worry about it for now.

Just to repeat something Jeff said: Quote: Were you my fan, but the Avadon demo turned you off? Well, here's a challenge. We have a one year no questions asked money-back guarantee. Buy the game. Give it a few hours on Hard or Torment difficulty. (I suggest until the boss fight with Zhossa Mindtaker.) Still disappointed? Then I don't want your money. You get it back. My lips to God's ear.

Note that you cannot find him until the endgame, even though the Duke mentions him earlier.

There's always a US Passport. It works, but generally not a good idea to carry that document around with you unless you absolutely have to. As for driving, yes, some places you can get away without it. Other places you really cannot, especially if you live in more rural areas or your work requires you to travel a lot between cities.

Probably not another game, but remakes are possible several years down the road.

Niemand, my point is that war has taken a new form than the paradigms that shaped the current rules of engagement. As you said, direct attacks between major powers is insane these days and has been since 1945. Not saying we need to abolish the rules of engagement for conventional warfare, but that warfare is evolving in ways long dead leaders never anticipated and will need to be modified accordingly. Granted, this is entirely a side discussion. Back on track, the threat is when non-state entities acquire a nuclear weapon whether stolen or, more likely, provided by a (typically rogue) state. Right now, we don't really have formalized rules of war to deal with such entities, yet, under that circumstance, they provide perhaps the gravest threat to the established powers. Here's the scenario we now face with Al Qaeda: suppose a nation state has strong reason to believe based on both intelligence and public statements that an established non-state group wishes (and arguably has the means) to acquire a nuclear weapon and detonate it on its soil. What is the appropriate response said state should take when dealing with members and leaders of that organization? My personal feeling is in that scenario, the non-state organization poses an existential threat to the nation and military, rather than civil/criminal, methods are appropriate.

I primarily agree with SoT here. Part of the problem with a lot of these high ideals of warfare is they arose post World War I, designed to try and "civilize" mass conflict between global superpowers. With the advent of nuclear weaponry, such type of warfare really has become obsolete. Indeed, I suspect rules of warfare and international law will need to evolve to encompass and accept these new threats. Then again, these threats are largely like how our ancestors dealt with "barbarians". For centuries, the state had an almost insurmountable advantage over non-national groups. Unfortunately, with the proliferation of things such as nuclear weapons, we're back to the point where such groups pose a real existential threat. Leaders of such organizations that both pose an existential threat and have declared an intent to do so should be treated more as members of the armed forces than civilian leaders. The primary difference is that a leader of recognized nation state bares responsibility for a fairly large number of civilian interests. The likes of Osama Bin Laden are not constrained by these; no one really considers him their sovereign and he does not have a nation to run with people to feed.