Mea Tulpa

There may be different EXP available at different points. See for example: http://minmax.ermarian.net/g4/g4q.html However, the reality is that due to the fairly steep curving of experience by level (and the fact that the differences aren't that extreme to begin with) it is unlikely to make a difference of even one experience level. If you ONLY do what your faction leader asks you to in G1, G2 or G5 and don't even visit other zones, obviously that would be different.

Yeah. I think the forced-choice element of it does have some appeal. The problem is that there is NEVER any nuance to it -- and G1 and G2 had more nuance. In G1 you had two sets of factions (Obeyers/Awakened/Takers and Trajkov/Goettsch/Nobody) plus you still had room to make ethical choices within those factions (e.g., Control Four, or of course, what to do with the Geneforge). G2 had one set of four factions, but also had additional ethical choices, around Zakary and around Shanti's end for example. So in G3, the lack of factions AND the lack of extra ethical choices really did seem like a loss. This was tolerable when it was just an issue of having to pick one side or the other to DEAL with, but unlike G4, you couldn't just skate along paying lip service, and by the second island you were forced to do fairly drastic things one way or another. Even when Khyryk showed up -- a powerful NPC with a decidedly neutral viewpoint, who was extremely popular with players -- no extra options opened up. In terms of telling an ethically interesting story, was all this effective? Perhaps. The problem is that it wasn't effective in terms of making the game fun.

I am pretty sure the experience cap is at level 61 (60,000 experience). I am also pretty sure that you can't reach it in G3 without cheating.

Originally Posted By: Dantius (six...? Does Nethergate have priest spells?) Um, every spell in Nethergate is a priest spell. :-)

Well, what we're really talking about here is class/skill mechanics design. While there have been some wrinkles here and there, he's basically done this three or four times: Exile, Nethergate, Geneforge, and you might count Avernum -- you might not since most of its system derives from either Exile or Nethergate. While Jeff has never used F/M/C/T classes -- and indeed has railed against the whole idea of having classes at some length -- he has always marked his skills as F/M/C/T. Exile had fighting skills, magical skills, and "Other Skills" which including picking locks, disarming traps, assassination, item lore, and luck -- all skills traditionally in the rogue's province. Nethergate, Avernum, and Geneforge all inherited this divison of skills. Avernum added prestige skills and Geneforge adding shaping skills, but you can always find a skill to open locked doors in the thief section, a skill to improve your hit rate in the fighter section, etc.

Originally Posted By: Absolutely perfect, peerless PDN There is a summoning class, and scarabs are in many ways similar to tiny red and white balls. There is probably not a "summoning class." Jeff commented that the shaman might summon beasts to aid her, while he was talking about different classes using different tactics. That hardly means the class revolves around summoning. The four classes are transparently a facelift of good old fighter/mage/cleric/thief. We have also already seen recycled spells in the screenshots (Daze and Charm Foe). So I think it is a safe bet that the "shaman" will have a variety of spells, mostly the sort of things Jeff has put in Priest Spells in the past. My high hope for his comment is that it means the shaman won't have Flamestrike, Divine Retribution, or other attack spells that are comparable to or better than sorceror attack spells.

So basically, Plato was a strictly object-oriented philosopher.

Aodare FTW.

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying earlier. There may well be more than one build option that obliterates the enemy, but one of them is probably easier to play than others. Parry obliterates the enemy's offense, making it easy to pick them off, while Dominate obliterates them somewhat more directly, and making a bunch of Vlish obliterates them even MORE directly. Yes, investing in Parry is a bad idea if you want to obliterate things with superpowered Dominate spells. But that's an IF that needs to be spelled out.

If you could always dominate anything, I would agree. Then it would be more or less unbounded power, constrained only by (easily replenishable) essence and energy. You can't dominate everything, however. What happens when you face creations with 100% resistance to mental magic? Or for that matter, what happens when you face a Gazer with 70% resistance and you fail to dominate it twice in a row?

An unidentified person was seen leaving the scene of the crime.

...really? ...I mean, that must really suck.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. DV, I have great respect for your ability to beat the game engine into submission and produce unlikely but functional builds. These are wonderful tactics. But you get swept away by your tactical creations, and you sell them with songs that distort the truth... first just a little, then a bit more, until finally you are convinced that an ingenious but suboptimal tactic is better than anything else. It's a great storytelling capability. That's what made your monograph on the battle magic agent in G3 so compelling. But don't confuse it with rational judgement.

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES what the heck does "arise naturally" mean? It means that there is a natural way to arrive at the concept of numbers with no prior knowledge apart from simply observing the world around you. At the very least, it seems to me that this is the case. Perhaps you can convince me otherwise. Who knows? Okay, so it sounds like we are in agreement that, however "natural" you may find the concept of numbers, that concept did not exist until humans came up with it. Quantities obviously existed, but a way to specify them -- numbers -- did not exist until somebody thought of it. So, numbers are "naturally occuring" in the sense that language is natural, not in the sense that trees, rocks, and hedgehogs are natural.

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel the concept of number comes out of quantity and counting... So, numbers may not manifest themselves physically in reality, but they arise naturally from reality simply by counting. Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES, earlier in the thread what the heck does "arise naturally" mean?

Geneforge does not require going into fight mode in non-peaceful zones. You may want to do that sometimes if you're on Torment and want to avoid reloading, but otherwise it's usually fine to just let combat mode turn on when you see an enemy.

Originally Posted By: Randomizer Jeff did tone down magic a bit in the later games or maybe it's just that creations became so much more powerful. But a pure agent can do so much more on his own as long as you play to his strengths and avoid getting swarmed by playing it as a guardian. Ehh, I dunno. Let's look at what's affected relative class/strategy strength: G1: Creations overpowered due to at-creation formula for stats, Shaper wins by a mile. Agents harder due to lack of spells and low damage of spells compared to melee (d8, Quick Action, AND Anatomy). G2: Parry overpowered, Guardian wins by a mile. Creations still strong, Agents get more spells but spell damage is even lower compared to melee. G3: Vlish overpowered, creation XP system overpowered, Shaper wins by a mile. Melee damage nerfed, so Guardians struggle, while Battle Magic is at its most attractive despite doing less damage than in G2. Daze affects a group now, aiding Agents and Shapers greatly. G4: Most balanced game, Wingbolts are least balanced aspect. Less creation XP available though. Lifecrafters, Infiltrators, and Serviles are all excellent choices. G5: More creation XP available, giving Lifecrafters an edge. Infiltrators remain a decent choice. Quick Action nerfed, hurting Serviles.

I should probably count my blessings that you took my words so kindly and shut up. I'm bad at that :-D Everything you say is true, but when you write that people were "claiming that the guardian was now at the top of the heap," it makes your writing sound less credible... because the guardian _was_ at the top of the heap in G2. You don't have to like G2 Parry, but don't be solipsistic about its power either. Originally Posted By: Delicious Vlish Remember, you, I, and Synergy, we are the Shaping Council, and since when has the Council ever made a mistake? (Taken from an ancient discussion on tactics where an observer commented how much like the council we were) LOL! Hah, I never saw that. That is particularly amusing given the Encyclopedia Triad. I suppose now we're going to have to fight over which one of us is the Agent on the Council, and who is stuck being the Shaper and the Guardian!

In Spiderweb games, mechanics are often similar or nearly identical between different games in a series. So as players of those games, we often get used to the idea that the same min-maxxed build -- or the same element of such a build -- will be effective throughout a series. However, this is not always the case, and G2 Parry is a case in point. It is certain possible to have a very, very effective Agent in G2 that does not use Parry. However, it will be just as effective -- and much easier -- to run an Agent or Guardian that relies on Parry. That's just how the mechanics are. Mechanics never trump personal preference, of course, if you don't like Parry. But neither does personal preference obliterate the objective reality of the mechanics. Originally Posted By: Delicious Vlish But, hey, what do I know. It isn't like I have a long history of playing Agents or writing the book on effective Agent tactics or anything. Assertion based on appeal to authority? Where the authority is yourself? I gotta say this is poor form. You did write probably the best explanation of how to play an Agent -- back in G3 when Agents were hot stuff -- and you do have a long history of great contributions to tactics. That doesn't mean anybody should assume you are right. It's the same thing with anyone else. Take me. I've done more empirical research into game mechanics than anyone else here, produced more formulas and statistics and extrapolated more evasive mechanics. But that doesn't mean I'm always right, and indeed I have been corrected on many occasions. If people believe what I say, I want it to be because my methods are transparent, my evidence is robust, and my reasoning is clearly explained. Nobody should trust me to always get it right, and that goes for you, too.

"Your most precious and rarest gemstones crushed into a fine powder," yes. Ahem. Let's keep this thread non-locked.

I believe the mangled backstory refers to the fact that she has given significantly different versions of her early experiences, especially in Drypeak Valley, in different games.

Parry is insane in G2 to the point that a Guardian or Agent investing solely in Parry will outclass most other characters. Yes, it really is that good. It blocks everything almost all of the time, reduces damage on those rare occasions that something gets through, and frequently ripostes as well.

What Monroe said. Or more precisely, what the heck does "arise naturally" mean? Do you mean "are typically arrived at by the human mind due to their being the simplest and most efficient tool for dealing with abstract quantities"? That's a reasonable statement (albeit not immune from debate) that points to some of the relevant qualities of numbers as a class. But let's not pretend we're talking about spontaneous generation here. This is a clear case of intelligent design!

For G5, I have to say Rawul. He isn't an appealing character, of course, but he was a refreshingly plausible and well-delineated character.

Yeah, that makes sense. An infinitesimal number would be something along the lines of point zero repeating one, right? As much as I dislike it conceptually, you can use algebra to prove that the above number equals zero.