Quiconque

Wikipedia links to this and calls it "Tolkien's own cover design for The Two Towers": Here is a larger version of the image. The tower on the left would seem to imply Minas Morgul AKA Minas Ithil "The Tower of the Moon." Although Minas Tirith is unambiguously white, and white is also the color of Saruman, Minas Ithil itself is described as silvery-white (at least originally). The real seller, for me, are the nine circles at the base of the tower, which must represent the nine rings of the nine Nazgul who used Minas Morgul as their headquarters. This is lent further strength by what must be a Fell Beast (the winged steeds of the Nazgul) flying between the two towers. Minas Tirith is definitely not black. However, Orthanc and Barad-Dur were _both_ black towers. The pentagram over the black tower surely implies the use of magic -- but that could implicate either Sauron in Barad-Dur, OR Saruman in Orthanc. I tip the scales toward Barad-Dur due to (1) the lines by the black tower door, which could suggest the bridge to the entrance of Barad-Dur; (2) the absence of anything representing the Circle of Isengard; and (3) the Fell Beast -- I don't think they were ever visited Orthanc in the books. HOWEVER, Tolkien changed his mind frequently, especially in his letters; and he has stated that "The Two Towers" was his best attempt at making a name that covered both book 3 and book 4. If Orthanc is _not_ one of the Two Towers, it is difficult to see how that name covers book 3 at all. In conclusion: I have no idea.

Since you quoted out of context, Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES Well, we know what the Blades of Exile source code looks like, and it seems totally implausible that much of it could have been used for Nethergate. The dialogue engine was unchanged. But neither the graphics code, nor the combat code, applied at all. I suspect that lines, and maybe occasional segments of code were copied in, for dialogue and certain UI elements like item description boxes. But the vast majority of the BoE code simply could not be converted into Nethergate, it would have to be rewritten entirely. The point is that graphics (including location maps and tilesets, as well as most display code) and combat -- which make up the vast majority of the BoE code -- do not apply at all.

THERE... ARE... TWO... TOWERS!!!!!

Yep, it does. I thought there were 5 value classes though, including in BoE. Anyway, the highest value class is only dropped by a select few creatures, like Elderan, Limoncelli, and the dragons.

Originally Posted By: Cryolemon Would it be possible to make a type of terrain that could be destroyed by attacking though? It wouldn't have to be the default wall terrain, it could just look the same. Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel Attackable "terrain" is already possible. Just make a monster that cannot move. If you want actual terrain that you can attack, THEN the answer is just NO.

Fnord is correct. Also, Fnord's guess at "Protection from Weapons" makes a lot of sense.

Yeah, this is a very specific change, that most scenarios would probably not want to use, and that would entail fairly major changes to a few aspects of the game engine. Not gonna happen.

Damage reduction was also the way to go in the Exile series. But Nethergate is the KING of evasion -- it's the only game where you can actually reach 100% evasion, and you can do so relatively easily.

Hmm... that IS tempting. I suppose you'd have to avoid raising Luck or other such stats, though, to keep the effect going? Might be worth it anyway just for the faster rate of skill point increase.

Very interesting for original Nethergate -- given the uniquely NON-scaling XP system, this means that nearly all those traits are a bad buy!

Yes. It isn't secret, is it?

Hmm. I also thought that the editor was included with the game purchase. However, I just checked and I notice that the last time I re-registered Exile 2 (to replay it on a new system after five years), which was in 2008, I sent SW both the game and editor codes, and SW sent me keys for both the game and the editor. HOWEVER, I also notice that the ordering web site has a blank for the game code, but no blank (or mention) for the editor code. This really does make me think that the editor is a giveaway now. Does anyone know for sure? The ordering web site should probably be updated either to say "editor included free of charge" or to put in a blank for an editor code.

They are all user-controllable, there is just one who you play as and others who you can have join and leave as you like.

It's hard to tell if this is (a) actual spam, ( an established member making a stupid joke with a fake account, or © a new member lured here by the promise of free thesis copies. Either way, this topic is done. Using this message board to circumvent fee-for-access online businesses -- even minor circumvention that's for a good cause -- is not allowed under the Code of Conduct. It is now becoming a pattern, and needs to be addressed. Therefore, everybody please stop doing it. Thank you!

*facepalm*

Google has at least part of the site cached as of a week ago: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ccDePmatFrIJ:www.silverchat.com/~silver/Avernum/+avernum+annotated+maps&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Good question! In fact, not quite. The sentences above (both of them) have 2 different clauses: (1) He went to the doctor (2) ...who cured cancer. In the first clause, "doctor" is the object of the preposition "to." If we used WHO there it would indeed change case and be WHOM: "To whom did he go?" However, in the second clause, "who" is the subject. "Who" indeed _refers_ to the doctor, but that is irrelevant to its case (which determines whether you use "who" or "whom") -- case is just based on how it fits into its OWN clause.

No, this was a specific (and fairly famous) site for A1 and A2.

To try and put it more simply: In this context ONLY: THAT answers the question "which one(s)?" WHICH on the other hand does not answer that question, it just provides more information. Examples: He went to the house. Which house? The house THAT Alorael built. He went to the house THAT Alorael built. (as opposed to the other houses) Also possible: He went to the house, WHICH Alorael built. This is also possible, but unlikely. In this case the information about Alorael building the house is not necessary to determine which house. You could use this if there was only one house being discussed. If there were two houses side by side, one built by Alorael and one built by TM, you'd need to use THAT to distinguish which one you meant. What may add to the confusion is the following: * Parallel pronouns for animate persons He went to the doctor. Which doctor? The doctor WHO cured cancer. He went to the doctor WHO cured cancer. (as opposed to the other doctors) He went to the doctor, WHO cured cancer. * Different use of WHICH in the same place: He went to the doctor, WHICH upset him.

It's very plausible that Alwan got it wrong. He never seemed particularly smart. It's also plausible that there are redundancies in the Drakon lexicon. Heck, it could be both.

I wouldn't call the distinction "just technical." It isn't critical to basic comprehension, and most native English speakers probably wouldn't label either one as "wrong." However, if you asked them if one version sounded slightly more correct, I expect most people would choose the one with "that", for similar reasons to what Master1 found on google above. Basically, "that" functions as a quantifier -- it tells you which subset of a type of thing you are talking about. "Which" does not tell you that. Confusion arises, however, because the adjective form of "which" points to a quantifier and corresponds to the conjunction form of "that", NOT the conjunction form of "which": "Which house is it?" "It's the house that Alorael built." Conjunction "which" offers the same opportunities for description (because it is syntactically similar), but does not quantify: "That house, which Alorael built, was destroyed by Alec." This is not an artificial grammatical distinction like not ending sentences with prepositions. It is really how people talk.

I strongly agree that G4 is better than G5. G5 feels aimless. G4 has some gritty charm to it. The killing comparison for G5 is G2, which is also a more open-ended game, but feels much more put-together.

and other platforms. Ultima wasn't DOS-centric, and IIRC it was first written for the Apple II. And, um, yes, there were other problems with it. Combat comes to mind.

Sucia Island was where shaping began... MILLENIA ago, when it was the tribal ancestors of the Shapers doing it. Then Sucia became unimportant for a long time, and then at some point Shapers rediscovered whatever was special about it, and it became a research center. I'm not sure it's ever specified how long it operated for -- I'd guess somewhere between 50 and 200 years. THEN Sucia was totally abandoned, and that's the 200 years before G1 point. It's very unclear how this is connected to the Mera-Tev, but it must be somehow. As regards duplicitous -uss, two different words can be spelled and spoken the same way, and that goes for suffixes too. For a simple example look at English -er, which is commonly used both to denote agency (a lighter lights things) or a comparative (something is lighter if it has more light to it). So while I agree that -uss is probably an unintentional conflation, it actually is quite realistic as it is.

SoT: I think the real difference is more in the realm of game theory, since politics is more about maneuvering your ideas to win the game and not directly about having the best ideas. Suppose I have two actions available, one will earn me 4 points and one will take 5 points away from a single opponent. If I'm playing a 5-player game, I will usually want to use the point-earning action, unless it is at the end of the game and I know it is down to me and 1 or 2 others. But in a 2-player game, there is no reason to ever use the point-earning action -- the point-removing action is just better. Similarly, in a 2-player game, both players can put a ridiculous amount of resources into fighting over one little thing, i.e., a focused arms race. In a 5-player game doing that probably means that you'll be spread thin somewhere else, and one of the other players will be able to take advantage of that. Trollilith: "Hardcore left" may not be the right term for what I was describing; as with what I said about Republicans, I was talking about the people who seldom to never vote for someone who's not a Democrat. There are a lot of those people.