Aoslare

Quote: Originally written by DrPraetorious: ...a servile/lifecrafter... it's the weakest class overall, I'd say. It just became quite difficult to take you seriously.

I suppose it's possible guilds/sects/whatever exist in some form. But if they had any relevance, power, or size whatsoever, I would expect to have heard something about them in G4, if not the earlier games. G4 does not take place in an isolated corner of the world, not by a longshot.

The word "guild" (including plural and possessive permutations) appears exactly once in all four Geneforge games (I just searched). There's a sign in Valeya (in G4) for a Woodworker's Guild.

It doesn't say "guilds," it says "sects." The exact line is: "The Shapers are the oldest, most respected, most secretive, and most powerful of the magical sects." That's the very first line of G1. Since we haven't seen ANY other human magical sects, I think it's safe to assume this has been retconned out.

20-30% hit after a curse? What difficulty level is this?

Yeah, Cryoa are the new Vlish, in some ways anyway.

What, you didn't like the 50 gp Piercing Crystals?

Quote: Originally written by Stillness: This model is not as good as design because right off the bat it doesn’t deal with the parts that actually make vision irreducible. It only deals with one part. And even that is vague. We all know that someone with substantial intelligence can put parts together to make a machine work. We don’t see nature doing it though... (snip) In terms of observable evidence purposeful agency is clearly superior! But how does design/agency/whatever deal with those parts? With our current understanding of evolution, it isn't possible to explain the way things happen in sufficient detail for you. I want to hear an explanation of how design explains things in comparable detail. I'm willing to let you off the hook for the nature of the design itself, because that's outside the scope of this discussion just like the origin of life is. My question is: once that design had been made, what actually happened in the world of physical objects to get from organisms without eyes (or whatever "irreducibly complex" characteristic you prefer) to organisms with eyes? Evolution doesn't explain those mechanisms in perfect detail, but it does attempt to explain them. // IF your answer is "spontaneous creation of eyes" please give the evidence suggesting spontaneous creation happens. You don't contest that evolution happens on a small scale, so you agree there is an analogue for it, although you take issue with the mechanics involved in extending the analogy; fine. I contest spontaneous creation. I say it doesn't happen at all, on any scale. Prove that it happens. //

They're both handled by SDFs, so yes. Find a place you know reputation changes, look it up in the scripts, and you can figure out the relevant SDFs. IIRC the reputation SDF was 100,something.

Quote: Originally written by Stillness: Quote: how the heck does intelligent design seem more plausible or likely (as you have been arguing) under these criteria? When have we observed intelligent design of species? (Don't say we've observed humans designing things and that's analagous to ID, because we've also observed speciation analogous to common descent.) Where are the witnesses? How can we reproduce it? Excellent! Who said we're not getting anywhere? They are the same. We need to figure which one fits better. You cut off the first part of my first sentence! That's why it seems like we're getting somewhere! If you put that back in, it's pretty clear that I do not agree with a statement like "They are the same." But if you feel they are the same in terms of observable evidence, why have you been arguing that the evidence better supports ID?

Capping hit chance at 95% (and 5%) is a very old RPG convention that stems from D&D and its 1d20 combat rolls. It has displayed remarkable robustness for a rule that isn't essential, showing up in RPGs all over the place. That may be because it makes sense. You can always get a lucky dodge somehow, can't you?

No. There is a Reputation stat, but more is better (as opposed to having to choose between pleasing different factions). You get more reputation mainly from completing quests and helping people.

Quote: Originally written by Stillness: As I said before, I do believe it’s impossible for evolution to make these systems, but my argument is not “it’s impossible.” So if I said, “it can’t happen” that was not intended to be the strength of my position. AHA! Okay, now this makes sense. Correct me if I'm wrong Stillness, but basically, you keep track of what you believe separately from what you argue in the debate. That makes sense. It's very reasonable to say "I believe X and Y, but on the strength of evidence I can only argue Y." The only problem is that you tend to mention your beliefs in the same breath as your argument, which makes it hard for others to distinguish between them. Quote: But you have hit on a problem that I have been identifying from the beginning regarding NDT/common descent. It deals with origins and is not operational science. It’s impossible to observe, there are no witnesses (at least none forthcoming), and we can’t reproduce it... Putting aside several issues related to how evolution is being evaluated here, I really have to ask: how the heck does intelligent design seem more plausible or likely (as you have been arguing) under these criteria? When have we observed intelligent design of species? (Don't say we've observed humans designing things and that's analagous to ID, because we've also observed speciation analogous to common descent.) Where are the witnesses? How can we reproduce it?

Gah.

Ooh... you know what else this means? It's possible to get the AP bonuses from both the Cryos Spear and Quicksilver Bulwark, which means you can get 1 AP higher than we originally thought. 8 base +4 spear, shield, sandals, armor +1 Fast on Feet +2 Quick Strike -- 15 before Haste 22 with Haste Fast on Feet is inconsistent, of course, but you can still get to 14 without FoF. With Haste, that gives you 21 AP per turn. It wasn't possible to break 19.5 without Fast on Feet, before. Now you can get a reliable four hits per turn. Woo. Four a 4 person party, this makes it easier to get the 4th PC to 10 AP per turn using high Quick Strike as well, since there are so many weapons that boost QS.

*blinks* Is this really true? Wow, what a powerful undiscovered exploit. Wow.

Quote: Originally written by Stillness: I see the difference, but as of yet have seen no detailed theory as to how such a thing could occur. The problem is that you haven't been saying "This is conceivable in theory, but I haven't seen a detailed theory as to how it could occur." You've been saying "This is impossible. It just can't happen."

Fresh Exiles. No, seriously. The Darkside Loyalists, assuming they have some real political power, make this plausible as a plot device. The real limiting factors are that we know from other comments of Jeff's that you can still be humans, nephils, or sliths, and you can still use the same unusually varied set of skills. There aren't many occupations that welcome multiple races and have such a varied skill set. Adventurer. Bandit. Uh... Unspecified Services, which is basically the same as the first two. Prisoners? Hostages? Mercenaries?

Quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: You start as a Chitrach. DIE. But seriously, this isn't even funny.

"How do you measure specified complexity?" I think it would help, Stillness, if you just explained in your own words. You don't need to give lots of details, and it's totally OK if you want to measure it qualitatively rather than quantitatively. But "qualitative" is a quality of measurement, it doesn't actually explain how it is measured. That's what needs explaining. If you mean to define it the way the Supreme Court defined indecency -- "I know it when I see it" (but can't explain how I make that distinction) -- then just come out and say so.

The first replacement topic can't be replied to, Nioca.

The original topic was eaten by the message board software, and the replacement topic appears to have fallen prey to a similar bug. Here's a second try at a replacement topic for the "Regulation" debate. N.B.: Cat pictures will be edited out mercilessly. If you break the thread, justice will be delivered Shaper style, preferably with a Discipline Wand.

Synergy, don't be a -- oh, wait. Never mind.

Andrew Hunter has also been doing art for Spiderweb since the early days of Exile, FWIW.

As Jeff has commented before, there are elements of the Geneforge engine that lend themselves less readily to scenario design than Avernum's. The big one is that it's much less generalizable. BoE and BoA have the potential to fit practically any world you can imagine, and can fit most generic fantasy worlds without significant added effort. Geneforge really only fits the Geneforge world. This would severely limit the number of scenarios likely to emerge from Blades of Geneforge, and would even more severely limit the number of people who would even be interested in using the scenario editor. Also: One of the easiest and most popular ways to customize BoE and BoA scenarios is with custom graphics. Geneforge engine graphics require more frames, and altogether a lot more work to get a set of sprites that actually looks reasonable. The poor showing of BoA is the nail in the coffin, but I wouldn't expect to see BoG even if BoA had seen Avernum 4 level sales.