Sporefrog

REGISTER SPOREFROG

Does anything happen when two people choose to adventure in the same region? Does whoever gets there first get any potential treasure and the other person gets nothing? Also, is it always only neutral or beneficial to explore?

OOoooooooo, this looks interesting I think my favorite part of this is the new combat system. Specifically, I am very, very happy to see immunities go.

Originally Posted By: Poached Salmon This whole thread strikes me as rabble rousing to be honest. Nothing is more fulfilling to a skeptic than to toss a live grenade in a room of altruists and walk away. Ash might not check this "discussion" for a year or more. The direction it takes is pre-ordained, why bother? Knowing nothing about Ash here, or the history of this discussion on spiderweb, it seems like Salmon's statement here is a really unfair assessment of the situation. As has been said by Student of Trinity and Randomizer, this is an extraordinarily complex matter: modeling climate change requires humongous amounts of variables, and trying to tease out the effect of human additions of CO2 or other compounds to the atmosphere, and then predicting exactly what will happen down the road, is enormously complicated. To attempt to do so has taken decades, with thousands of studies on the matter. I doubt many of us have read through these thousands of scientific manuscripts, and I doubt many of us are qualified to make a statistical assessment of the evidence. So it doesn't surprise me for a minute that people like Ash would have suspicions or confusion on the matter, and that certainly makes it worth discussing. For me, I find no reason to disbelieve the opinion of the many, many, many scientists who have statistically analyzed the evidence and found it to be compelling. Secondly, as has been stated, finding a handful of lying or dishonest scientists is not, in my opinion, tantamount to disproving the entire mountain of data collected by other scientists elsewhere. This is just like intelligent design advocates claiming that the evidence for a particular fossil or a particular feature like the bacterial flagellum is lacking, and thus evolutionary theory is wrong and god did it. Thirdly, as a purely utilitarian argument, it seems logical to act under the assumption that our actions can negatively impact the environment and thus we should treat the situation seriously. There is less to lose if we take a few extra precautions unnecessarily, than if we do nothing and the situation really is dire. These are all discussions worth having, so being dismissive of Ash's skepticism (it's hard to fully interpret someone's intentions based solely on text, so I apologize if I am mischaracterizing Salmon's position) seems a bit distasteful to me.

I think Alorael hit the nail on the head. Ideally, Feynman's description (in cfgauss's post) is what every scientist should strive for. Realistically, nobody should pretend for a minute that academic and intellectual dishonesty aren't commonplace -- scientists are humans, and as such can become too attached to their own pet theories and beliefs, and let this get in the way of finding out the truth. But this doesn't, for a minute, suggest that the entire scientific community is being mislead about climate change. As others have said here and elsewhere, it is in our interests to be more cautious and wrong, than more reckless and wrong.

This thread is amazingly incomprehensible. I love it, keep it up

I hereby submit that tone is too hard to deduce over the internet!

Originally Posted By: Spddin Ignis I prefer classical. Rap is one of my pet peeves, it really annoys me I agreed with you before my ears were graced with this melodious tune:

What fact is that?

Originally Posted By: Monroe Originally Posted By: Poached Salmon Isn't science nothing but the language describing that which is real? Depends on your definition of real, doesn't it? Science takes what our senses perceive for granted. On the other hand, it also has faith in things that aren't real. Numbers for example: you can't go and find a wild '2' out in the world because '2' isn't real. At the bottom of it, yes, science assumes that what we can go and perceive and interact with and observe is, in fact, real. There's no way to Absolutely Prove that just like you cannot absolutely prove that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago along with you and all your previous memories. In this sense we cannot Absolutely Prove anything at all. This view doesn't get you anywhere, though. The power of science, of course, is that it doesn't change -- you can be as sure that dropping a rock on your foot is going to seem pretty real as you can that science works. People who claim that everything is relative and science doesn't actually know anything somehow don't have any problem flying in a plane or using the electric field in their power lines to send light-speed text messages in perfect accordance with scientific theory. Also, it bugs me when people say that science and technology are different things. Basically all technology from the Industrial Revolution onward (like the study of thermodynamics by people like Carnot which was the direct basis for the invention of steam engines) has been developed almost exclusively due to scientific theories. Insofar as science is simply the discovery of truths about the world in which we live, all technology is science. The method of doing this has been refined over time, but the key motivation -- to learn about the world -- has always been the same. Edit: as a quick side note, the study of quantum mechanics led to the discover of the transistor, i.e. the basis for all modern electronics.

Originally Posted By: Propitiate your mods with offerings! Science has very little to say about aliens given our sample size of zero (or, for some purposes, one). Philosophy of science, however, says that alien visitors are not falsifiable and Occam's razor shaves away the Greys. —Alorael, who has to say that science is pretty neat. Without it there would be no font of amusing pseudoscience. Also no internet. Science has nothing to say directly about aliens, but science has a lot of say about many of the facts we can use to shed light on the question. Alien visitors are, as you say, utterly unfalsifiable and unnecessary, however the existence of life on other planets is informed by several key facts: 1) Science estimates that there are around 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) galaxies in the observable universe. For a good illustration of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_ultra_deep_field Our own Milky Way galaxy harbors around 200,000,000,000 (200 billion) stars, and is pretty typical. A low estimate for the average number of stars per galaxy is 100,000,000,000, so to be conservative, the number of stars in the universe is around: 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 10^22 2) Recent data show that having planets around a star is not rare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planets 3) The chemical composition of earth is thought to be not unique, based on what we know about supernovae (where most of our elements came from) and spectrum readings. From this information, one can at least say that the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is certainly plausible, though we won't know for sure until we know a bit more about abiogenesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis So there is evidence that supports the idea. Actual alien encounters on Earth, however, have no credible evidence whatsoever.

I think the Nephil Activist looks okay. He'd make a great addition to an alliance with his abilities, even just to sell stuff for face value. Any word on when NI 10 is going to happen?

Originally Posted By: *i On Vahkos. I've been discussing things and here is what we've been hammering out. * The number of spirits Vahkos may have at a time is capped at three. * Nothing gives outright immunity to spirits * Vahkos may launch as many spirit attacks as he wants * A person killed by a spirit does not become one of Vahkos' spirits Thoughts? I like them all. Having no spirit immunities means that Vahkos will only have to make sure Shanker and Gladwell die by non-spirit means, instead of those plus the priest and the owner of the holy symbol. Using the spirits for kills at the cost of getting more spirits, along with the spirit cap, should lead to a lot less snowballing. I think this is a better alternative to revealing Vahkos' role and having a huge Vahkos vs everyone else scare (though that might be fun to try, we never really saw how it would turn out). SD: If he is only able to launch one at a time still, then I would think there should be a mechanism for him to choose which he wants to keep. Come to think of it, if more than 3 die anyway, will he get to decide which 3 of the possible souls he will keep? Keep in mind if he launches more souls he's more vulnerable. I was terrified that I would get found out so I played cautiously (probably too cautiously) all game.

They were adventurer, bound servant, and shanker.

I'm pretty sure Shanker's role is the antithesis of 'doing nothing.' Unless all of your targets magically happen to ally with themselves, you're supposed to be the one keeping them allied and not killing each other. Edit: Hilariously, I think like three of them WERE allied on day one, but died. They sure could've used some support

Originally Posted By: Sleeping Dragon Yeah, I'm merely repeating what I was just told. I asked how people figured me out, they said Andraste spilled the beans in the beginning. I'm not giving myself any credit, as I accomplished nothing. I am, however, blaming Andraste entirely for my loss. Blame Omlette/Rowen for not showing up I think that killed Andraste's spirit for the game, if anything, though she went out with a bang killing Doomy. I only tried to kill her because I was trying to keep the anama on my good side, who had given me skribbane to kill her. See, vahkos messes everything up.

Has anybody else thought about whether the game has changed for the better now that there are a million items? I feel like a few items adds more strategic elements to the game, but 50 items just adds randomness to the game, since you never know what somebody is going to start with, buy, or craft. Also, I've noticed that I really love the first day of the game, then just get bored, even if I have a huge all-powerful alliance. That might be why I continuously do really well at the beginning, then lose through some generally minor ruling at the end. Once you identify everyone's role, get a huge alliance, and wipe half the game out, the fun part's over.

Originally Posted By: Marlenny You did fairly well choosing your protégées too, so kudos. We basically found out because Andraste told Sporefrog of your role. However, I did contact Duck who revealed me his identity with a list of people who was far too good to have been made up (Nephil Activist, Empire Spy, etc) so you were screwed tongue Yeah, I actually didn't get that from andraste. All I got from her was that the no-show at least wasn't the blademaster. I was selling everyone out trying to get everyone to kill each other. It worked pretty fantastically with the anama. I was about to "join" the anama under Elle, but I was also making sure lots of people knew all the anama members' identities since they're immune to magic and the priest has that anti-vahkos ability (though I held off leaking Elle for a while because he was new and I felt horrible betraying him that quickly. Unfortunately he died anyway.) I just reread the Holy Symbol for the third time, and only now see "cannot be harmed by vahkos' spirits." DOH! Apparently I'm utterly blind, because I read it when the game started, once during the game, and right before I sent out my list of spirits. The holy symbol wouldn't have been a problem if there were any stealth or power magic roles, though. I had no magic spirit capable of throwing at gladwell to kill him, simply because he was power. As a general comment, it seems like the game is a lot more different now that people are more used to playing the game. And as far as Vahkos goes, I think if everyone learns he's in the game, it's honestly really easy to simply make him lose. Shanker can protect herself over and over, and 15 spirits will not touch her. Gladwell has to die by Vahkos' hand or otherwise get killed (which I should've done on day 4 had I actually seen *I restart the game fast enough ) as does the Anama Priest, and the owner of the holy symbol has to die by vahkos' hand. But at the same time, it's extraordinarily easy for Vahkos to ruin everyone's fun. Even if his role is revealed on day 2, I think his presence might alter the flow of the game too much. I don't know whether Vahkos should be reverted to a previous form or still be tweaked into a "Everyone has to work together to stop him" role. I liked the idea until I played him, now I'll be happy never playing a role like that ever again.

Edit: *Me being stupid about the holy symbol* Originally Posted By: Sleeping Dragon Little did I know Andraste had already blown it for me at the beginning. What can you do? Little did I know Andraste had already blown it for me at the beginning. What can you do? What do you mean Andraste blew it for you? And everyone was leading you on, pretending you were still Shanker. I know you had it hard without the mage showing up, but I think you might be giving yourself too much credit here -.-

I AM VAHKOS, PREPARE TO DIE!

If anyone has any skribbane and wants somebody killed, do let me know

I can see what Sarachim is saying about Vahkos, and I certainly agree that he could potentially add a neat, cooperative, everyone vs Vahkos feel to the game. However, any death giving him a spirit does seem a little bit overpowered. I think any decent vahkos player is going to get 3-4 spirits before anyone has any idea who he is, and I really don't see it being possible, remotely, to defeat him at that point. Unless everyone sets out playing the game like vahkos is a huge priority (when he isn't a guaranteed role, this doesn't seem very possible), I just see him not communicating with anyone on day 1, and just getting 3-5 spirits by day 2 and being impossible to kill. I'd love to see the role work though.

I assume "Ability: When anyone dies, " on Vahkos should read "whenever Vahkos kills anyone?"

Personally, there was no strategic reason. I just thought you were being a jerk and liked Sleeping Dragon more. Someone had to die, and I was bound by andraste's early help not to backstab her, and between you and sleeping dragon I preferred SD. We're the darkside, since when are we supposed to be nice allies? Both sleeping dragon and the blademaster were on shanker's list to keep alive.