*i

Blast from the past. Those crazy 90's.

Beta testing sounds like lots of fun. In reality, it can be very frustrating as well. If you agree to beta test, make sure you are willing to sink hours of your time into playing a game that will be broken in parts and be willing to replay those parts repeatedly to help Jeff fix the problem. Also, make sure you are the type that is good at taking notes and documenting. This is valuable to ensure the community gets as bug-free of a game as possible.

Waterweb Mac/Windows Author: Handyman Levels: 15-22 Version: 1.0.0 [composite=eyJ0aXRsZSI6IldhdGVyd2ViIiwidGlkIjoiMTQyMDIiLCJ0YWdzIjpbImF2ZXJudW0gdW5pdmVyc2UiLCJkYXJrIiwiZGlmZmljdWx0IiwibGluZWFyIiwibXlzdGVyeSIsInBsb3QgaGVhdnkiLCJzZXJpb3VzIiwic2hvcnQiXSwiYmdhc3AiOnsiNSI6MSwiNCI6MiwiMyI6MiwiMiI6MSwiMSI6MH19] Composite Score: 3.5/5.0 Best: 16.67% (1/6) Good: 33.33% (2/6) Average: 33.33% (2/6) Substandard: 16.67% (1/6) Poor: 0.00% (0/6) [encouragenecro] [/composite] Keywords: Avernum universe, Dark, Difficult, Linear, Mystery, Plot heavy, Serious, Short

Not wanting to put words in Ahbleza's mouth, but I think he meant by the technical sophistication of the scenario design. Algiers was written early when Alcritas was still learning the Editor. This can be good in that the nodework is fairly boilerplate, but the downside is that some things may not be coded up well and may be difficult to follow. Can't say this for sure, as I have never cracked open the scenario in question, but I can say from experience my first works were not nearly as smooth as my later ones.

Strange Gildra Mac/Windows Author: Benjamin Earles Levels: 13-18 Version: 1.0.0 [composite=eyJ0aXRsZSI6IlN0cmFuZ2UgR2lsZHJhIiwidGlkIjoiMTQxNzEiLCJ0YWdzIjpbImF2ZXJudW0gdW5pdmVyc2UiLCJtdWx0aXBsZSBlbmRpbmdzIiwibXlzdGVyeSIsInNlcmlvdXMiXSwiYmdhc3AiOnsiNSI6MCwiNCI6MCwiMyI6MiwiMiI6MCwiMSI6MH19] Composite Score: 3.0/5.0 Best: 0.00% (0/2) Good: 0.00% (0/2) Average: 100.00% (2/2) Substandard: 0.00% (0/2) Poor: 0.00% (0/2) [encouragenecro] [/composite] Keywords: Avernum Universe, Mystery, Multiple Endings, Serious

Fine by me. Go for it.

The Black Crown, Part 1 Mac/Windows Author: Duck Difficulty: 5-10 Version: 1.0.0 [composite=eyJ0aXRsZSI6IlRoZSBCbGFjayBDcm93biwgUGFydCAxIiwidGlkIjoiMTQxNTAiLCJ0YWdzIjpbImRlc2lnbmVyLXNwZWNpZmljIHVuaXZlcnNlIiwiZmlyc3QgaW4gYSBzZXJpZXMiLCJsaW5lYXIiLCJteXN0ZXJ5Iiwic2hvcnQiXSwiYmdhc3AiOnsiNSI6MCwiNCI6MCwiMyI6MiwiMiI6MSwiMSI6MH19] Composite Score: 2.7/5.0 Best: 0.00% (0/3) Good: 0.00% (0/3) Average: 66.67% (2/3) Substandard: 33.33% (1/3) Poor: 0.00% (0/3) [encouragenecro] [/composite] Keywords: Designer-Specific Universe, Linear, Mystery, Short, First in a Series

Alorael, completely right here. Biological agents would be far more effective than using a radioactive dispersant. It's extremely hard, if not impossible, to get enough radioactive material concentrated to be sufficiently deadly when dispersed without being instantly lethal in a concentrated form such that it would preclude its assembly.

Quote: It's not nuclear, but it's almost as devastating. I would have to respectfully disagree with you there. In terms of destructive power and impact upon life, a nuclear explosion is far more devastating than a dirty bomb can ever be. The one thing the two have in common is the release of radioactive fallout. While that from a reactor release is somewhat worse over the long term than a nuclear explosion for reasons of nuclear physics, deaths from fallout whether immediate or from cancer eventually are only a small portion (perhaps 5% at most) of deaths you would expect from a nuclear explosion. Most of the radiation related deaths from a nuclear explosion come from the release of prompt gamma rays and neutrons. Beyond this, you have vast quantities of thermal radiation capable of vaporizing anyone within a mile of the explosion and severely burning anyone within another mile. However, most deaths are from the shockwave whether direct or from debris of falling buildings. Furthermore, a vast number of people will be killed in the conflagration ignited by the heat of the blast. All of this is pretty grim stuff and not fun to discuss. However, a dirty bomb or reactor explosion lacks all those elements in the above paragraph, which account for over the overwhelming number of deaths. If we look at Chernobyl statistics, the radiation related deaths that we can directly attribute to the accident were those within the confines of the plant (those unfortunate firefighters) which is around 50. Beyond that, it becomes far more murky. Conservative estimates (based on gross extrapolations of effects of exposures from radiation from the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) estimate that 4,000 additional cases of cancer may result, but the actual number is likely to be far less. Even assuming the worst-case scenario, this is still far less than 100,000+ deaths one may expect from a nuclear explosion.

As far as the origin of oldbie in the SW community, it's almost as old as the forums themselves and goes back perhaps even to the Ikonboard days, even though I do not recall its use there. I was not heavily involved with Misc, where a brunt of the discussion on that sort of thing would have occurred. Perhaps you should bring it up with TM. He might know more. I would find it conceivable that it was used on Ikonboard to describe people who's histories dated back to the Lyceum or Aceron's forums.

Quote: With a nuclear explosion like Chernobyl, it wouldn't surprise me if Geiger counters worldwide went off to some degree. I should point something out that is a common misconception about Chernobyl and nuclear reactor accidents. A nuclear reactor cannot explode like a nuclear bomb. At Chernobyl, there was no mushroom cloud explosion. There was indeed an explosion from the rapid overheating of the reactor that blew apart the building holding the reactor. This caused part of the core to be ejected. Much of the additional radioactive release was from the burning of the reactor core that was now exposed to the atmosphere. What is the difference between an explosion at a nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb? The biggest difference is the raw energy release. The explosive power in a reactor accident is thousands or even millions times less than a nuclear weapon explosion depending on the size of the bomb. Why is it different? The fundamental principle in maximizing yield from a nuclear weapon is to get as many fission (or fusion) reactions as possible before the device tears itself apart causing the explosion. To do this, you need to bring a system into a certain configuration very quickly. Bombs are specifically designed for this, whereas reactors are not. In a reactor, you cannot possibly get even close to enough nuclear reactivity fast enough to do this. The configuration is all wrong and the time scales in a reactor accident are factors of a thousand to a million or more too slow depending on the reactor design. Not saying what happened at Chernobyl was good or benign, but it was not a nuclear explosion how the term is conventionally defined.

Quote: Okay, so there isn't a distressing level of radiation there now. But there was, however briefly, a pretty seriously distressing level of radiation there. Presumably that would have had an immediate impact (if not an immediately visible impact) on animal life there when the event took place. And okay, that was 25 years ago -- but wouldn't it make sense for population and maybe even population diversity to still look different 25 years after such an event? Most likely the diversity of population would be different in accordance with the laws of Darwin following any life-altering disaster (e.g. a major fire or flood). First, you would have preference for survival amongst those species genetically predisposed to surviving a catastrophe. Once the danger has averted, a new equilibrium will be reached by a combination the population of survivors and any other forms that migrate into the area. In the case of the Chernobyl disaster, you had a couple things. First was a large radioactive release by the spreading of radioactive fallout from a burning nuclear reactor. Life closest to the plant was surely affected in very negative ways. As we go further away from the site, the answer is less clear because the doses received were in that area where cancer rates would be increased (if a lifeform lives long enough, which, in the wild is not always the case). Even further away, we are even less certain as to the biological impact. The second thing was the long term total evacuation of humans, a superpredator if you will. This was largely done as a precaution and not necessarily as a life saving and necessary measure (don't want Pavel living on a radioactive hotspot). The removal of a dominant predator from any ecosystem usually has a significant impact. Things I have read suggest this had the largest effect in terms of biodiversity there.

Quote: Actually, while it's obvious that wildlife would be unhealthy and likely to have markedly reduced lifespans, it's not obvious to me that there would be fewer species in Chernobyl. If that's among the studies findings, and I honestly can't tell if it is or not, then that says something about species' competitiveness under radioactive selective pressure. On the contrary Alo, it is not obvious at all that wildlife would be "unhealthy and likely to have markedly reduced lifespans". Certainly, no one argues that extreme doses of radiation are hazardous for life, what is far more questionable is how elevated, but smaller doses impact a population. This is still a subject of vigorous debate amongst the scientific community. But wait a minute, was not the land around Chernobyl rendered uninhabitable by vast quantities of radiation? I'm sure you can still find isolated hot spots and the area within and immediately surrounding the plant would indeed be quite toxic, but, by and large, the levels of radiation from fallout are not in, or even close to, the range where it would necessarily induce radiation poisoning. Also remember, that it has been 25 years since the event and that the radioactivity from the fallout has been, in accordance with the laws of physics, decreasing exponentially since then. Consider that natural background radiation varies quite a bit over the world. The lowest areas are typically found at sea level and increase with elevation because of cosmic rays. However, certain areas have marked increases as a result of certain natural mineral deposits. Some areas have a dose rate of ten to twenty times higher than at sea level; in these cases no statistically significant impacts on human lifespans or cancer rates have been observed. But wait again, is that not natural radiation and the stuff from Chernobyl fundamentally different? While the isotopes emitting the radiation would be different, the radiation itself is no different from what you get everyday from natural sources. Your cells do not care whether it was struck by a gamma ray from the decay of a naturally occurring isotope of radon or one from synthetically made plutonium-241. WIth this in mind and the fact that typical radiation levels are not to the point of grave concern, it is not surprising at all that life is doing just fine.

Quote: We should strike a compromise by balancing the game but modernizing the scenarios too. Just an idea. Indeed this is just an idea. Easy to suggest, but I would argue it nigh impossible to do in practice. I've seen the long history of scenario design here and I know this will not happen. Legacy preserving flags are the only tractable way to go.

I would have to agree with CM here. Us scenario designers back in the day were quite aware of how unbalanced things were even if we did not have the mathematical formulas back then. Indeed, we wrote and balanced scenarios that made certain assumptions about the game mechanics. Changing the core workings, unbalanced as they may be, will change the game balance of many scenarios. For instance, fights were balanced pretty much assuming that a player would make liberal use of haste and bless. Weakening them would likely increase the difficulty of many scenarios dramatically. This would be undesirable. Now, I would support a version where you could have different mechanics that would be far more balanced. Nonetheless, legacy should be preserved somehow. Perhaps a flag in the scenario file indicating whether it is a legacy scenario or not?

This decision will come off as arbitrary and I am sure it will disappoint, because it is based off much that occurs behind the scenes over private channels. Long story short, we made an agreement with ET to try and give him a chance to prove he can be a constructive member of the boards. Months ago, he pushed a boundary that, while not explicitly stated, was clearly a violation of the spirit of the agreement (using the proxy to take a jab at board moderators, which was one of his earlier disunifying behaviors). As such, we further limited his proxy posting abilities. Unfortunately, it feels to us that he keeps pushing the issues trying to get more than we want to give currently. Unfortunately, this game has become his catch-all defense by claiming that shutting it down will end up hurting you guys, and he is right to an extent. ET claims to have reformed and want nothing more than to make the community a better place. Sadly, we have seen too many clues that indicate things are not improved. I'm not sure if he is aware or oblivious, but it matters not because the net effect is the same. This community is not here to serve his, or anyone else's ego and I am tired of the boundary pushing that causes us to make unpleasant and unpopular decisions that we have seen for the last half-decade. Things have not changed and probably never will. I can see now that I was premature in trying to offer reprieve to ET. Perhaps he is sincere in his desire to make the boards a better place, but the more I deal with him, the less convinced I am. All I can say for sure is that I have spent far, far more time on him than I ever have with any other member and I am tired. I apologize for any harm this decision may cause, but please appreciate my situation. ET is done proxy posting here, forever.

Jeff has spoken on this for other games. Presumably, the answer will be no as it has been. The reason is time, skill, and ultimately cost benefit. Jeff has stated he knows how to program in Mac and port to Windows. Linux, while very similar to Mac, has some peculiarities depending on the distribution that would take up additional time to work through and test adequately. Like it or not, the market share on Linux is incredibly small. The time Jeff would have to spend porting to Linux is time Jeff does not spend making more games, which is ultimately a more profitable use of his time. I'm not trying to rail on Linux, btw. I use a Linux distribution quite extensively for my work. It's the best for the sorts of things that I do, but gaming (for economic reasons) is not the same.

Like every Alcritas scenario, there were some great elements to this. However, unlike many of the other greats from this author, there is far less hidden content -- although there is some. The fights are engaging, along with the puzzles and overall plot. My one complaint is that this felt like a transition scenario, much like Lamentations. Unfortunately, the series bottoms out here. We set up so much without finality. While this is a disappointment, on its own merit, I would place it as a scenario I would like to see emulated. BEST

Lots of people are going to have an opinion on this. I do as well. There are many places to express said opinions if one desires. Unfortunately, a private company's message board is not one of them.

Not arguing with you Slarty nor is it an indictment of anybody; just trying to bump the topic back on track.

Looking back on this, the combat went overboard. Of course, all of that is mitigated by the sheer creativity found in this scenario. The rush Alcritas puts the player through is unparalleled. The part of the "Sliths, no Troglos, oh yeah, Sliths" was simultaneously hilarious and infuriating. Brilliant! BEST

Falling Stars was the most hyped BoE Scenario of all time. At least the one that actually finished. The plot is rich, offering so much to do. My one issue is that much of the combat on the main plotline felt rather bland. While I don't fault Redemption for this because of it being older, Falling Stars had a couple of years by which to improve on this. Nonetheless, still one of the best scenarios of all time. BEST

This is probably my all-time favorite scenario. While I do not think it has aged as well as some of Alcritas' other works, for its time, it was revolutionary. The scary part of this is that you can play through the scenario and not even scratch the surface of the rich, but hidden world inside. Best

That would be great. Any reason in particular you have selected that breakdown? Perhaps we should do a simple analysis using the composite rankings of BoE scenarios at ShadowVale. I propose the following: Best = Top 5% Good = Top 20% Average = Top 50% Substandard = Top 75% Poor = Below I pick these because BoE has a lot of mediocre and outright bad scenarios having a fairly shallow learning curve. I would advocate a more generation system for BoA. A quick calculation (assuming I counted right) this yields the following: Best: 9.0 - 10.0 Good: 7.6 - 8.9 Average: 5.7 - 7.5 Substandard: 2.7 - 5.6 Poor: 1.0 - 2.6 Comments?

Anyway...back on topic...