Mosquito---Slayer

Food was needed in A6 but that was removed in A:eftp.

Does the stun attack's potency scale up with the level/stats of creation, cos then It might actually be worth it.

you know if you're going to cheat you might as well go the whole hog and give yourself 30 free levels of Intelligence and Magic Shaping. you don't exactly prove anything by doing that though

You do prove that you can cheat.

I felt about the same way as you, but since I really liked the story and the sub-stories I can't really complain.

Firstly you don't get the eyebeast until the last area of the game so it's fairly useless.

Secondly concentrating only on magic shaping will make the magic resistant foes a real pain, but I still guess it can work, especially with the physical attack of highly leveled up Vlishes , Artillas and wingbolts, but I think it will still be a real pain and not really worth it.

Mosquito -- Over the line. I know you were joking, but please avoid this line of humor. Thanks!

OK and apologies to anyone who was offended, I realised it was very tasteless some time after posting but couldn't delete it in time.

Things about why asteroids were better.

OK, now you are just undermining the advantages of mars and overstating those of asteroids, that doesn't really help in taking the argument forward, I guess I i'll talk to you someday on calref.

Have you heard of the Mean Value Theorem? It lets you do wonderful things between two points (which, for the record, is called interpolation, not extrapolation).

I think MVT is applicable to a function which is differentiable + continuous, if it's a continuous function then Sylae is right in any case, I'm basically saying that it's possible that it might be a step function.

sure enough, "Asian" is gone. apparently she got a haircut too for some reason

Considering the time it will take to dry her hair in absence of Hair-dryers and the Sun, you can't really blame her.

It's not guesswork, it's a logical extrapolation from the available data. More data, of course, would be helpful, but I don't need a data point to tell me that getting hit by half a freight trail would suck.

Extrapolation from only two points of data doesn't mean anything.

One, if you mine less than the weight of your equipment you are a horrible miner.

Not valid if you are mining for a short period of time and then coming back, I'm only talking about material gained from one shift.

Also not valid for precious metals.

Two, it'd be easier to move your equipment in a microgravity environment rather than dragging it across the martian surface.

Not true, it might actually be more difficult because of unfamiliarity with those conditions and honestly dragging is a big factor only for large distances.

Three, you might not even have to move a notable sum of it, one central ore processing plant, with mining outposts bringing in ore. Four, there are currently 211 asteroids are larger than 100km in the JPL database and a Harvard study shows 1.2 million 1km+ asteroids

True, but again, mars is easier to handle.

so I think it'd be a bit before you'd have to move to another hugeass asteroid.

I'm going to complain to an asteroid, preferably a female one conscious about it's weight , that will teach you to be disrespectful about them.

also hilarious historical fact: in ancient India, a process basically identical to Damascus steelmaking was known as "wootz"

Huh, I thought Damascus steel(making) was just a modification/upgrade of wootz steel(making).

Cotra is cheaper, but not by much(50 c).

Even if these fears are unfounded, we'd most-likely send an unmanned probe that way first for more detailed scans. Because, you know, pictures.

Ha, things found on Mars.

If the effects of standard gravitational forces on a body are not detrimental, and the forces in free-fall are, then the midpoint between those is logically somewhat detrimental.

That's just guess work, total zero is always a special condition in any situation and can have effects different from all other values, as you said experiments are needed.

Not...really? There would be a minor startup advantage, but that would be quickly offset by the fact that in a year you're going to have to send supplies anyway (and will have to for some time), and dealing with the gravity well (I don't think you are understanding just how much force it takes to get off a planet).

Well, I totally agree with you on the gravity well department, my whole argument depends on the other factors(time,ease,familiarity) offsetting this disadvantage and the fact that the martian gravity well is still small compared to the earth well which is going to be countered in both cases, the ship being heavier due to mined objects is countered by the loss of weight due to the mining equipment which can be stored/left on the permanent mars station(another thing not possible if you are hopping from asteroid to asteroid.)

Let's say, hypothetically, that we find an asteroid with deposits of platinum and gold that far exceed what we have on Earth, and have the capability to drag it all back down to the surface. What would that do to the world's economy?

Indian weddings will get even more ridiculous.

Composition

 

The physical composition of asteroids is varied and in most cases poorly understood. Ceres appears to be composed of a rocky core covered by an icy mantle, where Vesta is thought to have anickel-iron core, olivine mantle, and basaltic crust.^[47] 10 Hygiea, however, which appears to have a uniformly primitive composition of carbonaceous chondrite, is thought to be the largest undifferentiated asteroid. Most of the smaller asteroids are thought to be piles of rubble held together loosely by gravity, though the largest are probably solid. Some asteroids have moons or are co-orbiting binaries: Rubble piles, moons, binaries, and scattered asteroid families are believed to be the results of collisions that disrupted a parent asteroid.

Asteroids contain traces of amino acids and other organic compounds, and some speculate that asteroid impacts may have seeded the early Earth with the chemicals necessary to initiate life, or may have even brought life itself to Earth. (See also panspermia.)^[48] In August 2011, a report, based on NASA studies with meteorites found on Earth, was published suggesting DNA and RNAcomponents (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) may have been formed on asteroids and comets in outer space.^[49][50][51]

Only one asteroid, 4 Vesta, which has a reflective surface, is normally visible to the naked eye, and this only in very dark skies when it is favorably positioned. Rarely, small asteroids passing close to Earth may be naked-eye visible for a short time.^[52]

Composition is calculated from three primary sources: albedo, surface spectrum, and density. The last can only be determined accurately by observing the orbits of moons the asteroid might have. So far, every asteroid with moons has turned out to be a rubble pile, a loose conglomeration of rock and metal that may be half empty space by volume. The investigated asteroids are as large as 280 km in diameter, and include 121 Hermione (268×186×183 km), and 87 Sylvia (384×262×232 km). Only half a dozen asteroids are larger than 87 Sylvia, though none of them have moons; however, some smaller asteroids are thought to be more massive, suggesting they may not have been disrupted, and indeed 511 Davida, the same size as Sylvia to within measurement error, is estimated to be two and a half times as massive, though this is highly uncertain. The fact that such large asteroids as Sylvia can be rubble piles, presumably due to disruptive impacts, has important consequences for the formation of the Solar system: Computer simulations of collisions involving solid bodies show them destroying each other as often as merging, but colliding rubble piles are more likely to merge. This means that the cores of the planets could have formed relatively quickly.^[53]

 

I will concede that I am not an expert on the matter but still I believe that we are nowhere near predicting that a given asteroid is a lump of platinum or gold, if we are so vague about the larger asteroids then well I don't even want to talk about about the smaller ones.

actually we have pretty good telescopes and have a pretty good idea what's out there. i'd encourage you to do some research.

 

If you want gravity you might as well get enough to stop the detrimental effects (such as bone loss), which you will still get on mars.

"The minimum g-force required to avoid bone loss is not known—nearly all current experience is with g-forces of 1 g (on the surface of the Earth) or 0 g in orbit. There has been insufficient time spent on the Moon to determine whether lunar gravity is sufficient"

Note that this is not an argument against your point, but I'd say it's not useful debating about things we don't even know.

also i'm not an expert on martian geology but based on what i believe is a relative lack of limestone and running water you're going to have issues finding caves anywhere, much less caves near anything useful like ore, which is notably hard to find when it's underground.

 

There has been enough indication that mars used to have running water at some point in history, I'm not sure about limestone but as you will notice I've included crevices as well as caves as places which are better to live in, mars has lots of volcanoes and lava flow can also lead to such structures.

The amount of resources needed to grow even a small amount of food for a small crew would still require regular earthly supply freights whether you are on mars or not. you will need to ship in soil in any case because the martian soil doesn't have enough to grow crops for any length of time, plus there's plenty of other things plants need like mycorrhiza among other things.

True, but my point is that it's still easier compared to living on an asteroid.

re: it's further so it must be harder to bring stuff back from. I have no life so I ran some numbers for hohmann transfer orbits between earth and mars, and between earth and 216 Kleoptra (part of the main belt, made mostly of gravel apparently but still a good reference point). note that there are much more efficient ways to move about but hohmann is a pretty reliable way. don't forget to take into account the delta-v needed to reach the local parking orbit before the transfer/escape. the below figures are relative the sun.

OK, I don't understand coding but maybe you could just give me as to what is the summary and conclusion, does it support your view or mine?

here let me highlight it. it was quite obvious from context the first LEO was referencing space debris. if you dont believe me on that look up iridium 33.

Maybe there was a little confusion there, I was certainly talking about the first sentence of your post.

(Also I'm sorry for not including your name in the quotes, I hope you will pardon me, I'm just feeling rather lazy. )

[edit]

That awkward moment when you realize I said LMO, not LEO.

You did say LEO, your post is a proof, besides I wasn't even talking about small dusty particles.

you do realize the engines arent on all the time right

Yes, I meant the economic advantange due to larger distance of the asteroid belt.

Compared to digging a hole in a small asteroid, which has the same effect, not to mention you can simulate full earth gravity by spinning it.

Compared to a cave which already exists and gravity which again already exists.

First off you could still do one large trip, in fact it would be more feasible because you don't have to lift tons of metal out of orbit. it's called stockpiling until you have enough to warrant a return trip.

Very true, but to stay for a large enough period to stockpile you need resources which I mentioned and they are available on mars not on asteroids.

Secondly the asteroid belt is not that much farther than mars (and the extra distance it takes uses much less fuel than it would to get off of mars). Not to mention there are plenty of asteroids with orbits that pass near earth's, one could "hitch a ride on" one and save even more fuel. The only such method I know of for mars is waiting for a launch window where it is close.

The average distance of mars from sun is 1.5 AU.

The asteroid belt's is most dense and centred at 2.7 AU.

Asteroids that pass close to earth are few and the probability that they have the materials we need is approximately zero.

also it's not just a matter of whether resources are available but ease of extraction, which depends on the concentration of those resources. a single metal-rich asteroid can have more platinum than the entire world's known reserves. you'd have to dig up a whole heck of a lot of the martian surface to get a comparable amount.

Very true, but the key word here is "can have" it could also be a simple rock which you can get from the playground next to your home and from a distance of at least 2 AU's we have no means of finding out.

Not really, any sort of station would be able to move if need be, and the asteroid belt has much less junk (in relation to volume) in it than LEO or, for example, Saturn's rings.

 

Of course, but you also don't have to waste fuel on leaving a gravity well. To get from the Martian surface to LMO require a delta-V of 4.4 km/s. The asteroid 1982DB requires 0.1 km/s. That's a lot less gas.

Firstly, the comparison is to be done with Mars not with LEO and certainly not with Saturn's rings(nothing can be cooler than going there apart from maybe eating 10 cakes at a time )

Gas is a good point but in any case the amount for either asteroids or mars is still small compared to what you need to escape earth and the time factor(larger dist. of asteroid belt from earth should negate any economic advantage.)

Couple this with the cave/crevice stations(lot safer and less prone to radiation) and the fact that you can get water on mars, additionally martial soil contains sodium, magnesium, potassium apart from being alkaline which means that in the presence of artificial atmosphere over a small area you can grow plants.

The reason I'm discussing these factors is that this means you can stay on mars for a far longer time than you can stay an asteroid, thus instead of a lot of small mining trips(over a larger distance) you can make one big mining trip, which should lead to overall savings even in the fuel department.

(Besides I don't think you can get anything extra on an asteroid, mars has been bombarded by them for like millions of years,so whatever material you can get on an asteroid you can get on mars as well.)

Space is very large and very empty, and very old. If asteroids hit each other on that regular a basis we would not have an asteroid belt, we would have a dust belt.

I know,my point is that the risk is still not worth it.

Actually, I have

My apologies.

because fuel is expensive and heavy and there's no ExxonMobil on Mars.

This is equally valid for asteroids.

An asteroid is just as hostile but you don't have to escape a huge gravity well to use it.

Maneuvering a space vehicle through a belt full of huge and little rocks moving at high speed should be risky, while Asteroid belt is sparsely populated it is still a risk worth considering, additionally the asteroid belt is farther away from earth compared to mars which is a factor as well, besides I'm pretty sure mars has caves/crevices which mean a better chance of surviving rather than a total open life on a piece of rock, Asteroids have also been known to colloid with each other/change their orbit due to gravitational effects which mean sure death.

microgravity != fly away. Unless you throw something or are on STS-126 (or are Ed White I guess), you should be fine. Besides, if you are working in space you'd damn well better get used to it.

Obviously you have never worked on construction/heavy work, when your fellow worker asks for something when you are busy painting/putting bricks on top of each other you don't move over there and hand it to him, you throw it, when you are working on making the second/third tier of buildings, you don't walk up and down the stairs, you just throw these things, again while It's good to get used to working in space, why not just go for something you are already used to.

Not really. Gravity helps conventional construction methods, but really, once you get used to it, the lack of things falling has to be handy.

Dunno, being used to something is really a pretty important part of it, besides if I put a damn hammer behind me I want it to stay there for when I need it and not fly away.

Also, if you want to be near asteroids, build your colony in the asteroid belt

So, if I want to stay near the sea, I should make a home inside it and have fish as my friends and relatives.

If you are so confused about the party creation, why not try the pre-fabricated default party?, it's not optimum but it's a really good build for lower difficulties.

I really hope this happens... I'm feeling more optimistic about the space program and I think with the so-far-success of curiosity, if NASA chooses to go ahead with it, it is likely to get the necessary funding.

I will just sit back in the couch and wait for conspiracy/blah blah theorists to come out.

Can't you just see how this is totally an act against god and how it's totally going to destroy the earth and how we need to pray for it not to happen.

Also last I heard some Japanese company was already preparing for a space elevator, the date is quite far(2050) but I don't see even NASA doing anything earlier than that, here's the article.

Yeah you certainly can get by with pure priests and mage, that's actually what I use personally, also yeah it's probably late right now.

Wow I played through all these games without ever knowing it.

Another way is to read everything .

Interested in RPG's , maybe in RP as well but not that much.

Perhaps it's worth doing the other way - training my Priest in Mage spells...? Hmm.

He won't be able to wear good Armor then, a full mage part time priest is generally better.

All of the Geneforges, as well as A5 and A6. Possibly A4 or Avadon as well. Unfortunately, it's a Windows-only feature (which is silly, but what can you do?)

What? No, they don't, I think you are thinking about the damage dealt.