[quote who="cfehunter" reply="4" id="2853045"] Quoting Istari, reply 2I think what is annoying many players is the terminology of it. Calling research into magic a 'tech' does not tie in to fantasy fiction very well, at least not traditionally. If you had two sections in the spellbook, one for spells, and one for meta-magic, I think it would solve that problem. For example, in the meta-magic section, you would research higher spell levels, as well as the decyphering
I think what is annoying many players is the terminology of it. Calling research into magic a 'tech' does not tie in to fantasy fiction very well, at least not traditionally. If you had two sections in the spellbook, one for spells, and one for meta-magic, I think it would solve that problem. For example, in the meta-magic section, you would research higher spell levels, as well as the decyphering of other spell books.
-A nutmeg coloured crochet trumpet-sock. -Have unit groups stack by standing on each others shoulders, one on top of the other, rather than in formation on the ground. -Caramel cheese. -New City Defense Tech: Impenetrable Pillow Fort. -Cabbage water. -New Spell: Waking the dead. Sets off a mystical alarm clock that wakes up all the units that ever died in the game. The undead units then hit the mystical snooze button and go back to death.
[quote who="Jafo" reply="400" id="2851943"] It's OK...I worked it out. Perhaps you know of Tim Minchin? He's a comic from WA .....plays piano....has a 'beat poem' called "Storm". Appropriately it was on tonight on telly..... 2 hour concert on the ABC All makes sense.... [/quote] Tim Minchin. Funny guy but gives me the creeps. [e digicons]:S[/e] Don't know if you meant it to apply, but I'm not talking about reli
[quote who="LightofAbraxas" reply="397" id="2851774"] Given what we know regarding the laws of thermodynamics, and taking causality into account, you cannot get around it. A discussion of Laplace on a gaming forum. Now I've seen everything. [/quote] We all have our demons. [e digicons]|-)[/e]
[quote who="Jafo" reply="394" id="2851671"] "In short, no". Is a statement of absolute, with the presumption that anything to the contrary is already accepted irefutably as false. How about.... "In short, I don't believe so". at which point people can dismiss your OPINION rather than have to argue your defining statement of FACT. God, I did Philosophy, Psychology and Sociology about 38 years ago.... I don't 'really' want to be "doing it" with
[quote who="Jafo" reply="391" id="2851529"] "1. Has matter/energy always existed? In short, no." Why "no'? Who determined that that is the answer? In short, or in any other form? You base a load of BS on fatuous statements off, what, YOUR personal version of what is fact? IF matter/energy HAS ALWAYS EXISTED then the rest of your statement is rubbish. Demonstrate that it was 'created' and then someone 'mig
[quote who="DariasDruss" reply="386" id="2851476"] --Snip-- [/quote] I'm not presuming that anything extraordinary happened by necessity, or that there was alien involvement. What I am saying is that there is this sandbox with a shovel, a bucket, and one little boy. It is cut off from the rest of the universe, and that is all we currently know about it. Except that presumably, this little boy constructed an exact replica of the leaning tower of
[quote who="DrJBHL" reply="385" id="2851474"] I'm still not seeing how any of it can be related to solipsism, so I still need your help on that one Doc. Berkeley's philosophy boils down to 'there is only one mind and it's ideas.' that's solipsism in a nutshell.[/quote] I don't adhere to that philosophy. [quote who="DrJBHL" reply="385" id="2851474"]I just meant to say that if we really don't know how they could have done it, how can we be so sure tha
[quote who="DariasDruss" reply="374" id="2851207"] Simple and yet mysteriously unknown? Sounds like a contradiction. Given our knowledge of the technological and industrial capabilities of that ancient civilization, I'd say it's more than tantamount to an actual miracle. Not so clear cut in fact, but common sense nonetheless. No the simple part was referring to the Egyptians building the pyramids. We know they built them and in what time frame and for who. Ho
[quote who="DrJBHL" reply="375" id="2851212"] But I don't see how it would account for causality. It wouldn't in everyday reasoning. However, I don't happen to ascribe to causality except in limited cases. Chaos Theory is more interesting. Perhaps the Universe is simply an epiphenomenon or, perhaps a byproduct of another process.Who knows? It really matters little. Causality/Solipsism and Charles Bishop Berkley are very limited.[/quote] Causality i
[quote who="Jafo" reply="364" id="2851036"] "1. Has matter/energy always existed? In short, no." Pretty-well everything in #363 turns to crap if assumption and conjecture is removed. Why "no"? In short or in long....[/quote] Do you mean to say that if assumption and conjecture are left in, then #363 is fine? [e digicons]:P[/e]
[quote who="Jafo" reply="367" id="2851056"] "Coherency please? Is there a question somewhere in there?" Why "no"? Questions tend to have a "?" after them....so 'coherency' is fine....[/quote] If there is something you would like clarification on, or a point of contention, please state the contrary view or refutation and I will be happy to oblige with either a counter-argument or a confession of error, depending. [e digicons]B)[/e]
[quote who="kyogre12" reply="368" id="2851065"] One of the problems with that is, we don't actually know exactly how life originally came to be. The evidence of which is that we cannot take non-living matter and cause it to become a living entity. And so that remains an unproven theory. Not entirely true. There have been experiments that replicated the conditions of early Earth. Most of the amino acids required for life can occur naturally in said conditions. Other experiments
[quote who="DrJBHL" reply="366" id="2851051"] 1. Has matter/energy always existed? Yes, in dynamic equilibrium.[/quote] That sounds wonderful. [e digicons]:)[/e] But I don't see how it would account for causality. Meaning, the events that caused me to type these words, and the events that caused those events and so on and so forth, tracing the chains of causality right back to.....? If something that is subject to causality didn't begin, th
[quote who="Jafo" reply="364" id="2851036"] "1. Has matter/energy always existed? In short, no." Pretty-well everything in #363 turns to crap if assumption and conjecture is removed. Why "no"? In short or in long....[/quote] Coherency please? Is there a question somewhere in there? [e digicons]:P[/e]
[quote who="Uvah" reply="362" id="2850943"] Pyramids were built by humans. Simple as that. As to the mystery as how it was done who cares..... I am not golly enough to believe we are the only intelligent life forms out there but I can't provide proof that there is and no one can provide proof that there aren't. That about sums it up. Common sense prevails.[/quote] Simple and yet mysteriously unknown? Sounds like a contradiction. Given our knowled
[quote who="ne_zavarj" reply="85" id="2850783"]Looks like i'll have to pass this game again . [/quote] There is a marked improvement with the AI. Seriously. Apart from that, the game is actually quite fun to play now. You find yourself making actual decisions! If the two expansions address combat, the magic system and diplomacy, this game is going to have support groups set up for addicts.
Where is RavenX btw? Haven't heard from the guy in a while (but then it could just be me), and I'm hoping he's feeling OK this Christmas season. Anyone have news?
[quote who="Roloccolor" reply="349" id="2850774"] The moon has never been reached So if your argument is true why is it that there are some huge retro reflectors on the moon ? Maybee because Apollo11-14 and 15 dropped it there ? Its amazing that some people still believe the moon landing was a hoax.. http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html [/quote] You point a laser at the sky, and at a particular configuration, an el
[quote who="Fuzzy Logic" reply="339" id="2850533"]Aliens have already been here. Pyramids, Nazca lines, crop circles, angel of the north.. I mean, no human could have made those, right?[/quote] It would depend on how you define Alien. It would not be a stretch to include Antony Gormley I think. Isn't it funny though that the unexplainable things that used to be attributed to God, the devil or witches, are now being blamed on ET? I wonder who or what will be the mystery scapego
