metadigital

Welcome back! What is your "romantic" view? I am intrigued... There is a guy (in England, I believe) who is hooking himself up to the internet to allow others to control his body / see through his eyes. Also, there are a couple of different groups of scientists who are working on totally incompatible and different methods to augment the sight of blind people with cybernetics. Of course this is all happenning in your dream, so you needed concern yourself. Voices? Did anyone hear the other voices? (Quiet, I'm busy talking to my imaginary friends on the little boxey thing ... No, don't hurt them ... No I din't need to hurt them either ...)

... Is on First. Who's on second.

Heh, when I first watched that bit I was wondering where she got the vibroblade from. I checked my Exile in case she nicked it from her, since the exile was the only one that had one at the time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, well, considering how clumsy she is, I didn't think she needed my Exile's sword ... she may be handy, but we wouldn't want her to lose it ... :D

See, when I'm playing a role-playing game, I like to identify with a character. If I want to stare at a bum, I can load up a picture of a bum and stare at it. But if I'm trying to identify with the character behind the bum, said character being of the wrong gender can be an impediment to that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Let me introduce you to a new concept. Let's call it empathy. Perhaps you might one day know someone of the female gender, well enough to imagine what she feels and thinks, even how she would react in new and interesting situations. This is called role-playing.

I always make sure Kreia is empty handed when we reach the Harbinger ... so that she magically crafts a vibroblade when a certain "sleeps-with-vibroblades" NPC appears ... "

... Or Douglas Adams. Yeah, those new piccies don't look like dododroids. Whalebots, maybe. They don't have much room to turn around in that tank, someone should tell the droid RSPCA. I wonder if that's the Force's aquarium .... "

Ooh, pick the dropout! I know! Part XII: The Feeding of Malachor V ... planetoid. ... JEDI MASTER KREIA, Revan's old mentor, is still haunted by guilt, wondering whether it was her teaching that resulted in Revan's fall to the dark side, and begins to search for him. Sensing his last location, she travels to Malachor V, but is unable to shield her emotions, and is completely consumed by the dark side of the Force. She is lost to the Jedi, spending the next several years on Malachor V, learning its secrets, and eventually becoming The master of the Sith academy there. ... And: Part XIII: Ascension of the Sith Time frame: 3,953 - 3,951 B.B.Y. ... It is the beginning of the Jedi's decline throughout the Galaxy. Individual Jedi begin to leave the Jedi Order, and the Jedi Watchmen of many systems, disenchanted with the endless, pointless struggles, step down and exile themselves in unknown quadrants of the galaxy, echoing the disillusionment of Jedi Master JOLEE BINDO. ... ... I fortell a deep (and pointless) look at the Greek pantheon in this thread's future... <_< . I again take my leave. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey, Plano Skywalker asked metadigital, not the dropout! Planetoid? Small planet? Okay, I guess that's because it's a clump of debris -- I'll let that slip. Well, now we have been appraised of the plot, the game makes a lot more sense. It's a pity the edited excerpt we learn from the narrative arc of K2 is so abstract that none of this is even guessable. No need to delve into classical, norse, eastern or modern interpretations of mythology for this (and none spring readily to mind). Why a summary of this wasn't forthcoming in the game is the real mystery. After the confrontation there is approximately twenty minutes of FMV and follow-the-bouncing-ball dialogue. At the end of the game there is another opportunity. Maybe the Force could have even given the PC a vision of the past (I know that's allowed). One thing that isn't unclear is the philosophy of the publishers. " And I still say that all references to the wound/echo in the Force are inconclusive at best (and downright contradictory at worst).

And another reason I like my "Force has a Will" plot is that K2 becomes a step backwards in the over-arching story. In K3, "The Anti-Force League" are trying to accomplish what Kreia was trying to do. She would be re-defined from a mad, extremist psychopath to a gifted, driven visionary. (Which has happenned throughout history.) And the Exile is just a fish in the Force's aquarium. So Revan would have worked all this out, and either convert/kill the Exile. (Harks to Blizzard's Warcraft III plot.) And the Force could be defeated, but this is only a temporary remission, before it comes back with a vengence in 4000 years. The Force is the "Empire", the "Authority" against which all oppostion is "hopeless". ... But it was just a dream ....

Life is a journey, not a destination. It is in the doing that we live, not the arriving. :cool:

Yeah, I guess we've covered Eastern, Western and everything in between. I just wish that the dialogue in the game actually made sense. It's just too vague. Characters contrdict themselves in adjacent sentences of the same monologue, whilst agreeing and disagreeing with other characters in adjacent monlogues! I get the impression that the philosophical underpinnings were not part of the core writing effort. The writers seem to have just added some suitably mystical philoso-babble at tactical places within the story to add some flavour. Hmmm, I feel a bit like those anoraks that find anachronistical, geographical and continuity mistakes in films (like "That bird doesn't inhabit the Amazon, it's a native of Finland!", and "That Victorian Urn should not have been present in the Georgian era of the War of Independence ..."). Oi vey.

Why should the equivalent of +1 (d20) be +50 (d200) ? Surely it should be equivalent, and that would be (200/20 = 10) 10 x 1 = 10. So the d200 bonus would be +10. At the moment a DC of 40 is outstanding. If we use d200, then 400 would be similar. Instead of adding +10 for each additional level, you could use a smaller increment, such as +8 or even +5. So that next level your PC doesn't have a DC of 410 but 408 or 405, respectively. Why must you get an AB of +100 immediately? Level 1 characters miss more often than hit. If you come across an aponent with a DC of 150, you have to roll in the region of 140 now (with the +10 bonus). To be clear, I am not proposing changing the mechanics. I am proposing using a larger scale of the same mechanics. Granularity. Think of it this way: keep the same d20 system, just change the bonuses to +0.5 per level instead of +1. And then roll a d20.0, so that you will get any number from 0.1 to 20.0, inclusive. Then when you try to hit a target that requires a 75% score, for example, you will need to have bonuses and a natural roll adding up to 15.0 (bonuses of +1 + 0.5, therefore a natural roll of 13.5 or above). Similarly the DC would be 40.0. Yes?

Lightsabers can end up much better, with all the correct upgrades (five upgradeable components per lightsaber). Also they make that satidfying buzing sound when you flail them ... :D

Okay, your misapprehending. d20 die roll = 12 (12/20 = 60%) bonus = (+2+1) score = 15 = 75% chance to hit (15 divided by 20: if it helps, remember that 1/20 = 5%) so, if we use a d200: die roll could be, for our example, anywhere from 115-124. (This expands the equivalent percentage out to 57.5%-62%, and half of these "die rolls" will end up less than required to hit the target, so we are effectively rolling d"20.0", where a 14.9 won't hit and a 15.0 will.) Bonuses can be staggered more gently, so that instead of +1 d20 (= +10 in d200), we can have +5 or +12 (= +0.5 and +1.2 in d20). Do you see? We are breaking down the bonuses so that we don't have to add them in 5% increments. We can add in 0.5% increments (d200) or 0.1% increments (d1000). So you could end up with a 99.5% chance to hit (e.g. a stationary object) but each level would be only a little better than the last (say, 0.5% better). Look at it this way: adding +1 per level means that after 20 levels you have run out of effective room on the d20. Adding +5 per level would not run out until level 40 for a d200. Make sense? d20 AFAIK was never meant for epic levels: it was thought up for paper-based D&D to help make a quick approximation of percentages (one twenty-sided die roll gives 20 x 5% probabilities). Each level took approximately double the experience of the last level, so Level 20 was almost unheard of (for PCs, NPCs could be met with said experience).

I'm not sure about changing the colour, but I do know that you can delete the redundant threads you created accidentally. Just Look at the controls in the bottom left of the post, and you will see an "Action" box where you can Delete your current thread.

No no no! Don't go. Good debate needs you! We need to make sure we don't get too carried away with our new clothes, in case they don't actually exist!

There is no need to have continuity of combat systems, so long as the new system works similarly (i.e. in a simulcrum of reality with fantasy elements, like Force powers). The character classes betwen K1 and K2 have vastly different bonuses associated with their levels, for example. The problem is epic characters make a nonsense of the scale -- they break it. So these bits need to be handicapped, whilst the early levels and low statistics are adequate. The biggest improvement needed is more granularity in combat, the bonuses and calculations in general. Think of this: instead of d20, why not d200? Instead of 15 STR = +2, it could be +22 to hit (equivalent to +2.2 in d20) and 16 STR = +25 to hit (equivalent to +2.5 in d20). So a calculation like 75% chance to hit (15/20): STR (15) = +2 + Roll (12d20) + Weapon Bonus (+1) = 15 which hits becomes: STR (15) = +22 + Roll (119d200) + Weapon Bonus (+ = 149 which misses This gives more, smaller increments, so that you don't have a 95% chance of htting at the end of the game, for example. Why not d1000, or even d10000? And it would not affect the earlier games at all.

I guess I'm even more of an optimist, because I actually like the final dialogues. I could do without the boring action bits, but the dialogues are worthwhile enough. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My problem with the dialogues is that they don't actually tell you anything. I may as well have listened to a Linguaphone lesson for Swahili: that will have more interesting sounds. I have just been replaying the last few scenes to collect some of the underlying philosophical framework revealed. And my research is inconclusive. Characters contradict themselves in adjacent sentances of their own monologues. And different characters agree and disagree similarly in their respective adjacent monologues. (And all the monologues seem to be joined together in certain areas of the game, so that the player is bombarded with philosobabble, that is not meaningful on any level, for a sufficient length of time to allow for the saturation effect to overcome any common-sense dissent.) So, either the writers were being vague because they didn't have time to complete their planning, or they didn't want to say anything controversial. The result is that Yes, no existing SW lore is invalidated; but equally, nothing new is introduced -- except for the "wound/echo", which is never explained further than "it's bad", so bad that both Dark and Light characters have to stop it. Or something bad will happen. We think. So the game actually ends up being bubblegum, not sustenance. And the tragedy is the story has a lot of promise. If the writers had been a bit braver (or organised?) we could have had an instant classic; a timeless plot. Oh the humanity.

I doubt BioWare is going to do it. Although, they could be pursuaded to license out their new RPG engine I suppose. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That might work. Use the Jade Empire engine ... :D

Just to clarify, this is a discussion about the True Nature of THE FORCE. I specifically wanted to know if others might think that The Force has a Will. If we state beliefs, that's great. The problem with beliefs is, because they require no proof -- or even evidence -- then we cannot discuss the evidence using logical means (read: Socratic or deductive reasoning and adductive (conclusion back) reasoning). So we have the Existentialist conundrum: someone can say "I believe you don't exist," and then another can assert the very same thing. Because we cannot discuss how these people came to these conclusions "Because I believe that my senses are unreliable," or whatever, then we cannot talk about it in a meaningful way. We can wonder off and contemplate Ko-ans. We can believe really hard. Wish. Imagine. Pray. Meditate. Whatever -- but we can't debate and talk about it. So there insn't any point on a discussion forum. So by all means, tell me you think that The Force is Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit or God almighty and why. Just don't tell me "because". Because then we have nothing to talk about. Incidentally, the best definition of God I have ever heard from from a friend of mine. And no, it's not the Babel Fish. I'll share it with you, shall I? When multiple agents act in concert, and the result is more than the sum of the parts, then the extra bit, that bit that cannot be derived from the individual parts, is GOD. Now if I could only work out which god ... "

First, the fish isn't in the droid factory, it is on the droid planet. Second, the Hurrikaine crystal can now be found as a normal item on a corpse if your level is high enough. It does damage +1-8 unstoppable. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe it's a mechanical bird. A dododroid. :D

That is pretty disturbing. I won't ask how you found it ... "Google search: 'fish pron'" :ph34r:

Science requires faith, yes, but that is not the only requirement. Faith in the theory of gravity is not sufficient to prevent the Earth and all her inhabitants from spinning off into space. Religions start and end with faith. Top down, divine revaltion: "The Creator said x, so we believe." Science is a belief from the bottom up. Starting with observations, a guess about the what? and how? is formulated into a hypothesis. Yes, while it is not disproved, it is a theorem. And more information can be discovered and that can change the way we look at things; give us a paradigm shift. But science doesn't try to be God -- science isn't saying "this is it, and no more". Science is the best explanation we have; the best model to predict the future, so far. It makes no presumptions about afterlife or metaphysics -- these are untestable, and that means they are unscientific. No one is going to fight a war for or against Shrodinger's Cat. You are correct, a new theory could be propounded and accepted that, for example, disagrees with the agreed subatomic particles we currently theorise. But, equally, we aren't going to suddenly change Mendell's Laws or Boyle's constant. Or Absolute Zero. Or the Speed of Light. (See the difference between a scientific absolute and a theological certainty?) And even if we, say, find some particles that travel faster than light, this will only enhance our exisitng understanding of the physics by given us a progressively better model. So our predictions are more accurate and reliably precise. Light is a good example. We hava a dichotomy to explain its behaviour: particle and wave theories. We need both to accurately explain the behaviour in all circumstances, yet it seems counter-intuitive that light can be both particle and wave simultaneously. Tomorrow, Mr Hawking could complete the Theory of Everything and tell us how Nuclear-Electro-Magnetic particles interact so that we don't need our outdated light dichtomy anymore. But that wouldn't mean it was invalid. You would still be able to use the particle and wave equations to predict accurately the behaviour of light. You are also making a false comparison. The leap of faith required to believe in the outside world is infinitesimally smaller than the leap of faith required to believe something that has no evidence and does not require it. To wit: Basing a claim on assumption that cannot be tested with evidence prevents us from performing science. That is a naked belief. The assumption that I am being deceived leads me to believe nothing is real. The assumption that my senses work leads me to test them. And the testing confirms the belief. If nothing else, the latter is a more complex propostion, which makes it easier to disprove; as it stands up to more rigour, therefore, I conclude it is more reliable. Eastern mysticism shares experience rather than conveying a concept through the clumsy verbal artifice. Which is an infinitely better delivery medium, but completely unhelpful scientifically. It is like a magic elevator to God: it doesn't tell you where she lives, it just takes you. So Eastern Mysticism is unhelpful, Religion has an alternate agenda, and science is inadequate when breaking down the ineffible. But science will improve, so there lies our best hope. Philosophy is like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat. Metaphysics is like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there. Theology is like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there when he finds it. :cool:

Would you mind elaborating a little on that?

Rosbjerg, you are entering the realm of extraordinarily vanishing probabilities. Yes, there is no PROOF that science works, if one chooses to deny the reliability of one's own senses, but there is very little conversation you can have about anything if you follow that supposition! Science is observing. Science is predicting. Good science is accuracy (getting the right answer) and precision (repeating the same, expected result). Oh, and religious types DO use religion to JUSTIFY religion. I use science to SUGGEST that religion is superfluous (e.g. the Watchmaker's Father). I use science to predict the future. If I burn a log, I can predict the amount of heat generated, given the mass of the constituent parts, with precision and (hopefully) accuracy. And even though you are all figments of my imagination, I demand my figments attend to details, such that my imaginary world is subject to rigorous referntial integrity.

... Marilyn Manson.