Jump to content

av_nefardec

WFG Retired
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4.772

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by av_nefardec

    question and answer thread

    in The Green Dragon

    Posted

    Oops, didn't read the second part of that I guess.

    Isn't Ñgolofinwë (or Nolofinwë) "Wise of Finwë" or something?

    Nolo - wise or learned in lore, finwë obviously the name of his father I thought it had something to do with hair? Like Finduilas or Glorfindel (golden-haired) But I thought the precise meaning was never figured out?

    Religion

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Evolution as in the beginning of the world

    I don't know that evolution attempts to explain the beginning of the world.

    Creationism does, but I don't think evolution does. Evolution describes what happened after. Evolution leaves it ambiguous as to what happened in the beginning.

    ARDA DEATHMATCH #5

    in The Green Dragon

    Posted

    Balrogs spoke for sure!

    Gothmog was the commander of many, man thousands of orcs, men, dragons, trolls, and other creatures - he surely communicated verbally at least with orcs.

    And he dragged Húrin to Angband "with mockery", and I think that pretty much means he verbally taunted him, as I see no other way to mock someone if you don't look like him.

    I think the Balrog of Moria was a particularly powerful Balrog. Since Morgoth was banished and Gothmog slain, this balrog became very powerful on its own - like Sauron did.

    In the first age balrogs wore armor - helms, etc. They were numerous and more like just another troop of Morgoth's.

    But the Balrog of Moria I think, like Sauron, survived and grew very powerful on its own in the darkness. It did away with all armor, probably grew more bestial and fierce, more hideous - it was able to wing itself with shadow and wreath itself in flame.

    I mean if you look at what Gothmog and the balrogs did in the Silmarillion (and what they did in the Fall of Gondolin lay) compared to the Balrog of Moria, the balrog of moria seems much more powerful. So I think that's the case.

    In the first age, the WK could take on a balrog, though I'm not sure about Gothmog, but the Balrog of Moria I think is beyond him in power - more like to Sauron.

    Big Civ Structure Change

    in General TLA Discussion

    Posted

    Well you can't play AS indepdents, but you can have the particular player in the game be a player civ, yet when you place the buildings and units, place buildings and units of an independent and assign it to that player's ownership, then edit the diplomacy, etc to that independent's settings, and you can quasi-play as an independent. It's kind of a loophole.

    You say that the Numenor will be countered by various independant civs, but are these civs completely random in their appearances during the game? It's not to clear to me on how these independants civs are actually placed onto the map or the game, and of how big a part they play in the game.

    Well in random maps, the placement of independents is, well, random. The particular independents are based on the map type you choose. So in the first age, if you choose "Falas" as your map type, that is "coast", it's very likely you will have the Falathrim in the map. The independents get placed on appropriate terrain to their civ - e.g. woods for Druedain, hills for Breelanders, green fields for hobbits, hills for Dunlendings, etc.

    In custom made scenarios and campaigns, the designer can put whichever independents he wants that are available in the age of the scenario.

    Basically independent civs work like very interactive elements of setting and background to a map. Very interactive. So let's say you're playing in a third age "Eriador" map type. You're bound to find Dunlendings, Breelanders, Hobbits, and Drúedain in the map somewhere.

    Let's say you are playing as the forces of sauron - It's likely if you pass through territory occupied by Drúedain, you'll probably be ambushed. You could burn down their trees and enslave their population, providing free labor for your war machine :)

    But then let's say you are playing as the Rohirrim in that map - you might enter the land of the Drúedain and they do not ambush you - you can send a trader into their camp and trade goods with them, or perhaps you can even use your herald (diplomat) to ask for some drug scouts or guides that they give you control of.

    In the First Age of the Sun, no player civ can build ships. This is due to the fact that Tolkien never writes about our player civs building ships in the first age, and the only ships written about were stolen from the Teleri of Alqualondë. There was no sailing going on during this time, though maybe a few riverboats.

    But - the independent civ, the Falathrim (Elves of the Falas), those elves of Círdan the Shipbuilder who dwelt in Brithombar and Eglorest DID build seafaring ships. So this independent civ has a haven building and ships - and fishing ships. So this civ would be of great value to any player civ. Forces of Morgoth may enslave the elves and capture the havens to build ships, Noldor and Sindar might try to form a blood alliance to gain control of the civ and the ships, or Edain might try to coerce the Falathrim via diplomacy to part with a few ships. You can, I hope, see the gameplay value here, as well as the depth it creates that fits Tolkien's world.

    Independents add environmental depth to Tolkien's world. They also complement the player civs. For instance, in the third age, the Forces of Sauron wouldn't be the same without easterlings, wainriders, haradrim, corsairs of umbar, etc on their side. And likewise, the Galadhrim wouldn't be the same without the Silvan elves of Mirkwood at their allegiance.

    So indpendents both offer dynamic twists to gameplay and environmental exposition.

    Towers?

    in General TLA Discussion

    Posted

    I wouldn't count on it, but it I think it is doable. It would be controlled for each section of wall or gate.

    It would be a function of the wall section or the gate, and you'd click it like the ungarrison button, etc on the interface of the wall section or gate. So I'd say, we can add it to the bottom/middle of our features list, but it would be an interesting thing, and we'd probably use it to balance.

    Religion

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    No it's impossible to prove that God does not exist, and it is a waste of time to do so. I merely was saying why I believe what I believe. I don't think anyone needs to believe as I do, or that I need to believe as others do.

    They may have been developed in a time of totalitarian rule, but they were not founded by such.

    Yes, that's exactly right - In a time of totalitarian rule and dogmatic religious doctrine, Jesus stood up and preached something different, right?

    Well then why don't you think Darwin could be on to something? What's so wrong with believing something different? Why does god HAVE to exist? He MAY exist, and I'm perfectly content with that for the time being. I don't believe in absolute thinking.

    The basis of science is observation. Since evolution was not observed, it cannot be proven;

    I disagree Quacker. A lot of Darwin's original theory was based on observation of wildlife on the Galapagos Islands. In a day when religion was much stronger and Darwin was able to come up with such ideas from direct observation, that's meaningful.

    In particular he looked at the way finches' beaks were adapted to their diets.

    Why do you believe humans have the vestigal remnants of a tail in their skeleton? What purpose does this serve in god's plan?

    Why is it that australopithicus afarensi (sp?) is so similar to apes and such direct human ancestors as homo habilis?

    I suppose I believe in evolution because it is more a series of small logical progressions that I can take to arrive at one giant logical leap of faith (what was before ____), whereas creationism is based on one giant logical leap of faith and then the syllogisms come after it.

    But there's really no use to explain any of this if no one is willing to listen.

    Religion

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    If a point is the basis of geometry, how is it that we use geometry to describe the physical world around us when a point is undefined? A better question is this: Why is it that we use the irrational value of PI(3.14.....), when irrational numbers don't exist in the physical world?

    Well this depends on what you define as the physical.

    If you define what you can see, touch, feel, etc as physical, then you're limiting yourself I think. For instance - there's no denying that the golden ration, phi, an irrational number EXISTS as the positive root to the equation x^2-x-1=0. Isn't that physical? I can see this and solve this mathematically. It exists.

    And pi is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter. That can be physically measured and the value approached. So there is a value pi that exists.

    The reason that they exist is simple - take any segment of a number line, and there are infinitely many numbers on that - every number you can think of is on that number line. And if pi can be measured to be less than four and greater than three, then it exists on the interval [3,4] because there are infinite numbers on every interval.

    hose who think that creationism is faith, and that evolution isn't, are fooling themselves.

    I agree, and in a lot of cases, it takes even more faith to believe in evolution since evolutionists are fighting against another faith so popular ;)

    I believe it's been pretty much accepted that "true" randomness doesn't exist, only the illusion of randomness.

    Could you elaborate on this? What do you define as "true" randomness as opposed to randomness without the "true"? Where has this been accepted? I mean certainly it's accepted in the world of computers, that there is no true randomness, but to claim that in all the universe there is no such thing I think is a bit exclusive and short-sighted.

    The point being that the concept of infinity isn't nearly as simple as you make out.

    Ahh, are you hinting at the aleph studies by Georg Cantor? And the Kabbalists as well I think? That stuff is really interesting :brow:

    "Chew bubble gum twice a day and I guarantee that you will get into heaven". However, I have no facts to support this claim so it would be foolish to believe me.

    Well for that matter, what facts do you have to support you are guaranteed "get into heaven" (like it's a nightclub or something :P) by any means?

    And just because you *do* believe in something doesn't mean that it *does* exist.

    Great point, thanks for offering the inverse for a change :D

    It's also hard to believe that there's an omnicient being that I can't hear, nor see, nor feel, but I've been asked to believe it. Which is more likely? I honestly don't know, but both are a stretch.

    Also a stretch is to believe this being is a benevolent being and that there are malevolent beings besides. I mean sure, I can imagine it and think it, but that to me doesn't prove that it exists.

    The other problem is such religions were developed and propagated at a time when people were ruled by totalitarians and taught to accept that which they could not seem to control rather than to question before accepting.

    "god-based" faith (since some of you don't like the word religion :D) is not fundamentally solid, just as evolutionary theory is not fundamentally solid. That's why the church had to abandon the idea of a heliocentric universe.

    Lots of christians and other such believers like to tell others that they are not religous, but just spiritual, or have their own faiths. But the simple fact is, if there had not been religion in the first place, these people would have no personal beliefs like this. So it's to no avail to discount religion because it has a bad history of contradicting itself, corrupting power, and killing many people. Obviously, believing any faith based on these religions seems to accept these atrocities as a necessary evil, when in fact, it is evil that they are supposed to be doing away with.

    I think the main problem is that we are too judgmental of a society, and that shows itself here. It's too easy to accept one thing as canon and deny another. There's no way we can ever accept anything as canon, and that's a fact :P

    But as I showed when I contradicted myself in my last sentence, there's a point where we have to take a stand and believe something - anywhere is fundamentally as stable as the next. And we have no perrogative to deny the truth of another.

    ARDA DEATHMATCH #5

    in The Green Dragon

    Posted

    Gandalf feared the Witch King for his power over men, and power over his forces. It's not that Gandalf couldn't really defeat the WK, but that the WK could defeat Gondor and he had a legion of orcs under his order.

    A balrog is of a much more "pure evil" (how's that for an oxymoron? :)) It was a maia directly controlled by Morgoth, whereas the WK was a man controlled by Morgoth's Lieutenant.

    The effects of the WK's ring and Sauron's for that matter have no power over a Balrog.

    But not all balrogs were created equally ;)

    The vast majority of balrogs, those in the corps of Morgoth's army, as seen in the Fall of Gondolin (Lost Tales Part II) were not of the caliber encountered in Moria and certainly not of the caliber of their leader, Gothmog. Many balrogs were slain by Tuor (a man) and elves - Ecthelion, Glorfindel, the elves of the hammer of wrath led by Rog...

    So I think the moria balrog or Gothmog could take the WK, but other balrogs might not stand a chance ;)

    Religion

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Well the big bang doesn't necessarily have to ne the beginning, it could be the end of something contracting.

    And I'm not even saying oscillating universe theory necessarily

    I do not understand how you came to that.

    Ok, basically:

    the God would be eternal

    Big bang is also eternal - there is no time before the big bang. So likewise, if you believe that there is no time before a god, I think you should be comfortable with both.

    He would have the power to create a universe, a universe with finite time, while in a "universe" with infinite time.

    Well if there is time in this "universe with infinite time" - where did the time come from - did another god create that god within this time?

    Big Civ Structure Change

    in General TLA Discussion

    Posted

    For the record - You do NOT change or "upgrade" ages in TLA. That is an idea of AoK, NOT TLA.

    As I said in the post:

    Remember, in TLA, you play in only one age at a time

    When you go to play a game, it will ask you the age in which you wish to play. You choose either 1, 2, or 3. If you choose the first age, the player civs you can play as (or that you will play against) will be:

    Noldor

    Edain (of Bëor and Hador)

    Sindar

    Dwarves (of Belegost and Nogrod)

    Forces of Darkness (of Morgoth)

    The independent civs you may come across are:

    Drúedain

    Noegyth-Nibîn

    Falathrim

    Easterlings (of Beleriand)

    Edain of Haleth

    Laiquendi (of Ossiriand)

    Northmen

    If you chose second age, you can choose from:

    Noldor

    Númenoreans

    Nandor (of the Vales of the Anduin)

    Dwarves

    Forces of Darkness (of Sauron)

    The independents you may come across would be:

    Drúedain

    Haradrim/Umbar

    Dunlendings

    Mountain Orcs

    Northmen

    If you chose to play in the third age, you could choose from:

    Noldor

    Realms in Exile

    Galadhrim (of Lórien)

    Dwarves

    Forces of Darkness (of Sauron)

    Rohirrim/Eotheod

    The independent civilizations you may come across would be:

    Mountain Orcs

    Men of Esgaroth/Dale

    Haradrim/Umbar

    Wainriders/Balchoth

    Isengard

    Drúedain

    Dunlendings

    Bree

    Hobbits

    Silvan (of Mirkwood)

    Again, you do NOT change ages within the course of a game. You pick an age, and that defines which civs are in the game.

    The player civs are set in stone at this point, as we began them two years ago. The independent civs have been solid for about a year, and we don't expect them to change either. This has been very well-thought out, trust us :)

    The change was structural - the content changed just a bit due to the structual change.

    Remember also that Númenor will be counterbalanced by Forces of Sauron and several opposing independent civs - Dunland, Harad/Umbar, etc. These civs will dislike Númenor quite a bit, and to survive Númenor will have to constantly find new resources and what not because of the high cost, therefore inevitably clashing with the opposing civs, and therefore Númenor will spend a great amount of its resources on defending its colonies and homeland from attack. There are many ways to balance civs, and we know them well within our own game ;) So I wouldn't be too concerned with balancing. Again, this is the culmination of two years of discussion within the team, and we've had a lot of time to think about things like this.

    Religion

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    I am (now) saying, that this was not the big bang simply because nothing came before the big bang.

    How can you say that and still believe in a god?

    If you believe that nothing came before the god, then you should feel equally comfortable believing nothing came before the big bang.

    Big Civ Structure Change

    in General TLA Discussion

    Posted

    About three weeks ago or so the entire team had a big meeting in which we discussed the official list of civilizations for the game, and how they were organized.

    THE WAY IT USED TO BE (done away with)

    There were six "player races" and three ages of the sun. Each race was represented by a different civilization, which was little more than a different name.

    This system seemed logical, but it limited us in a number of ways:

    We had to make northmen player civs in age 1 and 2, even though Tolkien wrote virtually nothing about them in those ages and they had no active part. We had to make up about 5 leaders entirely just to "fit the model" of the six races and 3 ages. We had trouble coming up with names to "classify" the races - for example, what we used to refer to as Teleri really should have been called Umanyar, or Moriquendi, etc, etc - it was very hard to find a name to "cover" all three civs.

    This we call now the "race-based system"

    So we adopted a new system. If you've been to the website in the past three weeks, you'll see a difference on the races/civilizations page

    THE NEW SYSTEM

    This we call the "age-based system".

    This system makes sense. Basically, we look at the age first, before the race. This means that we examine the age and figure out which civs should be player civs based on what they did in that age, how powerful, influential, expansive, etc they were. Player civs had the most active role, Independent civs had an active role, but were mostly controlled by or allied with a player civ, and all others become either editor only units or "independent units" - not attached to a civilization at all.

    So the list we came up with is as follows, by age. Remember, in TLA, you play in only one age at a time. Many civs will share artwork - for instance all three noldor civs, and the other elven civs - all three dwarven civs, etc.

    AGE 1

    Player Civs

    Noldor

    Edain (of Bëor and Hador)

    Sindar

    Dwarves (of Belegost and Nogrod)

    Forces of Darkness (of Morgoth)

    Independent Civs

    Drúedain

    Noegyth-Nibîn

    Falathrim

    Easterlings (of Beleriand)

    Edain of Haleth

    Laiquendi (of Ossiriand)

    Northmen

    AGE 2

    Player Civs

    Noldor

    Númenoreans

    Nandor (of the Vales of the Anduin)

    Dwarves

    Forces of Darkness (of Sauron)

    Independent Civs

    Drúedain

    Haradrim/Umbar

    Dunlendings

    Mountain Orcs

    Northmen

    AGE 3

    Player Civs

    Noldor

    Realms in Exile

    Galadhrim (of Lórien)

    Dwarves

    Forces of Darkness (of Sauron)

    Rohirrim/Eotheod

    Independent Civs

    Mountain Orcs

    Men of Esgaroth/Dale

    Haradrim/Umbar

    Wainriders/Balchoth

    Isengard

    Drúedain

    Dunlendings

    Bree

    Hobbits

    Silvan (of Mirkwood)

    The major changes are:

    Northmen (age 1,2) were reduced to independent civ status.

    Avari, Beornings, and Dorwinions were removed as independents. Avari and Beornings will still be in game as editor units and buildings. Dorwinions will use the same units and buildings as the men of dale, but there is no independent called dorwinions anymore.

    Laiquendi were added as an independent in Age 1.

    Edain of Haleth were added as an independent in Age 1.

    Silvan Elves (of Mirkwood and Thranduil) were added to Age 3 as an independent.

    The reason we had to change the system was because the only way TLA can legally exist is as a purist project that actively educates its fans on what Tolkien wrote and researches Tolkien's literature. So we can't just go on making things up or compressing it into a mold just as we wish - we have a greater duty to uphold here, one that legitimizes the project.

    I hope you're as happy about the changes as we are! Mostly there's going to be no change in gameplay, that is, what the gamer sees and does, except, of course, for the added and removed independent civs. It's mostly a structural change within the game, how the team and the fans think about the game. Whereas before we thought about race first, and then how to cram it into an age, we now look at the age and decide which civs we want doing what. It fits better within Tolkien's work this way.

×
×
  • Create New...