Borsook Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 So the NPCs and Quests are going to be the same component? Does that mean that presence in the party of the new NPCs will be required for the quests to take place? Link to comment
Andyr Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Uh, probably not. Most of the quests planned so far don't need the NPCs in the party; a large proportion of the quests are linked in some manner to stuff already in the game (such as Pellhus Tanislove, though I'll not post spoilers). The NPCs themselves might have their own quests too, though. Link to comment
Borsook Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Uh, probably not. Most of the quests planned so far don't need the NPCs in the party; a large proportion of the quests are linked in some manner to stuff already in the game (such as Pellhus Tanislove, though I'll not post spoilers). The NPCs themselves might have their own quests too, though. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's good, but why then can't they be separated from the quest component? Link to comment
NiGHTMARE Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Because the NPCs' quest will require the new areas, as will many of the quests. BTW since several NPCs are well on their way to completion, the only way to give quests priority over NPCs would be to build a time machine. I'm afraid I lack the technical know-how for that. Link to comment
the bigg Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Because the NPCs' quest will require the new areas, as will many of the quests. BTW since several NPCs are well on their way to completion, the only way to give quests priority over NPCs would be to build a time machine. I'm afraid I lack the technical know-how for that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Start moving faster than light, go somewhere, then reverse (still faster than light) and go exactly where you were some time ago. See also here for other ideas. [/spam] Link to comment
Andyr Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Probably not possible in our universe's topology. I am slightly wary about the resumption of posting in this thread. It may attract the attention of the Ding0 again. Link to comment
Borsook Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Probably not possible in our universe's topology. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If I remember correctly, according to Einstein it's theoretically possible. Lack of practical means should not stop a resourceful modder who'll create them in a jiffy. Link to comment
CamDawg Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Believe it or not, there's actually a fairly good reason why wormholes are mentioned in the Noobermeet forum description (though the second link is actually from the Delainy forum). I love that we get so many thread hijacks for physics. http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?s...869&hl=wormhole http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?s...=16&hl=wormhole edit: And wow, the thread ID for the seond thread is #16, meaning it was one of the very, very first threads here. Back when we were on Ikonboard. And called the Delainy forums. And on camagna.net. Link to comment
Andyr Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 I think one of the main issues with a wormhole-type time machine is while it is fine in theory, in practice you could/would get feedback loops of photons going through and reinforcing themselves in an infinite loop (which would then close the wormhole). So, yeah, them existing does not necessarily mean it is possible to use them. Like public toilets. And although I realise I am one of the main culprits here, could I encourage any further discussion off-topic to Noobermeet? EDIT: Hehe, crossposting with Cam. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.