Is it me or is everything too easy to kill?

[Ganelon]

A cave full of Cyclops and my three man newb party doesn't get a scratch?
It's seems like everything just drops as soon as they get hit.

[Patrick]

Yes, it's a 'known bug'. See FAQ sections 5.3 and 5.4.

[Soul Harvester]

Another thing I noticed, even when moving at your second speed (not running) all the enemies still cannot catch you or outrun you unless they are fleeing!

It'd be neat if a lot of the enemies could run faster then you, would make it a lot more challenging. I'm currently playing through with exult with only me in the party, limiting myself to leather armor, and using only magic and daggers... and 18 str... still too easy :/

But fun!

[Clock Nova]

Fortunately, the combat isn't what made this game so great. I usually try to avoid fighting anyway. After all, this isn't Baldur's Gate (yech.)

PS Doesn't have HALF the bugs that had.

[Soul Harvester]

I like the exult combat (tho incomplete) better then the original... the original, no matter what you did (partially due to the fact that you couldn't open your spellobook on the fly) the combat always degenerated into nothing but a massive frag fest that was over in a few short seconds.

[sprodfish]

try killing a rabbit (like the ones at the start of SI) with your bare hands or something that isn't classed as a weapon (like a rock)
you simply can't kill it...
and it WILL kill you if you don't stop and move away

though i noticed how exult changed the rabbit meat to just "meat" instead of the slice of "beef" they originally had

[Clock Nova]

Mmmmm... Rabbit. Tastes like beef!

[Tim]

I've noticed that the animals you kill in the wild contain "random food". I killed a boar and it had carrots inside. And the second one had eggs. And another had pastry. Yum.

[Max aka Moscow Dragon]

EQUIP.DAT file contains the information of the contents of the random monsters.
Hope this thing is implemented in Exult.

[wjp]

equip.dat only contains the shape number of the contents, not the frame. Our frame-selection algo. must still be a bit buggy.

[Legomancer]

The worst part about it is that you hardly ever get to hear, "Poor Avatar! Poor, poor Avatar!"

[Daniel Schoenmann]

Fighting and killing things certainly isn't the main point in U7. But as far as I am concerned, I would prefer it if monsters would represent a real danger to my party. After all, a certain sense of danger war an important part of the fascination I had with the game when when I played the original back in 1994.

Therefore I do hope that someone finds a way to make monsters more dangerous and battles more challenging in Exult U7. This would round off the already great result of the Exult project.

[Oblivious]

"EQUIP.DAT file contains the information of the contents of the random monsters.
Hope this thing is implemented in Exult."


Really? How do I read it?!?!?

[wjp]

It's really not all that interesting. It just contains things like "a cow should contain food", "a dragon should contain gems", etc...

[drcode]

You can't read it easily, as it's all binary data. The same goes for 'weapons.dat' and 'ammo.dat'.

We are using most of the data from those files now. The weakness of our combat model is mainly in the computation of hit-points. We have some better ideas of how to do this, but my plan was to wait until after the 1.00 release. It's possible, since there really haven't been a whole lot of other Beta bugs outstanding, that I'll look into doing this earlier.

[Max aka Moscow Dragon]

I can send you the C source which parses EQUIP.DAT.

[Stephan]

By the way, the plural form of Cyclops is 'Cyclopi'.

[wjp]

actually, I think it would be Cyclopes

[Stephan]

No, it's Cyclopi.

[nadir]

Modern english allows both the "latin" and the "anglosaxon" versions of plurals for words derived from latin.

Therefore, the plural of "stadium" can be either "stadia" or "stadiums"

Both are correct

[Stephan]

Ok, that works too.

[wjp]

In both latin and greek the plural of cyclops is 'cyclopes', AFAIK.Where does 'cyclopi' come from?

[suraimu]

It comes from the same place that people who think the plural of 'virus'
is 'virii' - their imaginations.

[XxVenomxX]

It's definetely Cyclopes

Cy·clops (sklps)
n. Greek Mythology pl. Cy·clo·pes (s-klpz)
Any of the three one-eyed Titans who forged thunderbolts for Zeus.
Any of a race of one-eyed giants, reputedly descended from these Titans, inhabiting the island of Sicily.

Cy·clo·pes (s-klpz)
n.
Greek Mythology. Plural of Cyclops.

Cyclopes n 1: (Greek mythology) one of a race of giants having a single eye in the middle of their forehead [syn: Cyclops, Cyclopes] 2: only the silky anteater [syn: Cyclopes, genus Cyclopes]"


"No entry found for Cyclopi in the dictionary"



Go American Heritage Dictionary!



dictionary.com


Not like it matters... but ya gotta use the dictionary for arguements like that. hehe

[Stephan]

Actually, no, the dictionary never has the final say in matters like these. All languages change, and the dictionaries change to reflect the changes in the languages. (Still with me?)

What a word means, how it is used, and things like - yes, the plural form - depends on how people are currently using it, not what it says in the dictionary. If mostly everyone would start using the word 'orange' to describe an apple, then orange would be the correct word to use - even if the dictionary would still say apple. Most likely, the next edition of the dictionary would change to reflect this.

Anyway, my point is this - I have never seen 'cyclopses' used as the plural form for cyclops, I have only seen 'cyclopi'. As cyclops is not a very common word (I've mostly seen it in games myself), and I've only seen 'cyclopi' being used, that's the form I'll use. Since 'cyclopses' is in the dictionary, however, I'm leaning towards Nadir Dragon's solution, that both are perfectly acceptable.

[wjp]

Cyclopses is defendable, being the 'logical' plural if cyclops would be a native english word.

Cyclopes is the correct plural form from an latin/greek p.o.v.

Cyclopi... is... well... I don't know what cyclopi is, actually
Where did you see this?


Ah well... it doesn't matter much, I guess. Time to return to our usual (?) on-topic conversation

[XxVenomxX]

*shrug*
Like I said, doesn't matter to me.
But if people started calling apples oranges, I think the rest of humanity would just ask them what the hell is wrong with them. hehe

[nadir]

The latin pluralization depends on what "declination" the noun belongs to.

Cyclopi is incorrect, because the plural ending in -i is for a 2nd declination, which means the singular has to end in -us. And it definitely is not Cyclopus.

[Kurt]

cyclopus = octopus with one eye?

Funnily enough I have never even though what the plural of cyclops is until this thread... Cyclopes seems more logical than cyclopi to me though.

[Kurt]

or you could use the word 'cyclopians' which would be used to describe a group of one eyed creatures... could be used for a mixture of one eyed things, whether they are cyclopes or other kinds of one eyed monsters (tee hee).

[XxVenomxX]

hehe, sounds good to me
I've heard cyclopians before, in fact, for that same reason. Different types of one eyed monsters (not just cyclopes)

[Max aka Moscow Dragon]

Ancient Russian folklore mentions a Single-Eyed Bane.
Was it a Cyclops?