stars2heaven
-
Posts
716 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by stars2heaven
-
-
Im not sure it counts as a glitch, since it's normal behavior for the npc, but I ran into a mountain lion at a low level while doing the Aleswell quest. Since I couldnt see it and it was killing me pretting fast I ran to the top of the tower and dropped down onto one of the broken ledges bellow. I was thinking it just wouldnt be able to get to me there and I could heal and try to shoot it with arrows.
Instead it just kept jumping down trying to get me but always jumped too far. So it ran back up again. Each time it fell it got hurt, so it killed itself eventually.
-
http://cs.elderscrolls.com/constwiki/index...ner's_guide
Is the best one I know of. It covers most of what you would need to know in order to build what youve described. I followed it all the way through to make my first mod. It just doesnt continue with AI and voice overs/lip sync, but AI is easily learned just by examining npc's and quests in vanila oblivion and other peoples mods. I havent done anything with voices myself yet, since my priority is to build my mod and there is already a universal silent voice mod available.
-
There is already a very expansive mod out that would count as the underdark and its constantly being updated.
http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=23153
What you described for Icewind dale would be something, though large and time consuming, a relatively easy task for a beginner. It would mostly deal with placing houses and npcs in some northern area, a few quests here and there, and some things to fight. There are a number of vanilla npcs that couldl pass for a yeti....though Ive seen a number of custom creatures that would be excellent for that role. All it would take is permission to use them. All in all, sounds quite simple except for the size. But one could make it in peaces, as lliana is making Elswyr in peaces.
Perhaps, if you find no one interested and you have the time, this would be something you could take up.
-
It might help to determine why you arent getting into it, but Id bet its the number one reason most people lose interest in a game: Youve already experienced it.
Id suggest looking for new quest mods, the Oubliette is a good one that just came out. Not really a quest mod, but a very fun/scary dungeon crawl.
Id also look for mods that completely change the dynamic of the game. Mods like Enhanced Economy change everything to do with money and merchants. FCOM makes things way harder and introduces lots of new creatures and items. nGCD and Progress present a new leveling system that works great together.
Kragenirs Death Quest is a very long but good quest mod with tons of mini quests. It will have you running to many old locations, but you will have fun returning to them trying to find whats new.
Just try making your game as different as possible from the one you are used to, and look for some new adventure type mods that will get you away from the original stuff you already know.
-
Which gives me another idea. There could be certain areas of the battle area where various abilities of yours are impacted in negative ways while strengthening the boss in the same way, or in various other ways. You would have to choose which area would be best for you to stay in in order to fight the boss.
A real dilemma: If I stay here my magic will be hit hard. Thats ok, cause Im not a magic type. But the boss is, and his magic will become twice as strong and he will gain the new really annoying abilities. So do I stay here or go to another area where some other condition applies?
-
@Flavio
thanks for the idea. Ive actually alread considered a quest for one of them that you must do before even considering fighting him. But thats not enough for me, because in the end, Im still left with a pretty typical fight unless I come up with ways to make the fight itself something unique.
In addition to the boss itself, Ive been trying to think of ways to get the environment involved. Having traps available to injure him with are obvious, but too obvious for my taste. Another idea was already posted about providing areas to hide for the sneaky types.
One idea Ive had is set in an oblivion plane sort of setting in a field of spittal sticks. You will be essentially blinded by all the spores but the npc will be able to fight you unhindered. Could be really fps intensive though, and I dont run a great computer myself, so Id like to limit that as much as possible. Anyways, thats just an example of a way that the environment could play a role.
-
How about a boss where, when his health is low, he spawn copies of himself, these copies have low health, but if you dont find the real one soon enough, his healh regenerates.
Good idea! Ive already had something in mind about regenerating health that can only be counteracted by a certain action, but I like the copies idea. Only one is real, but all can kill you. There would have to be some subtle way of distinguishing them. Maybe a spell or something that the real one does that none of the others can do, or slight differences in the way they look.
-
@peppez, thanks for the ideas! I like the 3rd one you mentioned, and the buttons one. The minions can represent certain aspects of the bosses powere or whatever also, weakening him as you defeat them.I already have some shapeshifting in mind for one of them :)
-
You could have an enemy with little health and armor but a ferouciously strong weapon, and have him in a big hall with lots of shadows and nooks and crannies to snipe frrom, so the only feasible way to kill him would be stealthly, with an arrow.
I will keep that in mind, thanks
-
are you a modeler/animator ???
No I have no experience with that yet.
-
Im currently working on a mod that has a series of several bosses that you must fight. I dont want them to be the typical hack and slash type of boss. I want them to be interesting with varying strengths and weaknesses so that the player couldnt possibly pursue the same path to defeating each one of them. Im also not ruling out the role of the environment during the fights.
Ive got a few ideas of my own on how to accomplish this, adding reflect damage so that magic becomes more important, making one hit very hard and slow, another less hard but very fast. Im afraid my imagination may be a little limited here, so thats why Im asking for some ideas.
So, what would you like to see in a boss fight? What would make the fights more interesting for you?
Btw, if I use your idea I will certainly give credit :)
-
Beat me there Kaz :P.
Everything can be made once the landmass is complete. Then we shall power ahead.
Cool, I will keep an eye out then.
-
Whenever you guys are ready to begin making some things, I am willing to help out with this. Im new to modding, though Im confident with the CS and scripting even if I may not know every trick yet. Ive released one mod here so far that you can look at and see what sorts of things I have a good hand at, though Ive improved alot since that one.
When it comes down to it, if you have some little dungeons you want made along with some simple miscellaneous quests that may go along with it, Id be willing to give a hand in making them. You can Pm me if/when you are interested in my offer with whatever details you have in mind.
-
Having a Driver's license doesn't mean one is going to be a good driver or never drink and drive. Nor does a person with a medical license keep one from being a bad doctor.
So how does one go about implementing this?
Do we start the licensing process in Junior High? Do we do background checks on the teen's parents? Poke our noses in their parenting skills or lack of them?
An abused child doesn't necessarily grow up to be an abuser. That line of thinking goes down the same path as a person with an alcoholic parent becomes one also. Which is B.S in my opinion.
In today's society, a child can scream bloody murder that their parent is smacking them around if the whim suits their need at time. What happens then? Do the birthing police come in a revoke your license, cause the kid didn't get his or her way?
@Purplelizard
I agree, no license guarantees good behavior. However, I think it is presupposed that by the fact that we do require licenses for these things that we at least think that these licenses prevent, if not the majority, a large number of people who ought not be allowed to perform these activities from performing them. If this is not the case, and only a very small number, or none at all, are prevented from performing these activities, then this would serve as an excellent objection to this argument.
It is true that an abused child doesnt necessarily become an abuse, though there is strong evidence to show that the likely hood is vastly increased. As is the likelyhood that a child of an alcohol abuser will themselves abuse alcohol vastly increased. Im not sure though of the relevance of this. Perhaps as a discussion of the consequences of abuse? In that case, it only serves to strengthen the argument, for the harm to children is not the imediate hurt, but a life long trauma.
I would not be anymore worried about such things as you mention in your last comment under this system as you would be now. However, if this is a genuine concern of yours about the current system, then it me be that certain things need to be altered to make a better system. Such alterations could be included in whatever system is adopted to regulate parenting.
As far as your first question, Im not all that certain, honestly. A general acceptance of why it is a good thing would have to come first. Honestly, my purpose with this argument was not to actually propose a system that we could implement. But try to create discussion about something that many of us would take as an afront to our generaly held beliefs/values, even though we would accept the premises of this argument as true.
-
I better understand now the way you put your argumentation on and I esteem your point of view... in theory that may sound pretty good but in practice... it's an other world.
Let me explain here what I mean by a quite simple example upon regulating and endorsing licensing. As far as we know, being regulated and licensed don't make you being someone well qualified for doing things by a good way in real time. In theory it may sounds good for you, but in practice, sorry, it won't for the most of time. See a new licensed car driver, his/her licensed status don't make him/her a good driver by mostly ways. It's the same for the others drivers too. Only the real capacity gaining by your own experience or by improvement training course could make you a good/better driver, and under the limit of your own capacity to develop your skills, and we may find plenty of other examples in our everyday life by many ways. This is the same for parenting: by your own capacity for doing so in a good way and by learning.
Then, we must be aware of the pernicious side of such a regulating system. Why, will you ask me... Simply because by not licensing someone you will almost take down any chance for him/her to grow in mind and to gain the capacity of leading children by a better way, and this would be disrespectful and unfair if you're not taking care about. You will misrepresent the beautifulest thing you could offer to a man or a woman: the chance to evolve. Any self-respecting man would pay attention on this.
I shall conclude here by this case: what are you doing for others couples like lesbians, gays and trans-genders, haven't they the same chances as others to give their love to a child... :smile:
Oh certainly there would be no reason to discriminate against lesbians, gays, or trans-genders in this matter. They make as good of parents (and sometimes as bad) as anyone else, so they should be subject to the same licensing procedures.
In the case of the example of the driver that you mentioned I would agree. Just as with licensing drivers, licensing parents shouldnt be expected to not let through a few bad apples, or even to deny a few good ones. But I would like to point out that no blind person will ever slip through the cracks. Therefore, there is no reason to think that some of the absolute worst parents might slip through the cracks either. Those who are eminentely likely to do harm to a child will stand out against a psychological test or investigations into the home life, just as a blind person will imediately stand out against any driving test.
Your last comment is an interesting one and quite imaginative. Though I think I have a response to it that I hope is adequate. There are multiple aspects to your comment, so I will go over each that I think is most important.
First, it is often the case that when we deny a person a drivers license or we deny them the chance to practice medicine, or whatever their craft may be, that we do them some harm in the process. By denying a person a drivers license we limit their freedom in many ways. By denying a person the chance to perform a certain craft we can often impose tragic consequences on their lives. We may remove their only means of income, or deny a life long dream, or it may be the only thing that they knew how to do. Yet, most people think that this is an acceptable consequence. If allowing these people to continue in these activities puts innocents at immanent risk of harm it is acceptable that they suffer the unfortunate consequences of regulation. It is sad, but almost always viewed as necessary. So the case is the same with parenting. It is sad to deny some people the opportunity, but it is worse that children be unnecessarily abused in order to grant someone that opportunity.
Second, I do not believe that this ought to be an all or nothing proposition. If someone fails to pass whatever tests are involved, there is no reason that they should not be granted a second, or third, or infinite number of chances to try again. If a person/couple were to fail the "test", it may be fair to offer education courses or some manner of help to make it possible for them to become parents at a later time. In this way, only those simply unable to improve themselves would be permanently denied the opportunity to become parents, and for those who try again, they AND their children will be better off for it. So I believe this would satisfy your comment about the chance to evolve.
-
So you're trying to say that this needs some kind of test, right?
But what if they fail the test? What if a woman fails the test, but becomes pregnant anyways? I think that something like this may be a good idea, but this needs lots of thinking etc.
We can't just force people NOT to be a parent. This is a difficult subject to talk about. I think parents-license is just impossible to make. If so many don't know how to raise a child, and the woman carries a child, what will we do then? Give her an abortion, or take the child away from her as quickly as possible? There won't be any available space in the nurseries (or wherever homeless children or abused children are taken care of) anymore. I've been to Moscow several times, and I was shocked, because I saw so many homeless children begging for money outside.
:/
Incidentally, I agree with you. I dont think something like this is practical because no one will stand for it. However, The argument itself is valid, and most anyone would agree that its premises are true. If you accept both those things, then the conclusion follows with logical necessity, regarless of whether you agree with it or not.
As far as the rest of your comments go, here is what I think. There would certainly be many difficulties in implementing such a system. But there is no reason as of yet to think that these difficulties are insurmountable. Being uncertain as to how to implement the system doesnt undermine the idea that it ought to be implemented.
If you were uncertain as to how to appropriately regulate who could become a doctor or lawyer would that undermine the idea that those things ought to be regulated? Of course not.
On another note, I dont think that this argument should strictly be viewed as endorsing licensing for parents, only that parenting be regulated in some way. Regulation doesnt necessarily require that the government get involved or that licenses be required. Many people regulate their own actions on an individual level, or a community level, or by some other means other than licenses. It just so happens that the government is the traditional entity to enforce regulation, and licenses are the traditional means for regulating hazardous activities. But like I said, the neeed not be the ONLY things considered in this debate
-
I'm torn between two sides in this debate. I think requiring someone to prove that they are qualified to be a parent before allowing them to conceive is a wonderful idea... but who is qualified to determine their qualifications? I have no answer for this...
Currently the adoption process does a pretty good job with weeding out the bad parents, something similar could do the same with any other parent. Its pretty evident considering children raised by their biological parents are as much as 5 times more likely to be abused that a child raised by their adoptive parents.
Here is the info that supports this statement.
http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/cgi-bin/acfrightnow....php?p_faqid=70
-
Let me say that I'm not into it simply because I don't think the government is qualified for the job of qualifying parents.
I'm sure somewhere along the way it's gonna end up being a human rights violation.
agreed
and Mill said (not exact words) If the governemnt infringes on your natural rights, life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness (includes children) you have the right to overthrow the government, like a reset button
also, different parents have different tactics for raising kids, no one style is the best, therefore the government wouldnt be able to pick a certain type to do
We need not make fine distinctions about who is definately a good parent. We need only identify who is definately a bad one. For instance, we dont question whether a person who severely beats or neglects their child is adequate. Its fairly obvious that they arent. These are the types of people who would be the targets for discrimination when it comes to being alowed to parent.
-
The right to have a family is a basic human right and as such is protected by democratic governments. Parenting licenses would be considered a violation of this right.
Actually, what you propose would entitle the government the authority to dictate, who can and cannot have children. And I don't think that would sit well in any democratic country.
This proposal rests on the premise of who is willing to give up some of their rights for the promise of some security. I, for one, think it's too high a price to pay for such a small gain.
I still object to your first comment on the grounds that there are plenty of rights that we commonly restrict in order to protect innocents from harm. Life, liberty, property, the puruit of happiness are all rights that, while quite basic, are never granted in unrestricted capacities because all could result in the harm of innocents. Parenting badly can result in the harm of innocents also, so it being a basic right doesnt seem to protect it from restriction any more than any of these other rights are.
Deciding who can and cant have children may be a possible implementation of the idea, though I dont think its required, and see no reason for it to be.
As for your last comment, according to http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm there were an estimated 1,760 Child fatalities in the US that occured as a result of abuse. According to
http://faq.acf.hhs.gov/cgi-bin/acfrightnow....php?p_faqid=70
there were nearly 800,000 cases of abuse victims in 07.
If it were possible to prevent the vast majority of these cases, would it still not be worth it?
edit, after doing the math with the info on these sites, to bring the numbers of abuse cases among chidlren raised by biological parents to the same rates as those of adoptive parents, we would need to prevent 517,000 additional cases of abuse each year.
-
All good arguments, but it still boils down to this...
Does one really want the government poking their nose around one's uterus?
As it is today, the U.S. government wants to be in control of just about every aspect of our lives. Including how many children one can have. I did hear
about that one awhile back during one of the many health care "fantasies" they are dreaming up.
I am a Mom of 7, my kids were raised they way I was...earn an honest wage for an honest days work, to be honest, don't take any crap and be respectful. I wasn't spared the "willow switch" as a child, but, my kids were.
And I didn't raise any Charles Manson's or Fidel Castro's. " chuckle" Well you know what I mean, and it was all done without a license or a net.
It may be the case that having the government poke its head into our lives is undesirable, yet we allow it in many instances. The process that adoptive parents must go through, for instance, is very intrusive into their lives. But we accept this, because we think it is best to not allow just anyone to adopt.
-
It's not easy to keep people away from guns, cars, or other things that already require licenses...what would you do with children born to people with no license? Anyways, many people who would turn out to be unsuitable licensees would initially be able to reproduce...
Be careful what you ask for. A government that would administer reproductive rights according to its whims wouldn't be content to only trample people's right to reproduce with impunity. A Brave New World or a New World Order might not be what people envision as the ideal future.
I absolutely agree with you. Just as with any activity that is regulated, the licensing of parents should not be expeted to be perfect. All that should be expected si that the worst of parents, those whoul would do great harm to their children, be prevented from raising children.
A possible solution to unlicensed people who have children, and arent found to be competent to raise children, would be to put the child up for adoption.
This isnt an argument favoring a new world order or some such, only that parenting rights be regulated. This argument is analagous to adoptive rights, and many other activities that are regulated for similar reasons. If one were to object to this on the grounds that government intrusion is impermissible, then why not for those things as well?
-
... If the grand purpose is to protect children, then it would seem that to mistakenly deny some people the right would not cause nearly the harm that allowing just anyone the right could cause. We generally accept this to be the case with things such as driving, or practicing medicine. The analogy holds in the case of parenting as well.
We should well remember that driving licenses and professional licenses are privileges. You don't get a right to drive or a right to practice medicine, you get a privilege. Such is what a license entitles. A license cannot lawfully revoke a person's right. Tell me now, would you want your government to dictate how many children you are allowed to have?
As Purplelizard's post stated above, democratic governments do have a system in place to support victims of child abuse.
Yes, but not right is granted with unrestricted acces. The right to freedom of religion or speach could both be harmful to innosents if those freedoms were unrestricted. Rights can sometimes be limited in order to protect people from harm. Limiting rights to parenting would acheive that end.
Whether or not I would want my government dictating how many children I could have is irrelevant to the argument at hand. This is only over who can and cant raise children, not who can have children (necessarily), and especially not how many children a person can have (though it potentially does in some instances, where having a certain number of children amounts to the neglect of those children, thus rendering the parents competence suspect.)
-
Let me say that I'm not into it simply because I don't think the government is qualified for the job of qualifying parents.
I'm sure somewhere along the way it's gonna end up being a human rights violation.
But otherwise you dont disagree that it is, at least, theorecticaly desirable?
But still, it seems to me that there is no reason to believe that more mistakes will be made in administering parenting licenses than in other regulatory activities. If that is your point. But even that there would be mistakes doesnt seem to me to be enough reason to object to the idea. If the grand purpose is to protect children, then it would seem that to mistakenly deny some people the right would not cause nearly the harm that allowing just anyone the right could cause. We generally accept this to be the case with things such as driving, or practicing medicine. The analogy holds in the case of parenting as well.
-
We require licensing for all sorts of things. Namely, activities that are potentially harmful to others and so require a level of competence to perform them safely. This applies to doctors, lawyers, pilots, drivers, etc. It is important that we require licensing for these activities for these reasons. The protection of innocents from harm trumps the individuals right to pursue these activities, even if they end up being inconvenienced or greatly disappointed.
These are general criteria for when we ought to regulate a certain activity. Like some of the mentioned activities, parenting also meets these criteria. That parenting is potentially harmful to children should be immediately apparent. Children are physically abused in the 100s of millions each year, and mentally abused in far greater numbers. It should also be evident that for a parent to avoid harming their children, he/she must be competent in parenting. Many, MANY people lack the knowledge, energy, temperament, or stability necessary for good parenting.
Having met those two criteria it should be given that the regulation of parenting is at least theoretically desirable. So that leads me to the third and final criteria for any activity deemed desirable to regulate: that there is a moderately reliable procedure for determining competence.
In the case of parenting, as in the other cases above, there is. It would be a fairly simple task to eliminate the worst possible parents with even a much simpler system than is used to determine whether a people applying for adoption would make adequate parents. Simply identifying if a person is violence prone or easily frustrated would count as simple things that could be tested for. Under the system that adoptive parents must go through, adopted children are as much as 5 times less likely to be abused by their adoptive parents than an average child is to be abused by their biological parents, and the process that one must go through is quite rigorous.
Considering the fact that parenting is an activity that requires competence in order to do it well and to prevent harm from others (namely children), and that there is a moderately reliable test for determining competence, its seems to follow that regulating parenting through licensing, or some equivalent means, is something that ought to be done.
For the sake of brevity I guess Ill cut this short here as its getting a little long and I could say a lot more.
smarter enemies?
in Mod Ideas
Posted
I wasnt even sure how to go about looking for this to see if its already been done since I dont know what it would be called other than the obvious. Anyways, I hate it how some npc's behave during a fight. Best to give examples.
1. when you are on a high rock/place where nothing can reach you and you start shooting arrows or spells at your opponent it would seem like any normal person would try to find cover, or atleast back off until he could reach you again.
2. In a cave FULL of bandit/raiders/wizards or whatever it seems strange that NONE of them notice when their friends slowly start to go missing (if you are the sneaky type). And those patrolers? They walk right past their dead friends and never raise an alarm...
3. A group of fighters should always try to surround you. Or atleast the one(s) you arent focusing on at the moment should try to get behind you. It's just good tactics. (This usually ends up happening anyways.)
4. I never see any npc's using ranged attacks while running backwards. They usually just run away until they are at a safe distance and shoot again. But I can do it, so why dont they? It might be interesting to see an npc try to slow my movement rate and then kite me.
5. I usually try to fight without companions and I rarely summon, but if I do, it would be interesting to see an enemy who is suddenly outnumbered try the same things I would to minimize damage. (Backing up against a wall, or moving into a narrow space so that fewer enemies could reach, or employing calm spells, or other spells that deal with crowd control)
I bet I could come up with more if I took the time. Oh, and i certainly realize that some of these things would require a level of AI that is probably well beyond what Oblivion is capable of. Though it would still be nice to have some smarter enemies!