Originally posted by lucius
...magic manipulates the laws of nature ( I\'m not talking about druids and other stuff like that , I\'m talking about physics ) , changes them how it likes ( well , how the mage likes ) . Science , however , follows those laws , uses them , all the science based on those laws ( the ones that magic manipulates them ) . Therefore , magic and science can\'t be combined , they\'ll simply ruin each other .
Check the manual of Arcanum and you\'ll see the similarity...
Well , if devs don\'t want to change game to much ( and science in game is quite a change ) , than there is no point in those discusins . Isn\'t it ?
[/quote]
It\'s a speculation that they don\'t. They didn\'t say weather or not they would. And, being pre-alpha, there\'s plenty of room for changes.
Anyway, if you imply that science and magic can\'t mix because one would do _everything_ exclusively by magic, simply because it could be done, you also imply that you wouldn\'t cook, because all food can be magically made edible and tasty. You also wouldn\'t bother with farming, as magic can simply create food. Also, you wouldn\'t use fire or even cloths, since magic can make you warm and also protect you. There would be no ladders, no stairs, no walls, nothing, because magic can make you levitate, you wouldn\'t need tools so you don\'t need a house, since magic protects you from the weather.
But I say you still would, because it\'s economically impossible to use magic for anything and everything, as long as you don\'t have unlimited magical power, which would make everyone a god, in which case there would not be much sense in a fantasy setting anyway.
Especially when you have different magical abilities you must choose from, it\'s obvious that one still needs science to make up for the rest, and there will be ppl. who invent things, because they might not like to be dependant on the neighbouring mahe to protect them from the weather.
Originally posted by lucius About similarity with Arcanum ... I read some books with same consept , long time before Arcanum was created ... So why this game can\'t use it as well ? Not to mention that it sounds logicaly to me .
OK, so it sounds logical to you, but not to me. Also, why would ths game (PS, i believe), _need_ to use this concept in light of many, many other concepts, all equally proofless?
Originally posted by lucius
Originally posted by Seytra
Example: torch.
Conventional, scientific torch: creates heat and light by oxidation process
Magically enhanced torch: uses same oxidation process, however emits all energy generated by said process to output only light.
Therefore, the magically enhanced torch will either output _way_ more light than the conventional torch, or can burn way longer with ame light output as said scientific torch. Or be much smaller.
Side-effect: it will not burn you.
LOL , who need torches , if you have electric lamp ?! 
And LOL again . I\'d like to see wizards in the game using torches , while they\'ll probably have \"light\" spell
Obviously, my explanation wasn\'t nerarly as clear as I thought it would be. I didn\'t mean that wizards were to use torches (although they might, as mana isn\'t unlimited). You seem to imply that there are only wizards in the game, but fact is, there will be people who are not wizards. These would maybe not invest in the light spell (merchants, for example), but in other spells as they only have limited \"spell capacity\". Torches, IOW, mainly are for non-mages.
Originally posted by lucius
Actualy ... European blacksmiths knew both advantages and disadvantages of iron and steel swords and they wanted to get rid of those ... First who came up with a good idea were english blacksmiths ... They EXPERIMENTED ( which proves scientific aproach and no observation , they had goal to achive , unlike japanese blacksmiths ) and came up with mix of iron and steel ore . Japanece blacksmiths didn\'t exerimented much ... However they found technology of layers ( somehow ) , but that\'s it ! They didn\'t used anything new.
So they ground the katanas just for fun? Or is it nothing new to apply a new method of manufacturing (like grinding), but only the use of new materials is? They didn\'t even wish to make a good knife, as they had no goal to achieve?
Originally posted by lucius And don\'t think that technology of layers in weaponsmithing was unknown to european blacksmiths ... In 14 century they used it already , not for all swords , however , it took to long for them to to make such a swords , therefore , blacksmiths wanted compensation ... So only reach people or generals could aford those .
I didn\'t say that. I already acknowledged that they knew it when you said they used different metals, please read my posts.
Originally posted by lucius
And no , japanese blacksmiths didn\'t used any iron in their weapons ... Like I said before in my previos post , they used clay . And they wasted lots of time ( unlike european blacksmiths ) because of that method .
OK, you are saying they made katanas from clay? Surely that would be a great waste of time, as pottery isn\'t exactly the way to make swords. I also find the blades of katanas look much like iron or steel, not like the average plate made of clay...
Originally posted by lucius
Oh and one more thing about katanas and swords ... You wrote that it took few years to make one katana . LOOOOOOOOOOOOL !!! It actualy took few monthss , but not years ( profecional japanece blacksmiths were able to make up to 3 katanas per year ... Mostly bacause they were religous and waited for signal from their god(s) or Buda later on ... European blacksmiths could create few swords per day ( those were low grade swords , but it was usefull during a war ) .
So? This only lessens the disadvantage of their method compared to swords, but IMO has nothing to do with the science bit.
Originally posted by lucius
And do I need to say that people stoped using swords all over the world ( exept of isolated Japan ) , in 15 century ? They started using sabers and raipers . Those sabers or raipers that were created using layered technology were actualy as good as katanas ... Even better , since those were one-handed weapons , unlike katanas .
Any technology will eventually be replaced by another one that supercedes it. Nothin new to that. This doesn\'t make the previous technology worse or less scientific, just obsolete.
Originally posted by lucius
Oh and , where the hell did you took that thing with a steam tank ?!?!?! And what\'s up with mud ?!?!?! And will ou stop using steam engine everywhere ?!?!?! Like I wrote before ... Steam engine was only EXAMPLE !!! IT\'S NOT THE ONLY ENGINE !!! Ofcourse , I didn\'t meant diesel engines ...
So which other engines _did_ you refer to, then? Electric engines? Ion drives? Wind? Water? Solar? I use steam engine as it seems to be the only thing remotely plausible in a medieval-like fantasy setting, but feel free to explain why it\'s not.
And what about the steam tank? I took it from the observation that, in order to have a steam engine of usable power run for any substantial amount of time without refills, the steam tank (actually, the water tank, which is the same) needs to be big. Or did you talk about the steam-powered tank? I made it up, of course, because it\'s the only steam-powered device that could go anywhere but on rails. There is a reason why cars were only made when the otto, diesel, wankel engines were invented, and this reason is the size vs. weight relation.
FYI, the mud was an example of how illogical I find it that by scientifically creating something it becomes less natural as anything else. Mud can be created by very scientific means, but in the end it is exactly the same as conventional mud.
Originally posted by lucius
Oh and the flying race you wrote about , those are playeble characters ... They have thin skeleton , and they can\'t use heavy or madium armour , but that doesn\'t makes them weak ...
In terms of durability and physical strength, it actually _does_. If the disadvantage of physical strength is in equilibrium with appropriate advantages, they aren\'t weak overall in the sense of \"good for nothing\", but I did not mean to imply that as I was referring to physical strength, but I might be wrong to assume this.
Originally posted by lucius
Originally posted by Seytra
Why? Because MAGIC CAN DO ANYTHING! Why should it be limited to non-scientific devices only? After all, the most scientific device still obeys the same rules as, well, mud. No difference, you could even have a whole scientific theory of mud, create completely artificial mud. Would this mud than be excluded from being influenced by magic? I don\'t think it could be.
Originally posted by Seytra
As for your strength-enhancing armour powered by steam: I hate it. Anyway, it will not work due to lack of water (tank can only be tiny). Furthermore, it will not work because it\'d be too crude unless you imply modern-tech valves and pressure- powered actuators. IOW, it would be bulky at best. Not to mention that it\'d be kinda warm to have a nice, cozy fire burning inside your backpack all the time, while pipes (made of metal, I presume), filled with ~90?C - tempered water or even hotter steam, run along your body! Of course, you _could_ insulate the temperature, but this would be a matter of extreme bulkiness. It would add to armor, though...
For screaming out loudly !!!First you\'re talking about magic , then you\'re talking about scientific stuff and giving scientific explanations to evey thing and you\'re proving that it can\'t exist !!! You\'re taking it to real!!! BUT TOGETHER WITH IT YOU\'RE THINKING THAT MAGIC CAN DO EVERYTHING !!! Think about eveything as if it\'s in FANTASY world .
Why should I, really? Why will a fantasy world\'s non-magical properties inevitably have to be substantially different from our world? In fact, fantasy worlds are so much like our world, if you take magic away, they really could be our world.
Originally posted by lucius
Or stop talking crap about magic and how it can improve our modern technology !!! You\'re forgeting that it\'s not existing IRL !!!
First, why would I need to stop talking this \"crap\", as you refer to it, as it obviously is meant as an example?
Second, what makes you think I forget, even for a second, that magic does not exist IRL? I\'m perfectly aware of this fact, thank you very much.
Also, please do not call my reasoning or examples \"crap\" just because you don\'t agree with them or don\'t like them, OK? Once you prove me utterly wrong you may call it \"crap\", but unless you do so it\'s a point as valid as any of yours. Also, please stick to maintaining a minimum of politeness even if you can prove someone wrong.
FYI, there actually are RPG settings in something like our modern-day world (or even more advanced worlds), in which magic co-exists with science. As I already said, in these worlds, magic works on the scientific stuff as well as on non-scientific stuff. That\'s my point: to state that the concept of magic and tech being mutually exclusive is just one way to handle magic and science, there are other ways, whcih are, IMO, better (=more \"realistic\").
Originally posted by lucius
And for GOD sake !!! Stop using all of those \"IRL , IMO , IIRC\" and other stuff like that . I don\'t even understand half of it !!!
Well ,exept IRl=in real life ... I think ...
No, I will not. These abbreviations shorten the most commonly used phrases and I take advantage of this. I\'m not alone with this, BTW, it\'s very common on the web, really. It is inconvenient at first read, but there\'s good reason for it. Do a websearch on \"TLA\" or \"emoticons\" (yes they are often listed on the same pages as emoticons) and you\'ll find sites that explain the meaning of them, but most really are obvious in the context they are used within. And IMO, using more than one \"!\" is more annoying than these acronymes, as the latter actually serve a purpose, whereas the \"!\"s most of the time do not (one simgle \"!\" usually is sufficient to emphasize the sentence unless it\'s a really groundbreaking one). Also, may I remind you that you yourself are using these acronymes (lol)?
For your convenience, I\'ll list the most common ones I use at the end of this post.
Originally posted by lucius
I used that conseption with laws of nature to seperate magic from science . Otherwise there would be no point chosing one ore another . The whole idea will simply loose it\'s interest to people .
Maybe to you, but not to me. I don\'t believe that any science, and be it magic, can only be of use when used exclusively, our tech proves this. I strongly believe magic would be a science like every other science as well, if it did exist. And I believe that any science can be used to improve other sciences, especially magic can. But any designer of magic can choose to limit magic to anything they please. Hell, they can, having the same justification as anybody else, make magic only work on things that are green! They don\'t even need any explanation for it.
Originally posted by lucius
To what Zorium said ...
I didn\'t maent to offend anybody with those words ... I wanted to make an example of how they used something without of interest why it\'s happening ... I hope all those who got offended with my words will accept my apologies .
Not knowing what happens does not equal to not having interest in what happens. Their background IMO may just as well simply not have given them ways to understand it, I wouldn\'t know, as I already said.
This could easily apply to experimenting as well: they wish to know how to make something but they don\'t want to know how exactly this works (chemistry when they didn\'t know about atoms and molecules, etc.).
Originally posted by lucius
Japanece blacksmiths started working on katanas in 11th or 12 century if I\'m not mistaken ... again .
(But monkies don\'t know anything about kinetic energy .... )
See chemistry above, but this may be a valid point if we knew weather or not the japanese accidently stumbeled accross grinding or if they tried it to see what happens.
Originally posted by lucius
About mixing iron and steel ...
Iron swirds were flexible , unlike swords made out of steel ... Blacksmiths wanted to make swords out of stel more flexible ... Maybe I was wrong when I said that they mixed both iron and steel ore ... But they used them both in creation of swords . That way their swords were both flexible and hard ... Maybe it wasn\'t as strong as pure steel , but it wouldn\'t brake if heavy axe would hit it ...
AFAICS, they altered the mixture of \"steel\" they used. There are many different \"steels\" out there, one of them being \"stainless steel\". Their mixtures vary widely, but they all are referred to as \"steel\". So they used a different \"steel\", which had more iron in it, which gave it more flexibility, but maybe made it less hard. A tradeoff.
Definition of internet acronymes:
FYI = For Your Information
IMO = In My Opinion
IIRC = If I Remember Correctly
IRL = In Real Life, as you already guessed.
AFAIK = As Far As I Know
AFAICS = As Far As I Can See
