Book 3 - Page 248

I remember saying that, too

Book 3 - Page 248
Comic - Book 3 - Page 248
Recent posts... (See full thread)
ManaCaster wrote:
greyknight wrote:

Ace said it couldn't be made because portals were Titanic magic. His best mate was a Hat Magician so if that were the case I estimate at least a 96% chance that he would know it.

Sizemore was exasperated at how little he knew about certain aspects of golems despite being a maker of golems himself.

Normal Hat Magic probably can't do it, but I would be surprised if a caster link couldn't get at least the most important aspects of it.


Links and Carnymancy: The answer to all of life's questions.

Seriously though, maybe you don't need a link and it's just a secret of hat magic. I'm sure all casters have at least one thing that could get them declared OP if it was revealed.

Do we know what rank Cubbins is? I'm guessing Adept.
I wonder where Erfworlders' concepts of fairness, cheating, and overpoweredness come from.

Treating them charitably, it could be something like our Geneva convention, and other rules of war. But it doesn't seem to be formalized for the most part, rather felt to be 'right' or 'wrong' individually (but relatively consistently).
atteSmythe wrote:
I wonder where Erfworlders' concepts of fairness, cheating, and overpoweredness come from.

Treating them charitably, it could be something like our Geneva convention, and other rules of war. But it doesn't seem to be formalized for the most part, rather felt to be 'right' or 'wrong' individually (but relatively consistently).

Probably something they are innately popped with. With varying degrees of tolerance for any/all of the above depending unit personality, what the culture of their side and/or the current Ruler reinforces, and unit type. i.e. Royal Ideals vs non, Carnymancer vs non, etc.
atteSmythe wrote:
I wonder where Erfworlders' concepts of fairness, cheating, and overpoweredness come from.

Treating them charitably, it could be something like our Geneva convention, and other rules of war. But it doesn't seem to be formalized for the most part, rather felt to be 'right' or 'wrong' individually (but relatively consistently).


The broadest definition I can think of for Erfworld's OP is

Combinations of strategy, units, items or magics where the counter is disproportionately difficult to achieve.

This would mean that there are levels of OPness. The 'Hammer is lower than the 'Plyers but the 'Plyers are lower than the 'Dish and a State 7 ,which order these two are in is debatable.

The Hammer doesn't have the instant army/no upkeep component of the 'Plyers but both require their wielder to be in the field, making them vulnerable. . Conversely, you can use the 'Dish or State 7 from CC or the Temple respectively.

The Wonky Wrench is harder to rank because you need to be near what you rig but you also have the ability to create impenetrable barriers. I'd put it lower than the 'Plyers because it uses Juice.

I'd probably put Guns higher than the 'Hammer, but lower than Decrypted. Again, due to caster/juice requirements to get it to work.
Because there are limits to how large a side can be while remaining economically viable, there is an incentive to spin off colonies. The simple contracts that originate these colonies are probably limited in duration and would also tend to limit how large an 'empire' could grow.

A group of several colonies that have developed to the point of independence but still have a preference for fighting against "outside" threats rather than each other have a higher chance of individual and collective survival as sides, they will tend to have favorable alliance options and limited danger of being overpowered or fighting on multiple fronts.

Thus there is a value to "common values" which unite a set of sides against enemies that fall further outside those agreed values. Also, many of the values themselves tend to conserve sides against falling to misfortune, we've seen examples of wars to bring a side to subjugation rather than extinction, though the main story follows more dramatic examples of sides being wiped out. Having such values tends to increase the chance of being seen as worthy of having such values used to decide how far a war should be prosecuted, while Jetstone is probably too proud to admit it, they've likely benefited a (non-zero) number of times from being regarded as a side that shouldn't be wiped out ignominiously.

So a side that is regarded as posing existential danger to many other sides by virtue of their determination or ability to wipe out other sides wholesale probably tend to end up like Gobwin Knob at the beginning of Book 1 (if rarely on that scale), while those that content themselves with imposing their will on a limited area by limited means probably are given the benefit of reciprocal treatment often enough to have a higher chance of surviving over time. In a world where war is commonplace, establishing and upholding limits on how far you'll go to defeat your enemies is an good strategy for making friends, and making friends is a good strategy for not losing.

Like Parson said.
Xellos wrote:
Barefoot Monkey wrote:

It's not random, it's just a side-effect of the unusual way the site handles sessions. When you visit the forum, logged in or not, you get assigned a session ID, which you can see in the address bar while browsing the forum (look for "&sid=blablablabla") and embedded into every internal link on the page.

Wait, you can see a session ID? I can't, there are only some default attributes like post ID. I expected it to work this way, but since I don't see a session ID...


Session ids can also be stored in cookies. Which, I believe, is the official preferred way of doing it so that shared links don't allow people to hijack user accounts. I would personally never consider putting the sessionid in the GET params unless I had a way of verifying it that would be unique to the browser or at least the computer that originally logged in to that session.

The few times I've had need of session ids for a web app I was coding I used cookies. Cookies are unlikely to migrate to another computer on their own and cookies have inbuilt methods of verifying they belong to the computer using them.

If I really had to quess.. I would guess that whatever is happening is happening when the server calls session_regenerate_id() and creates a new session id for the authenticated session. Perhaps it's failing to create one... failing to apply the new session id to the session on the server side... or failing to pass the new session id to the client (our web browsers). But it would explain the periodic loss of authentication. And using session_regenerate_id() to periodically create new session ids is SOP.

But I've never looked under the hood of phpBB and I know its had quite a large number of much more skilled contributors to it's code than I. So it's specific method of securing sessions might be far different from what I've done in the past.
I didn't bother digging through all the conversation, but did anyone ever try and connect the title "I remember saying that, too" with Isaac? In the sense, somehow now Isaac can remember, through Parson's mind, saying something that Parson said. In other words, mind-reading on a 'deiform' level?
Which branch of magic is the magic of wordplay and puns?
Signamancy

context: See immediately preceding post.

I ain't quoting, but then again, just incase Keybounce becomes an enemy of the state of Denmark (where something is rotten), for posterity sake:

keybounce wrote:
Which branch of magic is the magic of wordplay and puns?
Isaac the thinkamancy constellation hanging out at the bottom of the scene really reminds me of Doctor Manhattan in that moment for some reason...