1.10 Analyzation Debate...

[Logic_X]

Information Confirmed:

Start off with the rules for this thread:
1 - only use information assertainable from the information provided from Blizzard thus far, this does NOT include the "leaked" information, that information should be considered FALSE for this and cannot be admissable as evidence of any perticular Analyzation of the information.

2 - NO ideas are dumb, only those not stated. All ideas are to be accepted as valid views unless a logical or reasonable argument can be made against them, any observations about the information presented officially by blizzard maybe submitted to support or refute a point.

3 - I will be placing this with similar threads (copy and pasting quotes from what people write) on other forums, so if you do not wish to be quoted, please state so, but I'm doing this to keep the contemplation active on these points, seeing if we can't attempt to develop the ideas for which the new patch will blossom on.

4 - Validity of argument, and progression of concepts:
- Concept (no data, theorizing, relating to information given....ie from looking at one skill you assertain that a similar skill would have x and y values from g through synergies)
- Theory (some data, enough to support a type of thesis, and could be admissable and accepted in small claims court - ie from looking at the arrangement of skills in a screenshot, you see that such and such must have between x and x +skills, then you can theorize that the base damage of y has to be between a and B).
- Debunked Theory (conflicting data, of superior quality than the Theory's support - ie someone proves that indeed x and x +skills could be differently arranged under the situation presented).
- Fact (X has Y properties because it is displayed there)

Here are the Facts thus Far:
Azurewrath Phase Blade 1.10
106-120 damage (244% ed)
Indestructable
Level 13 Sanctuary (aura when wearing)
+1 all skills
30% ias
250-500 Magic Damage
250-500 Cold Damage
+7 all attributes
+3 light radius

Rainbow Facet Jewel 1.10
100% chance to cast level 47 chain lightning when you die
1-74 lightning damage
3% enhanced lightning skill damage
-3% enemy lightning resistance.

Bonespear [Skill] 1.10
Slvl 22
624-664 damage
12.2 mana per cast

Slvl 23
676-719 damage
12.5 mana per cast

Synergies:
Bone Spear bonuses:
Teeth: +7% magic damage per level
Bone Wall: +7% magic damage per level
Bone Prison: +7% magic damage per level
Bone Spirit:+7% magic damage per level

With current skills:
Teeth: 13
Bone Armor: 28
Poison Dagger: 9
Corpse Explosion: 12
Bone Wall: 9
Poison Explosion: 9
Bone Spear: 22
Bone Prison: undeciferable or 0. (not seeing any numbers there, with any contrast/brightness setting or zoom in)
Poison Nova: 10
Bone Spirit: 9

Only base skill level effects synergies (+skills do NOT boost damage of spells)

I will post my Concepts and Theories after this post....and then put both on the other forums.

[Logic_X]

Bone Spear Theory:
http://www.battle.net/diablo2exp/images/ot...r/bonespear.jpg
He has between +2 and +8 all skills (judging from screen it's probably +8....unless he's wearing specifically +bone armor - but it's at least +2, because you can have +3 to it on both the wand and the totem)....And we knew they threw in some to try and throw us off the base (so we couldn't tell how much damage base it would do)...

Btw....with this assumed his skills are:
Teeth: 13 (1-11 base)
Bone Armor: 28 (14-20 base)
Poison Dagger: 9 (1-7 base)
Corpse Explosion: 12 (1-7 base)
Bone Wall: 9 (1-7 base)
Poison Explosion: 9 (1-7 base)
Bone Spear: 22 (8-20 base)
Bone Prison: undeciferable or 0. (not seeing any numbers there, with any contrast/brightness setting or zoom in)
Poison Nova: 10 (1-8 base)
Bone Spirit: 9 (1-7 base)

Bonespear Concept:
If it synergies back to the wall....a decently powerful wall (possible longer duration? or more life?)

Bonespear Concept:
at level 20 base....spirit would give +140% damage to spear, and I'm willing to bet spear gives a similar return.......would make it VERY nice for a combination attack.

[Logic_X]

Concept Mathematics on 1.10 Rainbow Facet Jewel (Lightning):

Couple things to consider:
3% skill damage bonus could apply to skills or to all items, assuming mastery bug is a reflection of how this will act these concept mathematics will use this as a default to boost damage.
-3% enemy lightning resistance will be assumed to take effect and not (6% formulas assume this reduces the enemy's resistance in a way similar to lower resists, which does a direct -x, the 3% formulas assume this reduces the enemy's resistances by a % of their resistances and assumes 0% monster resist)

Concept "1-100 jewels vs. Rainbow Facet":
Best small charm possible for lightning damage:
Shocking of Storms
2-99 lightning damage.

2 x 40 = 80
99 x 40 = 3960

80-3960 from charms is best possible in 1.09 from charms

Add in 13 jewels and a Shocking of storms weapon (2 socket from Larzuk)

13 x 1 = 13
13 x 74 = 962

13-962 lightning from the jewels
7-600 from the weapon's innate bonuses

Total:
100-5522
with 39% boost in damage:
139-7675
Average damage 3907
assuming that the 39% damage reduction works like the lower resistance spell: 5430 average damage.

where as 100 lit dmg jewels would be:
13-1300 from the jewels
would be a total of:
100-5860
average damage:
2980 average damage.

about 1000 less than the average damage before the resists on the 74 lit dmg jewels w/ boosted damage......

and on a melee sorc you can boost it even further (although this would boost either)...

More Mathematical Concepts:

74 * 1.06 = 78 (rounds down)
100 * 1.00 = 100
148 * 1.12 = 165 (rounds down)
200 * 1.00 = 200
222 * 1.18 = 261 (rounds down)
300 * 1.00 = 300
296 * 1.24 = 367 (rounds down)
400 * 1.00 = 400
370 * 1.30 = 481 (no rounding)
500 * 1.00 = 500
444 * 1.36 = 603 (rounds down)
600 * 1.00 = 600

6 jewels required to hit a sort of damage breakpoint (through assumption of direct resistance reduction - ie 1% = 1% instead of 1% = 1% of x)

For just the 3% damage boost (look at the sorceress lightning skills)
74 * 1.03 = 76 vs 100 (1 socket)
148 * 1.06 = 156 vs 200 (2 socket)
222 * 1.09 = 241 vs 300 (3 socket)
296 * 1.12 = 331 vs 400 (4 socket)
370 * 1.15 = 425 vs 500 (5 socket)
444 * 1.18 = 523 vs 600 (6 socket)
518 * 1.21 = 626 vs 700 (7 socket)
592 * 1.24 = 734 vs 800 (8 socket)
666 * 1.27 = 845 vs 900 (9 socket)
740 * 1.30 = 962 vs 1000 (10 socket)
814 * 1.33 = 1082 vs 1100 (11 socket)
888 * 1.36 = 1207 vs 1200 (12 socket)
962 * 1.39 = 1337 vs 1300 (13 socket)
1036 * 1.42 = 1471 vs 1400 (14 socket)
1110 * 1.45 = 1609 vs 1500 (15 socket)
1184 * 1.48 = 1752 vs 1600 (16 socket)
1258 * 1.51 = 1899 vs 1700 (17 socket)

(Maximum sockets possible on one character = 17)

Reaches superiority at 12 socket with no exterior bonuses.

but lets say you have +50 max lit dmg (Thundergod's Vigor)

124 * 1.03 = 127 vs 150 (1 socket)
198 * 1.06 = 209 vs 250 (2 socket)
272 * 1.09 = 296 vs 350 (3 socket)
346 * 1.12 = 387 vs 450 (4 socket)
420 * 1.15 = 483 vs 550 (5 socket)
494 * 1.18 = 582 vs 650 (6 socket)
568 * 1.21 = 687 vs 750 (7 socket)
642 * 1.24 = 796 vs 850 (8 socket)
716 * 1.27 = 909 vs 950 (9 socket)
790 * 1.30 = 1027 vs 1050 (10 socket)
864 * 1.33 = 1149 vs 1150 (11 socket)
938 * 1.36 = 1275 vs 1250 (12 socket)

look at the relationship of the answers in the 2 comparisons:
76:100 vs 127:150
156:200 vs 198:250
241:300 vs 296:350
331:400 vs 387:450
425:500 vs 483:550
523:600 vs 582:650
626:700 vs 687:750
734:800 vs 796:850
845:900 vs 909:950
962:1000 vs 1027:1050
1082:1100 vs 1149:1150
1207:1200 vs 1275: 1250

Rounding Down All %'s that is:
76% vs 84% - 8% diff
78% vs 79% - 1% diff
80% vs 84% - 4% diff
82% vs 86% - 4% diff
85% vs 87% - 2% diff
87% vs 89% - 2% diff
89% vs 91% - 2% diff
91% vs 93% - 2% diff
93% vs 95% - 2% diff
96% vs 97% - 1% diff
98% vs 99% (99.9130%) - 1% diff
100% (100.5%) vs 102% - 2% diff

As you can see, as more damage is tacked on outside the jewels the % of damage compared to 100 max dmg lit jewels improves it signifigantly.

A balance of the two would quite possibly net the superior damage compared to any pure of either. unless in extreme circumstances.

Even MORE Concepts - this time about the death mod - based on 1.09 damage tables:
At the current time here's how "chance to x on x" modifications stack:

Rules:
Only 1 can be cast from a specific occurance.
example:
--100% chance to cast meteor on strike
--100% chance to cast firestorm on strike
--only the first effect encountered would occur. (if i remember correctly it does it by equipment placement right.....basically if you had 100% on a helm, it'd happen first)

Stacking:
Every effect is counted as an independent % instead of a cumulative %.

Example:
1% level 5 cb when struck
1% level 5 cb when struck
1% level 5 cb when struck

each would be checked independently resulting in about a 2.97% chance of occuring (increases as it goes further through a chain) - there was a thread a couple months ago in here that had it all worked out (on dii.net)....dunno if it's still around or not tho.

Skill info:
(compliments chippydip)
Chain Lightning
Level 47
14 hits
1-686 damage
5.3 yard jump radius

potential damage of just level 47 chain lightning:
14-9604

Potential Lightning damage with 3% damage boost:
14-9884

With a fair amount of these jewels the potential damage skyrockets (although you would need more than legitly possible to boost the minimum potential above 14 due to having to multiply the min to the % before adding to get potential)

Just a Note (for breakpoints):
6 jewels (6% method per jewel) or 12 jewel (3% method per jewel):
1-932 per hit, 14-13048 potential

17 jewels (6% method per jewel):
2-1385 per hit, 28-19390 potential

17 jewels (3% method per jewel)
1-1035 per hit, 14-14490 potential

rather decent damages imo...
Lvl 30 CL w/ Lvl 30 Lit Mast (example for comparison) (1.09): (potential 11 hits)
4-2146 per hit, 44-23606 potential.
-----------
If it launched 1 chain lightning for every jewel (would all be launched simultaniously kinda in MSLE style if they did) - it would make the potential damage from death:

17-246,330

(with 17 meaning all hit 1 target for 1 damage, and 246330 being all 17 hitting 14 targets each, and dealing maximum damage)
-----------

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

NO ideas are dumb, only those not stated. All ideas are to be accepted as valid views unless a logical or reasonable argument can be made against them, any observations about the information presented officially by blizzard maybe submitted to support or refute a point.

1. Download the Patch.

2. Play the Game after downloading the patch.

3. Make actual observations of real, existing data while playing the game after downloading the patch.

4. Present INFORMED opinion based on actual observations of real, existing data garnered from playing the game after downloading the patch.

5. Get a life.

And you can absolutely, bloody quote me everywhere you're posting this drivel. :blink:

[NuurAbSaal]

...it may be a useless post (IMO and IYO) but it's not like he forced you to read it, is it? ;)

Just ignore it, maybe SOMEone finds it interesting (:lol:), I certainly don't...

Greetings
Nuur

[mageofthesands]

Far more technical for me.

[Logic_X]

The reason I posted it is because I got tired of seeing speculative threads popping up darn near everywhere and decided to give a centralized location for views on objects (all information from this is just a compilation of a BUNCH of short responses I've made to other posts I've seen around online....I didn't sit down and compile these in 1 night...I do have quite a bit more of a life than that).

On a side note....I find it odd that this is the only forum I recieved a NEGATIVE response from...(all other forums this is posted on got POSITIVE feedback...and also someone actually pointed out something I forgot to add - Wolfhowl)...thanks for some supporting posts here at least (got the most replies here so far...3 in under 12 hours is pretty good):

(I'm only quoting the posts that attempted to add something to the points)
Here's the quotes:

Wingspan32
I will now attempt to figure out the base damage of Bone spear.

At slvl 23 with the synergies, 676-719 damage.

7% dmg boost per slvl from Teeth, BoneW, BoneP, BoneS

If we assume only base slvl counts, it APPEARS the base slvl for these skills are probably around:

-Teeth: 5
-BonePrison: None
-Bone Wall: 1
-Bone Spirit: None

With 6 base points, this gives a 42% bonus. Meaning the 676-719 is 142% of the base dmg of slvl 23 BSpear.

676-719 XXX-XXX
---------- ----------
1.43 1.00

Base dmg: 473-506

If total skill lvl, not bade, actually counted, there is slvl 13 Teeth and slvl 9 BWall, giving 22 points, 154% ed, meaning

Base dmg: 266-283

Brother Laz
You forgot the stats of Wolfhowl wink.gif

Wolfhowl
Fury Visor (barb only)
356 defense
35 durability
Req str: 129
Req lvl: 79

+3 to warcries (barb only)
+5 feral rage (any)
+4 lycanthropy (any)
+6 werewolf (any)
136% enhanced defense
+15 strength
+12 dexterity
+10 vitality
Level 15 dire wolf (17/18 charges)

Seems to conform with the leaked one...;)

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

On a side note....I find it odd that this is the only forum I recieved a NEGATIVE response from..

Perhaps that's because we have a lesser population-density of howling, mindless idiots (HMIs) that hop up and down to such things. We actually want to eat the cake before we comment on the flavor? Some seem to actually want to express the waste product from its digestion without ever having tasted the cake in the first place.

Then again, we do indeed have our share of 1.10 speculative threads, I'll concur. While our HMI population density isn't null, one can hope that they're contained to a minimum.

[Occhidiangela]

Do you mean this thread to be devoted to analysis and discussion about patch 1.10, or is your title an intended pun, and is this thread aimed at getting completely anal about patch 1.10? :)

FWIW:

Theory: Blizzard will release patch 1.10. As part of a collective effort, each Lurker will pick a skill tree with which to explore synergy details.

Concept: Lounge folks sign up in this thread and agree to pursue various class and skill focused characters in the interest of discovering how the game really works, and how close to the way it works the Lying Character Screen depicts the values. :)

Proof: To Be Determined

[Logic_X]

heh..Good Idea occhi....at least it's constructive (which I'm sorry can't be said for Nicodemus's posts). This thread is NOT flamebait, if you don't care to add something constructive to it, please don't junk it up with non-constructive information (although constructive criticism is welcome RELATING TO THE ISSUE) - just closing up...that's a good Idea occhi...be an interesting thing to start a thread for that and get a few people lined up to test each tree or even just each class for the time being...would be very useful in the long run :).

I just want to say what I said on other forums: I will only post those things pertaining to the analysis of 1.10 to other forums. So far I have only recieved ONE person that chose to attack the post (that's on three different forums atm). I personally don't care if you don't like the post or not, I'm giving a place for people who like to contemplate things to go and contemplate them, nothing more.

THIS IS NOT: Flamebait, Rants, etc. MERELY information and theories.

I'm tempted to spread your idea to the other forums with your permission Occhi.

Thank you.

[Edit: Btw, the Forums are Diabloii.net (yes they have their fair share of "HMI" as Nic put it, but the other 2 = Lurker Lounge (here), and Amazon Basin (sure they would appreciate being called Howling, Mindless Idiots)]

[Occhidiangela]

1. Yes, maybe the idea I proposed belongs in another thread.

2. I like Nico's acronym. I find that Dii.net have an HMI index indentical to bnet forums, while the Basin has few HMI's, if any. Just my read on it.

[Occhidiangela]

Far more technical for me.

No way you are a native English speaker with that structure, so I am going to guess that you are from Germany or Taiwan.

Am I even close?

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

heh..Good Idea occhi....at least it's constructive (which I'm sorry can't be said for Nicodemus's posts). This thread is NOT flamebait, if you don't care to add something constructive to it, please don't junk it up with non-constructive information (although constructive criticism is welcome RELATING TO THE ISSUE)

You CAN'T be CONSTRUCTIVE when dealing with something THAT DOESN'T EXIST YET! You can SPECULATE and provide CONJECTURE... but neither of these provides FACTS, DATA OR ANYTHING OF WORTH beyond the ability to WASTE... YOUR... TIME!

*takes about 20 deep breaths*

IF there can be ANYTHING labelled "constructive criticism" to your thread, Logic X, it would be my very own advice: "WAIT FOR THE GODDAMN PATCH". Does that "relate to the issue" sufficiently for you, sirrah?

This has been echoed by Elric; it's been echoed by Mavfin; it's been echoed by Bolty... it's been echoed by anyone on this entire forum that realizes the inane stupidity of trying to second-guess Blizzard's intention.

Jeeeeeeeeeeeezus, people.

[Logic_X]

This thread is meant for speculations using information presented to us based on current working knowledge of the game. That is why I suggested Occhi make a thread about people volunteering to test when the patch comes out.

Think about it this way:
Analyzing a game is similar to analyzing a map (you use information provided by a key to let you get from point A to B)
Map makers follow similar methods of labeling the map from older to newer versions with some changes.
If you only have a portion of a newer map, you can to some extent assertain the possible uses of information in the new map, while you may not see the exact path to B, you will find the general direction to an extent.

By posting this, I provide an area for people to cross pollenate ideas around the boards, get them in as many eyes as possible, and lists of reasons why it may or may not be according to what we have seen in the past.

I never claim this to provide facts. THEORIES, yes, FACTS, no (not yelling, emphasizing). If you are getting so upset over someone wanting to allow the public analysis (instead of why X is a good or bad idea, you want to think about what are the goods and what are the bads that are possible by the current rules).

Another thing - the fact that it doesn't exist is not true, the actual fact is a partial existence.

Things that exist:
Core Framework (the fundamental rules of d2 that can never change without a complete overhaul of every single line of code in the entire game)
Pseudo-Fixed information: Information given to us declared as "fixed" on many occassions, while it may not be 100% accurate it will most likely remain in a similar form, and can thus be analyzed.

And no "wait for the goddamn patch" does not "relate to the issue" - it is a null point involving this issue, although it is an opinion, and you are free to express it as you will, I would appreciate either address this in another manner that does not attempt to undermine any other person's opinion of what may be a helpful idea. Do this, and I will treat you with the same respect. As I have said before - this thread is not flame bait, and if you wish to treat it as so I respectfully request that you simply ignore it, is that to much to ask? I wish to keep this civilized.

And constructive can effect things that don't exist yet, because we have a basic framework in front of us we can say that certain things could potentially be more effective than others in situations or result in x or y of a mathematical situation fitting into the core framework. - Artwork is an example, you can say "maybe it is better to approach it from this angle because it provides you with more contrast which is what fits more into the style of this set of your works."

Where the angle is views on the information provided, contrast is the effect these things could potentially have on the game, and the set of works is the core framework.

We are not second guessing, we are performing an analysis of what we are given.

If thought of things that "do not exist" or that we don't have complete information about is so worthless...then would you not also concur that the study of Religion or a God is pointless? I could thoroughly debate that you cannot prove that a God or entity exists, merely provide it as one of a series of possible answers to a question. Should you wish to debate that analysis of the partially known or the assumed existence is worthless, I welcome you to address all aspects of that, be it in relation to a mere game (which this is), or in relation to the core beliefs of any one person or persons. One of my hobbies is the analysis of that which I encounter, if I wish to waste my time with this, and happen to find others who share that hobby, it would be no more your place to protest this than it would be my place to protest your hobbies. Fin.

May the Analysis of information continue should people wish.

"Aggression is not the answer to ceasing the actions of those whom you do not agree with, for if they have enough support - you will never succeed to quell the progression of their thoughts. Pacifism may not be the way either letting the seeds of thoughts spread like wildflowers in the fields of life. Mere acceptance that thoughts and beliefs differ is all that is needed to truly reach a pinnacle of peace - not the ignoring, nor the destroying, of a belief other than yours. In balance all is perfect in its flaws, and all is sacred in the essence of the mundane. This balance can only be obtained with the collection of knowledge in it's purest forms. Too bad humanity is doomed never to see this, because its blind eyes and blunt fists."
- Unknown.

[Growler]

The screenshot of the necro with bonespear synergies is to be considered hard data. Teasing out the base skill stats is arithmetic which I find interesting. Good job X.

Growler

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

By posting this, I provide an area for people to cross pollenate ideas around the boards, get them in as many eyes as possible, and lists of reasons why it may or may not be according to what we have seen in the past.

All of which means nothing, because Blizzard is the one that's actually making the code. You and your ilk are neither MAKING those decisions, impacting on those decisions, or having anything resembling INPUT on those decisions. At best, you're trying to second-guess what might happen based on the release of information that Blizzard has declared "may or may not exist in the final release". This is nothing better or worse than a "things I'd like to see in 1.10" posted 2 years ago: wishlist, Santa Claus, hyperbole and whining.

I never claim this to provide facts. THEORIES, yes, FACTS, no (not yelling, emphasizing).

Complete Codswallop. You claimed the word FACTS and listed them in their entirety in your very first post of this thread. Limit your hypocrisy, please.

We are not second guessing, we are performing an analysis of what we are given.

You have NOTHING. Even the released screenies from Blizzard claim that these "may or may not be the final release". This is the EPITOME of second-guessing.

Artwork is an example, you can say "maybe it is better to approach it from this angle because it provides you with more contrast which is what fits more into the style of this set of your works."

Excellent example, as it completely undermines your point. Art is SUBJECTIVE and is offered criticism based on SUBJECTIVE means. Further, "Analyzing" of Art is not an attempt to apply the Scientific Method to its existence. It is opinion, nothing more or less. Code is NOT subjective. You are trying to analyze a concrete existence of a baseline of facts and data. Your flaw: YOU DON'T HAVE THE FACTS AND DATA. By attempting to analyze without said facts or data, you have indeed reduced your "analyzing" to opinion, alone. How can this possibly apply to what you're attempting here? "I FEEL that the supposed synergies offered by the Poison/Bone tree are attempting to make the viewer feel the angst of the teenage need for sexual release...". OBJECTIVE vs. SUBJECTIVE. Look them both up.

If you want a Subjective approach, refer to any of the HMIs here that keep whining about supposed changes that MAY crush their leet characters and stall their MF runs. THAT'S subjectivity.

Where the angle is views on the information provided, contrast is the effect these things could potentially have on the game, and the set of works is the core framework.

There has been no information provided which is concrete. Even Art exists in a reality that you can perceive, but the effects and changes of the 1.10 patch are ethereal. The effect it could have on the game is unknown and will continue to BE unknown until you've actually PLAYED the game and garnered the information. The core framework IS changeable, and not resolute. Unlike a body of artwork that now exists as a static form; CODE can be changed, altered, muted, commented out, rectified and made redundant. You don't even have your framework, now. You have no facts, you have no basis, you have no ability to form any analysis that makes sense.

If thought of things that "do not exist" or that we don't have complete information about is so worthless...then would you not also concur that the study of Religion or a God is pointless? I could thoroughly debate that you cannot prove that a God or entity exists, merely provide it as one of a series of possible answers to a question. Should you wish to debate that analysis of the partially known or the assumed existence is worthless, I welcome you to address all aspects of that, be it in relation to a mere game (which this is), or in relation to the core beliefs of any one person or persons.

Wow, that's quite the herring you've crafted there. Debating the possible changes that may occur in a patch for Diablo 2 is the moral equivalent to being able to prove or disprove the existence of the Almighty. Wow. What's the color of the sky in your world, Logic X? Drawing parallels between debating a World Faith and a game patch is something I would hesitate to make. I'm certain it made more than myself laugh out of the sheer blessed stupidity of it. I refer you to Suggestion # 5 on my "For Posterity, then..." post of this thread.

May the Analysis of information continue should people wish.

Correction: May the OPINION of POSSIBLE information continue. Certainly everyone posting on the various speculative threads seem to concur. I look forward to 1.10. I look forward to playing the game and finding the toys and discovering the changes and chatting about them, then. I further look forward to all the then-released, actual data and true information that shall make the speculative postings rendered moot, silly, wasteful and generally mocked.

You seem to be an involved individual, Logic X. It's a shame that you can't employ that energy and desire towards something meaningful and lasting. But! I shall take your invitation to simply ignore this thread to heart... I've presented my thoughts on the matter, certainly. Despite your intentions and rules to the contrary, and your megalomaniacal need to be the crux of this "meeting of the minds" between several forums of people... this thread remains among the "d00d! 1.10 roxors/suxxors!! 1337 1tams!" lump at the bottom of the forum barrel.

Adieu.

[Fragbait]

The question is: Why do you look forward to it, then? :blink:
I'd really like to know, because in your answer, you couldn't mention one thing that has sth to do with the patch itself.
It would consist of mere optimism only, that 'things will get better', for every detail would be speculation, and with this opinion you had better known (or, you might say, believed to know) NOTHING AT ALL from the upcoming patch.

Greetings, Fragbait

[Growler]

you can go now.

[Fragbait]

Whom do you mean? :blink:

Are you answering to me?

In threaded view, you are, but why should I go?

Hope you meant Nico.

Greetings, Fragbait

[Logic_X]

I suppose I should make my last word on the issues of what Nicodemus said known....(this may jump around a bit....i'm doing other stuff while typing this):

The "facts" vs. "theory" thing you claim is hypocracy is in fact NOT hypocracy - or did you not notice that the assumption of blizzard released information is to be the "facts" we use to prove the theory. If you want to claim hypocracy, first be sure to understand what is being discussed to at least some extent to prove it. - I use the term "Fact" in that sense loosely too if you want further clarification, this is a thread about contemplating the impact, use, etc. or even just the mathematical theories behind things as they are.

The section you speak of who is making the code, that is correct, Blizzard makes the code. The thing is you have to realize, this is a patch, not a full game - there are things that WILL without a doubt remain fundamentally the same - the fact that you attack and it will produce an effect will remain, the fact if you use a skill it will produce an effect will remain the same, do you get what I'm saying? There is a core set of "rules" that they must follow or it simply would not be a patch.

You keep bringing up the subject of second-guessing, which is not occuring, so far all the other threads have performed admirably in not producing fodder but in fact producing meaningful conversation which results in VALID points and counter-points (I will post information from them sometime over the next few days when posting slows down on the other forums), one may look at this as second-guessing when in fact this is actually desired for intellectual discourse - to give a point, have someone address that point, and to adapt it as the analysis evolves. While no one answer may be reached you will come up with respectable answers, with respectable arguments to back them up. - and your quote of "may or may not be in the final release" is true, but I would also like to point out that on many ocassions you can pull the quote "these features are locked in" in relation to the features listed with the side note of if no major balance issues or bugs are discovered.

Next we talk about art vs. coding, two things which I have respectable knowledge of (I am a Junior in college working on a Computer Science and Studio Art double major if you were interested) - the fact is that BOTH have the potential to evolve over time at the creator (or owner's) whim. - a body of artwork is quite easily changed, updated, etc. through either discoveries, new creations, etc., you underestimate the actual ability of such things to change over time. (My portfolio changes nearly every WEEK if you were interested, and I still go back and alter/update/remake pictures from 8-10 or more years ago.)

A body of artwork can be:
changed (some copies of old nude sculptures are modified with clothing, while others aren't)
altered (removing the faces from egyptian art would be considered alteration)
removed (gesso a canvas)
rectified (fixing a hand on a drawing)
redundant (copying machine anyone? or laser scan for 3d objects)
saved for another day, but out of sight (Attic - similar to putting code in /* */ stuff in C)

Unlike a body of artwork that now exists as a static form; CODE can be changed, altered, muted, commented out, rectified and made redundant.

As for art being subjective, yes, the emotional side of it is subjective. But there is also a part you fail to acknowledge - the design aspect. If art is to fit a certain theme, it must fit a certain grouping of design criteria to fit within that theme (although these are usually few) - which forces someone who wants to produce something of a certain type to use objective instead of subjective. (ie you can't paint a photo-realistic picture of someone and try and call it abstract)

Perception is relative if you want to get down to it, but if you're getting at what I think you are - 1.10 is actually concrete, and it is physically possible to look at the current code (just because none of us are doesn't mean it's impossible....or would you call the Mona Lisa "ethereal" because you've never seen the real one personally?)

You can't garner the information from playing, you can assume the information from playing.

I mentioned not morals in my comparison of study of 1.10 information to the study of Religion and god, it is a rather long shot you have to make to include morals in that. I was merely comparing the study of one unprovable to the study of another unprovable.

As for the color of my sky, none, it is but the mere reflection of light in a colorless atmosphere.

In closing:
I find your labeling quite ironic, for you seem to fill the role of one of your ridaculed "HMIs" by flaming this thread with mindless dribble. You also confuse megalomaniacal with arrogance - which I openly admit to being at times, it is part of my nature, and I don't deny it.

I also find it simply amazing that you choose to claim that I don't empoy my energy and desire towards something meaningful and lasting. Which one of us was posting in a thread they considered absolutely pointless? Which of us seems to be going to some great lengths to attack a post from someone who has already stated that he does this as a break from more meaningful things?

If you wish to know, I currently have 3 major things (no perticular order) I'm working on in the majority of my spare time, none of which are this (this is merely a distraction for me):
1. Time Theories (graphing of time, been working on it for 3-4 weeks...it is NOT a line, got into this through a religious debate I'm currently still having.)
2. One of my life's works (been working on it for the past 5-6 years, most intensely over the past year)
- game design (so far 2 full 5 subject college ruled notebooks of formulas, storylines, characters, settings, and some coding - along with about 2 full sketch pads worth *75 sheets per pad* of concept art)
3. Working on my CD (only about 2 months here.....have 4 tracks done)

I know those may seem trivial to you, but ironically that is what I enjoy to do in my spare time at the moment. Currently my other "life's works" are on the back burner with the exception of my education *which is not something I consider being what I do in my free time, free time is anything besides that and work*