Feedback and Suggestions (Path of Exile 1) - Legacy items - Forum

:D Berek's Grip Ice Spear http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/780707 Budget Magicfind and/or Hardcore Flame Totem http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1211543	Posted by Necrogue#4186 on Feb 13, 2014, 6:30:42 PM Quote this Post
" Necrogue wrote: :D Man, thats unfair, I want that amulet. NERF HIM. ^ That appears to be the general consensus of this thread	Posted by Real_Wolf#6784 on Feb 13, 2014, 6:35:42 PM Quote this Post
More off-topic RNG stuff, which I put in spoilers because it's off-topic @Dalai: I understand the "God does not play dice" argument... however, you need to consider the context in which the quote was spoken. It's a direct attack on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the core premise behind quantum mechanics in the first place. Right or wrong, Einstein didn't play that shit. If it's really true that God does not play dice, then quantum computing is impossible in the first place, and it's impossible to make a true random number generator... regardless of whether one is using computers or operating manually. After all, a fair six-sided die's outcome is utterly predictable if one knows how it is launched and where it will land. Which raises some very interesting points on what the term "true" means in terms of randomness. On the other hand, if God does play dice on some level, then the uncertainty principle applies, and true random number generation is possible. I imagine it's still possible to say atmospheric noise isn't a robust enough source of it, but it would just be a matter of getting computers to record some other phenomena — perhaps particles ramming into each other within a supercollider. The point is still the same: computers are not capable of randomness on their own, but if true (or pseudo) randomness exists in nature, then they are able to extract it and use it. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Feb 13, 2014, 8:48:47 PM	Posted by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Feb 13, 2014, 8:47:32 PM Quote this Post
" Necrogue wrote: :D you might want one a gold amulet. IGN: Arlianth Check out my LA build: 1782214	Posted by Nephalim#2731 on Feb 13, 2014, 9:14:13 PM Quote this Post
" Fruz wrote: And that's where you realize that GGG most-likely didn't intend PoE to be really played by very casual gamers, or at least not those aiming for the top end game. I surely hope that GGG stick to their original design because that's what makes the game attractive for their initial aim ( which I hope, will stay the same ). Supporters / hardcore gamers do spend money in the game, don't worry for that imho. Are people STILL telling themselves this? PoE's target audience is NOT the hardcore gamer. The game actively prevents hardcore progression. It promotes, rewards and is designed for and around casual path of least resistance quick fix gamers. Casually casual.	Posted by TheAnuhart#4741 on Feb 13, 2014, 9:33:03 PM Quote this Post
" TheAnuhart wrote: " Fruz wrote: And that's where you realize that GGG most-likely didn't intend PoE to be really played by very casual gamers, or at least not those aiming for the top end game. I surely hope that GGG stick to their original design because that's what makes the game attractive for their initial aim ( which I hope, will stay the same ). Supporters / hardcore gamers do spend money in the game, don't worry for that imho. Are people STILL telling themselves this? PoE's target audience is NOT the hardcore gamer. The game actively prevents hardcore progression. It promotes, rewards and is designed for and around casual path of least resistance quick fix gamers. Maybe it doesn't fit your vision of what a "hardcore gamer" is, idk. Thinking that PoE's main aim are casual gamers is quite ridiculous, for obvious reasons involving the time investment ( not only IG btw, time spending learning mechanic, etc ... all of that is invested in the game ). SSF is not and will never be a standard for balance, it is not for people entitled to getting more without trading. Last edited by Fruz#6137 on Feb 13, 2014, 9:55:46 PM	Posted by Fruz#6137 on Feb 13, 2014, 9:55:17 PM Quote this Post
" Fruz wrote: " TheAnuhart wrote: " Fruz wrote: And that's where you realize that GGG most-likely didn't intend PoE to be really played by very casual gamers, or at least not those aiming for the top end game. I surely hope that GGG stick to their original design because that's what makes the game attractive for their initial aim ( which I hope, will stay the same ). Supporters / hardcore gamers do spend money in the game, don't worry for that imho. Are people STILL telling themselves this? PoE's target audience is NOT the hardcore gamer. The game actively prevents hardcore progression. It promotes, rewards and is designed for and around casual path of least resistance quick fix gamers. Maybe it doesn't fit your vision of what a "hardcore gamer" is, idk. Thinking that PoE's main aim are casual gamers is quite ridiculous, for obvious reasons involving the time investment ( not only IG btw, time spending learning mechanic, etc ... all of that is invested in the game ). Time investment is of the LEAST importance in PoE. Every aspect of the game is designed around circumventing RNG and time investment. No, you are right, it doesn't fit my vision of what a hardcore gamer is. It fits the pretentious vision of a bunch of casual, path of least resistant developers and their target audience who are more than happy to accept the description of hardcore gamer as they casually circumvent the aRPG elements of the game. If ever there could be such a thing as a hardcore shopper, I'd have thought the ex wife could take that title, until I got a taste of OB PoE. #1 hardcore shopping game 2013. #Infinity hardcore aRPG century. Casually casual.	Posted by TheAnuhart#4741 on Feb 13, 2014, 10:14:25 PM Quote this Post
" ScrotieMcB wrote: More off-topic RNG stuff, which I put in spoilers because it's off-topic @Dalai: I understand the "God does not play dice" argument... however, you need to consider the context in which the quote was spoken. It's a direct attack on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the core premise behind quantum mechanics in the first place. Right or wrong, Einstein didn't play that shit. If it's really true that God does not play dice, then quantum computing is impossible in the first place, and it's impossible to make a true random number generator... regardless of whether one is using computers or operating manually. After all, a fair six-sided die's outcome is utterly predictable if one knows how it is launched and where it will land. Which raises some very interesting points on what the term "true" means in terms of randomness. On the other hand, if God does play dice on some level, then the uncertainty principle applies, and true random number generation is possible. I imagine it's still possible to say atmospheric noise isn't a robust enough source of it, but it would just be a matter of getting computers to record some other phenomena — perhaps particles ramming into each other within a supercollider. The point is still the same: computers are not capable of randomness on their own, but if true (or pseudo) randomness exists in nature, then they are able to extract it and use it. same Spoiler By its existance true randomness in nature cannot exist because it would be self contradictory. There must be rules as to why a result occured, and in that it is both predictable and reproducible. Our concept of random events is not in that there was a chance for alternative outcomes (when really one event can only lead to one given consequence) to an series of possibilities but rather that we lacked the knowledge to properly anticipate that outcome. Literally nothing in existence can be random, we can just lack the understanding to see the greater picture. This extend to the very concept of self awareness and to that of sentience. Since there are no random events, and only one possible outcome to all past, present and future events... wouldn't that make ideals like freewill and sentience and illusion? Last edited by Jiero#2499 on Feb 13, 2014, 11:11:54 PM	Posted by Jiero#2499 on Feb 13, 2014, 11:06:56 PM Quote this Post
" Jiero wrote: " ScrotieMcB wrote: More off-topic RNG stuff, which I put in spoilers because it's off-topic @Dalai: I understand the "God does not play dice" argument... however, you need to consider the context in which the quote was spoken. It's a direct attack on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the core premise behind quantum mechanics in the first place. Right or wrong, Einstein didn't play that shit. If it's really true that God does not play dice, then quantum computing is impossible in the first place, and it's impossible to make a true random number generator... regardless of whether one is using computers or operating manually. After all, a fair six-sided die's outcome is utterly predictable if one knows how it is launched and where it will land. Which raises some very interesting points on what the term "true" means in terms of randomness. On the other hand, if God does play dice on some level, then the uncertainty principle applies, and true random number generation is possible. I imagine it's still possible to say atmospheric noise isn't a robust enough source of it, but it would just be a matter of getting computers to record some other phenomena — perhaps particles ramming into each other within a supercollider. The point is still the same: computers are not capable of randomness on their own, but if true (or pseudo) randomness exists in nature, then they are able to extract it and use it. same Spoiler By its existance true randomness in nature cannot exist because it would be self contradictory. There must be rules as to why a result occured, and in that it is both predictable and reproducible. Our concept of random events is not in that there was a chance for alternative outcomes (when really one event can only lead to one given consequence) to an series of possibilities but rather that we lacked the knowledge to properly anticipate that outcome. Literally nothing in existence can be random, we can just lack the understanding to see the greater picture. This extend to the very concept of self awareness and to that of sentience. Since there are no random events, and only one possible outcome to all past, present and future events... wouldn't that make ideals like freewill and sentience and illusion? Adding more spoiler tags It is an interesting thought. Heisenberg uncertainty principle is pretty damn set in stone as a constant. But the interesting thing is what it states. It states that we can not know both a particles location, and its momentum exactly, or more precisely that the error for a particles location and momentum must be greater than the uncertainty constant. It isn't saying that the particle doesn't have a specific location and momentum.... but rather that we don't know it	Posted by Real_Wolf#6784 on Feb 13, 2014, 11:25:24 PM Quote this Post
Spoiler " ScrotieMcB wrote: More off-topic RNG stuff, which I put in spoilers because it's off-topic @Dalai: I understand the "God does not play dice" argument... however, you need to consider the context in which the quote was spoken. It's a direct attack on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the core premise behind quantum mechanics in the first place. Right or wrong, Einstein didn't play that shit. If it's really true that God does not play dice, then quantum computing is impossible in the first place, and it's impossible to make a true random number generator... regardless of whether one is using computers or operating manually. After all, a fair six-sided die's outcome is utterly predictable if one knows how it is launched and where it will land. Which raises some very interesting points on what the term "true" means in terms of randomness. On the other hand, if God does play dice on some level, then the uncertainty principle applies, and true random number generation is possible. I imagine it's still possible to say atmospheric noise isn't a robust enough source of it, but it would just be a matter of getting computers to record some other phenomena — perhaps particles ramming into each other within a supercollider. The point is still the same: computers are not capable of randomness on their own, but if true (or pseudo) randomness exists in nature, then they are able to extract it and use it. I'd agree 100% with the last bit. The bizarre thing about chaos as we understand it, is that until measured, multiple states exist. So quantum computing is both possible and impossible at the same time. The old adage - If you think you understand Quantum Mechanics, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics - applies. Some of this may involve ye olde multiverse theory where multiple states of probability exist simultaneously and it is the intersection of probabilities that we experience. It may be far more mundane and predictable than that (as many probabilities are yes/no situations or at least quantized and not analog variables). My own semi-informed opinion (always welcome and open to opposing ideas and reading suggestions on the topic) is that the "Dirac Sea" will play heavily in the future of this. Whether it is through harmonic reinforcement that causes infinitely variable physic functions to "pop out" above the base level and thus require quantization, or if it involves string theory or something else I don't know. I hope it isn't string theory - it's just a mess and seems to add as much complexity as it solves. The recent experiments on monopoles do make string theory a little more plausible however. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7485/full/nature12954.html If they can replicate this more easily, it may give scientists and engineers a brand new tool to peak under the hood of the universe's engine. Getting a look at gravity would be my hope so that we can have flying cars (and of course flying car crashes). PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910	Posted by DalaiLama#6738 on Feb 13, 2014, 11:32:59 PM Quote this Post