You picked an area of science where there is no denial that we're not sure what's there.
Basically, you have all these people being very open that we're still looking for the GUT, and you're using the lack of a GUT as your example for the models changing. I don't agree with that, and I'd say you're on a tangent with your post. The models for QM and Relativity aren't really changing. QM and Relativty are two theories that are very very solid.
Science doesn't know everything. For example, there is no GUT that unites QM with Relativity. Furthermore, whatever theory comes along that eventual unifies the two will likely replace the two, but it also explain everything that they currently explain. Which was my point.
I think your line of thinking is wrong based on this statement of yours:
"You hear all of this 'it works this way' crap in science, only a year later to hear 'oh it doesn't really work that way, we were right but not really right and now we're definately right'"
You rarely see widely accepted theories in science simply replaced. Instead they are refined. When a theory is widely accepted it is because it fits the evidence. If new evidence leads to a new theory than that new theory also has to explain the evidence that the prior theory did.
If you take planetary formation for example, it's a lot more then guesses. There is decades and decades of evidence that fit a widely accepted model. If this turned out to be something special, it would likely lead to a refinement of the current theory. There's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The current theory fits the evidence. More then likely they'll find that either this isn't actually a planet orbiting the star or it's orbit is highly elliptical so you're jumping the gun anyways.
Personally, I think you're acting like what science knows today goes away tomorrow. And that isn't accurate. What science knows today stays. They just might know more tomorrow to make their theories even more detailed and accurate.
For one, there's collision detection. In RvR only btw. So it's not there if you're out questing in your own territory. But in all RvR it's there. It can be at times actually difficult get past a few tanks to get to the caster behind them. At other times down right impossible.
Also, EVERY tank class has a skill call guard that lets them absorb damage directed at their friendly target. In WAR you can have two targets at all time. One enemy, one friendly. It's done very well. You don't need to hit "tab" to switch between the guy trying to kill your friend and the guy you're trying to heal.
In WAR you really have to think about what you're dealing with. Who is on your side and what you're up against. And act accordingly. Flanking maneuvers happen in WAR. Falling back to a better position happens. Coordinated attacks happen. It really is PvP/RvR done right.
The scenarios that are WAR's versions of battlegrounds are more like a mini game. A way to level if you want. Etc..
However, the real focus of WAR is open-world-RvR. Very large scale battles. Now, the amazing thing, is these do exist in game. Huge battles. Where you spend hours and hours with 40 people on yuor side killing 40 people on the other side. The front lines shift and change.
The reason this works is there are goals in open-world RvR. If you're familar with WoW you might recall old RvR like Tarren Mills style or the Xroads in the barrens. In WAR there are lots of places like this. And you want to control them. You need to control them. Merchants that have items you want are in them. To open certain content your side needs to control certain ones. Not to mention your guilds can control and take over and defends keeps.
So yes, the scenarios are just like WoW's battlegrounds. A little better integrated into the game, but similar enough. However the true RvR is the open-world battles and they've managed to pull it off.
I get what you're saying. I can point you to a million page thread on the main WAR forum where I bought up WAR is a niche game.
However, what you're missing is you think Mythic wants to be WoW. Sure, they'd love the WoW numbers, but they, and the high-ups at Mythic have said this very thing, they don't need WoW numbers to make money or to have a great game.
WAR is not your typical RvR game anyways. It's not the cutthroat gank fest that other games are. It is a little more casual friendly then you might think. But one thing you have to respect is that the developers are making the game they want without varying the design for a cash grab.
And yet at the end of the day the numbers playing WAR will be very large. It won't be WoW, but it doesn't have to be to make them money and to give the people that do play it what they want.
I really haven't noticed much in terms of EXP. In most cases though the Open Groups are not traditional MMO things. For example, the Public Quests are repeatable and start again very quickly after they finish. The game also keep track of something they call influence which is raised for an area by doing public quests in that area. So really, even if the exp is split, it doesn't hurt since more people means they go faster. The other place open groups works very well is in Open-World RvR which is VERY well done in WAR. Which again, even if the exp is split the more you have the more you kill so the split exp evens out.
For the RvR example, imagine there's a 40 on 40 battle going on. Very common in WAR. If you're solo you only get exp and kill counts for the ones you literally had a part in killing. But in the open groups, you get kills for your buddy next to you, both in exp and in terms of your kill count (which is used in some quests and for in-game achievements).
When you kill a person in RvR you get EXP. You get loot (money and items that come from a random pool, not the dead players pockets).
There are repeatable quests for RvR. You join the RvR scenarios (similar to WoW battlegrounds but a faster pace and with more on the line) simply by clicking an icon on yuor screen from anywehere (though your likely to be in a queue for a few minutes before actually getting into the scenario). You have repeatable quests in those scenarios. You truely can level in this game with just RvR.
On the PvE side Public Quests are very well done. Open groups are very well done. In both cases you just walk up and your "part" of something. No need for invites. No more "we don't need a tank, we need a healer" rejections.
Now, the games not perfect, but it's well done. It certainly is linear in many ways (from zones to loot). And it misses the mini-game casual play of WoW. There's no mini-pets or fishing in WAR. Some like that, some dont. But it will have an impact on the total player base.
Anyways, Massively's got a lot of info on the game that anyone interested should check out so not much more I can really say besides it gets a thumbs up so far.
No, because I'm not denying it could be. What I'm saying is until there is evidence as to what it is, picking the part that/. has a dislike for is just lacking in integrity. It could turn out to be.net. But at the time I wrote that, the information as to what it was just wasn't there.
We bounced our solaris app server boxes for years. We only stopped this past year. And even still, we occasionally have problems and have to restart.
I work in a very mixed environment. I don't think I've seen any more issues on one platform then another. But then again, unlike most places, our windows admins don't actually suck. I'd say a lot of my experiences is it's a lot easier to admin a windows box so more dumbasses admin them.
Your post makes little sense. No matter your choice of OS, the redundancy in any critical system is taken care of by hardware. This isn't 1997. NT4 is long gone. And for the places stilling running it, that's their fault.
It's if that critical that $300 to move up is really nothing, certainly not much more then the "free" Linux upgrade that isn't usually free for critical apps anyways, ignoring the cost of performing the upgrade.
Anyways, back on point, again, there's nothing in the article that suggests windows or.net being the issue. There is a suggestion that it was a network issue. Are you going to go off on Cisco now?
You tried to speak from authority. But you came off like a dumbass.
You've never experienced a network issue that effects multiple locations?
Wait till you get out of college. You will. No, don't reply and tell me what you do for a living. Your response was pure crap. A network problem could be as simple as not having the hardware to support the number of users you're trying to support. It could have been a hardware failure and they weren't as redundant as they thought, as least in supporting their users. Network/hardware go hand-in hand. Based on the article, where it mentions connection issues, network seems logical. Doesn't have to be. But it makes sense. Your post did not.
Well, I mean, you could pull your head out of your ass and WTF to the connection issues that caused them to take the system offline else deal with giving some an unfair advantage.
Doesn't actually sound like a.net issue to me. Could be. Could be. But you don't know enough yet to throw stones. And based on what you wrote, you generally don't know what you're talking about anyways.
If the issue turned out to be network is/. going to post a retraction article? Both the summary and the comments are pretty pathetic.
I fully appreciate they have an agenda and a cause. No problem. But for such a popular site, if they're going to throw stones they should do at least wait until the target is verified.
From time to time we (meaning "where I work") have had companies recover data from disks.
I assure you, the PR from the contest means nothing. You either need their services or you don't. It's not like a new pair of sneakers that you might want but not need.
Also, this contest has no bearing on whether they are scams or not. If they (meaning "companies that charged us for data recovery") recover data, which they have for us in the past, and we're satisfied with the result and cost, this contest won't change that.
Your arguement and numbers are bull. The TCO of open source is not always lower. When you're already a MS shop, there isn't usually saving in going the open source route. It's not as simple as saying you can save money on the software licenses and that's that. You now have to expanded personal and payroll to do more software evaluations. The "help desk" support doesn't change, but the need for actual support of the software might. No one with a few million dollar budgest is going to take a post on/. as proof something will work. You have to evaluate features and in many cases the added features outside the core product are free from MS. If you were comparing Office to OO for example, Office just has a ton more features, especially in integration across the enterprise. So you're really looking at bringing in several open source products, evaluating them, coming up with support costs for them, coming up with development time and management time to integrate/add features.
And to top it all off the management need to take the risk of doing that because no one gets fired for being an MS shop.
Not everyone has google's resources. I've worked with google from my business and google uses a lot of open source. They also have the staff on hand to do what I've said above and I've seen it first hand. Basically, what you're seeing is the difference between a tech company and a company with a tech section. The latter doesn't have a lot of open source choices right now. It's up to the former to not only get the software out there that actually does the job and prove it.
Plenty of non-tech companies run Apache. Not a lot run OO and Linux desktops. The problem isn't the companies. It's the software.
HAHA way to moderate assclowns. The dick I replied to that was actually just flat out wrong goes to 3. The person that made an effort but was still wrong goes to 3.
I love watching the moderation system in action. Sometimes you can just tell some people with agendas have mod points.
Having seen 1st hand the release of every major MMORPG since EQ1 I have no qualms in saying it was much better at release. There's no rosey colored hindsight required for AoC.
I don't agree. That is basically close enough that a person couldn't tell the difference between a real person and the digital actor.
They might laugh at the style of clothes or hair, the make up, etc... But the human body/mind has limitations and once your technology is good enough to fool a human, it's good enough to fool a human.
The wife killing sociopath didn't come across as a normal geek. And despite what the parent stated not a single juror stated they convicted him because they didn't like him.
Who the hell modded this as troll? The parent most certainly made a baseless accusation that the prosecution was lazy. Furthermore, the parent most certainly misunderstood the charges. This is not setting a dangerous precedent (it's not setting anything at the moment).
I expect some asshats to respond without reading, but mod's doing it? Seriously, it's why I read/. less and less these days. The quality in the responses has just gone way down hill.
You think the people involved in the charges are LAZY? LAZY?.
You ignorant internet know-nothing. She wouldn't be charged for violating a TOS. The part that you and the rest of you lazy people are missing is she would be charged for violating the TOS *to* commit harm to a person. That's not my common sense approach, that is what she would be charged with. And unless you know 1st hand the people involved, I seriously suggest you lay off your ignorant accuations as to their work effort.
Slashdot Mirror
You picked an area of science where there is no denial that we're not sure what's there.
Basically, you have all these people being very open that we're still looking for the GUT, and you're using the lack of a GUT as your example for the models changing. I don't agree with that, and I'd say you're on a tangent with your post. The models for QM and Relativity aren't really changing. QM and Relativty are two theories that are very very solid.
Science doesn't know everything. For example, there is no GUT that unites QM with Relativity. Furthermore, whatever theory comes along that eventual unifies the two will likely replace the two, but it also explain everything that they currently explain. Which was my point.
I think your line of thinking is wrong based on this statement of yours:
"You hear all of this 'it works this way' crap in science, only a year later to hear 'oh it doesn't really work that way, we were right but not really right and now we're definately right'"
You rarely see widely accepted theories in science simply replaced. Instead they are refined. When a theory is widely accepted it is because it fits the evidence. If new evidence leads to a new theory than that new theory also has to explain the evidence that the prior theory did.
If you take planetary formation for example, it's a lot more then guesses. There is decades and decades of evidence that fit a widely accepted model. If this turned out to be something special, it would likely lead to a refinement of the current theory. There's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The current theory fits the evidence. More then likely they'll find that either this isn't actually a planet orbiting the star or it's orbit is highly elliptical so you're jumping the gun anyways.
Personally, I think you're acting like what science knows today goes away tomorrow. And that isn't accurate. What science knows today stays. They just might know more tomorrow to make their theories even more detailed and accurate.
It's impossible to ignore tanks completely.
For one, there's collision detection. In RvR only btw. So it's not there if you're out questing in your own territory. But in all RvR it's there. It can be at times actually difficult get past a few tanks to get to the caster behind them. At other times down right impossible.
Also, EVERY tank class has a skill call guard that lets them absorb damage directed at their friendly target. In WAR you can have two targets at all time. One enemy, one friendly. It's done very well. You don't need to hit "tab" to switch between the guy trying to kill your friend and the guy you're trying to heal.
In WAR you really have to think about what you're dealing with. Who is on your side and what you're up against. And act accordingly. Flanking maneuvers happen in WAR. Falling back to a better position happens. Coordinated attacks happen. It really is PvP/RvR done right.
Hopefully you read this because I'll expand.
The scenarios that are WAR's versions of battlegrounds are more like a mini game. A way to level if you want. Etc..
However, the real focus of WAR is open-world-RvR. Very large scale battles. Now, the amazing thing, is these do exist in game. Huge battles. Where you spend hours and hours with 40 people on yuor side killing 40 people on the other side. The front lines shift and change.
The reason this works is there are goals in open-world RvR. If you're familar with WoW you might recall old RvR like Tarren Mills style or the Xroads in the barrens. In WAR there are lots of places like this. And you want to control them. You need to control them. Merchants that have items you want are in them. To open certain content your side needs to control certain ones. Not to mention your guilds can control and take over and defends keeps.
So yes, the scenarios are just like WoW's battlegrounds. A little better integrated into the game, but similar enough. However the true RvR is the open-world battles and they've managed to pull it off.
I get what you're saying. I can point you to a million page thread on the main WAR forum where I bought up WAR is a niche game.
However, what you're missing is you think Mythic wants to be WoW. Sure, they'd love the WoW numbers, but they, and the high-ups at Mythic have said this very thing, they don't need WoW numbers to make money or to have a great game.
WAR is not your typical RvR game anyways. It's not the cutthroat gank fest that other games are. It is a little more casual friendly then you might think. But one thing you have to respect is that the developers are making the game they want without varying the design for a cash grab.
And yet at the end of the day the numbers playing WAR will be very large. It won't be WoW, but it doesn't have to be to make them money and to give the people that do play it what they want.
I really haven't noticed much in terms of EXP. In most cases though the Open Groups are not traditional MMO things. For example, the Public Quests are repeatable and start again very quickly after they finish. The game also keep track of something they call influence which is raised for an area by doing public quests in that area. So really, even if the exp is split, it doesn't hurt since more people means they go faster. The other place open groups works very well is in Open-World RvR which is VERY well done in WAR. Which again, even if the exp is split the more you have the more you kill so the split exp evens out.
For the RvR example, imagine there's a 40 on 40 battle going on. Very common in WAR. If you're solo you only get exp and kill counts for the ones you literally had a part in killing. But in the open groups, you get kills for your buddy next to you, both in exp and in terms of your kill count (which is used in some quests and for in-game achievements).
There's a few things that standout in this game.
When you kill a person in RvR you get EXP. You get loot (money and items that come from a random pool, not the dead players pockets).
There are repeatable quests for RvR. You join the RvR scenarios (similar to WoW battlegrounds but a faster pace and with more on the line) simply by clicking an icon on yuor screen from anywehere (though your likely to be in a queue for a few minutes before actually getting into the scenario). You have repeatable quests in those scenarios. You truely can level in this game with just RvR.
On the PvE side Public Quests are very well done. Open groups are very well done. In both cases you just walk up and your "part" of something. No need for invites. No more "we don't need a tank, we need a healer" rejections.
Now, the games not perfect, but it's well done. It certainly is linear in many ways (from zones to loot). And it misses the mini-game casual play of WoW. There's no mini-pets or fishing in WAR. Some like that, some dont. But it will have an impact on the total player base.
Anyways, Massively's got a lot of info on the game that anyone interested should check out so not much more I can really say besides it gets a thumbs up so far.
No, because I'm not denying it could be. What I'm saying is until there is evidence as to what it is, picking the part that /. has a dislike for is just lacking in integrity. It could turn out to be .net. But at the time I wrote that, the information as to what it was just wasn't there.
We bounced our solaris app server boxes for years. We only stopped this past year. And even still, we occasionally have problems and have to restart.
I work in a very mixed environment. I don't think I've seen any more issues on one platform then another. But then again, unlike most places, our windows admins don't actually suck. I'd say a lot of my experiences is it's a lot easier to admin a windows box so more dumbasses admin them.
Your post makes little sense. No matter your choice of OS, the redundancy in any critical system is taken care of by hardware. This isn't 1997. NT4 is long gone. And for the places stilling running it, that's their fault.
.net being the issue. There is a suggestion that it was a network issue. Are you going to go off on Cisco now?
It's if that critical that $300 to move up is really nothing, certainly not much more then the "free" Linux upgrade that isn't usually free for critical apps anyways, ignoring the cost of performing the upgrade.
Anyways, back on point, again, there's nothing in the article that suggests windows or
You tried to speak from authority. But you came off like a dumbass.
You've never experienced a network issue that effects multiple locations?
Wait till you get out of college. You will. No, don't reply and tell me what you do for a living. Your response was pure crap. A network problem could be as simple as not having the hardware to support the number of users you're trying to support. It could have been a hardware failure and they weren't as redundant as they thought, as least in supporting their users. Network/hardware go hand-in hand. Based on the article, where it mentions connection issues, network seems logical. Doesn't have to be. But it makes sense. Your post did not.
Well, I mean, you could pull your head out of your ass and WTF to the connection issues that caused them to take the system offline else deal with giving some an unfair advantage.
.net issue to me. Could be. Could be. But you don't know enough yet to throw stones. And based on what you wrote, you generally don't know what you're talking about anyways.
Doesn't actually sound like a
If the issue turned out to be network is /. going to post a retraction article? Both the summary and the comments are pretty pathetic.
I fully appreciate they have an agenda and a cause. No problem. But for such a popular site, if they're going to throw stones they should do at least wait until the target is verified.
From time to time we (meaning "where I work") have had companies recover data from disks.
I assure you, the PR from the contest means nothing. You either need their services or you don't. It's not like a new pair of sneakers that you might want but not need.
Also, this contest has no bearing on whether they are scams or not. If they (meaning "companies that charged us for data recovery") recover data, which they have for us in the past, and we're satisfied with the result and cost, this contest won't change that.
Your arguement and numbers are bull. The TCO of open source is not always lower. When you're already a MS shop, there isn't usually saving in going the open source route. It's not as simple as saying you can save money on the software licenses and that's that. You now have to expanded personal and payroll to do more software evaluations. The "help desk" support doesn't change, but the need for actual support of the software might. No one with a few million dollar budgest is going to take a post on /. as proof something will work. You have to evaluate features and in many cases the added features outside the core product are free from MS. If you were comparing Office to OO for example, Office just has a ton more features, especially in integration across the enterprise. So you're really looking at bringing in several open source products, evaluating them, coming up with support costs for them, coming up with development time and management time to integrate/add features.
And to top it all off the management need to take the risk of doing that because no one gets fired for being an MS shop.
Not everyone has google's resources. I've worked with google from my business and google uses a lot of open source. They also have the staff on hand to do what I've said above and I've seen it first hand. Basically, what you're seeing is the difference between a tech company and a company with a tech section. The latter doesn't have a lot of open source choices right now. It's up to the former to not only get the software out there that actually does the job and prove it.
Plenty of non-tech companies run Apache. Not a lot run OO and Linux desktops. The problem isn't the companies. It's the software.
HAHA way to moderate assclowns. The dick I replied to that was actually just flat out wrong goes to 3. The person that made an effort but was still wrong goes to 3.
I love watching the moderation system in action. Sometimes you can just tell some people with agendas have mod points.
Having seen 1st hand the release of every major MMORPG since EQ1 I have no qualms in saying it was much better at release. There's no rosey colored hindsight required for AoC.
WoW was certainly better at launch. More stable. And with oodles more content and features.
AoC only made a splash because it came out when WoW-TBC was old, WoW-WotLK wasn't out yet. And WAR wasn't out yet.
What a great niche Funcom can have. Release really horrible buggy incomplete games. But release them at time when nothing else is "fresh".
I think we found the missing "????" before "profit".
I don't agree. That is basically close enough that a person couldn't tell the difference between a real person and the digital actor.
They might laugh at the style of clothes or hair, the make up, etc... But the human body/mind has limitations and once your technology is good enough to fool a human, it's good enough to fool a human.
I can't wait till this technology used in pr0n!
Great idea. And we can nickname him "fname".
The wife killing sociopath didn't come across as a normal geek. And despite what the parent stated not a single juror stated they convicted him because they didn't like him.
Who the hell modded this as troll? The parent most certainly made a baseless accusation that the prosecution was lazy. Furthermore, the parent most certainly misunderstood the charges. This is not setting a dangerous precedent (it's not setting anything at the moment).
/. less and less these days. The quality in the responses has just gone way down hill.
I expect some asshats to respond without reading, but mod's doing it? Seriously, it's why I read
You think the people involved in the charges are LAZY? LAZY?.
You ignorant internet know-nothing. She wouldn't be charged for violating a TOS. The part that you and the rest of you lazy people are missing is she would be charged for violating the TOS *to* commit harm to a person. That's not my common sense approach, that is what she would be charged with. And unless you know 1st hand the people involved, I seriously suggest you lay off your ignorant accuations as to their work effort.