I would say the onus of proof is on the Casino here. If they can show that said players maliciously exploited this fault (in other words they knew it was a fault and exploited it anyway), then yeah, they have a case. It is little different than if I mess with the mechanics to make it pay out excessively as in both cases I'm exploiting a fault in the system. However, if they can't show that, then I feel it is tough luck for the casino being stupid.
Obviously, I haven't read the book, but the article sure makes it sound like he's just trying to play word games, relabeling the concepts. And then, once he's done that he goes, 'see, it isn't mathematical anymore', when in fact all he has done is disguise the terminology. I sometimes think myself that math hardly covers the intricacies of computer work, but I think this guy is attacking it in the completely wrong way.
Yes, but again, it DOES take extra effort to make it work on both formats. This isn't the beta/VHS era anymore where you could simply copy, that's won't work between these two as they use different languages, and you need to reprogram the control layer (this is the additional effort part) for it to work on the other disc type. The level of extra effort isn't the same as a PC to PS3 port of a game, sure, but it is still extra effort.
If they're taxing it, doesn't it HAVE to be legal?
Nope, the IRS explicitly says that any money you get, legal or illegal, must be reported and can be taxed. It's just one of those ways governments have of artificially increasing the severity of the charges against someone.
Since randomness has a proven substantial impact on those tests that threshold becomes blurred.
True, but the article's math does nothing to support that case as the difficulty of the test does NOTHING to hurt or help this. The test format in that case is the problem, and his example again doesn't help because this test wouldn't be used for those guys who get 55% on the test, it would be looking for those in the 75%+ range (pass could even be set at 90% maybe even 100%, he never sets it) and this on a trivial test that no organization like a legal bar would use. The actual odds of you passing by luck are quite low even on his worst case example (they're actually probably as good as passing an essay test and just getting lucky on what questions they ask).
His examples where simplified to illustrate the essential math behind them, he does not need more than 2 people to compare since the math is equally applicable no matter how many are tested.
Here, let me explain it to you. This type of test is a like that 'you can only go on this ride if you're taller that this' sign. His example, instead of using it that way is attempting to use it as a way of say is Joe taller than Bill when both are the size of ants. It was neither designed nor intended for that, therefore the math fails because he has to address people who can actually pass it, not the guys who can't and the the problem has nothing to do with the difficulty in that case, it is to do with the test format. The fact that he didn't even set a fictional pass bar demonstrates just how out of place his thinking is. Again, he might have a point if this was a relative test, but it isn't as described. Even in the absolutely absurd case he presents, the math does not hurt the test as pass bar would logically be set quite high on that test, blocking both people. You have to compare at least a guy who can pass on it reasonably against a guy who can't and in that case the math fall apart very fast as even that pathetic has a very good chance of showing that difference correctly.
The "educated guess" does not contradict that argument. Again, the harder the test then the smaller the difference between the number of potentially correct answers you can eliminate versus the number that he can eliminate will be. With a sufficiently hard test, "educated guessing" makes no difference whatsoever.
Actually, the problem here is his example is a total worst case scenario and doesn't tell us what the 'Pass' level is. The tests mentioned are not relative knowledge tests, they are pass/fail tests, in other words, I don't care how much Joe knows compared to Bill, all I care about is does Joe demonstrate the necessary level of knowledge to pass. In that case, assuming the test maker has the slightest clue, in the example the pass mark would likely be at 75%+ (you need about 1/2 right legit, and 1/2 of the remaining right on guesses or better) meaning that it's difficulty is fine as it has correctly blocked both people as they didn't show the necessary level of knowledge.
He might have a point IF he qualified this to scaled result tests (ie the top X people will pass regardless of their scores, only relative position counts), but he didn't. But, even in that case he'd have to analyze the distribution of all testees, not just 2. Once again, his math does work and doesn't support the argument.
Yeah, this is a pretty bloody poor analysis. If I know 2X as much (even assuming we could quantify it that easily), that doesn't automatically mean I get 2X the score on a test, and it certainly doesn't mean my guesses are equally as bad as the guy with 1/2 my knowledge. It depends heavily on what my knowledge is and what is covered by the test. The potential is even there for the guy with 1/2 my knowledge to beat me just simply by getting lucky on what the test covers.
Just for an example, say we were doing a geography test on the states of the united states and their associated capitals. I know 1/2 of them, and another guy knows 1/4 of them. Now, each question is a 4 part multi-choice simple question: State X, which is it's capital? A, B, C, or D. The thing is, even for those I don't know, 1/2 the potential answers (on average) I can eliminate as I know them, while the other guy, on average, can only eliminate 1/4 of them. So, I would get 50% on knowing the answers, and about 1/2 of the remaining on guesses. The other guy would get 1/4 on knowing them, and only 1/3 of the rest on guesses. And that's just the basic mathematic flaw in his reasoning.
Actually, in that case I could argue defamation of character. But, you can't defame a building by having a gun battle in a replica of it. The better analogy would be a replica of the building where I worked used in an ad for guns, something we don't support. There is no claim in the ad that we support guns. There is no person from our work, real or otherwise, depicted as endorsing the guns. Only the building is used as a setting. I can be slightly mad about it and voice that opinion, but to get bent out of shape and start threatening legal action over it is silly, especially as said location is a historical land mark that is hundreds of years old.
The desire not to have violent video games set inside their private property without their permission?
So, the church is a virtual construct then? My god, we really are in the Matrix!
Please, this is beyond pathetic. The actually church was not used, so all property arguments are useless. Repeat it with me, 'this is a virtual model of the church'. It is not the actual church. There is no physical property right that protects against any use of the model, or likenesses in general. The only rights you could claim are intellectual properties rights, but the church is too old to be protected by any of them as they have all long since expired.
That is not a distinction the church is willing to make.
Doesn't matter whether they are willing to make it or not. It's the very important legal distinction as this isn't a physical property right, it's a intellectual property right which they don't have, pure and simple. The church is simply too old to be covered by copyrights or patents and ineligible to be covered by trademark, and even if it wasn't that would be an extremely shaky case, but again they don't even have that going for them. They can complain, but to threaten legal action is just silly. It has about as much possibility of not getting laughed out of court as the owners of the Louvre have of suing the hundreds of movies and television shows depicting copies of the Mona Lisa.
n the real world you ask permission before you draw others into your own dark fantasies. If the Bishop doesn't want his church used as a stage-set in their game then Sony should respect that decision.
Such permission is nice-ity, NOT a requirement here. They did no filming within the actual church. They modeled a virtual set on the real church and all activity occurred to and within the virtual copy. The Cathedral is now WAY past any copyrights that can protect it's architectural design, so really they have no case. They might have a case if this was a film set within the church, as that would be use of the private property, but obviously being a video game it isn't.
Indeed. I care if the teacher went to school and passed out free Debbie-does-Dallas tapes to each and every student, that is NOT a 40 year sentence worthy crime. No... wait, I'm sure the MPAA would say it is... copyright infringement and all. But you get the idea.
You know, although I'd be a little ticked about losing money, if someone would take my fanfiction and turn it into a real show I'd be overall very happy. Of course, they'd probably butcher it, but hey, I could still claim bragging rights.
The problem is, the N64 didn't add functionality by it's design, it forced the designer to decide between functionality that didn't need to. Dual shock, and the Xbox controller, with more controls but no need for hand movement proves this. This isn't, do you want vanilla or strawberry, this is do you want to use these controls or those controls since we couldn't be bothered to do it right and allow you access to them all at once. And you're not abandoning a control on dual shock. You abandon a control when you move your hand, not your thumb. By that reasoning, you abandon A button to touch B, which isn't logical at all. Moving your hand takes significant time, not to mention briefly removing you from both sets of controls. You can try and defend it and play semantics all you want, it does change that it sucked.
I'd rather have a controller design that doesn't even have to force the developer to even consider it, than one that forces the choice between abandoning controls or moving your hand. So no, this is the controller designer fault as much or more than the game designers.
Have to agree. I wouldn't put it on the worst list (plenty of far worse controllers out there), but it has no right being on the best list. Yes, the analog was nice, and I give it props for that, but the overall design sucked big time. A good controller should never force you to move your hand, or abandon a good chunk of your controls. Although the choice to use carts probably was N64's main problem, I feel the control design was a good number 2.
God I hope not. I don't want a WCIII mod with SC skins, I want StarCraft II. It should stand out as unique from both it's predecessor and it's brother in the WC universe.
You must remember there is self regulation in place for movies (the same self regulation that currently exists on games) and in most places it is in fact not illegal. What you really need to show it is illegal is someone being busted for violating it, or better yet the law.
The thing about appealing to the 'Role' part of RPG is near ALL games are Role playing games if you remove the stat dynamic. If you're playing a racing game, you're playing the role of a driver. If you're playing GTA, you're playing the role of a criminal. If you're playing Supreme Commander, you're playing the role of a futuristic general. Thing is though we don't refer to these as RPG games, they are driving games, or action/adventure games, or strategy games. And once again, maybe we do need more of the MMO of these, but they aren't an evolution of modern RPGs. You can make these other generas RPGish, but that doesn't change what they are at their core. Just because Cratos gets points he can spend from killing enemies doesn't make that an RPG game, it is still an Action/Adventure game with some RPG element tacked on. And the big thing here is these genera (RPG vs all the others) have different audiences, and because of that different expectations. What you are looking for isn't really an evolution of an RPG, is an evolution of one of the other generas which is fine but you have to realize that.
We're talking two entirely different things. What you're proposing basically is a MMOFPS/chess/stealth (I won't even go into how unreasonable it is to expect to meld all 3 of these together in any kind of balance and stability). That's not an evolution of MMORPG. It's a different genera and will naturally have a different audience. Believe it or not, people like RPGs, MMO or otherwise, and they don't look for a twitch fest in this type of game. If I want a FPS, I'd play a FPS. If I was looking for a online strategy game... I'd play one of those. Same with stealth. When you propose taking MMORPGs somewhere, it still has to be fundamentally a RPG or you're no longer even talking to the same audience or on the same issue anymore.
Do we maybe need some more MMO{insert genera of choice here}, maybe, but that's an expansion of the existing generas into MMO status, not an evolution of the MMORPG.
While I understand where you're coming from, adding skill based game play is a double edged sword. Why aren't lots of people into fighting games nowadays? Because it take TOO much skill to be good. You have to accept that although an individual is skilled, the population has various skill levels and this means low skilled people become easily frustrated with your game. On top of this, it often much easier playing a game that requires minimal skill than it is to be pushed to your limits all the time. I know myself, I can only play high end action games so long then I'm just exhausted on them and have to do something else, and ultimately that means the game sits on the shelf and gathers dust. For a subscription game that's a lost subscription which is bad for the company.
So you need to balance you skill requirements very carefully. Too little and it's boring and off putting to those with skill. Too much and you alienate the casuals because they can't hope to compete with the skilled people. RPGs by their nature are tuned more to the low skill level crowd.
Yes, it's perfectly within Blizzard's right to do this, that doesn't mean I have to like it. Why bother with the ?? levels in game if I can look the person up online now and get a complete load out of data on them? This is a kinda of silly contradiction in handling of the issue. Overall, I have to give Blizzard a big thumbs down on their implementation of this thus far.
Slashdot Mirror
I would say the onus of proof is on the Casino here. If they can show that said players maliciously exploited this fault (in other words they knew it was a fault and exploited it anyway), then yeah, they have a case. It is little different than if I mess with the mechanics to make it pay out excessively as in both cases I'm exploiting a fault in the system. However, if they can't show that, then I feel it is tough luck for the casino being stupid.
Obviously, I haven't read the book, but the article sure makes it sound like he's just trying to play word games, relabeling the concepts. And then, once he's done that he goes, 'see, it isn't mathematical anymore', when in fact all he has done is disguise the terminology. I sometimes think myself that math hardly covers the intricacies of computer work, but I think this guy is attacking it in the completely wrong way.
Yes, but again, it DOES take extra effort to make it work on both formats. This isn't the beta/VHS era anymore where you could simply copy, that's won't work between these two as they use different languages, and you need to reprogram the control layer (this is the additional effort part) for it to work on the other disc type. The level of extra effort isn't the same as a PC to PS3 port of a game, sure, but it is still extra effort.
Actually, it does take additional effort since HD-DVD and Blu-ray use different programming languages for all the menu controls and such.
Nope, the IRS explicitly says that any money you get, legal or illegal, must be reported and can be taxed. It's just one of those ways governments have of artificially increasing the severity of the charges against someone.
True, but the article's math does nothing to support that case as the difficulty of the test does NOTHING to hurt or help this. The test format in that case is the problem, and his example again doesn't help because this test wouldn't be used for those guys who get 55% on the test, it would be looking for those in the 75%+ range (pass could even be set at 90% maybe even 100%, he never sets it) and this on a trivial test that no organization like a legal bar would use. The actual odds of you passing by luck are quite low even on his worst case example (they're actually probably as good as passing an essay test and just getting lucky on what questions they ask).
His examples where simplified to illustrate the essential math behind them, he does not need more than 2 people to compare since the math is equally applicable no matter how many are tested.
Here, let me explain it to you. This type of test is a like that 'you can only go on this ride if you're taller that this' sign. His example, instead of using it that way is attempting to use it as a way of say is Joe taller than Bill when both are the size of ants. It was neither designed nor intended for that, therefore the math fails because he has to address people who can actually pass it, not the guys who can't and the the problem has nothing to do with the difficulty in that case, it is to do with the test format. The fact that he didn't even set a fictional pass bar demonstrates just how out of place his thinking is. Again, he might have a point if this was a relative test, but it isn't as described. Even in the absolutely absurd case he presents, the math does not hurt the test as pass bar would logically be set quite high on that test, blocking both people. You have to compare at least a guy who can pass on it reasonably against a guy who can't and in that case the math fall apart very fast as even that pathetic has a very good chance of showing that difference correctly.
Actually, the problem here is his example is a total worst case scenario and doesn't tell us what the 'Pass' level is. The tests mentioned are not relative knowledge tests, they are pass/fail tests, in other words, I don't care how much Joe knows compared to Bill, all I care about is does Joe demonstrate the necessary level of knowledge to pass. In that case, assuming the test maker has the slightest clue, in the example the pass mark would likely be at 75%+ (you need about 1/2 right legit, and 1/2 of the remaining right on guesses or better) meaning that it's difficulty is fine as it has correctly blocked both people as they didn't show the necessary level of knowledge.
He might have a point IF he qualified this to scaled result tests (ie the top X people will pass regardless of their scores, only relative position counts), but he didn't. But, even in that case he'd have to analyze the distribution of all testees, not just 2. Once again, his math does work and doesn't support the argument.
Just for an example, say we were doing a geography test on the states of the united states and their associated capitals. I know 1/2 of them, and another guy knows 1/4 of them. Now, each question is a 4 part multi-choice simple question: State X, which is it's capital? A, B, C, or D. The thing is, even for those I don't know, 1/2 the potential answers (on average) I can eliminate as I know them, while the other guy, on average, can only eliminate 1/4 of them. So, I would get 50% on knowing the answers, and about 1/2 of the remaining on guesses. The other guy would get 1/4 on knowing them, and only 1/3 of the rest on guesses. And that's just the basic mathematic flaw in his reasoning.
Nothing better than a law which let's a public entity have legal protection from public oversight.
Actually, in that case I could argue defamation of character. But, you can't defame a building by having a gun battle in a replica of it. The better analogy would be a replica of the building where I worked used in an ad for guns, something we don't support. There is no claim in the ad that we support guns. There is no person from our work, real or otherwise, depicted as endorsing the guns. Only the building is used as a setting. I can be slightly mad about it and voice that opinion, but to get bent out of shape and start threatening legal action over it is silly, especially as said location is a historical land mark that is hundreds of years old.
So, the church is a virtual construct then? My god, we really are in the Matrix!
Please, this is beyond pathetic. The actually church was not used, so all property arguments are useless. Repeat it with me, 'this is a virtual model of the church'. It is not the actual church. There is no physical property right that protects against any use of the model, or likenesses in general. The only rights you could claim are intellectual properties rights, but the church is too old to be protected by any of them as they have all long since expired.
Doesn't matter whether they are willing to make it or not. It's the very important legal distinction as this isn't a physical property right, it's a intellectual property right which they don't have, pure and simple. The church is simply too old to be covered by copyrights or patents and ineligible to be covered by trademark, and even if it wasn't that would be an extremely shaky case, but again they don't even have that going for them. They can complain, but to threaten legal action is just silly. It has about as much possibility of not getting laughed out of court as the owners of the Louvre have of suing the hundreds of movies and television shows depicting copies of the Mona Lisa.
n the real world you ask permission before you draw others into your own dark fantasies. If the Bishop doesn't want his church used as a stage-set in their game then Sony should respect that decision. Such permission is nice-ity, NOT a requirement here. They did no filming within the actual church. They modeled a virtual set on the real church and all activity occurred to and within the virtual copy. The Cathedral is now WAY past any copyrights that can protect it's architectural design, so really they have no case. They might have a case if this was a film set within the church, as that would be use of the private property, but obviously being a video game it isn't.
Indeed. I care if the teacher went to school and passed out free Debbie-does-Dallas tapes to each and every student, that is NOT a 40 year sentence worthy crime. No... wait, I'm sure the MPAA would say it is... copyright infringement and all. But you get the idea.
You know, although I'd be a little ticked about losing money, if someone would take my fanfiction and turn it into a real show I'd be overall very happy. Of course, they'd probably butcher it, but hey, I could still claim bragging rights.
The problem is, the N64 didn't add functionality by it's design, it forced the designer to decide between functionality that didn't need to. Dual shock, and the Xbox controller, with more controls but no need for hand movement proves this. This isn't, do you want vanilla or strawberry, this is do you want to use these controls or those controls since we couldn't be bothered to do it right and allow you access to them all at once. And you're not abandoning a control on dual shock. You abandon a control when you move your hand, not your thumb. By that reasoning, you abandon A button to touch B, which isn't logical at all. Moving your hand takes significant time, not to mention briefly removing you from both sets of controls. You can try and defend it and play semantics all you want, it does change that it sucked.
I'd rather have a controller design that doesn't even have to force the developer to even consider it, than one that forces the choice between abandoning controls or moving your hand. So no, this is the controller designer fault as much or more than the game designers.
Have to agree. I wouldn't put it on the worst list (plenty of far worse controllers out there), but it has no right being on the best list. Yes, the analog was nice, and I give it props for that, but the overall design sucked big time. A good controller should never force you to move your hand, or abandon a good chunk of your controls. Although the choice to use carts probably was N64's main problem, I feel the control design was a good number 2.
God I hope not. I don't want a WCIII mod with SC skins, I want StarCraft II. It should stand out as unique from both it's predecessor and it's brother in the WC universe.
You must remember there is self regulation in place for movies (the same self regulation that currently exists on games) and in most places it is in fact not illegal. What you really need to show it is illegal is someone being busted for violating it, or better yet the law.
The thing about appealing to the 'Role' part of RPG is near ALL games are Role playing games if you remove the stat dynamic. If you're playing a racing game, you're playing the role of a driver. If you're playing GTA, you're playing the role of a criminal. If you're playing Supreme Commander, you're playing the role of a futuristic general. Thing is though we don't refer to these as RPG games, they are driving games, or action/adventure games, or strategy games. And once again, maybe we do need more of the MMO of these, but they aren't an evolution of modern RPGs. You can make these other generas RPGish, but that doesn't change what they are at their core. Just because Cratos gets points he can spend from killing enemies doesn't make that an RPG game, it is still an Action/Adventure game with some RPG element tacked on. And the big thing here is these genera (RPG vs all the others) have different audiences, and because of that different expectations. What you are looking for isn't really an evolution of an RPG, is an evolution of one of the other generas which is fine but you have to realize that.
Do we maybe need some more MMO{insert genera of choice here}, maybe, but that's an expansion of the existing generas into MMO status, not an evolution of the MMORPG.
So you need to balance you skill requirements very carefully. Too little and it's boring and off putting to those with skill. Too much and you alienate the casuals because they can't hope to compete with the skilled people. RPGs by their nature are tuned more to the low skill level crowd.
Or an higher level alt/friend willing to help out. Normally I wouldn't bother, but now, I would, defeating the purpose of the ?? level block.
Yes, it's perfectly within Blizzard's right to do this, that doesn't mean I have to like it. Why bother with the ?? levels in game if I can look the person up online now and get a complete load out of data on them? This is a kinda of silly contradiction in handling of the issue. Overall, I have to give Blizzard a big thumbs down on their implementation of this thus far.