GuyPerfect

Lies!

Ah, right. I forgot that common sense is often thrown out the window when it comes to giving names to things in science. Like how a "fact" doesn't necessarily have to be true...

I think what StrykerX really means is that, while SOs are perfectly valid, useful and acceptable for any situation the game will throw at you, you'll be better able to overcome the -Recharge in Granit Armor by using IO sets that grant +Recharge.

There are cameras out there that can focus, and cameras that cannot. The ones that cannot show a crisp image of objects at any depth. The optical focusing of the human eye is a design feature; it is not there to account for any imperfections in the behavior of light, as un-focusable cameras don't seem to have that issue.


That's not what I said. I said the straight line projected onto our retinas is perceived as a straight line because the brain interprates the retina as a 2D surface. In the case of the straight light becoming curved on the surface of the retina: if anything, our retinas themselves distort perception to retain proper interpratation of straight objects.


I'm glad we're all thinkers. (-:

In perspective calculations, this is referred to as the "field of view angle" and is indeed recommended to be 90 degrees top-to-bottom (which is technically referred to as a 45-degree FOV). The exact field of view angle for left-to-right depends on the apsect ratio of the viewport; that is, it depends on the relative dimensions of the viewport's width and height.

In real life, the field of view angle is greater because our retinas are curved, rather than flat like a computer screen. Rays of light entering our eyes at an extreme angle can still be percieved; while on a computer, such rays would miss the viewport rectangle altogether by shooting off to the sides. This is not a matter of perspective calculation. The math is correct on the computer screen as it is modeled after the real-life math that stimulates our eyes. The difference is that the computer's "retina" is a rectangle, where our eyes' retinas are, for all intents and purposes, hemispheres.

Incidentally, increasing the FOV mathematically will result in the center of the image being "pinched in," while the periphery becomes more stretched out. This can be disorienting, and is occasionally used for artistic flare. Decreasing the FOV results in a binocular-like zoom in, which is far superior to the typical method of actually moving the viewpoint closer to the object you want to zoom in on.


Since photons effectively travel as rays away from the source of light, there will only ever be an X and Y coordinate when they collide with the retina. "Light has landed here, and it is this color." In this context, our retinas are 2-dimensional and euclidian math needs not apply. Any straight-line objects will project straight-line light, which are in turn percieved as straight lines by our retinas.

The same is done on a computer screen, since the same math is applicable in both situations. Our eyes and our computers do not operate any differently in that regard.


There is a rendering technique called a sky box which renders a full 360-degree scene around the camera (point of view). The box is drawn with depth testing disabled, such that everything else in the scene will be drawn in front of it and the sky box will remain the overall background regardless of its mathematical size. The 360-degree scene is generally stored as six, 2D, square images and (unsurprisingly) rendered onto a cube around the camera. As the camera looks at the world with different angles, the sky box is rotated accordingly. The result is that you can have some ludicrously-detailed backgrounds with minimal polygons and thusly minimal graphical processing.

The point here is that a single, fully-encompassing image is produced that accurately reflects proper perspective regardless of the angle you look at it with. This boggled my mind initially, since I saw no way that parts of the image way up in the cube's corner would not be distorted when you looked directly at it, but it's true: there is no distoriton, and this is because of the way perspective (and line convergence) works. The only other geometric shape that produces the same result (and, indeed, identical pixels after rendering) is a sphere.

In any case, if you look at the six 2D images of a sky box texture, you'll find that no straight lines become curved.

Been a while since I've been in there post-I8, but I seem to recall not all of the musics changed... The ones I labeled in the video (Subduction, Downfall, Precipice) are the little music-based regions from the old zone.

You'd have more luck directly requesting the Bug Hunter badge.

Hang on a bit and I'll start a new thread for this.

EDIT:
I've started a project on the wiki to get this information out there. Keep an eye on this page and it should eventually become an article in the main namespace.

Yeah, they look like they need a good pamphletting.

Regardless of how often an enemy attacks or even if he's able to attack, status effects and debuffs have nothing to do with defending against the effects of the attacks that are made. An enemy attacking less frequently or with less damage is not defensive any more than oneself attacking with more damage is defensive.


If you had a gun and I built a brick wall in front of myself to protect myself, it would not prevent you from attacking. I trust you'd be smart enough to recognize that shooting at the wall would not be of much effect--since it would be protecting me--so you'd choose to take an alternate course of action rather than making the attack. That is to say, my defenses would prompt you to employ other strategies without preventing you from attacking.

We could go back and forth on this until the City Vault displays Cathedral of Pain rewards, but at this point it really depends on how much you insist on the two of us not being on the same page simply because of a difference in opinion. I've stated my position and the evidence supporting it, and will continue to clarify until you understand the concept I'm attempting to express... But only one of us can determine when this particular exchange will come to an end.

I recall that there was a battle in Final Fantasy X-2 where you need to let the enemy turn your party into zombies, because she later uses a terrible dark energy attack that, while zombies, basically heals your party for full health. The gut reaction is to cure your party of the status effect, but there are game mechanics that make it worthwhile in the long run.


Incorrect. You can't be protected from an attack that is never made.


Building a wall is defensive. Taking away their weapons is offensive.


Correct.


Incorrect. See above.


Protecting a citizen from, say, a machete madman would involve, for instance, placing the citizen in an armored vehicle. Going after the madman to stop him from being a threat altogether is not an act of protection; it's an act of aggression against the would-be evildoer.

Eh? You're reinforcing my argument with this sentence. Are you sure you understand my stance correctly? My position is that offensive things such as Build Up may very well contribute to survivability, but in and of themselves are not classified as defensive simply because of that logic. Defense, by definition, means to protect (such as resisting damage) and redefining the term as having some nebulous connection to the amount of damage sustained over time puts a kink in the flow of communication.

We can all agree that hot dogs are called donuts, but that in no way changes the meaning of the word "donut" to specify a hot dog... especially if someone comes along who knows what a donut really is and tries to communicate with the hot dog crowd. I suppose if we had some glossary for every word that people use in contexts that differ from their denotations, things would be more bearable, but I'm against such nonsense as a matter of principle.

Okay, you win: defense ≠ defense. All hail Arcana.