>> ^mentality:

@Fletch
"You'll have to stop barking first."
Classy. Nice tone you set for the rest of the discussion.
"Not surprised that you have nothing to say about this, as it is, probably, the primary reason so many former Diablo players won't be playing D3.
How many is so many? Did you do a survey? Diablo's core audience, many of whom continue to play D2 to this day, are those who played D2 on BNET. That's where the meat of the game is, and that's where the community is built around. Who do you think Blizzard keeps on patching and adding new content for, more than a decade after D2's release?
" Nothing in D2 required you to go to "sketchy websites" and spend money. [...] Sure, you still don't have to, but both drops and crafting have been nerfed in order to encourage spending."
Did you know that D2 had a huge online item black market? It has basically the same effect as an auction house, except people had to go to 3rd party vendors for it. But guess what? This kind of stuff only matters if you're playing on the ladder. Want to have a nice quiet solo game, or run through the game with a few friends? Who the hell cares if you have elite gear? Play the beta - they definitely did NOT nerf drops and crafting.
The rest of your post is nonsense. D3's stash size is 10x7, larger than the one in D2. And blizzard manipulating drop rates for players depending on their auction house usage? That's just pure bullshit.
Have you even played D2 or kept up with all the interface "streamlining" in D3 at all? Those pets I mentioned above don't do anything except pick up your gold. Talk about "dumbed-down". This game is headed for consoles.
Those pets were removed from the game due to player feedback. "Streamlining" - have you even played the beta? The additional skill slots make this game LESS console friendly than D2. Face it, D2 was already perfect for consoles. And Torchlight? ALREADY on consoles.
SOME randomized dungeons, last I read. Although, if I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. I said "linear", not "non-random". One does not mean the other. I have little hope you can understand the difference. I'll try to use them both in a sentence for you later.
I said randomized dungeons and quests. If the first time you play the game you get quests ABC, and the second time you play the game you get quests XYZ instead, is that NON-LINEAR enough for you? It looks like you're the kind of person who, rather than play a game, justs makes up bullshit instead and then bitch about it.
Oh, please. The textures look like they shot primary-colored paint balls onto an easel and captured it through a shear stocking.
Like I said, people seem to forget D2's graphics. In D2 you were fighting against red, green, blue, yellow colored monsters while your character was decked out in purple. D2 was cartoony. D3 is less. You complain about D3 being cartoony, then you talk about playing Torchlight? Are you fucking kidding me?
It's Blizzard's loss, not mine. I don't get too emotionally attached to "things". With Torchlight2, Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, and even Legend of Grimrock in the works, I won't miss D3 one bit.
With D3's sales, I doubt Blizzard will miss you one bit. And the Diablo community won't miss you one bit. One less whiny brat to clog up the BNET forums.


Ugh...

Ok, you win, Fanboy. Have fun. I hope it lives up to all your dreams.

@Fletch

"You'll have to stop barking first."

Classy. Nice tone you set for the rest of the discussion.

"Not surprised that you have nothing to say about this, as it is, probably, the primary reason so many former Diablo players won't be playing D3.

How many is so many? Did you do a survey? Diablo's core audience, many of whom continue to play D2 to this day, are those who played D2 on BNET. That's where the meat of the game is, and that's where the community is built around. Who do you think Blizzard keeps on patching and adding new content for, more than a decade after D2's release?

" Nothing in D2 required you to go to "sketchy websites" and spend money. [...] Sure, you still don't have to, but both drops and crafting have been nerfed in order to encourage spending."

Did you know that D2 had a huge online item black market? It has basically the same effect as an auction house, except people had to go to 3rd party vendors for it. But guess what? This kind of stuff only matters if you're playing on the ladder. Want to have a nice quiet solo game, or run through the game with a few friends? Who the hell cares if you have elite gear? Play the beta - they definitely did NOT nerf drops and crafting.

The rest of your post is nonsense. D3's stash size is 10x7, larger than the one in D2. And blizzard manipulating drop rates for players depending on their auction house usage? That's just pure bullshit.

Have you even played D2 or kept up with all the interface "streamlining" in D3 at all? Those pets I mentioned above don't do anything except pick up your gold. Talk about "dumbed-down". This game is headed for consoles.

Those pets were removed from the game due to player feedback. "Streamlining" - have you even played the beta? The additional skill slots make this game LESS console friendly than D2. Face it, D2 was already perfect for consoles. And Torchlight? ALREADY on consoles.

SOME randomized dungeons, last I read. Although, if I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. I said "linear", not "non-random". One does not mean the other. I have little hope you can understand the difference. I'll try to use them both in a sentence for you later.

I said randomized dungeons and quests. If the first time you play the game you get quests ABC, and the second time you play the game you get quests XYZ instead, is that NON-LINEAR enough for you? It looks like you're the kind of person who, rather than play a game, justs makes up bullshit instead and then bitch about it.

Oh, please. The textures look like they shot primary-colored paint balls onto an easel and captured it through a shear stocking.

Like I said, people seem to forget D2's graphics. In D2 you were fighting against red, green, blue, yellow colored monsters while your character was decked out in purple. D2 was cartoony. D3 is less. You complain about D3 being cartoony, then you talk about playing Torchlight? Are you fucking kidding me?

It's Blizzard's loss, not mine. I don't get too emotionally attached to "things". With Torchlight2, Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, and even Legend of Grimrock in the works, I won't miss D3 one bit.

With D3's sales, I doubt Blizzard will miss you one bit. And the Diablo community won't miss you one bit. One less whiny brat to clog up the BNET forums.

@robbersdog49
This will forever be a discussion between people who work with colours.
In the print industry, the photographic industry or the artists of the world.

The truth is it's different for what ever your process is.
RGB for Light
CMYK for Print
& RYB for artists
I work in all three industries and need to switch my brain back and forth between them constantly.

What they are showing here at the most primary level is the RYB colour wheel that kids learn first. It's basic paints and crayons. These are the base pigments used in paints; Cadmium Yellow & Red, Phthalocyanine (Phthalo) Blue or Cobalt Blue. The closest paint colour to magenta would be a Quinacridone.
The primary colours are the ones all others are made from. These are the ones you can't make by adding something else. We use the chemicals that are the absolute most pure to create these pigmants. They are the highest level of purity and intensity a colour can be. Once you start mixing them, the intensity can only be reduced.
Of course these would be balanced using a titanium white, Iron Oxide Black (plus Umber & Sienna).

As we get older, science class points out that light works differently and is a process that works in subtractive colour. Light being white and the other colours being made by adding filters to block various parts of the spectrum.A blue surface isn't so much blue as it just holds on to all wavelengths of the spectrum but reflects the part of the spectrum that is blue. (Etc.)

In indusry, (and most people still don't under stand this process), the printing process uses Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Key (Black) (in a transparent or dot)layered fashion to simulate a full colour image.

And don't forget Hexachrome (CMYKOG) which also ads the Orange and Green coloured inks (because simple CMYK cannot simulate every colour).

The CMYK colour system is a simulation of colour and are NOT primary colours. Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black are the primary colours within that system only.

ROY G BIV
R Y B are more accurately the Primary Colours in the light and colour spectrum. The coulours between them OG(I)V are all Secondary colours.

*Sidenote: Magenta is an odd coulour which comes from that one man out theory. Indigo is the invisible colour in the spectrum that breaks the rule. That's why in order to create a Cyan colour in paint, we use a Quinacridone pigment. Quinacridone is a transparent colour only and can't be made opaque without mixing it with another pigment and loosing it's purity. It's a damm expensive pigment so it's rarely used.

>> ^robbersdog49:

Primary colours of light are Red Green and Blue.
Primary colours of pigment are Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black.
I'm a geeky printer so this bugs the hell out of me. Blue is a mix of Cyan and Magenta, so it's not primary. It's a mix. Red is a mix of Magenta and Yellow.
Maybe they just weren't clever enough to find rhymes for Magenta or Cyan. It's just a shame they had to be wrong.

See Here: http://www.diycalculator.com/imgs/console-09.gif

>> ^robbersdog49:

Primary colours of light are Red Green and Blue.
Primary colours of pigment are Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black.
I'm a geeky printer so this bugs the hell out of me. Blue is a mix of Cyan and Magenta, so it's not primary. It's a mix. Red is a mix of Magenta and Yellow.
Maybe they just weren't clever enough to find rhymes for Magenta or Cyan. It's just a shame they had to be wrong.

Primary colours of light are Red Green and Blue.

Primary colours of pigment are Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black.

I'm a geeky printer so this bugs the hell out of me. Blue is a mix of Cyan and Magenta, so it's not primary. It's a mix. Red is a mix of Magenta and Yellow.

Maybe they just weren't clever enough to find rhymes for Magenta or Cyan. It's just a shame they had to be wrong.

Lesson #1
Red + Yellow + Black = Brown
Red + Yellow + White = Peach
Therefor brown & white are the same colour - ergo skin color is irrelevant.

Lesson#2
Primary colours in pigment are Red - Yellow - Blue
Red + (Yellow + Blue) = Mauve
Red + Green = Mauve

Primary colours in light are Red - Blue - Green
Red + Green + Blue = White
Red + Green = Yellow
I don't know what this one should mean - therefor it's a conspiracy.

Hi, thank you for taking the time to reply, and sorry I didn't write back straight away. Obviously you're right in that they clearly don't mean to say that everything beyond the visible is pink, because that's self-evidently not true, and they know it, because they're not stupid. So yeah, it's all bit "well, obviously", if you see what I mean. Again, thanks for the considered reply

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
I watched it again, and they're not saying that radio waves are pink, they're saying that you can't see them... but that pink fills the spot on the colour wheel that would otherwise be filled by the invisible radiation.

They could've made it clearer, but they didn't say what you thought. What they did say isn't exactly wrong just not clear.

Fair enough that it's hardly worth counting UV vision in certain lens enhanced people, I just thought it was cool.
In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^oritteropo:

I think they mean that if you try to wrap the visible spectrum around a colour wheel, then it works for the red,green,blue,violet part and then stops working when you get to the magenta/pink/negative green part.
To quibble a little with your claim that anything out of the visisble spectrum is invisible, people who have had cataract surgery can see potentially light slightly outside the normal visible range (all right, not gamma rays, but still)... http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/605905
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
The claim made in the video that we see all the non-visible wavelengths of light/EM radiation as pink is patently false. We know this because gamma rays aren't pink, they're invisible.


That's not what they're saying though. They are quite clearly saying that the vast area outside the tiny wavelengths we can see are perceived by human eyes as pink. If that were true, there would be so much light bouncing around that that we percieved as pink that we wouldn't be able to make anything else out.

And I quibble with your quibble: anything outside of the visible spectrum is invisible by definition, isn't it? The slight increase in the visible spectrum in a minority of the people who've ever had cataract surgery is hardly worth counting in this regard as it's not considered normal vision.

I watched it again, and they're not saying that radio waves are pink, they're saying that you can't see them... but that pink fills the spot on the colour wheel that would otherwise be filled by the invisible radiation.

They could've made it clearer, but they didn't say what you thought. What they did say isn't exactly wrong just not clear.

Fair enough that it's hardly worth counting UV vision in certain lens enhanced people, I just thought it was cool.
In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^oritteropo:

I think they mean that if you try to wrap the visible spectrum around a colour wheel, then it works for the red,green,blue,violet part and then stops working when you get to the magenta/pink/negative green part.
To quibble a little with your claim that anything out of the visisble spectrum is invisible, people who have had cataract surgery can see potentially light slightly outside the normal visible range (all right, not gamma rays, but still)... http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/605905
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
The claim made in the video that we see all the non-visible wavelengths of light/EM radiation as pink is patently false. We know this because gamma rays aren't pink, they're invisible.


That's not what they're saying though. They are quite clearly saying that the vast area outside the tiny wavelengths we can see are perceived by human eyes as pink. If that were true, there would be so much light bouncing around that that we percieved as pink that we wouldn't be able to make anything else out.

And I quibble with your quibble: anything outside of the visible spectrum is invisible by definition, isn't it? The slight increase in the visible spectrum in a minority of the people who've ever had cataract surgery is hardly worth counting in this regard as it's not considered normal vision.

>> ^oritteropo:

I think they mean that if you try to wrap the visible spectrum around a colour wheel, then it works for the red,green,blue,violet part and then stops working when you get to the magenta/pink/negative green part.
To quibble a little with your claim that anything out of the visisble spectrum is invisible, people who have had cataract surgery can see potentially light slightly outside the normal visible range (all right, not gamma rays, but still)... http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/605905
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
The claim made in the video that we see all the non-visible wavelengths of light/EM radiation as pink is patently false. We know this because gamma rays aren't pink, they're invisible.


That's not what they're saying though. They are quite clearly saying that the vast area outside the tiny wavelengths we can see are perceived by human eyes as pink. If that were true, there would be so much light bouncing around that that we percieved as pink that we wouldn't be able to make anything else out.

And I quibble with your quibble: anything outside of the visible spectrum is invisible by definition, isn't it? The slight increase in the visible spectrum in a minority of the people who've ever had cataract surgery is hardly worth counting in this regard as it's not considered normal vision.

I think they mean that if you try to wrap the visible spectrum around a colour wheel, then it works for the red,green,blue,violet part and then stops working when you get to the magenta/pink/negative green part.

To quibble a little with your claim that anything out of the visisble spectrum is invisible, people who have had cataract surgery can see potentially light slightly outside the normal visible range (all right, not gamma rays, but still)... http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/605905
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

The claim made in the video that we see all the non-visible wavelengths of light/EM radiation as pink is patently false. We know this because gamma rays aren't pink, they're invisible.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Totally with you here. I would love to see some more classic SF made. Rendezvous with Rama is coming! >> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Farhad2000:
The closest I can think of as a completely positive spin on the future was 2010. Since it was all Cold War bullshit but the scientists worked together and that whole THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXPECT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.

Star Trek is sorta the gold standard of positive futures for humanity. It's really the only sci-fi universe in which humanity really seems to have advanced as a culture.
Most other stories assume we'll be essentially the same as we are now, or worse.
Also, a Mars colonization story wouldn't be that hard. Just adapt Kim Stanley Robinson's Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy.
Considering how conservative Hollywood is these days, you'd think they'd have started to do adaptations of some Hugo Award-winning sci-fi novels that're newer than, say, 1970 or so.
Even sticking to apocalyptic themes, there are some really good ones that haven't been tapped yet. It's almost a crime that they haven't made a movie out of Larry Niven's Footfall, for example.

>> ^Farhad2000:

The closest I can think of as a completely positive spin on the future was 2010. Since it was all Cold War bullshit but the scientists worked together and that whole THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXPECT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.


Star Trek is sorta the gold standard of positive futures for humanity. It's really the only sci-fi universe in which humanity really seems to have advanced as a culture.

Most other stories assume we'll be essentially the same as we are now, or worse.

Also, a Mars colonization story wouldn't be that hard. Just adapt Kim Stanley Robinson's Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy.

Considering how conservative Hollywood is these days, you'd think they'd have started to do adaptations of some Hugo Award-winning sci-fi novels that're newer than, say, 1970 or so.

Even sticking to apocalyptic themes, there are some really good ones that haven't been tapped yet. It's almost a crime that they haven't made a movie out of Larry Niven's Footfall, for example.

Damian Peach is the man. He uses 14" Celestron SCT telescopes with pretty affordable camera gear. His trick is that he flies to like ?Aruba? or somewhere in the Caribbean to capture his movie sequences. This movie is made from many still photographs. Each single frame of this movie was made by averaging 100's to maybe 1000's of video frames (only selecting the cleanest frames with the least atmospheric distortion.) He shoots video individually in red, green and blue and then selects the best frames of his videos to combine into single R,G and B frames. He then combined the RGB into EACH color frame of the movie you see above.

In my location of Alaska, my 8" APO refractor would probably outperform his 14" SCT. In his location, I could never resolve the detail he is gathering.

Quite a change from his work on the Red Green Show.

I had a printer for my TRS-80 that used small ball-point pens. It had 4 pens, black, red, green and blue and could draw some pretty cool shit.

Edit: After doing some searching I found it. It was a called CGP-115 Printer, though technically it's a plotter. It could print graphics like this Lego printer by doing lines, but when printing text it would actually write the letter by moving the pen. It could draw perfect circles and diagonal lines. You can see some of the stuff it could draw in this picture of it.