>> ^jonny:
The northern hemisphere is closer to the sun during the summer, and is further away from the sun during the winter.


I disagree, that would only be true if the center of the earth remained at the exact same distance away from the sun all year round but it does not.

Strike!

>> ^EDD:

the cat's collar is definitely much too heavy - his head is what's dragging the kitty WAAAY down barely halfway into the jump;

The speed at which an object falls is not related to its mass. It doesn't matter how heavy his collar is, it won't "drag" him down.

As a "gift" huh? Smells like industrial espionage.

I disagree, as AnimalsForCrackers said that design is not an MMO. The principle of an MMO is that everybody in the game is in the same shared world. If you start adding instances or parallel universes you are moving more toward a standard multiplayer game where only a dozen players share the same world state.
>> ^entr0py:
It's not that hard, in fact it's nothing new. In the first game, everything was instanced, even the cities had maybe 30 instances going at once. To make you feel like you had an effect on the world they just have two versions of the city; liberated and enslaved. Once you've saved the city, you only have access to the "liberated" version. I'm pretty sure the first game did the exact same thing with a "ruined" version of a city, and the same idea is used in many MMOs in their "newbie islands".

I totally agree, what they claim to do in the video is physically impossible. How can you have thousands of players in the game and keep the state of the world as it is after a quest has been completed. By that logic, as soon as the first player or group of players finish a quest it's essentially locked out to everybody else.
>> ^jmd:

I highly question its ability to do a persistent world and at the same time make the player feel like he is the lone hero. You simply can't just make a MMO game where YOU save a village and it stays saved, and not allow other people to save it.

Yeah that's the method he talked about in the first half of the video. I think his method is faster (but maybe only if the sum and product of last digits are less than 10), you're not meant to do it on paper he just did it like that for demonstration purposes.>> ^Throbbin:

It's pretty neat, but too slow. I can do it faster in my head than on paper like that.
I use a trick that I don't know a name for.
Multiply by factors of 10 first. Ex. 18X12 = 18X10 + 18X2 = 180+36 = 216
I've relied on it for years and it comes naturally by now. I can calculate the products of any 2 digit numbers faster than anyone on paper.