Things That Annoy You

[RavynousHunter]

Fair enough. Just be prepared for a really hairy formal equation (My guess is that it will be a second-order partial differential equation and the barriers the lava interacts with will be boundary conditions).

You're making it far more difficult than it will be.  Its a regular old inverse relationship between the distance from the lava (as well as the lava's temperature) and the amount of damage taken per second.  The "half for each solid block between you and the lava" could be handled by a simple conditional and foreach loop.

You got me interested, so I started playing around with a toy model (doesn't incorporate solid blocks yet)

http://imgur.com/a/IEx8e

Red blocks are lava, color at each block represents temperature going from red (lava) to white (ambient). Temperature at each point is temperature of lava block times some coefficient, divided by distance to lava block, summed over all lava blocks.

Hrm...if you want more data, I've got it (currently) working like this: lava's base temperature is 600C, and its max temperature is 1600C.  The Convection Spread (CS), in meters, is (Temperature / 50) - 7.  The larger an area the CS covers, the more damage it'll deal when you're right next to the lava, and this damage decreases for every meter away from the lava you are, and each meter of solid barrier inside the lava's CS range will cut said range in half.  When you're right next to the lava, but of course not inside it, you'd take damage equal to (Temperature / 125) per second.  Also, every individual lava pool will have a uniform temperature between its constituent lava blocks, but two different lava pools may vary between the min and max temperature, depending on how far below the game's sea level (I'm currently debating between 500m or 1km); the deeper you go, the hotter, and less viscous, it becomes.

[ironbite]

Convection is cool!

...I will hurt you.

[Søren]

Lately I've been getting really annoyed at this attitude of perceiving isolated inappropriate comments as something horrible that the person should be condemned forever. I'm getting sick of people acting like x actor or y comedian is irredeemable because they said something in poor taste once - especially in the case of comedians, since it's kind of their job to say things that would be offensive in most non-comedic situations. I mean yes, sometimes people go way over the line, and yes, they should be called out on it, but that line seems to be moving closer and closer to "what personally offends me, regardless of context", and context... is important. There are still enough people out there constantly spewing horrible racist, sexist, anti-LGBT and the like comments that I don't think we need to resort to a witch-hunt.

..also the idea that a person doing or saying one bad thing invalidates everything good that they've done and said in the past. I'm noticing this more and more, and it's starting to bother me...

Your fav is problematic.

If you dont cry about it youre a fucking scumbag

[Sigmaleph]

You got me interested, so I started playing around with a toy model (doesn't incorporate solid blocks yet)

http://imgur.com/a/IEx8e

Red blocks are lava, color at each block represents temperature going from red (lava) to white (ambient). Temperature at each point is temperature of lava block times some coefficient, divided by distance to lava block, summed over all lava blocks.

Hrm...if you want more data, I've got it (currently) working like this: lava's base temperature is 600C, and its max temperature is 1600C.  The Convection Spread (CS), in meters, is (Temperature / 50) - 7.  The larger an area the CS covers, the more damage it'll deal when you're right next to the lava, and this damage decreases for every meter away from the lava you are, and each meter of solid barrier inside the lava's CS range will cut said range in half.  When you're right next to the lava, but of course not inside it, you'd take damage equal to (Temperature / 125) per second.  Also, every individual lava pool will have a uniform temperature between its constituent lava blocks, but two different lava pools may vary between the min and max temperature, depending on how far below the game's sea level (I'm currently debating between 500m or 1km); the deeper you go, the hotter, and less viscous, it becomes.

Interesting...

Looks like you've got it pretty well figured out.

[Askold]

Sinfest. Why do I keep going back there hoping it has something good again?

And I don't even have a problem with what he is TRYING to do. I don't mind feminism, he is just doing it so badly.

[RavynousHunter]

You got me interested, so I started playing around with a toy model (doesn't incorporate solid blocks yet)

http://imgur.com/a/IEx8e

Red blocks are lava, color at each block represents temperature going from red (lava) to white (ambient). Temperature at each point is temperature of lava block times some coefficient, divided by distance to lava block, summed over all lava blocks.

Hrm...if you want more data, I've got it (currently) working like this: lava's base temperature is 600C, and its max temperature is 1600C.  The Convection Spread (CS), in meters, is (Temperature / 50) - 7.  The larger an area the CS covers, the more damage it'll deal when you're right next to the lava, and this damage decreases for every meter away from the lava you are, and each meter of solid barrier inside the lava's CS range will cut said range in half.  When you're right next to the lava, but of course not inside it, you'd take damage equal to (Temperature / 125) per second.  Also, every individual lava pool will have a uniform temperature between its constituent lava blocks, but two different lava pools may vary between the min and max temperature, depending on how far below the game's sea level (I'm currently debating between 500m or 1km); the deeper you go, the hotter, and less viscous, it becomes.

Interesting...

Looks like you've got it pretty well figured out.

Aye, I just need to find a way to express that in math and code terms, but inverse relationships have always been a weakness of mine, lol.

[TheUnknown]

Whenever I load a video in youtube and play it after leaving it for a stretch of time, it will play for several seconds before stopping, buffering, and then refreshing the page, no matter how much the video has actually loaded (it could be completely loaded and it'll still do it).

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

People who accuse you of being a homophobe because you don't share their "omg these two male characters are totally gay for each other" head canon.

[Katsuro]

People who accuse you of being a homophobe because you don't share their "omg these two male characters are totally gay for each other" head canon.

Has there ever been a character in the history of fiction that someone somewhere hasn't claimed is gay?

[niam2023]

Something really just rubbed me the wrong way - I was watching a movie with a teenage antagonist who essentially lost his dad to the protagonist due to circumstances. Now, the two had a difficult relationship, but its obvious the villain teen has a lot of issues.

Cut to a review where this guy is ranting and calling the antagonist a whiny emo for not being well-adjusted despite his issues.

I know nerds are a paradoxically "masculinist" group at times, but this just struck me as Dude Not Funny if they were trying to play it as Accentuate the Negative.

[RavynousHunter]

Okay, something that bugs the fuck outta me about games: collectibles as replay value, or worse yet, necessary bits of story.  It just reeks of poor design.  I'm sorry, but if your game's only replay selling point comes from "ZOMG 100% COMPLETE, GUIZ!" I'm not gonna bother replaying it.  Not everyone gives a crap about finding every little bauble or meaningless bit of paper in a game, not everyone wants to spend hours on end hunting for crap because they're extremely anal and don't want to miss something important.

Also, if you do that crap, and only give certain bits of critical plot detail thru them, then I'm not gonna give a shit about your story.  However, if it gives details about the world at large, maybe a running secondary dialogue that, while not plot critical, is nice to have, then its cool.  A good example of the latter are the recordings from Dead Island.  They're not critical to the game's overall narrative, but they help flesh it out and give it some added depth.  Hiding critical plot details from players because they're simply not meticulous achievement hunters is a terrible way to design you game's story.  Explain it thru backstory, dialogue, or even an internal monologue.  All of those are far easier to accomplish, and don't unnecessarily punish players for not being anal enough to check every nook and cranny for your hidden bullcrap.

[Vypernight]

Okay, something that bugs the fuck outta me about games: collectibles as replay value, or worse yet, necessary bits of story.  It just reeks of poor design.  I'm sorry, but if your game's only replay selling point comes from "ZOMG 100% COMPLETE, GUIZ!" I'm not gonna bother replaying it.  Not everyone gives a crap about finding every little bauble or meaningless bit of paper in a game, not everyone wants to spend hours on end hunting for crap because they're extremely anal and don't want to miss something important.

Also, if you do that crap, and only give certain bits of critical plot detail thru them, then I'm not gonna give a shit about your story.  However, if it gives details about the world at large, maybe a running secondary dialogue that, while not plot critical, is nice to have, then its cool.  A good example of the latter are the recordings from Dead Island.  They're not critical to the game's overall narrative, but they help flesh it out and give it some added depth.  Hiding critical plot details from players because they're simply not meticulous achievement hunters is a terrible way to design you game's story.  Explain it thru backstory, dialogue, or even an internal monologue.  All of those are far easier to accomplish, and don't unnecessarily punish players for not being anal enough to check every nook and cranny for your hidden bullcrap.

One of my turn-offs with games is lack of replay value.  I usually won't buy a game to beat it once and toss it aside.  I know I've seen reviews that say, "If a game is awesome enough, you won't mind playing it only once!"  Maybe, but I'll personally mind spending $60 on it.

[Kat S.]

It can really suck when you get those sleepless nights, especially when you need to be somewhere early the next day.

[Ironchew]

Okay, something that bugs the fuck outta me about games: collectibles as replay value, or worse yet, necessary bits of story.  It just reeks of poor design.  I'm sorry, but if your game's only replay selling point comes from "ZOMG 100% COMPLETE, GUIZ!" I'm not gonna bother replaying it.  Not everyone gives a crap about finding every little bauble or meaningless bit of paper in a game, not everyone wants to spend hours on end hunting for crap because they're extremely anal and don't want to miss something important.

Also, if you do that crap, and only give certain bits of critical plot detail thru them, then I'm not gonna give a shit about your story.  However, if it gives details about the world at large, maybe a running secondary dialogue that, while not plot critical, is nice to have, then its cool.  A good example of the latter are the recordings from Dead Island.  They're not critical to the game's overall narrative, but they help flesh it out and give it some added depth.  Hiding critical plot details from players because they're simply not meticulous achievement hunters is a terrible way to design you game's story.  Explain it thru backstory, dialogue, or even an internal monologue.  All of those are far easier to accomplish, and don't unnecessarily punish players for not being anal enough to check every nook and cranny for your hidden bullcrap.

One of my turn-offs with games is lack of replay value.  I usually won't buy a game to beat it once and toss it aside.  I know I've seen reviews that say, "If a game is awesome enough, you won't mind playing it only once!"  Maybe, but I'll personally mind spending $60 on it.

Speaking of game design, I think most devs these days are too afraid to make a game that is immediately accessible, yet extremely difficult to finish. The best way I've heard this explained was in a review for the Ghosts 'n Goblins series:

Of course they are plenty of masterpiece caliber games with absolutely obscene difficulty levels. Robotron, for example, is not only difficult, it's practically impossible t obeat. Yet it remains easily among the greatest video games ever made. Arcade-style games like Robotron or Pac-Man present the entirety of their gameplay at the very beginning, so players of all skill levels can experience everything the game has to offer. Whether arcade-style or linear, what makes any great-yet-nigh-impossible game work, and is also tragically absent from video games in general these days, is guaranteed reward. Anybody should be able to enjoy any video game regardless of how much effort and/or time they put into it. Anything that gets in the way of that is simply dogmatic design philosophy. A hard game needs to be designed in such a way, and executed at such a level, that its difficulty becomes irrelevant and it can be enjoyed even while failing miserably.

Some games lack replay value simply because they take too long to get things rolling. It doesn't matter how easy they are if you can't stand the boring forced tutorials.

[Art Vandelay]

Okay, something that bugs the fuck outta me about games: collectibles as replay value, or worse yet, necessary bits of story.  It just reeks of poor design.  I'm sorry, but if your game's only replay selling point comes from "ZOMG 100% COMPLETE, GUIZ!" I'm not gonna bother replaying it.  Not everyone gives a crap about finding every little bauble or meaningless bit of paper in a game, not everyone wants to spend hours on end hunting for crap because they're extremely anal and don't want to miss something important.

Also, if you do that crap, and only give certain bits of critical plot detail thru them, then I'm not gonna give a shit about your story.  However, if it gives details about the world at large, maybe a running secondary dialogue that, while not plot critical, is nice to have, then its cool.  A good example of the latter are the recordings from Dead Island.  They're not critical to the game's overall narrative, but they help flesh it out and give it some added depth.  Hiding critical plot details from players because they're simply not meticulous achievement hunters is a terrible way to design you game's story.  Explain it thru backstory, dialogue, or even an internal monologue.  All of those are far easier to accomplish, and don't unnecessarily punish players for not being anal enough to check every nook and cranny for your hidden bullcrap.

One of my turn-offs with games is lack of replay value.  I usually won't buy a game to beat it once and toss it aside.  I know I've seen reviews that say, "If a game is awesome enough, you won't mind playing it only once!"  Maybe, but I'll personally mind spending $60 on it.

Personally, I find if a game is awesome, I'll definitely want to play it again at some point, "replay value" be damned.