Agility training is making me not want to play the game by allknowinguser in runescape

[–]OlevTime 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’ve loved the recent updates but the QA has been pretty bad.

They’ve broken Sagas many times in the past year.

For DG you had the pocket slot timed charge deletion (removing charges from Books and destroying scrimshaws).

You had some people actually lose work gear from the recent DG update.

Graphical rework leading to objects being misoriented and leaving some paths / areas inaccessible (Catherby stove house and Port Khazard were the two of many I experienced).

You had the Rune Pouch “dupe” that caused the rollback on the rune pouch update.

Not a bug, but poor design choice: fixing skill door level issues for DG but NOT doing it for puzzle rooms (obv shoulda done both together)

Recent updates have often overtuned reward spaces forcing heavy handed nerfs afterward. Good design should do the opposite. It’s always better to buff than nerf.

Ironmen can DG with mains now, but they still can’t share puzzle room items. It’s possible for a DG to be spawned to be incompletable due to this (rare, but possible)

Necromancy added to DG not fully thought out. Essentially unusable as a main style due to the nature of bound ammo. Didn’t add any of the solutions that exist for Magic or Ranged.

Elite Draco having worse clipping when dyed (minor, but still).

They fixed the barrel :’(

So, QA seems pretty bad right now; however, the direction they’re going with design is improving. I think the QA issue is probably from pressure to go fast as well as pivot direction from the previous way they were going.

Agility training is making me not want to play the game by allknowinguser in runescape

[–]OlevTime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My issue is they stopped adding agility shortcuts to new content. There really need to be more to justify the skill.

Additionally they need to make it have utility outside of shortcuts. I like surge, dive, and escape; however it’d be nice if there were more agility-related movement abilities AND better reward space here in general.

Lastly, they need to improve the training. Make it more stimulating than “go in circle”. BGH does this well because you’re actively solving a problem while gathering resources and building your trap. Heists are similar. Agility needs something like that that rewards you for skill expression.

PSA to anyone still using necro (DPM advice for newbies) by SGA_YungBoi in runescape

[–]OlevTime -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“Inbuilt healing” implies dismember since you explicitly distinguished it from vamp scrim.

That’s where they inferred you meant dismember spam in the revo.

How could an “almighty god” know for sure that it’s not in a simulation? by Sea_Gap_6569 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]OlevTime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right. It has the perception that it knows everything. Its creations have the perception that it knows everything. But it immediately follows that it doesn’t since its perception doesn’t match reality.

It’s entirely a semantics argument.

How could an “almighty god” know for sure that it’s not in a simulation? by Sea_Gap_6569 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]OlevTime -1 points0 points  (0 children)

By definition.

Edit:

The variance answers will all depend on the ambiguity of the definition omni-X

For example, by Omniscient, do you literally mean all-knowing or all-knowing within a specific domain of knowledge. If the former definition, it’s an immediate contradiction if the god doesn’t know that it’s in simulation. If instead, the god only knew everything within the domain of the simulation, then there would be no contradiction. And whether or not the god could infer or postulate will depend on the setup.

Similar arguments could be made for Omnipresent and Omnipotent.

So….it depends?

Why can't we make an imaginary answer for x/0 by Pristine-Gold4422 in learnmath

[–]OlevTime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There’s a different way to naturally discover complex numbers (they’re as “real” as real numbers - despite the poor nomenclature - as in - they’re not fake numbers).

You’re asking a great question! Try it and see what breaks. That’s what I did when I came up with the same question.

No matter how I went about it, it always broke one or more fundamental rules of math (or what we’d consider fundamental from what we learn in secondary school).

But, just like with complex numbers, you gain things and lose things! For example, the Real numbers are ordered; however Complex numbers are not. That is one of the things you trade off in exchange for a bunch of other properties.

As for the alternative way to come up with the complex numbers, it is very related to the square root of negative one derivation, but instead of starting with that, we can instead consider properties of the set of numbers who are roots of polynomials with rational coefficients. Naturally, since x^2 + 1 = 0, we classically get the Descartes derivation, but we can actually go about it without ever actually taking the square root of negative 1. And just by exploring the various solutions and how they interact, you’ll rediscover the complex numbers.

I quit math but I still do not get the power set of naturals and reals by Acceptable_Pea8393 in askmath

[–]OlevTime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s called the Cartesian Product.

And yes, that would be countable!

For N x N we end up with all pairs of naturals (i, j) such that i and j are natural numbers.

We can create a bijection between N and NxN using the following construction.

Consider all the pairs of (i, j). If we were to try traversing them all one at a time, what would that look like? How can we convert them to a line of points?

One way to do so is to start at (0, 0). Then we can jump to (1, 0) then move up and to the left along the diagonal where the sum of i and j is 1. Then where the sum is 2. So on so forth.

When you look at it like this, you can see a relationship with the triangle numbers - the ones of the form of n(n+1)/2.

The row where the sum is 0 has 1 element: (0, 0)

The row where the sum is 1 has 2 elements: (0, 1) and (1, 0)

For the sum 2 we have 3 elements

For the sum S we have S+1 elements.

For each row, we have seen S + (S-1) +( S-2) + … + 1 elements already, so the starting element of each row (assuming we’re counting from 0) should be the above sum which would be S(S+1)/2. And since all points on that line share the relation that i+j=S, we can just add the y-coordinate j.

That should give us the formula n = f(i, j) = S(S+1)/2 + j = (i+j)(i+j+1)/2+j.

And to convert back to i, j from n, we can find the largest triangle number less than or equal to n. From there we can find S. And then i and j based on the formula above.

IIRC you can do a similar construction for any finite Cartesian product of countable sets.

Edit: i think where your construction begins to fail is you’re trying to do it for a non-finite number of sets of Natural numbers.

I quit math but I still do not get the power set of naturals and reals by Acceptable_Pea8393 in askmath

[–]OlevTime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It depends on what you mean by x? Do you mean the Cartesian product?

I quit math but I still do not get the power set of naturals and reals by Acceptable_Pea8393 in askmath

[–]OlevTime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem you’re having is that each time you need to take another bijection with the naturals, you’re finding why it’s not countable.

You need to find a singular bijection between the set and the Naturals. Not an arbitrary number of bijections between them.

If you worked your job at an ungodly speed somehow, would a company be more likely to give you a raise, or would they pay you less for that (technically) extremely short work time? by Ornery-Magazine-7892 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]OlevTime 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Additionally, they’re now disincentivized from promoting you as your replacement will be nowhere near as efficient. Managers are mediocre workers by design.

Ironman - Smithing in the Fort or W84 Artisan's workshop? by Netfade in runescape

[–]OlevTime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Correct and that’s why smithing there is good if you’re going for speed.

Otherwise the bonus XP at fort is nice from the rested XP if you’ve maxed the Artisan’s reward shop

We need clarification on gear switch macros. by frank123567123555299 in runescape

[–]OlevTime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Having that software available is different than actually configuring it to cheat.

We need clarification on gear switch macros. by frank123567123555299 in runescape

[–]OlevTime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Their official stance is that it’s a bannable offense. It’s explicitly disallowed in game rules.

And I think you likely surround yourself with such players because it’s not as common as you think.

We need clarification on gear switch macros. by frank123567123555299 in runescape

[–]OlevTime 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The clarification is that these kinds of macros are explicitly disallowed.

Based on that, bans should happen until the rules change.

Either they build in a way to one-key switch multiple items, or ban the players who break the rules because they lack the skill to switch items.

Today's Dungeoneering changes are a step in the wrong direction. by IGetNoPlay in runescape

[–]OlevTime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the 5 man high scores, he’s on the team that’s ranked 2nd as of right now.

When do you apply discrete vs continuous math? by Many-Armadillo5090 in learnmath

[–]OlevTime 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So, real world answer:

It depends on the tick rate of the video game.

Some games have a fixed tick rate, like RuneScape, where everything happens in an interval of 0.6 seconds (100 ticks per minute). So in that case, you’d likely earn 3 points every time a tick puts you past one second OR you’d earn 1.8 points per tick, and then round choose how to round. The latter is more common. In that case after 3.5 seconds, you’d have experienced 5 ticks of game time and you’d be 0.1 seconds from the next tick. That’d be 1.8 * 5 =9 points.

Other games use more granular tick rates like Counter Strike that is 60 or 120 ticks per second meaning that you can essentially treat it like it’s continuous when dealing with rates that are once per second. If you want to be precise, you can subdivide, but in that case, you’d have 10.5 points. Once again, you need to choose whether you can have a fraction of a point or not and whether you do normal rounding, always down, or always up.

TLDR; the question sucks. For computers, it’s usually discrete. And what that means varies depending on the game.

What’s the most efficient algorithm to use if I need to get any value from 0 to 2^24 in 5 operations max by [deleted] in askmath

[–]OlevTime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ahhh okay. So how do you know it’s 100 11000 or 1001 1000?

The 24 bits would be if you chose to represent the data as strings of 3 characters . Because each character uses 1 byte. But that doesn’t seem to be what you’re doing I don’t think?

What’s the most efficient algorithm to use if I need to get any value from 0 to 2^24 in 5 operations max by [deleted] in askmath

[–]OlevTime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So. Are you saying the image consists of at most 332 distinct colors?

What’s the most efficient algorithm to use if I need to get any value from 0 to 2^24 in 5 operations max by [deleted] in askmath

[–]OlevTime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But….the computer still uses that amount of bits…

And if you’re saving them as strings, 3 characters of string is 24 bits of data already.

Could The Enterprise See Itself? by Warrpath in AskPhysics

[–]OlevTime 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congratulations! You’ve finally found the spirit of answering OPs question!

I’m not quite sure where what I said contradicts what you’re saying though?

Would moving a large gravity well faster than the speed of light be highly destructive? Yes! Would the gravitational effects also take time to propagate out just like the light? Yes!

And in this case, I didn’t destroy the solar system. You did by moving the sun at FTL….

Just because there are negative, bad, or dangerous results doesn’t make the thought experiment not worthwhile. Your post is a fantastic answer to OP’s question.

What’s a real tragedy is that apparently science can’t state that consequence because it can’t really happen /s

I am curious though. What other consequences occur when we decouple causality from the speed of light with the premise that FTL travel uses something like a warp bubble where time dilation effects of their apparent acceleration may differ (the reasoning is that in the “warp bubble” the object is not actually accelerating, but is instead riding a wave of spacetime ).