• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. đź”—Click here to enter!
  • It's time for the first HD Modeling Contest of 2024. Join the theme discussion for Hive's HD Modeling Contest #6! Click here to post your idea!
Brambleclaw
Reaction score
56

Profile posts Latest activity Postings Experience Albums Resources About Medals

  • The names on the map seem interesting. Here is something I put together looking at your map, maybe we can use it for the loading screen of something. -->
    Map

    Anyways, saved it on a photoshop file so it's still really easy for me to change if you want me to modify it in any way to fit the storyline. It might be cool to add the camp and castle icons from the standard wc3 maps for smaller points of interest (thinking the levels) to.
    Maybe something could be done were groups of units are selected as 1 (like have a group of 9 units organized 3x3, maybe the center one is selectable and the others fallow via some sort of locust thing). Or only have command over 10-20 units and have the rest of the army controlled by the ally. Or give one of the heroes a bunch of globally-effecting command abilities, so you could order all the units at once.
    All right, good thing you changed the text color to something else XD

    The text bit about the one guy laying on the hey was a little wierd, perhaps you should change that around a bit.

    Also, the army seems entirely to large atm, from selecting everything in the editor it appears to be more than 400 units, and attempting to get units to go anyware takes forever. It could work in SC2 but not so much WC3.
    Yeah, figured you meant that with the portal summoning an Ogre. It just seems like an overly complicated way of incapacitating someone though (also, since the main character is mostly melee and liable to get bonked over the head while fighting on numerous occasions, I'm sure their are better ways to take her out).

    What do you mean by a scale up on the surroundings btw?

    Also, could I see this cinematic you have finished?

    And uh, what statues did you ask about as existing as models? If it's the 9 in the chapel, I think there is an animated model of the Altar of storms (I've seen it in a techtree contest). And the Keeper of the Grove and Huntress statues have obvious animated counterparts. Not sure about the others though.
    For the castle stages I think it would be cool to have a quest for each area that ties into aiding an army to actually invade the castle. For the castle entrance it would be pulling levers to lower the drawbridge so invading forces can enter, and later defeating the first necromancer boss to stop spawning footsoldiers. For the castle walls have the hero kill like 25 archers, and maybe help set up ladders or defend ladders leading up the walls. For the chapel maybe appeasing some of the gods/getting them to favor your team. For the garden/courtyard area destroying hostile siege weaponry, for the dungeon freeing prisoners, etc.
    I'm not sure about using a portal to stun someone, portals in general seem like a spell that should have a really long casting time. Though saying that did remind me of the Ninja Ogre Samewise did XD. Maybe we should just have the nemesis use a spell that explicitly stuns someone though, like sleep, hold person, petrify, etc. In more than one fantasy-based comic I've read spellcasters just say the name of the spell their casting when they do so, which generally works to avoid confusion.
    So, I pretty much finished the floor layout for the castle (linky linky)
    I've been playing around with a few boss ideas and think that the actual council members should start appearing as the second half of the bosses, re-using the first 3ish bosses as lesser minions on the second part of the castle just seems like to much fun. I haven't really been able to come up with much of a theme for any of them though. There are a decent amount of demon models in WC3 though, perhaps the vast majority of the council could be actual demons? (Pit lord, doom guard, demon hunter demon form, dread lord, etc.).
    All right, sounds interesting. I'll see if I can work something out with the bosses then.
    Anyways, here is the Map so far
    Oh hey, I remember you were saying something about an evil council/council of 9 that sounded pretty cool. I've started working on the final stage castle map and was wondering if you had any specific units in mind for said evil council members.
    Also with the blood-elven thing, the City/Town that I've been working on is more human-centric than elven-centric, so I hope that works with the storyline. I mean, it wouldn't be too hard to change it to something else, but still.
    It's starting to look kewl, I like the addition of the Mountain Giants to the forces, makes them seem more unique. I'd suggest making the force in general less blood-elvish though, as blood elves are pretty unique to Warcarft. If you still want a strong elven tie in the story line that's all right, just maybe use some high elves in the mix to rather than keeping everything the pretty distinctly blood elven red/black/gold colors.

    Oh, with the last map I gave you if up press Up it will un-lock the camera so you can look at and play around with all the other units on the side of the map. I've modified the caster upgrade art on a lot of them to display a weaknesses/resistances thing :D
    Sooo, anything new happening with the campaign? Did you finish writing the basic stroyline?
    Not everything is science, and they did not have science back then. An easy example is religion.

    The definition of science contradicts your argument as well. Because science is the systematic study of the composition and behaviour of the physical universe, gained via empirical experimentation, measurement and lastly, observation.

    Before science everything was based on observation and it wasn't even systematic study through observation.

    Btw, your infinity link is invalid.
    ----------
    The process by which we created machines and determined how they work strive of science. As does all knowledge which we pertain.
    ----------
    Not all knowledge comes from science. We knew things before science came, for example we knew how to make a fire. We didn't know why it was burning, or what a fire actually was, but we knew how to make one. We knew how to hunt animals, and we knew what fruit to eat, etc. It's only later that we started to explain things in nature with science.
    ----------
    Chemistry how Chemicals work
    ----------
    Chemistry isn't only about chemicals. We make chemicals with chemistry. Chemistry is primarily the study of the composition, structure and properties of atoms and molecules, and why they react like they do. We then apply this knowledge to make chemicals.


    ----------
    And this all interfuses with sub sets like Physcology stemming of biology etc etc.
    ----------
    Nope. Psychology is not a sub set of Biology. As fields of science, Psychology was first. It's only later we've started exploring areas of Psychology with Biology.


    ----------
    The point is all knowledge stems from science and its related subset categories.
    ----------
    Nope. If you forgot already, look up.
    ----------
    Therefore we built machines with science.
    ----------
    It's incorrect to say "Therefore" here, as you didn't prove anything. Anyway, yes, we apply the knowledge we gain through science when making machines.


    ----------
    Yet i have already stated how science is faith
    ----------
    And your statements are now suddenly proofs in and of themselves? Blimey!
    Anyway, I have already disproved that argument.


    ----------
    not proven due to it being percieved not fact. So therefore information attained from science or mechines which are meant to give more accurate clearer results, are all still stemming from bias human perceptions
    ----------
    You keep dismissing my arguments and then you just repeat yourself. I'm wondering when you get to the point where you actually do a descent attempt at proving your arguments.
    ----------
    So the only way of refining this with such machines is just bringing us closer to the "human perception on logic"> As everything used to measure something and everything we have built, is built in our perception
    ----------
    Have you read nothing of what I've written? Stop with the "It's built in our perception" argument unless you can actually prove it. Of course, I have already disproved that argument many times, so you're in trouble.


    ----------
    As in its built wrongly due to science dictating the way it should be built.
    ----------
    Science doesn't dictate how it should be built. We apply the knowledge we have gained through science with a bit of nice ingenuity to make the machines. And even if science had dictated how it should be built, it wouldn't be automatically wrong.
    ----------
    So therefore with that Camera's are a refined view of the human perception, or Human logic and are therefore not a truth.
    ----------
    Cameras are not refined views of human perception or logic... Seriously, back up your human perception arguments with something. Cameras are unbiased sources of information. Cameras cannot see that which isn't there (as I've already explained earlier).


    ----------
    In a 3rd argument is that camera's have limited accuracy, and pictures of things may seem different to what they actually are.
    ----------
    The argument above applies here as well.


    ----------
    They dont give the whole story. this is with any measurement. The only way for something to give a full story is for us to measure everything
    ----------
    Why do we need the whole story? If you're measuring the speed at which a bullet is travelling, do you really need to know how hot the bullet is?
    ----------
    But that is almost impossible xD. Due to the Uncertainty principle, so hey science dissproves itself xD
    ----------
    According to the Uncertainty principle, that IS impossible. And no, science doesn't disprove itself.... In fact, you cannot disprove science. You can disprove some of its theories, but you cannot disprove all of them. You can only point out, after many tests that have also been checked by other scientists, that under a certain set of circumstances, a given theory does not apply. I have already explained this earlier as well. Also, you're forgetting the consequences of your argument. If you actually had disproved science with that argument, you would also disprove the argument that you used to disprove science, which is a paradox.


    ----------
    Arguing that science is not proven using science. xD
    ----------
    I've seen very little science from your side.
    ----------
    The image given from a camera is effectively the same as the eye see's
    ----------
    Almost, but how is this relevant? Is this some sort of weird attempt at proving machines perceive things just like we do? If so, then you're doing it wrong.


    ----------
    now if that camera was out of focus. It would be wrong what we see and blurred.
    ----------
    Fixed it for you.


    ----------
    They way we see is built on Human logic hence even the need of a lens.
    ----------
    What the.. how did.. uh, what?._.

    The way we see is not based on human logic, and in no way does that have anything to do with why we need a lens either.


    ----------
    Also as another easilly achieved counter argument the camera may simply produce random dots.
    ----------
    The camera doesn't "produce" anything. Also, nothing is truly random, but of course you knew that.


    ----------
    But within those dots depending on different perceptions> Different images reveal themselves.
    ----------
    ...What? Also, now you're straying away from machines again.
    ----------
    Again this can be shown with simple illusion tricks.
    ----------
    How is this related to cameras? And I have already explained why illusions occur.


    ----------
    we have no way of knowing what is and what isn't an image
    ----------
    Uh, we only see images.


    ----------
    we cannot observe without the intereference of our perception.
    ----------
    We cannot observe without the brain interfering, yes. Machines can.
    Yes, the eyes have a lens which it adjusts to get focus. It also has rodcells and other cells in the back so it can detect light. The (poor) image is then sent back to the brain for interpretation. For a human made camera it's different. Yes, it has a lens, and sensors which detect light, but the interpretation part is gone. Why? Because the image from the camera is good enough, and nobody knows how to code an interpreter for a camera yet ANYWAY.
    ----------
    Lol Machines arn't build in a human perception
    ----------
    machines are not based on human perception*, and it's true.


    ----------
    eyes acts as lenses.
    ----------
    What the shit. Dude, google human eyes please and learn.


    ----------
    i have already proved what i needed to prove in the side parts. I.E the background knowledge i have given.
    ----------
    Background knowledge without any references isn't proof. For all I know it could be lies, and not "knowledge".

    Also, you still haven't managed to link me a single article talking about this matrix of yours. By the way, this is what a matrix looks like:
    |xx xy xz|
    |yx yy yz|
    |zx zy zz|
    I was tinkering with the attack trigger and got her to use the shortbow (just specifically that bow so far though XD). I'm thinking it might be interesting to change the Luck stat to something more ranged-projectile-effectivy like dexterity or reflexes, because modifying the missile trajectory and range with random numbers is fun XD

    But anyways, what have you written for the storyline so far?
    Lol well, thought you'd have a little more going on in the map than that. The unit formations look pretty impressive, but I'm not sure if it will run very well with that many units doing anything at once.

    Anyways, this is what I've got done so far. Still need to set up triggers to enter and exit the rooms on the right side of the map, but I'm almost done.
    The city so far
    I know Human perception is flawed, but machines are not based on human perception. If they had, they would be of no use to us. Also, you have yet to actually present any kind of evidence to back up your statements. Thus far all I've seen is the "Stuff we make sucks blablabla" argument.

    Edit: Btw, you also haven't provided with any kind of proof for the human perception to be really bad. I know it's flawed, but not as flawed as you'd like. We can overcome these flaws by just having many people do it many times. The wiki article you linked in my rep doesn't support your claims.
    Things that are created by humans do not see things like humans. We have yet to invent something which is able to do that. It's harder to make "bad" equipment than good. The equipment we make is highly accurate and unbiased. Our senses are the exact opposite. Our eyes suck, and our brain tries to make up for that by guessing. Machines can't guess. They are incapable of seeing things that aren't there.

    If the stuff we made truly sucked as much as you'd like to, we wouldn't be chatting right now. That is a fact many people tend to forget. They bash quantum physics and all those things, but forget that without that they wouldn't have the computers and cell phones and other neat shit that we have today.

    Seriously, rethink the situation a bit before you go bash science without ANY proof at all.

    "Stuff we make sucks blablabla" isn't an argument. It's random gibberish.
    You're both contradicting yourself and claiming things without any proof, and you disregard my counterarguments and continue with the whole science is faith thing and human perception ._.

    Seriously, if you had read what I've said you would've seen that science isn't faith, and that it's not entirely based on human perception, as we know that would just be ridiculous. We've made the tools we have to NOT rely on our own perception, and they are in NO WAY perceiving things like a human would. If you had even the faintest idea about the workings of a human, and the workings of a machine, you would know this. Also, even when we do use our own senses we do it countless times with thousands of people. Why? To rule out things we might have seen wrong, if anything at all.

    The chances of thousands of scientists seeing the exact same "illusion", in lack of a better word, every. single. time. is infinitesimal.
    For now I'd say just tinker with them being their in the world editor, if you find you really like the looks of the force trigger it later. Though depending on the amount of control you have over the force spawn points could be really nifty.

    As far as loading the map to play it though, I'm pretty sure the time is most heavily effected by having lots of doodads and units, so cutting down on either will help cut that down.
    Well, show me what you have so far :D

    Also, I got sort of really carried away with the town, there is no shortage of structures to go in and out of now XD.

    I also made a few more armor styles. I'll see if I can transfer a few more attack anims to the hero and then set the skin paths up.
    All right, so you're doing the first/second chapter. How is the story coming along so far anyways, and have you finalized on the overall campaign layout and main characters?
    ----------
    I think the main issue here. Is your trying to justify a counter argument here using science, when my argument disregards science, and dissproves it as a construct.
    ----------
    How can you argue against science when you disregard it? Also, I have yet to see you actually disprove anything.


    ----------
    Say we had 1000 people 970 say its red 30 say its green, then 30 people are in a different section of this Human level.
    ----------
    Say what now? You really believe the reason some people see green are because they have different brains or different levels of thought? Seriously....

    The fact some people see green is because their eyes see green. Why? Damage to the eye perhaps. The eye didn't grow correctly while in the womb. They were unlucky enough to get the gene which gives colourblindness (again, it's the eye, and many carry the gene without being colourblind btw). It certainly is not their brains fault.
    ----------
    Those who are marked insane, are at the edge of this level.
    ----------
    Insanity has everything to do with the brain, yes, but not entirely due to evolution. Some people are raised to be insane (obviously not intentionally, but not everyone are fit to be parents).


    ----------
    I repeat my arguments not out of desperation, but are rewording them as your avoiding the points my argument states, then try to reword my words into sounding nonsense.
    ----------
    The desperation part was aimed at the fact that instead of proving why I'm wrong, you instead chose to attack me by saying I cannot grasp the idea you're trying to convey (i.e, I'm dumb and you're superior). That is a very poor argument and often an act of desperation.

    Also, at no point did I reword what you said into something. I quoted what you said, and then pointed at the flaws. That is what one does when having an argument.
    ----------
    Actually the mind Does create a matrix to replicate the real world. I'm sure if you searched up about sight and the Brain way of thinking that you would realise this.

    This is why we have depth perception and can solve spatial problems.
    ----------
    Actually, I did take the liberty of double-checking, and I have again concluded the same thing. Our ability to perceive depths are caused by our binocular vision (stereopsis) and stereoscopic vision as I had always thought. No matrices are involved. The brain uses the inputs from both eyes (which is quite poor really) and then visual assumption comes into place. The visual system tries to fill in the missing pieces as part of the unconscious inference, which is, by the way, the reason for why some people see that which isn't there. As part of this solving the brain primarily sees contours and this is partially of how we solve spatial problems (stereopsis is another important piece in this). This is also why the gillie suit works so well.
    ----------
    According to "Science" this world is 3d. And a 3d world contains 2d worlds and 1d worlds. But as i pointed out Science is based on logic which is actually a variable.
    ----------
    You have yet to actually counter my argument that logic isn't a variable and prove that it is.


    ----------
    So since that argument isn't flawed.

    it leaves the idea that we only percieve a 3d world
    ----------
    Actually it is flawed if you just look at my previous arguments.


    ----------
    Yeh you're not understanding.
    ----------
    Oh look! It's back!
    ----------
    People of the same abillity will observe things in the same way.

    If i see Bob get hit by a bus.
    He's will also observe himself being hit by a bus.
    So your argument is non valid.
    ----------
    I'm now going to take the liberty of using your argumentation: You clearly do not understand what I mean. "Not every human view things the same way." Does NOT mean everyone perceives everything entirely differently. How you managed to twist my argument into that is beyond me. My argument is not any less valid.


    ----------
    So no you cannot say that we see things differently. We just take things in differently.
    ----------
    I assume "see things" mean what our eyes see and "take things" it what our brain sees? If that's the case, then you're only partially right. Our eyes see things differently too. If you look at previous arguments you will realize this.
    ----------
    You obviously can't grasp the point of my argument.
    ----------
    This kind of argumentation should be left for the politicians as it is of no use in a real discussion. There's always the possibility it's the other way around.


    ----------
    By "Our perception" i refer to the construct of the Human Mind, so therefore this will be the same for every person in a basis
    ----------
    Already here you are wrong. Not every human view things the same way. In fact, closing one eye makes you react differently to many things, so one human will not even agree with him or herself about his/her observations and how to interpret it.

    Also, the mind doesn't create a matrix to replicate the real world, and what we see is 3D, due to the very nature of what 3D actually means.
    ----------
    My point is Logic is a Variable, depending on the concious of which it is being viewed.
    ----------
    Logic is only variable in the sense that some people will perceive something that is false as true, but that doesn't mean it is true, it merely means the person does not understand logic.

    If your argument actually is logically correct there are a number of things that should turn out to be true as a consequence of that. For example, 3=2 can be true in some cases. However, logic is a concept made by man and it isn't supposed to be variable. The statement 3=2 will be false at all times due to the rules we have made up. If logic was variable there would be absolutely no use for it, would there?


    ----------
    The logic we apply in our own mind is what we think is true, but may not be, but it crafts our perception of our world.
    ----------
    You're confusing logic with beliefs.
    ----------
    Again i may have to repeat my points here since you don't seem to understand them.
    ----------
    Oh look here, it's THAT argument again. You know, at school we were taught that when your opponent starts with these arguments it's a sign of desperation and that he or she is not able to come up with good arguments and thus tries to attack you instead.


    ----------
    I.E For a Electrical Themometer, we would say put it in a liquid we believe that we know is at a certain temprature, and then check the results given to the results we have.

    So my point here is no in micro but macro.
    ----------
    Sorry, but it's impossible to understand what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that, for example, we believe a liquid has a certain temperature and then we check it with a thermometer anyway, and that if it says something we do not expect we say the thermometer is wrong? That doesn't make sense at all. Also, you know micro means at the atom level, right?
    ----------
    Basically the whole human race has a perception grafted from the way our mind have evolved into a Homosapian. This is why we will always believe as far as a human can or a Human created equipment can, go into the Human Perception. Where each time we become more exact and discover more things, our Human Perception is refined and become more accurate to what we percieve===Effectively we are continuing the craft of our perception without aid of evolution of us, but instead the evolution of our technology.
    ----------
    I'm not quite getting what you're saying here. The only sentence I really think I understand is the last one, but it's incorrect to think of our perception, and the acquisition of datapoints that are supplied to us by our unbiased equipment as the same thing. We are trying to replace the need for our own perception with this new technology.
    ----------
    Cross referencing and idea transferral means average and anomalies Etc etc
    ----------
    No, we do not average the results. When we do many tests we don't just average the results and publish it saying "Here it is!". We find patterns buried in the data and we also try to find out why we get data that is deviating from the rest.

    Say you have 1000 people all looking at a large piece of coloured paper. Perhaps 30 of the people will say it's green, while the remaining 970 say it's red. When we are then going to write down what colour the paper has we do not average the results, as that would mean the paper would neither be green nor red. We write down the results, but we do not publish it yet. Now we try to find out why 30 people said it's green. Once we find out the answer is (in this case) that some people are in fact colour blind we can then publish our findings.
    ----------
    So all of this is done just for accuracy and Precision of data, which removes any errors, so that human perception is again refined.
    ----------
    We do not refine our own perception. We try to circumvent the problems with human error.


    ----------
    Empircal observations for Humans are limited to the Human way of observation.
    ----------
    No it isn't. Single observations are. Empirical observation isn't.
    NOTE: Due to the character limit this has been spread over 5 VMs.


    ----------
    We cannot trust our observations, and Science is based of our Empircal observations.
    ----------
    You have to understand that not everyone observes things wrong. Some might observe something wrong, and that's why science is based on empirical observation, and not just the observation of a few people. That is how we avoid the problem of human error. When a theory is published as a scientific article it means it has already gone through thousands of tests by thousands of scientists all over the world, and they all came to the same conclusion.


    ----------
    We create equipment which views things in ones own eye
    ----------
    You acted as if you knew so much about the human eye and all that in a previous post, but you don't seem to realize that the equipment we make, are not human eyes.
    ----------
    If it shows something different to what we expect or out of focus on a test run where we know the answer from previous test runs in our view which have given certain results then equipment will be calibrated to our perception and is therefore wrong.
    ----------
    This sentence lacks a lot of commas, but I'll try to guess what you mean. I assume the point you're trying to make, is that if we get a different result than what we got in a previous test, then we adjust the equipment until we get the same results. That is not how it's done. Scientists love getting contradicting results. They don't assume immediately that this new result is wrong, no, they try to find out why they got this new result. Also, if they had that attitude why would they even do another test when they already "knew" the answer? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
    ----------
    We invent high tech equipment to measure things. We invent them in our perception.
    ----------
    You already said this above, and my response to this is the same.


    ----------
    so thus in this form we have therefore recieved data in our perception recorded in our perception with equpiment created in our perception. So what do we have> A more accurate perception of a human....
    ----------
    Seeing how this requires your previous argument to be true, which it's not, then this is also false. Logic is a bitch, ain't it?


    ----------
    I would argue that a belief is simply something that is believed to be true but is not proven to be true.
    ----------
    That is almost was it is. A belief is an assumption, assumed without reason (no evidence, nothing to back it up), and defended against all reason to the contrary (evidence that contradicts the belief is either ignored or assumed to be incorrect).
    ----------
    Science is believed to be true
    ----------
    No. To believe something is true would imply a belief in it. Science is not assumed to be true without reason.


    ----------
    we put our faith in science
    ----------
    No. Faith goes under the same definition as belief.


    ----------
    there is no evidence that is reliable to say that Science is the truth
    ----------
    There is tons of evidence that supports the scientific theories that science is based upon. Yes, we know that not absolutely everything science says is true for everything under all conditions. In science we have something called "Scope of validity". That means that every theory has a known set of conditions under which we know it to be true, and this scope of validity is then expanded all the time as new tests are conducted until we find the limit. When the limit is reached we try to come up with new theories that can be used under the conditions in which the previous theory failed.
    [...]
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top