Vent

[Jeb_CC]

Dear gosh, I hate it when people mistake a simple debate to be a very overreacting argument.

I was curious, I asked a question, they replied, I said 'why'?

Then they freaking go off at me, almost yelling, saying stuff like; "I don't know why you decide to argue with me over this!"

Ugh... I just... hung up. Not dealing with that shit. :\ I wish I could have a simple friendly debate to help me understand.

And now that I'm no longer talking to anyone, the question is still burning inside my head. It's like... if I don't get some sort of answer, my head will explode. I don't even care if it contradicts what I think, it usually means there's more to it than I believe there to be. But no. Apparently talking about it shouldn't exist. Apparently only arguments exist. UGH.

[Psychotic Ninja]

Dear gosh, I hate it when people mistake a simple debate to be a very overreacting argument.

I was curious, I asked a question, they replied, I said 'why'?

Then they freaking go off at me, almost yelling, saying stuff like; "I don't know why you decide to argue with me over this!"

Ugh... I just... hung up. Not dealing with that shit. :\ I wish I could have a simple friendly debate to help me understand.

And now that I'm no longer talking to anyone, the question is still burning inside my head. It's like... if I don't get some sort of answer, my head will explode. I don't even care if it contradicts what I think, it usually means there's more to it than I believe there to be. But no. Apparently talking about it shouldn't exist. Apparently only arguments exist. UGH.

 

It's like that with my dad some times.

[Psychotic Ninja]

PC elitists. Gaming is about enjoying yourself, having fun, losing yourself in the world, doing things you could/would never do in real life. I shouldn't have to have a 4k monitor while playing at 60fps with ease on the most demanding game on my PC to enjoy said game. Yes, I have a pretty good rig (albeit people would call it shit because it's a couple of years old, because it's not the best, because of [insert shitty pointless reason here]). Yes, I want a better graphics card, and more ram. Does this make me a hypocrite? No. Far from it. I have a 3DS, a PSP, PS3, and a 360 controller for my PC. (Gaming slut if you want). The point is, gaming doesn't have to be having the best of the best of the best.

[Seattleite]

Long-winded video game rant: Game developers, you can't do armour worth a damn, and it's a bigger issue than you think.

 

1. Stop making early-game armour worthless. Whenever I play a game, the first thing I do is figure out the math on how much my armour actually does. I can count on one hand the RPGs where the resistance was actually meaningful. Those were Demon's Souls, Dark Souls ONE (all armour is worthless in 2), Fallout: New Vegas and... That's it, really.

 

2. Stop using pure percentage resistances. They're the whole reason early game armour is underpowered and pointless and late game armour is always overpowered and pointless. Just so you guys understand it: A 25% resistance isn't half as valuable as a 50% resistance, it's 2/3 as valuable. Similarly, a 50% resistance isn't 2/3 the value of a 75% resistance, it's 1/2 the value. And this is for the exact reason that a 90% resistance isn't 90% the value of a 100% resistance. If you can't figure out that math, you're too stupid to make video games, but the basic gist of it is that the value of armour is determined not by the amount of damage it blocks, but by the amount you *still take*. That 50% resistance is half as valuable as a 75% resistance because you take twice as much damage with it, and that 25% resistance is 2/3 the value of a 50% resistance because you take 1.5x damage with it. If you intend a resistance to be half the value, you can't just halve the resistance because the difference will be too small early on and it won't matter, and the difference will be absolutely gamebreakingly huge late game. Which is an issue with 99% of all RPGs. Either you guys need to keep your resistances both very high and in a narrow band, include armour-penetrating effects as a standard part of the system, not use percentages at all, or some combination of the three.

 

3. Stop making armour useless against magic. Seriously, why do you guys think a layer of metal between you and a ball of fire won't make you take less damage from the fire? Because, spoiler warning, it will. A LOT. You can argue it isn't as effective against fire or lightning as it is against swords or axes, but you can't say it'll do nothing.

 

4. Stop making armour systems that people have to go to the wiki to understand. Either give an explanation in the game, or just make it simple. Use general code words people will intuit. Damage reduction, they know it's a point value. Damage resistance, they know it's a percentage. Defence, they have no goddamn idea. Armour rating, they have no goddamn idea. You *can* use those kinds of words, but you have to then make it easy enough they can figure it out. Dark Souls 1 does it by just making it divisive. 200 means 1/2 damage, 300 means 1/3 damage. Oblivion does it by making it just a straight percentage. Then the sequels change it to some crazy obscure formula where you have to divide the values by some unstated number, add an unstated base value and then convene with the old ones, who if they deign will bequeath the secret art of determining the final variable from the phases of the fucking moon. And not, like the Moon moon. Earth's second secret moon, Ascendra. Neither Dark Souls 1 nor Oblivion had a perfect armour system, I'd even say Oblivion's armour system was pretty bad, but no benefit came from making them impenetrable other than maybe hiding how you made them shittier.

 

5. Stop making armour work on body parts it doesn't cover. I get that this doesn't apply to a lot of games, but somebody's boots shouldn't protect their fucking head. Bethesda is the *champion* of fucking this up. If a fucking mod like Counter-Strike can make their armour locational, I'd think you could have put it in Morrowind. Or at least Oblivion. Or Fallout 3, or New Vegas, or Skyrim. And I'll believe it's in Fallout 4 when I fucking see it, thanks.

 

Alright, rant over. I'm going to go get some coffee and stop playing Dark Souls 2.

[Jeb_CC]

I just heard the most sexist conversation...

I was just trying to do my math work, and two girls start talking about guys and cars.

 

First they talk about learning to drive an automatic car than a manual (bad idea IMO but whatever). And when they're asked; "But what about an emergency?" And they reply... "We'll just get the husband to drive. Guys drive manuals. Women drive autos." My jaw dropped and I could NOT believe what I just heard. And she kept freaking going; "Girls should drive autos. Manuals is a manly thing. All guys should drive a manual car. I'd be turned off if I saw some guy driving an auto."

Must resist urge to say something...

"Besides... If in the future we get a manual car, the husband would just drive it around instead. Not me. I don't need to drive it around if I have a husband. He can do all the driving."

 

Fuck you. I'm learning to drive a manual, and that makes me manly? Maybe I'm fucking learning to drive it for the safety and efficiency? And what the fuck, husbands don't have to drive the wife around all the time. How about you get off your lazy ass and drive yourself. Geez...

 

*deep breath*

All good. :3 I'm fine now. XD Sorry.

[Psychotic Ninja]

I guess I'm a woman or something, cause I drive auto.

[BTGBullseye]

I drive auto or manual... It makes very little difference to me. The type of transmission has less to do with how masculine you are than Pluto's planetary status.

 

Ok, now I'm into the Pluto argument...

 

'Dwarf Planet' is and always has been a subcategory of the term 'Planet'. Pluto is a 'Dwarf Planet' and therefore it is a planet. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron. Also, believe it or not, Luna (the moon) is a planet. (as are most moons)

 

The IAU definition of a 'planet' actually states a completely ambiguous and arbitrary definition of "has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit" as a part of the definition of a planet. The reason this is so controversial, is because there is absolutely NO DEFINITION to this phrase. There are no set ranges, or mathematics used for this. Using this to classify ANYTHING is the same as saying "anything round must be a ball". In addition, they didn't officially consider any planet around any other start to be a planet, until they added to their 'definition' in 2001. (it was a whopping 1 sentence that merely covered the mass of the object)

[Seattleite]

Yeah, BTG, do you want to count up the number of "planets" we have if you use that definition? Pluto isn't a full planet, not just because there's so many objects in its orbit, but really because we know of several other objects that are just as big and just as round, directly orbiting the star we don't consider planets either. If we considered Pluto a planet, we'd have to consider them planets too. And when they use the word "planet" here, they specifically mean "non-dwarf", and expect you to know that from the context and stop playing semantics with them. They chose to remove one instead of adding three, probably mostly because it was less of a pain to work with. The facts that it's in the middle of the Kuiper Belt, isn't sufficiently round and otherwise doesn't fit the definition of a planet we've been using for decades made that a pretty easy decision.

 

But if you liked having nine planets, you're in luck. There's gravitational evidence of a ninth AND tenth planet somewhere further out. Better planets than Pluto, at that. Well, assuming that any of the other explanations for the unusual orbits aren't true and it actually is the result of gravitational influence from extremely distant planets. Here, have a link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYL4aFQFwv0

[Psychotic Ninja]

Then I guess little people aren't actually people.

[Seattleite]

That argument is 100% completely insane. People and planets aren't even the slightest bit comparable, for one. Two, "planet" and "dwarf planet" are SEPARATE CATEGORIES, "dwarf planet" is NOT to "planet" what "dwarf" is to "person". It's more like the difference between a tablet and a laptop. They're both computers, but the categories are entirely different and everybody who isn't you understands that. And if you insist on calling your iPad a laptop, people are going to think you're clueless and out of touch. Just like we think you are when you insist on calling Pluto a planet.

[Psychotic Ninja]

Oh, you want to bring up tablets and laptops now? Do you even know what the definition of a laptop is? Here, I'll tell you: "a computer that is portable and suitable for use while traveling." Now, according to you, tablets are computers. Tablets are portable, and suitable for use while traveling. Now, if that's not enough for you, there are attachable keyboards for tablets.

Now, Seattleite, you're no high and mighty know-it-all or whatever you see yourself as, so stop acting like it. Stop acting like people who don't agree with you are morons or whatever. All dwarf planets are planets, but not all planets are dwarf planets. On a side note, the whole dwarf planet thing is bullshit. So what if it's smaller? It's still a planet. Let me ask you something, are dwarf stars still stars?

[Seattleite]

Except once again, you are now ignoring scientific definitions and throwing around ad hominem attacks. Funny how you do that, might be because you're wrong and that makes it really hard to make a good argument.

 

The International Atronomical Union (THE authority on this matter): "A dwarf planet is a planet-mass object that is neither a planet nor a natural satellite." (Notice how the definition is "planet-mass" and "NOT a planet"? Kinda means you're definitionally wrong on this one. It isn't about their size, they have to be large enough that they would normally be considered a planet to qualify. And it also means that if they do qualify as a dwarf planet, it can only be because they are not a planet despite their size.) "That is, it is in direct orbit of the Sun, and is massive enough for its shape to be in hydrostatic equilibrium under its own gravity, but has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit." (That means, if it's not gravitationally dominant in its orbit, it's not a planet, even if it's large enough to reach hydrostatic equilibrium, which used to be the only definition of a planet. This does usually come down to size, since a larger object's gravitation will better clear out other objects or bring them into its orbit, but it's not the sole factor. Also, although unmentioned in this sentence, the definition excludes natural satellites, so the many moons of Jupiter are neither planets nor dwarf planets despite them having the mass of a planet.)

 

Now, if we remove the gravitational dominance requirement, do you know what happens? We'd have HUNDREDS of fucking planets. We have over a hundred dwarf planets in the solar system, and nearly 200 moons. Not all those moons would qualify as planets even without our requirement for gravitational dominance, but many would, including our own moon, all the larger moons of the gas giants, and even Pluto's moon. Good luck memorizing all of those in highschool science. We need the extra definition largely for convenience, sure, but that's a good reason to have such a barrier. And if you want to write a definition of a planet, as opposed to a dwarf planet, that only lets Pluto in without letting in Eris, Ceres, Makamake, Haumea or Biden, I'd love to hear it, because there's no fucking way you can draw that line.

 

Gravitational dominance is the accepted definition now, and none of them get in, but if they did draw the line just below Pluto we'd also have Haumea as a planet. If they went by mass, Eris would get in. If it was by proximity to the sun, which is batshit but I've heard it proposed, Ceres would get in. We can't possibly have a nine-planet solar system with Pluto in it, and even if we did that would be changing the definition to suit tradition rather than having a definition that actually makes sense, which isn't how science works.

 

Now stop whining about Pluto.

[Blightmare]

Vent thread does not mean you have free reign to insult other users over what they vent about. This seems to be a recurring trend every several pages and it needs to stop. This thread was made to let users get off their chest what's bothering them, and antagonizing them over what that happens to be not only does nothing to help, but is also against forum rules. "1. Try not to be a jerk."

 

C'mon guys, we're better than this. :/

[A Satanic Panda]

'Dwarf Planet' is and always has been a subcategory of the term 'Planet'. Pluto is a 'Dwarf Planet' and therefore it is a planet. Anyone who says otherwise is a moron.

They are 2 completely separate categories that simply share a similar name. A celestial body is exclusively either a planet or dwarf planet. Euler diagram

Also, believe it or not, Luna (the moon) is a planet. (as are most moons)

A planet must not be a satellite of any other body. Even though the Earth-Moon system orbits the Sun, only the Earth is a planet because the Moon is our satellite.

The IAU definition of a 'planet' actually states a completely ambiguous and arbitrary definition of "has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit" as a part of the definition of a planet. The reason this is so controversial, is because there is absolutely NO DEFINITION to this phrase. There are no set ranges, or mathematics used for this. Using this to classify ANYTHING is the same as saying "anything round must be a ball". In addition, they didn't officially consider any planet around any other start to be a planet, until they added to their 'definition' in 2001. (it was a whopping 1 sentence that merely covered the mass of the object)

Except there is an algorithm to dictate whether a body has cleared the space around it enough to qualify as a planet or not. Source

 

This video explains the dwarf planet/planet situation pretty well.

 

norkDnRhUy8

 

What do I have to vent about? This thread.

[rairii]

Apparently me and several others making this point countless times in the past holds no weight with anyone here but the goddamn point of the vent thread is SPECIFICALLY TO MAKE PEOPLE LESS FRUSTRATED

NOT FOR YOU TO MAKE THEM MORE FRUSTRATED BECAUSE YOU'RE SO GODDAMN ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION THAT YOU FEEL THE NEED TO BELITTLE PEOPLE WHO THINK DIFFERENTLY

 

Jesus Christ, I left a vent about this a page ago and you're right back to the same shit.

[AP_Pastor]

Guys, if you wanna go on with this argument, you can do it somewhere else. There are people who want to take out their frustrations because of someone or something annoying their day. As Rarity said: "we're better than this."

 

OT (so we can get back on track here): I'm starting to hate my literature professor. After being absent for 3 weeks, he suddenly came to class and made a lame-ass effort to catch up with 3 weeks of lessons. Probably unprepared, must have thought today's the 1st day of class.

[Binky The Rabbit]

Pluto's reading all that while eating popcorn.

 

----

 

I'm harbouring a feeling of dread as my band's guitarist is leaving. I can just see things turning into my old band: new member changes the sound and dynamic, band enters a kind of limbo as it can't make up its mind about how it wants to sound, and eventually falls apart.

 

Every band I play in gets a little more successful before imploding, and it's becoming a thoroughly depressing trend. Really hope this band is strong enough to survive this, but time will tell. Baw-ache.

[AP_Pastor]

Mine imploded before we could even start a gig. We managed to jam a few times, but our class schedules wouldn't allow us to do a proper rehearsal. We might give it one more try after college, I hope.

[Jeb_CC]

@Satanic_Panda(and anyone who feels like doing this): I know you're not directly insulting, but there is no need to keep going on about it, after everyone's been told to stop. It's not a vent if you're going against what somebody says. The vent thread is a place to vent and let anger out, not to tell somebody they're wrong. Leave that to the serious discussion section, please. Thank you.

And to everyone else, like Rarity said, keep out of it. Thank you.

 

@Binky and AP_Pastor:

I was once in a band. But it was a school one. So as soon as the year ended, it immediately broke up. XD It was fun whilst it lasted. I hope everything goes well for you though Binky. ^_^

 

My own vent: I get that some people are cat or dog lovers. But I hate it when they go out of their way to straightly and directly say; "ALL [cat/dog] are stupid and vicious." Like... Wow. ._. A bit harsh. It's up to somebody whether they like a cat or dog, why argue over that? Let them have what they want. XD Geez.

[Doublenature]

We had a big party at a friends house today, 11 people total and everyone knew eachother, so I figured it was gonna be fun as hell.

 

Long story short:

One of my friends touched another friends girlfriend between her legs and then when she told him to knock it off, he told her that she was a fucking idiot.

She started crying and her boyfriend was there to comfort her, no one was allowed inside (which I can understand)

Now Im not gonna stand for people doing that so I ran down the street to the rape-meister and threw a punch at his face. Unfortunetely I am slow when Im drunk so he managed to dodge it and then he ran away giving us the finger.

 

Now my other friend got REALLY drunk, so we had to go to the emergency room with him. We sat there for like 2 hours waiting for him to get his stomach pumped.

Of course, the people at the ER have more important things to attend to and, quite frankly, are pretty damn stupid so they wouldnt let him stay the night there, even though he couldnt even get in a wheel chair by himself. He was also puking all over the waiting room and we had to take turns inside the bathroom to make sure he didnt pass out or choked.

 

All in all, one hell of a night to start your birthday.