apophys

^ Those are nice. Here's a calming piece - Oracion from the Rise of Darkrai soundtrack. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrGhXLSw3AQ But yes, there may be copyright issues. However, these can be solved - pick music released under a Creative Commons license. Such as by the Brobdingnagian Bards. (sorry, no youtube links for their instrumentals; they're too obscure) Here are a few examples of their music: Shadowfax - http://www.soundclick.com/util/downloadSong.cfm?ID=4329270 Greensleeves - http://www.soundclick.com/util/downloadSong.cfm?ID=722441 Moria - http://www.soundclick.com/util/downloadSong.cfm?ID=720607 Hobbit's Dance - http://www.soundclick.com/util/downloadSong.cfm?ID=720569

Oh, sorry... Yeah, Glor had Circle of Flames 4. I didn't get Lightning 1.

Very good idea. Personal bestiaries would be very helpful. I would like if base sacrifice value (at 0 xp and 0 wins) was added to the info list. I don't think they should lose anything, except maybe trade value.

Doesn't Fenths Beach (GG) give darkness? all... 6? I only know of 5. O.o

Yes, I was pretty much saying they should be like Tormented Souls, just with a far higher spent WP cost to unlock. If it's too powerful for being in unlimited (or high, though limited) stock, then it shouldn't be implemented at all until it's balanced. It would just make a new elite of the WP-endowed. I have 3 spent WP and own a 4th (the last thing I bought was TS access, in order to sell them). Clever wookie.

^ It's 2 heads, not 1. I've been attacked a lot faster than that when I encouraged newbly mp4s to get free wins against my lone tree in the sparring grounds (then dojo). Over 100 losses only while I was online that day. I think it was about half a year ago, when the xp cap was still the old one. Do not underestimate the power of newb swarms.

Obsolete, but GlorDamar had Lightning 1 and Gargant had Circle of Flames 2. What will happen with spell docs now?...

Similarly, this happens when you go to the text log and back while still on the combat screen. [attachment=1385:bug 2.bmp] EDIT: I saw the post of not being on profiles. I didn't see a post on combat replay.

Creatures are not displayed in combat replay. For example: [attachment=1383:bug.bmp] On the initial combat play, it's fine, but if you want to watch it again from the log, this happens.

Awiiya's quest (the name of the tree) was a very good one, though a bit too easy. Cutler's puzzle quest, also very good, was a bit too hard (I got stuck on the 7th; I never could solve it before going idle). Still, it's the best I've seen so far that deals with clickables. Remember Bootes' puzzle gauntlet and Garg's Aurora Borealis? Those are my examples of perfect puzzle quests. Could all quest creators make their profiles public? It really ticks me off when they have a quest, and I have to find them online to see it.

Of course, for society to be efficient, people need to specialize. However, their areas must be chosen well, and this should not come at the cost of zero knowledge in all other areas, or else the laptop gets wet... So, ideally there is a compromise. The question is, which side of the compromise do you lean toward? And what do you find most worth your while to learn? I heavily invest my efforts toward science and a bit in art (photography & film mainly; I've tried pottery and I like it, too), while completely ignoring things I consider useless, such as sports. I read very little literature. I only know general history, not many specifics (I think I'm better with prehistory than history.). But within the realm of science, I know something about nearly everything, from gravitational waves to sickle-cell anemia. I know the name and symbol of every element in the periodic table and which general section of the table they fall into. I was at one point mistaken for being an expert on lysozyme, just because I could say the name, where it is, and what it does. (My short beard hides my age of 18. I'm told I could pass for 30.) At this point in my life I need to choose an area to specialize in. The choice is extremely hard.

Personal stats should not be capped. And this statement is coming from one of the lowest-stat mp4s around. Stats should be counterable with an ability or aura. Like an aura that would switch 1/3 of the difference between influences to the weaker guy. The pool training idea can be easily abused. All stats would be transferred to attack and initiative, and veterans would be even more powerful compared to new players than they already are. Caps on specific stats would make stat grinding useless after a certain point, so no.

I would like to see drachorns being more common, though FAR less powerful, or easily counterable (I prefer the latter). I don't own any, but I can still make suggestions. That Rusty aura is definitely too powerful to be without caveats. There needs to be a situational debuff added on. Such as: weakening all creatures in the rit by 5% for every aura in play, including this one. There needs to be some mechanism (maybe via a new crit, on its own or by boosting the TS aura) to normalize giant stats. This needs to be done anyway to stay true to the "a new player can beat a vet" principle, and will provide a counter to angiens (taking away their massive defense will make them kill themselves). And actually open the Drachorn's Lair, maybe via a WP or quest.

Ditto.

I'll join in. I will give something tangible.

My stats are low for mp4, even lower than some mp3s. I have slightly under 300 active days. I have only one token and currently no credits to buy any, making me a comparatively weak player, even though I have 20 maxed creatures. I'm not at the xp cap yet and have never reset my xp. I have no drachorns and can't afford any. I only have 1 pimp; I bought Udgard's grasan pimping service.

I wrote my lyrics, but I seem not to have time to record it today. Argh! I do the 1st 5 days, then jump to day 12. On the _th day of Christmas, I'd like to thank MD for: a tree at the GoE, snow on the Christmas tree, presents under the tree, poor thirsty Bob the tree, token on an old tree, Air Scout on a Walking Tree 2 Winderwilds, Willow guards (x2), LR guards (x2) 3 wish points 400 honor 5 NIGHTSHADE LEAVES!!! ("Ho, ho, ho", then Santa smokes something, then "Ho, ho, ho...". Tribute to the "12 drugs of christmas" by the Mushroom Tab. Choir) 6-creature rituals 700 wins 8 silver coins the 9th Alpha stage 10-minute regen 11 active months 12 wins to bursting

I have a bunch more captchas, but these are the best, IMHO. No particular order. [attachment=1355:captcha 28.bmp] - I'm drool They want you to type in some really humiliating things sometimes. [attachment=1356:captcha 13.bmp] - ocean brown Don't want to swim in that... [attachment=1357:captcha 24.bmp] - sorry batteries... I'm sure they feel sad for being not included. Or dead. [attachment=1358:captcha 25.bmp] - assembly-line prisoner Work, for a lot of people, feels this way. [attachment=1359:captcha 21.bmp] - LOWE'S attire Those blue aprons are apparently fashionable. [attachment=1360:captcha 19.bmp] - leopard yourself No comment. [attachment=1361:captcha 5.bmp] - democracy freebies Come to America! Free food! [attachment=1363:captcha 17.bmp] - vulcan reception Star Trek FTW. [attachment=1364:captcha 30.bmp] - hospital urinated What in the world... [attachment=1365:captcha 32.bmp] - mount the 1972 campaign I thought you could only get 2 words. I guess I was wrong. Now some AUDIO captchas. [attachment=1370:image11.mp3] "You hit the nail right on my head, Mr. Shane." [attachment=1371:image7.mp3] "More coffee, Richard?" "No, thank you." "I think you're wise." [attachment=1372:image10.mp3] Child: "Goodnight." Woman: "Oh, we'll see you in the morning." Strange man grunts predatorily. [attachment=1373:image5.mp3] "Idea of getting at the parents via the children." "Yes." [attachment=1374:image3.mp3] "Clever." "Well, I see what you mean; it just doesn't sound right.." The following are not being entered into the contest, due to (possible) inappropriateness. But I still feel like posting them. [attachment=1369:captcha 29.bmp] - on nosegays What? [attachment=1366:captcha 11.bmp] - $22-million labial Now that's one PIMPED... ahem... grasan... [attachment=1367:captcha 1.bmp] - bagpipe used I think I put this in the wrong place... [attachment=1368:captcha 18.bmp] - 40 wholes At first sight, I mistook the "l" for "r."

193. The largest prime in the set.

I was wrong; it was just a coincidence. I now notice the AMOUNT of gifts I have available in the 2 categories. Both less than the initial number. So they're just the ones I didn't get last year.

Here is what I noticed. I can get the free gifts in the sections of the MD shop I haven't touched yet. That's the "timed boosters" and the "powerups and rechargers" sections. I have not gotten anything from these sections, except for last year's free gifts. The "features" and "permanent boosters" sections I've delved deeply into, and I cannot get free things there. (I really wanted the "Big Gifts" from the features section) (Clarifications: I got Christmas treats last year. I still have less than 300 active days.) As last year, there are no gifts in the tokens section - I've verified with an alt (who has never bought anything from the shop). [b]Orlando, I think you can't get freebies in a certain section because you bought something (anything) from that section.[/b] I suppose a shop reset (and leaving the shop untouched) would give you access to all the treats. But of course you shouldn't be required to do so. Since it does not work as Mur stated, and (seemingly) completely new players would be barred from treats by buying in the shop, there is obviously a bug.

For everyone with file troubles - [url="http://www.media-convert.com"]www.media-convert.com[/url] may help. I'm working on the lyrics for mine; I don't want to copy anything others have done.

^ Very nice, Kafuuka. [quote name='Kafuuka' date='14 December 2009 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1260829154' post='49936'] How expensive would it be to airmail a cookie? [/quote] I was thinking more along the lines of getting an item called "Meat Cookie" with the description "Contains drachorn flesh." Disturbing, eh? Reference: [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD5Ey9yYl_M"]Lolly - "Meat Cookies"[/url]. (I heard the song on the [url="http://drdemento.com/"]Dr. Demento radio show[/url]). But if not, that's OK. xP Back ontopic. [b]"(you can also find good examples in medicine about that)"[/b] Please show me examples in medicine. [b]"The quote from wikipedia is kind of fighting both ways; if it's like it said, then it's one way, but the rest of the quote says even if it's so, it's very unlikely, so it's the other way. It says "entropy is governed by probability, allowing for a decrease in disorder, even in closed systems". Decrease in disorder means order (negating negation), but it continues by saying it will not happen actually. Funny, I could add."[/b] It means the possibility is so small, and the effect so small, that it can be ignored in the larger scale of things, because the opposite is FAR stronger and can't be controlled. It's just notable because it is odd, and may be important in very small scales. Kind of like quantum tunneling. You don't see a baseball passing through a catcher's glove, but it's technically possible. It's not "going both ways", it's just clarifying. [b]"You are fundamentally wrong. In your example, you did not "break" the water sphere. [...] Take the two halves far away one from the other and they will turn to two separated SPHERES. The sphere they are forming is not the original one, its the most low energy and information "consuming" shape in the universe. So no entropy there, no syntropy, just isolation of systems."[/b] Yes, I was meaning to take them a certain distance apart (not too far), where they can become two separated spheres. 2 spheres = twice the information of one? Idk... bad example. Total entropy does increase because I'm wasting energy to no effect. But yes, that has nothing to do with the sphere. I'll try to go through an example of an ice cube, THEORETICALLY. Take a cube of pure ice, and crack it. The energy you put in breaks the crystal lattice and makes a little heat. Melt it, and refreeze in the original shape, at the temperature before breaking. Refreezing takes out the same amount of energy as put in by you, plus melting. At every stage the total entropy of you, the ice, the freezer, and the room you're in increases. Also count in power consumption by the freezer. What do you disagree with, and what evidence do you have to support your view? [b]"THEORETICALLY - not practically. You can give me endless examples of processes that will waste more energy to build than to destroy, but except syntropic processes like life, none to go the other way back. If you still argue that theory == or != practice, then please consider i talk theory vs reality and not only technological capabilities. You need a lot of "IFs" to make theory in this field actually work, all to cover up for the imperfection that is all around. Theories are made for perfect conditions. Of course i speak generally now, but anyone can see with naked eye that things will more likely destroy than build themselves. In theory entropy equals syntropy, in reality its not so....now how can you put theory vs reality face to face and still say entropy equals syntropy in the universe?"[/b] True; theory is generally not perfect. It's the best we have so far; if you can improve something, you are very welcome to. Have I said that creation and destruction are balanced? No. I said that what is destroyed can be recreated for the same energy, PLUS WASTE. There is always waste, and this is inescapable. Usually waste is very large. But it is always accounted for; nothing disappears. I simply rephrased and clarified your assertion here (I think). Life creates more disorder in its surroundings than the order it creates in itself. The fact that it does create order is remarkable, though. Some things will more likely create themselves than be destroyed. Such as (I think) impact craters on large asteroids or dead rocky planets. This comes at the cost of near-total pulverizing of the impactor. The energy of destruction of the crater is certainly not larger than creation, but usually the processes to do so are lacking. Another example is the accumulation of mass due to gravity, into stars and planets. However, I think that black holes with nothing to feed on slowly diminish by Hawking radiation, eventually disappearing in a gamma ray burst, so total entropy may still increase here. Not sure. Now I'll create new topics of discussion. [b]"The universe itself is expanding; it stretches at incomprehensible speed. This causes entropy to be the ruler of events." "Entropy, caused by the expansion of the universe, has unbelievable consequences."[/b] The expansion of the universe is accelerating. Entropy is not caused by the expansion of the universe. If an ice cube melts in a warm room, the total entropy of the cube and room increases. This has nothing to do with the universe. [b]"The energy you will use will get converted into Heat, heat will dissipate, and so on. On a large scale, even if it's converted into something else, that energy will eventually vanish, because the universe is endlessly big and it's growing/expanding. Any amount divided by infinity will tend towards zero. So you lose that energy, [...]"[/b] A. The universe is not infinitely big, and will never be. The energy does not vanish. It spreads out and becomes unusable to do work (on a large scale, this is called the "heat death of the universe"). B. Large scale predictions are difficult... From wikipedia's entry on entropy: "Recent work has cast some doubt on the heat death hypothesis and the applicability of any simple thermodynamic model to the universe in general. Although entropy does increase in the model of an expanding universe, [b]the maximum possible entropy rises[/b] much more rapidly, moving the universe further from the heat death with time, not closer. This results in an "entropy gap" pushing the system further away from the posited heat death equilibrium." That's very good news for the inhabitants of the universe.

I sacked 3 old lv2 heretics; I got the stat boost from each.

[b]"(im not sure if you talk in support of what i said or against it, because your arguments are actualy very helpful:))"[/b] Both. In this post I'll deal with math only. There's just far too much to be said at once. [b]From what i know, some such fractions, will cause this process to cap at a given value, some will cause it to expand indefenetly, but i dont know for sure or examples. [/b] Yes. This is an "infinite series." It's calculus. My example is the sum of terms 1/(2^n) , 1 <= n < infinity An example that has an infinite sum is the sum of terms 1/n , 2 <= n < infinity [b]"Im sory, but maybe because of the lack of sleep, but i dont get your point here at all. What is contradicting?"[/b] You said that you can't get infinite length without division. I said you can get it just by being infinitely precise, which you need to be to get infinite length through division anyway. See it this way: all numbers have an infinite amount of information. Now on to the good part. [b]"Division means to splitt something yes. before turning to math tricks try to remember where all this comes from. Multiply 5 apples with 0.1 if you can. 0.1 is 1 DIVIDED by 10. And that is again an example in favor of entropy/division. Mutliplication just amplifies effects of division, it will not recover it if faced directly with it. (you can find also good examples in medicine about that)"[/b] I see now what you mean (it wasn't very clear). If you start with whole numbers, you cannot get numbers in between without division. I've slept on it, and I have come to an interesting conclusion: Division is more "powerful" than multiplication, and subtraction is similarly more "powerful" than addition. However, this is just a strange manifestation of them being exact inverse operations, and the effect observed is the result of a sort of double negation. To begin, let's analyze a simplified situation. Let's say you start with a domain of only the number 2, and let the range be all numbers. By multiplication, you can only get larger numbers: 4, 8, 16, ... With division, you can get smaller numbers: 1, 1/2, 1/4, ... , but you can also get: 1 / (1/2) =2, 2 / (1/2) =4, 4 / (1/2) =8, ... Here's how: 2 / ((2 / 2) / 2) = 2 * 2 . Division mimics multiplication. Similarly, we can say to start with a domain of only the number 0.5, and let the range be all numbers. By multiplication, you can only get smaller numbers: 0.25, 0.125, 0.625, ... With division, you can get larger numbers: .5/.5 =1, (.5/.5)/.5 =2, ... , but you can also get: (1/.5) = 2, 4 / (1/2) = 8, ... .5 / ((.5/.5) /.5) = .5 * .5 Now consider addition and subtraction. Start with a domain of only the number 1. Addition gives all larger whole numbers. Subtraction gives all smaller whole numbers, but also can mimic addition: 1 - (-1) = 2 . 1 - ((1 - 1) - 1) = 1 + 1 Looks familiar? With a domain of only the number -1, addition gives all smaller whole numbers. Subtraction gives all larger whole numbers, but also all smaller ones. -1 - ((-1 - -1) - -1) = -1 + -1 Most general statement: X / ((Y / Y) / Z) = X * Z X - ((Y - Y) - Z) = X + Z So, X / (1 / Z) = X * Z and X - (0 - Z) = X + Z. Pretty much a double negation. Note that division and multiplication do not follow the exact same rules. For example, X * Y == Y * X (commutative property) X / Y != Y / X (X * Y) * Z == X * (Y * Z) (associative property) (X / Y) / Z != X / (Y / Z) Similarly, X + Y == Y + X X - Y != Y - X (X + Y) + Z == X + (Y + Z) (X - Y) - Z != X - (Y - Z) Do I get a cookie? :3 A drach meat cookie? xD