APPROVE

HELL YEAH!

DONE

FUK YEAAAAHHH!!!

I don't care what anyone says, QL owns.

Thanks :)

lolmost

I wish id would add a simple option to export demos into mpg/h.264/flv at the press of a button.

I'm sure it will come sooner later but I think they have more importen stuff to fix than that feature.

wth happened on ztn? pressed the wrong key? :x anyway, think it was kinda unfair to just restart and play the remaining minutes.. especially as rapha got the way better spawn :/

waaaahhaaa booohoooooooo, if noctis got that spawn noone would be complaining. It was equally fair because it was completely random who gets what spawn.

yeah that's how games should be decided, by random

uh, yeah? It should be random, random is what is fair, random is what is life. Wouldn't expect you to see this because you're a some idiot.

If you think life is random,then i am sorry to say your understanding of the universe is very limited.

ya i know chaos theory, but to humans and are reality, its all random.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number

Its all interconnected ..everything has meaning,,nothing is random.

"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather." Bill Hicks

:D

Nice poetic quote, but life is not poetry.

I agree with your proposition that the universe is not random (that what we perceive as "physical laws of nature" work in a strictly mechanical way -- I favor Einstein's "God does not role dice" when he considered the strange observations given in quantum mechanics), but life, with all its inefficiencies and extreme complexity, does exhibit a good portion of randomness. Life is where the mechanical universe becomes less predictable.

What says the man who pauses to pick up a $1 on the curbside before stepping out into the street and misses being struck by a dangerous driver??? Does he say it's random or does he say it's divine providence? That depends on the person. But really the truth is that we are all absolutely at the whim of misfortune's hammer.

Noctis saw that hammer and Rapha is laughing all the way to the bank because of it.

I thought disagreeing with Heisenberg's work was considered one of Einstein's mistakes in his later time?

He's criticized for this because he didn't make any contributions that refuted it.

If you look through all of history of science, the infancy of a science always begins turbulent and chaotic. Pre-Copernican astronomy was an extremely complex system of circles that struggled to describe the motion of the heavenly bodies. When Copernicus moved the Sun to the center of the Universe, that's when things became a lot easier to understand. This is an extremely simple/loose analogy, but I think it proves a good example.

While my opinion might not be qualified by education, I think we should all agree that it is a consistent pattern in science that what is lacking is in our language to describe the natural world. That when Newtonian force gave way to curved space-time was a leap forward for science in more than just math, but also in a language and concept to describe those behaviors of the planets. Heisenberg simply represents our lacking to understand.

We're in a Pre-Copernican age of Nuclear Physics. I wouldn't be surprised if someone came around, and immensely simplified the whole system. The question then becomes how do we validate free will in an entirely deterministic universe?

As with post-Copernican astronomy, philosophers will be there to pick up the pieces.

I disagree, because I think there is a natural boundary to what our mind can really grasp, due to us being three-dimensional beings. For example that boundary is touched with the bending of space. Yes, you can make analogies and try to understand the consequences, but noone can really "see" that bend.
So, I don't think that we will be able to truely understand in the nearer future, maybe never. Remember, people have not done so in the past 100 years!

About Einstein and his quarrel with unvertainty, I read the part in his newest biography again and you are in a way right. His contemporaries somewhat held him in contempt for his position which was very critical and unaccepting.
However in recent years more people have seen problems with the theory, possibly in the way he did.

In any case, his criticism was also valuable, because it helped find certain implications quite fast.

But that's the thing, perhaps we can't visualize larger dimensional space but we can SEE the curvature of space with gravitation lensing.

Einstein's famous E=mc^2 represents, in my opinion, exactly what I'm getting at. How does the display such a powerful ratio, easily understood in simple terms, but yet today SUSY string theorists say space-time exist in 11-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifold???

Or look even at the work done on Black hole observations, strangely perfect thermodynamic behavior... why can we explain these behaviors in such easy formulation as Hawking's radition T=k/(2pi)???

String theory is tantamount to those great systems of pre-Copernican astronomy. Extremely intricate and complicated. The more we learn about our universe, the more we should be arriving at fundamental (and simple) explanations, not the opposite. It's simply a matter of language/conceptual barriers.

but we can SEE the curvature of space with gravitation lensing.

No, we can't all we can see are the effects or projections.
Just like a two-dimensional being could only see the shade of a three-dimensional object.


And about the easily described equations, yes that sometimes works.
But since you yourself brought up thermodynamics this fucker isn't exactly simple, but it does work.

And then you have a weird value like h which was also frowned upon for a long time.


I dunno, I think I do agree with the "it can be more simple" approach sometimes, but I don't think it applies to everything.

We'll have to agree to disagree on visualizing curved space-time -- which I think it easily visualized. And my opinion is that it's a giant leap forward in visualizations that enable science to progress. Space-time in text books, and on documentaries, are always exampled by a canopy with a heavy ball in the middle, which warps the fabric it's sitting in. Classic example and easily visualize, although it does an extreme good job of confusing people about the strength of gravity (since gravity is extremely weak and the only times we can see visible curvature is super clusters of galaxies, black holes, and at extreme angles off the surface of the sun).

Essentially, Kepler's laws was the previous step to Einstein's visualization of "curved" space-time. In that, the planets sweep out equal areas (between the planet and the Sun) for equal time periods. Easily visualized.

Or the understanding of sound as a wave. We can easily visualize why we hear Doppler effects. This also applies to light as to why we see colors. But another problem lies here with light. It behaves both as a particle AND wave. Again, this is another point in physics where a better language-based concept is need to describe wave+particle behavior.

And this kinda relates, in a way, to Immanuel Kant's critique on pure reason -- that we cannot know the "things-in-itself", which, I think could be used either way in this argument about whether we can truly know about our Universe. I agree with Kant here, absolutely, that such a concept as "wave" might not be exactly true of sound/light, but that it works as a comprehensible visualization of it's behavior.

Yeah we'll havot to.

because imo what you describe is simplified not visualized.

I mean you can't really imagine how it is to get perfectly straight, no up/down or left/right movement, and still end up in the spot where you started.
You can simplify it with the 2-D guy on a ball, and you can learn what the outcome "would" be. But your brain simply can not grasp it.

For all the other examples, e.g. wave/particle, I tend to agree.

You're arguing over a definition, guys. Just break out the hugs - you know you want to.

yes, we know we are, but at least from my point this isn't a "am gonna kill you mothafucka" discussion, but a friendly exchange of viewpoints.

I mean even the the insult level is at zero at the moment, which is way below the average friendly esr-post :P

No, no, you missed the point - he may not have been trolling, but I certainly was :P

then you fail at trolling.

But, but... it's subtle and sophisticated!
















:/

there, there. Don't cry now.

I think when you grow up you'll be a very fine troll. Just give it some time.

its not anything to do with higher dimensionalities like in string theory (11-dimensional calabi-yau manifolds, sometimes with an extra 12th-d). your reference to 2-dimensional beings trying to perceive 3-dimensions is, I think, a reference from that book Flatlander by Edwin Abbot about a 2-dimensional universe with 2-dimensional beings and the main character is ostricized for believing in higher dimensionalities

in Janna Levin's book How The Universe God It Spots, she talks about high dimensionalities, and how they interact with lower dimensional space. as you said, a sphere falling through a 2-dimensional plane would appear first as a point (at initial contact) and then as it passes through, as a growing circle before turning into a shrinking circle before last contact appearing, again, as a point. If there was an extra higher dimension to our space, then anything existing outside of our 3-dimensional space (in higher dimensional space) could see all our internal organs without cutting open our skin... and any interaction that higher dimensions would have with our 3+1 dimensional space would appear (as like in Flatland) a very intricate and evolving pattern of 3-dimensional objects. Yet we dont' see these and would be absurd to think that there is a large 4th dimension. And string theory, for this reason, has it's manifolds of 11+1 dimensions reduced to the sizes smaller than we can observe... making the theory that much more difficult to prove empirically even though it agrees with a lot of observations made already

curved space-time is only 3+1 dimensional space... you're not visualizing anything more than what you're used to on a daily basis living in 3-dimensions. the only time curved space-time becomes *somewhat* difficult to visualize is the event horizon of a black hole and your descension into one. for this reason one of the big fields of research in astrophysics is the study of black holes and exposes the flaws of general relativity

since gravity is such a weak force in the universe it ISN'T really necessary to be able to visualize the curves between the earth and the Sun and furthermore not hard to visualize that the distance between two points in space can change given a massive body between the two.

you could think of it that the Earth is, in fact, moving in a straight line and that space itself has "warped" that straight line into an elliptical orbit. not such a stretch for the human mind to visualize this... or if you had a car with two wheels large on one side, two small on the other side, would give a similar effect. the fact that the side of the earth that is closer to the sun is traveling through more warped space (more space, in a sense), and therefore progresses slower along the orbit while the side facing away from the sun is traveling through slightly less curved space, again, is another way to think about it.

though high dimensionalities studied by topologists, your right, are impossible to visualize and the only work being done on them are strictly by mathematicians (and only recently by cosmologists and string-theorists).

or if you had a car with two wheels large on one side, two small on the other side, would give a similar effect.

no, it wouldn't and that is my point.

You would both see (if their is anything to be seen) and feel a change of direction is you did a turn.
How would you notice a bend in space-time?

I mean maybe you would see thje same star twice or something, but it's still not the same as feeling a change in 3-D.


As for the example, I don't remember where exactly I have this from but it was from a similar discussion from a book or article, used to explain ina simplified way what happens with bend in space time and how we would have no clue what is going on until we reached our starting point again.

thats what i really like on esr..you can find elaborate discussion about curved space-time under a random tournament demo

this is rapha vs. noctis not some random demo you fucking ignorant

;)

ahah tru

Random quote of the day...

Witten might be the greatest genius alive right now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLZKqGbNfck

But string theory is wrong I'm afraid.

Penrose had difficulty grasping AI and algorithms. Godel's proof has been bastardized all the world over.

In short: Dennett will be proved right.

<random>fu intelligent fag <random>u moron I love ur mom <random> just an internet idiot
:p

lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb

Read some of this guy's books and stfu mmkay?

lol,ignorant asshole,you know nothing..

i don't but he does (the guy in the wikipedia link)

Go into meditation & astral project ,then we will talk again

what i mean is,anyone can findout the truth by themselves,you don't need anyone to tell you how to think

and i apologize for saying "you know nothing" because in actuality you know everything , you just don't realize it,as the source of knowledge is infinite , all you have to do is open the doors of perception

trippy,but true :D

No.

Go into meditation & astral project ,then we will talk again

No.

Music from the astral plane

superb song :)

wait,lol,how can you post that and say No. to all my comments :P

:D

You will learn in time,that the world isn't flat

i am convinced

I'd rather see games being decided by players' skills but I guess that's just me then

? you're stupid obviously rapha was the more skilled one, noctits DID have the opportunity to win other maps.

so was it decided by skills or was it decided by a random event?

those two seem to be mutually exclusive to our less ... uh ... 'creative' minds...

if noctis had more skills than rapha, we wouldn't be having this discussion. there wouldn't even be a ztn game. period.

so you're saying skills should decide, not randomness?

And why exactly would noctis have to win 3-0 to be more skilled than rapha?

Fanboy detected.

*american

I thought micke did a fine example of how that doesn't always work ;)

why even play then? let the coin decide!

Why even play then? Let the coin decide.

Chaos Theory.

random spawn vs random win are 2 completely different thing. Understand the difference ffs !

I do understand but it seems you don't so let me tell you, with the lower timelimit spawns play a bigger role, random spawns = random wins. 3 minutes and ztn, do I really need to say more? And just so you (and stunt.us) know, I have no problem with rapha winning the tournament, I just don't like how it was done, taking away all the advantage noctis had gathered and then putting him on disadvantage in the replay.

peace out

stunt.us: "It was equally fair because it was completely random who gets what spawn."

duumed: "yeah that's how games should be decided, by random"
duumed: "I do understand..."

You obviously don't! Why the fuck should noctis have the advantage? He wasn't up 200/200, not even close.
Stunt says the spawns should be random, and he is right. But why am I explaining myself to someone who don't want to understand? geez


"...taking away all the advantage noctis had gathered "

rapha: 102 Health and 70 armour
noctis: 100 Health and 86 armour

I can see they are MILES away.
Noctis wasn't exactly stacked, so your argument fails.

Stop digging your hole deeper.

The ztn game ran for 10min and 37sec. He blew t4, and dm13 he pretty much gave away and barely won t9. And now all this what if, what if, over that ztn game.

noctis imo, wasn't even close to matching rapha, he was outsmarted, plain and simple.

When you make so many mistakes as noctis did, incl his failure on dm13, you don't deserve to win.

I can't see how noctis could have taken 3 maps in a row with that gameplay. I seriously wasn't impressed. I've seen him play lots better.

I remeber last year when people nagged about rapha didn't deserve to win eswc athens, that was actually funny, this is just sad.

rapha gave cypher an ass whoopin' on dm13 at quakecon, he deserves to be #1.

Where do you draw the line if a match should be replayed or not? 8min? 9min? Over 3/4 of the game had already been played.

Move on.

Finally someone clarifying things up. Very good analysis and personally, I can't agree with you more.
Rapha played solid games, if not flawless in both Quakecon/IEM tournament.
At the moment rapha & noctis are probably the most skilled & smart players, leading us to assume that this game could have gone either way, but that day rapha was one step ahead.

flawless

that's why he lost 2 games in a row right?

"rapha gave cypher an ass whoopin' on dm13 at quakecon, he deserves to be #1"
:-|

wasn't equally fair in any way seeing as noctis had more control before rapha quit, totally turned the table. wouldn't expect you americans to see this through your patriotism though

All I can see is RED, WHITE, AND BLUE!

don't forget the stars

indeed!

thats not true, rapha is always 5 steps ahead, to an average viewer like yourself it might have seem like noctits had control, but he really didn't. Maybe you should try dueling sometimes and stop the random esr trolling. Then you will have some freaking basic duel knowledge.

Dude, on a side note. I think you're sucking carbon38's cock. In return he's following you around putting plusses on you everywhere you go (well, atleast during your defend-rapha-rampage).

please play a duel against him :)

..vs?

stunt.us of course.

He seems to be so awesome, but somehow I can't find (read: I cba to look for) a demo of his superior skills.
So you duel him in cpm, make a mvd, et voilá.

well its quite obvious he lacks skills of any kind, i doubt proving it with a demo will make any difference :õõõ

oh it would, we could make gifs of funny scenes and post them everywhere :o]

idiot

\<3/

they did the most fair thing imo, what can be better?

they didnt do the most fair thing, the fair thing would have been to replay the entire map as 2gd suggested. the reason they didn't was because of severe time limitations.

you are correct, i remember thinking thats what they did when i started the 2nd demo but forgot about that option when posting the comment :D

omg, the first kill was to rapha 2:30 into that game for christ sake, noctis got a kill 3 sec later. rapha got the better spawn ??? lulz

have you even watched the match or ever played ztn once?
gl vs sg spawn is as worse as it gets on ztn

and chasing a guy who goes for the RA instead of running up the stairs in hope of graming the YA is dumb and he got a serious beating. rapha would go for the MH and lower YA picking up LG and Rail instead.

Explain to noctis what he did wrong. It was a random spawn like any other spawn on ztn.

But you obviously are too much of a partiot to see it.

Deal with the loss, move on.

i dont care about the loss, rapha deserved the win but it was an ignoble ending for a great game

Thank you for uploading both POVs, it's spoiler-free this way!

Î love the smoothness of QL demos, the game seems much more precise and crisp compared to his grandfather.

grandfather... q2 ?

Oh right, father.

more like not retarded brother

imo it feels really 'floaty' compared to cpma

That's just the shrooms

Random funny.

Btw, how come Rapha has a 20-30 ping?

When u know, tell, no idea too.

games were played on pub servers

its not lanned as far as i know,

just a location close to one of the online servers so they all ping good?

just a theory

so they all ping the same
(fixed)

What's with some kids rating demos 0?

it's not Q3!

Shut the fuck you faggot, I'll rate demos 0 if I think they suck.

A serious person wouldn't rate this demo 0,.you either don't belong on this web site or are just seeking attention..in any case..go away.

Is that so Mr.855?

A serious person wouldn't rate this demo 10.

sup with rating it 10, they think its perfect? this couldn't have been better in any way possible?

10 is nothing compared to 127 ;)

No, but the entertainment provided was to full satisfaction, so 10 out of 10.

the ones who lost money on the bet voted it 0. thats nice.

They look different, were the players tired or challenged by hardware issues? The qcon demos were pedal 2 the metal, these look a bit timid.

I watched the t4 demo last... and after watching the other demos first this demo really showed what a first class player rapha is! wp! and wery entertaining to watch :D

4108 KB - 4103 KB = 5,

one kilobyte per step

made me smile :)

what mouse is noctis using?

Noctis has the fastest movement on dm13 of anybody I've ever seen. I think this matchup could have gone either way. In T4 he lost badly, but he seemed to "wake up" in a big way in the last couple of minutes. Each game after that he got better and better, culminating into a win on tourney9. It's possible he could have won the ztn game if it weren't for that piece of that bad luck with rapha getting disconnected.

Really good games by both players!

it was obvious that Rapha knew he had t4 in the bag with time running out hence why noctis started getting some frags on him. IM not saying rapha just started giving frags away, but he knew he had it won.

noctis rail aim suddenly improves towards the end, initially he was missing some of the easier ones. The kind of aggressive way he plays, only works if he hits his rails.

to be honest that t9 was not that impressive as people are saying it is, I saw the demo:
agreed noctis had great rockets and used them well to keep the game close in first half, (mid airs all over), then both died in a fight.
then he managed to get hold of mega and one ya just because of a good spawn and built a lead from there. rapha cameback real nice but again was pwned by the clock and being weak while in a bad position so noctis sealed it 9-7, infact rapha says almost, which noctis replies lolmost

"Noctis has the fastest movement on dm13"


oxymoron. dm13 is a walkfest piece of shit. Noctis appearing to move fast is a mere illusion

edit: i correct myself. You didn't claim he was 'fast' on dm13. you just said he was the 'fastest'. Fastest of the slow is still slow when compared to other map's fastest.

btw.. Austria vs US, <30ms, how's that? did i miss something?

Rapha flew over for this LAN event.

Since noctis was scared to come lose in NA, Rapha just came to him instead.

:X

Sorry, I get so caught up!

YOU ARE THE MAN!

lolol

anyone else remember the focus who'd get raged about all the e-hate and trolling?

:)

i remember some faggot whining about how bad the site was in the mean time promoting his own shitty cancerous clan site and saying he's never coming back

ah, yes. He's growing up well, don't you think?

i still think he's a cunt

shame he has me on ignore :<

hey, I'm not saying he's out of puberty, yet.

Just that it's getting better ;D

“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

I think the gazing example is more realistic than the fighting one ;P

indeed.

dum dum dee dum

http://www.sk-gaming.com/match/8735

monitors...

The curved space-time discussion was more interesting than those demos. :|