[X] My Assistant

It could be wrong, but per the Items wiki page players can soulfuse gear that is 100 levels above their own. So beto san can already fuse gear from 333 and below.

Yeah, but that requires a lot of fragments per gear. I'm assuming that fusing gears on the order of ~50 levels above is a more manageable strategy in the long run (only for weapons is it absolutely worth it to get the best quality possible, even if you have to soulfuse from 100 levels above. for other slots, on average, players have to be more frugal with their fragments.)

I pushed a small update to fix a problem with the existing monster name checker, where it would also consider substrings of existing names as taken. It should now be way easier to find a good name for your monster.

(For example, if someone had a monster named "Obnoxious Social Justice Warrior", it would reject names like "Noxious" as taken.)

Thanks for the update.

I pushed a small update to fix a problem with the existing monster name checker, where it would also consider substrings of existing names as taken. It should now be way easier to find a good name for your monster.

(For example, if someone had a monster named "Obnoxious Social Justice Warrior", it would reject names like "Noxious" as taken.)

Just to make easier for the people who name their monsters "whatever001", "whatever002", "whatever003" [...] "whaterver200"...(IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

speaking of which, i wonder who has a monster called "Scarlett Johansson". when i was about to create it, it was already assigned, so i had to be happy enough with Scarlet (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)

Just to make easier for the people who name their monsters "whatever001", "whatever002", "whatever003" [...] "whaterver200"...(IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

I don't think so.
If I understand right, then "whatever001", "whatever002", "whatever003" is before and after this little Update acceptable.
If "whatever001" already exists,
then the Name wie "whatever", "whatever0", ""whatever00", ""whatev" an so on will be rejected before, but accpeted after.
But "In Memory of whatever001", "Sakura kei whatever00" an so on is also before and after acceptable.

Just to make easier for the people who name their monsters "whatever001", "whatever002", "whatever003" [...] "whaterver200"...(IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

It might have been part of the reason why people were naming their monsters that. Maybe now that it's easier to find a real name, they'll actually bother.

It might have been part of the reason why people were naming their monsters that. Maybe now that it's easier to find a real name, they'll actually bother.

speaking abut real names Tenboro - how comes Jessica Nigri is a bad name and i should feel bad for having thought about it/her? is it because of the excessive silliness of the specific person or is it more related to the "Nigri" part?

I gave up for names because rename cost is too much for me (I shouldn't upgraded their PL (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/cry.gif) )

It might have been part of the reason why people were naming their monsters that. Maybe now that it's easier to find a real name, they'll actually bother.

They wouldn't.
Why should they think about 200 names, even with "easier" system, when they can pick a word, put 3 numbers at the end and call all the 200 monsters in a 001-200 series?
This should be fixed.
For example by forcibly deactivating and de-naming (with the option to freely rename them within the rules of course) monsters with too many name parts in common. Of course only if they belong to the same person.

This post has been edited by ppp82p: Nov 14 2016, 16:30

They wouldn't.
Why should they think about 200 names, even with "easier" system, when they can pick a word, put 3 numbers at the end and call all the 200 monsters in a 001-200 series?
This should be fixed.
For example by forcibly deactivating and de-naming (with the option to freely rename them within the rules of course) monsters with too many name parts in common. Of course only if they belong to the same person.

I do not know why it bothers you so much? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/huh.gif) I do not mind about it. In fact, sometimes I do not even look at the monster's name because I'm more worried about HP, MP and SP, and the supportive spells.

If it were to do something like that, it would be easier just to end the cost of renaming. In my case, I would even like to rename my 9 oldest monsters, but it would cost me, today, 150 chaos token.

I do not think anyone is required to create 200 names 100% different from each other. And this deactivation by repetitive parts would not work very well. Imagine this example:

Knight of Justice
Knight of Love
Knight of Wisdom
Knight of Truth
Knight of Intelligence
Knight of the Force
... (up to 200)

All would be disabled because most would have 2 of 3 words alike. It would not be fair.

Why should they think about 200 names, even with "easier" system, when they can pick a word, put 3 numbers at the end and call all the 200 monsters in a 001-200 series?

tbh i do. i really hope i'm the only one lame enough to do it nowadays (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/anime_cry.gif)

This should be fixed.
For example by forcibly deactivating and de-naming (with the option to freely rename them within the rules of course) monsters with too many name parts in common. Of course only if they belong to the same person.

yes! please! pretty please! with a cherry on the top and Scarlett lying in your bed! (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/duck.gif)

I do not know why it bothers you so much? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/huh.gif) I do not mind about it. In fact, sometimes I do not even look at the monster's name because I'm more worried about HP, MP and SP, and the supportive spells.

If it were to do something like that, it would be easier just to end the cost of renaming. In my case, I would even like to rename my 9 oldest monsters, but it would cost me, today, 150 chaos token.

I do not think anyone is required to create 200 names 100% different from each other. And this deactivation by repetitive parts would not work very well. Imagine this example:

Knight of Justice
Knight of Love
Knight of Wisdom
Knight of Truth
Knight of Intelligence
Knight of the Force
... (up to 200)

All would be disabled because most would have 2 of 3 words alike. It would not be fair.

and so would be "I fear Axe", "I fear Club", "I fear Dagger" and so on. and ton of mobs with fucking annoying names. or "Generic name 50", "Generic name 51"... "Generic name 200". tbh i wouldn't mind even if it costed a certain amount of tokens even to re-activate them - you wanted to dance? here's the tune, you can even sing if you want.
trolls would be screwed up and world will be fair and balanced. everybody happy (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by Scremaz: Nov 14 2016, 19:25

tbh i wouldn't mind even if it costed a certain amount of tokens even to re-activate them - you wanted to dance? here's the tune, you can even sing if you want.
trolls would be screwed up and world will be fair and balanced. everybody happy (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Savage.

Savage.

fed up. it's different. only silver lining is that just by looking at the name you know what to kill first.

HV 1.0 when? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/duck.gif)

HV 1.0 when? (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/duck.gif)

After 0.99!!! (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

After 0.99!!! (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

After 0.99 we get 0.991, 0.992... 0.999, 0.9991, 0.9992, ...

(fun fact. there are far more numbers between 0.99 and 1 than there are integers between 1 and infinity)

(fun fact. there are far more numbers between 0.99 and 1 than there are integers between 1 and infinity)

Are they really? You got me thinking.

We have one infinity for each dimension in which we can count it, and that dimension is infinite. 1 to infinity is just a single dimension. But all numbers between 0.99 and 1 are a single dimension too because we have an upper limit on the digits, i.e.

0.991 0.992 0.993 0.994 0.995 0.996 0.997 0.998 0.999 0.9991 0.9992 0.9993...

In big O notation O(n) =~ O(10n). So I'd argue that there is the same number of numbers: one dimension countable infinity. There would be more numbers between 0.99 and 1 if we did not use base 10 counting but an infinite base.

Disclaimer: The last modal logic class I took was probably some 10 years ago. I may be wrong.

Are they really? You got me thinking.

We have one infinity for each dimension in which we can count it, and that dimension is infinite. 1 to infinity is just a single dimension. But all numbers between 0.99 and 1 are a single dimension too because we have an upper limit on the digits, i.e.

0.991 0.992 0.993 0.994 0.995 0.996 0.997 0.998 0.999 0.9991 0.9992 0.9993...

In big O notation O(n) =~ O(10n). So I'd argue that there is the same number of numbers: one dimension countable infinity. There would be more numbers between 0.99 and 1 if we did not use base 10 counting but an infinite base.

Disclaimer: The last modal logic class I took was probably some 10 years ago. I may be wrong.

Infinities are weird. The formal starting point with infinite sets is the idea that 2 sets are defined to be the same size if they can be put into one-to-one correspondence with each other. It's not too dissimilar to the comparison to big O notation, and so |[0.99, 1]| = |[0, 1]|.

But that's an interval, which is different from a list. One of Cantor's most famous proofs was that intervals can't be put into one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (the same thing as an infinite list, often called countable, since its elements can be counted 1, 2, 3, ... to infinity).

See below, in base 2: Each set in the list on top represents a unique number in the interval [0, 1]. (eg. s3, 01010101.. corresponds to 0.01010101.. in base 2 = 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256.... = 1/3)

(IMG:[upload.wikimedia.org] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Diagonal_argument_01_svg.svg/375px-Diagonal_argument_01_svg.svg.png)

The (blue) set [s], which is the opposite of the diagonal, can't exist in the list.

Given any list constructed like the above, no matter how many sets you add to the list, there will always necessarily be at least one set that corresponds to a number in the interval that hasn't been included yet. Even theoretically extending the list to infinity doesn't solve the issue. An interval is just too dense to be contained in an infinite list of numbers. (Sets representing intervals are often called uncountable sets)

If you define the size of the infinite set of natural numbers as A0 (aleph-0, but Hebrew letters don't behave well), then using more mathematical magic, you can prove that the size of a set contained in an interval is 2 ^ A0. That's where my "far more" came from.

[en.wikipedia.org] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum

Still, considering possible version numbers between 0.99 and 1, if infinite sequences aren't allowed as possibilities, then it's true that there are only a countable amount of "versions" possible before we'd get to 1.0; my "0.991, 0.992... 0.999, 0.9991, 0.9992..." would be ordinary and countable, of course.

Invoking the uncountable real numbers feels a bit nebulous, though:

it can be shown that almost all real numbers are transcendental, uncomputable, and cannot even be named!

[everything2.com] http://everything2.com/title/God+made+the+...the+work+of+man

Fascinating, at least to me.

Who else is playing i need to know more about the game.