Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more lying4fun's commentslogin

I played this custom map called "Assassins", and it was one of the best things I ever played, I'm not exaggerating. Idk if something similar already existed, or if it came out from SC2, but I was really hoping for someone to make a real game based on it. Everything I can find on the internet is just this one yt video, but it's an older version, I didn't play under 3.0 I think - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX4hpQouvKA


> In Starcraft 2 you could only play what blizzard wanted you to play.

5 years ago when I played SC2 for the first time there was plenty of (iirc) “Arcade” maps which were UMS, and I’m pretty sure, community made. Are you perhaps talking about early days of SC2 when that still wasn’t a thing or? One map I was most impressed by and had lots of fun playing it, was called “Assassins”. I won’t explain what it is, but if someone took it to develop a game based on it, I strongly believe(d) that it’d be another hit game that spawned from SC


Im talking about the early days when there wasnt a "game list" where you could see the maps hosted by actual players. So the list only showed maps open at a moment.

Last time I tried SC2 arcade there was a list o hundreds of maps with zero players inside and you had to pray that some other players wanted to play the same map as you. So you would have to coordinate by a forum or friendlist to even play a game. So arcade was an empty desert.

Killing the "currently open games list" was such a antipattern... does SC2 have it now?


as far as I know it does have it, and my experience doesn’t match yours-on EU there was 20ish open lobbies (hosted by people) for different custom maps/arcades at all times. but yeah if it was like you are saying it was, I agree with your point. also, check the other reply to your comment from someone who is more up to date


Yeah. He explained it as it was in the early days. Battle.net for Starcraft 2 really destroyed the game from getting popular. It's so sad that the Battle.net from 1998 was better than the Battle.net from 2012... They implemented chat several years after SC2 released. Clans even longer after.

They released it when the online connections were terrible, then everyone left before they got good.


this is amazing, thank you


myb i wanted an iphone 6months ago but today i want a ~dumb phone but im stuck with this iphone i already have. i could sell the iphone but i do need the apps i wouldnt have on a dumb phone so i try to do what i can to dumb it down


by doing that they esentially generate a lot of headlines about ai becoming more sentient


amazing visualisation


I’m speculating there could be a more ergonomic workflow combining the vim-latex flow from op and this comment(and the reply). I know you can import anki decks like a .txt(?)(or similar), so I’m imaginig a ‘flow where you live write notes in the ~.txt file and later just import it to anki. It might be a hassle to set it up all but seems way better than using the Add interface, and also I prefer latex over screenshots (but I get that ss is just more convenient for some situations)


The other day I was washing dishes and there was some water dilluted milk residue in my plate, but due to plate having been moved around it painted a nebula like pattern - it was beautiful, a sight to behold. So I thought what’s the invariant here between the milk and nebulas that make them look the same. Do you think that stuff you mentioned could explain this and countless similar phenomena


I’m going to entertain this literally because it’s fun: so we need to zoom out enough to find those big galaxy surrounding atoms which are actually universes, or conversely to zoom in more to find galaxies and a universe within atoms. But it seems that there’s either missing understanding how to cross that zoom in/out threshold or it’s impossible by the laws of physics to zoom so far to make a full circle, like it’s forbidden for the snake to bite its tail. I imagine people have discussed this stuff a lot, and came up with better analogies and more nuanced models


Yeah thats my thought too! What if there was a whole universe inside of an atom? Or on the other hand, we and everything we observe is just a single atom in a greater collection of atoms forming what is table to some other consciousness?

I know I probably sound like a complete goon, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

(I just watched the simpson video. haha, I thought I was being original)


Shower thought: maybe not even an atom but what if our "universe" is a short-lived quark or antiquark? For an observer in the "next level" universe, that quark would exist only for 10^-24 seconds (or whatever the lifetime of quarks is) but for us, that's the whole lifetime of the universe. And it's turtles all the way down indeed, with infinite universes all over the place..


Which would also mean, there is an opposite to our universe that is our anti-quark :]


I didn’t mind, comments like this give insight to people’s trajectories


What was the gist of it?


Ahh the gist is it’s a personal anecdote of some anonymous dude from hacker news

That makes it interesting

Seemed genuine to me


I meant "what was the deal with the flagged comment", why was it removed and what was the gist of what it originally intended to express?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: