Impossible; chickens, camels, bats, ect are client-side only and therefor interaction with the latter will have no impact on gameplay as the server is not aware of such objects.so if you chase the chicken out from act 1 in hell to the burial grounds and kill it via killing blood raven it will drop the charm that way.
There is no correlation between the location of the portal and monster experience; the reason it's "No Name" is due to a bug caused by the portal being spawned on significant game boundary that exists between the town and the field (the portal is offset into an invalid region)For a better cow moo expirience it is bette to try and make the No name level. You do this bye making the cow portal on the edge of the gate where blood moor and the camp connect. If you get the portal exactly on the line you will make the No name level and the cows reward much more expirience and I belive theres more of them.
Utter fluff.Lots of people insist that making the Cow portal either next to Akara or next to the Stash yields the most cows. They even get violent about it if you make it somewhere else.
It does nothing, nada, zip. The affects of triggering the gem are contained purely within the gem's graphical display state and thus have no consequence on the game whatsoever.It's "working as intended," they say. It's featured on the official Diablo III website. It's settled itself cozily between the chat and game list areas in Diablo II's GUI for nearly a decade. But what does it do?
The lack of a known purpose has led to, among some, a religious fanaticism for a number of things:
- Getting the Perfect Gem Activated state improves gem drops.
- Getting the Perfect Gem Activated state improves chances of finding a Gem Shrine.
- Activating the Mooooo! state increases the number of Hell Bovines or the drops of monsters in the Secret Cow Level.
- Garners better drops from bosses when the Perfect Gem Activated state occurs.
Although I will continue to keep my eye out for any anomalies that may arise in relation to the gem
--
In regards to MF, noone can really say for certain as even though we have a copy of the game server built into the client which is for the most part a carbon copy of those used on Battle.net, there's no way to know what differences there could be on the Battle.net versions (although it does provide insight to contraints).
So yes, all those wild claims for increasing your item chances cannot be proved one way or the other.
One thing is certain though; after 100% MF, significant diminishing returns kicks in.
0
If that's the case then why do you have such a seemingly novice understanding of 3D rendering? It's as if your entire knowledge of the domain has been gleamed from the user manual of a modelling program; the only concepts you make references to are trivial such polygon counts and skin resolution accompanied by all these fanciful claims based on of which.
If you have indeed developed or been involved in the development of a game; what is the fundamental problem with high-velocity objects in a simulation that operates at a constant frequency?
It's a very simple question with a very simple answer that anyone who has developed a game would know; graphic designers must also be aware of this problem to properly integrate their models into the system.
0
0
What a cunning linguist you are.
0
It's not the Basic edition; it's Ultimate (32-bit). Whether it's the 32-bit build or the 64-bit the difference in memory consumption between the two is negligble.
Again, the only instance where memory quantity is going to be an issue is if the demand outweighs the supply; Diablo III is certainly not going to consume anywhere near 500MB, more likely in the bracket of 150-250.
It may be a rare situation in practice but that doesn't demean it's merit; the vast majority of resources in video games are allocated in video memory, the only real use for system memory is for game logic, physics simulation and resource caching.
0
The techniques and algorithms resposible for rendering the scene containing these models, the performance of which the topic of discussion, is not relevant?
After reviewing your earlier posts it seems a common theme, well the only theme, is references to polygon count and skin resolution neither of which are a significant performance metric.
Your meagor knowledge of very high-level concepts really does not warrant this authoritarian attitude of yours.
0
X-fighter (Unrelated to Star Wars, almost as old though) was extremely difficult at high levels; ah the day's of using an 80286.
Haha, I remember that with the hand-held guns and all.
Oh that game was fun.
0
0
1
0
You'll be able to run it three times over presuming the programmers who worked on Diablo II haven't got their hands on it; tongue in cheek
0
mmio does not implicitly consume memory; it is simply an abstraction to facilitate a unified method for addressing devices over the address bus.
Then Photoshop is an exception to the rule, and in any case, can still be installed.
The only software I personally run from from that list is Firefox [the rest are taken from friends]
0
Aero: +40MB
Firefox: Well I have 18 tabs open right now; 92MB
Norton: 65MB
Peer Guardian: 28MB
Spybot: 39MB
WMP: 29MB (Playing a standard MP3)
Leaving you with ~400MB which will be more than enough for Diablo III, hell, Crysis doesn't even use that much. And what's this about an installer using 1GB? Installer's do not load the entire package into memory.
0
0
Some pointers:
As someone mentioned prior, although I'm aware you wont take this route; purchasing computers from vendors such as Alienware or Dell (of which Alienware is a subsidiary of) is a total waste of money.
0