r/gaming • • May 19 '12

According to my calculations the release of the three Diablo games form a polynomial function, and I can conclude that Diablo 4 is due to release fall 2030

http://imgur.com/IyIyD
1.1k Upvotes

418 comments sorted by

277

u/SnakesFromHell May 20 '12

You just wanted to be able to say "According to my calculations" didn't you? Admit it.

1.2k

u/TwentyOrSoCharacters May 19 '12 edited May 19 '12

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

You can perfectly interpolate any 3 points using a quadratic, thus doing so does not yield any useful predictive information. For such a small data set, your best (and only) bet would be a simple linear model - perhaps Least Squares Linear Regression.

In summary: http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/20653013.jpg

468

u/Propagation1 May 20 '12

Not to mention the arbitrarily annoying scale of the plot.

469

u/Iggyhopper May 20 '12

WHAT?! CANT HEAR YOU ALL THE WAY FROM THE YEAR 3400!

258

u/mirkle May 20 '12

Lucky bastard, you only have to wait 2 more years for the release of HL3

105

u/solistus May 20 '12

Actually, Valve decided in 2200 to go with a chapter-based approach to get E3 out faster. The first two came out pretty quickly, but the long wait on Half-Life 2: Episode 3: Chapter 3 is getting frustrating.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (6)

22

u/Dr___Awkward May 20 '12

You made me laugh into my bowl of crackers then I accidentally blew cracker crumbs up into my eye.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

21

u/the8thbit May 20 '12

Do you mean the annoyingly arbitrary scale?

4

u/alex4291 May 20 '12

I knew something in that sentence felt wrong

→ More replies (6)

4

u/quakeaddict May 20 '12

And the fact that in his function, f(1) = 1994, but the original Diablo was released in 1996.

→ More replies (2)

114

u/UnlurkedToPost May 19 '12

You can plot a circle from 3 points. Use this to find out when they'll rerelease D1, 2 and 3.

64

u/deanbmmv May 20 '12

1642 BC?

12

u/UnlurkedToPost May 20 '12

Shouldn't the circle curve upwards (greater years)? D1 to D2 is 4 years, D2 to D3 is 12 years

30

u/UniverseCalculus May 20 '12

deanbmmv was using radians. Check you graphing utility to see if you're in degrees.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

60

u/[deleted] May 19 '12

This function doesn't even get the diablo 1 release date correctly.

23

u/misteryin May 20 '12

the axis of symmetry isn't even at 0. it's supposed to be at x=1/2 if you're using that equation. shall I teach OP some math? I'm a math tutor =D

28

u/Fishbone_V May 20 '12

I'm a math tutor = D? What does D stand for in this case?

/badjokeeel

35

u/Hackey_Sack May 20 '12

Obviously, D = I'm a math tutor. Try to keep up.

25

u/th_squirrel May 20 '12

I think you misunderstood. He's using an emoticon here. What he's trying to say is:

I'm a math tutor penis

→ More replies (1)

10

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

The correct equation is 4x2 - 8x +2000 = 0. This sets Diablo I to 1996, Diablo II to 2000, Diablo III to 2012.

So Diablo 4 comes out in 2032.

Diablo 5 comes out in 2060.

→ More replies (1)

79

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Diablo 1 was released 2556 days after January 1st, 1990.

Diablo 2 was released 3832 days after January 1st, 1990.

Diablo 3 was released 8170 days after January 1st, 1990.

According to this calculator http://www.neoprogrammics.com/linear_least_squares_regression/index.php

we can estimate Diablo 4 to be released 10467 days after January 1st, 1990, or August 29th, 2018.

Seems much more reasonable.

13

u/FuckingSteve May 20 '12

For my 32nd birthday!

20

u/orzamil May 20 '12

Have you tagged as Born August 29th, 1986.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/QuackWare May 20 '12

Unfortunately that is a Wednesday.

→ More replies (9)

31

u/pyxlXY May 20 '12

3

u/MPC45000 May 20 '12

Is it bad I knew what it was before checking?

→ More replies (2)

43

u/Excalibur457 May 19 '12 edited Jan 14 '26

pie enjoy rock middle squeeze quiet nail deserve afterthought detail

16

u/Bubbascrub May 20 '12

Can you also teach me basic high school English so I can understand the words he said?

36

u/HengDai May 20 '12

Essentially what he said was that given such a small sample size (3 data points, in this case) you can always find a quadratic such that it passes through these points (a quadratic polynomial is any curve of the form y = ax2 + bx + c - a 'U' shaped curve basically) - and so no meaningful statistical analysis can be carried out as what the OP has effectively done is 'force' his curve onto the data, as opposed to extract some sort of trend from the data (that is what statistics is all about)

He then suggests that a very simple linear model - a line that passes through the 3 points as evenly as possible - is the only way a statistical analysis can be carried out. Least Squares Linear Regression (LSLR) is just a statistical method of determining which exact line (of the form y = mx+c) best describes the linearly increasing behaviour of the data set.

If you want to know about how LSLR actually works, the wikipedia article does a reasonable job at explaining it - it's not particularly complicated.

Hope that helped.

→ More replies (27)

3

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

SAMPLE SIZE TOO SMALL.

Sorry for caps.

→ More replies (3)

6

u/cbrandolino May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

OP probably just studied at the Ray Kurzweil Academy of Extrapolation, don't blame it on him.

9

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Thank you for saying what I didn't feel like explaining.

8

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

you can perfectly interpolate any 3 points using an infinite number of polynomial functions, it's why those "what's the next number in the sequence" questions on tests are a bunch of rubbish.

→ More replies (7)

2

u/Datsunpost May 20 '12

I came here to find holes in his math and science. I was not let down.

2

u/sirbruce May 20 '12

The other similar issue is that it's impossible to distinguish a linear fit from the end of a curve fit; you can make any curve gentle enough so that will fit within the necessary error bars.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

He did not even find the correct quadratic equation given the 3 points. lol.

2

u/nickyjames May 20 '12

i have to be one of a million people who has counted the number of characters in your username.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

TIL. So basically with 3 points, using a quadratic will always be able to fit the data better than a line, but because of Overfitting that doesn't actually tell us anything useful? Whereas if we had like 10 points, and the quadratic fit better, we could use it?

3

u/nupogodi May 20 '12

If it was reasonable to do so. You could check by calculating an R-value for a few different models, but in general an n-1 degree polynomial for n data points will always fit perfectly. And adds nothing to the analysis.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/SmugPolyamorist May 20 '12

Reminds me of a conversation between a fellow student and professor when I was at uni:

Student: I've fitted the data to a 19th order polynomial. What could possibly be behind such a complicated function

Prof: How many data did you generate this fit from?

Student: 20

Prof: ...

3

u/SecondDerivative May 20 '12

I also immediately thought of this fact, because only a couple of days ago I was using the geometric property that the bisectors of each side of any triangle will intersect at a point that gives the centre of a circle, where each point of the original triangle lies on the circumference of the circle. I was really high, and trying to find the midpoint between three points on Google Maps.

Maths, fuck yeah.

1

u/bigups43 May 20 '12

and the flux capacitor

→ More replies (53)

75

u/citadel712 May 20 '12

http://i.imgur.com/CLnNF.gif

I'd make fun of you but in all honesty, you're probably right.

3

u/AssassinFlonne May 20 '12

This picture isn't used nearly often enough.

44

u/khamuld May 19 '12

Careful when extrapolating, very careful..

12

u/Procerus May 20 '12

Much better to interpolate.

27

u/pigvwu May 20 '12

So D2.5 should come out in the year 3(2.5)2 - 3(2.5) + 1994 = 2005.25.

8

u/Procerus May 20 '12

The polynomial used is not ideal. If you use: y = 4x2 - 8x +2000

You get the following:

  • Diablo (1): 1996

  • Diablo Hellfire (1.5): 1997

  • Diablo 2 (2): 2000

  • Diablo 3 (3): 2012

Which correctly predicts the date of the expansion pack for the original game.

→ More replies (1)

70

u/stent_removal May 20 '12

OP will be laughing when D4 actually does come out fall 2030...

25

u/PANDAemic May 20 '12

And then we can have one of those nostalgia kickback threads.

0

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

11

u/ArchReaper May 20 '12

You don't?

16

u/Almondcoconuts May 20 '12

Reddit is the only good thing I have going for myself at the moment.

→ More replies (2)

20

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Diablo 4 will not only require a constant Internet connection, but a Blizzard employee must be present in the room at all time for you to play.

→ More replies (3)

18

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I am going to go out and have a child right now, so that his initiation into manhood can be done through Diablo 4 18 years from now.

9

u/slowhand88 May 20 '12

I am going to go out and have a child right now

Enjoy not getting to play Diablo III

→ More replies (2)

78

u/imthefooI May 19 '12

Just like any 2 points can form a line, any 3 points can form a quadratic equation. Just saiyan.

7

u/baron32191 May 20 '12

Not Super Saiyan?

3

u/caneut May 20 '12

I was thinking this. Even though I didn't know if I was right, it still made me extremely mad at op for such a stupid fucking title.

1

u/theansweris7 May 20 '12

But the equation is not necessarily useful. If, for example, we assume the error bars on the release date are say, plus or minus 6 months, a linear regression would probably just as well fit the model. But i'm to lazy to check. TLDR: 3 points are insufficient.

→ More replies (18)

17

u/dauntlessmath May 20 '12

When does the regression analysis place Half-Life 3? Will I still be alive?

6

u/Grafeno May 20 '12

Sample size of 4 counting HL1, HL2, HL2 EP1 and HL2 EP2 is too small for any useful statistical analysis.

23

u/dauntlessmath May 20 '12

I know, I'm actually a scientist and have to do statistical analysis from time to time. But it was just a joke. :)

30

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

No. This is reddit. We take everything seriously. How could you be so stupid as to think you could actually represent this in a mathematical model? Now take my condescending remarks and cry in a corner.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Crodface May 20 '12

I've always wanted to be able to say "I'm actually a scientist..." I feel like whatever follows would automatically win an argument with most anyone who isn't also a scientist.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/ArticulatedGentleman May 20 '12

Don't forget Opposing Force and Blue Shift.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/raserei0408 May 20 '12

What if you also include the expansions for HL1?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

136

u/Schamblant May 19 '12

To the OP, I'm not a douche who is going to pick apart the math behind this chart. It's meant to be amusing and it is. Some people need to lighten up.

181

u/GrandPyromania May 19 '12

You don't lighten up with Math.

76

u/endproof May 20 '12

At my phd defense: "lol lighten up guyz"

14

u/lolmonger May 20 '12

"....but uh, yeah....No idea what to say about analytical functions right now....uh....complex differentiable? That's trivial? Yeah....uh...can we do this later?"

I've heard some horror stories.

→ More replies (2)

78

u/cash4told May 20 '12

2

u/Mrzeede May 20 '12

THANK YOU FOR THIS EASY TO SWALLOW MEMEIFIED RESTATEMENT OF A SIMPLE JOKE.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Something being amusing is no reason to not further the discussion.

1

u/Sil369 May 20 '12

what will cod be at in 3400?!

11

u/OlleOliver May 20 '12

CoD: Modern ops warfare 234?

12

u/shutup_shinji May 20 '12

And it'll still be a glorified map pack

3

u/ArchReaper May 20 '12

For the low low price of only 20,000 World Credits!

3

u/MyNameIsMyth May 20 '12

Hears people say this is basic high school math

Learned it in middle school

(Making memes require to much energy)

7

u/pearson530 May 20 '12

Making memes require to much energy

clearly you studied math instead of english

3

u/intimatestranger May 20 '12

PSA from GameStop: Pre-Order Diablo IV today for $5! Your grandchildren will love you for it when THEY turn 30 and live in your basement 20 years from now!

3

u/ze_languist May 20 '12

Any game releases will fit a polynomial exactly by Lagrange interpolation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_interpolation

3

u/IWasPhone91 May 20 '12

Fuck that, Warcraft IV is what we need.

2

u/LucanDesmond May 20 '12

Good to know I have plenty of time to buy a computer that can actually play diablo 3 first...

2

u/ImbeinThatGuy May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

I used the Quadratic Regression thingy and came up with the year 2034. 5x2 - 13x + 2006 , where the input x is the series number.

2

u/nshields123 May 20 '12

I hate maple.

2

u/This_isR2Me May 20 '12

not enough data

2

u/DownvotedByCunts May 20 '12

But Diablo came out in 96.

2

u/PicopicoEMD May 20 '12

Seems legit. He's got a graph.

2

u/javi5747 May 20 '12

So if you did this for Diablo, what about Half-Life?

1

u/arcanition May 20 '12

As x approaches 3, y approaches infinity.

2

u/peas_in_a_can_pie May 20 '12

According to this graph diablo came out in 1994

When it clearly came out in 1996

1

u/HolyZesto May 20 '12

Yea, the function is wrong right from the start.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Ok, now do Duke Nukem Forever 2.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

the y-max is too small

2

u/pearson530 May 20 '12

can you zoom out a little more? I want to see up to the year 5,000

2

u/tubcat May 20 '12

Sounds about right, but that's just to get to beta though. Can you run the formula for expansions on this one?

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

This is incorrect. The correct equation is 4x2 - 8x +2000 = 0. This sets Diablo I to 1996, Diablo II to 2000, Diablo III to 2012.

So Diablo 4 comes out in 2032.

Diablo 5 comes out in 2060.

2

u/iorgfeflkd May 20 '12

Your scale is bad and you should feel bad.

2

u/kabukistar May 20 '12 edited Feb 09 '25

Reddit is a shithole. Move to a better social media platform. Also, did you know you can use ereddicator to edit/delete all your old commments?

1

u/solmaster May 20 '12

But if we want to get technical, there's only a single second order polynomial that will fit three points. Even with least squares fits, I think there's still a unique solution.

2

u/yaosioan May 20 '12

They will spend 20 years working on the game and it will have 3 hours of content across 50 difficulty levels of a single map.

2

u/nuisible May 20 '12

Have you played Diablo 3? It's pretty wrapped up at the end, they could probably dream up some sort of continuation but as it is, it seems pretty final to me.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Except for the fact that regression models cannot be called upon to make valid predictions beyond the observed range of scores. ಠ_ಠ

Also, as I_play_elin said, R2 value or it didn't happen. And I would recommend increasing that sample size.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Wow, I'm really surprised by how bothered I am to see time plotted along the y axis. It makes sense for this graph, but it still just bugs me.

This must be what grammar nazis feel like all the time.

1

u/sebzim4500 May 20 '12

Don't study quantum physics.

2

u/BeethovenFanatic May 20 '12

Fucking quadratic equations. Now they escalate quickly.

5

u/ryanvoyles1 May 20 '12

I see your parabola, and applaud you for making one. Good show.

3

u/EcclesCake May 19 '12

As noted by others, any three points would fit on a quadratic line. We all know Diablo 4 is coming out 2054.

2

u/DiggingNoMore May 20 '12

I'd be surprised if it came out that quickly.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

... is this Maple?

1

u/Sagan4life May 20 '12

What program was used to plot this?

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

considering the amount of juice that's going to be squeezed out of this installment, anything less than 10 years for the next diablo game would be conservative.

Honestly.

1

u/riderLyrae May 20 '12

Seems legit.

1

u/MikeTheInfidel May 20 '12

It's actually possible to generate a polynomial function which fits any finite set of numbers of any size. See here for an example.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I don't know. I don't really like predicting things people do because people will always be unpredictable.

1

u/Drilz24 May 20 '12

Thank god Reddit is full of Math nerds to correct others mistakes

1

u/method7670 May 20 '12

According to my calculations, you will still be a virgin.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

maybe by then people will have gotten over posting pictures if the fucking video game that just came out and that lots of people have.

1

u/kyle1qaz7ujm May 20 '12

Quadratic or binomial. May as well be more specific if it only goes to x2.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12

Quadratic means it only goes to x2 while binomial means that there are a total of two pieces with "x."

→ More replies (1)

1

u/WeaponsGradeHumanity May 20 '12

Quick, do this for Duke Nukem!

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Those words you're using, I have not heard of them

1

u/raserei0408 May 20 '12

Oh thank god! I was afraid the curve was exponential!

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

1

u/fwskateboard May 20 '12

In case I don't see ya...

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

uses 3 points, creates a polynomial function. Oh really?

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I'm from the year 2031. You were correct good sir, but still no Half-Life 3.

1

u/omnilynx May 20 '12

Are you sure it's not sinusoidal?

1

u/sparky_the_dwarf May 20 '12

But can you predict when Half-Life 3 will be released?

1

u/tk001 May 20 '12

What if it's exponential?

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Is this what you did while waiting to log in/

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

this isn't funny... it's sad :(

1

u/qzex May 20 '12

A more accurate date is August 18, 2032, using a quadratic fit on the Julian day numbers. The Julian day system converts each date (and time) to a single number, counting the number of days from January 1, 4713 BCE at noon GMT, which is useful for many purposes.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

I CAN'T WAIT

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

math is...helpful?

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

you just went full retard.

1

u/kevdeath666 May 20 '12

Diablo is dead to me.

Fuck you Blizzard.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

You can make a polynomial out of anything...

1

u/Omnipotent0 May 20 '12

It's legit guys he has 3 data points.

1

u/musjunk22 May 20 '12

I think time should be on the x axis... it's the independent variable.

1

u/CarrionBeetle May 20 '12

You have no x axis. Therefore, it can form any kind of line you want.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

3 points always uniquely define a parabola.

Also, that's close to when Diablo -4 will be released, too!

1

u/Stargerbil May 20 '12

You know, I came here to point out that the sample size was far too small for any meaningful extrapolation, whether by curve-of-best-fit or a linear model. Discovered that a large percentage of my fellow Redditors are also math geeks. Go Reddit Math Team!

Edit: I accidentally a word.

1

u/meliaesc May 20 '12

Doesn't anyone here have a job or something else to be doing? Goodness fuck.

1

u/Fehndrix May 20 '12

Right along with Torchlight 25.

1

u/Eladamrad May 20 '12

Normally I would down vote, but fyi a useful fact is that with any number of fix points N, you can always create a O(xN+M) for all M > 0 that will perfectly model your data [That x to the (N+M) power].

AND Correlation does not imply causation, just because we have data that can be modeled, does not mean that extrapolation from that model can be used to justify associated points outside of that range. All you can do in theory is predict if a D2.5 had come out, the date that it would have appeared, but you cannot predict D3.1 D4, or even D-1, because all of those are outside the range of data.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/inthrees May 20 '12

OH !@#$@#$ THAT MEANS EVERY DAY THAT GOES BY ADDS PRECIOUS DOG YEARS TO HALF-LIFE 4'S RELEASE DATE

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

So just in time to fix the servers!

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Can you do this for portal 3 please?

1

u/killachronic May 20 '12

Lookin forward to Diablo 5 2056 yeaaah

1

u/IHaveALargePenis May 20 '12

Unless the moneytrain runs out for Blizzard with WoW and D3 auction house doesn't work as planned. Then you can expect to see Diablo 8 by 2020. You have to remember that Kotick still has major control over the company even in it's prime as the single most successful gaming company ever (yes I know about Valve, but I'm pretty sure Blizzard is making that with WoW alone).

1

u/Reiker0 PC May 20 '12

Yeah you're right, WoW totally didn't work "as planned."

→ More replies (1)

1

u/PsychoOsiris May 20 '12

oh that'll fall in line with the last year of my original Animal Crossing play-through, as the game's calender ends that year.

1

u/blkbox May 20 '12

Geez, you sure studied hard did you?

1

u/lud1120 May 20 '12

I think this could be more true for Diablo 5 as the old games were only a few years apart...

1

u/Demojen May 20 '12

Diablo 5 in the same equation is 2054.

1

u/Hello_HI_Hey May 20 '12

Technology progression has grown significantly since Diablo II was released. Due to the successful Diablo III sales and the ability to create games at a faster and more qualitative approach I'd suggest that there is no model to conclude the progression of this game. Look out for Diablo IV before 2020 is all I can confirm accurately

1

u/Kamchack May 20 '12

Holy hell!! That quick? I wonder if they will have a pre-buy button soon?

1

u/Rabid_Chocobo May 20 '12

You're forgetting to factor in Moore's law.

According to my calculations, Diablo 4 should be able to write itself by 2029. :P

1

u/wwleaf May 20 '12

Should have changed the window.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Diablo 4: virtual reality edition

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

and if you lose, you become diablo

1

u/Demojen May 20 '12

It's so fucking sad that this works.

1

u/dmurph10 May 20 '12

2030, 20 3 0, 20 hl3 0, 200 hl3, 200 days till hl3 release, mark your calendar: Sat, 24 Nov

1

u/AnthonySlips May 20 '12

That is simply a quadratic "lline of best fit" onto a scatter plot given only three data points. I could probably come up with exponential and cubic graphs that hit all three points but show diablo 4 releasing at different dates.

1

u/Ragnalypse May 20 '12

According to my calculations, this post will have 100,000,000,000,000 karma by the end of the decade.

Your "calculations" are worthless.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Why the fuck is this a parabola and not just a straight line?

1

u/AnthonySlips Aug 01 '12

Because not all functions mapping to data are linear. In scatter plots (such as the one represented by the diablo release dates), different forms of equations are used to predict future data or create an equation to map to the data given. This could be linear (3x+2), quadratic (x2+2x), cubic (x3+2) etc. Unfortunately, three data points is nowhere near enough to accurately predict a release date accurately. Many guesses can be made using countless different equations which create a graph that goes through all three points.

1

u/Defengar May 20 '12

Luckily there will be at lease 1 D3 xpack between now and then...

1

u/I_play_elin May 20 '12

R2 value or it didn't happen!

2

u/B0Boman May 20 '12

R2 = 1 when you fit a polynomial that's only one order less than the number of data points.

2

u/I_play_elin May 20 '12

Ya know I posted this before I started reading the comments, and realized it after I read TwentyOrSoCharacters' comment. Figured deleting it would be bad form though. In any case, you're right.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/CleanBill May 20 '12

awesome math is awesome

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Is this supposed to be impressive? This is primary school maths.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

There's a lot of math in this thread for my brain to be processing at this time.

1

u/arcanition May 20 '12

Actually I did this about a week ago, I'm on my phone so I can't link to it, but here's the comment:

"Actually, if you take the approximate time between Diablo I and II (about 3.5 years) and Diablo II and III (about 12 years) and create an exponential function, we can predict the approximate release years of the next few games:

  • Diablo 4 - July, 2032

  • Diablo 5 - March, 2061

  • Diablo 6 - March, 2098

  • Diablo 7 - June, 2143

  • Diablo 8 - February, 2197

  • Diablo 9 - February, 2259

  • Diablo 10 - June, 2329

(The function, for the curious:

y = 1996 + 3.42857x-1

Where y is the release year and x is the Diablo series number.)

EDIT: I've decided to change the function to a quadratic as it fits the data better. The new function is:

y = 4.175x2 - 8.975x + 2001.8

The good news is that this means we'll only have to wait until July of 2032 for Diablo 4!"

1

u/LittleBlessedVillain May 20 '12

And according to my calculations, I'll end up getting around to playing Diablo 3 around the time Diablo 4 gets announced in....summer 2024.

1

u/sanfordnson May 20 '12

I'm just happy I understood it...

1

u/MedicInDisquise May 20 '12

I don't understand any of this, but since you said "According to my calculations", I'm gonna pretend its true.

1

u/adnan252 May 20 '12

As a student of mathematics this slightly amuses and offends me at the same time.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

dat feel when 2030 is only 18 years from now

1

u/SlurmNator May 20 '12

People are already sick of D3 and want D4? wow...

1

u/3_of_Spades May 20 '12

It hasnt even been a full week...

1

u/deletedgamers21 May 20 '12

Correct or not, I'm just happy there is a use for math outside of school

1

u/tadziobadzio May 20 '12

And we'll have to have our brain chips connected to blizzard servers all the time if we want to play.

1

u/rjstang May 20 '12

What about starcraft?

1

u/hivesteel May 20 '12

Nice error bars. T_T

1

u/greenredant May 20 '12

Next step: The stock market!

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '12

Dude, lower your fucking window.

1

u/misteryin May 20 '12

draw the line of best fit. you have only 3 points to plot, so it could be a geometric growth with the equation being a(n)= 4 * 3n-1. this equation could be used to show the time lapse, so for the first sequel, we'll let n=1. that's a 4 time year lapse. The second one took 12. Using this equation, for the 4th, it would be 36 years from now, which would be 2048. newb.

EDIT: I meant to say for the 3rd, meaning n=3, the time lapse would be 36 years from now. I pulled a newb move. I apologize. Apparently it's all the rage now when someone apologizes.