UTC is slow and tactical. QIII is fast and twitchy. I prefer slow and tactical. Everyday at work, during lunch, we play QIIICPMA. I hate it, but everyone here seems to prefer fast and twitchy. UT2k3 took a big step towards fast and twitchy, so I'd be very happy if the next iteration of the franchise moved back towards its roots. If you want a twitch game, play quake. Give me back my slow and tactical UT.
I'm not saying "playing video games too much" is bad. I'm saying that doing nothing else besides play video games is bad. If you're playing 60+ hours a week, you're not doing very much else, and I think that doing anything that much is bad, not just video games.
And I'm not judging the people who are doing that. They're free to live their lives the way they want. However, I think it's horrible that a game would be designed to *encourage* that.
I never said that I didn't want to reward people for time played. I said that I didn't want the PvP system to reward for that. It should reward based on skill. Of course, the people who play the most should be the most skilled, right? They're are plenty of rewards in World of Warcraft for those who play a lot. I never said this was a bad thing. But it's pointless to add more rewards for time played. It all comes down to a simple question. What should the PvP rewards system encourage? Right now the system encourages spending massive amounts of time in brain-dead PvP situations. How many fights under this system are going to be fair? I assert that most of the fights under this system will be miserably lopsided. Why would anyone go after a fair fight when in the same amount of time it would take to get a fair kill you could get ten ganks?
There are many good reasons to reward skill in a game. It encourages people to think about the game, and to try to get better at it. Whenever I bring up my arguments about this, invariably someone says that it is perfectly fine to reward based solely on time played. But what argument can there possibly be for this? I haven't heard one. The people who play the most should also be the most skilled, right? So they would get mostly the same rewards anyway. There is no reason to reward based on time played rather than on skill.
It's too bad Blizzard didn't think this through before implementing the honor system. I can only conclude with an apropriate Megatokyo quote: "Your game and your rules, but it doesn't mean I have to play."
Yeah, because, you know, we want to reward the people that play the game unhealthy amounts of time. Let's screw everyone who doesn't play at least 60 hours a week!
Playing 60+ hours a week isn't dedication, it's stupidity. It's living a one dimensional life. Rewarding this isn't "justified" or "valid." It's brain-dead, plain and simple. It's the designers saying "we don't know how to reward play based on skill, so you should all play as much as you possibly can!" The players who play this game as a way of life already get plenty of rewards. They get to the high level dungeons first. They kill the raid bosses first. They get the best equipment first. Why should they also have the highest PVP ranks? Shouldn't these go out to the players who are skilled in PVP? And if you want to reward time played rather than skill, wouldn't you be better off playing Progress Quest?
Diablo II had this as an option. I liked playing it back in the day, but ultimately quit because my internet connection wasn't quite reliable enough. If World of Warcraft had a permadeath server, I would definitely try it out. The challenge is appealing. Comparable to nethack, in some ways (nethack being a great example of a permadeath game).
Interesting. You're right about books not being too useful. I think I could've definitely gotten everything I needed in 25 pages with a bit of preparation. I had wanted to bring a "solved problems" binder, but just didn't have time to prepare it.
We did miserable at the contest. We just weren't prepared for the difficulty of the problems. The difference between regional level problems and worlds level problems is huge. Afterwards we found out that our professor had been feeding us only the easier problems in practice, because he was afraid of us taking too much time to prepare. The tough part was balancing the college course load and trying to prepare. Looking back, I know I didn't put nearly enough time in to do well.
Ah well, I was on the only team from Messiah College to ever make it to World Finals (before or since), so I'm happy we made it as far as we did. And I can hardly complain about the free trip to Hawaii that resulted =]
I fail to see how this would significantly affect energy consumption, and it *certainly* wouldn't affect oil consumption, as we don't burn oil for electricity.
I stopped watching toonami when they stopped showing it on weekdays. The worst part was they replaced it with meguzi or something, which is total crap. Now I hardly watch cartoon network. I used to watch it a lot.
I remember the good old days, when Moltar hosted toonami...
The President can send laws to Congress, but these are really just suggestions. Congress can ignore them, amend them, or whatever. If they never vote for it, it will never become law. Also, once Congress passes a law, the President has to sign it before it becomes law. If the President doesn't sign it, it's considered veto'd. Congress can override the veto with a two thirds majority. Vetos aren't overridden very often. I'm not sure when the last time it was done, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't happened in the last ten years.
All three branches of our government have become much more powerful in the last century. The legislative branch can legislate just about anything they want using the commerce clause of the Constitution. The executive branch has gained lots of government agencies to control, and the judicial branch has a lot more leeway to interpret laws and the Constitution.
aah, nothing quite like seeing a good game series destroyed by a publisher that cares about nothing but profit. Everyone remember the tribes 2 fiasco? It went something like this:
Dynamix: Tribes 2 isn't ready, we need to delay it. Vivendi: Release the game now. Dynamix: It's not ready. Vivendi: We don't care, release the game now. Dynamix: Okay.
Vivendi: This game sucks. No ones buying it, and those who did are returning it. Dynamix: We told you the game wasn't ready. Vivendi: You're fired.
Aah, what a brilliant and refreshing management strategy. Is anyone really surprised that tribes 3 was a dismal failure?
Yeah, 'cause you know, Ronald Reagan is responsible for all of our telecom deregulation problems... give me a break.
Ma bell was broken up in 1984, under *ding* *ding* *ding*, you guessed it, Ronald Reagan. I would hardly call that deregulation. The most relevant legislation to this discussion is a massive telecom bill that was passed in 1996, under Clinton and a Republican Congress. That bill, imo, was a massive piece of crap.
But feel free to continue thinking I'm a complete moron because I'm an evil Republican. I know you're not interested in rational conversation anyway...
Uhm. yeah. WoW is one of the easiest mmo games to hit the level cap in, so I would hardly call it a levelfest. As for end game content beyond PvP, I'll just say that no one has defeated Ragnaros yet, and very few have defeated Onyxia, and there is more PvE end game content on the way.
As others have pointed out, your employer would not give you 6 weeks notice if they wanted to fire you, so why should you do the same for them? 2 weeks is plenty. In this situation, giving 4 weeks notice was very profesional and generous, as they do not want to be without a tech guy. More than that is unnecessary. They knew the risk of only having 1 tech guy, and now it's going to bite them in the ass.
In general, it's not a good idea to give lots of notice. I knew a guy who gave 6 month's notice, and his company fired him a week later. Don't give notice until you're ready to leave. That's at will employment. Employers pushed for "at will employment" laws so they could fire people at will. They have to live with the other side of it too.
I remember back in high school filling out college applications, and seeing spaces for my SS#. I didn't give it out, of course. I wonder how many people who applied to CSU Chico now regret filling in that space...
Slashdot Mirror
This is the classic debate between "slow" and "fast" FPS games. The classic debate is between Unreal Tournament Classic and Quake III.
2 -15
obligatory penny arcade link: http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=1999-1
UTC is slow and tactical. QIII is fast and twitchy. I prefer slow and tactical. Everyday at work, during lunch, we play QIIICPMA. I hate it, but everyone here seems to prefer fast and twitchy. UT2k3 took a big step towards fast and twitchy, so I'd be very happy if the next iteration of the franchise moved back towards its roots. If you want a twitch game, play quake. Give me back my slow and tactical UT.
I'm not saying "playing video games too much" is bad. I'm saying that doing nothing else besides play video games is bad. If you're playing 60+ hours a week, you're not doing very much else, and I think that doing anything that much is bad, not just video games.
And I'm not judging the people who are doing that. They're free to live their lives the way they want. However, I think it's horrible that a game would be designed to *encourage* that.
I never said that I didn't want to reward people for time played. I said that I didn't want the PvP system to reward for that. It should reward based on skill. Of course, the people who play the most should be the most skilled, right? They're are plenty of rewards in World of Warcraft for those who play a lot. I never said this was a bad thing. But it's pointless to add more rewards for time played. It all comes down to a simple question. What should the PvP rewards system encourage? Right now the system encourages spending massive amounts of time in brain-dead PvP situations. How many fights under this system are going to be fair? I assert that most of the fights under this system will be miserably lopsided. Why would anyone go after a fair fight when in the same amount of time it would take to get a fair kill you could get ten ganks?
There are many good reasons to reward skill in a game. It encourages people to think about the game, and to try to get better at it. Whenever I bring up my arguments about this, invariably someone says that it is perfectly fine to reward based solely on time played. But what argument can there possibly be for this? I haven't heard one. The people who play the most should also be the most skilled, right? So they would get mostly the same rewards anyway. There is no reason to reward based on time played rather than on skill.
It's too bad Blizzard didn't think this through before implementing the honor system. I can only conclude with an apropriate Megatokyo quote: "Your game and your rules, but it doesn't mean I have to play."
Yeah, because, you know, we want to reward the people that play the game unhealthy amounts of time. Let's screw everyone who doesn't play at least 60 hours a week!
Playing 60+ hours a week isn't dedication, it's stupidity. It's living a one dimensional life. Rewarding this isn't "justified" or "valid." It's brain-dead, plain and simple. It's the designers saying "we don't know how to reward play based on skill, so you should all play as much as you possibly can!" The players who play this game as a way of life already get plenty of rewards. They get to the high level dungeons first. They kill the raid bosses first. They get the best equipment first. Why should they also have the highest PVP ranks? Shouldn't these go out to the players who are skilled in PVP? And if you want to reward time played rather than skill, wouldn't you be better off playing Progress Quest?
Diablo II had this as an option. I liked playing it back in the day, but ultimately quit because my internet connection wasn't quite reliable enough. If World of Warcraft had a permadeath server, I would definitely try it out. The challenge is appealing. Comparable to nethack, in some ways (nethack being a great example of a permadeath game).
Maybe because their servers can handle it? They're not some two-bit webcomic...
Some problems just can't be solved with technology...
Great idea! We'll just make it so our software developers don't have access to the code. Then they won't be able to steal anything!
Oh wait...
Interesting. You're right about books not being too useful. I think I could've definitely gotten everything I needed in 25 pages with a bit of preparation. I had wanted to bring a "solved problems" binder, but just didn't have time to prepare it.
We did miserable at the contest. We just weren't prepared for the difficulty of the problems. The difference between regional level problems and worlds level problems is huge. Afterwards we found out that our professor had been feeding us only the easier problems in practice, because he was afraid of us taking too much time to prepare. The tough part was balancing the college course load and trying to prepare. Looking back, I know I didn't put nearly enough time in to do well.
Ah well, I was on the only team from Messiah College to ever make it to World Finals (before or since), so I'm happy we made it as far as we did. And I can hardly complain about the free trip to Hawaii that resulted =]
I live in PA, and we use hydro, nuclear, and coal.
I fail to see how this would significantly affect energy consumption, and it *certainly* wouldn't affect oil consumption, as we don't burn oil for electricity.
Um, where'd you get that information? I participated in the World Finals in 2002, and you're allowed to bring whatever materials you would like.
I stopped watching toonami when they stopped showing it on weekdays. The worst part was they replaced it with meguzi or something, which is total crap. Now I hardly watch cartoon network. I used to watch it a lot.
I remember the good old days, when Moltar hosted toonami...
The President can send laws to Congress, but these are really just suggestions. Congress can ignore them, amend them, or whatever. If they never vote for it, it will never become law. Also, once Congress passes a law, the President has to sign it before it becomes law. If the President doesn't sign it, it's considered veto'd. Congress can override the veto with a two thirds majority. Vetos aren't overridden very often. I'm not sure when the last time it was done, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't happened in the last ten years.
All three branches of our government have become much more powerful in the last century. The legislative branch can legislate just about anything they want using the commerce clause of the Constitution. The executive branch has gained lots of government agencies to control, and the judicial branch has a lot more leeway to interpret laws and the Constitution.
Wow, you sure do know a lot about Middlesex.
Don't forget Middlesex, PA!
This technique has been well known for quite some time.
aah, nothing quite like seeing a good game series destroyed by a publisher that cares about nothing but profit. Everyone remember the tribes 2 fiasco? It went something like this:
Dynamix: Tribes 2 isn't ready, we need to delay it.
Vivendi: Release the game now.
Dynamix: It's not ready.
Vivendi: We don't care, release the game now.
Dynamix: Okay.
Vivendi: This game sucks. No ones buying it, and those who did are returning it.
Dynamix: We told you the game wasn't ready.
Vivendi: You're fired.
Aah, what a brilliant and refreshing management strategy. Is anyone really surprised that tribes 3 was a dismal failure?
conservative != anarcho-capitalist
Yeah, 'cause you know, Ronald Reagan is responsible for all of our telecom deregulation problems... give me a break.
Ma bell was broken up in 1984, under *ding* *ding* *ding*, you guessed it, Ronald Reagan. I would hardly call that deregulation. The most relevant legislation to this discussion is a massive telecom bill that was passed in 1996, under Clinton and a Republican Congress. That bill, imo, was a massive piece of crap.
But feel free to continue thinking I'm a complete moron because I'm an evil Republican. I know you're not interested in rational conversation anyway...
Just FYI, deregulation started in the 90s, under Clinton...
Uhm. yeah. WoW is one of the easiest mmo games to hit the level cap in, so I would hardly call it a levelfest. As for end game content beyond PvP, I'll just say that no one has defeated Ragnaros yet, and very few have defeated Onyxia, and there is more PvE end game content on the way.
As others have pointed out, your employer would not give you 6 weeks notice if they wanted to fire you, so why should you do the same for them? 2 weeks is plenty. In this situation, giving 4 weeks notice was very profesional and generous, as they do not want to be without a tech guy. More than that is unnecessary. They knew the risk of only having 1 tech guy, and now it's going to bite them in the ass.
In general, it's not a good idea to give lots of notice. I knew a guy who gave 6 month's notice, and his company fired him a week later. Don't give notice until you're ready to leave. That's at will employment. Employers pushed for "at will employment" laws so they could fire people at will. They have to live with the other side of it too.
I remember back in high school filling out college applications, and seeing spaces for my SS#. I didn't give it out, of course. I wonder how many people who applied to CSU Chico now regret filling in that space...
I think this is online poker high unethical. online poker It's a dirty, underhanded online poker tactic when spammers use online poker it, and we shouldn't online poker stoop to their online poker level.
I had no idea he was so politically active. Good luck to him.