Correct, but in pure evolutionary terms the end result would not be inferior. If something is not needed then it is unnecessary and taking up resources.
As a real world example, the human race has already 'devolved' -- our digestion system is a shade of what it once was and can no longer break down the greenery that our ape ancestors could/can. The gut's energy-whoring complexity was just baggage once we harnessed fire for cooking. You could look at this as devolution, but you're more likely to look at the other changes resulting of this evolution -- such as the sizable increase of energy available to run the brain -- and declare it to be a superior move. It's all perception. Evolution is, by its very nature, always correct.
As a serious aside, de-evolution is an impossible concept. A species can only become better at fitting in with its environment. If this happens to make a species appear "inferior" to what it once was, it's just perception -- the species is more likely to survive in its environment than it once did in its "superior" form.
Evolution isn't just about monkeys living in jungles. "The fittest" are those who survive in their environment. Our environment has changed drastically over the millenia and hospitals/medicine can be considered to be a part of our environment. This environment allows more people, who would otherwise perish, to live. These survivors are thus fit for the environment.
While it is easy to look at a man with heart disease and call him inferior and only propped up by modern medicine, there's no logical reason to think that keeping him alive is an evolutionary mis-step. If you do enough thinking on the subject and shed preconceptions, you will even come to the realisation that with enough medicinal advancement he can't even be considered inferior; he's just "different".
There's the thing though, they're games, they're not stressful by design. You're making them stressful, somehow, and that's where my (somewhat charged, sorry) comment comes from.
In your opinion, perhaps. According to metacritic, roughly 80% of folks who have played it, enjoyed it. People were falling over themselves to play it when it was first released and it was touted as the WoW killer. Fast forward four months and the player base knows better, my point being that they didn't back when it was three weeks old.
Warhammer's reception is a bit warmer but it's too early to say what direction it's heading in. My prediction stands and is yet to be tested.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." -- Niels Bohr
A nice theory on paper, but give a few of the smaller pvp-oriented MMO's a go. Most of them have an established asshole culture that attracts only other assholes. A couple of small examples would be Tibia or TDZK.
Of course as Warhammer is already an established community so this could offset it. But I'm going to go on a limb and assume that it'll be left with the usual diverse mix of players.
I predict the community will spike then level off to a small but stable size, as every other post-WoW MMO has done. Most recently observed in Age of Conan.
This isn't news. If it were, it'd carry a headline like "Microsoft Programming Contest Security Thwarts Hackers" and be about how Microsoft employed some effective security measures without subjecting all applicants to activity-monitoring rootkit DRM and attendees to cavity-searches.
Do you have no backbone? Would you like the computer to play the game for you? Or perhaps just load up the game then be presented with a single "I win" button?
Yeah, you need to be in the same party, +/-4 levels of each other and in "visible" range. It lasts for 90 days and works for any character on either account, until the character hits 60.
So basically that 2-week hardcore session it normally takes someone to get to 60 is cut down to a full-on weekend.
Another cool thing is that the recruitee can give levels to any of the recruiter's chars, equal to the recruitee's level / 2 (goes away if they hit 60). My friend and I are aiming for four level 59's, then an instant level burst from 1 to 59 on two additional characters. Should take about a month.:)
I've started up one of those refer-a-friend deals with my flatmate. You should give it a go -- it gives 300% XP for monsters and quests. We were 8 before we left the newbie start area, without trying. We're level 23 now after only 7 hours of play (it'd normally be about a day by now for me) and have skipped a couple of zones. I can get from 40 to 47 in a full saturday session -- with this buff, we'll be able to get from 40-60 in one day no sweat.:)
The difference is that UI stuff like the MapHack is "legal" in WoW, via UI mods. Hardcore stuff like cheats that grant levels and money (and let's face it, that's what Glider is when it boils down to it) are banned. If this sounds wierd to you, well, let's agree to disagree:P
I'll buy three, just to spite the douchebag. A lot of people are happy by this ruling. Blizzard acted on behalf of both themselves and the majority of their customers to crush a group of people who were making money by allowing people to cheat. It's pretty noble and one needs to do a lot of word twisting and take on a lot of ignorance to say otherwise.
As someone who was cheated out of seeing BWL, AQ40 and Naxx pre-BC because half of my guildies didn't want to play so close to the expansion, I very much disagree with your logic. I wish to hell that I had got a set of Tier 3 to parade around in (you know that stuff's good to level 70 right?).
Besides -- if you're going to stop playing just because your gear will be replaced, why stop now? Why didn't you stop a year ago?
Why stop at all? Aren't you having fun? Then why did you play in the first place?
As another with five 70's, I disagree - leveling the character for me is a huge part of it, even if I've done it before. It helps me get in tune with it, to learn its basic play and abilities gradually. Perhaps most of all, by the time it's 70, I've got a good sense of the work that's gone into it which helps me appreciate the character even more. It's kind of like being given $10 vs earning $10.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct, but in pure evolutionary terms the end result would not be inferior. If something is not needed then it is unnecessary and taking up resources.
As a real world example, the human race has already 'devolved' -- our digestion system is a shade of what it once was and can no longer break down the greenery that our ape ancestors could/can. The gut's energy-whoring complexity was just baggage once we harnessed fire for cooking. You could look at this as devolution, but you're more likely to look at the other changes resulting of this evolution -- such as the sizable increase of energy available to run the brain -- and declare it to be a superior move. It's all perception. Evolution is, by its very nature, always correct.
As a serious aside, de-evolution is an impossible concept. A species can only become better at fitting in with its environment. If this happens to make a species appear "inferior" to what it once was, it's just perception -- the species is more likely to survive in its environment than it once did in its "superior" form.
Evolution isn't just about monkeys living in jungles. "The fittest" are those who survive in their environment. Our environment has changed drastically over the millenia and hospitals/medicine can be considered to be a part of our environment. This environment allows more people, who would otherwise perish, to live. These survivors are thus fit for the environment.
While it is easy to look at a man with heart disease and call him inferior and only propped up by modern medicine, there's no logical reason to think that keeping him alive is an evolutionary mis-step. If you do enough thinking on the subject and shed preconceptions, you will even come to the realisation that with enough medicinal advancement he can't even be considered inferior; he's just "different".
... or its own considerable gravity increases its density.
Wow. The sad thing about the flamebait moderation option, is that only one moderator gets to see the post ;)
There's the thing though, they're games, they're not stressful by design. You're making them stressful, somehow, and that's where my (somewhat charged, sorry) comment comes from.
The nazi's, like Microsoft, had an affinity for gold.
I'm just sayin'.
In your opinion, perhaps. According to metacritic, roughly 80% of folks who have played it, enjoyed it. People were falling over themselves to play it when it was first released and it was touted as the WoW killer. Fast forward four months and the player base knows better, my point being that they didn't back when it was three weeks old.
Warhammer's reception is a bit warmer but it's too early to say what direction it's heading in. My prediction stands and is yet to be tested.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." -- Niels Bohr
A nice theory on paper, but give a few of the smaller pvp-oriented MMO's a go. Most of them have an established asshole culture that attracts only other assholes. A couple of small examples would be Tibia or TDZK.
Of course as Warhammer is already an established community so this could offset it. But I'm going to go on a limb and assume that it'll be left with the usual diverse mix of players.
I predict the community will spike then level off to a small but stable size, as every other post-WoW MMO has done.
Most recently observed in Age of Conan.
Nooo.
This isn't news. If it were, it'd carry a headline like "Microsoft Programming Contest Security Thwarts Hackers" and be about how Microsoft employed some effective security measures without subjecting all applicants to activity-monitoring rootkit DRM and attendees to cavity-searches.
I told you not to watch it!
Do you have no backbone? Would you like the computer to play the game for you? Or perhaps just load up the game then be presented with a single "I win" button?
It sounds like you should stick to movies.
... or you'll go blind and the next thing you know, you'll being devoured by a giant plant.
Instead, watch it through a pinhole cut into some cardboard.
I have a quite tasteful cardinal number myself. I like to get creative with my wife.
... in certain countries. Believe it or not, we're not living in the United States of Earth.
Yeah, you need to be in the same party, +/-4 levels of each other and in "visible" range. It lasts for 90 days and works for any character on either account, until the character hits 60.
:)
So basically that 2-week hardcore session it normally takes someone to get to 60 is cut down to a full-on weekend.
Another cool thing is that the recruitee can give levels to any of the recruiter's chars, equal to the recruitee's level / 2 (goes away if they hit 60). My friend and I are aiming for four level 59's, then an instant level burst from 1 to 59 on two additional characters. Should take about a month.
FYI, no-cd's aren't illegal in most countries.
Let's not be hasty now!
:)
I've started up one of those refer-a-friend deals with my flatmate. You should give it a go -- it gives 300% XP for monsters and quests. We were 8 before we left the newbie start area, without trying. We're level 23 now after only 7 hours of play (it'd normally be about a day by now for me) and have skipped a couple of zones. I can get from 40 to 47 in a full saturday session -- with this buff, we'll be able to get from 40-60 in one day no sweat.
The difference is that UI stuff like the MapHack is "legal" in WoW, via UI mods. Hardcore stuff like cheats that grant levels and money (and let's face it, that's what Glider is when it boils down to it) are banned. If this sounds wierd to you, well, let's agree to disagree :P
I'll buy three, just to spite the douchebag. A lot of people are happy by this ruling. Blizzard acted on behalf of both themselves and the majority of their customers to crush a group of people who were making money by allowing people to cheat. It's pretty noble and one needs to do a lot of word twisting and take on a lot of ignorance to say otherwise.
As someone who was cheated out of seeing BWL, AQ40 and Naxx pre-BC because half of my guildies didn't want to play so close to the expansion, I very much disagree with your logic. I wish to hell that I had got a set of Tier 3 to parade around in (you know that stuff's good to level 70 right?).
Besides -- if you're going to stop playing just because your gear will be replaced, why stop now? Why didn't you stop a year ago?
Why stop at all? Aren't you having fun? Then why did you play in the first place?
And to vilify the guy who won't take you on where the footing is equal, is wrong?
As another with five 70's, I disagree - leveling the character for me is a huge part of it, even if I've done it before. It helps me get in tune with it, to learn its basic play and abilities gradually. Perhaps most of all, by the time it's 70, I've got a good sense of the work that's gone into it which helps me appreciate the character even more. It's kind of like being given $10 vs earning $10.
To stave off a potential botter's excuse I would also like to add: "No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood."