Mmm, fair enough, it's true that Blizzard are succeeding despite their best efforts to design in problems.
They could be winning more though, if they didn't have to spend support money on playing whack-a-hack, and cut off players (and their revenue streams).
Bear in mind that whack-a-hack is forever. You can only stop doing it when your game becomes so unpopular that nobody is hacking it any more.
You realise that you're enumerating design decisions there, not immutable laws?
If you decide to give up control of the servers and design your game in a way that allows clients to win just by sending the right "I did X" packet, then it's game over as far as anti-cheating is concerned. But there's nothing forcing you to make those decisions.
For those not in the know, this is how the conversation goes.
Developer: We need to design-in anti-cheat methods from the get-go, or honest players will get raped.
Producer: And that'll delay my demo, right? Where's my demo? Show me a demo. Demo-demo-demo.
Developer: But it'll save us time in the long run, and we won't have to play whack-a-hacker catch up after release, with all the costs and bad press...
Producer: Yeah... but I'm only producing it up to release. And are you going to be relegated to the support crew, or am I going to take you with me to my next exciting project?
Developer: Uh... I'll get on with the demo.
That's the best case scenario. A depressing number of devs don't even consider trying to design-out hacks, and think that whack-a-hack is a winning long term strategy, despite the decades of evidence that say it ain't so. I'm looking at you Blizzard.
It turns out that I did understand my own point, but, hey, thanks for taking time out from your busy designing schedule to belabour it to death. Appreciate that, homie.
Meh, strategy? I gave up on GW products many years ago, when they figured out that the big money was in selling high priced hero figures, with accompanying game-winning special powers.
You can have fun games of WHFB / 40K / Epic, but they're all horribly open to abuse by anyone who buys to win. I doubt they even playtest most of their stuff any more.
Still, I guess that is actually "strategy", in the resource management sense.
Most merchant ships cannot carry deadly weapons legally into most ports in the world. Certainly not any of the big ports. Jail time or worse can result from violating these laws.
Interesting, if true. It's not true though, is it?
Most merchant sailors are not trained in combat
Most pirates are not trained in combat.
Most merchant ships have a small crew and when pirates attack they normally significantly outnumber the crew.
And if they don't? If you have the guns, you can defend yourself if the odds look favourable. If you don't, then you can't.
The small crew of a merchant ship even armed with deadly weapons would be hard pressed to stop a determined pirate attack
The small crew of a merchant ship not armed with deadly weapons would be harder pressed to stop a determined pirate attack.
Most pirates (with some notable exceptions) don't kill the crew - hard to ransom the crew if they are dead (in 2006, there were 239 attacks, 77 crew members were kidnapped and 188 taken hostage but only 15 of the pirate attacks resulted in murder.)
Pacifist, noun: one who hasn't yet been mugged.
Killing pirates likely will just piss off the aforementioned larger and better armed group of pirates.
Well, it's a smaller group now. And they're only "better armed" because you've denied the crew weapons.
Having a properly trained security force on or traveling with a merchant ship is VERY expensive
True, but shotguns are pretty cheap.
The odds of a pirate attack are extremely low even in high piracy areas
Shotguns are pretty cheap.
If you are in the territorial waters of a foreign country you are subject to their laws and some places take a fairly dim view of killing another person even in self defense. Especially if you are not a citizen of that country and the (alleged) pirate is a citizen.
Somalia has no functioning government.
There are very few modern laws against piracy.
Somalia has no functioning goverment.
You had better be DAMN SURE they actually are pirates before you kill them
Somalia has no functioning government.
Like most anti-gun nuts, you're very keen to deny them to people who might actually need them, ain'tcha?
You seem to be advocating doing nothing, since presumably it will be as expensive to mount, maintain and train the crew to use these new-fangled tangle guns as it would be to mount a.50 cal.
I'm beginning to wonder just whose side you're on.
Yeah, if an actual scientist had just come along and made the entire premise of my profession irrelevant, I'd be pretty hacked off too. You're taking it pretty well, actually, and yes, I will have fries with that.
He's saying that monthly blue collar wages are $100 per month in China vs $2000 per month in the USA (which is lowball, but that just illustrates the point). So that $150 buys you 30 man-days of labour in Guangdong Province vs 1.5 man-days in Podunk, Nebraska.
No, see, you may have paid someone to protect you from Malware, but they didn't protect you from Badware. It's totally different. However, I can protect you, for a nominal fee...
I can't work out if this is a parody, or whether you're actually serious.
First, in what possible way, shape, manner or form is accessing publicly available information and then using it to file in court for discovery "harassment"? Cite the English / Scots statute under which you'd file a civil suit.
Even if you could "organize"(sic) 30,000 people - which you can't - that's 46 people in each of the UK's 646 Parliamentary constituencies. It's an insignificant number.
Opponents of anti-piracy laws might be more credible if you kept themselves grounded in reality rather than raving in absolutes about how the world should work.
Demonic possession can be diagnosed in exactly the same way that your Precious Princess Syndrome can be, i.e. entirely subjectively. Does that make it real? If not, why not? Are you saying that people diagnosed with demonic possession are making it up?
I have to ask: do you honestly believe that if you keep repeating that EULAs are "unenforcable" often enough that the courts will actually start to agree with you?
You must be talking about some theoretical courts, because the court decisions that I've been following tell a very different story. Perhaps you'd like to cite some case law?
Slashdot Mirror
Mmm, fair enough, it's true that Blizzard are succeeding despite their best efforts to design in problems.
They could be winning more though, if they didn't have to spend support money on playing whack-a-hack, and cut off players (and their revenue streams).
Bear in mind that whack-a-hack is forever. You can only stop doing it when your game becomes so unpopular that nobody is hacking it any more.
You realise that you're enumerating design decisions there, not immutable laws?
If you decide to give up control of the servers and design your game in a way that allows clients to win just by sending the right "I did X" packet, then it's game over as far as anti-cheating is concerned. But there's nothing forcing you to make those decisions.
For those not in the know, this is how the conversation goes.
That's the best case scenario. A depressing number of devs don't even consider trying to design-out hacks, and think that whack-a-hack is a winning long term strategy, despite the decades of evidence that say it ain't so. I'm looking at you Blizzard.
It turns out that I did understand my own point, but, hey, thanks for taking time out from your busy designing schedule to belabour it to death. Appreciate that, homie.
I think that software patents are every bit as valid and valuable as every single patent on the wheel.
And there's the rub. Wargaming is a dying hobby, and GW stores are the only place for youngsters to get into it. They're the hope for the future.
Yes, we're doomed.
Meh, strategy? I gave up on GW products many years ago, when they figured out that the big money was in selling high priced hero figures, with accompanying game-winning special powers.
You can have fun games of WHFB / 40K / Epic, but they're all horribly open to abuse by anyone who buys to win. I doubt they even playtest most of their stuff any more.
Still, I guess that is actually "strategy", in the resource management sense.
The only thing that could make this, like, even more awesome is if it were being used by Britney Spears!!!!!!11!
Then we shall not speak of it.
Common law is a quaint old-fashioned tradition. Point at it.
Interesting, if true. It's not true though, is it?
Most pirates are not trained in combat.
And if they don't? If you have the guns, you can defend yourself if the odds look favourable. If you don't, then you can't.
The small crew of a merchant ship not armed with deadly weapons would be harder pressed to stop a determined pirate attack.
Pacifist, noun: one who hasn't yet been mugged.
Well, it's a smaller group now. And they're only "better armed" because you've denied the crew weapons.
True, but shotguns are pretty cheap.
Shotguns are pretty cheap.
Somalia has no functioning government.
Somalia has no functioning goverment.
Somalia has no functioning government.
Like most anti-gun nuts, you're very keen to deny them to people who might actually need them, ain'tcha?
So... did you use your last haul of booty to buy a satellite intartubes connection?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that killing them all would be cheaper than raising their standard of living.
You seem to be advocating doing nothing, since presumably it will be as expensive to mount, maintain and train the crew to use these new-fangled tangle guns as it would be to mount a .50 cal.
I'm beginning to wonder just whose side you're on.
Uh huh. I'm reminded of the old adage that a liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.
Yeah, if an actual scientist had just come along and made the entire premise of my profession irrelevant, I'd be pretty hacked off too. You're taking it pretty well, actually, and yes, I will have fries with that.
And another thing: he fucked your momma. How do you like them apples?
He's saying that monthly blue collar wages are $100 per month in China vs $2000 per month in the USA (which is lowball, but that just illustrates the point). So that $150 buys you 30 man-days of labour in Guangdong Province vs 1.5 man-days in Podunk, Nebraska.
What is this "UK" law of which you speak - perhaps you'd like to check that before replying?
See why it might not be top of their To Do list?
No, see, you may have paid someone to protect you from Malware, but they didn't protect you from Badware. It's totally different. However, I can protect you, for a nominal fee...
I can't work out if this is a parody, or whether you're actually serious.
First, in what possible way, shape, manner or form is accessing publicly available information and then using it to file in court for discovery "harassment"? Cite the English / Scots statute under which you'd file a civil suit.
Even if you could "organize"(sic) 30,000 people - which you can't - that's 46 people in each of the UK's 646 Parliamentary constituencies. It's an insignificant number.
Opponents of anti-piracy laws might be more credible if you kept themselves grounded in reality rather than raving in absolutes about how the world should work.
Demonic possession can be diagnosed in exactly the same way that your Precious Princess Syndrome can be, i.e. entirely subjectively. Does that make it real? If not, why not? Are you saying that people diagnosed with demonic possession are making it up?
I have to ask: do you honestly believe that if you keep repeating that EULAs are "unenforcable" often enough that the courts will actually start to agree with you?
You must be talking about some theoretical courts, because the court decisions that I've been following tell a very different story. Perhaps you'd like to cite some case law?