Behold! You have someone who believes in God AND thinks evolution is a right clever idea! But rather be grateful that not everyone is insane, instead of seeing hope for the future, you have to attack the person.
I think atheists take this view because it's completely 100% contradictory. Both points are mutually exclusive. They can't overlap in the slightest, even though some people try to warp it to fit their brainwashed religious view.
The belief in a (christian) God and evolution don't mesh because if we were made in God's image then we couldn't have evolved from single-cell organisms. Unless God is a single-cell organism, in that case we've evolved to become something better - but now I've just moved into blasphemy, and used the subjective 'better'.
So if you're going to try to convince an atheist that you're 'one of them' yet you still cling to an ancient dogma that is racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-science, and tribal, don't be surprised when they rebuff you.
I think a Halo MMO (in it's loosest terms) would be great if they kept the FPS shooter portion, removed any dice roll mechanics, and switched it to a planet-sized tiered RvR world with capturable points and scenarios, ala Warhammer Online. But leave it on a console.
Maybe make leveling not so stat focused, more like training areas where you cut your teeth with a boot camp, then some simple NPC skirmishes, then into low-level scenarios, and then up to full battlefield situations. Each tier lets you earn your right to man different vehicles. Quests obviously lend themselves to missions, but you'd definitely get rid of collection quests and kill quests should be kept at a minimum. Would probably have to use the scenarios more with the 'capture this base', or 'defend the workers', etc. The xp you earn from these leads to promotions, the ability to command NPCs, the ability to set rally points in the scenarios, etc. Very similar to the rank ups in the newer battlefield games. Maybe have specializations, like engineering, which allows the users to set up defenses like platforms and turrets.
Most of the world would be instanced, like Guild Wars, with the results helping shift the influence of the faction in the area, like WAR. I think the FPS fans would probably love being able to affect the outcome of a world.
Hacked accounts are a different problem that is perfectly solvable if MMOs gave the user options that didn't involve just a password. Off the top of my head I can think of multiple ways to prevent this or ways to recover from these breaches very quickly. Not like WoW which seems to have no infrastructure for this and takes days to fix.
But I agree hacked accounts are a problem, but the MMO owns the 1s and 0s so there's no reason to not be able to track down who has the gold and get it back.
While I don't condone the buying of gold I don't really understand what the problem is. There are many reasons for purchasing gold that are completely reasonable while very few reasons otherwise.
Let's use WoW and it's epic flying price of 5000g for example. I ground 5k gold twice, the first time on a character I never play anymore due to a server and faction change, the second time on the differently factioned replacement. The grind is boring! And it's equally boring to have to do it a second time or more. Does someone paying $200 for 5k gold to pay for their epic flyer negatively affect the me or the game? Nope.
Also, what about people just starting in the game after others have been in for years? They have a lot of trouble catching up to their friends. Purchasing gold can help them get there faster so they can be more interested in the game. I bet mature MMOs have probably lost a lot of opportunities to get players because coming into the game now is just too late. The same argument goes for leveling services.
Frankly, there are no downsides to gold farming unless the farmers are preventing other players from doing something, like camping mob spawns. From my experience, they have very little affect on the economy as long as gold isn't the only way to advance your character.
Wait, the random tells are annoying. But other than that what is there? The real problem is that someone is making money 'at the expense' (used very loosely) of the game designer and that wasn't intended. But that's called capitalism. Obviously it's a service people want, so why not give it to them? I would only ban gold sellers who advertise in game or in official forums and let people play the game as they like.
I think I played that game years ago. It was severely unbalanced in the beginning with the attack helicopters that couldn't be shot down and the M60 infantry being deadly accurate on the move.
For instance, you can play a mayor in âoeSimCity,â and get a close-up look at what it takes to build and maintain a community. Helping a newbie get his sea legs in a game simulates the real-world experience of volunteering.
So what does mercilessly ganking a low-level player in Thousand Needles simulate?
But seriously, did they check how social these kids were before playing the games? Just because someone is being more civic in their gameplay doesn't mean that they got that way from playing games, they could've been that way in the first place.
People only want to enjoy the game, not get their char ganked by some "PvP elite".
First, you can't get 'ganked' unless you are flagged, and you only get flagged in RvR areas. You can't enter an RvR area without knowing it, it's quite obvious.
Second, in both their Core and Open server types (RvR restricted and RvR everywhere, respectively) there is a 'chicken' mechanic that turns you into a chicken if you an upper-level character in a lower-level area trying to gank. You literally become a chicken with 1 hp.
Really, WoW is the game where gankers will stay. There's really no reason to do it in WAR, although it will happen a little bit, but only to characters within about 10 levels. And with the way WAR PvP plays that's not a guaranteed kill, and definitely can't be considered a 'gank'.
Let me translate what Mark Jacobs was saying: "This was harder than we thought. We don't think we can be as successful as we'd like to be, or as successful as we thought we could be when we started. But we really want to save face."
Or he's just being a realist and understands that WoW is the exception and not the rule. 10 million players is an aberration, just the rare cosmic event that, per capita, may never be reached again. It was such a shock to Blizzard that they stopped selling their game for months after release because they couldn't handle the influx of players. It took them years to build their infrastructure to handle all the problems of growing so quickly.
That said, WoW has skewered the definition of 'success' way too far. MMO success is measured in hundreds of thousands, not millions. I don't know what the break even point is but even with 200k subscribers I think you could call a major MMO like WAR a success. I imagine it will hover around 350-500k however. And, I've said it in other posts, it will never be a WoW-ish juggernaut (1+ million) until it taps into the asian market, which contains about 60% of WoW's playerbase.
I know the WoW fanboys will overract, feeling like they are getting cheated on, but just relax. WoW will be around for a long time. Give WAR a chance, and if you don't like it the WoW expansion in a couple months will give you plenty of a reason to return to Azeroth.
The PvP in WoW felt forced. It was (let's be fair here) an after thought.
You are completely right and maybe even a little understated. WoW tried to tack on world PvP objectives in their expansion and that totally failed. They added 1 battleground, which was fun but just a hybrid of the others, and who gives half a shit about the objectives in Hellfire, Zangarmarsh, or even Nagrand? You get a little PvE boost and tokens for gear and stuff that might have been good when everyone was leveling to 70 but is way underpowered now.
And don't get me started with the arena system. I rue the day that ever came into a dev's mind.
Third, RACIST? What the hell? Can you PLEASE explain that, because I REALLY don't get that one. Honestly, I haven't a clue where you got that and really want to know.
Apparently the best algorithms submitted so far get about 75% of their win/loss predictions correct, which would be more than enough to make real money in a state such as Nevada that allows gambling on sports.
75% win/loss ratio is shit when gambling on college sports. There's no probability here - there is a major bias between teams and one could easily guess 75% by just choosing the higher ranked team. And win/loss means nothing since Vegas won't pay you money for choosing Ohio State over Montana State. They'll give you a spread, say Ohio State will win by 32, and you can choose to either agree with them or disagree. Obviously, if you pull for Montana State you win if they win, but you will win even if Montana State keeps the score closer than 32. Or you can pull for Ohio State and you win if they 'cover the spread', winning by 32 or more.
But honestly, the probability is that you are going to lose. Any time you gamble with the hope that some 18-22 year old, who could be hung over, just broke up with his girlfriend, or has the flu, is going to come through for you, you are a sucker.
I *might* come back for WotLK but that would require WAR to be monumentally disappointing. After playing the preview weekend I can say that is definitely not the case. As someone who enjoys PvP more than raiding (I lean 70:30 towards PvP) I can say that that WAR is right up my alley.
As soon as LOTRO launches... Dungeons and Dragons Online, for example.... Vanguard.... AOC.... Tabula Rasa.
I think the problem with most of those games is that they are primarily PvE and grind-heavy. AoC is probably the exception but has really floundered on content at their level cap. Having to buy a new computer to play some of these because of their graphics was a downfall too (AoC, definitely Vanguard). D&D was just so-so.
But all of that was predicted in commercial and beta tester reviews. Read the DDO & Tabula Rasa reviews from slashdot. Not pretty but were mostly just rehashes of other earlier reviews. And while Vanguard wasn't reviewed here just check out a fewofthearticles that covered the game before and immediately after release. After seeing those did anyone really think they were going to hold casual gamers interest?
I'm not saying that WAR is going to become the 10 million+ juggernaut that WOW has, but I will say that, baring major problems, it will become the premier PvP MMO that people play. Since WOW has already softened PvE'ers up to the idea of PvP, I think a lot of people are more willing to play a primarily PvP game especially since they've removed the ability to gank lower-level players. I would love to hear the preorder numbers for WAR. I imagine that one of the most anticipated MMOs of the last few years is going to have a very good launch.
According to mmochart.com there are about 4.5 million North America and European players for WOW. As much as I like WOW and have played it for years, I do feel that they are going to see a major hit in those markets but will probably continue to 'grow' due to Asia. Until WAR offers an Asia subscription they aren't ever going to flirt with WoW numbers. And besides, do they need to? With 500,000 subscribers I think any game would be considered a success and continue to get updated.
VideoGamer.com: Do you guys expect a drop off when Warhammer Online comes out?
TC: It's hard to say. We haven't really experienced any meaningful drop-offs in the past.
After how successful the WAR Preview Weekend was and how exciting it was playing a new game with new classes and new areas, I think it's hubris for them to think that they aren't going to lose a lot of their player base. I know my household will have two accounts cancelled, and I know of about 10+ friends who are going to play as well. I don't know if they will cancel their WOW accounts but they won't be logged in.
I think the hardcore and casual PvP'ers will be playing WAR soon after launch if not at launch. The RvR in the preview was fantastic and just like what everyone has always wanted in WOW. It exists in every zone in WAR or you can do scenarios (battlegrounds). There aren't just 4 battlegrounds to play in and you can queue any where at any time and return to where you were when done. It's also possible to get gear without having to rely on a raid. And when you PvP you get XP.
Blizzard is going to try to implement some world PvP in with the expansion but it will probably be too little too late for the fans of PvP. Don't get me wrong, it won't kill WOW by any means, WOW will continue positive growth for a while until there is a contender in Asia, where the bulk of their user accounts exist. But WAR will make them stop and think about their direction. They might finally relent and merge many of their low-population servers. Maybe they'll drop their insane e-sport fetish that they've had for the last couple years and put more RPG into their MMO Arena Game.
I'll cite nothing because I have no idea where this information leaked from, and you can take it with a grain of salt because I heard it years ago. But apparently the original story for Jedi worked like this:
The forest moon isn't Endor, it's Kashyyyk. The furry friends aren't Eworks, they're Wookies. You can still see an echo of this in the final film, because the very word "Ewok" is an anagram for "Wookie" (with a couple letters dropped). No one knows why this happened, but it's a safe bet the Wookies would have been way cooler than the Ewoks were. Popular opinion has it that the merchandising for cute teddy bears was more attractive than that of Wookie action figures, but no one knows for sure.
Actually, Lucas has said many times that the intent was to have the 'mighty' Empire toppled by a simple civilization. Originally this was supposed to be Wookies but he realized that the audiences would probably have a hard time accepting that Chewbacca's people were so technologically inferior when one of them was Han's co-pilot and was seen multiple times trying to repair a spaceship.
I have never heard the rumor of the alternate ending you propose but damn it sounds like that would've been out of the park. In hindsight, having the coolest and only black guy in the galaxy die would've been way before it's time since even the black robot died in 'Transformers'.
From what I've been reading, MS has opened up their Live service to more indie developers. You can build the game you want and then sell it on Live, and they will take a cut. I don't know how profitable this is or any other ins-and-outs, but you can check out the details here.
9. Getting to see athletes who won't be getting endorsement deals even if they do win the gold get to showcase their talents in sports that are not considered popular - like kayaking, water polo, cross-country skiing, ski jumping, curling, archery, synchronized swimming, handball, sailing, weight lifting, etc.
Now I will say that a few of these are well-known sports in other countries (curling - Canada, cross-country skiing - Norway, water polo - Spain) but for the majority of the world these are sports that they only see for 10 minutes once every 4 years. That's the shame of the Olympic Games - we miss out on some truly great events because they might not be as popular as others.
Dude, if you cannot figure out that being paid $17 and hour means that you are being paid $17 per hour WORKED, you are an idiot. The math is not debatable.
You want your $17/per hour then fine. You win. They are only getting that much per hour because of a forced unemployement for 1/4 of a year. X per year is still only that much per year.
Apparently, you are too stupid to understand that $20 is not pennies. It isn't by any stretch of the imagination. It costs more than $20 to get immunized, but even if it was $20 exactly, calling it pennies is at best a gross exaggeration. As for no one making a killing... The vaccine industry is an $11 BILLION a year industry that is expected to $20 BILLION a year by 2012.
Oh noes! Someone is making a profit creating a product that people need and selling it! And like I said if you can't afford $20 to keep your kid alive then the state will help you out - and that's not a cost in a school budget, that's welfare. Otherwise, it is pennies since almost all of the required shots are 1-time shots, or at least multiple in a short period.
Again, you say things that make you look stupid. Trying to imply that immunized kids are going to give your kid whooping cough is pretty dumb. That, and you keep saying 'conspiracy'. It is clear that you don't know what the word means.
You're so fucking stupid you can even comprehend a simple sentence. I said kids who WEREN'T immunized were going to give another kid whooping cough. You are the one who was railing AGAINST immunizations because they were some conspiracy by pediatricians and pharmaceutical companies to make more money.
And according to Oregon School Board Association you are just plain wrong. They show that salaries in Oregon go up to $60,452. That's a full 30% more than the fake number you pulled out of your ass. They also show that 27% of Oregon teachers are making more than $50k a year. The average across the state is $50,937.92. Seriously. $50k a year is doing just fine.
The fewer 30% at over $50k are skewing the almost 60% that are right in the $40,000 - $49,999 range. Someone needs to learn about 'averages'. Look at the pay schedule and you'll see that to get to 60k you need to be at or over 30 years with more than a masters degree. Even then though, I will admit I overstated, but not by much, not when a large majority are right in the range I said. My point still stands though, one can't comfortably support a family on a teacher's salary, unless somehow they start off with 25 years of experience!
I am impressed that Oregon has been increasing pay and are way above California. Why a teacher would teach in SoCal is beyond me. A doctorate in teaching there gets you $46,951 to 56,835. And you want them to cut teacher pay? I will say that the starting pay is much better than OR, but with the cost of living what it is there a teacher would make significantly less.
That wasn't even my point when we started this little war. You wanted to cut school funding because you thought teachers "... make a decent living working part time." Because supposedly 8-hour days are part time. If you want to call the California education system a mess you won't get any argument from me. Either fix the problem or quite bitching. Oregon and Washington are INCREASING spending and seeing a benefit. We require the same immunizations, have administration, have a bus system, and no one here screams crazy shit about conspiracies or collusion between government, drug companies, and doctors. Maybe if Californians didn't use teachers as a scapegoat then they could actually sit down and figure out where the real problems are. Nah, it's easier to blame teachers and continue the downward spiral.
180 days * 8 hours = 1440 hours. $24,000 / 1440 hours = $16.66666.... dollars per hour.
180 days * 8 hours = 1440 hours. $45,000 / 1440 hours = $31.25.... dollars per hour.
Perhaps if you had a better education you would be able to handle simple math problems.
My education is fine. If you had read before, their pay is garnished so that they are paid year round, with a forced 3-month 'sabbatical'. They may not be around kids during the summer or billing hours, but they certainly aren't unemployed. They aren't pulling unemployment during the summer, and it's not like they can find employment elsewhere since all the schools are closed.
You just proved my point. If you bothered to look at that page you'd see those were bulk prices. Most of those cost a buck or two each. These aren't cancer drugs - someone is making money but not a killing. If you can't scrounge up $20 to get your kid vaccinated then the state will take care of it. As I said, once again:
... because I don't want your precious little snowflake giving my kid whooping cough doesn't make it a conspiracy.
No, I am not saying that teachers make $100k or more. You said that YOU do.
I do make a lot of money but for my education it's average. If you had bothered to read what I said previously was that I could not support a family on a teachers salary. If you can support a wife and two kids on a salary hovering around $27k (after a year or two of teaching) you are living in the middle of nowhere or don't care to ever own anything or give your kids anything. That's what I call the American Dream!
The other thing I said which you so adeptly didn't read or comprehend was that if you want GOOD teachers you need to pay them. This goes with what I said above - if one cannot support a family on a teachers salary then why would one go into teaching?
It is not a bargain, and you just listed more people that make money from the public school industry. Heavy overhead in administration is one of the areas that eat up a bunch of money. And, no, if spending less was possible, they wound not be doing it. Who goes out and asks for less money for their department in any industry?
If spending less was possible, the government would've cut it, not the schools. And they cut stuff all the time, Cali's governor is cutting like $150 million from somewhere in the school budget next year - while WA is increasing spending. Who you think is going to get better results?
And you need infrastructure, you need administration, and you need buses. You think that's wasted money, and I'm sure in some places there is waste. Where there's bureaucracy there's waste. But to think you can save BILLIONS and get quality is hubris.
You seem to think that $17 to $31/hour is an unlivable wage. I say that there are a lot of people that would LOVE to make that much money because they are supporting their families on far less.
Sure, a lot of people would love it but did they go to college and get out with $40k worth of student loans? Did they have to continue their education and get the equivalent of a masters, paid out of their own pockets? Like I said above you can't support a family on $12/hr. Not $17 to $31 per hour ($34k-$62k per year), you need to do some math because those are WAY over what I said before. Why would you teach when you can make more money working as a waiter/waitress?
So, listing people who make money from the schools system makes someone a conspiracy nutcase? The fact is that schools state that they require certain medical procedures to attend public school.... So, no, I am not a conspiracy nutcase, but your accusation is ironic.
Please, because I don't want your precious little snowflake giving my kid whooping cough doesn't make it a conspiracy. Vaccines cost pennies and even if you don't have the pennies you can get them for free. The HPV one should not be required since that is not communicable in groups, that does seem like corruption.
For Oregon, your wage amount sounds about what she was saying, so no. Neither she nor I am spouting off bs here.
You purposely inflated numbers to make your point ($17 per hour? please), which wasn't a sound point in the first place. Don't be so shocked when I start calling you on it. Teachers aren't doing fine - if they were we wouldn't have problems finding good ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Behold! You have someone who believes in God AND thinks evolution is a right clever idea! But rather be grateful that not everyone is insane, instead of seeing hope for the future, you have to attack the person.
I think atheists take this view because it's completely 100% contradictory. Both points are mutually exclusive. They can't overlap in the slightest, even though some people try to warp it to fit their brainwashed religious view.
The belief in a (christian) God and evolution don't mesh because if we were made in God's image then we couldn't have evolved from single-cell organisms. Unless God is a single-cell organism, in that case we've evolved to become something better - but now I've just moved into blasphemy, and used the subjective 'better'.
So if you're going to try to convince an atheist that you're 'one of them' yet you still cling to an ancient dogma that is racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-science, and tribal, don't be surprised when they rebuff you.
I think a Halo MMO (in it's loosest terms) would be great if they kept the FPS shooter portion, removed any dice roll mechanics, and switched it to a planet-sized tiered RvR world with capturable points and scenarios, ala Warhammer Online. But leave it on a console.
Maybe make leveling not so stat focused, more like training areas where you cut your teeth with a boot camp, then some simple NPC skirmishes, then into low-level scenarios, and then up to full battlefield situations. Each tier lets you earn your right to man different vehicles. Quests obviously lend themselves to missions, but you'd definitely get rid of collection quests and kill quests should be kept at a minimum. Would probably have to use the scenarios more with the 'capture this base', or 'defend the workers', etc. The xp you earn from these leads to promotions, the ability to command NPCs, the ability to set rally points in the scenarios, etc. Very similar to the rank ups in the newer battlefield games. Maybe have specializations, like engineering, which allows the users to set up defenses like platforms and turrets.
Most of the world would be instanced, like Guild Wars, with the results helping shift the influence of the faction in the area, like WAR. I think the FPS fans would probably love being able to affect the outcome of a world.
Damn, I want to play that game now.
That's a game design issue but, believe me, it's more fun than buying gold and then having nothing to do.
I think many would argue that doing something you don't enjoy is worse than having nothing to do.
...or the simply the fact that you bought your way out of the fun of the game
I'm sure that a lot of people consider grinding for hours or days to be serious 'fun'.
Hacked accounts are a different problem that is perfectly solvable if MMOs gave the user options that didn't involve just a password. Off the top of my head I can think of multiple ways to prevent this or ways to recover from these breaches very quickly. Not like WoW which seems to have no infrastructure for this and takes days to fix.
But I agree hacked accounts are a problem, but the MMO owns the 1s and 0s so there's no reason to not be able to track down who has the gold and get it back.
While I don't condone the buying of gold I don't really understand what the problem is. There are many reasons for purchasing gold that are completely reasonable while very few reasons otherwise.
Let's use WoW and it's epic flying price of 5000g for example. I ground 5k gold twice, the first time on a character I never play anymore due to a server and faction change, the second time on the differently factioned replacement. The grind is boring! And it's equally boring to have to do it a second time or more. Does someone paying $200 for 5k gold to pay for their epic flyer negatively affect the me or the game? Nope.
Also, what about people just starting in the game after others have been in for years? They have a lot of trouble catching up to their friends. Purchasing gold can help them get there faster so they can be more interested in the game. I bet mature MMOs have probably lost a lot of opportunities to get players because coming into the game now is just too late. The same argument goes for leveling services.
Frankly, there are no downsides to gold farming unless the farmers are preventing other players from doing something, like camping mob spawns. From my experience, they have very little affect on the economy as long as gold isn't the only way to advance your character.
Wait, the random tells are annoying. But other than that what is there? The real problem is that someone is making money 'at the expense' (used very loosely) of the game designer and that wasn't intended. But that's called capitalism. Obviously it's a service people want, so why not give it to them? I would only ban gold sellers who advertise in game or in official forums and let people play the game as they like.
Virtual Vietnam
I think I played that game years ago. It was severely unbalanced in the beginning with the attack helicopters that couldn't be shot down and the M60 infantry being deadly accurate on the move.
For instance, you can play a mayor in âoeSimCity,â and get a close-up look at what it takes to build and maintain a community. Helping a newbie get his sea legs in a game simulates the real-world experience of volunteering.
So what does mercilessly ganking a low-level player in Thousand Needles simulate?
But seriously, did they check how social these kids were before playing the games? Just because someone is being more civic in their gameplay doesn't mean that they got that way from playing games, they could've been that way in the first place.
I'll bet a lot of people love mario but never beat world 8-4.
They would've but by that point they were conditioned to expect the old bait-and-switch.
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
People only want to enjoy the game, not get their char ganked by some "PvP elite".
First, you can't get 'ganked' unless you are flagged, and you only get flagged in RvR areas. You can't enter an RvR area without knowing it, it's quite obvious.
Second, in both their Core and Open server types (RvR restricted and RvR everywhere, respectively) there is a 'chicken' mechanic that turns you into a chicken if you an upper-level character in a lower-level area trying to gank. You literally become a chicken with 1 hp.
Really, WoW is the game where gankers will stay. There's really no reason to do it in WAR, although it will happen a little bit, but only to characters within about 10 levels. And with the way WAR PvP plays that's not a guaranteed kill, and definitely can't be considered a 'gank'.
Let me translate what Mark Jacobs was saying: "This was harder than we thought. We don't think we can be as successful as we'd like to be, or as successful as we thought we could be when we started. But we really want to save face."
Or he's just being a realist and understands that WoW is the exception and not the rule. 10 million players is an aberration, just the rare cosmic event that, per capita, may never be reached again. It was such a shock to Blizzard that they stopped selling their game for months after release because they couldn't handle the influx of players. It took them years to build their infrastructure to handle all the problems of growing so quickly.
That said, WoW has skewered the definition of 'success' way too far. MMO success is measured in hundreds of thousands, not millions. I don't know what the break even point is but even with 200k subscribers I think you could call a major MMO like WAR a success. I imagine it will hover around 350-500k however. And, I've said it in other posts, it will never be a WoW-ish juggernaut (1+ million) until it taps into the asian market, which contains about 60% of WoW's playerbase.
I know the WoW fanboys will overract, feeling like they are getting cheated on, but just relax. WoW will be around for a long time. Give WAR a chance, and if you don't like it the WoW expansion in a couple months will give you plenty of a reason to return to Azeroth.
The PvP in WoW felt forced. It was (let's be fair here) an after thought.
You are completely right and maybe even a little understated. WoW tried to tack on world PvP objectives in their expansion and that totally failed. They added 1 battleground, which was fun but just a hybrid of the others, and who gives half a shit about the objectives in Hellfire, Zangarmarsh, or even Nagrand? You get a little PvE boost and tokens for gear and stuff that might have been good when everyone was leveling to 70 but is way underpowered now.
And don't get me started with the arena system. I rue the day that ever came into a dev's mind.
Third, RACIST? What the hell? Can you PLEASE explain that, because I REALLY don't get that one. Honestly, I haven't a clue where you got that and really want to know.
He's an anti-dentite.
Apparently the best algorithms submitted so far get about 75% of their win/loss predictions correct, which would be more than enough to make real money in a state such as Nevada that allows gambling on sports.
75% win/loss ratio is shit when gambling on college sports. There's no probability here - there is a major bias between teams and one could easily guess 75% by just choosing the higher ranked team. And win/loss means nothing since Vegas won't pay you money for choosing Ohio State over Montana State. They'll give you a spread, say Ohio State will win by 32, and you can choose to either agree with them or disagree. Obviously, if you pull for Montana State you win if they win, but you will win even if Montana State keeps the score closer than 32. Or you can pull for Ohio State and you win if they 'cover the spread', winning by 32 or more.
But honestly, the probability is that you are going to lose. Any time you gamble with the hope that some 18-22 year old, who could be hung over, just broke up with his girlfriend, or has the flu, is going to come through for you, you are a sucker.
I *might* come back for WotLK but that would require WAR to be monumentally disappointing. After playing the preview weekend I can say that is definitely not the case. As someone who enjoys PvP more than raiding (I lean 70:30 towards PvP) I can say that that WAR is right up my alley.
As soon as LOTRO launches... ... ... ...
Dungeons and Dragons Online, for example.
Vanguard.
AOC.
Tabula Rasa.
I think the problem with most of those games is that they are primarily PvE and grind-heavy. AoC is probably the exception but has really floundered on content at their level cap. Having to buy a new computer to play some of these because of their graphics was a downfall too (AoC, definitely Vanguard). D&D was just so-so. But all of that was predicted in commercial and beta tester reviews. Read the DDO & Tabula Rasa reviews from slashdot. Not pretty but were mostly just rehashes of other earlier reviews. And while Vanguard wasn't reviewed here just check out a few of the articles that covered the game before and immediately after release. After seeing those did anyone really think they were going to hold casual gamers interest?
I'm not saying that WAR is going to become the 10 million+ juggernaut that WOW has, but I will say that, baring major problems, it will become the premier PvP MMO that people play. Since WOW has already softened PvE'ers up to the idea of PvP, I think a lot of people are more willing to play a primarily PvP game especially since they've removed the ability to gank lower-level players. I would love to hear the preorder numbers for WAR. I imagine that one of the most anticipated MMOs of the last few years is going to have a very good launch.
According to mmochart.com there are about 4.5 million North America and European players for WOW. As much as I like WOW and have played it for years, I do feel that they are going to see a major hit in those markets but will probably continue to 'grow' due to Asia. Until WAR offers an Asia subscription they aren't ever going to flirt with WoW numbers. And besides, do they need to? With 500,000 subscribers I think any game would be considered a success and continue to get updated.
VideoGamer.com: Do you guys expect a drop off when Warhammer Online comes out?
TC: It's hard to say. We haven't really experienced any meaningful drop-offs in the past.
After how successful the WAR Preview Weekend was and how exciting it was playing a new game with new classes and new areas, I think it's hubris for them to think that they aren't going to lose a lot of their player base. I know my household will have two accounts cancelled, and I know of about 10+ friends who are going to play as well. I don't know if they will cancel their WOW accounts but they won't be logged in.
I think the hardcore and casual PvP'ers will be playing WAR soon after launch if not at launch. The RvR in the preview was fantastic and just like what everyone has always wanted in WOW. It exists in every zone in WAR or you can do scenarios (battlegrounds). There aren't just 4 battlegrounds to play in and you can queue any where at any time and return to where you were when done. It's also possible to get gear without having to rely on a raid. And when you PvP you get XP.
Blizzard is going to try to implement some world PvP in with the expansion but it will probably be too little too late for the fans of PvP. Don't get me wrong, it won't kill WOW by any means, WOW will continue positive growth for a while until there is a contender in Asia, where the bulk of their user accounts exist. But WAR will make them stop and think about their direction. They might finally relent and merge many of their low-population servers. Maybe they'll drop their insane e-sport fetish that they've had for the last couple years and put more RPG into their MMO Arena Game.
On it's own it is as derogatory as dude.
Dude, Duder, or Duderino - if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
From hereon in anyone who utters that degrading neologism will be executed without trial by way of snoo-snoo.
I never thought it would end this way. But I always really hoped.
I'll cite nothing because I have no idea where this information leaked from, and you can take it with a grain of salt because I heard it years ago. But apparently the original story for Jedi worked like this:
The forest moon isn't Endor, it's Kashyyyk. The furry friends aren't Eworks, they're Wookies. You can still see an echo of this in the final film, because the very word "Ewok" is an anagram for "Wookie" (with a couple letters dropped). No one knows why this happened, but it's a safe bet the Wookies would have been way cooler than the Ewoks were. Popular opinion has it that the merchandising for cute teddy bears was more attractive than that of Wookie action figures, but no one knows for sure.
Actually, Lucas has said many times that the intent was to have the 'mighty' Empire toppled by a simple civilization. Originally this was supposed to be Wookies but he realized that the audiences would probably have a hard time accepting that Chewbacca's people were so technologically inferior when one of them was Han's co-pilot and was seen multiple times trying to repair a spaceship.
I have never heard the rumor of the alternate ending you propose but damn it sounds like that would've been out of the park. In hindsight, having the coolest and only black guy in the galaxy die would've been way before it's time since even the black robot died in 'Transformers'.
From what I've been reading, MS has opened up their Live service to more indie developers. You can build the game you want and then sell it on Live, and they will take a cut. I don't know how profitable this is or any other ins-and-outs, but you can check out the details here.
9. Getting to see athletes who won't be getting endorsement deals even if they do win the gold get to showcase their talents in sports that are not considered popular - like kayaking, water polo, cross-country skiing, ski jumping, curling, archery, synchronized swimming, handball, sailing, weight lifting, etc.
Now I will say that a few of these are well-known sports in other countries (curling - Canada, cross-country skiing - Norway, water polo - Spain) but for the majority of the world these are sports that they only see for 10 minutes once every 4 years. That's the shame of the Olympic Games - we miss out on some truly great events because they might not be as popular as others.
Dude, if you cannot figure out that being paid $17 and hour means that you are being paid $17 per hour WORKED, you are an idiot. The math is not debatable.
You want your $17/per hour then fine. You win. They are only getting that much per hour because of a forced unemployement for 1/4 of a year. X per year is still only that much per year.
Apparently, you are too stupid to understand that $20 is not pennies. It isn't by any stretch of the imagination. It costs more than $20 to get immunized, but even if it was $20 exactly, calling it pennies is at best a gross exaggeration. As for no one making a killing... The vaccine industry is an $11 BILLION a year industry that is expected to $20 BILLION a year by 2012.
Oh noes! Someone is making a profit creating a product that people need and selling it! And like I said if you can't afford $20 to keep your kid alive then the state will help you out - and that's not a cost in a school budget, that's welfare. Otherwise, it is pennies since almost all of the required shots are 1-time shots, or at least multiple in a short period.
Again, you say things that make you look stupid. Trying to imply that immunized kids are going to give your kid whooping cough is pretty dumb. That, and you keep saying 'conspiracy'. It is clear that you don't know what the word means.
You're so fucking stupid you can even comprehend a simple sentence. I said kids who WEREN'T immunized were going to give another kid whooping cough. You are the one who was railing AGAINST immunizations because they were some conspiracy by pediatricians and pharmaceutical companies to make more money.
And according to Oregon School Board Association you are just plain wrong. They show that salaries in Oregon go up to $60,452. That's a full 30% more than the fake number you pulled out of your ass. They also show that 27% of Oregon teachers are making more than $50k a year. The average across the state is $50,937.92. Seriously. $50k a year is doing just fine.
The fewer 30% at over $50k are skewing the almost 60% that are right in the $40,000 - $49,999 range. Someone needs to learn about 'averages'. Look at the pay schedule and you'll see that to get to 60k you need to be at or over 30 years with more than a masters degree. Even then though, I will admit I overstated, but not by much, not when a large majority are right in the range I said. My point still stands though, one can't comfortably support a family on a teacher's salary, unless somehow they start off with 25 years of experience!
I am impressed that Oregon has been increasing pay and are way above California. Why a teacher would teach in SoCal is beyond me. A doctorate in teaching there gets you $46,951 to 56,835. And you want them to cut teacher pay? I will say that the starting pay is much better than OR, but with the cost of living what it is there a teacher would make significantly less.
That wasn't even my point when we started this little war. You wanted to cut school funding because you thought teachers "... make a decent living working part time." Because supposedly 8-hour days are part time. If you want to call the California education system a mess you won't get any argument from me. Either fix the problem or quite bitching. Oregon and Washington are INCREASING spending and seeing a benefit. We require the same immunizations, have administration, have a bus system, and no one here screams crazy shit about conspiracies or collusion between government, drug companies, and doctors. Maybe if Californians didn't use teachers as a scapegoat then they could actually sit down and figure out where the real problems are. Nah, it's easier to blame teachers and continue the downward spiral.
180 days * 8 hours = 1440 hours. $24,000 / 1440 hours = $16.66666.... dollars per hour. 180 days * 8 hours = 1440 hours. $45,000 / 1440 hours = $31.25.... dollars per hour. Perhaps if you had a better education you would be able to handle simple math problems.
My education is fine. If you had read before, their pay is garnished so that they are paid year round, with a forced 3-month 'sabbatical'. They may not be around kids during the summer or billing hours, but they certainly aren't unemployed. They aren't pulling unemployment during the summer, and it's not like they can find employment elsewhere since all the schools are closed.
Vaccine price list
You just proved my point. If you bothered to look at that page you'd see those were bulk prices. Most of those cost a buck or two each. These aren't cancer drugs - someone is making money but not a killing. If you can't scrounge up $20 to get your kid vaccinated then the state will take care of it. As I said, once again:
... because I don't want your precious little snowflake giving my kid whooping cough doesn't make it a conspiracy.
No, I am not saying that teachers make $100k or more. You said that YOU do.
I do make a lot of money but for my education it's average. If you had bothered to read what I said previously was that I could not support a family on a teachers salary. If you can support a wife and two kids on a salary hovering around $27k (after a year or two of teaching) you are living in the middle of nowhere or don't care to ever own anything or give your kids anything. That's what I call the American Dream!
The other thing I said which you so adeptly didn't read or comprehend was that if you want GOOD teachers you need to pay them. This goes with what I said above - if one cannot support a family on a teachers salary then why would one go into teaching?
It is not a bargain, and you just listed more people that make money from the public school industry. Heavy overhead in administration is one of the areas that eat up a bunch of money. And, no, if spending less was possible, they wound not be doing it. Who goes out and asks for less money for their department in any industry?
If spending less was possible, the government would've cut it, not the schools. And they cut stuff all the time, Cali's governor is cutting like $150 million from somewhere in the school budget next year - while WA is increasing spending. Who you think is going to get better results?
And you need infrastructure, you need administration, and you need buses. You think that's wasted money, and I'm sure in some places there is waste. Where there's bureaucracy there's waste. But to think you can save BILLIONS and get quality is hubris.
You seem to think that $17 to $31/hour is an unlivable wage. I say that there are a lot of people that would LOVE to make that much money because they are supporting their families on far less.
Sure, a lot of people would love it but did they go to college and get out with $40k worth of student loans? Did they have to continue their education and get the equivalent of a masters, paid out of their own pockets? Like I said above you can't support a family on $12/hr. Not $17 to $31 per hour ($34k-$62k per year), you need to do some math because those are WAY over what I said before. Why would you teach when you can make more money working as a waiter/waitress?
So, listing people who make money from the schools system makes someone a conspiracy nutcase? The fact is that schools state that they require certain medical procedures to attend public school. ... So, no, I am not a conspiracy nutcase, but your accusation is ironic.
Please, because I don't want your precious little snowflake giving my kid whooping cough doesn't make it a conspiracy. Vaccines cost pennies and even if you don't have the pennies you can get them for free. The HPV one should not be required since that is not communicable in groups, that does seem like corruption.
For Oregon, your wage amount sounds about what she was saying, so no. Neither she nor I am spouting off bs here.
You purposely inflated numbers to make your point ($17 per hour? please), which wasn't a sound point in the first place. Don't be so shocked when I start calling you on it. Teachers aren't doing fine - if they were we wouldn't have problems finding good ones.