to add: I think you are right on concerning balance.. a balance being those with time can use that as they see fit while those on the other side of the equation could use that as well (money from time working). The balance would be to skip stuff that's not fun (normally grinding lower level gear or what-not to get to the fun stuff later one) while not giving an advantage to EITHER side.. the endgame should be about skill, regardless of the time you invest or the money you invest.. then again, we're talking MMOs here. look at the other side of the fence.. it's the opposite (but same) argument against those people with money that pay CCGs like Magic:TG. Those of us that can afford it can buy the best cards and keep up. Those that don't have jobs or have more time than work on their hands can't keep up.. It's the same problem, just from a different viewpoint. Neither method is optimal.
in sports, one team doesn't get to keep playing while the other team takes a break.. dumb analogy. either its a forfeiture or both sides take a break and have equal playing time. TIME = MONEY, MONEY = TIME.. having more TIME gives you an advantage over someone that doesn't. Basically, in many games having more of a resource than someone else means they are handicapped. Congratulations, people that spent their time grinding hours on end to get ahead did so while their competitors were disadvantaged or handicapped.. some achievement.
in some games they can, in others they are deisgned not to. WoW is a godo example on where it can, Guild Wars is an example where it used to not interfere.
In WoW I like to do the raids till I don't care to see them anymore. In TBC that was a problem because I didn't have the time dedicated to get geared up to raid and was rejected quite a bit. If we're talking about interfering with fun, then WoW PvP isn't fun to me so that wasn't really an option to grind gear. I ended up slowly grinding dungeon gear up till I get get in and slowly grind Kara gear up. When Wrath came out I took a much needed vacation and went to the top pretty fast since i had plenty of time. By dong that, time's not as much an issue till new stuff comes out since I'm geared like the people that have time.
If I were able to buy my dungeon sets (which require many dungeon runs and luck) then I could have done the dungeons a few times, then gona and started raiding much earlier without having to grind up there. It wouldn't have affected any of the people that spent time. I in essence would have spent the time since I worked for the money.
It's just the same with CCGs which benefit people with money over time - no fix I can think of for that except doing Booster Drafts, which limits the money advantage.
It turns out I was pretty good at raiding and didn't know it. I would have never known had I not taken that vacation before and after Wrath came out. I was able to start raiding TBC, then play Wrath when it came out and start raiding there. I even get quite a few invites when I'm online to main tank for guilds that need one.
trading my money for time would have made it that much more fun. I don't feel I 'earned' my gear in Wrath just because I had much more time during my vacation than normal players. In fact, it felt kind of awkward, not quite like cheating, but not something to brag about.
combining the two, done right, won't hurt anyone, even the kiddies sitting at home playing.
in Wrahammer and Guild Wars this isn't really an issue, nor is it in Runes of Magic.
glad someone else made this pretty clear (much cleared than I have been) AND got modded so everyone can see it. In my posts above I pointed out the MTG problem being the exact opposite side of the spectrum as MMOs. my exampe was:
Most people have Resource X X = TIME = MONEY X is in one of those two forms, kinda like energy and matter. admittedly, some people have neither, but beside the point..
MMOs cater to and allow people with X in TIME form to succeed more than people with X in money form. People are usually uber-geared and see all the content not because they're better than everyone else, but because they have an in-game advantage (time)..
CCGs are the opposite. They cater to people with resource X in money form. People with more money invested in CCGs will almost always be better than people without money, no matter how much time the other person has. They may be able to go out and buy the exact cards of a build listed on the internet, but they're at a disadvantage in that they can't adapt or try their own better builds because they don't have the money.
In both cases, it's about business strategy. In the first case, the publishers early on decided that Time > Skill > Money meant longer subscriptions, which meant more money for them.
In the latter case, the publishers early on decided that Money > Skill > Time because they were in essence content based and needed to keep selling content (and came up with the Level 2 rules to support that in the MTG case) to make money.
In MMOs, the only fairly even playing field is usually a case like Guild Wars PVP, WoW Arena-Only PVP (the one you pay 20 bucks for and have access to everything), and the like. It's still not exact.
In CCGs the only fairly even playing field is usually the Draft games, where everyone plays from random cards that they build decks from.
in any case, I don't see a fix for CCGs since nobody is going to give you physical cards without money no matter how much time you spend - time has to be spent to earn money in their case.
in MMOs, the real fix wold be to make real games. seeing as how that probably isn't going to happen, combining RMT with Time is probably the most balancing method. In either case, optimally you should be able to get endgame stuff with either TIME or MONEY, but somewhere SKILL should be re-introduced. Right now, in many cases its about TIME is western MMOs (heroics or raiding to get a piece, run again for an other piece, etc till your done) or MONEY in eastern MMOs (spend more money to get the newest uber item or be left behind). an in-between is something that could probably do a lot of good.
anyhow, thx for putting it more clearly than I could:-)
I would say that gold farmers are detrimental (if even then), not gold selling. The maker of an MMO selling gold/items via RMT is a lot different than gold farmers doing it outside the ToS.
as opposed to the current philosophy of "more time = better player"
neither option is perfect, a balance would be better.
back in the day skill or luck used to play a big role in games, when they remove skill then you have a conundrum such as this.. people with lots of time usually have limited cash resources (someone will read that and not understand what 'usually' means). people with lots of cash (read: not parents cash which would put them into the first category, in order) usually don't have nearly as much time as the first category because their time is spent earning that cash to pay bills or support their family..
TIME = MONEY, they are essentially the same exact resource in two different forms. think of them as energy and matter if you will. resource X
basically as it stands now in both MMOs and Collectible Card Games, one side usually has a shitload more Resource X than the other side, making it a rather unbalanced game.
In MMOs Resource X is in the form of time, whereas if you don't have X in that form you are at a disadvantage.
In CCGs Resource X is in the form of money, whereas if you don't have X in that form you are at a disadvantage.
I don't know of a way to fix the CCG issue and still have a business strategy for them, but since business strategies are about money, the MMO issue could be fixed, assuming they didn't go overboard. neither version of Resource X should net you endgame stuff.. In a game that should always be Skill. A person that is highly skilled in the game (through practice or just being a natural) should be able to come in and succeed at the endgame stuff after investing Resource X in either form. a person without sufficient skill should not be able to come in and succeed at the endgame regardless of how much Resource X they put into the game..
as I mentioned above, a person living on someone else's dime, being able to play most of the day is an in-game advantage to those that don't. Time is the biggest resource in modern MMOs. Those with 12 hours to spend on a game competing with those that only have a few have an in-game advantage. Most games balance advantages between people, MMOs don't. In essence people with lots of time are uber only because the people they compete against (players with no time) are handicapped.
If MMOs were about skill, then that would be an entirely different story, but most are not. most games don't let you continue to play while your opponent is not in the game and still compete against him. Magic:TG is a godo exampe of the opposite end, no matter how much time you have if you don't have the money, you're at a disadvantage to those that do have the money. There's no balance there - but just like MMOs its purely a business strategy, having nothing to do with the 'fun factor' of a game.
your first part hit home with me. I agree with you totally. When I took vacation (hadn't in a while so decided to) and Wrath came out, I was able to play it constantly, which noramlly I can't do since I work, have family, other commitments, etc) for a bit. Somehow, though, when I got to the top (not the first, but close t first 80 n my server) and now that I'm a 25-man geared raid tank, I think about the people that couldn't spend as much time. I in essence cheated them out of competing with me (since MMOs always seem to be about competing with each other). I had more of a resource that mattered to the game than they did. That, in essence is cheating. I would feel just as bad if it was a turn-based game like TradeWars and I paid extra cash to get extra turns. That would be giving me a resource that other people did not have.
In the case of MMOs (WoW/RMT is a moot point since RMT is against the ToS) that allow RMT, it's a way to balance out resources between players. Previously games limited payers to a certain amount of playtime or turns per day to make it even. MMOs don't do that due t the subscription model that they hold - time means longer subs. That means that people with a greater Time resource have an in-game advantage over people without that resource. However, there is no means for those other people to even the playfield by using their resource (money, which used up their time). If it was balanced, there would be limits on how long a person could play each day, just like the old BBS games used to do - which were quite a bit more evenly balanced than these games. If you lived at home with your parents and worked part time with maybe 12+ hours to play the game, too bad - you get to play it for one hour just like the parent that only has a few hours of time at home. Of course, we don't really want that I don't think. the alternative is to let other people buy their time into the game. not the endgame stuff, just the stuff the game devs put into the game to extend the subscriptons out longer (the business strategy of it). Since it's money coming in, it would compensate for the playtime.
cheating to me is sitting at home having someone else foot the bill and competing against people that have to work to pay for their game as well as pay for the bills. When you play a session of Scrabble, every has the same number of turns and starts at the same base. When playing chess everyone has the same number of turns and starts at the same setup, and in competitive chess even have equal amounts of time to think about the equal number of turns.
Even in real-time games, the payers will usually participate for the same amount of time starting at the same base starting point - RTSs are a good example of this as well as sports.
MMOs don't really fit the same category as most other games because the game proceeds whether you are there or not and your competitors are able to play without you. That's where the person with more time has an out-of-game advantage to the person with less time. That's cheating in many forms - one person has access to more resources that affect the game than a competitor. Time is the greatest resource in most MMOS. Some people have their time resource converted into cash in order to pay bills, therefore they have the same resource, but in a form that is not acceptable to the game.
there's no cheating, there's breaking the TOS, which is more of a business strategy than an guide on what cheating is. Time > skill sells longer subscriptions. It's the case in every medium - look at tv shows (especially the idea of cliffhangers).
other than spending real-world 'earned' cash... there's not really a more direct to place real-world value on something than buying it with money. If there were skill involved, then that's a different story because then you are comparing yourself to someone else as in a traditional game. Time isn't skill though.
btw, I realize you clearly stated you have never payed MMORPGs so the latter part was not directed at you at all so plz don't take offense:-) I hope the first part, though, helped give a bit of insight on how MMOs are different than other games. Collectible Card Games such as Pokemon and Magic:TG would fall into a similar category as well if you've ever payed them. they are almost the opposite side of the field as MMOs, though. without regard to skill, assuming anyone can look online and figure out how to get good - a person without money and plenty of time will almost never be able to compete evently in many of those card games as someone with money to spend towards it. The exceptions are digging up decks online and spending the minimum amount to build a specific deck.
the problem with your statement is that in most games you are balanced in-game with those you compete with (except for skill, which is the point of many games - or luck). Even traditional RPGs, you pay the same amount of time with your fellow players so everyone is fairly balanced progression-wise. Almost every other genrea of game is the same way, except MMOs. One of the reason for modern MMOs being different isn't due to the skill requirements or 'fun' factor of the game, it's purely a business strategy. Time > Skill sells longer subscriptions, it always has.
Here's the thing though, people that have little time but want to play have no problems competing against people with plenty of time so long as they can use their version of the 'time currency' - that is their paycheck, to even the playing field. The problem comes from the other side of the field. Those with plenty of time on their hands rarely want a level playing field. I've been on both sides of the field. again, as I've always said, neither side should be a method for endgame stuff, that should have always been about skill, yet in MMOs it rarely is. and yes, I play endgame in several MMOs, including WoW. I promise you that I put in more effort if I'm able to run endgame stuff with people that spend all day playing wow, having to manange my time between gaming, work, and family. The time I spend in-game has to actually count if I want to get anywhere, someone that plays 12 hours a day can't say that.
yeah I don't agree with his analogy, but he's got a point. I work, have a family and am a veteran so I know what effort is. There's no way someone could convince me that someone putting their hard-earned money into a game to skip to the fun stuff is less of an effort than having the loads of time freely available to 'earn' it in-game. I make six figures and have to manage my time because I do a lot of work and spend time with the family. I compete in the games I play with kids or young adults (many that still act like kids) that have nothing but time on their hands. Who do you think puts in more effort? For what it's worth I'm a guildless (never been in a WoW guild) 25-man geared raid tank in WoW, only because I took a bit of vacation I hadn't been able to take in a while.
RMT and WoW is a moot point, however since it's explicitly banned in there (which doesn't make it unethical, just makes it risky - people have some really weird ideas about ethics these days).
If wow allowed RMT for dungeon-set level gear so that people with less time could bypass gearing up for the endgame stuff then all the better. RMT should never allow for end-game gear, but then again you shouldn't be able to get end-game gear just by spending time doing something. It should have always been about skill, something most MMOs have a serious lacking of nowadays anyway. As others have said, two paths would be optimal, as long as neither path is abused.
Yeah, multipath is really significant if you live around high-rise buildings (or even multi-story apartments).
I would still only compare digital to UHF analog though as opposed to analog in general since VHF analog is a different beast due to the frequencies. VHF is more resistant to those types of problems (not fully, just more), but that is much of the range being freed up and not used by digital.
yeah I tend to agree. I live in an apartment where my analog channels weren't perfect but were watchable (and audible), even with static. I get quite a bit of interference on and off and it's rather annoying when a digital signal cuts or has problems and the sound goes out entirely (even if the picture is just blocking)until it picks back up (sometimes the picture as well). It's quite a bit different than getting a bit of static (or even a big burst of static) in the picture and sound on an analog channel where it may be annoying but I don't miss anything (less it goes completely out).
To me the sound is the most annoying aspect and almost seems like there is less tolerance there. Then again, digital cable isn't much better either, in fact its worse because of the higher compression and more outages I have gotten with it. In the cable arena I preferred analog over digital by far. As far as over the air, the quality of the picture and sound is so much better when it comes in, but there really does seem to be less tolerance for when it doesn't. Video and sound with some static in them is much more followable to me (maybe just me) than blocking video or sound that cuts out entirely.
Again, I live in fairly old apartments. Another thing to consider is that with the frequencies that analog used, many were more resilient than what digital uses. Basically the VHF channels are probably what most people use to compare analog to digital. Since digital is closer to your UHF channels (which could be non-existent due to interference in some places) the only real comparison is with them. Basically the digital signals will only be as good as the weaker set of the analog signals. Going by that, digital (based on frequencies used as opposed to method used) is probably going to be worse in many cases than people used to watching VHF channels alone.
In other words, NBC/CBS/ABC, given a user with weak UHF before and similar power output by the stations, is going to be worse than before as far as interference because it's no longer in the VHF spectrum. I consider it worse when I cannot follow the show (sound cutting off or the screen blocking where I cannot see the picture compared to sound with static and a picture with static - since I can follow a scene with quite a bit of static) So saying that over-the-air HDTV is better than over-the-analog (or vice versa) is really just BS since it's apples and oranges (unless you leave out VHF, which was the meat of analog). That's also why DTV antennas are so similar to UHF antennas.
Minions of Mirth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minions_of_Mirth) went another route, though somewhat similar to Heroes. There aren't henchmen or heroes in the game. Whenever you log on, you select from your list of characters who comprises your party. In otherwords, if you have 3 different characters that you play, you can group them together and control them all as a party (like the old single-player RPGs where you build your party up).
The best chance you would have is to become a DoD Contractor with a company that already provides contractors to the Air Force. There are far mar contractors involved in this field in a non-supervisory role than there are military or government civilian positions. The technical skills have required it in the past. I am a military veteran and a contractor myself. Chances are you may not enjoy the duty as a military worker because much of the work you would fulfill would be related to other duties - not necessarily related to the cyber warfare mission directly. I work in the field and am very familiar with cyber command. I posted a question further down the list regarding what percentages of uniformed Air Force, uniformed non-Air Force, non-uniformed government civilians, and private contractors they plan on constituting the command and its satellites in the end-game. Hopefully that will give more people an idea of where they can take part in the process. Those that are already in the process already know. It's mainly for new people. Whether that question gets chosen or even answered is beyond me. It may be passed by entirely even if chosen if the answer is the typical majority contractors and minimal military personnel.
General,
In relation to the Air Force taking on the added responsibilities that Cyber Command is assuming, could you give us estimated percentages of the workforce within Cyber Command and its satellite agencies in terms of Uniformed Air Force, Uniformed non-Air Force, Government Civilian, and Contractor workers.
In most instances it still holds true. Remember, just a few people are smart and dedicated enough to find and exploit those vulnerabilities. Everyone else just reaps from their labor. I think those are the people he's saying they are smarter than.
"The company simply stated that they 'respect those who have different opinions about the horror genre and videogames as a whole, but we hope they will also consider the opinions of the adult gamers for whom this product is intended.'"
Well if they said, themselves, that adult gamers are the intended audience, then what's wrong with Adult's Only being the rating? They practically rated themselves..
Sorry, but most of the males in that age group that really matter are either already serving, are veterans (hence exempt from a draft anyhow), or are in law enforcement/protection (fire departments and such) and would probably be exempt as well. The exceptions are those that are under 18 at this point but will be in the near future.
Slashdot Mirror
to add: I think you are right on concerning balance.. a balance being those with time can use that as they see fit while those on the other side of the equation could use that as well (money from time working). The balance would be to skip stuff that's not fun (normally grinding lower level gear or what-not to get to the fun stuff later one) while not giving an advantage to EITHER side.. the endgame should be about skill, regardless of the time you invest or the money you invest.. then again, we're talking MMOs here. look at the other side of the fence.. it's the opposite (but same) argument against those people with money that pay CCGs like Magic:TG. Those of us that can afford it can buy the best cards and keep up. Those that don't have jobs or have more time than work on their hands can't keep up.. It's the same problem, just from a different viewpoint. Neither method is optimal.
in sports, one team doesn't get to keep playing while the other team takes a break.. dumb analogy. either its a forfeiture or both sides take a break and have equal playing time. TIME = MONEY, MONEY = TIME.. having more TIME gives you an advantage over someone that doesn't. Basically, in many games having more of a resource than someone else means they are handicapped. Congratulations, people that spent their time grinding hours on end to get ahead did so while their competitors were disadvantaged or handicapped.. some achievement.
in some games they can, in others they are deisgned not to. WoW is a godo example on where it can, Guild Wars is an example where it used to not interfere.
In WoW I like to do the raids till I don't care to see them anymore. In TBC that was a problem because I didn't have the time dedicated to get geared up to raid and was rejected quite a bit. If we're talking about interfering with fun, then WoW PvP isn't fun to me so that wasn't really an option to grind gear. I ended up slowly grinding dungeon gear up till I get get in and slowly grind Kara gear up. When Wrath came out I took a much needed vacation and went to the top pretty fast since i had plenty of time. By dong that, time's not as much an issue till new stuff comes out since I'm geared like the people that have time.
If I were able to buy my dungeon sets (which require many dungeon runs and luck) then I could have done the dungeons a few times, then gona and started raiding much earlier without having to grind up there. It wouldn't have affected any of the people that spent time. I in essence would have spent the time since I worked for the money.
It's just the same with CCGs which benefit people with money over time - no fix I can think of for that except doing Booster Drafts, which limits the money advantage.
It turns out I was pretty good at raiding and didn't know it. I would have never known had I not taken that vacation before and after Wrath came out. I was able to start raiding TBC, then play Wrath when it came out and start raiding there. I even get quite a few invites when I'm online to main tank for guilds that need one.
trading my money for time would have made it that much more fun. I don't feel I 'earned' my gear in Wrath just because I had much more time during my vacation than normal players. In fact, it felt kind of awkward, not quite like cheating, but not something to brag about.
combining the two, done right, won't hurt anyone, even the kiddies sitting at home playing.
in Wrahammer and Guild Wars this isn't really an issue, nor is it in Runes of Magic.
glad someone else made this pretty clear (much cleared than I have been) AND got modded so everyone can see it. In my posts above I pointed out the MTG problem being the exact opposite side of the spectrum as MMOs. my exampe was:
Most people have Resource X
X = TIME = MONEY
X is in one of those two forms, kinda like energy and matter. admittedly, some people have neither, but beside the point..
MMOs cater to and allow people with X in TIME form to succeed more than people with X in money form. People are usually uber-geared and see all the content not because they're better than everyone else, but because they have an in-game advantage (time)..
CCGs are the opposite. They cater to people with resource X in money form. People with more money invested in CCGs will almost always be better than people without money, no matter how much time the other person has. They may be able to go out and buy the exact cards of a build listed on the internet, but they're at a disadvantage in that they can't adapt or try their own better builds because they don't have the money.
In both cases, it's about business strategy. In the first case, the publishers early on decided that Time > Skill > Money meant longer subscriptions, which meant more money for them.
In the latter case, the publishers early on decided that Money > Skill > Time because they were in essence content based and needed to keep selling content (and came up with the Level 2 rules to support that in the MTG case) to make money.
In MMOs, the only fairly even playing field is usually a case like Guild Wars PVP, WoW Arena-Only PVP (the one you pay 20 bucks for and have access to everything), and the like. It's still not exact.
In CCGs the only fairly even playing field is usually the Draft games, where everyone plays from random cards that they build decks from.
in any case, I don't see a fix for CCGs since nobody is going to give you physical cards without money no matter how much time you spend - time has to be spent to earn money in their case.
in MMOs, the real fix wold be to make real games. seeing as how that probably isn't going to happen, combining RMT with Time is probably the most balancing method. In either case, optimally you should be able to get endgame stuff with either TIME or MONEY, but somewhere SKILL should be re-introduced. Right now, in many cases its about TIME is western MMOs (heroics or raiding to get a piece, run again for an other piece, etc till your done) or MONEY in eastern MMOs (spend more money to get the newest uber item or be left behind). an in-between is something that could probably do a lot of good.
anyhow, thx for putting it more clearly than I could :-)
Guild Wars was a good exampe at one time.
*would
besides, competing against someone that can't play the game as much as you isn't really competing, it's just paying with other players there.
how many people wold play chess if your opponent could make extra moves while you were not there?
that's a more accurate analogy
I would say that gold farmers are detrimental (if even then), not gold selling. The maker of an MMO selling gold/items via RMT is a lot different than gold farmers doing it outside the ToS.
as opposed to the current philosophy of "more time = better player"
neither option is perfect, a balance would be better.
back in the day skill or luck used to play a big role in games, when they remove skill then you have a conundrum such as this.. people with lots of time usually have limited cash resources (someone will read that and not understand what 'usually' means). people with lots of cash (read: not parents cash which would put them into the first category, in order) usually don't have nearly as much time as the first category because their time is spent earning that cash to pay bills or support their family..
TIME = MONEY, they are essentially the same exact resource in two different forms. think of them as energy and matter if you will. resource X
basically as it stands now in both MMOs and Collectible Card Games, one side usually has a shitload more Resource X than the other side, making it a rather unbalanced game.
In MMOs Resource X is in the form of time, whereas if you don't have X in that form you are at a disadvantage.
In CCGs Resource X is in the form of money, whereas if you don't have X in that form you are at a disadvantage.
I don't know of a way to fix the CCG issue and still have a business strategy for them, but since business strategies are about money, the MMO issue could be fixed, assuming they didn't go overboard. neither version of Resource X should net you endgame stuff.. In a game that should always be Skill. A person that is highly skilled in the game (through practice or just being a natural) should be able to come in and succeed at the endgame stuff after investing Resource X in either form. a person without sufficient skill should not be able to come in and succeed at the endgame regardless of how much Resource X they put into the game..
as I mentioned above, a person living on someone else's dime, being able to play most of the day is an in-game advantage to those that don't. Time is the biggest resource in modern MMOs. Those with 12 hours to spend on a game competing with those that only have a few have an in-game advantage. Most games balance advantages between people, MMOs don't. In essence people with lots of time are uber only because the people they compete against (players with no time) are handicapped.
If MMOs were about skill, then that would be an entirely different story, but most are not. most games don't let you continue to play while your opponent is not in the game and still compete against him. Magic:TG is a godo exampe of the opposite end, no matter how much time you have if you don't have the money, you're at a disadvantage to those that do have the money. There's no balance there - but just like MMOs its purely a business strategy, having nothing to do with the 'fun factor' of a game.
your first part hit home with me. I agree with you totally. When I took vacation (hadn't in a while so decided to) and Wrath came out, I was able to play it constantly, which noramlly I can't do since I work, have family, other commitments, etc) for a bit. Somehow, though, when I got to the top (not the first, but close t first 80 n my server) and now that I'm a 25-man geared raid tank, I think about the people that couldn't spend as much time. I in essence cheated them out of competing with me (since MMOs always seem to be about competing with each other). I had more of a resource that mattered to the game than they did. That, in essence is cheating. I would feel just as bad if it was a turn-based game like TradeWars and I paid extra cash to get extra turns. That would be giving me a resource that other people did not have.
In the case of MMOs (WoW/RMT is a moot point since RMT is against the ToS) that allow RMT, it's a way to balance out resources between players. Previously games limited payers to a certain amount of playtime or turns per day to make it even. MMOs don't do that due t the subscription model that they hold - time means longer subs. That means that people with a greater Time resource have an in-game advantage over people without that resource. However, there is no means for those other people to even the playfield by using their resource (money, which used up their time). If it was balanced, there would be limits on how long a person could play each day, just like the old BBS games used to do - which were quite a bit more evenly balanced than these games. If you lived at home with your parents and worked part time with maybe 12+ hours to play the game, too bad - you get to play it for one hour just like the parent that only has a few hours of time at home. Of course, we don't really want that I don't think. the alternative is to let other people buy their time into the game. not the endgame stuff, just the stuff the game devs put into the game to extend the subscriptons out longer (the business strategy of it). Since it's money coming in, it would compensate for the playtime.
cheating to me is sitting at home having someone else foot the bill and competing against people that have to work to pay for their game as well as pay for the bills. When you play a session of Scrabble, every has the same number of turns and starts at the same base. When playing chess everyone has the same number of turns and starts at the same setup, and in competitive chess even have equal amounts of time to think about the equal number of turns.
Even in real-time games, the payers will usually participate for the same amount of time starting at the same base starting point - RTSs are a good example of this as well as sports.
MMOs don't really fit the same category as most other games because the game proceeds whether you are there or not and your competitors are able to play without you. That's where the person with more time has an out-of-game advantage to the person with less time. That's cheating in many forms - one person has access to more resources that affect the game than a competitor. Time is the greatest resource in most MMOS. Some people have their time resource converted into cash in order to pay bills, therefore they have the same resource, but in a form that is not acceptable to the game.
there's no cheating, there's breaking the TOS, which is more of a business strategy than an guide on what cheating is. Time > skill sells longer subscriptions. It's the case in every medium - look at tv shows (especially the idea of cliffhangers).
other than spending real-world 'earned' cash... there's not really a more direct to place real-world value on something than buying it with money. If there were skill involved, then that's a different story because then you are comparing yourself to someone else as in a traditional game. Time isn't skill though.
btw, I realize you clearly stated you have never payed MMORPGs so the latter part was not directed at you at all so plz don't take offense :-) I hope the first part, though, helped give a bit of insight on how MMOs are different than other games. Collectible Card Games such as Pokemon and Magic:TG would fall into a similar category as well if you've ever payed them. they are almost the opposite side of the field as MMOs, though. without regard to skill, assuming anyone can look online and figure out how to get good - a person without money and plenty of time will almost never be able to compete evently in many of those card games as someone with money to spend towards it. The exceptions are digging up decks online and spending the minimum amount to build a specific deck.
the problem with your statement is that in most games you are balanced in-game with those you compete with (except for skill, which is the point of many games - or luck). Even traditional RPGs, you pay the same amount of time with your fellow players so everyone is fairly balanced progression-wise. Almost every other genrea of game is the same way, except MMOs. One of the reason for modern MMOs being different isn't due to the skill requirements or 'fun' factor of the game, it's purely a business strategy. Time > Skill sells longer subscriptions, it always has.
Here's the thing though, people that have little time but want to play have no problems competing against people with plenty of time so long as they can use their version of the 'time currency' - that is their paycheck, to even the playing field. The problem comes from the other side of the field. Those with plenty of time on their hands rarely want a level playing field. I've been on both sides of the field. again, as I've always said, neither side should be a method for endgame stuff, that should have always been about skill, yet in MMOs it rarely is. and yes, I play endgame in several MMOs, including WoW. I promise you that I put in more effort if I'm able to run endgame stuff with people that spend all day playing wow, having to manange my time between gaming, work, and family. The time I spend in-game has to actually count if I want to get anywhere, someone that plays 12 hours a day can't say that.
yeah I don't agree with his analogy, but he's got a point. I work, have a family and am a veteran so I know what effort is. There's no way someone could convince me that someone putting their hard-earned money into a game to skip to the fun stuff is less of an effort than having the loads of time freely available to 'earn' it in-game. I make six figures and have to manage my time because I do a lot of work and spend time with the family. I compete in the games I play with kids or young adults (many that still act like kids) that have nothing but time on their hands. Who do you think puts in more effort? For what it's worth I'm a guildless (never been in a WoW guild) 25-man geared raid tank in WoW, only because I took a bit of vacation I hadn't been able to take in a while.
RMT and WoW is a moot point, however since it's explicitly banned in there (which doesn't make it unethical, just makes it risky - people have some really weird ideas about ethics these days).
If wow allowed RMT for dungeon-set level gear so that people with less time could bypass gearing up for the endgame stuff then all the better. RMT should never allow for end-game gear, but then again you shouldn't be able to get end-game gear just by spending time doing something. It should have always been about skill, something most MMOs have a serious lacking of nowadays anyway. As others have said, two paths would be optimal, as long as neither path is abused.
a crippled guy with a missing foot standing next to a quadriplegic doesn't make him any less crippled, political correctness aside.
Yeah, multipath is really significant if you live around high-rise buildings (or even multi-story apartments).
I would still only compare digital to UHF analog though as opposed to analog in general since VHF analog is a different beast due to the frequencies. VHF is more resistant to those types of problems (not fully, just more), but that is much of the range being freed up and not used by digital.
yeah I tend to agree. I live in an apartment where my analog channels weren't perfect but were watchable (and audible), even with static. I get quite a bit of interference on and off and it's rather annoying when a digital signal cuts or has problems and the sound goes out entirely (even if the picture is just blocking)until it picks back up (sometimes the picture as well). It's quite a bit different than getting a bit of static (or even a big burst of static) in the picture and sound on an analog channel where it may be annoying but I don't miss anything (less it goes completely out).
To me the sound is the most annoying aspect and almost seems like there is less tolerance there. Then again, digital cable isn't much better either, in fact its worse because of the higher compression and more outages I have gotten with it. In the cable arena I preferred analog over digital by far. As far as over the air, the quality of the picture and sound is so much better when it comes in, but there really does seem to be less tolerance for when it doesn't. Video and sound with some static in them is much more followable to me (maybe just me) than blocking video or sound that cuts out entirely.
Again, I live in fairly old apartments. Another thing to consider is that with the frequencies that analog used, many were more resilient than what digital uses. Basically the VHF channels are probably what most people use to compare analog to digital. Since digital is closer to your UHF channels (which could be non-existent due to interference in some places) the only real comparison is with them. Basically the digital signals will only be as good as the weaker set of the analog signals. Going by that, digital (based on frequencies used as opposed to method used) is probably going to be worse in many cases than people used to watching VHF channels alone.
In other words, NBC/CBS/ABC, given a user with weak UHF before and similar power output by the stations, is going to be worse than before as far as interference because it's no longer in the VHF spectrum. I consider it worse when I cannot follow the show (sound cutting off or the screen blocking where I cannot see the picture compared to sound with static and a picture with static - since I can follow a scene with quite a bit of static) So saying that over-the-air HDTV is better than over-the-analog (or vice versa) is really just BS since it's apples and oranges (unless you leave out VHF, which was the meat of analog). That's also why DTV antennas are so similar to UHF antennas.
Minions of Mirth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minions_of_Mirth) went another route, though somewhat similar to Heroes. There aren't henchmen or heroes in the game. Whenever you log on, you select from your list of characters who comprises your party. In otherwords, if you have 3 different characters that you play, you can group them together and control them all as a party (like the old single-player RPGs where you build your party up).
The best chance you would have is to become a DoD Contractor with a company that already provides contractors to the Air Force. There are far mar contractors involved in this field in a non-supervisory role than there are military or government civilian positions. The technical skills have required it in the past. I am a military veteran and a contractor myself. Chances are you may not enjoy the duty as a military worker because much of the work you would fulfill would be related to other duties - not necessarily related to the cyber warfare mission directly. I work in the field and am very familiar with cyber command. I posted a question further down the list regarding what percentages of uniformed Air Force, uniformed non-Air Force, non-uniformed government civilians, and private contractors they plan on constituting the command and its satellites in the end-game. Hopefully that will give more people an idea of where they can take part in the process. Those that are already in the process already know. It's mainly for new people. Whether that question gets chosen or even answered is beyond me. It may be passed by entirely even if chosen if the answer is the typical majority contractors and minimal military personnel.
General, In relation to the Air Force taking on the added responsibilities that Cyber Command is assuming, could you give us estimated percentages of the workforce within Cyber Command and its satellite agencies in terms of Uniformed Air Force, Uniformed non-Air Force, Government Civilian, and Contractor workers.
In most instances it still holds true. Remember, just a few people are smart and dedicated enough to find and exploit those vulnerabilities. Everyone else just reaps from their labor. I think those are the people he's saying they are smarter than.
"The company simply stated that they 'respect those who have different opinions about the horror genre and videogames as a whole, but we hope they will also consider the opinions of the adult gamers for whom this product is intended.'" Well if they said, themselves, that adult gamers are the intended audience, then what's wrong with Adult's Only being the rating? They practically rated themselves..
You're assuming that everyone matters. I meant what I said. Most of the rest not in those categories don't matter all that much.
Sorry, but most of the males in that age group that really matter are either already serving, are veterans (hence exempt from a draft anyhow), or are in law enforcement/protection (fire departments and such) and would probably be exempt as well. The exceptions are those that are under 18 at this point but will be in the near future.