"1. How do they know that it's the Chinese Military? It could be a criminal organization."
Especially considering how cheap labor is in Guangdong. This is where gold-farming ops in MMOs get a lot of their labor. There are probably a lot of more technically competent people who also could be hired, as well as an easy cover story for a warehouse full of terminals.
[sarcasm]Don't buy gold in MMOs! You are supporting the Commie military / criminal underworld / Chinese paramilitary / terrorists!!!111[/sarcasm]
But the line has to be drawn somewhere for personal sanity. Where the line is drawn legally is a different matter.
Anyone going online has to understand that they are exposing themselves to risk. Whether or not they think that risk is unacceptable is up to them. Taking steps to lessen that risk is up to them.
Erm, no. It's been back-and-forth since the days of the first MUDs. Some people like one, some like the other. Some like both (not that there's anything wrong with that). The first MUDs were strictly PvE, however.
Hopefully, there will be enough high-quality MMOs out there that everyone can be happy.
Which means, that if you don't like DDO because it doesn't have PvP, then don't play it -- go play another game that has it.
Ditto for the people (like me) who can't stand the juvenile attitude of gankers in PvE games. I just don't play games with persistent PvE.
The other problem is that PvP denigrates the rest of the game. No one will do the hard co-op quests if they can just gank the uberloot from someone who already did.
Again, though, I'm reminded of Runscape, which though graphically challenged and simple, has decent gameplay. Free players don't have access to all the content, a lot of which is hosted on members-only servers. But other than that, every server is open to everyone. The game world is split into PvP areas and non-PvP areas, which means that everybody can have a bit of what they like.
Endgame content requires countless hours of grinding, though. I mean, there is no skill tree, but there are 27 skills, and maxing out at any one skill would take you at least 500 hours, probably two or three times that. No joke. And some skills dependent on each other, or require vast amounts of cash to train.
The other problem is that PvP detracts from what I think could be really great aspects of the game. There is little demand for good PvE, so most of it is grinding.
"Why waste your time "grinding" your way up level trees, when you could play a game that is actually competitive and fun, where you compete with more than just AI mobs.."
You're not competing with AI mobs. Your competing with other players by killing AI mobs.
Direct combat is not the only means of competition.
"Well, I'm certainly not going to argue that any of these games are a productive use of time.
But I must say I gain more enjoyment from besting another human than a computer program.
Same reason Yahoo chess is more fun than Chessmaster."
Well, that's fine for you, but not fine for everyone. I get more enjoyment about teaming up with friends to take on a boss, than I ever do from PvP. Sometimes cooperation is just as much fun as direct competition.
Also, direct combat is not the only form of competition in MMOs. How about friendly rivalries? You can best a player by getting more kills, etc. This would work even better if people had an award page, with awards given for specific accomplishments in multiplayer instances.
"And when someone talks shit about yer mom, what are you going to do?"
Put them on the ignore list. Not stoop to their level. If it's an all-ages game, report them to the mods for abusive behavior.
"And when someone steals your loot?"
This is avoidable if the game is designed properly. I remember from Runescape, ages ago, they used to have a time period when only the killer could pick up the loot. Or instancing, if camping is your problem.
This problem can easily be addressed by means other than PvP.
"What's the point of these games? Just seems tedious to fight against stupid AI."
Again, it depends on game design. Quests can be designed well, cooperative play can be required/encouraged. The AI deosn't necessarily have to be stupid. It could be challenging.
What's the point of all the PvP games? Just to run around ganking people, and to fight massive battles that might as well be PvE?
" seriously, how many fucking MMORPG's do we really need?"
None. But just because it's not your thing, or you had a bad experience with one or two, doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people who enjoy MMORPGs, and actually look forward to variety.
You think the games will ever get better if there isn't constant competition from new games?
"Am I in the minority of gamers when my real life is far more important than spending 5+ hours a day wandering aimlessly through someone elses fantasy world?"
Troll. Go back under your bridge. If you're not into MMORPGs, then don't bother commenting in the thread.
FTA: "Under the new legislation customers will still be required to implement safety measures and won't be compensated for losses incurred from online scams if they are careless with card details, PINS and passwords." (emphasis mine)
There's 50% of it right there.
I'm not trolling here, I have a question:
Does using Windows constitute being careless? How about using unpatched Windows? How about using Windows without malware scanners installed?
Sweet. This means I can just play without having to grind for days? This means that I don't have to worry about griefers screwing with my fun by engaging me in PvP when I don't want to?
Why does every MMORPG need to be the all-and-everything? Let this game specialize in hack-n-slash, while some other game can specialize in a crafting economy.
"Yes, I know this has probably been covered in another thread but I was hoping someone could give me good reasons to stop trying to get to level 60 with my priest and spend my valuable free time trying to get into DDO."
For me, it's all about finding new things, having new experiences. And grinding to hit level 60 in WoW doesn't do that for me. I'd rather play the early & mid-game in twenty different titles than play through to the endgame in one.
However, I don't know how DDO differs from WoW. Until you try it, you won't know either. So maybe a reason to try DDO is that it could be much more fun. A few hours trying it out would be worth the chance, right?
No way I'm going to bother reading this, with these lines quoted in the summary:
"In our desire to maintain our own idealistic goal we overlooked a key element to any capitalist venture: Capital. Sales are everything and as base and pedestrian as that sounds, it is not so easy to pull off."
Capital is not sales; capital is not profit. Capital is what you invest in a business. Did he forget to fund his shop? Or did he just not get the sales he needed to be profitable? Sounds to me like no matter how much capital he invested in his shop, it would never have been profitable
I'm sad that he went out of business, but capital is not what he forgot. And that kind of inaccurate writing, quoted in an article summary, just turns me off.
Doesn't apply, since MS isn't the end user, and I'm sure it's covered by their agreement with Sony.
I mean, Mediamax was certified by Microsoft, I'd be surprised if there wasn't correspondence between the two before the Rootkit was imprinted on those CDs. Or at least a thorough review by Sony BMG legal.
"well, those benifits were temporary. Now in order to be middle class, two incomes are required."
That's because the quality of life for middle class has changed. No more washing laundry by hand, year-round access to fresh produce, greater variety and quality of goods available, two cars (or more!) per family, larger houses, more entertainment.
The middle class lifestyle was remarkably different then than it is now, the need for two incomes to be 'middle class' is more a reflection of the fact that more families are dual-income now. Part of it is the metrics used, if you want to say that anyone within two standard deviations of the median (which is a better metric than the mean), then that median is shifted up by the fact that so many people are in dual-income households, and therefor have a higher income.
"You keep on saying this, but I don't think it's quite right. A market consists of voluntary trades between persons."
Well it is voluntary -- you choose to be governed by living where you do. But maybe I can explain better.
Government is a collective agreement to be bound by rules established by said government. Sure, not everyone agrees, but you accept your government by not moving out of its provenance or by revolting.
So how does government function economically? Basically, as a huge collective bargaining agreement. Of course, it's very possible that the US government has grown so large that agreement is no longer there... but consensus allows it to continue to grow and act in its own interest (or rather, the interests of those employed by the government).
Here's an analogy: Say you have four buyers of a good, and four potential suppliers. Say the good isn't profitable to a supplier unless all four buyers buy from that supplier. So, if the buyers don't agree on a supplier, nobody can buy the good, as all the suppliers go out of business. What happens, assuming that the buyers are aware of the situation? They make an agreement to pick a single supplier, this agreement governs their future actions in the market. Who knows, they may also come to a collective agreement with the supplier to provide the good at a set price. In this manner, even the supplier is governed by the agreement.
In an economic sense, this is how governments operate. In the US, we elect people to make those agreements for us. These agreements include restrictions and subsidies for both suppliers and consumers.
So really, all government is, economically, is an agreement between parts of the market. Sometimes this becomes a tool that greatly benefits a particular party, but that's a problem that involves transparency (since market theory requires perfect knowledge) and individual involvement.
Slashdot Mirror
"1. How do they know that it's the Chinese Military? It could be a criminal organization."
Especially considering how cheap labor is in Guangdong. This is where gold-farming ops in MMOs get a lot of their labor. There are probably a lot of more technically competent people who also could be hired, as well as an easy cover story for a warehouse full of terminals.
[sarcasm]Don't buy gold in MMOs! You are supporting the Commie military / criminal underworld / Chinese paramilitary / terrorists!!!111[/sarcasm]
I'm not sure you understand that I didn't equate acceptance of risk with carelessness. I equated carelessness with ignorance of risk.
Carelessness would be not understanding that there are risks involved.
Negligence would be when you are aware of risk, and choose not to take action to reduce it to an acceptable level.
seems pretty obvious to me. especially since the answer is in your post:
"A miscellaneous anthology or collection"
That is, the selection of games isn't themed, so it's a miscellaneous collection.
Yes, yes, and yes.
But the line has to be drawn somewhere for personal sanity. Where the line is drawn legally is a different matter.
Anyone going online has to understand that they are exposing themselves to risk. Whether or not they think that risk is unacceptable is up to them. Taking steps to lessen that risk is up to them.
Erm, no. It's been back-and-forth since the days of the first MUDs. Some people like one, some like the other. Some like both (not that there's anything wrong with that). The first MUDs were strictly PvE, however.
Hopefully, there will be enough high-quality MMOs out there that everyone can be happy.
Which means, that if you don't like DDO because it doesn't have PvP, then don't play it -- go play another game that has it.
Ditto for the people (like me) who can't stand the juvenile attitude of gankers in PvE games. I just don't play games with persistent PvE.
I agree 100%.
The other problem is that PvP denigrates the rest of the game. No one will do the hard co-op quests if they can just gank the uberloot from someone who already did.
Again, though, I'm reminded of Runscape, which though graphically challenged and simple, has decent gameplay. Free players don't have access to all the content, a lot of which is hosted on members-only servers. But other than that, every server is open to everyone. The game world is split into PvP areas and non-PvP areas, which means that everybody can have a bit of what they like.
Endgame content requires countless hours of grinding, though. I mean, there is no skill tree, but there are 27 skills, and maxing out at any one skill would take you at least 500 hours, probably two or three times that. No joke. And some skills dependent on each other, or require vast amounts of cash to train.
The other problem is that PvP detracts from what I think could be really great aspects of the game. There is little demand for good PvE, so most of it is grinding.
"Why waste your time "grinding" your way up level trees, when you could play a game that is actually competitive and fun, where you compete with more than just AI mobs.."
You're not competing with AI mobs. Your competing with other players by killing AI mobs.
Direct combat is not the only means of competition.
"Well, I'm certainly not going to argue that any of these games are a productive use of time. But I must say I gain more enjoyment from besting another human than a computer program. Same reason Yahoo chess is more fun than Chessmaster."
Well, that's fine for you, but not fine for everyone. I get more enjoyment about teaming up with friends to take on a boss, than I ever do from PvP. Sometimes cooperation is just as much fun as direct competition.
Also, direct combat is not the only form of competition in MMOs. How about friendly rivalries? You can best a player by getting more kills, etc. This would work even better if people had an award page, with awards given for specific accomplishments in multiplayer instances.
Phishing victims aren't new; it's the same as if you walk into a bar with that 100 grand in your pocket and get hustled at a pool table.
Major parsing difficulties today. I read:
'... it's the same as if you have a 100 grand bar in your pocket and you walk into a pool'
And I thought, what does a wet candy bar have to do with phishing victims?
"And when someone talks shit about yer mom, what are you going to do?"
Put them on the ignore list. Not stoop to their level. If it's an all-ages game, report them to the mods for abusive behavior.
"And when someone steals your loot?"
This is avoidable if the game is designed properly. I remember from Runescape, ages ago, they used to have a time period when only the killer could pick up the loot. Or instancing, if camping is your problem.
This problem can easily be addressed by means other than PvP.
"What's the point of these games? Just seems tedious to fight against stupid AI."
Again, it depends on game design. Quests can be designed well, cooperative play can be required/encouraged. The AI deosn't necessarily have to be stupid. It could be challenging.
What's the point of all the PvP games? Just to run around ganking people, and to fight massive battles that might as well be PvE?
" seriously, how many fucking MMORPG's do we really need?"
None. But just because it's not your thing, or you had a bad experience with one or two, doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people who enjoy MMORPGs, and actually look forward to variety.
You think the games will ever get better if there isn't constant competition from new games?
"Am I in the minority of gamers when my real life is far more important than spending 5+ hours a day wandering aimlessly through someone elses fantasy world?"
Troll. Go back under your bridge. If you're not into MMORPGs, then don't bother commenting in the thread.
FTA: "Under the new legislation customers will still be required to implement safety measures and won't be compensated for losses incurred from online scams if they are careless with card details, PINS and passwords." (emphasis mine)
There's 50% of it right there.
I'm not trolling here, I have a question:
Does using Windows constitute being careless? How about using unpatched Windows? How about using Windows without malware scanners installed?
"Bottom line:
NO crafting.
NO housing.
NO PvP."
Sweet. This means I can just play without having to grind for days? This means that I don't have to worry about griefers screwing with my fun by engaging me in PvP when I don't want to?
Why does every MMORPG need to be the all-and-everything? Let this game specialize in hack-n-slash, while some other game can specialize in a crafting economy.
Ack! Don't feed the trolls!
It only makes them stronger.
"Yes, I know this has probably been covered in another thread but I was hoping someone could give me good reasons to stop trying to get to level 60 with my priest and spend my valuable free time trying to get into DDO."
For me, it's all about finding new things, having new experiences. And grinding to hit level 60 in WoW doesn't do that for me. I'd rather play the early & mid-game in twenty different titles than play through to the endgame in one.
However, I don't know how DDO differs from WoW. Until you try it, you won't know either. So maybe a reason to try DDO is that it could be much more fun. A few hours trying it out would be worth the chance, right?
" I'm buying an island in the Pacific and starting my own country."
That's what flyovers and satellites are for. And, any telecom traffic in and out of your country can also be monitored.
Maybe you should think about purchasing property on the moon.
No, but you'll violate the DMCA if you penetrate their DRM. Although I'm sure someone has already figured out a way to back-end it.
These models give added weight to the Australian meaning of the term 'rootkit.'
Don't forget to tip your waitress. I'll be here all week.
His store was open for 2 years, though, so I'm not sure that applies.
I think he maybe just overestimated the demand for his services.
Mostly right (50.01%) * Most of the time (50.01%) * most of the people (50.01%) = 12.50%.
I'm not sure I'd want a product that is stated to work a minimum 12.50% of the time.
Either that, or maybe I need to not take the worst-case-scenario when listening to product descriptions -- though it's worked for me in the past.
No way I'm going to bother reading this, with these lines quoted in the summary:
"In our desire to maintain our own idealistic goal we overlooked a key element to any capitalist venture: Capital. Sales are everything and as base and pedestrian as that sounds, it is not so easy to pull off."
Capital is not sales; capital is not profit. Capital is what you invest in a business. Did he forget to fund his shop? Or did he just not get the sales he needed to be profitable? Sounds to me like no matter how much capital he invested in his shop, it would never have been profitable
I'm sad that he went out of business, but capital is not what he forgot. And that kind of inaccurate writing, quoted in an article summary, just turns me off.
"The resolution of reality is amazing. At least 2x better than HD."
And just forget about the infinite frame rate
Doesn't apply, since MS isn't the end user, and I'm sure it's covered by their agreement with Sony.
I mean, Mediamax was certified by Microsoft, I'd be surprised if there wasn't correspondence between the two before the Rootkit was imprinted on those CDs. Or at least a thorough review by Sony BMG legal.
what I was hoping he would say)
"What's less clear is why the grandparent seems to think such economic regulation has made it more difficult for people to make ends meet."
Because apparently, taxes provide zero direct benefit. Im not sure the OP can realize that the indirect benefits of taxes are enormous.
"well, those benifits were temporary. Now in order to be middle class, two incomes are required."
That's because the quality of life for middle class has changed. No more washing laundry by hand, year-round access to fresh produce, greater variety and quality of goods available, two cars (or more!) per family, larger houses, more entertainment.
The middle class lifestyle was remarkably different then than it is now, the need for two incomes to be 'middle class' is more a reflection of the fact that more families are dual-income now. Part of it is the metrics used, if you want to say that anyone within two standard deviations of the median (which is a better metric than the mean), then that median is shifted up by the fact that so many people are in dual-income households, and therefor have a higher income.
"You keep on saying this, but I don't think it's quite right. A market consists of voluntary trades between persons."
Well it is voluntary -- you choose to be governed by living where you do. But maybe I can explain better.
Government is a collective agreement to be bound by rules established by said government. Sure, not everyone agrees, but you accept your government by not moving out of its provenance or by revolting.
So how does government function economically? Basically, as a huge collective bargaining agreement. Of course, it's very possible that the US government has grown so large that agreement is no longer there... but consensus allows it to continue to grow and act in its own interest (or rather, the interests of those employed by the government).
Here's an analogy: Say you have four buyers of a good, and four potential suppliers. Say the good isn't profitable to a supplier unless all four buyers buy from that supplier. So, if the buyers don't agree on a supplier, nobody can buy the good, as all the suppliers go out of business. What happens, assuming that the buyers are aware of the situation? They make an agreement to pick a single supplier, this agreement governs their future actions in the market. Who knows, they may also come to a collective agreement with the supplier to provide the good at a set price. In this manner, even the supplier is governed by the agreement.
In an economic sense, this is how governments operate. In the US, we elect people to make those agreements for us. These agreements include restrictions and subsidies for both suppliers and consumers.
So really, all government is, economically, is an agreement between parts of the market. Sometimes this becomes a tool that greatly benefits a particular party, but that's a problem that involves transparency (since market theory requires perfect knowledge) and individual involvement.