I run a table top rpg based on a mostly hard science fiction game called Traveller. I had to drag my players in kicking and screaming to play traveller. Part of the problem seemed to be related to how much science is in the game. These are players that usually play D&D. When many of them were exposed to science fiction rpgs, they could accept the arbitary rules of magic. However, I think the reason for some of that is the nature of, well, nature.
Science is actually kinda messy, which is why we tend to learn about physics in the so called 'thought experiments'. The best example is what happens when you drop a feather and a hammer here on earth vs on the moon. On the moon, both fall at the same speed; on the earth they fall at different speeds. Why? Air provides resistance and force on the feather (force in the form of wind, resistance in the form of air resistance).
So a game designer builds a magic system so that it is 1) internally consistent and 2) useable. Nature has no such constraints.
We have a small citrix farm, with 4 real servers running the software, and one VMWare virtual server on another computer. As we only have 150 employees, load balancing isn't necessary. We've found that this will work with the version of Citrix we use (Metaframe Server XP) and the free beta VMWare.
However, you will see significant performance degredation on users on the VM machine. This probably comes from VMWare running on top of the OS in the beta release. When you get the full paid for version of VMWare, it's my understanding the system will run in between the OS and the hardware, so performance should increase. Only problem is, I'd like to see if it would be feasible to actually run a regular version of VMWare to see if it's worth it.
What we have found is that having a 'fail-over Citrix Server' never hurts. We're currently getting an off site location up and running for fail over purposes, and plan to run failover VMWare citrix servers up there off one or two machines. If your options are having a enterprise critical resource run slow or not run at all, better to have it run slow on a virtual machine when your IT HQ connection goes down.
As always, YMMV. One point though that I've seen - Citrix isn't a virutal machine. It's allowing multiple users on a single machine. Only difference between it and Windows XP is that windows XP machines will lock out the current user. If you put a shortcut in the C:\documents and settings\all users\desktop folder, it'll show up on the desktop of everyone who logs into the computer, whether connecting via citrix or using the console to log in directly. It's a remote user set up.
Obviously the article writer is suffering from "Smoka too much cracka!"
My problems with the article consist of the following:
1) Apples and Oranges - the writer is comparing Chess to WoW and saying that Time > Skill. Specifically, he's right but he misuses his logic: I've played Chess against kids that could beat me like a red headed step child, and I've played against older players who I could easily defeat. In PvP, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the person with the most time playing the game will most likely win. I'm a relative new person to WoW - and I know people ten years younger who have level 60s. You think I'm going to play chess with no queen, no rook, and only one bishop? I think not. Unless my opponent also has no queen, no rook, and only one bishop. The problem he's failing to see, is the greater the number of variables, the more complicated the game. The choices you make before the duel matter just as much as the choices during the duel.
2) Forced sociability? - the writer whines about not wanting to play with other people. OK, that's cool, good for him. But Warcraft wasn't a game of heroes - it's a game about units of individuals with a heroic leader. World of Warcraft comes from a strategic game! And it still will always have roots in the strategic. WoW is called WoW because it isn't LOTR - the group play matters more because in the real world, numbers matter. Patton would have been a weirdo if he hadn't had an army to command; Martin Luther King Jr would have been another complainer if the civil rights movement hadn't emerged. We call Christopher Columbus the guy who discovered America - but we don't call him that because he did it first - he's more important than the other people who discovered America earlier because his 'discovery' had a lasting impact.
This guy wrote an article without thinking his viewpoints through. He needs to take more time actually being introspective as opposed to just claiming it.
Shoot, I live in this guy's home city (Corpus Christi) and I've never heard of this guy. The real money is on the Strayhorne vs Perry - word is Strayhorne'll run as an independent so she can go up against Perry.
I'd be more tempted to just not worry about the power supply issue and go whole hog. My company recently purchased a NAS device called a Terastorus from Aberdeen solutions. Thing runs like a champ. Comes with an 80 gb internal HD for Storage Server 2003 and 24 500 GB HDs. We raid 5'd it and added a hot spare at the total cost of two terabytes. Total cost: maybe 7 grand.
But it's a heck of a lot better in both performance and cost than our EMC AX-100. That's just a big turkey!!!
Of course it weighs like 75 lbs and cranks out heat like a banshee, but it was cheaper than our two TB AX-100 and is a heck of a lot more reliable!
Slashdot Mirror
I run a table top rpg based on a mostly hard science fiction game called Traveller. I had to drag my players in kicking and screaming to play traveller. Part of the problem seemed to be related to how much science is in the game. These are players that usually play D&D. When many of them were exposed to science fiction rpgs, they could accept the arbitary rules of magic. However, I think the reason for some of that is the nature of, well, nature. Science is actually kinda messy, which is why we tend to learn about physics in the so called 'thought experiments'. The best example is what happens when you drop a feather and a hammer here on earth vs on the moon. On the moon, both fall at the same speed; on the earth they fall at different speeds. Why? Air provides resistance and force on the feather (force in the form of wind, resistance in the form of air resistance). So a game designer builds a magic system so that it is 1) internally consistent and 2) useable. Nature has no such constraints.
Confirmed. Site's down.
We have a small citrix farm, with 4 real servers running the software, and one VMWare virtual server on another computer. As we only have 150 employees, load balancing isn't necessary. We've found that this will work with the version of Citrix we use (Metaframe Server XP) and the free beta VMWare. However, you will see significant performance degredation on users on the VM machine. This probably comes from VMWare running on top of the OS in the beta release. When you get the full paid for version of VMWare, it's my understanding the system will run in between the OS and the hardware, so performance should increase. Only problem is, I'd like to see if it would be feasible to actually run a regular version of VMWare to see if it's worth it. What we have found is that having a 'fail-over Citrix Server' never hurts. We're currently getting an off site location up and running for fail over purposes, and plan to run failover VMWare citrix servers up there off one or two machines. If your options are having a enterprise critical resource run slow or not run at all, better to have it run slow on a virtual machine when your IT HQ connection goes down. As always, YMMV. One point though that I've seen - Citrix isn't a virutal machine. It's allowing multiple users on a single machine. Only difference between it and Windows XP is that windows XP machines will lock out the current user. If you put a shortcut in the C:\documents and settings\all users\desktop folder, it'll show up on the desktop of everyone who logs into the computer, whether connecting via citrix or using the console to log in directly. It's a remote user set up.
I totally agree Karma Farmer. They had money embezzled last time I checked.
Obviously the article writer is suffering from "Smoka too much cracka!"
My problems with the article consist of the following:
1) Apples and Oranges - the writer is comparing Chess to WoW and saying that Time > Skill. Specifically, he's right but he misuses his logic: I've played Chess against kids that could beat me like a red headed step child, and I've played against older players who I could easily defeat. In PvP, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the person with the most time playing the game will most likely win. I'm a relative new person to WoW - and I know people ten years younger who have level 60s. You think I'm going to play chess with no queen, no rook, and only one bishop? I think not. Unless my opponent also has no queen, no rook, and only one bishop. The problem he's failing to see, is the greater the number of variables, the more complicated the game. The choices you make before the duel matter just as much as the choices during the duel.
2) Forced sociability? - the writer whines about not wanting to play with other people. OK, that's cool, good for him. But Warcraft wasn't a game of heroes - it's a game about units of individuals with a heroic leader. World of Warcraft comes from a strategic game! And it still will always have roots in the strategic. WoW is called WoW because it isn't LOTR - the group play matters more because in the real world, numbers matter. Patton would have been a weirdo if he hadn't had an army to command; Martin Luther King Jr would have been another complainer if the civil rights movement hadn't emerged. We call Christopher Columbus the guy who discovered America - but we don't call him that because he did it first - he's more important than the other people who discovered America earlier because his 'discovery' had a lasting impact.
This guy wrote an article without thinking his viewpoints through. He needs to take more time actually being introspective as opposed to just claiming it.Shoot, I live in this guy's home city (Corpus Christi) and I've never heard of this guy. The real money is on the Strayhorne vs Perry - word is Strayhorne'll run as an independent so she can go up against Perry.
I'd be more tempted to just not worry about the power supply issue and go whole hog. My company recently purchased a NAS device called a Terastorus from Aberdeen solutions. Thing runs like a champ. Comes with an 80 gb internal HD for Storage Server 2003 and 24 500 GB HDs. We raid 5'd it and added a hot spare at the total cost of two terabytes. Total cost: maybe 7 grand.
But it's a heck of a lot better in both performance and cost than our EMC AX-100. That's just a big turkey!!!
Of course it weighs like 75 lbs and cranks out heat like a banshee, but it was cheaper than our two TB AX-100 and is a heck of a lot more reliable!