The Journeyman's Boots were not always part of the AC quest. They dropped off Drelzna in Najena in the early game and it was camped beyond belief. Not the best idea mind you, but it made the boots a very coveted item. But you touched on a point. Getting level 50 in EQ meant something. Today, getting max level is just a sub-note in the game. May as well make everyone max level to start off.
You speak of these things like they were bad. But I tell you what. You remember it. Everquest WAS a world and you did have to plan things a little better than logging in one day to do a Raid of Boss X. Sure, some of the dead ends were heartbreaking, but didn't that motivate you to learn the dungeons? Explore them a bit more? Or were you a person that opened up the nearest map site and looked for the quickest way to the named mob with J-Boots?
It's not about PvP entirely. It's about risk vs reward. If you take away the risk the reward is not as good... Oh boy, they took our castle again... time to take it back. May as well just play an FPS.
Yeah, you're right. We should just give all gamers the key to the last level so they can kill the boss and be done with all games. In fact... I'm going to create a new game that just puts you in a room with a boss, since that's all you seem to want anyway.
In fact, let's just skip the boss. It's much more fun to actually beat the game. Right after you put the game in and watch my opening cinematic, I'll issue the credits and you will immediately "get to the good stuff" of beating the game.
I did get bored with the game, as I do with any mmorpg, but that aspect I liked.
Maybe if they made travel meaningful you might still play. Ever think about that? With more of the game to traverse, there's always more to do. If you can just jump to the next area when you are bored with the one you are in, it dilutes the game world and makes it boring. There's no feeling of amazement when you get to the last area. The awe factor and feeling of accomplishment is gone.
If the player is _bored_, you hav _failed_ as a game designer.
There's a difference between a world that you can explore and a game of checkers. Chess is not funner because you can teleport your piece all over the map and make any one of your pieces attack another. (Although, someone with ADD might think so... they can be off to the next game in 5 minutes.) Part of the strategy is getting your pieces to the destination by following the rules of the game and not letting them die along the way.
If you let people teleport at will, you may as well just put them in a single room with a monster spawning door. There's no sense in making a huge world with diverse regions and items, then giving the player the ability to hit any one of them at a whim.
Time to travel give sense of accomplishment just as levels do in Super Mario World. If a player could have started off in a room with a portal to any level in SMB, you're damn right people will complain that the game is too easy and it's too small. They will port right to the last level and kill King Koopa and save the princess. You take away those portals and now people are thrilled by the fact that they made it to the boss level.
Sadly, there are game designers like you that think ADD game players should be catered to. You should let them warp to the last level as fast as they can and keep coming back to you for more content. You should have just gave all your players the ability to warp all their units to the enemy base so they aren't so bored with building up an army.
Players have to be bored to enjoy the game. You cannot feed a drug addict 100% crack 24/7 and expect them to be happy with it. If you populate your game with nothing but fun, it soon becomes less fun and they look for more.
Besides, there's a tremendous difference between a strategy/simulation game like Majesty and an MMO World. In an MMO you have your character for YEARS at times. In a game like Majesty, what's the average length of a game? 1-2 hours?
That's assuming there is a God. My argument is that everyone, even Jesus if he did exist was seeking out attention by performing magic tricks to convince people he was the son of God. It's not exactly money, but it's fame, which in today's market money is a tool to achieve.
By reading what you posted, it's the acquisition of more than you need to sustain. By the argument that money is the root of all evil, you must be in a bad situation, working for money to pay for Internet access instead of farming your own food and living off the land. By your explanation, we are all fools... unless you are a monk. Maybe you live by the credo that since you preach what you think is "His" word that you are entitled to more luxury than a laborer in China?
It doesn't matter if you believe that there's some "God" that strips you of your wealth, or take my belief that we are all going to just die and turn into worm food. It amounts to the same thing. I wasn't saying that. I was stating that no matter what you give to the government officials, they will always seek more. Even if they had enough to live the rest of their life without accepting another bribe, they'll still take that bribe.
There are more people in this world that will always seek out better stuff than there are monks living only by their needs. How many preachers drive Cadillacs that they don't really need... but they chose to buy that Caddy instead of sticking with the Malibu which has the same amount of doors, seats, and possibly trunk space.
So if you enjoy doing it so much, why not forfeit all your pay and just do it for free... or a dollar and give up all your stock benefits, etc. They still take the money.
Because I didn't quite cover everything you stated (my bad...)
Why didn't Bill Gates quit MS early and why didn't Buffet quit when he was ahead? There was a point where they could have lived the rest of their life without a bill to worry about. Why did they push that into to the billions? They could have lived the ideal life with no worry and invested properly, so could their kids.. and probably their kids. That mentality of acquiring more won't just vanish as Trek history would proclaim.
Yeah, I understand that, but if we simply accommodated every government worker with every necessity for living (we pretty much do... life salary with health care) they will still see that person living in the capitalist world who just bought a brand new car that they might not be able to swing on their "fixed" budget because they are overextending themselves with their family, etc. People are always looking for more in life. Govt. workers are no exception.
If you were given $500,000 every year to spend how you wanted, you'd probably eventually live to the extent of that and be coming back for more. In the capitalist world, you can always find a way to get it. There's always more to get, even if it is just money. In a Star Trek world (and a socialist world) you have to accept that there's a limit. There's no ordering out for more ____. WYSIWYG: unless you can make it yourself by recycling what you have already... and most people suck at making things better by themselves. This is why I don't feel that Star Trek or Socialism can work. People will always want what their neighbor has, only better. Tell me that if you lived in a Star Trek world and had no care in live for food, shelter or water that you wouldn't want a cool spaceship to fly around in as well? In ST, you can't claim a planet as your own. You have to accept that it's not available. With capitalism, you can at least try to work hard/smart enough to buy it. If the governing body doesn't get in the way... even then, you just buy them out. You can't provide everything that everyone wants.
It's much cheaper for the company to just leave the state than it is to sign up for yet another third party vendor to manage it's tax locations database.
Yes, but if another state can provide what they need without as many taxes, then they've just competed for business. If South Carolina can provide roads, education, and arts facilities cheaper than North Carolina... that's competition. Amazon looked at the taxes they'd have to pay and they realized it wasn't a smart business decision to stay.
It's all a matter of abstraction. Directly they may have no effect on selecting a location of business, but the actions of the state indirectly affect tax rates and infrastructure costs. If a state is paying more for health care than another state and passing that off to the corporations, the corporations have all the right to not do business there. The people in that state may be getting good health care, but they will be paying more for goods purchased now because any company willing to put up with higher taxes is going to pass that along to the customer. Ergo, taxes = competition for good businesses.
With the internet as competition, they will soon find that they need to reduce those taxes or risk losing citizens who are fed up paying more because of the state they live in.
Then people have the right to pack up and move. It's a very fine balance with taxes.;) This is the way it should be. Let the states fight for companies AND people to pay their salaries. Competition does work. If NC wants to raise money by raising taxes instead of cutting costs, it's their loss.
Well, if my Star Trek history lessons have anything to say, socialized government workers would be motivated by the thrill of politics and serving the people instead of their monetary needs, bu then you look at it from the perspective of the government official and see all those capitalist salaries and wonder why you are still in government when you can afford that yacht by working elsewhere.
They've already tried this in part with the benefits provided to them... for life, but people still seem to want more. This is why I believe socialism probably can't work as a basis for a country over a long period of time. Not with the free market.
Another proposition I heard about a while back was a complex computer program that determines the benefit and repercussions of a law before enacting it... basically turning government over to a computer. That has it's own disadvantages though. (Namely: People don't think logically. IE: a computer would see no advantage to keeping a mentally handicap person alive.)
What to do so that people are rewarded for good officiating and punished for improper actions? How about properly punishing them in the first place? Too many officials get away with things because of who they are. How many government officials have ever been stripped of their benefits packages for messing up and where do you draw the line of "messed up bad enough"?
I found the type of music has a huge impact. I pick songs that have no lyrics, are generally slow or ambient. If there is a fast beat or lyrics, I find it more distracting then silence.
#1 If you can, take breaks every 30-45 min. Just 5 minutes. Actually get up. Walk out of the office, down the hall and back.
#2 I agree with. It always helps me to work on something else, even for a half hour. Before you do it though, pick a class or a page of code that needs work and think about it (don't code, just think) and then start that other project. Sometimes it helps to put the ideas in your head and let your brain subconsciously multi-task. (like remember the name of an artist that was on the tip of your tongue after it doesn't matter anymore...)
#3, works... if you don't overdo it. We started Scrum logs at work and they are a constant reminder how far behind you are. Great for the project manager who promised a stupid deadline, but brain toaster for the developer doing all the work. We only look 2 weeks ahead. Yes, I've gotten a LOT done using it, but I am absolutely drained at the end of the day.
#4 Most definitely. I do work out a lot of things on paper. It helps your brain work out the problem logically before you start physically doing the work.
#5 Sleep. Sunday night (or whatever your first "work" night is...) get more sleep than you think you need. If you normally get 6 hours, make it 8. You'll likely wake up earlier, but that's a good thing. Warm up before trudging to work. Even light exercise or stretches can be a good thing. If you know you can or have flexible hours, turn off your alarm clock. Wake naturally.
#6 Headphones and "elevator music" are great for interruptions. I listen to music without lyrics or the lyrics are "integrated" better with the music when coding. I like listening to rock/progressive metal, but not when coding. Find the "slow" songs from bands you like. (Ascension and Human Shields by Fear Factory for example. They are not really like the rest of the songs they do. It's more mellow, atmospheric music... stuff that I think you'd hear in space if it had a soundtrack... and if sound traveled in space.) People tend to leave you alone and see that you are busy. When I say "elevator music" I don't mean literally! Get stuff you can listen to.
You are a far better person than I. Ever since I took my hobby of programmer to work, I haven't been able to do it as a hobby. I get home and the last thing I was to do is look at code. I blame Scrum Logs, and crappy deadlines. I blame Scrum because it's a daily reminder of how little you did the day before and how much more crap you have to do over the next 2 weeks. In one ear you have your manager asking you what you did and what you're doing every freaking day, and in the other you have yourself pointing out that you desperately need a vacation. If I had no time-lines and could go back to pre-Scrum days, I think I'd be in a far better mood.;)
Being a convicted Monopolist though... maximizing profit is not on that list of things to be careful of. I'm not talking about selling it at break-even cost to develop. I'm including markup. Why did it cost them more to make Vista than it did to make Windows 7? IF they are pulling numbers out their rear for this, I'd also question the ethical standing on that as well.
Won't they be surprised when they boot it up and it looks the same as Vista...
(No, I'm not trolling. Windows 7 looks like Vista to me. Aero and the WM is pretty much the same. New task bar, sure... but that's not what people will see.)
It just shows me that Microsoft has been overcharging for Vista... (aka, price gouging) If they can produce an operating system for $50, why haven't all the OSes been $50?
Slashdot Mirror
The Journeyman's Boots were not always part of the AC quest. They dropped off Drelzna in Najena in the early game and it was camped beyond belief. Not the best idea mind you, but it made the boots a very coveted item. But you touched on a point. Getting level 50 in EQ meant something. Today, getting max level is just a sub-note in the game. May as well make everyone max level to start off.
You speak of these things like they were bad. But I tell you what. You remember it. Everquest WAS a world and you did have to plan things a little better than logging in one day to do a Raid of Boss X. Sure, some of the dead ends were heartbreaking, but didn't that motivate you to learn the dungeons? Explore them a bit more? Or were you a person that opened up the nearest map site and looked for the quickest way to the named mob with J-Boots?
It's not about PvP entirely. It's about risk vs reward. If you take away the risk the reward is not as good... Oh boy, they took our castle again... time to take it back. May as well just play an FPS.
Yeah, you're right. We should just give all gamers the key to the last level so they can kill the boss and be done with all games. In fact... I'm going to create a new game that just puts you in a room with a boss, since that's all you seem to want anyway.
In fact, let's just skip the boss. It's much more fun to actually beat the game. Right after you put the game in and watch my opening cinematic, I'll issue the credits and you will immediately "get to the good stuff" of beating the game.
I did get bored with the game, as I do with any mmorpg, but that aspect I liked.
Maybe if they made travel meaningful you might still play. Ever think about that? With more of the game to traverse, there's always more to do. If you can just jump to the next area when you are bored with the one you are in, it dilutes the game world and makes it boring. There's no feeling of amazement when you get to the last area. The awe factor and feeling of accomplishment is gone.
If the player is _bored_, you hav _failed_ as a game designer.
There's a difference between a world that you can explore and a game of checkers. Chess is not funner because you can teleport your piece all over the map and make any one of your pieces attack another. (Although, someone with ADD might think so... they can be off to the next game in 5 minutes.) Part of the strategy is getting your pieces to the destination by following the rules of the game and not letting them die along the way.
If you let people teleport at will, you may as well just put them in a single room with a monster spawning door. There's no sense in making a huge world with diverse regions and items, then giving the player the ability to hit any one of them at a whim.
Time to travel give sense of accomplishment just as levels do in Super Mario World. If a player could have started off in a room with a portal to any level in SMB, you're damn right people will complain that the game is too easy and it's too small. They will port right to the last level and kill King Koopa and save the princess. You take away those portals and now people are thrilled by the fact that they made it to the boss level.
Sadly, there are game designers like you that think ADD game players should be catered to. You should let them warp to the last level as fast as they can and keep coming back to you for more content. You should have just gave all your players the ability to warp all their units to the enemy base so they aren't so bored with building up an army.
Players have to be bored to enjoy the game. You cannot feed a drug addict 100% crack 24/7 and expect them to be happy with it. If you populate your game with nothing but fun, it soon becomes less fun and they look for more.
Besides, there's a tremendous difference between a strategy/simulation game like Majesty and an MMO World. In an MMO you have your character for YEARS at times. In a game like Majesty, what's the average length of a game? 1-2 hours?
We have very strong libertarian tendencies. People are nice, but also want to be left alone to do their own thing.
Sold. Give me a few months to tie up loose ends and I'll be right there...
It's mainly those damn Quebecers that insist on French. /shakesfist
That's my point. ;) People seek to obtain more of something than their neighbor. Fame, score, money, cheese... whatever.
That's assuming there is a God. My argument is that everyone, even Jesus if he did exist was seeking out attention by performing magic tricks to convince people he was the son of God. It's not exactly money, but it's fame, which in today's market money is a tool to achieve.
By reading what you posted, it's the acquisition of more than you need to sustain. By the argument that money is the root of all evil, you must be in a bad situation, working for money to pay for Internet access instead of farming your own food and living off the land. By your explanation, we are all fools... unless you are a monk. Maybe you live by the credo that since you preach what you think is "His" word that you are entitled to more luxury than a laborer in China?
It doesn't matter if you believe that there's some "God" that strips you of your wealth, or take my belief that we are all going to just die and turn into worm food. It amounts to the same thing. I wasn't saying that. I was stating that no matter what you give to the government officials, they will always seek more. Even if they had enough to live the rest of their life without accepting another bribe, they'll still take that bribe.
There are more people in this world that will always seek out better stuff than there are monks living only by their needs. How many preachers drive Cadillacs that they don't really need... but they chose to buy that Caddy instead of sticking with the Malibu which has the same amount of doors, seats, and possibly trunk space.
So if you enjoy doing it so much, why not forfeit all your pay and just do it for free... or a dollar and give up all your stock benefits, etc. They still take the money.
Because I didn't quite cover everything you stated (my bad...)
Why didn't Bill Gates quit MS early and why didn't Buffet quit when he was ahead? There was a point where they could have lived the rest of their life without a bill to worry about. Why did they push that into to the billions? They could have lived the ideal life with no worry and invested properly, so could their kids.. and probably their kids. That mentality of acquiring more won't just vanish as Trek history would proclaim.
Yeah, I understand that, but if we simply accommodated every government worker with every necessity for living (we pretty much do... life salary with health care) they will still see that person living in the capitalist world who just bought a brand new car that they might not be able to swing on their "fixed" budget because they are overextending themselves with their family, etc. People are always looking for more in life. Govt. workers are no exception.
If you were given $500,000 every year to spend how you wanted, you'd probably eventually live to the extent of that and be coming back for more. In the capitalist world, you can always find a way to get it. There's always more to get, even if it is just money. In a Star Trek world (and a socialist world) you have to accept that there's a limit. There's no ordering out for more ____. WYSIWYG: unless you can make it yourself by recycling what you have already... and most people suck at making things better by themselves. This is why I don't feel that Star Trek or Socialism can work. People will always want what their neighbor has, only better. Tell me that if you lived in a Star Trek world and had no care in live for food, shelter or water that you wouldn't want a cool spaceship to fly around in as well? In ST, you can't claim a planet as your own. You have to accept that it's not available. With capitalism, you can at least try to work hard/smart enough to buy it. If the governing body doesn't get in the way... even then, you just buy them out. You can't provide everything that everyone wants.
It's much cheaper for the company to just leave the state than it is to sign up for yet another third party vendor to manage it's tax locations database.
Yes, but if another state can provide what they need without as many taxes, then they've just competed for business. If South Carolina can provide roads, education, and arts facilities cheaper than North Carolina... that's competition. Amazon looked at the taxes they'd have to pay and they realized it wasn't a smart business decision to stay.
It's all a matter of abstraction. Directly they may have no effect on selecting a location of business, but the actions of the state indirectly affect tax rates and infrastructure costs. If a state is paying more for health care than another state and passing that off to the corporations, the corporations have all the right to not do business there. The people in that state may be getting good health care, but they will be paying more for goods purchased now because any company willing to put up with higher taxes is going to pass that along to the customer. Ergo, taxes = competition for good businesses.
With the internet as competition, they will soon find that they need to reduce those taxes or risk losing citizens who are fed up paying more because of the state they live in.
Then people have the right to pack up and move. It's a very fine balance with taxes. ;) This is the way it should be. Let the states fight for companies AND people to pay their salaries. Competition does work. If NC wants to raise money by raising taxes instead of cutting costs, it's their loss.
Well, if my Star Trek history lessons have anything to say, socialized government workers would be motivated by the thrill of politics and serving the people instead of their monetary needs, bu then you look at it from the perspective of the government official and see all those capitalist salaries and wonder why you are still in government when you can afford that yacht by working elsewhere.
They've already tried this in part with the benefits provided to them... for life, but people still seem to want more. This is why I believe socialism probably can't work as a basis for a country over a long period of time. Not with the free market.
Another proposition I heard about a while back was a complex computer program that determines the benefit and repercussions of a law before enacting it... basically turning government over to a computer. That has it's own disadvantages though. (Namely: People don't think logically. IE: a computer would see no advantage to keeping a mentally handicap person alive.)
What to do so that people are rewarded for good officiating and punished for improper actions? How about properly punishing them in the first place? Too many officials get away with things because of who they are. How many government officials have ever been stripped of their benefits packages for messing up and where do you draw the line of "messed up bad enough"?
I found the type of music has a huge impact. I pick songs that have no lyrics, are generally slow or ambient. If there is a fast beat or lyrics, I find it more distracting then silence.
For those that don't catch the reference... http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/24/2257221/Need-a-Favor-Talk-To-My-Right-Ear?from=rss
And funnily... yes. He sits off to my right.
You have project meetings?
#1 If you can, take breaks every 30-45 min. Just 5 minutes. Actually get up. Walk out of the office, down the hall and back.
#2 I agree with. It always helps me to work on something else, even for a half hour. Before you do it though, pick a class or a page of code that needs work and think about it (don't code, just think) and then start that other project. Sometimes it helps to put the ideas in your head and let your brain subconsciously multi-task. (like remember the name of an artist that was on the tip of your tongue after it doesn't matter anymore...)
#3, works... if you don't overdo it. We started Scrum logs at work and they are a constant reminder how far behind you are. Great for the project manager who promised a stupid deadline, but brain toaster for the developer doing all the work. We only look 2 weeks ahead. Yes, I've gotten a LOT done using it, but I am absolutely drained at the end of the day.
#4 Most definitely. I do work out a lot of things on paper. It helps your brain work out the problem logically before you start physically doing the work.
#5 Sleep. Sunday night (or whatever your first "work" night is...) get more sleep than you think you need. If you normally get 6 hours, make it 8. You'll likely wake up earlier, but that's a good thing. Warm up before trudging to work. Even light exercise or stretches can be a good thing. If you know you can or have flexible hours, turn off your alarm clock. Wake naturally.
#6 Headphones and "elevator music" are great for interruptions. I listen to music without lyrics or the lyrics are "integrated" better with the music when coding. I like listening to rock/progressive metal, but not when coding. Find the "slow" songs from bands you like. (Ascension and Human Shields by Fear Factory for example. They are not really like the rest of the songs they do. It's more mellow, atmospheric music... stuff that I think you'd hear in space if it had a soundtrack... and if sound traveled in space.) People tend to leave you alone and see that you are busy. When I say "elevator music" I don't mean literally! Get stuff you can listen to.
You are a far better person than I. Ever since I took my hobby of programmer to work, I haven't been able to do it as a hobby. I get home and the last thing I was to do is look at code. I blame Scrum Logs, and crappy deadlines. I blame Scrum because it's a daily reminder of how little you did the day before and how much more crap you have to do over the next 2 weeks. In one ear you have your manager asking you what you did and what you're doing every freaking day, and in the other you have yourself pointing out that you desperately need a vacation. If I had no time-lines and could go back to pre-Scrum days, I think I'd be in a far better mood. ;)
Being a convicted Monopolist though... maximizing profit is not on that list of things to be careful of. I'm not talking about selling it at break-even cost to develop. I'm including markup. Why did it cost them more to make Vista than it did to make Windows 7? IF they are pulling numbers out their rear for this, I'd also question the ethical standing on that as well.
Won't they be surprised when they boot it up and it looks the same as Vista...
(No, I'm not trolling. Windows 7 looks like Vista to me. Aero and the WM is pretty much the same. New task bar, sure... but that's not what people will see.)
It just shows me that Microsoft has been overcharging for Vista... (aka, price gouging) If they can produce an operating system for $50, why haven't all the OSes been $50?