=== ANCHOR POEM ===
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────
┌───────────────────────────┐
│ CW: video-games-mentioned │
└───────────────────────────┘
In games, the one who takes the initiative often wins. Because games are
designed to be symmetrical, in order to be fair.
In more complex games, Paradox games for example, games where you look at maps
or otherwise have unequal starting conditions simply due to the unique nature
of each team, the initiative, while an advantage, is not necessarily the
driving force that determines who wins.
But it is an advantage, and they say that sometimes weeks happen in months and
years happen in days or whatever.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────┘
=== SIMILARITY RANKED ===
--- #1 fediverse/2098 ---
╔═════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────┐
║ ┌──────────────────────┐ │
║ │ CW: games │ │
║ └──────────────────────┘ │
║ │
║ │
║ The difference between tactics and strategy is a level of abstraction. │
║ │
║ Tactics are crucial, but context dependent. Strategy is ALWAYS useful as a │
║ method of planning. │
║ │
║ If you typically play base-builder games like Starcraft or Age of Empires, try │
║ playing a game like Supreme Commander or Factorio - both of them are one level │
║ of abstraction up. │
║ │
║ If you typically play arcade turn-based strategy games like Civilization or │
║ Catan, try going up a level of abstraction with Dominions 6, or any game │
║ developed by Paradox Interactive like Hearts of Iron, Crusader Kings, or │
║ Stellaris. │
║ │
║ If you tend to play luck-based games like Poker or Monopoly, try playing an │
║ actual game instead of resolving a system that's predetermined by the initial │
║ board state and results of chance-based-mechanics with minor (if any) input │
║ from players, like perhaps Star Realms, Magic the Gathering, or Dungeons and │
║ Dragons. Each highlight a different type of choice in their mechanics. You │
║ should probably try all three if you care about strategy. │
╟─────────┐ ┌───────────┤
║ similar │ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╧══════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────┴──────────┘
--- #2 fediverse/4515 ---
╔═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────┐
║ in strategy, the first move is always public knowledge, while the second is in │
║ reaction to the first, as a contestation. │
║ │
║ This is good design because well designed games reflect reality, and the first │
║ move is very rarely a surprise. Timing can shock you, methods can scare you, │
║ but the strategic goals are almost always known in advance to both sides. │
║ │
║ The third move is to challenge your foe's advances while striking in a new, │
║ unexpected way. The fourth almost always addresses the unexpected, often with │
║ force out of proportion to the impact of the third, leaving the second to be │
║ defeated by the first and third in tandem. The fifth is a feint, as the first │
║ and third come to bear against the fourth, while the sixth is a rapid retreat │
║ and attempt to regroup. The seventh should strike where they intend to be, not │
║ where they are. Beyond that you must press your advantages and shore up your │
║ critical weaknesses, while sacrificing the weaknesses that are not part of │
║ your win condition. │
║ │
║ These rules are not set in stone │
╟─────────┐ ┌───────────┤
║ similar │ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╧════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────┴──────────┘
--- #3 messages/383 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────
the most successful strategy is always to strike from a position of strength.
whether that be timing or power, the goal is to defeat the problem that lies
before you. One by one, problems are solved, until at last you're through the
worst of it. Then it's just a matter of expressing dominance, and "this is how
thing's're gonna be."
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧═════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────┘
--- #4 notes/running-with-rifles ---
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────
this game is what we are missing
thank goodness for that
for if this is missing in our timeline
we'll be better off at last
we can have games, stories, and practice wars
but none of them are precious
precious implies worth
they are worth nothing but entertainment
no problem solving utility
nothing of value
save for perhaps the spatial awareness and strategization that comes
from being a part of such a deadly ba-lance.
anyway game time teehee just for me, don't worry about it I'll show
you why it's a HORRID THING
that won't be coming to our shores, no siree
bye
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────┘
--- #5 fediverse/290 ---
╔═══════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────────────┐
║ you're supposed to play the same games as your friends so that you all learn │
║ the same lessons at the same times. creates for a more cohesive familiar │
║ structure. │
║ │
║ applies also to family movie nights... but it's much more apparent with games │
║ as you'll often play them for weeks, months, and sometimes even years if you │
║ keep learning and enjoying them... book clubs are too open to interpretation, │
║ your pathways don't get a chance to align. games are perfect because they │
║ imply reaction. │
║ │
║ also helps if they're multiplayer, so you can share with another. preferably │
║ with healthy, respectful competition and a sense of shared brotherhood and │
║ trust. │
║ │
║ the toughest opponents are the ones that aren't aggressive. the ones that let │
║ you grow uncontested. by taking only neutral resources they guarantee that │
║ your growth isn't impeded, as after all an equal foe is what you learn best │
║ from. │
║ │
║ to a tree, the loss of a branch (cleanly cut) would feel like an empowering of │
║ the main limb. inspiring it to reach higher and beyond... +h2o1 │
╟─────────┐ ┌───────────┤
║ similar │ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╧════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
--- #6 notes/streaming-consciousness ---
═════════════════════════──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
10-22-22
train the ai from the perspective of the game master. the one who arbites
the rules. whose word is law, and the rules of the game are then given. the one
who deals the cards, who picks the game, who hosts and brings snacks... you
know, the reason the game exists at all.
take star realms - there are actually three players in that game. player 1,
player 2, and the invisible third player who plays the role of "chance". who
decides the cards to play? is it random, or is it weighted? perhaps with enough
oomph that a whole player was designed for that role.
but how would they be scored? what kind of game is theirs to play?
choosing the board is such a fun role, like designing a story or helping
with chores. you're building something special, unique and so charmed.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧══════════════════─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
--- #7 fediverse/5177 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CW: capitalism-mentioned-four-times │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘
when they say "capitalism is a competitive game" what they mean is "capitalism
is a game where everyone wins when someone else loses" and what we hear is
"capitalism is a game of trying to screw you out of as much money as possible"
and the truth is "capitalism is a game that you can't play" because 95% of the
people who will read this toot are not stock-owners.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────┘
--- #8 notes/star-realms-balancing-tradeoff=2 ---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════─
what if I use equal signs instead of dashes, so prevent people from assuming
they're duplicates?
hmm okay.
right so anyway the star realms balancing tradeoff between combat and authority
is measured against the duration of a hand (does it fit balanced between other
cards of it's playcost) instead of balancing it for the duration of the game
(how long does the player want the game to go on for) one of which is just
inverse combat damage / healing, and the other of which is an enablement of
different strategems.
put this in symbeline-gen-realms please
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════┘
--- #9 messages/894 ---
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────
Game designers should reward players for playing multiplayer games, not for
being good at playing multiplayer games.
They should still have a ranking, and matchmake against similarly skilled
foes, while also putting high level players amongst low level players
occasionally (and fairly, so maybe one on each team "smurf" style) in order to
both teach the low level players and let the high level player have catharsis.
When players are rewarded for being good, they stop playing the game to enjoy
it. That's fine, but both pickup games and NBA can exist at once and its not
due to the logistics of organizing a large group of skilled basketball
players. It's not always about skill.
By rewarding players for the number and quality of games they play, (so, no
afk-ing or throwing outside of being drunk or whatever) not only can you
increase engagement but also you encourage low-level and low-skill players to
compete just as much. Especially if you tell them "hey, we'll match you up
with people who have similar gameplay habits to you. Give it a bit though
because the system needs to be calibrated to your particular spirit"
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────┘
--- #10 fediverse/3063 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────
@user-570
true. the "massively multiplayer" aspect of WoW is about as important to the
game as the "A" is in "ARPG".
I can't help but feel like the "impromptu groups" functionality feels a bit
better than matchmaker instancing... though anything worth running a group for
in WoW after TBC was instanced >.>
Honestly I think there's just too many games these days for people to really
get "into" MMORPGs, unless they're sufficiently unique in their mechanics
(like EVE or Runescape)
any ARPG MMOs are dead on launch, as you said. That design space is tapped
out, at least for now, until someone comes along and makes it a deckbuilding
roguelike or whatever. cough cough
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────┘
--- #11 fediverse/3101 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────
if you don't have a lot of time but still like games, like for example a new
parent or if you're focused on your career or always traveling, I recommend
the game
Star Realms
in the digital version, which can be played on a phone or computer, has a mode
called "48 hour turns" where each of your moves has time to think for two
entire days. Most of the time you won't need two days, but it gives time to
work on other things.
for people who enjoy this mode, it is not uncommon to have 3-5 games running
at once. When they have time, they can play as many as they can, and as long
as they're keeping up with it there's very little chance they'll lose time.
kinda like words with friends, except space strategy.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────┘
--- #12 fediverse/5615 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────
┌────────────────────────────┐
│ CW: spirituality-mentioned │
└────────────────────────────┘
there's no such thing as "gods of the war" or "gods of the grand harvest"
because those events recur infinitely.
similarly, there are no "gods of war" or "gods of prosperity" because those
conditions occur somewhere each and every moment.
similarly, there are no "temples of religion" or "statements to complexity",
because those institutions are present in each and every [monetution/ummm like
repositories of belief? conditions of logic built into human structural
organizations? I dunno, it probably means something.]
similarly, [oh god there's another one] there are no "statements of
absolution" or "confessing of sins" => you are what you are, and what you
are is the product of your intentions. [intentions / conditions / constitution]
the gods of time are not lords over all of the cosmos, they rule as their
savior in each and every moment that comes through [you, but pronounced the
perciever]
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────┘
--- #13 fediverse/2643 ---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────
@user-1292
You don't have to come up with the WHY for why a character does something -
only that it happened.
if the "WHY" leaps out at you, sure, yeah, go for it, until of course your
players sitting around the table say something like "I bet they did this thing
because of this reason" and you're like "shit that's better than what I got,
okay that's how it's gonna be"
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────┘
--- #14 fediverse/1602 ---
╔═══════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────────────┐
║ @user-1037 │
║ │
║ those all seem really cool though! They all kinda have the same basic UI tho, │
║ kinda feel like there's opportunities for different kinds of expression. Like, │
║ in game design there's a lot of different genres, and yeah sidescrollers │
║ include mario and sonic but they're both very different experiences. So too │
║ perhaps could we interact with our computers by programming them in more │
║ engaging ways. │
║ │
║ they say some people are visual learners, others need to be taught, some │
║ people need to watch someone else doing it, and a few might just learn by │
║ plugging their brains into a computer and downloading a black belt in kung fu. │
║ │
║ Maybe typing long paragraphs of logic makes sense for some people, I know for │
║ most it doesn't come naturally. Maybe some people are more used to like, │
║ looking at maps that you can examine at different levels of abstraction. Like │
║ players who play Paradox games zooming from a national perspective to states │
║ and individuals and all the other things they might want to strategize using. │
║ Or m │
╟─────────┐ ┌───────────┤
║ similar │ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╧════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────┴──────────┘
--- #15 fediverse/4072 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────
I like games that test my reflexes
I also like games that test my wit
but most of all I like games that test my patience with strategy
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────┘
--- #16 fediverse/4010 ---
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────┐
║ ┌──────────────────────┐ │
║ │ CW: pol │ │
║ └──────────────────────┘ │
║ │
║ │
║ I think that the best design for cities is for them to act as massive utility │
║ deployment stations. │
║ │
║ like... "we have all these people who can do all these wonderful jobs, what │
║ should we work on next?" rather than "my company wants me at my work-home at │
║ 8am sharp and I don't get a pension" │
║ │
║ there's no such thing as a revolution that does not inspire. and aspirations │
║ are human and natural. therefore there must be some kernel of truth to any │
║ social movement. │
║ │
║ However, much effort has been spent on making them sway. Hence, why nothing │
║ ever gets done - because leaders naturally emerge, and people follow them. But │
║ those leaders lead them astray, and they find themselves in situations like │
║ this one - where the people have never felt less represented. │
║ │
║ I mean sure, yeah, they've felt more oppressed. And it's true that things are │
║ generally always getting better... │
║ │
║ so why should we always assume for the worst? │
║ │
║ We're making progress with technology - can't we just put our warries on hold? │
║ Seriously just... be chill │
╟─────────┐ ┌───────────┤
║ similar │ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────┴──────────┘
--- #17 fediverse/2625 ---
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────────────
┌────────────────────────┐
│ CW: politics-mentioned │
└────────────────────────┘
one of the downsides of "first-past-the-post" style voting is that the winner
gets all of the power, no matter if 100% of the population voted for him or
51%.
if, however, the top 2 candidates were chosen, then it's naturally likely that
the older, more experienced of a particular position would spend their effort
mentoring the young, rising star.
in doing so, they would naturally transfer knowledge from one generation to
the next like parents to children.
however, this only happens when the primary candidate and the secondary both
believe the same things.
meaning those who have collectively similar beliefs concentrated in an area
will have the advantage of passed-along experience, while those from more
divided areas (thus implying that the primary and secondary candidate don't
agree) will often have better actionable skills.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧═══════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────────┘
--- #18 fediverse/2001 ---
╔════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────────────┐
║ @user-192 │
║ │
║ The game designers are fully in charge of when and where the items get placed │
║ into the player's inventory. Surely they should have spent some time balancing │
║ that? No? They were too busy tuning the multiplayer combat mechanics within an │
║ inch of a marginal percentage point? Ah well competition's no fun if someone │
║ loses right? Not like there's gotta be a loser in every fight anyway... │
║ │
║ ... anyway inventory limits are useful in games like, Oregon Trail, where │
║ you're explicitly provisioning BEFORE a journey. If you need to make some hard │
║ decisions ON the journey, that takes you out of the action (like you said). │
║ │
║ I've played a few games where anything you pick up before venturing into the │
║ untamed wild dark of a dungeon or whatever is "packed" and can't be adjusted │
║ after setting out. Meanwhile the loot, the stuff from the adventure, that all │
║ weighs different amounts and you can pick and choose what to carry with you. │
║ Of course, if you find a health potion, you can drink it, or a sword can be │
║ wielded, but │
╟─────────┐ ┌───────────┤
║ similar │ chronological │ different │
╚═════════╧═════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────┴──────────┘
--- #19 fediverse/4113 ---
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════────────────────────────
┌──────────────────────────┐
│ CW: capitalism-mentioned │
└──────────────────────────┘
I don't know how much simpler I can state it than this:
power is penance
and yet repentance is scant amongst those chosen to lead us.
Voting slows things down. It gives us room to breathe. It is crucial for
long-term operations. Leaders should be chosen for experience, wisdom, and a
humble lifetime of dedicated service to others.
Executive action is important when reactivity and adaptability are important.
Projects should be undertaken by those chosen for merit and spirit. They
should not be chosen for charisma or gravitas - both can be earned in the line
of duty.
Power should not be rewarded. It is it's own reward, the feeling of strength
and control, and it must be wielded with care, precision, and honorable
intention.
Self flagellation and forced humility are self defeating. They are traps that
the greedy fall into when seeking righteous power. They misunderstand the
nature of virtue and seek to claim it for themselves, failing to realize that
virtue helps more than it hedonizes
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧════════════════════════════════════════════════════───────────────────────┘
--- #20 fediverse/4608 ---
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════──────────────────────
every time a game developer makes a game where the world is in peril and the
main character must save it, for every successful playthrough where the good
guy wins there are thousands of doomed worlds where the player got distracted
or bored and left the people to rot.
how tragic.
┌─────────┐ ┌───────────┐
│ similar │ chronological │ different │
╘═════════╧╧══════════════════════════════════════════════════════─────────────────────┘
|