Gotta say, miffed that Pathologic 2 doesn't even merit a mention. I know no one on staff played it and it's a HARD game to love but not even a hat tip is kinda sad.
Note: This is based on the timestamps posted above, it might come up in a way that didn't warrant one?
I'm extremely looking forward to this. The monetization model doesn't bother me for a few reasons -- mainly that there is a free drafting mode. Drafting has always been more fun to me than constructed in general, so because I don't care much about constructed in turn means I don't care that much about building up my card pool.
A much better way to spend money on this game (for me at least) will be to throw in $5 every now and again for some event tickets, which I can then use to play phantom draft. If I do decent in phantom draft, I'll get the startup costs back (three wins and you get the event ticket refunded.) If I do WELL, I might end up with a pack or two that I can open for cards to sell to possibly, maybe, even make a profit. I'm not depending on this! But it's entirely possible that you'll be able to play competitive modes for a long while by doing that. And you can ALWAYS just play the free modes without spending more.
They've also said (quite recently!) that progressions systems are their main priority after launch. -> https://twitter.com/PlayArtifact/status/1064942967964614656
Worth noting that Ben mentioned there should be a way to get rid of dupes. There WILL be, thought he details are not clear yet. You will be able to melt dupes for event tickets.
I hate to say it but this QL seems to have kinda missed one of the main mechanics of the game. :(
You can, and nearly always should, plan out ENEMY actions as well. When you simulate the turn before they see you (when they still have circles under their feet) the game will show exactly what they will do. Once you're detected, they'll simply stand in place during simulations -- UNLESS you click on them and give them a (theoretical) order. You can give them orders exactly the same way you give you own units orders, then simulate again to see how well your plan will account for wherever they may go.
That (to me) is basically the bulk and fun of the entire game. Check what enemies might do, plan around it, second guess yourself and make a different plan, third guess yourself and make ANOTHER plan, then execute and watch as they do something completely different.
Combat is entirely deterministic -- there aren't any dice rolls. If you plan right, you know exactly what'll happen and can account for anything.
Not really. Her firing can be considered separately from his, where his could be seen as less fair or whathaveyou. It doesn't have to be a paired judgment.
When we're talking about 'how arenanet reacted to this debacle' it is IMO completely impossible to separate the two firings. They were not isolated events. To consider one without the other is lying by omission.
Also I do want to re-iterate what others have said: Whether or not Price's comments were justified is like 5% of the point here. What ANet did in reply to her and to Peter Fries was unconscionable. Any argument about her being the culpable one goes out the window when you consider him, too. Most commenters who are mad about the coverage of the events seem to suspiciously leave that out.
The problem is in the world being described, there is no way for two parties to speak to each other and assume best intentions within each other without somehow proving they are ideologically aligned first.
I spent the last two years teaching an incredibly diverse high school classroom in Morocco with students from every continent other than Australia. Being able to assume good intentions in each other until proven otherwise was the foundation of what allowed that classroom environment work and for students, so different from each other, to get along.
What is being described is not a response to bad faith arguments, it feels like an ideological line that insulates one self from outside dissension that uses bad faith arguments as a blanket justification.
A classroom like mine would not be able to exist in this world.
A classroom like mine must be able to exist in this world.
Congratulations on your experience, thank you for the work, and I'd love to exist in that world. Unfortunately, assuming good faith also means that monsters can take advantage of that assumption and rise to power.
I don't have a good solution here, and my apologies if it comes off as incredibly cynical. I don't want to say one should always assume bad faith, either -- that leads to a whole lot of problems all around. This whole discussion came from a developer misinterpreting the intent of a tweet, and I'm using all these words not to defend that particular interaction but to try to make it clearer why to some it was completely justifiable to begin with.
People that have to deal with bad actors all day every day in their social media develop calluses about it, then they are derided when the pressure hits a point that makes them react. Death by a thousand politely worded disengenous 'I'm just asking a question here.'
There are a lot of very cynical people right now. There are a lot of good reasons to be.
By exercising the common sense that we were all raised with!
What reason is there for that praise not to be genuine? Seriously? This is starting to look like actual paranoia, you realize that right?
If you don't think that people arguing in bad faith is a problem, you haven't been paying enough attention in a whole lot of different areas. From Steam store reviews to political rallies to message boards and twitter, the paradox of tolerance is a real issue that a lot of people are grappling with all across the board. Again, there's a reason why 'sea-lioning' is a term.
Pointing to common sense as the answer reads just like the sort of trouble I'm trying to describe. Common sense is a pretty useless term that is generally invoked when the intent is to make the other party seem off-kilter. Common sense doesn't answer anything, because what a given person's own sense is depends on how they were raised. It also, again, assumes both sides are speaking in good faith (since it's such a vague term.) 'Common sense solutions' are simple solutions that are born out of hot takes, first impressions, stereotypes and assumptions. They don't usually work.
I understand this point. I'm saying Teasdale's analysis was implying Deroir crafting his tweets to be purposefully shitty.
Ah, I see. This is eye-of-the-beholder stuff, I'm afraid. It's getting really really hard to have a debate about anything where you can assume the other party is speaking in good faith.
If we've reached the point where genuine praise from person A about person B is not enough to give person A the benefit of the doubt when it comes to good faith, then we've reached an absolutely fucked level of cynicism.
The key word here is 'genuine.' How do you tell?
There are a lot of very cynical people right now. There are a lot of good reasons to be.
NmareBfly's comments