A video about convenience and bad behavior in WoW, and comments about getting kicked from groups for being new, made me realize an interesting point: I suggested in my previous post that game developers should try to attract the best players to their game. A bit of a balancing act: don't reward the best players at all and they won't play, but reward them too much and other people won't play (and they probably also won't play because they want a game that their friends would like).
In WoW, the players who get kicked from dungeons are usually players who aren't as good. Though Mei posted on the WoW forums, in 2010 during WotLK, about how she had done a dungeon on her death knight, just playing and not talking at all, and then the group had just vote-kicked her.
It might actually be possible that it was a "kick to invite a friend for loot on a boss", if the other players were all from the same server or guild. But the way Mei described it, she was kicked simply for not talking to the other players (though the more common experience seems to be getting kicked because of talking to other players).
But usually, good players had no reason to expect to be kicked. So why was this not a system that attracted the best players to the game?
Because good players players exhibit performance that saves them from being kicked only if they have certain goals. Collect good gear; wear that good gear; study mechanics and memorize routes on dungeons, etc. A very skilled person who has never played WoW before could go and watch a bunch of YouTube videos before they do any dungeon, and thereby know all the important mechanics which could pose a threat, and someone who has the goal of showing other people how good at they are at the game might do this.
But a typical skilled person will just play the game, make mistakes, and risk getting kicked by the efficiency-focused members of the group. I somehow turned a two-sentence observation into six paragraphs.
https://nitter.net/EllieAsksWhy/status/2038748042267079159
I know nothing about the progress of the war with Iran other than a Chinese video about the White Eagle Alliance and the Valley of Gold, but it seemed to me that when Russia strikes Ukraine's power plants, it is to inconvenience civilians but also to draw attention to the fact that they are not striking or killing civilians directly. If they were, then news articles about the strikes on power plants would also mention deliberate strikes on places where civilians live or gather. Even the strikes around Jan 01 after the war had started: Ukraine killed a bunch of Russian soldiers in their barracks, but the Russian counterattack hit outside where the Ukrainian soldiers were barracking. It obviously could have hit the exact location and killed many soldiers as they slept, either with those missiles or another barrage.
So if Trump is talking about this, it seems it might serve a similar purpose. Power plants are inevitably centralized to some degree, even if the grid is not connected. Larger power plants are just more efficient, I think.
I honestly don't know if it was a book series that many people don't know about, but (I have to remember that this is to you, not Ellie) the novel Ender's Shadow, related to Ender's Game. The character Bean produces an analysis, referencing like Vauban, that concludes that planets are indefensible in an interstellar war and so the only valid strategy is offensive. It's just a sort of analogy here: in a real war, things like power plants are probably just too easy to attack. We saw (or at least people who cared saw; I was just living normally and am saying this without any specific knowledge) how a simple virus, that admittedly does have a death toll of 7 million with ongoing deaths no longer being tracked, managed to cause huge disruptions to supply chains and so on. And the virus was not even trying to cause any harm, and did not damage any infrastructure, or communication or movement nodes.
Compare the NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters, or when the US and the UN flattened basically every structure in northern Korea by dropping 635,000 tons of bombs on it (aka "42 Hiroshima bombs equivalent").
So if modern society seems to continue functioning somewhat normally during a war, it's either because the armies are not well financed — obviously not the case when the US spends more than the next nine countries combined — or there is not a determined effort to destroy that normal functioning of society.
"how many power stations were destroyed during invasion of iraq in 2003"
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the electrical power production capacity was significantly reduced. After the invasion, the capacity dropped to 3,300 MW, which was only 20% of its original capacity. This destruction was part of a broader effort to systematically damage Iraq's infrastructure, leading to widespread electricity blackouts and a significant impact on daily life.
www.globalresearch.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment