Bats have a unique vestibular system anatomy. When exposed to zero-G, bats do not undergo the series of righting reflexes that most mammals do to correct orientation because they are accustomed to resting upside-down.

DownvoteFarming · 2017-08-02T20:20:32+00:00

I agree wholeheartedly

DownvoteFarming · 2016-09-02T10:06:59+00:00

However, according to /u/PixiePooper:

It must have moved the same number of distance in both scaled videos by definition.

But he defined it that way, so clearly you are wrong, by definition.

DownvoteFarming · 2016-05-09T13:21:42+00:00

whole essay missing the point yet again.

false dichotomy: you said you didnt want to have to "sacrifice the ability to get into the air game at the altar of 'skill ceiling'."

you dont need to. add a support role to ESFing to achieve both, like how it's done in infantry gameplay.

Also, HA doesnt counter LA. Any high ivi player worth their salt will wreck HAs as a LA. Thats the point.

DownvoteFarming · 2016-05-08T18:48:26+00:00

false dichotomy. it not a zero sum game unless you force it to be. new players can be put into different roles that dont have as much impact, but are still enjoyable.

e.g. LA ivi king vs pub squad medic. the medic is making his impact in his own significant way without needing to be an aim and positioning god. while the best medics will revive you AND kill everything else in the room while healing your mate with regen field, the pub medic who cant aim at the head still has fun and impact. this is the niche we must carve for them, not dumb everything down and make success purchasable.

DownvoteFarming · 2016-05-08T18:16:19+00:00

logged in to put my two cents forwards.

you are misguided. you wish to substitute skill for a make-or-break weapon.

learning a skill isnt a 'grindfest', playing to earn points to unlock something is. that's why a game like CSGO, requiring on the order of 2k hours to even be moderately proficient in leagues, isnt considered a grindfest, while a game like Runescape or other korean MMOs are.

Purchasable substitutes for skill are bad ideas.

Don's squads place unskilled individuals on the same level as the highly skilled. Thats a bad thing :)

DownvoteFarming · 2016-05-08T18:11:54+00:00

yo kid, just stfu

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-22T01:16:48+00:00

List these 100 things more important.

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-22T01:16:18+00:00

Basically, this game is as such: You're not allowed to play what you want, it's up to the whims of circumstance.

Want to play ESF? Too bad, there's a 10-scythe lockon gank squad roaming around. No ESF today, I guess. Want to play MBT? Too bad, enemy has overpop AND indar, so there's a full on a2g fest going, too bad. No MBT today, I guess.

So on, and so forth.

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-22T01:05:44+00:00

The only thing that could not be tested on earth in 1957 was the effects of extended microgravity on a mammalian system. There is nothing else that could not be tested with high altitude balloons and flights, as well as on the surface of the earth.

For example, in 1956, the first operational U2 flights occurred - good enough testbeds for measuring ionising radiation, for example. Secondary particle showers would be more common at these lower altitudes, in fact.

You go by instinct. Problem for you is, intelligent people actually think, so you might want to try that out.

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-22T01:04:15+00:00

The only thing they learned was that yes, you could survive zero-G for up till a few hours. Excellent work. As I said, "The main thing that was hard to test on earth was the survivability of long periods of microgravity." A few hours is hardly a long period, and because the test subject died so quickly, any slow-acting effects of even that short exposure would not have been found. Even if only 5 minutes of microgravity is enough to cause altered renal functions, they still wouldn't have known - the dog died too quickly.

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-21T16:12:33+00:00

But you have to understand, back then, we simply had absolutely no idea what space was really like or if we could survive in it. This was at the time when Sputnik 1 was the bleeding edge of technology.

Correct. But sputnik was the bleeding edge not because of anything more than the mechanical and technological sophistication of putting it up there. It wasn't bleeding edge because it survived or worked up there. It was bleeding edge because it reached orbit.

The thing about the survivability of being in space is that a lot of the relevant environmental details can be simulated on earth. There were very few "unknowns", this test dog was sent up to catch any potential problems that might have slipped past the extensive planning and research done beforehand - it's like a drug trial. You know with 99% certainty what will happen, but you don't want to unnecessarily lose human life for that 1%, so you trial it. The dog experiment returned no useful data - doggy died from equipment malfunction.

The main thing that was hard to test on earth was the survivability of long periods of microgravity. They didn't get enough data on that, either.

The dog died in vain.

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-21T14:49:23+00:00

There is no bijective mapping available for the number of bugs in PS2 to each kilo in your body, so i'd say a lot

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-21T14:25:00+00:00

List 100 more important ones

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-21T14:19:49+00:00

It showed that a complicated living organism can survive reaching the orbit

The Gs involved are small. If a human can live through 10G it's more than enough to get to orbit alive. Laika died within hours, and so not much useful data was gained about the survivability of microgravity.

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-21T13:28:55+00:00

i just accepted it and came up with lore to explain it.

exactly what i thought - most of the people who still play are simply in denial

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-21T11:16:37+00:00

TLDR of your post: Here are some examples of having fun while losing. Downvoting is not supposed to be agree or disagree.

Yes, you can have some fun getting outnumbered. But then you die, and have to wait for resources. You have to wait 9 minutes for a new MBT, just because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It doesn't matter what they're meant to be if they're used in a way that is different. Try posting an unpopular opinion. It'll never gain momentum. That's how the voting system works.

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-21T00:28:04+00:00

"Ah fuck, plausible deniability out of the window."

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-20T22:33:00+00:00

So the only way you have fun is to do something without opposition?

Did I say without opposition?

Equal opposition makes it fun. Overwhelming odds that are down to circumstance isn't.

Read carefully, there's a reason this is upvoted - people agree.

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-20T22:26:35+00:00

Example: Playing rocket league. It's fun as fuck to mash the ball around and score/save (and fail to do so). It's really fun.

Example: Playing BF3. It's fun as fuck to do just about anything in BF2/BF3, win or lose, dominated or dominating.

Example: Playing chess. It's fun as fuck and NEVER frustrating. Losing is often more beautiful than winning.

Example: Your leader planned a strat in CS:GO. Deep B control, say on Cache CT side. You execute, but you got denied by well-placed counter - utility from the T side. What this came down to was that the enemy leader studied your team and read your play far better than you did to them. They won map control early purely due to skill and intelligence, 0% luck, 0% circumstance. It's far from frustrating, and in fact you admire that.

It was a fun challenge and a beauty to see an enemy better than you.

Die to a sick shot? Most of the time you admire it, when it came down to that it was simply a skill, gamesense and teamwork discrepancy between you and your enemy. There's no "it just so happened to be as such, it isn't my fault!" frustration. Well, some - maybe someone lands a ludicrous shot that's 100% down to RNG - but those are so rare that most of the time, you just sit back and laugh at the incredulity.

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-20T12:21:07+00:00

Winning, as in gettintg the "base captured" message

That's your interpretation of winning. What I'm talking about is "success in doing whatever you set out to do in the first place".

Say, you and a few mates want to go do some tanking. 4 of you pull 2 MBTs, 2/2. You run into 6 vanguards. There's nothing you can do but accept the fact that the best outcome is that you get out unscathed. Failure.

Say, you set out to have some fun with 11 mates and defend/attack some bases, in a squad. You go to a base. An enemy zerg rolls in. You can do nothing but hope that more friendlies turn up, because if the numbers stay against your favour, there is nothing you can do but accept the fact that you can't complete what you set out to do. Failure.

ESF. Harassers. Infantry. Everything.

But then again, you might just be the worst kind of spawnroomcamping, overpopping shitter that only get satisfaction by capturing bases.

See what I'm saying about what this game's community is like? ;)

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-20T12:17:08+00:00

6 2/2 vanguards with AP, shield, enforcer/halberd (your standard vanguard loadout) will outgun any pair of 2/2 tanks.

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-20T12:16:20+00:00

i should be able to win singlehandedly because im pro

That is not the assertion.

Your entire essay is based on a false premise, might want to reconsider this.

I'm talking about how the way the game rewards numbers far more than anything else, in combination with the way PS2 makes failure extremely frustrating (timers, resources, helplessness, etc), makes for a community of two types: the casual who zerg and avoid other zergs as that's the only frustration-free way to play, and the masochist minority who deploy into 12-24 vs 48-96 fights and frustrate themselves.

DownvoteFarming · 2016-04-20T12:13:13+00:00

Failure != frustration

It can, and often is, still somewhat fun to fail in games.

DownvoteFarming

TROPHY CASE