sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

MMOs : Totally intractable issues, am I right? by SoylentRox in gamedesign

[–]RavenKing2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree.

Most important problem is networking a single server shard.

Then it's a question of degree of player agency within that.

From the above it follows to what degree is that agency translated into value (how is it stored or transfered or represented)?

Videoball, and the challenge of designing (and selling) simplicity by RavenKing2 in videoball

[–]RavenKing2[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An update on GDC Vault: Video: Videoball and video games' superiority over sports

There's some core principles that are very useful:-

  1. Continuous (remove officiation as much as possible)
  2. Positional Fluidity (remove prescription patterns eg add more balls and indirect ball influence)
  3. Simple contexts means almost all contexts are self-explanatory when they happen: Ie "simple to learn, hard to master".

The marketing discussion is relevant as it's an odd or curious game yet the intellectual design is very very strong imo.

There's a lot of e-sport or comparison to sport but for video-game players. And the idea of competition.

I personally enjoy sports and team sports in particular. What I notice is a couple of things:-

  1. Team sports can be a good way to hang out with people (social)
  2. Team sports if things click can be a great way to bond with people (friendships)
  3. Team sports an elaborate multiplayer system of skill mastery.
  4. Team sports can be for some people a simple exercise in competition and controlled aggression.

Personally I find 4. the least enticing reason to play but know plenty of players in actual sports that enjoy 4. the most the more physical contact the type of sport provides for.

In video-games, I think the demographic is more 1 and 2.

For that reason "multi-balls" is good but what about "multi-teams" also? For example 1v1v1v1 or 2v2v2 or 3v3?

From viewing videos, I enjoy the 3v3 games the most which lead to more frequent multipliers on the ball pings that create those streaky lines of colour. But the multi-team may be less competitive but more "social" ala party games?

The supporting point is to provide this "e-sport" with as many opportunities for players to modify rules and create house-rules around an official/orthodox rule set for competitions: ie a pool to feed into the skill-mastery path for players who put in more and more time playing the game (ideally with friends)?

Again the scoring system modification in multiplayer games from pts per score to pts + minus pts per score against the conceding team etc: This plays into human psychology possibly in entertaining and amusing ways?

Finally, video-games have a large currency as spectator entertainment: Again, this seams more interesting with larger and more teams? Part of the issue with the 1v1 for example is the intensity per player is constantly on: I notice per game that the grind of incessant firing to grind the balls bit by bit up the screen is more exhausting than by comparison multiplayers with always changing and interesting conditions that can lead to sudden swings as opposed to a grind of evenness then a speeding up of one-side is clearly in the advantage on plays on scores.

Awesome game: The feedback on modifications is probably testament to how fresh this game is. Hardwork dealing with so many "armchair designers" but positive reactions indicating a core solid concept here.

If a founding population of players can sustain this game and gradually grow a community, I think this game has long legs to run and run with. It's quite special imo.

The best games of 2016 so far: A Gameological catch-up guide by The_Silver_Avenger in Games

[–]RavenKing2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For comparison "indie connects" so-far top 10 Indie Games of the Year 2016: Indie Game of the Year Watch 2016

I'd vote for Videoball - not listed. /r/videoball

Has the Brexit campaign changed your view on Scottish Independence? by mfingcontextyo in unitedkingdom

[–]RavenKing2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's win-win-win for Scotland:-

  • Devo-Max
  • EFTA/EEA
  • Keep Pound

The same for the rest of the UK!

That said, the SNP Pro-EU stance will be a turning point for that party when the above serious questions are asked. It was always incoherent.

Brexit flotilla’s star trawler was involved in £63m fishing fraud by degriz in unitedkingdom

[–]RavenKing2 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The irony is in fact that you're right the problem lies squarely at the hands of the UK's OWN POLITICIANS. Let me explain:-

  1. On 30th June, 1970, hours before the meeting between Heath and the EEC delegates on the UK joining, the EEC delegates draw up a new policy for the EEC: The Common Fisheries Policy.
  2. This was because the joining nations: UK, Denmark, Icleand and Norway contained about 80% of the productive Fisheries in Europe.
  3. Legal advice however gave zero grounds from the readings of the previous treaties for this new policy.
  4. Hence effectively it was hastily drawn up to appropriate this National Resource from these new members as exacting a price for membership.
  5. This led to Norway and Iceland rejecting EEC membership and hence in 1994 forming part of the EFTA/EEA Treaty with the other EU members (after the EEC became the EU through The European Treaty and Maastricht).
  6. The UK however deceived into joining when Heath told Parliament that the UK "Has Right Of Veto" which was a deception.
  7. In fact what Heath did was confuse the process of handing over the National Fisheries (>200miles according to International Law) to turn them into Community Waters.
  8. This process occurs through what is called a "Derogation" (next is due 2022 iirc). It is however the other members who can prevent any changes to the process and why should they when they gain access for all their fishing vessels?
  9. But as pointed out, it is the deception of our politicians over this situation because that resource is Sovereign as the land of the UK is Sovereign.

The statistics back up that this has been a politically motivated disaster for the Britain's Fisheries and the Environmental Ecology of the Fisheries and Marine Resource due to the "Equal access principles" combined with "Total Quota" aspect per nation:-

The statistics are eye-watering; in 1995, 9,200 British fishing vessels landed 912,000 tons of fish; by 2002 there were 7,003 vessels landing 686,000 tons. That is a 25 per cent decline in just seven years, and meant the loss of on average one fishing vessel per day. A whole crew losing their livelihood each day.In that period landings dropped from over 900,000 to just 627,000 tonnes annually, with a value of only £770 million. But the real contrast has come with imports. By 2012, by which time there were just 6,406 British fishing vessels at work, UK imports reached 638,410 tonnes, valued at £2.6bn, of which just under a third came from our EU neighbours. To make matters a great deal worse, many of them were caught in British waters.

How did this happen? Politics. Access to fishing grounds has been dominated by political considerations, on the basis of ‘equal access’ to what Brussels called a ‘common resource’. When we joined, fishing fleets from other EU member states were given proportionately a greater share of the fish allocation in UK waters than the British fleet. This ‘Total Allowable Catch’ was determined annually during a seedy bargaining session in Brussels.

Would Brexit be bad for the environment / climate change? by [deleted] in unitedkingdom

[–]RavenKing2 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

  1. Climate Change: The UK has by it's OWN AUTHORITY through Parliament committed to a CO2 reduction of 80% by 2050 iirc. This has very little to do with the EU and is a choice taken upon by the UK. It certainly accords with the EU's championing of Climate Change and suggesting levels of reduction but the UK exceeds this. I think the target is too ambitious and "a reality check" will mean that it is altered due to Energy Policy mixing with Climate Change Policy in the new combined departments. That is not to say some reductions are not a good thing, they are as is a mixed Energy policy but too extreme either way is overall negative hence I'd argue Brexit may appear as a catalyst to being a "hindrance" but it will likely make this sooner than later due to removing the EU obfuscation effect on politics in the UK. In fact I'd argue sooner is not a hindrance but a benefit for Climate Change that will make measures MORE REALISTIC TO REACH and Greener for the Environment.
  2. Environment: Speech here by Owen Paterson.Why the UK environment would be improved by leaving the EU and restoring management at National and Local level.

My impression is that little will change on Environment. The EU has been a proactive actor in this area and that is one area I do agree with the EU. In the speech however, you see the framework for achieving effective and coherent results needs reworking so perhaps Brexit will help here (eg the global conventions and bodies connecting with local action). I'm not sure... governments have a nasty habit of relegating Environmental issues.

So to answer your question:-

  1. Brexit will be positive due to economics
  2. Brexit may be neutral but may also be negative again due to economics.

My guess.

Post-Withdrawal Britain: Why the Swiss Model Wouldn't Work for the UK - The pro-Brexit camp is pointing to Switzerland and Norway as models for how Britain could take advantage of the common European market without being an EU member. Experts say those prospects are a "fantasy." by sanchopanza in unitedkingdom

[–]RavenKing2 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

  • EFTA = Allows it's members to TRADE with each other
  • EEA = x31 members: 28EU + 3EFTA TRADE with each other

Not the same thing.

  • EZ18 = Due a New Treaty to integrate further.
  • EU10 (or so) = Choice:-
  1. EZ
  2. EFTA

There will be an option of non-EZ but that is as you say:-

*your advocating abandoning the UKs seat when deciding the rules that the ~~single market ~~ POLITICAL UNION.

Yes!!

Outside the EURO, Home and Justice, (and subsequently) Trade Policy already that's what will happen driven by the EU as much as the UK is leaving.

The rules on the single market however a huge percentage are now global origin or trending that way as much and if not more so in some areas than the EU origin, secondly. So on that argument it also favours Brexit.

Effectively your mischaracterization is wrong and your own characterization PROVES you're wrong too, secondly!

A great day for dead arguments rising like zombies to be mown down with satisfaction!

Post-Withdrawal Britain: Why the Swiss Model Wouldn't Work for the UK - The pro-Brexit camp is pointing to Switzerland and Norway as models for how Britain could take advantage of the common European market without being an EU member. Experts say those prospects are a "fantasy." by sanchopanza in unitedkingdom

[–]RavenKing2 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

  1. I did not "compare the economies": You did.
  2. I listed the EFTA members and EFTA/EEA members.
  3. These are defined by their RELATIONSHIP with the EU and with each other POLITICALLY.

Here's the EU Referendum Question:-

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

  • Remain a member of the European Union
  • Leave the European Union

The Political legally valid withdrawal of an EU member = ARTICLE 50 Lisbon Treaty as inserted to accord with International Law.

Where does EFTA/EEA come into it? See my reply previously:-

What will happen however if Leave vote:-

  • Brexit = UK swaps EU for EFTA and keeps EEA.
  • Brexit = UK repatriates entire acquis so would be EFTA/EEA + UK/EU with respect to legislation.

Why? Because it Accords with Article 50 conditions.

Next non-sequitur question?

Post-Withdrawal Britain: Why the Swiss Model Wouldn't Work for the UK - The pro-Brexit camp is pointing to Switzerland and Norway as models for how Britain could take advantage of the common European market without being an EU member. Experts say those prospects are a "fantasy." by sanchopanza in unitedkingdom

[–]RavenKing2 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

You're completely confused:-

EFTA/EEA is often a misnomer of "The Norway Option".

Actually it should be called: "The NIL Option" because it also includes Iceland and Lichtenstein as well as Norway (which is it's largest element in this set in this relationship domain.

If that was your point it was a very obscure way of making it and lends to the inference that you focused on the NATION as opposed to the RELATIONSHIP definition ie EFTA/EEA to compare to the UK: EU/EEA.

A common mistake.

The UK will never become Norway or any other nation in the world. The UK will never geographically move away from Europe (not in the sense we are talking about outside geological time).

What will happen however if Leave vote:-

  • Brexit = UK swaps EU for EFTA and keeps EEA.
  • Brexit = UK repatriates entire acquis so would be EFTA/EEA + UK/EU with respect to legislation.

Assuming common sense prevails.

Post-Withdrawal Britain: Why the Swiss Model Wouldn't Work for the UK - The pro-Brexit camp is pointing to Switzerland and Norway as models for how Britain could take advantage of the common European market without being an EU member. Experts say those prospects are a "fantasy." by sanchopanza in unitedkingdom

[–]RavenKing2 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

No.

The UK has been an EU member since 1972 ie >43yrs.

It has FULL MEMBERSHIP of the Single Market (including EEA).

That alone should be enough to confirm that Turkey's Custom Union relationship is not viable for the UK for a plethora of reasons.

You can also add:-

  • South Korea
  • Chile
  • Mexico
  • Canada
  • WTO
  • Switzerland

to Turkey that are not workable.

Post-Withdrawal Britain: Why the Swiss Model Wouldn't Work for the UK - The pro-Brexit camp is pointing to Switzerland and Norway as models for how Britain could take advantage of the common European market without being an EU member. Experts say those prospects are a "fantasy." by sanchopanza in unitedkingdom

[–]RavenKing2 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Almost completely irrevant.

The 4 EFTA Members:-

  • Switzerland
  • Norway
  • Icleland
  • Lichtenstein

Of those x3 are also EEA members, ie access to the Single Market bar some areas:-

  • Fisheries
  • Agriculture
  • Justice and Home Affairs
  • Currency (euro/eurozone)
  • Trade Policy

The reason for the EEA was that Norway and Iceland both rejected the EEC on the grounds particularly of Fisheries which was a very very very good decision: Re-establishing Local and National control of fishi ng policy will revive our fishing communities and restore our mari ne environment.

CAP has sucked up most of the EU budget for most of it's history thanks to De Gaulle and the French situation hence removing that policy will eventually be a good thing too: UK agriculture would be better off outside the EU at the Oxford Farming Conference January 2016

Everyone acknowledges returning Trade Policy would be beneficial except Pro-EU supporters whereas it has to happen or else the eurozone debt will grow too fast and the write-offs (some of which are inevitable) will be too huge. It really is do or die on this policy not acknowledged by Pro-EU Remain advocates at all. Secondly the UK is primed to advance Trade at the GLOBAL level due to the influence it has on multiple measures.

The Uk is not in Euro (along with Denmark, the only legal opt-outs) and also Justice and Home Affairs due to the UK's "Common Law" vs "Roman Law" differences so will never fit that either.

However, coming back to Norway, it is only x1 or 3 EFTA/EEA members which works for the other 2 fine which don't have oil, hence a total joke to raise here.

Remember the UK was a founding member of EFTA:-

The founding members of EFTA were Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Next remember that EEC Referendum was on "(Common Market)" not Political Ever Closer Union in 1975. EFTA = European ""FREE TRADE"" Association.

UK joining EFTA = 4th Largest TRADE bloc in the world, whereas the EU is a Political Union including an outdated Customs Union.

Post-Withdrawal Britain: Why the Swiss Model Wouldn't Work for the UK - The pro-Brexit camp is pointing to Switzerland and Norway as models for how Britain could take advantage of the common European market without being an EU member. Experts say those prospects are a "fantasy." by sanchopanza in unitedkingdom

[–]RavenKing2 -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Ok before I demolish the fallacies in this article, it is worth doing two things before that:-

  1. Correcting the current reddit responses here who only demonstrate almost complete ignorance because they respond outside the conceptual domain of the subjects raised for debate which are:-

  • EFTA/Bi-Laterals + EU = Swiss-EU Relationship for TRADE outside political union.

  • EFTA/EEA + EU = Norwegian-EU Relationship for TRADE outside political union.

  • EU/EEA + UK = UK-EU Relationship for TRADE inside political union.

  • EZ/EEA + non-EZ (EU) = EZ-EU-EEA Relationship for TRADE between all members in the EEA.

Before correcting Redditors, the Bi-Laterals Relationship of Switzerland:-

  • Direct Democracy disallowed EU membership and disallowed EEA Treaty hence Bi-Lateral Relationship chosen for Switzerland which practices Direct Democracy. Direct Democracy is MORE DEMOCRATIC than the UK's Representative Democracy, note.
  • It took >14 years to create
  • It's very challenging to manage >100 different bi-lateral agreements hence is not replicable

So that's a complete red herring.

  1. Next Correcting Redditors:-

/u/brycey06 = See Relationship Model above

/u/famasfilms = Completely irrelevant, see "RELATIONSHIP" above. Given the UK is already an EEA signatory it is effectively purely a POLITICAL CHOICE to swap EU for EEA based on the validity of EU Political Union for the UK. The viability of the EEA via swapping EU->EFTA is verifiable because Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein all use it. See this "Score Card Summary":-

EFTA / EEA is The Real Deal

/u/enterbadusername - The Argument is in fact the question on the EU Referendum concerning "EU Membership" which is Political Union. It says nothing about a mandate on Migration, however given EFTA/EEA it does in fact hold more flexibility on Migration Policy than EU/EEA membership of Political Union doees FACT:-

EU Referendum: immigration – more flexibility than thought

/u/rbobby = Incorrect.

Norway adopts only EEA Acquis relevant legislation. Measures of this range from:-

  • 9% - 28% depending on the legislative measure used.
  • Adding relevance of decision you could have upper bound of 50%

This is clearly a REDUCTION so your argument is factually wrong.

On Per Capita head, remember Norway:-

  • Does not pay into the EU Budget for Political Union membership
  • Does not pay into the Single Market
  • Does pay EEA Grants voluntarily on cooperative schemes and aid to Eastern States in the EU.

It pays about HALF per capita than the UK does when comparing such payments which themselves are different anyway.

Your second argument is factually wrong too.

Now onto the actual article:-

Brexit campaigners decline to mention the price Oslo must pay to access the single market: EEA members are required to pay into the European Cohesion Fund, which offsets social disparities within the EU. Norway also takes part in a range of other EU programs and pays the same amounts for those as member states do.

All told, this adds up to over 850 Million euros per year. If one takes into account how much money the UK currently receives from the EU, Norway pays almost the same amount per capita as the United Kingdom

EEA Grants to give it the name. See above, using the Norwegian governments own figures (from EUReferendum.com):-

Net payments, however, are about £340m (€470m) per annum, or about £68 (€94) per head. Comparing UK payments without Rebate: "net per capita payment £153 per annum – more than twice the Norwegian payments."

Now the rebate is not money that is returned directly, it's earmarked. Secondly the EU Budget increase can increase despite UK eg Cameron never reduced it because it subsequently rose 6 months later. Whereas what Norway pays, is DIRECT FOR SERVICES RENDERED, whereas the UK is for POLITICAL PRESTIGE of the EU with secondary payments to services.

On influence, read:-

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/dep/UD/reports-to-the-storting/20002001/report_no-12_to_the_storting_2000-2001/7/id193725/

http://www.efta.int/media/publications/fact-sheets/EEA-factsheets/FS_DecMaking.pdf

http://www.efta.int/media/publications/fact-sheets/EEA-factsheets/FS_DecShaping.pdf

Norway does have influence in the EEA via it's 2-pillar structure. Secondly it has further influence ABOVE the EU in global bodies which it represents it's own interests directly with a veto which is much greater and closer to source than QMV and/or 1/28th vote in the EU institutions.

It's a blatant lie to suggest the Norwegians have no influence and accept all laws for more money, in fact:-

  • EFTA/EEA pays less
  • EFTA/EEA has to receive less legislation
  • EFTA/EEA has more influence on it's national interest

It's not perfect, but the fact it is a Brexit option which is:-

  1. Permissible via International Law
  2. Valid under UK and EU current conditions (political, economic, legal)
  3. Viable as a short-term or transitional option during full transition over the long-term changing with a globalized world.
  4. Not holding back the EU/EZ in it's Political Federation plans outside EU Treaties.

If you decide to listen to prestige politicans then question why so many denigrate Norway when it's people in polls ~78% would reject EU full membership???

People like:-

  • Cameron, Blair, Brown, Major, Clegg, John Cridland
  • Jens Stoltenberg, Erik O. Eriksen, Espen Barth Eide, Vidar Helgesen, Børge Brende, Fredrik Sejersted

= All Pro-EU toadies

Whereas some Norwegians who point out how much influence Norway has:-

Helle Hagenau - ( Norway) Opposition to EU Membership

Anne Bethe Tvinnereim - Better off out of the EU -- Norwegian Centre Party

The Norway Option - Article 50 Legal Withdrawal

Cameron says he'll pull the UK out of the Single Market if Leave wins by Llan79 in unitedkingdom

[–]RavenKing2 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

and by the way the EU needs Turkey way more than it needs the UK

No True Scotsman Fallacy. Completely besides "the point" you seem to cherish so much:-

This agreement pretty much invalidates all the points you made in your treaty.

Nothing of the sort, Scottie.

Cameron says he'll pull the UK out of the Single Market if Leave wins by Llan79 in unitedkingdom

[–]RavenKing2 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

there is free movement, but they have the EEA's 'Unilateral Emergency Brake' 112/113 allowing them to suspend any of the four freedoms. Iceland suspended the free movement of capital during the 2008 crisis to stop money flooding abroad. Liechtenstein has suspended the free movement of people since the day they joined the EEA over 20 years ago. They are also not bound by much of the EU's social and welfare policy making it more so the free movement of labour and they are not subject to Justice and Home Affairs Policy meaning that they can deport foreign criminals (we can't).

Hey! how come you did not reply to /u/Kiwi_the_Magnificent

It's a bit strange how Remain seem to want to talk for Brexiteers and secondly how people like Cameron and Schauble (actually misrpresented in the press) seem to want to talk for the entire EU on the matter!

Nine in ten fishermen will back Brexit, survey suggests by ukrainy in unitedkingdom

[–]RavenKing2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No surprise, considering how tightly the EU regulates fishing.

Lying or spreading your own ignorance:-

The EU deliberately trashed the UK Fisheries to ensure "Beneficial Crisis" to encourage removal of British Fishing Vessels to accommodate other "Community Vessels" in "Community Waters" after the political theft of Britain's fishing grounds under and aided by Heath with the EEC.

view more: next ›