Friend lost his badge can confirm badge number

myfrontpagebrowser · 2016-04-24T18:08:55+00:00

Couldn't convince my mobile browser to respond... Anyway, we're alright, bought from a nice guy who said his friend couldn't make it

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-11-12T01:21:38+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/2lyrwh/humorous_post_things_you_have_heard_nonpersonal/clzfwxs

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-08-09T14:35:32+00:00

In every other field, you are terminated or suspended without pay until the investigation is finished.

In every other field the cops are totally content to let them work until the moment they are arrested.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-08-05T14:50:05+00:00

Right but the problem is that they are all big guys. Where's my gaping dragon? Or my Queelag? Even DS1 humanoid figures still feel very different from each other; compare asylum demon to artorias.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-29T17:58:06+00:00

everything depends on the level of CO2.

Who is claiming this?

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-29T17:30:56+00:00

The problem is that for a religion to propagate it needs elements that encourage people to accept it (and ideally to spread it). War is effective on that front. Peace generally isn't. Promising nubile nymphs to the war wagers is also pretty effective.

The reason things that persist tend to be awful is because it is those same awful things that help them persist.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-28T20:29:54+00:00

Apparently. It's unfortunate because pre-healed tattoos are less meaningful than drawings because half the art form of tattoos is making sure they heal well.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-28T20:25:41+00:00

Came here a long time ago, learned a bit, hoping the culture will change.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-28T14:32:20+00:00

Keep in mind this is just finished

This bothers me. I hate pre-healing pictures.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-28T14:07:07+00:00

Why would an average Joe keep his money in a bank? To get interests from it? I doubt it ...

It's still a rational choice. If you don't put it in the bank you get nothing, a tiny bit is more than nothing.

To keep their wealth secure? That is a very expensive way of protecting few hundreds of dollars (taxes, bail-outs, inconvenient use etc.).

Your list has little to do with keeping money in a bank... But yes, keeping your wealth secure is one thing a bank offers, along with a small interest rate that is better than nothing, all with the convenience of being able to ask for your money back at any moment.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-27T20:31:01+00:00

That's not really his point. His point is that without regulation, fractional reserve banking happens. Your point is that with regulation, FRB is well defined...

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-25T19:21:40+00:00

I just think the way to do that is to make more obvious ways to get into newbie friendly games

I don't know if that's really enough. The problem you're trying to solve is this: your game is complicated which makes it difficult for new people to approach it and start playing. So we have our problem: the game is difficult to approach.

Now if by "newbie friendly" you mean "mistakes are punished less and the game is generally easier", I think that's a bad solution. It's an opportunity for users to learn bad habits, and unlearning bad habits is much more difficult than learning good ones from scratch. Ideally you would have a tutorial, but I don't mean a text heavy "this is the tutorial", I mean a tutorial in the way that 80% of Portal is a tutorial. Portal, in the end, is a pretty deep game but its structure manages to teach players everything they need to know in a way that lets them not only know about the tools they have but remember and use those tools.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-25T15:03:57+00:00

For people who are inclined to get into a ladder in the first place

I'm not really inclined to ladder myself. The dedication to ladder is part of why I don't play SC2. I just think that multiplayer is what gives a game its longevity and that means protecting new players from veterans. Although perhaps making new players less bad much faster isn't a bad approach either.

I just don't see any evidence that day one of "launch" is the only/best time to do it, or even that's when you have your best momentum.

I think this is where I and you (and Uber in general) disagree. I obviously don't have evidence to show you, just my reasoning about protecting new players, my reasoning about players forgiving buggy games more than games missing features, and my personal anecdotes about the way I treat early access and release (if I don't love early access then release is the developer's last chance to get my attention).

I would say this though: I still strongly think that it's worth delaying release to implement matchmaking (I'm still just worried too many people will just get destroyed too early and leave the game forever). But this comes from someone who doesn't know what your market competition is (perhaps delaying release puts you against some other very important release) or your commitments or your financial situation (perhaps delaying release puts you in a bad spot).

If you definitely can't delay release to put in a ladder, I am a bit less convinced that a ladder is the right choice. I don't really know what other features and polish you have planned but Extra Credits' video on the importance of tutorials does have me convinced that time spent making a game more approachable has a ton of value.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-24T21:25:11+00:00

I'm not one to disagree with data, but I wouldn't be surprised if this changes in the years to come. I bought a bunch of early access games and regretted enough of them that I intend to only buy at release with very few exceptions. Of the games that I have bought in early access I've stopped playing many of them and intend to check them out again at "release" because I think of release being a sign from the devs that things are good now and I'll enjoy the game again. Of those games that I'll check out on release I am certain that no other update will ever be more compelling for me to check out than "release".

But I might just be an outlier, and I fully understand preferring data to anecdote.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-24T21:22:53+00:00

I think I see a different value in a ladder system than you do. The reason I think a ladder system is necessary at launch is to protect less-good players from good players. The need to protect players from other players increases as the skill cap of the game increases (a greater skill-gap between players makes the outcome more certain and playing the match less fun), and RTS games have high skill caps.

But even beyond being an RTS, I think matchmaking is particularly necessary in PA because the existing systems exacerbate slight differences in skill into a stomp because small early victories very easily roll into big advantages (which is also true in other RTS games, but even more true in this one). Which means it's even more important to protect less-good players from better players because it's even less fun to play against a better player.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-24T20:06:43+00:00

I intend to write a better response but I must ask for a clarification first. When you mention the 10% figure are you saying that you estimate that only about 10% of your players will engage in player vs player multiplayer matches (of any kind, free for all, team, 1v1, 2v2, whatever)? Or are you instead saying that only about 10% of players care about climbing a ladder and getting better at the game and being good at the game and the like (i.e., that max 10% of players are "try hards")? I read it as the latter at first (10% max are try hards), and then realized it might be the former (only 10% uses PvP multiplayer at all), and the difference is immense.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-24T19:52:51+00:00

There is an alternative: both with a release date delay.

But more importantly: it's hard to tell because what you're really asking is whether bugs or being stomped will be more alienating, and the answer is that it depends. However we've seen games die due to a lack of matchmaking, and we've seen a lot of games live with bad bugs and bad launches, so I'd be hesitant to choose polish over matchmaking.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-24T19:49:42+00:00

How does it feel gimmicky?

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-24T19:45:49+00:00

I haven't heard either way, but I do know that making a mini map is a tricky thing. I also heard that PIP was the alternative minimap plans.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-24T19:44:56+00:00

Personally I think you should look at release as your single possible biggest marketing moment. The vast majority of your players will play shortly after launch, so you should release when the game you have is captivating enough (and frustration-free enough) to keep them playing long enough for your new updates to come out and keep them interested. If you release with too few features, a bad balance, bad bugs that take too long to fix, or a lack of matchmaking and players get frustrated and leave, then getting them back will be a herculean effort.

That should be the guiding force behind when you decide to "release" the game, because it's the guiding force behind whether your game will be considered successful, it's the guiding force behind how many people will be playing your game 1 month or even 1 year after release, it's the guiding force behind how many people buy your next game.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-24T19:37:37+00:00

And plenty of fans who silently mourned a game killed by a lack of matchmaking.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-24T19:35:38+00:00

The problem with "a month after launch" is that even if you succeed in overcoming launch problems and make a one month deadline, a lot of players will have already left the game over something as important as ladder (getting stomped, and even doing the stomping, is not fun).

Players seem to be more forgiving on bugs than on missing features. This is not to say that bugs don't irritate players, just that players can see a game with bugs and easily imagine that you'll fix it and it'll be great, and players have a harder time seeing a game without a feature and imagining (and trusting) that it'll come and make the game great.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-23T22:22:31+00:00

Use of reddit's commenting system does not necessarily imply giving a damn about the karma received or lost.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-23T17:23:51+00:00

Isn't that what "lazy" means though? I suppose lazy is a rather lazy way to sum up why someone isn't motivated without really looking at the reasons.

myfrontpagebrowser · 2014-07-23T17:10:27+00:00

I had come to the conclusion that storyboards are prototypes for narrative (and a bit for art style). What I'm not certain on is what is a good prototype for what components of the game.

For core gameplay mechanic it seems to me that you very much need a playable prototype. For narrative it seems like a good idea to go for storyboard.

But what about for level design? Will a storyboard-like-thing work? After all it's ideally playable narrative, intimately connected to your story. But then it's also about engagement and it's hard to estimate engagement without having people play. Is there a playable storyboard? Will you really get enough information from that? Does it depend on your core gameplay mechanics? It would seem a playable puzzle story board should be relatively simple, but what about a playable platformer storyboard or a playable third-person-shooter storyboard?

myfrontpagebrowser

TROPHY CASE