The captain and his ‘crew,’ a motley band of children, would come on screen for less than 60 seconds in an advert break to advertise a new brand of frozen food. There was a bare minimum of narrative filling out the story of Captain Bird’s Eye and how he came to be in the Caribbean in a boat full of frozen fish and children.

And then one day, Cap’n bird’s Eye disappeared from our screens. I can’t place a date on it and a quick google reveals nothing, there was no outcry over his disappearance, no great public mourning for the passing of this great figure (from our screens). I only remembered while having a stream of random thinking so it’s unsurprising he went unnoticed.

What I want to know is what he’s doing now? My personal theory is that both The Captain and the crew are still locked in some advertising studio somewhere. It’s basically Lord Of The Flies only with the Captain acting as benevolent dictator.

The constitution of the people of Studio 4 is drawn up from their contracts. The Captain being the only character that can read (the children were born and raised in the Studio) has assumed the position of power. He is in charge of rationing the supply of frozen food, slowly thawing out in the hold of the ship. Some products have been used for farming, such as frozen peas, however the bad soil on the treasure island (set) means farming is labour intensive and low yielding.

Fast forward several years and the children have grown into adults, the Captain is rapidly going mad, abusing his position of power and building a throne from fish fingers and the food is all gone. The ‘children’ unable to emote anything except faked happiness wander round with blank faces. Little does the Captain know a revolution is stirring, hungry and angry the ‘children’ are plotting to overthrow and eat the Captain. Locked in his quarters screaming at the non-existent first-mate and sobbing over the death of his plastic parrot, the Captain is unable to defend himself; a poor old-man is going to be killed and eaten by people raised in a studio (Studio 4) and you’re doing nothing? You must do something before a mob of blank faced troglodytes eat the vulnerable!

Anyone know anything more plausible?

Because I’m not at liberty to discuss the BETA I’m playing I’ll instead use an RTS, Mark of Chaos, as an example. On the drawing board, MoC looked like it should have been successful, it used many of the Total War series’ mechanisms, had a pre-established fanbase among the Warhammer Fantasy crowd and had some quite good visuals to top it off. The game was successful enough to warrant a sequel but suffered from having overcomplicated presentation and an equally complex control scheme.

The frontend menu lacked both glamour and usabilitiy, skirmish was hidden in the multiplayer menu and the whole thing was clunky and rather depressing to use. Unfortunately this bad user interface (UI) design spread to the game itself. Here I would hold the Dawn of War series up as a paragon of UI virtue, the UI is well designed and also simple to use whereas control for units, abilities, duels and orders in MoC immediately turns away all but the dedicated players.

Cryptic symbols, icons being too small and surplus tooltip text all plague MoC which doesn’t help the fact that the controls are complicated to begin with. Designers seem determined to cram as much background and story into the UI elements themselves rather than design them in that the UI becomes a scatterbrain outline of story and setting rather than a place to control the game from. Endless potions and weapons are never clearly delineated by type and though some will enjoy the huge list of stats that pop up, designers will never give their game mainstream appeal if they design to WoW addicts.

Icons are often designed to transcend language barriers, and there’s a universal language of games, but by steeping your game in fantasy ‘lore’ you make it a select and alienating experience.

So the message is simple; if you’re designing a fantasy game and want people to play and enjoy it – design for usability.

The best designs, such a DoW, should be instinctive to use, not guess work, tooltips need only say the bare minimum and even a 70 year old who’s never played a game before should know what they’re doing.

Most first year students live in halls maintained by the university rather than renting houses owned by independent landlords but it can often be difficult to make informed decisions about accommodation, some universities are very selective about what they show at open days and some people may be limited by not being able to attend secondary open days, where accommodation is shown, at all.

Unbiased pictures and reviews of university halls are hard to come by, with the information being spread far and wide, which is why an information aggregator would be such a good idea, then I found this: http://www.studentsay.co.uk/

This is almost exactly the website I was looking for, having reviews of independent 2nd/3rd year residences mixed in with halls clutters things a bit, they could perhaps split the website in two, one for official campus/university halls and the other for independent lets and the limited exposure so far results in limited usefulness but once uptake increases this website could become really very useful so keep an eye on it.

Design One

Intro

While my first idea was more of a simulator along the lines of theme hospital,  my first design has tried to refine these elements and make them true to Real Time Strategy devices.

The idea takes from Eufloria and Darwinia in equal measure with regard to narrative, both these games feature some corrupted form of enemy that uses similar units to the player. In my game, both sides have the same units available however the competition is between plants with different genetic mutations, for example one faction, yellow (to steal outright from Eufloria), might have a quicker growing speed but be more fragile. The aim of the game is to establish dominance in the forest with your chosen ‘factions’ genetic offspring. Further story could be generated but would perhaps detract from gameplay.

The core mechanism is as follows.

Maps

The maps are 2d and presented from the side, as below with either more simplistic line drawings on white or more verdant Braidesque illustration.:

Matches start with a player controlled deciduous tree that is in its early stages of growth and that will continue to grow throughout the whole match. This tree is capable of spawning other trees as seeds with are carried by the wind, in reality the player has some control over their direction and distance. Because deciduous trees allow some sunlight through,  mushrooms, ferns and shrubs can grown beneath the branches. Each plant has its own use

Units

Mushrooms: Saps energy / ownership from enemy trees, once energy of a tree falls below a certain level it is either destroyed or lost to the enemy. Mushrooms can also reclaim resources from beneath evergreens but they cannot sap evergreens. Creation of mushrooms limited by spore quantity, player can control spore release so they can hitch a ride on passing animals, then released in enemy owned territory.

Deciduous Trees: Use Carbon Dioxide and sunlight to grow and produce resources (ATP?) needed for other trees and plants. Confers ownership of an area on the player. Because of the requirement for sunlight, these trees can be countered by evergreens or older deciduous trees. Creation limited by resources and seeds.

Shrubs: Footsoldiers in contested areas, the roots of shrubs can be directed to resource rich below ground deposits or to strangle opposing trees, resulting in the destruction of enemy trees, which can then be reclaimed by mushrooms. Creation limited to sunlight rich areas, and resources.

Ferns: Do not require sunlight so counter evergreens by sapping and capturing. Also counter mushrooms by growing above them. Vulnerable to direct sunlight.

Evergreens: Evergreens block light from the forest floor, they are a last ditch attempt to halt enemy advance, once created, they cannot be destroyed and strip an area of strategic worth, creation limited by resource and capped determined by map size.

Complexity

As stated in the previous post, RTS’ should have scalable difficulty and complexity, rather than difficulty being determined by how much the AI cheats it changes how aggressive it is. Casual players might just want to use trees and shrubs, the enjoyment derived from watching the plants grow and the reward of capturing areas along with directing root assaults would be enough for some players, for this reason, creation of other units  would be withheld from the AI until the player decides to use them. It should be possible to win every mission of an easy/normal campaign using just two or three unit types. However middle of the range players may want al unit types available to them in which case they initiate the creation of these units. Once the creation of these units has begun wildlife enter the game, as carriers of spores and seeds but also to provide resource rich areas upon death.

For advanced players, all unit types, wildlife and extra geographical limitations and bonuses will be available (such as rivers, roads and events such as storms felling trees) , as well as adjacency bonuses (present but not fully implemented in a casual game) and even control of more than one map at a time. This would be implemented by using the scroll-wheel to scroll between map screens enabling flanking manouvers.

So that’s all I can bring myself to write on this idea.

I’ve grown bored of big budget 3d RTS games, for example Dawn of War II and Supreme Commander, so a game that focuses on the core RTS mechanism, such as Eufloria, is a welcome change from infinitely complex micromanagement of the examples above.

However both Eufloria and Darwinia+ have flaws; Eufloria in many cases results in a simplistic tank rush, the limitation of 3 seedling types means startegy in the game boils down to waiting for enough seedlings to grow, clicking on the nearest asteroid and sending them in. Success can be determined numerically. Though this is in part due to the levels I’ve played being early demo levels acting as a tutorial, from what I’ve read and experienced it is also a problem with the AI lacking aggression. The problems with Eufloria then are twofold, firstly the lack of available options for all players and secondly there is a lack of active engagement with the enemy.

It would be more difficult to criticise Darwinia+ from just having played the demo version because I suspect a facet of gameplay, corrupted Darwinians, was not present in the demo. But given my experience I would comment on it’s lack of tactical complexity for players who want to use it; in the Multiwinia mode both transports and turrets, staples of RTS’, were available, along with formations and i’m fairly sure these would be unveiled in the campaign at a later stage. However in my experience of the campaign too often it boiled down to using ‘squads’ to grenade spam the enemy and moving Darwinians in afterwards.

Despite these flaws both are very good games and I recommend trying the trial versions.

My point is, both these games bring something new to the genre by focusing on something simple, core RTS mechanisms rather than involved micromanagement (micro) and backstory. The perfect RTS then should involve aspects of both Darwinia+ and Eufloria with a multilayered complexity rather than requirements for micro from all players.  Though characterising Eufloria as a ‘casual’ game would do it an injustice it’s this casual gaming type mindset that is its greatest success.

By stripping an RTS back to its core mechanism, then providing something for both new players and more seasoned RTS players, perhaps RTS can make it mainstream in a way it has not yet accomplished.

I will try to provide an example in another post using a hypothetical ‘forestry simulator’.

No, from now on you don’t get to choose where we go.

Firstly, misanthropy is neither big nor clever. You cannot claim to hate your own species and publicise it, you should just put up, shut up and succumb to self loathing, rather than wasting everyone else’s time with it. That or you can feel the silent, bitter and seething rage that comes with paying for insurance/petrol other related things.

MUN’s the word.

A few days ago I was nominated to play Iran in the Model UN debating club. The topic was, contentiously, “should nuclear inspectors be forced upon Iran?”. For this I was seated next to Israel and almost alone in the no vote (my fellow fun nation was North Korea). It was quite an interesting experience feeling the crushing weight of ‘Western imperialism’ on arabic nations in the Western-centric UN.

With Israel passing veiled threats I questioned both why Western nations have the right to prevent Middle East developing Nuclear weapons and why Iran has no right to build a defense with an aggressive neighbouring state (disregarding the fact, of course, that they have repeatedly called directly and indirectly for this state to be wiped off the map).

Of course, I neither endorse Iran’s right to the bomb or right to develop nuclear capability unsupervised. As an enemy who is diametrically opposed to what we stand for I am absolutely certain we should be using force if needs be to stop them but the organisation to do this should not be the UN, instead perhaps NATO.

However I can’t help feeling the East is under-represented in the UN, Russia and China are permanent members  of the security council but surely we ought to court less extreme Islamic nation states such as Turkey, by involving them in the organisation as semi-permanent members (a 5 year tenure?) we can perhaps assimilate them.

Damn the poor!

I think i’m losing it. The Conservative conference has actually convinced me to listen to their arguements for once. I can’t help feeling that Labour are disguising the true scale of cuts that need to occur with the Conservatives being more candid. A horrible feeling to be sure. Funny also to see the Daily Mail attacking Conservatives, mind you, given the rabid – right of BNP – paper it is, it’s hardly suprising.

New Editors song is awesome

Woo for Papillon by the Editors with its awesome artsy video.

Hate Have issues with, Epic, argh.

The scale of this coverup is quite overwhelming, by which I mean, not at all interesting to anyone but me. The games company Epic, creators of the Unreal tournament Series and Gears of War series, are censoring any posts regarding the state of multiplayer in Gears 2, specifically with regard to lag. 

My first post on the subject, written in a very inoffensive way, amounted to a request for Epic to speak candidly and update fans of the game on fixes being worked on. This was deleted, my private message, that spoke in equally reasonable terms was ignored.

I then posted a similar thread, and insisted that an official forums was a place to be heard on this issue, apparently not, I was banned with recourse or appeal. I then used an account to send a message along these lines to an Epic staff member, the matter is still ongoing:

Dear Epic Staff member,

Let me first admit that this is a duplicate account, my previous account (Underscore, possibly with a 0 instead of an 0) was banned in accordance with the rule: [QUOTE][10] This forum and the posts within it are the property of Epic Games, Inc. If we think that someone is making the forums a less pleasant place for our customers to discuss our products, we’ll remove the messages or accounts as we see fit. And also for reposting a deleted thread.[/QUOTE]

While I realise in my actions I was an administrative burden to the moderator (who it is perhaps best not to name) and they had to take the decision to ban me to make upkeep of the forum easier, I still feel I have the right to some kind of response as a consumer of Epic products (makes me sound like a locust ).

My posts regarding the lag in Gears of war 2 multiplayer, in my opinion conformed with the advice: [quote]and so we absolutely welcome constructive criticism of our products.[/quote] As you probably did not get a chance to see them, they both posited that Epic should make more effort to keep the community updated and suggested routes this should take. In my reposted thread I also questioned the wisdom of deleting threads that attempt to criticise the company for lag, which remains an issue. (I’ll admit that they were perhaps slightly harsh in their criticism of the staff of Epic)

While I realise the forum is often inundated with lag posts that could best be construed as trolling, I constructed my post in such a way to make it the least troll-like. In response to my first thread being deleted I sent a pm to the moderator in question but because I did not get a response and felt I was being ignored for daring to criticise the game as it stands I reposted the thread along slightly different lines, hoping that perhaps you or another staff member would see it and deign to respond.

My question then is two fold:

1) Would you consider implementing some kind of blog or regular update system to inform consumers and fans what steps are being taken?

 

While I realise information is released in TUs the state of lag in multiplayer is of a slightly higher priority to balance issues and needs addressing more regularly than every 3 months between TUs. When up to 50% of games I play of an evening are too laggy to be competitive (some of these will be caused by my connection of course) I can’t help wondering if Epic have given up on the game and by deleting posts such as mine want only to silence the issue. Silence on the lag issue only creates anger.

 

2) If criticism and request for dialog with the company do not belong on the forum, then were can we contact you to have our legitimate grievances addressed?

 

 

Thank you for any time you take in this matter even if you only read it and hit #delete#.

 

I created this duplicate account purely to allow me to present my case to you and while this is indeed going above the moderator in question, they are perhaps too busy to reply to every user who doesn’t agree with the choice they make. If this account gets deleted, which I realise it may well be, if you have the time to reply please either send it to this account if it hasn’t been banned or to #email address#.

 

Regards,

 

Me

 

 T is defined as the time period for one revolution.

In a simplified view of Marxism, social revolutions pave the way to a perfect Marxist state. I’ve used the time period here to mean time period of one complete revolution, from the creation of the Russian Empire, to the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.

The maths to work out the angular velocity of Marxism:

———————————————————————————————

T = Time period for one revolution

———————1721 – Treaty of Nystad (foundation of the Russian Empire)

7th November 1917 – October Revolution (November 7th = 311th day of the year)

196 years, 11 months, 7 days

1 minute = 60 s

1 hour =  3600 s

1 day = 24 (3600) s

1 year = 365(24(3600) s

T= (196 ( 365(24(3600)))) + (311(24(3600))) 

= Time Period(s)

= 6.2079 * 10^9

angular velocity =  2pi/T

= 1.012123035 * 10^ -9 s ^ -1

= 1 * 10^ -9 (s^ -1)

This does not include leap years, no accurate date for the Treaty of Nystad is given and it’s a general fail, but Marxism moves scarily fast!