• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kaiho

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Finland, Kokkola
  1. This is pretty interesting, there's basically no levels in crowfall, which means there's no reason to defeat NPC monsters for levels, and if the crafting system is balanced towards resource gathering (with PvP elements included through them being contested in some ways), why then would players defeat NPC monsters? Defeating NPC monsters is comparable to a resource gathering process. You walk up to a rock, click mousebutton, and collect a rock. Where as with NPC monsters, you walk up to some monsters, cast some spells and collect some random items. Both of these interactions can have problems relating to that it can be pretty boring. Of course if it could somehow be fun, then it would make the gathering process more fun too. I think the PvP style resource caravans and such are hugely important from this perspective, as well as fighting over locations which provide resources, so you get do to that resource gathering mouseclick. I would personally like it if logistics in general was an important aspect of the game. I was actually going to write about this in a previous thread, inspired by some youtube videos, but then ended up getting carried away. For an example: You could have a knight in full platemail armour, but as such it would be hard to carry stuff along. For carrying stuff there's the mounts and pack animals, but even then it would be possible that the platearmoured knight would be fairly heavy to carry and limit the capacity of the mount. So mounts and tools like carts can help with the resource logistics. But if we consider the game without mounts and carts, then you can consider the players as carriers too. And the dynamics relating to that could work so that in order to carry a lot of resources, you wouldn't be able wear full armour, or you would lose too much mobility if you wanted to carry a significant amount of resources, with or without armor. This kind of thing would probably result to multi-boxing mindless packmules (Speaking of which Minotaurs have been announced), and perhaps it wouldn't be so much fun to have a bot for carrying stuff. An intended bot like a mount+cart makes much more sense. In anycase if bots are not considered, characters are a player resource, and controlling them with your presence is an additional resource. Macroed characters are lesser in comparison, but they can still do mundane tasks which are not too engaging, but even then, characters are a limited resource, or should be, if they're not, I don't think it's going to dampen the related problems. It's interesting to think about what kind of player professions and logistical compromises to go with them are possible in resource gathering missions. For an example if it takes particular skills to find resources in the environment, it gives roles for characters that are not doing carrying, and well I'm not sure what kind of tasks the gathering could be split into, but if it requires a couple of skills to do this effectively, then perhaps it's possible to compromise for a semi-PvP group for resource gathering. For an example you've a lightly armoured quick character for scouting around for enemies as well as resources, some more heavily armoured characters for doing some sort of work, like cutting down trees, and perhaps some craftsmen who do carrying as well as other processes, like refining the gathered resource on the spot to reduce the weightload of the overall haul. So the same example with 3 charaters and mining ore: 1. A scout type character that has skills related to finding ore, as well as detecting opponents, is mobile and can monitor the surroundings, 2. An armoured knight style character than can handle a pickaxe and break down boulders for ore, but can't carry much due to the armor and 3. A civilian/craftsman style character with no particular armouring, who does carrying and refining the ore that the knight mines to reduce the total weight of the resources. Additionally perhaps the carts and mounts have limitations in difficult terrain, and you'd have to plan out how you haul some resources back to the carts and such. Maybe this example isn't very good, it might not make the resource gathering process entertaining, but I like a setup where having to think how to effective in a PvE related task with a limited number of characters while still maintaining some PvP capacity. But then I don't know if this kind thing makes sense and the related groupsizes could be much larger and perhaps as a result would simplify the process. So in anycase while both resource gathering and defeating NPC mobs can be boring and can be more fun if the potential of PvP is involved, in the end in most games defeating monsters is more entertaining than gathering resources, since it's a more enjoyable as a type of game, how to defeat the monsters versus how to collect resources. This also brings me to another perspective about the NPC monsters. Are they a limited resource or a constantly available resource? If they're farmable for loot, it also means that the resources in a sense are only limited by the time and effectiveness you put into constantly defeating them. Also this implies that the monsters are static and found at predictable locations and do predictable things. I think this kind of environment might end up being somewhat boring. I think it would be more interesting if the monsters were roaming and not exactly a target for farming, but more like an actual threat that could ruin your resource farming expedition. Let's create an example: There's heavy snowfall. And poor visibility, players have hard time detecting distant targets. They have an expedition of five and are scouting for resource, have succesfully found some, and are packing them way - But they're interrupted by a charging something, a yeti, which managed to sneak up on the group in the snowstorm. Perphas this can result to the group losing a player and the logistical process getting skewed, maybe there's a long way to travel if that player wants to come back. So instead of this happening everytime in every snowstorm in every mountain, you'd have some elements of chance, stealth, initiative and so forth. Most importantly though, the players would have a reason to scout the environment, and the less players you need for that, the better for optimizing. So instead of just being always surprised by the Yeti, players would watch the surroundings and avoid getting jumped. Of course it also makes sense for PvP purposes. In this setup the yeti wouldn't be a constantly available resource, but rather the party could be considered as lucky / unlucky to have run into it with their current formation. And perhaps the yeti has big horns from which you can carve out arrows or amulets, so it's also a source for resources, but not something you can plan for necessarily. And at the same time most of the NPC monsters in theory could be something along those lines, with varying strength, behavior and so forth. I don't know.. Does this make any sense?
  2. While I've not played BF, I agree with this part. People who play games do tend to care about stuff that reflects their rank or competence, to the point that whatever information is used as the measuring stick for the e-peen or rank, might end up being the decisive factor for how a portion of players interact in the game. Therefore it's a very important element to consider, involves complicated incentives and shouldn't be done carelessly. I think it's entirely valid to consider that no automatic system for this kind of 'reputation' needs to be in place. Whether or not players should have access to the identity of another when getting ganked by them is also a question to ponder upon. Also with APIs everything can be automated and accessible in a way that's not normally even possible. For an example in the previous quote the K/D ratio issue could end up being something that's automatically tracked by some website, like crowfallstats.com and it would just keep up to date with every players performance that way, and it could also become a problem. So you've this little search box for character names, a top 1000 list and so forth. Also might include a public character name input function, so anyone can expand the list by including known character names. And I think this can happen if the entire kills / deaths list is accessible via an API too, as then someone can parse that information to produce the effect, and then we have same issue as in the previously quoted comment. And in the worst case scenario if players started caring about this list more than they do, for an example, about the current status of victory points in their campaign.. Well I don't know. I agree with this part, but scamming is complicated. I think it should be part of the game that players can trick each other etc, much along the lines of the initial post of the thread, but at the same time it would be a good idea to make sure that the players are aware of this nature. For an example what in a game could be ' a fun scam ' for a player to do, might in the terms of real life situations be the equivalent of a fraud. If a player gains possessions from other players by lying to them, via deceit of some kind, there should be really clear rules for that. Secondly the game offers a communication medium between actual people. So if you make an agreement in the game with someone, or via a voice chat, that you're gonna pay them if they send you a pair of socks, it gets complicated, and the complication isn't entirely resolved even if the goods in question was an ingame good. Real money transactions occur between people, and so they might occur between players as well, which is a common feature/problem/side effect in games. So to repeat for emphasis, it would be a good idea to make sure that every player knows that deceit, betrayal, trickery is part of the game. And the same time, if you're making real money transactions for ingame goods, it should be pretty clear what the rules say about that, and what happens if a player commits a fraud when real money is involved. I'm not sure what's the correct solution here. This also ties to the betrayal with-in guild and griefing concept. If the players know that it's proper in a sense to steal possessions from your guild using the ingame mechanics related to guild management, so it's not seen as an abuse of a feature, but instead a valid thing that can occur at any time. I like this concept personally, I think it results to that there has to be some real trust between players. And speaking of abusing mechanics, there's also a gray area between using intended features to cause surprising or hard to predict actions and using those to trick people when trading items or other things. Clearly actual hacking and bugabuse shouldn't be allowed, but it can get complicated too. So I don't have any solutions to these aspects, but I agree with the general sentiment of what has been said so far. Agreed This is a very important phenomenom to consider. You're saying that you're using these only to make such things easier that you don't enjoy in the first place. I think this is a partially false assumption, I think that installing an add-on makes it much harder to enjoy doing the thing the hard way. The fact that you have the option to install the addon, has almost the same effect. If it's allowed by the rules, then there's no particular reason not to do it. The same goes with a lot of things. If you can teleport to a location, why would you travel there? If can't teleport there, you might create an add-on that does the travelling automatically. In essence every ingame function that a software-augmented player can do with considerably higher convenience than a traditional player can convert to being macroed or done otherwise via customized client. This does have to do with 'fun' a lot. Mostly things which are not engaging in the sense that they require the players attention might not be all that fun on the Nth go at it, a part of what makes things fun is challenge, I think so at least. I think at this point the issue becomes controversial. A lot of things cease to be fun once you figure out how to do it in the augmented fashion, and while the hard way might still be somewhat amusing, it might be that the automated way isn't amusing at all.
  3. Thanks for the compliments, I didn't realize this would be interesting for people to read, in fact I'm still a bit skeptical about that There's no real point to this, I was going to write an actual thread about combat dynamics earlier, but after watching these youtubevideos I got carried away in thoughts and ended up writing this instead... I'm a bit afraid that I can't handle compliments very well and end up writing something akward next time, though I suppose it's similar with criticism too, I think I've gotten considerably better at handling criticism though than I used to be.. Anyway it's nice to read some some positive feedback as it was a surprise too. Now I'm already late from my "bed time" and gotta go to sleep... Good night.
  4. Excuse me, but while there's a rational part of me thinking that you're probably being rather sarcastic, I did already indulge myself in a belief that you might actually mean that.
  5. Sorry this is kind of like rambling with the intention of rambling.. I don't have any particular message or point to deliver.. I'm not sure if it makes sense to try and tldr it therefore But basically I got around to thinking realism in combat, then to youtube channels videos about medieval combat, reading a book about mushashi, again going to nasty personality traits, a notion about ki force, also from the perspective of having general and abstract models for observed things, which then continued to mushashi's book.. I don't know, I'm glad someone enjoys reading this stuff (?) * Btw here's some URLs from youtube on the matter of medieval armor/swords and such: Scholagladiatoria: Weapon & armour carrying when adventuring - advice for roleplaying games from history Sword and bow use - TV/Film stereotyping and strength - swordsmanship and archery English Longbows vs late-medieval plate armour Japanese swordmanship in European historical accounts Skallagrim: The poor use of shields in video games, and a suggestion for animators Other: A Response to Lars Andersen: a New Level of Archery Testing swords against riveted mail armor Le combat en armure au XVe siècle
  6. Hello. So the other day thinking about crowfall I ended up on youtube to explore some of the medieval combat related concepts like swords, armour, and so forth. I found some quite interesting youtube videos and channels on the subject, for an example a video channel with the name "scholagladiatoria" which is basically a channel by a guy from UK who has been doing some study and practice around historical swordmanship for decades. Anyway this is post going to be a bit more conversational and doesn't really have concise points or clear subjects or propositions I'd like to put forward. I guess it's the current mood that does that. In anycase the base angle to tackle this issue from was to think about the dynamics of how could combat work? Like what gives a player an advantage? What is the sort of abstract game people are playing? Or what are the aspects of it like? For one looking at these videos it seems that medieval platearmour is quite praised for it's protective qualities. It appears it's very difficult to hurt someone in full platearmour with swords for an example. There's also plenty of concepts around piercing platearmour, pointy swords for thrusting, blunt weapons, and even grappling appears to be some kind of a thing. Could the game be enjoyable if that was actually the case? As in you have a dude with full set of platearmour, and you couldn't really conventionally hurt him just by slashing with a sword. Would this kind of style of 'immunity' be too absolute and boring? Could that kind of element work? I'm not sure, but I find the approach of making this possiblem and tackling the problems therefore arising, pretty interesting. The day has been pretty blurry. I woke up early like I usually do (Uhm.. Not really staying on topic), since then I've been loitering at the computer, which I do a lot anyway. Watching these videos I found one particular clip from this already quoted channel which brings up games also in the sidelines, this one to be exact. In anycase the video briefly mentions Miyamoto Mushashi, a famous japanese swordsman, towards the end of the clip. I then remembered that I have one of Musashi's books. So I decided to read the book again, I think it's called in english... let's find this from google... I'm not entirely sure which one it is, but there are not that many and it's very likely "The Book of Five Rings" - The finnish translation doens't match up very well. It was quite an experience, a trip to the past in a sense. As I read that book when I was like 16 and well now I'm 28 so it's 12 years ago or so. It was interesting to note as I was reading the book that I've changed as a person, it's also pretty short. The way I interpret the text was so different. Writing about this is here in this forum is probably not such a great idea, but I got on some sort of an emotional trip, so well whatever. In anycase I'm kind of saddened. As a youngster I basically read the book in a sort of an excitement without much consideration, I didn't really dwell on the book this time either. In short basically the perspective I had on the book this time is in a nutshell that I think basically the writer is somekind of a psychopath and also stuff I've read later on about personality defects sort of gives a context for it. It's about swordsmanship, defeating opponents which in 17th century Japan was of course a very different thing than it is nowadays, but in a sense you could still feel the contrast between the character, or the writer rather, and the people in general. There's these details, urge to devalue all other known sets of systems, being very focused on the goal of defeating your opponent, or spiritually crushing your opponent. It's kind of saddening. Also reminds me of the character of Bobby Fischer and also the current world champion of chess, Magnus Carlsen. I remember viewing a brief interview of Carlsen where he is asked if he enjoys crushing his opponent's ego. I find there's a very similar quality to Musashi, which in his case at least I attribute to psychopathy, but perhaps that has a lot do with swordmanship being fatal, where as chess is quite peaceful in concrete terms, but there's a similarity anyway. I suppose I could comeback to find URLs for these claims later on, but anyway not doing that for now. Although I think this terminology is used as a label very much, narcissists and psychoes are concepts which for most people as far as I know are introduced through media and fiction, movies and such. But then in everyday life I think it's possible to see - perhaps erroneously - these features in you know actual people and not movie characters, and they're still people. But also there's a very big distinction between people who 'act like a jerk' in some random situation in a grocerystore and people who are actually in deathrow - taking an american context for this. Damn these are such nasty things to write about. Should probably just not talk about this kind of thing, so gloomy. So I was smoking a cigarette on the balcony after thinking about this and there was a bird singing nearby, in a tree. There are often birds singing, but somehow it got my attention in a different way than usually. I was trying to relate to the mood of the bird's singing, somehow feel the essence of it, or at least have an internal idea of the bird's mood. Then I started thinking about it from this context. How well do I relate to people? Am I empathetic? Not that I'd be particularly worried, about not being empathetic enough, or something like that, but I do think I have a flawed character, to use an euphemism instead of trying find an appropriate term. This actually lead me to think about an earlier rambling rant in response to a thread about guys using female avatars, anime avatars in particular. I suppose I didn't really touch up on that anime aspect in the response... In anycase I remembered this lecture about schizophreny on youtube by Sapolsky, I suppose I could link that up here. Actually I just completely forgot what my point was while finding the URL. Damn. Oh yeah I think I remember now, anyway in the lecture - I think it was that lecture anyway - Sapolsky mentions that the frontal lobe tends to deal with smells. I remember this from other contexts as well, having a sense of smell has to do with the orbitofrontal cortex which is involved with empathy also. And hmm. I don't know if there's a point to this, or actually there is. I was taking a shower today. This has to do with the topic actually, but not directly. I was looking at two shampoo bottles before me while I was showering. One is green and the other is brown, and I was wondering if sensory experience relating to color also has to do with the orbitofrontal cortex. I know visual cortex is in the back of the brain and handles the pictures, but I was wondering if the experience of the essence of color has to do with the same structures which handles smells. How does green feel like, exactly? Also I got into this thought experiment. Perhaps the intensity of the feeling of greenness has to do with the empathetic side of people. Perhaps people who are more empathetic, experience the greenness more vividly. So it's a quantitative element about the qualitative element. As in intensity of feeling associated with color. The thought experiment relating to this was to try and imagine what it would be like, if the green would feel more vivid, and be greener than it is. Not in the sense that you would change the tone to be more green, or increase color saturation, although it's pretty close too, but rather concetrating on the essence of greenness. How does the color connect to my mood system? Or whatever it is people have running inside their minds? And also, how would it feel like to experience the color as less green or associate a lesser feeling to this greenness? In anycase I've no reliable idea regarding if all this occurs in the visual cortex or if it involves the orbitofrontal cortex and also, even if the frontal lobes were actually involved in the experience of color, the actual emotions might occur elsewhere, like in the amygdalae, which are also described as the emotional centers of the brain. I'm not entirely sure how exactly that should be interpreted, but going into that would also be a very lengthy subject, probably, and I don't know much about it (or this) anyway. I suppose I could take this opportunity to also share some thoughts on a concept called "Ki" or "Ki-force". I think this is probably something most people have completely misunderstood. This has to do with the topic simply as I was watching a video which also contained some pretty basic looking (But still beyond my knowledge) math about armor penetration. Anyway towards the end of the video there was sarcastic notion about 'katanacultists' who think that they can penetrate a platearmor if they just use "Ki-force". That wasn't the exact pharsing, but the idea is pretty much the same. So what is Ki actually about? Well here's my explanation: Martial artists of the past were not math experts, but they needed an explanation for a certain intuitively established logic of creating force in combat. I think the talented masters understood this, but were unable to explain it scientifically. So they came up with a false explanation, which of the history is full of though in all contexts, and the false explanation is the Ki force. There's of course no sucht hing, but basically they got it right anyway: As the source of the kiforce is the stomatch, it actually simply refers to generating force by controlling your center of gravity. So a really good and talented martial artist (As opposed to theoretical martial artits who would follow syntactical principles - or codex - rather than intuitive/instinctive experience based knowledge of what works) would intuitively understand this and move his or her body in a way that. And not being a proper scientist would then fail to explain this information, and would come up with a belief that doesn't make sense. And after that with the incorrect abstraction people have gone astray with KI -idea. Which is a bogus, but controlling center of gravity is necessary to create larger forces with the human body, which means basically controlling your whole body or the stomach area, or your body in respect to the stomach area. Anyway I'm not knowledgeable about martial arts and haven't actually even read anything about the Ki thing, I just assumed that's probably what has happened - I realize now that it's super arrogant to assume that, so I'm probably mistaken and you should forget about this - or maybe not, in anycase it's interesting to think about. Or can be. Maybe it isn't. And this ties to the Mushashi concept yet again although rather thinly, because what Musashi is doing is basically the same thing. He is using a lot of allegories and abstractions, but at the same time Musashi doesn't seem to be confused about their nature. In his book he is talking in practical terms and using allegories, and is also using an abstract categorization of 5 elements, wind, earth, fire, water and emptiness. So if you'd end up believing that "fire" is somehow involved in swordplay, you'd end up with a similar confusion as is going aroun the "Ki" concept, assuming that my previous assumption isn't totally erroneous, which it probably is. But then I don't really know what people in Japan of those days believed about the world. Perhaps it was a common belief that the world is made of those things, but I don't think that was the case. Sorry about making such a long rambling post with no clear point.
  7. Superb. Fantastic.
  8. Rock, Paper, Scissors contains elements which beat each other without being superior. I think the qualities of opposition and dominance are necessary for any game to work, what mostly should be avoided is the situation where "Rock beats (almost) everything". Also I think these elements should be more abstract, so it's not just that class A beats class B which beats class C and so forth, but instead this could occur on a more subtle and abstract level, like "Movement restricting abilities are more effective against slow attackers".. Meanwhile the situation where strategy A beats roughly 60% more strategies than strategies do on average is not such a problem, as this also increases the usefulness of strategies which counter strategy A. This then should adjust the ratios of things occurring in the metagame, rather than resulting to everyone doing the same thing.
  9. This would be correct, I don't understand it well enough to explain simply. However I'd like to note that my goal wasn't the brief list of things, but instead it was necessary due to a failure with the extensive explanation.
  10. Compromise in an example: Chainlightning You could create a chainlightning spell that produces the highest total damage with a set number of targets naturally from a function that works out how the lightning spell divides the damage accross the targets. For an example I think this kind of thing could be cool... (By the way I noticed watching a lightning strike youtube video that the lightning strikes in both directions, let's see I'll try and find an example.... Actually I just learned that it's called a "return strike" anyway please watch this video on youtube) ...So I think it would be cool to have a chainlightning pseudo-AoE spell that would mimic the actual lightning bolt in the sense that you'd first have a the lightning scatter accross targets, then you'd have damage in a return pattern, where you'd have the lightning strike do less damage first, at the branched out targets, and then coming back to do more damage to the first targets. And this would be done using a function that yields maximum damage at a lower than maximum number of targets, like for an example, 6 targets would produce the maximum. And to continue with the details, I think it would be cool if resistance to lightning would adjust the probability of the strike passing through the target. This would also allow differentiating metallic armors from non-metallic, if they would affect resistance to lightning. So here's what happens in a list format: 1. Chainlightning spell is cast on target A 2. The spell checks targets around A for distance and lightning resistance, and total number of valid targets within range. These produce the probability of the lightning hitting each of those targets as well. 3. The lightning spell hits those targets and repeats part 2, but with a new rule: The chain lightning can't hit the same target again. 4. Then 2 and 3 are repeated again for a set number of iterations, like 5 for an example. 5. Then the lightning spell actually starts the return strike dealing damage first to the most branched out targets, and starts with smaller damage. 6. The damage increases as the branches combine (So going to reverse direction in the tree of the lightning strike) 7. The damage can also decrease depending on how many targets have been hit already etc. 8. The first (so final/last in the reverse direction) target would get the highest damage for the combined branches, but actual damage could still be lower So this would allow creating a really interesting way of capping AoE damage, without actually using an artificial cap (target maximums are artifical, but they're not actually necessary, same goes for max iterations, but without those the chainlightning could end up hitting everybody, depending on how the probabilities are managed) I didn't create the mathematical function that yields the probabilities of branching out and I didn't create the damage function for the return strike. Once someon does those this would I think pretty interesting (pseudo-)AoE spell and also a spell which would be capped in a natural way, optimized for a number of targets that's lower than the count of maximum targets. What do you think? Any suggestions for the functions? Formulae?
  11. I'd like to start replying to this by making a certain analytical dichotomy as follows, and thereafter a slightly schizophrenic rant ensues: Descriptive descriptionStatements about something not attempting to explain it or tie loose associations under a general umbrella. Also possible to associate descriptions to other descriptions. The keypoint is that these can be acausal. Causal descriptionA general hypothesis or an umbrella which explains the general set of contents rather than the contents themselves. Causal description can be achieved through observing descriptions, interpreting them, making an assumption or a hypothesis, and from this inference you can produce additional statements and new descriptions. The keypoint is the introduction of causality. Let's create an example of both: People with desription type A also can be described by type B. Loose association, no causal relationship described. People with description type A also exhibit a behavior type C which results to descriptions A,B... and so forth The benefit of this is that you don't need to explain every description and it's easier to manage multiple explanations and uncertainities. Also this actually relates to the subject: My personal opinion is that women in general are more likely to think in acausal associative terms and men are more likely to think in consequential causal terms. As in women on average make less of a distinction between the people who merely share the same qualities, where as men tend to concentrate more on if there's a causal structure explaining the qualities. For an example Money<->SocialStatus <-> Nice Car <-> Clean outfit. This would be a list of potentially related descriptions. I produced this list by imaining a causal logic, a causal description, which I am explaining here. In anycase the list itself does not contain the causal factors. It just shows a bunch of things that relate to each other. This could be all bogus but it's interesting to think about anyway.. So the hypothesis here is that when men look at this list they thinking something like: "A guy who has a nice job, makes lots of money, and with that money attains status, buys a nice car and affords clean outfit. The person may be diligent and therefore keeps a clean outfit and makes the money". Whereas women are more likely to think something along these lines "I've noticed that people who have clean outfits are more often driving nice cars. I've also noticed that people with nice cars have nice smiles. I've noticed that people with nice cars also spontaneously offer to pay in restaurants more often." However there's actually a little bit of a trick in this setup, which is the hypothesis that all people track social status. So in otherwords one of the types of associations people construct within their thoughts is the social status association. So in otherwords this example is a trick example. In otherwords whether it be men or women, both tend to think "Nice car means social status, it's what people respect and care about, they respond positively to people with nice cars" and so people collect this information under the social status umbrella. So for a more vague example I'd have to think something acausal which I can't quite explain. The problem is that I tend to have an explanation for most things I think about, and I'm not very good at acausal thinking. For starters of this section I'd like to mention that I have no training in psychology or neurology and these are just vague assertions and could all be wrong. So furthermore I believe these involve some core functions of the brain like involve a polarity between the left and right amygdala, one of them deals with memorizing the pitch of musical notes and the other one has more to do with memorizing the rhythm of a piece of music. I think that rhythm is more of a sequential thing and pitch is more of an acausal thing that has to do with relationships between things. As far as I know the hippocampus records episodic memories and so has to do with the sequential thinking as well, but the assumption here is that one of the amygdalae concetrations on the sequence of causality and the other one has to do with associations and mood. This also connects to the other parts of the frontal cortex, like the orbitofrontal cortex which has to do with emotions empathy. I think there's certain relationship with thes things to the malfunction of the orbitofrontal cortex. Also the temporal lobes are distinct in this manner, as far as I remember the right temporal lobe tracks the secondary associations of words meanings' and the left temporal lobe records the direct meanings of the words. And this ties into this division in the following way: Loose associations are more based on simply associating thoughts with each other, and that means all thoughts regardless of sequential logic. Like for an example Bank relates to River in the sense that rivers have banks. But when reading the word Bank people usually think about the money bank first. People who think in sequential terms or are dominant in the left temporal lobe in this respect, are more likely to focus on the primary meanings of words, so if someoen says money, then says bank, it doens't occur to you that it could refer to a riverbank. Meanwhile people who are thinking more in acausal descriptive terms, are more likely to also think about the riverbank when reading the words money, and bank in succession. And there's another difference between men and women which is that womens' brains tend to work better than mens' do, as far as I know this has to do with reflective thinking and the structures of the frontal cortex. My partially educated guess (no actual education involved though) is that a part of the brain called Anterior Cingulate Cortex has to do with this. As far as I know women are more likely to suffer from anxiety than men are. The anterior cingulate cortex also relates to anxiety (well this is actually a good example of acausal thinking) - actually I also like to think of the acausal description gathering process as a form of induction, I know though that induction term relates to the brain functions, but I'm not sure if it's usually used in the same sense, probably not.... Alright I'm getting carried away. So the point is women are better connected with what's going on inside their minds, their feelings. I think anterior cingulate cortex tracks what's going on inside your mind and body. I also think, I don't rember which amygdala was which, that the one involved with musical pitch is also hte one involved with emotions and intuition. I also think that emotions are actually related to this induction process or this gathering of associations. What does this mean exactly? Well thinking sequentially you might come with something like "If someone talks nicely to you, you feel warm and fuzzy. If you choose polite and considerate words to talk to someone, it's going to affect how they act in turn, when they feel warm and fuzzy." Basically the point is that the sequential logic is more about connecting these events into chains which yield something. Where as the acausal logic is more concetrated on the actual emotions and their associations. Being nice associates to feeling nice, not so much achieving something. But this is also a bit handicapped description or an example. I'll try a better one: Using the distinction of the temporal lobes I think it's possible to equate emotions to the bundles of associations gathered where as singular words with their primary meanings are to some extent void of these emotional bundles or bundles of associations which are involved in triggering emotions. So a person who thinks in the primary meanings of the words is more likely to be cool adn rational, less emotional. This actually has to do with the economy of thought, it's easier to produce a long sequence of thoughts by not exploring the branches of each thought through their associations, you can just focus on the important points and hop from one step to the next one. Where as if you're trying to keep track of all the associations related to words, you're unable to figure out a sequential path that collects all these associations together or creates a form for it. And this also comes down to how women and men complement each other through their neurological dimorphism. Men tend to be more optimized for solving problems by thinking of things in terms of causality. Women tend to more considerate and more creative in the sense of creating a larger pool of associations. And the complemtation can work like this... Guy has an idea and figures out "I'm gonna do this, to achieve this and then we can do that" and the woman is gonna be like "Oh you can't possibly act like that, people are going to think bad of us if you are like that" which is actually super crude example of what's actually happening. The point is that the guy is more likely to ignore all the related information the emotional stuff and the associated stuff, but therefore is capable of producing a sequence, a plan of actions. Women on the otherhand are less likely to produce this sequence, but when the guys tell them about this sequence, they can understand it better by collecting and attaching a larger amount of meanings to the sequence. I think the difference is similar to the difference of verbs and teh difference of adjectives. Here's probably a better description "A car runs on a motor" versus "A car has a motor which is dirty and smelly" By the way If this sounds a bit chauvinistic that's not my intention. First of all I'm talking about probabilities and averages, like 7 out of 10 women are like this, 7 out of 10 men are like that, and also it's about a difference between the goal towards which both brains are optimized on average. So men are better at being cold and rational, but they're worse at understanding the associated meanings of those rational and cold things. Of course on individual level this difference does not need to occur. Anyway this comes down to another complicated subject, which is that manly men are less likely to be intelligent. Or to be more specific I think there's a study according to which testosterone levels at different stages of development are related to intelligence. There's also another theory which has to do with frontal brain activity. Basically the theory goes like this: Guys have been more likely to be subject to physical violence in the course of history, and they're more likely to engage in the violence themselves, which has resulted to that evolution has focused on the posterior part of the brain and the importance of those functions, so the brain activity in the front of the brain for men tends to be weaker than it's for women. For same the same reason men have also developed a bony structure "boss ridge" on the eyebrow. So in crude practical terms: Men are less likely to suffer a brain injury when punched in the face. Bones are sturdier, functions of the front of the brain are less pronounced. Where as for women these parts of the brain are more active, and they're also more vulnerable to physical violence from this perspective. Anyway so lack of masculinity associates with intelligence, which associates with the front of the brain working better, which associates with moods and gathering of associations. So if the theory isn't completely fallen apart already, I'll attach the last straw which probably breaks the camel's back so here it goes: Sequential thinking is mostly based on having a dominant hemisphere, and acausal thinking is based on a more balanced brain, using both sides. The utilization of the whole brain uses some structures in the front of the brain, like the amygdalae, anterior cingulate cortex, and the orbitofrontal cortex when it comes to certain moods and feelings. This ties to reflective thinking, which I think in practical terms means the following kind of function: You think of a sequence, A leads to B, B leads to C. Then you think about C, adn you get associations, you get a response to C from your internal systems, and with the response you can change the way you think about the sequence.. ANd produce a new sequence. So reflective thinking itself is basically just gathering the associations, but it can be used in conjunction with sequential thinking. Anyway I think this function has something to do with the issue. So guys who are intelligent are more likely to also engage in reflective thinking. And I think the thing about reflective thinking is that you when you combine it with a sequential logic, you can get an emotional response from an internal thought process. Which can in turn pretty easily to something like reversing the actual sequence. In otherwords a guy who is into pretty girls and stuff like that, who is also smart and reflective, may end up entangling the process... Hmm I'm not sure actually I'm reminded of narcissism here so: It can also be that it has to do with narcissism and psychopathy. Basically both of these personality features associate with the front of the brain and can be described as some sort of lack of emotionality. Also one theory about narcissism is that it involves a failure to deattach from a parent emotionally, which results to a poor ability to discern between the self and others. So I think that narcissism is probably pretty good candidate explanation for female avatars. If a person emotionally mixes up themselves and their surroundings, then it seems like it would make sense to mix up your object of desire to yourself as well. But I don't know if this is good enough explanation. Let's go back to the thoughts around general reflectivity.. Also as far as I know transvestitism is fairly common for older men, like in their 50s and stuff like that. Which I personally attach to a certain debauchment or escalation of sexual preferences, I think it involves some ideas like having control over the object of desire, and obviously people have control over themselves so that's probably how it works. Alright this jumble of theories got quiet messed up and I've to do some clearing. So what you can see above is trying to do both, loose associations and causal thinking.. Gets into a mess really quickly. And this in my opinion demonstrates the economy of having a weighted focus on just one, associations or sequences. Managing a large bundle of associations makes hard to produce clear and logical sequences. And this is actually why I made up dichotomy of descriptive descriptions and causal descriptions earlier in the beginning.. So let's cut the rambling and go to the simplified list of things: Guys who use pictures of anime girls as their avatars Here I'm cutting out most of the causal relationships and most of the descriptions, instead going with concise descriptions that are not necessarily connected to each other. Provocation. I think it's possible that the use of a female picture is provocative. This does though imply a causal relationship, as in the reason why people use these pictures is to behave in a provocative manner, but it's disconnected from the rest to some extent. FemininityMale intellect associates with with male femininity or lack of masculinity. Perhaps intelligent people are more likely to play these games and are more likely to be feminine, and so are more likely to express themselves in a way which involves femininity. (There is a similar connection the otherway around but I can't remember how it is with women, I think it may have been not that intelligent women are more likely to be masculine, but instead that they're less likely to be sexually promiscuous, which has something to do with the hormones) Narcissism and games People who play games are more likely to be narcissistic. Narcissistic people are morely likely to mix themselves with the environment and fail to distinguish in between. This also associates with the positive trait of beauty associated with women. Also people who write on forums are more likely to have such features. Reflective thinkingPeople who think reflectively are more likely end up with a dynamic where they end up selecting an avatar of the opposite sex. Psychological defenses; regression, dissociation, anxiety and feminityI think femininity associates with psychological defenses which involve reflection like, and I think these defenses also involve escapism. The point here is associationg escapism via playing games to feminine characteristics with a common cause of being anxiety. This increases the positive dynamic of feminine behavior for guys.
  12. Thanks, I'm actually rather happy with this, haven't really done artwork of this type much, actually the majority of all graphics I've done is camouflage patterns (like the one my avatar) on GIMP software and some smaller pictures like iconarts, but damn. I've redrawn the face a couple of times, moved the eyes, nose, lips around, stretched them, shrinked them, rotated them, reshaded the features.. Well many times I don't know exactly, but it never really looked anything like the concept art.. Well then I wasn't actually trying to do it exactly the same, like I wanted a different expression, different posture, different angle for the head, and also I changed the skintone intentionally a bit, but beyond that I wanted the facial features to be similar. I just couldn't do it, despite giving it some rather serious effort. I even looked up youtube tutorials on how to draw (the face in particular), but it was not good enough
  13. I decided to try and draw a version of the female knight, basically I started doing it pretty seriously, but then after failing several times to draw the face of the character to look similar to the actual female knight concept art, got fed up and quit. Earned some new appreciation for crowfall artists through this effort, and well artists in general. Used software called "Krita", it's nice, but gets a bit laggy on my fairly old hardware.
  14. According to wikipedia "fall" is also a collective noun for woodcocks.
  15. It's a two-edged blade. If all forms of progress you can make are restricted to be within campaigns, or EK-only, then it puts the dynamics into check. Why would players want to complete another campaign? I mean certainly there's the standard appeal of any sandbox game, you start a game and eventually it's finished. But the Crowfall project has a very interesting concept the "Dying worlds, eternal heroes". For an example this sort of implies that while the buildings and constructions of your campaign are temporary and will be lost eventually, you still get to continue with your character. This also suggests that there's a reason to do so. Basically if you can make progress with your character, you've an outside the sandbox goal of progression. If the character gets better, it gives a slight advantage to people who have played a longer time. Resources are another aspect, the import rulesets and that stuff. So you take some resources and your character from a campaign and continue with those. However the import restrictions adjust the significance of the resourceside. If you want a campaign to be balanced and really contain a level start, then the resources can't give an advantage. At the same time if you increase the amount of stuff that can be brought into the campaigns, it gives an edge to big guilds and those already do well. One of those things that Crowfall trying to avoid, that the victor could hold their position with the weight of their dominance. The campaigns system creates a reset, so the victors really need to prove themselves each time if they want to continue being victorious. The import restrictions scale the campaign difficulty. For very dominant guilds it's better to choose a campaign that has a better export for the winners, but a higher risk. This should slightly ease the problem also. Clearly you can see that this artifact and relic system have been considered from these perspectives. First of all the mentioned examples of benefits are non-combat, and also quite marginal. 5% Woodcutting speed is an advantage, but it's just 1 type of resource, and it's just 5%. Basically if your guild has 20 members you can cut wood as if you had 21 members (Or ~21.05 depending on exact method of application of the blessing). You still have to consider the rest of resources. Also if there's a limit of 3 blessings this too counters the overall advantage. Combined with the scalable risk & reward system, you can also expect that if the blessings were to give slightly higher advantage, the average rate of blessings would be slightly lower in those campaigns with lower risk and lower gains. The exact balance that the playerbase finds in this respect has one slight problem though, which is that people make these decisions pretty much intuitively based on experience, and it's gonna take a couple of campaigns before communities adjust to the riskratios properly, especially since it involves some inference.. For an example a really strong guild decides to go for a low risk campaign, gets easy benefits, and this in turn might cause a reaction that the other guilds will also compete on the lower risk servers, then eventually some will go back to the higher risk servers.. But as you can probably sense from this, it takes quite a few iterations for this kind of dynamic system to balance itself out, so if the campaigns were like 30 minutes long, then I think in a few days the lower risk campaigns woudl have genuinely lower rate of advantageous benefits.. Anyway sidetracked quite a bit here. And by the way I'm just rambling and any of these opinions could be flawed. (Just remembered the effort of trying to be more responsible ) So overall I think the artifacts and relics system sounds great. In fact I'm quite convinced that 5% woodcutting x3 is rather marginal, and perhaps even slightly larger incentives for gathering the relics could be used. I just got another idea from this. You could also have campaigns which you could only enter by sacrificing a relic or an artifact. This way you could have a system that takes in relics/artifacts and then spits out a slightly lower number of relics/artifacts to the winners. I'm not sure if this would actually out due to the negative feedback related, I mean when relics/artifacts get inflated you would want to join this campaign, as your sacrifice is lower, but at the same time the reward is lower for the reason. But something like this could work, and even ignoring the inflation and all that, there would some incentive to participate in these campaigns which could reduce the amount of relics/artifacts in circulation. However I also think this system could be complicated somewhat. So if there's artifcats and relics, I like this system. Not too messy and also there's a slightly different function for each. You could also have systems which are based on guildstructures, but that's complicated as it requires information on how the within campaign guild structures are different from the structures at EK. So what I mean is that if we have a ruling guild with vassals, and they have the same structure in both EK and the campaigns, that would allow for a system where the ruling guild can select a blessing for the vassals also, in similar sense to the artifact/relic system. But then you could also have smaller blessings for individual guilds to choose. So anyway despite this rather endless seeming rant the summary is that so far I think the devs are showing quite a bit of concern for this pay2win issue and it shows in the details of these systems. Personally I don't think the relic/artifact system is pay2win at all nor is it even giving a huge advantage to guilds dominating sequences of campaigns.