WoW: The Pursuit of "Fair"

The major point of contention between WoW players, in my experience, is based on the dichotomy between casual and hardcore players. These groups take on different labels depending on the context and particular individuals involved but I think that generally speaking the split is between those for whom WoW is a primary concern in their life and those for whom WoW is one of many hobbies they enjoy. This scenario is not unique to WoW, of course. Practically any activity will for some be primary and for others secondary. With WoW, though, the problem is the view each group has towards the structure of the game and the degree to which the game itself creates a feeling of fairness between these two groups.

Back in "the day" the highest quality gear was only available to players who raided, which is to say players who invested a significant amount of time in group play focused on defeating the most difficult bosses in the game. This obvious lack of balance pissed off non-raiders and so, over time, new paths were created to obtaining high level, quality gear. Unfortunately the situation is such that there is still not a perfect balance between these two groups. And what I'm trying to figure out is whether or not there could or should be.

Last Monday my guild and I spent four hours trying to defeat Archimonde; all eighteen attempts ended in failure. Last night my guild and I spent two and a half hours trying to defeat Archimonde; all seven attempts ended in failure. Now, given that the highest level bosses in the game who drop "the best" gear are so difficult that they require weeks of failed attempts to finally defeat how can the game be structured to provide equal rewards to both players willing to make this investment and those not willing to make the investment?

That is not to say that raiders are somehow correct and that non-raiders need to stop playing. Rather, if one individual is willing to invest 6 hours a day in WoW and another individual is willing to invest 6 hours a week in WoW how can the game possibly be structured to reward these players equally?

Let's abandon all the particulars of WoW and participate in a thought experiment. Every time you press the 'j' key you get 1 point. These points can be used to purchase items that allow you to press the 'j' key more quickly. Is it not a statement a fact that someone who spends 6 hours a day pressing 'j' will accumulate more points than someone who spends 6 hours a week pressing 'j'?

Certainly WoW can be changed to allow multiple paths to any given end. Personally, I think that to achieve this end all items ought to be available to all players. As with the thought experiment above there ought to be one standard currency (Badge of Awesome) with which one may purchase any item in the game. Winning in PVP games, defeating PVE enemies, defeating Raid Bosses, completing quests, etc. all ought to give Badges of Awesome which can be used to purchase any item in the game. This removes all requirements on players to follow any particular path and rather allows player to choose how they want to accumulate Badges of Awesome and so purchase gear; it would to some degree create the feeling of fairness.

But, again, will not players who play six hours a day amass more Badges of Awesome than players who play six hours a week? Would not the Badges of Awesome awarded have to reflect the degree of difficulty of any given Boss, Quest, or PVP match? Would not the player base be able to discern the most economical means by which Badges of Awesome could be amassed and simply farm the hell out of those particular means?

Most importantly: Would WoW be as enjoyable if the particulars were removed and rather the game became little more than farming Badges of Awesome?

FFCC: MLAAK is delightful thus far

Picked up FFCC: MLAAK last night when I got back home. Downloaded it around midnight and proceeded to play it till 5:30 am. I would have continued to play longer but Teenie was not excited to see me still awake at such time.

I'm sure you have all read the reviews about it and know the most basic concepts so I will just write about the things I found delightful. As a student of Ogre Battle, I understand and really quite enjoy letting my troops fight for me, so the lack of combat doesn't bother me at all. The turns seem a little short to me, as you only have a short amount of time to wander your city and allow your adventurers to do their jobs. I was overjoyed to see that the game actually tries to explain the FFCC storyline unlike the orginal's half assed attempt at story, which was very frustrating.

The genius of the game however is that it auto saves at the end of each day, but you can't find out how your adventurers did until the next day, so it sucks you into it's cycle curious to find out how your adventurers did on their quest. When you find out how they have fared, it quickly starts you off on the next day expecting you to set up quests for the current day. You can not save until the end of the day so it continues you in this cycle of curiosity, constantly pulling you further along leaving you no chance to stop playing, thus the delightful addiction.

Nintendo Pisses me off sometimes.

WiiWare Space requirements

The fucking Wii needs a fucking Hard Drive and the fucks at Nintendo are fucking stupid for not fucking including one in the first fucking place.

I mean, how mud-fucking stupid do you have to be as a console developer to say "Let's not put a hard drive in it...but let's provide content downloads."

Fucking brilliant.

It wouldn't piss me off if people were't so bend-over-themselves-stupid in their defense of the system. It's like Nintendo could have released a dead dog in a box and 500,000 assholes would have flocked to stores to buy the damn thing.

Sure, the Wiimote is novel and fun for a few days. Great. But when you compare it to what it could be given the Xbox360 and PS3 i'm really at a loss as to why someone would spend money on the fucking thing.

I mean, how fucking apologetic can Nintendo fanboys really be? Friend Codes are stupid, but it's Nintendo, so that's fine. Brawl is just Melee again, but it's Nintendo, so it's fine. There's no hard drive, but it's Nintendo, so it's fine. The Wiimote doesn't really work that well, but it's Nintendo, so it's fine.

I'm pretty sure at this point Nintendo could resurrect Hitler, let him loose in Jersey, and no one would mind so long as they shoved a motion-sensitive control up his ass and gave him a Mario hat.

Daily Show: Douglas Feith Uncut

Part 1:


Part 2:

Chuck Todd says Obama has Super Delegate lead

I like Chuck Todd. I trust Chuck Todd. So when Chuck Todd tells me that Obama has taken the lead in Super Delegates I'll believe it:

The NBC NEWS delegate counts:
PLEDGED: Obama 1,590, Clinton 1,426
SUPERS: Obama 277, Clinton 276.5
TOTAL: Obama 1,867, Clinton 1,702.5

Obama leads in states won, popular vote, pledge delegates, super delegates, and every possible metric by which one can judge the Democratic race for president INCLUDING both speaking ability and knowledge of grammer.

So I'm pretty sure it's time for Hillary to shut the fuck up and go home.

Swordfish and Utilitarianism; Halle Berry is hot

Swordfish is a terribly shitty hacker movie somewhat justified by the inclusion of a Halle Berry topless scene. Unfortunately when I watched it last weekend on TBS when nothing else was on Halle Berry was wearing a CGI Bikini in the afore mentioned scene, thus mitigating any quality the movie might have had. Despite the shitty, shitty nature of Swordfish, though, it does contain a utilitarian argument between Vincent Vega and Wolverine which has been bugging me.

Van Helsing: How can you justify all this?
Danny Zuko: You're not looking at the big picture Stan. Here's a scenario. You have the power to cure all the world's diseases but the price for this is that you must kill a single innocent child, could you kill that child Stanley?
Curly McLain: No.
Vinnie Barbarino: You disappoint me, it's the greatest good.
Leopold: Well how about 10 innocents?
Terl: Now you're gettin' it, how about a hundred - how about a THOUSAND? Not to save the world but to preserve our way of life.

This quazi-philosophical interlude in the otherwise miserable movie adeptly portrays the two primary Utilitarian questions: Is Utilitarianism correct? How do we discern the greatest good?

Is Utilitarianism correct?
Looking at Utilitarianism in the context between Vinnie Barbarino and Wolverine I do not think there is a way to side with Wolverine and so deny Utilitarianism. If one could cure all the world's diseases by sacrificing one innocent child the obvious response is that, yes, the action is justified. The only argument against this position is that the value of the child's life is somehow greater than the value of the lives of every other human being which is, mathematically, nonsense. If the value of human lives is cumulative then certainly fifty lives are more valuable than one; it's just math. If the value of human lives is not cumulative, if fifty, one hundred, one million human lives are as valuable as one human life then it is the responsibility of one who maintains this position to support their asinine claim. If one were to attempt to bypass a discussion of "value" and rather claim that something else is the subject of our concern then, again, it is the responsibility of one who maintains this position to not only define that seemingly imaginary quality but also justify it.

Of course, the value conversation in the above portrayal assumes that there is a finite value to every human life which is equal for all humans. It is entirely possible that, say, Ewan McGregor is more valuable than Hayden Christensen (I watched Episode III last weekend, too), depending on the criteria by which we assess "value".

Admittedly, some biased discussions of human value can lead to problematic conclusions (zomg nazis), but I think that if we define our terms correctly and act in an objective manner we can assess the value of different groups of human beings based upon abundant sets of criteria and so formulate answers to the utilitarian question of "greatest good to the greatest number" in terms of the value of that greatest number.

How do we discern the greatest good?
I think this is where Utilitarianism fails. Good is subjective and allows for interpretation on the part of every individual. Additionally, good is notoriously unpredictable. Was today's Chinese earthquake good? The kneejerk response is, "Noes! Deth r teh bad!" But when we consider global population problems, food shortages, the utility of the particular people who died, the repercussions of their deaths, the architectural information gained by the collapse of buildings, the humanitarian concerns this event might draw attention to, etc. we're left with a terrifically complicated question which will take years to answer. In truth we may never know whether the Chinese earthquake was good or bad. Certainly we can maintain a position of "People died so it's bad." But that is simply moronic.

I like Utilitarianism not necessarily for itself but rather for the conversations the idea sparks. It's fun to talk about human value, good, and utility if only because these are fundamental questions of humanity which excite and compel concerned individuals. So while Swordfish is a fucking terrible movie it does provide an opportunity for a discussion of Utilitarianism which somewhat makes up for the lack of coherent plot, character development, and the ridiculous license that movie takes with hacking.

And, of course, Swordfish provided us with Halle Berry boobies, which are awesome.

WOTLK in 10 Minutes