Hey, it's okay to discuss upcoming features to spark discussion, even if you disagree with the inclusion of these features. It's a discussion forum. Maybe someone will mention something that has them worried and others will calm their fears by suggesting how it could work. Maybe there is something that a large part of the community disagrees with and the developers can get a sense of why people don't want it, so they can somehow address it.
I can't believe the incredible irony of your post, dude...
Or maybe people shouldn't react based on their perception of other's allegiance rather than the content of the post. These kinds of attitudes contribute to the formation of echo chambers and really shouldn't be encouraged if we want to have healthy, informative conversations.
-161 for being curious about a subject... I never said it was wrong, I just wanted to read more about it. I'm not on Russia's side - on the contrary - and by downvoting my comment, you are actively combating the spreading of information that could help Ukraine in the battle for public opinion.
Do you have a source for the incident on Crimea being caused by Russians?
The 3 animal archetypes:
Wolf
Bear
2022 Toyota Corolla Hatchback
Absolutely love that the bell shows up as a cosmetic effect on the staff and also indicates when it is available. Not as excited about how abilities are locked to very specific weapon types...
This is the wildest opinion I have ever heard.
Emil får også helt klart min stemme. Jeg tror, at det er ret vigtigt at have én, der har viden inden for området for at undgå populistiske floskler.
How the fuck does no one understand that this didn't happen because the UN thought Iran was a shining beacon on the topic of Human Rights. It happened because the regions take fucking turns and they were the only ones nominated. Being the chair of the council doesn't mean that you are an exemplar on the topic. It also doesn't give you the power to "Dictate what constitutes Human Rights for that year" or whatever you guys apparently believe. What it DOES do is FORCE you to participate in the debate, which is good, actually.
Of course, lots of countries then boycot the meeting, ironically leading to an echo chamber of countries with "less than stellar" track records on Human Rights. Go figure.
Where did you get that impression? Besides the historical medieval setting, the games don't really have any similarities between them.
StrategieEcke is a German historian and Twitch streamer who does amazingly realistic towns in the game. I speak very little German and I still watch his streams. From an aesthetic point of view, I haven't seen anyone come close.
One Proud Bavarian is also pretty good and throws some historical context in there as well. His videos are also in English.
What an amazingly well thought out argument!
In fact, since this isn't a capentry simulator, buildings should just be instantly constructed!
And since it's not an economy simulator, we shouldn't need something as complicated as "resources" to build stuff.
Also, let's get rid of battles and just have a dice roll determine the outcome. It isn't a battle simulator after all.
Wouldn't that sort of defeat the purpose of a city builder?
Do you understand that economy is part of building a medieval city? You could use this asinine argument for everything that is already in the game.
There shouldn't be fertility and crop rotations. This is a city builder, not a farming simulator.
There shouldn't be forest management and wood refinement. This is a city builder, not a forestry simulator.
There shouldn't be combat, militias and military equipment. This is a city builder, not a battle simulator.
The point is to refine these aspects of the game to where they don't break balance and provide a challenge. If you don't want a challenge, maybe YOU should be doing something other than playing games.
You really can't see why the game (which is made by a single developer) doesn't feature several different cultural themes that would require both immense work in creating all models to fit these themes and EVEN MORE work to alter the gameplay reflecting the different societal structures of these cultures?
Have you ever made anything in your life? Are you 9 years old?
Hvad mener du? "melting" kommer lige efter "is". Han ligger mere tryk på ordene, fordi han ikke er lige så tryg ved sproget, hvilket får s'et til at lyde skarpere. Men han siger ikke "smelting".
Hør den i X0.25 hastighed.
Han sagde ikke "smelting". Du hører bare slutningen af ordet "is" som starten af ordet "melting".
Because you can plant a new tree for every tree you cut down.
"You will own nothing" handler ikke om, at der vitterligt ikke er nogen, der overhovedet ejer noget. Jeg gave et meget yderliggående eksempel, hvor det var staten, der ejede det endelige produkt. Eksemplet ændres ikke af, at det er beslutningstagerne, der ejer produktet. Det er ikke engang pointen i citatet. Det handler om abonnementer, leasing og streaming. Det handler om at forbrugeren ikke ejer noget - som forbruger.
Udbud og efterspørgsel eksisterer stadigvæk. Folk køber stadigvæk produkter, som de gerne vil have. Produkterne er bare ikke ejet af dem. Ligesom Netflix. Hvis alle dine ting var "lejet", så ville det ikke fjerne udbud og efterspørgsel.
Resten af dit indlæg afhænger af din antagelse af, at kun ejerskab giver motivation. Det har du ikke påvist.
Du har intet ejerskab over det, og din motivation vil være derefter.
Altså uændret.
De penge du får, kan ikke købe noget du kan eje.
Hvilket ikke har nogen betydning.
Dem der udlejer det du kan leje, har heller ikke noget ejerforhold til det de leverer, producenten af dem der leverer til udlejerne af det du lejer, har heller ikke noget ejerforhold - og så fremdeles hele vejen igennem.
Igen - lige meget. Hvis du har skabt noget, og den giver dit liv værdi (penge, en følelse af betydning, anerkendelse, kreativ udfoldelse, etc), så betyder det ikke noget, om du ejer det eller ej. Ejerskab er ikke det endelige mål. Glæde er det endelige mål.
Lad os nu sige, at det er staten, der ejer tingene i sidste ende.
Jeg arbejder i en virksomhed (ejet af staten). Virksomheden får penge ud fra hvor meget værdi den skaber. Ledelsen i denne virksomhed bliver betalt ud fra hvor mange penge virksomheden tjener. De kan bruge de penge på at forbedre deres levestandard og på at gøre ting, som gør dem glade. Da de gerne vil være glade, finder de på nye og mere værdiskabende tiltag for virksomheden. Det kunne være en ny strategi for styring af virksomheden.
Lederne belønner innovative tiltag fra medarbejderne, da det belønner virksomheden, hvilket belønner lederne. Jeg stræber efter at skabe mere værdi for virksomheden, da jeg derved vil blive belønnet. Jeg skaber et nyt produkt. Dette produkt sælger rigtig godt, og jeg bliver belønnet ud fra, hvor meget værdi dette produkt giver virksomheden. Jeg er opfinder af produktet og jeg ved, at jeg har skabt det. Der er intet der siger, at jeg ikke skal blive ved med at blive kompenseret baseret på dette produkts værdi, så længe jeg lever, da staten gerne vil belønne værdiskabelse.
Jeg bruger de penge på en fin lejlighed, nogle fine ting til lejligheden og gode oplevelser. Jeg bruger ikke tit bil, så jeg opretter ikke et abonnement på en bil, men lejer bare en, når jeg skal bruge den. Alle de ting, som jeg betaler for, stiger derfor i værdi. Skaberne bliver kompenseret for denne værdi, lederne bliver kompenseret for denne værdi og jeg får noget, som jeg gerne vil have.
Den bedre bolig, der lejes ud til dig, får dem der har fundet på den ingen gavn af.
Hvorfor ikke? Hvorfor kan jeg ikke få flere penge, hvis jeg har skabt noget, som mange har glæde af og gerne vil have?
det er ved at eje, at du bliver mere motiveret til forbedring og innovation, ikke ved at få ordre fra oven, som siger "skab innovation".
Hvem siger, at der er nogen der beordrer mig til at skabe innovation? Det afhænger lidt af antagelsen ovenover, at jeg af en eller anden grund ikke tjener flere penge på den innovation.
The Northman is probably Robert Eggers' worst movie. And it still slaps.
I work in internal IT support. The amount of times people have, unprompted, started telling me their passwords is disconcerting.
ELI5: Why is a password with both numbers and letters stronger than one with only letters? Attackers will include numbers in their brute force attempts anyway, so how does it make a difference?
explainlikeimfive