Jump to content

Ungod

Member
  • Content Count

    1,130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    119

Posts posted by Ungod


  1. The way it (still) is, the player had to do some efforts to get to some bare minimum values in order to progress. With percentage costs, that effort disappears, so keeping a fixed value apart from percentage would be a way to maintain it - if we consider this approach for new players useful.

    'Farming' would be a bit harder with percentage values instead of fixed ones, but vitality is not that hard to regenerate. The (ex) value points were always the problem, though. You could get to -1mil VP from a fight with someone and it would take weeks to get it back to 0. If we had some way to regenerate WI easier, the percentage wouldn't bother us much. Then again, how do you increase world inertia?


  2. 8 hours ago, Muratus del Mur said:

    Maybe so..its hard to assume, i like to think its not so

    It's an association that is easily made because nobody ever heard of world inertia. I don't think I've ever heard about it, so it's natural to make an association with what I've heard of.

     

     

     

    Also, double posting is rarely ok.


  3. It should be tomorrow, but I don't want to force you to finish it by then. 

    On 1/18/2020 at 12:36 PM, Chewett said:

    If the contest gets more than 3 participants I will sponsor the most recent MD birthday creature if Ungod agrees.

    Even if you participate, the condition wouldn't be met anyway (and I'm not sure I can accept Dhyone's submission unless the scene is being confirmed - it looks like Ravenhold, but who knows?), because 3 is not more than 3.

    So taking these things into account, I'll do this: I'm further extending the deadline to the 25th of January. That's a month for people who are interesting in doing a little artistic effort.


  4. I hate propaganda films, they're an insult to my intelligence. Propaganda films  are coming from one of the parties involved which pretends to be speaking 'objectively'. Like I can't see you're on one side of the trench. I may choose to fight with you, or pay you taxes, but I should know I'm not allying The Angel of Righteousness, but one of the sides trying to **** up the other side.

    The thing about ethnic purity or nationalism is that it eliminates the guilt of choosing which one of your 'brothers' goes down. They're all your brothers, and you're told you're supposed to love them equally. Yet as I was saying, we are competing, all living things are. Somebody HAS to go down. That's when we create guidelines and principles that are not respected much, mostly because it takes years of studying to understand them, and it takes everybody's cooperation to uphold them. (these laws choose who goes down and who wins, and eventually crumble) So the merit of nationalism and borders is blissful ignorance and a much more intuitive and irrational way of settling who goes down: the other guy, the different one. 

    I'm pretty much like everyone that has commented, and I've said it in the initial post. But you see, even if you understand people, even if there are no barriers, there will still be winners and losers. There will still be the higher-ups and the rest. We cannot create equality, because equality is something for machines, not for living creatures.

    My view on this is of someone who would like to believe in a common dream, but sees the impossibility of it. We can continue on this argument (although it's a dead-end for my idea, it's almost 0 support), but I'll give you another:
     

    Spoiler

     

    If I erect a fort and make a gate/door for my house, you'll assume it's to stop animals from entering (including bipeds). But perhaps it's to stop me from going out (like China and Japan did in the past). You see, the fight I'm having is with myself and my desires, the greed, the ambition. A hermit goes into hermitage because he can't stand people falling prey to their base desires, and does not wish to be contaminated. A hermit wants to keep improving himself, to grow as a human, and not debase. Gates are not that simple - they create order. It's true that the initial reason was to be protected from the outside world.

    Imagine houses didn't have doors. Imagine your house didn't have doors. Gates and doors are already part of our culture. We enjoy the separation, the categories doors create. Inside, outside. Bedroom, living room, kitchen. City and village, street and residential area. If it all looks swell, imagine they didn't exist. Nature doesn't have these separators. We do. It's one of the things that make us 'human', that is, different from animals. It's true, we go further away from the way the natural world is divided, but while doing it and decrying the original state of which we've been 'robbed', while asking for a 'return to nature', we cannot conceive living in that way.

    Don't believe me? Go live in a village. Or, if you already live there, go to a third world country village. They live closer to nature, the natural world. See if you like it. You can grow accustomed to it (and some even like it), but most will view it as a regress. You are used to your separators and consider them to be part of your humanity.

    I messed up with my previous argument and we delved into politics, but politics were also part of MD and the four main lands, no? Of course, I think politics in MD sucked, and now you can see why: nobody really believed in closed lands and intolerance. MD is not based on those principles anyway.

    Perhaps this argument is better?

     

     


  5. 10 hours ago, lashtal said:

    But we are expanding so rapidly, and our influence on our habitat is so dramatic, that we should start to think more in perspective, and as a "whole".

    OR, we could stop making children, realize we are fucked up anyway and walk hand in hand towards extinction, but that's a bit unpopular. :D

    Yea, a bit unpopular, I'd agree. 

    I think that seeing the larger picture is something only some have the ability, luxury and desire to do, so I doubt pushing this burden onto the common folk is going to achieve anything. China, for example, did something great when implementing the one-child policy; of course there were major downsides to that, but I think it was the right choice for China (and the world as well).

    The irony of a 'us vs them' culture is that sometimes it manages to create healthier communities than the 'no barrier' culture; the downside is that sometimes it ends up all life. 

    9 hours ago, Lazarus said:

    So to answer your question, borders can be necessary if it's main purpose is to filter out people

    You're the first to take a 'pro' gate stance. Your arguments sound like those of a Roman governor. Too bad they left those Germanic tribes bribe them over the decades.

    Edit:

    Spoiler

     

    Oh, I keep hearing about the economy all the time. Certainly, because you cannot have power without money, since they are almost equivalent, the economy argument is always going to be forwarded. But when you hear that, you can only think about it if you are rich. If you are a common man, it's not a good idea. Why?

    Trump will talk about the economic benefit because he has to motivate those businessmen and senators. It's like in the old days, when the King had to motivate the nobles to pay for the war effort. When the Emperor had to convince the Senate. The economy argument is not for you unless you are one of those. Otherwise, you're using words that were never addressed to you.

    So what arguments should a common man use? I don't know. I use the arguments of 'health' and 'eudaimonia'. I think, when talking about wars, gates and discrimination, money is just not in 'it', for me. If I'm the peasant contributing to the war effort by paying my taxes, whether the troops will bring back home the loot or not, I'll still get crumbles. I will stay a peasant. Of course, If they lose, I lose doubly, but the economy is just not 'in' for me.

     

     


  6. Actually, if I think about it...when we say somebody's full of vitality/life, we don't actually refer to potential, do we? We mean that he or she can readily manifest that potential (into action), and does so often, so vitality actually refers to a combination of readiness, effectiveness and experience in manifesting your potential. To confuse things even further, a synonym would be briskness, no?

     


  7. 11 minutes ago, Muratus del Mur said:

    Or is it a change too difficult to accept after so many years and acustomed concepts? 

    it's not too difficult because VP was never well defined (at least imo)

    Worldy inertia sounds better, but perhaps a one-word terminology is better? wordly inertia points and vitality points - sort of weird

    edit: also, I am full of worldly inertia is kinda funny; or 'my worldly inertia is in the red/negative'


  8. Yea, well, you can't declare war to China if you don't start creating the 'us vs them'. And you need the war because the American empire is falling (all that while you still need immigrants, so you still let them in).


  9. There's also some merit in this, in that being ignorant relieves you of those moral choices you'd otherwise have to think about :) but you still have to meet your neighbours, to learn whom to like and whom to dislike.

    I take it you're against building walls Trump-style. 


  10. Spoiler

     

    The more I read/learn, the more I see the underlying common stratum in everything, including people. We really are all quite the same, with circumstances shaping that essential part which is the same to all of us. Differences are all superficial; we can see applications of this idea in legislation banning discrimination and promoting 'unity in diversity' or movements that stem from the idea of 'we're all brothers and sisters' etc

    While I consider this to be the truth, there's another truth: that we're all fighting for survival. The world's population is rising, resources stay the same, the Earth is not getting bigger. So if we're all brothers and sisters and yet we must fight each other, doesn't this fight become fratricide? How do you decide who goes down? How do you choose?

    With nations, it's all very easy. The others are 'the enemy'. They're different. They're not like us. They're evil. The funny part about this is, while being completely untrue, people burn themselves for their country with joy. Both parties do, in both (all) countries. That's not to say all's well, but there's no guilt of going against your brother. There's no burden of choice.

    I think in both systems (global village vs warring states) you get to see the best and the worst of human behavior. It's just that in one system there's awareness and in the other there's ignorance. There's also the fact that to reach the understanding that we're really not that different, it takes many long years. 

     

    Long introduction above to serve as base for the question: 'Do you want lands to be more closed than they are now? Do you want borders/walls or do you want more inclusion?'

    I'm asking because I remembered my 6-year old idea about buildable gates and I wonder if that is a good idea. It would make lands more 'closed' and create centers of authority once again. Is it good to build walls or should we wait for enlightenment in a global village?

     


  11. 5 hours ago, Muratus del Mur said:

    Word by word what you are asking is the old interface, (that is still available under old-layout.php btw)

    Mur, take it as a sign of love for another interface you designed. Undying love, even.

     

    @peeps: two days ago I met an angry VorniC at GoE (scene still on flash); the scene didn't load for him and he was on phone. He was like 'nothing works, why isn't MD focusing on fixing these things'. I told him to come back in a week :D 

    I, too, found only one viable browser that supported flash on mobile and I don't know if it's still available. It's not like Mur woke up one morning and decided to f*** up MD and upset a bunch of players...so instead of complaining, try to say something like 'This looks great, but could you perhaps...'. 

    I, for one, think more about stuff like quests and some other things that need our attention. There's a lot of work to be done.


  12. 1 hour ago, Shemhazaj said:

    Are you using the new interface or the old one?
    Old one seems to have limit to how many erolin slots it shows, but in the new one where a number is shown it doesn't to seem have that problem. At least for me, I just got above 12 with the shop feature. 

    Above 12, that is?

    I got to 13, don't know how, but now I've bought like 4 erolins and none show. I'm on the new interface.


  13. 9 hours ago, Muratus del Mur said:

    If i remember right, the tree doesn't give always a heat slot, it is random chance

    Even when it did, and announced 'You received another erolin slot' or whatever, I still didn't get the increase. On another note, I bought another goblet, it even shows the trigger, and my slots are stuck at 13 i.e. no increase. At this point, it's a bug.


  14. 18 hours ago, Chewett said:

    If you had the tree every year, you got to around 19 or so.

    But you can buy erolins in the shop atm, so thats why some have a lot more.

    That's the thing, it stopped at 12 for me. Since two Xmases ago, not counting this one, I have had 12. Now that I have 13 (maybe from this year), I just bought 3 goblets of energy and...I'm still at 13 erolins. 

    Maybe I had a cap on the account?

×
×
  • Create New...