Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Predicting is easy, but not what people expect (Score 0) 50

by GoodNewsJimDotCom (#46792819) Attached to: Bookies Predict the Future of Tech
I figured there would eventually be competitive gaming people could hold careers in back in 1983.

Once I heard of Quantum Link for C64, I knew there'd be one MMORPG to rule them all eventually. I even tried making one until Ultima Online came out and I quit mine.

I knew Internet multiplayer games were the way of the future on consoles back as soon as I heard of the Internet.

The second I heard of Ebay forming out of Usenet, I knew it'd get huge.

I knew instant messaging would be huge on Windows before anything was out.

I knew there would be online dating sites before there were any.

There's a couple other ones I pegged too, but I forget.

I'm almost always on target when I think something will be a multimillion or multibillion industry in tech. I don't see everything, but when I know something will take off, it will. Right now, I don't know many things that'd be cash cows outside of video games. My video game techs are:

1) Dig up any successful slow paced multiplayer mouse clicky strategy game of the past, but fix it for modern times, make it into a collectable card game, give it ladder, and it'd probably take off. Reason: Old game worked so people will play it again especially if you make it better. Just like selling the same music to kids works because they haven't heard of it, the mobile generation maybe missed some of those games. The collectable card game means it will be a cash cow. And ladder makes people addicted, so they essentially have a money fight like Magic the Gathering.

2) Xwing vs TieFighter the MMORPG. Go on quests to start, but be able to privateer, build up a big fleet and have big fleet combat. Reason: Everyone knows this would be huge.

A betting site on predictable techs taking off does me no good. My ideas are normally ones that aren't out because people just didn't think into them. All it does is give me confidence in my predictions for the future. I make a good conversation when talking about techs, their implications, and how the future would be. I also make a pretty good sci fi game master, a road I might take here in a few months. Professional paid game masters might becoming more and more of a thing. I wrote my own software to play RPGs online with a live game master in hopes it would take off, and I'd have a game master network. The game master network would be a way to find quality GMs to hire, and the owner of the network would take a small cut of their hourly rate. It didn't take off because I couldn't find anyone who wanted to beta test with me, but I don't think I gave it a fair shake. I got real discouraged I got banned from posting in www.reddit.com/r/rpg because I was asking for beta testers. Hey, anyone possibly interested here? :)

Comment: Re:Study slightly flawed (Score 1) 103

by GoodNewsJimDotCom (#46764373) Attached to: Your <em>StarCraft II</em> Potential Peaked At Age 24
They did they played people of similar skill. I still think you're right on the premise that the study could be flawed. What they measured apparently was APM if I'm reading this correctly. How else would they measure number of actions over time in Starcraft? I'm of the school of not wasting my clicks and I have low APM like 100-200, but my buddies are of the school of warming up clicking and excess clicking.

If they measured the APM, what appears to be less clicking might be actions that get more accomplished with less clicks by older people.

Anyway, my bro Victor gives me lots of slack in this. We were both Warcraft3 pros, just in different eras, me in ROC and him in TFT. I talk about wanting to go pro in the modern era with all the streaming because it seems so much more social. He says I might be too old. I know better >:)

My main reason for not going pro in Starcraft2 is that I only wanted to go pro to get hired by Blizzard, and during beta, a video game company hired me, so I've been programming video games instead of playing them, but not getting paid very well. I think the road for me to going pro in Starcraft2 would be too long and I wouldn't be surfing the crest of skill. Surfing the crest of skill is something a top level video gamers does when a new game comes out. He invents a a lot of the strategies others use, he practices from day one, so no one has any more practice. In short, when you surf the crest of skill, you start on top and you stay on top. If a top level video gamer starts in the middle of a game's lifecycle, he'll get crushed by players who aren't as good in general as him in video games, but has more specific skill to the game at hand.

I think if I picked up Starcraft2, I'd get crushed under the waves for the first three months, then at best after 9 months I'd be at the top of ladder. Starcraft 2 is a very demanding game, and even small mistakes can bite you big time. You could be doing well, but fail to defend a drop, and he gutted your economy, gg. Winning vs Protoss, but a DT sneaks by when you don't have detection? GG. All the small details is something a refined pro does naturally, but can be frustrating when you're not surfing the crest of skill.

I think Starcraft2 is pretty good compared to Starcraft1, but I do have one complaint. I feel the rush distances are too far away, and build times for t1 units could be shorter. I know why Blizzard made it so the rush is cake to defend, I even campaigned for easy to stop rushes in the beta forums. When the rush is easy to defend, the game gets to later games with bigger army clashing, and it is good for esports spectator views. I don't think it is necessarily good for the game. I'll explain in my next paragraph.

In Starcraft1 when I played at least, and I played at a high level was roughly: Early expand loses to rush. Rush loses to a defense because the rush distance lets you have 1-2 extra defenders to the attackers+ terrain. Once you defend an all in, you have a little bit more money which you could squeek into tech, then you win with teched units. Early tech normally(not always) loses to early expand. At first this looks like paper rock scissors which is lame in a fog of war situation! But look closely, making units both defends vs rush, and beats early expand. If it turns out they made early units in defense, you can go the tech route yourself. It was generally always safe to build some early units(unless you're zerg), and it was nice to get free wins when people tried to early expand on you greedily.

Starcraft2 doesn't have much early play. Sure sometimes someone proxies raxes because early pressure isn't expected then comes with scv+marine rush. But early play past scouting is generally not beneficial in Starcraft2. Making extra units in the beginning just slows your tech or early expand. The game is designed to give you a free pass to the mid game. Besides the queen being pretty good early, Protoss has one better with the Mothership core and turning Nexuses into big defense. As a player who enjoys getting into sparing with my opponent asap, I preferred Starcraft1 with shorter rush distances and the idea that I can always make a couple tier one units as a safe start plan. It is world's better in terms of multiplayer than War3 ROC though. I called War3 ROC Pacman to my friends. In War3 ROC, the optimal way to win(coming from the dude who was first to 1500 wins), was to single player clean up all the creeps you could in the best order you could do it in. Since the best way to win in Warcraft3 was to play Pacman with creeps and avoid your opponent(unless you get a lucky creepjack), it was effectively a competitive single player game. Okay, both of you, go play a singleplayer RPG, after 10 minutes, we'll see which one of you has the higher leveled party, and will be declared a winner.

So Starcraft2 is better than War3 in terms of multiplayer engagement, but I feel Starcraft1 is superior to Starcraft2 in terms of multiplayer. This could be fixed with just a tiny bit of editing build times, unit stats and abilities, and making a map with close rush distances. A personal wish of mine is that Blizzard would introduce the ability to make custom maps that contain a ladder statistic ELO rating. If every custom map had a ladder rating, not only would custom map players be more jazzed up, but people could try and make serious alternatives to the main game for a better meta.

Comment: Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desired (Score 4, Insightful) 433

by GoodNewsJimDotCom (#46742389) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate
It's been what, like 50 years we've been using old tech? Nuclear is cleaner than coal barring an accident. Coal is guaranteed to kill and hurt people. With Nuclear you at least have a chance of everyone being healthy. Even if the country doesn't adopt some grand scheme of making a bunch of nuclear plants, making one here or one there would get our technology levels higher and create jobs for smart people.

A lesser known situation is if you actually create an energy surplus, food costs, logistic costs, and transportation costs get cheaper. So if we ramped our energy production up by 2-8x what we got now, people could charge their hybrid car at home for even less than they do now. I think this dream is often grouped up with a superconductor power grid idea which is unrealistic for the short term. I think for a better world, we should be aiming to create energy surpluses.

Sometimes I even have the strange thought that energy conservation ideas hurt society's growth. It would be almost better if we used more power in the short term so energy could invest in itself and provide more power at lower costs down the road. I mean it is better to conserve electricity, but I don't hear people championing the idea of creating a global energy surplus.

Comment: Aps could be the future (Score 1) 270

by GoodNewsJimDotCom (#46728951) Attached to: The New 'One Microsoft' Is Finally Poised For the Future
I don't care about a limited 2 aps at once, or touchscreen. The one thing Windows needs is the ability to fearlessly run applications. Windows should have been virus proof back since 98 when the Internet was becoming a big thing. It isn't as hard as you'd think to make an OS virus proof if that is what you're designing for.

The moment your platform becomes a fearless platform to try new software, people will try software as a hobby. The way Windows is now, before aps are catching on, no one in their right mind is going to download random .exe from the Internet. We're even wary of .png and .mp3s because of buffer overflow exploits. This should have never been the case.

Now aps won't catch on really fast because only Windows 8 does Aps. If Microsoft was smart, they would have allowed all versions of Windows back to XP use aps. That way more people would make aps. It would have caught on a lot faster. And since Microsoft probably has an "ap store", they'd have made more money even. The short term money isn't what wins you control over the Internet through which gives you the long term money gain. The key is you want more people to buy your OS over a MAC which word on the street says is harder to get viruses.

Aps could be a good thing for Microsoft's future, but they didn't do enough to have them take off with initial velocity. My guess is there's some self proclaimed genius at Microsoft,"Everyone's gonna love aps, they're going to buy new copies of windows just to get aps. If we make old versions of windows use aps, we'll just lose sales!"

Comment: Re:More basic than that (Score 0) 181

by GoodNewsJimDotCom (#46709363) Attached to: Do Free-To-Play Games Get a Fair Shake?
Whats funny though is that people are happy to blow through money like a bad drug habit for games like "Hearthstone" or "Magic the Gathering". This is why my next game is probably going to be a CCG myself. I have a great idea for one, but I need to finish my game going up on Facebook in about a month. Throne and Crown, the game I'm working on is a version of what Gauntlet 2 would be like if it had overland exploration. Throne and Crown Interestingly enough it does cost $4.99 to play past 2 hours. I'll have the virtual goods for those who want them, but the game won't need virtual goods to be played fine. The way I look at it is my game is going to be playable and fun, but it is just the beginning. The game is going to be a long 5-10 year progression where it gets new features, more art, and more music culminating into a Kingdom Sim. Instead of asking for money on Kickstarter, people can play a playable game, and if they see the potential or just want to play it some more, they can help a new game development house out. Interestingly enough, this game is 100% revenue share among my artists and musicians, so there's no money invested, just time. I could talk more about how I did the revenue sharing, it is pretty good if anyone wants to hear.

Comment: Re:These are griefers, not trolls. Trolling is fun (Score 2) 116

I'd call them griefers too and is why I quit. LOL is a unique beast. Your team needs to help or you lose. So some people put pressure on each other and don't let up. I quit that game because I'd be cursed at as the first thing people said to me and all I did was pick my character in pubs. Its a shame too because the game is pretty easy and fun. There's no such thing as LOL ladder anxiety compared to SC2 for me because SC2 makes you click maybe 20x as often to get the same amount of things done.

My suggestion to Riot was to allow,"Avoid playing with this character again" and "Prefer playing with this character again" buttons. Forming a custom team is often times more work than what you get from it if people aren't responding. If there was a loose method to form a preferred team, that'd be cool. I think someone told me if there was a button "Don't play with this player again", many people would use it for skill reasons and then it'd be hard to find matches. This is why it should be avoid/prefer instead of musts.

Comment: Re:Other way around would be more fun. (Score 1) 42

by GoodNewsJimDotCom (#46699497) Attached to: Sony and Toyota Bring Real-Life Racing Into the Game World
I'm having flashbacks to multiplayer Nascar games. Since it is boring to go left all game some people change things up and go right for a lap or two.

Though... If someone makes the device to autodrive a car cheap enough, it could make for some high intensity demo derbys. Look on the plus side, don't need to hose the track down to get lower impact collisions if no one's safety is at risk.

Comment: I had intimidation factor on my side before (Score 5, Interesting) 99

by GoodNewsJimDotCom (#46656977) Attached to: What's In a Username? the Power of Gamer Tags
Back when I was first to 1500 wins in Warcraft3 and #1 in 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 99% win rate in 3v3, I would have people be awed at me when they come into the game. They would just be happy to play against a big name in the game and express it like a kid who meets his favorite sports player or a famous person. They'd say things like,"Man, you're going to win, but its nice to even get a chance to play you." So my name had intimidation factor to it, but I earned that intimidation factor by first being actually good and having a great record. If you play Starcraft2 and you spend more than a few seconds making your screen name, you're doing it wrong :P

That said, I like this screen name more than my ol' gamer tag. If people go visit my website, they can be well on their way to eternal life, and my Bro Jesus will have cool things to say to me when we finally meet.

Every young man should have a hobby: learning how to handle money is the best one. -- Jack Hurley

Working...