This has been bopping around in my head for a while. Although it has become the case that Warhammer 40,000, as a tabletop game, has become something that has a far greater cost than benefit to me, I can barely even contemplate selling my Dungeons and Dragons books.
I ask myself "why," and the answer comes easily: D&D and tabletop RPGs give you the best bang for your buck.
For an example, to play several classes and have everything I need to play in D&D just as a PC, I need to blow 30 to 40 bucks on one of the Player's Handbooks, 10 dollars for dice, then with some pencils and paper I'm ready to rock. Let's assume it took 60 dollars to get you into D&D with one book. That is an equal cost with one tank, one TANK, the Landraider, for Warhammer. That's without one's Codex, Rulebook, dice, or measuring tape.
Cost-benefit wise, D&D really beats other tabletop games as far as I'm concerned. Let me rephrase that into "tabletop RPGs." Sometime I want to play Deathwatch, cuz everyone wants to be a space knight. But anyway, tabletop RPGs have a relatively small buy-in for PCs, and I think you get a lot more out of it.
Why?
Well, let me go ahead and say that a good game of 40k takes a couple hours, yet a good D&D session can go on for twice, or even four times that amount. There is something to say of the time commitment required to play either game, primarily that 40k, at 2000 points, requires two hours, while a short D&D session may only have one encounter in that time frame, spliced in with settling in, as well as role playing.
And I think here is the real reason I never want to stop D&D: role playing.
You wouldn't think that acting would be fun in a game of all things, but it requires you to assume a different persona, and adds such immersion to the game that I am generally referred to by my friends as "dwarf," hence the whole Stout and Bearded concept. Nothin to do with me being short, stocky, and rockin a great beard.
When it comes to playing a game with someone in 40k, one of the problems I generally have is that all the interaction I have with that person in-game comes from us shooting eachother with futuristic weaponry. Now, you do get to speak with that person post-game about what went wrong and whatnot, yet 40k isn't really an immersing game. Higher level of play makes one callous to casualties, yet such is one of the only ways you're going to get better at the game, which comes from trading melta-hunter units for an enemy's expensive vehicle, such as a Land Raider.
So, what does this come down to?
I like the role playing aspect of D&D, as well as all the options allowed in just one of the books. Regardless of the version you play, the role playing aspect is what's been kept the most constant among D&D's appeal to the gaming population. Unfortunately, I think that detracts from it and only adds to the strange mysticism associated with D&D after all that crap happened in the 70's.
To me, it just seems that D&D is a better hobby for me than Warhammer.
Warhammer is expensive, takes time to paint the models (which I hate), and you don't get to interact much inside of the game. Sure, you talk about Warhams a lot outside of the game, which is really fun, but in it (excepting beer and pretzels) you're trying to mercilessly beat the other person down.
D&D is comparatively cheap, doesn't require much outside of a decent imagination, as well as a willingness to role play and not metagame what's happening. It's all kinds of fun, and I have far more hilarious stories about D&D than Warhammer, both of which I happened to start at the same time.
I think what I'm finally getting at here is that Warhammer 40k, with it's prohibitive tabletop costs, is only going to lose people because of all that's required to even play the game. I have a lot more fun with Dawn of War and Space Marine. Which only cost 40-50 bucks per game, just like D&D.
Just some cost-benefit for dinner.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Jim and the Indian Rub
Just for clarification, "the rub" refers to where you have a problem with something in philosophy. Totally technical term.
I've been putting off writing this one for a while, because I'm unsure how to proceed, so let me review the key notions that bring me to this issue:
Causal relationship between utterances and actions.
Oaths being taken.
Objectivism- appeals to a fact of the matter intrinsic to the universe.
Absoloutism- oaths are not to ever be violated.
So, naturally, we come to a situation in which we have a complete pacifist, Jim, scootin along in a jungle until he comes upon a scene where some Indians are about to be executed. The leader of the soldiers sees you as an honored foreigner, and decides to give Jim a choice: kill one, save the rest, or do nothing, and let them all die.
So, I'm rather sure that everyone will go for the former option, because one life to save a large number of others is a reasonable exchange to common sense.
Yet, Pedro is essentially put into a situation in which he must make a choice, both of which end with at least one person being killed. While there's something to be spoken of when it comes to actively or passively killing people, the rub exists in his inner conflict.
Should he contradict his devotion to pacifism in order to save a large amount of people? Mind you, he does have to kill the man himself.
Originally, when I considered this situation, I spoke of it as a situation that will never happen, and that it is set up precisely in such a way that there's only one decent choice to make. Coming from a D&D background, I hate this thought experiment. It doesn't even give you the option to kill the guards, the leader, or sacrifice yourself in place of the Indians. Furthermore, it's strange that the men lined up are not given a chance to speak with Jim, since self-sacrifice is something prized in Indian culture. But, even though I tossed this story by the wayside before as unfair, it does represent an issue inherent in my moral structure.
If directly contradicting an oath is the only way to bring about a better state of affairs, then should it be done on moral grounds?
Short answer, yes.
Long answer:
There are at least two ways to approach the situation now. The first, and easiest, lies in the oath-taking process. If there happens to be a "fail-safe oath" which comes to essentially mean "if it ever is the case that contradicting an oath will directly lead to a better overall state of affairs, then I will do so." The issue with this, the consequentialist will say, is that what is essentially being allowed here is a fallback to utility just because deontology doesn't cut it, and has a deficiency here. Is it really a fallback move? Certainly, but knowing when to retreat is essential in war. If nothing else, at the end of the day, isn't morality supposed to bring about a better state of affairs because people will act in a certain way?
The second, without the fail-safe, is for Jim to commit a kind of "moral suicide," where he directly contradicts one of his foundational principles, pacifism, in order that he might slay one man to save many. Having the contradiction, the problem now comes to what he should do next. I think what has to happen next is that Jim needs to reinvent himself from the ground up, in light of the strange experience he has just had. Can he go back to being a pacifist? If he does, what's the point, given that another situation may happen just like when he came upon the Indians.
And here is the problem. What ought one do in situations when it is clearly the better thing to do to contradict promises that have been made? Well, initially in order to protect or save lives sounds very acceptable to me. My dedication to morality doesn't outweigh other peoples' lives, if they are at stake and I can do something about it. I think this should be the main criterion for contradicting promises, if lives are at stake. For, if oaths are made and consistently broken because to do so simply brings seemingly better things about, then the oaths don't mean much. Yet, they pale in comparison to lives being on the line.
So, my answer is essentially "An oath may be broken if doing so will save lives through its breaking."
From here I need to do some more thinking and reading, because inherent in this is a kind of "duty ranking," because I obviously think that saving lives is a greater duty than simply keeping to an oath, in Jim's case, pacifism.
There's more to be said on this contradiction stuff, like:
You're a man of your word.
Your best friend makes you promise to not tell his wife that he's cheating on her.
The wife has a right to know that something is affecting her marriage.
Stuff like this does come about.
As for my answer, another criticism to be laid at it is "If you're willing to lay aside an oath to bring about an overall better state of affairs, then why not just use utility to guide you?"
My response to that is this: Always going for the greatest ratio of good stuff over bad can easily lead to one committing betrayal, which I'll not countenance.
Yay, philosophy!
I've been putting off writing this one for a while, because I'm unsure how to proceed, so let me review the key notions that bring me to this issue:
Causal relationship between utterances and actions.
Oaths being taken.
Objectivism- appeals to a fact of the matter intrinsic to the universe.
Absoloutism- oaths are not to ever be violated.
So, naturally, we come to a situation in which we have a complete pacifist, Jim, scootin along in a jungle until he comes upon a scene where some Indians are about to be executed. The leader of the soldiers sees you as an honored foreigner, and decides to give Jim a choice: kill one, save the rest, or do nothing, and let them all die.
So, I'm rather sure that everyone will go for the former option, because one life to save a large number of others is a reasonable exchange to common sense.
Yet, Pedro is essentially put into a situation in which he must make a choice, both of which end with at least one person being killed. While there's something to be spoken of when it comes to actively or passively killing people, the rub exists in his inner conflict.
Should he contradict his devotion to pacifism in order to save a large amount of people? Mind you, he does have to kill the man himself.
Originally, when I considered this situation, I spoke of it as a situation that will never happen, and that it is set up precisely in such a way that there's only one decent choice to make. Coming from a D&D background, I hate this thought experiment. It doesn't even give you the option to kill the guards, the leader, or sacrifice yourself in place of the Indians. Furthermore, it's strange that the men lined up are not given a chance to speak with Jim, since self-sacrifice is something prized in Indian culture. But, even though I tossed this story by the wayside before as unfair, it does represent an issue inherent in my moral structure.
If directly contradicting an oath is the only way to bring about a better state of affairs, then should it be done on moral grounds?
Short answer, yes.
Long answer:
There are at least two ways to approach the situation now. The first, and easiest, lies in the oath-taking process. If there happens to be a "fail-safe oath" which comes to essentially mean "if it ever is the case that contradicting an oath will directly lead to a better overall state of affairs, then I will do so." The issue with this, the consequentialist will say, is that what is essentially being allowed here is a fallback to utility just because deontology doesn't cut it, and has a deficiency here. Is it really a fallback move? Certainly, but knowing when to retreat is essential in war. If nothing else, at the end of the day, isn't morality supposed to bring about a better state of affairs because people will act in a certain way?
The second, without the fail-safe, is for Jim to commit a kind of "moral suicide," where he directly contradicts one of his foundational principles, pacifism, in order that he might slay one man to save many. Having the contradiction, the problem now comes to what he should do next. I think what has to happen next is that Jim needs to reinvent himself from the ground up, in light of the strange experience he has just had. Can he go back to being a pacifist? If he does, what's the point, given that another situation may happen just like when he came upon the Indians.
And here is the problem. What ought one do in situations when it is clearly the better thing to do to contradict promises that have been made? Well, initially in order to protect or save lives sounds very acceptable to me. My dedication to morality doesn't outweigh other peoples' lives, if they are at stake and I can do something about it. I think this should be the main criterion for contradicting promises, if lives are at stake. For, if oaths are made and consistently broken because to do so simply brings seemingly better things about, then the oaths don't mean much. Yet, they pale in comparison to lives being on the line.
So, my answer is essentially "An oath may be broken if doing so will save lives through its breaking."
From here I need to do some more thinking and reading, because inherent in this is a kind of "duty ranking," because I obviously think that saving lives is a greater duty than simply keeping to an oath, in Jim's case, pacifism.
There's more to be said on this contradiction stuff, like:
You're a man of your word.
Your best friend makes you promise to not tell his wife that he's cheating on her.
The wife has a right to know that something is affecting her marriage.
Stuff like this does come about.
As for my answer, another criticism to be laid at it is "If you're willing to lay aside an oath to bring about an overall better state of affairs, then why not just use utility to guide you?"
My response to that is this: Always going for the greatest ratio of good stuff over bad can easily lead to one committing betrayal, which I'll not countenance.
Yay, philosophy!
Monday, October 24, 2011
Ebou Dar
I love this culture. I find it to be the most audacious, the most buxom, and where a lot of fun things happen in the series.
Ok, I just like watching Mat squirm while Tylin has her royal way with him.
Ebou Dar represents a funny addition to the cultures of Randland, if simply on the basis of the marriage knife.
When an Ebou Dari couple tie the knot, the woman is given a dagger, and, with the blessing of the state, she may use it on her husband should he ever displease her. That's bloody hilarious, especially when you get this feeling that Ebou Dari husbands find the fact funny and agitate their wives, a specific case being Setalle Anan's husband. I think for my gender analysis, this is quite a blatant violation of gender equality in the case of married couples. Albeit, I have to wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye.
BOOM, went there!
So, the one thing I remember most about Ebou Dar's fashion comes from the deep neckline and bodacious boobage going on. So, let's assume a man courts a lady for her milk mounds, and is simply desirous of her for pleasure. Not the basis of a good marriage. Considering that people keep what goes on in the bedroom to themselves, including in many cases unwanted sex, this seems like it could be a great safeguard to women seeking husbands. I'm only 3/4 of the way through Crown of Swords at this point, but I don't know if any mention comes of Ebou Dar's policies towards divorce.
The marriage knife was my main topic to write a little on, and now I want to touch a bit on the gender division as far as jobs go.
Again, with Setalle and her hubby. He goes out and catches fish for a living, she runs the inn. In fact, all the inns are run by women in Ebou Dar, while only men get to be ship captains.
Why?
Honestly, I think this may be a culture reference to the island of Siphnos.
Without going into more detail about it, there's a theory that there was a kind of matriarchy in the Mediterranean, specifically Greece. We've some mythological basis for this, but on Siphnos, the woman gets the house. Period. It's her place, she gets the lion's share of the dowry and whatnot, while the men go out and do whatever. This is actually somewhat similar to what the women of Sparta did, if only in that the Spartan ladies looked after the houses.
Considering everyone's pension for dueling and getting in fights, the marriage knife is partially indicative of the culture that produced it, as well as a signpost against men that just want a woman for her charms. I think that my assertion is here is decent without more data. Hopefully I'll have something more to write on the matter when I finish up Crown of Swords.
Til the next time!
Ok, I just like watching Mat squirm while Tylin has her royal way with him.
Ebou Dar represents a funny addition to the cultures of Randland, if simply on the basis of the marriage knife.
When an Ebou Dari couple tie the knot, the woman is given a dagger, and, with the blessing of the state, she may use it on her husband should he ever displease her. That's bloody hilarious, especially when you get this feeling that Ebou Dari husbands find the fact funny and agitate their wives, a specific case being Setalle Anan's husband. I think for my gender analysis, this is quite a blatant violation of gender equality in the case of married couples. Albeit, I have to wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye.
BOOM, went there!
So, the one thing I remember most about Ebou Dar's fashion comes from the deep neckline and bodacious boobage going on. So, let's assume a man courts a lady for her milk mounds, and is simply desirous of her for pleasure. Not the basis of a good marriage. Considering that people keep what goes on in the bedroom to themselves, including in many cases unwanted sex, this seems like it could be a great safeguard to women seeking husbands. I'm only 3/4 of the way through Crown of Swords at this point, but I don't know if any mention comes of Ebou Dar's policies towards divorce.
The marriage knife was my main topic to write a little on, and now I want to touch a bit on the gender division as far as jobs go.
Again, with Setalle and her hubby. He goes out and catches fish for a living, she runs the inn. In fact, all the inns are run by women in Ebou Dar, while only men get to be ship captains.
Why?
Honestly, I think this may be a culture reference to the island of Siphnos.
Without going into more detail about it, there's a theory that there was a kind of matriarchy in the Mediterranean, specifically Greece. We've some mythological basis for this, but on Siphnos, the woman gets the house. Period. It's her place, she gets the lion's share of the dowry and whatnot, while the men go out and do whatever. This is actually somewhat similar to what the women of Sparta did, if only in that the Spartan ladies looked after the houses.
Considering everyone's pension for dueling and getting in fights, the marriage knife is partially indicative of the culture that produced it, as well as a signpost against men that just want a woman for her charms. I think that my assertion is here is decent without more data. Hopefully I'll have something more to write on the matter when I finish up Crown of Swords.
Til the next time!
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
More On Oaths
Forgive my lack of updates. Midterms and an increasing workload do not mix well with me. As an aside, I do have the two Wheel of Time RPG books now, and I can't wait until I get a game in with them!
Today I want to talk about the stringency of oaths.
That is, to what strictness ought an oath, once taken be held?
Here I am going to talk about objectivism and absolutism, with the real juicy bits to follow along that bring up problems for this concept.
To begin with objectivism. The notion is that there is a fact of the matter in moral discourse, that we appeal to a kind of truth which may be given to us by a deity, or may be "woven" into the fabric of the universe. There's this fellow, Shafer-Landau, and if you read his book, Whatever Happened To Good and Evil?, he'll claim that we at least, when we speak to one another about common topics and morality, we act as if there is some fact of the matter. There is one thing about objectivism, and aspect that it has that I prefer over other stances to the subject:
Moral Progress. Yes, they're capitalized.
What this means in perspective is that only through objectivism may we at least say that, indeed, we are closer to emulating the moral truth, which makes us better.
If it is not objectivism, then one cannot say that moral progress exists. This tends to scare people, since, and I hate to pull a reductio ad hitlerum, only with objectivism can we say that Nazism is morally wrong.
This fits with oaths because morality is based outside of us, we swear to principles, or by Gods.
Now, as to stringency, there are two options: absolute and contingent. By absolute I mean there is a complete correlation between the promise and actions. Contingent allows for situational allowances to be allowed when certain stimuli are present. What I think oaths are getting at is absolute oath-taking, for we do not expect the President to lay aside his duties because of factor X, or violate his marriage in the oval office because a young lady was available.
So, the position I personally adopt is oath-based absolute objectivism.
I do what I say, I am reliable, and can be depended upon to get the job done.
To end this, I have to bring up the principle problem for this kind of objectivism, and it's all about this story called "Jim and the Indians."
Link!
So, the man's a pacifist, and is put in a position in which the best thing to do is contradict his devotion to pacifism.
So, the question is: Ought we abandon a position like mine because these kind of situations exist?
Been working on that, and I'll have what I hope to be a good answer next time!
Today I want to talk about the stringency of oaths.
That is, to what strictness ought an oath, once taken be held?
Here I am going to talk about objectivism and absolutism, with the real juicy bits to follow along that bring up problems for this concept.
To begin with objectivism. The notion is that there is a fact of the matter in moral discourse, that we appeal to a kind of truth which may be given to us by a deity, or may be "woven" into the fabric of the universe. There's this fellow, Shafer-Landau, and if you read his book, Whatever Happened To Good and Evil?, he'll claim that we at least, when we speak to one another about common topics and morality, we act as if there is some fact of the matter. There is one thing about objectivism, and aspect that it has that I prefer over other stances to the subject:
Moral Progress. Yes, they're capitalized.
What this means in perspective is that only through objectivism may we at least say that, indeed, we are closer to emulating the moral truth, which makes us better.
If it is not objectivism, then one cannot say that moral progress exists. This tends to scare people, since, and I hate to pull a reductio ad hitlerum, only with objectivism can we say that Nazism is morally wrong.
This fits with oaths because morality is based outside of us, we swear to principles, or by Gods.
Now, as to stringency, there are two options: absolute and contingent. By absolute I mean there is a complete correlation between the promise and actions. Contingent allows for situational allowances to be allowed when certain stimuli are present. What I think oaths are getting at is absolute oath-taking, for we do not expect the President to lay aside his duties because of factor X, or violate his marriage in the oval office because a young lady was available.
So, the position I personally adopt is oath-based absolute objectivism.
I do what I say, I am reliable, and can be depended upon to get the job done.
To end this, I have to bring up the principle problem for this kind of objectivism, and it's all about this story called "Jim and the Indians."
Link!
So, the man's a pacifist, and is put in a position in which the best thing to do is contradict his devotion to pacifism.
So, the question is: Ought we abandon a position like mine because these kind of situations exist?
Been working on that, and I'll have what I hope to be a good answer next time!
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Let Me Try This.
Using the raw energy of creation is much akin to setting one's blood afire. Such is the essence of the Warp, of the perverse energy of Chaos that coalesces and condenses to make demons and Gods. Alongside the feeling of fire come frost and filth, between which the energies constantly circulate and mutate. It carries the chance of corruption to normal people, but to a Space Marine, it is only another challenge.
Septimus meditated in his personal alcove, the robes of a scholar adorning him on the floor, his legs crossed as per tradition. Access to his psychic abilities originally came from a practice of his people, emptying the mind and body of all worries and thoughts, and within that emptiness a kind of special energy was found, and one could grasp it. Few were able to find that power, fewer able to grasp it, and a fraction of them survived their first "touching." More often than not, the poor bastards were found by demons, and with sufficient will, were possessed by them, only to cause murder and, in some cases, debauchery that few would speak of. Due to his fortitude and superb physical condition, Septimus entered the tournament that was held every year at the behest of the men from beyond the horizon, to see if any in his tribe could be found worthy to become a God like them, and spend eternity fighting the enemies of man.
While weapons were allowed in the tournament, Septimus entered only with his fists and feet, so the surprise of everyone involved. His development in using that strange energy, along with the meditation required to find it, allowed him to become immensely fast, which he used to quickly subdue every man that he fought. At the end, once he had won every round, one of the giants approached him, garbed as the others, yet wearing robes and carrying a staff. To him, the giant's shoulders looked the most impressive, massive quarter-moons rounded outward to deflect blows, while the rest looked much like standard armor. Without saying a word, the strange man had pointed his staff at Septimus, and the world erupted in searing flames.
Although Septimus could see around him, he was only aware of the pain. Within his mind, a strange voice called, lured to his sudden spike in psychic resonance.
Your world is in pain... I would spare you that, only, you must let me in to help. My will is more than sufficient to drive your tormentor away.
A "face" appeared within his mind's eye, a constantly shifting blue and pink monstrosity without eyes, but a large, cavernous mouth, surrounded by limbs at strange angles. It..."stared" at him, expectant of access.
Septimus felt quite insulted by the strange thing's presumption that he wanted help. He was doing fine keeping the energies assailing him from scouring his soul.
"Leave me, abysmal horror, I've a tournament to win."
With that, he went deeper into the meditative state, pushing his feelings and emotions away, which gave him more power over what was happening to him. With a final burst of pure willpower, he "shoved" the demon from him, and with it, the pain that was affecting him. Septimus could suddenly interpret was was around him, along with the small circle in the sand at his feet.
The giant only had eyes for Septimus.
"Let him be initiated."
Septimus meditated in his personal alcove, the robes of a scholar adorning him on the floor, his legs crossed as per tradition. Access to his psychic abilities originally came from a practice of his people, emptying the mind and body of all worries and thoughts, and within that emptiness a kind of special energy was found, and one could grasp it. Few were able to find that power, fewer able to grasp it, and a fraction of them survived their first "touching." More often than not, the poor bastards were found by demons, and with sufficient will, were possessed by them, only to cause murder and, in some cases, debauchery that few would speak of. Due to his fortitude and superb physical condition, Septimus entered the tournament that was held every year at the behest of the men from beyond the horizon, to see if any in his tribe could be found worthy to become a God like them, and spend eternity fighting the enemies of man.
While weapons were allowed in the tournament, Septimus entered only with his fists and feet, so the surprise of everyone involved. His development in using that strange energy, along with the meditation required to find it, allowed him to become immensely fast, which he used to quickly subdue every man that he fought. At the end, once he had won every round, one of the giants approached him, garbed as the others, yet wearing robes and carrying a staff. To him, the giant's shoulders looked the most impressive, massive quarter-moons rounded outward to deflect blows, while the rest looked much like standard armor. Without saying a word, the strange man had pointed his staff at Septimus, and the world erupted in searing flames.
Although Septimus could see around him, he was only aware of the pain. Within his mind, a strange voice called, lured to his sudden spike in psychic resonance.
Your world is in pain... I would spare you that, only, you must let me in to help. My will is more than sufficient to drive your tormentor away.
A "face" appeared within his mind's eye, a constantly shifting blue and pink monstrosity without eyes, but a large, cavernous mouth, surrounded by limbs at strange angles. It..."stared" at him, expectant of access.
Septimus felt quite insulted by the strange thing's presumption that he wanted help. He was doing fine keeping the energies assailing him from scouring his soul.
"Leave me, abysmal horror, I've a tournament to win."
With that, he went deeper into the meditative state, pushing his feelings and emotions away, which gave him more power over what was happening to him. With a final burst of pure willpower, he "shoved" the demon from him, and with it, the pain that was affecting him. Septimus could suddenly interpret was was around him, along with the small circle in the sand at his feet.
The giant only had eyes for Septimus.
"Let him be initiated."
Friday, October 7, 2011
Jungle Poppy Problems
Salve,
Last night I tried a few games attempting to jungle with Poppy. Even though I thought I was doing everything correctly, two prohibitive things are keeping me from thinking that Poppy can be an effective jungler:
Mana
Hit Points
Now, it may be that I should have a leash, but with the masteries I took, which went to magic pen in offense, down to extra damage and AP in defense, then imp. ghost in utility, I thought that she would be able to withstand taking on Blue buff first.
I was quite wrong. I will test it out with a leash, but lacking any hp regen on her abilities, and with her level one prohibitive mana bar, I doubt that she can be a quick and effective jungler.
As an aside, I took AP Quints, flat armor seals, AP glyphs, and magic pen marks.
So, she doesn't have the sustain to work in the jungle, and that does transfer over to the lane a bit, but without as big a constant early demand.
Heck, the poor gal begins with only a little over 200 mana. So, this issue has me rethinking the character build again.
Sheen is the most important weapon to get Poppy to do well early on with her dps output. Also, since she has mana issues, I think I'll try the following item build:
Mana Crystal
Potions
Sheen
Boots
Boots of Swiftness
Rod of Ages
Force of Nature
Void Staff
Rylai's Crystal Scepter
Lich Bane
So, what I get out of this is the ability to take advantage of her naturally high armor, yet her magic resistance will desperately need a large buff, so enter Force of Nature. Since resistance goes through before damage itself, and if it exceeds 10% of her max hp it gets reduced 50%, I think this will give her the advantage of lasting quite a bit longer than she would otherwise after her initial assassination run.
As for where to fight with her, I would suggest coordinating with your team to take fights into the jungle. If the enemy team won't follow, then send one or two to push a nearby lane, then try to angle them in anyway. She'll be most effective with her CC in the jungle, and a large obstacle to be removed.
Something that will be annoying is that, although you can use Diplomatic Immunity on a tank to get at the carry, if that carry has movement blocking abilities or items, you will be moving slower, just not taking damage. Quite annoying, and so I would suggest entering the fight from as oddball an angle as possible, potentially with a good flash.
Flash over the wall, ult the tank, charge the carry, blow all cooldowns, then hopefully get cake.
I'll attempt this particular build tonight. I'm wanting to play her in ranked matches, so getting a set-in-stone build will work well.
As a side note, I haven't tried her in Dominion yet, but I think she'll be a great champion to use there, due to plenty of walls and her own movement speed buff.
Alright, I will return later with an update on Popps!
Last night I tried a few games attempting to jungle with Poppy. Even though I thought I was doing everything correctly, two prohibitive things are keeping me from thinking that Poppy can be an effective jungler:
Mana
Hit Points
Now, it may be that I should have a leash, but with the masteries I took, which went to magic pen in offense, down to extra damage and AP in defense, then imp. ghost in utility, I thought that she would be able to withstand taking on Blue buff first.
I was quite wrong. I will test it out with a leash, but lacking any hp regen on her abilities, and with her level one prohibitive mana bar, I doubt that she can be a quick and effective jungler.
As an aside, I took AP Quints, flat armor seals, AP glyphs, and magic pen marks.
So, she doesn't have the sustain to work in the jungle, and that does transfer over to the lane a bit, but without as big a constant early demand.
Heck, the poor gal begins with only a little over 200 mana. So, this issue has me rethinking the character build again.
Sheen is the most important weapon to get Poppy to do well early on with her dps output. Also, since she has mana issues, I think I'll try the following item build:
Mana Crystal
Potions
Sheen
Boots
Boots of Swiftness
Rod of Ages
Force of Nature
Void Staff
Rylai's Crystal Scepter
Lich Bane
So, what I get out of this is the ability to take advantage of her naturally high armor, yet her magic resistance will desperately need a large buff, so enter Force of Nature. Since resistance goes through before damage itself, and if it exceeds 10% of her max hp it gets reduced 50%, I think this will give her the advantage of lasting quite a bit longer than she would otherwise after her initial assassination run.
As for where to fight with her, I would suggest coordinating with your team to take fights into the jungle. If the enemy team won't follow, then send one or two to push a nearby lane, then try to angle them in anyway. She'll be most effective with her CC in the jungle, and a large obstacle to be removed.
Something that will be annoying is that, although you can use Diplomatic Immunity on a tank to get at the carry, if that carry has movement blocking abilities or items, you will be moving slower, just not taking damage. Quite annoying, and so I would suggest entering the fight from as oddball an angle as possible, potentially with a good flash.
Flash over the wall, ult the tank, charge the carry, blow all cooldowns, then hopefully get cake.
I'll attempt this particular build tonight. I'm wanting to play her in ranked matches, so getting a set-in-stone build will work well.
As a side note, I haven't tried her in Dominion yet, but I think she'll be a great champion to use there, due to plenty of walls and her own movement speed buff.
Alright, I will return later with an update on Popps!
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Poppy's Equipment
So, I've been thinking today on how to alter how I used to do my Poppy build, which just focused on mass AP, not much survivability. She is an assassin, but she does need to be able to take damage after her initial six seconds of relative invincibility.
I'm still working on her jungling concept, so I'll post that later, but here is the item build I want to test out:
Boots
Potions x3
Boots of Swiftness
Sheen
Force of Nature
Thornmail
Will of the Ancients
Void Staff
Lich Bane
The main issue I have with her is her hit points, but I think it'll get mitigated by her very high defenses against enemies. This lets her move about quickly, which she needs to do- I may try out Boots of Mobility,- Sheen is a must for her early, Force of Nature for MR, Thornmail for armor and harming basic attacks back, Will of the Ancients for AP and Spell Vamp, Void Staff for AP and magic penetration, then Lich Bane to top the cake. I'm a bit worried about her damage output right now, but she has some much-needed utility because of how fast she will be, and how her abilities interact with walls and Lich Bane.
I'll do some testing, and write more on this later.
I'm still working on her jungling concept, so I'll post that later, but here is the item build I want to test out:
Boots
Potions x3
Boots of Swiftness
Sheen
Force of Nature
Thornmail
Will of the Ancients
Void Staff
Lich Bane
The main issue I have with her is her hit points, but I think it'll get mitigated by her very high defenses against enemies. This lets her move about quickly, which she needs to do- I may try out Boots of Mobility,- Sheen is a must for her early, Force of Nature for MR, Thornmail for armor and harming basic attacks back, Will of the Ancients for AP and Spell Vamp, Void Staff for AP and magic penetration, then Lich Bane to top the cake. I'm a bit worried about her damage output right now, but she has some much-needed utility because of how fast she will be, and how her abilities interact with walls and Lich Bane.
I'll do some testing, and write more on this later.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Poppy
Yay, so I'm halfway to level 29, and my efforts at getting access to ranked mode and the tribunal are nearing completion!
Here I want to talk about what is my favorite champion, albeit not one that I have played very often: Poppy, the paragon of DEMACIA!
This is a champion I rarely see get played, and having played her enough to see where she shines and doesn't, I think I know why such is the case.
She demands better positioning than any other champion I have seen.
This is due to her Heroic Charge ability, her E, which has two parts, the first of which is damage due to her tackling someone. The second part, the more vital one, is if while tackling they meet an obstruction, more damage is done, and the target becomes stunned. This is entirely dependent on her positioning on the map, and in certain areas of the map she loses efficiency as a melee assassin champ.
Her most effective place in the map is the jungle, simple as that. After the jungle, in lane trying to work the angles. She actually loses power when you make the push into the enemy base. Although, you can shove someone into a turret or inhibitor.
Oddball part is, she is not classified as a jungler. She'd be great for a jungle invasion, but so far I haven't seen anyone jungle with her, which I have thought of trying out sometime. Issue is she lacks lifesteal when her abilities are used naturally. Although, she has great defenses, and her passive will make up for a lot of her issues.
Speaking of her abilities...
From Riot's own website considering her abilities:
Devastating Blow - Poppy crushes her opponent, dealing attack damage plus a flat amount and 8% of her target's max health as bonus damage. The bonus damage cannot exceed a threshold based on rank.
Poppy crushes her opponent, dealing attack damage (+0.6) plus 20/40/60/80/100 and 8% of her target's maximum health as magic damage. The bonus damage dealt cannot exceed 75/150/225/300/375.
Cost
55/55/55/55/55 Mana
Range
600
Paragon of Demacia - Passive: Upon being hit or attacking an enemy, Poppy's armor and damage are increased for 5 seconds. This effect can stack 10 times. Active: Poppy gains max stacks of Paragon of Demacia and her movement speed is increased for 5 seconds.
Passive: Upon being hit or attacking an enemy, Poppy's armor and damage are increased by 1.5/2/2.5/3/3.5 for 5 seconds. This effect can stack 10 times.
Active: Poppy gains max stacks of Paragon of Demacia and her movement speed is increased by 17/19/21/23/25% for 5 seconds.
Cost
70/75/80/85/90 Mana
Range
600
Heroic Charge - Poppy charges at an enemy and carries them further. The initial impact deals a small amount of damage, and if they collide with terrain, her target will take a high amount of damage and be stunned.
Poppy charges at an enemy and carries them for a short distance. The initial impact deals 50/75/100/125/150 (+0.4) magic damage. If they collide with terrain, her target takes 75/125/175/225/275 (+0.4) magic damage and will be stunned for 1.5/1.5/1.5/1.5/1.5 seconds.
Cost
60/65/70/75/80 Mana
Range
525
Diplomatic Immunity - Poppy focuses intently on a single enemy champion, dealing increased damage to them. Poppy is immune to any damage and abilities from enemies other than her target.
For 6/7/8 seconds, Poppy is immune to any damage and abilities from enemies other than her target enemy champion.
In addition, Poppy's attacks deal 20/30/40% increased damage to the marked target.
Cost
100/100/100 Mana
Range
900
Valiant Fighter - Any damage dealt to Poppy that exceeds 10% of her current health is reduced by 50%. This does not reduce damage from structures.
So, how do these abilities work in unison?
Well, first off, her passive will keep you in the fight for longer than you would have otherwise due to its damage reduction. This gives her amazing effective hit points because of that 50% reduction. Something I have been thinking of for a while is whether or not to go with more hit point-giving items, or with more defense oriented items. Like Force of Nature versus Warmog's armor. Initially I thought that it would simply be better to have more hit points, but since her passive made off of hp, I think it might be better to have higher defenses than normal so her passive will come into play more often.
I'll need to look around for the equations on how her passive works, and I'm thinking that higher defenses will actually come out on top as far as interaction with the passive.
Alright, so generally her ability sequence will go as follows for her assassination and generally fighting game:
W to get speed and an angle of attack.
R to get the damage bonus and invincibility against other enemies.
E to shove them against the wall and stun them.
Q to do massive damage, and make them QQ.
One issue the poor gal has is that her AP ratios are relatively low. However, I generally stack AP on her, primarily for how her Q interacts with Sheen/Lich Bane/Trinity Force. Most recently, I've been wondering about what to do about her choice of equipment.
I think I'll consider her masteries and equipment sequence in a short while. I'll probably do a full DPS, then a jungling build, which demand different things. I do want to pursue talking about my favorite champ, so 'ere we go!
DEMACIA!
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Galad Damodred
Hey there everybody!
Last night I was thinking about the character arc of Galad, whom just happens to be Rand's half-brother. Considering that he goes from being in Caemlyn to The Fortress of Light when the Seanchan attack, to assuming the title of Lord Captain Commander when he kills Valda. Yet, throughout the series until Towers of Midnight, he's just been a case example of Lawful Good.
So, why?
Well, as a character, he believes that the right thing ought to always be done, for its own sake, without recourse to the pains it may cause anyone involved.
So, Immanuel Kant walks into a fantasy story...
So, the first thing one should know about Kantian ethics is that it is based in deontology, or duty-based ethics. Yet, we really don't get a definition for what a duty is in his work, so I've my own definition I like:
A duty is an imperative towards an action.
So, actions are required in moral situations. As for Kant, one mainly need think of his Categorical Imperative, which simply states that one ought only do those actions that one would, at the same time, will to be a universal law. Those actions we will to be universalized- to apply in all situations for all persons- are called maxims, and naturally constitutes morality as such.
Let me give an example:
Should one cut in a line? Well, that depends. Are you willing to say that everyone should always cut in a line? If that becomes the case, then cutting in a line is not a maxim because if everyone did that, then there would be no line to cut in! So, it's self-defeating, and can't be a maxim.
I think this is how Galad approaches his problems.
Galad finds Rand in the garden, clearly intruding. Can he will that everyone in that situation should inform the guards that there's an intruder with the Daugher-Heir? Yep, and does.
After trying to find Elayne, and being rebuffed by the Aes Sedai with no answers, especially after they shirk Morgase's demand that they hand over Elayne, Galad decides to join the Whitecloaks. Later, after being asked why, he states that it was because it seemed right, on account of the Aes Sedai being bitches, and bitches need to be...burned at the stake? Another maxim for him, but this begins his transformation into a more thoughtful character.
So, he kills Valda, takes the Children that want to to Tarmon Gai'don, but eventually gets caught, released, and eventually finds himself putting Perrin on trial for the two Whitecloaks he killed at the beginning of the story.
Essentially, he goes from knowing what to do, to having to take more in consideration of what ought to be done. Sure, Perrin killed two Whitecloaks, but the Whitecloaks killed Hopper and other wolves, which was just as bad in Perrin's eyes. Having been forced to acknowledge that he can't easily figure everything out, he strikes that bargain with Perrin to wait until after Tarmon Gai'don before he sentences him.
This changes after Perrin leads his mad charge down a steep slope with his cavalry, his newly-crafted +4 Flaming Warhammer of the Flying Wolf smooshing Trollocs left and right, to save the men under Galad's command. After saving them, Galad decides that Perrin isn't a bad person, and agrees to make him pay the families of the men he killed, which was nice and reasonable.
Question is, will he have time to alter any more now that him and Berelain are mooning over eachother?
Damn prettyboy...
Last night I was thinking about the character arc of Galad, whom just happens to be Rand's half-brother. Considering that he goes from being in Caemlyn to The Fortress of Light when the Seanchan attack, to assuming the title of Lord Captain Commander when he kills Valda. Yet, throughout the series until Towers of Midnight, he's just been a case example of Lawful Good.
So, why?
Well, as a character, he believes that the right thing ought to always be done, for its own sake, without recourse to the pains it may cause anyone involved.
So, Immanuel Kant walks into a fantasy story...
So, the first thing one should know about Kantian ethics is that it is based in deontology, or duty-based ethics. Yet, we really don't get a definition for what a duty is in his work, so I've my own definition I like:
A duty is an imperative towards an action.
So, actions are required in moral situations. As for Kant, one mainly need think of his Categorical Imperative, which simply states that one ought only do those actions that one would, at the same time, will to be a universal law. Those actions we will to be universalized- to apply in all situations for all persons- are called maxims, and naturally constitutes morality as such.
Let me give an example:
Should one cut in a line? Well, that depends. Are you willing to say that everyone should always cut in a line? If that becomes the case, then cutting in a line is not a maxim because if everyone did that, then there would be no line to cut in! So, it's self-defeating, and can't be a maxim.
I think this is how Galad approaches his problems.
Galad finds Rand in the garden, clearly intruding. Can he will that everyone in that situation should inform the guards that there's an intruder with the Daugher-Heir? Yep, and does.
After trying to find Elayne, and being rebuffed by the Aes Sedai with no answers, especially after they shirk Morgase's demand that they hand over Elayne, Galad decides to join the Whitecloaks. Later, after being asked why, he states that it was because it seemed right, on account of the Aes Sedai being bitches, and bitches need to be...burned at the stake? Another maxim for him, but this begins his transformation into a more thoughtful character.
So, he kills Valda, takes the Children that want to to Tarmon Gai'don, but eventually gets caught, released, and eventually finds himself putting Perrin on trial for the two Whitecloaks he killed at the beginning of the story.
Essentially, he goes from knowing what to do, to having to take more in consideration of what ought to be done. Sure, Perrin killed two Whitecloaks, but the Whitecloaks killed Hopper and other wolves, which was just as bad in Perrin's eyes. Having been forced to acknowledge that he can't easily figure everything out, he strikes that bargain with Perrin to wait until after Tarmon Gai'don before he sentences him.
This changes after Perrin leads his mad charge down a steep slope with his cavalry, his newly-crafted +4 Flaming Warhammer of the Flying Wolf smooshing Trollocs left and right, to save the men under Galad's command. After saving them, Galad decides that Perrin isn't a bad person, and agrees to make him pay the families of the men he killed, which was nice and reasonable.
Question is, will he have time to alter any more now that him and Berelain are mooning over eachother?
Damn prettyboy...
Sunday, October 2, 2011
More Ponies and Marines
So, basically this is the greatest picture ever made.
Currently, FiM is cementing itself in my mind as one of the best cartoons of at least this past decade. Characters are distinct, the stories are self-contained, which is a boon for the young audience it's developed for, and there are subtle jokes and easter eggs to find as an adult for it. Essentially, whenever it becomes the case that I have children, they're watching this. It goes about social situations without beating us over the head about what's happening, and some of the puns are actually pretty funny at times. Hell, episode 12 - which I'm watching right now - is about self-actualization and finding what is significant about oneself.
Woot, ponies!
Now, for Space Marine's multiplayer. Oh, boy, am I annoyed about this right now. While we have been promised a patch soon, hopefully to give us a co-op campaign mode or something, even Last Stand would be awesome at this point, multiplayer has some glaring issues that really have to be addressed. They are as follows:
Assault Marine
Needs more defensive buffs.
Thunderhammer and Poweraxe pale in comparison to the fully-upgraded chainsword.
Again, dies too easily.
Tactical Marine
Longer cooldown for the troll roll. Assault marines can't keep up with that shit.
Meltagun needs more consistent damage, and a longer overall cooldown between blasts.
From what I understand, the Vengeance Launcher is relatively bad for a main weapon.
Devatastor
Too damn hard to kill with the appropriate perks.
Why is it the case that the Heavy Bolter, the weaker of their available weapons, must set up to fire for full effect, yet the superior Plasma cannon and Lascannon don't?
So really, overall this game will desperately need an update that ought to tone down the damage of weapons across the board, and give defensive buffs/extra hp to all marines involved. That way, it will be closer to the UT experience, and we won't bloody die too easily! I understand that the Plasma cannon is str 7 ap 2, but it's a flaming videogame, and the best Warhammer 40,000 gaming experience that's ever been done!
:P no hyperbole there, i've played the games
Still failboating on my Wheel of Time translation. I'll try to get up to snuff on that, but this past week has been full of tests and papers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)