Spzi

As a german, I feel the right side is much more alien to me than the left side (split at "Start here").

Is that circumstancial, or does it reflect some linguistic truth? Like, are the languages on the left one family, and the ones on the right another family, or however linguistic taxonomy would call that?

Maybe it's just that the left side includes all the germanic languages, so that feels more familiar. There are also languages on the left side where I have no clue what or where that might be. But much more so on the right side.

Right, that was the spirit. Though to be honest, it can harm. Some people are shy. Or strongly shy away from awkward situations caused by not-yet-close-friends. They can still be great friends, but unlucky situations during the getting-to-know each other phase can prevent that. We judge people with different standards, depending on how close they are. So when you interpolate distant-behavior to predict close-behavior, there is probably some error margin.

So there is some risk involved in asking, but likewise for not asking. I guess just be you and see where it goes.

One final thought: I think it's important to take care that the question is not perceived as an accusation.

Usually I stop after 2 or 3 attempts.

You could also ask him directly. Maybe he's generally not interested in lunching together, or he was just too busy to respond, or whatever. These questions can be awkward, but also deepen a friendship. A risk-reward mechanic in the game of life.

While possible, it goes against the Mediocrity principle:

The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior.[2][3]

Right. Also the speed of transition matters a lot.

Take any devastating effect that climate change might bring. Regions becoming uninhabitable, millions migrating, thousands of houses destroyed, crops failing, species going extinct.

For any of these effects, it helps a great deal if they can be delayed by years or hopefully decades. It gives everything more time to adapt. Like 10 million people migrating in 1 year puts a hell lot more stress on everybody involved (including the receiving countries) compared to 10 million migrating in 10 years.

Or your country might be blessed to deal with wildfires and floods one after the other, instead of both occuring simultaneously.

More time is worth more effort.

Much like that comment. Can you give a better example, or express why it's a bad example? That would bring some quality in.

FYI you can self-host GitLab, for example in a Docker container.

You can find "piggy power" at the bottom of the article, headlined "How to describe your game instead".

Pixel Washer is a cozy, zen-like game where you play as a cute *piggy power washing* beautiful pixelated worlds.

I can read it in two ways: Either you're a ghostly piggy power, who is washing. Or you're a "piggy", who is "power washing". The grammar is ambiguous.

Maybe you meant to take side for the interpretation as a "cute piggy". I agree that's the most likely interpretation.

Still, this might confuse or downright misinform some readers. The main point of the article was to communicate what the game is in a clearer, more accessible way. So I found it worthwhile pointing out how it kind of fails there.

The author was concerned somebody might read a description like "Pixel Washer is like PowerWash Simulator meets Stardew Valley", and partially fail to understand it, because they don't really know what "PowerWash Simulator" or "Stardew Valley" are. Because they aren't literate enough in game titles.

But similarly, one can worry readers might not know certain words or grammatical constructions (maybe because they are no native speakers, or for other reasons), to decide wether it's a washing power or a piggy washing; because they aren't literate enough in English.

Describing your game by listing other games is tempting, but not a good idea, and I'm about to convince you why.

That did not age so well. I found most arguments rather weak. Here's an overview of all the three arguments, copied from the article:

1. It requires your audience to be familiar with those games
2. It creates pre-conceived notions, setting high expectations
3. Players prefer to discover the similarities on their own

Generally, we have at least two options for describing thing A: We can relate it to another thing B ("Pixel washer is like Stardew Valley"), or we can relate it to some abstract attribute ("Pixel washer is uplifting"). Either way, we use language shorthands to describe similarities with other known entities.

About 1: Yes, that is obviously true. And it's also true for the opposite, when you don't relate your game to other games. Granted, your description becomes more accessible to a broader audience since it does not require them to know the other games. But instead, the reader now has to be able to understand and visualize what your description might look and feel like as a game (and thus becomes less accessible again). Take for example the first sentence of the proposed better description:

"Pixel Washer is a cozy, zen-like game where you play as a cute piggy power washing beautiful pixelated worlds."

I'd flag 'cozy' and 'zen-like' as probably rather less known and/or well-understood terms. I'm also not sure what 'piggy power' means. Is it even meant as one thing or is english grammar misleading as so often? Does it involve actual pigs or only their powers, whatever that might mean? But fair enough, even if all that remains not understood, the minimal takeaway is probably that it's a game with pixels and pigs and washing. So yeah, the alternate description probably works for most people.

But in the same way, a description referring to other games also works for most people.

In case of unclear references, a game-reference wins over a word-description. Like when I look up 'cozy' and 'zen-like', I may or may not come across definitions and pictures which convey the same idea as the author intended. For example, I might find results about baking cookies or shooting arrows, which have nothing to do with washing pigs. Whereas, when I look up "PowerWash Simulator" and "Stardew Valley", the results are far less ambiguous.

Argument 2 is the strongest from my point of view. But again, it's pretty similar for both ways. It should be kept in mind. Maybe it's best to ask your game testers how they would describe the game, including those who don't like it, to avoid setting too high expectations because you fell in love with your game while making it.

Argument 3 was entirely new to me. It never crossed my mind, nor did I hear anyone complain about it. I think people very much appreciate language shorthands, if they are used well and are not misleading. If so, they can save time and give a crisp description. And let's not forget that we are talking about advertisement. We know we are being lied to, that a 'fast-paced action shooter' can feel dull and boring quickly. As the author points out, these descriptions serve one purpose only; to generate more sales.

I also wanted to include a reference to Roguelikes or Roguelites. Apparently there once was a game named 'Rogue', which no one knows. But it spurred other creators to make something similar, and now we have genres called Roguelike and Roguelite. I think that's kind of funny in this context, since in this case you somewhat cannot describe the genre without comparing it to another, specific game.

Last but not least, the whole argument is probably less relevant in mainstream games, but more so in indie, or niche, new games in a creative way. When there is almost nothing which is very similar, comparisons to other games might work less well than if you're just releasing another RTS or FPS.

Yes, the R/W cats are overpowered. They even outclass RedDeckWins in their aggressiveness.

And single cards of the overpowered combo can be found in other decks, too. They just introduced a few too strong pieces with [[Ocelot Pride]], [[Guide of Souls]] and [[Ajani, Nacatl Pariah]]. Though [[Unstable Amulet]] and [[Amped Raptor]] are very often part of these decks, or played in other types, as they are also strong by themselves.

It's really frustrating to play against these. For me, the biggest part of the frustration is the frequency at which these cards are encountered. It feels like 2 in 3 BO1 matches are one of those. Like everybody wants to play with the new big toys. Which is understandable, but the lack of diversity makes the game rather dull at the moment.

Recently, I watched a video about card balancing in trading card games (short version: It's impossible). Guy talked about engines; multiple cards working together, and how to balance with those in mind. Conclusion was, it is okay to introduce those. Just make sure to make the individual cards slightly less efficient.

I think this is where WotC failed. They introduced a new engine (Ocelot generating tokens, Guide gaining energy from it, Amulet drawing cards with it, all without requiring mana apart from the initial, very low cost), which can easily kill an opponent in 3 or 4 turns. And the single cards by themselves are also so good that they are being included in many other decks.

Strong, versatile, very efficient. It surely is fun to play, even against once in a while, but they went over the top once again, which makes diversity suffer.

Nice summary. Yes, turnout. It will probably increase for Republicans. But since everybody can guess that, it will just as likely increase Democrats turnout. We should expect many effects to affect both sides, like Democrats voters now also have a higher attention that there is an election coming up. I think the effect on swing voters, if there are any left, is marginal.

Yeah, I guess you're right.