@Vitaly: Studying history can provide insight into the way our economy and the spread of knowledge work. If properly applied, it can eventually result in material benefits for mankind. But one often does not recognize these benefits long before one's research has been used and reused by others. spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html
> Did Germany experience rapid industrial expansion in the 19th century due to an absence of copyright law? A German historian argues that the massive proliferation of books, and thus knowledge, laid the foundation for the country's industrial might.
@DavidWallace That was in response to an act of war, not a political disagreement. Do you really weep for Osama bin Laden, or care nothing for the 3,000 people he murdered in 2001?
Also, if you're attempting to draw a moral equivalence there, the U.S. president owned up to the deed and accepted the diplomatic consequences. Putin did the opposite.
> a sociologist in Germany [computer-simulaed an] election. In his model he assumed that voters' own leadership skills were distributed on a bell curve and that each voter was incapable of recognizing the leadership skills of a political candidate as being better than his or her own. When such an election was simulated, candidates whose leadership skills were only slightly better than average always won.
@Cerberus Well, it's obvious that they aren't the bests judges of leaders. But what's not obvious is the degree to which they utterly fail at identifying leaders.
There are many more factors that influence why people vote for a certain person, so that the total balance of votes, which would otherwise favour better leaders to some degree (because the lower half vote more or less at random, while the upper half vote for someone better than average), gets pushed and pulled in various directions, resulting in populist leaders, most of the time.
@MrShinyandNew安宇 Perhaps it will be of some consolation that society is a bit more complex than simply people recognizing skills one of one. For one thing, people will also follow public speakers and writers who recommend or detract from candidates.
@Cerberus Yeah, like the Oprah vote. But that probably works just as badly in the end because those people are no better than average at lots of things too.
@Mahnax So, I'll be quite frank. It certainly is possible for someone in their 20s to compete in a Level-11 faction, but from what I've seen, only one or two players in their 20s ever made it to positive average delta in faction wars. So we have a bunch of applicants in their 20s (as high as Level 27) sitting on our applicants list because they don't have appropriate defense decks, but also a few Level-20s in our faction.
@Mahnax Here's some faction stats for the last week I have just created: i.imgur.com/EmJpC.png (Name, Raw Delta, Average Delta per War, Active Battles, Level). You can see that most people in their 20s and 30s are somewhere down there.
@MrShinyandNew安宇 They may be worse or better, but the effects are significant. So this random distribution used by the German sociologist is perhaps not a significant factor.
@Mahnax That Level-27 who has a positive average delta per war fought 50 battles/day in the last week on average. (1 battle takes 10 stamina, which is 10 minutes, but everyone dumps their staminae's when they have accumulated enough of that. It's not necessary to sit there and wait for the stamina bar to regenerate.)
> It seems to me that for many, many years now one of the absolute requirements to be a conservative in this country is that you must, by necessity, be blisteringly, disgustingly, sociopathically hypocritical.
So, shall I tell him that if he is willing to a) construct a solid defence deck, b) commit to a large number of battles per day, and c) got very good cards, that he can join/apply?
Did you see that the canadian recording industry is trying to have the law changed so that they can compel ISPs to hand out customer names with no court oversight?
Oh, and about defense decks, Rainbow strike/rush decks (mixed Imperial, Xeno, Raider, Righteous, etc, as opposed to mono decks, which are built from cards that belong to a single race) are still good enough in the current meta game and are easy to make in your 20s or 30s.
And by balanced, I mean two or three 1-delay cards, two or three 2-delay cards, a couple 3-delay cards, and possibly a 4-delay tank like Abominable Raksha and Iron Maiden (which you get for completing Mission 169, an absolute must in a strike/rush deck these days). Also, they should complement each other's abilities.
Oh, and as you can see, most of those cards I listed (and cards in my own deck) are rewards. They come mostly from doing achievements, which are listed here along with their respective cards: warmetal.wikia.com/wiki/Tyrant/Achievements One (Hephatat) is a raid reward.
Also, the best way to buy Gold packs is to grind 20K gold and enter a Gold sealed (not Gold/Enclave or Standard) tournament. That way, if you choose to keep the cards, you will a) buy 4 Gold packs for 5K gold apiece, which is 20K gold, same as buying them in the store b) get an uncommon card simply for participating in the tournament c) get the chance to win some gold back (and a rare card for being in the top 25% and higher) if you get good enough cards.
So you can pretty much ignore Gladius's skills, and choose between a high-attack card (Gladius) and a Weaken All 1 card (Nimbus), whatever you need most right now.
I have just simulated 396 spam decks of the type Atlas + 10 of some Common, Uncommon or Rare card at 10,000 battles each against Mission 51. Here are the top results:
There are a few thousand factions in WMT now, of which the vast majority are dead as a doornail. Only the top200 are relatively active, and activity spikes at about top40 and gets higher from there.
@Mahnax No. Faction battles only cost stamina. And you gotta spend gold on cards, obviously.
@Mahnax OK, you can build a third type of deck to use in future: Asyla, Hatchets, and Annelid Mass. First, you play an Asylum or two, and then a Hatchet or an Annelid Mass, if the enemy doesn't have a lot of siege. (Mission 51 is siege-heavy).
By the way, according to the simulator, Gladius is marginally better than Nimbus for the next few missions. So looks like its high attack is more useful than Nimbus's Weaken All 1 after all, @Mahnax.
I am too poor in English and I wrote a mail to my boss after the finish of the work that "The changes have to be on the rprc site being done." is that correct sentence without any grammatical mistake.
@Reg Also, I disagree about defense decks. It's too easy to forget that if we relax the requirements, we are going to end up with everyone at 0/10 on defense every war. Even if it's 3/7 instead (and we know 5/5 is perfectly possible with good defense decks), then, assuming our enemies are on Surge and we have 50 players, that means −5000 points for the enemy.
Which of the following is more appropriate / polite?
I would like to bring a couple of facts (or things?) to your notice.
OR
I would like to let you know a couple of facts.
Please advise.
@RegDwightѬſ道 A ballpark calculation based on my dumped defense statistics tells me that our enemies, indeed, get 3—4K points for free every single war on average.
When ever you are writing to someone its really important to use words that sound polite. So it would be better sounding to the reader if u use the "I would like to bring a couple of facts to your kind notice / attention" .
This defense issue annoys me mostly because it is low-hanging fruit. They don't need to grind gold 24/7, they don't need another 50 levels to buy those cards, they only need to complete a few achievements and missions, damn it.
Their aggregated laziness results in 3−4K free points for the enemy every single war.
I am too poor in English and I wrote a mail to my boss after the finish of the work that "The changes have to be on the rprc site being done." is that correct sentence without any grammatical mistake.
When I try to test my class, I got that error. But method exactly exist in that class and in interface which uses that class. Why can be this error?
Which of the following is more appropriate / polite?
I would like to bring a couple of facts (or things?) to your notice.
OR
I would like to let you know a couple of facts.
Please advise.
When ever you are writing to someone its really important to use words that sound polite. So it would be better sounding to the reader if u use the "I would like to bring a couple of facts to your kind notice / attention" .
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…