Jump to content

Deenward

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    36

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Deenward

    General US Politics

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

    Banning protests and closing malls, restaurants and bars are two separate things. And from the looks of it, the protests contributed little to the viral load, and opening up the restaurants added a ton. 

    As for the issue of enforcement, start handing out fines. If the cops won't do it or suck, you still have national guard, and military police. Obviously deploying MPs for civilian duties on US soil would be problematic, but I'm sure a way can be found.

     

    1 hour ago, Johann said:

    Many local/state governments enforced lockdowns on restaurants, etc with threats of fines, losing their liquor license, etc. No need to involve the police, really.

    As @Excellen Browning pointed out, the BLM protests haven't been a problem. I posted some links in the COVID thread about a few major places not seeing any change in their downward trend of new cases, check 'em out:

    Thanks for informing me. I'd heard that the virus in general didn't transmit nearly as well in open air as it does in close quarters, so it's encouraging to see there's data strongly suggesting that to be the case.

    While keeping the country on lock-down inevitably hurts the economy, it's the better option when the alternative has been this ridiculous back-and-forth the administration has been putting the U.S. through has kept Corona around even longer, killing more people and causing even more long-term damage to the economy. A horrible situation like the one we're stuck in isn't going to have some kind of perfect solution that instantly makes everything better, and pretending this isn't a horrible situation hasn't helped anything. People on this forum have talked about how France's firm commitment to the lock-down/stay at home approach has massively curbed the virus's spread there. 

    https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/15/876953360/france-announces-further-reopening-amid-declining-number-of-coronavirus-cases

    General US Politics

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    22 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

    At this point? Stay-at-home orders in states that have seen a surge, that'll probably have to take a few months. And probably a ban on non-commercial interstate travel.

     

    14 hours ago, Slumber said:

    This. We blew our chance to have this mostly under control by summer, so now having things contained by fall is the best bet. The federal government would really have to enforce things like interstate travel bans.

    That makes sense. My only question would be what the best way to enforce these bans would be. Considering how blatantly prejudiced and corrupt large swaths of the police force are, relying on them to ensure people don't break their stay-at-home orders and meet up sounds like a bad idea. Would the federal government have to send in agents to all U.S. states and territories to enforce it? That way, you have a better regulated body of officials far less likely to exploit their position to hurt people or fly off the handle and make impulsive and deadly decisions. Or would the government being on the same page and universally requesting people in the U.S. comply with the rules be enough to convince the vast majority? Either way, it just sucks knowing that the administration is not taking the resurgence of cases seriously.

    It's complicated, too, because people (rightfully) want to continue to protest the systemic racism and police brutality pervading this country and finally get officials from the state to the government level to take the problem seriously. But I can't imagine thousands of people gathering up in tight groups helps quell spread of the pandemic. Should people be allowed to use their right to protest to gather like that, even under/assuming the conditions of a stay-at-home order? I'm honestly not sure right now.

    General US Politics

    in Serious Discussion

    Posted

    I'm wondering; it's clear to me based on how cases have fluctuated in the past few weeks in the U.S. that the administration has done a bad job of handling the pandemic (cold as ice take, I know). That being said, how should the U.S. government be working with state governments to better contain the number of cases and mitigate the spread of the outbreak? I know there's only so much you can do to stop individuals from making dumb decisions, but since there's likely more U.S. officials COULD be doing, what measures should they be taken that they haven't?

    How many units do you think should be deployed max in a chapter?

    in General Fire Emblem

    Posted

    13 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

    Well, what about the players that simply prefer their favorites? It doesnt have to be designed around difficulty, in my opinion. If anything, make that an option you could toggle on/off.

    That's a compromise I can get behind. I just believe that kind of system would benefit larger cast FEs, especially since they spend so much time on developing the characters and the world through said characters. Not only does fatigue add verisimilitude to the "war is cruel and exhausting" theme underlying most FEs through gameplay and story integration, but it organically offers players opportunities to try other units out. While less linear FEs (8, 13, 2 out of 3 routes of 14, 15, and 16) give you ample time to use everyone if you so desire, I think these random battle opportunities disassociated from the main story that give you said opportunities are a tedious grind that are unrewarding to play. Another potential idea is adding one paralogue for each character that gives players a more engaging level that lets them make a more informed decision about whether they're interested in the unit or not. 

    How many units do you think should be deployed max in a chapter?

    in General Fire Emblem

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

    Shouldnt this be the choice of the player, though? Forcing it only achieves the opposite effect, I think.

    I'm not for removing player agency on that front entirely. Stamina drinks still allowed people to prioritize certain units over others. I think there are a number of Fire Emblem players who'd like to use certain units, but either don't want to dedicate the time to another play-through or don't want to go through the tedium of training them over someone you're already using them. Fatigue with a sufficient but not unlimited supply of stamina drinks strikes a fine line between these two philosophies. As long as the other units aren't complete garbage, newer players especially who are familiar with more traditional rpgs like experimenting with all the tools in their box if they have the time. I think Fire Emblem benefits from further motivate people to do this through a system that forces them to think more about unit deployment during battle preps. In other RPGs, the big reason I don't experiment with other units is because they don't autolevel. If they do, I take them out for a spin every now and then just to see how they work. Since it takes only one chapter for a unit to bounce back, it's not that punishing either.

    Another thing to keep in mind is a modern FE is NOT gonna be as punishing or obtuse as Thracia can be. 

    How many units do you think should be deployed max in a chapter?

    in General Fire Emblem

    Posted

    I'm gonna echo a bunch of others here and say 12-15 works for bigger casts on most maps. If the capacity is too high, you'd have to go out of your way to balance the maps around players having an absurd number of units. It doesn't help that playable units tend to be a lot stronger than generic enemies in most FEs.

    At the same time, I hate the fact that most FEs incentive using the same dozen or so people over and over. It leads to too many bench-warmers who, depending on what kind of player you are, you may never find time to use. I'm all for bringing back the fatigue mechanic (or a variation thereof) to encourage players to use units beyond the same squad they like to default to. 

    Mark in the remake

    in Fire Emblem

    Posted

    On 6/8/2020 at 7:21 PM, Samz707 said:

    Just Artwork.

    I actually like Mark for how minor they are (My first FE experience being Awakening probably had something to do with that since I kinda had problems with Robin from the start.), while I would theoritically like Mark to be maybe made a Dancer-style character (Buffs other units but is either unable or really terrible at fighting.), considering how IS have been treating Lyn lately/avatars in general, if they gave Mark an bigger role he'd turn into an overpowered unit who can romance almost everyone and they'd heavily push Mark X Lyn to the point of being obnoxious.

    So yeah just Artwork because I do not trust IS to not turn him into the kind of overpowered player-pandering Avatar that I hate with a passion if they start adding to him in any other way.

    Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

    I don't want an FE 7 remake to turn into another FE 12. Fire Emblem has enough worldwide notoriety at this point that you don't need a self-insert to help immerse yourself in the mechanics and world. I'd go a step further like a few others here have already and just nix "Mark" entirely. Even Lyn mode stands totally fine on its own. Removing Mark would just require some inconsequential rewrites here and there. 

×
×
  • Create New...