Jump to content

MarcusAureliu#s

Community Members
  • Posts

    156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by MarcusAureliu#s

  1. The so called " great reset" is a rather unsuccesfull try to exchange "shareholder capitalism" for a supposedly more just "stakeholder capitalism". Generally it is legitimate though to critisize supra-national organisations who are under little if no state control if they execute actual power, such as for example private courts who rule over violations of trade agreements. That is indeed a problematic example, as they are used by non democratic, non-sate bodies to undermine political control.
  2. CIV 5 CIV 6 Endless Legend Cities Skylines Cities XXL Dorfromantik Chess Planetary Anihilation Crusader Kings 2 FIFA 09, 12 as a kid
  3. I think one of the main things that need to be considered for balancing is, that for every advantage a civ has, there needs to be an equal disadvantage compared to other civs. This is ofc present in the game: Persians have a slow eco and "weak" archers in the early game, therefore more pop, and cav techs that could make them strong in late game. In some cases it is present in theorie but with too little effect. For example Ptolemies are supposed to have weaker buildings. This is not big enough of a deal compared to both economic and military advantages; if u cant defeat the enemy army u will struggle to destroy many buildings. I see little to no reason why i would pick seleucids over ptolemies in competitive multiplayer. Roman variety for siege and camps for example just dont really make up for slower eco and a lack of pikes rn. Therefore there should be a concept/overview for all civs, on where they are strong and where they are weak, each strength opposed by a weakness. Then the second step could be to make sure, things that are considered a strength and things that are considered a weakness are actually strong or weak respectively in relation to other Civs. I have tried something like that in the past. Just to stay within "meta".
  4. @user1 @Stan` @Dunedan Maybe you could make a disclaimer in the multiplayer Lobby as it was the case for former events. Maybe the competition could also be shared on social media. @ValihrAnt @mysticjim Maybe you can mention the event in some of your videos `?
  5. This is very incorrect. The NATO has been saying that the independence and Integrity of the Ukrain as a state should not be violated by Putins government. Official Ukrainian Army is beeing supported. There have been no claims about "Azov Battalion" beeing good people. German ministery of interior affairs is doing its best to keep german Nazis from joining the fights. German official news channels have reported on discrimination of non-Ukrainian citizens even, so its wrong to imply this is lied about. Still the Ukrainian state itself cant be called a Nazi dictatorship, despite some Nazis supporting fights. Most of german corona conspiracy theorists claiming germany was a dictatorship (lol) follow russian goverment sponsored news, Putins attempt to destabilize the country. Now the same people ofcourse follow the channels where Putin now spreads his war propaganda, as he has always claimed the war was about denazification lol. I can only repeat myself. Yes, Azov Battalions are Nazis helping the Ukraine, but from that it cant be concluded that the Ukraining government is a "Nazi-regime" that needs to be brought down. In fact Zelkensky is quite a liberal i think from what i found about his views. Also as shown above, some of these mercenarys hired by russia are Nazis aswell. So the statement below the picture is pure propaganda.
  6. Funny how "traditional" Neonazi Party NPD supports Russia, while "new school" "national socialist" party "The Third Way" supports Ukraine, maybe we get lucky and they shoot each other lul
  7. Which Russian concerns ? Most of the educated Russian population is not concerned about the west. Most internationally known Russian public figures without direct ties to Putin have expressed their discontent with the war. As far as Putin would need to be concerned, there has been extensive economical cooperation with state concerns, Nordstream etc. His own country wasn't threatened by the "west" in a military sense. That other states dont want to Putin to have direct influence on them can hardly be called agression. If there is a thread it is a cultural and internal, as big parts of russian educated middle class is not in favor of Putins rule. Cant blame it on the west, if living in liberal democracies just seems more appealing to russians.
  8. While i have no intention to discuss all of these examples individually, i dont see how the US endangering and killing civilians in some occassions, or aiding the military coup against Salvador Allende for example justifies Putins actions. I think this is called "whataboutism". More or less all the superpowers have a unglorious history. You have a point when u point at western hyprocrisy, only imposing measures when they feel threatened themselves, but ignoring for example Jemen, but that does not mean Putins actions are justified.
  9. Its Ukrain motherland, they have their own culture and language
  10. See, thats what Europe thought the whole time. Apparently it is not true. Ukraine is not EU member, but part of continental Europe. Also Georgia was invaded. If the baltic states werent in NATO, are you so sure they would remain untouched ? While NATO is not only responsible for good things in the world, it allows its members to stay democratic, and also requires some degree of democracy. Russia isnt and therefore couldnt be a member state yet, although in earlier times there might have been some hope for things to change. Also the lack of attack on NATO member states by autocratic regimes, seeking to expand their power is only due to their military superiority, not because of some dictators ideals or values.
  11. On the contrary, the war will strengthen the bond between Europe and US as allies from what i can see so far. Russia has tried to divide EU and America, by using heavy propaganda. Military force will increase, while staying inside of Nato, which means NATO will be strengthened. EU armed forces will be an additional project,as EU still wont be able to overarch other superpowers by themselves. Current crisis has shown how much EU and US need each other.
  12. While the sanctions will - no doubt - also have bad effects on german and EU economy, problems for Russian State and Oligarchs will be much bigger. Banking system is partially already starting to collapse. As far as energy is concerned, i think mainly heating might be a problem, for this winter its gonna be fine though, until next year gas can be imported from US and elsewhere. If you compare the value loss of Rubel and Euro, the Rubel has been losing much more. Dax lost a few percent, but Russian trading has not even opened - which says much more. As much as Europe and espeically germany depend on russian gas, Russia also depends on gas exports. Gas can be imported from elsewhere, Euros or Dollars cant. What sanctions or consequences may be drawn by non western states if this war will continue is unclear also. The western states economic pressure exceeds the Russian influence by far, concerning getting third states behind them. Just some numbers: Russian GDP: 1,5 Trillion USD, ( Rubel has lost 30% since then), while EU GDP alone = 15 Trillion. This means imports into the west are much more lucrative then into russia. Putins only trump towards autocratic states, is that he doesnt support liberal and democratic values. If Chinese payment system is used instead of swift, that is not great for SWIFT, but far from a defeat. The impression Russia is trying to create, of them beeing a super power does not exactly reflect reality. Ukraince fierce resistance is also leading to decreased respect. The unlikelyness that Putin will be able to maintain control over Ukrain longterms and severe miscalculations also lets him appear weak, and while Russian elite is still supporting him, he might be in trouble longterms. So calling this a defeat, or beginning of a new world order is a bit early.
  13. @Lion.Kanzen Talking of Honduras, i think the " socialist" Manuel Zelaya has improved Hondurans income and lifes much more then the Drug Lord Hernandez, who is liberal/conservative and set up those law free "economic zones" and was selling Honduras ressources to forgeiners .... That would be much closer to corporativism ... not exactly result of a socialist's politics
  14. Also i would like to add, that historicaly socialims was the working class, trying to improve their working conditions, rights, participation, income and so on. Corporations generally try to work against all of that, they fully obey laws of capitalism, trying to maximize their profits.
  15. „Kapitalismus“ bezeichnet in der marxistischen Tradition „die auf Warenproduktion, Marktwirtschaft, Investition von Kapital, Lohnarbeit und Profit beruhende Produktionsweise“ als auch die „von der Herrschaft des Kapitals bedingten sozialen, politischen, rechtlichen und kulturellen Verhältnisse als Gesellschaftsordnung“.[78] Translation: Capitalism is in marxist tradition defined as a " a way of production, that is defined by ware production, market orientation, investing of capital, wage system, aswell as the order of society, created by the social, political, legal and cultural order of society, as it is created through the rule of capital. ( Sry, best i could do XD) Btw i would argue, that most examples of so called socialism are bad ones, as socialism is about democratic, political control of economy and production. Most " socialist" states already failed at beeing a working democracy. Democratic socialism was prohibited in Chile, as well as in Czech Republic (Prague Spring). The last example i find personally very intresting at is was a try to evolve and avoid mistakes made by the soviet union for example. Therefore also " corporativism" cant be called socialist, as there is no democratic control. Monoplies are more the final stage of capitalism. They are one of the reasons, socialists or marxist believe capitalism to be doomed in the long run. In Europe though theres is extensive law beeing implemented to ensure ongoing competition. Also so called progressivism is not necessarly socialist, but also a capitalsim friendly improvement of economic efficiency. Also i warn of such terms as "cultural marxism" as promoted by Jordan Peterson and so on. Equality is also one of the basic principal western capitalist societies are build on. You have to be careful to distinguish between coservativism and liberalism. Some confusion can be understood though, as there is a shared historic origin of liberalism, and socialism, both ulitimately believing humanity is good, and there should be no absolute power.
  16. Decger might be even more up on that list as he is one of the most op team players i have seen, and even vs good other players his flank usually is fast gg, but he doesnt play 1v1 for example. Emperior, Lorenz and Wendy arguable also deserve honourable mention
  17. All time most op players: 1.borg eae 1.Feld 1.Vali here 4.Ophudar 5.Stock 6. Camelius 7.Boudica 8. Decger 9.Jofursloft Honourable mentions x.Rauls x. StarAtt x.Vinme x.hanibal.Barca x. Schweinepriester x. LetsWaveaNub x. nanub x. bandich x. weaerdJokes x.chrstgtr x.chrstms x.faction x.Edwarf x.Darkcity x.fgod Just to be mentioned x.jc (before he got corona and became nub) x.NubZic Players i dont even remember well enough, but they might belong to top 8: y.Romulos ( could even be anka lul ) y.Liberty y.DefenderBenny ( havent seen eough games of new account) y.franksy
  18. Eventually the enemy team: CarelessLikelyAdder-mobile.mp4
  19. @juarca ragequitting when he is in trouble Denethor_death.mp4
  20. Yeah, making concrete suggestions is ofc the next step, this table is just supposed to be a compass to doing exactly that I would for example suggest that roman units have higher price, but better armour, especially champs. For example roman sword could cost 50food + 50 metal + 10 metal, but have also 10% armour increase. P3 eco techs could also give higher bonus, then for example p3 celt eco tech, who could get higher bonus in p1 eco tech. Just to give suggestion where i wanna go with this eventually
  21. Yes, there will be discussions for sure. The point is though, that right now there is not even a rough balance inbetween civs. For example Ptolemies have very good options in all phases, military as well as fast boom and no later eco disadvantages. Can you name a single aspect of the game, where seleucids are superior to ptolemies ? Maximum is heros with different abilities. Also i have tried to characterize existing civs, so their actual advantages should be improved upon, others should be added, or nerved, so that if you compare two random civs there is at least room for argument which one is better in which situation or phase of a standard game. Paying more attention to the pure existence of relative balancing would improve the game a lot. Like for example the ideas of: Sparta: stronger units, but less pop space, Maury weaker units but more Pop space. Gauls better boom, less siege options. Alll those things will need to be expanded during civ differentiation and more of such differences should be added in order to differentiate. Therefore such graphs can be a guidline, on where these differences could be added, and a reminder to keep paying attention to having significant advantages for each civ in relation to other civs. I think this is maybe not the AoE 2 approach of having just minor differences, but i think the game will be more fun and versatile
  22. First of all i think it is important to notice, that rn players who get banned are those, who have 10+ smurf accounts, so it is generally possible to smurf, there are just limits to it. For the sake of the argument, lets assume smurfing is generally allowed. It would mean that all not so well behaved players would have to be banned manually, possibly for each new smurf account. As it has been described above, there are certain ways smurfing is beeing abused, for example by bad behaved players or players who like to surprise others in rated games which can lead to frustration etc. 1) It is probably hard to distinguish between "good" and "bad" smurfs. 2) Even it is going to be hard to agree on rules on that. Is it for example ok not to reveal real identity/strenght and mess up balance ? 3) Who has the time to investigate wether a smurf is a good or bad smurf in every case ? In comparison to a state, 0 AD has no professional law enforcement, and people who work on it are doing it in their free time and bots cant do it. 4)As a result it implies the objective decision that having "bad smurfs" is the lesser evil compared to having reducing "troll" or "protection of identity" kind of smurfing. "Trolling" is just not such a vital or even intended part of having funn with the game, while "bad smurfs" can reduce the comfort for all players drastically by serious offense. Most legal systems, created through democratic processes, containing objective decisions on values would consider honesty, reliability, respect, offenses to peoples personal honour and dignity in the worst case of higher weight compared to very specific, non - life essential ways of having fun. Therefore it seems to be a better solution, to keep current second account policies, and allow exeptions, for example when the same IP is shared between two different persons. It would assumingly be less work to handle, as players first have to come up with arguments, whose validity or at least plausibility could be analyzed more easily. For example in Yekaterinas case, you could just see replays, of them playing 1v1, or TGs ( one was uploaded to yt even) to have prove that two players are involved. Or if people want anonymity for maybe being molested with their original account people could explain their situation aswell.
×
×
  • Create New...