Domain name

So I'm looking to acquire a domain name and then get a web hosting provider in order to give the personal web site thing a try again. The goal is to use the site to host some basic info about myself, possibly this blog, my resume, along with some pet project.

Here are some things I would like to do:
1. Create a content aggregator page. This page would include content from sites, formatted as I choose. It would allow me to aggregate the majority content that I read into a single page.

2. Create the web site using newer technologies I haven't had a chance to play with as much.

3. Host some streaming audio and videos as I see fit.

I know I can get a lot of this for free or even use iGoogle for a hunk of the content. However, that's not the point. The point is to gain knowledge by doing it myself and also to have greater ownership over the project.

The first problem is finding a domain name. I've had several domain names in the past that have expired due to me not caring anymore. I may feel the same way again, but I'm willing to give it another shot. Both of those domains are now off the market due to domain squatters. Bastards. This leaves me with the opportunity to choose a new name that is available in the .com, .org, or .net top-level domains (tld). I'm not willing to take a good name even though it might be available in Malaysia or have a .tv suffix. I need a good name that fits the standard tlds.

The list of available names has disappeared slowly over time due to legitimate ownership and also squatters (bastards). I need a name that I think is cool, but also that is available.

This is proving difficult.

Design flaws

So this weekend I cleaned for the upcoming parental visit. In between shifts as apartment janitor, I played a little Team Fortress 2 (TF2). It's a fun game, but with some frustrating problems.

I was playing one of the converted old-school maps included with the game, 2Fort. It's a symmetrical map where the blue team and red team battle it out to play a more modern, violent game of capture the flag.

I was rocking the shit as I usually do except periodically I would die. Dying is inevitable in TF2. However, the frustrating aspect was not that I died, but rather the manner in which I did. I scored approximately 65 legit kills (not assists) and had about 23 deaths. Approximately 16 of those deaths were the result of cloaked spy players.

The spy is a rather unique class in the game. For killing other players, he is armed with a pistol and knife. For destroying enemy buildings (turrets, health and ammo dispensers, and teleporters), the spy is armed with a 'sapper' which drains the strength of a building until it explodes. The final weapon a spy possesses is a disguise kit. A spy can disguise himself in the form of an enemy class. I lied about the final part. The spy also has a cloaking device to turn completely invisible. This sounds pretty fun and good, doesn't it? The downside to being a spy is they have a very low amount of health and can be killed easily.

It can be observed that the game design intention for the spy was to disguise and cloak deep into enemy territory, sapping enemy buildings and knifing enemy snipers in the back. However, there's a flaw in this game design idea. Very few players actually do this. Most players either play defense, cloak to about mid-level or the more brave go barely to front of the enemy territory, cloak, knife an enemy player, retreat, and repeat. It is efficient and amazingly unbalanced. A spy breaks one of my cardinal sins of good game design in a very horrid way. A spy can not only get a guaranteed first hit on an enemy player, but that first hit is a guaranteed one-shot kill on that player. It's an unavoidable death. Unavoidably horrible.

Now, I understand in more advanced play, teams will be spy checking more often with pyro burst (another class which shoots fire). This still isn't a constant even with good play. Again, here is the winning formula to consistent guaranteed kills.

1. Disguise.
2. Cloak.
3. Uncloak to quickly knife in back for kill.
4. Redisguise and cloak quickly, running away.

No other class in the game has the capability for guaranteed kills. This is horrible game design. Every other class must rely aim or positioning. The only other class in the game that doesn't rely on aim or positioning is the engineer who relies on upkeeping static buildings to do his dirty work. An engineer can never reliably get kills in mid-field or on the front enemy lines because it will be near-impossible to maintain good upkeep on those buildings against good players.

There's a number of other problem areas in the game. Here is what I would do to balance out a few of the weaker classes.

* Soldier
Increase the number of rockets available by 4 to reduce dispenser runs.
Increase the number of rockets loadable by 1 or 2 (to go up to 5 or 6) to equalize demoman grenade spam.
Increase rocket damage due to the risk of playing a more mid-range/close-range class.

* Demoman
Decrease number of loadable sticky grenades to 6. There's no reason a class with high action management should have such a high payload.
Decrease sticky grenade damage slightly. The damage is too high for a class with a blatant action management advantage.

* Spy
Replace the ability for spys to go invisible with the ability to become semi-invulnerable while disguised. Players can still shoot spys to do damage (although significantly reduced while semi-invulnerable), but will not be able to be set on fire during this semi-invulnerability time period thus removing the most obvious sign of being a spy. This means that aware players can still kill disguised spys and also see them coming. However, unaware players will still get a knife in the back.

* Engineer
Buildings are fragile already due to uber rushes and range limitations. Reduce the costs of all buildings so they can be made and upgraded more quickly. The most fun games are when two teams are playing a tug-of-war game to gain positional advantages. Making buildings easier to build will enhance this factor.

* Scout
I wouldn't change much about the Scout. The double-jump with improved speed is very cool and deadly at the hands of a good player.

* Sniper
Reduce all randomness in sniper damage. A headshot is an instant kill. A non-headshot hits for a set amount based on the sliding sniper power scale regardless of where you hit an enemy on their body.

* Heavy
Decrease the scatter shot of heavy fire which will slightly increase damage at further ranges.

* Medic
Increase movement speed slightly to give medics a touch more survivability.

* Pyro
Reduce the length of the pyro fire damage over time effect. There's no reason for a class with higher than average action management to have a DoT effect that lasts as long as it does.

* Game changes
Remove critical strikes entirely with the exception of Kritzkrieg charges and headshots. Random critical strikes add artificial game flavor, but is a detriment to fair play. Randomness sucks hard when it comes to FPS play.

Sugar

I am a fairly intense person when it comes to passionate interests in my life. An interest can be a hobby, a lifestyle change, or a routine. When it comes to food, I am not particularly good at moderation. If I like something I eat it. If I do not like something, I do not eat it again. If I need to lose weight, I am unable to eat poor foods in moderation. I have to cut things out of my diet completely to be successful, else I will inevitably fail at the diet. This is particularly self-evident when observing the amount of sugar in my diet.

I try excessively hard to not eat sugar. Yes, I realize this is impossible. Fruits turn into byproducts of sugar. So do starches, grains, and probably a number of other foods of which I am unaware. I haven't had a candy bar, dessert, or soda since 2002. That's approximately 6 years now. I rarely drink juice, more rarely drink tea (always unsweetened), and never drink coffee. I drink water and a whole lot of it. I try hard to not eat foods with aspartame (e.g. - Equal), saccharine (e.g. - Sweet & Low), or sucralose (e.g. - Splenda) in them. This is near impossible to manage completely, but I try fairly hard to manage.

I do this because I am incapable of eating these foods in moderation and it helps my health. I rarely have cravings for extreme sweetness in my food anymore. If I am dying for something sweet, I'll usually have a banana, an apple, or maybe grapes or raisins.

Out of all the sugar-laden foodstuffs, the food I miss most is ice cream. It is amazingly versatile. I love milkshakes and all varieties of ice cream desserts and, yes, delicious girl-drinks like Mudslides.

I love sweets, but I simply choose not to indulge. I sometimes think about having ice cream some day in the future, and it leaves me wistful for a moment, remembering the texture and taste. It fades just as quickly though. I made a choice and the discipline needed to back that choice is needed. It can be painful, but it also can be empowering.

The human factor

I am not one of the leading examples of emotional sensitivity in the world today. I definitely could learn a thing or two about getting in touch with ones own emotions and also better understanding the emotions of others. I do understand, on a basic level, standard human emotional instincts.

Globalization has resulted in many U.S. and European corporations going multi-national. This is done to expand their marketplace and also get a step ahead of competitors upon observing or predicting market transitions. The two countries in which countries are expanded to most frequently are China and India. Why China and India? They have enormous populations which means they are a huge marketplace and also a solid target for good local talent. This is most true in China. India is similar with an additional bonus in that they have strong laws and policies in place to protect intellectual property.

In order to meet these marketplaces head on, outsourcing occurs. Jobs that would normally be created in the original host country where the corporation headquarters are stationed are moved elsewhere. It makes business sense in many ways. I will use myself as an example. I know much about the customs and culture of the United States in order to drive development of a product. Development can be defined as requirements, functionality, usability, testing, and marketing research to best fit a particular product to a particular market. The problem is that I can't fill all of these roles when developing a product for India. I don't know the language. I don't know the culture. I can't effectively fill all of these roles, but local talent certainly can.

The problem occurs in the human factor. When jobs are being migrated or opened in outsourced locales, the existing employees get restless. On an intellectual level, many professionals understand the business loyalty is no longer present in the modern workplace. It is rare for an employee to hold the same job for 30+ years, gathering his or her pension, and then move to a condo in Florida. Companies are more fickle. They are more concerned for the inhuman corporation rather than the individual employee. They are more concerned with the shareholders rather than the shareholder. This isn't a diatribe on big brother, but it is a reasonable utilitarian perspective on earning money and developing business success.

Individuals on a non-intellectual level want to feel secure. They want some sort of job security. When that job security is threatened, it causes distrust and low morale. This may seem nonsensical to the non-emotional player. However, it has very real business consequences. It results in lowered productivity and also attrition. The question that businesses need to ask is that how much outsourcing can I manage without tipping the scales overwhelmingly?

I struggle with this issue ethically. I asked my father several times over the years, "Do you ever feel bad firing someone?" He responded, "I don't feel bad because that person always gave me a valid reason to fire them." What exactly defines a valid, ethical reason though?

I understand business reason and I sympathize with the emotional reason of the employee. However, both sides appear so far apart from where they used to be. Globalization indeed. This reason shows more in the form of absolutism and that truly worries me.

Getting my house in order

I have decided I need to get my house in order. One of the problems I've faced in the past year is falling into old habits and not being as rigid in my discipline as I have in the past. Well, no longer!

I have reverted back to an old routine (is it regression or progression to move back to old, yet positive patterns?) last week. I started to run again. Or rather, I started to walk rigorously, then start running again. For me, running is that caustic friend who busts your balls regularly, but you cherish that friend because they are just keeping you honest.

I want to get to the point where I run a comfortable 8-10 minute mile. An 8-10 minute mile isn't outrageous from an Olympian perspective, but it's decent for me. I run at a good jog, building up my heart rate while disgustingly sweating several gallons of water weight.

Now, what is the goal of running? I want to run for the following reasons:
1. Lose weight. I know there are more low-impact aerobic exercises available to lose weight such as biking or various sporting activities, but I like the solitary pain of running. Although it is more jarring on my joints and bones in the long run, I can accept that due to my enjoyment of the mind over matter aspect of running.
2. Run a 5k race. I'm not looking to break any records or compete to win. It's one of those bucket list events (yes, I said it and I apologize) that I want to complete in my life. I want to finish at a decent time for myself and go from there.

The other activity I am working on is generating lists. My mom didn't suggest this, but she is very sharp when it comes to planning details; so I am trying to channel some of her chi into my day-to-day life by writing down things I need to get done. Simple, but effective.

Gameplay speed

Yes, we all need to do a better job at multitasking to make our lives more efficient and productive. However, that's not the multitasking to which I am referring.

I am referring to the number of tasks a player can do at once while playing a game. On a related note, how many actions can a player do per second, averaged over time. It's an often overlooked aspect of game design. Multitasking and action management are one of my major frustrations while playing multiplayer games.

I will use two games as an example of how poor game design affects the aspect of action management in a game.

World of Warcraft
This is most easily seen in the aspect of player vs. player gameplay. In PvP combat, whether in battlegrounds (a PvP match involving groups of 10 players or more battling against each other) or arena play (2 vs. 2, 3 vs. 3, or 5 vs. 5 combat where players only have a single life and cannot respawn), players win by most effectively using their gear, racial, and class talents/abilities to their advantage.

A game designer can effectively balance players with equivalent, but different gear by making their gear scale in a balanced manner. The WoW game designers attempt to balance racial skills around timing (how long does a racial ability last for and how long is it on cooldown or rather how long until the player can use the racial ability again). Many players are advocating the elimination of racial abilities from PvP play due to their inherent inbalance. Certain racial abilities are seen as more advantageous for PvP play since they allow for more first strikes and earlier crowd control (Human Perception) or because they can counter crowd control (Gnome Escape Artist, Undead Will of the Forsaken, or Dwarf Stoneform).

Class talents and abilities are, by far, the most difficult problem to tackle. Class talents define gameplay. Gear changes; talents (for the most part) do not. In order to balance class talents, major overhauls need to be done for a class in order to balance that class with all of the other classes in the game. WoW talents and abilities show as most unbalanced when it comes to gameplay action management.

If one class can manage two things at once, while another class can only manage one thing at a time, the multitasking class has a significant advantage. If one class can manage 1 action per second, while another class can manage 0.33 actions per second, the class that can manage more actions per second has a significant advantage. The only way to balance this situation is to do the following:
a) Overhaul the class, adding multitasking talents.
b) Overhaul the class, nerfing multitasking talents.

Now, it's important to use the term 'overhaul' here. The required changes may affect only one talent or ability, or it may affect many abilities. The reason the change is an overhaul is because it would require core gameplay changes to the class.

In WoW, every class can multitask to a degree. For this analysis, I will only look at the core PvP specs for each class. Mages, for example, can multitask via slowing their opponent via a frost attack (which lasts a number of seconds after the initial hit) and continue to output damage or switch to crowd control while that target is slowed. A mage can also output damage or crowd control while their pet, a water elemental, does damage without active management from the mage player.

1. The player tells his or her water elemental pet to attack this target and the pet begins attacking.
2. The player begins to output damage or crowd control on their own while the pet continues attacking (multitasking).

The problem is that each class has various degrees of uptime when it comes to multitasking and actions per second. This is where the major imbalance occurs in the game.

Druids - Can lay down heal over time effects (HoTs) and continue to do additional heals or crowd control while that is occurring.
Warlocks - Can lay down damage over time effects (DoTs) and continue to do additional damage or crowd control while that is occurring.
Priests - Can lay down heal over time or damage effects (HoTs or Prayer of Mending) and continue to do additional heals, crowd control, or mana burns while that is occurring.
Rogues - Opening stealth attack with instant attacks.
Warriors - Undispellable snares with instant attacks.

Rogues and warriors are an interesting case to observe. Barring stealth prevention or detection (which is amazingly useful but not omnipresent for all classes or arena makeups), rogues have a guaranteed opening attack or crowd control. They have an immediate advantage in terms of action management. Both rogues and warriors also can manage instant attacks, which is not common amongst the damage dealing classes in PvP play. They can attack more often, which gives them more gameplay flexibility. The only other class with a major amount of instant attacks is the Warlock, who deals instant damage of time abilities.

Classes that do not have high action management or high uptime multitasking abilities tend to either be much more difficult to play or underpowered. These classes are either under-represented in PvP arena play (the most seriously analyzed form of WoW PvP) or rely on high action management classes to cover for their weaknesses, thus forming a PvP metagame of managing class composition to strengthen ones arena team or countering other popular team compositions.

Some players claim the game is balanced via metagame, but this is a poor argument. The metagame can change based on Blizzard (the gaming company who develops WoW) releasing a patch which only changes one ability. Since gear changes frequently, the only solution to this game imbalance is to overhaul class abilities and talents.

Since WoW has been imbalanced so long, why hasn't this been done yet? I think for two reasons:
1. Overhauling the gameplay of a class is a monstrously difficult task. Despite the fact that many talented professionals work at Blizzard, it also implies culpability of game designers. People are, in fact, only human.
2. WoW has no competition. If WoW has no strong competition, Blizzard has no strong need to work heavily on game balance. If a player dislikes how a class plays, they can choose to create a new character that more matches up with their gameplay likes (whether it's for fun, competition, or balance concerns).

Team Fortress 2
The problem of action management is also found in Team Fortress 2 (TF2). One of the great aspects of first-person shooter game design history is that everyone starts out equal (this has changed with some popular games, but the core FPS game design examples agree with this game design philosophy [Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Counterstrike]). All players spawn as the same type of player. They all have the capability to act and move at the same speed and manage actions at the same rate. The major difference between players is observed based on what weapons they are utilizing and the experience of the player. WoW should be striving towards this where the only balance considerations to make during a play session would be how much gear does a player have and how much experience does a player have.

Team Fortress 2 fails on this front a bit. TF2 has the same problem as WoW in that there are multiple classes with different abilities, thereby making game balance an uphill battle. However, there are core action management differences which show game design failure.

The two classes which strike me as the most imbalanced are the pyro and demoman. The pyro can damage or reposition while fire damage of time effects are occurring. The demoman can fire and forget grenades while firing or repositioning. These two classes have the ability for increased action management in comparison to other classes.

It is fun to see people die in fire. It is fun to also blow people up with a grenade trap. The problem is that it's not as fun to be on the receiving end. I grant that it is usually more fun to be on the winning side of things. Game balance is something to be strived for, not because it is more technically adept to do so, but because it provides a more equal platform for players to get what they want most out of a game, whether it's respawning after a death or tallying another frag -- a fair chance at having fun.

The interrobang

In my quest to write something new every day, sometimes the well runs dry or I don't feel like publicly sharing internal discourse or the daily ramblings of a mad man. In that case, we move to randomness.

One thing I try to do each day is learn something new. I realize that is a simple enough goal, but it's a small task that gives me a minor bit of personal pleasure or amusement.

One area that has interested me is the field of typography - the study of type design and arrangement. There are several typographical characters that tend to pique a greater interest due to either lending themselves to more random use or being lesser known in general.

For example, most people are familiar with the exclamation point - ! (in typography terms, this is called a 'bang'). It is used to convey an exclamation; the stronger emotions of anger, jubilation, or surprise. Also, there is the question mark - ? (in typography terms, this is called an 'interrogative point'). It is used as an interrogative; a query of curiosity.

Most people are not familiar, however, with the interrobang (‽ or ‽). Many modern users often manipulate the classical interrobang usage by using a question mark following an exclamation point (!?) or the converse (?!). This is passable, but technically incorrect. An interrobang is actually the superimposition of the two characters. One character has to be on top or below the other. I was not able to find out details of classical typography to determine if it was more standard to overlay the interrogative point over the bang or the bang over the interrogative point, but I digress.

It is important to note that typographical characters are not constant between locales. Different locales have different way of displaying an exclamation point or question mark. For example, in Greek, a standard latin semi-colon character (;) is used as a question mark. In Arabic, a right-to-left language, the question mark is technically mirrored (؟).

Since more modern typographical input devices, specifically, a computer keyboard, are unable to easily superimpose the two typographical characters, the two characters are placed one after another more commonly. The order of the characters can matter depending on the context. For example, in algebraic chess notation, "?!" would imply a suspect maneuver, whereas "!?" would imply a more interesting maneuver. Some authors use excessive interrobangs or creatively randomized interrobangs to show extreme emphasis of an emotion (!?!??!?!!!!!?!?!?!!!).

It is worth noting the interrobang is not a classical construct. The question mark, for example, is centuries old. The interrobang was not invented until 1962. An advertising salesman, Martin K. Speckter, thought the character would be a good way to convey a rhetorical question. He finally decided on the name interrobang after carefully considering other alternative names - rhet, exclarotive, and exclamaquest.

Several typographers and authors consider the interrobang a confusing character in literary context. Standard punctuation, such as a period (.), question mark (?), or comma (,) are used to clarify meaning or the flow of thought whereas an interrobang implies unclear meaning.

This was an interesting topic to read on. Or perhaps it is better stated...

This was an interesting topic to read on!?

Waste of time

I had a short, yet interesting conversation with a friend this morning about how we use our time. As shown in previous posts, I have had feelings that I have wasted time on silly, release-type activities. I am not so naive to think that all I can do will be filled with productivity, deep meaning, or purpose, but where is the line drawn? It is drawn based on where I choose to draw it, but that's not exceedingly helpful.

The real question is not where I choose to draw it, but why I choose to draw it at that given point.

Then, it starts to get complicated. If I am to spend time on an activity which gives me happiness in the short-term, but prevents both personal and positive progression, is it a helpful activity? Do I choose to indulge in short-term enjoyment because there is something personal and positive there? Or am I choosing to partake as an escape from the difficulty of more long-term creative pursuits? The answer isn't one or the other, but some murky gray (OCD note - apologies to the grey colour afficianados) area.

I don't know, but I have an idea. I just wish ideas came to me more quickly.

Random #1

I'm rather big into random acts of randomness. Here is a great post I found making the rounds of the meta-network sites. It's a list of 9 strange advertisement posters from the 1930's.

Despite the posters that make the easy sexual innuendo references, my personal preference goes to the "They're happy because they eat lard." How can anyone not get a natural high from eating large quantities of lard?

http://www.funnyordie.com/blog/posts/1754

Group commitment

I both love and hate World of Warcraft with the passionate level of enthusiasm one can expect from myself. It is brilliant from a basic game design perspective. There is a generic grind which is painful, but offers enough rewards and quests along the way to keep interest. There's a decent amount of classes to offer gameplay variety. There's end-game content in the form of player vs. player combat or player vs. environment (cooperative) raiding. The game can be played on relatively outdated hardware with a satisfactory frame rate. There's a good amount of grinding to entice power players, yet not alienate casual gamers. Excuse the overused phrase, but it really delivers to a good range of MMO gamers.

However, there are problems.

First, some background. I have played WoW somewhat casually to seriously for awhile now. I raided up to Twin Emperors in vanilla WoW and also raided up to the Eredar Twins in the Burning Crusade before my recent burnout. My main was a mage. I always liked playing ranged classes and I enjoy gameplay with a lot of mobility. That's what the mage offered and I enjoyed it.

The problem is that I had to play with 39 and then 24 other people, respectively. It was both a blessing and a curse. Raids, in general, are a social, yet stressful construct. People want to have fun although in different ways. Some people love the chat room aspect in terms of typing in-game chat (via guild, raid chat, or private messages) while others are more into plowing through content. There are various additional subdivisions within each of these two main areas.

Raiding is extremely challenging from an organizational aspect. You need to get committment from other people to attend the raid and commit yourself. You need to work as a group to down boss encounters which is amazingly fun.

It can also be amazingly frustrating. Some of the major factors in my burnout have been dealing with players who don't play for the same reasons I do. I raid to dominate content. I don't care much about loot other than as a tool to make dominating the game more simple. I understand that it's difficult finding 24 other people with the same mindset and there's no doubt that some diversity is a good thing. However, when the commitment varies to reach individual goals, I had some resentment build up since I was feeling I was contributing more and held down under the thumb of players who didn't want to contribute as much for very valid reasons of their own.

The obvious response to such a situation is to find a new group of players who share the same mindset and goals. The catch-22 is that I enjoy playing with my existing group of gamer buddies so I relegate myself to enjoying the social aspects while cringing from a gameplay standpoint.

The game has become a chore in a sense and I have decided to stop playing except on a very casual basis. This is where Blizzard has failed in my opinion. They have designed an excellent infrastructure for end-game, but have failed from a difficulty standpoint. Power gamers love difficulty. I am one of those people. The problem is that most players aren't that type of gamer. The difficulty bar is set too high for your average player. They have dangled the carrot a bit too far away and people are losing interest. I have seen longtime players get burned out on the grind and artificial difficulty implemented.

I'm rambling now and I realize my perspective is slightly anecdotal so I will grant that. However, in the end, people just want to play with friends, even if they are bad players. Move on, suffer through it, or quit. I've decided to sanely quit, but keep the friends.