Best top 3: Of the P2P variety.

1:SWG Pre-NGE -- by far the most helpful people I've ever met. Within the first hour of playing someone had given me a speeder, showed me the ropes of the game, and talked for over an hour about level progression and space flight.  Later on when I would take space flights in a huge ship with friends, and we'd run around and have a "party" in the ship. It didn't matter what server I would go to I always found friends. Player run communitys, housing, and ship building. Player run shops, player run everything!  This game was the best of the best for community.

2:CoH -- Everyone is fairly nice in CoH. The grouping was always pretty good, and most people were respectful. Every now and then you'd get an inexperienced player that would rush in, but everyone would try and push them in the right direction.  Even when fighting a villain, they were always pretty nice, and there was hardly and griefing, if ever.  Hero and Villain team ups were always a good way to meet the "other side" of the game.  They just got the hint that auction houses could be useful, crafting is still kinda a joke, but it's a start.

3: LOTRO -- I only played the game for a week, and eventhough I don't find it to be a really great game, the community wasn't so bad.  I mean noone really stopped to talk to me, or listened to my songs that I played on my lute, which kind of made me angry because I spent quite some time recreating a few zelda songs and a couple star wars songs too.  The area I was in was wasn't so populated, but the few people I saw either stopped to laugh, or talked to me briefly about class choices. ( it seemed everyone I met was either a guardian or a lore master.  I was a lore master.)  I think if I ever came back to the game it would be more for the community then for the game.  Didn't have enough time to look into the crafting but it looks to be promising.

Runner Up: Final Fantasy XI (eventhough the community was somewhat nice and helpful, the game made it so tough to do anything or even group with my friends I gave up.  It may be a popular game, but it definitely wasn't fun to me, not in the least.)

Worst Top 3

1: WoW -- It's just a horrible community. I even know people who play the game and it was still a horrible community. My best friend plays it constantly, but even he couldn't help me level much. He said he could start me out with some gold, but I was even too low to be worth his in-game time, and sadly enough I understand.  I mean all of my friends that play that game have high level characters and unless I spent my time getting to that point, then my time in game would be worthless.  The only other people I met or grouped with, were just a bunch of jerks, noone even bothered to help me, when I asked for help. I was called a noob more times then in a F2P game.  (granted I was but it still didn't help)  I played LOTRO longer and I was only playing the TRIAL of LOTRO.  People are way to fanatical about WoW, and therefore makes it a game for fanatics.

2: EQ2 -- The audacity of most of the people playing appauled me.  Everyone who I grouped with or asked for help expected me to be an EQ player for life.  Like I should know what to do from the get go because EQ has been around forever.  Within the first 3 hours of gameplay, I was mocked for my race choice, my class choice, and my overall inabillity to progress correctly.  Sadly enough I still played the game twice as long as I did WoW.

3: MxO Post Beta -- I just have an overall distaste for this game.  The community wasn't helpful, but mainly because the game itself was just horrendous.  You couldn't do anything really, and if you grouped at all and died because you were stuck in a target lock, you would get flamed for it by your other group mates.  Granted they died as much if not more then you did.  Then on top of that dealing with agents was just ridiculous, so grouping with higher level players was really a no go, so it wasn't for a casual player base anyways.  Just a really bad experience.

Runner Up: Guild Wars -- It's not really that bad of a community, it's just that the good people playing, are all out in instances.  You just never get to meet the really great players.  Crafting? Trade?  Kinda a joke.  I was a big dye trader when the game first came out when finding dyes was tough and they were selling for alot of money.  Silver and black dyes were the way to go, but eventually even that turned into junk.  I guess I can't really complain, I mean no monthly fee and all.

Originally posted by openedge1

I think what a lot of people are missing here, is the game is single player as well as online. You do not need to pay the fee either...

In so many words...it is a good Action title...and I sure have been needing that...something I can play for an hour, and move on...

And if I feel the need for the extra's offered with online, then I can pay later..

Overall it is meant to be a mindless clickfest, and that in my book is cool...and way better than Tabula Rasa...the MMO wannabe

Cheers!

I do agree that TR has gotten boring in the last couple months I've been playing it, but then again TES Oblivion got boring after a month or two of playing it,, I probably will end up getting HGL, and more then likely after getting bored with that, going back to TR, granted they added a bit more content I haven't seen yet.

Originally posted by Reborn17

 

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 

 

On the aspect of Perma death, by dueling for honor, I think you're looking at more of a grief fest then anything else. I know there are some really great players that take to games like this, but  it isn't like-----

Person A: "Why old chap you appear to be a soddy wanker!"

Person B: "A Soddy wanker you say? That offends my honor!"

Person A: " Pistols at dawn then!"

Person B: "Agreed!"

It will never be so cut and dry.  To initiate a fight you would literally have to agree to put death on the line, and an "old chap" that is looking to egg someone on just for grins and that has nothing to lose can sit and spam all day annoying an "adult" playerbase.  I'm just saying I see more people trying to cause "dishonor" to push for something like permadeath then for any other "good" reason, as in it being part of a game. Like if I had a choice to risk my life because someone was making me angry in a game rather then someone who had an awesome armor set that would potentially boost my stats, I would end up dying for an armor set.  The difference between this and a "bentley" situation is that this is a game.  In real life people get shot for the 20 dollars in the victims pocket, or because someone didn't give them enough ketchup in the drive through (true story all over the news).  I mean theres no telling.  The difference in a game where permadeath relies on honor, it just doesn't come down to NEEDING to fight for honor. The only problem would be if someone starts making other players angry, but without an actual NEED for permadeath, you may as well just dismerit it.  Permadeath should be added to a game to create another sense of fun, and that sense would be.. the fun of risk.  Now in a game would you rather risk your life for someone who called your mother a "fatty" or would you risk your life over enough gold to buy yourself new player housing.  Perhaps for a new armor piece that you've been looking for but it's just so tough to get.  Maybe an awesome mount.  I mean the honor idea is still there, if you want to fight someone because it's pissing you off, go right ahead, but at least at the end of the day you have all his weapons, gold, and armor (that he was carrying on him) and an increased ranking on server stats.

I understand if you are going for a realism approach, but in real life I don't challenge someone to a duel because they called me a name, and really thats all you end up with in a game.  A simple annoyance.

As for disconnecting and losing a duel, I mean that could happen with any variation of permadeath.  If you're fighting to the death and then you have a power surge, well you're SOL, but thats the risk you take. It doesn't matter what you're fighting for, whether its honor or a sword.  As debt goes, as a penalty though, I mean, it's another one of those annoyance penalties. 

I mean if it's something you have to actually pay and not something that comes out of your XP gain like CoH, then maybe it would be worth it. Maybe you have to pay a bank or something each month, or they take your house away, or take your items away if you don't pay within a certain amount of time.  I mean at least make it interesting.  Garnishing your XP bar is just a waste of time, all it's saying is "Hey you died, so you have to play the game LONGER to make up for it, nomatter how smart you play."

When it's money based like I suggested you can say, listen you have a week to get the money together to pay the bill, if you can't pay it we take what items necessary to pay for the debt. You can count a week as a day every time they log on, or a day for every actual day.  Either way they get out of debt one way or another and the cost is either their cash or their gear.  Garnishments are just so boring, it makes me not even want to try, it brings the fun of leveling to a crawl.

It should probably be reiterated that the PD pvp option is not in lieu of regular pvp duels or battle, it is the ultimate level of them. You can pvp w/o PD all you want, PD is just that ultimate threat. Would people try and instigate fights? Probably, but the PD option is not introduced in a vaccuum, there are warnings, restrictions, even a basic protocol of no one should goad you into anything per the EULA. Not to mention if you spam someone else to PD, plan on being next on the chopping block, maybe not PDwise, but there are other ways to hurt people in-game. Besides, if the player hasn't got the wherewithall to stand up to childish playground antics like instigation to fight for all the marbles from a video game character,  this game probably isn't for that person. As far as fighting over name calling, that's not really a PD circumstance, that can be solved in regular pvp or simple /ignore. I should also say again that I am moving towards a more semi-permanent version of duels to the death.
Also re: "The only problem would be if someone starts making other players angry, but without an actual NEED for permadeath, you may as well just dismerit it." Not really sure what you mean. PD's purpose is to express outrage.

 

Also re your willingness to die for the armor set of your choice, there are a few ways to see this, you could see that as a symptom of an extremely boring endgame. There's so little to do, and you've had so little lasting impact and interaction that you are willing to die to squeeze out a few more moments of fun. Or its extremely easy or possibly fun to regain what you have. in a gear centric mmo with fairly superficial assessing of players to it I may be able to sorta see your point, but mine really isn't like that and I wouldn't ask the players to risk it all for stuff. I don't want the majority of players who just wouldn't think the risk is worth it  shut out of something just because they enjoy their character and value the time spent leveling him/her.

I really like your idea about the gold as penalty. Its interesting and original and helps push the economy and that's big. I might like it as an "either or" proposition. I will say the idea and concept of debt as being such an obstacle is probably a bit overstated by the players, I got 4 50s in coh and anytime I died my debt was usually gone before I looked a second time. So the riggamaro of a whole seperate procedure for paying for debt is really based on an overestimation of the impact of debt, IMO but sounds interesting. Could also be fixed by distributing new xp 75% to debt 25% to gain to expedite getting rid of debt or possibly recalibrating the rest of the bars so the player really doesn't even notice it.

 

 

 

I'm glad you liked the idea, if only partially, that means something to me.

I'm really interested to see how your game is going to turn out.

I don't see what the big deal of Hit or Miss really is? Will it be a hit, no, will it be a total flop? No. It's a middle of the road game with very few *innovative* ideas. It allows for some, not much immersion. It isn't as shallow as some say, and I still find it more fun then WoW.  At least where I run and hide, actually determines the outcome of a battle. This game will be great if they get their heads out of combat only and move to other items like housing, mounts for early levels, and more variations of playability. (alittle more upgraded crafting would help.)  I may or may not buy this game.  It's entertaining, that much is for sure. Is it going to bring mass subs, no it won't.

Originally posted by Reborn17

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 

 

Well it is your game after all, I was just pointing out that when making the type of game I was explaining, you actually give players 3 games to play in 1 therefore giving a chance for high level content and having players actually level and get really great items.  You have 1 game where it's completely safe to play and level. Then you have another game where you fight players and potentially lose some armor,weapons and cash, or they could spend their time fighting to the death to be immortalized on an actual hero board for all the server to see.

The reason I think it would work better, is if you have no rewards for permadeath other then just your honor, then theres nothing pushing up to permadeath other then boredom.  I mean I wouldn't do permadeath unless someone took something from me, or if I wanted to take something from someone, or if I just decided I wanted to be on a leader board and show my skills to the world (or the server). 

I mean sometimes i may want to play a game where I just don't want to deal with permadeath at all and I just want to explore and find awesome loot, in a game that has no awesome loot I can't do that. 

What I'm saying is, you're giving players a chance to explore a world where items, gold, and content actually mean something.  Learning the game, and fighting other players is actually worth something.  Risking it all and putting your very life on the line is both the quickest and hardest way of earning all those cool items in one foul swoop.  I totally agree with you choice of risk I suppose I just took it one step further.

 

Cool, cool. I actually identified 14 levels of play people game in and are available in my design and you're right, nothing is pushing the player to participate in duels to the death but honor, but that's why people used to do it in real life, so I see no problem with that. I want players to have to make such choices and learn things. Will I negotiate or risk death? Will I reevaluate the annoyance of this person and agree to disagree or will we fight and possibly die. You see, its much like real life. Respect between men is predicated on the threat of violence. I know that if I disrespect a man in a certain way we may have to fight, and even die over this perceived insult. So you know what happens? We treat each other with a certain level of respect. So it would be in the game world. if you knew there could be such long range consequences for your actions, you may think twice. Especially since it doesn't have to be the person you insulted or griefed who may challenge you, it may be his guildie, his friend, his High level alt etc.. Its time to man up in these games IMO and force people to consider their actions . I think the genre's fanbase has come of age and is ready to deal with adult interaction and themes (not XXX per se ;) )

Also there IS lotsa awesome loot, unique, valuable, hard to get, all that, but would you die for a Bentley GT?  Or a Beverley Hills mansion? I mean really die. Like its over. Finit, Kaput? Would you go 99 levels and risk PD for the best sword in the game? Which of course has to be in a suitably difficult place to be worthy of such a sword. What if your healer disconnects on that mish? The phone rings? The baby cries? Then when the GM says tough luck, the design team's to blame? I'm sure some would have no problem with that, but in an ideal game your disappearance would mean losing something valuable.  Something more than having the sword for having it's sake could provide. I think actually failing (and possibly plus debt) is price enough to pay,  and then possibly having to once again determine the new location of the item, starting with little more than the remnants of what's left behind from your last failed encounter. Perhaps after trying and failing 3 times on your fourth attempt the holder is so sick of seeing you he kills you outright with the full power of the sword leaving your party members to face him alone. Like I said, I'm not saying there aren't scenarios in which PD wouldn't work gamewise, there's a whole genre of literature and movies dedicated to tragedy, I just personally think since my limits are so few in the game, and debt is usually a sufficient enough penalty, players wouldn't use it unless it was personalized i.e. My name is Innigo Montoya, you murdered  my father, prepare to die. Hehe, well, maybe not THAT serious, but y'know. If I felt it needed it, I would always consider the possibility tho.

 

 

 

On the aspect of Perma death, by dueling for honor, I think you're looking at more of a grief fest then anything else. I know there are some really great players that take to games like this, but  it isn't like-----

Person A: "Why old chap you appear to be a soddy wanker!"

Person B: "A Soddy wanker you say? That offends my honor!"

Person A: " Pistols at dawn then!"

Person B: "Agreed!"

It will never be so cut and dry.  To initiate a fight you would literally have to agree to put death on the line, and an "old chap" that is looking to egg someone on just for grins and that has nothing to lose can sit and spam all day annoying an "adult" playerbase.  I'm just saying I see more people trying to cause "dishonor" to push for something like permadeath then for any other "good" reason, as in it being part of a game. Like if I had a choice to risk my life because someone was making me angry in a game rather then someone who had an awesome armor set that would potentially boost my stats, I would end up dying for an armor set.  The difference between this and a "bentley" situation is that this is a game.  In real life people get shot for the 20 dollars in the victims pocket, or because someone didn't give them enough ketchup in the drive through (true story all over the news).  I mean theres no telling.  The difference in a game where permadeath relies on honor, it just doesn't come down to NEEDING to fight for honor. The only problem would be if someone starts making other players angry, but without an actual NEED for permadeath, you may as well just dismerit it.  Permadeath should be added to a game to create another sense of fun, and that sense would be.. the fun of risk.  Now in a game would you rather risk your life for someone who called your mother a "fatty" or would you risk your life over enough gold to buy yourself new player housing.  Perhaps for a new armor piece that you've been looking for but it's just so tough to get.  Maybe an awesome mount.  I mean the honor idea is still there, if you want to fight someone because it's pissing you off, go right ahead, but at least at the end of the day you have all his weapons, gold, and armor (that he was carrying on him) and an increased ranking on server stats.

I understand if you are going for a realism approach, but in real life I don't challenge someone to a duel because they called me a name, and really thats all you end up with in a game.  A simple annoyance.

As for disconnecting and losing a duel, I mean that could happen with any variation of permadeath.  If you're fighting to the death and then you have a power surge, well you're SOL, but thats the risk you take. It doesn't matter what you're fighting for, whether its honor or a sword.  As debt goes, as a penalty though, I mean, it's another one of those annoyance penalties. 

I mean if it's something you have to actually pay and not something that comes out of your XP gain like CoH, then maybe it would be worth it. Maybe you have to pay a bank or something each month, or they take your house away, or take your items away if you don't pay within a certain amount of time.  I mean at least make it interesting.  Garnishing your XP bar is just a waste of time, all it's saying is "Hey you died, so you have to play the game LONGER to make up for it, nomatter how smart you play."

When it's money based like I suggested you can say, listen you have a week to get the money together to pay the bill, if you can't pay it we take what items necessary to pay for the debt. You can count a week as a day every time they log on, or a day for every actual day.  Either way they get out of debt one way or another and the cost is either their cash or their gear.  Garnishments are just so boring, it makes me not even want to try, it brings the fun of leveling to a crawl.

Originally posted by goofy3k

Yep i feel ur pain buddy, TR is like NGE mixed with guildwars. I will definately be giving it a miss in retail.

As I've said before in many a thread, Tabula Rasa is what the NGE *should* have been. I would have kept playing if it was like it in the least. The only other reason the NGE really sucked was the total class change. I like TR because eventhough they have certain classes, you can still make a really different build off of the class that you end up becoming. I mean every weapon you have goes into a play style/build. So eventhough you will always have 5 weapons slotted, you will also be able to trade out Logos skills for grenades, or bombs. Or weapons for repair tools and healing discs.  You can pretty much customize the way you play. Thats not to say the game isn't without it's problems, but if the NGE was like TR, I'd stil play it, thats for sure. TR is liveable, the NGE is laughable.

Originally posted by Reborn17

 

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Wow, that's a slap in the face of my statements, right there. The choice of risk.

Instead of entirely removing permadeath, players determine for themselves whether or not the risk is worth the reward. Good plan, really. Of course there's a bunch of scaled balancing between "normal" play and "berzerker" play, but I think any competent developer could figure out that stuff on his or her own design.

Well said fournials, cheers.

What's the difference between this and my concept of using PD in duels to the death? (bit more complex than that, but still) The players are still choosing to risk their fate based on their evaluation of the worth of their honor, rage, or goal, etc. Attaching PD  to an actual item or mere xp gain trivialized it in my opinion, and felt it should be reserved for only the most severe circumstances, seeing as the loser loses so much. Besides, in the context of my game, there really is no material asset or amount of xp gain that could be worth permadeath.

 

 

 

 

 

Well it is your game after all, I was just pointing out that when making the type of game I was explaining, you actually give players 3 games to play in 1 therefore giving a chance for high level content and having players actually level and get really great items.  You have 1 game where it's completely safe to play and level. Then you have another game where you fight players and potentially lose some armor,weapons and cash, or they could spend their time fighting to the death to be immortalized on an actual hero board for all the server to see.

The reason I think it would work better, is if you have no rewards for permadeath other then just your honor, then theres nothing pushing up to permadeath other then boredom.  I mean I wouldn't do permadeath unless someone took something from me, or if I wanted to take something from someone, or if I just decided I wanted to be on a leader board and show my skills to the world (or the server). 

I mean sometimes i may want to play a game where I just don't want to deal with permadeath at all and I just want to explore and find awesome loot, in a game that has no awesome loot I can't do that. 

What I'm saying is, you're giving players a chance to explore a world where items, gold, and content actually mean something.  Learning the game, and fighting other players is actually worth something.  Risking it all and putting your very life on the line is both the quickest and hardest way of earning all those cool items in one foul swoop.  I totally agree with you choice of risk I suppose I just took it one step further.

If you think about it, Perma Death works great.  But before everyone makes their assumptions, lets look at this.

Permadeath so far has been introduced in a few games, but isn't exactly called permadeath. They would actually call them "pink slip" races. Games like Juiced and such, where you would spend time working on making a fast car, and racing that car until you thought you were good enough to take on another player. If you lost to that player, they took your car, the one you worked so hard on making.  These games were built on speed and skill, and money (in some aspects), but most importantly free choice. 

Now heres how I see it working perfectly.  You have a PVE/PVP environment, where players can run and play, get the hang of playing the game.  On PVP you can have randomized looting, where after a death occurs the PK'er will be able to loot a single object (possibly at random) from the persons body. The person is not permanently dead. The person can challenge the PK'er to another battle, in hopes to win his piece back -or- he can go find another piece of armor, or a new weapon, or money.  However, what if instead he decided not only did her want his piece back, but he could challenge the PK'er to a battle in the "stadium" or what have you.  In the stadium players can fight solely for the right to loot the other players corpse, as well as being part of the Stadium Lore, of how many Stadium battles they have entered and won.  They will forever be posted as the top players depending on who they fought, what level they fought against, and what level they were when they fought, into a rating that ranked them on a strongest to weakest scale.  Anyone who fights in the "stadium" "arena" "what have you"  will also be fighting for their very life, so those that lose a battle will never have a chance to reclaim their rank.  Only the winners succeed, and when the winners finally lose, they are the best of the best on a high ranking arena "lore" board.

Now as for combat, the combat needs to be primarily skill based, but there could also be high levels as well. This way people will have choices on whether they should PVP or Stadium battle, and potentially lose their life and their items. Or they can just lost 1 item in PVP, or lose no items at all in PVE and just practice and get stronger.

Giving the player the choice to decide how they want to live their gaming lives really brings most games home. Players may never die and never lose a player, or never PVP and lose armor. Or maybe a player will decide to create a new toon just for PVP and have their original toon bankroll all the other toons. Either way they spend the time (and possibly the money) on creating these toons and fighting them to become the best of the best.

Whataya think?

Originally posted by highblur

How does this look ~

 

PROCESSOR	AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core 6000+	edit
OPERATING SYSTEM	Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium	edit
MONITOR	22 inch E228WFP Widescreen Digital Flat Panel	edit
MEMORY	2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz- 2DIMMs	edit
HARD DRIVE	320GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™	edit
OPTICAL DRIVE	16x DVD+/-RW Drive	edit
VIDEO CARD	256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT-DDR3	edit
SOUND	Integrated Sound Blaster®Audigy™ HD Software Edition	edit
KEYBOARD & MOUSE	Logitech Cordless Desktop S 510 Keyboard and Mouse	edit
FLOPPY & MEDIA READER	No Floppy Drive Included	edit
MODEM & WIRELESS	Internal PCI 802.11g Wireless Network Card	edit

 

~$1260

it's not bad. Increase the memory to 4GBs and you should have no problems at all.  Ultimately it would be cheaper to build one, but it's not necessary.  If you got the cash, go for it!

It all depends on what kind of games you play. I have a samsung 19 inch with a 2 ms response time and a 3000:1 contrast ratio.  Samsung is known for not blurring on games and movies with fast motion. You don't have to buy one there, but go into best buy or circuit city and just take a look at the different monitors. You can see on many of the monitors that are playing animations at high speed you can see a blur. If you end up getting a TV instead of a minitor it's much more noticeable.  Just know what you are buying before you buy it.  Thats the only problem with newegg is that you haven't seen the product yet so if 200 reviews fail to mention the monitor comes with a raccoon, then you end up SOL.(just a joke but you get the point)

Originally posted by Ginkeq

 

Originally posted by Salvatoris

So... the OP thinks too much content is the problem... and that more grinding is the answer???  that is absolutely nuts.

I think the biggest problem with MMOs has to do with the subscription pricing model.  In order to make more money, they have to make our goals take a long time to achieve.  They limit your bag and vault space, just so you can get more in an expansion.  They make travel time a huge hassle, just so you don't run through all the content too fast.  They have to make all the armor and gear bland, ugly and useless... otherwise we wont pay for a couple more months to get the uber gear.  It's lazy, it's greedy... and it's marketing gurus ruining all our fun.

 

Can you image the developers of a non-subscription game intentionally withholding content... hell no.  If the guys making battlefield or KOTOR think a feature will make the game more fun, more accessible, more intuitive, faster to get to the action.. etc... they make sure that features goes in.  So what do we end up with, a game that is rewarding, but not as fun as it could be.

 

Too much content IS the problem.  When you overwhelm people with quests, it gets to the point where they dont read the quests even and they just look at what is needed.  That is why the quest givers say "Kill x wild boars" at the end, because the company knows no one will read their quests or even try to interpret the meaning. 

If there were less quests, people would pay more attention to the quests they have.  Also, the quests would be meaningful as opposed to worthless run-around quests just for exp. 

Quests just overwhelm players with things to do when that is really just intended to waste peoples time.

I dont like grinding npcs either, but id prefer it to quests.  I'd prefer no grinding to grinding, as it is just a time waste and contributes nothing to the MMORPG. 

The good players go right to the end as fast as possible because they know that is where the content of MMOs is (or should be anyway).

Remember that the point of questing and grinding is just to waste time because the devs cant put in enough interesting difficult content.  Rather, they give you trivial run-around quests that take almost no skill to implement.  I'd rather have an extra 3-4 instances when WoW was released instead of the 1-60 boring grind.

 

Everyone has their own opinions on what makes MMO's good and what makes them boring.  Personally I think if you had fewer quests, but to the same effect, then it would still somewhat make things boring.  There are only a few different quest types. Take this, kill that, go here, go there.  Ultimately it doesn't matter how many or how few you have, it's all the same. 

The reason I am starting to dislike MMO's is for one, they never have enough variety.  They claim variety. That is one reason why I loved SWG.  You could change whatever you wanted to do in mid-game, without needing another character.  They let you drive vehicles that could carry your team mates, and make houses. Build shops, craft, build your own ship and have space battles.  I mean you could go all day without having to kill something, or you could kill whatever you want, but never touch a blaster or a sword. You could fly all day and get loot and money and make more ships.  I mean there was no END to the possibilities. 

I mean I enjoy the idea of Vanguards crafting system, but it's just overly tough to get into it.  You're still stuck in the same class, I mean it's okay and all but ultimately it's not what I'm looking for.  I mean I like the idea of variety, with a single character. No more creating new characters if you don't want to, or having to worry about transferring loot. Just having one character with the ability to do whatever you wanted. Mixing classes as you saw fit.  Indeed it would be slightly tough to balance, but not impossible.

I think variety is what makes an MMO special.  You can replay the classes a million times, rangers, rogues, tanks. They are all nicely packaged for you. Never a great variation of classes from one game to the next. They can name them differently but they really aren't fooling anyone.

Originally posted by Taram

 

Originally posted by Lateris

To the OP - have you tried a guild war yet? I was talking to a guld mate last night and he decribed it with utmost joy. 

 

I have had guildwars for eons... it's ok every now and then but it's a very shallow game with no real purpose.  The original (prophecies) was very good as a stand alone epic adventure and the pVP is well done but it's pointless.  There's literally no purpose behind PVP other than stroking your ego and getting new abilities. 

 

What is the purpose of PVP in any other game?  Maybe get a couple more faction points? Some armor, a skill or two. A new mount of some sort.  I mean ultimately defeating other players is supposed to be "fun".  There aren't many places where PVP is needed just to survive. And on those games it's somewhat of a burden moreso then something that makes the game.  Eventually those who like it, just end up standing outside newbie towns and just killing anyone that tries to play.  Regardless, there really isn't much of a point to PVP if you don't like, new weapons, skills, armor, or increased faction ratings. 

Kinda interested in how darkfall will turn out though. Sounds interesting enough.

PVP right now in TR is kinda pointless.  I've dueled before and it's REALLY fun.  But in the end, it was just a duel, no new weapons or armor, you truly have nothing to show for it.  Plus it really doesn't fit into the story line, all you do is waste ammo. Alot of ammo.

Originally posted by Taram

 

Originally posted by Linna

 

Originally posted by LoboMau

All problems that can be easy solved.

I'm sorry, but the fact most of these problems have been around since closed beta, would seem to indicate they're NOT as easily solved as you seem to think. Also, this is just the tip of the iceberg. They don't even MENTION the huge server AND client side memory leaks, for instance.

 

Linna

Interesting theory.... what client memory leak?  I have played TR for as many as 3-4 hours at a stretch and not had ANY performance problems nor any sign of a memory leak?  You do know what a memory leak is right?  If not then please don't use the term to say the game lags for you.  A memory leak is where an application uses memory but never frees it back up, then uses more, and never frees that back up.  A true memory leak will eventually burn up all the memory that a system has and generally will cause the PC to crash.

 

TR doesn't have anything of the kind.  I haven't seen a single issue with memory leakage since joining open beta.  Then again I only joined around two weeks ago so maybe that's an old issue that's been fixed.

Actually that isn't entirely true. With a memory leak the program usually crashes, not the whole PC.  If you watch your FPS and memory statistics on the tracker you can see when you hit a memory leak.  Usually you can tell because you start lagging like crazy.

I've gone from 20% memory usage to 98% usage, and stayed at 98% usage for a long time. Sometimes I would crash because of it.  During that time, the only possible way to fix the problem would be to zone to a different place.  The worst place I've encountered memory leaks so far had been foreas base, in the divide. But I've been back there since then and it seems at least they fixed that problem.  I'm sure there are more. I ran into on at torcastra prison too.

Needless to say the game does have memory leaks.  Even with my high performance well built computer they are extremely noticeable bring my PC to a crawl when I hit one. If that happens with my pc, then I'm sure on lesser PC's it would really be horrible.

Do so. I'd be very grateful. A few charts would be nice.

Heres a few. 

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/08/one-of-reasons-men-make-more-money-they.html

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.work.hours.us

You look things up on wikipedia? Great, thats fantastic. Look this up too, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

I'll have more links along the way.

If someone falls sick, it's their fault? No it isn't.

 If someone is born out of homeless parents it's their fault? No it isn't.

If someone is facing misfortune, it's their fault? Depends on the misfortune.

Compare with other countries. The US in comparison seems to be swarming with faulty people!

Yes actually we are.  It is a disorder. Millions of people are spending money they do not have.  Credit cards, financing, not paying taxes, not buying insurance. All these things are poor financial decisions and noone should be liable for poor financial decisions other then the people involved?  Do you think you should pay for my car because I defaulted on payments? Do you want to pay for my food because I spent my money on a motorcycle instead?  You may downtalk Dave Ramsey, (the article you posted was laughable, that was a misrepresented article that was imposed on the newspaper by a vindictive editor. It has nothing to do with his personal, moral, or statistical credibility.)  Dave ramsey helps more people in one radio show then you help in a year of community service.  3 million listeners are my proof. www.daveramsey.com

Yes, it IS your fault. You make up society. You have more money than some people so you have more power to change things.

So now it IS my fault that poor people are poor? Interesting.Lets move on and come back to this later.

Some genetical disorder? An epidemic? And above that, it's not like those countries are holding peoples' hand, since they're economically healthier than the US.

Just because their economy is "healthier" it doesn't mean that the US is a bad country.  Show me the correlation between feeding the homeless and sheltering them to the economy blowing up. 

It's your money that is being wasted by flawed policies, it's your higher crime, it's your overcrowded prisons, it's your massive amounts of bankruptcies, ........

Actually it's not my anything. I pay taxes and I vote. I don't make the policies.  Frankly I don't even care about politics.  Most of it is a bunch of idiotic garble, made for right wing, left wing, extremeist, fanatics like yourself to do to make yourself feel important in the world.  Always looking at the "big picture" but just skewing it to server your own purposes.  Besides, I don't make them go bankrupt, they do that on their own.  If someone makes a poor stock decision and loses all his money and goes bankrupt, hey that's not my fault, is that your fault?  Chances are probably not. 

This is something most of the world figured out. The most succesful nations figured this out. THAT's how the world works.

So the US is not one of the most successful nations? Interesting. Again show me where the homeless come in to economic growth.  Also correlate that with the population growth of the country.  Lets look at china as an example. http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/chinas-wealth-gap-a-growing-divide/2007/09/09/1189276544241.html

 Do you have any idea how much a mental hospital costs? Sure, people can earn more than enough to pay for a mental hospital... If they happen to be healthy before they're mentally ill. And I don't think mental hospitals give credit...

Other countries do what you claim to be impossible.

There are state mental hospitals. Government funded, state mental hospitals.  They can't go there though can they? Why is that again?

And you forget the basic principal of life than someone isn't useless if they face misfortiune. But if they're rendered unable to work thanks to that misfortune, society suffers. You suffer.

How exactly do I suffer when someone that I don't know nor affects my life in any way runs into misfortune.  I never said that someone was useless when they face misfortune, they are useless when they stop trying.  Here's a lesson you should be able to grasp.  If you have an arm to hold out, and a hand to grasp a cup, and two legs to stand on while you are doing so, then can you fashion all that into a hand that knocks on a door, and asks to take the trash out? Can you fashion it into a hand to move over a car with a wet soapy rag, to earn an extra 5 dollars?  When 5 dollars stands between you and starvation, you would rather put that up to laying about and just asking for it, then using the arms and legs god gave you to earn it.  When just a dollar stand between you and a double cheeseburger, you would risk leaving that to chance then getting up and doing something about it?  That sounds like a mental disorder to me.  I can't hire someone who isn't here for me to hire.  Theres no food or shelter involved, they don't need an office job. They need to take out the trash. And theres no keeping a job to it.  Neighborhood kids go door to door doing household chores for money, why can't the homeless do that? Can you show me statistics for that?

That's not freedom. If I'm sick, and lose my business, then I've just lost the freedom to work and pay back my debt to the hosptial. Then later on I lose my freedom to live in a good house. And so on.

Freedom is having choices. If you're poor, you don't have choices

Show me statistics that say when you are poor you don't have a choice. I want to see them. Everyone has choices in their life. Homeless people, most of them, are not in prison.  They have a choice to get up and move, or lay down and die.  Frankly if they choose not to get up and move, then they should lay down and die.  If you are sick and lose your business then you don't have a good business plan.  You pay for health insurance.  http://www.lcsc.edu/healthocc/enable01/0103b.htm   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20975237

Many americans don't have health insurance or are underinsured.  That is a choice.  People feel they can't afford health insurance.  Most people can't afford to not have health insurance.  Not to mention the government does assist with medical bills, but it's not enough to cover everyone.  You always have a choice in life.  You make choices every day. You choose not to have health insurance, then you lose out when you get sick. You choose to hurt someone, then you get put in jail. If you choose not to work when you get out of the hospital, then you choose to be homeless. If you are in jail, you obviously made a poor choice before getting in there. If you have killed someone, then you made the worst choice you could ever make, and you've given up your right to choose.  Poverty or being poor gives you more choices then being in jail.  If you are poor you have a choice to work.  If you are sick and just "don't feel like it" then you give up your choice.  If you have a disability and choose not to seek help then that is YOUR CHOICE.

Let me clarify. you can CHOOSE to do something or CHOOSE not to do something. Or you can CHOOSE to do nothing.  You still always have a choice. Do you agree? For some strange reason I think you CHOOSE not to.

I'm not wrong. You're not even wondering WHY they SHOULD have the basics in life. Because it's the right... thing to do? Of course not! How many governments have ever focussed on doing the right thing. Don't be so naive.

No, they do it, because it's the sensible, logical and profitable thing to do.

Show me the profit margins on feeding the homeless. Hell if feeding the homeless is profitable then I think I'll go out and feed some right now. They could be like my own personal cash cow, how does that sound?  Spending money on something that has no value, and will not return anything of value to you, is normally a bad financial move.  I don't go about just handing out money to every poor shlub on the street, because then I would have no money and nothing to show for it.  I don't see how giving someone something for nothing is ever sensible, logical or profitable.  I see it as being moral.  Capitalism isn't spent around people being moral. If so we wouldn't have credit card companies. It's not a tough concept to understand.

There were times when someone like you would have said that "If blacks were supposed to have equal opportunities to whites then they WOULD!". Thiongs just don't work like that. Society progress and evolves. Becomes more effective. More efficient.

In other countries they DO. Does that mean the US has different laws of physics? And you know as well as I do that laws can be oppressive, wrong and illegal.

Murdering jews in Nazi-Germany was the law and policy. Did that make it right? No, it didn't.

You are mistaking human rights for poverty.  You saying we are treating homeless people like the Jews in the holocaust would me we are taking their lives away by force.  We are not.  You saying we are treating the homeless like African Americans before the revolution, would be like saying we are taking away their freedom to earn income.  We are not doing any of those things to the homeless, they do it to themselves.  There is no discrimination to the homeless, because they don't have money.  I don't say "you can't stand here because you're homeless" I say, "you cannot stand here because you are bothering customers."  Now try getting into a fancy night club dressed in jeans and a t shirt and you wil be refused. They aren't saying "you can't come in because you are poor and can't afford clothes." Because they don't know nor care that much about you. If we lower the standards of living we lower our standards of what to expect from the population.  The point is, homeless people cannot be bothersome to the tourists and people of the city of orlando. Orlando is policing this on a "night club" standard. They aren't stopping them from working, they are stopping people from feeding them. This doesn't take away the Homeless persons freedom. They aren't saying that it is against the law for a homeless person to eat. It's saying just don't feed them. Why would you feed bears? Don't feed the bears, they'll come around and make a mess and be dangerous.  You put restrictions on things to protect people from other people, and people from themselves.

I never said they deserve it. I say that society deserves every man and woman to be productive and contribute. They can't do that while they're homeless.
Why not?  Why can't they contribute? What is stopping them? Society isn't. They are stopping themselves.  Show me how society is stopping them from contributing and being productive? By not giving them food?  Thats not a reason. They aren't getting food because they aren't being productive.  How else are we stopping them?  Because we won't give them jobs? When they start asking for jobs we'll give them jobs.

And please, don't even start with telling me what I'm doing and should be doing. It's not because you're losing the argument that you should get personal...

You might live indulging in telling about yourself and what you do, but I don't.

Theres no argument for me to lose. I've already won the argument by default. How you ask? Because my way of thinking has already won over not just by the way society is run throughout the country (and the world, I want statistics on all homeless people around the world, and you can show me where there are none.)  Maybe eventually all the homeless will be fed. Until then there is no argument.  Regardless, you said I shouldn't get personal. Well why shouldn't I?  I'm part of the problem right? I'm part of society so I'm part of the problem? Well why aren't you part of the solution? Why don't you have some homeless take up residence? Why don't you have them eat with you and live in your home?  For the same reasons alot of other people have, believe me, it's for the saaaame reasons.

Also I tell about myself and my experiences because thats what matters. Anyone can spend their life online looking up statistics. That doesn't curve the way I think. My personal experience is what curves the way I think about things. You haven't given me any of your personal experiences. Maybe you've gotten out and talked to alot of homeless people. Maybe you've had a great talk with many of them and realize something I don't ,by all means share it. It won't change my mind, but at least I can understand you better.

Again, prove to me, using logic or research or philosophical arguments (if you must...) that second chances always exist.

And it's perfectly possible help doesn't exist or is insufficient.
Prove to me with logic or research that second chances don't exist. Always is a definitive word. Second chances may not "always" exist to those in jail. But let me change my position to mean, second chances ALWAYS exist for the free homeless that are not incarcerated, or terminally ill.

Well, if we extrapolate that logic then businesses are hurting begging. And if they have to beg, then they're not being helped. Simple as that.

Thats unnecessary because it's erroneous.  Businesses create jobs and breed money  and prosperity, begging demeans it.  It's not simple, its stupid.  You can't justify begging by saying businesses are hurting the beggars. There shouldn't be any beggars, because they should be working, for a business or as a business.  Those who don't will be pulled to the wayside, by the police in fact.

http://books.google.com/books?id=j9K0hNuLakQC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=homeless+people+theft+charges&source=web&ots=IaFLJqxuG_&sig=29_r44z2CN8ujR59QyuHIialtDI

Yes, and the start reality is that such a policy simply doesn't work. This is proven by the facts.

Show me where it says that CPS taking a child away from parents that can't take care of them is a failing policy? Where are the facts stating that the children that are taken away and put into foster care are worse off then when they were starving? 

This might be what life is like in your eyes, but thank God the truth doesn't rely on one persons viewpoint. Many governments prove you to be wrong.

Show me a government that proves me wrong and I'll show you 2 that prove me right.

And I've already proven to you that your evolutionary argument doesn't make sense. Evolution has made us altruistic and cooperative. In the most efficient societies the weaker are being looked after. And that's why they're the most successful societies.

You haven't proved evolutionary theory wrong. In fact you've only proved it right.  What happens to the injured animals? Do they thrive? No they die.  Prove that I'm wrong in that aspect.  In every case the injured die, they are eaten, they are killed, sometimes by their own kind.  Show me the direct correlation between the weaker being part of the society and that society prevailing because of that aspect alone.  You won't, its not possible.  Also show me where it says that the humans that refused to work ate just like everyone else.  Show me that because the sick humans that couldn't hunt and prosper, died.http://www.onelife.com/psy/culhist.html

Listen theres no way you can change my mind, until you can make a good enough argument, and you fail to do that. I implore you to keep trying but you lack all common sense.  Back up you information with as much fact as you want, but please make sure it's fact, because so far nothing you've given me has convinced me of anything other then you can't stand being wrong about anything.

Originally posted by MadAce

 

Originally posted by maskedweasel

First you say there is no universal law that deems that people have second chances.  There is a universal law.  As long as they are not dead they have a choice. Here's a question. When in your adult life do you not have a choice?  Choices breed chances. I don't need a quote to prove this, it's common sense.

When in your adult life you don't have a choice? For example when you're in prison. When you're trying to recover from a mental or phsycial disease. When you're a drug addict. When someone depends on you for care. Many, many situations.

And you yet have to prove to me (I suggest you look some stuff up on Wikipedia) that there is a universal law granting everyone a second chance/choice.

you said "I've proven to you that the survival of the fittest doesn't apply to the individual, in societies like the human or the wild dogs'.
You seem to finally understand that people have to participate in society and contribute to it. Now, how's that possible if one has their hands full with simple survival?
It's like asking a solitary lion to not only hunt for himself (male lions sometimes participate in the hunt) but also for some random pack. Why should he?
And why should a homeless person care for society? Society is perfectly able to help him, but a homeless person is too "busy" to be bothered with the big scope of things."

You just said " why should a homeless person care about society?" "a homeless person is too 'busy; to be bothered with the big scope of things"  So they don't want to be bothered with being part of a society, so we should condone that and give them money. Thats a great way to make people want to help these, "homeless" that don't want  to be part of society. You said "Its easier for society to help the homeless then the other way around"   I'm not saying society should help the homeless at all until the homeless wants to help themselves. Lets get more into this as I move through your responses.


It's not about WANT, it's about ABILITY. I'm sure  the vast majority of homeless peopel WANT to be part of society and be applicable for all its perks and advantages. But they can't. Society is omnipresent and omnipotent. Society has the ABILITY to care for homeless and rehabilitate them back into society but society doesn't WANT to.

You said regarding comments on hidden potential of homeless people "Where their potential is? Well, jeez, let me guess... They waste it on survival? And of course, if one is homeless long enough paranoia and loneliness start to take their toll."

So the fix to this problem would be to pay their way through life.  That would sure get them to be a part of society wouldn't it.  Just pay their way because once we do that, we can see their hidden potential to get things for free from hard working tax payers.  I like the way you think.


To fix this (in effect put their potential to work) one would simply have to help them get back on their feet. Not working and not contributing isn't fully being part of society. Being part of society means having access to all of its facilities. And if you're poor that means you don't have access to those.


You refuse to understand it because it simply doesn't fit in your black and white view of the universe. 
I've explained to you in great detail what the difference is between carrying someone and helping them back on their feet.
I even explained WHY so many governments choose to help their citizens struck by misfortune.
Simply because it means MORE PROFIT. Because MORE people are working and there is LESS of a strain on society.

It's about COLD HARD CASH.

This next part is by far my favorite. You said "If charity isn't substanitally helping someone... What's the point? Seriously. People are in title to the basics to be able to be productive. Food, shelter, security, water. If charity isn't able to provide for that then it's a waste of time and resources and should be expanded/reorganised. Because then you're helping nobody in the long term." 

So basically if you can't make a decent contribution to the homeless don't help at all. I really like that one. You went from giving the homeless food to, "Hey, if ya can't give them shelter, food, and hope, don't even bother."  Its all or none with you isn't it?  Resources should be expanded and reorganised? You aren't helping "nobody" in the long term?  Well just a couple of minutes ago these homeless didn't even want to be part of society because they were too busy surviving, and now we need to help them for the long term by giving them food, shelter, water and security.  Hey you know what else, instead of all these fund raisers for breast cancer, why don't we just say screw it, if you can't fix it with the millions they've given you don't even bother making another fundraiser. 


Indeed. If you're not helping anyone get those basics then you're wasting your time. It's that simple. Many, many service operators are furious because they know so many money and manpower is being wasted with simply applying a band aid to the wound while only with a little more effort the person could be cured, no longer needing constant band aids.


What's the alternative? Supporting an underclass in society? Effectively perpetuating the conditions that create more homelessness? That's pretty much insane. That's a policy completely not aiming on getting rid of the problem.

It's such an huge waste of money.

And again, I never said homeless people don't WANT to be part of society.

Breast cancer is a completely different problem. It's something you can't get rid of in society (even research aims for the long-term), contrary to homelessness.

You go on to say "if a part of the world has the power to exploit another part (for say... Coltan, diamonds, ...) then it should have the decency to counter their installed dictators bullcrap by feeding the populations of those countries"  So now you're saying that some countries should pay for other countries food because they "exploit" them.  So just because I'm using your country for Diamonds, I should feed the whole population?  Hey thats not the way the world works. Just because I'm going to go to my parents house and make dinner for them, I don't have to make dinner for the whole block.  But you were right, thats a topic for another time.


I also said that's a completely different discussion. And yes, if you're pretending to be a concious and constructive country then you shouldn't be exploiting anyone in the first place.

You go to your parents house and make dinner for them because in a sense you exploited them. Now you're just repaying with your love and loyalty. That's pretty normal I'd say. If you'd been exploiting the whole neighbourhood... Sure, make them dinner.

Afterwards you say "I'm reading up on pverty in the US. ANd I'm reading that "birth of a child" is a reason for becoming poor... W-T-F? Okay, I admit that when someone is stupid enough to get pregnant and they don't have the money to pay for the abortion (or conservative parents) that this is their own fault... But is this the fault of the child? Why should his/her life be bankrupted because of the mistakes of his/her parents? This way you're just crteating poverty and the increasing possibility for homelessness."

I'm sorry to point this out but Abortion is not the only way out.  If they are conservative and don't want to abort, or if they don't want to give the child up for adoption then hey, guess what it's their choice.  You're mistaking a poverty rate over free choice.  They choose to take care of the child.  They choose to keep it.  Hey you know, they choose to have unprotected sex!  Guess what, thats free choice, if thats what they choose then they've already made a choice and it was a bad one.  Maybe under your list of reasons for being homeless you should jot down "Free Choice"  that would be a good one. 

I know abortion isn't the only way out. And you don't grasp it, do you? It's THEIR choice, but it's not THEIR life. It's the life of the child that's being destroyed.


Where's the free choice for the kid?

Hey this may shock you but the majority of millionaires are self made millionaires. More then half of those millionaires were not born in the united states. (read the total money makeover). Think about that.  These people come over from other countries and work harder and smarter then most americans do.  And it has nothing to do with the intelligence of americans it's that we are programmed to think a different way about finances.  If a normal american in a good natured middle class family can't get it together enough to become a millionaire but some guy from a different country that comes over with NOTHING and builds wealth from the ground up can do it, then who's to say a homeless person can't get his act together. It's a matter of drive bud.


I really don't accept Dave Ramsey as a source. And he's not really that trustworthy.

Anyways... Being a millionaire as an indicator of succes is absurd. Many people don't WANT to be millionaire or don't see WHY they should be one. I sure as hell don't see a reason to become a millionaire (which doesn't mean I won't be one without wanting to...).

Then how should we grade success? I've already told you. Compare the average income with the housing prices for example.

A generally accepted indicator of wheter or not a society is "fair" (simply meaning effective) is measuring the income inequality. The US has one of the highest income inequalities of all industrialized nations.
And according to those stats the amount of work really isn't an indicator of wealth... SInce the vast majority of the upper class gets its wealth... From inherited assets.

Conclusion: In the same way that the rich inherit their money, the poor inherit their lack of money.

You said "So I wonder how the hell you're supposed to "win" if you're the kid of homeless parents..." Hey you are completely right, wheres the statistic that says how many homeless people are having homeless children?  Again this is free choice.  Aside from that if homeless or poor people do have children and choose to take care of them themselves, technically thats against the law. At least in this city it is. If you are not financially responsible for your kid they will take the child away and put them in foster care. My fiance's mother had done foster care.  Many children were underfed and abused. She actually ended up adopting one.  But now here's the rub.  What would you prefer?  Seeing a child on the street and having that child taken away from their parents whom of which live in poverty and can't feed the child, or let him stay with the parents that raised him?  What do YOU choose? Let me know because next time I see one, I'd like to know if I should call CPS or not.

It's NOT a free choice for the kid. And I wonder if it is for the mother. Should she be suffering abuse to avoid homelessness? I bet you'll say she should have.
And foster care... Don't get me started on that. Foster home children are not given job training in school or at home. Without a means to make money, nearly half of foster children in the United States become homeless when they are released from foster care at age 18. Some foster parents tho are polite enough to drop their kids off at youth homeless centers.
Proving that foster care doesn't work is the huge amount of kids from foster care that end up homeless or in poverty.

The generally agreed upon preference for child care is that the parents are able to care for the child. Helping the parents care for theirselves is helping the kid.
If all other options fail then, and only then, constructive foster care should be considered.

For the sake of argument you said "If you'd be living in a decent city there wouldn't be any homeless. Not that I want to diminish the accomplishments of your city's case-workers. And people that accept the help don't seem to be particularely helped, as they remain homeless. Would you mind disclosing where you live so I can look some objective sources up?" and for that same sake of argument I will say that I live in Texas. I will not give out the city, but you can count on it that it is one of the more densely populated citys in texas.

Thanks.

You mentioned "You're forgetting the housing prices... any work towards occupying an empty house and furnituring it."  I didn't think homeless people should be worrying about furniture. Also there are alot of privately owned housing and low income housing opportunities that could suit them better then purchasing a whole house, but it was moreso the suggestion of it then the actual act of purchasing one that I was pointing out.

Dare I say "lol"? With furnituring (literal translation of a dutch word generally used for this practice) I mean making sure the bare necessities work. Stuff like fixing plumbing. My bad.

And you do know there's a massive lack of afordable housing in the US, right? People with two jobs often can't afford to be house-owners.

You said in response to homeless people working together for squatting that squatting is "In the environment of distrust that comes with homelessness it's the closest thing to it. "

It may be a new fad for squatters to rally before sitting in a home that is not theirs but it there does not need to be more then one homeless person in a home for them to be considered squatting.  If homeless people help eachother by telling eachother about abandoned housing, I wouldn't consider it much help as it's highly illegal.


In some parts of the world it's not illegal to occupy abandoned housing. Your point?

You said "You're unable to grasp the possibility that the system may be actually flawed. The fact that it is becomes apparent when comparing to other systems.
And besides, would you call the caste-system flawed? Of course you would, because it is. It's not a stretch of imagination that your own system is flawed too. Just look at the results.
And maybe homeless kids SHOULD work harder,  yea."   Never once did I say the system wasn't flawed.  Also if you noticed I said that "You're mistaking not knowing any better then being a full grown adult.  Sorry there chief but I can't empathize with you there.  You think they may have potential, but I rather spend money on a child that can be molded into something instead of a person that had half their life to live . "  Children do not know any better, it's also illegal for children to work. Children also get more support then most.  The problem right now is with full grown adults over the age of 18 not being able to care for themselves. Never once did I condone children working.  As for the system, yes systems are flawed, not one of them is perfect, and I never said otherwise.  All I said is, if you work full time and it's not enough, work some more. I'm on salary and I make more then enough money right now, but you know what, I take off hand jobs too, because extra income means extra earning potential.  Granted in my line of work it is plentiful, but taking a second job of housecleaning could do the trick too.

Considering how many homeless children there are I'd say they don't really receive enough help. To think people over the age of 18 receive LESS... You tied homelessnes to not working. Homeless children are the living proof that you can start out in life with such a massive disadvantage that you're rendered unable to work, for the same reasons other homeless people are, but in a much younger (and thus mentally much more damaging) age.

Perfection isn't possible but near-perfection is.

You don't reply on the fact that other countries prove to do a much better job of rehabilitating homeless people.

Here is also an interesting point you made, I said "Lets go back to the beginning topic.  It's illegal to feed homeless people that are in common areas in Orlando.  Now we're not talking about the Homeless people who want help, we're talking about the day to day homeless people asking for a hand out.  "

You said

"Mmmmh. Now you're saying that all beggars are homeless and all homeless are beggars. That's simply not the truth. Just pointing that out."  I just got through ,mentioning, we're not talking about homeless people who want help.  The homeless people in the public eye, on park benches asking for money, that hang around orlando parks and bother tourists, these are the homeless people in the subject that I was speaking.  I did not encompass all homeless people in that comment, and I don't even see how you would take it that way.


To which I reply that people should have the right to go and stand where they want as long as they're not bothering anyone. And "they might bother someone in the future" doesn't really cut it.

You said "WHy is "helping" them in a spot where they're concentrated better than any other way? To make it easier for drug-pushers? To decreise their privacy? To make it easier for predators to steal their stuff? TO encourage conflict? To overcrowd the overcrowded shelters even more?
I'm not saying that you're completely wrong. I'm saying that depriving people of their freedom isn't helping them.
I even think simply giving them food is demeaning and slightly counter-productive in the long run. "Give a man fish, he'll eat for a day..."

But I guess it's the best thing there is, since there's obviously no rehabilitation policy..."

You say we are taking away their freedom. This freedom that you speak of is a freedom to beg for sympathy.  I will say one thing though, you are right about the "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day," with your policy, with even giving him food at all, you are just feeding him for a day.  Where does it come in that we teach him to fish?  Why does it seem he doesn't even want to learn. Now lets add this into the point you made about taking their freedom away by making them go to shelters.  We are saying, you can eat if you get to these shelters, we are teaching him to fish, but instead they want someone to give them that fish, hopefully on their street corner, so they don't have to walk.  Hopefully that fish will contain alcohol.  Is that what we're all hoping for?

Freedom is freedom, no matter the way it's being used. You're not in title to deprive people of the freedom to decide what is freedom.
And why it seems he doesn't want to learn? Ask them.
You're not teaching anyoen to fish. You're teaching to concentrate their begging. In stead of begging in a place where people are being remembered of their failing as a society you're teaching them to beg/be in a more hidden place.
You're not helping someone get rid of their mental/physical illnesses or their substance abuse. You're not helping them with a home and food so they can spend their time looking for a job.


If those shelters were such a nice place  to go then wouldn't people rather not STAY there? Hell, they even get food there!

You're teaching them to crowd together and beg in a more organised fashion.

BTW, only 30% of the homeless know substance abuse.

Last of all I said " And just because you have an opinion, it does not make you right. If you were right then the law would never have been passed.  If I was right we wouldn't be having this conversation".

to which you responded "it's hilarious you're saying laws that get passed are always right."

What my comment meant, because you misunderstood, is that if you were ultimatel right, an absolute positive, then the law would not have been passed. If I was absolutely right, about everything, then we wouldn't be arguing. By no means does this mean everything I say is right, or every law that is passed is correct. All this means is that if we all were right about everything we say, no argument could be made. Does that interpretation suffice?

Thanks for clearing that up. Now it's obvious you're not talking about real situations, but hypothetical ones where one of us is absolutely, without a doubt right.
I don't see why we should be discussing non-existent situations.

 

 

 

Astropuyo.

Frankly I'll make this one quick. There isn't a reason to argue.  You obviously don't know the way the world works. Hard work, for hard pay. It's so simple you just don't understand it, and I could get a hundred thouseand people with valid points, graphs, charts, and percentages showing you the direct correlation of working hard, to not being homeless. Listen, it's not my fault they're homeless, and nomatter what you say, it really really is their fault.  I don't care if they have a mental disability, they can go to a mental hospital. Frankly you're spending too much time talking about it, then corraling up the worlds homeless people and making them all "better".  Good luck, you won't get anywhere.  Spend the rest of your life doing that, you won't do it.

Theres no reason to do it. Whether you are arguing for the sake of arguing or you really fanatically think you're right, you aren't proving anything. With everything you say you forget basic principles of life.  People are born rich, and people are born poor.  Rich people become poor and poor people become rich.  Immigrants come over and become millionaires while regular blue collar americans stay middle class. So what.  Everyone has a chance to become what they want, and thats called freedom.  You complain theres not enough help out there. That everyone *should* have a roof over there head, food, and water. You are wrong.  Simple as that.  If that was the way it was supposed to be, then everyone WOULD have food and water and shelter.  They don't and you can't argue with that. You really can't.  With each passing argument you push the conversation further and further from what this is really about.  The law IS stating that it's illegal. It IS illegal.  

In your world "the western civilizations can pay for all the homeless people to eat and have shelter" Yeah that's why they all do right? Because they deserve it so much right?  Your world isn't the real world.  And the longer you try and make this world your frilly fantasy world, the more time you will waste. You want to help homeless people, fine.  There are alot of people out there who are helping the homeless alot more then you.  How about you go give them shelter and food, let them live with you.  Maybe that's crossing the line hmm? Help them on someone elses dime?  That's so hypocritical.

And you keep speaking about a universal law of second chances.  Listen, maybe you never give yourself a second chance, but there is no situation where you can't have a second chance, unless you are terminally ill, or dead. If you are poor you can work. If you are sick, you can get better.  How do you do all these things? You seek help. Help isn't on the street. I can't believe with all your percentages that you can't understand that you don't seek help by begging on the street.

Homeless people hurt business.  If they are outside a business it hurts the business. People don't spend thousands of dollars to paint, and build so that the design can be messed up by some poor shlub that wants to sleep on the wall all night and day.  And here in my town they get arrested. God willing, let them seek help where help is freely given.

Children do not have a choice to which they are born, rich or poor.  It's true, but the parents have a choice to do what is best for the child. If the child is born and they can't care for it, put it up for foster care, or CPS will take the child.  Sorry, but thats the way it goes.  Thats what CPS is for.  That is the stark reality. 

What could be isn't what is.  This is what life IS like.  You can't say that the world can feed everyone, because it's not the worlds job to feed everyone.  Survival of the fittest you say doesn't work. But it's been working for millions of years.  So african dogs work together. Lions hunt together.  Hey male Zebras use their male anatomy to abort babies in the female so they can impregnate them. Maybe that shows we should be doing that instead hmm?  One thing is for sure. The fittest hunt, they kill and they live IN ALL SITUATIONS.  Not all animals hunt in packs, and the ones that do, only the fittest hunt.  There is no arguing, there really isn't thats how life works, I don't see how you don't understand that.

Originally posted by Astropuyo

 

What the flying %#$# is a "Real Citizen", you have money therefore you are a "Real Citizen" but poor aren't? Holy crap, did you even read what makes "freedom" so %$#%ing awsome. We're equal. Say what you want but that "nasty bum" is equal to you and the only way you can rise about his scraggly ass is by hiring a better lawyer. Aside from that mr.hasn't_brushed_his_teeth+4 months is the same as you.

 

So you segregate the poor from areas and it makes the problem go away eh?  You know because they are so unsightly and all..Lets just toss them to the gated "Hobo depot", that way those crazy religious wacko's (who happen to be keeping them from mass mugging your sub urban ass) can do all the work.

The green one here got me the most . It's striking how stupid you sound there. Most homeless are druggies or alchies or both in this statement.  Good news buddy, most homelessness is not caused by those two, as a matter of fact most homeless people are generally folks who couldn't get their crap together .

 

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about and appear rather shallow. Sure they could help themselves out of a hole, but once a hole gets too deep you need help.

Most homeless would rather not be so, and starving sucks. Regulating location and probally times they may be fed only adds more to the shallow scene.

I prefer jobfaires or workfaires in this instance personally.

I hope a hobo mugs you because he was hungry, or for "Drugs and/or Booze".

(Also travel out of your little town/state sometime. Florida is the countries wack'o hole.. You guys  "yall" have some serious sophistication out there..yep you have Daytona and Disney World. But the homeless make the state bad right?)

Okay first California is the "wacko" capital of the world.  Second, I see no problems with Orlando, it is an incredible tourist town that brings people from all over the world there every year.  Third, we are all created equal, this is true.  Him saying the homeless aren't "real citizens" was a poor choice of words. As far as the "religious carebears" protecting the rest of the population from the homeless in fear of "mass muggings" that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.  A homeless person who is going to attack someone is just asking to be worse off then he already is.  At least in jail he'd have food.   You also said that homeless people are people who couldn't get their crap together. Please tell MadAce that, its poor decisions that put them in a bind most of the time.  Hey sometimes you need help, but soliciting tourists and the general population passing by is the way to do it? I don't think so.

Oh man, you shoulda just quit when you were ahead. 

First you say there is no universal law that deems that people have second chances.  There is a universal law.  As long as they are not dead they have a choice. Here's a question. When in your adult life do you not have a choice?  Choices breed chances. I don't need a quote to prove this, it's common sense.

you said "I've proven to you that the survival of the fittest doesn't apply to the individual, in societies like the human or the wild dogs'.
You seem to finally understand that people have to participate in society and contribute to it. Now, how's that possible if one has their hands full with simple survival?
It's like asking a solitary lion to not only hunt for himself (male lions sometimes participate in the hunt) but also for some random pack. Why should he?
And why should a homeless person care for society? Society is perfectly able to help him, but a homeless person is too "busy" to be bothered with the big scope of things."

You just said " why should a homeless person care about society?" "a homeless person is too 'busy; to be bothered with the big scope of things"  So they don't want to be bothered with being part of a society, so we should condone that and give them money. Thats a great way to make people want to help these, "homeless" that don't want  to be part of society. You said "Its easier for society to help the homeless then the other way around"   I'm not saying society should help the homeless at all until the homeless wants to help themselves. Lets get more into this as I move through your responses.

You said regarding comments on hidden potential of homeless people "Where their potential is? Well, jeez, let me guess... They waste it on survival? And of course, if one is homeless long enough paranoia and loneliness start to take their toll."

So the fix to this problem would be to pay their way through life.  That would sure get them to be a part of society wouldn't it.  Just pay their way because once we do that, we can see their hidden potential to get things for free from hard working tax payers.  I like the way you think.

This next part is by far my favorite. You said "If charity isn't substanitally helping someone... What's the point? Seriously. People are in title to the basics to be able to be productive. Food, shelter, security, water. If charity isn't able to provide for that then it's a waste of time and resources and should be expanded/reorganised. Because then you're helping nobody in the long term." 

So basically if you can't make a decent contribution to the homeless don't help at all. I really like that one. You went from giving the homeless food to, "Hey, if ya can't give them shelter, food, and hope, don't even bother."  Its all or none with you isn't it?  Resources should be expanded and reorganised? You aren't helping "nobody" in the long term?  Well just a couple of minutes ago these homeless didn't even want to be part of society because they were too busy surviving, and now we need to help them for the long term by giving them food, shelter, water and security.  Hey you know what else, instead of all these fund raisers for breast cancer, why don't we just say screw it, if you can't fix it with the millions they've given you don't even bother making another fundraiser. 

You go on to say "if a part of the world has the power to exploit another part (for say... Coltan, diamonds, ...) then it should have the decency to counter their installed dictators bullcrap by feeding the populations of those countries"  So now you're saying that some countries should pay for other countries food because they "exploit" them.  So just because I'm using your country for Diamonds, I should feed the whole population?  Hey thats not the way the world works. Just because I'm going to go to my parents house and make dinner for them, I don't have to make dinner for the whole block.  But you were right, thats a topic for another time.

Afterwards you say "I'm reading up on pverty in the US. ANd I'm reading that "birth of a child" is a reason for becoming poor... W-T-F? Okay, I admit that when someone is stupid enough to get pregnant and they don't have the money to pay for the abortion (or conservative parents) that this is their own fault... But is this the fault of the child? Why should his/her life be bankrupted because of the mistakes of his/her parents? This way you're just crteating poverty and the increasing possibility for homelessness."

I'm sorry to point this out but Abortion is not the only way out.  If they are conservative and don't want to abort, or if they don't want to give the child up for adoption then hey, guess what it's their choice.  You're mistaking a poverty rate over free choice.  They choose to take care of the child.  They choose to keep it.  Hey you know, they choose to have unprotected sex!  Guess what, thats free choice, if thats what they choose then they've already made a choice and it was a bad one.  Maybe under your list of reasons for being homeless you should jot down "Free Choice"  that would be a good one. 

Hey this may shock you but the majority of millionaires are self made millionaires. More then half of those millionaires were not born in the united states. (read the total money makeover). Think about that.  These people come over from other countries and work harder and smarter then most americans do.  And it has nothing to do with the intelligence of americans it's that we are programmed to think a different way about finances.  If a normal american in a good natured middle class family can't get it together enough to become a millionaire but some guy from a different country that comes over with NOTHING and builds wealth from the ground up can do it, then who's to say a homeless person can't get his act together. It's a matter of drive bud.

You said "So I wonder how the hell you're supposed to "win" if you're the kid of homeless parents..." Hey you are completely right, wheres the statistic that says how many homeless people are having homeless children?  Again this is free choice.  Aside from that if homeless or poor people do have children and choose to take care of them themselves, technically thats against the law. At least in this city it is. If you are not financially responsible for your kid they will take the child away and put them in foster care. My fiance's mother had done foster care.  Many children were underfed and abused. She actually ended up adopting one.  But now here's the rub.  What would you prefer?  Seeing a child on the street and having that child taken away from their parents whom of which live in poverty and can't feed the child, or let him stay with the parents that raised him?  What do YOU choose? Let me know because next time I see one, I'd like to know if I should call CPS or not.

For the sake of argument you said "If you'd be living in a decent city there wouldn't be any homeless. Not that I want to diminish the accomplishments of your city's case-workers. And people that accept the help don't seem to be particularely helped, as they remain homeless. Would you mind disclosing where you live so I can look some objective sources up?" and for that same sake of argument I will say that I live in Texas. I will not give out the city, but you can count on it that it is one of the more densely populated citys in texas.

You mentioned "You're forgetting the housing prices... any work towards occupying an empty house and furnituring it."  I didn't think homeless people should be worrying about furniture. Also there are alot of privately owned housing and low income housing opportunities that could suit them better then purchasing a whole house, but it was moreso the suggestion of it then the actual act of purchasing one that I was pointing out.

You said in response to homeless people working together for squatting that squatting is "In the environment of distrust that comes with homelessness it's the closest thing to it. "

It may be a new fad for squatters to rally before sitting in a home that is not theirs but it there does not need to be more then one homeless person in a home for them to be considered squatting.  If homeless people help eachother by telling eachother about abandoned housing, I wouldn't consider it much help as it's highly illegal.

You said "You're unable to grasp the possibility that the system may be actually flawed. The fact that it is becomes apparent when comparing to other systems.
And besides, would you call the caste-system flawed? Of course you would, because it is. It's not a stretch of imagination that your own system is flawed too. Just look at the results.
And maybe homeless kids SHOULD work harder,  yea."   Never once did I say the system wasn't flawed.  Also if you noticed I said that "You're mistaking not knowing any better then being a full grown adult.  Sorry there chief but I can't empathize with you there.  You think they may have potential, but I rather spend money on a child that can be molded into something instead of a person that had half their life to live . "  Children do not know any better, it's also illegal for children to work. Children also get more support then most.  The problem right now is with full grown adults over the age of 18 not being able to care for themselves. Never once did I condone children working.  As for the system, yes systems are flawed, not one of them is perfect, and I never said otherwise.  All I said is, if you work full time and it's not enough, work some more. I'm on salary and I make more then enough money right now, but you know what, I take off hand jobs too, because extra income means extra earning potential.  Granted in my line of work it is plentiful, but taking a second job of housecleaning could do the trick too.

Here is also an interesting point you made, I said "Lets go back to the beginning topic.  It's illegal to feed homeless people that are in common areas in Orlando.  Now we're not talking about the Homeless people who want help, we're talking about the day to day homeless people asking for a hand out.  "

You said

"Mmmmh. Now you're saying that all beggars are homeless and all homeless are beggars. That's simply not the truth. Just pointing that out."  I just got through ,mentioning, we're not talking about homeless people who want help.  The homeless people in the public eye, on park benches asking for money, that hang around orlando parks and bother tourists, these are the homeless people in the subject that I was speaking.  I did not encompass all homeless people in that comment, and I don't even see how you would take it that way.

You said "WHy is "helping" them in a spot where they're concentrated better than any other way? To make it easier for drug-pushers? To decreise their privacy? To make it easier for predators to steal their stuff? TO encourage conflict? To overcrowd the overcrowded shelters even more?
I'm not saying that you're completely wrong. I'm saying that depriving people of their freedom isn't helping them.
I even think simply giving them food is demeaning and slightly counter-productive in the long run. "Give a man fish, he'll eat for a day..."

But I guess it's the best thing there is, since there's obviously no rehabilitation policy..."

You say we are taking away their freedom. This freedom that you speak of is a freedom to beg for sympathy.  I will say one thing though, you are right about the "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day," with your policy, with even giving him food at all, you are just feeding him for a day.  Where does it come in that we teach him to fish?  Why does it seem he doesn't even want to learn. Now lets add this into the point you made about taking their freedom away by making them go to shelters.  We are saying, you can eat if you get to these shelters, we are teaching him to fish, but instead they want someone to give them that fish, hopefully on their street corner, so they don't have to walk.  Hopefully that fish will contain alcohol.  Is that what we're all hoping for?

Last of all I said " And just because you have an opinion, it does not make you right. If you were right then the law would never have been passed.  If I was right we wouldn't be having this conversation".

to which you responded "it's hilarious you're saying laws that get passed are always right."

What my comment meant, because you misunderstood, is that if you were ultimatel right, an absolute positive, then the law would not have been passed. If I was absolutely right, about everything, then we wouldn't be arguing. By no means does this mean everything I say is right, or every law that is passed is correct. All this means is that if we all were right about everything we say, no argument could be made. Does that interpretation suffice?

Originally posted by Ichijo

 

Originally posted by Lockbane

Too many uneducated people raging on a game far before the beta is even complete. Last patch says everything, the game has completely changed over night.

As far as promises prior to beta... The only thing they are promising is an army surplus (Auction house). Other then that, it's just balance changes and bug fixes.

Button smashing NO... If you play past lvl 15 then you will encounter many enemy's that require you to switch weapons, drop bombs, throw nades or use logos.

Play past lvl 20 if you are going to post about this game please.....................

 

Played to 24, bored to tears, uninstalled.

Didn't require any strategy, just hold down the mouse button.

I used a couple shotguns and a couple rocket launchers to mitigate damage types.

Only bothered with a couple logos, rage was really all that was needed.

Rerolled a few times, even more boring than the soldier class.

 

If one desperately needs an excuse to play an online video game then I guess Tabula Rasa fills that need but to me it just feels like an Unreal Tournament mod for kids that cannot aim.

Not that I care though, I just find it interesting the same people really all say the same things. 

Originally posted by Aristea

 

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Aristea

 

Originally posted by maskedweasel

So you move away using wasd while keeping your mouse targeted and hitting the number keys to attack.  I think you're going to be missing a hand or two extra in there.

 

Number keys are for nubs :) no offense.

 

Assuming you played WoW and probably something low-difficulty, like a caster or hunter, you might come a long way using the number keys while using WASD, but playing a tank, like I have for 2 years, you need some serious skill to be able to pull off the fireworks. WASD movement, but QERTFGHZX1,2,3,4 and ~ + any of those in combination with alt and ctrl.

You're thinking of WoW, this has a rolling skill deck, you only have 5 choices at a time.  You also have to aim while using them.  Thankfully it will be a different experience compared to WoW.

 

I'm sorry, but I thought you were referring to the fact that you had to use numbers with WASD, while I just told you, that you don't. I could be wrong of course, about you implying the first and me correcting with the latter, but, I'm not.

The 5 skill ladder is publicly known and completely irrelevant to the point.

The reason I'm pointing it out (so noone gets confused) is if you are aiming with your mouse.  walking with your wasd keys, and still have to use the number slots 1-5 to attack, it makes the combat slightly more complicated.  Sure you could remap the keys (if they allow it) . But the only real way to tell how great it will be is to play it right?

Originally posted by MadAce

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 

I didn't say you realize you're afraid.
What do homeless people give to the world? What do children give to the world? For about 20 years parents and society invest immense amounts of time and money in them... Why? Because they have IMMENSE potential. Same with homeless people.

You're mistaking not knowing any better then being a full grown adult.  Sorry there chief but I can't empathize with you there.  You think they may have potential, but I rather spend money on a child that can be molded into something instead of a person that had half their life to live .  Don't say second chances to me either, everyone has second chances, but you're feeding their first, failed chance instead of showing them the rules on how to get better.

With some help they could be back on their feet.
The wild dogs prove that your argument about "survival of the fittest" was bullshit as that species (and mankind) proves that you don't have to discard your own less productive members  to be highly successful.

The survival of the fittest still works in all situations.  You forget, healthy dogs are the ones that hunt.  Lionesses hunt for food, you think the male lions lay about all day and never pitch in? Wrong, they protect and allow the species to procreate.  Most homeless people don't even do that.

That's bullshit, as most homeless people aren't mentally ill.

Understand, nowhere in my post did I mention "all homeless people are mentally ill".  I stated that if a mentally ill person is working then they aren't homeless. Or at least they have money to eat.  Nowhere did I say the majority of homeless people are mentally ill, however after reading your posts I'm starting to think they might be.  After all the food and money alot of these people get they still appear to be homeless, I wonder where the potential went. That potential you were talking about, where did that go?  Maybe theres something mentally wrong with them that they just can't get it together?

Ehem. If they were receiving (sufficient) charity... Don't you kinda think they'd... like... have... a roof?
You have a hard time grasping extrapolation. With the cooperation and teamwork argument I'm meaning to say that altruism and helping your fellow man is one of the reasons why we're successful as a species.
And like I said, ask them why they're not at the shelter.

Again, you don't understand. This time instead of common sense though it's in a definition.

Charity - 1) generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless: to devote one's life to charity 

2)something given to a person or persons in need; alms: She asked for work, not charity.

Nowhere does it say that charity means a roof over someones head.  Secondly working together helps the species, so what does not working at all do?  Cause thats what they're doing.  Thirdly, I'm not going to waste time walking around asking people why they aren't at a shelter.  You may have time for that, I do not.  If they aren't in a place where they should be, they get arrested and moved to a place where they should be. That's the law. We have no camping signs all around our city.

The government DOES have enough money to feed the whole world. Most Western govenments do. Feeding people is rather cheap.
I think it's okay for people to rely on some sort of organisation with enough means, money, legislation and manpower to help them get back on their feet so they can yet again be productive members of society. Be it the government, fine.

I'm glad you think the world has enough money to pay everyone elses way.  Hey maybe I should just stop working and move in with you for awhile.  You are completely mistaken, there are those who choose to work and those who don't.  Those that choose to work will never be held down.  Those are the people at shelters, asking for help from organizations. Maybe you should tell some of your homeless people about these organizations, HEY then maybe they won't be on the streets anymore, and they won't be begging. YEAH, and then there won't be a LAW saying people can't feed stray HUMANS! Cause you feed a stray human, he just keeps coming baaack and baack and back.

Wow. You're sure you're an adult? Because you just refered to life (that really big, complicated thing) as "a game". I'm sure it's not to homeless people.

Anything can be considered a "game" per se.  Life, tetris, sex, a job. In all those there are winners and losers. You can't have one without the other.  You live in an "everyone should be a winner" mentality.  Communism?

Okay, I admit it's kinda hard to get an honest response from someone who's obviously exploiting the fact that he/she is homeless. For them you're just another customer.

I'm not talking about being just another part of their daily routine. I'm really talking about going over there, in the park, and ASKING someone (with an open mind) why they're not at the shelter. This is different from your other contacts as this time you would be the one initiating contact. Much less strings attached.
And you wouldn't mind doing that as you're not afraid of homeless people.
You said you SEE way too many homeless people. Which really tells me you have never seen any homeless people which are not obviously homeless. And you sure as hell haven't talked to them.

It seems you're missing a whole lot of them in your scope of things. How often do you see children among the homeless?

I see them about 10 percent of the time on the street.  I seem them about 50 percent of the time at the shelter.  I also see quite a few at the adoption center down the road from the shelter.  Luckily I live in a decent city that gives aid to those in need. Thats partially why I have no tolerance for people that don't accept it.

I want you to become a little more empathic.

BTW, I admire the fact that you're living conciously.

You do know that building a house without the propper papers is illegal, do you? Also, building materials and the very ground to build on tend to be quite expensive. Building outside designated areas is illegal.

Perhaps I didn't word this correctly. I didn't mean actually build one. I mean build a community, work towards a house.

 Ever heard of squatters? I bet you haven't. Tho it seems it's rather marginal in most of the US, as In the United States, squatting laws vary from state to state and city to city. For the most part it is rarely tolerated to any degree for long, particularly in cities. Laws based on a contract ownership interpretation of property make it easy for deed holders to evict squatters under loitering or trespassing laws.

Yes I know what  a squatter is.  I'm not saying that they won't be removed if they just move into an empty domocile.  Even if it's not empty.  I'm saying with a large group of them they can work to buy something of their own.  Working together, if they can't work alone. It's not a hard concept.

You continue to deny the biological fact that human beings have empathy hardwired in the brains. *sigh*
You're de facto saying homeless people don't help each other, which makes the very concept of squatting non-existant. Quite far from reality. Then there's the concept of pooling money to buy a car as a base of operations (which I imagine is a lot more common in the US).

Squatting in its essence can be a single person or a group, that moves into a house or on land that he/she/they do not own. It has nothing to do with helping eachother.

25% Of the homeless have a job. You said you sleep 5 hours a night. I bet you really want to make the best out of those 5 hours. I bet I would. Now, since many parts of the US have problems with a lack of shelter capacity imagine keeping your job while sleeping 5 hours a night, but rough. If you sleep at all.

I'd say it speaks for them that they can keep their jobs.

thats 25%.  Thats not anywhere near the majority.  70% of the population live paycheck to paycheck.  That doesn't mean that 70% of the population is homeless.  90% of people with herpes don't know they have it.  That doesn't mean they're idiots.  Quoting percentages really doesn't help in this situation.  If they are willing to work (the few that are) but they remain homeless then perhaps they should work harder.  Anyone thats really had to struggle for everything they have, and know what its like to really put 100% into your well being and survival would know that if you are working hard and you just don't make it, the answer isn't to beg people on the street, it's to work harder.  Now I understand it may sound harsh, someone working as hard as they can but I think we're both misunderstanding eachother. 

Lets go back to the beginning topic.  It's illegal to feed homeless people that are in common areas in Orlando.  Now we're not talking about the Homeless people who want help, we're talking about the day to day homeless people asking for a hand out.  

Do I agree that if there is a homeless person that needs help you should help them? Yes I do.  Is helping them giving them food? Yes. Is helping them giving them food when they can easily get food from a homeless shelter? No.  Is helping them, bringing them a cheeseburger while they lie on the park bench, cup in hand outstretched, saying "Poor old army vet! Needs Help!"  Sorry can't sympathize with you there either.  

Now you and I must have two different pictures of the homeless in our minds. Your homeless all have reasons why they are on the street, my homeless have no reason why they are on the street.  I had one blatantly tell everyone in a Shell station that he just got finished smoking crack and that I shouldn't be mad because "The white man brought it over here"  the man was also caucasian.  After which he asked the clerk for some change.  

Listen I'm sorry we disagree, I do my fair share of charity, I do the marathons and donate money, aside from what I did previously it's also part of www.daveramsey.com 's program.  I'm no stranger to giving.

 

 

EDIT: IMHO the majority of people are jerks. Doesn't matter how much money they have.

Last but not least, just because people don't agree with your every word does not make them a jerk.  And just because you have an opinion, it does not make you right. If you were right then the law would never have been passed.  If I was right we wouldn't be having this conversation.