dropit_sphere

The reverse, however, could also be true---how did you get all those fireable white females in the first place?

>No culture is static,

indeed, the dodo would agree

This is a great discovery! Have you tried tying developer pay directly to these metrics?

lower-priced housing often has unacceptable attributes simply by virtue being lower-priced, as crime rates and schools are worse.

I feel like the qualifications should just be "competent Civilization player" or something.

Actually I think...a lot...of jobs could be filled that way?

>Second, nothing useful taught by religion actually requires religion itself.

This hinges very much on your definition of "useful;" if you don't believe in God or the resurrection of the dead, then talk concerning them is of course pointless. But if you do, they are very useful indeed.

caveat emptor...

I love Alastair MacLean's stuff! What was it called?

lol holy shit you guys are a rough crowd

it's "rational" if you don't factor in the complications

This is more a disagreement about fact than it is a threat.

"Take care of your body or else it will grow weak and sick" has a directive and a warning of consequences---is it a threat?

There are some assumptions here:

- you made marines

- they are accessible to a-moving banelings without having to go around terrain and/or through tank fire, marauders, mines

It's quite possible to do low-apm styles in SC2, but you have to actually do them, rather than trying to be budget Maru.

This (or, the experience you're looking for) is available now, by using compositions more suited to it and adjusting your play, but it does require departing from the meta (which I agree is over-focused on micro).

It tends to mean more: splash damage, retreating, turtling, bigger units, expanding, scouting, moving along side lanes. All of these work to get you more for your clicks.

There is a very real sense in which you can shrink your pool of tactics to those with "good UI", allowing you to play more abstractly, similarly to how you'd want expressiveness in a programming language. If you treat your strategic plan as an engineering solution, and then try to reduce moving parts and possible failure points...turns out that is in fact possible.

Retreating, for instance, is a much simpler (in the Rich Hickey sense) endeavor than attacking. It's just less likely to go wrong---fewer things behind you, simple movement rather than dismantling a defense, etc. Doesn't mean you should never attack, just that you should appropriately cost complexity when weighing your strategic options.

Splash damage lets you work on an area level rather than a unit level---another source of abstraction.

Expanding tends to give huge benefits per click compared to other things, and lets you afford bigger units which require less micro.

This doesn't come for free, you do have to play more conservatively and think outside the box ("moving along side lanes" is how you get space for free, which we are quite profligate about sacrificing when we retreat), but it's very possible.