Jordan Peterson and the myth of monogamy

I disagreed with “objectifying females” in gaming a decade ago and more recently too. My views on sexism didn’t change, the World went crazy over a decade, so while I was considered somewhat feminist back then, now I’m alt-right for the exact same views.

Exactly because of that, I strongly disagree with alt-right sweetheart Jordan Peterson and his idea of “forced monogamy”, even when I understood it as he meant instead of as what liberals heard.

Not like most of his pieces of advise aren’t sound (he just says common sense things which aren’t so common recently). His statements about males and females being more competent in stuff can be supported with the condition of it’s being descriptive instead of prescriptive (aka “merit-based hiring will lead to more male miners and female nurses” vs “we must hire men as miners and women as nurses”).

“Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.” “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.” “Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise, women will all only go for the most high-status men” “preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.”

Bullshit! You know what prevents hordes of single men from violence? Armed police and prisons. The idea that the society should pay tribute to these losers is bizarre even if you completely ignore women’s rights and consider them a mere property. Our response to impoverished looting rioters is not communist redistribution of wealth but machine guns. I see no reason why should we respond differently to the demands of the “sexually impoverished”.

He is also dead wrong in the enforced monogamy nonsense. He buys into the completely unscientific idea that a few high-status males monopolize the women and that makes them inaccessible to low-status males. There is absolutely no scientific evidence of the existence of such harems. The truth is that the women are “inaccessible” because they live alone, rather than with a moron and slacker. 72% of the black American kids are with single mothers. Do you think they are secret lovers of some high-status males? If that would be the case, the kids would be from these few fathers, but no such study appeared. No, they were in a relationship with an ordinary black guy and then he became a deadbeat father. For white Americans it’s 30% and growing. I seriously doubt that those fat mamas in the trailer parks are inaccessible because they are monopolized by George Clooney and Elon Musk.

The truth is that a moron or slacker is of no use to anyone, including another moron or slacker. So they live alone, often as a literal virgin basement dweller. They are not happy and feel entitled to companionship but they wouldn’t accept their opposite-sex version, and rightfully so. Forcing people to live a strictly monogamous life wouldn’t change a thing for them. It might destroy the fun of some singles who sleep around, but it wouldn’t change them from being singles. They are singles for a reason: they cannot bring enough into a relationship to be attractive to their opposite-sex version. Bizarrely it would even backfire, because it would take their only access to sex: drunken hookups. The idea that a woman who doesn’t even want you for a drunken hookup will marry you if we take away her right to hookups is pure insanity.

However the best counterargument is that it was kind of tested in Japan, where the traditional culture is still strong. The result? 43% of millennials are virgins. It seems that monogamy did exactly what I believe it would.

Funnily, I believe the “incel movement” is a product of liberalism. Incels use liberal terms to describe themselves. The liberals didn’t just create their crazy ideas, they also created a meta-idea that “failure is because of oppression”. The incels use this on themselves, creating their own worldview where they are oppressed by the “Chads and Stacys”. The oppressive rule of sexually attractive people is of course madness, but not bigger madness than the “patriarchy”, “white supremacy” or “cishet privilege”. No. If you fail in anything (getting job, wealth, sex), that’s because you’re a failure. A moron or a slacker. The society has no responsibility, you should just fix your attitude.

.

PS: no, this post doesn’t count as politics, as it endorses no candidate or aligns with no political platform. Incels are shunned by everyone for a reason.

Advertisements

Play ranked now!

From World of Warships posts, I got a dreadful image of ranked battles, full of cowardly Conquerors hiding in the back of the map, saving their stars while oneshotting everyone who makes a single mistake. Like many, I thought ranked is not yet for me. Then I realized that they are talking about “ranking out”, aka reaching rank 1.

However ranking is not binary, “rank 1” vs “potato”, there are exactly 23 ranks available. Each rank has rewards. Not even bad ones, like big stacks of premium consumables, credits, signals or even gold currency. However the best is the “Flag of the First League”, a special flag granting -10% service costs to all of your ships (you have to mount first). You get it for reaching rank 10. Its smaller version is giving -5% at rank 15.

Below rank 10, you can play with Tier 8 ships. I don’t even have Tier 9 ships, I’m so new to the game, yet I could reach rank 10. Why? Because it’s easy. No, I’m not being smug, I don’t mean “easy for a natural born captain like me, come and adore me”, I mean easier than random battles. Literally. Look at the following stat pages! I played ranked battles exclusively with one ship and I have better winrate, damage, XP, survival and everything on ranked than on random! (and thee WoWS stats page now calls me unicum hahaha!)

Why? Because in ranked you play exclusively against Tier 8 ships, while on random you can be the only Tier 8 facing Tier 10 ships. Also, there are less players (7 v 7 instead of 11 v 11), so your influence is larger and there are no botters and AFK-ers (except slow loaders) and open throwers that make the game one-sided and hopeless.

There is another thing to help you at low ranks, “irrevocable ranks”. Normally, you gain a star for a win and lose it for a loss, unless you are the top player of the losing team. If you have enough stars, you gain a rank, if you lose enough, you lose a rank. However if you reach an irrevocable rank, you don’t lose a star if it would mean losing that rank. Ergo you just need persistence to progress, not even skill. I mean if you need 3 stars to progress, you just need a period of plays when you have 3 more wins than losses. Over time, you must have that, even if your winrate is below 50% (which is mediocre by definition and if you do some preparation, you can be better than that):

irrev

There is no reason not to play ranked if you haven’t done it already. You can’t lose anything and you can win awful lot of rewards. So if you have a Tier 8 ship, queue ranked now! The season is almost over, hurry! Unless you are the worst player ever, you will reach rank 15, due to irrevocable ranks. If you are above average, you’ll reach rank 10, with all its rewards.

Carriers were a mistake

Wargaming is in a perpetual redesigning of carriers with no success. I can now tell you why? Because they were a mistake at the first place, a copy-paste of World of Tanks artillery without thinking about the role.

In World of Tanks, shooting while moving has little point unless you are at point blank range. Movement, or even turret rotation ruined gun dispersion that took time to shrink back after you stopped moving. That means that an already stationary tank has a huge advantage over one that moved into its line of sight, even if they are otherwise equal and spotted each other at the same time. The stationary can instantly fire an accurate shot and then either withdraw or angle its armor. The moving tank has to stop and wait before it can fire. If the stationary had an obstacle nearby, it could hide behind it before the attacker can aim.

Therefore, in World of Tanks, camping is a winning strategy. Since two teams camping for 15 minutes is not a fun gameplay, they introduced artillery which can shoot over the map, without retaliation, but with slow aiming. This allows the attackers to send a fast moving spotter into the enemy, find the campers and the artillery lock on them. If they keep camping, they get a huge shell on their top. Good artillery players could pre-lock the usual camping spots and fire on spotting.

World of Warships doesn’t have such movement penalty. On the contrary, a stationary ship is easy to hit. While a ship moving bow-first cannot fire with all of its turrets, it also present a smaller target and hides its vulnerable parts. So there is no problem to solve, a camper can be defeated by an equal ship moving towards it. While in a WoT game with no artillery the campers would win, eventually making the game unplayable, a World of Warships game without carrier is a complete and enjoyable game. Most ranked games I played had no carrier at all and I didn’t realize any change of strategy. DDs still spot, cruisers still shoot them, battleships still shoot cruisers and there is no widespread camping (besides the usual backside star-savers).

To make things worse for carriers, the air defense capability of ships prevents them to hit campers on the back, as flying over enemy ships is a bad idea. They must hit somewhat isolated battleships or spot destroyers… which is exactly the job of the destroyers. They even have torpedoes. They are just redundant.

The fundamental problem is that the destroyer-cruiser-battleship game is complete and needs no fourth element to add. Anything they come up with keeps being redundant and simply take someone else’s job, making his play miserable, just think of the DD that is perma-spotted by a carrier and practically removed from play. Any kind of “good” solution would need to give them a role on the battlefield that isn’t the role of somebody else and I just don’t see any.

I think the best course of action would be completely remove carriers from the game, repaying the credits for hulls and modules owned and refund all the XP spent as free.

.

PS: short personal note: I’ve reached Rank 10, which is the best rank available for Tier 8 ships. Further ranks would need Tier 10 ships, and I don’t even have a 9.

MMO for 2

I wrote how new game developers should focus on 1% market share sub-groups instead of trying to kill the king of the hill, because the first will succeed, the second will flop.

I’ve read many bloggers playing with one specific person, usually their romantic partner, but some, like Wilhelm plays with his child. I did the same. That is a niche in itself: “MMO for 2”. A game that is “forced grouping” with the fixed group size of 2. You can’t progress solo and the content is complicated enough to prevent 2 multiboxed characters efficiently progress, but should be solvable by two matching characters (tank + damage dealer or healer + damage dealer).

There should be some special buffing link that activates when they are playing together and it’s something that grows over time, to prevent randoms just duo up. I mean if you start playing with someone, the link is first weak and reaches its normal strength over 20 hours of playing together. If you start playing with someone else, the old link weakens as the new one grows.

All game systems are designed in a way that the group of two work together. The items are “soulbound to two”, ergo both members of the the team of two who claimed it can use it. They can share a bank. They can control the NPC minions. They are practically a guild of two with all features. The quests are designed with the idea of the two are on the same page of progress.

Since people don’t stay together forever, there should be catch-up mechanisms for new twos who are not on the same page. If they are on a different level, the bigger can shrink down to the level of the other, doing his quests together, but getting no XP, all of it goes to the smaller one. This is a kind of boosting, but it needs both players actually play together instead of a booster pulling a small one over the content.

There can still be guilds and bigger group content, but with the duo link in play. So if the guild takes only one member to the raid, he’ll miss his link and will be seriously underpowered, practically making it mandatory to take both.

Sure, this game is not for everyone. This is the point. This is a niche MMO, targeted especially for those 1% who want to play with one special person. This is its unique selling point and main value. Other games don’t provide such “play together” experience. On the contrary, if you play together a normal MMO, you trivialize the content. This is necessary, as the content is tuned to (not so skilled) solo players. So WoW can’t just take on this feature. Only a niche MMO can do it.

Zulu power for lots of credits

If you have less credits than you wish for, you can convert gold with 1:1500 ratio. Or you can buy from promotions with some discount. Sure, you can just farm with lower tier ships, but if you don’t enjoy that play, “time is money” applies.

However there is an in-between, the Zulu signal:
zulu

It costs 8 gold pieces and gives +20% credits. Ergo, if you earn more than 60K base credits (earning less needs some special kind of fail over tier 5), you earn more than 1500 credits/gold by flying this signal. Sure, it slowly depletes your gold stockpile, which is less than funny. However if you play 4 games per hour, then you paid only 24 gold or less than 10 cents for an hour of entertainment which isn’t much to ask.

In return, you get surprising amount of credits on the long run, because of how the services work on the higher tiers. You get lot of credits, but you also spend the lot, making your net gain small. This makes the small looking 20% closer to 100% net increase.

Over Tier 8 you can and probably should fly another signal: Zulu Hotel. It gives -10% services cost for 4 gold pieces. After T8, your services costs are higher than 60K, saving you more credits than converting the 4 pieces into credits would give.

I haven’t converted any gold to credits and not planning to do it ever. I also never played a ship that I didn’t want to play for the sole reason of “I need credits”.

.

Ranked is going very well (click on tiny). As much as I struggled with carriers or US DDs, the Japanese DDs come naturally:
rank4

Weekend minipost: Ranked

The “real” game in World of Warships is not random battles, but ranked and clan wars. To reach rank 10, you must win battles with a T8 ship, which I have 2, the very unlucky Shokaku, remnant of my Carrier plans and the new love, the Kagero, who has 63% random battle winrate. You can guess which ship was taken to Ranked battles. So far, I have little reason to complain:


(Click to see)