What is a turn?

At some point, usually when they were young, most people learned to take turns.  But what is a turn anyway?

In the simplest sense it is "I go, then you go, then I go, and so on..."
Chess has this.  Make a move.  The other player makes their move.  Then you go.

Then there are multi-action single turns, where you may make a move that chains without the opponent being able to respond to the individual steps.
For that, imagine checkers in which you can hop over multiple pieces in a single turn.

Turns may have turns within themselves.  There are macro turns and micro turns.  On the macro level it may be your turn to make the first move, but your opponent can respond in some way, and you can respond to them, yet it is all considered the same turn.
Imagine Magic, in which you may declare attackers, then your opponent casts a spell, which you may then counterspell.  It's all your turn, yet they still make decisions.

A while ago I bought an iPhone game called Dungeon Raid.  It's a match-3 (or more) game layered with an RPG-style upgrading and leveling system.  It uses turns, which are triggered by connecting tiles (coins, monsters, health potions, that sort of thing).  Yet within these turns you can take actions.  I've learned to chain these together into combos that seem to exploit the concept of a turn.

First I use a spell that causes all new tiles to be coins.  Next I use another spell that collects all health potions but converts them to xp, which results in a lot of new coins dropping down.  I follow that with a spell that collects all coins, which are then replaced with more coins.  Finally I convert all coins into monsters.  At this point the turn is not over.  I've collected most of a screen's worth of experience potions and coins.  It is only when I've connected all the monsters to a sword that the game finally counts it as a turn.  Since the new turn hasn't started yet, the new tiles are all coins, so the next turn consists entirely of collecting a ton of coins.

Finally, there is Civilization V.  Against the AI things are pretty clear.  Each player goes in turn, giving build orders, attacking, and initiating diplomacy.  Since one entire side can move in a single turn with no ability for the opponent to react, this makes first strikes excessively powerful, particularly because siege units can attack without taking damage themselves.  The developers may have noticed this and came up with an ingenious solution for multiplayer: players go at the same time.  This lack of turn-taking results in a chaotic mess.  It's like kindergarten all over again and that is why we take turns.  And no pushing.

A dirty gypsy stole our monkeys for their circus

Syl moved to a new blog and new name.  Or it has the old content imported, so really it's just a new template.  Let's all laugh at her for working very hard for little functional difference.  That is, until Google shuts down Blogger and I have to start writing blog posts using only tweets.  At that point she'll appear to have planned ahead.  Until then, I will cruelly mock her.  Here's the address, just in case your links haven't updated, such as in blogrolls.

http://mmogypsy.com/

Just like riding a bicycle, but totally different

Think about riding a bike.  What do you remember?  Keep pedaling, since it's easier to balance when you're moving.  Balance is important because falling hurts.  Falling is an inefficient form of transportation.  Being inefficient means your parents force you to walk slowly but eat while jumping up and down for the rest of the day to show you why efficiency is important.

Beside all that critical information, you remember the muscle memory.  You remember how to pedal, balance, roll a fall and hide tears, and quietly run when no one can see you.

I started playing Starcraft 2 again.  Intellectually, it all comes right back.  I know to build a wall and what a bioball is and that I need to upgrade my units.  The actual actions are another story.  The rhythm is gone, so marines yell that they're ready to go and I don't have a second set already queued up a moment before.  The clicking is all wrong, with selection failure and consequently, control groups are all wrong.

Some people wish they could go back to the past and tell their past selves what they know now.  But as we all know, we didn't do dumb stuff because we didn't know better, we did it because we were stupid (the politically-correct term is "young").  The smart action is to go back and ask your past self what they know, since you're old and forgot.  Alternatively, kidnap them and force them to play Starcraft for you.

Join me and please go away

When I play single-player games I often find myself wishing that I could bring my friends along to see.  We could go through the treacherous wastelands together, like companions but with slightly less scripted dialogue, at least until someone drops a Monty Python quote and we begin the verbatim recital (sad irony).  Maybe it's because of my tendency to play in wastelands.  Stalker and Fallout are not kind places and sometimes covering fire is the nicest gift you could ever get (and never do).

Then I get into an MMO and wish all those damn people would go away.  I'm trying to get my ten bear asses here!  Not bare asses, get your ERP out of here; there are children!  And I wish there weren't.

I wonder why this is.

Perhaps it's that in a single-player game, I have all I need.  Adding players is a bonus.  It's allowing me to create a shared experience, truly shared, in a detailed world.  In contrast, MMOs demand other players, and performance from them, so that they are a built-in aspect.  An aspect which can very easily and frequently break.

Semi-automated Starcraft

Let's all recognize this as a safe space where we can all say that we're bad at Starcraft without fear of shame.  What's a noob to do?

In general, there are three aspects: economics, tactics, and strategy.  Economics involves securing bases, bringing in resources, and spending those resources in a timely manner for new units and upgrades.  Logistics wins wars.  On the tactical level, you want to manage the precise positioning of units, unit-specific abilities, movement, and precise timing.  And last, but should have probably been first, there is the strategy: when you're going to attack, what units you plan to use, where you're going to attack and where you're going to expand.

At the very least, you need strategy and economics or you're going to have no army and no ability to use it.  Tactics cannot fix a bad strategy or economy, though bad enough tactics can ruin even an otherwise good game.  Some people can manage all three.  Some people can barely manage one.  I can do two at a time, but at almost any time, one of them is being neglected.  The result is that players like me tend to lose a lot.  It's not much fun.

Of course practice would help.  I could play a few games focusing only on one aspect, get that embedded, and move on to the next.  If I had all the time in the world then that might be just fine, but without it, those "training games" are really just me getting my ass kicked.  The frustration and time wasted outweighs the learning.

Automation could help with this.  Allow the player to hand off to the AI a particular aspect of the game.  Such games would be considered distinct game modes, so that all players in a match are using the AI for the same aspect.  For example, in a game where the AI is set to manage the economics, you could tell the AI to keep a certain number of units built at all times and learn upgrades in a certain order as resources are available, allowing you as the player to focus on expanding and tactics.

This would allow players to focus on either their strengths, offloading their weakest skill to the AI, or their weaknesses, giving them the mental space to focus and learn.

Partial shapeshifting

By some means give druids the ability to shapeshift partially.  If they retain more of their non-animal form, then they can display armor and weapons.  This would be purely cosmetic, with no effect on stats.  It would make transmogrification relevant for druids.  Full shapeshifting would remain for those who prefer it.

How do you transmog a hunter?

I already have Wolfslayer Sniper Rifle, which is awesome.  But my gear looks ridiculous.  What hunter gear doesn't?  Other classes can look cool.  Obviously my paladin has an awesome transmog, but you'll have to take my word for it, which is as good as gold, since both are only worth what we think they're worth and have little intrinsic value.  Shamans can look cool.  Any cloth class can look cool, given the availability of cool robes in both windows and non-windows styles.  Rogues are of course awesome.  Druids turn into animals and could be naked for all I know.  Warriors and death knights can look badass.  And of course monks are all pandas and look ridiculous no matter what they wear.

Hunters though, hunters.  I mean, hunters.  Hunter transmog gear?  That's an oxymoron, by which I mean you'd need to be a moron addicted to Oxycontin to think hunters look cool.  Obviously there are a wide variety of guns and bows, even crossbows, but the armor is terrible.  Everything looks like a clown parade.  It's not that I mind some flashiness; my paladin certainly has some shiny army, but it is classy.  My rogue has a great hat, but it is classy.  Hunters don't do classy.

And yet, can I give up the hunt so easily?  No!  Well yes, but I shouldn't.  So I ask you, people who have registered for some sort of account in order to be able to comment here, what is a good transmog set for a hunter?

We are no longer being warned about BoP

At least not when soloing Molten Core.  You're welcome.

Let's see, next on the list:
It's time to allow paladins to fly during Avenging Wrath.