Is it just me or do the Chicago teams suffer disproportionately from labor problems in their respective sports? Look at the history:
1986 NFL Strike - The '85 Bears had won the Superbowl in a rout and everyone expected a dynasty to compare with the Steelers and Raiders of the '70s. Instead, the Bears were one and done. Why? Part of it was certainly the departure of defensive coordinator Buddy Ryan and the subsequent weakening of the Bear's defense. Another was the sudden rise of the New York Giants and the "Big Blue Machine" in 1986. But perhaps the nail in the coffin was the 1987 NFL Strike, and the Bears' handling of it. The Bears embraced the idea of replacement players with company man Mike Ditka saying "These are my players now!" Many Bears players from the '87 team have said this "betrayal" hurt team morale, and the Bears haven't won a Superbowl since.
1994 NHL Lockout - The Blackhawks won their division in both 1991 and 1993. Guess what happened next? The Hawks wouldn't sniff the division crown, or go deep into the playoffs, until 2009 when they won it all.
1994 MLB Strike - On August 12, 1994, the White Sox were leading the American League Central with a record of 67-46. That, however, was the last day of the season, because the '94 strike wiped out the rest of it, including the playoffs. It wouldn't be until 2000 that the Sox would win the division again, and not until 2005 that they would win the World Series.
2011 NFL Lockout - This one is somewhat fuzzier, but given the Bears's record before the lockout was 11-5 and included a trip to the NFC Championship where they lost to the eventual Superbowl winners. This season, they're 2-3 and sliding fast. One of the things that's hurting the 2011 Bears is a barrage of injuries to crucial players.... injuries that might not of occurred had there been a full off season and training camp that got canceled because of the lockout!
2011 NBA Lockout - And so now the NBA is locked out. Bulls players are scattering to play across Europe, and the young core of the Bulls can't talk to coaches to learn the system or practice together. Maybe they'll put it together in the end, but I can't help but feel pessimistic about the season...if there even IS a season.
In short, Chicago keeps getting screwed whenever there's labor troubles in sports, and this year seems no different.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Write Everyday Project #14, Gaming the Cold War
It's tough to find time for this on the weekends, but I suppose that is the point nevertheless. Don't find time, make it.
Anyway, I've been thinking about the Cold War. It came up in a Facebook conversation a while back, and then on Friday I ended up picking up a few appropriate board or card games at the Games Plus Auction. To be precise, I got Junta, a game about seizing power in a banana republic, Cold War, one about the politics of the Cold War where you're using spies and diplomacy to try and sway other nations, and 1965's Nuclear War card game.
It's this last one that we played last night, and the one that got me thinking more about how certain our doom seemed only twenty three years ago and how few people choose to think about it now.
Or that, release of tensions or not, we still have the capability to blow ourselves clear off the planet.
Nuclear War itself is not a very satisfying game. It's too abstract to be a good simulation, and too random (cards v dice again) to be at all strategic There are the occasional funny moments (goddamn UN!) but mostly it's about picking your cards and getting lucky. It's also a game that encourages you to dogpile a single target, so there's a certain amount of diplomacy involved in trying to get your opponents to curbstomp someone else. But mostly, it's about the cards.
(I also found a Chick Tract in the Nuclear War box. I couldn't find a link to the one I've got, but here's one to the famous anti-Dungeons and Dragons one. Clearly, I've been playing in the wrong gaming groups!)
I do wish I hadn't gotten priced out of World at War: Eisenbach Gap, because I'd love to try and fight World War III someday. Of course, my primary old school wargame opponents live in other states these days and with two cats, a four year old, and a toddler there's no way to leave games up at my brother's place...and he can't game anywhere else. So owning a good WW3 game would only be an exercise in frustration since I'd never be able to play it, but still, it would have been nice.
I suppose I'll have to dig up Red Storm Rising and catch up with Alekseyev and friends again to get my Cold War fix instead.
Anyway, I've been thinking about the Cold War. It came up in a Facebook conversation a while back, and then on Friday I ended up picking up a few appropriate board or card games at the Games Plus Auction. To be precise, I got Junta, a game about seizing power in a banana republic, Cold War, one about the politics of the Cold War where you're using spies and diplomacy to try and sway other nations, and 1965's Nuclear War card game.
It's this last one that we played last night, and the one that got me thinking more about how certain our doom seemed only twenty three years ago and how few people choose to think about it now.
Or that, release of tensions or not, we still have the capability to blow ourselves clear off the planet.
Nuclear War itself is not a very satisfying game. It's too abstract to be a good simulation, and too random (cards v dice again) to be at all strategic There are the occasional funny moments (goddamn UN!) but mostly it's about picking your cards and getting lucky. It's also a game that encourages you to dogpile a single target, so there's a certain amount of diplomacy involved in trying to get your opponents to curbstomp someone else. But mostly, it's about the cards.
(I also found a Chick Tract in the Nuclear War box. I couldn't find a link to the one I've got, but here's one to the famous anti-Dungeons and Dragons one. Clearly, I've been playing in the wrong gaming groups!)
I do wish I hadn't gotten priced out of World at War: Eisenbach Gap, because I'd love to try and fight World War III someday. Of course, my primary old school wargame opponents live in other states these days and with two cats, a four year old, and a toddler there's no way to leave games up at my brother's place...and he can't game anywhere else. So owning a good WW3 game would only be an exercise in frustration since I'd never be able to play it, but still, it would have been nice.
I suppose I'll have to dig up Red Storm Rising and catch up with Alekseyev and friends again to get my Cold War fix instead.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Write Everyday Project #13, Baseball v Football
Nothing having drawn my attention today, I'm returning to something I heard on the radio Football versus Baseball. This came about because the NFL's ratings remain through the roof, while even playoff baseball is comparably unwatched.
But I think that's apples and oranges. Not only are there ten times as many baseball games as football games, the former just isn't that good as a TV sport and the latter is less watchable in person.
Baseball, in my experience, works best at the ballgame. Being able to watch the whole field rather than just the pitcher and batter makes for a better experience. Plus the pace of the game is such that you end up talking about the situation and what you think is going to happen with the friends you came with. (Note, unless you're a very social person, you get much less out of a baseball game if you go alone.)
Football, on the other hand, generally gives you a pretty good look at the field from TV, and without TV catching it for you, it's too easy to lose track of what's happening on the field. What's more, unless you have really good seats, at least half the time the game's so far away it's hard to get anything at all. You end up watching on the jumbotron, and if you're doing that why did you pay so much money for the privilege? Also, unless you go early in the season or your team plays in a dome, the weather is almost invariably worse. Sitting out in the cold and paying $4 to get hot chocolate so I don't freeze isn't my idea of a great time.
So when Sunday rolls around it's only natural that, unless you're a fan of one of the baseball teams actually in the playoffs (which I'm not,) that you'll watch the sport that's better on TV, and that's football.
But I think that's apples and oranges. Not only are there ten times as many baseball games as football games, the former just isn't that good as a TV sport and the latter is less watchable in person.
Baseball, in my experience, works best at the ballgame. Being able to watch the whole field rather than just the pitcher and batter makes for a better experience. Plus the pace of the game is such that you end up talking about the situation and what you think is going to happen with the friends you came with. (Note, unless you're a very social person, you get much less out of a baseball game if you go alone.)
Football, on the other hand, generally gives you a pretty good look at the field from TV, and without TV catching it for you, it's too easy to lose track of what's happening on the field. What's more, unless you have really good seats, at least half the time the game's so far away it's hard to get anything at all. You end up watching on the jumbotron, and if you're doing that why did you pay so much money for the privilege? Also, unless you go early in the season or your team plays in a dome, the weather is almost invariably worse. Sitting out in the cold and paying $4 to get hot chocolate so I don't freeze isn't my idea of a great time.
So when Sunday rolls around it's only natural that, unless you're a fan of one of the baseball teams actually in the playoffs (which I'm not,) that you'll watch the sport that's better on TV, and that's football.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Write Everyday Project #12, Airline Blues
So I'm sitting around waiting for my brother's flight to make it in from Salt Lake City so I can drive him home when it occurs to me that I haven't done the blog yet today. So here we go. Obviously, since the flight is more than three hours late, airline efficiency (or lack there of) is weighing heavily on my mind just now.
Now, I understand that times have been tough for the airline industry since 2001. Everything's more expensive, especially aviation fuel, and the added security they need to pay for makes what was an already dicey business (see Pan-Am, demise of) even harder to survive in. I get all that.
But doesn't it seem that we're paying more and more and getting less and less on every flight? The show itself didn't impress me, but the opening sequence of ABC's new Pan-Am really brought home to me that the people flying in the 60's were having a much nicer time than I've ever had on an airplane. Possibly that's the magic of TV clouding my perception, but everything I've heard about flying in that era makes it seem like an adventure, where as these days it has less romance than driving in the back of a pick-up.
Is "business class" the answer? I've never flown up front with the rich people, so maybe I need to get rich and try it sometime. Still, what business class comes with doesn't sound impressive enough to be worth paying an order of magnitude more, but maybe the cumulative effect of all the better stuff adds up to a hugely better experience?
I just don't know.
What I do know, though, is that these days flying sucks, and sucks hard.
Now, I understand that times have been tough for the airline industry since 2001. Everything's more expensive, especially aviation fuel, and the added security they need to pay for makes what was an already dicey business (see Pan-Am, demise of) even harder to survive in. I get all that.
But doesn't it seem that we're paying more and more and getting less and less on every flight? The show itself didn't impress me, but the opening sequence of ABC's new Pan-Am really brought home to me that the people flying in the 60's were having a much nicer time than I've ever had on an airplane. Possibly that's the magic of TV clouding my perception, but everything I've heard about flying in that era makes it seem like an adventure, where as these days it has less romance than driving in the back of a pick-up.
Is "business class" the answer? I've never flown up front with the rich people, so maybe I need to get rich and try it sometime. Still, what business class comes with doesn't sound impressive enough to be worth paying an order of magnitude more, but maybe the cumulative effect of all the better stuff adds up to a hugely better experience?
I just don't know.
What I do know, though, is that these days flying sucks, and sucks hard.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Write Everyday Project #11, Autumn Doldrums
In many ways this is usually a nice time of year around Chicagoland. The heat of summer has gone, but there's no snow yet. The best description for the weather is "crisp." Normally, I prefer this weather to any other.
Except this time, I seem to have gotten sick.
Nothing major, mind you, just a little ache in the back of my throat and my feet are literally (rather than metaphorically) cold. I'm not even congested, which I usually am when I catch something. No phlegm either, which is a nice bonus. Still, what I do have is enough to put me off my mood. Whether it's this or the usual Planning Fallacy, it sure is taking me a lot longer to get things done than I expect.
Bah! (Humbug reserved for Christmas.)
Except this time, I seem to have gotten sick.
Nothing major, mind you, just a little ache in the back of my throat and my feet are literally (rather than metaphorically) cold. I'm not even congested, which I usually am when I catch something. No phlegm either, which is a nice bonus. Still, what I do have is enough to put me off my mood. Whether it's this or the usual Planning Fallacy, it sure is taking me a lot longer to get things done than I expect.
Bah! (Humbug reserved for Christmas.)
Monday, October 3, 2011
Write Everyday Project #10, "The Wedding of River Song"
Warning: This post contains spoilers for the Doctor Who season six finale, "The Wedding of River Song." To ensure there's no problems, I've included some non-Who commentary first. Everything past the "* * *" is spoiler territory. You have been warned.
It was a busy weekend, and I ended up only getting one post out. I'm going to need to make sure to get my writing in early on, since there's no guarantee I'll have time later on once things get busy. Lesson learned.
There was also a lot to write about this weekend, some of which I' may mine for material in days ahead. The Bears won ugly, I dabbled in Mage, a role playing game I haven't played in maybe twenty years or so, and the Android board game I played got a little wonky due to the randomness of the cards. I've already touched on that one in the previous WEP post that I forgot to advertise, and is an example what happens when you try to write something at 4am.
Hint: It's a bad idea. Coherency suffers.
But rather than talk about any of that, I've decided to go with the finale of season six (or season thirty two if you're a purist) of Doctor Who, which aired Saturday and I managed to catch on Sunday. I'll want to watch the episode again, but my initial impressions can be summed up as follows: Bait and Switch.
Don't get me wrong, I liked the episode. There were some great moments, and they did resolve the outstanding Death of the Doctor plot introduced back in episode one, though in retrospect they didn't explain why there's a clear regeneration effect coming out of the robot. Or how the Tessalector crew got so much better at their jobs that they could skip around and hug people as seen in "Impossible Astronaut" and "The Wedding of River Song" when they could only move mechanically in "Let's Kill Hitler." Or, for that matter, why shooting the Doctor in the middle of his regeneration is supposed to kill him stone dead, but shooting River in the middle of hers in "Hitler" just makes her bullet proof. Presumably the energy weapon the Silence developed gets around that, but it shows that while they're better at it than they were under Davies, the Who crew still plays fast and loose with details.
What was eminently predictable was that in resolving this season's mystery, they set up next season's. Last season they explained the Pandorica Opens mystery but left us with the "What is the Silence?" and "Who blew up the TARDIS?" This season we get the deal with the Silence, and barring further explanations, can only assume that River's programming kicked in and she blew up the TARDIS while she thought she was trying to save her. But now we get an even more obscure prophecy from Dorium's head. "On the fields of Trenzalore, at the Fall of the Eleventh, the question will be asked." The question being, apparently, "Doctor who?"
I grant you that going into the 50th year of the show that is a great question to ask, and if they're smart they'll have Eleven moving through the years in a kind of greatest hits season. If they're [i]really[/i] smart, they'll use the occasion to bring back the Time Lords, as I talked about over here after "The Doctor's Wife." One way or another, we'll definitely see Daleks, and fully functional ones rather than the dying victim we saw in "The Wedding of River Song."
Still, I wanted more and better answers, and I didn't get them, and that leaves me feeling empty rather than anticipating the next season. I'll watch it, of course, but I was looking for more.
I did call that the Doctor wanted to solve the problem that was introduced in Davies' run of the Doctor playing on his reputation to get things done. He had, as River said in this episode, become too big. Moffat had wisely let the Doctor keep doing that in season five, then flipped the script at the end of that season and the halfway point of season six by having people decide to take the Doctor down because he's too threatening. So it was nice to proven right on that point. It was also nice to be faked out, because even with evidence right in front of us, none of us called the Tessalector as the way the Doctor cheats death.
In total, though, this is the least excited I've been about a "big" Who episode in the Moffat era. Maybe I've become used to the big two part season finales, because this one just wasn't as big as I wanted it to be, which is an odd thing to say about a show that had everything from Teradactyls to Churchill in it.
It was a busy weekend, and I ended up only getting one post out. I'm going to need to make sure to get my writing in early on, since there's no guarantee I'll have time later on once things get busy. Lesson learned.
There was also a lot to write about this weekend, some of which I' may mine for material in days ahead. The Bears won ugly, I dabbled in Mage, a role playing game I haven't played in maybe twenty years or so, and the Android board game I played got a little wonky due to the randomness of the cards. I've already touched on that one in the previous WEP post that I forgot to advertise, and is an example what happens when you try to write something at 4am.
Hint: It's a bad idea. Coherency suffers.
* * *
But rather than talk about any of that, I've decided to go with the finale of season six (or season thirty two if you're a purist) of Doctor Who, which aired Saturday and I managed to catch on Sunday. I'll want to watch the episode again, but my initial impressions can be summed up as follows: Bait and Switch.
Don't get me wrong, I liked the episode. There were some great moments, and they did resolve the outstanding Death of the Doctor plot introduced back in episode one, though in retrospect they didn't explain why there's a clear regeneration effect coming out of the robot. Or how the Tessalector crew got so much better at their jobs that they could skip around and hug people as seen in "Impossible Astronaut" and "The Wedding of River Song" when they could only move mechanically in "Let's Kill Hitler." Or, for that matter, why shooting the Doctor in the middle of his regeneration is supposed to kill him stone dead, but shooting River in the middle of hers in "Hitler" just makes her bullet proof. Presumably the energy weapon the Silence developed gets around that, but it shows that while they're better at it than they were under Davies, the Who crew still plays fast and loose with details.
What was eminently predictable was that in resolving this season's mystery, they set up next season's. Last season they explained the Pandorica Opens mystery but left us with the "What is the Silence?" and "Who blew up the TARDIS?" This season we get the deal with the Silence, and barring further explanations, can only assume that River's programming kicked in and she blew up the TARDIS while she thought she was trying to save her. But now we get an even more obscure prophecy from Dorium's head. "On the fields of Trenzalore, at the Fall of the Eleventh, the question will be asked." The question being, apparently, "Doctor who?"
I grant you that going into the 50th year of the show that is a great question to ask, and if they're smart they'll have Eleven moving through the years in a kind of greatest hits season. If they're [i]really[/i] smart, they'll use the occasion to bring back the Time Lords, as I talked about over here after "The Doctor's Wife." One way or another, we'll definitely see Daleks, and fully functional ones rather than the dying victim we saw in "The Wedding of River Song."
Still, I wanted more and better answers, and I didn't get them, and that leaves me feeling empty rather than anticipating the next season. I'll watch it, of course, but I was looking for more.
I did call that the Doctor wanted to solve the problem that was introduced in Davies' run of the Doctor playing on his reputation to get things done. He had, as River said in this episode, become too big. Moffat had wisely let the Doctor keep doing that in season five, then flipped the script at the end of that season and the halfway point of season six by having people decide to take the Doctor down because he's too threatening. So it was nice to proven right on that point. It was also nice to be faked out, because even with evidence right in front of us, none of us called the Tessalector as the way the Doctor cheats death.
In total, though, this is the least excited I've been about a "big" Who episode in the Moffat era. Maybe I've become used to the big two part season finales, because this one just wasn't as big as I wanted it to be, which is an odd thing to say about a show that had everything from Teradactyls to Churchill in it.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Write Everyday Project #9, Dice vs Cards
Well, we missed the once a day deadline, since it's been 26 hours since my last post, but I'm willing to let technicalities swing the other way here too. Since I haven't gone to bed yet, it's still "Saturday" regardless of what the clock says. And hey, it still IS Saturday in Alaska and points west.
Besides, it's not as if there's money riding on this.
Today, I played Android, a board game about a sci-fi murder mystery, with my brother and a friend. And I've come to the conclusion that if you want to reduce randomness in your game, moving away from dice to a card based system doesn't really do it. That way increases randomness, not decreases it.
I suppose it doesn't have to, but the last two board games with card based resolution mechanics I've played, tonight's Android, and the new edition of Horus Heresy that I got last month, both have much wider event swings than their dice based counterparts like Arkham Horror and Twilight Imperium. In the card based games, inevitably some cards are better than others, and the appearance or lack there of of the best cards can swing the game in a way that one die roll rarely can in traditional games. I've seen it happen, mind you, but it's a lot rarer to see a single die roll sway a game the way one card can, especially if it's one of the same few cards every time.
It comes downs to imbalance and variety of outcome. In the case of the former, unless everyone has identical cards, things are going to be skewed one way or the other as one side will have greater utility of their cards than the other side In the latter, dice have a limited range and you can predict the range of likely outcomes and use that to guess what might happen. If nothing else you'll have an idea for what's possible. When some cards are great and others so a lot more, you have a harder time defining how your games plays. When the outcome of any pull of a card gives you a one in fifty chance of happening, those are pretty good odds if you're going to draw half or more of the cards in any one game.
Besides, it's not as if there's money riding on this.
Today, I played Android, a board game about a sci-fi murder mystery, with my brother and a friend. And I've come to the conclusion that if you want to reduce randomness in your game, moving away from dice to a card based system doesn't really do it. That way increases randomness, not decreases it.
I suppose it doesn't have to, but the last two board games with card based resolution mechanics I've played, tonight's Android, and the new edition of Horus Heresy that I got last month, both have much wider event swings than their dice based counterparts like Arkham Horror and Twilight Imperium. In the card based games, inevitably some cards are better than others, and the appearance or lack there of of the best cards can swing the game in a way that one die roll rarely can in traditional games. I've seen it happen, mind you, but it's a lot rarer to see a single die roll sway a game the way one card can, especially if it's one of the same few cards every time.
It comes downs to imbalance and variety of outcome. In the case of the former, unless everyone has identical cards, things are going to be skewed one way or the other as one side will have greater utility of their cards than the other side In the latter, dice have a limited range and you can predict the range of likely outcomes and use that to guess what might happen. If nothing else you'll have an idea for what's possible. When some cards are great and others so a lot more, you have a harder time defining how your games plays. When the outcome of any pull of a card gives you a one in fifty chance of happening, those are pretty good odds if you're going to draw half or more of the cards in any one game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)