Let’s just start with the fact that American political system is super skewed to begin with and no actual left has any power.

Dems are highly pro-capitalist, moderately nationalist and merely call to strike a bit less horrible balance between the interests of people and businesses. This is not left, this is a bit better right.

This fallacy keeps people trapped in an idea that the only possible options are “good” ultra-capitalism and “greedy” ultra-capitalism, which is not true.

People that try to have “both sides heard” totally ignore that there are way more than two angles in this conversation and that Dems are not some sort of a political extreme. Reps, ironically, kinda are.

And Democrats often think they vote for something actually good, when it’s actually just a lesser evil. Keep that in mind, no matter what you decide.

This might not be the case anymore, now that solar is dirt cheap.

But, as another commenter said, I’m onboard with any decision that scientists (including both energy and climate sciences) and engineers come up with working together.

Solar panels are very cheap, and any modification, even just a moving cover, greatly ramps up prices. No, really.

We just need a lot of panels to generate significant amounts of electricity, which would necessitate a large cover or a lot of mechanisms - which would get expensive on that scale.

As pointed out already, acceleration here is massive, as collision takes split seconds.

A more useful formula is: F=m*∆V^2 /2, where F is the force, m is mass, ∆V is speed difference (essentially your entire speed if you’re gonna hit the wall, and that’s very likely).

Notice that speed in this formula is squared, so doubling the speed results in four times the impact.

22% higher speed leads to 50% higher impact.

41% higher speed doubles the impact energy.

Etc. etc.

Also, mass of your car, even though it’s not squared, impacts the result greatly. Twice as heavy car will exert twice the energy at the same speed.

Arma is a full blown simulator, which is an entire different story :)

But I should have clarified it

Lol

I’m still so sad to see Dreadnought gone.

Its pace is first a bit slow for folks used to fast-paced shooters, but it is actually genious. When you get used to it, you just see this is how it should be, always.

Putting tactics before pure reaction.

Sorry if this sounded offensive, I thought it could be a light pun. My apologies.

In any case, I know plenty of girls that would absolutely kick my ass in shooters and that actively take offensive roles. I never meant to say all girls are opposed to taking a gun!

None of them are totally 100% healers. Even Holy priests can cause some damage.

Girlfriend joke was just a light pun :D

I respect healer main guys, and often am one :)

If shooters were played by Geneva convention, where would be the fun? :P

Yes, I am aware of that. Milsims are out of my scope, but it is most certainly a great place to execrise it as well.

There could be options. You can get some sort of a balanced healer/damager, while someone else would pick a pure healer. It’s just that there should be an option to heal only.

Some people’s definition of “fun” may differ, and it would be cool to serve them too. But still, healers must be equipped with abilities that would grant them some level of survivability on their own - particularly those helping to escape the fight and reset.

It’s just that teams that play tactically will be rewarded.

I think it’s okay to gain score by killing enemy healers - this puts them in danger and forces more tactical gameplay. In a more realism-focused gameplay, though, this might be an option.

As one of the commenters has put it, there could be options, like having more of a “field healer” that is armed but has less healing-related abilities, and a full healer that only heals but has unique options.

You could pursue the former.

Also, movement and stealth abilities are a must for a defenceless healer, so you could still protect yourself in other ways.

Yeah, Mercy was one of my inspirations.

I feel like one of the reasons FPS scene is like that is exactly because players have no choices left but to pick up a gun and shoot enemies. Without that, you are useless in any classical FPS composition, regardless of the role, which alienates players that want to see other types of gameplay.

Simply put, if you are not a “killer” in an FPS game, you have nothing to do there, and that’s why only those players remain. Something has to be changed inside the genre.

Team Fortress ain’t perfectly balanced and thoroughly thought out though. It’s just a fun meaty shooter, that’s it, and it’s alright :)

Of course it has to be somewhat balanced - healers should not get super OP, but they should be good enough for players to give up damaging abilities and still be important in a team.

There could be an in-between option added though, fair enough.

I don’t think the MMO setting is the right fit for my idea anyway.

Though priests are undoubtedly great. Had much fun damage dealing with Shadow priest, especially in the WotLK era. Consistent damage, decent control, practically endless mana pool.