To be fair, the political compass is a vast oversimplification itself. For example, there cannot be an Anarchist Capitalism in any fashion, as Capitalism definitionally has a requirement for hierarchy to exist.
It's better to understand values and positions than try to place people on an imaginary grid.
It's also the worst. It was the backbone of both Nazi Germany, and modern Social Democracies. Capitalism is incredibly broad, both the most evil and most benign states in history have relied on Capitalism.
Socialism similarly is broad, and isn't at all synonymous with Stalinism or Maoism.
Capitalism is undeniably declining, though. Production is through the roof, but wages have stagnated with respect to that. Factorization in the sense of industrialization was never seen to go against Capitalism, rather, with the rise of factories came the rise in Capitalism.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, of course.
Additionally, the fact that one prediction was wrong does not necessitate that all predictions are wrong.
That's not the theory, though. The initial claim was that it's unpleasant to think about. Regardless of your claim that it "invariably leads to shit," that doesn't answer the initial question.
If the claim should truly have been that existing attempts at Communism are unpleasant to think about, rather than "Communism itself is unpleasant to think about," then it's just an issue with wording.
I directly asked you what you wanted. You said "scaling," that's nothing without specifying what you actually mean. That's like saying "sword" would fix Elden Ring, lol.
You clearly don't want to actually talk, just virtue signal.
You threw insults first, you said I fell for the marketing, rather than acknowledging that I had a different opinion.
You still never answered what you actually want, just a vague "scaling" desire despite the game already having scaling, and there being countless types and formulas for scaling. We can't even discuss anything if you won't say what you think can do it better, lol.
You did not. "Scaling" already exists in the game. What change to scaling do you want to make? Have the content match your level, regardless of location? That has numerous issues, not the least of which being a complete removal of player choice with regards to difficulty, or the absolute removal of any sense of progression.
Playing at level 1 vs a difficulty slider is a flexible choice. If there's a difficulty slider, unless you have literally hundreds of options, you cannot fine tune difficulty. If you automatically level, you cannot maintain your chosen difficulty and match it to what you want.
You just don't understand game design, that's not my problem.
Yes, it prevents elitism. If you have difficulty sliders, rather than accessibility options, in a game known for difficulty, you will have endless numbers of elitists claiming only the hardest difficulty is valid.
Rather than having difficulty options, allow players to tailor the difficulty to their own preferences via leveling at their leisure.
You still haven't explained what you actually want.
The game isn't hard to level up, there are numerous no-issue, fast grinding spots. It doesn't take hours to level, it takes going to a quick position, swinging your weapon a few times, and then leveling up.
The lack of a difficulty option is a good thing, it prevents elitism and allows the game to be properly balanced without resorting to artificial difficulty increases like blanket damage changes.
All in all, I don't see what your issue is. Are you arguing that ER shouldn't have leveling at the pace the player chooses, and instead increases in level based on what area you have unlocked, or something?
Exactly, that's why people can set their own difficulty by leveling as they please. I'm not insinuating that choice is bad, I'm stating that the flexible system in ER accounts for player preference.
Not just great, but eventually necessary. Capitalism can't outlast automation, increasingly automated production will eventually result in mass job loss and stagnation unless directed by society as a whole. It's important to ensure this transition goes well and we learn from transitions of the past to not repeat their mistakes.
On the contrary, it's precisely because you can level at your own needed pace, ie go off and grind if you can't beat a part of the game, or keep going if you over-level, that makes it more enjoyable for more people.
Why does the market reward anti-consumer companies like Apppe, that use their dominant market share to intentionally sabotage their own products to make people buy more?
For example, why does Apple fight against Right to Repair? Is it for the consumer, or is it for profit?
The market isn't supposed to select for the best products for consumers, but the most profit, period. That's why medicine is marked up skyward, because customers cannot not buy medicine.
What, genuinely, is unpleasant to imagine about a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society? I've only ever heard people say that Communism sounds great in theory but for some reason or another can't work in practice, or support for both. I've never once heard that Communism itself is unpleasant in theory.
To be fair, the political compass is a vast oversimplification itself. For example, there cannot be an Anarchist Capitalism in any fashion, as Capitalism definitionally has a requirement for hierarchy to exist.
It's better to understand values and positions than try to place people on an imaginary grid.