[-] ladel@feddit.uk 2 points 10 hours ago

Ah, I didn't see your edit to say you'd played it too. I'm not sure if it will appeal to a more hardcore player (I hadn't played any for at least a year prior), but yeah, I think it's pretty nice for newbies and more casual players. Some people will like just opening packs and might not bother with the battles.

One thing about PTCGL was that the app/PC client were really bloated, slow, and ran hot on my devices. The app for Pocket has great performance.

[-] ladel@feddit.uk 2 points 11 hours ago

I've still been playing Fire Emblem Engage in bursts, but don't think I played it this week - however, I think I'm on the last chapter now, so might finish it this weekend. Although there's still DLC chapters to do that I haven't looked at yet.

What I've actually been playing is Pokemon TCG Pocket. I played PTCG Online a bit just before it transitioned to PTCG Live, and then continued with PTCGL a bit after that, so I was already familiar with how battles work. So far, I'm pretty happy with PTCGP. It's a simplified version of the normal PTCG rules with custom cards without real-world equivalents. It is definitely more straightforwards, which is nice for doing quick battles but limits the types of interesting plays you can make. What I really appreciate is some kind of single-player mode (which they had in PTCGO but scrapped in PTCGL) with interesting challenges to do.

I'm not sure if a meta has emerged, but I feel that the online battles I've done are farily diverse it terms of the decks people use - I think there are more viable decks to use. In PTCGL, there were like 3 or 4 decks that everyone used, so that battles were really repetitive.

It's still early days for PTCGP, but I think it's a very well made game. Not something I'll play all year round, but might dip in every now and then.

[-] ladel@feddit.uk 7 points 3 days ago

To be fair, it's only the countries in dark blue on that map that have it. The light blue countries have something like one of your parents has to be a citizen/settled, which is what the previous commenter was suggesting as an alternative.

[-] ladel@feddit.uk 47 points 1 week ago

Not most, technically - wiki says 0-14 make 44% of population. But this article breaks down the 70% further by saying 44% killed were 14 or under, so it's pretty much bang on for indicating that they're killing Palestinians at random.

[-] ladel@feddit.uk 36 points 1 month ago

The fast pass has been a thing for years, but are you saying the last three chapters are permanently locked? That's terrible.

[-] ladel@feddit.uk 41 points 3 months ago

There's Dehli Belly as well. No alliteration, but it's got the rhyme.

28
submitted 3 months ago by ladel@feddit.uk to c/nintendo@lemmy.world
1
Sonos Ace reviews (www.whathifi.com)
submitted 5 months ago by ladel@feddit.uk to c/headphones@lemmy.world
[-] ladel@feddit.uk 92 points 5 months ago

If this was the anti-AIDS poster, imagine how sexy the pro-AIDS poster was

[-] ladel@feddit.uk 48 points 6 months ago

Not you, silly. Like you.

[-] ladel@feddit.uk 43 points 6 months ago

Looks like they have space for one beach between Ploce and Dubrovnik

1

cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/877454

This is a post about placenames because I find these kinds of things interesting. Fill in any blanks or make corrections if you can.

For whatever reason, Korea likes to refer to a connection (usually a railway or road) between two places by taking the first part of each word and combining them. When one of those places is Seoul, the syllable used is gyeong - for example Gyeongbu to refer to a rail line between Seoul and Busan, or Gyeongin to refer to the collective area/connection of Seoul and Incheon. Gyeonggi-do, the province surrounding the capital, literally means that. But why is "gyeong" used in place of "Seoul" or "Seo"?

Seoul is, as far as I know, the only native Korean placename in use. Everywhere else has over the course of history been converted to a Sino-Korean name, which can be written using Hanja (Chinese characters). For some places, the old native Korean name is still known, but is never used.

Seoul as a word simply means the capital. It's a word that has transformed from being a general noun (e.g., "the seoul of England is London") to being a proper noun referring to the city of Seoul. (Aside: I think 수도 is now the term to refer to a capital in general sense).

Seoul only became known as Seoul following the end of Japanese occupation. Prior to that, it had a few different (Sino-Korean) names, most recently Gyeongseong - a Sino-Korean word meaning capital city (gyeong/경/京 means "capital"). When Seoul Station was built, it originally took the name Gyeongseong Station. So it makes sense that when they named the railway line between Seoul and Busan, they called it the Gyeong-Bu line, right?

So when you see 경 in relation to Seoul, you might have a slight appreciation of why it's there. But just because you see it, it might not be related. For example, Gyeongnam province or Gyeongju city both have "gyeong" but have a different Hanja and a different, totally unrelated, underlying meaning.

view more: next ›

ladel

joined 1 year ago