 is why, Shinobi, on covert guerilla missions typically wore other dark colors rather then all solid black. 

Sorry for the lengthy read hope it sheds a little light on actual Shinobi.Yeah, I mean, all the characters are intentionally portrayed as flawed, and the show studies what happens to messed up people brought to their extremes. It's also been a while since my last listen, but iirc, a significant aspect of Martin's character is that he's often unable and/or unwilling to effect change directly rather than through lies and manipulation--from his fake CV, to his underlying passive aggression, to his dynamic with Peter, to his dynamic with Jon (who of course is himself fatally flawed); this makes sense given his backstory.

Imo Jon and Martin's relationship is the central tragedy of the last season. They genuinely love each other, but between their extreme circumstances and their personal shortcomings, that isn't enough. See: The final episode, where &gt;!when faced with an impossible choice they disagree on, both go behind each other's back such that neither of them gets what they wanted in the end (but they choose to stay together even so--whatever we imagine that means).!&lt;Our vision is to be the number 1 modest fashion brand in the world, In Sha Allah.
Amyra in Arabic means “leader”, “commander”, “chief”. It is derived from the word A-M-R root (to command) which is used in many places in the Quran.
Amyra London is a UK brand for confident and bold women. We want our gorgeous customers to feel stylish, elegant, comfortable, fearless, and empowered. We not only incorporate the latest trends of the modest fashion industry but we strive to present innovative and unique ideas to this industry. We are a socially responsible company and have built-in business practices to contribute our part in achieving the net-zero emissions vision of our country.
Our founder is a creative, fun, and passionate young woman who is highly motivated to reshape the modest fashion landscape. At Amyra London we strongly emphasize on excellent customer service right from our social media engagement to an exquisite unboxing experience. We aim to make each zealous woman feel empowered and liberated to smash the glass ceilings and accomplish her ambitious dreams!
As safe-keepers of this earth, we are determined to consciously contribute to our community and environment by using eco-friendly packaging and encouraging charity donations of old hijabs. Especially after the pandemic, we would like to support our local businesses and hence we have ensured to source as much as possible from UK businesses as our suppliers to do our part in helping our UK economy to grow.
We are not just another modest fashion brand. We put our heart and soul into each product and ensure to deliver an exceptional customer experience through our immersive packaging and strong branding. We offer a diverse range of everyday, premium, and luxury hijabs and scarves to suit your lifestyle and every occasion.
All our hijabs are designed exclusively in the UK, showcasing uniqueness and creativity in styles and the choice of fabrics. We put immense effort and thought into each concept and have a strong eye for detail. Every design, scarf, and packaging has been given so much attention to making you feel special, stylish, comfortable, excited, and a little spoilt!
When you purchase from us, you are not just a customer, you are a part of our globally vibrant Amyran community! We wish you a first-class experience shopping here at Amyra London.&gt; 1. Complexity came from better blasters requiring balancing mechanics

That, and the general principle of "balance issues must be solved with convolution/creation of additional mechanics", is easy to refute with an example all HvZ players know: The stun/respawn time for zombies is a balance adjustment, and one *which can be nearly infinitely powerful against humans on its own* (imagine &lt;10 second respawns at a weeklong), hence the notion "impossible to balance without additional mechanics" about coreHvZ is clearly false.

We don't even need to get to the secondary matters with assuming "blasters = balance issues", such as actual balance impacts of modern humans (player+gear system) being totally unproven/unquantified in most cases since most admin balancing actions seem to be preemptive or feedforward, and human survivability being limited primarily by skill, awareness and athletics of humans themselves in using projectile weapon mechanics (i.e. Gun =/= Forcefield).

On the other hand, it might be true that game designers faced with a new balance issue, as opposed to one faced when initially setting up a game, overlook a basic control like stun time and jump straight to adding complexity without thinking.

This could be synergizing with "Game design is a game"/"keeping up with the Joneses"/"Gotta one-up last year's game" arms racing by designers.

This is speculative, but I have to wonder another contributor is a related issue, which is reactive moderation (Player did something to get better at playing? Silly mortal. Stomp them back down to their place!) and anti-blaster/generally anti-distinguishment culture - it might seem apt from such a perspective when faced with a balance issue (ostensibly) caused in part by equipment, to choose balancing methods that *unfairly target* players with the most effective equipment, rather than adjust the global game difficulty/zombie contact rate (Stun time, mission design) to balance the average survivability of humans and restore the desired kill curve once again.

* A pitfall in this, in turn, might be to look at the improvement of blasters since 2005 and/or a given game's founding as a progressive widening of the effectiveness gap between entry level humans and maxxed humans, and forget that blasters as an **entire field** have improved. Thus, a false perception that advanced blasters have created some kind of egregious learning curve that ought to be compensated by an intentionally nonuniform (=unfair) balancing means at the expense of clobbering players who happen to be on the wrong end of that (maybe regarded as a tolerable cost to shaft these players).

&gt;It's maybe possible, but with high cap/high rof blasters it just might not work any more

Oh, it would certainly work fine. Seen it done.

&gt;Maybe another variable is the fact that HVZ was new and that lead to more mainstream hype? Now that hype has died down and the zombie fad has waned.

Possible explanation, but the potential player pool is always turning over at universities, so HvZ tends to be as new to each successive generation as it was to the last. It also might follow that rather, players have mainly *left* HvZ due to game quality (complicated, arbitrary, uncharacteristic mechanics and lack of player-driven depth), much as posters left here due to post quality (the flood of thrifts and memes), and that explicitly fixing the aspect of the environment that is hostile and uncharacteristic would at least begin drawing players old and new back in.

* Similarly, what happens when players nope out due to game quality is that the skill and the enthusiasm and all the beef of a playerbase is hit hardest and a vacuum is created. What group that enters to fill the vacuum tends to be less averse to the quality failure and more complicit in it than who left and a negative feedback loop ensues, driving out the majority of the actual HvZ players who want HvZ and replacing them with transients there because running around with a nerf gun doing who-cares-what is kinda fun for like a day and then just disappearing a year later. Okay; that one's kinda incisive but I think absolutely true.

More takes on more things:

In the Old Days, standard for campuswide weeklongs was a 15 minute stun time. Indeed, (1) that spawn time with (2) that mission design AND (3) *modern players* might very much *not* be balanced any more. Weapons advances would for sure be a reason why on a squad level; but actually, I would NOT pin that on blasters as a field being improved so much as on HUMANS being smarter and better at playing and staying alive right out of the gate. Something seems to have "clicked" right about in 2013 around here to where players show up intuitively understanding what to do a whole LOT better. The old days games were FULL of fresh meat. You could just bolt straight at a player and chances were they would run ineffectively away and die, or freeze up and die, or miss an easy shot and die. Sometimes a death was due to a Maverick or a lack of ammo, but most of these cases fairly weren't a gear issue.

Something I noticed lately is that the shift from open world survival to mission-oriented combat as a focus of the game has progressed further than the original implementation of missions themselves back in the way old days: in the past, a substantial portion of even a mission-heavy game, **and its casualties**, might have been about infils and exfils to/from missions! Getting in and out was scary and stressful and deadly (and fun) and some of the most notorious massacres and routs were before or after a mission but NOT during it. Nowadays, that's often gone. Players want JUST missions. At one site, during non-mission periods I may taunt zombies, sometimes post my location publically and ask for trouble to show up, and no zombies even bother. One would think someone would at