Writing some xmas cards right now and going to mail them in a bit. It's fun. You should try it out.
Fun to go shopping at craft fairs and give some money to indie artists for well made art. Send in the mail with a little note and stay in touch with old pals.
This is a really good and I think sadly under played and discussed game. It was very popular in the mid 1990s on release but it seems like it was immediately forgotten about once Starcraft arrived. It's unfortunate because yes it's a simpler and more straight forward game, and not as balanced, but it is very fun and pure.
Warcraft 1 is maybe too slow paced and basic to be enjoyable, but Warcraft 2 remains very playable, as many of the usability of features core to modern RTS games developed here. There are a few things missing, but that just means you have to be more on the ball with the micro.
The map editor was revolutionary at the time, and it was trivially easy to be making usable maps within minutes.
One thing that was delightful about this game was how the community discovered that Farms made for better walls than the actual walls, and so an enormous variety of strategies developed around this. As players developed knowledge of how units were pushed out of buildings, walling off buildings to push units past forest was another strategy that developed from this, creating the potential for sneaky tricks.
One unfortunate thing about the game was that during the original battlenet edition they added a new extra fast speed, which everyone moved to, but that speed actually kinda broke the game in that it became entirely possible to accidentally put your townhall too close to the mine, and your peons would be impossible to remove from mining. So in actuality the second to fastest speed is the correct speed for this game.
I hope this got fixed in the remaster but I heard it was a pretty basic art refresh...
All the RTS games are underplayed nowadays. Starcraft 2 is maybe the most active still and has been all but abandoned by Blizzard.
A good RTS has an extremely harsh learning curve and is not super monetizable. Someone would have to rethink the genre: make it easier for casual players and figure out how to get the addicting money making patterns in. Otherwise big companies are gonna have no interest.
Sucks, I love Starcraft 2, but it is legitimately the most mentally demanding game I have ever played. Sometimes I procrastinate getting into a match because 1v1 is so stressful. I totally get why it has limited appeal.
The spiritual successor of Starcraft is Stormgate. I cannot comment on it, I have no idea how good it is. AFAIK it is multiplayer only. I played Dune II, Warcraft II, C&C, Red Alert, Starcraft (didn't like, I never understood the hype), Dark Reign, Total Annihilation, Warcraft III as kid, but... only single player (at various difficulties). That is just how games were generally played in the 90s. I do remember using a null modem cable at some point, but IIRC was only to play Doom and Duke3d.
I believe the RTS genre at a whole got superseded by the MOBA genre (with DotA and LoL). A genre I tried once (HotS) and was terrible at. If you're shit and you're not improving (I didn't enjoy it either, I felt forced to do it for a reward in another game), stop trying. I never tried any other MOBA, except maybe a touchscreen one, Warcraft Rumble? Either way, I got burned by Hearthstone Mercs and fell once more in the trap with Rumble. After Blizzard announced removed of addons from combat, I've finally said goodbye to the Warcraft franchise and Blizzard in general.
There's one game I really do like which has a kind of RTS with map feeling to it: Total War: Warhammer series (though I laud their BS with DLCs and multiple game versions). I suppose the whole Total War series is as good, I just like the Warhammer universe. The other day, Settlers II was discussed on here, including a FOSS clone. Settlers II is also a game I liked (III not so much though artwork was nice, never played the orig.). Supposedly it isn't RTS, tho I am pretty sure back then it was called RTS.
I agree, I think MOBAs superceded the "real time" part of RTS's, while the more turn based Civ/4x, Total War series strategy type games ended up taking a lot of the base building part. Having them both together was just straight up difficult and incredibly intense, like the game itself demanded you be on adderall because your attention cannot wane for a single moment.
The better I got at competitive RTS's the less interesting the game got for me, it just kinda of felt like chess where there was only going to be one or two interesting interactions in the game if played well, otherwise its just a game of who makes a mistake too early.
Teamfight Tactics and Autochess are interesting newer entries though, allowing time to strategize and adding a lot of randomness to the games, where you can't just play one build. Even then though, as these games get more and more explored, "optimal" strategy gets eventually discovered and the game devs especially in TFT are in a race to try to keep things high variance but also seem fair - its definitely a difficult job!
> The better I got at competitive RTS's the less interesting the game got for me, it just kinda of felt like chess where there was only going to be one or two interesting interactions in the game if played well, otherwise its just a game of who makes a mistake too early.
I feel the exact same way. The ELO system saves you from getting steamrolled if you’re a casual player but improving just means the game becomes formulaic to the point of no longer being fun. Stronghold 2 was kind of interesting in that it was an unranked lobby with good variation in player ability and team-oriented maps. Most players knew the basic economic and combat metas, but you’d often end up in situations where one of your teammates dropped out on a 3 vs 3 and you’d still win.
It had its time, but its just not accessible to people - shooters which require as much attention, mechanical skill and perseverance but at least matches are relatively quick and there's a team element. Starcraft can be just grind grind grind all of your openers and don't stop, don't sleep, don't eat, just queue
> The spiritual successor of Starcraft is Stormgate
This was their claim, but it did not pan out in reality. It flopped on launch, hard. Peak player count since launch has been less than 100, and is currently hovering around 25.
It was really proof that gameplay often takes a back seat to visual identity, ESPECIALLY if the gameplay is extremely derivative, which this was. They had a massive amount of goodwill from fans of the genre, but when they started sharing screenshots it deflated fast - its not a 2025 game, its a 2010 clone of a popular 2005 game. Its nigh impossible to make a spiritual successor to genre defining games in WC3 and SC2 - too many things need to go perfect.
It had a better chance if it could find its own voice, but it ended up feeling like a direct to home video sequel to a popular movie
Huh the gameplay was ass?
The units weren't interesting, the strategies derivative, the flow bad, the balance off, not even half finished campaign and 0 goodwill from kickstarters after rugpulling content that was promised and charging them for it
The sign for me was when the art style was announced. The last thing in the world I want from a modern RTS is Fortnite-style animation targeted towards tweens.
World in Conflict was an interesting take on making RTS easier for casuals. Basically took the resource gathering part out of it. You got a constant drip of points you could spend on units instead.
Potentially that simplification hurts the genre too much though because then you don't have hardcore players sticking with it for years and years.
Maybe a game could have that as a "simple mode" that players can opt in to.
The potential addictive money making pattern is the same as other games imo. Skins. The units being smaller mean the developer is probably going to have to go to more effort to shove them in to peoples faces. Maybe a screen before/after the match where all the players units in their skins can be clear seen in a more zoomed in manner. Have them marching around the border of the end scoresheet or doing a little dance while waiting for players to load.
Every time someone tries to re-think the genre they make it worse. Supreme Commander (and Forged Alliance) were near-perfect games, but SupCom 2 tried to simpify the game to appeal to console players and ruined it completely. Dawn of War 2, although not to everyone's taste, was in my view the peak of the series. For the third install they tried to simplify the game and bring it closer to a MOBA and it was an incredible flop.
In my view, if a develop MUST make the game more accessible, they should do so with alternate modes while still maintaining a strong competitive 1v1, 2v2 and 4v4 mode with the steep learning curve and competitive nature. Anything else is a betrayal of the genre.
I think the problem is simply that for a large part of the playerbase, increasing your APM is directly correlated with increasing your win rate/ranking.
And frankly, that's not fun for a lot of people.
I don't want to win by clicking and mashing hotkeys like a schizophrenic on speed.
I don't think this is true. Granted, last time I tried to get good at an RTS was toward the end of the Brood War era but the established wisdom at that time was very clear that hour-for-hour, time spent practicing resource management was much more effective than time spent practicing clicking quickly.
Yes, really good players click fast, but they also have impeccable resource management. The group I played with did run the obvious experiment: the best one of us was forced to play against the rest (one at a time) with an artificial click frequency limit. He felt like his abilities were greatly reduced, but he still beat everyone else quite easily.
Yeah, I played a lot of StarCraft 2. By myself, 2v2 with a really talented friend and 3v3 with two other friends that were total beginners that I could beat 1v2.
At the bottom to upper mid level all you need to win is to figure out the macro game of building construction while also getting enough workers and units. With enough of that no micro is needed, just attack-moving into the enemy is more than enough.
Then at the upper mid level you're going to run into people who often don't build as effectively but they'll micro every unit or they'll be constantly doing raids when you don't expect it, scouting better than you and/or just understanding which units are better vs which so as to counter you.
From that point on it becomes much more of an effort to play the game because then you need to become better in all of those fields, while also becoming faster. But to be honest that point is probably 2/3rd's up the tree of all the people playing.
When people complain about APM in an RTS like StarCraft, they’re really not complaining about the spam clicking done by players at the pro level. They’re talking about multitasking which is an essential skill at all levels of the game.
Not even at the lowest rankings are you permitted to ignore what your opponent is doing and focus on building workers and base facilities. StarCraft is infamous for the ability of anyone to sacrifice their economy to perform an early rush attack (most infamously with a ton of early zerglings).
To combat early rush attacks you need to be able to multitask: send out early scouts to see what your opponent is doing, if they have any hidden building on the map, how many workers they have, etc. You need to be able to do this while building your own workers, base facilities, and units for defence. This is the multitasking that so many struggle with and it’s required to be able to play at the most basic level!
Optimally queueing SCVs and marines and supply depots requires an APM of 11 or so in the early stages of a Brood War game on the fastest setting. Add a couple more APM for scouting, and we'ree still not talking crazy levels of multitasking.
Dealing with your opponent is a fact of every strategy game!
And yet if you watch low level players they’ll be fine with that until a bunch of zerglings show up at their base and then they panic trying to micro marines and repair bunkers while their minerals shoot up to 1000 and then they have no units and lose.
Keeping a scouting SCV alive in your opponent’s base while building more SCVs at home, building more barracks, building supply depots, killing the enemy scouting worker, and actually reading and correctly interpreting what your opponent is doing is non-trivial.
> The map editor was revolutionary at the time, and it was trivially easy to be making usable maps within minutes.
And within a year or two there were so. Many. Maps. Spread through gloriously fun CDs (quite a few in big boxes with cool artwork)! I have a collection of over 40 releases so far; it's a wild rabbit hole.
As I recall, WarCraft II was the first big box game I bought for my own money, ordered through paper catalogue. Amazing memories of the campaign, and online duels over dial-up - often interrupted because someone picked up the phone. Still have (somehow surviving) floppies with a few silly little maps made in early 1997. It's the ultimate feel-good nostalgia game for me. Just seeing the winter sprite of the Church with the green and red LED(?!) lights fills me with pure joy, every time. (It hits me, just now, that those single pixels might just be representing ball ornaments or something. ...I'm sticking with my headcanon of LEDs!)
I have great memories from the Warchest which had I, II and expansions. Personally though Warcraft III perfected the RPG elements and storytelling and completely overshadowed the earlier installments - it’s still probably the best game I’ve played
Yes it was one of the most successful PC games of the 1990s, but that doesn't say much today. Have a look at its subreddit and it's a ghost town. Wasn't remade and re-released often since and little to no effort has been put into growing the franchise.
In contrast contemporary SNES games have had more remakes and had their audiences grow remarkably over time. The franchise hasn't been cared for and so it's relatively obscure despite being a top tier best in class game on its release.
Tbh in general I think you could say the same of a lot of top tier successful PC games of that era.
How many 1995 games have active subreddits though? There was a 2024 remaster, and I believe that the game remained playable throughout.
Besides, the Warcraft franchise moved to WoW, which is still highly popular. Sure, I miss the RTS games, and the remaster of the 3rd bombed hard because it was low-effort, but it's not dead.
Probably not too many! Chronotrigger would be one.
But it is remarkable that Warcraft 2 would have been considered a game of the year contender for PC in that year, with similar acclaim to Chronotrigger, but these games have taken very, very different paths.
No doubt a part of it is that interest in RPGs has largely persisted with only minor declines, while RTS games spiked in popularity and then severely receded.
But stewardship from their owners likely played a role as well. Square has seen fit to keep Chronotrigger in the public eye a lot more often.
> Wasn't remade and re-released often since and little to no effort has been put into growing the franchise.
I’m certainly disappointed that it hasn’t gotten more love, but it got its first balance patch in 25 years(!) last year, following a rerelease that added higher resolution graphics and better online play, so your information is out of date.
The community doesn’t exist on Reddit, it’s in communities like that one around war2combat, old Russian forums and discord rooms. It’s not big but there are still some folks keeping it alive.
This is the economist theoretical consensus justification though in real life tbh I dunno if I've noticed any real difference when looking at housing development patterns across Canada where there are many jurisdictions with rent control, many without, and many with some sort of blend (ie. no rent control on new builds).
If there is some incentive toward development in non-rent control jurisdictions I suspect it's strongly dominated by other factors.
(ie. Montreal probably has the most restrictive rent control in Canada but it's also seeing the strongest apartment development growth)
Canada is a basket case for housing development but the only bright spots for outpacing demand with housing are Albertan cities with no rent control like Calgary and Edmonton.
Edmonton recently outpaced Toronto in housing development on an absolute basis with much lower housing prices and less than 1/5th the population!
The regulatory environment in Alberta is such that it permits housing to be built, and it does.
The same cannot be said of Toronto (or everywhere else in the nation that isn't the Prairies for similar reasons), for landed interests and the bureaucracy and corruption that comes with them are a lot more entrenched in that area.
I think you're neglecting that most of Toronto is restrictively zoned for SFHs while Edmonton is upzoned across the city for 8-plexes at a minimum.
Toronto has a cumbersome permitting process that runs from months to years, while Edmonton's process is mostly automated and grants permits within weeks.
Regardless, the other relevant factor here is the actual price of housing, which is substantially higher in Toronto... and yet Toronto struggles (by design) to build anything.
haha i misread casual as causal, but i guess, here are the "accurate conclusions" you are looking for, that is to say, what does rent control cause, as opposed to the vibes and correlations people are talking about?
it's the "credibility revolution" and someone has won a nobel prize for it.
rent control causes limited mobility (read: displacement out of town) by 20 percent; it causes reduced rental housing supply by 15 percent:
Did you write an entire comment by misreading "casual", the word I used, with "causal"? Otherwise, I have no idea how your reply relates to mine, as I didn't make any claims about the existence of such research.
Casual is a perfectly reasonable descriptor of economic conclusions based on vibes and anecdotes about apartment building in Montreal. I don't think it's reasonable to read it as an insult.
You don't need a study to tell you that if you make things more difficult and worse for landlords, the housing supply will decrease.
Courts actually need to do their jobs here for an optimal solution - e.g. it should be easy to punish shitty landlords AND easy to kick out shitty tenants.
It shouldn't take a 1+ year wait (as during COVID) to get a landlord-tenant court date to resolve issues.
The housing issue is multi-faceted however, so that's only 1 piece of the puzzle. But thanks to NIMBYs and building code overreach, it's literally impossible to build affordable housing that would rent at its own depreciation schedule.
> You don't need a study to tell you that if you make things more difficult and worse for landlords, the housing supply will decrease.
That doesn't need to be true. In post WW2 UK the government built lots of rental property. That increased the housing supply and hurt private landlords at the same time.
"Thus, while rent control prevents displacement of incumbent renters in the short run, the lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the law."
People are able to move around, to some degree, so housing prices are a function of supply across most of the nation. Or at least the desirable portions.
Rent control on the other hand has mostly local effects.
Which means, rent control can push prices down and keep them down. There is indeed a supply reduction, and prices on average will go up—but not in the rent controlled area.
It’s still a poor idea, but it requires centralised planning to avoid.
I lived in downtown Montreal and it could just be me but the housing stock was not of the highest quality compared to most other places in Canada. Montreal as a whole feels rundown (I say this as a former Montrealer who’s lived in many places since). Cheap rent though.
> Montreal probably has the most restrictive rent control in Canada but it's also seeing the strongest apartment development growth
A wonderful city like Montreal can drive enough demand for housing to overcome red tape, and still be building far far less than what would satisfy demand. A less attribute city with lower demand for housing may build less due to lower demand, despite having less red tape.
Vancouver has rent control and rents are going down.
Though I think the likely dynamic that you're seeing here is rent growth of new build apartments is stalling and reversing, and on renewal with new tenants rents are being revised downward as there is more competition.
I expect that amongst apartments with long term tenants rents are still creeping upward. But that's fine. The point of rent control is to smooth out volatility. Rents can still go up, but the goal is to avoid sudden 150% increases etc.
> The point of rent control is to smooth out volatility. Rents can still go up, but the goal is to avoid sudden 150% increases etc.
Is it? I mostly see rent control maximum increases below the inflation rate, suggesting a different goal (appealing to voters?). If it were just to eliminate extreme volatility I think we'd see more 5/10/20% increases and less 1/2/3% increases.
Coincidentally at the moment the Canadian government has begun yet again pushing the idea of a new oil pipeline to serve asian markets with the justification being boosting the economy.
Remains depressing that somehow no one thinks for a second of the economic instability that will be induced by the climate change that that oil pipeline would contribute to...
> My understanding was that it was the tenant rights movement that killed SROs and boarding houses by making it practically impossible to keep them orderly, because it made eviction almost impossible and compliance with anti-discrimination laws presented too large a burden for low-cost housing.
Possible that tenant rights could have had some negative impacts as you say, what's the timeline on when that would have been happening? We do know that very early on that wealthy neighbourhoods were working hard to prevent SROs (prevent multi-unit buildings at all really) for class and racial exclusionary reasons. We have a great deal of direct evidence of this in contemporary reporting on these issues.
> By the early 1900s, cities and states were classifying lodging houses as public nuisances. Other laws increased building standards and mandated plumbing fixtures, raising costs and slowing new construction. Urban reformers next embraced exclusionary zoning to separate undesirable people and noxious uses from residential areas. SROs were deemed inappropriate in residential zones, and many codes banned the mixed-use districts that sustained them.
In Vancouver for example they brought in zoning to put an end to apartment development in a great deal of residential areas in the 1930s.
It may be that there's no one answer because every city is different.
In Chicago, for example, the ongoing decline of SROs is still a live issue. The most recent time the city passed a new ordnance intended to try and halt the decline was 11 years ago [1].
As far as I'm aware it hasn't slowed the decline, and there maybe a plausible argument to be made that it's worsening the problem by creating significant barriers to opening any new SROs. The ordnance requires a 180-day notification period prior to the sale of any existing SRO building, and during that period you can only sell to an owner who intends to preserve the building's current use as an SRO. If that fails, you get about a year to find another buyer, and any residents being displaced by the sale get relocation assistance, including a $2,000 check to offset relocation costs.
I believe the people who drafted and passed the ordnance had the best of intentions. But (and I'm no real estate financier so maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about) it seems like it might have also made it functionally impossible for anyone to open a new SRO. I can't imagine any bank or investor would be willing to finance an enterprise with those kinds of strings attached. That really amps up the risk to investors, and for an enterprise that's probably already relatively unattractive due to low potential ROI compared to yet another luxury development.
> As far as I'm aware it hasn't slowed the decline, and there maybe a plausible argument to be made that it's worsening the problem by creating significant barriers to opening any new SROs.
For this to be true you'd have to believe that there are building owners out there who want to use their buildings as SROs but only if they can easily evict everyone and sell it.
I'm skeptical that there are landlords who want to run SROs, having interacted with landlords, they see SROs as being more work (maintaining lots of public space like shared kitchens) for undesirable tenants. Further, in the unlikely event that a landlord would want to run an SRO, they will have to deal with nimby opposition. I just find it difficult to believe that laws designed to keep existing SROs open would be the threshold for preventing new ones. Additionally, we don't have to speculate because there were no new SROs being created before the law passed.
> For this to be true you'd have to believe that there are building owners out there who want to use their buildings as SROs but only if they can easily evict everyone and sell it.
Alternatively, it could be for the reason I speculated on in the very next paragraph. Which I think is more plausible because it doesn't assume someone's treating this as a wedge issue; it just assumes boring everyday human behavior. People and organizations preferring investments that they believe to be lower risk and/or higher return isn't particularly noteworthy. It's how I think about my retirement fund, for example.
Also note that I'm not talking about the landlord's ethos. I'm talking about the ease of securing financing for a real estate development project. I'd guess it's pretty uncommon for landlords to just plunk down cash on a project like that. Because people don't typically have that kind of money just sitting around in one neat pile of cash, all ready and waiting to be spent.
>For this to be true you'd have to believe that there are building owners out there who want to use their buildings as SROs but only if they can easily evict everyone and sell it.
Another way of seeing this is "Sure, I'll give it a shot, but if it turns out to be a bad business I want the option to bail, rather than getting trapped slowly going bankrupt with a 90% empty building because I'm not allowed to evict 4 tenants and do something else with it."
It's possible to concoct a theoretical landlord who has that thought, although in your example it would cost $8000 to evict those people under the law ($2000 per).
The bigger problem is that no SROs were created in recent history before the law was passed. To say that there's some demand by landlords to create SROs but for the law you would have to show SROs getting created before the law, and that stopping after the law. The law was written to preserve the existing SROs with the understanding that the era in which SROs were an attractive investment was already past.
Secondly the OP claims without evidence that the law didn't slow the rate that SROs are being redeveloped. But gentrification in Chicago has accelerated so even if that's true the law is doing its job if the rate of SRO destruction didn't likewise accelerate.
SROs still a thing in Vancouver as well, though kettled into an ever smaller and smaller part of downtown. There are similar attempts to preserve them. You cannot rezone an existing SRO to a not-SRO, for the obvious reason that this would be an incredible windfall for the speculator that would achieves this.
But then there's the downside in that if there is significant maintenance, and these are 100+ year old buildings so there probably is, well where does the money come from?
I do not see any good path out of this short of the government stepping in, buying them or providing non profits the loans to buy them.
I'm unsure if there is any real path for someone to create a new SRO. As I mentioned before, 1930s era exclusionary zoning largely limited their existence, and the severe increase in land values since then has probably made for-profit low income housing very unviable.
That's definitely something that comes out whenever a Chicago SRO shuts down. The story tends to be, "This 150 year old building is falling apart, we just can't afford to maintain it anymore, and it's now getting so bad we can no longer legally operate it as a place of residence."
So I keep reading that same story, and I keep thinking, "Maybe instead of making it hard to do anything with existing SROs we should see about reducing disincentives to create new ones." Because it seems like the best my city's current policy can possibly accomplish is slowing this inexorable decline that leaves people with no better option than living in an ever-dwindling collection of ancient, crumbling, drafty, uninsulated, leaky buildings. And they're going to stay that way because this same ordnance also makes it incredibly hard to even rehab them.
One in Chicago tried a few years back and it was also a crisis. You can't have people living in it while you rehab, and all the other SROs are also full due to chronic undersupply, so the operator had to essentially just turn everyone out onto the street to do it. Which I gather was necessary because living conditions were becoming unsafe, but still. Legally mandating that de facto your only two options are "continue being a slumlord" and "make everyone homeless" is decidedly Not Awesome.
Unfortunately amongst the few that genuinely are calling for family homes because they need one, there are plenty more disingenuously using "family homes" as a tool to keep "undesirables" of renters, single people, young people, new immigrants, homosexuals etc out of their established low density, wealthy communities.
Family homes and family apartments are not the same thing. You are referring to zoning restrictions only allowing detached single family homes to be built, which are more expensive per occupant, and hence keep poorer people away.
There are multiple reasons for why dense areas only have 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, while less dense areas only have detached single family homes. One is, as you say, to keep the poorer people away. But another big one is also the change in household size due to people's preferences. And yet another is people's preference for detached single family homes once they do have kids (by and large).
So, to repeat myself, no. There is an overabundance of 3-4 bedroom homes in dense urban centers and we continue to build too many of these. There is a shortage of 0-1 bedroom apartment in dense urban centers.
I should've been clearer, I meant development of new abodes is bifurcated, it's either a low density region with homes with multiple bedrooms, or a high density region with homes with 1 or 2 bedrooms.
The 3-4 bedroom homes in dense urban centers were probably built a while ago, but I have never seen new homes built in dense urban centers (I'm referring to NYC/SF/SEA/etc). The low density suburb regions that border the dense urban center usually try to keep their low density status.
You won't see an apartment building with units that have 3 and 4 bedrooms going up in Manhattan, and you won't see apartment buildings with 1-2 bedrooms going up in the Silicon Valley suburbs.
That's not really the case, though. We don't have detailed statistics for bedroom count in New York because a city of just 8 million people with the largest urban economy on the continent can't be expected to track building permits. However in my city, Berkeley, California, the densest city in California outside San Francisco, we get mostly larger apartments. For example I point to the nearly-completed 2587 Telegraph Avenue with 485 bedrooms across 4, 5, and 6-bedroom apartments but only 5 studios. This is a direct outcome of the zoning code that denominates "density" in terms of units, therefore incentivizing the construction of gigantic units with too many bedrooms and forcing people into roomate situations that they don't actually want.
Fun to go shopping at craft fairs and give some money to indie artists for well made art. Send in the mail with a little note and stay in touch with old pals.
reply