|
kordansk posted:Yo, I gotta ask - what is your endgame? Like what is the goal here. Mocking the stupidity of the development of this project is amusing and passes the time. What harm can come from a dead gay comedy forum mocking a game behind a paywall? What do you gain from defending it? Presumably you aren't paid to sit there and defend croberts honor, nor are you an employee of the company. Do you think that by defending them you can get more people to spend money? Do you think anyone that actually reads this thread is likely going to spend any more money on SC? As a customer, wouldn't it make sense to be critical of the people that have claimed so many things that ended up being demonstrably false? Why is it that when people mock or comment on what you believe to be the magnum opus of gaming you attack them instead of their argument? The MoMa Gestalt Entity lashes out to maintain its internal integrity otherwise it will explode into a rainbow of different delusions and melt away. edit: kitty taxxe 
ewe2 fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Feb 12, 2018 |
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 07:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
kordansk posted:Yo, I gotta ask - what is your endgame? Like what is the goal here. Mocking the stupidity of the development of this project is amusing and passes the time. What harm can come from a dead gay comedy forum mocking a game behind a paywall? What do you gain from defending it? Presumably you aren't paid to sit there and defend croberts honor, nor are you an employee of the company. Do you think that by defending them you can get more people to spend money? Do you think anyone that actually reads this thread is likely going to spend any more money on SC? As a customer, wouldn't it make sense to be critical of the people that have claimed so many things that ended up being demonstrably false? Why is it that when people mock or comment on what you believe to be the magnum opus of gaming you attack them instead of their argument? My goal is not to try and turn people here, defend CIG from the goons, shill for CIG, protect backers or the like. It's to defenstrate this notion that crowdfunding of this magnitude is bad, that a company that may not have started off surefooted can try and gain some ground in the more recent years and that there exists a possibility of a space simulation that many people want and is for all intents and purposes, attainable. Look: CIG has raised a poo poo ton of money from backers and an unknown amount from private investment. They have positioned themselves around tax hurdles, setup subs to adjust their positions, hedge and play the game (just like any other corporation does), and - iny my opinion - are making efforts to really achieve some semblance of a game that has grown into the scope that it has because of backer demands. I don't think Chris is sitting atop a pile of decisions and yes'ing or no'ing each into oblivion. I think he relies heavily on the advice of Todd, Erin and others for their respective areas and yes - as CEO decides overall direction but leaves a lot of the liberty to the respective heads. As for Crytek: I think CIG would have outright settled if they honestly thought they were in the wrong and "caught" by Crytek (so to speak). Either there are other facets of the agreement(s) that were made that we're just not privy to or they really think CryTek's case isn't strong enough to worry about. To your point about attacking the arguments of others instead of others directly: I'm not outright attacking anyone. I tried making reasoned arguments but either people thought they were poo poo and stopped responding or felt the need to quash the one outspoken voice in the thread so badly that it just became less and less fun to argue. Now I just poke Smart every once in a while and say a few words here-and-there to gauge what the narrative shifted to week-by-week. One week it's about marketing and Sandi. Another it's about Erin and some Irish Mafia connection. Then it's Archer. Rinse, repeat. It's honestly old. I stopped giving CIG money and am equally as glad that there's no need to buy into and pay for anything more in SA forums. Some of the other threads and topics in the forums are ok - I'll go spend some time there and talk about my fishing kayak, learn a few tips for when I'm at the range next or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 07:26
|
|
|
Veni Vidi Ameche! posted:Is it just me, or does CIG seem to be keeping its head down a bit since the lawsuit news broke? It seems like we had a hilarious new disaster every week previous to that. What company do you know comments on pending legal action? Or, makes a variety public statements while under potential legal action?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:My goal is not to try and turn people here, defend CIG from the goons, shill for CIG, protect backers or the like. It's to defenstrate this notion that crowdfunding of this magnitude is bad, that a company that may not have started off surefooted can try and gain some ground in the more recent years and that there exists a possibility of a space simulation that many people want and is for all intents and purposes, attainable. Look: CIG has raised a poo poo ton of money from backers and an unknown amount from private investment. They have positioned themselves around tax hurdles, setup subs to adjust their positions, hedge and play the game (just like any other corporation does), and - iny my opinion - are making efforts to really achieve some semblance of a game that has grown into the scope that it has because of backer demands. I don't think Chris is sitting atop a pile of decisions and yes'ing or no'ing each into oblivion. I think he relies heavily on the advice of Todd, Erin and others for their respective areas and yes - as CEO decides overall direction but leaves a lot of the liberty to the respective heads. As for Crytek: I think CIG would have outright settled if they honestly thought they were in the wrong and "caught" by Crytek (so to speak). Either there are other facets of the agreement(s) that were made that we're just not privy to or they really think CryTek's case isn't strong enough to worry about. Hi Erris.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:My goal is not to try and turn people here, defend CIG from the goons, shill for CIG, protect backers or the like. It's to defenstrate this notion that crowdfunding of this magnitude is bad, that a company that may not have started off surefooted can try and gain some ground in the more recent years and that there exists a possibility of a space simulation that many people want and is for all intents and purposes, attainable. Look: CIG has raised a poo poo ton of money from backers and an unknown amount from private investment. They have positioned themselves around tax hurdles, setup subs to adjust their positions, hedge and play the game (just like any other corporation does), and - iny my opinion - are making efforts to really achieve some semblance of a game that has grown into the scope that it has because of backer demands. I don't think Chris is sitting atop a pile of decisions and yes'ing or no'ing each into oblivion. I think he relies heavily on the advice of Todd, Erin and others for their respective areas and yes - as CEO decides overall direction but leaves a lot of the liberty to the respective heads. As for Crytek: I think CIG would have outright settled if they honestly thought they were in the wrong and "caught" by Crytek (so to speak). Either there are other facets of the agreement(s) that were made that we're just not privy to or they really think CryTek's case isn't strong enough to worry about. You sound like a propertarian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 07:38
|
|
|
The man infamous for telling his underlings what colour to make individual pixels almost certainly leaves a lot of lee-way for his managers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 07:41
|
|
|
Jason Sextro posted:I think that if MoMA just lashes out enough Star Citizen will come out and be good. Exactly. You didn't try enough ManofManyAliases/Toast, that's why star citizen is still poo poo and a nogame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 07:43
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:My goal is not to try and turn people here, defend CIG from the goons, shill for CIG, protect backers or the like. It's to defenstrate this notion that crowdfunding of this magnitude is bad, that a company that may not have started off surefooted can try and gain some ground in the more recent years and that there exists a possibility of a space simulation that many people want and is for all intents and purposes, attainable. Look: CIG has raised a poo poo ton of money from backers and an unknown amount from private investment. They have positioned themselves around tax hurdles, setup subs to adjust their positions, hedge and play the game (just like any other corporation does), and - iny my opinion - are making efforts to really achieve some semblance of a game that has grown into the scope that it has because of backer demands. I don't think Chris is sitting atop a pile of decisions and yes'ing or no'ing each into oblivion. I think he relies heavily on the advice of Todd, Erin and others for their respective areas and yes - as CEO decides overall direction but leaves a lot of the liberty to the respective heads. As for Crytek: I think CIG would have outright settled if they honestly thought they were in the wrong and "caught" by Crytek (so to speak). Either there are other facets of the agreement(s) that were made that we're just not privy to or they really think CryTek's case isn't strong enough to worry about. Good. Is it out yet or still not enough ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:My goal is not to try and turn people here, defend CIG from the goons, shill for CIG, protect backers or the like. It's to defenstrate this notion that crowdfunding of this magnitude is bad, that a company that may not have started off surefooted can try and gain some ground in the more recent years and that there exists a possibility of a space simulation that many people want and is for all intents and purposes, attainable. You're not succeeding by any measure to anyone here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:My goal is not to try and turn people here, defend CIG from the goons, shill for CIG, protect backers or the like. It's to defenstrate this notion that crowdfunding of this magnitude is bad, that a company that may not have started off surefooted can try and gain some ground in the more recent years and that there exists a possibility of a space simulation that many people want and is for all intents and purposes, attainable. Look: CIG has raised a poo poo ton of money from backers and an unknown amount from private investment. They have positioned themselves around tax hurdles, setup subs to adjust their positions, hedge and play the game (just like any other corporation does), and - iny my opinion - are making efforts to really achieve some semblance of a game that has grown into the scope that it has because of backer demands. I don't think Chris is sitting atop a pile of decisions and yes'ing or no'ing each into oblivion. I think he relies heavily on the advice of Todd, Erin and others for their respective areas and yes - as CEO decides overall direction but leaves a lot of the liberty to the respective heads. As for Crytek: I think CIG would have outright settled if they honestly thought they were in the wrong and "caught" by Crytek (so to speak). Either there are other facets of the agreement(s) that were made that we're just not privy to or they really think CryTek's case isn't strong enough to worry about. As far as I know, nobody has really made the argument that crowdfunding is bad when it is utilized in such a way that results in an end product - see Gloomhaven, Divinity, or any other successful projects. I think a large problem with SC that people take issue with is that you have a company that is constantly generating engineering debt to obtain more funding for development of a game that appears to be in perpetual alpha with no end in sight. Every deadline has been missed by months, every statement about the current status of the project and expected releases has been demonstrably false to the point that they had to know they were lying when they made those statements, and literally you have what appears to be the most heinous rabid fanbase on the planet that goes out of their way to promote SC in a way that makes bitcoin shittards look like normal people. How do you explain what looks like the complete inability for fans to have introspection into why they make the statements they do, or why they have what looks like a cult-like following for a game? As far as the lawsuit goes - speculating on it in any form is hilariously silly. Literally nobody is going to have an objective opinion on either side of it, however, some of the arguments made about the language of exclusivity are ridiculous especially if you are attempting to make the argument that a company that literally exists to license engine tech would grant only one game development company access to their entire revenue stream and lock it out for everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 07:51
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:My goal is not to try and turn people here, defend CIG from the goons, shill for CIG, protect backers or the like. It's to defenstrate this notion that crowdfunding of this magnitude is bad, that a company that may not have started off surefooted can try and gain some ground in the more recent years and that there exists a possibility of a space simulation that many people want and is for all intents and purposes, attainable. Look: CIG has raised a poo poo ton of money from backers and an unknown amount from private investment. They have positioned themselves around tax hurdles, setup subs to adjust their positions, hedge and play the game (just like any other corporation does), and - iny my opinion - are making efforts to really achieve some semblance of a game that has grown into the scope that it has because of backer demands. I don't think Chris is sitting atop a pile of decisions and yes'ing or no'ing each into oblivion. I think he relies heavily on the advice of Todd, Erin and others for their respective areas and yes - as CEO decides overall direction but leaves a lot of the liberty to the respective heads. As for Crytek: I think CIG would have outright settled if they honestly thought they were in the wrong and "caught" by Crytek (so to speak). Either there are other facets of the agreement(s) that were made that we're just not privy to or they really think CryTek's case isn't strong enough to worry about. This is almost 500 words of defending CIG. Yikes.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:This is almost 500 words of defending CIG. Yikes. It's okay, he prefaced it by saying he isn't here to defend CIG, so that cancels out all the words that only exist to defend CIG.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 07:55
|
|
|
Midnight Voyager posted:It's okay, he prefaced it by saying he isn't here to defend CIG, so that cancels out all the words that only exist to defend CIG. Especially since the non-defence is against an argument no-one has really ever made. So that's double-cancelled! Check mate goonie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:03
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:What company do you know comments on pending legal action? Or, makes a variety public statements while under potential legal action? What part of my post mentioned CIG commenting on the lawsuit? What part of CIG’s behavior leads you to believe a question like “what other company ...” applies to them in any meaningful way? Have they been making tons of rational, intelligent decisions based in reality that I just haven’t heard about? They’re a clown show, top to bottom. I haven’t heard of them doing anything head-scratchingly stupid or embarrassing for a few weeks, and that’s unusual, so I figured I’d check in with the thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:07
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:My goal is not to try and turn people here, defend CIG from the goons, shill for CIG, protect backers or the like. It's to defenstrate this notion that crowdfunding of this magnitude is bad, that a company that may not have started off surefooted can try and gain some ground in the more recent years and that there exists a possibility of a space simulation that many people want and is for all intents and purposes, attainable. Look: CIG has raised a poo poo ton of money from backers and an unknown amount from private investment. They have positioned themselves around tax hurdles, setup subs to adjust their positions, hedge and play the game (just like any other corporation does), and - iny my opinion - are making efforts to really achieve some semblance of a game that has grown into the scope that it has because of backer demands. I don't think Chris is sitting atop a pile of decisions and yes'ing or no'ing each into oblivion. I think he relies heavily on the advice of Todd, Erin and others for their respective areas and yes - as CEO decides overall direction but leaves a lot of the liberty to the respective heads. As for Crytek: I think CIG would have outright settled if they honestly thought they were in the wrong and "caught" by Crytek (so to speak). Either there are other facets of the agreement(s) that were made that we're just not privy to or they really think CryTek's case isn't strong enough to worry about. You started with the premise that you are here to defenstrate these notions: 1. Crowdfunding of this magnitude is bad 2. Even a company who got off to a bad start can gain ground and the simulation is in fact attainable 1. Crowdfunding of this magnitude is not bad or good as such. Selling jpegs of spaceships by posting videos on youtube describing gameplay which is not feasible with your tech (demonstrably so) is BAD, and lying to your backers about the status of development is WORSE (weeks not months, Network Culling in development in 2015 and started development in Jan 2018, Star Marine is in the game, VR development ramping up in 2016 etc etc). They are liars, there is no other way to say it. They've been lying about what they are capable of producing and they have to keep lying to pay their staff. All of this is demonstrable and has been documented by sheer effort in this thread for years. 2. Frontier got off to a bad start and are demonstrating year on year that the level of simulation desired is in fact attainable - with their tech and with their teams. CIG year on year have demonstrated that the level of simulation desired is NOT possible with their tech or their teams. As for the scope growing based on backer demands - this is the same as saying that a backer can ask for a feature in return for paying money - and this is in fact the case! Because in all of those 10FTC videos Chris answered 'Yes' to every single 'will we be able to do X' question. I know this to be true because I went through all of them and posted a big list. And what comes out of that? The "level of simulation" desired and that you feel is attainable, and this is the absolute heart of where you disagree with posters here, because it isn't attainable, not in the slightest, not with that engine and that team and with Chris Roberts in charge. "Some semblance of a game" is the absolute best you can possibly hope for but unfortunately it's too late for that because time is about to be called on the whole project and the backers are seemingly the last people to know what the gently caress is about to hit Star Citizen. You're out of the loop MoMA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:09
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:My goal is not to try and turn people here, defend CIG from the goons, shill for CIG, protect backers or the like. It's to defenstrate this notion that crowdfunding of this magnitude is bad, that a company that may not have started off surefooted can try and gain some ground in the more recent years and that there exists a possibility of a space simulation that many people want and is for all intents and purposes, attainable. Look: CIG has raised a poo poo ton of money from backers and an unknown amount from private investment. They have positioned themselves around tax hurdles, setup subs to adjust their positions, hedge and play the game (just like any other corporation does), and - iny my opinion - are making efforts to really achieve some semblance of a game that has grown into the scope that it has because of backer demands. I don't think Chris is sitting atop a pile of decisions and yes'ing or no'ing each into oblivion. I think he relies heavily on the advice of Todd, Erin and others for their respective areas and yes - as CEO decides overall direction but leaves a lot of the liberty to the respective heads. As for Crytek: I think CIG would have outright settled if they honestly thought they were in the wrong and "caught" by Crytek (so to speak). Either there are other facets of the agreement(s) that were made that we're just not privy to or they really think CryTek's case isn't strong enough to worry about. Hi Derek.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:13
|
|
|
awesome, it's "reasonable" MoMA's shift now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:15
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:What company do you know comments on pending legal action? Or, makes a variety public statements while under potential legal action? CIG and Crytek both commented on the legal action, they both sent releases to Polygon and Ars Technica. quote:We are aware of the Crytek complaint having been filed in the US District Court. CIG hasn’t used the CryEngine for quite some time since we switched to Amazon’s Lumberyard. This is a meritless lawsuit that we will defend vigorously against, including recovering from Crytek any costs incurred in this matter. quote:Crytek is a technology company and intellectual property is its greatest asset. It is unfortunate that this lawsuit had to be brought, but Crytek has been left with no option but to protect its intellectual property in court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:I tried making reasoned arguments but either people thought they were poo poo and stopped responding or felt the need to quash the one outspoken voice in the thread so badly that it just became less and less fun to argue. Actually, if you want to know why people stopped responding to your arguments in good faith, that's pretty easy. Nobody agrees with the reasons in your arguments. Like, what is anyone supposed to do with that? We disagree with you. We interpret what we are seeing differently. Showing us these facts and how you interpret them isn't going to do anything, because we just flat-out disagree. It's like arguing politics with your racist grandfather. It accomplishes nothing except irritating everyone involved. When most people realize they are at an impasse in a debate, they move on to another topic or something. You are Sisyphus if Sisyphus made himself push the rock up the hill and could stop at any time. And nobody wants to "quash the one outspoken voice in the thread," Captain Oppression Complex. We're just here for laughs. Laughing at you isn't quashing your voice. It's this: We started off disagreeing with you, then we got frustrated because you're one of those guys who can't put an argument down even when it's blatantly clear that nobody is being convinced by you in the slightest, and then we gave up and got the laughs we were looking for at your expense. Now your schtick is old and not really funny anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:I'm not outright attacking anyone. ManofManyAliases posted:No one's going to jail for a video game you nutjob. FFS fully retire already. ManofManyAliases posted:LOL you loving pansies are so scared of risk. ManofManyAliases posted:You're a loving idiot. ManofManyAliases posted:I read this forum you insufferable asshat. Can't be arsed to dig up the bullshit you were spouting about the Coutts loan being CIG hedging their bets on Brexit, but that was when I realised you are just here to troll and nothing else. You may as well come clean MoMA, the game is up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:My goal is not to try and turn people here, defend CIG from the goons, shill for CIG, protect backers or the like. It's to defenstrate this notion that crowdfunding of this magnitude is bad, that a company that may not have started off surefooted can try and gain some ground in the more recent years and that there exists a possibility of a space simulation that many people want and is for all intents and purposes, attainable. Look: CIG has raised a poo poo ton of money from backers and an unknown amount from private investment. They have positioned themselves around tax hurdles, setup subs to adjust their positions, hedge and play the game (just like any other corporation does), and - iny my opinion - are making efforts to really achieve some semblance of a game that has grown into the scope that it has because of backer demands. I don't think Chris is sitting atop a pile of decisions and yes'ing or no'ing each into oblivion. I think he relies heavily on the advice of Todd, Erin and others for their respective areas and yes - as CEO decides overall direction but leaves a lot of the liberty to the respective heads. As for Crytek: I think CIG would have outright settled if they honestly thought they were in the wrong and "caught" by Crytek (so to speak). Either there are other facets of the agreement(s) that were made that we're just not privy to or they really think CryTek's case isn't strong enough to worry about. You are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
For those who somehow missed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjrzemJvUCU That is Ubisoft doing everything that Star Citizen wants to do - and doing it well and smoothly and on a console. Why are backers not going crazy over this? God I wish I was in the room to watch Crobber's expression when someone showed him this video.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
The Rabbi T. White posted:For those who somehow missed it: Brightly lite work spaces, no airplane parts to be seen anywhere in the office Total poo poo, the entire management team should be fired
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:39
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:My goal is not to try and turn people here, defend CIG from the goons, shill for CIG, protect backers or the like. It's to defenstrate this notion that crowdfunding of this magnitude is bad, that a company that may not have started off surefooted can try and gain some ground in the more recent years and that there exists a possibility of a space simulation that many people want and is for all intents and purposes, attainable. Look: CIG has raised a poo poo ton of money from backers and an unknown amount from private investment. They have positioned themselves around tax hurdles, setup subs to adjust their positions, hedge and play the game (just like any other corporation does), and - iny my opinion - are making efforts to really achieve some semblance of a game that has grown into the scope that it has because of backer demands. I don't think Chris is sitting atop a pile of decisions and yes'ing or no'ing each into oblivion. I think he relies heavily on the advice of Todd, Erin and others for their respective areas and yes - as CEO decides overall direction but leaves a lot of the liberty to the respective heads. As for Crytek: I think CIG would have outright settled if they honestly thought they were in the wrong and "caught" by Crytek (so to speak). Either there are other facets of the agreement(s) that were made that we're just not privy to or they really think CryTek's case isn't strong enough to worry about. Yeah, like I am going to read that. Ok, I'll try... ManofManyAliases posted:My goal is not to try and turn people here, defend CIG from the goons, shill for CIG, protect backers or the like. It's to defenstrate ManofManyAliases posted:defenstrate Oh, gently caress you. (Sorry, I couldn't continue). But, seriously, gently caress you and your big words. Where is Octopode? Octopode, I miss you, I know you're reading.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:41
|
|
|
Hey, I read your post MoMA. I just want to say that the reason people attacked your arguments is because they were poo poo, nothing less, nothing more. Also, this is 2018, we haven;t talked about Sandi. Erin and some Irish Mafia connection, and Archer for a freaking while. It's not fun anymore when we can talk about lawsuits, 3.0 (lol), and their lies. Why don't you comment on all the people leaving the job? What's your opinion about that? Mmmm? trucutru fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Feb 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:45
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Current Frankfurt Vacancies: Derail trigger was this
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:49
|
|
|
Thoatse posted:Paarp Fiction “Say uhm ahh erm wat one more time motherfucker” Also CIG intern: it would be really cool if you put heists into the game. You know like in that lower class game GTA5 which as we know is the current comparison to Sta Citizen
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 08:55
|
|
|
The Rabbi T. White posted:For those who somehow missed it: its too similar to SC. I would recommend lowering expectations for that. things like asteroid impacts affecting cities, subsumption npc's, pupil to planet solar systems without loading screens, multiplayer focus. Those are setting off my alarm bells. I do hope that im wrong. But currently i am fully expecting to see "optional" pre-order ships for 200$
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 09:07
|
|
|
quote:It's basically This is Spinal Tap except people think the band is real. Stop wasting my time You know what I want You know what I need Or maybe you don't? https://youtu.be/I-BYzaDwNoE Perfect theme tune
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 09:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 09:21
|
|
|
Owls are rad as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 09:40
|
|
|
Gort posted:Owls are dumb as poo poo. FTFY Source: I worked at a Raptor sanctuary, and owned a barn owl. They really are the dumbest feather dusters in the world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 09:49
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Zyl Goliat posted this over on FDev 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 10:01
|
|
|
Xaerael posted:FTFY I want owl anecdotes
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 10:16
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Can't be arsed to dig up the bullshit you were spouting about the Coutts loan being CIG hedging their bets on Brexit, but that was when I realised you are just here to troll and nothing else. You may as well come clean MoMA, the game is up. MoMA lies constantly and intentionally. It's just not worth the effort to argue with someone who is going to be dishonest to try and score imaginary points over some other nerd on a dead gay comedy forum. I don't know why people keep taking the bait. If MoMA ever makes a substantive argument and has intention of being honest and forthright instead of just stirring poo poo up then perhaps I could see the entertainment value, but after months of seeing the same dishonest arguments I just view MoMA as a high effort troll. It's pretty decent as far as trolls go, but the amount of time and energy that goes into it is baffling, especially considering that it riles up a handful of nerds every so often and that's it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Feldorkane/status/962873177104842753 https://twitter.com/SHACKLETON_ENT/status/962871027104497664 https://twitter.com/PhoenixFieryn/status/962836835448774657
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 10:27
|
|
|
These people are broken as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 10:56
|
|
|
Mattjpwns posted:Strikes me as someone trying to be 'clever' with optimization. "This way we only have to do damage = baseDamage * armour rather than damage = baseDamage - armour * baseDamage, omg the CPU cycle savings" I think I would prefer damage = baseDamage * (1 - armour). I don't know much about games development, however 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 10:59
|
|
|
Occasionally I fall back to an outsiders perspective, and all this poo poo with 2.0, 3.0 etc. is ridiculous. All these updates are "we're working so hard on X.X iteration of thing Y" Above everything else this is the Potemkin Village of game development.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 11:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:I stopped giving CIG money Congrats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2018 11:01
|
|