Return to “General”

Post

Re: CHEER DUDE er

#68
JoshParnell wrote: Thanks Chad :) Constructive comments are like a currency around here, so feel free to inject them wherever you see fit ;) (Just saw that this thread is alive again!)
The last time I entered any code - it was on a Vic 20, way back when computer gaming magazines would spend a page or two on the cutting edge PROGRAMS. My "Hard drive" was a tape cassette player (post 8 track 70's, pre CD before 90's, Media storage). I still hen peck keyboards with two fingers every now and again. in short, I know it isn't easy to enter a flawless 500 lines of code, let alone multiple Gigs...

Programmers everywhere, you have my respect.

Regarding the current state of gaming:
1.) Franchise milkers
I do not like the peanut chasing aspects that some games have taken lately, as manipulating the human need to "Finish" is nothing short of sociopathic. For that matter, pay-to-win games playing on that need for completion ought to be outright criminal. I am glad that there won't be such elements (reputations, building projects, recruitment) in limit theory (They can exist but as "DEED" based records, in game discounts with XYZ, and loyalty of your own NPC employees. I don't want a pop up to tell me I have earned +5 with the dental association because I brush, or a +5 with the galactic minion fleet because I logged in). I won't tell you what games do this - it should be painfully obvious. Worst still is when the game targets the FANS of an intellectual property.

2.) Starship insurance that you buy with real cash
The EGO trip of hunting down and DESTROYING another player does have a certain appeal - but a lawless universe has no room for the innocent. if you want to Mine, trade, explore, build colonies; you become easy prey. Having a real cash dollar price tag on an internet ship that can be shredded in seconds is also a developer exploit to get RMT for nonexistent ships, hull mods, modules, weapons, rigs, clones, cyberware, insurance, fashion items, and more... it is deliberate and deceptive.

3.) Just because you could - Does not mean you should
I would request that EVERY populated system have the equivalent of Space Marines, Space Navy, space Coast guard, space civil air patrol, space highway patrol, space police, space search and rescue, planetary Sherriff and deputies, fire-fighting look out towers, as well as private security. The idea that every intelligent Sensor system Spaceship, satellite, station and more are "Tattle telling" on criminals. That the idea of Ship Registration and IFF allow "criminal ships" to be identified readily. That trigger happy captains must register to compete in sanctioned dueling events at specific locales to avoid getting on the wrong side of the law. That declaring a duel outside of a sanctioned event is a crime, and that outright piracy/attacking space ships is going to draw the IRE of EVERYONE including the Law Enforcement groups listed above. With warp travel, Faster than light communications, and a spacer society; there is no such thing as a "Safe" pirate - even in distant border systems. If you want to pit your rusty little scrap built ship against the law abiding forces of the universe, don't expect to last long...

4.) Bucks for a Barely out of beta
I beta tested games since 1998 with Everquest - but I stopped with FIREFALL online. "Beta invites" is bad camouflage for marketing a flawed, incomplete, buggy mess. Worse still, if this game is "Pay-to-Win". Doesn't anyone remember being able to go out, BUY, and OWN a FINISHED PRODUCT? Throwing money at a NONEXISTING virtual good is just inherently *STUPID*. if anyone is going to spend 300$ on a Starship; it ought to come with a meter long, highly detailed, painted model of AWESOMENESS!

As it pertains to Limit theory:
The circular menu system is genius. I hope to see it re-instituted.
Post

Re: CHEER DUDE er

#70
aspman wrote:
Chad_hale wrote:...
Throwing money at a NONEXISTING virtual good is just inherently *STUPID*
...
:?

Its a good job there are a lot of *STUPID* people out there who backed Josh so he can create Limit Theory. I applaud every one of them. :clap:
Wrong kind of virtual good. :ghost:
Image The results of logic, of natural progression? Boring! An expected result? Dull! An obvious next step? Pfui! Where is the fun in that? A dream may soothe, but our nightmares make us run!
Post

Re: Just a thank you

#71
Chad_hale wrote:...Doesn't anyone remember being able to go out, BUY, and OWN a FINISHED PRODUCT? Throwing money at a NONEXISTING virtual good is just inherently *STUPID*. ...
Requoted with a bit more context. That sounds more like backing LT on KS than buying content "in game" to me, but my bad if I took it out of context, and maybe I just did again.

As for different types of virtual goods. I struggle with that, I don't see much difference between software and in game content (all bits at the end of the day). but at the fear of opening a can of worms I will let that lie.

I agree with most of what was said, and know from his previous post he was offering constructive support, so I am glad I got it wrong in that case, and the poster now only (maybe) offended a small part of the community rather than than the whole community. I don't want to derail his post any further if I am totally off track.
LTP Fleet Battles on Youtube
Post

Re: Just a thank you

#72
Investing is a profession.

Investing in software is the same thing as throwing money at non-existent virtual goods. Can you imagine if no one invested in software? Not everyone who invests has the money to spare, otherwise it would be more of a hobby than a legitimate job.

Even without KS, there would still be investors. The difference between KS and major investors (in the typical sense) is that the risk is spread out among many more than just one.
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post

Re: Just a thank you

#73
Just to play devil's advocate, Chad_hale is completely right.

Paying for something that doesn't (yet) exist is an inherently stupid thing to do, especially when the option to pay for things that do exist is available.

Doing anything for anyone on the premise that they might do something for you later is an inherently stupid thing to do. Taking any kind of risk given the average reward as being less than the risk is an inherently stupid thing to do.

Without humanity doing inherently stupid things, we wouldn't have humanity.
Games I like, in order of how much I like them. (Now permanent and updated regularly!)
Post

Re: Just a thank you

#74
DigitalDuck wrote:Just to play devil's advocate, Chad_hale is completely right.

Paying for something that doesn't (yet) exist is an inherently stupid thing to do, especially when the option to pay for things that do exist is available.

Doing anything for anyone on the premise that they might do something for you later is an inherently stupid thing to do. Taking any kind of risk given the average reward as being less than the risk is an inherently stupid thing to do.

Without humanity doing inherently stupid things, we wouldn't have humanity.
You're implying that something with equal value to the person already exists. Also people don't generally do things that don't benefit them (philosophical question/debate, wont go into it).
A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.

In magenta we trust
Post

Re: Just a thank you

#75
DigitalDuck wrote:Just to play devil's advocate, Chad_hale is completely right.

Paying for something that doesn't (yet) exist is an inherently stupid thing to do, especially when the option to pay for things that do exist is available.

Doing anything for anyone on the premise that they might do something for you later is an inherently stupid thing to do. Taking any kind of risk given the average reward as being less than the risk is an inherently stupid thing to do.

Without humanity doing inherently stupid things, we wouldn't have humanity.
Ah, but it's not quite that simple. When you make a donation on kickstarter, you're not simply taking a risk - you're weighing a huge variety of factors:
  • Does this type of game usually succeed?
  • How trustworthy does the project leader seem?
  • What proof of the person's work quality is there?
  • How much money am I making?
  • What are the estimated chances of the project getting funded?
  • How original is the project?
  • What are the chances of this being the next big thing?
  • Is it worth backing just to back?
  • How good are the rewards?
  • How badly do I want it?
  • What is the promised quality?
  • How likely do I think that they'll reach the promised quality?
  • What do I think the final quality of the product will be?
  • How okay am I with receiving less than the optimum return?
  • How good am I feeling today?
The human mind is incredibly complex - we take many of these (and more) into account in a mere instant when we fund or purchase anything at all. It's not stupid to fund or purchase something where we take a risk - the choice to fund or purchase it is a result of highly complex mathematics, with the end decision that it's worth taking the risk in the hopes that we receive the end reward - that the average gain relative to the chance of success makes the money expended worth it.

Doing something where you know you aren't very likely to get your money's worth is a bit stupid, though.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || I have a Patreon page up for REKT now! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron