Jump to content

Squirrel

Members
  • Posts

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2
  • Feedback

    0%

Squirrel last won the day on September 11 2018

Squirrel had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Squirrel's Achievements

  1. The rumors of CIG financial issues are beyond CIG's control. However, CIG is taking actions that feed that narrative in ways very much in CIG's control. The biggest is that CIG has put a strong emphasis on gaining new revenue for some reason. It could very well be that they want the publicity of yet another milestone of backing. But, the downside is that it feeds the narrative that they need that money. The pricing of the A2 is an extreme example. The warbond version cost $600. For that, using existing money, you would have gotten a ship ($700 value), a tank ($105 value) and LTI (unknown value). That means that for new money, you paid $600 to get what they claimed was $805+ worth of items. That is a "bargain" only if you give them new money. If they are trying to be a successful business, why are they willing to give a 25%+ discount for new revenue? That is the kind of action they have taken that feeds the narrative they are having money issues. I don't know for sure what their financial situation is and I ignore the rumors. But, I can observe their actions and they act in a manner that feeds the narrative that they need additional funding because they are constantly taking actions to give discounts of varying size to gain new funding. If they were comfortable with the amount of money sitting in the bank, they wouldn't be putting a large premium on additional revenue. If you read just in this thread where someone talks about how upper management is ignorant of some 'common' community complaints and then look at some of the decisions they make, like the charging for access to watch the con, it becomes pretty clear that there are few, if any, push backs on business decisions. CR may encourage feedback on technical decisions, but technical management and personnel/business management are very different skillsets. From what I have seen, they do not have a good feel for the potential negative aspects of their decisions. That would normally come from community managers. Some companies think of them as people to manage (control/manipulate) the community whereas good ones also help management anticipate community reaction to major decisions. But, management has to be willing to listen to them. If people are unwilling to bring up contrary thoughts, that is group think. Using contrary thoughts helps to refine and improve plans. They need more of that and the easiest way is to encourage in house discussion. But otherwise, they can always try to leverage outside assistance. Whatever they do, they need to first recognize there is a problem. The 'blind fanatics' of anything are, by definition, doing the exact same thing as the 'blind haters': making decisions based on emotion rather than considering facts that are contrary to said feelings. I did not call anyone out for that but if I hit someone's nerve with the statement that blind fanatics are essentially just as flawed as blind haters, I'd suggest taking a break for a little while. Go smell the roses as it were and see more of what is actually important in life. It's not a game and not even gaming in general. I have been trying to avoid getting snarky or sarcastic though I have seen several opportunities to do so. But, if the toxicity of the official forums is starting to infect these as well, then perhaps this isn't a place for rational discussions like I was thinking. Peace out, good luck and have fun.
  2. It's not just a mistake. There have been a series of mistakes, mostly revolving around pricing and feeding the narrative that CIG needs money (whether true or not, they are feeding the narrative). Everything from the outlandish pricing of the A2 to citizencon and other items make it pretty obvious that employees are not willing to give constructive criticism to decisions. A single bad decision is often made. But, they are making them too often. Definitely showing signs of suffering from group think where contrary opinions are not welcomed. It is the responsibility of management to create an environment where group think does not exist. Failure to do so is a failure of management. It doesn't mean that it can't be corrected. It just means it needs to be recognized first. I think it is good the CR is willing to own the mistake. That is an excellent start. But, it is far from the end of resolving their problems with the community. The biggest thing they could do to calm much of the community and restore faith from many of those wavering is to release SQ42 sometime next year and give us a rough quarter for release this year. I've said this to 'haters' and will say it here, blind fanaticism to SC is just the flip side of the same flawed coin as blind hatred.
  3. While constructive criticism is preferred, when people feel no one is being listened to, my experience is they stop bothering with the constructive part. CIG seems very willing to spend time/resources recovering from a bad decision and very little preventing. To me, that is a sign of poor leadership. A good leader welcomes respectful, constructive feedback from employees to try and make decisions better. It seems like fewer employees are willing to help CIG leadership avoid poor decision. This results in "Group Think" and we spent lots of time in business school discussing how to identify it and why it is so bad. And, I have seen it in actual business and it can be devastating to a project. They really need to start involving outside, constructive input. I have seen entire streams talking about possible ways to do this. Essentially, most involve an Evocati like group but for major announcements rather than gameplay and under NDA. If they continue to have an environment where employees are reluctant to bring up potential issues, they will continue to have these PR issues and more and more in the community will turn against them.
  4. One use for a 'truck stop' like station would be as a waypoint for the larger Hull series of ships. Provide a docking apparatus and be able to land a few Argo's to unload the docked hull and a few surface transport haulers. Maybe something along these lines. Places like this are talked about in game and would be useful. Another possibility isn't the kraken but might be the space equivalent of the pioneer. Something that builds space stations to meet the $19mil stretch goal of players allowed to manage space stations. Different players would have different uses for stations. I could easily see 'pop up' stations selling shady goods and other uses on the edge of UEE law. Moving as needed to avoid local entanglements. Other players may have specific 'themes' for their own stations as well as guild HQ. I could see a station that expands for setup and use but contracts for movement. For balance reasons, cargo and fuel storage areas would collapse so it can fit into jump points. Then, it is supplied at the destination by starfarers and cargo ships with supplies. These aren't for military use but would be vital stopping points for settlers and others that want to set up a trading post (smaller than a truck stop).
  5. I'm actually not a part of Imperium but am checking out guilds I think I might like while I wait for the game to get more fleshed out. I often, but not always, play solo. But always at my own risk. And, that is exactly my point. People who play solo do so at their own risk. The playstyle should be accommodated because it is quite popular. But, it should not be favored in my opinion. Just like group play should be accommodated but not favored. Different strokes for different folks. This seems to be the direction the Devs are going and I find that encouraging. This is not a binary choice. My history of gaming, which I am sure you don't know, is that I often do solo enterprises at great risk and share my enormous profits with my in game 'family' (guild). I also often play support roles in large gameplay. But, I find it frustrating to sit around doing nothing because a group is not available, so I play solo rather than not play at all. I don't let others dictate my play times just as I don't try to dictate theirs. I don't think any guild should be so intolerant of differing playstyles that they can't accept folks that play differently than others. It is just as wrong to force all players to be one game style as it is to force them all to any other. That will very quickly lead to a failed guild. There are lots of different ways for players to contribute to any organization and not all of them fit into a narrow framework. If it's Imperium's stance that only group play is acceptable, I would suggest making that clear to everyone early on so people like me won't waste their time. If I'm misinterpreting a member's opinion from a leadership policy, my apologies. Like I said, I'm not in Imperium and so don't know the leadership structure.
  6. I'm usually a solo player and I'm usually a cargo runner. I enjoy the increased danger of trying to go through places I shouldn't and especially the challenge of succeeding in delivering my cargo safely. Part of it is that I suck at combat so I learned to become a greased pig and squirm my way out despite the efforts of extremely competent players from time to time. If they succeed without exploits, I salute and move on. Good Game and all. Afterall, it's just a game. But, I don't see CIG favoring any game style as much as accepting there are differing play styles and putting in rules that allow them all, with consequences. Piracy done in hi sec areas will have consequence. Solo play in low sec will also have consequence. I am hopeful that regardless of groups, that high rewards go toward those taking high risks and low rewards to those doing low risk. Pirates attacking in low sec should get less reward than those bold enough to attack in hi sec. The reverse for solo cargo runners. If I take a solo cargo run across a well patrolled route, I should expect less of a chance for attack but also a smaller payout per SCU. If I do a solo run to Spider with well chosen cargo, I should expect a higher payout for my increased risk. It just requires players to do research and planning. Unfortunately, many don't. Some of my most fun gaming was in Pirates of the Burning Sea where I would do solo cargo runs through contested seas. I would plan everything out. My skills, my ship, my fittings, my route. Even time of day. I would go in knowing that people would definitely /try/ to gank me and some might even succeed. That was the challenge. And, the thrills of successfully conquering that challenge was why I played even if I sometimes had 'issues'. PvP doesn't always mean both parties are playing the same game. Victory is in achieving your goals.
  7. I really, really like the looks of the ship and really want one. But, I have problems justifying it in my fleet. I Sort of sandwiched it for both touring and exploration. I have both an 890J and Phoenix and Carrack and DUR. The one place I might think about it over the weekend is the touring mode since I intend my Phoenix mostly as a flex ship about to fight like an andromeda and explore like an Aquila (with modular mods) and also run low end, quick and dirty VIP missions. I'd probably get a CCU to compare the 600i to the Phoenix when it completes it's rework. They have gotten much better at having recent concepts really close in abilities to delivered ships. So, I would feel relatively comfortable comparing a delivered Phoenix to a concepted 600i. I know some people really don't like the look and I can respect that. Personally, I think it looks like the "high sci-fi" I grew up with of sleek and clean looking. But, I also like the "low" look of the greasy, gritty drake ships. That's part of what I like about the ship designs: Variety.
  8. Did some more research. Looks like the Bekant has pretty consistent mixed results. But, the Jarvis & UpDesk have pretty consistent positive reviews. Doing some shopping around, looks like I can get a Jarvis solution for about the same price as a bekant. I will keep looking at UpDesk options for pricing. But, a huge selling point for me about the Jarvis/UpDesk option was this video build/review:
  9. Perhaps something that can create small wormholes (jump points) or maybe block them somehow. Or, perhaps, temporarily expand a jump point size. Something that can change the nature of the biggest choke points in the game is definitely a game changer.
  10. there's lots of stuff to be worked out for sure and that's why we have both Alpha and Beta to work out the finer details. But, it is important that we test out all the possible exploits and problems we see and help CIG get fixes in before things really matter.
  11. Piracy and the like will happen and they are starting to put in the mechanisms to deal with it. Starting. This is still pre-beta and a very complex subject. One of the problems with game development is trying to sit in a room and figure out every possible way very intelligent players will try to game the game. The best way to deal with that is this pre-beta release idea of put out fleshed out rules and see how players work around them then make adjustments to deal with the issues. Best thing we can probably do is identify holes in the system, test them among ourselves and report results. Edit: In the spirit of this, I would be willing to be the 'victim' of some scenarios or the outlaw as needed. We would just need to flesh out the scenarios we think need to be tested and find volunteers and assign roles.
  12. Some of the reviews I have been reading say that 'normal' use is pretty straight forward but the often rapid, erratic movement of gaming brings instabilities out into the open. The reviews I have been reading seem to favor the uplift or jarvis frames. The ikea bekant sometimes rates high and sometimes has stability is. I suspect that may be the different models. I suspect the 'corner' unit would be more stable with the one foot being extra long. That is a guess though. But, I think that the total package for all three is about the same price. I may drop by ikea next time I'm in the region and 'shake' some desks to see to see how they feel. That is the advantage of ikea, show rooms. Varidesk also makes some great products to convert standard desks over to sit stand. Also, reading some folks talk about hw standing desks have changed their gaming habits for the good. But, I am also hopeful other folks can relate any experiences, good or bad.
  13. Squirrel

    Feedback Wanted Motorized Sit/Srand Desk experiences

    I am looking to getting a motorized sit/stand desk for both everyday use and possibly gaming. Has anyone had any experiences with any that are either good or bad? I'm just starting my research now on the subject. I plan a curved monitor of 32"-36" as the main display with a secondary display of 27". Thanks
  14. I like it but will just get mine in the game. But one of the interesting things to me was that they were selling a terrapin/cyclone combo. Do we know if this means a cyclone will fit into a terrapin? How do the other vehicles compare to the cyclone? will an ursa fit where ever a cyclone fits or vice versa? While we're at it, why would someone want an ursa over a cyclone or vice versa? The ursa seems about the same price and is able to carry cargo AND have a turret. I imagine the cyclone is faster if there is a racer variant. But, is speed the main reason someone would get a cyclone over an ursa? Could the commentary about wheels changing shape make the cyclone able to take rougher terrain? Hopefully, some of these will come out in the Q&A While I am not super thrilled about this one for myself, I do see it as important for fleshing out a living-breathing, immersive, world.
  15. The limitation on modules might be an example of where real world/logical thinking collide with gameplay or game engine limitations. Right now, they are 'faking' the physics by giving each ship a fixed mass/maneuver. In a 100% realistic environment, that would be calculated on the fly and the loss of mass would make various thrusters more effective. The cat is one of my favorite ships because of the peek we got at some possible modules. And while I would love to get my hands on some, I also understand other things having priority for now. I think the reason the 'tali modules were offered is because of all the criticism at the time about the limitations of it. I'm not too concerned at this point with what they are doing with the cat. Once we get more gameplay mechanics in, I would hope the cat modules would come online to help with testing those mechanics. I must just practice patience.
×
×
  • Create New...