Jump to content

Danakar Endeel

Imperium Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


Everything posted by Danakar Endeel

  1. Small update. CryTek (on behalf of both parties) has filed for protective order to keep certain confidential and/or private information from being made available as public record should they enter the Discovery phase. To me this makes sense as you wouldn't want rivals or the general public (including a certain Florida resident) making off with private/confidential information and abuse said information for their own gain. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437.83.0.pdf
  2. Q&A: Anvil Ballista Following the launch of the Ballista from Anvil Aerospace, we took your community-voted questions to our designers to give you more information on the recently unveiled air defense system. The sale post mentions “ground targets”. Will this vehicle have any ground bombardment or parabolic firing mode to shoot over hills? Will it require line-of-sight to lock-on to ground targets? Currently, all targets (whether air or ground) require both a high enough signature and line-of-sight for the Ballista to be able to lock on to them. In the future, we’ll include out-of-sight targeting by transmitting target data between ships or via some sort of ‘forward operator control’. This will enable players to hit targets without a direct line-of-sight and from a much greater distance than is currently possible. Does the Ballista have any planned modularity? Swapping out the back section for a medical, exploration, or cargo variant would make it a great general ‘rover’ and one that could be used with the Carrack. At this time, no future variants are planned for production, although we’ve seen some fantastic community suggestions. The rover that comes with the Anvil Carrack is an RSI Ursa Rover, not a new Anvil Rover. How will restocking ammo work? Do we need to bring it to a landing pad, or will there be future resupplying ships and ground vehicles? Will the Vulcan be able to repair and rearm the Ballista? Currently, the Ballista needs to be taken back to an outpost, where it can be repaired and rearmed. In the future, dedicated rearming and repair vehicles (such as the Vulcan) can be used to support any ground vehicle, including the Ballista. Isn’t a range of 2000 meters too short for an anti-aircraft vehicle? The Jump Point article and brochure were completed before we had confirmed its maximum range. At this time, its effective range is 10,000 meters against most fighters (the furthest we’ve shot is 9,984 meters), after which it can no longer identify them. However, the firing range doesn’t have a cap as it’s purely by the systemic emissions of the target, so it will be even further on large ships with high infrared or electromagnetic signatures. Which ships will be able to transport the Ballista? Will a mechanic be in place to cable-lift them with, for example, the ARGOMPUV or using a tractor beam (kind of like how tanks can be transported via helicopter)? As it stands, there are only two ship series specifically designed to transport the Ballista – the Idris and the Hercules (by transport, we mean getting it entirely inside the vehicle, properly secured, and doors closed). While not officially designed to carry the Ballista, the 890 Jump’s rear cargo ramp is large enough to take it too. Ships equipped with a suitably powerful tractor beam will also be able to move it, but this comes with a higher risk than having it secured internally. Besides the included 2 x S2 guns on the turret, the stats page also lists an “optional” S2 turret. What does that mean? Another turret? More guns? This is an error in the stats page that will be resolved – the optional turret mentioned is the default-equipped turret. What kind of equipment can the Ballista carry besides the missile launcher? Will we be able to mount different sizes and types of missiles like 16 x S5 missiles, 4 x S7 torpedoes, 2 x S8 torpedoes, or 2 x S8 gun turrets? At this time, there are no plans to allow any modification to the turret loadout or to what type of turret it has equipped. Everything is quite bespoke to the vehicle in its current layout and the only customisability is in the missile loadouts themselves. Could you explain how CIG plans to balance air vs ground? Both how you see various classes of ship and vehicle performing against each other and how you plan to achieve that balance when ground vehicles size up poorly in direct comparison due to their limited mobility and smaller equipment. This is a very good question, though one that deserves more attention than is possible here. We’ll be discussing air vs ground combat in more detail in the future. Will the skins be purchasable separately? I have the ‘Snowblind’ skin but like the others as well. However, I don’t want to buy another vehicle. The skins are unique to Warbond SKUs. Concierge members get access to the Dunestalker Skin and all backers get access to the Snowblind skin. These-limited time offerings will not be able to be pledged for separately. I know the Ballista has to be parked in order to fire the torpedoes, but will the gunner seat (the one that fires the missiles right now) eventually be able to swap between the torpedoes and S2 Gatling gun and fire it while the vehicle is moving? That doesn’t seem overpowered and could come in extremely handy (and seems common sense). There is no plan for this at this moment. The person manning the missile turret (or gunner seat) has very specific control over that turret only. The driver of the vehicle can drive around and fire the Gatling turret if they choose to. The Ballista page states that the missile artillery can be used on ground targets, but can the missiles ‘free-fire’ on land without a specific target? Like targeting the general vicinity of a patch of land? All missiles in the game currently require a target lock. We don’t have any plans for missile free-fire, but it may be something more suited to less “smart” ordnance in the future. Will the Ballista be able to intercept other missiles, such as S9 torpedoes from a bomber or the Hercules’ A2 bombs? This is functionality that we want all ships to have in the future, not just the Ballista. Being able to target incoming ordnance items is critical to keeping larger ships and ground outposts intact. Of course, targeting is just part of the equation; it certainly helps to pick a suitable weapon system for the intercept. The Ballista can only fire while stationary, but what if it’s stationary aboard a moving ship? For example, on a Starlifter, Kraken, or Idris? The Ballista will still fire aboard a moving Starlifter or Idris, though we’re not sure launching missiles inside a moving ship is the safest thing to do! As for the Kraken, there’s no reason why you couldn’t fire missiles from a landing pad. However, the chance of hitting a friendly ship or part of the carrier could be quite high, particularly if it’s moving.
  3. Not really interesting as it's just a rehash of an earlier report regarding the settlement talks but I'll add it here for completeness sake https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/82/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/ Pursuant to this Court’s Order/Referral to ADR (Dkt. 56), the parties jointly submit the below report regarding the progress of settlement discussions. On July 18, 2019 the parties participated in a Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. While the settlement negotiations were 5 productive, ultimately the parties were not able to settle the case during the Settlement Conference. However, the parties agreed to continue settlement negotiations in good faith moving forward.
  4. From the Chairman's Club News email
  5. Crytek GmbH v. CIG - Motion For Bond: GRANTED [$500,000] Not as high as the requested $2.2M but half a million dollars is still a decent chunk of cash that CryTek now needs to cough up within 30 days if they wish to continue with their joke of a lawsuit. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437.81.0.pdf
  6. Looks very cool and I'm glad CIG has decided to give us another ground vehicle made by different manufacturer for more diversity on planetside battlefields. That they chose Anvil for this has me hopeful that CIG might even make a smaller version of the Anvil Ballista at some point. For example they could make a regular 6-wheeled rover version without the missiles as an alternative option to the RSI Ursa. If so, us Anvil Carrack owners might even be able to get an Anvil rover instead of the generic RSI Ursa we were given now. --- Sorry for the link below btw but I posted such a question for the Ballista Q&A and would really love some upvotes if you guys agree with it https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/anvil-ballista-q-a/2261427 Now that CIG has the styleguide and assets for making Anvil rovers, can we expect a smaller version of the Anvil Ballista (for example a 6-wheeled version without the missile cart) to be included as an Anvil rover for the Carrack at some point instead of the RSI Ursa?
  7. Small update regarding the settlement conference which was rescheduled to the 18th of July. There was only 1 paragraph with actual info so I'll quote it below: Settlement conference held. A settlement agreement is not reached. The Court understands that the parties will continue their efforts to settle the case, and they may contact the Magistrate Judge’s CRD if they wish to schedule a further settlement conference https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437/gov.uscourts.cacd.696437.80.0.pdf My guess is that CryTek demanded ridiculous amount of money and naturally CIG refused as CryTek has nothing substantial to sue over anymore. Then CIG made them a much lower but more reasonable offer (or maybe even demanded that CryTek pay CIG for wasting their time with this frivolous lawsuit) and CryTek refused. If CryTek does want to continue settlement talks (unlikely as they never made any genuine attempt before) and both parties can come to an agreement we likely won't hear much (if anything at all) apart from a notification that the case is settled and closed. Otherwise I suspect that the next entry we'll get is the Judge's ruling on the Motion for Bond.
  8. Small tidbit from the Squadron 42 Update email that was sent out in April 2019: So it does sound like CIG may indeed have been working on another Aegis(?) capital ship for several months already. So who knows, if the images shown above are real this might be the bridge of an Aegis Light Frigate or something that is being fast-tracked for SQ42 (just like the Hammerhead was).
  9. Maybe it's concept art for an upcoming Aegis ship. The size of the command bridge and number of stations make it look like something between a corvette and a frigate in terms of size. These were made by Gia Nguyen. Over on his ArtStation he mentions the following: Here are some more images: So it could be nothing more than a test or it could be some new modular ship design that CIG is working on. Either way I can't wait to see the Aegis event in August.
  10. Hello and welcome. Sorry to hear that your application has not been accepted yet. Wish I could help out but I'm just a 'grunt'. Maybe the ones in charge of accepting new members are just on summer holiday or something? At any rate, I'm sure it will get sorted.
  11. Update from Judge Dolly M. Gee regarding the Motion for Bond https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6256484/crytek-gmbh-v-cloud-imperium-games-corp/#minute-entry-92605146 Apparently the Judge does not need any additional information to make a decision regarding the Motion for Bond so the hearing is no longer needed.
  12. Personally I think the bathroom area in the Captain's Quarters is way too large and I find it a very odd choice to put the toilet right in the entryway. I would have preferred a smaller bathroom with a larger bedroom; preferably with a kingsize bed and a table with a reading chair or something instead of the tiny cubicle we have now. Also, here are some new pictures from the Crew Quarters bathroom that were apparently from the Subscriber Vault
  13. Small update: A Settlement Conference has been ordered by the Court and scheduled for the 16th of July. ORDER RE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
  14. CIG's legal team has responded to CryTek's rambling 'opposition' and it looks like they are wiping the floor with CryTek's new legal team. document: DEFENDANTS ’ REPLY TO CRYTEK GMBH ’ S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS ’ MOTION FOR BOND NO SHOWING THAT CRYTEK IS GOOD FOR THE MONEY NO SHOWING THAT CIG’S ESTIMATE IS UNREASONABLE NO SHOWING AGAINST “REASONABLE POSSIBILITY” Opposition Argument on Newly-Deflated Objectives is Inconsistent With Crytek’s Numerous Pleadings Crytek Makes No Showing on the Merits Crytek ignores the two big wins CIG already achieved. Crytek does not even try to back up its Faceware claim. Crytek concedes that it cannot prove the essential element of damages on the Bugsmashers claim. Crytek provides no proof or legal support for its bug fixes claim. Crytek fails to show why it should get credited for Amazon’s code or how Crytek was damaged by the loss of credit. Crytek fails to show how the development of Squadron 42 breached the GLA or was impermissible under the Amazon license agreement. re: Faceware: re: Bugsmashers: re: Amazon: ... TL;DR; In conclusion: Imgur album containing images of all the pages from the pdf
  15. Don't worry about it. I believe the extra ships are part of the Origin Celebration event so you can try them out for a while. At least I recall Jared mentioning that we'd be able to play around with all Origin ships during the event. So if your extra ships are all from Origin they are temporarily available to everyone because of the event.
  16. CryTek filed their 'opposition' to the Motion for Bond ... consisting of 15 pages where these new lawyers are regurgitating the entire case with even more random allegations thrown in (including complaints that were already dismissed by the Judge) which as far as I am aware is not even relevant to a bond hearing as that stuff should have been in a Third Amended Complaint during the pleading stage and we have already moved beyond that stage when CryTek decided not to amend any further back in January. Apparently they also forgot that this was supposed to just be an opposition to the Motion for Bond and only at the end did they apparently remember as the conclusion feels rather tacked on. Effectively they wrote 15 pages of random gibberish while grandstanding with claims that CryTek has no financial issues and is loaded with cash just to ask the Judge to either dismiss the Motion entirely or set it much lower for no reason. If CryTek has no financial issues and are loaded with cash I wonder why they take such issue with this measly $2.2M bond... Hell, this whole 'opposition' felt more like reading one of DS' incoherent blargs. CRYTEK GMBH’SRESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR BOND Also strange to see CryTek claiming that even if CIG is using Lumberyard they would still be bound by CryTek's GLA ... because Lumberyard is CryEngine. It's almost like they now want to claim that Lumberyard is still CryTek's property or something. Not sure if Amazon sees it the same way...
  17. Afaik the bond would only be available for covering CIG's legal fees so if CryTek decided not to pay Skadden they would have to sue CryTek themselves.
  18. No clue as to why CryTek's legal representation suddenly chose to depart. They already tried stalling tactics by asking on an extension for their extension but the Judge put a stop to that after noting that CryTek had done absolutely nothing during the extra time that she had already been given to them. Now it could also be that Skadden finally caught on to CryTek's potential financial issues and didn't want to be left with unpaid legal fees. As such it's possible that Skadden demanded an up-front payment for continuing their representation and CryTek either refused or was unable to comply. This is all just speculation though... Lack of a case was pretty apparent already and Skadden must have known how flimsy it was from the start. Guess Skadden was urging CryTek to engage in settlement talks but Avni Yerli is apparently too arrogant to see reason. After all, if he's resorting to threats in an email to Ortwin Freyermuth this does not strike me as a good tactic and it didn't appear to help matters at all (in fact it made things worse for CryTek). No doubt CryTek will want to try to stall some more with some bullshit excuse (like their new legal counsel needing time to be brought up to speed or something) as this whole $2M bond seems to concern them greatly. I am not sure if the Judge will play along however as so far CryTek has been acting in bad faith while squandering the extra time the Judge already gave them on several occassions. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what (if any) opposition CryTek will file in just a few days (CryTek’s deadline to oppose CIG's Motion for Bond is June 7 2019).
  19. It appears that Skadden is no longer able (or willing) to represent CryTek as their entire legal counsel has filed to withdraw. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTION OR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL (PROPOSED) ORDER ON REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTION OR WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY CryTek is now being represented by two completely new attorneys; each from a different lawfirm. New attorneys are Ben M. Davidson from Davidson Law Group and Christopher R Schmidt from Erise IP.
  20. Crytek GmbH's Application For An Extension: DENIED Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File It appears that the Judge is really starting to get fed up with CryTek and has DENIED CryTek's attempt at constantly delaying things by asking for further extensions on already extented time. She finds that another extension is unwarranted because, unlike CryTek's claim of wanting to engage in "meaningful settlement talks", both parties apparently aren't even close to reaching any sort of agreement with CryTek now resorting to threats and bully tactics when they have had more than enough time to "brief the Motion". The Judge had some choice words to say about the matter. Not looking good for CryTek if even the Judge is starting to get pissed off with them.
  21. It appears that CIG is opposed against CryTek's constant stalling tactics. Can't say I blame them when even the CEO of CryTek tries to string CIG along for months by pretending to be open to 'meaningful settlement talks' but won't even make a single concrete settlement demand when asked. DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND PLAINTIFF'S TIME TO RESPOND DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A BOND PURSUANT TO CAL. CIV. P. CODE § 1030 TheMarcusArts over on Reddit found some interesting bits of information within the document. Seems like Yerli still thinks he can act like a bully by making demands and threatening CIG while it appears that CryTek's entire lawsuit was just shooting blanks and is now in shambles.
  22. CryTek wants more time (again): EX PARTE APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Response To Defendants' Motion for Bond; and Proposed Order filed by plaintiff Crytek GmbH. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Pak, James) (Entered: 05/24/2019)
  23. Got me a Ranger CV warbond as it could be ideal to store in smaller ships like the Avenger Titan. Would be nice to have a small ship for quick local missions and then race out on the bike for the final miles to collect mission boxes while your ship is parked away from the objective so I'm not exposing my ship to AA guns or random gankers with ships parked at mission sites.
  • Create New...