It would require you to be deaf to listen to the answer and defend Mining in 3.0 was/is a promise. The agenda behind this is so clear, wanting to imply mining is a promised feature for 3.0 so it can be added to "broken promises" if it doesn't happen...
It would require you to be deaf to listen to the answer and defend Mining in 3.0 was/is a promise. The agenda behind this is so clear, wanting to imply mining is a promised feature for 3.0 so it can be added to "broken promises" if it doesn't happen...
To be fair, that is a question specifically about "ship based mining" (god don't they waffle on, it's amazing they can even remember what the question was about). I am fairly certain they previously confirmed that mining, for the time being, would be done by players using handheld mining guns or whatever they are.
I'd be careful jumping down the throat of people claiming malfeasance, google lists result after result for a whole load of "mining confirmed for 3.0!!" posts and videos.
To be fair, that is a question specifically about "ship based mining" (god don't they waffle on, it's amazing they can even remember what the question was about). I am fairly certain they previously confirmed that mining, for the time being, would be done by players using handheld mining guns or whatever they are.
I'd be careful jumping down the throat of people claiming malfeasance, google lists result after result for a whole load of "mining confirmed for 3.0!!" posts and videos.
It was never confirmed side of being planned for it. And the fact they added it to a list of "promises" shows the agenda behind it, especially after being clarified as something they are TRYING to put into 3.0 on a basic form.
The first mention of mining on 3.0 was actually Ben, and he placed it as "we're aiming to have...". Then Brian replies it on that fast-answers show and CR/Tony clarify it more.
If you lock yourself to the FACT based on the info we have on it, then mining in 3.0 is not a promise. If the tracker was about tracking SC's plans and not promises, then sure, but it isn't.
Kind of highlights the problem with the PR side of this game. You have 3 different people giving 3 different types of answers rather than the usual situation where the company tries to send a clearer picture of what they are or aren't going to be doing.
You seem to care about this quite a bit, perhaps you ought to put up a website with "All the right answers according to MaxBacon"
You seem to care about this quite a bit, perhaps you ought to put up a website with "All the right answers according to MaxBacon"
The answers are there, and standing that entry as I pointed as a promise is not providing accurate information. If I say "I'm planning to go to your birthday this year." and I end up not going, I'll be not breaking a promise because I never made, would I?
I'm not sure where there isn't the clear picture that mining in 3.0 is a possibility based on what they said. You shouldn't jump towards this "passive" defense of what you know isn't accurate information.
And yes, perhaps we need a place more excluded of personal or biased interpretations. I can try to put something up and I would welcome you to contest anything you wouldn't consider accurate, I really do believe we need a tracker like this that needs to stay objective.
If anything, aren't you glad someone is holding Chris accountable for all his promises? Or does it get in the way of "the dream"?
As I was browsing a review for GRE prep materials this morning, I ran across this apropos criticism of "Magoosh":
The slick marketing. Just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I've noticed that, in many fields, the true thought leaders do not have flashy marketing. They don't need it, nor do they have time for it. Also, Magoosh pays peopleto refer others to its videos by using affiliate marketing links. Many if not most of the popular GRE blogs I've seen have glowing reviews of Magoosh GRE... along with a discount code: if you use the code, the owner of the blog gets a commission. And of course, there are lots of reviews and testimonials for Magoosh GRE... on Magoosh's website. I have noticed that bigger, more popular companies in the test prep industry become entrenched because their size allows them to market to more people, which in turn, increases their size even more.
Hmm... that stopped me in my tracks. Just substitute "CIG" for "Magoosh", "Star Citizen" for "GRE", "game" for "test prep" and... there you go.
Before some knuckle dragger jumps in with "CIG haz zero marketing budget"... what do you think @MaxBacon@thundercles and @CrazKanuk et al are up to? It's called guerrilla marketing. My guess is that they will do their best to at the very least get this thread unstickied, preferably closed, and will likely succeed. Anything to keep people feeding into the dream.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
If anything, aren't you glad someone is holding Chris accountable for all his promises? Or does it get in the way of "the dream"?
As I was browsing a review for GRE prep materials this morning, I ran across this apropos criticism of "Magoosh":
The slick marketing. Just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I've noticed that, in many fields, the true thought leaders do not have flashy marketing. They don't need it, nor do they have time for it. Also, Magoosh pays peopleto refer others to its videos by using affiliate marketing links. Many if not most of the popular GRE blogs I've seen have glowing reviews of Magoosh GRE... along with a discount code: if you use the code, the owner of the blog gets a commission. And of course, there are lots of reviews and testimonials for Magoosh GRE... on Magoosh's website. I have noticed that bigger, more popular companies in the test prep industry become entrenched because their size allows them to market to more people, which in turn, increases their size even more.
Hmm... that stopped me in my tracks. Just substitute "CIG" for "Magoosh", "Star Citizen" for "GRE", "game" for "test prep" and... there you go.
Before some knuckle dragger jumps in with "CIG haz zero marketing budget"... what do you think @MaxBacon@thundercles and @CrazKanuk et al are up to? It's called guerrilla marketing. My guess is that they will do their best to at the very least get this thread unstickied, preferably closed, and will likely succeed. Anything to keep people feeding into the dream.
Times out!!!! @MaxBacon & @CrazKanuk, if yall gettin paid I better get minez!!!
Keep the post up, I give 2 shizzes. I'm simply pointing out that @BillMurphy just pinned a link that is obviously anti-SC.
Full disclosure: I bought into SC in the beginning and haven't played it in 6 months. Pretty disappointed in how it's going. Have requested and been refunded.
If anything, aren't you glad someone is holding Chris accountable for all his promises? Or does it get in the way of "the dream"?
As I was browsing a review for GRE prep materials this morning, I ran across this apropos criticism of "Magoosh":
The slick marketing. Just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I've noticed that, in many fields, the true thought leaders do not have flashy marketing. They don't need it, nor do they have time for it. Also, Magoosh pays peopleto refer others to its videos by using affiliate marketing links. Many if not most of the popular GRE blogs I've seen have glowing reviews of Magoosh GRE... along with a discount code: if you use the code, the owner of the blog gets a commission. And of course, there are lots of reviews and testimonials for Magoosh GRE... on Magoosh's website. I have noticed that bigger, more popular companies in the test prep industry become entrenched because their size allows them to market to more people, which in turn, increases their size even more.
Hmm... that stopped me in my tracks. Just substitute "CIG" for "Magoosh", "Star Citizen" for "GRE", "game" for "test prep" and... there you go.
Before some knuckle dragger jumps in with "CIG haz zero marketing budget"... what do you think @MaxBacon@thundercles and @CrazKanuk et al are up to? It's called guerrilla marketing. My guess is that they will do their best to at the very least get this thread unstickied, preferably closed, and will likely succeed. Anything to keep people feeding into the dream.
Times out!!!! @MaxBacon & @CrazKanuk, if yall gettin paid I better get minez!!!
Keep the post up, I give 2 shizzes. I'm simply pointing out that @BillMurphy just pinned a link that is obviously anti-SC.
Full disclosure: I bought into SC in the beginning and haven't played it in 6 months. Pretty disappointed in how it's going. Have requested and been refunded.
The pretext in this thread is off the f'n charts.
No, I'm not getting paid. I wish! I was an early backer at a whopping $20. Nearly every crowdfunding project I've backed has been higher than that, apart from Wolcen.
Just pointing out that if we're being honest and upfront, the list isn't objective at all. Do I think that @MaxBacon, @Erillion or myself could give a more objective list? Of course I DO! However, I'm sure it would be slanted and I'm sure we'd be called out on it the same way this list has. However, just for clarity, there are items in this list which makes in entirely inaccurate. Just because someone provides a link doesn't mean it's right, or even vetted for that matter.
I'm still waiting on @Kefo to comment on the items that @MaxBacon brought up. Unfortunately, as accurate as this list might be, as soon as you allow unvetted or outright wrong data into something like this, it calls the entire list into question. Unless they remove the items.
That being said, any list isn't going to be accurate anyway because we have no idea what CIGs list is and that's all that really matters. Only they can tell us what they're working on and what they even plan to work on. Maybe someone should ask them for a feature list that we can track to.
So... while it may be technically true that you aren't getting paid to refer people to Star Citizen, you are being compensated.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Such rant changes nothing on the lack of accuracy, sourcing and misleading/wrong information on such tracker that show a lack of objectivity showing what seems to be something meant to discredit the game's development over actually being one accurate informative place about it.
Coming here villanizing the ones who do not share your narrative on this game and its development, you will not change reality just because you took a move to turn this into a circle-jerk against specific posters.
CrazKanuk said: Unfortunately, as accurate as this list might be, as soon as you allow unvetted or outright wrong data into something like this, it calls the entire list into question. Unless they remove the items.
Exactly this, if the items are not changed or removed, it exposes the agenda behind having them on the first place, ignoring all the facts and points shows that the list is made from one one-sided interpretation with no priority given to its accuracy.
Would it be anything surprising seeing who is involved on its maintenance?! When clicking the social button is tied with a mention to Smart? If there won't be objectivity and seriousness to it, this shouldn't be pinned, @BillMurphy and @bcbully should have considered such before endorsing it in such a way, unless this is a standard they want to set.
The list makes for interesting reading, i am not sure what conclusions can be drawn from it, but at least it does give some indication as to how far along development of the game is, as such it is probably a useful tool, and it doesn't appear to be an 'opinion piece' which is usually where all the arguments occur.
Such rant changes nothing on the lack of accuracy, sourcing and misleading/wrong information on such tracker that show a lack of objectivity showing what seems to be something meant to discredit the game's development over actually being one accurate informative place about it.
Coming here villanizing the ones who do not share your narrative on this game and its development, you will not change reality just because you took a move to turn this into a circle-jerk against specific posters.
CrazKanuk said: Unfortunately, as accurate as this list might be, as soon as you allow unvetted or outright wrong data into something like this, it calls the entire list into question. Unless they remove the items.
Exactly this, if the items are not changed or removed, it exposes the agenda behind having them on the first place, ignoring all the facts and points shows that the list is made from one one-sided interpretation with no priority given to its accuracy.
Would it be anything surprising seeing who is involved on its maintenance?! When clicking the social button is tied with a mention to Smart? If there won't be objectivity and seriousness to it, this shouldn't be pinned, @BillMurphy and @bcbully should have considered such before endorsing it in such a way, unless this is a standard they want to set.
I have nothing against you personally, I just have even less confidence that you will accurately report the facts than a group of random internet trolls, especially since you stand to gain materially from more people buying into SC. @Erillion may attack with the ferocity of the rabbit from Monty Python's Holy Grail whenever the Smart one surfaces, but at least the rest of the time he is reporting facts. You (as well as others from the SC community I've witnessed) will attempt to discredit anyone that has anything negative to say about SC, which means you have no... credibility in this matter.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
You seem to care about this quite a bit, perhaps you ought to put up a website with "All the right answers according to MaxBacon"
The answers are there, and standing that entry as I pointed as a promise is not providing accurate information. If I say "I'm planning to go to your birthday this year." and I end up not going, I'll be not breaking a promise because I never made, would I?
I'm not sure where there isn't the clear picture that mining in 3.0 is a possibility based on what they said. You shouldn't jump towards this "passive" defense of what you know isn't accurate information.
And yes, perhaps we need a place more excluded of personal or biased interpretations. I can try to put something up and I would welcome you to contest anything you wouldn't consider accurate, I really do believe we need a tracker like this that needs to stay objective.
And as I said, there are 3 different types of answers. You have BC giving a direct Yes! which is hardly a maybe, then you have CR babbling on about all sorts of stuff, it's not surprising people doze off and forget what he said...
I think getting hung up over the word 'promise' is kind of silly, in fact it's a cheap out. People can be very positive and assured about something while not literally saying they promise it, in which case it's 'as good as a promise'.
Here's what's funny, it was ok for CR to stand on stage and say 3.0 was their end of year release, it was ok for him to bank more than $7.5 million partly in effect of that comment, but it's not ok for someone else to say mining was promised....
Some things are worth worrying about and in my opinion it sure as hell isn't some silly goon website.
Such rant changes nothing on the lack of accuracy, sourcing and misleading/wrong information on such tracker that show a lack of objectivity showing what seems to be something meant to discredit the game's development over actually being one accurate informative place about it.
Coming here villanizing the ones who do not share your narrative on this game and its development, you will not change reality just because you took a move to turn this into a circle-jerk against specific posters.
CrazKanuk said: Unfortunately, as accurate as this list might be, as soon as you allow unvetted or outright wrong data into something like this, it calls the entire list into question. Unless they remove the items.
Exactly this, if the items are not changed or removed, it exposes the agenda behind having them on the first place, ignoring all the facts and points shows that the list is made from one one-sided interpretation with no priority given to its accuracy.
Would it be anything surprising seeing who is involved on its maintenance?! When clicking the social button is tied with a mention to Smart? If there won't be objectivity and seriousness to it, this shouldn't be pinned, @BillMurphy and @bcbully should have considered such before endorsing it in such a way, unless this is a standard they want to set.
I have nothing against you personally, I just have even less confidence that you will accurately report the facts than a group of random internet trolls, especially since you stand to gain materially from more people buying into SC. @Erillion may attack with the ferocity of the rabbit from Monty Python's Holy Grail whenever the Smart one surfaces, but at least the rest of the time he is reporting facts. You (as well as others from the SC community I've witnessed) will attempt to discredit anyone that has anything negative to say about SC, which means you have no... credibility in this matter.
Wait....you just discredited him because he disagrees with someone else's opinion and tries to discredit them?
Such rant changes nothing on the lack of accuracy, sourcing and misleading/wrong information on such tracker that show a lack of objectivity showing what seems to be something meant to discredit the game's development over actually being one accurate informative place about it.
Coming here villanizing the ones who do not share your narrative on this game and its development, you will not change reality just because you took a move to turn this into a circle-jerk against specific posters.
CrazKanuk said: Unfortunately, as accurate as this list might be, as soon as you allow unvetted or outright wrong data into something like this, it calls the entire list into question. Unless they remove the items.
Exactly this, if the items are not changed or removed, it exposes the agenda behind having them on the first place, ignoring all the facts and points shows that the list is made from one one-sided interpretation with no priority given to its accuracy.
Would it be anything surprising seeing who is involved on its maintenance?! When clicking the social button is tied with a mention to Smart? If there won't be objectivity and seriousness to it, this shouldn't be pinned, @BillMurphy and @bcbully should have considered such before endorsing it in such a way, unless this is a standard they want to set.
I have nothing against you personally, I just have even less confidence that you will accurately report the facts than a group of random internet trolls, especially since you stand to gain materially from more people buying into SC. @Erillion may attack with the ferocity of the rabbit from Monty Python's Holy Grail whenever the Smart one surfaces, but at least the rest of the time he is reporting facts. You (as well as others from the SC community I've witnessed) will attempt to discredit anyone that has anything negative to say about SC, which means you have no... credibility in this matter.
Well, a group of random internet trolls is where you want to reach to accurately report the facts, then that is up to you.
I'm not contesting any of that, side of the endorsement @BillMurphy did on this. I believe doing so is "feeding the trolls", on something that that shows to have more purpose on discredit the game's development than into being informative.
Without objectivity, there is misinformation, the pinned endorsement becomes a mistake.
You seem to care about this quite a bit, perhaps you ought to put up a website with "All the right answers according to MaxBacon"
The answers are there, and standing that entry as I pointed as a promise is not providing accurate information. If I say "I'm planning to go to your birthday this year." and I end up not going, I'll be not breaking a promise because I never made, would I?
I'm not sure where there isn't the clear picture that mining in 3.0 is a possibility based on what they said. You shouldn't jump towards this "passive" defense of what you know isn't accurate information.
And yes, perhaps we need a place more excluded of personal or biased interpretations. I can try to put something up and I would welcome you to contest anything you wouldn't consider accurate, I really do believe we need a tracker like this that needs to stay objective.
And as I said, there are 3 different types of answers. You have BC giving a direct Yes! which is hardly a maybe, then you have CR babbling on about all sorts of stuff, it's not surprising people doze off and forget what he said...
I think getting hung up over the word 'promise' is kind of silly, in fact it's a cheap out. People can be very positive and assured about something while not literally saying they promise it, in which case it's 'as good as a promise'.
Here's what's funny, it was ok for CR to stand on stage and say 3.0 was their end of year release, it was ok for him to bank more than $7.5 million partly in effect of that comment, but it's not ok for someone else to say mining was promised....
Some things are worth worrying about and in my opinion it sure as hell isn't some silly goon website.
When people make statements in interviews or whatever, then they tend to be held accountable for the things they have said, the recent debacle involving No Mans Sky at the very least should give developers pause about making 'statements' of intent, never mind promises without being very sure that they are on solid footing in regards to being able to produce those things, particularly being clear on what they would like to do, as opposed to what they are going to do, because if a developer says something is going to be in a game, and it turns out it isn't, then you can be very sure that they will be called out on it very quickly, and very publicly.
And as I said, there are 3 different types of answers. You have BC giving a direct Yes!
Here's what's funny, it was ok for CR to stand on stage and say 3.0 was their end of year release, it was ok for him to bank more than $7.5 million partly in effect of that comment, but it's not ok for someone else to say mining was promised....
You need to read the context, an answer given on a show where direct/speed answers was the point, would you "crucify" the developer for giving the direct yes answer in that context?!
In any way, before and after such event, the fact of mining on 3.0 was clarified as a possibility so you CAN'T with all the information paint it as a promise.
As you have been on a thread days ago with @CrazKanuk, neither was 3.0 by the end of the year a promise, I'm not saying it was OKAY or anything, I'm just stating the fact of hopes/plans vs promises when if we are reporting such information in a serious matter we can't read that, point our finger at the person and say: "But you promised!"
Such rant changes nothing on the lack of accuracy, sourcing and misleading/wrong information on such tracker that show a lack of objectivity showing what seems to be something meant to discredit the game's development over actually being one accurate informative place about it.
Coming here villanizing the ones who do not share your narrative on this game and its development, you will not change reality just because you took a move to turn this into a circle-jerk against specific posters.
CrazKanuk said: Unfortunately, as accurate as this list might be, as soon as you allow unvetted or outright wrong data into something like this, it calls the entire list into question. Unless they remove the items.
Exactly this, if the items are not changed or removed, it exposes the agenda behind having them on the first place, ignoring all the facts and points shows that the list is made from one one-sided interpretation with no priority given to its accuracy.
Would it be anything surprising seeing who is involved on its maintenance?! When clicking the social button is tied with a mention to Smart? If there won't be objectivity and seriousness to it, this shouldn't be pinned, @BillMurphy and @bcbully should have considered such before endorsing it in such a way, unless this is a standard they want to set.
I have nothing against you personally, I just have even less confidence that you will accurately report the facts than a group of random internet trolls, especially since you stand to gain materially from more people buying into SC. @Erillion may attack with the ferocity of the rabbit from Monty Python's Holy Grail whenever the Smart one surfaces, but at least the rest of the time he is reporting facts. You (as well as others from the SC community I've witnessed) will attempt to discredit anyone that has anything negative to say about SC, which means you have no... credibility in this matter.
Wait....you just discredited him because he disagrees with someone else's opinion and tries to discredit them?
No... because he only ever tries to discredit anyone that has something critical to say about SC, and potentially stands to gain materially from SC's continued success (along with others in SC's community). That's why I'll take SA's analysis over his (with a grain of salt).
It's all somewhat shots in the dark; I just think it's funny how certain posters tend to leap at any attempt at keeping track of the roadmap, immediately crying "foul!" as though someone were about to pull back the curtain hiding the Wizard.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
And yes, perhaps we need a place more excluded of personal or biased interpretations. I can try to put something up and I would welcome you to contest anything you wouldn't consider accurate, I really do believe we need a tracker like this that needs to stay objective.
No you can not. Anyone who is ready to spend enough time to make a list like this has an agenda. Either they are supporting Star Citizen, or against Star Citizen.
You might be able to hide your agenda better and fool people better than the list's creator. But we won't be seeing an objective list.
When people make statements in interviews or whatever, then they tend to be held accountable for the things they have said, the recent debacle involving No Mans Sky at the very least should give developers pause about making 'statements' of intent,
Statements of intent ain't promises, and this is where the core lies. "I plan to do X feature" is not a promise, "I will do X feature" is a promise.
No Man's Sky devs did confirm features that weren't there, they didn't put it as a possibility or a margin of doubt, and that is the core of what makes a promised feature and a broken promise.
If people see something painted as a possibility as a promise, it's up to them and their understanding of the English language.
And yes, perhaps we need a place more excluded of personal or biased interpretations. I can try to put something up and I would welcome you to contest anything you wouldn't consider accurate, I really do believe we need a tracker like this that needs to stay objective.
No you can not. Anyone who is ready to spend enough time to make a list like this has an agenda. Either they are supporting Star Citizen, or against Star Citizen.
You might be able to hide your agenda better and fool people better than the list's creator. But we won't be seeing an objective list.
Yeah, but maybe he wants a sticky
In all fairness I could care less whether it stays or not, but if it is left then it will be a great reference for the next time that someone is whining about who pro-SC MMORPG.com is.
My guess is that there's probably a better, more accurate reddit list somewhere. This is just the most convenient and it has colors and looks like a graph, so it must be accurate
And yes, perhaps we need a place more excluded of personal or biased interpretations. I can try to put something up and I would welcome you to contest anything you wouldn't consider accurate, I really do believe we need a tracker like this that needs to stay objective.
No you can not. Anyone who is ready to spend enough time to make a list like this has an agenda. Either they are supporting Star Citizen, or against Star Citizen.
You might be able to hide your agenda better and fool people better than the list's creator. But we won't be seeing an objective list.
Yeah, but maybe he wants a sticky
In all fairness I could care less whether it stays or not, but if it is left then it will be a great reference for the next time that someone is whining about who pro-SC MMORPG.com is.
My guess is that there's probably a better, more accurate reddit list somewhere. This is just the most convenient and it has colors and looks like a graph, so it must be accurate
Reddit is grossly slanted toward SC thanks to swarm mentality. Unwanted opinions get squelched among certain subreddits, then those subreddits have the potential to brigade into other subreddits, influencing large swaths of the site unrealistically in favor or against a certain idea or opinion. It's a dynamically unstable system.
I've watched mmorpg.com almost religiously, and as best I can tell here it's more like a pendulum. There are times when it seems more for or more against SC, but it's somewhat cyclical. I will say the forums seem to be slightly anti-SC at mean (although this too changes), whereas the News Feed has a lot of SC articles the gist of which are things like 'let's celebrate the Javelin!'
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
I've watched mmorpg.com almost religiously, and as best I can tell here it's more like a pendulum. There are times when it seems more for or more against SC, but it's somewhat cyclical.
The complaint about Pro-MMORPG is not about the tone of the forum discussions.
Is about the moderation, some complain the moderation "oppresses" negative opinions and criticism against SC. When we all know the truth to this is that trolls and overly aggressive users get banned, so do their alt accounts as they come.
Many have been here for far longer than me and I myself already lost count of so many bans, falling upon both sides on the spectrum.
Comments
It would require you to be deaf to listen to the answer and defend Mining in 3.0 was/is a promise. The agenda behind this is so clear, wanting to imply mining is a promised feature for 3.0 so it can be added to "broken promises" if it doesn't happen...
To be fair, that is a question specifically about "ship based mining" (god don't they waffle on, it's amazing they can even remember what the question was about). I am fairly certain they previously confirmed that mining, for the time being, would be done by players using handheld mining guns or whatever they are.
I'd be careful jumping down the throat of people claiming malfeasance, google lists result after result for a whole load of "mining confirmed for 3.0!!" posts and videos.
The first mention of mining on 3.0 was actually Ben, and he placed it as "we're aiming to have...". Then Brian replies it on that fast-answers show and CR/Tony clarify it more.
If you lock yourself to the FACT based on the info we have on it, then mining in 3.0 is not a promise. If the tracker was about tracking SC's plans and not promises, then sure, but it isn't.
You seem to care about this quite a bit, perhaps you ought to put up a website with "All the right answers according to MaxBacon"
I'm not sure where there isn't the clear picture that mining in 3.0 is a possibility based on what they said. You shouldn't jump towards this "passive" defense of what you know isn't accurate information.
And yes, perhaps we need a place more excluded of personal or biased interpretations. I can try to put something up and I would welcome you to contest anything you wouldn't consider accurate, I really do believe we need a tracker like this that needs to stay objective.
If anything, aren't you glad someone is holding Chris accountable for all his promises? Or does it get in the way of "the dream"?
As I was browsing a review for GRE prep materials this morning, I ran across this apropos criticism of "Magoosh":
Hmm... that stopped me in my tracks. Just substitute "CIG" for "Magoosh", "Star Citizen" for "GRE", "game" for "test prep" and... there you go.
Before some knuckle dragger jumps in with "CIG haz zero marketing budget"... what do you think @MaxBacon @thundercles and @CrazKanuk et al are up to? It's called guerrilla marketing. My guess is that they will do their best to at the very least get this thread unstickied, preferably closed, and will likely succeed. Anything to keep people feeding into the dream.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Keep the post up, I give 2 shizzes. I'm simply pointing out that @BillMurphy just pinned a link that is obviously anti-SC.
Full disclosure: I bought into SC in the beginning and haven't played it in 6 months. Pretty disappointed in how it's going. Have requested and been refunded.
The pretext in this thread is off the f'n charts.
No, I'm not getting paid. I wish! I was an early backer at a whopping $20. Nearly every crowdfunding project I've backed has been higher than that, apart from Wolcen.
Just pointing out that if we're being honest and upfront, the list isn't objective at all. Do I think that @MaxBacon, @Erillion or myself could give a more objective list? Of course I DO! However, I'm sure it would be slanted and I'm sure we'd be called out on it the same way this list has. However, just for clarity, there are items in this list which makes in entirely inaccurate. Just because someone provides a link doesn't mean it's right, or even vetted for that matter.
I'm still waiting on @Kefo to comment on the items that @MaxBacon brought up. Unfortunately, as accurate as this list might be, as soon as you allow unvetted or outright wrong data into something like this, it calls the entire list into question. Unless they remove the items.
That being said, any list isn't going to be accurate anyway because we have no idea what CIGs list is and that's all that really matters. Only they can tell us what they're working on and what they even plan to work on. Maybe someone should ask them for a feature list that we can track to.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
So... while it may be technically true that you aren't getting paid to refer people to Star Citizen, you are being compensated.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Coming here villanizing the ones who do not share your narrative on this game and its development, you will not change reality just because you took a move to turn this into a circle-jerk against specific posters.
Exactly this, if the items are not changed or removed, it exposes the agenda behind having them on the first place, ignoring all the facts and points shows that the list is made from one one-sided interpretation with no priority given to its accuracy.
Would it be anything surprising seeing who is involved on its maintenance?! When clicking the social button is tied with a mention to Smart? If there won't be objectivity and seriousness to it, this shouldn't be pinned, @BillMurphy and @bcbully should have considered such before endorsing it in such a way, unless this is a standard they want to set.
I have nothing against you personally, I just have even less confidence that you will accurately report the facts than a group of random internet trolls, especially since you stand to gain materially from more people buying into SC. @Erillion may attack with the ferocity of the rabbit from Monty Python's Holy Grail whenever the Smart one surfaces, but at least the rest of the time he is reporting facts. You (as well as others from the SC community I've witnessed) will attempt to discredit anyone that has anything negative to say about SC, which means you have no... credibility in this matter.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
And as I said, there are 3 different types of answers. You have BC giving a direct Yes! which is hardly a maybe, then you have CR babbling on about all sorts of stuff, it's not surprising people doze off and forget what he said...
I think getting hung up over the word 'promise' is kind of silly, in fact it's a cheap out. People can be very positive and assured about something while not literally saying they promise it, in which case it's 'as good as a promise'.
Here's what's funny, it was ok for CR to stand on stage and say 3.0 was their end of year release, it was ok for him to bank more than $7.5 million partly in effect of that comment, but it's not ok for someone else to say mining was promised....
Some things are worth worrying about and in my opinion it sure as hell isn't some silly goon website.
Wait....you just discredited him because he disagrees with someone else's opinion and tries to discredit them?
I'm not contesting any of that, side of the endorsement @BillMurphy did on this. I believe doing so is "feeding the trolls", on something that that shows to have more purpose on discredit the game's development than into being informative.
Without objectivity, there is misinformation, the pinned endorsement becomes a mistake.
When people make statements in interviews or whatever, then they tend to be held accountable for the things they have said, the recent debacle involving No Mans Sky at the very least should give developers pause about making 'statements' of intent, never mind promises without being very sure that they are on solid footing in regards to being able to produce those things, particularly being clear on what they would like to do, as opposed to what they are going to do, because if a developer says something is going to be in a game, and it turns out it isn't, then you can be very sure that they will be called out on it very quickly, and very publicly.
In any way, before and after such event, the fact of mining on 3.0 was clarified as a possibility so you CAN'T with all the information paint it as a promise.
As you have been on a thread days ago with @CrazKanuk, neither was 3.0 by the end of the year a promise, I'm not saying it was OKAY or anything, I'm just stating the fact of hopes/plans vs promises when if we are reporting such information in a serious matter we can't read that, point our finger at the person and say: "But you promised!"
No... because he only ever tries to discredit anyone that has something critical to say about SC, and potentially stands to gain materially from SC's continued success (along with others in SC's community). That's why I'll take SA's analysis over his (with a grain of salt).
It's all somewhat shots in the dark; I just think it's funny how certain posters tend to leap at any attempt at keeping track of the roadmap, immediately crying "foul!" as though someone were about to pull back the curtain hiding the Wizard.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
No you can not. Anyone who is ready to spend enough time to make a list like this has an agenda. Either they are supporting Star Citizen, or against Star Citizen.
You might be able to hide your agenda better and fool people better than the list's creator. But we won't be seeing an objective list.
No Man's Sky devs did confirm features that weren't there, they didn't put it as a possibility or a margin of doubt, and that is the core of what makes a promised feature and a broken promise.
If people see something painted as a possibility as a promise, it's up to them and their understanding of the English language.
Yeah, but maybe he wants a sticky
In all fairness I could care less whether it stays or not, but if it is left then it will be a great reference for the next time that someone is whining about who pro-SC MMORPG.com is.
My guess is that there's probably a better, more accurate reddit list somewhere. This is just the most convenient and it has colors and looks like a graph, so it must be accurate
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Reddit is grossly slanted toward SC thanks to swarm mentality. Unwanted opinions get squelched among certain subreddits, then those subreddits have the potential to brigade into other subreddits, influencing large swaths of the site unrealistically in favor or against a certain idea or opinion. It's a dynamically unstable system.
I've watched mmorpg.com almost religiously, and as best I can tell here it's more like a pendulum. There are times when it seems more for or more against SC, but it's somewhat cyclical. I will say the forums seem to be slightly anti-SC at mean (although this too changes), whereas the News Feed has a lot of SC articles the gist of which are things like 'let's celebrate the Javelin!'
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Is about the moderation, some complain the moderation "oppresses" negative opinions and criticism against SC. When we all know the truth to this is that trolls and overly aggressive users get banned, so do their alt accounts as they come.
Many have been here for far longer than me and I myself already lost count of so many bans, falling upon both sides on the spectrum.
For me It's nothing but selective perception.
Try to be excellent to everyone you meet. You never know what someone else has seen or endured.
My Review Manifesto
Follow me on Twitter if you dare.