Talonsin said: So we should just ignore all the things(features) Chris has said in interviews and promotional videos that the game would have?
There are many things he said that are "wants and maybes" on design discussions mostly always about the future of the game.
There are also many things he directly stated they would be in the game.
And here lies another problem of this failed list, they don't bother at all (intentionally so) to list what was confirmed vs what was mentioned as a possibility.
So when the official kickstarter said these features would be included:
-Single Player – Offline or Online(Drop in / Drop out co-op play) -Mod-able multiplayer (hosted by YOU)
Were those wants and maybes?
What about these???
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Talonsin said: But dont most of those features on the list point to the source? How is that a useless list and how was it manipulated? Almost every item has a link beside it that takes you to a CIG page or video that shows it. Are you suggesting CIG is advertising features it has no intention of including in its game?
Yes they do, if there is a feature where it is stated as a possibility/want for the game, not as a confirmation it will be in the game, it will be added as a source, it doesn't make it a feature that was confirmed/promised.
As for your last question, no, I am suggesting a lot of stuff has disclaimers that do imply something is planned, or a want, or a maybe, but it's not any confirmed guarantee it will be there, a lot of stuff is also confirmed such as "we will have X feature".
Talonsin said: So we should just ignore all the things(features) Chris has said in interviews and promotional videos that the game would have?
There are many things he said that are "wants and maybes" on design discussions mostly always about the future of the game.
There are also many things he directly stated they would be in the game.
And here lies another problem of this failed list, they don't bother at all (intentionally so) to list what was confirmed vs what was mentioned as a possibility.
So when the official kickstarter said these features would be included:
-Single Player – Offline or Online(Drop in / Drop out co-op play) -Mod-able multiplayer (hosted by YOU)
Were those wants and maybes?
What about these???
that was an awesome video. i want to read a certain fanboi's opinion of it.
As useless as before, and as expectable on my side, the clear intent to just be a huge list of incomplete and "broken promises, adding little things that aren't delivered (including adding many items that weren't promised) yet not mentioning large features that have been delivered; heavily manipulated.
But dont most of those features on the list point to the source? How is that a useless list and how was it manipulated? Almost every item has a link beside it that takes you to a CIG page or video that shows it. Are you suggesting CIG is advertising features it has no intention of including in its game?
They may point to a source.
But when you dig deeper and look at those sources, you will find out that with a few rare exceptions (e.g. the planet and city building work being done in Frankfurt) Chris Roberts never said that these things will be in the game at launch. In almost all cases these are features that CIG would like to add at a future date.
And this is where the Goon list falls apart badly. They - deliberately so - do not differentiate between a promised (stretch) goal and a "would-be-nice-to-have-in-the-future" feature. For the usual Goon propaganda (and i am intimately familiar with that one) it is much better to have a LOOOOOONG list of unfulfilled promises, so they can paint the "enemy" (in this case CIG) as the bad, lazy ones.
.... obviously since it's maintained by a dirty goon you're not going to like it... they're all Derek's minions anyway.....
Where did you get that notion ?
The Goonies laugh more about our Internet Warlord than about Chris Roberts.
Especially when The Smarty calls himself an "Old-School Goon Veteran". That has almost cost lives amongst the Goonies, as they could not breathe due to hysterical fits of laughter.
As useless as before, and as expectable on my side, the clear intent to just be a huge list of incomplete and "broken promises, adding little things that aren't delivered (including adding many items that weren't promised) yet not mentioning large features that have been delivered; heavily manipulated.
But dont most of those features on the list point to the source? How is that a useless list and how was it manipulated? Almost every item has a link beside it that takes you to a CIG page or video that shows it. Are you suggesting CIG is advertising features it has no intention of including in its game?
I think the suggestion, which is entirely valid, is that the list is comprised of items which are both part of the scope of the project and part of the vision of what the project might be in the future. What's problematic with the tracker is that it doesn't distinguish between that. So you never really get a good idea of what is real and what isn't.
On any good software project, you would have items designated for the current release, and items designated for future releases. When you evaluate the readiness of that software for release, you don't say "Well, we have everything done that we wanted to get done for this release, but that's only 25% of the product we envision for the future, so it's not ready." That would be retarded. What's worse is that the people who put this list together are well aware of that fact, because of the tool they're using to track it, and the amount of customization required to that tool in order to do so.
So, while I can appreciate your perspective, you are either 1) not fooled at all about the tracker, and you're just playing down the parts you don't want to acknowledge in order to support your arguments, or; 2) you've been completely fooled by the class clown you was just trolling you to get this exact result. I don't know which it is, I won't say which it is, but all it takes is looking at the percentage of items that use a project document as a reference link versus how many use some sound bite or video bite or quip as a reference to see how inaccurate it actually is. Just use some logic. Fuck, if we took EVERYTHING in the world as literally as we've taken what's been said about SC, there would be some serious shit storms going down. Especially in the US, since you've got one of the biggest mouths in the world for spouting entire loads of bullshit.
is nice and a bonus, but it does not matter for the launch of Star Citizen and SQ42 wether its achieved or not. Most of the stuff on the OP list is not from those two sources. Which makes its usefulness somewhat ..... futile.
Have fun
So we should just ignore all the things(features) Chris has said in interviews and promotional videos that the game would have?
Thanks for confirming that anything Chris has said or will say in interviews or promo videos is total bullcrap.
No, you should differentiate between something that was promised to be in Star Citizen at launch. And something that was talked about as being "nice-to-be-in-the-game-at-some-point-in-the-future-if-technically-possible". It is very rare that Chris Roberts claim in interviews or promos that something will definitely be in the game at launch (with the planetary/city building tech being one such rare exception).
CrazKanuk said: What's problematic with the tracker is that it doesn't distinguish between that. So you never really get a good idea of what is real and what isn't.
Exactly.
The list as good as useless the moment you need to research it yourself to know if something is or isn't a confirmed feature for the game, and not things put as possibilities for the future.
Even with backers I had this discussion, just because it was mentioned as a possibility it does not confirm that it will happen (at all or as designed), much less does it confirm it will happen BY release.
Anyone who can't tell the difference falls prey of their own delusion on expectations.
Why is it that when people complain about CIG devoting development time to fluff features like that face mapping voice stuff or VR or even bathrooms the SC fans always defend it with "it was part of the stretch goals so it was always planned to be in the game"?
But, when someone makes a list of incomplete features with those stretch goal features they defend it with "well, those features were stretch goals and not part of the original KS, so they don't count"
Also, the KS campaign ended over 5 years ago and was only for $6 million do we are well beyond the original KS goals.
So, at this point the one and only reason the fans are trying to differentiate what's an original goal and what's a stretch goal is because it suits their current needs.
Everything after 6 M$ is not a Kickstarter stretch goal.
But still a stretch goal of the Star Citizen crowdfunding campaign (last one was the 65 M$ stretch goal).
THOSE stretch goals you can keep track of.
Any other list that tries to paint anything Star Citizen related that was once said as "would-be-cool-to-have-in-the-game-at-some-point-in-the-future-if-technically-possible" as an OFFICIAL stretch goal is just an exercise in futility and/or propaganda.
In technical terms - none of this "nice-to-have-stuff" is an official user requirement. The official stretch goals ARE the user requirements that need to be met in this software project. Anything else is bonus, unless officially added to the USR through a Change Request. And change requests then necessitate a re-evaluation of the time and resource project planning step.
CrazKanuk said: What's problematic with the tracker is that it doesn't distinguish between that. So you never really get a good idea of what is real and what isn't.
Exactly.
The list as good as useless the moment you need to research it yourself to know if something is or isn't a confirmed feature for the game, and not things put as possibilities for the future.
Even with backers I had this discussion, just because it was mentioned as a possibility it does not confirm that it will happen (at all or as designed), much less does it confirm it will happen BY release.
Anyone who can't tell the difference falls prey of their own delusion on expectations.
Well, I mean we all know that the project isn't on track, but the project tracker in question isn't even remotely close to what the reality of the project scope is. So, once again, the Internet wastes an opportunity to actually make a positive contribution to something. I'd say I'm shocked.... but it's the Internet.
Well, I mean we all know that the project isn't on track, but the project tracker in question isn't even remotely close to what the reality of the project scope is. So, once again, the Internet wastes an opportunity to actually make a positive contribution to something. I'd say I'm shocked.... but it's the Internet.
Yes, this tool would be quite one useful thing to track the actually confirmed features of SC and their status. Instead, ruined into the agenda of some just to make one large list of undelivered and broken items.
Maybe perhaps people will start a proper tracker in the future, would be quite insightful to get one proper idea of the feature-set of the game.
As useless as before, and as expectable on my side, the clear intent to just be a huge list of incomplete and "broken promises, adding little things that aren't delivered (including adding many items that weren't promised) yet not mentioning large features that have been delivered; heavily manipulated.
But dont most of those features on the list point to the source? How is that a useless list and how was it manipulated? Almost every item has a link beside it that takes you to a CIG page or video that shows it. Are you suggesting CIG is advertising features it has no intention of including in its game?
I think the suggestion, which is entirely valid, is that the list is comprised of items which are both part of the scope of the project and part of the vision of what the project might be in the future. What's problematic with the tracker is that it doesn't distinguish between that. So you never really get a good idea of what is real and what isn't.
Kinda like the project itself right? Chris and company have thrown around so much bullshit it’s hard to differentiate what’s real with the project and what isn’t. Hell a few times we’ve had Erillion and Max disagree on what they were doing because it’s so unclear in the wording and terminology that no one can say for sure what the hell is going on.
Perhaps if CIG wasn’t such a mess with their communications then the tracker would be more clear but it’s only as good as the info it tracks
Perhaps if CIG wasn’t such a mess with their communications then the tracker would be more clear but it’s only as good as the info it tracks
It is CIG fault that they can't know things every backer I know is aware of? Like: - There is actually trading in Alpha 3.0. - The mission complexity goal was delivered. - The diverse NPC actions goal was delivered. -And so on...
Little on adding the delivered feature-set of 3.0 on the list, full on labeling things as undelivered.
I don't think it's their communication, yet who maintains this seems to not even do play the game, if even a backer of it, or they are just well-aware of what they are doing and still list things wrongly on purpose (the trading in 3.0 marked undelivered is obviously intentional so I will go with this one).
Why are we unable to judge the game on the merits of what is completed.
And once we get a fully released game, then have challenge/complaint over what is missing based on the list.
Some of the desired features add complexity to the game that was unknown or uncertain in the past. Thus driving the refactor of previous work, this is typical software development regardless if its a game or not. You simply can not predict every dependency.
The FUD (on both sides of the argument) is strong with SC. I have read far to many intelligent posts to think that either side is so blind to this fact. And it is more of a game for these posters to argue, then actual care one way or another.
Lets be honest, if there is one thing that was done well, it is the aspects around marketing. Which is driven in large part by all the communication that is done. Any talk regarding the project, good or bad drives interest, and interest drives revenue.
I could care less if you are on the side of fail, or the side of praise. I want to hear bout milestone achievements which have been done very well in my opinion up to this date. I use the data around challenges to further my knowledge on the topics and fully understand what is required to advance the project.
It is no secret that my posts tend to be on the positive side toward SC, but I am equally critical as well. Just those thoughts on an unreleased game are not relevant, as I would be complaining about a project in flux.
Are we seeing timely reporting on progress? - I would answer, yes. Are we seeing when tasks are unable to fit within the projected timeline? - I would answer, yes.
What more can we ask for? (don't bring up, completed game, that has been beaten to death senselessly)
Sure, I would love to have every targeted feature to be available when projected, but reality is, that is not how development works.
Talonsin said: So we should just ignore all the things(features) Chris has said in interviews and promotional videos that the game would have?
There are many things he said that are "wants and maybes" on design discussions mostly always about the future of the game.
There are also many things he directly stated they would be in the game.
And here lies another problem of this failed list, they don't bother at all (intentionally so) to list what was confirmed vs what was mentioned as a possibility.
So when the official kickstarter said these features would be included:
-Single Player – Offline or Online(Drop in / Drop out co-op play) -Mod-able multiplayer (hosted by YOU)
Were those wants and maybes?
What about these???
Interesting video, especially the one about Erillion that came up afterwards in suggested videos. I never knew there were so many anti-CIG videos out there.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
As useless as before, and as expectable on my side, the clear intent to just be a huge list of incomplete and "broken promises, adding little things that aren't delivered (including adding many items that weren't promised) yet not mentioning large features that have been delivered; heavily manipulated.
But dont most of those features on the list point to the source? How is that a useless list and how was it manipulated? Almost every item has a link beside it that takes you to a CIG page or video that shows it. Are you suggesting CIG is advertising features it has no intention of including in its game?
I think the suggestion, which is entirely valid, is that the list is comprised of items which are both part of the scope of the project and part of the vision of what the project might be in the future. What's problematic with the tracker is that it doesn't distinguish between that. So you never really get a good idea of what is real and what isn't.
Kinda like the project itself right? Chris and company have thrown around so much bullshit it’s hard to differentiate what’s real with the project and what isn’t. Hell a few times we’ve had Erillion and Max disagree on what they were doing because it’s so unclear in the wording and terminology that no one can say for sure what the hell is going on.
Perhaps if CIG wasn’t such a mess with their communications then the tracker would be more clear but it’s only as good as the info it tracks
Lol, come on, man. Are we really going there? If you've gone through any number of the links, you KNOW what I'm talking about. Based on what you're saying here, I KNOW you know what I'm talking about, so why be so fucking obtuse? THIS is the problem. The project is wildly behind schedule, even based on the most liberal of estimates. At this point, we're approaching that point where arguing whether the project is on schedule or not becomes laughable, and anyone who would defend the project, saying it's right on schedule would be equally as absurd as someone believing that this tracker is somehow useful beyond tracking things that came out of someone's mouth at some point.
Interesting video, especially the one about Erillion that came up afterwards in suggested videos. I never knew there were so many anti-CIG videos out there.
The video where some people show that they do not understand time zones (e.g. the time difference between Europe and USA) ?
And do not understand that some information is available earlier in the "Jump Point" subscriber magazine than others see it on the general website. So anyone posting information that is not yet available on the general website must have SIKRIT insider information from within CIG ;-)
And then some people make a video with a conspiracy theory out of it ;-)
Because ... what would be the internet without a conspiracy theory .... ?
Always makes me smile, that one.
Have fun
PS: Anti-CIG videos --> its called an agitprop campaign. Originates from the SomethingAwful forum and has been planned strategically with all the experience gained from a decade doing agitprop in EVE Online. Very entertaining reading ;-)
As useless as before, and as expectable on my side, the clear intent to just be a huge list of incomplete and "broken promises, adding little things that aren't delivered (including adding many items that weren't promised) yet not mentioning large features that have been delivered; heavily manipulated.
But dont most of those features on the list point to the source? How is that a useless list and how was it manipulated? Almost every item has a link beside it that takes you to a CIG page or video that shows it. Are you suggesting CIG is advertising features it has no intention of including in its game?
I think the suggestion, which is entirely valid, is that the list is comprised of items which are both part of the scope of the project and part of the vision of what the project might be in the future. What's problematic with the tracker is that it doesn't distinguish between that. So you never really get a good idea of what is real and what isn't.
Kinda like the project itself right? Chris and company have thrown around so much bullshit it’s hard to differentiate what’s real with the project and what isn’t. Hell a few times we’ve had Erillion and Max disagree on what they were doing because it’s so unclear in the wording and terminology that no one can say for sure what the hell is going on.
Perhaps if CIG wasn’t such a mess with their communications then the tracker would be more clear but it’s only as good as the info it tracks
Lol, come on, man. Are we really going there? If you've gone through any number of the links, you KNOW what I'm talking about. Based on what you're saying here, I KNOW you know what I'm talking about, so why be so fucking obtuse? THIS is the problem. The project is wildly behind schedule, even based on the most liberal of estimates. At this point, we're approaching that point where arguing whether the project is on schedule or not becomes laughable, and anyone who would defend the project, saying it's right on schedule would be equally as absurd as someone believing that this tracker is somehow useful beyond tracking things that came out of someone's mouth at some point.
Who said I was arguing that the project is on schedule or not? I was saying that CIG likes to vomit information, helpful or not, which muddies the waters when it comes to know what the hell is going on with the project.
** snip ** Hell a few times we’ve had Erillion and Max disagree ** snip **
Or use Occams razor:
Erillion and Max do not always have the same opinion and sometimes disagree
Have fun
You know you just agreed with what I said right?
I agree with the fact that Max and me do not always have the same opinion.
I disagree with your deduction that follows: >>>>
..... what they were doing because it’s so unclear
in the wording and terminology that no one can say for sure what the
hell is going on. >>>>
So NO, i did not agree with what you said.
Have fun
When you selectively quote it makes it sound like yeah what you said is right but let’s put it into context shall we.
I said ”Hell a few times we’ve had Erillion and Max disagree on what they were doing because ya so unclear in the wording and terminology that no one can say for sure what the hell is going on.”
You said ”Erillion and Max do not always have the same opinion and sometimes disagree”
You agreed with me that you disagree with Max. You didn’t implicitly state because the project has muddy waters in what they are doing but that would be why. If they put out useful information that wasn’t 95% drivel or so badly worded that everyone and their mother interprets it a different way then everyone would be on the same page.
When you selectively quote it makes it sound like yeah what you said is right but let’s put it into context shall we.
I said ”Hell a few times we’ve had Erillion and Max disagree on what they were doing because ya so unclear in the wording and terminology that no one can say for sure what the hell is going on.”
You said ”Erillion and Max do not always have the same opinion and sometimes disagree”
You agreed with me that you disagree with Max. You didn’t implicitly state because the project has muddy waters in what they are doing but that would be why. If they put out useful information that wasn’t 95% drivel or so badly worded that everyone and their mother interprets it a different way then everyone would be on the same page.
Oh come on, its the internet.
By definition everyone and their mother interprets information there in a different way !
Comments
-Single Player – Offline or Online(Drop in / Drop out co-op play)
-Mod-able multiplayer (hosted by YOU)
Were those wants and maybes?
What about these???
Same as stupid sourcing like the one stating Trading on 3.0 is a broken feature sourcing it with https://clips.twitch.tv/AcceptableArborealBottleKappa, a bug on the feature before 3.0 even released, lol.
As for your last question, no, I am suggesting a lot of stuff has disclaimers that do imply something is planned, or a want, or a maybe, but it's not any confirmed guarantee it will be there, a lot of stuff is also confirmed such as "we will have X feature".
No, those were confirmed features.
But when you dig deeper and look at those sources, you will find out that with a few rare exceptions (e.g. the planet and city building work being done in Frankfurt) Chris Roberts never said that these things will be in the game at launch. In almost all cases these are features that CIG would like to add at a future date.
And this is where the Goon list falls apart badly. They - deliberately so - do not differentiate between a promised (stretch) goal and a "would-be-nice-to-have-in-the-future" feature.
For the usual Goon propaganda (and i am intimately familiar with that one) it is much better to have a LOOOOOONG list of unfulfilled promises, so they can paint the "enemy" (in this case CIG)
as the bad, lazy ones.
Have fun
The Goonies laugh more about our Internet Warlord than about Chris Roberts.
Especially when The Smarty calls himself an "Old-School Goon Veteran". That has almost cost lives amongst the Goonies, as they could not breathe due to hysterical fits of laughter.
Have fun
I think the suggestion, which is entirely valid, is that the list is comprised of items which are both part of the scope of the project and part of the vision of what the project might be in the future. What's problematic with the tracker is that it doesn't distinguish between that. So you never really get a good idea of what is real and what isn't.
On any good software project, you would have items designated for the current release, and items designated for future releases. When you evaluate the readiness of that software for release, you don't say "Well, we have everything done that we wanted to get done for this release, but that's only 25% of the product we envision for the future, so it's not ready." That would be retarded. What's worse is that the people who put this list together are well aware of that fact, because of the tool they're using to track it, and the amount of customization required to that tool in order to do so.
So, while I can appreciate your perspective, you are either 1) not fooled at all about the tracker, and you're just playing down the parts you don't want to acknowledge in order to support your arguments, or; 2) you've been completely fooled by the class clown you was just trolling you to get this exact result. I don't know which it is, I won't say which it is, but all it takes is looking at the percentage of items that use a project document as a reference link versus how many use some sound bite or video bite or quip as a reference to see how inaccurate it actually is. Just use some logic. Fuck, if we took EVERYTHING in the world as literally as we've taken what's been said about SC, there would be some serious shit storms going down. Especially in the US, since you've got one of the biggest mouths in the world for spouting entire loads of bullshit.
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
----------------
Have fun
The list as good as useless the moment you need to research it yourself to know if something is or isn't a confirmed feature for the game, and not things put as possibilities for the future.
Even with backers I had this discussion, just because it was mentioned as a possibility it does not confirm that it will happen (at all or as designed), much less does it confirm it will happen BY release.
Anyone who can't tell the difference falls prey of their own delusion on expectations.
But still a stretch goal of the Star Citizen crowdfunding campaign (last one was the 65 M$ stretch goal).
THOSE stretch goals you can keep track of.
Any other list that tries to paint anything Star Citizen related that was once said as "would-be-cool-to-have-in-the-game-at-some-point-in-the-future-if-technically-possible" as an OFFICIAL stretch goal is just an exercise in futility and/or propaganda.
In technical terms - none of this "nice-to-have-stuff" is an official user requirement. The official stretch goals ARE the user requirements that need to be met in this software project. Anything else is bonus, unless officially added to the USR through a Change Request. And change requests then necessitate a re-evaluation of the time and resource project planning step.
Have fun
Well, I mean we all know that the project isn't on track, but the project tracker in question isn't even remotely close to what the reality of the project scope is. So, once again, the Internet wastes an opportunity to actually make a positive contribution to something. I'd say I'm shocked.... but it's the Internet.
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
----------------
Maybe perhaps people will start a proper tracker in the future, would be quite insightful to get one proper idea of the feature-set of the game.
Perhaps if CIG wasn’t such a mess with their communications then the tracker would be more clear but it’s only as good as the info it tracks
Now the whole mess they used to be able to label many others as broken features is simply a joke.
It is CIG fault that they can't know things every backer I know is aware of? Like:
- There is actually trading in Alpha 3.0.
- The mission complexity goal was delivered.
- The diverse NPC actions goal was delivered.
-And so on...
Little on adding the delivered feature-set of 3.0 on the list, full on labeling things as undelivered.
I don't think it's their communication, yet who maintains this seems to not even do play the game, if even a backer of it, or they are just well-aware of what they are doing and still list things wrongly on purpose (the trading in 3.0 marked undelivered is obviously intentional so I will go with this one).
And once we get a fully released game, then have challenge/complaint over what is missing based on the list.
Some of the desired features add complexity to the game that was unknown or uncertain in the past. Thus driving the refactor of previous work, this is typical software development regardless if its a game or not. You simply can not predict every dependency.
The FUD (on both sides of the argument) is strong with SC. I have read far to many intelligent posts to think that either side is so blind to this fact. And it is more of a game for these posters to argue, then actual care one way or another.
Lets be honest, if there is one thing that was done well, it is the aspects around marketing. Which is driven in large part by all the communication that is done. Any talk regarding the project, good or bad drives interest, and interest drives revenue.
I could care less if you are on the side of fail, or the side of praise. I want to hear bout milestone achievements which have been done very well in my opinion up to this date. I use the data around challenges to further my knowledge on the topics and fully understand what is required to advance the project.
It is no secret that my posts tend to be on the positive side toward SC, but I am equally critical as well. Just those thoughts on an unreleased game are not relevant, as I would be complaining about a project in flux.
Are we seeing timely reporting on progress? - I would answer, yes.
Are we seeing when tasks are unable to fit within the projected timeline? - I would answer, yes.
What more can we ask for? (don't bring up, completed game, that has been beaten to death senselessly)
Sure, I would love to have every targeted feature to be available when projected, but reality is, that is not how development works.
--izz
Erillion and Max do not always have the same opinion and sometimes disagree
Have fun
I disagree with your deduction that follows:
>>>>
>>>>
So NO, i did not agree with what you said.
Have fun
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Lol, come on, man. Are we really going there? If you've gone through any number of the links, you KNOW what I'm talking about. Based on what you're saying here, I KNOW you know what I'm talking about, so why be so fucking obtuse? THIS is the problem. The project is wildly behind schedule, even based on the most liberal of estimates. At this point, we're approaching that point where arguing whether the project is on schedule or not becomes laughable, and anyone who would defend the project, saying it's right on schedule would be equally as absurd as someone believing that this tracker is somehow useful beyond tracking things that came out of someone's mouth at some point.
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
----------------
And do not understand that some information is available earlier in the "Jump Point" subscriber magazine than others see it on the general website. So anyone posting information that is not yet available on the general website must have SIKRIT insider information from within CIG ;-)
And then some people make a video with a conspiracy theory out of it ;-)
Because ... what would be the internet without a conspiracy theory .... ?
Always makes me smile, that one.
Have fun
PS:
Anti-CIG videos --> its called an agitprop campaign. Originates from the SomethingAwful forum and has been planned strategically with all the experience gained from a decade doing agitprop in EVE Online. Very entertaining reading ;-)
When you selectively quote it makes it sound like yeah what you said is right but let’s put it into context shall we.
I said
”Hell a few times we’ve had Erillion and Max disagree on what they were doing because ya so unclear in the wording and terminology that no one can say for sure what the hell is going on.”
You said
”Erillion and Max do not always have the same opinion and sometimes disagree”
You agreed with me that you disagree with Max. You didn’t implicitly state because the project has muddy waters in what they are doing but that would be why. If they put out useful information that wasn’t 95% drivel or so badly worded that everyone and their mother interprets it a different way then everyone would be on the same page.
By definition everyone and their mother interprets information there in a different way !
Have fun