Last time I checked (which was somewhere within the last 3 years) not only will the snap version get installed but if you force a non-snap version of the software and do an update it will replace the non-snap version with the snap version. It’s the kind of idiotic shit I’d expect from Microsoft.
Having played all Doom games I’d argue the closest to the classic was Doom 2016. Dark ages IMO was too reliant on the shield and melee to the point where at times it didn’t even feel like a Doom game. 2016 had an overall faster pace but the core gameplay loop felt more like the classic and the faster pace is IMO also the more entertaining way to play classic Doom. 2016 IMO nails the essence of the classic doom.
USI, United States of Isreal.
Maybe I’m having some blinders on but what problems are we talking about? I recently got the game and at a quick glance couldn’t really identify any PC related issues. Some people have claimed performance issues but outside of some freezes when switching zones (which doesn’t really affect my experience) I haven’t really noticed any performance related problems.
In fact most people seem to have issues with game design not anything performance, hardware or OS related. And most of those issues are legitimate because there’s quite a lot of questionable design decisions.
It can also wildly swing in one direction. The price can go up by a small amount or an insane amount. Creates this funny situation where you either price too high and lose customers or price too low and lose money on every sale, doesn’t matter what you do you’re not going to win. The only thing to do is postpone as long as possible in hopes of prices stabilizing and then release it at the current market price and pray the costs don’t keep rising.
In short, everything is fucked and it’s the worst time probably ever to release new hardware.
Okay, so your arguments are “I pull random shit I won’t explain out of my ass” and “CONSPIRACY”. Alrighty, bye. Don’t let the chem trails throw you off the edge of the flat earth.
I would add that calling it hard core Minecraft might set the wrong expectation. It’s derived from Minecraft (I think it originally started as a Minecraft mod with a different name before spinning off) but since then it’s gone in a completely different direction to Minecraft. If you go into Vintage Story expecting it to be like Minecraft you’re probably going to have a bad time because your Minecraft knowledge doesn’t really transfer over. Minecraft is a lot more adventure focused while Vintage Story has gone the other route, it’s taken survival as the central focus and the adventure is largely built around survival.
And it does survival very well because it actually turns it into a motivation to go and explore. If you just sit around you are going to die. If you don’t set up a farm and cellar and collect food for the winter, you are going to die in the winter. If you don’t find different types of crops your farm will run out of whatever nutrient you’re using and you have to start refreshing the soil. If you don’t find warm clothes you’re going to freeze in the winter. Your survival also depends on the variety of food, if you eat only one type of food you’ll have less health (more variety in food means more overall health). You get so many external motivators to go out and explore simply because if you don’t do it you won’t survive. And in that sense I actually find exploration in Vintage Story a lot more rewarding that in Minecraft.
I would also add that Vintage Story has a modding scene and some of the mods IMO are kind of a must-have QoL updates. I haven’t tried the most recent update so I don’t know if some of those things have been improved or not. The mods I recommend are Auto Map Markers (because you want to mark down whatever resource you find because you’re probably going to need it. This mod automates that), better prospecting (I would recommend first trying out vanilla prospecting before using this mod. This mod makes prospecting less annoying) and Carry on (at the start you don’t have a lot of storage space so being able to pick up chests and move them around is very useful).
I told you before I’m not going to get into this moronic conversation where neither of us know what we’re talking about. Not only did you prove that you want to steer the conversation into that idiocracy you also proved that you don’t know what you’re talking about. And that was my point, that you can’t refute the argument presented in the lawsuit because you keep talking out of your ass and there’s no hope of changing your opinion on the matter because you’re not interested in any discussion except the one where you get to talk out of your ass. As far as I’m concerned this conversation is over.
Ah, fair enough. I assumed you also meant the current game which is priced at 70€.
You don’t have to go find it. I think we’ve done enough to prove my point.
As I understand the current game is developed and published by IO meaning the current Bond money probably goes to IO (as much as the licensed game profits can go to the developer) so I think it’s still worth buying. The next Bond games can go die behind a dumpster.
First of all, that is not the lawsuit. That’s an article about the lawsuit, something you criticized me for (unfoundedly I might add). And secondly, the lawsuit you referenced was NY v. NoA not whatever lawsuit that article reference because that seems something that was filed in 1999 not 1991 like you claim. Ready to admit your mistake?
Can’t even bother to link the right lawsuit the rest of your arguments hinge on. Good job.
Bro what the actual fuck?
Okay, since you’ve read it, how do you think the Section I-22,23 relate to Steam specifically? I’m asking you to read those words and try to understand them and make a judgement.
Do you even understand what I-22 and 23 mean? There’s nothing to judge, there’s nothing to relate to Steam because those two points establish the definition of gambling and the law that regulates gambling. This is just laying the foundation for which the rest of the suit is built upon. At this point I don’t know if you’re throwing out some sort of a gotcha or if you’re really that stupid to think those two points have anything to do with Steam or whether there’s anything to judge.
I personally feel like Section II is a typical case layout. But I find it strange about the equivalence made in that Section. Your thoughts?
I have no idea what you’re even referencing here. Section II seems to establish who Valve is and I think does that but once again, not a lawyer, so I have no idea why it’s worded the way it is. Clearly there’s some reason to do it that way.
Do you think that Section III is demonstrating a system in which you are presented the opportunity to gamble? I’ll be honest, James’ makes a good case. But that doesn’t matter because 1999 NY v. Nintendo of America had the same groundwork and was dismissed. The issue came into the case that, Pokémon cards did not carry any inherent value, unless you went to a third party and that third party offered money. Thus, insulating Nintendo from a closed loop system. Let’s keep going!
You’re going to have to cite the source for the NY v. Nintendo of America lawsuit. Beyond that I can’t comment on anything else.
Section IV-A-78 seems to me as a stretch to close the loop. It’s the same argument I’ve aforementioned. But my question for you is, when does the system close in this case? And do you think (87) is a fair comparison? At what point does the proof of an economy constitute gambling? Do we need to go after all blind boxes? Your thoughts, since you’ve read the case?
Of course it does seem like a stretch to you and according to you it’s the same argument to the lawsuit that you haven’t cited, so I can’t comment anything about that. As for the rest, once again not a lawyer, so it’s not up to me define when the system closes. I can only give my dumbfuck opinion which is that the system is closed when there’s no official way to get monetary value out of the system. You can only dump money into the system but you can’t get it out. And what is a fair comparison? 87 explains how CS skins are used as an investment, there’s nothing to compare. The rest of what you said is not to me to decide because those are very specific legal points and for the third time, not a lawyer.
Section IV-A-89, at what point is it Valve’s responsibility to go after third party sites who are doing what people do in the real world? Attaching monetary value to cosmetic items in video games, I mean. Do you think the SSA obligates them to? What are the chilling effects of that? I feel like that could give corporations a lot of power, and I don’t like that.
You know, just for the fuck of it let’s say this point shouldn’t be in the lawsuit, what changes about the lawsuit?
The listing of selected enforcement opens James’ case to a lot of attacks. I think it’s a failure on her part, as it will weaken the case in front of a judge if Valve’s lawyers just immediately rip it to shreds.
You’ve done such a spectacular job referencing everything else? Why is there suddenly no reference here?
Section V just feels like TCG all over again.
And? Your grand analysis stops there?
Now the danger to children, again, if we go with this being a danger to children, then ALL TCGs are a danger to children. They open packs looking for rares, right? Same concept. But how are children getting that much access to money? That’s starting to sound like a parent problem. Who is letting their kids spend hundreds of dollars? Like, that’s just bad parenting.
Okay, so you don’t actually understand why children are brought up. Really showing your expertise here.
But hey, I’m just an idiot, right? Just another Dunning-Kruger dingbat? Which is just hilarious that you keep bringing it up, misunderstanding the actual study and flaws of it. What would you say that is?
Well then go ahead and educate me. You seem to enjoy sounding smart so I’m giving up the chance to be smart.
if you can’t see how hurting valve is a direct benefit to epic or ubi we’re wasting my time
irrelevant point? lol that’s not at all how business works
Did you even read what I said? Valve losing it’s gambling money is going to have no impact on their market share in the PC storefront market space because Valve is already making boatloads of money even without the gambling money. Valve doesn’t need to do anything to make up for the loss because they don’t need to be greedy. They can eat “the loss” and continue business as usual which means there is no direct benefit for any competing storefront. If anything it might end up being a net negative because (while it probably won’t directly impact Epic or Ubisoft) some big studios still use lootboxes and this ruling would further push getting them banned. There’s an indirect benefit to Epic of Ubisoft in the form of Valve making less money but when you make insane amounts of money making slightly less insane amounts of money isn’t anything Epic of Ubisoft will feel. So yeah, I’d like to see you explain how the gambling lawsuit would directly benefit Epic of Ubisoft.
if she actually gave a damn about gambling we’d be seeing her go after sports betting first by sheer volume
So she shouldn’t go after Valve where there’s a legitimate case to be made? Because she should be going after some other nondescript entity that she may not even have a case against? Yeah, makes total sense.
if you think morality is involved in the american legal system you live a charmed life
So according to you SKG movement isn’t driven by the moral point that we should own the things we buy? So who is funding that initiative? Who gains to benefit from it? Come on, give me the juice. Let me suckle on that conspiracy teat. It’s all conspiracies, no good guys ever exists. Ross Scott is a paid actor.
Dunning Kruger in full effect. “How hard could this thing be that takes years to work through by 6 figure professionals? I can totally make those arguments myself.”
And just for your information, I have read the complaint in full. It’s another example of you just assuming you know things.
Yeah, the loop is starting again because you clearly don’t see what is wrong with the “don’t listen to the expert, do your own research” argument. Fucking genius conversation. You, without a law degree, arguing with me, without a law degree, about a very specific legal gray area like we know what the fuck we’re talking about. No, it’s stupid which is why I’m refusing to partake in it. I’m not going to act like I know how to make a legal argument which is why I’m pointing at someone who is supposed to know what the fuck they’re talking about. I don’t get why you want to drag this conversation into something neither of are even remotely qualified to talk about.
Well you’re neither credible nor infallible so why should I even care about your opinion.
No. Despite his knowledge and understanding of medicine, his claims are not credible because there are a lot of documented instances where he’s used his own medical authority for personal gain.
So if you want to go down that route, start proving that the NYAG is not credible.
I disagree with their definition of “meso”. I think they’re throwing everything probability related into that pot but really it’s at the very least two distinctly different concepts. The first concept is effectively entropy of the game. It’s the random chance inherent to the game, something you can’t really control and you just have to work around. The best example of that are rogue-lites because in those games runs are largely defined by the random choice of tools the game gives you for that specific run. But if you want a more competitive game related example it’s Magic the gathering. Competitive decks are built around reducing the randomness by stacking different but similar effects, but none of it matters if you just draw a dead hand. And for clarity sake, all games where you’re dealing with fog of war or limited information about what your opponent is doing I’d put under entropy because the lack of information injects chaos into the system.
The second concept I’d call expression. Expression is what the author of the video use to put competitive chess into macro and meso. I think chess is a fully macro game and I’ll get into why it’s not meso. I use the word expression because games are a form of self-expression and how you express yourself translates into your gameplay including all the natural tendencies you might have as a player. When the author talks about optimizing against your opponents habits that’s learning and adjusting to how your opponent expresses themselves within the game. That is not the same thing as entropy, it’s not inherent to the game. If we were to tie the two concepts together entropy is the inherent randomness within the game and expression is how an individual will skew that randomness in their favor.
In the context of competitive games I’d say “meso” should be entropy and expression shouldn’t even be a factor because I think your ability to express yourself through a game is on a different axis because self-expression is inherent to every game. If you have a jack of all trades competitive gamer who can play everything from Quake champions to chess to among us but they’re naturally an aggressive player, do you think that player would switch up their playstyle depending on the game? I think they’d be aggressive in quake, choose sharp openings in chess and be always confrontational in Among us. It’s just how that player would play games.
And another point I disagree with is that CS is low macro (at least based on the graph they showed). It’s definitely lower than micro and entropy so relatively speaking he’s right, but it’s still high macro game. The author views only the economy aspect of CS and establishes that because rounds are short and execution is key the economy plays a role only in the context of giving you the tools to execute. But it’s so much more. Almost every site execution in CS is dependent on the macro knowledge of smoke, molly and flash lineups. Those are not things you can just learn on the fly as you play. You either know them or you don’t. Anyone who has played (or viewed) Mirage on a competitive level knows how important is it for T-s to nail the window smoke because if you miss it you’re almost definitely losing mid control, it it’s too slow you’re probably going to lose mid control. That is such a vital smoke pros have spent years refining it to a point. Lineups are something almost every pro has to learn. And those are per map. In fact lineups are only a part of the map macro that every pro team has to learn. There’s a reason pro teams tend to have a perma-ban map, because there’s only so much you can learn and the team with the better map knowledge usually wins the map so you focus on a set of maps instead of every map. And the team with the better map knowledge winning literally happened yesterday when Fut (a bunch of very promising rookies) beat Vitality (currently solidifying themselves as the greatest CS team of all time) on Anubis (the least popular map in the pool that is a permaban for a lot of teams). Vitality floated the map and Fut took the opportunity and straight up schooled one the best teams in competitive CS. Vitality still won the maps because they have an 80+% winrate on every other map they play but even the best team in the world can be beaten on map they’re not all that familiar with.