No wonder you get shot.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 510
- Joined
- 9 mo. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 510
- Joined
- 9 mo. ago
The part where the ARC community agrees that solo plays are chill. Somehow the community can find the time to ask questions but you can't?
The game is third person, you literally don't have to be in sight to ask questions. The game also isn't Tarkov where you can get one hit killed, the effective time to kill is high enough to react to getting shot. And finally you don't die instantly, you get downed and you have plenty of time to talk then. It's a long shot but strangers can use defibs to revive you.
And just to show how easy it is to ask questions, you don't even need a mic. Whenever you see anyone move or you think anyone is there use the emote wheel to make your character say "don't shoot". More often than not you're going to hear that same voice back and then everything is cool. But it doesn't work when you shoot them first.
Have you considered asking questions first and then possibly shooting? Because the solo experience has been pretty non-confrontational if you let others know not to shoot. In multiple occasions I've grouped up with complete randos to take down the bigger ARC. The emote and ping system work well enough if you don't want to use a mic.
Group experience of course is a bit different because groups will shoot first and ask questions later.
The new Doom games are all very different from each other. I liked what Doom 2016 was doing (even if it got repetitive) but really didn't enjoy Eternal because the constant juggling didn't sit with me. I haven't tried Dark Ages but it seems like it's doing something between 2016 and Eternal (not quite use what you want and not quite always juggle) while also adding its own dimension with the mix of melee and guns.
I would never recommend each Doom title based on the last title. But it doesn't mean I don't like what they're doing. I think it's brave to do its own thing instead of doing what is expected.
Absolutely. I wasn't trying to imply Valve wouldn't offer VACnet to others. I'm sure they'd be happy to partner up with other devs. My point was more that other devs probably aren't interesting because of how hard it would be the implement. Like you said Dota and CS have different implementations and I imagine deadlock does too. I imagine most games would end up with either a custom implementation or a custom model, both require a significant work on the developers side. It's probably easier to add something like EAC than VACnet so devs most likely go that route.
Valve is very vague about their anti-cheat systems. They didn't say they updated VAC. It could've been an update to VACnet, their machine-learning anticheat. I'm not sure if VACnet is available for other devs but I imagine other devs also aren't particularly interested because ML-based anticheat would be even harder to implement.
I have to agree that killing online only games makes sense because they can’t be forced to run the server forever, not they can be forced to release the source code. But offline / solo / bots should keep working.
We are not in agreement. It doesn't make sense even for online games.
The politicians statement is not what SKG is about. SKG is not trying to preserve every version of a game. It would be cool if that was also on the table, but that's not the purpose of the initiative. SKG is concerned with keeping the game playable AFTER the publisher/developer has decided it's not longer worth maintaining. At that point the online video game is no longer a dynamic service because it's no longer updated nor maintained. And that means it absolutely could be viewed as a static product. The point she is making is completely irrelevant to the initiative and shouldn't even be a point of discussion.
This has already been addressed by SKG. Nobody is demanding the source code. Developers have multiple ways to solve this and SKG deliberately leaves that part open so developers could choose whatever works best for them.
Whoever told you developers would have to release the source code is lying and is against the initiative.
Your point is very simple and understandable, but that doesn't make it right. If your point was right it should be able to withstand the criticism I'm giving it, but it can't. That's why you think I'm confused and misinterpreting what you're saying, because you don't like me poking holes in your misguided belief.
I said the situation is crazy, not a specific person. I dont blame any individual, the strategies used over the years by these companies to sell skins and make consumers complacent are all very manipulative and effective. The people designing the systems and the ones doing the marketing have done a very, very good job.
Maybe you should've been clearer on what you meant considering your passive aggressive tone towards the consumer like "consumers keep sucking it up" (I don't think this one need explaining) or calling them complacent (indirectly criticizing people for being too passive or indifferent) or saying we forgot cosmetics used to be free (implies we used to know better and now don't).
You seem stuck on artists all being freelance, getting paid on some sort of commission. They are almost always salaried employees like anyone else at the development company.
First of all, whether they're freelance or not shouldn't matter to you considering you're claiming they shouldn't get paid either. And secondly I don't think you understand how companies operate. People at companies work to generate revenue. Free cosmetics do not generate revenue and if they're packaged with the game their contribution to the pricing is marginal thus the labor cost of making these assets would be disproportionate to their value and they don't get made. The artists will get paid by they won't be working of cosmetics. For artists to work on cosmetics there needs to be an incentive to work on them.
Weird analogy, paying for a game, something usually worked on for years, is a lot different than paying for a cosmetic change to something. It's like going to the movies and paying the price of the ticket again to sit in a green chair instead of a red one and being told that's completely normal and something you should do.
Is it? Last time I checked money goes off my account and I get something that costs no extra for the company (outside of making the thing).
Or are you drawing the difference at the amount of time it takes to make something? So a game made within a month should be free? A cosmetic that for some reasons took years to make should be paid? Or is it a matter of respect? That you respect game devs and their labor but you don't respect artists and their labor?
As for your cinema analogy, some cinemas have higher quality chairs in the same theater and as a matter of fact, you do pay extra for them.
I agree, if skins were sold for $0.50, $1.00, max $5, then I would have less issue with them.
Are we starting to move the goal post here? Cosmetics costing less shouldn't matter to you at all because your issue is that you have pay ANY amount for them.
I'd still have issue with the predatory practices used to sell them though. Some people are more susceptible to this than others, so I would rather it didnt exist at all.
Which is a completely different issue. I also have issues with predatory practices but the existence of predatory practices doesn't mean cosmetics should be free.
You buy a game once, have all the content and are not pressured again to spend anything, that's the ideal scenario, why would I compromise on that?
And if the game releases a DLC with new content are you not pressured to buy the DLC? Are you going to argue that DLC should also be free or are you going to draw another arbitrary line in the sand stating that game devs deserve the money but artists don't?
Games should be a sustainable art form, not gross corporate projects to extract as much money as possible from consumers.
And how exactly is something sustainable when you give it away for free?
No need to start throwing insults. It takes away from your argument
Pretty ironic considering you're implying people who think it's okay to pay for cosmetics are crazy.
Artists get paid either way, they are not paid on commission of skin sales. Any extra profit goes to the executives anyway, not to the artists. So that entire point is null.
Like I said before, the realistic alternative to paid cosmetics is no extra cosmetics. Artists get paid anyway but if their work is freely given away how does it justify them working on it? And if you strip away the capitalist BS it becomes even more apparent that the artists making the assets deserve to be compensated for their labor.
A skin is made one time and sold a potentially infinite amount of times for ridiculous prices.
A game is also made once and sold infinite amount of times. Why aren't you complaining about having to pay for games?
Why would you ever want to advocate for a worse experience? It blows my mind, but that's the situation we got ourselves into
I'm not, which is why I'm advocating for cosmetic items to be reasonably priced. You're advocating for a worse experience where cosmetic items get made with minimal effort (if they even get made at all) because the labor is not going to pay off.
Some of us actually understand that the quality of assets has significantly risen since the 00s and it takes artists significantly more time and effort to make high quality cosmetics. We're talking about going from assets taking days to assets taking weeks. Is the cost of the game supposed to eat all that extra development time? Are artists supposed to work for free? The realistic alternative to paid cosmetics is no extra cosmetics because quality cosmetic items are too expensive to make for free. Is that what you want?
You're free to be the old man yelling at the cloud but at least acknowledge that that is what you are.
There are also free cosmetics that you can unlock through quests.
Things being cosmetic does not justify the outlandish price. 20€ for a skin, emote and some trinkets is a stupid price.
Maybe someone else on the IGN payroll will do a proper review because a big reason the review was ass is because the reviewer was also ass. He was literally pressing the "ESC" button at the bottom left with a mouse. IMO the biggest crime of this IGN review is that the reviewer still works at IGN.
And worth pointing out that the Linux version of EAC (which is what Embark games use) runs in user space. It's literally not kernel level anticheat on Linux.
I think it's the difference between having gear fear and not having gear fear. As someone who comes from Tarkov ARC raiders solo is kind of a walk in the park because gearing up is much easier. Meeting other players is about 50/50, either they start shooting without asking questions or they're cool after you say "don't shoot". I hope this vibe doesn't die off when the player count drops. Yesterday I had a raid where I met another raider, we agreed to not shoot each other and then impromptu teamed up and took down another team of raiders. We then found a third raider and the three of us extracted together. It's pretty rare to team in up Tarkov because most people shoot first and ask questions later.
But I can see how it's absolutely stressful for some people because gear fear makes you think the stakes are much higher than they really are.
I'll rephrase it more clearly then. Selfhosting focuses on the hosting aspect of software. !programming@programming.dev focuses on the development aspect of software. This article talks about the architectural decision made during development. It doesn't talk about how to host serverless. It doesn't even talk about why you wouldn't want to selfhost serverless. It talks about bad software patterns the come with serverless. It also talks about the cost of running those things but even that is geared more towards enterprise level devops people.
It might be an interesting read from the software developer perspective but it's not interesting from the selfhoster perspective, because the article has nothing to do with selfhosting.
The discussion is off topic for the same reason web development software patterns or the benefits of choosing one language over another aren't really relevant to the selfhosting community. Because most self-hosters don't develop the software they host, they set up existing software. Serverless technology itself might be relevant, if there was a project using that, but how the architectural decision impacts software development is not really relevant to self-hosters.
Because it clearly it is a choice you've made. I'm level 26 and I can guarantee that the vast majority of my encounters with other players doesn't start with them shooting me and most of them end with neither of us shooting. The ARC community (not EVERY arc player since apparently that needs to be explicitly spelt out for you) acknowledges that solos are less sweating (Apparently need to spell this out as well. Not agreeing to be friends but agreeing that you're less likely to get shot).
Most players do not get the kind of experience you're talking about, which means whatever it is you're doing in game is making you have the experience you're complaining about. And considering how you've presented yourself so far I'm not surprised you get shot.