1C probably needs a kickstarter project?

Originally Posted by Force10

This scenario only works if you have a playable sim. ROF had a rough start, but the patches and work they have done actually fixed bugs and made the engine pretty solid. COD is still in the starting blocks with patches that haven't really fixed much of anything. I couldn't see giving 1C anymore money for planes with their current skill at fixing the game.

Agree

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by slm

It would be interesting if next game in the series was decided using Kickstarter or similar site. Players could decide which game to support and the one getting most money would be developed.

That would be a great idea. Instead of buying blind and then complaining about unfinished products, we could be given a choice of 2-3 theaters for future expansions, all set up as separate kickstarter projects. The one that gets the most money also gets the money collected for the remaining projects and gets developed.

This way we get to influence what gets developed next and the developers are ahead of the curve financially, so they can sit down and do things properly instead of cutting corners.


On another note...

It's like 3 posts before any new thread takes a turn for the usual kind of discussions. This is a thread about discussing the possibility of a kickstarter funded scenario and of course, people will say their piece of whether they would support it or not. That doesn't mean they shouldn't mind their tone. Irony leads to come backs from another user with a different opinion, which leads to flame wars, which leads to me deleting posts.

Examples (because apparently i need to spell it out despite the fact that we're mostly adults here)

1) "I believe a kickstarter project wouldn't help because according to Blacksix, the team is looking to hire new programmers and can't find enough who have suitable experience. Also, i wouldn't support this project because i am not satisfied with the rate things have been progressing until now."

This kind of comment is fine. It's a personal opinion, presented politely and it's also backed up with some official data. Of course, you don't need to have official sources to have an opinion, it just adds more weight to your argument.

Someone posting like this will also get help from me if he/she is attacked, despite the fact that it's an unfavorable opinion towards 1c and CoD. Being a moderator is not about "cracking down on dissenters", it's about ensuring everyone can have their say.

2) "I wouldn't waste any more on 1C, they'll probably use it to buy vodka. They can't fix anything anyway."

This kind of comment is nothing but a rant with the potential to invite a similarly worded counter-argument from a person with an opposing opinion. It's not ok and it will get the person posting it in trouble.

Funny how both comments say the same thing but one is somewhat insulting and the other is not, right?

If we do the non-insulting part everything will be fine. Let's use our freedom of speech to present our opinions in a respectable manner, not to drown out the freedom of speech of others. Because frankly, this is what's been happening here for quite some time.

When every single thread is moved towards the same topic after less than a page, then you are interfering with the ability of other users to discuss other topics and you are essentially violating their freedom of speech. And this goes both for the so called "whiners" and the "fanboys", whose endless "forum dogfights" are messing with the ability of others to use the forum.

Well, in my eyes all users are equal, so i'm having none of that. If the thread is mucked up and the usual suspects start being disrespectful to each other, heads will roll.

It's been a long time coming and people must learn that in an open discussion forum it's ok to disagree with each other and not waste their energy trying to convince "opponents" through insults and irony, or purposefully drowning out the voices of those who don't agree with them.

Stay within topic, stay respectful and to those that will, thank you for your cooperation gentlemen and carry on, regardless of your opinions. To those that won't, it's your posting privileges on the line, not mine.

Nothing personal, just doing what i'm supposed to be doing

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Force10

Well I don't know about you, but I have played the game, so I see the end result of their programming. That was kinda obvious, but I guess it needed to be pointed out to those who haven't played the game or installed patches that haven't fixed much.

Playing a game offers absolutely no insight into how it was programmed. It's even worse if what you're playing is a beta. A beta is intended to find problems. It's likely that they put trap code in place which may make the game run worse, but gathers data that they can use to find certain problems. Issues like that are why it's always risky giving the clueless access to beta versions of software.

[Force10]

Blackdog,

I made a relevant opinion to the OP with my first post, and I get harassed by the usual suspect(s) and am forced down the path you are talking about. Can you do something about these flagrant harassers?

[SlipBall]

I would be more than happy to have the original version back on my system, with working AI commands.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Force10

This scenario only works if you have a playable sim. ROF had a rough start, but the patches and work they have done actually fixed bugs and made the engine pretty solid.

I have heard of having your cake and eating it too..

But this is one takes the cake!

First sentance you say it only works if you have a playable sim..
Next sentance you admit RoF was not a playable sim at the start..

So which is it?

Because you can not have it both ways!

[Force10]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Issues like that are why it's always risky giving the clueless access to beta versions of software.

Hmmm....I guess they shouldn't have boxed it up and put it on a shelf for $50 dollars then? If the box stated I was going to be a beta tester for the next couple of years, I would have passed.

Per Blackdog's post, this is the last I'm going to say about your off topic BS. Do you have any thoughts on the original post about the kickstart idea?

[Force10]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Next sentance you admit RoF was not a playable sim at the start..

Maybe you need to quote my post instead of making up stuff? I said "ROF had a rough start". I didn't say it was not playable. Take ROF 16 months after release, and look at COD 16 months later....there really is no comparison.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Force10

Blackdog,

I made a relevant opinion to the OP with my first post, and I get harassed by the usual suspect(s) and am forced down the path you are talking about.

Forced down the path?

Really?

Well let's take a 'look' at your FIRST post in this thread, i.e.

Originally Posted by Force10

I think the only way kickstart funding would work in this case, is if they used the money to hire more experienced programmers to work on the code. Just throwing money at the current team wouldn't solve anything IMO.

Now lets take a look at Blackdog's example of a 'bad' post

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

"I wouldn't waste any more on 1C, they'll probably use it to buy vodka. They can't fix anything anyway."

Maybe it is just me..

But your FIRST post..

You know the post you provided before anyone could have forced you to say what you said

Sure sounds alot like Blackdog's examle of a bad post

Originally Posted by Force10

Maybe you need to quote my post instead of making up stuff?

Just did!

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Force10

Hmmm....I guess they shouldn't have boxed it up and put it on a shelf for $50 dollars then? If the box stated I was going to be a beta tester for the next couple of years, I would have passed.

All you had to do was wait for the reviews. Why did you buy it before it was reviewed?