for some reason instead of talking and negotiating with theme to even have as a possibility they just said no CBS said no end of conversation unfortunately if you ask me.
Honestly the game was in rough shape at launch, so CBS saying no was probably a blessing for them since it was one less thing to even consider working on. It's also not something they could've actually "negotiated", CBS had the final say and the people making those decisions probably weren't the same people Cryptic is dealing with now. The most Cryptic could have done at the time if they really wanted it as an option would've been to give CBS examples from canon (Best of Both Worlds would've been perfect) to try and convince them to change their mind, and maybe they did we don't know. But like I said the game was in rough shape, and according to Bort the devs back then weren't sure how to resolve the issue of other powers changing color too, so IMO it's easy to see why they may not have pressed the issue.
if they did do it, they would find some way to put on the zen store just like they did the Cardassians and such.
Not everything the devs add to the game gets monetized, for a recent example just look at the splitting of EV suits and armor into two different gear slots.
Weapon visuals changing color, both ship and ground, by modifying the settings is canon. See Star Trek: The Next Generation, Best of Both Worlds Parts I and II.
I'm willing to accept that it's entirely rational that that those representing a a game development team on a live stream/podcast won't have every answer to every possible question.
It's also rational to accept that those same representatives will not necessarily have a working knowledge of those events and conditions that took place before they were associated with the game in question.
I'm also willing to give the benefit of the doubt that someone might make a poor choice in using the word, "lie," especially if a set of circumstances comes off as such, in voicing a concern over the issue at hand.
Indeed the very title of the thread asks to readers to judge for themselves; "LIES IN THE LIVESTREAM? MISINFORMATION? WHAT IS YOUR TAKE?"
Does that mean that the OP didn't bring the fire? No.
Then this happened...
The OP wrote:
"I suppose the question is really this: Should they be allowed to lie in a livestream? Should they be allowed to use false information?"
Then our Community Manager quoted the OP like this:
"But *man* is it such a blatant, unfair leap to go from what actually happened - Jeremy and I giving the answer we had, being given new info, and following up on it *live on the air* - to a thread saying, "SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO LIE TO YOU?!?!?!"
Why the intentional misquote with the added emotionalism that CAPS LOCK and prolific punctuation suggests?
Why throw gasoline on this particular fire? Just to be clear in the event that i get misquoted, I'M NOT SHOUTING!!11!!11One!!1Uno!!
Levity aside, I'm asking a sincere question. This was a chance for a Win. As an opportunity to connect with a customer who might have a misunderstanding and translating that contact into good vibes which often results in repeat business, many times when the customer doesn't get what they want, even, and an opportunity to generate good PR publicly for the game and the team behind it.
"A misquote"? Changing ""TO YOU" to "in a livestream" makes it less of an accusation of outright lying?
Do you even listen to yourself?
It's incredible how different that is from what I actually wrote.
And an obvious attempt to troll, to boot!
Sorry, I won't fall for it.
Actually, he has a point. Perhaps you are misunderstanding him. You claim that Kael intentionally misquoted the OP. (This in and of itself is an accusation and infers malicious intent.) But the misquote of "to you" in place of "in a livestream" doesn't change the fact that the OP came off as an accusation of ill intent on the part of the devs. Now, the OP came back and clarified his position, so perhaps he originally had a poor choice of words, but there were many others who posted here that interpreted the OP the same way as Kael. Where is your critique of their reactions? Or are we only being critical of the CM? Kael did say that he would check further into the matter. Others here have expressed their gratitude that Kael didn't just blow this off and will update us when he has more info. Missed opportunity to connect with a customer and generate good PR? No, I think he did just that. But YMMV. 🤷🏼♀️
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
"A misquote"? Changing ""TO YOU" to "in a livestream" makes it less of an accusation of outright lying?
Do you even listen to yourself?
It's incredible how different that is from what I actually wrote.
And an obvious attempt to troll, to boot!
Sorry, I won't fall for it.
Actually, he has a point. Perhaps you are misunderstanding him. You claim that Kael intentionally misquoted the OP. (This in and of itself is an accusation and infers malicious intent.) But the misquote of "to you" in place of "in a livestream" doesn't change the fact that the OP came off as an accusation of ill intent on the part of the devs. Now, the OP came back and clarified his position, so perhaps he originally had a poor choice of words, but there were many others who posted here that interpreted the OP the same way as Kael. Where is your critique of their reactions? Or are we only being critical of the CM? Kael did say that he would check further into the matter. Others here have expressed their gratitude that Kael didn't just blow this off and will update us when he has more info. Missed opportunity to connect with a customer and generate good PR? No, I think he did just that. But YMMV. 🤷🏼♀️
Kael misquoting the OP is a fact.
This is supported by the difference in the words used, the addition of all caps, the overuse of punctuation, and, you know, quotations marks. These were choices he made.
This is not an accusation, it is a statement of fact, nor does it 'infer' malicious intent. In this case an inference would be made on the part of the reader. Now I could imply that this is a Freudian Slip on your part, but that would just be me playing with language for fun and it wouldn't translate well. Indeed even now, after that explanation, it won't translate well because someone will infer that I'm taking a shot when I'm not.
I did not critique the others because they are not operating in a Customer Service capacity for Cryptic, but the Community Manager is. Having obviously read through my entire post you could easily draw this conclusion, which suggests to me that you may be on a fishing expedition. I'm not saying whether that is true or not, but if others recognize the possibility it could be a bad look for a Community Moderator.
I will, however, admit to being wrong about generating good PR and missing the opportunity to connect with a customer. I do, however, maintain that the opportunity to connect with a customer was needlessly put at risk by the misquote. Indeed if such a connection was made I'd say it was more due to the grace on the part of the OP than Kael. But, as you've indicated, YMMV.
As for Mr. jonsills and the chance that I have misinterpreted him, that is indeed a possibility, however I will not be held responsible for his choice to communicate ineffectively followed by a snarky throwing of stones.
its now the 16th and no update from the CM. he stated on the 11th he was talking to someone and would update us. so much for that.
usually 3 days is an acceptable time frame to get back to someone.
Its possible he hasn't gotten an answer yet because of how things are going in the office.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
its now the 16th and no update from the CM. he stated on the 11th he was talking to someone and would update us. so much for that.
usually 3 days is an acceptable time frame to get back to someone.
Its possible he hasn't gotten an answer yet because of how things are going in the office.
Also, if he asked on 8/12 that was Friday. It's only Tuesday and I'd hope the devs are not working weekends. Expecting the dev involved to drop whatever they were working on to dig through the code isn't reasonable. Especially if they need to run any tests to see the behavior now vs. 12+ years ago.
"A misquote"? Changing ""TO YOU" to "in a livestream" makes it less of an accusation of outright lying?
Do you even listen to yourself?
It's incredible how different that is from what I actually wrote.
And an obvious attempt to troll, to boot!
Sorry, I won't fall for it.
Actually, he has a point. Perhaps you are misunderstanding him. You claim that Kael intentionally misquoted the OP. (This in and of itself is an accusation and infers malicious intent.) But the misquote of "to you" in place of "in a livestream" doesn't change the fact that the OP came off as an accusation of ill intent on the part of the devs. Now, the OP came back and clarified his position, so perhaps he originally had a poor choice of words, but there were many others who posted here that interpreted the OP the same way as Kael. Where is your critique of their reactions? Or are we only being critical of the CM? Kael did say that he would check further into the matter. Others here have expressed their gratitude that Kael didn't just blow this off and will update us when he has more info. Missed opportunity to connect with a customer and generate good PR? No, I think he did just that. But YMMV. 🤷🏼♀️
Kael misquoting the OP is a fact.
This is supported by the difference in the words used, the addition of all caps, the overuse of punctuation, and, you know, quotations marks. These were choices he made.
This is not an accusation, it is a statement of fact, nor does it 'infer' malicious intent. In this case an inference would be made on the part of the reader. Now I could imply that this is a Freudian Slip on your part, but that would just be me playing with language for fun and it wouldn't translate well. Indeed even now, after that explanation, it won't translate well because someone will infer that I'm taking a shot when I'm not.
I did not critique the others because they are not operating in a Customer Service capacity for Cryptic, but the Community Manager is. Having obviously read through my entire post you could easily draw this conclusion, which suggests to me that you may be on a fishing expedition. I'm not saying whether that is true or not, but if others recognize the possibility it could be a bad look for a Community Moderator.
I will, however, admit to being wrong about generating good PR and missing the opportunity to connect with a customer. I do, however, maintain that the opportunity to connect with a customer was needlessly put at risk by the misquote. Indeed if such a connection was made I'd say it was more due to the grace on the part of the OP than Kael. But, as you've indicated, YMMV.
As for Mr. jonsills and the chance that I have misinterpreted him, that is indeed a possibility, however I will not be held responsible for his choice to communicate ineffectively followed by a snarky throwing of stones.
Good Day to you Rizin Moon Of Assorted Baddness!
The fact that Kael misquoted the OP isn't in question. It's your accusation that it was intentional, therefore implying that it was malicious. And what subconscious feelings could I possibly be revealing here by a "Freudian slip?" (That's rhetorical by the way.) Perhaps I simply used the wrong word and don't have any underlying feelings about it whatsoever. Regardless, I'm not going to debate semantics or play linguistic gymnastics with you.
I understand why you didn't critique any others. My questions were rhetorical. I'd have thought as clever as you are, you'd have picked up on that. The conclusion I drew from your post was that you simply wanted to pick part what the CM said and hold his feet to the fire. No need to fish for anything. You were quite obvious. Look at me however you want, but, as you say, I am the moderator.
As such, no one's asking you to be responsible for jonsills choices or actions. Only your own. You did choose to get snarky right back at him and accuse him of trolling. That's on you, not him. So, I'll ask both of you to tone it down. Thank you.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
1) I appreciate OP's apology for calling Jeremy and I liars. Be careful with the wording ya'll use, please.
2) Getting an answer to a question may take any amount of time, and may or may not be delivered in any kind of schedule that anyone deems "acceptable." I know that people here are super excited about this idea, but that doesn't mean everyone on the dev team is going to be able to hop to immediately.
3) We had a conversation about this internally. The command exists, but as Jeremy and I both suspected, would need to be modified heavily in order to do what we all would like. There were some concerns that players would want the command to modify *all* instances of a type of weapon (so that if you changed your disruptors to pink, you would see other players' disruptors as pink also), but they understand now that's not what people are asking for. It's a possibility as something we might do, someday, but there are other, larger issues like the VFX spam issue that are taking higher priority.
"A misquote"? Changing ""TO YOU" to "in a livestream" makes it less of an accusation of outright lying?
Do you even listen to yourself?
It's incredible how different that is from what I actually wrote.
And an obvious attempt to troll, to boot!
Sorry, I won't fall for it.
Actually, he has a point. Perhaps you are misunderstanding him. You claim that Kael intentionally misquoted the OP. (This in and of itself is an accusation and infers malicious intent.) But the misquote of "to you" in place of "in a livestream" doesn't change the fact that the OP came off as an accusation of ill intent on the part of the devs. Now, the OP came back and clarified his position, so perhaps he originally had a poor choice of words, but there were many others who posted here that interpreted the OP the same way as Kael. Where is your critique of their reactions? Or are we only being critical of the CM? Kael did say that he would check further into the matter. Others here have expressed their gratitude that Kael didn't just blow this off and will update us when he has more info. Missed opportunity to connect with a customer and generate good PR? No, I think he did just that. But YMMV. 🤷🏼♀️
Kael misquoting the OP is a fact.
This is supported by the difference in the words used, the addition of all caps, the overuse of punctuation, and, you know, quotations marks. These were choices he made.
This is not an accusation, it is a statement of fact, nor does it 'infer' malicious intent. In this case an inference would be made on the part of the reader. Now I could imply that this is a Freudian Slip on your part, but that would just be me playing with language for fun and it wouldn't translate well. Indeed even now, after that explanation, it won't translate well because someone will infer that I'm taking a shot when I'm not.
I did not critique the others because they are not operating in a Customer Service capacity for Cryptic, but the Community Manager is. Having obviously read through my entire post you could easily draw this conclusion, which suggests to me that you may be on a fishing expedition. I'm not saying whether that is true or not, but if others recognize the possibility it could be a bad look for a Community Moderator.
I will, however, admit to being wrong about generating good PR and missing the opportunity to connect with a customer. I do, however, maintain that the opportunity to connect with a customer was needlessly put at risk by the misquote. Indeed if such a connection was made I'd say it was more due to the grace on the part of the OP than Kael. But, as you've indicated, YMMV.
As for Mr. jonsills and the chance that I have misinterpreted him, that is indeed a possibility, however I will not be held responsible for his choice to communicate ineffectively followed by a snarky throwing of stones.
Good Day to you Rizin Moon Of Assorted Baddness!
The fact that Kael misquoted the OP isn't in question. It's your accusation that it was intentional, therefore implying that it was malicious. And what subconscious feelings could I possibly be revealing here by a "Freudian slip?" (That's rhetorical by the way.) Perhaps I simply used the wrong word and don't have any underlying feelings about it whatsoever. Regardless, I'm not going to debate semantics or play linguistic gymnastics with you.
I understand why you didn't critique any others. My questions were rhetorical. I'd have thought as clever as you are, you'd have picked up on that. The conclusion I drew from your post was that you simply wanted to pick part what the CM said and hold his feet to the fire. No need to fish for anything. You were quite obvious. Look at me however you want, but, as you say, I am the moderator.
As such, no one's asking you to be responsible for jonsills choices or actions. Only your own. You did choose to get snarky right back at him and accuse him of trolling. That's on you, not him. So, I'll ask both of you to tone it down. Thank you.
I won't take your bait, either.
I will, however retain my hearty, joyous humor and a spirit of good-fellowship.
I imagine the weapon visuals are tricky to do for a number of reasons.
Two of which could be their connection to Hardpoints (in this case where the beams, Cannon fire or torps emit/launch from), multiple weapon slots (each with their own visual effects, and more.
Two ideas for how weapon visual mods could work (UI-wise):
1. Have one visual slot for beams, one for cannons, one for torps. You may equip a weapon with the visual type you desire for one or more here. This will make people have to get 1 more of each so that pushes the economy forward a tiny bit.
[Code-wise perhaps When the game checks for what's equipped, and it looks to each normal slot insert a redirect so that it checks only the visual slot (if active). Granted it's not that simple, but it's a possible direction.]
2. Each time a weapon is equipped on a character's ship, it's visual is logged and unlocked for that character. A drop down menu is made available for each weapon class (B/C/T). The player can select one available option for each category. This will cater to the gatcha factor of having people need to collect the different types to display them.
2a. The player has to research each new type by completing a DOff assignment and consuming one of the weapons with the desired visual. Fail consumes the item. Successful result consumes the item. Breakthrough returns it with a bit of a TXP boost.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
3) We had a conversation about this internally. The command exists, but as Jeremy and I both suspected, would need to be modified heavily in order to do what we all would like. There were some concerns that players would want the command to modify *all* instances of a type of weapon (so that if you changed your disruptors to pink, you would see other players' disruptors as pink also), but they understand now that's not what people are asking for. It's a possibility as something we might do, someday, but there are other, larger issues like the VFX spam issue that are taking higher priority.
The VFX spam is a higher priority and the dev team also assumed what the community wanted instead of just asking hey what exactly do they mean do they mean all weapons appear that way or like i said. Phaser choices being what color the phaser is and effects that have been over the years of star trek I can understand if Disruptors shouldn't appear as phasers that wouldn't make sense.
Also, the DEV team making an assumption of what the community is asking for then saying it can be done on that assumption instead of asking the community also caused a lot of this also. Are there things like the VFX issues going on that need fixing absolutely and I as a player get that but being assumed what i want when no asked doesn't help anything either. AT the same time that is what Tribble and Redshirts is for also, to test these ideas before release and announcing hey here is a test guys, please let us know what you think.
C'mon, man. It wasn't an assumption, it was a misunderstanding about what was being asked for. Two different things. The request was clarified and they have a better understanding of what's being asked for now. But even if it had been an assumption, this community makes assumptions about the devs all the time, and seemingly with the worst possible take. Even you, right here, are making assumptions. So, how about we just don't make any assumptions, ok?
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
3) We had a conversation about this internally. The command exists, but as Jeremy and I both suspected, would need to be modified heavily in order to do what we all would like. There were some concerns that players would want the command to modify *all* instances of a type of weapon (so that if you changed your disruptors to pink, you would see other players' disruptors as pink also), but they understand now that's not what people are asking for. It's a possibility as something we might do, someday, but there are other, larger issues like the VFX spam issue that are taking higher priority.
The VFX spam is a higher priority and the dev team also assumed what the community wanted instead of just asking hey what exactly do they mean do they mean all weapons appear that way or like i said. Phaser choices being what color the phaser is and effects that have been over the years of star trek I can understand if Disruptors shouldn't appear as phasers that wouldn't make sense.
Also, the DEV team making an assumption of what the community is asking for then saying it can be done on that assumption instead of asking the community also caused a lot of this also. Are there things like the VFX issues going on that need fixing absolutely and I as a player get that but being assumed what i want when no asked doesn't help anything either. AT the same time that is what Tribble and Redshirts is for also, to test these ideas before release and announcing hey here is a test guys, please let us know what you think.
C'mon, man. It wasn't an assumption, it was a misunderstanding about what was being asked for. Two different things. The request was clarified and they have a better understanding of what's being asked for now. But even if it had been an assumption, this community makes assumptions about the devs all the time, and seemingly with the worst possible take. Even you, right here, are making assumptions. So, how about we just don't make any assumptions, ok?
I wasn't making an assumption at all, but you can say and take what you want from it and so can the community itself. To me i wasn't making an assumption at all actually stating something that it can be. I also wasn't the one that said it couldn't be done under what they thought the community wanted, generally a misunderstanding happens when you ask a question given an answer and misunderstand the meaning of the answer. An assumption is assuming what a group or single person wants, the dev team said no different color weapons fire itself assuming the community wanted the way they thought. At no point was is asked what the community meant, till it was brought up as a no, then clarification happened, so yes, the dev team itself did assume on that point and that is all. Was it every single one of theme, no, most likely not, but one spoke for all and said no on the assumption that the community wanted the way they thought instead of asking. That came after fact, then was clarified then was well we can see but we have more important things to deal with like the VFX issue ok that is understandable. But to leap to a conclusion with pout asking what one's means is an assumption, not a misunderstanding.
No am I trying to break rules spread rumors and falsehoods no I am looking at what was said in the stream and watching what happens that simple.
Dude, I'm not going to debate semantics with you. Clearly there's a communication issue. And FYI, disagreement isn't trolling.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Well, since Kael did get back to us with an answer, and this thread isn't really doing anything else other than be a source of disagreement, we'll shut this down. Thank you for your participation. /Thread
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Comments
Honestly the game was in rough shape at launch, so CBS saying no was probably a blessing for them since it was one less thing to even consider working on. It's also not something they could've actually "negotiated", CBS had the final say and the people making those decisions probably weren't the same people Cryptic is dealing with now. The most Cryptic could have done at the time if they really wanted it as an option would've been to give CBS examples from canon (Best of Both Worlds would've been perfect) to try and convince them to change their mind, and maybe they did we don't know. But like I said the game was in rough shape, and according to Bort the devs back then weren't sure how to resolve the issue of other powers changing color too, so IMO it's easy to see why they may not have pressed the issue.
Not everything the devs add to the game gets monetized, for a recent example just look at the splitting of EV suits and armor into two different gear slots.
I'm willing to accept that it's entirely rational that that those representing a a game development team on a live stream/podcast won't have every answer to every possible question.
It's also rational to accept that those same representatives will not necessarily have a working knowledge of those events and conditions that took place before they were associated with the game in question.
I'm also willing to give the benefit of the doubt that someone might make a poor choice in using the word, "lie," especially if a set of circumstances comes off as such, in voicing a concern over the issue at hand.
Indeed the very title of the thread asks to readers to judge for themselves; "LIES IN THE LIVESTREAM? MISINFORMATION? WHAT IS YOUR TAKE?"
Does that mean that the OP didn't bring the fire? No.
Then this happened...
The OP wrote:
"I suppose the question is really this: Should they be allowed to lie in a livestream? Should they be allowed to use false information?"
Then our Community Manager quoted the OP like this:
"But *man* is it such a blatant, unfair leap to go from what actually happened - Jeremy and I giving the answer we had, being given new info, and following up on it *live on the air* - to a thread saying, "SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO LIE TO YOU?!?!?!"
Why the intentional misquote with the added emotionalism that CAPS LOCK and prolific punctuation suggests?
Why throw gasoline on this particular fire? Just to be clear in the event that i get misquoted, I'M NOT SHOUTING!!11!!11One!!1Uno!!
Levity aside, I'm asking a sincere question. This was a chance for a Win. As an opportunity to connect with a customer who might have a misunderstanding and translating that contact into good vibes which often results in repeat business, many times when the customer doesn't get what they want, even, and an opportunity to generate good PR publicly for the game and the team behind it.
Why would anyone throw that opportunity away?
Do you even listen to yourself?
It's incredible how different that is from what I actually wrote.
And an obvious attempt to troll, to boot!
Sorry, I won't fall for it.
Actually, he has a point. Perhaps you are misunderstanding him. You claim that Kael intentionally misquoted the OP. (This in and of itself is an accusation and infers malicious intent.) But the misquote of "to you" in place of "in a livestream" doesn't change the fact that the OP came off as an accusation of ill intent on the part of the devs. Now, the OP came back and clarified his position, so perhaps he originally had a poor choice of words, but there were many others who posted here that interpreted the OP the same way as Kael. Where is your critique of their reactions? Or are we only being critical of the CM? Kael did say that he would check further into the matter. Others here have expressed their gratitude that Kael didn't just blow this off and will update us when he has more info. Missed opportunity to connect with a customer and generate good PR? No, I think he did just that. But YMMV. 🤷🏼♀️
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
Kael misquoting the OP is a fact.
This is supported by the difference in the words used, the addition of all caps, the overuse of punctuation, and, you know, quotations marks. These were choices he made.
This is not an accusation, it is a statement of fact, nor does it 'infer' malicious intent. In this case an inference would be made on the part of the reader. Now I could imply that this is a Freudian Slip on your part, but that would just be me playing with language for fun and it wouldn't translate well. Indeed even now, after that explanation, it won't translate well because someone will infer that I'm taking a shot when I'm not.
I did not critique the others because they are not operating in a Customer Service capacity for Cryptic, but the Community Manager is. Having obviously read through my entire post you could easily draw this conclusion, which suggests to me that you may be on a fishing expedition. I'm not saying whether that is true or not, but if others recognize the possibility it could be a bad look for a Community Moderator.
I will, however, admit to being wrong about generating good PR and missing the opportunity to connect with a customer. I do, however, maintain that the opportunity to connect with a customer was needlessly put at risk by the misquote. Indeed if such a connection was made I'd say it was more due to the grace on the part of the OP than Kael. But, as you've indicated, YMMV.
As for Mr. jonsills and the chance that I have misinterpreted him, that is indeed a possibility, however I will not be held responsible for his choice to communicate ineffectively followed by a snarky throwing of stones.
Good Day to you Rizin Moon Of Assorted Baddness!
Its possible he hasn't gotten an answer yet because of how things are going in the office.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Also, if he asked on 8/12 that was Friday. It's only Tuesday and I'd hope the devs are not working weekends. Expecting the dev involved to drop whatever they were working on to dig through the code isn't reasonable. Especially if they need to run any tests to see the behavior now vs. 12+ years ago.
The fact that Kael misquoted the OP isn't in question. It's your accusation that it was intentional, therefore implying that it was malicious. And what subconscious feelings could I possibly be revealing here by a "Freudian slip?" (That's rhetorical by the way.) Perhaps I simply used the wrong word and don't have any underlying feelings about it whatsoever. Regardless, I'm not going to debate semantics or play linguistic gymnastics with you.
I understand why you didn't critique any others. My questions were rhetorical. I'd have thought as clever as you are, you'd have picked up on that. The conclusion I drew from your post was that you simply wanted to pick part what the CM said and hold his feet to the fire. No need to fish for anything. You were quite obvious. Look at me however you want, but, as you say, I am the moderator.
As such, no one's asking you to be responsible for jonsills choices or actions. Only your own. You did choose to get snarky right back at him and accuse him of trolling. That's on you, not him. So, I'll ask both of you to tone it down. Thank you.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
1) I appreciate OP's apology for calling Jeremy and I liars. Be careful with the wording ya'll use, please.
2) Getting an answer to a question may take any amount of time, and may or may not be delivered in any kind of schedule that anyone deems "acceptable." I know that people here are super excited about this idea, but that doesn't mean everyone on the dev team is going to be able to hop to immediately.
3) We had a conversation about this internally. The command exists, but as Jeremy and I both suspected, would need to be modified heavily in order to do what we all would like. There were some concerns that players would want the command to modify *all* instances of a type of weapon (so that if you changed your disruptors to pink, you would see other players' disruptors as pink also), but they understand now that's not what people are asking for. It's a possibility as something we might do, someday, but there are other, larger issues like the VFX spam issue that are taking higher priority.
I won't take your bait, either.
I will, however retain my hearty, joyous humor and a spirit of good-fellowship.
Good evening RizinBadd McMoonfellow!
Two of which could be their connection to Hardpoints (in this case where the beams, Cannon fire or torps emit/launch from), multiple weapon slots (each with their own visual effects, and more.
Two ideas for how weapon visual mods could work (UI-wise):
1. Have one visual slot for beams, one for cannons, one for torps. You may equip a weapon with the visual type you desire for one or more here. This will make people have to get 1 more of each so that pushes the economy forward a tiny bit.
[Code-wise perhaps When the game checks for what's equipped, and it looks to each normal slot insert a redirect so that it checks only the visual slot (if active). Granted it's not that simple, but it's a possible direction.]
2. Each time a weapon is equipped on a character's ship, it's visual is logged and unlocked for that character. A drop down menu is made available for each weapon class (B/C/T). The player can select one available option for each category.
This will cater to the gatcha factor of having people need to collect the different types to display them.
2a. The player has to research each new type by completing a DOff assignment and consuming one of the weapons with the desired visual. Fail consumes the item. Successful result consumes the item. Breakthrough returns it with a bit of a TXP boost.
Just some thoughts.
Whoa, whoa, whoa there, buddy. I'm not baiting you. I'm moderating you. Calm yourself.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
C'mon, man. It wasn't an assumption, it was a misunderstanding about what was being asked for. Two different things. The request was clarified and they have a better understanding of what's being asked for now. But even if it had been an assumption, this community makes assumptions about the devs all the time, and seemingly with the worst possible take. Even you, right here, are making assumptions. So, how about we just don't make any assumptions, ok?
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
Dude, I'm not going to debate semantics with you. Clearly there's a communication issue. And FYI, disagreement isn't trolling.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch