CrazyEyes

I used to play Sandbox to make the days longer but the time that in-game events took seemed to be scaled wrong (or didn't account for the difference in game speed). I would go from very full to no hunger moodle in under ten minutes, for example. Food also didn't seem to cook right; I could stand at a stove for hours and never see my salmon finish. I mostly stick to Survival now. Difficulty as intended, I can provide the most relevant discussion and feedback, and I'm finding less and less that I'd want to change sandbox options anyway. Fewer zombies? I'm not a baby. More zombies? I'm not stupid. More loot? I prefer to scavenge and feel elated when I come across an axe, not trip over three on my way to the kitchen. Even the day/night cycle doesn't feel as short anymore. I could see myself messing with Sandbox in the future if I wanted to play a certain way (I still remember the 28 Days Later run ) but for now I'm sticking with survival.

Modding is always an option, but I'm sure they have plans to give us ways to make our food last longer. I'd like to see additions that let us preserve food at higher cooking skills. Turning fruit/berries into jam would be one good example. I don't think it should be too easy to convert food into a non-perishable state. You'd need a high cooking skill, for example, and a decent amount of ingredients (cooking pot, lots of sugar, fruit, cans/jars, fire, etc.). That way we can't just convert 100% of our crops into preserves and end up with several years' worth of jam. Having a system like this would be nice because it would make a failed harvest a lot less catastrophic than if all our food went bad and we starved to death waiting for our crops to grow. A bit of preserved food combined with extra looting and the prepared survivor would be able to make it through.

I just see this as a way to legitimize what's already happening anyway. I already share Steam games with my sister by logging in on her computer, downloading the game, then switching to offline mode and staying that way. She doesn't play games online so she doesn't care about not having an account. I could theoretically do this with as many people as I wanted as long as I trusted them with my account and password. This also made me think of a hypothetical scenario where a group of friends could collectively own a single account through which they bought all their single-player games. They'd coordinate download times and then switch to offline mode to play as much as they wanted. If one player bought a new game everyone in the group would benefit. I don't know if this is bannable (or if anyone at Valve would be able to tell you're doing this without reason to check) but it seems possible, at least. On the other hand, if Valve comes up with a legitimate channel for doing this they can at least control how and when people play shared games. You'll be limited to the number of people you can share with and they can't play your games as the same time you are. Further, integrating the game and its progression to the borrower's Steam account gives them more incentive to buy the game. They won't lose their progress, for one. Second, having access to your Steam friends while playing means you can meet and make friends with people while playing a shared multiplayer game. if you get booted off a single-player game because the owner started playing you can just pick it up later, but if I know that my Payday crew is going to have to go on without me I'll probably be a lot more tempted to buy the game. Plus you can share your account without giving up your password or risking a ban or any of the other risks outlined in this thread. Ultimately I don't think this is going to change how I share games around the house. It'll be nice to give internet friends access to my library, though, especially if I've got a game I really want them to try. It'd be nice to only be restricted to not playing the same game at the same time instead of any game. Hopefully we'll see that in the future, but even if not I think this is a great step forward for us Steam gamers.

That hubble telescope is pretty awesome. I should get something like that to put on my next mission so I can have a camera pointed at the planet I'm orbiting. Jool Sattelite Probe

It may not be the most practical design but I'm impressed you got that in the air. If you added more intakes you could probably take that thing into the upper atmosphere.

if you had a saved credit card in your account it's not unfeasible that they'd buy a shitload of games on your card and then just gift them all to themselves or some other throwaway account. I'd check your transaction history like harakka said. If anything looks bad you can try contacting steam support; you should be able to prove you're the account holder by verifying your billing info. Good luck. My my friend got his account hacked once and someone used it to aimbot in TF2. The account got VAC banned and Valve wouldn't revoke it for some reason, making many of his games worthless.

Is it me or are the zombies not very attracted to his gunshots? He seems to have attracted a few walkers with his semi-automatic fire but the rest are just walking on by... Also talk about pre-alpha - at 3:09 zombies literally just drop out of the sky in full view of the player. From what they're showing in the video it looks like a PZ clone that fails to capture what PZ is about. They say it's "not going to be another zombie game" but their footage shows nothing but them running around shooting zombies. There's nothing else in the game yet. I'll have to reserve judgement for when (if ever) they add more gameplay. The lighting engine looks pretty but they don't get credit for that.

This thread is making me want to pick up KSP again. I never did get that probe in orbit around Jool....

It's.... it's beautiful I have no words. A single tear rolls down my cheek only to be cast into the wind by the shockwave rushing past.

I sarted a new game, spawned in a house with some bleach and chugged it to see what happens. Spoiler alert:

I've been playing with the melee combat for a bit and my initial reaction is that it's going to be a lot more intuitive. I've noticed I don't have to click on zombies to strike them anymore but as long as they're in range when I swing they'll get hit. If that's not a new thing I'll feel silly, but if it is that's great. It makes a lot more sense than missing because I didn't click in the right spot even though I saw the swing connect. Also, I can't charge my swings anymore. I think damage is more closley tied to your endurance now; if you swing with no exhaustion you are at full strength but your strikes get weaker as you tire out.

Well, that won't be quite as good an idea once fire is back in the game. According to the wiki right now all the cooking skill does is reduce the likliehood of burning items. Apparently most things take almost as long to burn as they do to cook, so it seems unlikely this would happen unless you're really not paying attention.

You'd be toying with some dangerous forces. There's a reason you have to balance your breakfast, you know. If you get the math wrong the results would be catastrophic. Also waffles.

I can usually tell when I'm playing a game too much when my dreams start to all be about that game. Like, literally just playing the game, not taking part in it or whatever. Other than that I don't dream often and I rarely remember more than a vauge idea of the dream after I wake up. Sometimes it's just the memory that I was dreaming and not what it was about. I remember I used to dream a lot more vividly as a kid. I don't remember this particular story but my mom swears by it, so here goes. At some point when I was a young boy my parents were asking me about my dreams, and they asked me if I had any nightmares. I said no, and they thought that was suprising, so they pressed me about it. Eventually they asked me if I had ever had a bad dream at all, and I told them about one. Apparently (and I don't remember this) I had this dream where the family dog - a big black dog - was looking at me through my window at night. Chewing glass with bloody teeth and growling at me. My mom said she almost had nightmares after that. Apparently child-me didn't even register it as scary.

I'll put this here for reference because it's now behind several fabulous walls of text. The numbers aren't important, they're arbitrary figures meant to ilustrate a point. It's an oversimplified version of this argument: And it's not about the publisher's hurt feelings, it's about the publisher having a way to measure how many more people were interested in the game - interested enough to illegally download the full version, not click a trailer or try a demo - above and beyond the actual sales figures. That appears to be a failure to sell on the part of the game and makes it look like a bad investment. I'll admit that the argument is largely based on speculation but that doesn't make it necessarily unsound. If you can find flaw in my reasoning that would be another matter, but right now you seem to arguing that what I think can't be true because that's what you think. Maybe it's the language barrier. If piracy didn't exist, I can see two very basic groups of people emerging from pirate culture: 1) Those who have little interest in the game or were otherwise never going to buy it - for whatever the reason, poverty or apathy - but pirated because it was free and convienent. 2) Those who are interested in the game, want to play it and can afford it but pirated because it was free and convienent. If piracy weren't an option, the people in group 1 don't buy the game because they were never going to anyway. However, the people in group 2 are now faced with a choice: pay for the game or don't play it. Given this choice, it's reasonable to assume that at least some of them will opt to take a chance with their money and buy the game. It's certainly more reasonable than assuming they will all decide "oh well, if it's not free I don't want it" and give up. They may end up unhappy with what they got - I've certainly felt burned in the past - but they paid for it regardless. Again, this argument is somewhat speculative. In this case, however, we can look at buying trends in an era before the advent of internet piracy. This fulfils the conditions of your example - piracy didn't exist - and shows that people are indeed willing to part with their money based on a chance that a game might be good.

It could work, but it seems messy to give a penalty for reasons that are only loosely tied to realism when you could add a bonus for reasons that are. I also don't think there's enough of an in-game reason to distinguish food that's been baked and fried outside of the container you'd need to make the thing you're making. I prefer Rathlord's idea of food getting a bonus if it's cooked in the right container. I also like the implication that we could mix recipies as normal but put them in a wrong container, like a caserrole in a cooking pot if you have no baking trays. You could cook the food this way, but you wouldn't get the bonus without cooking the food in the correct container. The frying pan could be implemented as one of the ways to properly cook a handful of recipies. I do also like the ideas for visual and auditory representations of cooking in-game. Hearing a faint sizzle while my food is cooking would be nice. It'd be cool to have it change subtly when the food is cooked. Seeing smoke from burned food before a fire breaks out would also be very helpful.

If you do, I wouldn't use the medium landing legs shown on the Eve probe. They have a tendency to glitch out when the physics loads, and that probe had to be written off as a loss when the legs glitching out flipped the probe over and smashed the solar panels.

Comparing trailer views to movie ticket sales isn't the same as comparing pirated games to purchased games. Games have trailers too and I'm sure developers don't count the views those get as a direct indication of sale figures either. It's more like comparing the number of movie tickets bought to the number of people that snuck in (if that could be measured somehow). I don't know where you got 1050 either, I'll assume it's a typo and you mean the 150 people in Rathlord's example who felt dissatisfied with their purchase of the game. It wasn't meant to be a solid figure, only an arbitrary number to illustate that if piracy is not an option, more people overall purchase the game. This isn't specualtion - people (myself included) did this when living in an era when piracy wasn't an option. Some of them were dissatisfied with their purchase but it didn't matter because the publisher already had their money. And no, you couldn't just return a used game, at least not where I live. If the game was even worthy of being taken off your hands you'd get a pilthy amount of store credit that isn't coming out of the publisher's pocket. The idea of a returned video game was almost as foreign then as it is today. I suppose you could sell a suck-ass game to your friends for enough money to recoup your loss... if you didn't want your friends to like you anymore.

Mission to Duna This is basically the same rocket redone with KW Rocketry parts (and MechJeb 2). It's about the same size as the stock rocket overall but the individual parts are much larger. They even scale accurately so they don't provide an unfair amount of fuel or power for their weight and size. This helps keep the part count down and makes your rocket look a lot cleaner. Except that horrible spiderweb of struts and fuel lines in the middle. The thing was designed to fly with a very complicated series of stages that relied on engines drawing fuel from specific tanks and engines higher up on the rocket fring as lower sections dropped off... yeah. The KW Rocketry lander on the surface of Duna. I went with much smaller solar panels on this one. The fuel tanks with landing struts attatched are already empty, so those detach as soon as I lift off. The lower engine and tank are designed to get me into (or nearly into) orbit around Duna. That stage detaches, revealing a single atomic engine connected to a fuel tank. At this point my craft is so small that this is more than capable of getting me home. Re-entry burn looks so cool. This is from the stock version of the ship. We've dumped the rear of the landing pod into the ocean and the drogue chute has been deployed. And I swear I didn't intend for this to happen, but: Parachutes deployed! You may now return to a seated upright position. Splashdown.

I love this game. Taken during my first orbit. Spaceplanes Landing a probe on Eve Actual Spoilers Mission to Duna in the next post because I hit the image limit. They're behind spoiler tags so I figure they're not too obtrusive, but let me know if I actually shouldn't be linking this many images.

Any time a game is pirated it hurts the game developer because - regardless of whether the pirate goes back and purchses the game - that pirated copy still looks like a missed sale to the publisher. Say 500 people buy a game and 500 people pirate it. Then 250 of the pirates decide they like the game and buy it. The publisher has sold 750 copies, but because 500 pirated copies were downloaded it looks like there were 500 players who didn't buy the game and it could have made up to 1250 sales. The very thing that keeps piracy so safe - anonyminity - prevents a publisher from knowing how many downloads were never paid for and how many are pirates-turned-cutsomers. They have to assume it's all failure to sell, and that could make the game they're publishing look like a bad investment. Even a scenario where a pirate downloads a game to try it, likes it and buys it isn't as harmless as you think. Your agrument for why a game's demo is misleading could be applied to stealing a car instead of taking it for a test drive. Just sayin'.

You guys should check out Scott Manley on youtube, he's got some great KSP videos of him doing flights to the Mun and showing off other cool aspects of the game. It's also a good way to learn the basics if you're having trouble getting off the launch pad. Also, if one wishes to Kerbal there's a free demo here: https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/demo.php I have literally hundreds of screenshots of this game. I'll try and grab some more interesting ones.

You're right. I'm wrong that we can't know. You proved that much. I didn't say it had no merit, I said I'd rather debate less subjective things. If I implied that it was invalid to our discussion that was entirely by mistake. I mean, how could I have followed a game like PZ for so long and not think that TIS were emotionally harmed by its piracy? I'd look pretty foolish. I was trying to be careful not to make that assertation in my posts but I guess my words got away from me. I apologize for the drama i stirred up in this thread; I honestly wasn't trying to. I have a tendency to get angry when I think I'm being ignored or repeatedly misunderstood and maybe I let that get the better of me. I'd be perfectly willing to discuss the effects of piracy, in any sense of the word, if that's where the thread is moving.

The forum won't let me use this many quote boxes so here are some italics instead. I didn't identify any condescension in his post. You might want to point out which part made you felt condescended to. "Can you define how much rape hurts someone mentally? No? That doesn't make it any less true." Maybe I simply felt condescended to. I defined the word "disingenuous" because - and yes, I did have to look it up, which is partly why I put it there - by using it you were accusing me of deliberately playing dumb so I wouldn't have to respond to an argument. I wanted to make sure we both understood that. Once again, I know what his point was. More on that later. But if we're not talking about rape, why did he need to make such a comparison? If I remove those three sentences from his argument it's exactly the same without making some flawed analogy. At the risk of breaching Goodwin's Law, using rape to make an example in a discussion is like using Hitler and the Nazis. It's not fair and there are plenty of better ways to make a point - as Rathlord himself proved with the rest of his post. No, using rape as an example does not disqualify his argument. It just bothered me that he took that paragraph out of context, interpreted it, and then responded. I never made the claims he thought I made. ...You're acknowledging yourself - right in this very post which you're trying to refute me - the veracity of my claim. By your own statement, emotional hurt does not constitute "facts". ... Also, once again your declaration here proves that the horror of rape itself in the example given by Rathlord is not really the issue here - The real issue is that you're rejecting potential emotional damages as a consideration offhand, without really getting around to justifying why. So here, now - Would you explain why emotional damages, which are considered very real and due consideration in real - life courts of law, are being written off by yourself as "non - facts"? You're reading between the lines again. I didn't say emotional losses aren't real - I said they're subjective. I made an unfortunate implication that emotional loss wasn't a fact because I was in the flurry of defending myself from everyone who misconstrued my posts, but that wasn't my point. It's what happens when you write an argument in less than an hour. When I said "facts" I meant things that could be more easily measured: profit margins, piracy statistics, the effectiveness of anti-piracy measures taken by publishers and developers or the effects of piracy on the video games market as a whole (to give a few examples). I neither consider emotional loss "not real" somehow nor do I reject it as a consideration - but I do believe it's not as easily quantifiable. As far as my interpretation goes, Rathlord wasn't making a comparison of the "devastating emotional trauma of rape." He was saying that pain and mental anguish is a subjective; that it emotional turmoil vary drastically between each individual. This is exactly my point. It was the point of the paragraph he quoted. That's what's annoying me about this whole conversation. So far almost everyone who's responded to me is misinterpreting or misreading my arguments somehow. I try to explain myself and I'm either ignored or misinterpreted again and a new argument starts. If anyone is confused, ignore everything I have written in this and any posts prior to this line. Do we really want to get into a discussion about how much piracy hurts game developers' feelings? We totally can. I just think it'd end in arguing in circles forever without drawing any conclusions we didn't already know.

Do what you want cause a pirate is free - you are a pirate! Ahhh, that takes me back.