This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mattie G Indahouse
Pages: 1 ... 239240241 242243 ... 302
7201
« on: January 21, 2015, 06:23:58 PM »
All those fanboys in #gaming that said it would never happen.
who was that guy who defended the shit out of this game? And that Vampire Nox guy who admitted to playing like months worth of elder scrolls
I can't remember all their names. I remember Nox was big on it tho. The hype before and after launch was hilarious.
Shit who was that guy who defended it at every mention? Te one who claimed we didn't know how MMOs worked.
Astraeos or something like that. Only threads I could find. You mention him in one. http://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/64522047
http://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/64563452
http://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/64425629
Tha'ts the guy. Like Tyger said, he fucking hated me.
I know Nox hates me cuz I made fun of him for liking destiny and told him he had shit taste in games and no life for how much elder scrolls he's played
Nox is a retard anyway
Remember all the bashing he did for the PS4? In the end he ended up getting one. Also before the systems came out he was in some defense group for the Xbone. I think it was called "Xbox One defense force.'
7202
« on: January 21, 2015, 06:22:10 PM »
Damn it people stop being smart asses.
7203
« on: January 21, 2015, 06:21:50 PM »
All those fanboys in #gaming that said it would never happen.
who was that guy who defended the shit out of this game? And that Vampire Nox guy who admitted to playing like months worth of elder scrolls
I remember him. No matter what you said about it he always had some fanboy comeback. He actually defended the fee as well. For VN he said he had over 1000 hours in Skyrim. He defended that game as well. What's funny is that he called the PS4 the P4G or something like that and he ended up getting one.
he needed that destiny exclusive content
He's like obsessed with destiny now
Nox is?
yes
Does he even post anymore?
http://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/94111764/0/0
7204
« on: January 21, 2015, 06:16:56 PM »
Gonna be shit...
So then how do games like Battlefield manage to maintain and update it's online without subscription fees?
7205
« on: January 21, 2015, 06:12:08 PM »
All those fanboys in #gaming that said it would never happen.
who was that guy who defended the shit out of this game? And that Vampire Nox guy who admitted to playing like months worth of elder scrolls
I remember him. No matter what you said about it he always had some fanboy comeback. He actually defended the fee as well. For VN he said he had over 1000 hours in Skyrim. He defended that game as well. What's funny is that he called the PS4 the P4G or something like that and he ended up getting one.
7206
« on: January 21, 2015, 06:07:45 PM »
So lets say he went through a wormhole that sent perfect clones of him back to the Jedi Civil War, Darth Bane era and The Old Republic era. To prevent age from being a factor each clone is in his prime, but the force abilities and lightsaber techniques remain the same. So how would he do against the Jedi and Sith? In his era he's considered one of the best swordsmen in the Jedi Order in his era so I'm wondering how he would do in other eras.
To me he would do OK, but I think he would be at the same level of a Jedi Knight and the Sith equal at most above average. The reason why I'm saying that is because his era they are at peace. There's no real Sith threat that he has to worry about fighting. In those eras on the other hand there were actual force users with lightsabers you risk the chance of fighting which also had wars. Sure Windu's techniques are good, but he still wasn't training to use them on a real threat. Over the years of peace that's going to affect the training being passed down from one to another. When he goes up against a master he's going to get raped because they were trained during an era of war so they have to be strong.
7207
« on: January 21, 2015, 06:05:03 PM »
It was bound to happen with the game coming to the Xbone and PS4. If it kept that fee it would have flopped big time on them. You're not going to have that many people who are paying for PSN or Live that will be paying that fee. It's bullshit that even though you're paying a fee to play your games online this game just happens to be an online game it doesn't cover. What's even more bullshit is that it cost more as well. Hell a fee for a yer cost more than Live and PSN combined. For PC players you're not going to be seeing all that many paying these fees as well. Most people have bills to pay and other fees each month. A fee for a game each month is a waste of money compared to the other fees.
Also it's bullshit to begin with. In order for me to get this game I have to buy it and in order to play it I have to pay its fee. I shouldn't have to be paying a fee to play this game online when I already bought it. It should either be a free download with a monthly fee. Or I have to buy the game and the online is free like Battlefield or another game.
7208
« on: January 21, 2015, 05:53:02 PM »
Just curious. Would you guys be okay with 4 player splitscreen if it meant having shit-tier framerate and graphics when you do so?
This has always been the case with 4 player split screen
I don't recall this with Halo CE - 3, unless my memories are clouded.
I don't know about the other two but I know with CE it stayed the same. The frame rate might have dropped but the graphics were the same. I can see with the newer games doing it simply because of better graphics and more things to render. Halo 4 was already pushing the 360 due to the weapons having a shorter disappearing time.
>MFW people still believe the weapons disappearing was a mechanical necessity and not an intenional game design decision
So what reason did they have for the weapons disappearing that fast?
7209
« on: January 21, 2015, 05:51:38 PM »
I don't think you understand bisexuality.
He might just see it the way I used to.
Instead of Bisexuality (the preference of both genders), they might see it as flip-flopping between straight and gay.
That's how I see it. When I think of Bi I simply think of someone that's attracted to both sexes.
7210
« on: January 21, 2015, 05:48:59 PM »
wait whats with the article date
1999
Nice find OP.
Thanks. I posted the same thread on Bnet some months ago.
7211
« on: January 21, 2015, 04:35:17 PM »
Why was this moved to The Flood?
7212
« on: January 21, 2015, 07:43:01 AM »
I don't know. It's soy of covered by the other 3.
It is. Transgenders are their own group due to them referring to themselves as whatever gender they want to be. The guys are covered by the G and the girls are covered by the L. Having Bi's being their own group is pointless when they are covered from one of the two sexual oriented groups.
7213
« on: January 21, 2015, 07:26:41 AM »
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/1999/December/Pages/Navy_Poised4396.aspxSpoiler The U.S. Navy plans to spend up to $1 billion during the next two decades on unmanned aircraft that sailors and Marines will use to collect battlefield intelligence and survey potential targets from afar. A new drone currently funded in the Navy's budget will replace the 13-year-old Pioneer unmanned air vehicle (UAV), which most recently saw action in the Kosovo conflict.
Unlike Pioneer, which is a conventional fixed-wing craft, the new system will be required to take off and land vertically, like a helicopter. It is dubbed the vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) UAV. This vehicle will operate on any ship that currently is equipped to handle helicopter operations. The VTOL capability is important to the Navy and the Marine Corps because they cannot spare runway space on ships to accommodate conventional take off and landing. They also want to simplify the currently cumbersome procedures for recovering the Pioneer UAV, which demands the use of a net to catch the aircraft. "Vertical take off and landing is a requirement. But there is no requirement for lift capacity," said Stephen D. Hogan, deputy program manager for the Navy's tactical UAV program.
He told National Defense in a recent interview that several companies or industry teams submitted proposals to the Navy for a March 2000 contract award. "Information has come in and source selection has started. [But] we are not authorized to divulge the number or the [specific companies] who have come in." The ground rules given to industry mostly had to do with performance demands. "No specific air vehicle was required ... The requirement is for the system rather than the air vehicle," he added. The VTOL UAV is expected to operate primarily from destroyers and cruisers. It will provide naval gunfire support and other over-the-horizon tasks.
The VTOL UAV is one part of a Navy effort to deploy tactical, medium endurance and high-altitude endurance unmanned air vehicles. The tactical VTOL system is first in line. The other two projects have yet to receive procurement funding.
According to briefing charts Hogan presented at a conference on UAVs in Albuquerque, NM, the medium-range UAV could be fielded between 2006 and 2014. Beyond 2015, there are plans to deploy an armed UAV, dubbed uninhabited combat air vehicle (UCAV).
Currently, the plan is to buy 23 VTOL tactical systems. Each system, Hogan explained, will include "however many air vehicles it takes to do the mission."
The VTOL UAV has a six-year budget of nearly $332 million. But, according to Hogan, the cost estimates are not final. "We don't have a very good feeling for the total program cost. We assumed when we did our cost estimate that a system would be composed of four air vehicles, four payloads, two ground control stations for the Marine Corps, one ground control station for the Navy. That would amount to 12 Navy systems consisting of 48 air vehicles and 24 ground stations. The Marine Corps would get 11 systems, composed of 44 air vehicles and 22 ground stations.
"We believe the original 23 systems had an approximate cost of between $300 million to $400 million," said Hogan. But, if the Navy goes ahead with its other longer-range UAV programs, "that would put us in the $1 billion range for the total amount to be spent on Navy UAVs," he added. For the current VTOL system, "until we look at all the contractors' proposals we won't know what a system costs."
The VTOL UAV will have to fly 12-hour-long missions within a range of up to 110 nautical miles. Marine systems must be able to go ashore and also operate off an L-class amphibious ship. "That is why there is flexibility in the type of air vehicle because different vehicles have different endurance capabilities," said Hogan. "We don't want to lock in and say there is a specific number of air vehicles required."
The ground stations would be equipped with the so-called TCS architecture (tactical control system). The TCS is the technical standard that all Pentagon UAVs must comply with in order to share information and transmit data.
If the program stays on schedule, the VTOL UAV will be operational by 2004.
One of the more complicated technical issues in this program, said several experts, is the integration of the UAV with a ship's electronics and communications systems. The TCS and ground control stations will be critical in making this happen.
Hogan noted that, when it comes to shipboard integration, the UAV has to adapt to the ship. "That is one of our highest risk areas," he said. Shipboard integration generally refers to the ability of the UAV to come and go from a helicopter landing spot without interfering with the ship's normal operations. "The electromagnetic interference associated with the ship, the wind patterns that are developed as the ship moves and air flows across foils is a significant issue as you get closer to the ship, like it is with helicopters," Hogan said.
Another priority is the flexibility that the UAV offers to incorporate various payloads. Pioneer can accommodate 23 different payloads, used in missions ranging from leaflet droppers to signal intelligence collectors to chemical detection. The most commonly used payloads are electro-optic and infrared night-vision sensors. The new UAV also will have a laser designation payload. No weapons are planned for the VTOL UAV.
Rear Adm. John V. Cheveney, Navy program executive officer for cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, told the UAV conference in Albuquerque that the Navy needs "standards to govern the interfaces between sensors and the air vehicle." This cannot be achieved with Pioneer.
Pioneer has been in service since 1986. It has provided useful capabilities, said Hogan, but its "inherent problem is that it requires an enormous amount of additional support, such as a net ... We have to modify specific ships to be able to put up the barricade that catches Pioneer."
Under the VTOL UAV concept, he explained, "there is little or no ancillary support equipment required to launch and recover the air vehicle. It can go on all air-capable ships. Pioneer can only go on those ships that have undergone extensive modifications."
Pioneer's other big problem is that it's a fixed-wing aircraft. "It can't land and take off vertically, which is what the Navy has required for quite a while," Hogan said.
Ship builders and developers are watching the VTOL UAV program closely because whichever vehicle is picked by the Navy is likely to be deployed on a significant number of current and future vessels. Aircraft carrier designer Richard W. Johnson, who works at Newport News Shipbuilding, in Virginia, is one of those observers. As a former carrier "air boss," he knows how difficult it can be to run flight operations on a relatively small deck crowded with aircraft.
"If you have a UAV and you want it to land or take off from an aircraft carrier, you have to meet those same requirements as manned aircraft," Johnson said in an interview. Because the VTOL system will deploy on cruisers and destroyers, he explained, "its only input to the carrier may be in data retrieved from it and then relayed to the carrier battle group commander."
Johnson envisions the VTOL UAV as a "miniaturized" V-22 tiltrotor aircraft, which the Marine Corps is buying to replace outdated helicopters. "All that technology is there. We know how to land helos, we've been doing that since the 1950s." He also believes it makes sense for the Navy to replace Pioneer. "The Navy wants to get away from flying into a net. You break the prop every time."
On a carrier, "we are more concerned with the UCAV," said Johnson. UCAVs could, one day, replace the manned bombers now deployed on carriers.
One of the Navy's major ship procurement programs, the next generation surface combatant called DD-21, also is planning to incorporate UAVs in its design parameters. Rear Adm. Joseph A. Carnevale, DD-21 program executive officer, told National Defense that both industry teams that are competing in this program are "looking at the interaction [of DD-21] with various systems, including UAV ... We are leaving it up to the industry teams to decide how to integrate" the technologies.
Officials involved in the UAV efforts generally are optimistic about the program and expressed relief that the Navy was able to get approval for a VTOL system. That once seemed unlikely.
More than a year ago, the Navy kicked off an aggressive campaign to get the Pentagon to approve a dedicated naval UAV program-instead of the joint UAV approach that had been advocated by the Defense Department. A one-size-fits-all UAV effort failed because the Navy's VTOL requirement would have driven up the cost of the other services' UAVs. Only the Navy and Marine Corps want VTOL systems, which are more expensive than conventional take-off and landing aircraft.
An industry survey also confirmed that there are no commercial, off-the-shelf UAVs that meet the Navy's needs, according to Capt. Lynden D. Whitmer, the Navy's VTOL UAV program manager.
According to interviews with various industry officials, it appears there are at least three major contractor teams that will compete for the VTOL program award. Several officials were reluctant to provide details on their plans for competitive reasons. At press time, the competition was shaping up as follows:
The Cypher III will be a larger, upgraded version of the Cypher II that the company is building for the Marine Corps. The Sikorsky team will include General Dynamics Corporation, Falls Church, Va. and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), of San Diego.
According to Jim Kagdis, naval marketing director at Sikorsky, SAIC decided to join the team even though it has its own VTOL UAV, called Vigilante. In an interview, Kagdis said Vigilante, which looks like a helicopter, will be used as a "flying test bed to shake down the [payload and shipboard integration] systems" in the Cypher III.
SAIC officials were not available at press time to provide more details on Vigilante's role in the Sikorsky team. General Dynamics spokesman Carl Johnson confirmed that his company was "asked to help" but details are sketchy because the "teams are still coming together."
Other UAV firms that were expected to be in the running decided to sit out the Navy competition. A case in point is Montreal-based Bombardier Services Group, which makes the turboshaft-powered Guardian CL-327, commonly known as the "peanut" UAV because of its shape. According to Bombardier's Chris Good, the company will not be competing for the Navy award because it was not certain that it could meet U.S. Navy specifications.
According to industry sources, however, the U.S. Coast Guard is looking at the Guardian for possible drug interdiction missions. The vehicles would be deployed on Hamilton-class cutters.
One of Pioneer's prime contractors, AAI Corporation, Hunt Valley, Md., will not participate because it does not make VTOL UAVs. But the company's manager for UAV business development, Pete Mullowney, said in an interview that AAI plans to be a subcontractor on one of the teams. He declined to specify which of the VTOL teams AAI is supporting.
The other Pioneer prime contractor, Israel Aircraft Industries, will not participate in the competition, said IAI's Marvin Klemow.
Another manufacturer of VTOL UAVs is Micro Craft Technology, of San Diego. It makes a small, round-shaped vehicle called the Micro Craft Lift Augmented Ducted Fan. A company spokesman said the firm chose not to compete for the Navy program.
Norman Polmar, a naval expert and historian, is confident that the Navy will field the new UAV. But he also believes there is a "certain bias in the Navy against unmanned aircraft. The carrier community feels it is in competition," he said in an interview. "The Navy needs a forceful leader who will push UAVs," Polmar said. "There is a lack of strong Navy leadership to push the UAV program." You think this "UAV" will change the face of warfare by starting a generation of terminator like solders and other unmanned vehicles like tanks?
7214
« on: January 21, 2015, 07:21:49 AM »
Lemons and limes taste the same.
7215
« on: January 21, 2015, 07:19:28 AM »
How often did the person with 3 guests or whatever amount leave the game compared to a party group? And how often did the person with 3 guests do worse than a person playing by them self on the system?
7216
« on: January 21, 2015, 07:16:17 AM »
If you're a guy that also likes guys you're still going to fall under the G for gay. If you're a girl that also likes girls you're still going to fall under the L for lesbian. I don't see how liking both sexes deserves it's own group for the movement. Liking both sexes still isn't going to put you on a higher level than someone that is gay or a lesbian in areas where they are put down.
7217
« on: January 21, 2015, 06:25:25 AM »
7218
« on: January 21, 2015, 06:22:42 AM »
Thank god. Now I won't be stuck on teams with some asshole and their 3 guests.
This.
That shit was fucking annoying. I'm glad it's only 2.
>tfw I'd 4 player split-screen H3 all night with friends and we wouldn't lose a single game all night
>tfw when some asshole like you laves the game
Not that we ever did, because we're not morons, but then what? Your team instantly wins.
Not if half your team is a 4 way splitscreener.
But BTB is awful in the first place. Why would anyone play it? We stuck to Social Slayer and Skirmish.
It still doesn't change that half of your team or the enemies team is some asshole with their 3 guests. If something happens where the host leaves or a guests kicks get then half your team is gone. You can also end up having a team with 4 players on one system and another two on another. If both leave then your team is only two people. The same goes for outside it. With 4V4 the enemy team can be 4 players on one system. If they leave then the match ends due to that. 4 player system sharing is a horrible idea for online MM without JIP and even with it it's still bad. Hell two player system sharing in Halo is still bad due to no JIP outside Halo 4.
Like I said to Lemon, that's hardly a convincing argument. If friends play together in an online party and one of them gets the boot or leaves, chances are the rest of the group is just going to follow anyways. And if one person leaves and the game's balance goes down the shitter, it's likely that more players are going to follow suit. And that is something that I've seen happen countless of times.
True the same can be said for parties but the chances of that happening are lower than with guests. With my time of playing Halo 3, Reach and 4 I've seen for more people with guest leaving the game than what you said for parties. I've also seen people with guest do worse than people without them. Unless you're playing on a decently large TV like a 40 inch you're going to greatly hinder the team with yourself and 3 others.
7219
« on: January 21, 2015, 06:01:00 AM »
Thank god. Now I won't be stuck on teams with some asshole and their 3 guests.
This.
That shit was fucking annoying. I'm glad it's only 2.
>tfw I'd 4 player split-screen H3 all night with friends and we wouldn't lose a single game all night
>tfw when some asshole like you laves the game
Not that we ever did, because we're not morons, but then what? Your team instantly wins.
Not if half your team is a 4 way splitscreener.
But BTB is awful in the first place. Why would anyone play it? We stuck to Social Slayer and Skirmish.
It still doesn't change that half of your team or the enemies team is some asshole with their 3 guests. If something happens where the host leaves or a guests kicks get then half your team is gone. You can also end up having a team with 4 players on one system and another two on another. If both leave then your team is only two people. The same goes for outside it. With 4V4 the enemy team can be 4 players on one system. If they leave then the match ends due to that. 4 player system sharing is a horrible idea for online MM without JIP and even with it it's still bad. Hell two player system sharing in Halo is still bad due to no JIP outside Halo 4.
7220
« on: January 21, 2015, 05:38:00 AM »
Thank god. Now I won't be stuck on teams with some asshole and their 3 guests.
This.
That shit was fucking annoying. I'm glad it's only 2.
>tfw I'd 4 player split-screen H3 all night with friends and we wouldn't lose a single game all night
>tfw when some asshole like you laves the game
7221
« on: January 21, 2015, 05:16:34 AM »
That's the problem I see with private groups, en masse shitposting for post count.
Which is already being done in The Flood with the AMA threads, threads that are just images and people who post mainly anime images.
7222
« on: January 21, 2015, 05:05:56 AM »
Just curious. Would you guys be okay with 4 player splitscreen if it meant having shit-tier framerate and graphics when you do so?
This has always been the case with 4 player split screen
I don't recall this with Halo CE - 3, unless my memories are clouded.
I don't know about the other two but I know with CE it stayed the same. The frame rate might have dropped but the graphics were the same. I can see with the newer games doing it simply because of better graphics and more things to render. Halo 4 was already pushing the 360 due to the weapons having a shorter disappearing time.
7223
« on: January 21, 2015, 05:02:56 AM »
American Sniper was a great movie and Mr. Kyle was an outstanding American. God bless his soul for his heroic service to protecting American ideals and saving countless soldiers from insurgents.
:^)
Somebody sounds upset. Keep shitting on people who actually have a pair of balls while you hide behind a computer screen
You're right Kinder. People like him should grow a pair and kill someone. After all killing someone is like killing an AI in a video game. Really Kinder. Are you really that sadistic where you think taking someones life is the same as standing up for yourself? The whole term for grow a pair" means the person should stand up for them self or take action for something. That term should never be used for taking someones life. I would rather be a ball-less person than a killer.
These "somebodies" are radicals that have declared religious warfare on the west and have committed atrocities in Asia, Africa, European, and North America. One less dead radical is one less chance it will end up killing dozens, hundreds, even thousands. So continue to think of these sick people as not worthy of being killed, in fact I'll buy you a plane ticket so you can move to a country like Pakistan; I'm sure you as an American would be met with great hospitality!
But Kinder you didn't say anything about killing a terrorist to save your live or somebody else. You simply told that person to grow a pair and kill people just like what that sniper guy is going.
7224
« on: January 21, 2015, 05:01:21 AM »
@Berzerk SMD
No thanks child I don't want to end up being a pedophile. I'm sure someone else here who most likely also wrecked you can.
7225
« on: January 20, 2015, 07:00:09 PM »
It should have been smaller but, more lively
Why not the same size or slightly bigger but more lively? With the same size map you can make it more lively by redoing the areas and adding more to it. Instead of having all those pointless mountings and that lake in the middle they could be towns or a forest. For the largest mounting that can be at the end of the map instead of in the center.
I mean lively, like having more cars, driving around more A.I. Etc. etc.
The current gen and PC version has that. It's just last gen that feels empty life wise due to ancient hardware.
7226
« on: January 20, 2015, 06:49:58 PM »
you faggots should do this. Have someone roll in the parking lot with this blaring and you other fags roll in behind him. Line up like that and rave up your engines.
7227
« on: January 20, 2015, 06:41:22 PM »
Not male like an ex-user here?
7228
« on: January 20, 2015, 06:25:27 PM »
I literally don't care, I only ever played local co-op. Plus the fact that i've never used a TV any bigger than 22" so 4-player would be horrible.
For the people complaining about this I wonder how often they played 4 player local. Unless you have a remotely large TV 4 players on one is going to be shit. I have a 32 inch and two players is annoying.
7229
« on: January 20, 2015, 06:21:48 PM »
They should have replicated SA's map properly, not a 1/3 of it shitilly
I agree. Worst comes to worst for the consoles they have more than one disc. The PS4 might be able to fit it all on one and for the 360 it can have 4 installation discs.
7230
« on: January 20, 2015, 06:20:08 PM »
343 really cant do anything right
They did manage to do a story and a weapon sandbox which is something Bungie hasn't done since Halo CE.
Pages: 1 ... 239240241 242243 ... 302
|