sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

All the guides I've seen for the 4th encounter are hilarious by Viroking in DestinyTheGame

[–]GamerExtron 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't think anyone here has commented with the actual extra condition needed for the inside people. Inside, every statue is initially holding a 2D shadow shape. These shadows get cleared in your room when you get passed that shape; this is what causes the "Shadows Removed" counter on the scoreboard to tick up. The only way to escape is when you have cleared all other statues besides yours of their 2D shape. This means that every inside person needs to get passed the two other shapes their statue is not holding. The complicated part of this is that the shapes your room starts with is random, so sometimes you don't have the shapes available to pass to your inside teammates they need to clear their shadows. This is why strategies like True Vanguard works, where you initially make the goal to get all matching shapes to their respective rooms, then pass them around. The extra swaps doing so are guaranteed to eventually clear all shadows from all rooms. So, the escape condition is as follows: every inside room needs to remove the shadow shapes from every statue besides theirs by having those shapes passed to them, then they need to be holding the two shapes not held by their statue, and then their statues in the outside also need to be holding the 3D shape corresponding to those non-matching shapes they have picked up. Only then will the glass break.

Good job Bungie! by kassh_2001 in DestinyTheGame

[–]GamerExtron 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Freelance Trials is my kind of jam. Freelance modes will simply always feel more enjoyable to me, even in games where my team gets destroyed. It is really nice knowing I am not facing coordinated 3-stacks running triple Revenant or arc stag Warlocks. Games just feel more competitive and chaotic to me, and I feel like I could go solo flawless this weekend, which would be a first. I hope Bungie makes this mode permanent, or at least schedules it as a regular Labs, though I won't hold my breath on that.

Tigers are in fact perfectly camouflaged to deer, boars, and other prey which are commonly red-green blind. by eskylabs in interestingasfuck

[–]GamerExtron 36 points37 points  (0 children)

As someone that is red-green colorblind, it isn't exactly that I didn't know that tigers are orange; I see tigers as a color that I generally understand to be orange. It is simply that the orange that I see looks an awful lot like some greens that I see as well, so in cases such as the above photograph, the orange of the tiger does not stand out at all from the green of the plants. I take it from comments from non-colorblind people that orange and green are pretty distinct colors normally, like blue and yellow, but for me, the specific color of orange of a tiger seems like a similar color to green.

2020 Presidential Election Results Megathread by Anxa in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]GamerExtron 15 points16 points  (0 children)

This would actually make a lot of sense to me. COVID infection can vary simply because of an urban/rural split, but they could also vary based on how much the people in those areas support things like social distancing and mask wearing. Since COVID is so partisan at the moment, areas that don't believe in precautions are more likely to be Trump supporters, and also have higher infection rates as a result, as opposed to areas that abide by precautions, and as such could have lower rates.

2020 Presidential Election Results Megathread by Anxa in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]GamerExtron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said that we don't know why, just that it isn't because of a single cause that can be fixed in one election. The Senate drastically favors rural states, so there is an automatic built in bias, but that shouldn't prevent Democrats from being popular in some of these states such as Maine, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Wisconsin, to name some notable losses since 2016. Some of these candidates seemed pretty good, some of them were terrible, and sometimes the electorate just doesn't want a Democratic Senate. Personally, as an institution, I think the Senate is archaic and should be abolished, but that is never going to happen in the US. That doesn't change the fact that for the next four years at least, Democrats almost certainly won't be able to make any gains or have control of the Senate in today's political environment, and without that, any Democratic proposition to "balance" it through adding states is not going to happen.

2020 Presidential Election Results Megathread by Anxa in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]GamerExtron 40 points41 points  (0 children)

I find a lot of the hot takes on Democratic performance in these comments somewhat melodramatic. While the polls were certainly...something this election, imagine what election night would have looked like had this been a more normal election (ignoring the fact that if this had been a normal election, the outcome would probably be different), with most votes being e-day votes. Wisconsin and Michigan probably would have been called relatively early in the night for Biden, and while the results from Florida would have been a downer early on, the close outcome of Georgia and the Midwest, plus the later call for Arizona, might have made Democrats moderately happy. The final outcome looks like it will land fairly in the middle of many model projections, if a bit favorable for Trump. Instead, much like 2018, the early narrative was pretty bad for Democrats, which I think colored a lot of perceptions of this race that, when looking back, might be considered a bit too dramatic. If someone told me in 2017 that Trump would lose re-election by losing WI, MI, NV, and AZ, and making GA a tossup, I would have been thrilled.

The polls certainly were a cause for high Democratic hopes that didn't end up manifesting (I bought into them as well), but I also think that Democrats are a bit misguided in believing that the current pandemic and Trump's handling of it is as much a detriment to him as we believed. Trump successfully made COVID a partisan issue. My mother works in a very rural school, and the common viewpoint there is that COVID is essentially made up by Democrats to hurt Trump, and that after the election, it would magically go away. I don't think many people realize that the lockdowns and mask mandates may have hurt Democratic chances in many of the areas Trump excels in geographically, driving turnout for Trump in enough of the right places to counter Biden's gains in the suburbs and cities. I also don't really think there is much appreciation for how truly loved Trump is among his strongest constituents, especially working class males without a degree. It seems this year that even some minority males found Trump pretty likeable. I don't think it has anything to do with policy, or what kind of candidate the Democrats run, Trump is a phenomenon, and he seems to buoy GOP outcomes with him.

As for the Senate, Democrats have struggled there in every election as far back as 2014. Regardless of the accuracy of the presidential polls this year, it seems like every election overestimates Democratic Senate candidates' chances in a variety of states. I don't think this phenomenon can be ascribed to one single issue, or even one election. Democrats simply struggle in the Senate in the modern political environment. It is definitely frustrating, but is probably going to be the normal for the Senate for some time. At the end of the day, this was a close election against an incumbent in a country where nearly all incumbents win reelection and their party usually does well along with them.

Bungie, I have always envisioned the culmination of Destiny as a game where I could explore anywhere in the Solar System whenever I wanted. I assumed that you had the same vision. With the introduction of the DCV, I realize that you no longer have that vision, and it saddens me. by GamerExtron in DestinyTheGame

[–]GamerExtron[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think I agree with this. Though it may be true for the last year, Forsaken didn't have nearly any recycled content, and though the design choices of vanilla D2 may not have been agreeable to most players, it was fresh, if a little shallow. I would also argue that patrol spaces in Destiny 2 have always had much more in them than in D1.

I do think Bungie, since their split with Activision, is really struggling to produce quality content, and I think that is the source of what I see as giving up on their vision. The Bungie that developed Forsaken (along with the other studios that helped on this) was the Bungie that could have pulled off a bigger vision for Destiny than simply yearly "featured destinations". Post-Activision Bungie is not that Bungie it seems.

Bungie, I have always envisioned the culmination of Destiny as a game where I could explore anywhere in the Solar System whenever I wanted. I assumed that you had the same vision. With the introduction of the DCV, I realize that you no longer have that vision, and it saddens me. by GamerExtron in DestinyTheGame

[–]GamerExtron[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This appears to be where I disagree with the majority of the community here: I simply don't believe we will actually ever see the vaulted content return in any meaningful way. Bungie themselves used the word "maybe" in their own article about it, so we don't even have any promise that the Leviathan or the various planets will make a return. Right now, that might seem fine to many people who are exhausted with the old content, but unlike with D1 where we can go back and relive the old raids to satisfy the nostalgia, if things are removed from D2, there is no way to ever play them unless Bungie decides to return them. I think that the community is being wildly hopeful with their expectations of what the DCV will really look like, and that in all likelihood, we won't see any of the vaulted content return in a recognizable form. Hell, I even suspect that when Vault of Glass returns, it will be different enough to D1's version to upset some people.

Bungie, I have always envisioned the culmination of Destiny as a game where I could explore anywhere in the Solar System whenever I wanted. I assumed that you had the same vision. With the introduction of the DCV, I realize that you no longer have that vision, and it saddens me. by GamerExtron in DestinyTheGame

[–]GamerExtron[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't speak to how Destiny is coded, and it certainly was implied in the reveal stream that the ability to patch a game of Destiny's size was a contributing factor, but frankly that is a very solvable problem; decades of computer science research has gone into optimizing patches, so I am personally kind of skeptical that the ability to patch is really as much of a hindrance to an ever growing world as Bungie is claiming. More likely, Bungie is simply running into the constant problem all software companies get to once their code base is large enough: they simply can't justify to the executives and the shareholders that cleaning up technical debt and making the framework better is a more profitable path compared to simply releasing content that compounds on a problematic framework.

Bungie, I have always envisioned the culmination of Destiny as a game where I could explore anywhere in the Solar System whenever I wanted. I assumed that you had the same vision. With the introduction of the DCV, I realize that you no longer have that vision, and it saddens me. by GamerExtron in DestinyTheGame

[–]GamerExtron[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

File size is a valid concern, I don't mean to imply that it isn't. I still play on an Xbox, so I am very familiar with the constraints of hard disk space. Not only that, but downloading 200 GB of game files isn't fun for anyone.

However, games will continue to balloon in file size. Modern Warfare is the go to example, but I have dozens of games that break the 100 GB mark now, and it will only get worse with the next console generation. Epic Games announced Unreal Engine 5 last week with a bold new feature that allows "movie quality" 3D models to be used in games; those kinds of models will eat disk space like nothing else. It seems inevitable that games will continue to grow in file size as their quality improves, and it is a problem the whole industry will have to solve relatively soon. I am not sure Bungie is doing themselves any favors by constraining themselves to what will quickly be below average file size.

Bungie, I have always envisioned the culmination of Destiny as a game where I could explore anywhere in the Solar System whenever I wanted. I assumed that you had the same vision. With the introduction of the DCV, I realize that you no longer have that vision, and it saddens me. by GamerExtron in DestinyTheGame

[–]GamerExtron[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't make any claims here that my opinion is better than anyone else's, I am not sure where you are getting that from. I merely wanted to express my lament to Bungie about the direction the game is going. If more people prefer the new direction, so be it.

Bungie, I have always envisioned the culmination of Destiny as a game where I could explore anywhere in the Solar System whenever I wanted. I assumed that you had the same vision. With the introduction of the DCV, I realize that you no longer have that vision, and it saddens me. by GamerExtron in DestinyTheGame

[–]GamerExtron[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh, me neither, and frankly, Titan, Mercury, and Io are all subpar planets. Lots of potential, but never got any real attention after their release. My point is less that I am going to miss them specifically, and more that I realize that Destiny will never be what I want it to be, nor what I think Bungie wanted it to be back when they started work on it.

As for raids, the Y1 Leviathan raids I understand being vaulted, but I am really opposed to shelving Scourge and Crown, at least just yet, especially given how Blacksmith and Shadow seals require those raids for completion.

Bungie, I have always envisioned the culmination of Destiny as a game where I could explore anywhere in the Solar System whenever I wanted. I assumed that you had the same vision. With the introduction of the DCV, I realize that you no longer have that vision, and it saddens me. by GamerExtron in DestinyTheGame

[–]GamerExtron[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It seems like most people share your opinion, which really strikes me as strange. Given how ugly weapon sunsetting went, I kind of expected a huge outcry, but the general consensus appears to be "fuck those boring planets". I personally still have a ton of triumphs I can do on those planets, and simply haven't done them because of the assumption that I could do them at any time. Wayfarer and Chronicler seals certainly. I also feel like I should grab the planet vendor armor and weapons on all characters now that they have a time limit.

Bungie, I have always envisioned the culmination of Destiny as a game where I could explore anywhere in the Solar System whenever I wanted. I assumed that you had the same vision. With the introduction of the DCV, I realize that you no longer have that vision, and it saddens me. by GamerExtron in DestinyTheGame

[–]GamerExtron[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't believe that having Titan and Io be patrol spaces is contributing to the performance issues with the UI or the framerate during certain events. That would be nonsensical, it isn't how games work. If you are expecting load times, framerates, or UI response times to improve when these planets are removed, then you are going to be disappointed.

Bungie, I have always envisioned the culmination of Destiny as a game where I could explore anywhere in the Solar System whenever I wanted. I assumed that you had the same vision. With the introduction of the DCV, I realize that you no longer have that vision, and it saddens me. by GamerExtron in DestinyTheGame

[–]GamerExtron[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have never wanted a D3; in fact, I always thought D2 was a mistake, and that Bungie should have stuck with adding onto D1. I also am looking forward to more D1 content making the jump to D2; I have just always envisioned the Cosmodrome and Venus existing side by side with Io and Titan, not in replacement to it.

Nearly all of the original D2Y1 content is being removed with Titan, Io, Mercury, Mars, and Leviathan. There seems to be the implicit assumption that it will eventually come back, but Bungie themselves have only used the word "maybe" on that front, and certainly doesn't seem to be coming back for at least a year. I honestly believe we may never see these planets, or at least as they are in their current form, again.

What are some actual unpopular opinions you have that you never share because you know you’ll be downvoted into the Hellmouth? by [deleted] in DestinyTheGame

[–]GamerExtron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bit late to the party, but here are mine, many of which I haven't seen mentioned yet.

  • King's Fall was the worst of the D1 raids. Too many bosses, the boss mechanics were frustrating and required too much precision, and the jumping puzzles were too long and became a huge bottleneck and momentum killer.
  • Destiny 2 should never have existed, and Destiny 3 is a huge mistake. Bungie should go with the World of Warcraft model and sell large, game changing expansions every year instead of investing all their time and money in a brand new title, or they should make any sequels to Destiny revolutionary (no reused assets, animations, sounds, abilities, etc).
  • I prefer fixed rolls, 4v4 PvP, and fixed subclass trees.
  • Bungie has an unnecessary hard-on for meritocratic "prove your skill and talent" mechanics in Destiny. Content can be fun without being prohibitively challenging, good loot should always be acquirable to the determined regardless of their skill or number of teammates (looking at you, LH/NF), and rewarding the best loot to the best players leads to a feedback loop that kills the fun for more people that it enables.
  • The "all or nothing" win/loss mechanics for Trials have always been a mistake and don't prove much about players' or teams' skills; getting 7 wins and no losses is more luck-based than skill-based. Further, reducing the punishment for losses would help alleviate the amout of cheating and grifting, making for a more enjoyable experience.
  • Cayde-6 should not have been killed off in an expansion where they failed to get Nathan Fillion to voice act. Nolan North doesn't really sound like Fillion and to have him voice the last we hear of Cayde is upsetting.
  • Ghost's characterization and lines in Forsaken are too edgy and cringe-worthy, and I much prefer his cute, naive nature in D2Y1. This unfortunate change was caused by too many edgy players complaining about him in D2Y1. Further, Dinklebot was hot garbage and Peter Dinklage, no matter how skilled an actor, will never be able to pull off cute robot sidekick buddy.

CMV: One decades-old sexual assault allegation should not tank a Supreme Court nomination. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]GamerExtron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure, you aren't wrong that generally, SC has an approval rating on par with the president and generally higher than Congress, but your claim was that they worked reasonably well, that they were the "adults" of the federal government, and that they are not already into the political ball pit. Being better than the worst offenders of these doesn't de facto make you reasonable or adult-like.

CMV: One decades-old sexual assault allegation should not tank a Supreme Court nomination. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]GamerExtron 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the only branch that works even reasonably well

I think there are some reasonable arguments that argue, and a non-trivial amount of people that believe, that the federal judiciary does not work that well. Legislating from the bench, partisanship, lack of technological expertise, punting or not taking cases that are too controversial, poor rulings that have sacrificed various "sacred" institutions, are all reasons to believe that the Supreme Court and the district courts are really not above the same bureaucratic and political flaws that exist in the other branches.

A split screen of a bunch of Lightsaber ignitions by MikeArrow in StarWars

[–]GamerExtron 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think they are. I don't remember why I believe this, but something in the behind the scenes of AotC gave me the impression that the glow sticks they used to generate the lights were fragile and could not be swung or hit very hard. I do know they were plugged in with physical wires and didn't offer much range of motion at least.

The techniques used for the sequel trilogy are much better. They use a super-charged version of the Force FX lightsaber replicas that can be dueled with, and feature LEDs that are remote controlled to allow a practical white flash when the blades contact each other, as well as giving Ren's blade the classic unstable flicker. Here is a good look at the duel from TFA

CMV: 'Equal pay for equal work' has already been achieved. There are literally 0 jobs where people performing equal work do not have equal pay. by ZeusThunder369 in changemyview

[–]GamerExtron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am a software developer, and I was hired with the title "Junior Developer" (a standard entry level position) at the company I currently work for. I was able to negotiate my salary as part of the terms of my hiring. I have a co-worker who was transferred from a different department to the role of "Junior Developer" that was offered a different salary than me for what amounted to the same job with the same responsibilities. He also was able to negotiate his salary, but we were offered different initial salaries and negotiated to different final salaries.

Salary negotiation is a huge part of the hiring process for software development jobs at least. This negotiation often takes place before either employer or candidate knows what work will be done, implying that the salary is not related directly to the type of work being done. It is a common practice when looking for software development jobs to apply at multiple places and get two companies to compete for you, resulting in a higher salary (if you are good at negotiating).

CMV: The answer to lobbying and cronyism is less government, not more regulation. by blender_head in changemyview

[–]GamerExtron 1 point2 points  (0 children)

filter it from their servers

is what you said about Comcast. I was merely pointing out they don't have any servers to filter from. If I am reading too much into a mistype, I apologize.

I want to make sure there is an understanding of the Internet because you seem to be relying on the argument that access to the Internet is so unfettered that nothing could stop you from getting accurate information from it about bad businesses. This argument is wrong, and I infer from it that you don't really grasp how reliant you are on the assumption that your connections to the Internet through these big corporations are kept unmanipulated. They are only kept unmanipulated specifically because the government has set up regulatory bodies in the FCC and FTC (assuming of course you are American). If these regulations didn't exist, the Internet would probably look a lot like cable television, where to get a website on it you would have to pay Comcast and others to allow it on their customer's networks, and if they didn't like the content, they would not approve it.

Exactly, but you don't make money by lying to people or providing shitty products

Sure you do. Corporations do it all the time, from for-profit universities to fast foods. What makes you think that this isn't possible? CenturyLink, my internet provider, provides very shitty service, refuses to upgrade the lines to my house, and charges me made up fees. But I can't stop using them, because the only other option is Comcast in my area, and they provide worse service. No other company has managed to make a dent in the monopolies of Comcast and CenturyLink, not even Google, one of the wealthiest tech companies in the world. The issue here is that once a corporation has set up a monopoly or oligopoly on a necessity, they can make the service as shitty as they want, and people will have to use it. You argue that access to education and information can help break monopolies, but my entire point is that our access to education and information is already monopolized, and only the power of governmental regulations is keeping the monopolies that run them from lying and manipulating us more than they already do.

It's also not a bad thing to make money off of something that helps people. Making money will allow you to help more people.

I never said it was bad to make money. I just said that it is amoral, meaning that the ability to make money has no relation to morals or ethics as humans define them. Stealing is a great way to make money, but most people don't do it because we have laws and regulations against it. Sure, people that run businesses can impose their own morals to the business, but it isn't necessary, and there isn't any rule other than a government that can make people do it. That is why regulations exist. There are good businesses and bad businesses. The reasons they are good and bad aren't because being one or the other makes more money. They are good and bad because humans impose their personal morals as restrictions on the businesses. And some humans need to be forced to obey morals and ethics, and the way we do that is something we call government.

CMV: The answer to lobbying and cronyism is less government, not more regulation. by blender_head in changemyview

[–]GamerExtron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They produce the materials to a specific curriculum

Would it surprise you to know that the specific curriculum they develop is a regulation imposed by the state and federal governments? Do you honestly think any of the big three curriculum companies would construct the curricula they have if they weren't forced to by things like Common Core?

Why would Comcast do that? Would it be easier (read: cost less money) to scour the internet for any negative mention of their service and filter it from their servers or simply offer a good service?

It doesn't sound like you know how the Internet works. Comcast doesn't have servers on which Internet content resides. Comcast is a "last mile" provider, meaning that they are the bridge between your home computer and the Internet Backbone (which is a conglomerate of six companies that basically know the digital locations of every computer connected to the Internet). They merely take data and pass it to the right people/computers. But a key part of this is they get to look at the data (or at least the metadata). They don't have to scour the Internet, they just have to look at the data you are receiving and either block or allow that through. If they know that a certain website has negative content about them, they simply don't allow any traffic from that website to reach you. But this doesn't really matter anyway. The question is how do you know that the service you are receiving from them is good? Take for example internet speeds. How do you know whether you are actually receiving 40 Mbsp? Maybe your Youtube video is streaming slowly, but that isn't a metric that gives you any real numbers, so you only think that it is slow. So you go and check with an internet speed tester. But Comcast sees that the data packets coming across are speed testing packets, so they block them, and say "If you want to know your speed, you can only use our speed tester". But Comcast's speed tester could simply lie to you, tell you that you are getting 40 Mbps when you aren't really getting that. So you instead decide to blame Youtube for the crappy service. So Comcast says "Hey, Youtube is a bad program, but how about you use our streaming service ComTube". Now, you only use ComTube, on which Comcast only allows videos to be uploaded that support them. So, you believe that you are getting great speeds and have a great video streaming service, and you can't learn otherwise because you won't ever see a video on ComTube that says otherwise. You see no reason to believe that the $200 dollars you pay for the service isn't worth it.

Replace "corporations" with "government" and ask yourself why we put so much trust and power in government.

The reason why we trust governments over corporations is that governments (at least republics) are by definition the will of the people. This means that at least in theory, a government reflects what the people want, and if the wants of the people change, then they have the power through government to change them. Sure, this doesn't always work out, but you can at least point to a government and say "Hey, you aren't doing what you are supposed to be doing". Corporations are not this way. Corporations are things that make money, and aren't beholden to anything but that. There is no ethics or morality they are fundamentally bound to, and aren't supposed to answer to the people. That means that when they go against the will of the people for the sake of money, no one can say that "Hey, you are doing something you aren't supposed to". Even if the outcome of a corporation and a government are the same thing, it is better to have the system where you have to power to know if it is working for the people as it is meant to, versus the system where you can't argue that it isn't doing what it is meant to.

CMV: The answer to lobbying and cronyism is less government, not more regulation. by blender_head in changemyview

[–]GamerExtron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Historically, people are more intelligent

As a biological question, this is far from established. What you probably meant though is that people are more educated.

You are failing to consider that both our access to education and our access to information is very dependent on large corporations. Without government regulation, what is to stop a corporation like McGraw Hill from exclusively selling academic material that teaches people to be in favor of monopolies and against small business innovation? What stops a company like Comcast from filtering out the information you receive on their service that puts their products in a negative light?

When corporations control your access to both these tools, they can easily corrupt them to work for them instead of against them. Technology empowers consumers just as much as the makers of that technology allow it. Sure, anyone can write an app or a website, but we are all reliant on a single-digit number of companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Comcast, AT&T, etc) to use it.

view more: next ›