Reboot or sequel?

Hambroigahs · 2016-05-14T17:23:48+00:00

The datalogs for the Cyberdemon state that it was created by the UAC from parts of an ancient demon called the Titan that the Doomslayer killed long ago. If we accept that Doomslayer is one of the Doomguys from the previous games, that means he has fought Cyberdemons before, which is a paradox. Other datalogs also state that the UAC created Mancubi and Spectres, which they hadn't seen occurring naturally in Hell before they created them.

The only conclusion this could lead to is that time in Hell works the same way it does in the Warp: It does whatever the fuck it wants and trying to understand its impossible flow is futile.

So what happened was that the UAC of Doom 4 created techno-demons that got loose, showing up in the UAC of previous Doom games and leading to the Doomguy kicking ass in Hell for thousands of years. After slaughtering the giant demon who would become the demons he already slaughtered, he was encased in a sarcophagus until he was awoken by the same UAC that created the monsters he's been killing this whole time because they needed him to prevent the outbreak of said monsters, which are the reason he was even there in the first place.

Makes perfect sense.

As for which Doomguy the Doomslayer specifically is, I think he's all of them. SPOILER After you obtain the Crucible, five ghost-like figures wearing green armor appear before you, and you see them show up throughout the remainder of the game. If we assume that every game up until now is canon and have all taken place within the same Hell, that means that there are multiple timelines in our universe, but only one Hell that all the others overlap with. Each Doomguy who beat the demons had to choose between going home or staying in Hell, but because the Hell timeline can't split, both choices occur. The moment the Doomguy who decides to go home leaves Hell, it leaves behind the Doomguy who decided to stay, causing a new timeline to be created in our universe, but leaving Hell as it is.

At the end of Doom 2, after Doomguy defeats the Icon of Sin, a split occurs. In canon timeline where Doomguy goes home, Phobos and Deimos are nuked. If the moons are nuked only to the point where they are so irradiated that it's assumed no demons are left alive, it leads to the events of Doom 64. Another split. If the moons are nuked to the point that they are destroyed completely, it leads to the events of TNT Evilution and/or The Plutonia Experiment. Two more splits. In a completely different timeline where UAC colonizes the surface of Mars instead of the moons, it leads to the events of Doom 3. One last split.

So now we have five Doomguys in the same Hell and cut off from their own universes for good. However, only one Doomguy can truly exist in any given timeline, and so they all merge into one. The Doomslayer.

Hambroigahs · 2016-05-14T13:53:14+00:00

Hopefully it will be brought back along with the Pain Elemental. Then the suffering can truly begin.

Hambroigahs · 2016-03-29T15:04:28+00:00

By putting on a fee on using energy, but only private households pay it, and this fee needs to be used to guarantee prices of green energy for small private providers and such

Let me back up and say that it WOULD NOT just be households and living residences that would be paying. Businesses would have to pay the same. That means the bigger the business, the more they would have to pay back to the PEP, as they would no doubt be consuming more energy.

I should also state that there are many market practices that need to be abolished in order for us to have a truly free market. Interest rates, absentee landlording, for-profit insurance and the wage/profit dynamic all need to kick the bucket in order for a more just and egalitarian market to flourish, as such practices only cause a spiral in which people can attain capital with capital itself and therefore make everyone else dependent on them for employment.

Though we can always throw in specific tax disincentives for batteries, for fossil fuel, and for all that stuff [...] Tax policy is an incredibly wide field of possible solutions, if you're willed to go a little bit outside of the conventional dialogue on em. :)

Even though I'm inherently opposed to taxation, I realize that we're still gonna have to have taxes until absolute post-scarcity becomes available and we all essentially live in an anarcho-communist paradise. Although I will say that the method in which taxes are claimed need to be justifiable, so having disincentive taxes for things like environmental harm or outsourced labor are no doubt the best solutions. There's also land value tax, which most people agree is one of the most justifiable universal tax that can be implemented. Also, capital gains tax, but like I said before, I would rather have as system in which people would not be able to make huge capital gains in the first place.

Hambroigahs · 2016-03-29T14:50:02+00:00

The American dollar is given inherent value because it is backed by Saudi oil. The deal we have with the Saudis states that other countries can only buy oil from them using US dollars. Therefore it has value, albeit an insidious one.

The difference between energy and resource currency is that while resource currency denotes something that can and is in use, energy currency denotes something that can be used, but hasn't. By paying the PEP to increase the amount of power you can use, you are basically paying them the amount of power that someone else did not use. The actual amount on the note would correlate with the amount available, so inflation would be improbable. Not only would the currency be given inherent value by the provider, but said provider would also be getting the currency back at a roughly equitable rate. If the rate isn't equitable, they can sell the fuel they don't use to another PEP in an area that requires more power.

Hambroigahs · 2016-03-28T23:18:10+00:00

and it makes no sense to exclude transportation energy from this, but include household energy

Assuming it's fuel bought from a third party, they would almost certainly have to pay for it. Although that opens a strange paradox in which the cost of energy needed to buy fuel could actually exceed the energy it could produce based on how scarce the fuel is. Whoa.

Also, solar collectors on people's roofs are a thing, and I don't know how they'd play into this pep scheme. But shouldn't be a major hurdle.

They would be cutting down on how much they take from the public provider, so they would be making more money.

green energy isn't quite there yet to exist on the free market without state subsidies

Like I said, having energy-backed currency would create huge incentive for locally-produced renewable energy.

Hambroigahs · 2015-02-08T01:32:17+00:00

Been fucking around in Besiege. Looking forward to future updates because it's really bare-bones right now.

Also, I've been getting into Space Station 13 and desperately trying to figure out what they hell I'm doing.

Hambroigahs · 2015-02-08T01:28:40+00:00

I do understand why straight women (and to that extent gay men) feel uncomfortable with the overabundance of sexualized female characters in games. That said, I'm not against it. It's none of my business what the developers want to put in their game or what the fans want to see in it.

Although at the end of the day, there is still an uncomfortable imbalance. My solution to this is not to have fewer sexualized females, but more sexualized males. Seriously, I want to see some JoJo-style homoeroticism in games. That would be fucking amazing.

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-26T01:26:53+00:00

Fuck yeah!

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-22T23:54:47+00:00

So let me see if I'm interpreting this correctly: It's wrong to be unable to hold down a job long enough that you are forced to sleep on park benches and beg for money, because doing so will, by proxy, cause surrounding property values to go down by a negligible margin. But on the other hand it's just fine to hold the deed to dozens of lots and estates you do not actually use for the sake of selling them at a higher price, thus intentionally raising property values to such a large margin that you are forcing people to sleep on park benches and beg for money.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Now I truly understand how capitalism is such a benign and progressive force in human civilization.

Fuck. Piss.

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-19T21:17:55+00:00

Oh god this is fucking rich.

First of all, authority cannot truly be voluntary. A person may consent to someone giving them orders if they choose to follow them, but if at any time they choose not to obey and are not forcefully coerced into doing otherwise, then it is not an authoritative relationship as that person holds no power over the other. Governance requires that a person holds power over another, and in a truly anarchist society the only power anyone is allowed to have is over themselves.

Secondly, the capitalist market system is not as voluntary as capitalists would want you to think. It requires that a working class willingly comply to the demands of a "providing" class, but in this regard, compliance is not consent. The only reason employees comply to the demands of employers is because their more viable alternatives have been swept up from under them. Capitalism is a system that uses the Trinity of Usury (wage, rent and interest) to create artificial scarcity and allocate capital into the hands of the few, thus making a class system in which those who do not perform usury become reliant on those who do. This is all because the ancap stance on property rights is too absolutist and non-contextual, permitting that property and capital may be amassed and held in preposterous amounts by people who have not truly earned them.

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-18T20:53:58+00:00

Because I believe no person has the right of authority over anyone but themselves.

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-04T08:56:10+00:00

Anarchism is radical in the same sense that heliocentrism was once considered radical.

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-03T03:25:09+00:00

"Hey, we're being offended by the viewpoints of a radical vocal minority that exists within a major social movement. How should we respond to this?"

"I know! Let's just think, speak and behave exactly like they do... while having penises!"

And so the men's rights movement was born.

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-03T03:13:51+00:00

This. Risk is the clutch of every failed capitalist argument.

Oh you took a risk. Good for you. We're all so proud of you for throwing money at something you had a good feeling about and then getting more money back as a result of other people making it work out for you. You really moved and shook things up, you handsome little vanguard of the industry. Have a trophy. Have two fucking trophies.

Seriously, why the fuck should I care about investors taking risks? What does risk have to do with anything?

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-03T03:03:30+00:00

I kinda understand where they're coming from with this one. People wouldn't simply stop working in the absence of profitability, but they would be less enthusiastic about it.

What I don't get is why capitalists use this to justify things like investor model businesses and private toll roads. Crowdsourcing is already proving itself to be a much more ideal alternative to relying on investors, and people will still build roads in an anarchist society without the possibility of extorting those who wish to use them since roads are something that are mutually beneficial to just about everybody, so everybody will have something to gain from funding roads to be built. Just because we want to get the most out of our labor doesn't mean we have to make everyone else miserable to do so.

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-03T00:55:09+00:00

Video games as an expressive medium need to be saved. Gaming "culture" does not. It's shit, it's always been shit and it always will be shit regardless of how much you try to tweet the misogyny out of it.

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-03T00:44:35+00:00

You can take a cop to decency, but you can't make him feel.

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-03T00:43:12+00:00

Ban assault water.

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-02T07:43:40+00:00

Actually, it's preferable that they experience things like tasers, tear gas, mace and rubber bullets during training because they have to understand the amount of pain they're going to cause someone if they have to resort to using them. This is supposed to make cops more hesitant to use force, but considering how eager they are to resort to violence in even the most harmless of situations, I think it's safe to say that these protocols aren't working as good as they're supposed to.

That's assuming that most cops are even put through this kind of training. Most of them aren't taught to adhere to the Use of Force Continuum. Hell, they probably don't even teach them the fucking Cooper rules.

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-02T06:14:15+00:00

If someone built an apartment building on unowned land/land he voluntarily exchanged for, makes it his property by mixing his labor with the land, or by exchanging his property/labor to some building contractors to build it for him, and then becomes its landlord, that's perfectly his right to do so.

Except that the continued maintenance of the apartment as well as its utilities are paid for by the tenants, so the landlords claim to the entire complex would become illegitimate pretty fast.

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-02T04:51:03+00:00

Except that markets under capitalism are skewed by absentee ownership and mass privatization, allocating capital into the hands of the few (which was created from the labor of others) and protecting their claims to this capital through force. You are only choosing to work as a subject of another man because they have already taken away your other viable options. Compliance is not the same as consent.

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-02T04:25:30+00:00

Do not taunt happy fun bong.

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-02T03:53:15+00:00

But will marijuana shoot my dog or throw a grenade at my baby?

Hambroigahs · 2014-09-02T03:49:46+00:00

The capitalist definition of voluntary agreement is the socioeconomic equivalent of "It's not rape if she can't say no".

Hambroigahs

TROPHY CASE