I could see repurpose from subway equipment, since it’s already powered and usually set up for short trains. America doesn’t have too many above-ground EMU (electric multiple-unit) models to work with; the 50-year-old Metroliner comes to mind, and some Pennsylvania Railroad predecessors.
The infamous British Rail Pacers were effectively bus bodies with flanged eheels, so that sort of retooling has precedent.
Are you thinking battery, third rail, or cantenary? The latter two are much more infrastructure heavy so you might not see them at the outer edges of a network.
Locomotive hauled trains might be another viable option, one small battery-powered engine (see Norfolk Southern 999) and one or two ancient coaches.
Are you thinking battery, third rail, or cantenary? The latter two are much more infrastructure heavy so you might not see them at the outer edges of a network.
I was picturing a kind of jury-rigged ‘both’ where each town or village has set up cantenaries extending our as far as they can manage, and it uses its batteries between villages. I imagine it’d stop for a moment and raise or lower the pantographs, sort of similar to the silver line in Boston. I don’t know if that’s realistic but it felt like splitting the difference in an interesting way.
That feels like an interesting political/economic angle-- a territory’s power could be implied by how far its neighbours will extend wires towards it. Getting the train reliably to Boston might be worth wiring all the way and paying for the electricity, but we can roll the dice on batteries to Albany.
Steam seems to be down right now and PS doesn’t let you buy the game. The number of people wanting to buy the game right this moment must be unimaginably high
I bought it heavily discounted and knowing it got bad reviews and still felt like I got ripped off. The reviews I read did not do justice to just how bad the shooting feels and how terrible the level design is.
Nah, I appreciated that. It’s a first look at what’s going on. It not being polished makes me trust them way more as a developer than if everything looked absolutely perfect. I’m EXTREMELY hyped
That’s my logic behind it anyway. If I see something that is supposed to be a first look but it’s HYPER polished I get really wary. Makes me think that this one section of the game was hella focused on enough for the representation but I start wondering about whether the rest of the game got the same attention. If a game demo actually has errors and bugs and fuck ups then it shows to me that they’re working on it across the board. They’re not heavily focusing on this specific demo or anything and willing to show the faults that you should see looking at a first look. I guess it just boils down to honesty for me. If the demo is hyper polished then it feels dishonest. If it’s rough around the edges then it feels more real and genuine.
Besides, these are the same people who made the Hitman series for decades and the WOA trilogy which is a powerhouse of gaming for me. Taking on my #2 hyperfixation, right behind Star Trek? They’re probably the only dev that I instantly trusted to do a good job or at least try their best.
Probably just dumb kids who don’t understand how to play but heard friends in school talk about it. Or people like me who are caught up in life and even though I want to play I never really have the time that the games require.
I’ve been a computer gamer since 1980 and, apart from a really excellent few years playing Unreal Tournament in a clan in the early 2000s, have entirely played solo.
Like others, I have a life. People don’t get upset online if I get called away from the PC for a while. Or upset IRL if I’m focusing on a team game instead of them.
I’m not waiting around until we’ve got a group together. I’m not getting angry at a team-mate for accidentally fragging me. I’m not apologising for accidentally fragging someone else. I don’t have to put up with someone else’s childish taunting, or racist/offensive views. I don’t have an over-sugared twelve year old screaming into my ears because they found the fire button.
I would like more big open-world games that have a decent solo-first experience, but otherwise this way fits me nicely and your message only reinforces that for me.
Totally understandable, and I don’t mean to drive people away from online games or put their skill set through a purity test. My point is: Hey if you don’t like sweaty games, don’t play sweaty games (or their sweaty game modes like ranked in most games) and if you do try to meet the game halfway. If I play Outward the way I play Fallout I’m going to have a bad time. That goes double for online games.
Hmm… I read your edit, and I think you're kinda overlooking the hard truth here: you can come up with a list of 1,000 things players "have to" do, but if the game doesn't enforce them, they're not gonna happen.
You can rant out of frustration all you want, but you have no control over anyone except yourself, and trying to tell people what to do will only piss them off.
You're also making a lot of baseless assumptions. How do you know how much they enjoy the game? Maybe they choose to engage with the parts they like and leave the rest out, they're happy this way, and the game lets them. Who are you to tell them what to do?
Again, ranting is fine, but you gotta have self-awareness, otherwise you're gonna get nothing but negative reactions.
To combat the ramble-y-ness of your posts you should try to add more paragraphs. That makes it easier for your readers to take a short pause while reading.
For the topic at hand, I basically don’t play any multiplayer games precisely because it is too much work to keep up with the current meta. It seems to me that often enough what the game teaches you in the tutorial is not what you have to do in the real thing to succeed.
Add to that that many people don’t even pay attention to the good things of tutorials and you get a horde of brainless people just doing the bare minimum to pass by.
As to why they play ranked, at least to me ranked play comes with the promise of match making. That you get paired up with players of a similar skill. In theory that should give you a 50% win rate. I’d play ranked exactly so that I get lumped in with players who are as bad as me.
This mindset from people is what makes online multiplayer games unplayable for me.
I don’t get a lot of time to play games as an adult. When I do, I don’t particularly want people telling me how I should be having fun. There is this weird competition that happens where you need to know everything about a game before you are allowed to partake in the game. It sucks to have missed out on so many experiences, but i guess my not playing sub-optimally made someone else’s experience better, so it’s all good.
No man, by all means you bought the game enjoy it however you want. But be real, if you play Ranked in a competitive online game then are expected to at least understand the games mechanics. If not, why not stick to standard? That’s what irritates me.
If you want to figure out how good you are and enjoy a challenge you play ranked. If the ranked system is good you should rarely or never play with teammates less knowledgeable and less skilled than you.
I don’t think we need a higher barrier of entry for ranked. Just accept that the skill variance happens on both sides and focus on your own game. If you can mentor that is nice and helpful if done right.
I agree 100% and for the record I’m decent at my best days on most online FPS games that I play. It’s not the outcome that irritates me it’s the “why” behind it. In R6S for example “I’m not opening rotation holes because I don’t know where to open them/forgot about them” and “I don’t care about rotation holes because I’m here for my K/D” both have the same outcome. One is an honest play style while the other actively ignores a core part of the game. This I why I’m left wondering if some players like the game itself or they’re just jumping in to jump in. Despite everything it’s still an online game and other players are players not NPCs.
bin.pol.social
Gorące