The Star Citizen Thread v5

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Hi-Ban

Hi-Ban
Tippis said:
Nope.

Read what I wrote. The answer is there. The second you try to impart your own interpretation above what I actually said, you're making the same mistake all over again, further confusing yourself and further ruining your own already very wobbly argument.
Click to expand...

Ok, so the answer is in the quote. Let me review that quote...

Ok so then, if what you linked me to is the source of your claim, then your source must be either "heresay and conjecture, with a bit of wishful thinking mixed" or "a strawman argument".
There are no other options.

Are you sure of this? You sure you don't prefer to post a gameplay footage gif or a link to someone else's claim as source?
 
Last edited:

FuriousMeow

F
Stigbob said:
This is great, confidence in CiG/RSI's truth adjacent marketing methods has led to a situation where people spend umpteen pages debating whether or not SM has been flushed a few feet further along the delivery pipeline.

Honestly who gives a monkeys chuff how they are making a pigs ear of it this time ?.

We've been here before. We all know it will be silently cancelled or late and broken, but look quite nice in screenshots (as long as the frames per second are not displayed).
Click to expand...

It's quite honestly utter bafflement that mis-information and "narrative agreement" so easily traverses the internet and creates such a ridiculous environment that despite the world wide connection the internet grants most are so isolated into their own areas of singular agreement that they will take whatever is fed to them. For me at least.

SC still has yet to prove itself client side, THAT is when I will say "ah, I was wrong!" and give them my money again. If it happens.
 
Last edited:

ianw

I
Stigbob said:
This is great, confidence in CiG/RSI's truth adjacent marketing methods has led to a situation where people spend umpteen pages debating whether or not SM has been flushed a few feet further along the delivery pipeline.

Honestly who gives a monkeys chuff how they are making a pigs ear of it this time ?.

We've been here before. We all know it will be silently cancelled or late and broken, but look quite nice in screenshots (as long as the frames per second are not displayed).
Click to expand...

Yes - but it's kind of quiet at the moment and getting Hi-Ban to repeat himself ad infinitum is really all we have right now until they release something we can have a proper laugh at.
 

Tippis

Tippis
Hi-Ban said:
Ok, so the answer is in the quote. Let me review that quote...
Click to expand...
Yes, do that. Here it is in full:
Tippis said:
Hi-Ban said:
Actual Proof? Even CIG said Star Marine is in Evocati hands.
Click to expand...
No.

There are leaks that sy it's nicely playable and smooth. There are leaks which talk about features included in Star Marine, like the cover system, or 2 gamemodes. Plus, we all knew from weeks ago that Star Marine was going to be tested by Evocati, because it's part of 2.6.
Click to expand...
None of that is proof. It is heresay and conjecture, with a bit of wishful thinking mixed in to connect the two.

It's very strange to suddenly claim something like "Star Marine is NOT in Evocati build"
Click to expand...
It is also a strawman argument.
Click to expand...

It's not very difficult to navigate, and especially not to pick out the part relevant to this latest confusion on your part. The answer you're looking for is right there, and it's very brief. You should have no problem understanding it, but say so if you do.

Ok so then, if what you linked me to is the source of your claim
Click to expand...
It's not. That's where you get confused. It's the answer to your question. Again, it's not the answer you want, but it is the answer, and you have to accept this fact.
 
Last edited:

Hi-Ban

Hi-Ban
Tippis said:
Yes, do that. Here it is in full:


It's not very difficult to navigate, and especially not to pick out the part relevant to this latest confusion on your part. The answer you're looking for is right there, and it's very brief. You should have no problem understanding it, but say so if you do.
Click to expand...

What i see is you are trying to use a logical fallacy (ad ignorantiam) against my argument.

My proof of SM being on Evocati is a gif with game footage, several leaks from different sources, and official confirmation by CIG.
Your proof of SM NOT being on Evocati is: We don't know, therefore SM is NOT on Evocati.
 

[VR] DDM_Reaper20

[VR] DDM_Reaper20
I say: Let's wait and see.

Although I must admit: I couldn't care less about Star Marine. If I want to get my butt handed to me in an FPS, there are so many around. Nope, I'm more interested in multi-player starship games, not to forget a decent single-player campaign, but CIG is still lacking in that area... (glares meaningfully at Squadron 42).

Let's be honest, I don't see this game being released before end of 2018, if that early (not to be cruel, but I'm seriously tempted to say: If AT ALL). By then, its stiffest competitor, ED, will have evolved, as well. It will be interesting to see how many new customers CIG will be able to sucker in, 'cause its success -- or failure -- hinges on that. Given the history so far, I'm not holding my breath.--
 

Hi-Ban

Hi-Ban
Tippis said:
No. What I'm doing is saying that your argument is a strawman.


…and here, you try the same strawman. It will not work this time either.
Click to expand...

My argument is that there is footage of Star Marine, there are leaks from different sources, and CIG has officially confirmed it. I can give links if you want.
That's definitely is NOT a strawman. Please look it up in the wikipedia.

But your argument, which you've been circling around it for the last 2 pages, is: "We don't know, therefore what you say is false".
That is indeed a fallacy (ad ignorantiam) and it just shows you have no proof of your claim, other than trying to discredit your opponent in this argument.
Or maybe you have proof, but refuse to let us know for some unexplainable reason.

So please, if you have some real proof of SM NOT being in evocati, or if you have some proof which undeniably refutes the proofs i presented, please show it, as i'd be happy to see it.
But please, no more fallacies. That's boring.
 
Last edited:

Tippis

Tippis
Hi-Ban said:
But your argument, which you've been circling around it for the last 2 pages, is: "We don't know, therefore what you say is false"
Click to expand...
No. This supposed argument is entirely of your making, and that is why it's a strawman.

So please, if you have some real proof of SM NOT being in evocati
Click to expand...
I have already answered this. Four times.
 

VidarSnipes

V
We interrupt this argument to provide you with a mild spoiler: next few dozen posts can be summarised by a following summary:
"U!", he said.
"No, U!", he heard in reply.
 

Hi-Ban

Hi-Ban
Tippis said:
No. This supposed argument is entirely of your making, and that is why it's a strawman.


I have already answered this. Four times.
Click to expand...

No, you havent. Your argument has always been either "you're wrong" or "we don't know". But without any kind of proof. The only proof you have presented is your word that you say i'm wrong. Nothing more.

Even when asked to link to proof, you've been unable to link to any proof.

My proof of SM being playable in the evocati build is this:

http://imgur.com/Og8f5nz
http://i.imgur.com/sh4mMKw.png
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starcitizen_Leaks/comments/5fnd8p/evocati_leaks_updated_regularly/
http://www.elotrolado.net/hilo_hilo...-0-live-2-6-evocati_1926133_s5120#p1742719557
https://youtu.be/bmv6iS5tFeA?t=59 (0:59-1:22)

I can elaborate and explain why i think this is valid proof, if you want.
 
Last edited:

Tippis

Tippis
Hi-Ban said:
No, you havent.
Click to expand...
Yes I have. Your not liking the answer does not mean it isn't there.

Your argument has always been either "you're wrong" or "we don't know".
Click to expand...
Congratulations, you finally got it.

But without any kind of proof.
Click to expand...
I have all the proof I need for that argument, and I've presented it. Or, to be really fair, you have presented it. Again, your not liking it does not mean it's not there.
 
Last edited:

Hi-Ban

Hi-Ban
Tippis said:
Yes I have. Your not liking the answer does not mean it isn't there.


Congratulations, you finally got it.


I have all the proof I need for that argument, and I've presented it. Or, to be really fair, you have presented it. Again, your not liking it does not mean it's not there.
Click to expand...

Well, could you please refute the proof i presented? (see previous post) Of course, using proper arguments and not fallacies.
 

Ben Parry

Ben Parry
VidarSnipes said:
We interrupt this argument to provide you with a mild spoiler: next few dozen posts can be summarised by a following summary:
"U!", he said.
"No, U!", he heard in reply.
Click to expand...
Seriously. Why not just wait until the Evocation ends, and the players who've been respecting their NDAs can just tell you whether it was missing from any/all of their builds? (Assuming they're allowed to do that)
 

Tippis

Tippis
Ben Parry said:
Seriously. Why not just wait until the Evocation ends, and the players who've been respecting their NDAs can just tell you whether it was missing from any/all of their builds? (Assuming they're allowed to do that)
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Then we'll know. Before that, short of a solid leak, we won't.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom