This isn't selective perception but CR changing the details of the deal after the ink is already dry
The chairman letter was posted with the stretch goal.
I remember well because I was there, and within those times there was already context to the PG R&D months before the stretch goal, one thing that is very easy to misunderstand is the concept of PG + Planet was not what they are doing today, was actually drive PG to help create the planets instead of the full seamless thing that was indeed the thing originally wanted for post-launch.
Then I guess CR can also add time traveller to his list of accolades? Chairmans letter for 41 million was posted mar 31, CR is taking about hitting another milestone of 41 million and how happy he is to hit it. Why would he post something and talk about how happy he is to have hit the goal before it's happened?
So either you're making things up, you're in time travelling cahoots with CR, you're pulling some classic revisionist history or you haven't actually read the chairmans letter.
So either you're making things up, you're in time travelling cahoots with CR, you're pulling some classic revisionist history or you haven't actually read the chairmans letter.
That was indeed March 31st.
The goal was met then. The degree of information from it came from the usual community content on where this R&D stuff was already discussed. In any way, this was clarified, and it still falls on selective understanding, like you defending the goal was only for PG Planets.
So either you're making things up, you're in time travelling cahoots with CR, you're pulling some classic revisionist history or you haven't actually read the chairmans letter.
That was indeed March 31st.
The goal was met then. The degree of information from it came from the usual community content on where this R&D stuff was already discussed. In any way, this was clarified, and it still falls on selective understanding, like you defending the goal was only for PG Planets.
Before the goal was met was there a chairmans letter clarifying what the stretch goal was about? If you answer no, there wasn't a letter then it's not really selective understanding is it?
Before the goal was met was there a chairmans letter clarifying what the stretch goal was about? If you answer no, there wasn't a letter then it's not really selective understanding is it?
The stretch goal itself, the first description does not imply it is only Planets, it talks about planets but the goal is a team assembled to R&D on PG.
There's no point in defending the claim by selectively nitpicking timestamps because mimimimimmi the letter was posted after the goal like it changes what was clarified after.
Before the goal was met was there a chairmans letter clarifying what the stretch goal was about? If you answer no, there wasn't a letter then it's not really selective understanding is it?
The stretch goal itself, the first description does not imply it is only Planets, it talks about planets but the goal is a team assembled to R&D on PG.
There's no point in defending the claim by selectively nitpicking timestamps because mimimimimmi the letter was posted after the goal like it changes what was clarified after.
This circular discussion is pointless.
I agree the discussion is pointless because I'm asking if the stretch goal states anywhere that it was anything other then PG planets and you are trying to defend it with information(Chris saying systems and planets instead of just planets) that was posted after the goal had been hit.
This would have gone easier if you could admit you were wrong but hey free bumps for the list.
This would have gone easier if you could admit you were wrong but hey free bumps for the list.
I am not. You claimed the stretch goal was only for PG Planets, I have shown the letter that clarifies it that came after the goal, directly linked in that goal.
We don't get to do that nitpicking just because the letter came after the goal, especially when making that statement presently, as to what the goal was about.
I'm not bothering to reply bellow as such is more troll-bait than anything else.
edit 2: No moar baits.
edit 3: that's exactly what you are doing though!
edit 4: My point stands, the PG R&D was not for planets only, hence there was no such "1 guy only lol" team of R&D.
This would have gone easier if you could admit you were wrong but hey free bumps for the list.
I am not. You claimed the stretch goal was only for PG Planets, I have shown the letter that clarifies it that came after the goal, directly linked in that goal.
We don't get to do that nitpicking just because the letter came after the goal, especially when making that statement presently, as to what the goal was about.
The goal was about? So you're saying the goal changed? Well thanks for agreeing with me
This would have gone easier if you could admit you were wrong but hey free bumps for the list.
I am not. You claimed the stretch goal was only for PG Planets, I have shown the letter that clarifies it that came after the goal, directly linked in that goal.
We don't get to do that nitpicking just because the letter came after the goal, especially when making that statement presently, as to what the goal was about.
I'm not bothering to reply bellow as such is more troll-bait than anything else.
Lol so you reply above by editing your post? You could just not reply at all.
As for your edit I told you before the devil is in the details and you wording your post the way you did would be unintentionally agreeing with me. So again thanks for proving my point and thanks for the humor
This would have gone easier if you could admit you were wrong but hey free bumps for the list.
I am not. You claimed the stretch goal was only for PG Planets, I have shown the letter that clarifies it that came after the goal, directly linked in that goal.
We don't get to do that nitpicking just because the letter came after the goal, especially when making that statement presently, as to what the goal was about.
I'm not bothering to reply bellow as such is more troll-bait than anything else.
edit 2: No moar baits.
edit 3: that's exactly what you are doing though!
Lol I could care less if I get the last word in but I think it's hilarious that you won't respond to my "bait" directly but instead edit your post to respond to me.
Just so we are clear though you do realize that by editing your post to indirectly respond to me it's still the same as responding to me right?
All this simply because you can't admit that either you were wrong or, if you prefer an olive branch, that you misunderstood what I was saying.
This would have gone easier if you could admit you were wrong but hey free bumps for the list.
I am not. You claimed the stretch goal was only for PG Planets, I have shown the letter that clarifies it that came after the goal, directly linked in that goal.
We don't get to do that nitpicking just because the letter came after the goal, especially when making that statement presently, as to what the goal was about.
I'm not bothering to reply bellow as such is more troll-bait than anything else.
edit 2: No moar baits.
edit 3: that's exactly what you are doing though!
edit 4: My point stands, the PG R&D was not for planets only, hence there was no such "1 guy only lol" team of R&D.
Lol wow ok so option 1 then and still sulking by editing posts I see. Oh well free bumps for the list
Just out of curiosity, what is that link? Also, where are they getting their numbers from? It seems awfully granular. Just wondering if it's math or if it's actually pulled from updates, etc.
Just out of curiosity, what is that link? Also, where are they getting their numbers from? It seems awfully granular. Just wondering if it's math or if it's actually pulled from updates, etc.
The information is pulled from Star Citizen's schedule reports here:
Just out of curiosity, what is that link? Also, where are they getting their numbers from? It seems awfully granular. Just wondering if it's math or if it's actually pulled from updates, etc.
It combines all sub tasks and treats them as one progress bar. - The progress of each individual subtask is determined by how much time passed by since it started and when it's scheduled to be finished, this will then be combined towards the overall progress.
So since April 3rd, they have progressed through 91% of 3.0's schedule.
So since April 3rd, they have progressed through 91% of 3.0's schedule.
Not really.
Using that method of counting, once a delay becomes known and enters the schedule it's something that can and will be progressed, but unknown delays aren't factored in at all. Thus as long as there are more delays than things completed in advance, which is happening all the time, one completed percent of the schedule is always smaller then one unfinished percent of that same schedule.
Also the days when they're waiting for the last few tasks to finish, and the days they use for Evocati and PTU, are of lesser value than the days when they're doing many tasks.
The percents on that webpage are one fan's way of counting things. It's not mathematically wrong, but it's not really useful info either.
Using that method of counting, once a delay becomes known and enters the schedule it's something that can and will be progressed, but unknown delays aren't factored in at all. Thus as long as there are more delays than things completed in advance, which is happening all the time, one completed percent of the schedule is always smaller then one unfinished percent of that same schedule.
Also the days when they're waiting for the last few tasks to finish, and the days they use for Evocati and PTU, are of lesser value than the days when they're doing many tasks.
The percents on that webpage are one fan's way of counting things. It's not mathematically wrong, but it's not really useful info either.
That's why I said as it stands today, all changes that come both on delays and completion of tasks will impact that overall progress.
On Core Tech 97%, basing itself on 2 of 3 tasks completed and the last one being scheduled 6 days away (counting 3 months in dev).
More items added and sorted, accuracy has been updated and some wording changed, a FAQ has been added to help clear up terms and in a turn that I'm sure will tickle the likes @MaxBacon the contest button no longer says get out when you mouseover but now to consult the FAQ first.
Comments
So either you're making things up, you're in time travelling cahoots with CR, you're pulling some classic revisionist history or you haven't actually read the chairmans letter.
The goal was met then. The degree of information from it came from the usual community content on where this R&D stuff was already discussed. In any way, this was clarified, and it still falls on selective understanding, like you defending the goal was only for PG Planets.
There's no point in defending the claim by selectively nitpicking timestamps because mimimimimmi the letter was posted after the goal like it changes what was clarified after.
This circular discussion is pointless.
This would have gone easier if you could admit you were wrong but hey free bumps for the list.
We don't get to do that nitpicking just because the letter came after the goal, especially when making that statement presently, as to what the goal was about.
I'm not bothering to reply bellow as such is more troll-bait than anything else.
edit 2: No moar baits.
edit 3: that's exactly what you are doing though!
edit 4: My point stands, the PG R&D was not for planets only, hence there was no such "1 guy only lol" team of R&D.
edit 5: cats
As for your edit I told you before the devil is in the details and you wording your post the way you did would be unintentionally agreeing with me. So again thanks for proving my point and thanks for the humor
Just so we are clear though you do realize that by editing your post to indirectly respond to me it's still the same as responding to me right?
All this simply because you can't admit that either you were wrong or, if you prefer an olive branch, that you misunderstood what I was saying.
Some wording has been updated for clarity and other features added to the list in various categories it looks like
http://www.changedetection.com/log/io/github/starcitizentracker/index_log.html
I'm so glad I got a refund.
Just out of curiosity, what is that link? Also, where are they getting their numbers from? It seems awfully granular. Just wondering if it's math or if it's actually pulled from updates, etc.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report
The dates on that page are correct, but the % numbers are just one fan's way of counting things.
It combines all sub tasks and treats them as one progress bar. - The progress of each individual subtask is determined by how much time passed by since it started and when it's scheduled to be finished, this will then be combined towards the overall progress.
So since April 3rd, they have progressed through 91% of 3.0's schedule.
Using that method of counting, once a delay becomes known and enters the schedule it's something that can and will be progressed, but unknown delays aren't factored in at all. Thus as long as there are more delays than things completed in advance, which is happening all the time, one completed percent of the schedule is always smaller then one unfinished percent of that same schedule.
Also the days when they're waiting for the last few tasks to finish, and the days they use for Evocati and PTU, are of lesser value than the days when they're doing many tasks.
The percents on that webpage are one fan's way of counting things. It's not mathematically wrong, but it's not really useful info either.
On Core Tech 97%, basing itself on 2 of 3 tasks completed and the last one being scheduled 6 days away (counting 3 months in dev).