3 minutes ago, durandal343 said:

With clothes on right?

We're all always naked, underneath our clothes.

4 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

I think we should discuss the Nordic languages.

There was a theory that Middle English evolved as a creole of Old Norse and Old English. It's rejected by mainstream linguists (read: it's wrong), but it's interesting to think about.

@Megatronrex you're doing gods work.

Although I am curious about how people mess up meat orders? I mean a ribeye is a ribeye... right?

Just now, PartyPotato said:

@Megatronrex you're doing gods work.

Although I am curious about how people mess up meat orders? I mean a ribeye is a ribeye... right?

If you get bacon in Canada, is it bacon or ham?

#teamorange4lyfe

18 minutes ago, svelok said:

That's a literal language barrier. If you think of meat wholesalers as speaking their own dialect, you and yours have certain terms with specific meanings within your linguistic/cultural group. Your customers come from a different dialect, and that stuff isn't part of their cultural purview. You both know what a ribeye is, but you may well have two different words for it.

It's completely analogous to a hypothetical world where all meat wholesalers exclusively speak French, and all your customers exclusively speak English. Your spreadsheet is a de facto dictionary, serving the actual purpose of a dictionary - to describe parlance such that it can be understood by an outsider or researcher.

If this seems silly, it's not. We tend to think of it all as one big English, cleanly delineated from Spanish or German or whatever, but it's not. The difference between what constitutes a language (German vs English), a dialect (UK English vs US English), or just a meat wholesaler having a different set of understood terminology than their customers, is completely socio-political. Linguistically, it's just a spectrum.

You wouldn't call a customer dumb just because they come in and want to buy a chuletón , even if you've got no idea what that means

No I'm not talking about a language barrier. I'm specifically referring to a predominantly southern American clientele. An example of what I mean is I sell to about 15 or so deer processors. All 15 of them use some type of pork to mix with deer to make venison sausage. Some of them use fat, some use 50% lean trimmings, and some use 80% lean trimmings. 10 of those 15 processors call what they use fat. Only 4 of them actually use fat, 2 of them use 50% lean trimmings, 1 of them uses 80% lean trimmings, and 3 want whichever one is cheaper that week. All of them have had the differences explained to them multiple times and several of them have ended up getting the wrong item. But NONE of them seem to be capable of learning what they really want. It's easier for me to have a spreadsheet for them than it is for me to go back and look up their records. Those aren't the only examples either. I have multiple BBQ places that order whole hams. Some of them get hams, some get whole shoulders, some get boston butts, some get boneless hams. I have to vary those customers on my spreadsheet not only by restaurant but by person doing the order.

If I had been refering to a language barrier you would be completely right. In all honesty communicating with my Spanish speaking customers is much less difficult. They tell me what they want in Spanish and other than pernil (it varies from country to country and region to region which leg you use) there's very little problems. I could see chuleton meaning porterhouse instead of T-Bone though but haven't run into that. They're not telling me they want chicharron when they want mondongo.

45 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

No, but I've worked in a Deli, and had someone ask for Ham , serve them Ham , and be screamed at because I didn't get them Bologna .

I think that's what he's talking about.

Exactly this

15 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

@Megatronrex you're doing gods work.

Although I am curious about how people mess up meat orders? I mean a ribeye is a ribeye... right?

3 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

No I'm not talking about a language barrier. I'm specifically referring to a predominantly southern American clientele. An example of what I mean is I sell to about 15 or so deer processors. All 15 of them use some type of pork to mix with deer to make venison sausage. Some of them use fat, some use 50% lean trimmings, and some use 80% lean trimmings. 10 of those 15 processors call what they use fat. Only 4 of them actually use fat, 2 of them use 50% lean trimmings, 1 of them uses 80% lean trimmings, and 3 want whichever one is cheaper that week. All of them have had the differences explained to them multiple times and several of them have ended up getting the wrong item. But NONE of them seem to be capable of learning what they really want. It's easier for me to have a spreadsheet for them than it is for me to go back and look up their records. Those aren't the only examples either. I have multiple BBQ places that order whole hams. Some of them get hams, some get whole shoulders, some get boston butts, some get boneless hams. I have to vary those customers on my spreadsheet not only by restaurant but by person doing the order.

If I had been refering to a language barrier you would be completely right. In all honesty communicating with my Spanish speaking customers is much less difficult. They tell me what they want in Spanish and other than pernil (it varies from country to country and region to region which leg you use) there's very little problems. I could see chuleton meaning porterhouse instead of T-Bone though but haven't run into that. They're not telling me they want chicharron when they want mondongo.

I wasn't typing all that again.

Almost forgot

Taking a word that has one meaning and expanding its definition to include the literal opposite of that word is stupid. There is literally no argument that can change my view of this.

12 minutes ago, Eggzavier said:

#teamorange4lyfe

#teampurple

6 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

Almost forgot

Taking a word that has one meaning and expanding its definition to include the literal opposite of that word is stupid. There is literally no argument that can change my view of this.

That's OK.. no need to change your view. Your words can just be changed to mean whatever is needed...

Just now, durandal343 said:

That's OK.. no need to change your view. Your words can just be changed to mean whatever is needed...

D*** you. You're right.

11 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

Almost remembered

Taking a word that has one meaning and expanding its definition to include the proverbial opposite of that word is awesome. There is figuratively no argument that can change my view of this. I like Waffles.

Kind of like that?

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

During my time on the beta, it certainly felt like it was in the "pay-to-win" direction. Not only do you have cards that give you new, stronger gear and abilities, you also have upgrades for abilities, like the star card that reduces cool downs by up to 50% which I got in a random pack. I also got 2 more cards that increased my rate of fire and damage. I jumped into a game and when on a 19 kill streak in an A-Wing.

So it's hard to not think BF2 will be pay-to-win. I know EA said they were going to fix the loot crates.

But now there are BioWare developers speaking out against EA's business model of forcing players into micro transactions. EA has also shut down Visceral Games who was working on a single player Star Wars game. If you read both of the se articles, you'll see a common theme EA has in game development: Keep players coming back for more in an open world environment.

“It has become clear that to deliver an experience that players will want to come back to and enjoy for a long time to come, we needed to pivot the design. We will maintain the stunning visuals, authenticity in the Star Wars universe, and focus on bringing a Star Wars story to life. Importantly, we are shifting the game to be a broader experience that allows for more variety and player agency, leaning into the capabilities of our Frostbite engine and reimagining central elements of the game to give players a Star Wars adventure of greater depth and breadth to explore.”

https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/17/16490960/ea-closing-visceral-games-star-wars-game-delayed

"...they are generally pushing for more open-world games. And the reason is you can monetise them better. The words in there that were used are 'have them come back again and again' [not quite but that's the gist - see above]. Why do you care about that at EA? The reason you care about that is because microtransactions: buying card packs in the Mass Effect games, the multiplayer. It's the same reason we added card packs to Mass Effect 3: how do you get people to keep coming back to a thing instead of 'just' playing for 60 to 100 hours?

...

What we're seeing is a "cynical" chasing of the games making big money. "You've seen - what is BioWare's new franchise coming out?" he asked.

"Anthem," the host duly answered.

"Right," Heir said. "It's not a traditional-looking BioWare game, right? If that's what you're seeing from a place like BioWare, owned by EA, a place where I worked for seven years; if that's what you're seeing from Visceral now closing and going to this other Vancouver studio; what it means is that the linear single-player triple-A game at EA is dead for the time being."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-23-manveer-heir-bioware-mass-effect-ea-monetisation

It's frustrating to see EA go in this direction. It may not be pay-to-win like mobile games are, but it's pretty **** close.

Don't get me wrong I hate EA. That being said this is actually the opposite of pay to win and there is an important piece of info missing from this discussion.

Let's start with what pay to win actually is;

Pay to win is putting an item that is required to win or to reasonably win behind a pay wall. This game is not doing that. They are in fact making the best items (and from my understanding all weapons) unbuyable with real money. This is nothing more than a paid shortcut. This information was mostly available before the beta but no one with a platform actually did their research.

I also want to point out that EA has not said they were "changing" anything, as has been widely reported. They specifically said they wanted to "clarify" how the final build would work.

Also the piece of info that is conveniently left it from this discussion by those with a platform is the free dlc. Now I'm not going to discuss whether a game requires extra money past the initial cost to fund extra content. I have no idea and frankly it doesn't matter as these companies are going to charge for it one way or another. But if people that are going to take advantage of the paid shortcut system want to subsidize my free dlc I have zero issue with that.

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Kind of like that?

I DO like waffles.

Just now, Megatronrex said:

I DO like waffles.

Which means there was no lie in the whole quote!

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Which means there was no lie in the whole quote!

You're taking after Obi-Wan now.

2 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

You're taking after Obi-Wan now.

People pull that **** with me all the time. Its only fair I do so once in a while.

3 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

People pull that **** with me all the time. Its only fair I do so once in a while.

Now that statement is entirely true.

8 minutes ago, Tirion said:

But if people that are going to take advantage of the paid shortcut system want to subsidize my free dlc I have zero issue with that

Wasn't this how Halo 5 did their expansions? They had a microtransaction pack system but all the DLC was free.

40 minutes ago, Tirion said:

Don't get me wrong I hate EA. That being said this is actually the opposite of pay to win and there is an important piece of info missing from this discussion.

Let's start with what pay to win actually is;

Pay to win is putting an item that is required to win or to reasonably win behind a pay wall. This game is not doing that. They are in fact making the best items (and from my understanding all weapons) unbuyable with real money. This is nothing more than a paid shortcut. This information was mostly available before the beta but no one with a platform actually did their research.

I also want to point out that EA has not said they were "changing" anything, as has been widely reported. They specifically said they wanted to "clarify" how the final build would work.

Also the piece of info that is conveniently left it from this discussion by those with a platform is the free dlc. Now I'm not going to discuss whether a game requires extra money past the initial cost to fund extra content. I have no idea and frankly it doesn't matter as these companies are going to charge for it one way or another. But if people that are going to take advantage of the paid shortcut system want to subsidize my free dlc I have zero issue with that.

When you can pay to have gear that makes it easier for you to stay alive, use abilities faster and more effective, it's pay to win even if you are at the mercy of RNG. Check MTG and Hearthstone card rarity and the top decks.

What AAA game has actually prevented people from winning unless they paid money? This is the sticking point for me. If I can grind my way to better gear, but someone can simply pay for it instead, I'm not actually prevented from getting the other content. But it will be insanely long to get it, to the point where there is no reason to even try. Looking at you Warframe.

You say "reasonable win", but what does that mean? If I don't pay any money and can't kill the guy with a 50 kill streak because he spent $500, at what point is this not pay to win?

I'm not sure what the free DLC has to do with this. If I can't play the game because I'm always getting 1 shot by a guy who has tier 4 gear, all the free content won't make me feel any better.

To make this full circle, I think we have different definitions on what pay to win is. What you said sounds more like pay to play, which is similar to Battle Front 1 season pass. I would know because I didn't keep up and all the players migrated to the new maps leaving me behind.

Honestly it really doesn't matter. I'm not going to buy the game and I doubt you will either since you hate EA.

3 hours ago, svelok said:

Language is a means. When I say "we will literally never get another Armada article", you know exactly what I mean. That makes it correct, and my ability to express the idea is unimpeded.

I feel a bit odd 'butting in' to the conversation, but I wanted to throw in my '2 cents':

Saying that because something that is incorrect is interpreted to be that which was meant it is made to be correct is, I think, a mistake. When someone says literally , but should have used figuratively , it does not necessarily imply that that is what they meant. They could merely have not known that they were making a mistake. That's just one minor point.

More generally, the point of a dictionary is to define a word so that everybody can be on the same page, so to speak. If suddenly you start using a word for its exact opposite, you have made the dictionary fail at its task. Yes, languages can evolve. But I agree that it is stupid to include a definition of a word that is the exact opposite of what it originally means, especially when the original definition is still being defined with it, and particularly when there is already a word performing that function. Case in point is literally . You already said that people interpret it as figuratively . Giving literally the definition of figuratively when both of the words already exist to be each other's antonyms is stupid. That is not language evolving, that is a mistake made through ignorance that has now become so common people no longer bother correcting it. It is not justifiable, nor is it equivalent to our use of 'tabling' to mean losing all your ships in a game of Armada. 'To be tabled' didn't mean 'to destroy every ship of the enemies in a game of Armada' - it always meant to be on the losing side of that game.

Sure, other words like awful and nice changed in meaning, even to their opposites. But we were not around to a) prevent that b) no the circumstances whereby they changed. But now that we have a dictionary, and ought to know what every word means, we should not be associating two conflicting definitions to the same word when we have separate words already for that. That is, I deem, madness, and a lessening of the language. English is inconsistent enough as it is. Making a word mean it's antonym at the same time as it retains its original meanings is a step backwards in linguistic development.

I shall conclude with a great quote from a member of these very forums:

3 hours ago, Megatronrex said:

Taking a word that has one meaning and expanding its definition to include the literal opposite of that word is stupid. There is literally no argument that can change my view of this.

47 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

But now that we have a dictionary, and ought to know what every word means, we should not be associating two conflicting definitions to the same word when we have separate words already for that. That is, I deem, madness, and a lessening of the language. English is inconsistent enough as it is. Making a word mean it's antonym at the same time as it retains its original meanings is a step backwards in linguistic development.

At the current stage, I'll just leave this here for now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#criticisms

Ehh...what happened to this thread?

FFG? Please give us an Armada article all ready!

Our bretheren and sisterens are flaming the embers of what might well become a Galactic Civil War!

And one that an Admiral mightn't be able to stop but a certain Grand Admiral COULD!

We believe in you FFG! Thanks!

5 minutes ago, Alpha Xg1 said:

Ehh...what happened to this thread?

FFG? Please give us an Armada article all ready!

Our bretheren and sisterens are flaming the embers of what might well become a Galactic Civil War!

And one that an Admiral mightn't be able to stop but a certain Grand Admiral COULD!

We believe in you FFG! Thanks!

seriously though, these forums have gone completely off the rail. IMO the lack of Armada articles has the same impact on us as what happens to people when they drink salt water. I'm reasonably sure that Dra has a volley ball somewhere up in canada that he's drawn a face on and talks to daily about armada