exhausted
-
Posts
501 -
Joined
-
Last visited
1 Follower
Recent Profile Visitors
2827 profile views
-
Quick Action Generator | DCS Summary | Virpil 1v1 Dogfights
exhausted replied to Graphics's topic in Official Newsletters
This leaves a bit to be desired. For one, why can't the Harrier be used to dogfight MiG-29s and Su-27s by default? I am slaying those fighters in the ME, but I am restricted to C-101s and L-39s in the QAG. Not even Su-25s are in there. So, then I went to try a bomber escort mission with Harriers providing escort (a real mission they could do) and the opposition is too weak. Can you add credible opponents, regardless of what you decided would be most appropriate on the first iteration of the QAG? -
Leaving so much in a permanent beta state allows more units to be sold with fewer obstacles and burdens. Two teams working on different items allows the ED store to sell new maps quicker. Some people love it, some people see it differently. Can't really have a wrong opinion here. But yea, I didn't buy the Afghanistan map for several reasons and I am wondering what Iraq will look like when it's finally unwrapped.
-
Well look who appointed themselves as ED's personal jailhouse lawyer. You cannot create new breaches in different agreements to gain leverage over another supposed breach, while failing to mitigate any of the damages. If this goes to mediation, arbitration or court, then many forums will look at the sincerity of the complaining parties in explaining how they suffered damages while inflicting other damages. It is NOT just one series of events, but rather contracts being shredded in several different ways. If ED knew about a supposed IP breach, did not mitigate (if damages even existed) and only entered into new agreements as means to recover whatever supposed losses suffered, then ED would have negotiated in bad faith and this will be exposed. The very fact this is with lawyers shows how little foresight at least one party had in getting them involved in the first place.
-
Your remedies for breach are in law and in the contract. You are free to defend any such deviation from law and agreement by paying lawyers to mediate it for you. This is virtually guaranteed to be the worst way to settle the conflict, but going "thermonuclear" is your choice. The only thing is, you will need a lot of luck to get people to follow you into such a mistake. It's no secret I am not on the cheer squad for this.
-
None of this is how objectivity works. There are distinct issues being claimed by each side. And, the idea that settling one supposed breach of contract with a different breach of contract rather than pursuing the remedies laid out in law puts any claim of your own objectivity to rest. To be perfectly clear, I am voicing my concerns with my posts and with my wallet; I haven't bought anything new in months, despite sale after sale. Turning this into a legal matter and paying lawyers assured both sides will end up worse; a victory from ED would likely squeeze Razbam for more than they can give; a victory from Razbam would likely spoil the relationship with other Third Parties. Not everyone is going to blindly believe assurances and claims, without anything to back it up. The only thing that would help has no chance of appearing: transparency.
-
Sheik Isa Air Base, Bahrain -- home of the 3rd MAW during ODS. Mandatory, needs to be included.
-
I'm going to say something so controversial in this thread that will surely result in my post being deleted or being labeled a pessimist, or both: there are parts of each module that need to be updated; the MiG-19 has several malfunctioning elements in the cockpit; the AV-8B still has a flaw that causes it to snap into a scientifically impossible flat spin when breaking with a bomb load; and obviously the F-15E isn't done (none of them are, actually). The objective truth is that ED is pointing fingers at Razbam and Razbam is pointing fingers back. I know I am supposed to give my unwaivering support to ED in this thread, but as this part of the post does not discuss anything OUTSIDE the official announcement, it can be said that ED's equal resistance to outright solving the deficits is preventing or prolonging the fixes to the modules listed above. There is another word for this outlook: objectivity.
-
we have a winner this is reasonable, I might rethink purchasing until I see what comes of it. We all remember how Afghanistan was released.
-
For the sake of Desert Storm, at least backdate the F-16 and the F/A-18. If ED ever fixes things with Razbam then maybe we can get a Day Attack Harrier.
-
This cannot be overstated. That's a reasonable conclusion for caution while the ultimate disposition is pending, but I don't think RB is looking to pull the plug on anyone for merely discussing what is being learned.
-
Please clarify: I know that Razbam is being trashed all the time in this thread, but does this mean that if there was an equal thing said about ED then it would not be allowed?
-
I don't know what it is you think you're talking about, but no such agreement with me is a reason for you to break the rules and badger posters with insults and name calling. The fatal flaws of your modus operandi cannot be resolved with any level of supposed deal making. You must treat everyone with respect; it is perfectly fine if you want to shut out everyone else's point of view, but it must be done without a grand stage presence and faked persecution.
-
The issue with all this characterizing is, how do you know things went from bad to worse? The second they lawyered up, they reached their lowest points. But, as a layman you are not considering that the courts and the lawyers will consider more than the signed documents. There is a lot of probative evidence here, beyond what's in the contracts and even if you are a lawyer you should be able to see that you cannot predict the outcome just with the messages the lawyers approved before being posted on the internet. Those leaks you dismiss actually 'move the needle' and whether they are allowed into a trial, if this even gets to trial, is an open question. ED's pattern of conduct would lead many of us to believe they have a sloppy contract, at best. And that increases the likelihood that Razbam's claims are parole evidence that could be factored into a decision about fault. Does knowing this make me a provocateur? I hope not, but you shouldn't be so quick to judge others when their only crime is disagreeing with you when you think you have it all figured out. I'm barely in this thread, and you are on every page -- whether or not anybody is listening -- so, who could possibly like the sound of their own voice as much as yourself? Try to stay on topic and, once again, stop lashing out.
-
What is your desired end state, if you are finally able to prove whatever point it is you are trying about Razbam? The problem is you can't pay vendors with points, and it's a question of where the money is going if it is even going anywhere. It might not be going to the 3rd party when points are used for customer satisfaction in this case.
-
Did you not see Nineline's message? Mischaracterizing someone's position is in the same vein as name calling. If you think about it, the entire issue would have gone away if RB's claims did not have substance. People have a lot of reasons for doubting the other side and supporting the information available, whether it comes from a lawyer's mouth or not.
