Noname117

I'm really not all that concerned about this actually changing much of anything. Some people will pay to remove ads from YouTube, some content creators will make more money, and maybe a few videos get put behind a paywall. It seems as if YouTube is adding an addition to the system which should not affect the non-paying watcher. I don't see the pay-wall videos being popular, as they would naturally get less revenue as the ad-watching part of YouTube is removed from watching the video. Creators not participating could be bad, but for the moment I think that there isn't any reason to not participate. I think this could actually be a good addition to YouTube, giving the consumer more options, and making the producers more money whilst doing little harm to the consumers. Of course, YouTube could easily mess things up by adding just a few more changes to the new systems. For example, blocking ad-block could have bad consequences for some users (including, shamefully, me). Having YouTube force more or longer ads onto the consumer to encourage subscribing would also be bad. Having YouTube force creators to put paywalls on some of their videos would be very bad. YouTube could also incentivize large or mid-sized channels with extra money if they go to a paywall-only format, which would, of course, be bad. I personally do not see much of a change with the upcoming update, and I am not too concerned that anything especially bad will happen.

I don't personally own any FNAF games, but from what I have seen on Game Theory at least, the story and lore was never really fully handed to you (though I do not know if that changed with FNAF 3). I mean, a decent amount of it was given, and you could get more of it through observing, but there always seemed to be loose ends. Each successive game tied up some of the previous loose ends, but left more of the mystery to be solved. Looking closely and connecting dots could get you further in solving the mysteries, but not always all the way there. And that is the difference between the games you were describing and games with mysteries and lore like FNAF. In the examples you gave you can never find out what happened to the dead children or the 2 skeletons. You can only vaguely guess as to the causes and results of what happened, and then move on. You're not going to spend hours connecting dots and gathering information because it is pointless to. FNAF gives you a mystery, but it keeps developing the mystery the more you play the games. The delays between each released helped this even more, giving people time to connect dots and theorize before the next release would come out, generating anticipation and encouraging even more connecting of dots and theorizing. It is the hunt to solve the mystery that makes the FNAF games interesting, not the existence of the mystery itself. There isn't a hunt to solve the mysteries in the examples you gave; if there was they would make great mysteries.

2/10 I only recognize the avatar somewhat

10/10 Targeria-ball is just above the e in "are."

I'm back to rejoin the cult of 0 Thus, I'll add here. -19

(directed at robotengineer because Zucal's last post seems to just be a comment) 7/10 Some really nice quotes there

0/10 I have no clue who you are

9/10 is that what you look like IRL?

Decided to try to make mine. So far it is coming along well, though I still have to add the structure (shouldn't be too hard) and the NAFA-18 Caracal (which I probably won't do).)

Video 2 of the series, the one with 2 drug references and a lot of memes, appears to have not actually been posted to the forums. Or if it was, its post was removed long before you posted about it. If the video itself isn't on the KSP forums, and the people here aren't discussing the parts of the video that would break the forum rules, then I don't think any rules are being broken.

Maybe it is distance covered once you switch to it?

Wow! You did such a good job with that render of my NAFA. The background, the engine effects, and the kerbals just suit it so well! I especially like how you added the nose art. Very nice job! (I'd give you rep if the forums would let me). Also, been a big fan of your renders in the past. Keep up your good work! (Also, is it possible to render aircraft with old parts?)

I tried that once: [spoiler=] I'm still trying to figure out how your game didn't break

They looks pretty darn nice, I think the bottom right one really seems to work in my opinion. Actually, the nation Targeria had 3 main islands, so the 3 stars works really well with that. Thank you, and I think I will start using it.

I began playing the game in version .13 my score is a 2... I am really displeased with myself now (then again, I have spent most of the past year just building fighter jets)

Did you read the entire post? Because KSP does not delete non-loaded rockets in atmosphere with less than .01 atm (atmospheric pressure), orbits down to below 24 km are possible. This becomes a challenge because you have to successfully pilot a spacecraft down to having an orbital path (ignoring atmospheric drag) in the atmosphere, then launching a smaller craft from your main ship and getting it far enough away from your main ship that the game un-loads your main ship. My proof of concept had an apoapsis of 64,968 meters (viewed from the tracking station, of course. Viewing from the craft itself would cause it to begin experiencing atmospheric drag again, therefor eventually bringing it down to Kerbin).

3/10 I can only remember that signature from someone else seeing it broken. Don't remember anything else about you.

How Low Can You Go? 2 So this challenge is very simple: Get a spacecraft into the lowest non-decaying orbit possible. Rules: You will be graded on only your apoapsis. A picture from the tracking station of your craft at periapsis showing the apoapsis altitude is required, along with at least one picture of the craft. Now, you all may be saying: "This challenge is really easy, uncreative and it has been done before. Someone only needs to put their spacecraft in a 69,078 meter orbit and they win!" What if I said that non-decaying orbits below 69,078 meters are indeed possible? KSP does not model drag for non-loaded spacecraft and debris in the portion of the atmosphere which has less than .01 atm (atmospheric pressure). This, in theory, should put the lowest non-decaying orbit of a non-loaded spacecraft to somewhere above 23,000 meters. This means that if you build some kind of craft, get it to where it is on a circular path around Kerbin but still inside the upper atmosphere, detach a part from the craft, switch to that part, and get out of load range of the craft, you could theoretically put it in a non-decaying orbit below 24,000. Mods: Types of allowed mods: Visual/Audio enhancements, Information mods Types of disallowed mods: Parts mods, mods containing construction/launch outside of the KSC, mods changing the render distance, mods changing aerodynamics (I may make a FAR/NEAR category if anybody wants it) Disallowed mods can be installed, they just cannot be used. BD Armory users, please uninstall it or set your craft render distance down to 2,500 meters. Low Orbit Records: Lowest orbits: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: Lowest Manned Flights: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: My proof-of-concept launch (it is disqualified because I have BD Armory installed with the render distance at 5,000 meters) This last photo is an example of what your proof photo should look like.Hope you have fun with this challenge!

7/10 some interesting stuff you have (after clicking on that link)

Joined shortly after Kurtjmac has begun playing, so I think I joined sometime around version .13. I remember when it was free and there wasn't any persistence. And yet strangely, I still haven't put a kerbal on a body outside of the Kerbin system. Been spending too much time with my jets.

2/10 only started seeing you recently.

Update New aircraft added: NAFA-4-F1, K-4B, NAFA-5-C1, NAFA-24-B3 Left to right: NAFA-4-F1, NAFA-5-C1, K-4B (Built by Jon144) More new additions to the NAFA fleet have been added, most noticeably the 3 aircraft above. The NAFA-4-F1 features a custom cockpit and more afterburner fuel. The NAFA-5-C1 is essentially a new twin-seat strike fighter entering the force, while the K-4B is a modification of the K-4A with a new cockpit and several more upgrades. On top of that, many of the other entries were updated with text and/or pictures. Have fun looking through this page now!

You nailed it! Zekes?

You quickly discover why most people don't eat 3 broccoli and bean burritos stuffed with various peppers and hot sauces. I crumple up a candy wrapper and throw it away in a trashcan.

34 even more yeah!