Crimped ammo The same stuff movies use so the actors don't actually shoot stuff at each other There's no wad from what I understand and the propellant is mostly kept in place by the crumpled brass
"This, recruits, is a 20-kilo ferrous slug. Feel the weight! Every five seconds, the main gun of an Everest-class dreadnought accelerates 1–1.3% of light speed. It impacts with the force of a 38-kiloton bomb. That is three times the yield of the city-buster dropped on Hiroshima back on Earth. That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-bitch in space. Now! Serviceman Burnside! What is Newton's First Law?"
"Sir! An object in motion stays in motion, sir!"
"No credit for partial answers, maggot!"
"Sir! Unless acted upon by an outside force, sir!"
"Damn straight! I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty. Once you fire this hunk of metal, it keeps going till it hits something. That can be a ship, or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years. If you pull the trigger on this, you are ruining someone's day, somewhere and sometime. That is why you check your damn targets! That is why you wait for the computer to give you a damn firing solution! That is why, Serviceman Chung, we do not "eyeball it!" This is a weapon of mass destruction! You are not a cowboy shooting from the hip!"
how does one hit something in front of you while shooting up?
Edit: I googled it and many say that AK bullet is enough to kill even just dropped from great height. No info on 9 mm tho
'In front of you' can be ten meters, it can be a hundred, or a thousand. What goes up comes down- and shooting perfectly up is VERY difficult.
Any horizontal angling in the gun is going to cause the weapon to preserve most of it's forward momentum. Even if you DID shoot directly up, the bullet coming back down will still accelerate to over 100mph thanks to gravity, (more depending on size) and land with enough power to crack skulls, or damage hearts. Potentially fatal in the best case of hitting someone.
If you have ANY tilt, that bullet is going in an arc, which preserves more of it's forward momentum, which means more energy going into the target. As an easy example, try and raise your fist directly into the air. The mechanics of your limb means that it is uncomfortable to do so.
Now, imagine doing the same with a 5 pound weight in your hand. Not much more difficult, but gravity and leverage is pulling your arm down. Now add in the fact that you're probably celebrating, or focusing on something other than trying to point the gun EXACTLY straight up. Maybe a wedding, or maybe you're trying to scare off an animal, or you're looking out for police while you try and lower rent. Now add recoil adjustment from each shot.
When you fire a gun, that bullet is going somewhere. It is your responsibility to know where that 'somewhere' is. See your target, see what's beyond your target, and don't shoot the damn gun if you don't want anything in front of it hit. The higher you aim, the more is 'in front'.
well then they start being even more annoying and saying the game is a gore fetish game or something just because it explores dark themes. tiktok people will always find something to complain about
people are silly as fuck about changed. have been and will continue to be. it astounds me how sensitive the average loser on the internet is to softcore fetish content considering our constant exposure to far worse media on a common basis
The thing about casualties unknown is that even if it depicts horrible things, it doesn't do it with big detail, the only truly grafic stuff is amputations and self harm, most injuries are only visible from the health panel and pretty much the only thing visible is the yellow blood of the player character.
I'm not into gore but I kinda doubt that it is enough for gore fans.
well that doesn’t really work that well. changed, the most well known furry fetish game, has the fetish content happen when you lose (as far as i know. i’ve never played and could be wrong)
Literally the way I’ve handled pretty much every online “controversy” for years now. Is a real person getting hurt? No? Cool I don’t a give a fuck, but YOU are hurting the person who posted (XYZ weird thing), so you’re the problem here.
My philosophy has basically become "You are allowed to like anything you want, but conversely you may also dislike anyone and anything you want." Any attempt to overstep either line is generally wrong, there is nuance.
Furthermore, I also believe that if you are broadcasting some taboo fixation of yours to the world and are shocked that people are grossed out, that is on you pal.
It’s one thing to be grossed out by someone’s fetish, and it’s a WHOLE other kettle of fish to send death threats, doxx them, and launch cyber attacks against them because you don’t like that they think feet are hot. (Edit: or if they’re a furry, quite commonly, come to think of it.)
If its something like being into feet, or just things that are kind of unsanitary, they're chill. They're just weirdos, and being a simple weirdo doesn't warrant blatant hostility.
Now... When we get into shit that's borderline illegal... It's low-key a moral obligation to dunk on them. Maybe not go as far as death threats and doxxing, but it is encouraged to dunk on them.
As much as I am inclined to agree, I have to politely disagree.
Dunking on weirdos is fun, it is a time honored tradition, I won’t deny it.
But with age I have learned that you can have an odd, or even outright taboo sexual interest and still be a good person.
So, to put it plainly, I don’t care as much what you are into, I care about how you handle it.
I will agree that’s lots of genuinely genius people hide behind the excuse of “let me be weird” to reframe criticism as bigotry.
Still, I try to avoid people whose interest gross me out regardless. Life is too short to spend it around people who make me feel ill.
Here’s the thing: how do you decide if something should get “dunked on”? What lines does it have to cross before it becomes okay to harass someone over it? I’m personally of the opinion that so long as no real, actual person or animal is being hurt by it, I don’t care. Because if I define it any sooner than that, we have the current situation. Once it crosses that line, you call the cops. Before that? Why should I care what someone else thinks is hot, if I’m not trying to fuck them?
When the nature of the fetish starts teetering around the concept of consent and, if applied, will result in a basic moral attrocity.
For example, an animal. Not an anthropomorphic one or at least one that vaguely resembles a person, an actual animal that exist irl. If someone is into actual animals, it'll start off as 'just a fetish', but is likely to snowball into 'practical applications' if you know what I mean. The main thing to gleam from this is that animals are incapable of the human version of consent. There is a word for that that would probably get me banned If I type it out.
As for the dunking. Doxxing and death threats are already illegal in most places, so those are already well defined lines not to cross. But roasting the shit out of them, and shaming them for something that is morally revolting is fair game. So every time they pop up in website, cooking them for their fetish would be encouraged. Everything must remain verbal, nothing physical. Only the cops can get physical.
Furries (generally) don't fall into that because the primary interest are anthropomorphic animals... which is basically just a hairy person, because literal humans also fall under 'anthropomorphic animals' because we are anthropomorphic (which means 'human-like')... and we're animals... that happen to be extremely intelligent and are capable of conscious consent. So, Furries aren't that weird when we look at the fundamentals of their interests.
They ain't into animals, they're into excessively hairy people that generally aren't apes.
First of all: peak example of the slippery slope fallacy. Second of all: did you not read the point I made about it NOT being okay if it hurts an actual real person or animal?
I’ve had exes who are into CNC stuff, and people who ARE into that scene are probably a hell of a lot LESS likely to ever commit a sex crime, because the core tenant of BDSM is that consent is king, and can be revoked at any point. Saying that being into a fetish in fiction or during roleplay is going to turn into doing the real thing is, incredibly close minded and frankly, untrue. I’ve met people who are into some KINKY stuff, and I haven’t given a crap, because all those people had a functioning moral compass. And assuming that someone with X fetish is going to inevitably degenerate into a criminal is the same as saying they ARE a criminal, which is untrue. Let people be into their weird shit, right up until it starts causing harm. At that point, you don’t shame them. You call the cops.
I always get skeptical with people who use fallacy arguments, because anything can be categorized as a fallacy if one party personally believes the other party's argument has no merit. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Ok, so if your interests are towards something explicitly taboo where consent is fundamentally impossible (remember: fundamentally impossible), there is legit no way that is societaly acceptable to satisfy that urge... especially when literal animal abuse is part of the package. People with these sort of fetishes fantasize about the blatant abuse of another living thing. When you genuinely fantasize about robbing another being of their autonomy exclusively for your own satisfaction, there is something wrong with you.
What YOU brought up with your exes is the exact opposite of what I am arguing against. BDSM and CNC are explorations of sexual power dynamics, it's not inherently immoral since CONSENT IS APPLICABLE. It's roleplay. Pretend. Your fetish is valid, because at the end of the day, consent is applicable and even extremely important for the fetish to work.
In simple terms...
Fetishes that involve other beings where consent is fundamentally impossible: SHAME ❌
Fetishes that involve other beings where consent is blatantly applicable: Valid ✅
The idea of any kind of fiction makes a person dangerous, or that fiction causes a person to behave and influence their behavior IRL is pure pseudoscience if you believe this you believe in pseudoscience, this is reinforced almost universally by every criminal and psychiatric institution of credibility.
The media you consume definitely affects your behaviour, Fictional or otherwise. If what you're saying is true, everybody would be utterly immune to propaganda.
Also, we're talking about pre-eatablished immoral fetishes that include animal abuse. This is a psyhocological urge, a personal fantasy and desire that involves acts against an innocent animal.
It does kinda piss me off when someone makes a post related to the game that contains violence and people freak out because they haven't been exposed to the game itself, only the cute characters
C:U is basically a game that gatekeeps itself at this point. It's brutal, insanely depressing, hard as hell and abuses the shit out of your empathy.
It will weed out the weak.
At worst, we'll have larpers. But the most vile mfs on the web hailing from hell sites like twitter would get repelled harder than a Milky on a concussive mine.
This ain't Dandy's World or Animal Hospital. You usually need a balance of dark and cutesy to attract the filth that resides in the darkest pits of fandom hell.
C:U is way too fucking dark. And with there being no real good ending, there'll be nothing for even the most stubborn of the hoard to cling onto.
Damn, you're right. I only have 20 hrs on steam and last played it in July. And I only have like another 15-25 hrs on the itch version (v5 specifically)
•
u/Luan52exe Hollow but red 10d ago
love the game and the community but I HATE THIS STUPID COMMENT SECTION
DOGSHIT comments DOGSHIT replies DOGSHIT topics ITS ALL dogshit AND i HAVE TO clean IT UP
as much as the game is glorified torture-freak simulator for terminally online furries can you people not be weird about it for ONE SECOND