It's easy enough to find more advanced players to PVP against. I'm sure the OP would feel something when picking on someone their own size, perhaps they should give it a try.
For the first time in months, I felt something playing this game
- Thread starter Deadlock989
- Start date
Ah Elite: Analogies back in effect. It's not anything like that really, is it? What you described would be a violent criminal act, outside the laws of the campsite and the country, which would cause potentially expensive damage to people's real property and quite possibly ruin their holiday and leave them feeling physically threatened. He just blew some people up while staying quite within the rules of the game they were all playing. Cheap, below the belt, one sided? Certainly... but not even close to the type of behaviour you are equating it with.
Last edited:
Maybe now try to be white knight in Erevate if system police is lacking?
I love rationalization, particularly when it is so spectacularly wrong.
No. The two acts are actually pretty similar. If, on his way out of the campsite, he'd have just pulled peoples pegs up and tossed them to the ground there, he wouldn't have been doing anything illegal at all. Indeed this is the kind of thing unruly children do. He'd have been a nuisance, but the police wouldn't prosecute anyone for that.
The people in those tents are annoyed, and can have their camping experience ruined. They will have to spend some time putting their tents back up, just as those players destroyed will have to spend time recovering what they lost. Unless they pack up and go elsewhere - a distinct possibility.
This is full of judgement on the person using an analogy as an excuse to make these judgements.
Which analogy is a fail as Mr. Roach pointed out.
On the other hand I do agree that it would be the best way in my opinion to have a solid single player experience called ED - I could sacrifice this sort of "multiplayer" without a drop of tear.
What the OP did is a review on how seriously the game is lacking in certain fundamental features which are essential to be there consequently before release or before one starts to think about building a multiplayer game.
Last edited:
Unfortunately he did it without his victims' permission, or any regard for their feelings at all. He behaved appallingly. Hence the argument.
Except that isn't quite what you wrote, which was 'ripping down everyone elses tents' [sic], which could easily be framed as criminal damage (people have been charged for less). Yes, his actions were obnoxious and perhaps childish, that does not make him a sociopath, a psychopath or a person who suffers from any mental ills or lack of empathy. This is a projection made by others based on utterly circumstantial evidence and cod psychology. These massively hyperbolic analogies and arguments simply don't help your point since they can only be seen as the overreaction they truly are.
Like it or not the 'victims' permission was given when they agreed to the rule set of the open game. That is a simple fact. Argue all you like about the right or wrong of his actions but a) get the facts right b) keep it in perspective rather than resorting to the absurd exaggerations being made here.
I also find it bizarre that one can receive an infraction on these forums for using the word 'carebear', yet it is absolutely fine to call somebody a psychopath/sociopath and question their mental health.
Last edited:
Yeah, they usually learn to "play nice".
I find it odd that people need to be told this.
'Playing nice' means not breaking the rules, not sulking when you lose or gloating when you win. It doesn't mean not playing against people who are worse/weaker than you. It doesn't mean hobbling your game to 'give them a chance'. That's if we are talking competitive games, of course.
Again, straight into making assumptions about other people. What an absurd thing to post.
- - - Updated - - -
Basically what we have here is a scenario where certain people are projecting their own fears and insecurities regarding social interaction onto others. The level of arguments being rolled out is bizarre. From teh sexism to the ad hominem attacks, it doesn't speak well of those making them.
Last edited:
Have children. Than you can talk about children, and upbringing. And you'll know what you're talking about.
Which is exactly what the Op did by his own admission.
He couldn't enjoy the game, so went to the starting area and targetted easy newcomers, in a sulking fit.
Basically what we have here is people who have read the Op, have seen that by the Ops own admission he was "pathetic", and have enough in the way of social skills to realize that you to talk to people, not at people, as you have just done.
Why don't you address the logic of his argument, which is correct, rather than attempting to dismiss it by claiming he has no experience? He can just as easily claim you have no children and don't know what you are talking about. He has the good grace not to do so and simple makes a valid point.
Which is exactly what the Op did by his own admission.
He couldn't enjoy the game, so went to the starting area and targetted easy newcomers, in a sulking fit.
Basically what we have here is people who have read the Op, have seen that by the Ops own admission he was "pathetic", and have enough in the way of social skills to realize that you to talk to people, not at people, as you have just done.
No, it's really not exactly what he did. Show me where he broke the rules. Perhaps you could interpret quoting Wham lyrics as 'gloating' but I think you know that it's not what I am talking about. There are those who attempt to demean their victims, I didn't see that in the OP's description. The game doesn't bracket our encounters based on skill, experience or assets. You can place those arbitrary restrictions upon yourself if you wish, many of us do, but that is exactly what they are, arbitrary.
If you want to claim that I don't 'have enough in the way of social skills' because I made a generalised point it's your business, that comment was not referencing you nor was it 'talking at' anybody. Personally I find the way in which some people are so ready to portray others as violent and disfunctional because they did something fairly innocuous in a game more worrying.
Which is exactly what the Op did by his own admission.
He couldn't enjoy the game, so went to the starting area and targetted easy newcomers, in a sulking fit.
Basically what we have here is people who have read the Op, have seen that by the Ops own admission he was "pathetic", and have enough in the way of social skills to realize that you to talk to people, not at people, as you have just done.
I have never done it myself - but what he did was well within the rules of the game. There is nothing inherently wrong in what he did, regardless of what the OP thinks of his own actions, this is the game the player stepped into. Some players will greet them with open hostility - a lot of the time they will be a better pilot in a better ship. You don't choose the rules of engagement - the game does, and the game says that this is fine.
The science of awkwardness, you'll enjoy it.
[video=youtube;o268qbb_0BM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o268qbb_0BM[/video]
There are laws, and then there are rules, and then there are guidelines, and then there are the basic tenets of personal conduct which, while not binding, are the social precepts we tend to adhere to in order to be considered decent people.
I think this guy just managed to compress all the parts of this game into one psycho killing story. Of course to make it dramatic he didn't mention any of the good parts of the game.
Yeah fines need to reflect the players rank or crime more.
In general the game is inconsistent inone particular aspect and that is the price range of the ships "pushes" players towards grinding, clearly indicating there are different levels of equipment, superior ships. On the other hand frontier wants to keep in certain things "standard" all around like fines, mission reward, res point spawns and so on. There are no high level zones, or newbie zones. I think this is a welcome point if the game was so complex that it could create a challenging game without creating "level specific, areas or things:, but the game is not that complex.
The OP here indicates well that the police, NPCs and fines simply do not scale with the players progression, in other games the police would always be vastly superior to you which is unintelligent, but effectively creates the punishment required to drive up the risk factor. Everything works really well up to about a Cobra, then the game doesn't have anything to offer beyond that. I mean surely a python should be interdicted by a police force with a conda and 2 vipers at least in a developed system. OBVIOUSLY the way to solve it here would be to simply spawn higher level ships for high level players, but this is probably disagreeable with frontier since they want to do a whole background simulated universe thing - the only problem is their simulation is not so complex that it works for progressing players flying 60 mill worth ships.
I still love Elite though, unfortunately I do agree with the mile wide, inch deep model. Elite needs to either up the complexity, depth, content or they need to introduce lame MMORPG level zoning.
Actually from a game design point of view - I find what they are trying to do to be "admirable" because what they seem to want to do is create a game where things are more organic instead of mmorpg game like. It doesn't look like it, but I really think thats why the game is the way it is. It's not that they can't simply slap a higher fine on higher players or simply spawn instakill guards, it's that frontier seems to want to make the whole thing work as an "emulation" without enforcing game like mechanisms, to them I think the ships have to be ships already in the systems to whatever model they are using, but as I said the simulation is largely simple and doesn't have enough mechanisms to challenge player progression.
Its like in RL you would not get a larger parking ticket if you drove a nicer car - something like that.
Yeah fines need to reflect the players rank or crime more.
In general the game is inconsistent inone particular aspect and that is the price range of the ships "pushes" players towards grinding, clearly indicating there are different levels of equipment, superior ships. On the other hand frontier wants to keep in certain things "standard" all around like fines, mission reward, res point spawns and so on. There are no high level zones, or newbie zones. I think this is a welcome point if the game was so complex that it could create a challenging game without creating "level specific, areas or things:, but the game is not that complex.
The OP here indicates well that the police, NPCs and fines simply do not scale with the players progression, in other games the police would always be vastly superior to you which is unintelligent, but effectively creates the punishment required to drive up the risk factor. Everything works really well up to about a Cobra, then the game doesn't have anything to offer beyond that. I mean surely a python should be interdicted by a police force with a conda and 2 vipers at least in a developed system. OBVIOUSLY the way to solve it here would be to simply spawn higher level ships for high level players, but this is probably disagreeable with frontier since they want to do a whole background simulated universe thing - the only problem is their simulation is not so complex that it works for progressing players flying 60 mill worth ships.
I still love Elite though, unfortunately I do agree with the mile wide, inch deep model. Elite needs to either up the complexity, depth, content or they need to introduce lame MMORPG level zoning.
Actually from a game design point of view - I find what they are trying to do to be "admirable" because what they seem to want to do is create a game where things are more organic instead of mmorpg game like. It doesn't look like it, but I really think thats why the game is the way it is. It's not that they can't simply slap a higher fine on higher players or simply spawn instakill guards, it's that frontier seems to want to make the whole thing work as an "emulation" without enforcing game like mechanisms, to them I think the ships have to be ships already in the systems to whatever model they are using, but as I said the simulation is largely simple and doesn't have enough mechanisms to challenge player progression.
Its like in RL you would not get a larger parking ticket if you drove a nicer car - something like that.
Last edited:
Emotional attachment to certain "values" by default and to conceptions like "right" or "wrong" is usually an automatic, subconscious move. One of the best games in life to "wake up" from these and realize how they form and condition our personalities without our permission. They are like hypnosis: we accept them without questioning any part while we claim that it's "normal" how we think about a certain topic or value.
The OP did something which was a conscious move from his part: he knew what he was doing, he decided to do it and go all way long to measure whether it gives a certain experience or not. Proper project management.
What he did can be put into several contexts using several measurement tools to JUDGE his PERSONALITY. However there's the game which is what is is and everything possible to do in it is valid: the game system allows to do that and validate the action.
The OP made a post about all his actions with the reasoning behind and that's where the massive and automatic projections start working.
And now check how children act in this matter. There are several experiments on the subject of how the measure "sin".
Let's say X broke a vase and see how children judge that depending on whether:
- the vase vas cheap or expensive
- X broke the vase accidentally or intentionally.
If the OP does not post anything just kill 74 newbies at Eravate, there have been no case. It's not the action which makes these topics but the reflexive and conditioned contents of the mind - that can trigger judgements on the person not the situation itself. That's the "comfort" of automatism.
The OP did something which was a conscious move from his part: he knew what he was doing, he decided to do it and go all way long to measure whether it gives a certain experience or not. Proper project management.
What he did can be put into several contexts using several measurement tools to JUDGE his PERSONALITY. However there's the game which is what is is and everything possible to do in it is valid: the game system allows to do that and validate the action.
The OP made a post about all his actions with the reasoning behind and that's where the massive and automatic projections start working.
And now check how children act in this matter. There are several experiments on the subject of how the measure "sin".
Let's say X broke a vase and see how children judge that depending on whether:
- the vase vas cheap or expensive
- X broke the vase accidentally or intentionally.
If the OP does not post anything just kill 74 newbies at Eravate, there have been no case. It's not the action which makes these topics but the reflexive and conditioned contents of the mind - that can trigger judgements on the person not the situation itself. That's the "comfort" of automatism.
Last edited:
Really?
And in your view this is fine. I feel sorry for you.
I have grandchildren, and when they are with me they sometimes play this game. I insist they play solo purely to avoid people like yourself who like to inflict upon them the kind of thing the OP has indulged in. I cannot adequately express how I feel about you, the OP, and his supporters. Were I to do so I'd be banned. Ironic.
The science of awkwardness, you'll enjoy it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o268qbb_0BM
There are laws, and then there are rules, and then there are guidelines, and then there are the basic tenets of personal conduct which, while not binding, are the social precepts we tend to adhere to in order to be considered decent people.
I've watched all of vsauces videos