With respect, it's not. The T6 has better jump range, speed, and internals. The only thing the Keelback has over it are weapons which are rarely if ever equipped on exploration runs.
Ships Purpose
- Thread starter LARY STARKEEPER
- Start date
With respect, it's not. The T6 has better jump range, speed, and internals. The only thing the Keelback has over it are weapons which are rarely if ever equipped on exploration runs.
You're brazenly going and flying a ship that isn't "best in class" at an activity that doesn't yield the most credits per hour?!?!
What the hell are you doing? You're not supposed to play Elite Dangerous for fun!! Let alone enjoy a ship just because it looks cool!
What madness is this? Playing a game for "fun."
that is pretty much what i was thinking.. i'm sure if its funny, or a little sad, that there really are players who will think that lol.
i'm totally in bed with the idea that, if you like the looks of a ship, and you really fancy flying it, you will happily go out and find things to do with it. i know some folks are driven by a need to have the biggest, strongest, or fastest ships in game, which is cool, but some of us are quite happy, just flying an idea, and making it work as best we can.
Last edited:
But we've already been over this. A ship's purpose is to serve as an avatar of the pilot. Included in that is are hundreds of aspects that you'd quickly ignore in the ship's appraisal. A glove is meant to fit on a hand. A glove can be an excellent glove for someone but not fit on someone else. You don't ignore how well a glove fits just because it's 'subjective', by your definition. A glove is a good glove with all that defines 'good' defined by the speaker, and this is as objective (by your definition) as it gets. And see, this is what you're ignoring: At some point you need to realize that when you say that the T6 is objectively a better trader than the keelback, it's because you decided that trading capabilities are determined by cr/hr (or whatever parameters you've decided). With an astounding number of people in the thread not subscribing to that idea, you need to realize that your assessment is not objective, but rather, your subjective assessment.If someone asks "Is __ a good weapon" or "is ____ a good build" I can assure you they are talking about performance. Good is relative to its job. Its job and purpose are usually painfully obvious and do not need stating. Take borderlands. When someone says "Are spread rocket launchers good for brick?" they are asking can you kill well without dying yourself. If someone asks "Is this a good car" They mean is it efficient, safe, reliable, etc. Sure there will be some subjective aspects - like explosions are
An assessment valuing the ship for its engines is not any more subjectively useless than your assessment.
going with the suit analogy.. let me ask something.. why is a £1200 suit better than a £500 suit? is it more important to the person wearing it, or the people seeing that person wearing it? who are those people? if the suit is fit for purpose, does it have to be the most expensive?
you are totally correct, when you say everything has a value, but, as cost and value are different things, who is to say that what 1 person values, all people should value?
there are those who focus on a meta.. best ship for the role.. best modules in slot.. they see the game as something to compete at, or max out.
but there are also those who play the game, for the simple enjoyment of playing the game, standard meta means nothing, something being fit for purpose and appealing aesthetically becomes the draw, and they fit the game around that.
ultimately everything could be more efficient, tougher, faster, with greater fire power and more cargo space.. but that doesn't equate to better, because better is a subjective scale and sometimes simply means different.
so saying something has no value, just because you cant see it the way others do, is either very short sighted, or simply holding an attitude that if it doesn't suit you and tick all your ideas of what it should be, then it shouldn't be in game, or they should change it. would the latter not be a selfish perspective to take, when we don't all look for the same things?
Last edited:
No, a ships purpose is what it does. Combat, trading, exploration, or a combination. It's use as an avatar is secondary and subjective. How well a glove fits is objective, not subjective. It is not based in opinion. A person with a "L" sized hand can not wear a "S" sized glove simply because they whish it so. A glove being good must be durable enough for the job and usable by the user. After that things like cost, durability, flexibility, etc. come into play in determining how objectively good a glove is. To a lesser extent comfort can be objectively measured (as in material its made from). Following all the a persons subjective preference to aesthetics is measured against the objective usefulness of the glove and the consumer makes a choice. But its objective usefulness for the job at hand (no pun intended) will always be, where as how much a person likes the way it looks will often vary wildly.
.
People in this tread stated they like the way it looks. I am not arguing that. I believe them 100%. I believe people can have opinions and independent thought. But that has nothing to do with how good the ship objectively is, only how much it will or will not be used by some. Cr/hr (and all like things such as cargo/hr) is how you define if a ship is good at trading. Things like being killed will hurt that number, so all aspects such as survivability must be factored.
The way it looks does not effect its effectiveness as a trader. It is purely subjective. If someone saying they like a ship gives it value, then the reverse needs to be true. Someone not liking the ship would need to diminish it's value. And right now we have no way to get the necessary data for that. Because of that, even if aesthetics wasn't something that is the very definition of "subjective", it can not be presented in a debate about the merits of a ship due to insufficient data. It is akin to hear-say, rumors, and speculation. If it was acceptable then "nuh-uh" would then too be a valid counter-point.
That depends. Is the purpose of the suit to imply wealth and power? If so, that is why the $1,200 is better. Is the $1,200 made of better materials and custom fit? If so then that is why it is better.
.
"...who is to say that what 1 person values, all people should value? " That is exactly the point I am arguing. If one person likes the way something looks, it should not mean everyone likes it. But it is a safe assumption that most people want something that excels at its job. And as a bonus it can be objectively measured with relative ease. Its the standard, the thing everyone, or at least most people, would agree on. Whether or not something being good at what is does is important or not vs its subjective value is something each individual pilot must decide. There is no standard. Again I fly the I. Eagle, a ship that is objectively bad in combat (the role I use it for). Why? Because I enjoy being up close with the Rift on and the challenge. Few ships give me that.
.
I am not, nor ever was advocating playing the game grind, make money, etc. You should do what is fun. However you can't broadly measure "fun". You can define a ships intended purpose and role, and then define how good it is at that role. And its not far fetched that a great deal of people do have fun excelling at their job of choice (Explorer, trader, combat pilot, etc.).
.
"Better" is not subjective. "Better for me" is. Aesthetics have no objective value because there are people who like something, dislike something, and to varying degrees. They cancel each other out and it becomes realistically impossible to quantify. If I like the way a ship looks that does not make it a better ship to anyone but me. If I don't like it, it does not make it a worse ship to anyone but me. My opinions only affect me. How good a ship is at its designated role affects everyone. That is why it is objective.
.
.
In the case of the KB the OP wanted to know at what does it excel at, what is the point of it. Not what s/he likes. You can not define a role subjectively. You can objectively.
This was like, so six pages ago.
This just in, a ship is built to do combat before built to represent a player. No, sorry, that's absurd. A ship's purpose is to serve as a vessel for a player. All ships have this in common. Ships have more specific aspects to them, which generally follow a theme (such as being combat-oriented).
There's more to a person's hand than S, M, or L. Some gloves have more material around the back, some have more around the palm, some emphasize the thumb, some cut right into the finger crotch, etc. Not everyone's hands fit into S, M, or L, just like shirts, just like shoes, just like everything else wearable. There is an individual aspect to this. Likewise, 'speed' translating into 'better' has a similar human filter it needs to pass through (illustrated by the 20km/s ship example). This, by definition (yours and mine) makes it subjective.
So then what happens when enough people say that the keelback looks better than the T6 such that it can be considered the average person thinks so? Enough so that the average person begin to define its looks measurably?
"The ship is faster than the keelback, but I don't like it" is no different than "the ship looks better than the T6, but I don't like it" in that they are both subjective. All you can say objectively is that one number is higher than the other, and that is such a minute specific that it loses relevance to ED.
By your set of parameters defining trader, sure. By someone else's, absolutely not. Don't you see how subjective your objective assessment is?!
oh well, excuse me for agreeing with your argument and trying to add my opinion too before i forgot what i wanted to say..
Last edited:
Don't worry. This thread has that effect on people.
Not necessarily combat, but it being an avatar is a secondary focus. The ship determines your gameplay, how it looks determines how you look doing it. And I am pretty sure gameplay is the No. 1 focus for you know...games.
.
.
True, but I didn't need to go into all the detail to make my point, and the detail does not invalidate my point. A large hand will have trouble wearing a small glove (assuming they are sized correctly, etc.). And if a glove is tailored to fit your hand perfectly, that's still objective. It objectively fits your hand perfectly. You may hate the way it feels, but that changes nothing about how well it adheres to your shape and size.
.
Speed, in general, is better or worse depending on how you use it. Extremely fast or slow speeds are objectively bad. Slow speeds (top) are objectively better at defensive pitching. Fast (top) speed are objectively better at offensively pitching. All objective. To find out if defensive pitching or offensive pitching is better you have to look at something's intended role and gameplay in ED. But that is another discussion.
.
.
Then it is still subjective. It just becomes more important. Just as if most people hate the way something looks it becomes an issue. Doesn't make it objective though. It may be objectively liked or disliked more, and to an extent have more or less "value". Which is fine. If people want to talk about aesthetics being good or bad then they should, but it still has no place in determining its role or objective value at said role. Just how much people do/don't want it.
.
.
Trader's trade goods. Its a pretty agreed upon assessment.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
RP is a big deal, I agree. In fact RP is the driving force in this game imo. Its a sandbox sim. Without RP there is nothing. Liking or disliking your ship is very important to most. However, one person liking something does not mean everyone likes it. Ship A being better than ship B at trading means ship A is better than ship B. It is a fact. That is what makes it objective. You can't rightly argue subjective things. If you dislike something, I can not prove you actually like it (assuming ofc you don't actually like it). That is why subjective opinions have no place in determining how good or bad a ship is to anyone but yourself.
.
It seems you somehow missed my point, despite me being very plain and blunt. A ship being objectively better or worse at a job does not make it subjectively better or worse to everyone. Again, I fly an I. Eagle. I like it subjectively. It is objectively a bad ship.
but surely if many players share the same subjective view and enjoy using that ship, then to us it excels at what we wish to use it for. real life may well contain things engineered or designed to be the height of function and/or form, but most things fall far short of such heady status. without actually taking anything away from them. so while ships like the KB may not constitute the best ship in terms of a specific function, for many of us it does constitute a great form factor, on top of that it is able to perform admirably in many different roles, just not as good as some other ships. the KB has great character, and can do whatever job i feel suits it. so it clearly does have a role to play, and as such, can be considered objectively to be better than other ships to those of us who feel that way about it.
as a real life example.. you could find the most amazing potential partner in the world.. but if you aren't attracted to them.. well you know how that is?
now that could be looked at subjectively.. "i just don't like the way x, y or z looks"
or
it could be considered objectively.. "because of the way x, y or z looks, i would be unable too a, b or c"
It would be a good ship to many people. But a good trader is a good trader to everyone. Subjective vs. objective. Subjective has value, but not in a debate discussing the value or role of a ship. Not without a great deal of statistics at least. And even then the most it would show is people like/dislike the ship, not that it is necessarily good at it's job.
.
Statements like "... the KB has great character" are subjective. It may be true to you, but not everyone. That is why it is secondary. You liking or disliking a ship has no baring on other peoples value of the ship. But if a ship say had more cargo space then any other ship, then it has more cargo space than every other ship for everyone. The objective nature and value of a ship is measurable and debatable. The subjective value of a ship is based on the individual. In the end its up to each person to determine if the ship is good or bad for them by weighting its objective value to its subjective value. However a ship being good or bad at its job (based on its merits and purposed purpose) is universal.
.
In your example all you stated was that a person subjective views on something can override its objective merits to them. And I have never disagreed with that.
My point is, and always has been: A person's subjective opinion of something does not effect anyone but them. But a ships objective value effects everyone the same (14>7 for example is true for everyone regardless of what they think).
No, it's not. >_>
The ship exists so that we can be in it.
We then take our ships into combat.
Jesus.
You'd think. But like other forms of art, the number one focus is the user experience.
A paintings brush strokes do little more than deliver the feeling. The feeling is important.
The prose of a book does little more than deliver a message. The message is important.
The actors in the movie do little more than deliver the story. The story is important.
The gameplay of a game does little more than deliver the experience. The experience is important.
If a game was about making you feel alone in space, and it just put you in the middle of space completely devoid of gameplay, it technically would objectively (your definition, regarding purpose) be the best game in existence, no?
The gameplay is important, but it's but a facet of the user experience.
Progress! It fits your hand perfectly. It's a perfect glove, objectively. There's an aspect of the speaker's perspective in this assessment! See last quote.
I don't agree and neither do you, after saying that the pilot experience is part of the definition of 'trader'.
It is objectively a great ship compared to the sidewinder or hauler.
But based on your sum of experience, you compare it to things like cobras and vultures and FDLs when assessing its value.
Your perspective is an influence on your assessment of the objective worth of the ship.
Your perspective influences the objective worth of the ship. An objective assessment is influenced by something. The irrefutable suddenly becomes mutable.
So how is that not subjective?
Sorry to intrude on this healthy debate, but I thought I'd chuck in my 2 cents for the Keelback.
As a trader, it's pretty limited. As a combat ship, it's probably worse.
What I used it for was mining, and it worked out pretty well.
If you have a nice metallic planetary ring to work with, then it can pay its way.
I put a mining laser, a C1 gimballed burst laser, and a couple of C2 Pulse turrets on it.
It was good for quick mining sessions (20 limpets or so, with 2 collectors and 1 prospector at a time), and it could defend itself from NPC cobras and eagles.
My previous mining ship was a T6, and I just had to keep my fingers crossed that I didn't get any pirate attention on the way back to the station. At least the Keelback has a chance.
I keep it parked at a lucrative mining system, and drop in when I feel like relaxing for a while.
As a trader, it's pretty limited. As a combat ship, it's probably worse.
What I used it for was mining, and it worked out pretty well.
If you have a nice metallic planetary ring to work with, then it can pay its way.
I put a mining laser, a C1 gimballed burst laser, and a couple of C2 Pulse turrets on it.
It was good for quick mining sessions (20 limpets or so, with 2 collectors and 1 prospector at a time), and it could defend itself from NPC cobras and eagles.
My previous mining ship was a T6, and I just had to keep my fingers crossed that I didn't get any pirate attention on the way back to the station. At least the Keelback has a chance.
I keep it parked at a lucrative mining system, and drop in when I feel like relaxing for a while.
The type7 is a Q-Ship from WW2!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship
Actually a wolf in disguse among a sheeps.
We're probably going to have Type-6 freighter convoys enscorted by a few Type-7 with fighters, making pirate's life more interesting. That's cool content, I love it. I'm probably going to try it when I'll have more money than I'll know how to use it...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship
Actually a wolf in disguse among a sheeps.
We're probably going to have Type-6 freighter convoys enscorted by a few Type-7 with fighters, making pirate's life more interesting. That's cool content, I love it. I'm probably going to try it when I'll have more money than I'll know how to use it...
Sorry for the delay, I was busy for a few days. Anyway lets see what we got.
.
.
.
The ship exists so that we may play the game and interact with the universe. Otherwise it nothing more than facebook. Step one is existing, step two is looking "nice".
.
.
Games aren't art in the same sense that paintings are art. With a painting all you have is the way it looks and makes you feel based on that alone. No achievements, interactions, etc. The gameplay is 95% of the experience (gameplay being defined here as everything but your avatar.).
.
It would be the best (being defined here as most popular) game in existence is that's the kind of game most people wanted and no other games did the same. Gameplay isn't simply "a" facet of the user experience, it is "the" facet. Joy, excitement, sorrow, wonder, immersion, etc. all come from the gameplay in a game pretty much devoid of story. And in a game with story it acts as the main supporting aspect to the story. It pulls you in (that and a good score, something I will to my dying day say is one of the most important aspects of any story based RPG, far more important that things like graphics) and keeps you involved.
.
But none of that matters because the topic isn't is gameplay more important than how you look, or if the aesthetics of you avatar are important or not (it is, but I still argue that it is low on the list). The topic here is: are aesthetics objective and measurable? And unless what looks good to one person looks good to everyone, its not.
.
.
How/why would I not agree with myself? Pilots experience is part of being a trader, like everything. But a huge (as in dominant) part of that experience is trading. That's why people trade. That's also the only constant. Its also the only thing that can be realistically measured. And that's why its all that matters here and for the purpose of the thread.
.
.
Yeah no kidding. If 2 > 1. But when I say 5 is a low number out of 100, the assumption is that I mean vs the other 95 numbers, not the other 4. So when I say the I. Eagle is objectively bad combat ship, know I mean vs. all the options.
When we say something is objectively good or bad there's an implication there that is almost always understood. And that is relativity. We don't say it each and every time because it is a waste of time. When talking about X and Y and we say "X is awesome", we mean relative to Y. That is why it is objective. But if you ignore all the common implications and "givens" in a conversation and take everything very literally many things do become subjective, and quite frankly a bit silly.
Step three is combat? It exists and therefore so do I. That is literally all we have that anchors us in the game world in any tangible way: a ship. It has nothing to do with looking nice, it's a scope much grander than that. It's an avenue of expression. One of few, unfortunately.
If you were as versed in art as you were in games, you'd say otherwise.
Gameplay is not the only facet of the user experience. This is absurd. Lighting, narrative, controls, sound, on and on and on and on... A choose your own story is practically devoid of gameplay but are some of the most engaging games you will ever play.
But none of that matters because the topic isn't is gameplay more important than how you look, or if the aesthetics of you avatar are important or not (it is, but I still argue that it is low on the list). The topic here is: are aesthetics objective and
Aesthetics are no less objective than speed. See below.
And this is where I'm hung up. You're comparing the IE it to everything that exists in the ever. Many would say that a more reasonable comparison would be its peers or neighbors. Is the CIII an objectively bad ship? No, it's pretty amazing.
You see objective as 'measurable'. I see objective as 'true/false'. Your definition of objective bleeds into the definition of trader to be defined as 'tons/hr potential in an optimal and uninterrupted run'. I define trader 'engaged in the act of acquiring/selling cargo'. Your considerations of objective and trader differ than mine, so clearly there's a personal element to it. This is how you've defined subjective in the past, so that's my disconnect with your argument when you say one is objectively better. It's the equivalent of saying "the T6 is a better trader because it has more capacity and more range". Yeah, well, then it objectively has more capacity and more range. If the T6 never makes it to its destination though, then it's not trading squat. This failure of consideration can't just be ignored because it's convenient for your objective measurement. That's absurd.
"It has nothing to do with looking nice"
That's the whole point of this discussion you and I are having. Do aesthetics objectively (as in can be stated as almost universally good or bad) matter when determining the value of a ship. I still say "no".
.
.
What kind of art? Modern art? Because that is garbage. Classical, surrealism, etc. are all well and fine. If done right they invoke powerful emotions reminding you what amazing things are out there (classical for example, accurately portraying the wonder and majesty of the world) or what could be (surrealism, and art style the that gives a unique focus on certain thoughts and emotions over all else) and depending on the style art can be judged to a high degree. Save modern art. Modern art is people taking the obvious or idiotic opinions and observations of the artist and making it just a tad obscure so when people discern the "meaning" they feel special and intelligent. It's one big circlejerk. I could go on and on about how much some forms of art me off, while I deeply enjoy others, as well as my favorite artistes. But that's not the point. Art is, mostly, subjective (again some forms do have pretty objective definitions of quality such as realism) and irrelevant to this discussion. Games let you live a story. They are not art so much as they let you be the artiest. How well people "paint" differs, but the pictures we paint and the tools we paint with are pretty universal. Combat pilots kill things. Traders trade. Explorers explore. We all have the same tools available to us. Some make the job easier. Those that do are considered better by normal standards. And because it is easy to find out which is better and why, that is how we value a ship. But the way something looks will not make it better at combat (100% of the time) for example.
.
.
Gameplay the lighting, narrative, controls, etc. How you play, as in interact, with the game is gameplay. In the very least you should have assumed controls would be part of it. You're own story is the gameplay. We can say if a ship is objectively good or bad for X content, but we can not and should not try to say if it is good for Y player. Because that is subjective. By including aesthetics as a way to say if a ship is universally good or bad you are saying your opinion should effect someone else's subjective take on gameplay. But if X ship can trade for example 20% less cargo than Y ship that is something that should and does effect everyone the same. That is why those are what we judge and compare ships by. Things that apply to everyone the same. I.E. objective.
.
You seem to be implying that I how you look is not important, or that opinions don't exist. That's not the case. I am saying the are not important in a debate on the merits of a ship.
.
.
I'm talking about my favorite ship to fly when I have access to them all. That is why it is compared to all. Measurable = true/false. Is 2 > 1? Y/n. True or false. Is something 5in. tall higher then something 3in. tall. Again yes or no, true or false. Now if the length of "inches" was determined by whoever was asked the question the statement "Something 3in. tall is shorter than something 5in. tall" could not be yes or no, true or false. Because the standard of measurement was subjective. It becomes he said she said. No right nor wrong. That is why subjective measurement systems are pointless in a debate like this thread.
.
"'tons/hr potential in an optimal and uninterrupted run'" Time and again I have said that I, nor most people I would assume, define it assuming an uninterrupted run. Also that is not a definition of a trader, not even mine. That is how to measure how good or bad a trader is. A trader trades goods. That is it's definition. The same as yours. My definition may not be universal, but it is universal enough to be used as a measuring stick so to speak. Traders having fun trading is implied and how fun/not fun trading is is not the point. That is why it is not discussed.
.
So I will say yet it again: Factors important objectively judging for a trader include but are not limited too: Cargo space, jump range, survivability (through defense or escaping).
.
How much each matters depends on what you are doing. However how your ship looks has no bearing on that, as it can not effect how good/bad a trader is. Only how much the pilot does/doesn't like the way it looks. And that is far from universal, thus subjective, thus meaningless in this debate.