You are not wrong.
Going against your own word - "infiltrators" please note
- Thread starter Rampant
- Start date
You are not wrong.
Such as his constant claims of "dispassion?"
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I didn't want the thread locked after my statement of fact because I knew it might take a few posts for discussion until my facts finally sunk in to some player's brains.
I was expecting to have to highlight the difference between the "player" and the "character" they play in game. I was expecting some retorts of some roleplay a"justification" for certain actions, etc.
My post was a means to highlight that the person's agreement to the others in a PG cannot be justified by in game "reasons". The agreement to act in a certain way pre-dates entering the game.
I expected some player's to have a problem understanding this concept, and was hoping for a positive discussion on why the person's agreement, being previous to the in game character's actions, cannot be dismissed by roleplsy *after the agreement has been entered into*.
Yes, it may well highlight an inconsistency within the game construction, but that wasn't the point, or the solution or even the means to discuss those inconsistencies.
Just to highlight that an individual must be judged against their actions. In this case, the black and white truth is that an individual who enters into an agreement with the intent to not be bound by that agreement signals that individual as not to be trusted. And since this is s cold hard fact, then I was confident that it could be discussed civilly and openly and with objectivity and dispassionately. All the key features of a reasoned and truthful discussion.
Cheerz
Mark H
Last edited:
In case it hasn't already been said:
If something is possible to do, people will do it. If you want to guarantee a certain video game behavior does not occur , the game maker has to make that behavior impossible. The other consideration is that if you are aware that you might get ganked on some expedition, either don't participate or don't flip out when you get ganked.
Seems to me that since people have been asking FD for an open pve mode for years, maybe they ought to give us one.
Personal? Hmm. I didn't mean the 12 year old to be a personal comment. I just wanted to describe, why i really don't see any challenge in infiltrating a group like Möbius. I mean, an open group which accepts everybody who manages to write his name and check one box, declaring to accept their conditions. So the challenge level really is not that hard.
Also, it's among players. Private persons. Connecting that to military deception is "slightly off" for me. But alas... i guess the only important part i wanted to say here: i didn't mean the comment to be personal and am sorry if you feel it like that.
That is way to reductionist and binary to describe human behavior, sorry. People can be 'untrustworthy' when playing games and trustworthy in a life-threatening situation and the other way around. Pretty much nobody is almost or never trustworthy, it all depends on the context.
What this topic mostly shows is that griefing people in ED is a topic that is very, very important to you.
Here's the thing. I'm not shaming anyone. It is an individual's actions that bring shame upon themselves. I'm merely a dispassionate observer to that fact.
In the context of a no-PvP combat Private Group, it *ought not to be* dog eat dog. That's the entire point of such a PG. Joining it with the intent to bring havoc marks that player out as not to be trusted. Simply as a result of their own actions.
And here I was thinking that where "games" with "rules" are concerned, we, as a group, expect, nee *demand* each other to act in a trustworthy manner. And here we are. Your post makes it"appear" that you accept untrustworthy players with open arms into your game space. Don't we all have enough of this to put up with outside of our leisure time without accepting it is our time playing games based upon "rules"?
Cheerz
Mark H
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
You think military subterfuge is for the challenge?
It's specifically to avoid the challenge and help complete the objective.
People comparing sitting at home playing games with being in the military is weird anyway.
Well done, you spotted one of many, many differences between war and computer games!
Frontier could really easily fix these issues if they wanted to. It is unfathomable why there simply isn't a way to set up a PG where PvP just isn't possible. Many other online games do this. With a simple fix like that threads like this wouldn't even need to exist.
But always right either. An Itelligence Agent working as a Non-Official Cover in a foreign nation is going to voilate the trust of the country they are working in, yet is completely trusted by the country for which they work.
However, Space Politics in Elite is too pathetic and limited to even be considered a nano-game, so this isn’t really all that applicable. Fieri pace, para bellum should be everyone’s motto.
And just like the Gnosis event, Willy the Blind Cyclopes saw this coming too.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I don't think it's different at all.
That IS the point of subterfuge in video games too.
I think there are multiple, plausible in-game reasons for doing so as well, in many contexts.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Maybe tell that to the guy complaining about the use of bootcamp.
It's a military themed game in case you didn't notice, lol...
The bubble is constantly at war.
I actually sympathize with you on this point in game and think the easy infiltration ruins gameplay, but trustworthiness is just not binary like that. I trust different people with a $1,000 loan than I trust with the lives of my kids. There is no reason to think that someone who enjoys playing a 5th columnist in space is likely to steal from their cash register IRL either.
"ad hominem: adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: "
The OP's post was both logical and reasonable and Ouberos' post was too. The tone (words chosen by the OP set the tone) was such that a very logical conclusion regarding the state of the poster's post would lead a logical and reasonable person to conclude that the OP was in fact upset. In short Ouberos did not base his conclusion on emotion.
There was no ad hominem.
I imagine that your intent was good but execution was flawed.
Last edited:
Rampant, your position is lacking real game world examples. Let me provide one.
My previous group, Newton’s Fusiliers, wanted control of their home system of Coma. We approached Patreus Planning to see what they were about. We told them we would contact them if we planned anything further with the system.
We didn’t and went for control anyway. Got our butts kicked in that first control war, by the way. But hey, we were cheeky folks and wanted to see what the Empire would do.
Months later we hammer out a treaty with Patreus Planning ending the conflict. The relationship since then has been absolutely solid.
Am I untrustworthy? Is my group untrustworthy? If you ask me, any sensible person will see that we are. I expect your ‘black and white fact’ will be incapable of accepting the shades of gray critical to an adult understanding of trustworthiness.
My previous group, Newton’s Fusiliers, wanted control of their home system of Coma. We approached Patreus Planning to see what they were about. We told them we would contact them if we planned anything further with the system.
We didn’t and went for control anyway. Got our butts kicked in that first control war, by the way. But hey, we were cheeky folks and wanted to see what the Empire would do.
Months later we hammer out a treaty with Patreus Planning ending the conflict. The relationship since then has been absolutely solid.
Am I untrustworthy? Is my group untrustworthy? If you ask me, any sensible person will see that we are. I expect your ‘black and white fact’ will be incapable of accepting the shades of gray critical to an adult understanding of trustworthiness.
Last edited:
Deleted member 110222
D
I go against my word all the time.
That's why I removed myself from Fleetcomm.
I may find other people losing amusing, but I care about myself more.
Don't feel like being public enemy #1.
That's why I removed myself from Fleetcomm.
I may find other people losing amusing, but I care about myself more.
Don't feel like being public enemy #1.