Well true state of ED:s Universe and how dystopian it is can be seen WITHOUT some outside meddlers in solo. Law enforcement certainly does its job keeping riff raff minimum in med and high secs, and society is generally believable. It is only in Open mode where things get ridiculous and believability breaks down.
Question for Open players who don't like PVP/ganking... help me understand
- Thread starter Danquememe
- Start date
A necessary evil, but what you said is the only way it can be done. "blaze your own trail", and even if you're not into the role/immersion stuff, it's still basically meaning "play your way". But it's a double-edged sword. That's where the modes come into play. That's it, that's the best way to avoid gankers without looking like you're favoring PvP or PvE over the other. No, I'm not gonna mention griefers, because disliking griefers should be a given in my opinion. Anything beyond this, should be up to the players.
Unfortunately, gameplay lacks the tools that would have us some decent "emergent content" more often without it being more into the "salt mining" aspect of things. We cannot have this game player-driven like Eve does, because that would just end up killing the game faster than the death of Ugandan Knuckles. But we cannot have this game entirely driven by the Devs(as in progression/story/content of any kind).
It's a very fine line and a delicate balance that isn't frekin easy at all.
It would be nice if we, as players, had some either better or more tools that can let us make our own content more often. I'd love to see things about Elite in the form of those stories you might have heard about Eve Online. Big huge battles or heists of the century type of plays. Big-brain next level IQ ideas or tactics players did that was just epic, good or bad. Right now, what little I do see, assuming if I even discover it that is, is just boring typical staged PvP matches or those deth derby SRV races or Bucky Ball. Ehhh...they're okay I guess but they're all sportsy..I'm missing variety to actual emergent content.
FC's are a stepping stone to that, I believe. But it requires just a little more breathing room in terms of allowing players to make their own...power plays, if you will
(PMF's..let that be a hint)
Actually it is if it's the "political ideal", because it can't exist as a "political ideal".....humans need rules and laws. Giving humans the freedom to do as they please will always be bad, whos to say a murderer can't "do as they please" or a peadophile "do as they please" in an anarchy? Because you have to let them do it or it's not anarchy.
You will never have peaceful anarchy, that's an oxymoron.
Thank you
Then again I've had a look online and bejaysus "anarchy" is as bad as "gender" nowadays.....different types. So maybe Phisto is not on about traditional "anarchy"?
yes and he walks on Pulsars and changes whine into tears.
Genuiniely curious, because is that actually "anarchy"? Because would the AA work with no state/government? And you decisions are sent "up the chain"....that implies hierarchy which is not anarchy.
It's what they get for ganking the fleet docked in PH. Cause and effect, action and reaction. Actions have consequences, and games like Elite, where the worlds they portray are intended to be easily immersing, you gotta put in some kind of realism to keep it grounded and feel relatable yo.A democracy dropped the bomb that did this.
Jokes aside, the point stands about this particular detail
I heard he fed the five systems, with only two metal-rich bodies as well....!
A democracy dropped the bomb that did this.
Look up Japans War Crimes. Very much a topic with VJ day. Not dropping the A bombs would have led to much higher loss of life on both sides. The pacific/Asian theatre of war during WW2 was Horrendous. No joke.
I watched a show about what the Russians did to Berlin, pretty much identical result just using conventional weopons.
edit to get rid of caps, not shouting at you...just emphasising points!
He did.. not once, not twice but thrice I witnessed it through my own Asp
AA is extrapolating the term anarchy for the way it is organised. It's closer to a true utilitarian democracy, but anarchy is a pretty reasonable description. It's very interesting to read about, a very unique and excellent organization in my humble opinion.
Thrice?! Praise be - he is also reported to have cured leprechauns with the power of touching them.
But it works within a non anarchic structure, would it work in a full on anarchy? And if there's a hierarchy is it even an anarchy?
History is great source on feasibility of certain political ideals. Typically when humans have settled some empty or near empty areas, at first things are in effect at anarchy. Small settlements perhaps even single family or just one individual scattered wide away. No de facto law, and what happens in forest stays in forest. But when numbers rise, society starts organizing. At first perhaps some local gatherings, everybody represents just themselves, and unanimous decisions are needed. After numbers rise somewhat more there will be majority votings as it becomes harder and harder to get everyone agree on things. Now having decisions NOT supported by everybody society needs someones to enforce them. It may be in form of people gathering as mob, or it may be that some people either take or are given that job. After that everything is possible, society may full under single individuals rule, or some kind representative democracy is established. And anything between. But always some kind of hierarchy is formed. It is likely hard coded in human social/herd behauviour. But nonetheless anarchy is kind of short lived zerostate, or just state between two established orders. It never is very long lived system.
On their blarney stone of course!! This is the word of the Gaud
Those are the details I wasn't entirely sure of, which is why I avoided touching that part of your question lol! Someone is still in charge of any anarchy though. Dunno if that'll help?
I'm not justifying any of that. I'm simply pointing out it's never as simple as law and order folk like yourself and others think.
Talk to me about the human need for "rules" and I'll show you stacks of bodies millions high. Sorry, miss me with that trash. We're better than you all realize.
As far as my conception of anarchy, it is very much the traditional one: anti-hierarchy. Without hierarchy. No one consents to my rule and I consent to no one else's. Heck, the fact the more popular definition for it (lawless chaos) exists at all should be clue as to what's really going on there in history.
Ask yourself who told you that's what anarchy means. Was it an anarchist? Doubt it.