Hostility between certain mindsets aka antagonistic v co-operative play - a short point of view
- Thread starter Crimson Kaim
- Start date
Sadly this is true (the BGS part). It would be extremely interesting to turn a whole cluster of systems to famine or anarchy, not just one out of thousand of systems. There is nothing even a big group of players can do to inflict only the slightest influence on other hostile players. If FD allowed for wide spread BGS crisis scenarios then that would definately be something I am interested in. Imagine the Empire without food and the slaves would start to resist
After having a growth mindset for the past 20 years I realize I reached a position in life I would not have reached with a fixed mindset. It got me somewhere no one had (not even I) ever thought I would be, and I am proud of that, I really am.
I also realize, after having a growth mindset all day, and I fire up ED, that I can't be bothered about having one any longer. I also think I'm right about setting my priorities.
Each his own, of course
So many metaphors, similes, analogies, allegories.. Still not solving much.
When did a mere game (no insult) become a matter for such earnest and rancorous debate?
Would it be completely unreasonable to politely suggest that we just enjoy it, warts and all?
Last time I played, I had a lovely time!
When did a mere game (no insult) become a matter for such earnest and rancorous debate?
Would it be completely unreasonable to politely suggest that we just enjoy it, warts and all?
Last time I played, I had a lovely time!
I agree, with both of you.
I think the timer could easily be extended and the confirmation moved to the beginning of the countdown while still satisfying this need. They could even include an option to minimize the game and/or shut down the system after the timer finishes.
No. You simply disallow the ones that happen for the wrong reasons.
It's not against the rules to leave the game uncleanly if your network craps out or your power fails. It's against the rules to willfully disconnect to evoke some in-game benefit.
Good telemetry collection and pattern analysis are the key to telling the difference between the two.
It's not their words, but their actions that prompt Rinzler's statement. Frontier has a 15 second log out timer and they rarely punish unclean disconnections, even with clear proof of multiple examples of it from the same individual.
Sadly this is true (the BGS part). It would be extremely interesting to turn a whole cluster of systems to famine or anarchy, not just one out of thousand of systems. There is nothing even a big group of players can do to inflict only the slightest influence on other hostile players. If FD allowed for wide spread BGS crisis scenarios then that would definately be something I am interested in. Imagine the Empire without food and the slaves would start to resist
A real economy and population/demographic model are something the game needs at least as much as a C&P overhaul.
I've heard this a few times. Its an invalid comparison. You have removed all the traits that make humans Apex, but left the bear with its. Its claws, teeth and strength. To fairly compare Human vs Bear you need to remove the things that make it Apex too. You would need to find a weak, slow toothless clawless bear with poor eyesight.
In fairness, the only thing which gives us those advantages is civilisation. If it were to fall, the average person is not smart enough, skilled enough, strong enough, or fast enough to survive against nature's finest. We have those advantages because we have removed ourselves from the kill or be killed cycle, not because we are better at it. Big difference.
We have not removed ourselves. We killed them all in the kill or be killed. No wolves in my village, no bears either. We faced them (Historically), killed them and took the land. We won the kill or be killed not removed ourselves from it.
Yes, but since we actually have that civilization, and it's let us rule all other creatures on the planet at our whim (relative goodness of this aside, that's another topic entirely), you can hardly discount it as a factor in our apexery.
Right now as it actually stands, man's most dangerous predator is fellow man. Any given animals may have a shot against other single targets (bee vs allergic target, for example) but that's almost any pairing of creatures on the earth and isn't representative of a species' position on the food chain. Like the judge says, we didn't get out of the food chain, we won it, and there's no rule to say we had to win it with our basic physical abilities because we have waaaay more going for us as a species than our individual might for lion wrestling.
OH YEAH SPACESHIPS
I FORGOT
SRY TOPIC
>___>
ON the topic of the thread (which I think is about gaming mindsets), meh. There are tons of ways to appreciate this game, and like has been posted earlier, having "sides" fighting about how much they hate the way someone else is playing Pretend Spaceman on some kind of ideological level is just plain weird.
Last edited:
Yes. Lion wrestling indeed. Even a small, vicious dog less than 1/4 of a man's body weight is more than sufficient to severely injure or kill a person. It's our ability to problem solve, cope, and utilize complex tools and strategies that put us at the top of the food chain.
Which brings us back to Crimson's original point, I think.
I would like to see more gameplay that involves our human power of problem solving on many more levels than currently exist.
Season 3.0 brother.
There's plenty of this stuff in the game already, it just depends on how you choose to play. For example exploring in a low jump range ship the galaxy can be like a maze of dead ends requiring forward planning, fuel management & careful manual plotting. Compared to the current tendency towards high range ships where you just plot the next 1,000ly & jump, honk, scoop.
There's plenty of stuff like this in the game, it just isn't forced on you.
Call me old fashioned, but I yearn for the days when we only placed artificial restrictions on combat to make up for lack of ingame challenge.
Well as I said, it just depends on how you choose to play. For some activities I'd rather just take the quick & easy route, for others I'll enjoy the challenge of using a sub-optimal loadout. As you quite rightly point out elsewhere, Engineers only have a downside for competitive PvP, and personally I think if you want to win, you need to be prepared to put in the time to optimise your equipment just as much as you put in the time to perfecting your technique.
Personally I think min/maxing is the path to frustration, so I just don't worry about being the best & just try to have fun with whatever ship I'm in. Explore it's limits, see what I can get it to do. Bounty hunt in a viper, pirate in a Cobra, explore in an FDL (or a Corvette)
Last edited:
The OP seemed to invite collaborative PVE focused pilots into the experience of PVP by encouraging the "weak" to become "strong" by expanding horizons through mental flexibility and a willingness to learn. I have tried to point out that the reason we are able to master our environment has to do with the synergy between collaborative, supportive efforts and the thoughtful focused use of force. Within society or within any military organization for that matter, both are essential. Within the context of this videogame, so many folks seem to be locked in a debate either to bring folks on into their way of playing, or simply to be permitted to pursue their own style without harassment.
I truly want to move this conversation into one about an instancing structure that benefits the greatest number of players. If we consider for a moment a PVP server within one of the previously existing mmos, there is the opportunity for pvp conflict, but there is also the viable path for self policing. For example, in a server hosted zone Lvl 12 player representing faction A is attacked by Lvl 45 player representing faction B. Lvl 12 player types into zone chat, "Hey I'm at location x and am being attacked by this Lvl 45 B guy." Within the zone, 30 faction A guys can waypoint over and deal with the threat. That kind of collaboration, protection, mentoring cannot happen within the Elite game structure.
In Elite, the Lvl 45 guy creates a private peer to peer instance, employs specific game designed skills to keep the Lvl 12 guy isolated, zone communication is eliminated, and the Lvl 12 guy is squashed. The Lvl 12 guy says "Not fair" the Lvl 45 guy says "Stop being Lvl 12".
In my opinion, this is not a player deficit issue - everyone somewhere on a growth curve and has their own interests for playing the game, this is a game design issue. What can be done within the limitations of 32 players in an instance, peer to peer instancing, instance isolation, etc. that can actually facilitate some semblance of community with factional play and meaningful pvp / pve opportunities?
I hope this becomes the debate.
I truly want to move this conversation into one about an instancing structure that benefits the greatest number of players. If we consider for a moment a PVP server within one of the previously existing mmos, there is the opportunity for pvp conflict, but there is also the viable path for self policing. For example, in a server hosted zone Lvl 12 player representing faction A is attacked by Lvl 45 player representing faction B. Lvl 12 player types into zone chat, "Hey I'm at location x and am being attacked by this Lvl 45 B guy." Within the zone, 30 faction A guys can waypoint over and deal with the threat. That kind of collaboration, protection, mentoring cannot happen within the Elite game structure.
In Elite, the Lvl 45 guy creates a private peer to peer instance, employs specific game designed skills to keep the Lvl 12 guy isolated, zone communication is eliminated, and the Lvl 12 guy is squashed. The Lvl 12 guy says "Not fair" the Lvl 45 guy says "Stop being Lvl 12".
In my opinion, this is not a player deficit issue - everyone somewhere on a growth curve and has their own interests for playing the game, this is a game design issue. What can be done within the limitations of 32 players in an instance, peer to peer instancing, instance isolation, etc. that can actually facilitate some semblance of community with factional play and meaningful pvp / pve opportunities?
I hope this becomes the debate.
That's me making my own problems to solve, which are easy and yet pointless since I invented them. That is not at all the same as the game itself challenging me by providing opportunities that match my current abilities. It's the same as unplugging my throttle and just using the stick throttle wheel. It's a completely artificial challenge that serves no purpose, and as such works for me about as much as self-tickling.
That deadly navigation part of the game was a lot of fun, back in 2014 when that was the actual gameplay. Now it isn't even part of just-past-newbie gameplay, partly due to credit inflation and fuel cost reduction since 2014 but also since you can set a KGBFOAM route plotter on the map and a basic scoop costs nothing; but not much has replaced or supplemented those earlier navigational challenges to enrich navigation as a skill instead of a button.
I'd like the game to reflect more that my choices have consequence of some type, good or ill. Right now Elite has very little consequence for most player actions, across the board of activities, and inventing your own consequence can only take you so far.