*Slurp* I am still drinking my coffee as I am writing this. Is the title alright or does it conflict with any forum law? I am honestly unsure about that so feel free to moderate. 
Anyways. The increasing amount of *slurp* stream sniping and salt mining comes to my attention. The following should be a semi-short perspective of someone who likes to watch the happenings, yet not interrupting. A documentary of what's going on in 3303. Points of views and other boring stuff incoming. In case that's not for you, you will gonna waste your time here.
Now let's start with the definition.
"Hardcore? Carebear? I hear those words often but what do they mean?" (Terms were included in the title before moderation)
Easy. A hardcoreler is someone who takes all of the available resources to accomplish a goal with the best possible result. Hardcorelers usually have access to top notch equipment in Elite and a more advanced skillset than casuals. Now what is a casual? A casual player is someone who uses available resources in the most efficient way rather than taking all of it at once. The resources saved are then spend on other games or activities.
Now what is a carebear? First off, a subjective term that is just as sensitive to use as "griefer".
I like to claim that there are no griefers in this game (due to legitimate actions via ingame rules). But this also connects to the term "carebear". There are no carebears in this game in my point of view. Per personal definition, a carebear is someone who excessively cares for others and despises any kind of hostility or negativity towards likeminded individuals. Similar terms like "forum dad" or other creative inventions usually define the very same mindset of players:
The weak.
Yes. This is not an insult ... atleast I didn't mean to but to every positive there is a negativ. Without contrast there is neither a positive nor a negative. If there are strong people around the world then there obviously have to be weak people in order to define "strong" by putting it in contrast to the weak and vice versa. This can easily explained using mathmatics. If there is a +1 then there has to be a -1 for positive and negative values to exist.
In certain definitions (area of definitions? I don't know the correct scientific english term for that) there are only "natural" numbers. This means all numbers going into the "positive" side up to infinity, (but no 1.5 or 2.25 ... basic math). In this case, the numbers are neither "positive" or "negative" but "natural".
Enough math for now but keep these three terms in mind: "positive", "negative", "natural".
To the case of Elite: Dangerous. The skill gap is huge. And by huge I mean as huge as it can be. There are players capable of precicely flying through tight gaps with FAoff and rotational correction disabled at atleast 500 m/s while others have trouble docking or undocking their ship even after hours of gametime. Let alone this difference in skillsets creates difference in the community as a whole. There are certain people being insanely skilled vs people that can't even fly a ship without a docking computer.
That said, it is only obvious that "griefing" (aka skilled players hunting unskilled players) is the most unbalanced scenario Elite has to offer. There is not really more challenge an unskilled player can face vs a skilled player (despite getting instanced with friends). This results in "negative" feelings for unskilled players and "positive" feelings for skilled players. See here I used these terms again. The imbalance creates unbalanced feelings (usually) and results the daily heat groups of players are taking part in.
And now there is me. I have the hobby to just watch those scenarios and gather data. Studying reactions of the different players (including those myself) allows me to have a different view on that topic than most of the affected players.
See I don't hunt unskilled players or destroy CMDRs I clearly outmatch but I also don't protect them from others who may do. I just watch. Think of it like a photographer documenting the wild nature of a leopard hunting a zebra. Sometimes the zerba escapes and sometimes the leopard catches its prey. Either way the photographer does not interrupt, mainly because danger should be avoided but also for another reason.
Now the key argument (and basically the only argument): it's natural. Here is the third term I used before. In my point of view, there is neither positivity or negativity. Wheatehr it is +1 or -1 ... it is still a 1.
Both the zebra and the leopard are only doing what is natural for them. The leopard hunts prey, preferable the weak one or anything that is easy to catch. The zebra will also do what is natural to them (despite doing the safety in numbers strategy) which is running away fro mthe leopard as it knows it doesn't stand a chance. The strong leopard will always outmatch the weak zebras in a combat scenario. However, the zebra is smart enough to avoid these scenarios in order to save its own life.
And this is something I find surprising. "Weak" players in Elite (which doesn't mean they are weak in person ... but a T7 may not stand a chance vs a Python ... this definition of weak) simply do not avoid the "strong" players, they actually even run right towards them.
Nothing is done to prevent the combat scenario to occur in the first place. In a combat scenario the chances are imbalanced and more zebras will lose than leopards. Since humans are blessed with advanced intelligence (though we can all give examples of how stupid humankind is) they write a forum post, explaining in detail what is wrong in their opinion and why. But here we are coming back to the positivity and negativity. As stated before, the more negative the one side of the imbalanced match is, the more positive the other one gets. Or a little bit clearer: the more the hunted players complain the more the hunters feel statisfied. Their negativity is the other's positivity.
I do not understand why this isn't clear for so many and assuming it is, why the actions are not taken appropiately.
Before I leave you into the day *slurp*, damn, coffe got cold. Take a look at this picture:
I see this so often. In the never ending debate of [see title] you can crystal clearly assign these two mindsets for either side. One askes for help while the other starts to help themsleves .. and later he is asked to help others.
Turn it the way you want. PvPer vs PvEer, Strong vs Weak, Hardcore vs Casual, Predator vs Prey. It's quite easily to assign these two mindets to either side.
And just by the way: "Griefers" grief griefers just as they grief non-griefers. But griefers don#t mind when they are griefed. In fact, they appreciate it (mostly, again, it's never 100%).
So ask yourself: What are you? Which mindset do you embody?
Don't answer that question. Becuase actions are the only thing that is of value. Words without following actions are as worthless as they can be.
Good morning.
EDIT: Thread got moderated by Yaffle. Smiley is lost (so I put it back in (But it doesn't show in Dangerous Discussion front board )
Anyways. The increasing amount of *slurp* stream sniping and salt mining comes to my attention. The following should be a semi-short perspective of someone who likes to watch the happenings, yet not interrupting. A documentary of what's going on in 3303. Points of views and other boring stuff incoming. In case that's not for you, you will gonna waste your time here.
Now let's start with the definition.
"Hardcore? Carebear? I hear those words often but what do they mean?" (Terms were included in the title before moderation)
Easy. A hardcoreler is someone who takes all of the available resources to accomplish a goal with the best possible result. Hardcorelers usually have access to top notch equipment in Elite and a more advanced skillset than casuals. Now what is a casual? A casual player is someone who uses available resources in the most efficient way rather than taking all of it at once. The resources saved are then spend on other games or activities.
Now what is a carebear? First off, a subjective term that is just as sensitive to use as "griefer".
I like to claim that there are no griefers in this game (due to legitimate actions via ingame rules). But this also connects to the term "carebear". There are no carebears in this game in my point of view. Per personal definition, a carebear is someone who excessively cares for others and despises any kind of hostility or negativity towards likeminded individuals. Similar terms like "forum dad" or other creative inventions usually define the very same mindset of players:
The weak.
Yes. This is not an insult ... atleast I didn't mean to but to every positive there is a negativ. Without contrast there is neither a positive nor a negative. If there are strong people around the world then there obviously have to be weak people in order to define "strong" by putting it in contrast to the weak and vice versa. This can easily explained using mathmatics. If there is a +1 then there has to be a -1 for positive and negative values to exist.
In certain definitions (area of definitions? I don't know the correct scientific english term for that) there are only "natural" numbers. This means all numbers going into the "positive" side up to infinity, (but no 1.5 or 2.25 ... basic math). In this case, the numbers are neither "positive" or "negative" but "natural".
Enough math for now but keep these three terms in mind: "positive", "negative", "natural".
To the case of Elite: Dangerous. The skill gap is huge. And by huge I mean as huge as it can be. There are players capable of precicely flying through tight gaps with FAoff and rotational correction disabled at atleast 500 m/s while others have trouble docking or undocking their ship even after hours of gametime. Let alone this difference in skillsets creates difference in the community as a whole. There are certain people being insanely skilled vs people that can't even fly a ship without a docking computer.
That said, it is only obvious that "griefing" (aka skilled players hunting unskilled players) is the most unbalanced scenario Elite has to offer. There is not really more challenge an unskilled player can face vs a skilled player (despite getting instanced with friends). This results in "negative" feelings for unskilled players and "positive" feelings for skilled players. See here I used these terms again. The imbalance creates unbalanced feelings (usually) and results the daily heat groups of players are taking part in.
And now there is me. I have the hobby to just watch those scenarios and gather data. Studying reactions of the different players (including those myself) allows me to have a different view on that topic than most of the affected players.
See I don't hunt unskilled players or destroy CMDRs I clearly outmatch but I also don't protect them from others who may do. I just watch. Think of it like a photographer documenting the wild nature of a leopard hunting a zebra. Sometimes the zerba escapes and sometimes the leopard catches its prey. Either way the photographer does not interrupt, mainly because danger should be avoided but also for another reason.
Now the key argument (and basically the only argument): it's natural. Here is the third term I used before. In my point of view, there is neither positivity or negativity. Wheatehr it is +1 or -1 ... it is still a 1.
Both the zebra and the leopard are only doing what is natural for them. The leopard hunts prey, preferable the weak one or anything that is easy to catch. The zebra will also do what is natural to them (despite doing the safety in numbers strategy) which is running away fro mthe leopard as it knows it doesn't stand a chance. The strong leopard will always outmatch the weak zebras in a combat scenario. However, the zebra is smart enough to avoid these scenarios in order to save its own life.
And this is something I find surprising. "Weak" players in Elite (which doesn't mean they are weak in person ... but a T7 may not stand a chance vs a Python ... this definition of weak) simply do not avoid the "strong" players, they actually even run right towards them.
Nothing is done to prevent the combat scenario to occur in the first place. In a combat scenario the chances are imbalanced and more zebras will lose than leopards. Since humans are blessed with advanced intelligence (though we can all give examples of how stupid humankind is) they write a forum post, explaining in detail what is wrong in their opinion and why. But here we are coming back to the positivity and negativity. As stated before, the more negative the one side of the imbalanced match is, the more positive the other one gets. Or a little bit clearer: the more the hunted players complain the more the hunters feel statisfied. Their negativity is the other's positivity.
I do not understand why this isn't clear for so many and assuming it is, why the actions are not taken appropiately.
Before I leave you into the day *slurp*, damn, coffe got cold. Take a look at this picture:
I see this so often. In the never ending debate of [see title] you can crystal clearly assign these two mindsets for either side. One askes for help while the other starts to help themsleves .. and later he is asked to help others.
Turn it the way you want. PvPer vs PvEer, Strong vs Weak, Hardcore vs Casual, Predator vs Prey. It's quite easily to assign these two mindets to either side.
And just by the way: "Griefers" grief griefers just as they grief non-griefers. But griefers don#t mind when they are griefed. In fact, they appreciate it (mostly, again, it's never 100%).
So ask yourself: What are you? Which mindset do you embody?
Don't answer that question. Becuase actions are the only thing that is of value. Words without following actions are as worthless as they can be.
Good morning.
EDIT: Thread got moderated by Yaffle. Smiley is lost
(so I put it back in (But it doesn't show in Dangerous Discussion front board )
Last edited:
