I don't think all fantasies are compatible. And that's why OP doesn't see more people in open.
I’d like more commanders in the Open
- Thread starter Moriarte
- Start date
You agree with Phisto, and that's fine. Opinions are clearly divided though, there is no right or wrong.
Well... no. It isn't "an opinion" that one's playstyle informs their real-life character. It's a claim that either is or isn't true.
To return to my actor analogy, it's like saying that "there is no right or wrong" in claiming that Anthony Hopkins is a cannibalistic serial killer in real life because he's portrayed one on film. He isn't, and that's a fact regardless of if we viewers know him personally or not.
And that's fine, as long as one's evaluation is of another's playstyle and not some malformed assumption about their real-life character.
Have you tried just not forming an opinion? Leave judgement pending until you know more?
It's OK to say, "I don't know."
lol you managed to actually be wrong in a subjective debate
Stuff that supports your argument is stuff you agree with, not stuff that's inherently right or wrong. We've never met, we only have a few forum posts to base an opinion of each other on. I bet you've formed an opinion about me, haven't you?
lol you managed to actually be wrong in a subjective debate
Stuff that supports your argument is stuff you agree with, not stuff that's inherently right or wrong. We've never met, we only have a few forum posts to base an opinion of each other on. I bet you've formed an opinion about me, haven't you?
You and I have only interacted on this forum and to a much greater degree than the average in game interaction.
We're criticizing folks who conclude all sorts of things based on being attacked as little as once in Open Play.
I can start making conclusions about you because there is just enough data to do so. In the latter situation I don't know jack.
Have you?
lol you managed to actually be wrong in a subjective debate
Stuff that supports your argument is stuff you agree with, not stuff that's inherently right or wrong. We've never met, we only have a few forum posts to base an opinion of each other on. I bet you've formed an opinion about me, haven't you?
The difference is that I'm not making sweeping claims as to your moral character based on those few posts or the way you play the game. And as for my opinion of you? I'm perfectly happy to admit that our brief interactions do virtually nothing to inform me of your total personality and character.
Last edited:
All the damn time.
I am.
I've never exploited a game mechanic in solo before. I cant believe how easy it is. The credits just role in and other than an FD nerf there is no opposition.
Why did I waste all those years in Open learning how to survive and outfit ships, how to fly and shoot when all I have to do is sit here and press two, maybe three buttons?
How anyone can claim this isnt easy mode i will never know. I've never had it so good.
What a hoot.
Shame about the gameplay though.
The point at which an individual makes a snap judgement is different for different people.
Perhaps it might be fairer to say that the opinion should be continually evaluated rather than judged only on one instance. First impressions are important though.
In game I will form an opinion of someone I meet, or form an opinion of the group they are in or represent based on my interactions. I remain open to the possibility of change (as do most people), but if my first encounter is that they try to gank newbs I'm going to start on a poor impression & they'll need to do quite a lot to redeem themselves in my eyes. Sometimes they do
I got my ship blown up in a CZ a while ago by a player many who have met would describe as a ganker/griefer. One of my wingmates had invited another player to the wing to share a reward (as we do), that player mis-interpreted the situation where a few players on their friend-list were all in one system, they assumed it was a bit of a PvP hotspot when in reality we were all (black & white hats alike) fighting on the same side in a CZ. I evaded but was eventually destroyed, and sent them a friend request to explain the situation in my own way. They agreed to help us win the war, and watching them work a CZ was just awesome
But if I instance with that player again, will we be allies or enemies? They were an entertaining character, they demonstrated combat skill far in excess of my own, but they also showed that they tend to make snap decisions or make light of events I consider important, and prioritise actions I don't consider important.
...intended?
I thought the game intended to let you be the kind of spaceman you wanted to be. Does it not do that?
I mean, it's doing that for ME. Just because an option in a game's clearly the best doesn't mean you HAVE to do that. Why waste my time chasing BiS when I can clear Eden Savage in the gear my Machinist has got? Why cringe at my Sith Sorcerer waving around a big purple glowstick when I can have him running around without a mainhand weapon slinging lightning like a proper emperor? Why mine when I don't want to and don't have to?
Game's working for ME as intended. Why not for you?
Hang around, someone just swung the psychology bat and theyre all coming in
You cannot make that assumption until all the evidence is in, many crimes aren't discovered until much later. I'm sure he isn't, but I don't know he isn't and the difference is your point.
Oh and in English, you can, but you shouldn't or rather it may not be helpful if you do, then again judging by the reactions its not that far off the mark either.
Most people (in this discussion) aren't making sweeping statements, they are just summarising for brevity & others are choosing to deliberately mis-interpret those statements rather than looking for common ground.
If you are happy, just play the damned game however you like, and so will they, in their own way.
The "Anthony Hopkins" argument also has a few critical flaws -- for example, we know a lot more about Sir Hopkins the person than we'd ever know about whoever the hell's behind "CMDR Trolly McPepehands". Sir Hopkins is a professional actor paid well to portray roles well. The average player is, well, significantly less well-known.
Another fallacy with the concept is that Sir Hopkins, in his portrayal of good ol' Hannibal Lecter (no one ever talks about him as Richard anymore! I thought that was his best work personally), didn't actively interfere with the lives of random individuals in a negative manner, nor seek to do so. The worst he could have done was been a diva on the set, but by all accounts he's just not like that. We know this about Sir Hopkins, but can never know it about the anonymous commander behind Trolly McPepehands because Variety, Hollywood Reporter or even TMZ doesn't know or care who that player is.
I have no idea why the argument is offered as a result, but it's an argument at least as old as the Hannibal movies are. Before that, its proponents just used another well-known actor. But since we don't know character and player like we do with Hannibal and Sir Anthony, we can only go with the information we've got and can confirm. And you're right. If someone's acting the fool simply to play the part, it's hard to see even wanting to get to know the actor behind the character.
I snipped some of it to save space. I have also read most of your posts here (hopefully I didn't skip any) and I do agree with your position for the most part. Just as I agree with Phisto's. To me it feels like you basically have a very similar opinion, but it's being expressed rather differently. I may be wrong, but that's not my point.The point at which an individual makes a snap judgement is different for different people.
Perhaps it might be fairer to say that the opinion should be continually evaluated rather than judged only on one instance. First impressions are important though.
In game I will form an opinion of someone I meet, or form an opinion of the group they are in or represent based on my interactions. I remain open to the possibility of change (as do most people), but if my first encounter is that they try to gank newbs I'm going to start on a poor impression & they'll need to do quite a lot to redeem themselves in my eyes. Sometimes they do
My actual point is another one. People are free to form an opinion as quickly or as slowly as they want. Problems arise, and it was was briefly hinted at above, when people start making sweeping assumptions about people (you know - any players who attacks another player must be a murder hoboing psychopath; or people who play in solo are cowards who hide in their mum's basement; or whatever, all are equally wrong and sad). At no point is making such accusations acceptable, especially since ED is a game which allows players to choose who they interact or don't interact with.
It IS important to keep character and creator separate. A cardinal rule, even. But it is also critical for content creators to realize and accept that we are judged for the content we create. It's quite reasonable for someone to wholly dislike a creation that seeks to adversely affect something that person created themselves -- much like very few people (if any) have any kind of respect for the jackass who wanders the beach kicking down sand castles just because there isn't a sign on the beach that specifically says "hey, you know, wandering around kicking down sand castles just because you can probably won't endear you to much of the community surrounding".
For one, it's hard to fit all that on a sign. But anyway. We ARE judged by the content we create. People who create content that makes people happy tend to be more well received than people who create content that intends and aims to adversely affect the experiencer.
It does have its audience, but it's a very good idea for a creator of that kind of content to identify and cater just to that audience if they expect it to be appreciated in the manner they would like.
I hope you don't mind that I took the liberty of isolating the relevant part of your reply. And it's correct: we don't know who that player is, their history or their motivation for playing the way they do. And really, all those things are irrelevant in a game where the rules explicitly allow whatever they're doing. As satisfying as it might be to type up some screed about the low moral character or psychological state of certain players based on how their gameplay made one feel, it's far more productive to simply choose the right mode for one's level of risk acceptance, or—and I can't recommend this enough— outfit properly and learn evasive skills.