Misrepresented? In what way? This is what you said:
"Your friend had you and went six months without learning to throttle to 70%?! What were you doing?
This is 2020 and ignorance is a choice. All the data anyone could need about any game is a few keystrokes away."
All data. Any game. All "just a few keystrokes away".
All of it.
Yes, a simple and verifiable fact of having working internet.
Am I to have read that any differently than what you've literally written?
Nope
Am I wrong for inferring that you expected the guy to know this one thing because you can read about it on the Internet where everything can be learned?
Yes. This thing is very high on the list of issues you will learn about if you bother to see what the words "fleet carrier" mean in this game.
Am I wrong for reading that "ignorance is a choice" and taking anything else from it than your assertion that everything must be known by the end user and no blame lies anywhere else?
Yes again you are wrong. You have somehow gone from "you can learn about anything" to "you must know everything" those are not equivalent statements.
Sure, I replied sarcastically but you might want to reign in the use of logical fallacy card waving when you say sweeping stuff like that, mate.
I use them only when they are accurate. As I've just shown above.
Can you specify any examples where I've misrepresented what someone said?
See above.
Yes, I'm against the elitist responses here. I'll freely admit that.
Elitist. Assuming someone would take the time to learn very basic things about the game, like fleet carriers can move. Is elitist? That seems pretty hyperbolic to me. Look at the forum responses to someone asking about how to get a guardian site, or how to avoid ganking and you will see some gentle ribbing and useful help.
This, though, is up there with don't fly without rebuy. And the van labeled free candy is a bad idea.
Admittedly, the sarcasm gets the better of me.
I'll try my best to not rise to it.
Thanks
I've not suggested a pop up once so far. I agreed this isn't a suitable method. But, really importantly, also said the game has a huge number of functions that assist the player to understand what's going on without using pop ups yet. There's no reason this issue need be any different.
It isn't. Carriers are recognizably different from stations in name, appearance and audio cues. What more do you want?
Almost everything we do is explicit (almost, I'm not going to suggest that all consequences are explicitly opted in for but the vast majority of what we do has a trigger to initiate it). The result the op saw was implicitly arrived at via their lack of knowledge but could just as easily be explicitly arrived at by the same method we do almost everything else.
Docking is the exicit action.
Exists, its labeled "Launch".
I've already been told that's a "horrible" idea though. If I've somehow misrepresented that, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree that having a button to do something is horrible.
Depends on what the button does.
In this case you want a button, where? What interface would that be a natural fit in? If it's not pretty obvious it's going to get missed buried in a menu somewhere.
Does the button have to work for all carriers? Do we need to have options like travel with a squadron affiliated carrier but not a non affiliated one? What is the default setting and what will you do for the new players who make a mistake because they didn't know about the default?
The simple solution to me seems to be leave it as it is, docking at a carrier means if it jumps you jumps. We can make that more obvious in the carriers entry in game pretty harmlessly.
Subjectively, yes. Objectively?
No.
Think critically on that statement of fact you've made for a moment. Is it always true in all circumstances?
It does assume that a reasonably competent thinking agent is involved. Did you want to have a caveat added? Should every utterance of fact be amended to include any possible fringe case? You like sweeping absolutes, do you think that people talk and think in such black and white terms? Perhaps you are aware that this is a conversation and not a formal debate so the people you interact with will be speaking colloquially.
Would you maybe like to qualify it further? Is it possible a game could have an issue that's enough to put a player off but still be changed to perhaps mitigate against that negative outcome, or is it always the player's fault?
Here is another misrepresentation. I talked about rage quitting, you have changed that to "put a player off".
Also with the always and never again. So clearly you are either not aware of coloquialisms or you are willing to read absolutism to try and score debate points.
I ask that in fear of you calling me for another logical fallacy but I would politely remind you that you just used a sweeping statement without any basis of evidence to support it.
No basis of evidence? I've cited that the internet is a vast collection of knowledge and that information can be found there about any game.
Is that perhaps hyperbolic? Maybe its possible some obscure game, or perhaps one you just made up, isn't documented. Hence coloquialism.
What is certainly true is that Elite dangerous is well documented online and this situation arises from self imposed ignorance. From the decision to dock at a fleet carrier without first determining what a fleet carrier is.
By your logic though we should have a button to avoid that. I suppose we also need a special button to opt in to getting killed by Thargoids, since someone might arrive near them and not know they are aggressive.
We should have a button to opt into high gravity landings, and for docking fines and for station defense responses and every other possible negative consequence of player actions. (See I'm using your absolute language against you)
One great menu to opt out of every consequence.
Or do you think game consequences should be universal to all players and a basic knowledge level be required to avoid them with the expectation that someone who lacks that knowledge will take it as a learning experience?
I prefer the latter. Its only a game and I'm not going to lose any sleep over my virtual stuff.
gfycat.com
![[VR] Enexemander](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/119/119036.jpg?1621636716){kind=avatar}
