Quote
Originally posted by Captain Carnotaur:
**I'm not exaggerating. When I play EV, the Confed cruiser never turns, under AI control or human control. I don't know why though, on EVO the UE carrier (which has the same turning as the Confed cruiser) does turn.
**
Are you sure your copy of EV isn't corrupted? On my computer, the Confed cruiser turns just fine. (Actually, it turns slowly. However, that's to be expected.) I use a Confed cruiser myself and it turns all right (after RCS upgrade).
Quote
Originally posted by OctoberFost:
**Somone's taking this sh it WAYYYY too seriosuly...
**
"Someone's (not) taking this sh it...seriously (enough)..."
Look what I accomplished. I'm well on my way to convince people that the Confeds are at least moral equals if not superiors to the rebels. When did anyone ever manage to accomplish this?
On an unrelated note, your sig is fairly interesting. So interesting, in fact, that I thought up of a follow-up line that will guarantee a good laugh if read right after reading your sig. However, the follow-up line is EXTREMELY insulting to you. That is why I hesitate to post it on the web board. I suggest that you give me your e-mail address and I'll e-mail it to you. If it's not too insulting to you, then maybe you can post it yourself.
I don't undestand why I hate rebels.
It's like what Andrew M said about whenever he saw a confed ship on the second post: he wanted to vaporize it. Same with me, but vice versa
I assure you the Confed Crus. CAN turn WITH an RCS Upgrade. The other upgrades (thrust up, afterburner ect.) can help a lot too.
But hey, remember what happened to Sebulba when he raced Anakin? And also remember EVO. Not many people liked the HUGE amount of systems it had. Also, the Confed cruiser can't turn. So the Rebel cruiser has a BIG advantage. So always remember, bigger is not always better.
I think I missed your point (I just came back from the freeport bar) but suddenly I wanna play podracer.
Gee che guano puty pupu! -Gasgano
Your all slime balls! -Anakin Skywalker
Chuba towoo tegu puta lachooo! -Sebulba
I think the democratic party should not take this action in campaigning for the next elections -Bill Clinton
Did I post in this thread earlier? I don't remember. Six months is a long time...
Someone has surely brought this up before, so I apologize at once for repeating it: the EV intro text itself states that following the Great War, the outer worlds of the galaxy were unfairly taxed, their resources siphoned off for the benefit of wealthy planets at the galactic core. No way around itas part of the basic premise of the game itself, the Confederation is the villain, the bad guy, the black hat. So morally, ethically, there you are...so far as the original game is concerned. Most players seem to agree with this; the overwhelming majority appears to side with the Rebellion. Personally, I prefer the Confederation for drama's sakevillains are often more complex and interesting than their heroic counterparts (in fiction, at least)...
I'd be interested in knowing if there there any plugs out there that cast the Confederation in a positive light, or at least spend a lot of time developing a Confederation view of life in the EV cosmos.
------------------
PlanetPhil
"Going to sea is going to prison, with a chance at drowning besides."
Samuel Johnson
Quote
Originally posted by PlanetPhil:
**Someone has surely brought this up before, so I apologize at once for repeating it: the EV intro text itself states that following the Great War, the outer worlds of the galaxy were unfairly taxed, their resources siphoned off for the benefit of wealthy planets at the galactic core. No way around itas part of the basic premise of the game itself, the Confederation is the villain, the bad guy, the black hat. So morally, ethically, there you are...so far as the original game is concerned.
**
We Confed loyalists are very well aware of all this. I'm merely pointing out that there is a credibility gap between what the rebellion claims it stands for and what it actually does.
**Most players seem to agree with this; the overwhelming majority appears to side with the Rebellion.
**
Of course, most people watch too much television. In television, the good guys are usually angelic and usually wins.
**Personally, I prefer the Confederation for drama's sakevillains are often more complex and interesting than their heroic counterparts (in fiction, at least)...
**
I concur, with reservations. Villains and heroes are merely 2 sides of the same coin. If one tries to view the situation in a work of fiction through the logic of a villain, then they will understand why they acted as they did. That is why I side with Iago in "Othello" and Dionysus in "Bacchae."
To Jericon: Feel free to hop in.
Quote
Originally posted by htjyang:
Are you sure your copy of EV isn't corrupted? On my computer, the Confed cruiser turns just fine. (Actually, it turns slowly. However, that's to be expected.) I use a Confed cruiser myself and it turns all right (after RCS upgrade).
Not sure. The Confed cruiser never turned in my EV so I couldn't have accidentally changed it. However, every once and a while I see the Confed cruiser turning. It's weird.
------------------
I can't help but think that you guys are reading waaaay too much into a plot that was, for most intents and purposes, a re-hash of countless sci-fi movies. Sure, the plot was hardly tacked-on, but it's not exactly completely enthralling. Maybe you guys are taking this thing a little too seriously...
Quote
Originally posted by htjyang:
**"Someone's (not) taking this sh it...seriously (enough)..."
Look what I accomplished. I'm well on my way to convince people that the Confeds are at least moral equals if not superiors to the rebels. When did anyone ever manage to accomplish this?
On an unrelated note, your sig is fairly interesting. So interesting, in fact, that I thought up of a follow-up line that will guarantee a good laugh if read right after reading your sig. However, the follow-up line is EXTREMELY insulting to you. That is why I hesitate to post it on the web board. I suggest that you give me your e-mail address and I'll e-mail it to you. If it's not too insulting to you, then maybe you can post it yourself.**
It's just a game, damnit. And the Confeds have superior ships (except for the Frigate), that's a no-brainer. But Rebel Ships are generally better for human use. The AI dosn't really know how to use Rebel Ships to their full advantage. And the Rebels give you more if you work for them. The Particle beam is inefficent becasue of its fuel. The Tractor beam helps incredibly in the Alien Crusier missions, and the cloaking device has many uses. In short, the player gets more from the Rebels.
------------------
"It's clearly a budget. It's got lots of numbers in it." -George W. Bush
AIM-OctoberFost
Yahoo Messenger-OctoberFost
(url="http://"http://www.geocities.com/octoberfost")http://www.geocities.com/octoberfost(/url)
Quote
Originally posted by htjyang:
**"Someone's (not) taking this sh it...seriously (enough)..."
Look what I accomplished. I'm well on my way to convince people that the Confeds are at least moral equals if not superiors to the rebels. When did anyone ever manage to accomplish this?
On an unrelated note, your sig is fairly interesting. So interesting, in fact, that I thought up of a follow-up line that will guarantee a good laugh if read right after reading your sig. However, the follow-up line is EXTREMELY insulting to you. That is why I hesitate to post it on the web board. I suggest that you give me your e-mail address and I'll e-mail it to you. If it's not too insulting to you, then maybe you can post it yourself.**
It's just a game, damnit. And the Confeds have superior ships (except for the Frigate), that's a no-brainer. But Rebel Ships are generally better for human use. The AI dosn't really know how to use Rebel Ships to their full advantage. And the Rebels give you more if you work for them. The Particle beam is inefficent becasue of its fuel. The Tractor beam helps incredibly in the Alien Crusier missions, and the cloaking device has many uses. In short, the player gets more from the Rebels.
------------------
"It's clearly a budget. It's got lots of numbers in it." -George W. Bush
AIM-OctoberFost
Yahoo Messenger-OctoberFost
(url="http://"http://www.geocities.com/octoberfost")http://www.geocities.com/octoberfost(/url)
Quote
Originally posted by htjyang:
**"Someone's (not) taking this sh it...seriously (enough)..."
Look what I accomplished. I'm well on my way to convince people that the Confeds are at least moral equals if not superiors to the rebels. When did anyone ever manage to accomplish this?
On an unrelated note, your sig is fairly interesting. So interesting, in fact, that I thought up of a follow-up line that will guarantee a good laugh if read right after reading your sig. However, the follow-up line is EXTREMELY insulting to you. That is why I hesitate to post it on the web board. I suggest that you give me your e-mail address and I'll e-mail it to you. If it's not too insulting to you, then maybe you can post it yourself.**
It's just a game, damnit. And the Confeds have superior ships (except for the Frigate), that's a no-brainer. But Rebel Ships are generally better for human use. The AI dosn't really know how to use Rebel Ships to their full advantage. And the Rebels give you more if you work for them. The Particle beam is inefficent becasue of its fuel. The Tractor beam helps incredibly in the Alien Crusier missions, and the cloaking device has many uses. In short, the player gets more from the Rebels.
------------------
"It's clearly a budget. It's got lots of numbers in it." -George W. Bush
AIM-OctoberFost
Yahoo Messenger-OctoberFost
(url="http://"http://www.geocities.com/octoberfost")http://www.geocities.com/octoberfost(/url)
Quote
Originally posted by OctoberFost:
**It's just a game, damnit.
**
Of course it's a game. I never implied it was anything else.
**And the Confeds have superior ships (except for the Frigate), that's a no-brainer.
**
Thank for your vote of support.
**But Rebel Ships are generally better for human use.
**
Not necessarily. Granted, rebel ships are more maneuverable. However, Confed ships have more crew and are generally well-shielded. Unlike the computer, players can use these advantages to capture enemy ships, something AI will never do.
**The AI dosn't really know how to use Rebel Ships to their full advantage.
**
The same can be said for Confed ships as well.
**And the Rebels give you more if you work for them. The Particle beam is inefficent because of its fuel. The Tractor beam helps incredibly in the Alien Crusier missions, and the cloaking device has many uses. In short, the player gets more from the Rebels.
**
Again, not necessarily. I beat the alien cruiser with a kestrel and no tractor beam. It might make it easier, but it is not very important. Same thing goes for the cloaking device. I never used it in either EV or EVO. The Rebels do give more, but if those items are close to useless, then I can't see any advantages coming from this fact.
Sorry I've been out of the loop for so long. I am presently on a trip, when I get back, I will rejoin the fray. (I had to mooch this message of of a freinds computer, a Wintel Machine too!)
------------------
We do not live to work, rather, we work to live.
Hell, I never thought I would have started such a discussion with this. As for PlanetPhil and htjyang, I could have used your abilities as let us say, loyalists before, when this topic started.
------------------
Justice is lost
Justice is raped
Justice is gone
Pulling your strings
Justice is done
<A HREF="http://www.metallic
a.com" TARGET=_blank>http://www.metallica.com</A>
(This message has been edited by Demogorgon (edited 07-01-2000).)
First: The Rebel Mantas suck. Confed Gunboats and Patrol Ships would mop the floor with them. Rebel Destroyers are not as good as Confed Frigates. The Rebel Cruiser does have advantages over the Confed Cruiser, I'll give you that one.
Second: The Confeds have more people, and it's obvious that they don't care about forcing them into labor, so they have a basically endless supply of troops.
Third: The Rebels have fewer worlds than the Confeds -- that means fewer resources, which means the Confeds can pump out more ships, faster than their opponents. They can build more weapons, and their slaves will do this labor for them.
LONG LIVE THE CONFEDERATION!!!
------------------
"All will bow before the Icelandic Emperor."
"Join the Icelandic Coalition -- or be killed!" Someone should understand that.
Quote
Originally posted by Grundle_04:
**First: The Rebel Mantas suck.
**
Even if you will not believe it, I have seen 4 mantas take out 2 confederate frigates. Those things seem to work very good in groups.
------------------
Justice is lost
Justice is raped
Justice is gone
Pulling your strings
Justice is done
Quote
Originally posted by htjyang:
More people die from war than from the oppression that preceded it.
Not hardly. If oppression is continued unchecked the casualties are far worse than those incurred by war, for the simple reason that there is no resistance and perverted megalomaniacs are given free reign. In the name of stability Stalin butchered over 60 MILLION citizens of the Soviet Union, of all walks of life, many for no better reason than that they might have said the wrong word. This is an example of oppression unchecked, with casualties worse than World War II itself.
The rebels "accelerate(d) the process" through their own judgment even when that decision will cost the lives of many other innocent people. They made the decision of life and death for others. I would assert that they had no right to do so.
You may not have the right to take life, but you sure have the right to defend your own. The fact remains that they did not kill those civilians, the Confederation did. Unless they specifically exploited the civilians and put them in harms way they cannot be blamed for the complete cruelty of the Confederation. Indeed, you could say that because their actions brought down the Confederation they are irresponsible. But in that case you have just branded every SWAT team member in the United States a vicious, self-centered individual with an appalling disregard for human life, because they are thrust daily a into situation where hostages will be killed if they let criminals walk, or give in to their demands. And hostages ARE killed way to many times. The reason demands are not given into is because the repercussions of doing so are worse than the alternative. Nonetheless, they make the decisions every day, that, according to you, makes them the moral equivalent of the people they fight.
Furthermore, there can be no way to predict what might have happened. Maybe the Confederation will correct itself and war would have been averted. But that is impossible now. That possibility is forever erased by the rebellion's irresponsible actions.
A study of history will show that there is not a single example where a government corrected itself. Governments get worse, not better. To expect it to do so is like expecting it to rain in the Sahara. . . . . . or hope that Hitler would become a pacifist.
Then allow me to point out another difference. The actions of the rebels caused many other innocent people to die. Suppose in your analogy, the gang threatened to release a toxic nerve gas into the city and kill 1 million people if you intervene, what would you do?
The most a gang is likely to do is what I described in the scenario previously, where I also described my reaction to it. A terrorist group could easily make such a demand, but they would not make it of a simple civilian, but of a government. And if it were my decision I would stall I try to root them out. Because if I give in, they will make the demand again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and so on to infinity until they would simply deplete my ability to comply and they would destroy the city out of displeasure.
I'll contact the internal affairs department. I'll sell it as a news story to the local newspaper about corruption in the local police department. I'll call my Congressional representatives. I'll call local radio talk shows. I'll put out signs denouncing you. I may even hire someone to file suit against you.
See, all of your options rely on you living under a system government that gives you some form of rights. What happens when you dont? What happens when you go to the very highest authority there is and meet nothing but corruption - in fact, you are even punished for bringing anything up? What then? Sit and watch you and yours exist in a living hell?
Of course I can. Their ineffectiveness caused others to suffer is why I can.
You cannot accuse someone of callousness if they accord the same treatment to themselves as to others. You cant, by definition, be callous to yourself.
I am assuming that the rebels are not interested in unconditional surrender, which will end the war instantly.
Your whole argument rests on the fact that the Confederation is brutal enough that it will butcher innocent people out of retaliation. If this is true than absolute surrender by the Rebellion would result in horrible carnage beyond imagining, causing them to be truly irresponsible. This is not a viable solution.
Please note: I am not talking about investing in Yahoo!'s stocks.
Neither am I.
The rebels' decision costs many innocent lives. Failure will only add much more misery to the population than the misery that was already present.
I know. But the unfortunate truth still is that everything that is done can fail. A country defending itself can fail - as, for example, did Poland - or succeed - as, for example, did England. The chances for both were equally slim. The chances for the American Revolution were virtually nil. The battle of Midway was almost a forgone conclusion. Stalingrad should have been dead. Should all of these moments in history have simply been given up because they could fail?
Historically, after revolutions ended, the victors end up squabbling over power. Just ask the Jacobins in France. Even after the defeat of the Whites in Russia, Stalin later still conducted multiple purges.
Both are prime examples of brutal revolutions, and both had extreme faction fighting going on well before they even began. The Russian Revolution had so much infighting going on that it nearly killed itself before it began. If the Germans hadnt helped by shipping Lenin home (who had, incidentally, run not from the police but from his own revolutionary brethren) it is doubtful it would have happened when it did, and thus at all. Furthermore, the war between the Whites and the Reds was nothing more than a huge faction fight, because the Whites were not Czarist supporters (although many did join them) but the segment of the Revolution that wanted some form of a republic rather than socialism. At any rate, after the revolution the Soviet Union was such a far shot from being stable or united that it is laughable. It took years for that to happen.
As far as I can tell, your basic position is this:
Regardless of what is being done to you or those around you, you do not have the right to revolt. Right?
------------------
We do not live to work, rather, we work to live.
Quote
Originally posted by Begemotike:
**Not hardly. If oppression is continued unchecked the casualties are far worse than those incurred by war, for the simple reason that there is no resistance and perverted megalomaniacs are given free reign. In the name of stability Stalin butchered over 60 MILLION citizens of the Soviet Union, of all walks of life, many for no better reason than that they might have said the wrong word. This is an example of oppression unchecked, with casualties worse than World War II itself.
**
I'm afraid that your example is highly misleading. I despise Stalin as much as anyone would. But it is necessary to set the records straight. The figure of 60 million is greatly exaggerated. I assume you included victims of WWII. Although Stalin made egregious mistakes that caused unnecessary disaster for USSR, making him solely responsible will be exonerating the Einsatzgruppen, Wehrmacht, SS,...etc.
After refuting the Russian example you cited, I honestly can't remember a single war whose casualties are less than the oppression that preceded it.
**You may not have the right to take life, but you sure have the right to defend your own. The fact remains that they did not kill those civilians, the Confederation did.
**
One can also speculate on the rebellion's motives. There are those who are willing to undertake actions that will precipitate a violent response in hopes of garnering more sympathy. They can be as despicable as those who actually pulled the trigger.
**Unless they specifically exploited the civilians and put them in harms way they cannot be blamed for the complete cruelty of the Confederation.
**
I believe earlier on I already pointed out that the rebellion is not effective in defending most of its territory. (The Confederation has more safe star systems than the rebellion.) I don't claim that the rebellion is guilty of direct, intentional harm to the population under their control. However, gross negligence is still a crime and I believe the rebellion is guilty on this charge.
**Indeed, you could say that because their actions brought down the Confederation they are irresponsible.
**
The Confederation is not dead yet. Don't bother burying them so quickly.
**But in that case you have just branded every SWAT team member in the United States a vicious, self-centered individual with an appalling disregard for human life, because they are thrust daily a into situation where hostages will be killed if they let criminals walk, or give in to their demands. And hostages ARE killed way to many times. The reason demands are not given into is because the repercussions of doing so are worse than the alternative. Nonetheless, they make the decisions every day, that, according to you, makes them the moral equivalent of the people they fight.
**
The flaw in this argument is that the SWAT teams in question are employees of the government. The rebellion was certainly not employees of the Confederation. I agree that governments cannot give in to the demands of terrorists. That is why the Confederation must not give in to the demands of the rebellion.
**A study of history will show that there is not a single example where a government corrected itself. Governments get worse, not better. To expect it to do so is like expecting it to rain in the Sahara. . . . . . or hope that Hitler would become a pacifist.
**
How about the Civil Rights Act of US in 1965? It was accomplished without Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. championing open warfare. How about in Great Britain during the late 1800s when workers were given more political rights? There were civil disobedience leading to both events. However, they never achieved the scale comparable to the civil war in EV. These examples come right off the top of my head. If I take a little more time, I can give you more. However, I think this post is already far too long.
**The most a gang is likely to do is what I described in the scenario previously, where I also described my reaction to it. A terrorist group could easily make such a demand, but they would not make it of a simple civilian, but of a government. And if it were my decision I would stall I try to root them out. Because if I give in, they will make the demand again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and so on to infinity until they would simply deplete my ability to comply and they would destroy the city out of displeasure.
**
Again, you help make my argument. I stated earlier in this post that you are correct in asserting that governments should not give in to the demands of terrorists. That is why the Confederation should not acquiesce to the rebellion.
**See, all of your options rely on you living under a system government that gives you some form of rights. What happens when you dont? What happens when you go to the very highest authority there is and meet nothing but corruption - in fact, you are even punished for bringing anything up? What then? Sit and watch you and yours exist in a living hell?
**
Radio stations and newspapers are not controlled by the government. In addition, I forgot to mention that I could organize demonstrations and petitions.
**You cannot accuse someone of callousness if they accord the same treatment to themselves as to others. You cant, by definition, be callous to yourself.
**
One can decide what will happen to oneself. To decide what might happen to others is callousness. In addition, how about recklessness? I can certainly state that the rebellion had been reckless in their actions.
**Your whole argument rests on the fact that the Confederation is brutal enough that it will butcher innocent people out of retaliation. If this is true than absolute surrender by the Rebellion would result in horrible carnage beyond imagining, causing them to be truly irresponsible. This is not a viable solution.
**
The "horrible carnage" that you described will not be extended to everyone. It will only be applicable to the rebellion's leadership. After all, the Confederation wanted the rebellion population to service them again. Therefore it is unlikely that they will want to eliminate the entire rebellion population.
**I know. But the unfortunate truth still is that everything that is done can fail. A country defending itself can fail - as, for example, did Poland - or succeed - as, for example, did England. The chances for both were equally slim. The chances for the American Revolution were virtually nil. The battle of Midway was almost a forgone conclusion. Stalingrad should have been dead. Should all of these moments in history have simply been given up because they could fail?
**
The Battle of Midway was fought between members of the armed services of the opposing states. They knew what they signed up for. Same goes for Stalingrad. I do not believe that the civilian population signed up for the rebellion. Being sympahtetic to it is different from signing up for it.
**Both are prime examples of brutal revolutions, and both had extreme faction fighting going on well before they even began. The Russian Revolution had so much infighting going on that it nearly killed itself before it began. If the Germans hadnt helped by shipping Lenin home (who had, incidentally, run not from the police but from his own revolutionary brethren) it is doubtful it would have happened when it did, and thus at all. Furthermore, the war between the Whites and the Reds was nothing more than a huge faction fight, because the Whites were not Czarist supporters (although many did join them) but the segment of the Revolution that wanted some form of a republic rather than socialism. At any rate, after the revolution the Soviet Union was such a far shot from being stable or united that it is laughable. It took years for that to happen.
**
How about the Cultural Revolution in China? A political infighting after the success of the Chinese Revolution?
**As far as I can tell, your basic position is this:
Regardless of what is being done to you or those around you, you do not have the right to revolt. Right?
**
I'm afraid the answer is no. There are acceptable justifications for revolt. The rebellion did not have those acceptable justifications on their side.
Quote
Originally posted by OctoberFost:
The Confeds have more advanced plantets, safer space, and their ships are usually armed better. Rebellion space is less safe, and the Manta can't really do anything other then get killed. But the rebellion is fighting for a good cause, they reward players better, and rebel ships can actually turn without wasting money and space for RCS upgrades. Go with the rebels.
I have seen the manta kill confed patrol ships almost every battle between just the two. And who cares if rebel space is les safe that just makes it more fun.
Sorry I didn't get a chance to post today - I was busy making a driveway all day long. Be back tomorrow.
------------------
We do not live to work, rather, we work to live.
