I can do one better than pro. A guy told me that was an "X-wing jock".

Was he on a horse?

Good one, but the term "fighter jock" is a real one.

My dad, a preacher, has a phrase: "Show me that you love me, and you can do anything you want to to me."

I think showing respect and kindness to fellow players is important, because it will allow you to help them become better players. In fact, this is the main motivation I think for people being d-bags in game stores: they don't want serious competition because this is the only thing they're really good at, so they try to make other players feel inferior to them in the hopes that they give up on trying to become good.

At least, this is my theory. And I think it's a good one.

The theory is strong with you. I feel I need another "doh! oops" moment here as I didn't connect "X-Wing Jock" with "Fighter Jock" and went straight to a little guy in a brightly coloured top riding a horse. Oops!

Back to your theory, people do tend to put others down to make themselves feel superior. Such people tend to be insecure and in need of being, at least in their eyes, better than others. Little realizing that winning at X-Wing doesn't make up for other failures, whether real or imagined.

You'll appreciate this:

"If I conquered the world, but did not have love, I am nothing"

The ability to win at games is insignificant compared to the sheer joy that can be had from making another person smile, and/or laugh. Making someone feel better about themselves is worth more than having others make you feel good about yourself. Or to put it another way "there's more happiness in giving than receiving"

Agree completely. I don't mind someone saying they are good at something, maybe even bragging a bit after some awesome combo/ maneuver/amazing alpha strike etc. But when you start putting other people down is where I say "have a nice day" and leave. I will say though, that I wish this attitude was only found in playing X-wing. People feel they have to always be right in real life too, which is much worse.

Pro is a great adjective. I compliment my opponent's moves all the time using that word. "Hey, the way you dodged out of my arc last turn was really pro."

Pro used as a noun, especially in reference to one's self is really poor taste unless the guy you're speaking about took some scalps at the World's.

Agree completely. I don't mind someone saying they are good at something, maybe even bragging a bit after some awesome combo/ maneuver/amazing alpha strike etc. But when you start putting other people down is where I say "have a nice day" and leave. I will say though, that I wish this attitude was only found in playing X-wing. People feel they have to always be right in real life too, which is much worse.

Wisdom starts with the words: "I don't know"

If you don't know you can learn. If you think you know everything you'll never learn.

The word that gets miss used even more, and frankly bugs me even more "Capital Ship".

I believe the miss use of this word originally came from Role Playing games as a way to differentiate between fighters, light freighters and the sort of ships that PCs could effectively use, and much larger ships that required whole crews to man them effectively.

I think even wookiepiedia refers to capital ships as any ship corvette size or larger. This may be a useful way to distinguish ships for gamers, but it is not what the term "Capital Ship" means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship

A capital ship is the largest most important ship in a particular navy or fleet.

Prior to World War II these were all Battleships (or possibly Battle Cruisers) or dreadnoughts. Durring World War II Capital ships shifted from being Battleships to being aircraft carriers.

The key feature of a capital ship is it was the biggest ship in a fleet that the rest of the fleet is built around.

It is whether a ship is considered a capital ship is more a matter to how it compares to the other ships of its fleet (and erra) than any specific size requirements.

For example HMS Hood was a capital ship in WWI but not a capital ship in WWII.

The term did not just mean big ship, but the biggest ship.

Being paid while you play makes the games even better. The dice odds turn to your favor, you predict your opponents tactics better, the world is sunnier and all is right in the galaxy.

You'll appreciate this:

"If I conquered the world, but did not have love, I am nothing"

The ability to win at games is insignificant compared to the sheer joy that can be had from making another person smile, and/or laugh. Making someone feel better about themselves is worth more than having others make you feel good about yourself. Or to put it another way "there's more happiness in giving than receiving"

1 Corinthians 13 is a wonderful chapter on this subject that even my non-Christian and atheist friends tell me is a thing of beauty because of how it elevates love above everything else.

I agree completely. There's a good friend of mine who didn't have a very good childhood and always wanted a big brother to look up to. I never really knew this before I really started talking with him, but as I got to know him it became apparent that he really needed someone in his life to be there for him and just make him feel good. I took it upon myself to be that guy, and as a result he's come out of his shell with me and we talk and RP quite a bit on Skype.

I'll be visiting him in a month or so for the first time, and he made me promise to teach him X-wing, so I'm bringing my entire fleet. Hopefully the Transport and Corvette will both be in my possession by then. But the bigger picture is that it feels GREAT to make him feel happy! I get so much more satisfaction from helping people than I do putting them down.

The word that gets miss used even more, and frankly bugs me even more "Capital Ship".

I believe the miss use of this word originally came from Role Playing games as a way to differentiate between fighters, light freighters and the sort of ships that PCs could effectively use, and much larger ships that required whole crews to man them effectively.

I think even wookiepiedia refers to capital ships as any ship corvette size or larger. This may be a useful way to distinguish ships for gamers, but it is not what the term "Capital Ship" means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship

A capital ship is the largest most important ship in a particular navy or fleet.

Prior to World War II these were all Battleships (or possibly Battle Cruisers) or dreadnoughts. Durring World War II Capital ships shifted from being Battleships to being aircraft carriers.

The key feature of a capital ship is it was the biggest ship in a fleet that the rest of the fleet is built around.

It is whether a ship is considered a capital ship is more a matter to how it compares to the other ships of its fleet (and erra) than any specific size requirements.

For example HMS Hood was a capital ship in WWI but not a capital ship in WWII.

The term did not just mean big ship, but the biggest ship.

It has a different meaning in Science Fiction. Has for a long time. That's like saying Use the Force misuses the word Force.

The word that gets miss used even more, and frankly bugs me even more "Capital Ship".

I believe the miss use of this word originally came from Role Playing games as a way to differentiate between fighters, light freighters and the sort of ships that PCs could effectively use, and much larger ships that required whole crews to man them effectively.

I think even wookiepiedia refers to capital ships as any ship corvette size or larger. This may be a useful way to distinguish ships for gamers, but it is not what the term "Capital Ship" means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship

A capital ship is the largest most important ship in a particular navy or fleet.

Prior to World War II these were all Battleships (or possibly Battle Cruisers) or dreadnoughts. Durring World War II Capital ships shifted from being Battleships to being aircraft carriers.

The key feature of a capital ship is it was the biggest ship in a fleet that the rest of the fleet is built around.

It is whether a ship is considered a capital ship is more a matter to how it compares to the other ships of its fleet (and erra) than any specific size requirements.

For example HMS Hood was a capital ship in WWI but not a capital ship in WWII.

The term did not just mean big ship, but the biggest ship.

I agree with the intent of your argument - capital ship is a term that is generally misused in this genre. However, it does not simply refer to the largest ship in a navy or fleet. The term is reserved for ships of an important role within a navy. For example, the US Navy with all their Nimitz class carriers: they are all capital ships by definition of role. After the retirement of the Iowa class battleships, that left the USN with its carriers the only capital ships it operates.

During World War II capital ships were usually battleships, battlecruisers and large fleet carriers. The German pocket battleships also fell into this class due to their battlecruiser armament. As for HMS Hood, she was commissioned into the Royal Navy 18 months after World War I and was most definitely a capital ship during her brief time in World War II as she was the largest warship in service at the beginning of hostilities.

In the Star Wars universe, I would consider anything as large as Mon Calamari cruisers, Victory- and Imperial-class Star Destroyers to be capital ships. Anything smaller doesn't really warrant the term.

The word that gets miss used even more, and frankly bugs me even more "Capital Ship".

I believe the miss use of this word originally came from Role Playing games as a way to differentiate between fighters, light freighters and the sort of ships that PCs could effectively use, and much larger ships that required whole crews to man them effectively.

I think even wookiepiedia refers to capital ships as any ship corvette size or larger. This may be a useful way to distinguish ships for gamers, but it is not what the term "Capital Ship" means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship

A capital ship is the largest most important ship in a particular navy or fleet.

Prior to World War II these were all Battleships (or possibly Battle Cruisers) or dreadnoughts. Durring World War II Capital ships shifted from being Battleships to being aircraft carriers.

The key feature of a capital ship is it was the biggest ship in a fleet that the rest of the fleet is built around.

It is whether a ship is considered a capital ship is more a matter to how it compares to the other ships of its fleet (and erra) than any specific size requirements.

For example HMS Hood was a capital ship in WWI but not a capital ship in WWII.

The term did not just mean big ship, but the biggest ship.

I agree with the intent of your argument - capital ship is a term that is generally misused in this genre. However, it does not simply refer to the largest ship in a navy or fleet. The term is reserved for ships of an important role within a navy. For example, the US Navy with all their Nimitz class carriers: they are all capital ships by definition of role. After the retirement of the Iowa class battleships, that left the USN with its carriers the only capital ships it operates.

During World War II capital ships were usually battleships, battlecruisers and large fleet carriers. The German pocket battleships also fell into this class due to their battlecruiser armament. As for HMS Hood, she was commissioned into the Royal Navy 18 months after World War I and was most definitely a capital ship during her brief time in World War II as she was the largest warship in service at the beginning of hostilities.

In the Star Wars universe, I would consider anything as large as Mon Calamari cruisers, Victory- and Imperial-class Star Destroyers to be capital ships. Anything smaller doesn't really warrant the term.

Yes, investing in people is awesome, and we have multiple opportunities to do that, including playing xwing. Another fan of first Corinthians here as well. It's a chapter (13?) that always convicts me when I read it.

Except that Star Wars itself has declared the Corvette a capital ship in its literature, making that the appropriate distinction to use. When in a fictional universe follow the rules of that universe.

Which is the crux of Hrathen's argument to start with. The Star Wars universe has chosen to redefine the norm by considering just about any ship bigger than 100m with gun to be a capital ship. IMO, it seems they've confused the term capital ship with warship .

Except that Star Wars itself has declared the Corvette a capital ship in its literature, making that the appropriate distinction to use. When in a fictional universe follow the rules of that universe.

Which is the crux of Hrathen's argument to start with. The Star Wars universe has chosen to redefine the norm by considering just about any ship bigger than 100m with gun to be a capital ship. IMO, it seems they've confused the term capital ship with warship .

If you complain about everything wrong with Star Wars compared to our Universe you're left without much that's actually done well. The planets and Astronomy are bad. The Science is godawful. The characters are unrealistic. The scale is just plain silly. I mean a Moon made of hollowed out steel with a laser that explodes planets? Etc... That kind of nitpicking isn't worthwhile. The only reason I know most of it is because I did a lot of research to get my Space Travel as right with a modern understanding of physics as possible(power sources and methods of propulsion aside.)

Except that Star Wars itself has declared the Corvette a capital ship in its literature, making that the appropriate distinction to use. When in a fictional universe follow the rules of that universe.

Which is the crux of Hrathen's argument to start with. The Star Wars universe has chosen to redefine the norm by considering just about any ship bigger than 100m with gun to be a capital ship. IMO, it seems they've confused the term capital ship with warship .

Arguing against the defintions of words in a fictional universe because of their meanings in ours is... Not morally wrong, but functionally always wrong. The Universe isn't ours. It declares its own, and the complain is that we're misusing the term, when in fact we're just using the correct terms for Star Wars.

If you complain about everything wrong with Star Wars compared to our Universe you're left without much that's actually done well. The planets and Astronomy are bad. The Science is godawful. The characters are unrealistic. The scale is just plain silly. I mean a Moon made of hollowed out steel with a laser that explodes planets? Etc... That kind of nitpicking isn't worthwhile. The only reason I know most of it is because I did a lot of research to get my Space Travel as right with a modern understanding of physics as possible(power sources and methods of propulsion aside.)

I'm not nitpicking and complaining about everything that's wrong with Star Wars. I've been a fan since 1977 and I love the science fiction fix I get from Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, etc. Hrathen stated that the term capital ship gets a hammering, and as a naval historian, I agreed with him. If you want to redefine common terminology, expect confusion.

Except that Star Wars itself has declared the Corvette a capital ship in its literature, making that the appropriate distinction to use. When in a fictional universe follow the rules of that universe.

Which is the crux of Hrathen's argument to start with. The Star Wars universe has chosen to redefine the norm by considering just about any ship bigger than 100m with gun to be a capital ship. IMO, it seems they've confused the term capital ship with warship .

Arguing against the defintions of words in a fictional universe because of their meanings in ours is... Not morally wrong, but functionally always wrong. The Universe isn't ours. It declares its own, and the complain is that we're misusing the term, when in fact we're just using the correct terms for Star Wars.

If you complain about everything wrong with Star Wars compared to our Universe you're left without much that's actually done well. The planets and Astronomy are bad. The Science is godawful. The characters are unrealistic. The scale is just plain silly. I mean a Moon made of hollowed out steel with a laser that explodes planets? Etc... That kind of nitpicking isn't worthwhile. The only reason I know most of it is because I did a lot of research to get my Space Travel as right with a modern understanding of physics as possible(power sources and methods of propulsion aside.)

I'm not nitpicking and complaining about everything that's wrong with Star Wars. I've been a fan since 1977 and I love the science fiction fix I get from Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, etc. Hrathen stated that the term capital ship gets a hammering, and as a naval historian, I agreed with him. If you want to redefine common terminology, expect confusion.

Exactly. It's like the term Star Destroyer. Those ships are all over the map in terms of size and purpose, so the term Star Destroyer must mean something different than "Destroyer" in traditional naval parlance. "Walker", "Starfighter", "Scope", and "Rifle" also have different meanings:

Walker: terrestrially a device meant to help disabled people walk, in Star Wars means a multi-legged walking war machine.

Starfighter: terrestrially a model of fighter, in Star Wars means any type of one or two-seat fighting vessel.

Scope: terrestrially a device used to sight a long-range rifle, in Star Wars refers to the sensors.

Rifle: terrestrially a gun with rifling, in Star Wars refers to any type of medium-to-long range blaster.

You can't apply terrestrial knowledge to the terminology of a fictional universe. You have to look at the context and see what that tells you about how their terminology is applied.

Most of these things are not limited to Star Wars, but apply pretty broadly across most of sci-fi.

Except that Star Wars itself has declared the Corvette a capital ship in its literature, making that the appropriate distinction to use. When in a fictional universe follow the rules of that universe.

Which is the crux of Hrathen's argument to start with. The Star Wars universe has chosen to redefine the norm by considering just about any ship bigger than 100m with gun to be a capital ship. IMO, it seems they've confused the term capital ship with warship .

I don't exactly see the issue, capital ship in itself carries a semantic role definition, which is based on the ship classes and the intended use by the specific navy, which makes it a rather arbitrary line in fiction depending on the design of the given universe. And even the Era of Sail use case shows you take a group of ship classes and call them capital, in this case anything with 46 guns and up.

Any use of a common term in a fictional universe has to be looked at in reference to the local definition even if you generally know what it is about. That's usually the reason they use common terms to give the general idea, not to bind you down to a certain specific interpretation. Besides in this case the reference term is relatively loosely defined that it shouldn't be that much of a problem.

Exactly. It's like the term Star Destroyer. Those ships are all over the map in terms of size and purpose, so the term Star Destroyer must mean something different than "Destroyer" in traditional naval parlance.

You can't apply terrestrial knowledge to the terminology of a fictional universe. You have to look at the context and see what that tells you about how their terminology is applied.

So we can't apply 'terrestrial' knowledge to the term capital ship, but we can with transport, frigate, corvette, cruiser, fighter, dreadnought. Good argument. I'm over it.

Exactly. It's like the term Star Destroyer. Those ships are all over the map in terms of size and purpose, so the term Star Destroyer must mean something different than "Destroyer" in traditional naval parlance.

You can't apply terrestrial knowledge to the terminology of a fictional universe. You have to look at the context and see what that tells you about how their terminology is applied.

So we can't apply 'terrestrial' knowledge to the term capital ship, but we can with transport, frigate, corvette, cruiser, fighter, dreadnought. Good argument. I'm over it.

a Pro can still be taken down by a Newb, happened to Vader, can happen to anyone.

Han Solo was a newb?

"Bro", even "pros" can be killed by an unnamed rookie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_von_Richthofen#Death

It is also worth noting that the meaning of words change, especially words like this. Look at the various historical usages of frigate as a ship class.

Whatever the historical derivation of the term "capital ship", it is by now well on its way to having a broader meaning. (As is, apparently, "pro")

Such is the nature of language.

It is rough, being a shuttle pro. All the envious looks, the fear you build in both empire and rebel player alike. It is rough, the life of a shuttle pro. Sometimes you feel you can't go on, then you field your shuttles once more and realize, someone has to be a pro. I'm sure Sable feels me on this.

It is rough, being a shuttle pro. All the envious looks, the fear you build in both empire and rebel player alike. It is rough, the life of a shuttle pro. Sometimes you feel you can't go on, then you field your shuttles once more and realize, someone has to be a pro. I'm sure Sable feels me on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lntOgM3ia-E

Thank you Agent Shadow, your support is appreciated and noted. May you never fall victim to an anti pursuit laser.

I'd much rather be an 'unpro'.

- someone who gets into the game, has SW action sounds (such as X-Wing lasers or TIE fighter fly-bys) ready to go on his smartphone; who uses SW quotes in the cheesiest of moments, and likes to get down to look at the battlefield from the pilot's point of view.