Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Mizhara on 22 Apr 2010, 06:41
-
So, I just logged in after two weeks or thereabouts... and found 13 or so mails in my inbox. All about Tomahawk Bliss challenging me to a duel, and adding half the RP community to the mail receiver list. I got to thinking about this stuff, and recalled that I've seen a lot of this. "Argument!" "Counter-argument!" "Fallacy!" "RAEG!" "Logical argument!" "BATTLESHIPS AT DAWN!"
And always from characters with skillpoints pouring out of their ass if they sneeze.
I kept wondering about this, and never found an answer... What is the point? What on earth does a duel prove, one way or another? That one guy's got more ISK or SP than the other? That they like wasting crewmembers on e-peen contests? What conceivable IC benefit is there to a duel, and why always in Battleships?
Hell, Miz can't even fly Battleships yet. That's right, Minmatar Battleship skill: 0.
"Ahah! Coward! Crawl under a stone!"
"... wut?"
"You're not wasting your crew and staking your argument entirely on a duel! With a far more wealthy and powerful character, even."
"... yeah?"
"Coward!"
"...right."
Seriously, what conceivable correlation is there between a duel and a debate/discussion? What possible point would it have, or even bearing on it? I am going to go ahead and say none. The only thing I see here is this: A character isn't sure he can provide decent debate on a subject, and decides to divert it. "Duel! Or forfeit your argument!"
Is there any conceivable use for these duels that I missed somewhere? What possible IC reason could there be for them? Enlighten me, people, because I'm bloody confused.
-
"Wardec or STFU" has always been a cry for the player that appeals to violence. It's not all of them, it's a few, but some characters view everything as a personal slight, some players do, too. Some people always want to be number one. The only way to do that. . .
Eh.
What conceivable IC benefit is there to a duel, and why always in Battleships?
Because battleship combats are generally longer, they're more skill-based (actual player skill) due to that fact, and can be more even.
Also Battleship duels are often (but not always) fought to structure and not destruction.
-
Well, in this particular case, it was until you got podded.
I just thought there might be some reasoning behind the "Argument? DUEL!" mindset that I'd missed.
-
No, I do not think you missed anything. The described mindset is pretty shallow, I am afraid. :|
-
Yeah, you pretty much nailed it from the OP. It's changing the fight to something they know they can win. Their argument is failed, they've got more isk/sps/whatever. Duel!
-
That's just... so sad.
-
I don't really see the point of duels as a means of solving debates.
But if you must have a duel, surely it should be frigate v frigate as they don't have crews besides the podder. Battleship duels are the equivalent of two Napoleonic army officers having a duel and each turning up with their respective companies.
-
It's not supposed to solve the debate. That isn't the point.
It's the same way schoolyard fights start. That's all.
-
I don't really think it's about winning the argument at all, really.
It strikes me as a way of saying "we're angry at each other, let's express it by beating the snot out of each other's ships (and crews)", possibly with the addition of "and if we're both good sports about it, perhaps we'll shake hands and make friends and go have a beer afterwards." It's not really about resolving the debate itself, so it doesn't have to be logical. :)
Besides, duels are fun! That's reason enough to sacrifice a battleship crew made up of mere baseline humans. :D
-
The point of a duel is to have a nice (and perhaps somewhat balanced) PvP encounter with a clear RP reason to do so. In other words: fun.
Of course, in practice it will have much to do with skillpoints and isk.
With my Battleship choices fairly limited to three battleships which are relatively easily countered if you know what you can expect, and my penchant for not investing at all in implants, it is for me a really poor option and likely not a lot of fun for a duel.
-
On the other hand, you should be glad of the interest, and the mere fact that you are challenged to a duel and many people do have opinions about it. I rarely get officially (in a RP sense) challenged to a duel, let alone get mails about such a challenge.
-
It's also a very easy logical fallacy to break down and make them look stupid with.
-
Im just gonna say that I hate duels, and I would reject any offer to participate in one RP wise, But to call it sad and stupid... IC, well, no problem. To go to an OOC board and trash people for the IC challenge, not so cool.
I see absolutly no reason for you to accept the challenge. And I actually also find it pointless. So keep up the IC refutations and scorn them for suggesting it, but it's a perfectly valid RP tactic, that may just come as a character trait of the warriors, or heated outburst of a pasionate spirit, all IC. There needs not to be a sad or stupid OOC reason behind.
Doesn't this thread defeat the entire purpose of this forum actually?
-
The only people that have ever done this are SF and the organizations that have emerged from their ideology. The general mindset is as Nat had explained, why bother with tit for tat endless bickering on the forums when the issue can be resolved mano-y-mano?
In our world, this works. It works because one guy dies and the other guy wins and, well, can draw breath to make his point again while the other gets buried in a cemetary. The problem with capsuleers is that they'll never die and you can't shut people up this way. Essentially ideological wars are obsolete between capsuleers. Fighting and dying for resources is a tangible effort, while trying to win a debate is fruitless.
A more sensible course of action, in my opinion, is instead of trying to find reason amongst ideologues, is to use your logic and debating ability to present your enemies' flawed arguments to the public to sway the audience in your favor and possibly generate interest in your own outfit.
-
Im just gonna say that I hate duels, and I would reject any offer to participate in one RP wise, But to call it sad and stupid... IC, well, no problem. To go to an OOC board and trash people for the IC challenge, not so cool.
Doesn't this thread defeat the entire purpose of this forum actually?
QFE. I mean, I agree with the OP, but I don't think this actually adheres to the 'spirit of the law'.
-
Actually, I got one more gripe about this:
The one challenging, also seem to always set the terms. "I challenge you to a duel! And it's going to be held at this particular location, with this particular shiptype, and here's another list of rules I set! Agree or be branded coward!"
I've also found this to be a bit odd. In the old tradition of the duel the person accepting the challenge chose the method of the duel.
Additionally, whole idea of the duel was not really to kill your opponent, but to restore one's honor by demonstrating a willingness to risk one's life for it. Since Pod pilots don't risk their life in ship combat, there is no merit to the duel for this purpose.
So, like male nipples and the tail fins on a '57 Chevy, spaceship duels serve practical purpose.
(http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/xx194/saxonhawke/I_challenge_you_to_a_duel.jpg)
-
I'm glad we have a rule against duels in PIE. Honestly, they're pretty useless, as is the whole arranged 1on1 bullshit. Someone's gonna cheat anyways.
On the other hand if someone's stupid enough to engage me in a 1on1 fight just like that I don't mind sending them home in a pod at all. :)
-
Well, that's just it, Mazca, I find it to be silly and stupid. That could be taken as 'urarrpeesizrong!', but that's not how it's intended. I find the whole thing silly and stupid due to the way it's used. A cheap copout, or a way to overpower newer players, or players more SP centralized on industry when arguments are getting close to being lost.
Anyway, it was an honest enough question. I wanted to see if there was anything about it that I didn't understand or know. So far, apparently it wasn't, thus my opinion stands. It's silly, and stupid.
My point is that for your logic to apply you have to be pretty certain that it is infact an escape tactic form a loosing argument. I think jumping directly to that conclusion might be skipping a few steps.
-
Quite possible, I'm not asserting it as fact. However, that is the impression I've gotten from seeing this occur time and time again.
-
[admin]I removed several posts from this topic. To quote the FAQ:Q: So you want us to act all lovey-dovey? A: Yes. Deal with it. Q: Doesn't being polite to people I disagree with make me a hypocrite? A: No. It makes you a grown-up. Please keep in mind this also applies to people who aren't registered here. They can't, after all, defend their viewpoints.If you disagree with something, please post constructively about why you disagree, and perhaps what a better path would be.[/admin]
-
My apologies. However, I'd like to state that it was not directed at specific people, but at a concept and 'tactic' that's just... stupid. Anyway, my points are somewhere down in the catacombs for perusal, I suppose, if anyone's still curious.
But more importantly, does anyone have any ideas how this can actually be something... ... how the hell do I ask this question without calling it stupid again? How can this BATTLESHIPS AT DAWN! tactic actually be... worth something, both IC and OoC?
-
Does it have to be? Can people just agree that not everybody thinks it has any value? :)
-
That's just it, people do it, so it should have at least some value. If only to them, at least. If not, it defaults to worthless across the board, and that's even worse. Which makes me curious, what is it's value?
-
Ego inflation, that is my answer. Done with this topic.
-
It leads to more pew pew. People like that. /shrug
-
I think I've stated my opinion on (battleship) duels before, but may as well say it again.
Personally I think battleship duels, especially ones where it is explicitly specified there are no limitations, are catering solely to the pilot with more SP and ISK to invest into the ship. To me it's less of a question of skill and more about a numbers game with battleship 1v1s (if they are fit competently). It's not fair or equal by any stretch as whoever has more ISK to leverage can come out on top in most cases (HG slave sets as a perfect example of this imbalance). Where is the fun or challenge in that?
I see why some characters would choose to challenge someone to a BS duel IC, but as has been touched on by several others there are a lot of reasons why someone would refuse. In this case it's hard for me not to see it as a tool to paint someone as a coward. They refuse the duel because they can't even competently fly one, think it's a waste of good crew, or some other consideration and are publicly labeled as cowardly by the challenging party. No real complaint about the tactic there, as it's a perfectly valid propaganda approach. That said, if it's used during a debate to attempt to marr someone's reputation and invalidate their points it turns into a tool for dishonest debate. If a character wants to do that, all well and good, but don't expect anyone to want to engage in discourse with that character if they know there is a chance of it devolving into a similar situation.
On a totally different point, Misan were to ever accept a duel it would have to be a Frigate duel. Risking crew for some point of honor or pride is a foolish choice in her mind. Frigate fights are much more of an equalizer of skill points and there's quite a lot of variety in the ship hulls at that level. I found it more challenging to develop a good counter ship at the frigate level.
Edit: To address Miz's question after I already wrote this:
Assuming roughly equal pilot SP levels and ISK invested into the BS, there can be some fun had by both sides during the duel. OOC it's just about throwing big ships at each other and seeing who comes out the victor. Nothing wrong with that, as I've said above I just think it's not as much a test of skill as SP/ISK in more cases. I've enjoyed watching random BS 1v1s in PvP videos, but those aren't usually arranged (though the bits where they get outnumbered are better :P).
As for IC, not really sure myself. They can be a way to establish dominance or superiority I suppose. Not all capsuleers care that they are risking crew or that winning a duel doesn't kill or defeat their opponent. Lots of options for why someone might enjoy them IC.
-
I agree with Misan. And I do think in this particular case its IC Probaganda full on. withheld wrath from back when Mizhara herself, engaged in (what was percieved as) probaganda against SF. :D
-
Since someone was asking in OOC I went ahead and made up a theoretical 'from zero' plan to get into what I consider to be an appropriately skilled BS. I went with Amarr because well, they are the most popular. All supports that weren't necessary for other skills were taken to IV, exceptions being the basic fitting ones which were taken to V. The results of the plan puts you in a BS with T2 pulses, T2 heavies (ogres only +4d for zerkers), a competent T2 armor tank, and good cap and general maneuvering skills. Order is random as I was just adding them on as I go, it wouldn't be the natural progression if you actually wanted to accomplish anything while training. :P
The total time is 335d, but this is with a new char who hasn't remapped yet. Realistically this actually drops down to 300d with fully optimized attributes. Running with +4s will push it to about 250-260d. In the end though, that's a long ass time, and it doesn't give you competence in anything but cruisers in the meantime. A main character would reasonably have another ~3-4 months of skills in other things trained while moving towards this, if not more. Misan doesn't even have T2 heavies yet because there are better things to train for what she flies... :|
1. Instant Recall I
2. Analytical Mind I
3. Learning I
4. Instant Recall II
5. Analytical Mind II
6. Learning II
7. Instant Recall III
8. Analytical Mind III
9. Learning III
10. Instant Recall IV
11. Eidetic Memory I
12. Eidetic Memory II
13. Eidetic Memory III
14. Analytical Mind IV
15. Logic I
16. Logic II
17. Logic III
18. Learning IV
19. Eidetic Memory IV
20. Logic IV
21. Learning V
22. Iron Will I
23. Iron Will II
24. Iron Will III
25. Iron Will IV
26. Spatial Awareness I
27. Spatial Awareness II
28. Spatial Awareness III
29. Spatial Awareness IV
30. Spatial Awareness V
31. Empathy I
32. Empathy II
33. Focus I
34. Focus II
35. Focus III
36. Focus IV
37. Clarity I
38. Clarity II
39. Clarity III
40. Clarity IV
41. Spaceship Command IV
42. Amarr Frigate III
43. Amarr Frigate IV
44. Amarr Cruiser I
45. Amarr Cruiser II
46. Amarr Cruiser III
47. Amarr Cruiser IV
48. Amarr Battleship I
49. Amarr Battleship II
50. Amarr Battleship III
51. Amarr Battleship IV
52. Motion Prediction I
53. Motion Prediction II
54. Motion Prediction III
55. Motion Prediction IV
56. Motion Prediction V
57. Small Energy Turret IV
58. Small Energy Turret V
59. Small Pulse Laser Specialization I
60. Small Pulse Laser Specialization II
61. Small Pulse Laser Specialization III
62. Small Pulse Laser Specialization IV
63. Gunnery III
64. Medium Energy Turret I
65. Medium Energy Turret II
66. Medium Energy Turret III
67. Medium Energy Turret IV
68. Medium Energy Turret V
69. Medium Pulse Laser Specialization I
70. Medium Pulse Laser Specialization II
71. Medium Pulse Laser Specialization III
72. Medium Pulse Laser Specialization IV
73. Gunnery IV
74. Gunnery V
75. Large Energy Turret I
76. Large Energy Turret II
77. Large Energy Turret III
78. Large Energy Turret IV
79. Large Energy Turret V
80. Large Pulse Laser Specialization I
81. Large Pulse Laser Specialization II
82. Large Pulse Laser Specialization III
83. Large Pulse Laser Specialization IV
84. Navigation IV
85. Navigation V
86. Warp Drive Operation I
87. Warp Drive Operation II
88. Warp Drive Operation III
89. Warp Drive Operation IV
90. Evasive Maneuvering I
91. Evasive Maneuvering II
92. Evasive Maneuvering III
93. Evasive Maneuvering IV
94. Afterburner I
95. Afterburner II
96. Afterburner III
97. High Speed Maneuvering I
98. High Speed Maneuvering II
99. High Speed Maneuvering III
100. High Speed Maneuvering IV
101. Acceleration Control I
102. Acceleration Control II
103. Acceleration Control III
104. Acceleration Control IV
105. Mechanic III
106. Mechanic IV
107. Mechanic V
108. Hull Upgrades I
109. Hull Upgrades II
110. Hull Upgrades III
111. Hull Upgrades IV
112. Hull Upgrades V
113. Explosive Armor Compensation I
114. Explosive Armor Compensation II
115. Explosive Armor Compensation III
116. Explosive Armor Compensation IV
117. EM Armor Compensation I
118. EM Armor Compensation II
119. EM Armor Compensation III
120. EM Armor Compensation IV
121. Jury Rigging I
122. Jury Rigging II
123. Jury Rigging III
124. Armor Rigging I
125. Armor Rigging II
126. Armor Rigging III
127. Repair Systems I
128. Repair Systems II
129. Repair Systems III
130. Repair Systems IV
131. Thermic Armor Compensation I
132. Thermic Armor Compensation II
133. Thermic Armor Compensation III
134. Thermic Armor Compensation IV
135. Kinetic Armor Compensation I
136. Kinetic Armor Compensation II
137. Kinetic Armor Compensation III
138. Kinetic Armor Compensation IV
139. Controlled Bursts I
140. Controlled Bursts II
141. Controlled Bursts III
142. Controlled Bursts IV
143. Weapon Upgrades I
144. Weapon Upgrades II
145. Weapon Upgrades III
146. Weapon Upgrades IV
147. Weapon Upgrades V
148. Trajectory Analysis I
149. Trajectory Analysis II
150. Trajectory Analysis III
151. Trajectory Analysis IV
152. Surgical Strike I
153. Surgical Strike II
154. Surgical Strike III
155. Surgical Strike IV
156. Sharpshooter I
157. Sharpshooter II
158. Sharpshooter III
159. Sharpshooter IV
160. Rapid Firing I
161. Rapid Firing II
162. Rapid Firing III
163. Rapid Firing IV
164. Advanced Weapon Upgrades I
165. Advanced Weapon Upgrades II
166. Advanced Weapon Upgrades III
167. Advanced Weapon Upgrades IV
168. Engineering IV
169. Engineering V
170. Energy Emission Systems I
171. Energy Emission Systems II
172. Energy Emission Systems III
173. Energy Emission Systems IV
174. Energy Grid Upgrades I
175. Energy Grid Upgrades II
176. Energy Grid Upgrades III
177. Energy Grid Upgrades IV
178. Energy Management I
179. Energy Management II
180. Energy Management III
181. Energy Management IV
182. Energy Management V
183. Energy Systems Operation I
184. Energy Systems Operation II
185. Energy Systems Operation III
186. Energy Systems Operation IV
187. Energy Systems Operation V
188. Targeting I
189. Targeting II
190. Targeting III
191. Targeting IV
192. Propulsion Jamming I
193. Propulsion Jamming II
194. Propulsion Jamming III
195. Propulsion Jamming IV
196. Long Range Targeting I
197. Long Range Targeting II
198. Long Range Targeting III
199. Long Range Targeting IV
200. Electronics IV
201. Electronics V
202. Signature Analysis I
203. Signature Analysis II
204. Signature Analysis III
205. Signature Analysis IV
206. Drones I
207. Scout Drone Operation I
208. Scout Drone Operation II
209. Scout Drone Operation III
210. Scout Drone Operation IV
211. Scout Drone Operation V
212. Drones II
213. Drones III
214. Drones IV
215. Drones V
216. Heavy Drone Operation I
217. Heavy Drone Operation II
218. Heavy Drone Operation III
219. Heavy Drone Operation IV
220. Heavy Drone Operation V
221. Gallente Drone Specialization I
222. Gallente Drone Specialization II
223. Gallente Drone Specialization III
224. Gallente Drone Specialization IV
225. Drone Interfacing I
226. Drone Interfacing II
227. Drone Interfacing III
228. Drone Interfacing IV
229. Combat Drone Operation I
230. Combat Drone Operation II
231. Combat Drone Operation III
232. Combat Drone Operation IV
233. Drone Navigation I
234. Drone Navigation II
235. Drone Navigation III
236. Drone Navigation IV
237. Drone Sharpshooting I
238. Drone Sharpshooting II
239. Drone Sharpshooting III
240. Drone Sharpshooting IV
241. Cybernetics I
242. Science IV
243. Thermodynamics I
244. Thermodynamics II
245. Thermodynamics III
246. Thermodynamics IV
Total time: 335 days, 23 hours, 8 minutes
-
And that is assuming the character is entirely combat focused, and doesn't have a Hulk with all mining support skills, and a bit of mining leadership to boot, heh.
-
I wonder how miners challenge each other to duels of honor ... pick the same asteroid and furiously cut their cycles at each other?
-
A lot of battleships are/were free after insurance, with only the cost of the modules being lost when the ship was destroyed.
Making the risk of loss fairly trivial. Might be cheaper to lose a (insured) battleship, than something as small as an assault frigate. Definitely larger tech2 ships, hacs and the like.
-
Nah, assuming a T2 fit and trimarks it's still a significant loss after insurance. There are definitely ways to break even or close to it with a battleship, but once you start including T2 guns, ammo, and rigs it doesn't pan out.
A while ago I ran a cost comparison of a trimark fitted geddon vs a Abaddon which had 1 Trimark 2 Energy Discharge Elutriations. The Geddon costs roughly 85m after insurance, the Abaddon was 20m, with the majority of the difference being the trimarks (about 40m). Sure, you could not rig your battleship and take it to a duel, but that's putting yourself in an even further disadvantaged position.
So yes technically the hull cost is covered by insurance, but effectively you're still spending quite a bit of ISK. It's an investment as well, as you spend much more up front than you may for any T2 frigate and some T2 cruisers (200m for the Abaddon fit there, 240 or so for trimarks). Depends heavily on the hull you purchase though. You only fully recoup the hull cost if it blows up while you have insurance, otherwise it starts to become an ISK sink.
I'm curious to see how the insurance changes that are supposed to be coming in will influence the insurance payouts.
-
Oh that's easy: who can mine and haul the most in a pre-arranged set of time.
-
I would tend to agree to the general idiocy of ship duels, and the insane megalomania of battleship duels (to destruction).
Challenge Arnulf and he'll ask you name a, mutually agreeable, neutral station and meet you there with his fighting knives and a second. And then things get interesting because he's been training with the things one way or another since he was five. More seriously once he went into the RMS but he did put in some time in his youth.
Of course this means an OOC chat to determine how to resolve the matter in game but, personally, I feel that's a much better way to settle a matter of personal honour.
As for why people do this when you are debating with them. They are playing an idiot? Or they are playing someone who is tipping over the edge into full capsuleer dementia (which is odd because to my mind that's the game world trying to make sense of the actions of the dafter non-rp pilots).
-
I don't find it unbelievable that characters would try and 'settle' an IC disagreement with, say, a battleship duel - IRL, after all, people always want to move any disagreement to whatever ground they have the advantage on. Losing a verbal showdown? "Step outside, why don't you?"
Losing an argument about politics? 'Step into your battleship, why don't you?'
That doesn't mean, ofc, that Cia(c) thinks it's a sensible or reasonable thing to do - just that Cia(p) thinks it's consistent with human nature.
-
It may be entirely IC to do it but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be mercilessly mocked for their vanity.
-
It may be entirely IC to do it but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be mercilessly mocked for their vanity.
Indeed not. For some characters, it would be against characterization not to.
-
I'll give a brief version of what I gave in JC's 'duelling culture in EVE online' spiel. Duelling proves very little except that you're willing to A) Lose 50m+, and B) Be willing to say you lost a duel.
A) Is only a problem to newer/poor pilots, as older pilots can have billions of ISK ast any one time in their wallets.
B) Is kind of moot, since the people who might see you as a failure when you lose a duel are sure to see you as a failure if you decline a duel. In other words, only the people who challenge others to duels over the IGS care about duels.
But duels are about, more often than not, winning the argument. Why? Because you change the argument.
Whenever someone challenges someone else to a duel, the topic immediately becomes the duel. There is no "Well, you declined, so you're a coward, but back to the subject". The challenger always tries to turn it into (Even if they don't say it aloud) "You declined, thus you are a coward, thus you are worthless, thus your point is invalid." It's a bit of a reverse of the "The nobility is always right" argument, in that instead of being higher in percieved worth making someone right by default someone lower in percieved worth is wrong by default.
If you accept the duel, then at best you can get a nod of acknowledgment from the challenger for accepting the duel and a continuation of the argument without further interruptions. Much more likely you will get a nod of acknowledgment and the challenger will hope everyone forgets the argument. At worst the challenger will declare you a cheater/coward for your ship fit and style (If you win) or an incompetent buffoon for your fit and style (If you lose) then invoke the same reverse "Nobility == Correct" argument they would have used if you declined.
So in short, unless you're arguing about who's the better pilot (Especially if it's about a specific ship), or who's more honourable (Though on occassion not), or anything that combat could be argued to logically prove, then the challenge to a duel in an argument is the same as a logical fallacy in the same way that holding a large rock several feet over someone's head is the same as assault: Sure, maybe not, but yeah, we should call that guy out.
Of course, sometimes it's just an IC interaction. Jak wouldn't use it, being an academic and all ( ;) Warrior ) but I wouldn't call it odd for some of my comrades to call out someone to duel over a political discussion. Jak wouldn't be behind the action, mind, but he wouldn't be surprised either.
-
On the other hand.
Taking the recent Constantine/Havohej challenge as an example. Havohej would've been entirely justified in accepting given she had offered him what is for a tribal Matari a killing insult. He just chose to react differently.
Constantine puzzles me in that I don't know if she's supposed to be a bad orator who is in deep denial over the nature of her relationships; or if her player feels she is a brilliant orator and in total control of her personal life.
I do find the whole "argue with me & I will belittle you or attempt to destroy you" approach a tad tedious. I tend to avoid dealing with her as a result because it takes far too much energy and patience.
-
The reason people duelled in the napoleonic era was purely a product of social pressure (or in several notable cases, for pleasure). There was this expectation that a gentleman who felt that he or somebody close to him had been unforgivably slighted would demand satisfaction. Interestingly enough, although duelling was actually illegal from the 17th century onwards, most of the time if the duel was fought fairly and honourably between social equals, the winning party was never prosecuted or convicted.
All of this meant that turning down a duel meant a loss of face. You would be regarded as either a coward, or a cad who wouldn't stand up to defend, for example, your lady's honour as was a gentleman's duty.
These duels were not about proving the argument. They were about placing one's pride and reputation above all other concerns. They were about peer pressure, in other words. The "point" was to be seen to be acting as it was expected you should.
The reason duels are mostly pointless in EVE is that we don't have that culture. We have a very 21st century mindset that prefers to respect the stoic who recognizes the logical futility of duelling. That's a sea change in opinion that took the better part of two hundred years to form in the majority opinions of Western minds.
For the record, btw, the person who yells "BATTLESHIPS AT DAWN" is doing it wrong. It is the right of the person being challenged to select the means, venue and time of the duel. Pistols and swords were obviously the most popular, but there have been examples where the challengee deliberately selected a ridiculous weapon to show their disdain for duelling. Howitzers, for instance. One of my favourites is the story of the man who, upon being challenged, chose huge sledgehammers designed to be wielded by two men, in a pitch-dark cellar at midnight. Neither man being able to see, or indeed lift their weapons, the duel was finally declared a draw.
For this reason, if I were ever to be challenged to a duel, I would choose shuttles.
-
:(
Real-time RP is something I don't get to do. I took time out to do that and include people, I don't have loads of time to enjoy such things. I mean what is the point of playing otherwise?
the judgment that I as a player am somehow incapable of argument with out violence doesn't factor. the duel means nothing; it is merely an in-character device.
I(michael) didn't challenge Miz's player to a fight. Tomahawk challenged a Minmatar toon to a Minamtar(brutor) type of conflict resolution. it was all about the Minmatar chest beating and a challenge of blood.
please allow me to clarfiy some things:
there was this whole interplay going on with Tetseptus and Tomahawk and Jade doing like a three way battle event vs Havohej and Mizarah and (tolon as a stand in maybe?) that started when Havohej publically called Tetseptus out as basically not being minmatar enough. Which was shocking and electrafying and made the alliance forum and chat rounds for quite a while. It was good stuff.
A fight from that gauntlet being tossed down would have been super fun. It would have made an event that stimulated RP and activity and promoted the combatants and their organizations. After the idea was rejected I even floated the idea of paying for the ships but I can see the argument that it made the whole thing a little too canned-RP feeling.
you all may not be aware that Zuzanna followed up a couple of times after that mail (as well as some personal RP stuff going on).
I agreed to smaller ships.
I further agreed to battle just to hull, not death.
I further agreed to provide Deathstar + bubbled Arena for security manned by people i'd provide, not Jade. (talking 16 stack tech 2 large bubble box like was built during the syndicate campaigns around gates)
I then further agreed to have only mutually agreed upon players control POS guns/ECM arrays to make folks feel better about treachery. though i can't see treachery coming from any SF people.
There was even a follow up challenge-to-duel from Zuzanna her self leveled at Tomahawk to try and settle the conflict. Tomahawk of course agreed and I thought there was a good moment of RP where Tomahawk was all "It takes an Intaki to show these Thukker's how to be a minmatar!?" but Zuzanna didn't give me the go-ahead to do or say anything so I left it alone and she later canceled but asked me to follow up with any ideas I might have.
i mean does this seem like someone who only is looking to settle an argument by violence because he can't do it any other way? or does this seem like it is all about making RP be real and alive and event based?
well i can tell you from me it was all an effort to have an event. a fun opening to have a good time, for both sides. I mean I keep trying to make these two errant CEO's stop butting heads but neither are willing to bend and both have folks egging them on :mad:
now as to the mail specifically,
I was surprised to see a 13 mail chain pyramid when i logged in but how cool that a simple "fight ye dog" mail had that much back and forth! Julianus Soter's responces were rather hilarious in my opinion. plus it was free from alt posting and all that lame sauce which makes IGS near useless. That mail chain was just some folks who knew the folks involved and were into RP.
I am sorry if people saw any of it as some sort of attack in any way other than a white glove slapped on the face and then thrown down in front of someone who was at conflict.
Duels prove nothing and profit nothing, but then the same is true for everything in EVE or any game. Its about have and making fun.
-
Then there's major differences in philosophy there. I am wholly convinced that 90% of the 'duel me! NOW!' crap comes from 'I won't manage to argue this without looking retarded, let's change the subject to a duel and accusations of cowardice'... on an OoC level.
And personally, I find it to be enormously detrimental to actual characterization and RP to derail any losing argument into a 'DUEL ME NAO' thing. There's no RP there. There's only measurement of SP-Peen. Nothing more.
To each their own then. Go use the duels for RP purposes if you want. I'll just have to chalk up one more reason to ignore SF's roleplaying, because it's honestly getting silly to any more in-depth characterization RP to even try interacting with them. In fact, I consider such 'duel' RP to ruin roleplaying. Not strengthen or provide roleplaying.
Besides, wasting crew on something like that has got to be beyond a capsuleer. Seriously, capsuleers are very educated, somewhat intelligent in order to pass the training and should have managed to get past the base penis-measuring instincts. Knowing that it's utterly pointless and useless to waste crew and ship on something like that is something I consider to be a mainstay in my view of the capsuleer caste.
Seriously. Throwing away (in a battleship duel) hundreds, potentially thousands of lives just for the sake of argument? Stupid. REALLY stupid. I don't consider capsuleers to be that stupid. And honestly? I'm not convinced it was Bliss who challenged. I've let it be widely known that Miz doesn't fly Battleships. She can't. Bliss'd know that In Character. Hell, she even said it in SF that she'd never fly them.
And it's rather strange to never receive a response once Miz went "Battleships? Don't have one, can't fly one.". Then it just went aaaall quiet. Well, except for the 'coward' screaming.
-
Then there's major differences in philosophy there. I am wholly convinced that 90% of the 'duel me! NOW!' crap comes from 'I won't manage to argue this without looking retarded, let's change the subject to a duel and accusations of cowardice'... on an OoC level.
Actually, I could believe that the "I'm losing the argument, lets call for a duel" is completely IC, at least sometimes.
It is after all, how some duels were triggered in the past, and in the 10thC Icelandic court system a recognised way of resolving a court case (according to the Sagas which might be a bit dodgy as a source, since they were written down a couple of hundred years later). The challenged party didn't have to fight, but if they didn't the court case was resolved in favour of the challenger.
Of course, winning the court case by challenging a duel didn't mean that people thought you were right, just that you'd won.
-
Indeed, but would that be IC in New Eden? Capsuleers aren't barbarians. Cold, ruthless and very willing to murder thousands with a thought, but not uneducated and stupid. Just throwing away crew and ship on a duel sounds like it's both.
-
Isn't the capsuleer intelegence and crew waste entirely IC arguments though?
I'd buy the IC argument 'poor regressive bastards, can't defend their logic, so they jump into their ships and demand blood' type of IC interaction. I fail to see though why the challenge and in turn your response has to be pulled OOC, as failed RP and Grudges over loosing arguments. It is as you point out differences of philsophy. However you seem to suggest that you wont interact with those who subscribe to that other philosiphy because they ruin RP. (from your perspective) although it may well be perfectly valid RP from theirs.
So it arrives back at the your RP is wrong, I won't play with you then.
-
It's not 'your rp is wrong'. It's 'your rp is incompatible with mine, so I won't interact with you'. It's that simple. The universe we're in doesn't (as far as I can tell) support capsuleers being that... stupid. Regressive if you wish. Thus, when capsuleers does act in that way, it's breaking the universe my characters are in. That RP is incompatible with mine, so for the sake of both parties, removing interaction entirely would be the only viable solution.
And the challenge and response had to be pulled OoC because there was no way to properly RP it out, without breaking character. More importantly, it was a subject which I felt needed discussion and debate in case there was something I missed about it. Some justification for capsuleers acting like that IC, or some other motive than 'I will lose this debate. DUEL!'.
And it still bears debating. Would, in the New Eden day and age, with the sheer amount of education, knowledge and mental reasources of a capsuleer... well, would dueling still exist? I kind of doubt it. I don't see a capsuleer as someone that backwards that they'd even contemplate it as a solution.
-
I could use the same argument for submissive religion, tobacco, or even even sounds in space. I don't stay away from Amarr, trading or pvp on that account. Fact of the matter is, we are playing a futuristic game constructed, carried out and interacted with by 21st century mindsets. You can ofcourse opt out of things that conflicts your IC experience. if done so consistantly though I see alot of :bash: in your future mate.
-
Sound in space is explained in pf, actually. It's not really there. It's a simulation in the pod interface software that 'creates' the sound based on sensor input, in order to make the capsuleer more comfortable. It was created due to discomfort of having one sense utterly removed when inside the pod.
Tobacco: In this future of ours, I doubt they've still got cancer problems. Or at least, they've got their tobacco fixed up somehow. Hell, it's probably gone to the point of being healthy for you or something.
But your point still stands, of course. Except for one thing: The things you mention are there in PF. I don't see capsuleers dueling eachother and throwing away the lives of their crew in PF. If there are, please show it to me and I'll amend the views.
The thing is, opting out of things that conflict with the IC experience means less facedesking than engaging in things that are outright conflicting with both common sense, and the view of the universe from this end. And don't call me mate. I'm not yours, and I doubt you're mine.
-
Senseless loss of of life? Avoiding conflicting with common sense in a computer game. Oh dear. Admittedly I havent read alot of the PF. is there anything inthere about warping through planets, ships inside each other, bumping, damage aoe of exploding ships, resource respawning... I guess there very well could be, and that would prove only that you can justify anything you want if you sit down and write about it. SF have a place in the alliance tournament, how are we gonna explain that?
Sorry I called you mate. Didn't expect you to take offence.
-
now as to the mail specifically,
I was surprised to see a 13 mail chain pyramid when i logged in but how cool that a simple "fight ye dog" mail had that much back and forth! Julianus Soter's responces were rather hilarious in my opinion. plus it was free from alt posting and all that lame sauce which makes IGS near useless. That mail chain was just some folks who knew the folks involved and were into RP.
I am sorry if people saw any of it as some sort of attack in any way other than a white glove slapped on the face and then thrown down in front of someone who was at conflict.
Duels prove nothing and profit nothing, but then the same is true for everything in EVE or any game. Its about have and making fun.
The content of the mail chain made it pretty clear that at least you and Jade were using the challenge as a tool to label someone a coward on the IGS Toma. I've already commented on that approach in an earlier post, so I won't readdress it. The mail chain wasn't particularly entertaining in my view, besides Soters response at least. Though I was probably disappointed to see 13 mails in my inbox and them not be more useful things like drug orders and alliance mails for pew. :P
About the last comment: as can be seen in some of the comments in the thread here, the view(s) being expressed are that Battleship duels (and to some duels in general) are not fun nor particularly fair. Tack on the various IC reasons for disliking duels in general and you can see why the event didn't happen in the end. I'm not even touching the potential for IC distrust here with relation to the arena choices, there are plenty of reasons for refusing to fight under those circumstances.
Senseless loss of of life? Avoiding conflicting with common sense in a computer game. Oh dear. Admittedly I havent read alot of the PF. is there anything inthere about warping through planets, ships inside each other, bumping, damage aoe of exploding ships, resource respawning...
Those are largely mechanics and coding limitations. It's the same with the lack of any clear evidence of crew on ships when you actually log in and play. Several of those CCP would probably want to implement if they had the resources or time. The examples you gave are unavoidable (...unless you never undock) while duels are a totally player made construct which no one needs to participate in if it breaks their immersion or they just don't want to. Do you have a more applicable comparison instead?
As an aside, I think that some of the dueling and 1v1 culture comes from other MMOs. WoW always had tons of people outside of the main cities dueling each other. I'm sure many when coming to EVE wanted to continue those habits, even if there were no explicit mechanics supporting the practice. I don't think the situation we are discussing here is derived from it, but figured I'd mention it anyway.
-
[admin]This thread has gotten pretty borderline, and I regret I didn't get to it sooner. I think, for the moment, the conversation has moved on, and modding out posts would just remove context, so I'm leaving it unlocked, and not modding for now. I reserve the right to go back and mod it when I've woken up more.That being said, calling other people's RP 'stupid' and 'crap' is not really constructive. In fact, it goes against the spirit of the board. I would suggest self moderation. Prefacing things like 'this kind of RP is stupid' with 'I think this IC' or 'it's my opinion that...' is not effective 'cover' and doesn't remove a responsibility to post constructively.
It is not a place for people to show how 'wrong' others are. It is not a place for the ventilation of personal vendettas. It is not a place for insults, either veiled or explicit. It is not a place for telling other people they are 'doing it wrong". It is not a place to carry on In Character feuds. Q: What's the difference between debate and argument? A: Debate or discussion involves people putting forward their ideas and opinions. Argument is when people start fighting over whose ideas or opinions are 'right'. For example, if you find yourself responding to a post with anything along the lines of 'You're wrong, because...', stop and think. Don't sit there working out what's wrong with someone else's idea. Propose your own, and tell us all the ways in which it's awesome. Everybody wins a discussion: nobody wins an argument. Q: So you want us to act all lovey-dovey? A: Yes. Deal with it. Q: What about free and frank debate? A: Strange as it may seem, given some of the forums on the internet, but it is possible to have an honest exchange of views without being rude, hostile, offensive, aggressive or bullying. That kind of behaviour destroys communities, virtual and otherwise, and Will Not Be Tolerated. Q: So I can't disagree with anyone's RP? A: Sure you can disagree. Just do it politely, I'll even venture to say nicely, and remember that they have as much right to their opinion as you have to yours. For example: Player A writes: "I see the Intaki as space hippies." Player B answers: "Of course they aren't space hippies, there are no hippies in Eve." That would be the WRONG way to answer. The RIGHT way would be something like "Really? I see the Intaki as more techno-buddhists. That's how I play my character, but hey, it's a big Cluster, right?"
[/admin]
-
Hrm. I invoke the wrath of the moderators relatively often on these boards. Go figure, heh. Ah well.
-
Those are largely mechanics and coding limitations. It's the same with the lack of any clear evidence of crew on ships when you actually log in and play. Several of those CCP would probably want to implement if they had the resources or time. The examples you gave are unavoidable (...unless you never undock) while duels are a totally player made construct which no one needs to participate in if it breaks their immersion or they just don't want to. Do you have a more applicable comparison instead?
I could name a ton of social settings and structures that I would deem outplaced and outdated if I was to give an OOC prediction based on contemporary observations. I am however just going with it, simply because I could very well be wrong, and I have no substantial evidence for any claim I would make in that regard. Social science is very much bound to time space historicity and so forth, so valid predictions are hard to make, thus it would be just as valid for Dueling to be a part of EVE culture as marriage, religion, natural reproduction, bigamy, slavery etc. simply because there is no valid argument for why it wouldn't be. You can create one or you can deny it by avoiding contact with it. but its unfair to fault others for doing it for RP reasons, or deem it stupid or regressive simply because you have issues with it.
-
Seriously. Throwing away (in a battleship duel) hundreds, potentially thousands of lives just for the sake of argument? Stupid. REALLY stupid. I don't consider capsuleers to be that stupid.
I further agreed to battle just to hull, not death.
I assume then Zuzanna’s negotiation for “to hull” was to favor this view? I have to say my toon actually doesn’t care about the life of crew on board. As a player I have trouble understanding how anyone’s character can care considering missions are done for isk and that kills thousands all the time and wars are done for entertainment. Du’uma Fiisi actually has declared quite a few wars recently and ransomed the targets. Risking your own crew’s life for money and killing industrial ship crews seems to run counter to this concept of crew-life sanctity.
I'm not convinced it was Bliss who challenged. I've let it be widely known that Miz doesn't fly Battleships. She can't. Bliss'd know that In Character. Hell, she even said it in SF that she'd never fly them
I agreed to smaller ships.
I actually didn’t know or remember that about your toon. I assumed it was a money issue.
But as to who issued the challenge anyone can view the IGS timeline for specifics.
1. Miz makes the attack propaganda thread about “We didn’t want NRDS anyway” over shooting a corp thief and the broadside was done at Tomahawk’s order.
2. Tomahawk ignores most of it, petty thread ended up blowing up in Miz’s face and Havo even posted on the thread that while he still thinks NBSI is the way to go, SF acted fairly by their NRDS RoE. All is good, Du’uma Fiisi allies pulled Mizhara’s attempts to damage Tomahawk’s other allies under control.
3. In the -10 standings thread (-10 was issued by Du’uma Fiisi to all of Star Fraction, Du‘uma Fiisi being the agressor) Miz says specifically “then come for me. I will be here... waiting to see the hypocrisy of Star Fraction displayed so thoroughly when you strike at those who fight against your proclaimed enemies.”
4. Tomahawk now sees Mizhara egging a conflict on and connecting that motivation from the “We ddn’t want that NRDS anyway” thread. Tomahwk is outraged and replies, “I've seem Du'uma Fiisi fight, i've flow with them even after they left Star Fraction and I did not see you. Shut your trap and open your gunports.”
5. Mizhara replies with a deep insult on Tomahawk‘s efforts and personal support of his friends Havohej and Zuzzana (one of which he has shared even genetic material with), “You proclaim to have been a Du'uma Fiisi supporter in Star Fraction...Your 'support' has apparently amounted to nothing, wouldn't you agree?”
6. Tomahawk then issues a formal challenge, ”I make to you a challenge of honor. You and me, duel to the death. You bring your Battleship of choice and i'll bring mine. We will fight with real risk and let the ancestors sort who is the righteous warrior and who is the craven lickspittle.”
As you can see by the time line of posting Tomahawk was reacting to flagrant insult. All good and fair and public available record.
-
(snip)...it would be just as valid for Dueling to be a part of EVE culture as marriage, religion, natural reproduction, bigamy, slavery etc. simply because there is no valid argument for why it wouldn't be. You can create one or you can deny it by avoiding contact with it. but its unfair to fault others for doing it for RP reasons, or deem it stupid or regressive simply because you have issues with it.
I have no doubt there is duelling somewhere in Eve - there's just too much humanity out there to say that it won't be, and with societies like the blood-raiders out there, there's probably people who think duelling is too namby-pamby. The question for me comes down to how well it is accepted in polite company as an appropriate way of settling disputes.
There are also different sets of "polite company".
It seems completely reasonable to me that some social circles think duelling in Battleships is normal and reasonable and that refusing them is cowardly, and for another social circle to think that it's gauche and barbaric, and for those social circles to mostly avoid each other, partly because of the issue.
I only really have an issue when one side or the other tries to claim that the universe as a whole supports their position to the exclusion of the alternative.
And I wasn't thinking of a particular incident when this thread came up, just duelling in general.
-
Never heard of smaller ships, never heard of 'to the hull'. After Mizhara said 'nope, can't even fly Battleships, wouldn't duel if I could', there was never a reply from Bliss except calling her a coward. Who you've been talking to, I don't know, because I've never heard that neither OoC or IC.
As for missions: That's killing others for ISK. Not your own crew. And it's for ISK, not for settling arguments. Warfare is warfare, not fair fights or fights over (what is IC considered) stupid reasons. It's got an actual goal, and far less risk than 'fair' fights where ISK and SP decides the outcome instead of tactical and strategic skill.
1. Miz makes the attack propaganda thread about “We didn’t want NRDS anyway” over shooting a corp thief and the broadside was done at Tomahawk’s order.
2. Tomahawk ignores most of it, petty thread ended up blowing up in Miz’s face and Havo even posted on the thread that while he still thinks NBSI is the way to go, SF acted fairly by their NRDS RoE. All is good, Du’uma Fiisi allies pulled Mizhara’s attempts to damage Tomahawk’s other allies under control.
This is off-topic, but sure, since it's my thread I suppose I get to allow a bit of a derail.
1. It wasn't an attack thread. It was an IC congratulations, with a bit of a grin to it as she felt Star Fraction's hypocrisy showed, but still a congratulatory thread. Do I have to repeat that many times, before you stop lying about me?
2. Thread never blew up. Star Fraction took a congratulations and started spitting out lies, slander and insults. Very viable IC, and taken as such. Good stuff, but if it exploded in anyone's face, it was SF's. Until Cosmo came, gave a good explanation, and Du'uma Fiisi went "Ah, too bad. Congratulations retracted."
I don't mind debate on any given subject. [mod]No personal attacks please[/mod]
-
I assume then Zuzanna’s negotiation for “to hull” was to favor this view? I have to say my toon actually doesn’t care about the life of crew on board. As a player I have trouble understanding how anyone’s character can care considering missions are done for isk and that kills thousands all the time and wars are done for entertainment. Du’uma Fiisi actually has declared quite a few wars recently and ransomed the targets. Risking your own crew’s life for money and killing industrial ship crews seems to run counter to this concept of crew-life sanctity.
I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. Risking your crew in war will be for idealogical reasons or to earn your living. Ditto risking them in actions against NPC ships.
A pilot can be concerned with their own crew and not be concerned with killing a target's crew.
-
Both of my parents are educated people, my mother being a physician and my father being an engineer. Still, they both regularly participate in the national lottery, even though doing so clearly flies in the face of rationality. They don't pour excessive, unaffordable amounts of money into it, but in a strictly rational economic sense, it's still a piss-poor investment. I imagine they get a certain thrill out of it, though. It's not one I share, which is why I never engage in gambling myself, but I can still empathize with other people's compulsions to do so.
For many capsuleers, the loss of a battleship is economically inconsequential. The loss of even a battleship crew of up to several thousand people is often emotionally inconsequential to them as well. And provided that a duel is fought in accordance with CONCORD laws, there are absolutely no legal consequences either.
Are capsuleers stupid and/or immersion-breaking for risking something they can easily afford to lose for the sake of personal honor, simple chest-beating or even just for the thrill? Irrational, possibly, if those reasons are all there is to it. Callous and cold-hearted, sure. But immersion-breakingly unintelligent? Not unless you're willing to attribute that same lack of intelligence and education to gamblers, extreme sports athletes and other regular risk takers.
-
I only really have an issue when one side or the other tries to claim that the universe as a whole supports their position to the exclusion of the alternative.
I am not sure if that was directed at me, but we are in full agreement here. I was responding to the notion that anyone could exclude dueling from EVE for OOC reasons. Sure it can conflict with IC ideology, but it cant be deemed incompatible with EVE OOC.
-
I only really have an issue when one side or the other tries to claim that the universe as a whole supports their position to the exclusion of the alternative.
I am not sure if that was directed at me, but we are in full agreement here. I was responding to the notion that anyone could exclude dueling from EVE for OOC reasons. Sure it can conflict with IC ideology, but it cant be deemed incompatible with EVE OOC.
I wasn't directing it at anyone in particular, just a general note. I don't even know who you are, or what your general position is on it.
-
On the topic of dueling or jousting in EVE PF I will refer to a segment of a mission briefing from my Amarr COSMOS guide (http://lorebook.eve-inspiracy.com/guides/Amarr_COSMOS_guide_by_Jowen_Datloran_v1.3.pdf), agent Thumal Ebotiz, mission Clear Head – The Joust (3 of 5):
Now all that stands between Lord Arachnan and his sister in the hereditary ladder is Lord Arachnan's son. With him out of the way, the path is clear for Lady Arachnan. The son goes by the name Aradim Arachnan and is a real hothead. The boy fancies himself to be a knight of the olden days and his father indulges his fanciful dreams. Aradim and his friends like to duel in their shiny cruisers. Or joust, as they call it. They think so highly of themselves that they've declined protection from Lord Arachnan's household guards, against the better wishes of the lord's chief of security. So taking them out shouldn't be too much of a problem. Just don't fall into the same trap as they and get too confidant. Overconfidence is lame at best and lethal at worst, so be keep your head screwed on straight.
So the concept exist. If capsuleers should practice it is another matter, which I not have any strong opinions about. Myyona would properly be very insulted if anybody challenged her, as she deems any kind of "warrior code" for primitive behavior.
-
I don't see capsuleers dueling eachother and throwing away the lives of their crew in PF. If there are, please show it to me and I'll amend the views.
Can we atleast agree that Duels can be used as valid RP then?
Edit: copy from http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=1059&tid=7
A duel between the Serpentis Corporation and Ryan Routine was fought in the Serpentis Prime system earlier this week. The contest, won by the Serpentis, quietened any speculation that the corporation did not still have its sharp edges.
The duel between Admiral Rembran of the Serpentis Corporation and Ryan Routine of Cataclysm Enterprises within the G Alliance had been initiated by a request from Mr. Routine to battle Salvador Sarpati. Sarpati, CEO of the Serpentis Corporation, currently holds the ill-favored and sometime-coveted spot of the most wanted man in the known universe, with a bounty of 1.184 billion isk.
The battle lasted approximately eight minutes before the Machariel piloted by Mr. Routine exploded under the attack of Admiral Rembran's Vindicator. Loosely organized betting pools gathered over 300 participants, with less than fifty-percent expecting the Serpentis to win.
Mr. Routine said that he had originally planned to fight CEO Sarpati, but due to internal Serpentis politics the duel had been arranged with Admiral Rembran instead. Mr. Routine also commented that "This was the most exciting duel I've ever had."
An earlier incident involving the loss of a Moros had set the Admiral at odds with his CEO. Even in victory, doubts remained: "No. I don't know if I'll ever look alright in Sarpati's eyes. At least I know I'm keeping my position. But one of these days, I'm going to get my revenge on those meatbags who destroyed my ship."
-
Duels are valid RP, claiming that the Jovian's are pulling the strings can be valid RP, claiming that none of the Amarr really believe in God can be valid RP, claiming that we are not real but are only simulations and we have controllers elsewhere pulling our strings can be valid RP.
If you duel regularly, I will RP as considering you a immoral mass murderer caring nothing for the lives of your crew. If you counter it by RP-ing your ships are nearly crewless, then I'll probably revise my RP opinion.
Duels can be used on occasion as a useful RP tool, but I see more use to it as a non-RP tool to have a fun competition with another player (and not the other character).
The fact that we have people not having fun OOC about this particular duel indicates to me that in this case it was *not* a useful RP tool in this case. Simply consider carefully which people you challenge if you are aiming for both a fun RP encounter and a fun PvP encounter and you'll be fine.
-
Here is the deal though Merdaneth, We have arrived at this point, because of IC interactions, during which, at some point someone brought into question, OOC motives and the viability of Duels as RP in itself.
Regardless of OOC motivations or no OOC motivations it is really rater moot as long as the challenge is presented in a format and setting that is not conflicting with RP.
That is to say, if you don’t want to duel you have plenty of justification IC to refuse. To invalidate its RP potential simply doesn’t add up.
I see no reason to be sensitive about who you challenge. If you have an IC motive, go play, as long as you can live with the IC repercussions it brings along.
:)