Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Louella Dougans]

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.

[Misan]

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.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

Oh that's easy: who can mine and haul the most in a pre-arranged set of time.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

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).

[Ciarente]

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.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

It may be entirely IC to do it but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be mercilessly mocked for their vanity.

[Ciarente]

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.

[Jakiin]

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.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

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.

[Stitcher]

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.

[Tomahawk Bliss]

 

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

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.

[Mizhara]

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.

[Ulphus]

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.

[Mizhara]

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.

[Mazca]

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.