Print

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

[Samira Kernher]

If you want to maintain those, then you need to win. Or fight to the bitter end.

isn't that the whole point.

The whole point was that you said there are "no reasonable surrender terms". Which is not true at all. There are surrender terms that are difficult to stomach, that hurt your pride and make you feel like you're failing your goals/your faction's goals, sure. But that doesn't make them 'not reasonable'.

[Mizhara]

a) You know exactly fuck all about Miz. b) This is, again, a scenario that has exactly fuck all relevance to anything that can realistically happen in Eve.

[Isha Vuld]

I believe that was indeed the entire point, Samira, that there really is no way for certain RP corps in conflict with each other to ever reach terms, and barring that, the only way to actually achieve a "permanent victory" is to push so relentlessly hard the other side stops having fun and quits, disbanding their corp or most likely having their members quit the same.

Surrender terms may be "reasonable", but they would also effectively rob the corp of a reason for existing. I have to say though, that doesn't seem to stop anybody. In fact I am not sure I have yet met an RP corp that doesn't have a graveyard's worth of skeletons in it's closet.

There is some fact to back up the argument of wardecs being a good way to ruin or oust players, however:

"CCP Larrikin pulls up activity data for players of corporations that have wars declared against them and it shows considerable activity drops in all activities during the war. They also show that the low activity continues after the war ends. Brisc Rubal noted that the numbers here were so stark, it would justify immediately removing war decs as a mechanic and promising a fix after the fact. The CSM in general were surprised at how stark the numbers were and noted it was clear this mechanic was having a significant impact on player recruitment and retention." - https://newedenreport.com/2018/10/06/csm13-summer-summit-minutes-and-how-war-decs-are-killing-eve/

I feel that this is also true, especially if the parties involved in the war have no desire to actually leave each other be. Now, it seems to me that in some cases, for example, an Amarr vs Minmatar conflict, that the losing party could simply withdraw to their faction's core systems to lick their wounds and rebuild. Yield the field, as it where, cease operations for a while. But if they are incapable of actually surrendering entirely and their enemies are unwilling to go with the idea that they could not or should not pursue their enemies all the way to the core worlds, then they are simply screwed, as one side cannot surrender, the only resolution beyond "backing off and leaving each other be" is to press down until the corp and its players are no more.

This becomes far more likely when two participants are of such conflicting ideologies, and hold such a burning hatred for each other IC that neither would ever capitulate. On an OOC level, however, no sane roleplayer should ever want to actually drive another roleplayer out of the game, or break up a roleplaying corporation.

That is very much the definition of "shitting where you eat".

Once again this is the unfortunate situation that can occur when the adverserial nature of EvE gameplay meets the cooperative nature of roleplay and things do not go well.

That being said, I also have to agree with Mizhara that there are enough stories floating around of just about every RP corp associating with people, flying alongside people, or being engaged in operations that absolutely take a dump on everything their character and nation supposedly stands for that it seems highly dubious that any of them would stick to their guns so brutally as to force a "victory or death" situation.

They seem perfectly happy to commit or endorse the most atrocious things for the sake of scoring a win or avoiding trouble, which does make one wonder why adopting the demands of their sworn enemy would suddenly be a hill to die on.

[kalaratiri]

if I ever saw people give their characters principles of any kind and make them stick.

I resemble that remark!

There's quite a few of them around actually.

Also this reeks of "urdoingitwrong". Every character is going to have their own unique set of principles, and will be following them as best they can. What those principles are, and how flexible they may be, will be entirely up to the player behind the character.

[Samira Kernher]

It pretty much becomes a case of, 'is this term worth holding onto a war you really don't like?'. Cost analysis. There are some things that the sacrifice of which would be viewed as worse than the war itself, absolutely. But I think the range of options that are better than the war (if you really don't like the war) is quite large. Frankly, moreso in RP than in non-RP stuff, IMO, because in RP you can often get conditions that are 'easy' to fulfill, RP conditions, compared to terms of paying billions of isk (or citadels/territory as recently happened out in null).

[Louella Dougans]

I'd believe that if I ever saw people give their characters principles of any kind and make them stick. That's one of those unicorns you just won't find in Eve.

so, mizhara the character is prepared to wobble on the principle of "better to die a freeman than live a slave".
I find that hard to believe.

a) You know exactly fuck all about Miz. b) This is, again, a scenario that has exactly fuck all relevance to anything that can realistically happen in Eve.

It is a principle that Mizhara the character seems to have expressed as being important, on the IGS forum.

So, either the character is prepared to stick to their principles, or they're not. You the player say that no player plays a character who would stick to their principles.

I find that surprising in the case of Mizhara the character. The idea that that character would compromise on one of their principles, goes against everything that has been portrayed.

[kalaratiri]

Now, it seems to me that in some cases, for example, an Amarr vs Minmatar conflict, that the losing party could simply withdraw to their faction's core systems to lick their wounds and rebuild. Yield the field, as it where, cease operations for a while.

This is more or less how the mutual war between PIE and Electus Matari worked for years. They would fight when infringing on each others territory, and in the warzones in lowsec, but it was quite possible for members of both sides to head back to their Empire's core systems and take some time to rearm and recover.

This worked because the war existed for the goals of territorial defense and occasional raiding, not existential conflict. Both sides understood that the destruction of the other was not a reasonable, realistic, or beneficial end-goal.

[Garion Avarr]

Sami; my understanding is that overtures have been made at points, but they've been turned away, or else milked for maximum salt/humiliation before being turned away.

There's been one.

Factually and demonstrably incorrect.

A: While not an approach, I am given to understand that you told Luna at the beginning of the war that negotiation would be pointless and that there was nothing we could do.  That may not have been the message you intended to convey (given you later said that you only meant there wasn't anything 'you could think of'), it was, however, the message that was taken by us at the time.

B: A successful negotiation was made in which an agreement to not engage each other when Nauplius was on grid was reached.  Not actually sure who made the initial approach.

C: You were invited to fly alongside us in the Drifter fleets, with a ceasefire in effect during the fleets.

D: I specifically attempted negotiations during the Dawn of Justice event to arrange for a temporary cease fire to all us to better engage in anti-slavery operations.

E: Luna approached you about what terms you might find acceptable when she had you as a guest in her gardens.  She very explicitly asked you what options you thought there were for ending the war.  You repeated that you didn't think any you could think of would be acceptable, though you did say you'd listen to ideas we might have.

There have possibly been others I cannot confirm at the moment, but I don't have references for them at hand.

So it is incorrect to say that Ibrahim's meeting was the only attempt at negotiation or diplomacy.  There have been several, and you have implied to us more than once that without giving up the core of our identity, any attempt will be unsuccessful.



(I do have thoughts on the actual topic, and will post them later).

[Mizhara]

It is a principle that Mizhara the character seems to have expressed as being important, on the IGS forum.

So, either the character is prepared to stick to their principles, or they're not. You the player say that no player plays a character who would stick to their principles.

I find that surprising in the case of Mizhara the character. The idea that that character would compromise on one of their principles, goes against everything that has been portrayed.

... she's literally incapable of both death and slavery. She's a capsuleer. This is one of the most nonsensical hypotheticals in existence.

A: While not an approach, I am given to understand that you told Luna at the beginning of the war that negotiation would be pointless and that there was nothing we could do.  That may not have been the message you intended to convey (given you later said that you only meant there wasn't anything 'you could think of'), it was, however, the message that was taken by us at the time.

Actual copypasted wording:

"Wardec incoming.

Reason: I'm sure you can imagine.
Terms: None really.
Intent: ... eh, might hunt if bored, but mostly just making sure CONCORD doesn't get in the way if opportunities arise.
Timeframe: Until the ISK runs out, I guess? I highly doubt SFRIM has anything to offer to shorten this."

None of this implies any kind of diplomatic impossibility. The wording isn't even ambiguous, it just says "Can't think of anything off the top of my head." in less words.

B: A successful negotiation was made in which an agreement to not engage each other when Nauplius was on grid was reached.  Not actually sure who made the initial approach.

I don't consider random chatter in the Summits etc to be 'diplomatic talks'. It's random chatter. Although I think this was before Miz got banned from TGW. That was basically the point when I realized diplomatic solutions were kind of unlikely, as AmarrBloc started closing avenues of peaceful interaction without even pretending there were rules broken or anything like that.

C: You were invited to fly alongside us in the Drifter fleets, with a ceasefire in effect during the fleets.

See above. There was never any diplomatic talks on the subject, just random SFRIM members and random chatter. It's like calling Trump's Tweets international diplomatic missives.

D: I specifically attempted negotiations during the Dawn of Justice event to arrange for a temporary cease fire to all us to better engage in anti-slavery operations.

Here you may actually be right. I think I do recall a brief conversation on that subject, yeah. You may have to remind me of the details, but didn't that basically end up with you having nothing to offer in terms of trustworthiness etc?

E: Luna approached you about what terms you might find acceptable when she had you as a guest in her gardens.  She very explicitly asked you what options you thought there were for ending the war.  You repeated that you didn't think any you could think of would be acceptable, though you did say you'd listen to ideas we might have.

Luna tried very hard not to talk about the conflict (and others having read the logs can confirm this), and basically just confirmed to Miz that the terms Miz could think of off the top of her head were simply unacceptable. Luna refusing to actually discuss and talk diplomacy  during that meeting torpedoed that, and also means it was not a diplomatic talk. If you'd like, I can provide the logs.

So it is incorrect to say that Ibrahim's meeting was the only attempt at negotiation or diplomacy.  There have been several, and you have implied to us more than once that without giving up the core of our identity, any attempt will be unsuccessful.

It was, (other than the Liberation Day event talk with you, thank you for reminding me) the only time I am aware of where Miz was contacted with diplomatic talks in mind. Random chatter with random members really don't count. Especially when there's never any terms offered or discussed. Miz even offered some to Lunarisse, but there was no interest in discussing it further. What you're willing to give up or not is kind of up to you guys IC. Miz has set forth pretty strong options (reasonable ones as far as I'm concerned, and hardly demands ceding the 'core of your identity') and there hasn't even been a revised offer in return.

You're right though, there's been more than one. There's been a whopping whole two. I forgot about our brief talk.

[Louella Dougans]

It is a principle that Mizhara the character seems to have expressed as being important, on the IGS forum.

So, either the character is prepared to stick to their principles, or they're not. You the player say that no player plays a character who would stick to their principles.

I find that surprising in the case of Mizhara the character. The idea that that character would compromise on one of their principles, goes against everything that has been portrayed.

... she's literally incapable of both death and slavery. She's a capsuleer. This is one of the most nonsensical hypotheticals in existence.

Either Mizhara the character would compromise their principles, or they would not.

capsuleer status of the character is irrelevant.

[Mizhara]

In this case, it's literally impossible for her to compromise that principle.

But yeah, Miz is entirely capable of compromising her principles. She's just as human as anyone else out there. She's got enough public failures, fuck-ups and bad choices gathered up in her decade as a capsuleer to fill books.

Why are you fixating on this? You're so weird.

[MakotoPriano]

Isha; that's part of what's curious about these sets of wars. In Mizhara's case, she's derided the FW mechanics OOCly and ICly, but also wants factional war, and so has had wardecs active against most Amarr corps since December of 2017. This gives her free run of all of space, and she'll also pew in the warzone a bit also.

The SFRIM wardec was inherited by ARC when SFRIM joined the alliance proper (as we'd sort of been 'the tiniest coalition' with a handful of other corps beforehand), so they've been under essentially continuous wardec for ten months or so and IKAME's gotten the bonus of the wardec for a bit over five months. At the outset, Miz was hiring Mercenary Coalition to drop SFRIM structures, though I think that's not happened much since.

To be perfectly honest, ARC isn't much of a PvP entity. It's not a primary function of the group. SFRIM's sort of always been the carebear-y side of Amarr RP, and IKAME was started as a Caldari research/exploration corp. We can pew if need be, and people are encouraged to fly with friends for more content (hence mostly SFRIM flying with PIE more nowadays), but, well... yeah. It is what it is.

The specific case of the person who said Miz doesn't have a reason to be in CVA space-- well, in the first place, that's an odd claim on their part. However, I can understand how the person felt the situation had gotten a bit personal. It was a recent returnee to SFRIM, I think a fairly carebear-y, relatively inexperienced EVE player. Miz popped him twice on his first day back to SFRIM in industrials, he went out to Providence to do some nullsec exploration, and Miz hunted him down and killed him again three days later. Naturally, as said, Miz is a practiced and capable hunter. In this case, the target understandably felt that the situation was personal (after all, a single individual pursued them to nullsec), got angry (not justified), and has since unsubbed. I've got mixed feelings on that. On one hand, if someone's going to unsub over losses, perhaps EVE isn't the game for them. On the other hand, perhaps if they had been introduced more slowly they'd actually take it up.

Ultimately, however, past is past. There are plenty of ways to play EVE, and I'm not going to cast aspersions on someone for playing one way or another. The only thing that bugs me is the moralizing about it.

This is an internet spaceship video game. It's really not worth this sort of thing.

[Louella Dougans]

In this case, it's literally impossible for her to compromise that principle.

only when its applied to themselves.



and badgering you on a single point is the only way that you ever answer anything, instead of twisty turning and moving the goalposts. So you can dial down your ooc hostility.

[MakotoPriano]

In any case, the conversation's gotten a bit off the rails.

At the most basic point, I repeat; Miz, if someone salts excessively or engages in RL threats, then make sure to mention it to Luna and I, and we'll straighten 'em out.

[Mizhara]

The specific case of the person who said Miz doesn't have a reason to be in CVA space-- well, in the first place, that's an odd claim on their part. However, I can understand how the person felt the situation had gotten a bit personal. It was a recent returnee to SFRIM, I think a fairly carebear-y, relatively inexperienced EVE player. Miz popped him twice on his first day back to SFRIM in industrials, he went out to Providence to do some nullsec exploration, and Miz hunted him down and killed him again three days later. Naturally, as said, Miz is a practiced and capable hunter. In this case, the target understandably felt that the situation was personal (after all, a single individual pursued them to nullsec), got angry (not justified), and has since unsubbed. I've got mixed feelings on that. On one hand, if someone's going to unsub over losses, perhaps EVE isn't the game for them. On the other hand, perhaps if they had been introduced more slowly they'd actually take it up.

Talked a few times to that person during those days. Explained to them why they lost the first hauler, how they could have saved the second, etc. Got them into contact with Arsia Elkin (for the uninitiated, one of the more public PvPers in AmarrBloc, streams and pewpews on the regular) who was running some PvP classes at the time (I think they joined one of the classes, I can't be sure). Between Arsia and me both giving advice and encouragement, I'm not sure how much more they can expect.

I mean, they were even told that the only reason they were targeted was because they were the only target out there to hunt.

The only thing that bugs me is the moralizing about it.

It's not moralizing. I didn't even want this thread to be specifically about this war. I just wanted to remind people that non-consenting PvP is integral to Eve and even more important in an RP framework. More importantly, that OOC complaints are far less likely to get any results than simply negotiating a peace IC.