+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Duel or Battle (/showthread.php?tid=26071)
Pages:
1
2
Duel or Battle - Rajher - 09-06-2009
ok im maby new... but i have seen some great roleplay from the side of Liberty Navy when 3 encountered a single Liberty Rogue gunboat: instead of gank-killing it, they made a request for it to leave... so the rogue who is in my oppinon a "shoot on sight" enemy to liberty lawfuls, had a chance to decide for himself if he wanted to be gank-killed or not...
...he left...
Duel or Battle - tansytansey - 09-06-2009
I like to think of it like battles on Sid Meiers's Pirates! when your ship collides with another. You challenge the Captain of the other ship to a duel while the rest of your crew fights his crew. If you win the crew surrenders, you get the booty and the ship and some of the crew join yours. If you lose, you lose your ship and get dumped on a deserted island.
Besides, it might be RP but it's also a game, we're all trying to have fun. You think it's fun when 4 ships come out and attack your lone pirate?
Well, if it was one LF versus 4 bombers then it might be fun xD
Duel or Battle - Eppy - 09-06-2009
All is fair in (love and) war. If you have the ability to bring ten Titans buzzing down upon the four Templars you should probably use it. If you're one of those guys that likes to duel a player once he's already been destroyed that's fine, but you don't have to give him the option, FFS, that's just plain OoRP unless your character is obsessed with giving honor to the Gaijin or some such. If you've got somebody dead to rights you shouldn't have to be nice to him, because your character probably wouldn't.
And before anybody complains, I ALWAYS die. Always. Can't touch this.
Duel or Battle - Jinx - 09-06-2009
from a roleplayed point of view - one must say "battle" - especially as ... in good roleplay that is not about chivalry - the greatest aim of a military commander is not to play fair at all - but to play to win. - when counting the casualties and there re less on the own side - that is a bonus.
a player in a competative game would say "duel" as competition is best, when chances are fair - cause you can only "compare" to others when you had similar bases to start with.
freelancer is a competative game. - freelancer discovery is a roleplaying game. - both together make a compromise ( or if you like it rephrased .... : an argument )
personally - i like roleplay more than duel - but i do also get annoyed when a fair situation turns out to be unfair. - the feeling of getting annoyed is unconscious - and can only really be overcome be becoming a zen monk i guess.
from an objective point of view - a CHARACTER plays to win, cause he only has one life and will do EVERYTHING he CAN do to extend it. - from a subjective point of view ... it spirals up to unfairness ( just like war in real life ) - in a war, no one will really complain about unfairness much. - people murder, rape, pillage - on all sides. - sometimes for revenge, sometimes for pleasure, sometimes cause they went mad - sometimes cause they are of a murderous mindset.
we gotto remember that this is not real life - and that the wars we play are not real. - not only do we respawn - but we also try to have fun. - when we are fair, we also want the other side to have fun.
complaining about being ganked spoils the fun for the other side as much as ganking other people. - but mostly problems arise cause there is a situational misunderstanding of situations. - usually the side with the advantage will say "it is roleplay" the other side that is at a disadvantage will say "it is about fairness".
you ll hardly ever find someone that was outnumbered but the enemy decided to go for a "duel" to complain that it ought to have been a roleplayed "battle".
Duel or Battle - Ayem - 09-06-2009
A character may play to win, or they may not, dependent on their personal psychological make-up. You hear the call of "no-quarter" frequently in historic and pseudo-historic films, novels, plays and poems because quarter generally was given.
It may be the task of a "military commander" to win, and to follow Sun Tzu's directive, to counter a small force with a larger force on sympathetic ground. However, many people are ensigns, sergeants, lieutenants etc., career soldiers who, while keen to win, also do not wish to die. In some circumstances, over-extension increases the chance of casualties. I prefer not to die, if possible, unless on a disposable character like my Trained.Slaves. As a result of this, if I have fought for an hour against the Baf and beaten them back, I am quite content to leave matters as they are. It is a victory. I have forced the enemy to give ground. It is a boost to morale on my side, and an erosive force against morale on their side.
I always try to give people an opportunity to withdraw before the engagement, because violent conflict is an inefficient method by which to expound a point; be it "this territory is mine and my master's", or "stop harassing the commonfolk". The diplomacy and intimidation are all that are often required.
Also, some characters are not homicidal and do not like to commit murder.