Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Oib Wane
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 13:49:00 -
[1]
Fighting only the battles you can win.
Or
Avoding battles you can't win.
Honestly I sit on the fence here.. on the one hand I enjoy the freedom I am given in EVE and that freedom extends to everyone, on the other hand I am not realy ready for the bigger world of EVE yet and when I can pick my battles I will. (Have not been podded yet... and yes I have travled in low sec... I'm just carefull about it.)
So does that make me a carebear?
My opinion is this... if I fight and lose to greater numbers/skill time and time again I have not learned much and failed in the long run (someone else is having more fun on my dime than I am) but if I make friends, learn to avoid unwinable combat and strengthen my skills then I can reach my goal of being a productive member of EVE and not some other players play thing.
I'll see you all in space and if I can help it you won't see me...
"I am a leaf on the wind..."
|
Duraeli
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 13:52:00 -
[2]
Aren't those technically the same thing?
I'm on the fence here as well though mate. No sense throwing ships away at a fight that you don't stand even the slighest chance of winning, unless you are defending something else that is valuable to you (a station, a POS, whatever).
This is a game where a loss can actually mean something. Just because someone doesn't get a killboard posting for a fight does not make it automatically dishonorable to run before you lose your ship.
That's just my $0.02 though and despite the fact that I'm in -V- I don't get out much to fight. (Before some of the RA types run in here and start flaming me for my opinion). ---------------------------------------------- Persona non grata |
Gonada
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 13:52:00 -
[3]
honor is what you make of it, and is usually tempered by your current finances at the time.
-I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.-
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 13:59:00 -
[4]
Edited by: HippoKing on 10/02/2006 13:59:02 deliberately fighting battles you can't win is stupid
deliberately fighting battles you don't know the outcome of is risky, and to me, it all depends on what is at stake
sigs of the 23/24/25 hijack just as well -eris yarrrr, i shall retake my sig -HippoKing Not a chance, our 1337 sig haXx0r sk1llz are too powerful! - Wrangler Ho-Ho-Hooooooo, Merry Saturday!11 - Immy |
Vladimir Ilych
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 14:03:00 -
[5]
The whole "Honor" think strikes me as odd. In RL any general or fleet commander going into battle would prefer it to be a massacre. Zero losses for us and utter death to the enemy. So why would it be wrong or "unhonorable" to avoid fights you know you would lose? Anything else is foolish.
|
Anne Reynolt
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 14:07:00 -
[6]
Picking your battles isn't dishonor, its strategy.
|
Duraeli
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 14:09:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Vladimir Ilych The whole "Honor" think strikes me as odd. In RL any general or fleet commander going into battle would prefer it to be a massacre. Zero losses for us and utter death to the enemy. So why would it be wrong or "unhonorable" to avoid fights you know you would lose? Anything else is foolish.
Because in EVE the losers actually live to complain about dying. ---------------------------------------------- Persona non grata |
Geiran Thorne
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 14:15:00 -
[8]
Read The Art of War again. Entering a fight you don't expect to win or give some other strategic advantage is foolish at best.
Honor has nothing to do with whether or not you fight at all, it has to do with your actions. Humiliating a defeated foe, killing defenseless non-combatants, accepting surrender only to massacre the surrendered army are all examples of dishonorable actions.
The rule of thumb should be to treat your enemies the same way you want them to treat you.
|
Oib Wane
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 14:17:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Oib Wane on 10/02/2006 14:17:08
Originally by: Vladimir Ilych The whole "Honor" think strikes me as odd. In RL any general or fleet commander going into battle would prefer it to be a massacre. Zero losses for us and utter death to the enemy. So why would it be wrong or "unhonorable" to avoid fights you know you would lose? Anything else is foolish.
That's kinda my point really... I don't have a ghost of a chance to win in a fight with a blob of gate campers... so I chose to not engage them when I can.
But then I come here and see complaints about "carebears" and "noob corp cowards" constanly... I will not fall on my (or someone else's) sword for the amusment of others... but I don't think that makes me a "carebear" so much as a "non-sheep".
I don't know I guess running is a form of cowardace... but so is preying on the weak.
Don't get me wrong I love this game the way it is and would not chage it... but I am not going to stand in line to die... nope that sounds stupid.
|
James Lyrus
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 14:18:00 -
[10]
Not fighting a lost battle isn't dishonourable. Sitting 'invulnerable' in a station and smacktalking is. To go out and fight when you know you can't win is just stupid. ('win' is subjective - if you're delaying for re-inforcements, then even a lost ship/pod can be considered a 'win'). To fight a battle that's undecided is risky, but if the return is enough (even if it is just 'because it's fun') then it's fair play.
-- We are recruiting
We sell carriers. |
|
Avaleric
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 14:18:00 -
[11]
Honourable battle (PvP) in EVE? You're joking, right..?
- Ignorance is bliss... |
Oib Wane
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 14:26:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Oib Wane on 10/02/2006 14:26:48
Originally by: James Lyrus Not fighting a lost battle isn't dishonourable. Sitting 'invulnerable' in a station and smacktalking is. To go out and fight when you know you can't win is just stupid. ('win' is subjective - if you're delaying for re-inforcements, then even a lost ship/pod can be considered a 'win'). To fight a battle that's undecided is risky, but if the return is enough (even if it is just 'because it's fun') then it's fair play.
One point: I would never smack talk especaly from a place of safety, I may speek about my frustrations in Corp chat or with friends (we all vent about something) but it doesn't get much more childish than to smacktalk esspecaly when you can't back any of it up.
And yes some of the most fun I have had in game so far has been thwarting gate camps and being chased through a system trying to out smart some very determined campers.
|
Jason Kildaro
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 14:38:00 -
[13]
I think you have the definition of "carebear" mixed up. It is sometimes just thrown around as a general insult. A carebear is an individual that demands completely safe play. They don't want anyone to kill them AND they want the rules bent towards that end.
To me it does not seem like you mind the idea of PvP, you are just being smart (wish I was )
|
Jon Xylur
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 15:00:00 -
[14]
Running from a fight you can't win isn't dishonorable. Fitting a combat shisp with 8 WCSs and then pwnign evrything smaller than you and running from everything else is pretty lame tho.
|
Gibbah
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 15:20:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Gibbah on 10/02/2006 15:24:02 I only see people constantly defining what is lame and what is smart/tactical and so on.
Fighting a fight you probably will loose is stupid. Using WCS is lame/smart (depending which side you ask, the attacker och the attacked). Avoiding fights you probably will loose is not dishonorable, it is smart. and so on...
But are there anything at all you would define as brave?
|
Roxors
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 15:56:00 -
[16]
I'll use an example to explain how i think about it..
the setup: there is a gate camp of 6 pirates with a good layout and a strong strategy.. i am in a cruiser traveling from point a to point b and somewhere in between the pirates lay in wait.
the outcomes
1: i find out there is a gate camp.. i choose another route around the gate camp and get to my destination safely..
2: i go blindly into the gate camp and get spanked.
3: i go into the gate camp knowingly cause its "the honorable thing".
4: i get a gank fleet together and take out the gate camp with far superior numbers
5: i complain about the gate camp and maybe lose a ship to it and moan and cry.
the results.
firstly its important to remember that the conflict is represented by the gate camp and not my actions.. "the fight" exists weather i chose to engage it or not. the fact that there is a gate camp in my way puts me into conflict..
in example 1 i win.. i outsmarted my preditor and was able to go about my business without loss to my ship. there is no dishonor here. i beat them with strategy..
in example 2 i lose. my intel was insuficient and they earned a meal because of it.
in example 3 i lose as well. however i chose to lose. this is stupid on my part and everyone involved would have been better off if i had just gave them the credits i had to spend on a new ship.
in example 4 i win again. i had better intel. i had better resources. its a clear victory.
in example 5 there is no honor. fight or dont.. but dont whine about it.. either you win or you lose based on your tactics. if your tactics are to avoid them and it works then thats fine..
puposefully putting yourself in harms way has nothing to do with honor..
get stronger, smarter, faster and better organised.. or get out of my space..
|
Wendat Huron
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 16:04:00 -
[17]
Honorable is showing up for a fight when you've declared the war and not just hiding waiting for the odd industrial. It's honorable still to run like hell when outmatched, as long as you make a showing to mark your intent.
A mans word is the meassurement of honor, if he goes back on it then he got nothing. He might still be brave or foolish but never honorable.
|
Sadayiel
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 16:08:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Geiran Thorne Read The Art of War again. Entering a fight you don't expect to win or give some other strategic advantage is foolish at best.
Honor has nothing to do with whether or not you fight at all, it has to do with your actions. Humiliating a defeated foe, killing defenseless non-combatants, accepting surrender only to massacre the surrendered army are all examples of dishonorable actions.
The rule of thumb should be to treat your enemies the same way you want them to treat you.
QFT!!
Thats the best explanation i found, even when i am the kind of person that thinks the only way to defeat an enemy is vanish all trace from his existence, avoiding any chance he can hit back.
There is a big diference with Win your enemy and Gank it only cause u can.
Suicide it's man way to tell God. You can't fire me so I quit |
Deja Thoris
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 16:08:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Gibbah
Fighting a fight you probably will loose is stupid.
Those fights are the most fun imo. Some mates and I have had a spate of fights we should have lost recently and we've come out even or on top. It's fun. If I think it will be a "fun" fight then I'll probably engage.
To many peoples e-peens get in the way of good fun.
And it's "lose"
|
Weirda
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 16:08:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Avaleric Honourable battle (PvP) in EVE? You're joking, right..?
feel sorry for you.
dunno if honorable is the right word - but a lot of ppl play for 'teh win' and a lot play for 'the fight'. honor doesn't really play into it for weirda... if it look like fun will go for it... and fun doesn't mean always winning either.
fun is when you have a good time and regardless of the outcome there is a lot of 'good fight' and respect in local.
either way - that is how weirda approach it. the above is obviously just opinion. weirda log on to have fun though, and through friendly chat and good attitude, even getting ganked ain't alway so bad. __ Weirda ...balanced NOS change... Fix Assault Ship 4th Bonus and More!
|
|
Alexis DeTocqueville
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 16:09:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Alexis DeTocqueville on 10/02/2006 16:10:48 EDIT: double post
|
Alexis DeTocqueville
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 16:10:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Oib Wane Fighting only the battles you can win.
Or
Avoding battles you can't win.
Aren't these two mutually exclusive? If you fight only battles you can win, naturally you wouldn't fight battles you CAN'T win. And vice versa.
|
ParMizaN
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 16:27:00 -
[23]
I dont fight battles i know i will lose badly. What makes me a good pvper is that i can judge the outcome before the first shot is fired generally :)
Phenomena of ironies, cast the litany aside How intelligible, blessed be the forgetful
I Luv Teh Parm!!1 - Imaran |
SunWuKong
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 16:35:00 -
[24]
I'm sure we can think of many circumstances that would be dishonorable. Here are a couple I thought of off hand:
1 - Your corp mate is being ganked and no other alliance or corp member is online. (of coarse if circumstances permitted, you are able to switch or are already in a cheap ship). You sit by in a safespot while your corp mate asks for help.
2 - You're in a fleet battle and you or your squadron are called to perform a certain function. You see the function as too risky and run instead.
That would be dishonorable.
|
Kurren
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 16:38:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Gonada honor is what you make of it, and is usually tempered by your current finances at the time.
Originally by: HippoKing deliberately fighting battles you can't win is stupid
HERE HERE!!
SobaKai.com -Devs, please don't destroy my ENTIRE signature next time!- |
Famine Aligher'ri
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 16:47:00 -
[26]
Originally by: ParMizaN I dont fight battles i know i will lose badly. What makes me a good pvper is that i can judge the outcome before the first shot is fired generally :)
what that fruitbat said
|
Blind Fear
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 16:48:00 -
[27]
I'll generally fight any battles that I have the possibility of winning. This means my kill:loss ratio is only average. Big deal.
Having a reputation and a ton of good stories about winning improbable battles while heavily outnumbered and outgunned is worth far more to me then a few easily replaced battleships. ------------------------------------------------ Derailing threads with logic since 1992 |
Montague Zooma
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 16:52:00 -
[28]
If you're worried about what's honorable or dishonorable...your sense of honor is probably higher than that of many players already. Fight or don't fight as you see fit. About the only things universally reviled are login traps and logging out while in combat.
There's nothing wrong with avoiding fights. I'm happy to just hunt NPCs, but I'm armed for PVP and if I can't avoid a predator I'll give him a good fight.
------------------------------------------------------------------- One noob. One corp. One complete waste of 1.6 million isk. |
Willo Vasquez
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 17:28:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Roxors I'll use an example to explain how i think about it..
the setup: there is a gate camp of 6 pirates with a good layout and a strong strategy.. i am in a cruiser traveling from point a to point b and somewhere in between the pirates lay in wait.
the outcomes
1: i find out there is a gate camp.. i choose another route around the gate camp and get to my destination safely..
2: i go blindly into the gate camp and get spanked.
3: i go into the gate camp knowingly cause its "the honorable thing".
4: i get a gank fleet together and take out the gate camp with far superior numbers
5: i complain about the gate camp and maybe lose a ship to it and moan and cry.
My take on this... 1) Smart thinking, nothing wrong with it. 2) would be a dumb move at best. 3) see 2. 4) Smart thinking, do unto others as they would do onto you, just do it first. 5) think about it, then work out that options 1 or 4 would have probably been more productive.
Nothing wrong with choosing when to fight and when not to. Nothing wrong with avoiding superior numbers of hostiles. Picking a fight with someone, then running from it would be dishonorable. Disrespecting your opponent would be dishonorable. Smacktalking the pilot of the indie you just popped from 40k away in your BS would be dishonorable (happened to me once).
|
Turia
|
Posted - 2006.02.10 17:29:00 -
[30]
The only way a military commander can be labelled as dishonorable is if he risks without possibility of tactical or strategic gain.
Disregarding advantages in the name of fairness isn't honorable. War is not fair. War cannot be allowed to be fair, or it'll continue forever, causing more casualties through attrition than if a giant blob of soldiers/ships/what have you simply annihilate their opponent in one day of fighting.
Allowing fairness to rule the day, and therefore, increasing casualties and inconvenience on both sides isn't honorable, it's utterly despicable.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |