Nyrram
   |
Posted - 2005.09.30 06:16:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Nyrram on 30/09/2005 06:19:23
The term "Carebear" did not originate in EVE.. it's been around in MMO for quite a while, as well as even in non-MMO online games (people who play only coop games instead of PvP, etc).
The term refers to non-violent players.. at least those that are non-violent towards other players and have no interest in PvP.
The word does not apply to "those who whine about dynamics not in their favor".. it is specifically and exclusively targetted toward non-violent players, particularly those who complain when they are targeted for violence.
I was once called a "Carebear" while playing on the PvP-only server in Asheron's Call.. I was level 5, being chased by a level 30 because I responded poorly to "Nice armor, give it to me".. I ducked into a dungeon restricted to level 10 and below, so he could not follow, and was called a coward and a "Carebear" for not letting him kill me in one swing... (and people wonder why the non-violent playerbase has negative views of PKs..)
Impatient braggarts see non-action as cowardice, but Sun Tzu's interpretations hold more weight:
- Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical or in your favor.
- And above all you ought to guard against leading an army to fight which is afraid or which is not confident of victory. For the greatest sign of an impending loss is when one does not believe one can win.
In essence, know whether or not you can fight the opposing force, and know whether or not the benefit of doing so is worth the risk... and don't guess.. KNOW! The optimal outcome of any military engagement is the lack of destruction of your force, not necessarily the destruction of your enemy.. that must always come second. (When I say "lack of destruction", I don't mean that you don't ever lose a soldier.. but your losses MUST be minimal compared to your enemy, and the total destruction of your entire force must NEVER happen under any circumstances.. anything less is devastating to morale, which is the base of every action you take as a general...)
Of course, "carebear" corps might take a lesson themselves:
- Knowing how to fight made men more bold, because no one fears doing what it seems to him he has learned to do. Therefore, the ancients wanted their citizens to be trained in every warlike action.
- There is nothing as likely to succeed as what the enemy believes you cannot attempt.
- It is much better to tempt fortune where it can favor you than to see your certain ruin by not tempting it.
Many ancient civilizations (such as Sparta, to name an extreme) were centered around military readiness. This helped them be unbelievably, almost invincibly skilled when the need arose to actually attack someone or defend themselves. So, it is also advantageous to have your members at least be competent in military skills, so they will be less likely to panic should a situation arise, and might actually be able to defend themselves if they are attacked. Panic is the single most likely way to ensure your destruction, by the way. Your attackers may even be surprised when you actually respond in a competent manner. If you are assured destruction by non-action but have a slight chance of victory through action, then what possible reason do you have not to act?
--
Nyrram |