EVE Search - Should we be forced to play honorably?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Should we be forced to play honorably?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Amnika MonSulu DROW Org Brotherhood of The Spider	Posted - 2007.06.28 14:36:00 - [31] Originally by: Cedric Diggory Let's follow on from a "trite but true" phrase: Quote: All is fair in love and war I love eve, and eve is just one great big war. Ergo... Eve=Love Eve=War Love+War=Fair Eve=Fair So never feel bad about being cruel! Don't confuse fairness or underhanded tactics with honor. It is possible to do both and have honor. It is possible to do both and have no honor.
Legionnaire Lightbringer	Posted - 2007.06.28 15:11:00 - [32] Originally by: CCP Wrangler There's no greater honor than winning. I agree completely. Ok, so maybe not.
Princess Jodi Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.06.28 15:15:00 - [33] The original question of being FORCED to play with Honor - similar to the way you can only PVP people with a 'PVP Flag On' - already partially exists in Eve. It's called Empire space, and the ratings of the systems determine just how much Honor(Security Status) you lose if you 'break the rules.' It not purely ON/OFF, its more like a Dimmer switch. This is the reason so many people get up in arms over things like the PrivateRears or Suicide Gank Squads in Empire. They have already turned on the 'PVP = OFF' flag as much as they can, yet rules still allow them to be engaged against their will. Some instances, such as PrivateRears, were a blatant exploit of the rules that needed to be nerfed for the good of the game. Other things, like Drones still attacking when Concord jammed the ship, was a broken game mechanic and also needed to be fixed. But the basic idea - that you can shoot anyone anywhere if you're willing to pay the price - that is still valid and should not be removed. So I answer that we should NOT be Forced to fight with Honor. We have a sembalance of 'PVP=ON/OFF' now, and that will have to do. Anything more would result in too much interference in the player's choices.
Eshletho Swordbruden Mining and Security Service Inc. Te-Ka	Posted - 2007.06.28 15:26:00 - [34] Return to title question: No we should not. EVE is an open, player-driven universe - this is what makes it so beautiful. If the player base wishes for honour to be the name of the game then so be it. Those who can not deal with this gameplay should stick to wow. They're ussually the biggest whiners anyway If CCP in one of their drunken hazes decide to enforce a certain way of playing then EVE will be nothing more than a regular MMOG from the block in which case I'm returning to backgammon and Civilization - Eshletho Juggler of units, cargo space and isk. EVE on OS X at full speed
Cadela Fria Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2007.06.28 15:51:00 - [35] EVE is a pure game of Darwinism - Atleast thats how I see it. Survival of the fittest. If you quit, or give up or contiously die to the same mistake over and over, then you're weak and don't deserve to survive. Simple as that really, cruel as it may sound. Knowledge is a priviledge, not a right
Amnika MonSulu DROW Org Brotherhood of The Spider	Posted - 2007.06.28 16:00:00 - [36] Originally by: Princess Jodi The original question of being FORCED to play with Honor - similar to the way you can only PVP people with a 'PVP Flag On' - already partially exists in Eve. It's called Empire space, and the ratings of the systems determine just how much Honor(Security Status) you lose if you 'break the rules.' It not purely ON/OFF, its more like a Dimmer switch. This is the reason so many people get up in arms over things like the PrivateRears or Suicide Gank Squads in Empire. They have already turned on the 'PVP = OFF' flag as much as they can, yet rules still allow them to be engaged against their will. Some instances, such as PrivateRears, were a blatant exploit of the rules that needed to be nerfed for the good of the game. Other things, like Drones still attacking when Concord jammed the ship, was a broken game mechanic and also needed to be fixed. But the basic idea - that you can shoot anyone anywhere if you're willing to pay the price - that is still valid and should not be removed. So I answer that we should NOT be Forced to fight with Honor. We have a sembalance of 'PVP=ON/OFF' now, and that will have to do. Anything more would result in too much interference in the player's choices. Honor isn't about safety in Empire. Honor isn't reflected by a security rating. No one is currently, in the past or will in the future, ever be forced to fight with honor in this game. To reapeat what I said earlier in this thread.... Honor is the willpower that enables a man or woman to confront fear or danger regardless of the outcome. I dare say that it would be impossible for CCP to force anyone do that. It is a human element. The OPs issue is not honor. His thread and question are incorrectly worded. The issue he has is with tactics. Should old men; used to the old ways, have a say so in what tactics we use in a certain situation or should we be allowed to adapt and gain an upperhand on a foe through any means available? That is the real question. The answer is...anything short of exploiting is a perfectly viable tactic and if people don't wish to adapt....then I will gladly kill them in such a way that they do in fact "die with honor". Such an issue is hardly an Eve vs them issue either. Every MMO with PVP has the same thing. Stick to the old tactics or find new ones. Honor remains the same regardless.
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2007.06.28 16:00:00 - [37] Originally by: CCP Wrangler There's no greater honor than winning. Interesting attitude. And definition. _________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well.. -
Barrick Stormsworn Minmatar CAD Inc. Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.06.28 16:02:00 - [38] I've been thinking about this topic as it concerns roles in PVP and anti-blob. To be quite honest, I think what we need is more of a "colonist" approach to warfare, for some of us. For me, anyways, as I dislike the large fleet battles and blob mentality. One server crash with 1500+ pilots was enough for me, thank you very much; quite the wasted evening. Now I'm going to focus on covops, recon, sneaking behind enemy lines to gather intel, popping out unexpectedly to pick off one or two ships... I may not be the top of the killboard, but it'll be more enjoyable than lagging to death, and I'd rather be in a ship like that than trapped in a battleship amongst 100 other battleships. Guerilla warfare is something I hope to see more of in EVE in the coming months as we find ways to avoid the blob. Is it honourable? Our enemies will claim that anything which takes their life is dishonourable I'm not going to let that stop me. "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G.K. Chesterton
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.06.28 16:07:00 - [39] Should we be forced to play honourably? If you have to be forced to behave honourably, then you're not really honourable, so what's the point? Being honourable is worthwhile in and of itself. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Hamfast Gallente	Posted - 2007.06.28 16:13:00 - [40] Honor or Honour has always been a personal choice... What is an honorable choice for an honorable person may look like foolishness to another honorable person... The OP's point about the Revolutionary War for example... were those "Honorable" tactics used in Eve, the Titan in the back would never be fired on by the Red Coats (killing officers was frowned upon) but the frigates in the front could be slaughtered at will... The Equally Honorable opposing forces (Those who would become the Americans after the war) say the Honor of the Brits as foolish, but supported and helped their friends with honor... and blew the titan up right off the bat... because the little frigates in the front needed to be told when to fire by the Cruisers, who were told by the Battleships, who were told by the... cut off the head and the body flops around and diesà Warfare Doctrines change over time, we (Americans) started in the Revolution (not as a Policy but as a rule) to reject attrition warfare and embrace maneuver warfare but it was not fully embraced until WW2... you can see examples in our training methods (I spent 20 years in the United States Marine Corps) that still tie back to the attrition warfare of years past. Eve uses both... the Blob Warfare of 0.0 fame is as close to attrition warfare as you can find in the world today, masses of ships shoot at each other in hopes that they are the last ship flying in that space (Second hand info, I have not been in a blob)... but low sec and empire fights (small unit tactics) tend to follow more of a maneuver warfare doctrine. Originally by: CCP Wrangler There's no greater honor than winning. Only because the winners write the history and can make what they did sound honorableà and it's winning that's important. None of us is as dumb as all of us...

Ehranavaar	Posted - 2007.06.28 16:54:00 - [41] Originally by: Roy Batty68 But yeah, it was the Kentucky long rifles that made a huge difference in the war. it wasn't until the americans built a standup army they stood any chance of winning. once the french threw in with them their odds improved greatly. heroic american milita tended to bail at the sight of british bayonets and that was pretty much true for the entire war. kentucky rifles weren't battle winning weapons as their rate of fire was just too slow.
Ashturi Nagano Mantigen Quanta Ultio Animi Causa	Posted - 2007.06.28 17:29:00 - [42] Originally by: James Duar Originally by: Crumplecorn Edited by: Crumplecorn on 28/06/2007 11:17:44 I heard the redcoats fought like that for a reason other than honor. For some reason it just worked better than any other tactic due to their weapons or something. I may be talking out of my ass though. Agree on the rest. Indeed, the musket was a terrible weapon - I think the estimation was in the end maybe 1 in every 3000 shots actually hit the enemy, so you pretty much had to use a wall of fire in order to hit anything. I mean, that said, I suspect there was also a fair amount of ignorance on the part of military generals of the time but it wasn't like one man behind a rock was actually a huge threat and the reloading time meant suppressing fire like is used today was out of the question. Still, transpose me to the time and I'd say I'd still prefer to be behind that rock. Actually, the ratio of shots to hits was much better at the time. Maybe 1 in every 3 or 4. NOW, it's 1 in every 3000...but that's to be expected when we went from maybe 2 shots per minute to around 700 p/m. Anyway, I'm not sure how to respond to the OP's comments. I do believe that there are holes in the game, contract scamming being one of them. Let's think about this from an RP standpoint for just a moment...they have interstellar flight, but they can't properly regulate commerce carried out through the "official" system? That doesn't seem right somehow. There's apparently a HUGE breakdown in bureaucratic functioning if that's true.
DarkMatter	Posted - 2007.06.28 17:31:00 - [43] Originally by: Cadela Fria EVE is a pure game of Darwinism - Atleast thats how I see it. Survival of the fittest. If you quit, or give up or contiously die to the same mistake over and over, then you're weak and don't deserve to survive. Simple as that really, cruel as it may sound. That's why it baffles me that CCP is putting in WIS and trying to get more girls to play EVE... EVE is only fun for a very specific type of MMO player, a very niche group... Most of the time EVE is not fun, it's too much like work, too much like real life... At least in my 4 years experience playing this game, it has been 85% boring work, 10% fun and 5% total frustration... Not many gamers out there will pay a monthly fee for 10% fun... Building the homestead
Hamfast Gallente	Posted - 2007.06.28 17:41:00 - [44] Originally by: Ashturi Nagano Originally by: James Duar Originally by: Crumplecorn Edited by: Crumplecorn on 28/06/2007 11:17:44 I heard the redcoats fought like that for a reason other than honor. For some reason it just worked better than any other tactic due to their weapons or something. I may be talking out of my ass though. Agree on the rest. Indeed, the musket was a terrible weapon - I think the estimation was in the end maybe 1 in every 3000 shots actually hit the enemy, so you pretty much had to use a wall of fire in order to hit anything. I mean, that said, I suspect there was also a fair amount of ignorance on the part of military generals of the time but it wasn't like one man behind a rock was actually a huge threat and the reloading time meant suppressing fire like is used today was out of the question. Still, transpose me to the time and I'd say I'd still prefer to be behind that rock. Actually, the ratio of shots to hits was much better at the time. Maybe 1 in every 3 or 4. NOW, it's 1 in every 3000...but that's to be expected when we went from maybe 2 shots per minute to around 700 p/m. Anyway, I'm not sure how to respond to the OP's comments. I do believe that there are holes in the game, contract scamming being one of them. Let's think about this from an RP standpoint for just a moment...they have interstellar flight, but they can't properly regulate commerce carried out through the "official" system? That doesn't seem right somehow. There's apparently a HUGE breakdown in bureaucratic functioning if that's true. The muskets the British Military used were designed to be pointed, they could not be aimed... and I doubt any statistics were kept to allow hit's per shot to be more then a WAG... The muskets used by the Irregulars were designed for hunting, to bring down game for the meat... these could be aimed and were accurite. While we can keep better records now to allow a hit's per shot, we still can't force people to stick their head up to aim... None of us is as dumb as all of us...
DarkMatter	Posted - 2007.06.28 17:43:00 - [45] Quote: While we can keep better records now to allow a hit's per shot, we still can't force people to stick their head up to aim... I read that in WWI, less than 10% of men actually engaed in battle and could handle it, the rest just got in the fetal position and cried... Kinda like the PvP in EVE I think... Building the homestead
Marek Payne Insult to Injury	Posted - 2007.06.28 17:52:00 - [46] Originally by: CCP Wrangler There's no greater honor than winning. This is why I play eve.
Hamfast Gallente	Posted - 2007.06.28 18:04:00 - [47] Originally by: DarkMatter Quote: While we can keep better records now to allow a hit's per shot, we still can't force people to stick their head up to aim... I read that in WWI, less than 10% of men actually engaed in battle and could handle it, the rest just got in the fetal position and cried... Kinda like the PvP in EVE I think... The same can be said for Viet Nam... depending on the service... A base that had been over-run would be reclaimed, and huge numbers of the dead would be found curled up in a hole, shot in the back having never fired their weapon... I am not sure about WWI. This is not true in Eve... we come to these forums and whine... None of us is as dumb as all of us...
Renosha Argaron Caldari The Celestial Free Miner's Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.06.28 18:04:00 - [48] Edited by: Renosha Argaron on 28/06/2007 18:05:21 Being "honorable" in eve is a choice i guess.....me personaly....i dont loose my RL morals over a game...i treat people in eve how i would treat any other person in RL....i give respect to others to get respect back....and if not...then they loose my respect....simple as that. I find it hard to grasp why people in eve would loose all sence of morality over virtual currency and belongings.....so yes i do think people should play with a sence of honor or sence of morality....and i think that people who use the excuse that its "Role Play" have some serious issues.....lol. The fact your are online makes no difference to the way you should treat others that you interact with......would you answer your telephone and scream YARRRRRRR m8tys.....then go on to call them a carebear?.....lol....i think not! Anyway thats just my take on it.....lol....opinions are like A** holes.....everyone has one, even if you dont agree with them.....lol Regards Renosha
Trem Sinval Sinval Enterprises	Posted - 2007.06.28 18:12:00 - [49] Originally by: Roy Batty68 For example, BoB killing the D2 titan with a mole and micro sb. Alot of people don't consider this "fair play". Many feel this way because of the way game mechanics were used, and how little choice the pilot himself had. To say nothing of how ignominious an end it is for a ship of that magnitude, EVE always a direct action to take to counter a situation; scout before jumping into a gatecamp, or read the contract carefully to spot the scam. The pilot logged out under the assumption that he was simply terminating his stay in EVE, but through the quinessential abuse of game mechanics, was forced into a situation he could not forsee NOR could control. If, for instance, the mole had found the secret maint array where the Titan was stored, or found the next cyno the Titan was jumping to, and was then subsequently ambushed, these are the kinds of ends that people would like to hear of such things; situations that contain the possibility of escape, of planning, of any degree of control, not that they might at any moment lose their substantial time and effort investment to an uncontrollable phenomenon. In this then, there is a difference between playing the game in any manner seen fit and abusing the tenets of the game to manipulate players into inescapable situations. How long would a system stay in place that FORCED you to accept contracts, scams or otherwise? That FORCED you to make the jump, camp or otherwise? Quote: Should Eve move itself towards what people are used to? Or should the players move themselves towards what Eve is (or might be)? If the sum total of EVE's interaction is shaped on player created content, and the players only yet have this singular frame of expectation, you've got yourself a false dilemma. EVE must do both things, in that it must endeavor to reign in a common set of rules and methods of interaction that apply in all cases, and to ensure that the protections that players are afforded cannot be circumvented; at the same time, give the playerbase as much freedom as possible in all things so that the limitation is their imagination and tenacity, to which the onus of the playerbase is to adapt and create as they see fit. Quote: Freedom for other players to take exception to your actions and act upon it, perhaps making you regret your choices. Perhaps now we come to the heart of the matter: there are still simply too many actions in EVE that can be undertaken without consequence or reprisal (to wit, corp theft). Because there is no real system of justice, and because it is essentially impossible to track stolen goods, AND because player capability to enact vengeance is so limited and restricted, corp theft runs rampant and trust is a rare thing indeed. It is far too easy in EVE to screw someone else over, launder the funds to another character and be free and clear; if there were a way to track such activities, or make the character-borne lives of the criminals miserable, I'd be all for it. We can lie, cheat, steal and generally be villanous scum. Now let us also castigate, adjudicate, punish, and discover the true instruments of their crime (some overarching and unchanging identification). - Trem
Kruel Save our Souls	Posted - 2007.06.28 18:13:00 - [50] So... if I had two choices: 1 - Win without honor 2 - Lose with honor Hmmm, I'd take #1.

Renosha Argaron Caldari The Celestial Free Miner's Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.06.28 18:16:00 - [51] Originally by: Kruel So... if I had two choices: 1 - Win without honor 2 - Lose with honor Hmmm, I'd take #1. For me that choice would be a hollow victory....lol....but thats just me
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.06.28 18:20:00 - [52] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 28/06/2007 18:19:35 Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: CCP Wrangler There's no greater honor than winning. No matter how it is done. /signed - Geniuses think alike. Apparently so does you two, so its not a sure sign. --- Originally by: CCP Wrangler You're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, thats what hello kitty online is for.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.06.28 18:32:00 - [53] Originally by: Rodj Blake Should we be forced to play honourably? If you have to be forced to behave honourably, then you're not really honourable, so what's the point? Being honourable is worthwhile in and of itself. This is why EVE is wonderful. I get to choose whether I'm going to be honourable or not. Reputation sticks. Therefore that choice is a meaningful one.
Renosha Argaron Caldari The Celestial Free Miner's Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.06.28 18:44:00 - [54] Originally by: James Lyrus This is why EVE is wonderful. I get to choose whether I'm going to be honourable or not. Reputation sticks. Therefore that choice is a meaningful one. I could'nt agree more...for me ...i can always loose a ship and replace it...but once your reputation is gone...then its gone and harder to regain.....lol. Renosha
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.06.28 19:00:00 - [55] An action can only ever be good or bad if you had the free choice to do the opposite. "good" and "bad" are just words, tags placed on relative values unique to each individual. Societies function because the individual choices made within the framework of the collective or overlying average of values are balanced by consequences based on other individual choices, because individuals need eachother to function and achieve happyness. So, combined and applied to Eve: - honor must be a choice, if not then it cannot exist. - it's meaning is relative to the individual - consequences of individual choices are determined by the collective culture. - individuals need eachother to achieve their goals and thus are open to cultural judegement. Seems quite true within the game doesn't it ? The problem you might have with this stems from the difference between your personal values and Eve's overlying cultural values. Other people might condense this post into "go play WoW", but they'd be wrong. There's one overlying culture in Eve, determined by players but also by CCP of course, but there's also plenty of subcultural frameworks where choices might be made on a set of values closer to your own. I suggest you go look for likeminded people there. [center] Old blog
Legionnaire Lightbringer	Posted - 2007.06.28 19:27:00 - [56] Apparently it's against the rules to point out that the emperor is naked. WTB Undeleted post.
Love Juice Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.06.28 19:48:00 - [57] First off... this is a game, so why even compare it to a historical battle? Fighting for freedom and the way of life, doesn't even compare to a GAME. Secondly, how can you define 'honorably' in a game? You can have 100 guys playing a game, there'll always be the one turd who snipes a spawn point for hours. I will say there are shady tactics... spies... moles... scams... but what can you do about it? Play like you want, and deal with how you play. And if all else fails... I go by the common rule... "Don't tell me how to play the game I'm paying for." ------------------------ Who wants my love juice?
Jack Target Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.06.28 22:18:00 - [58] I sort of agree with the OP, but I happen to be honorable and enjoy Eve! I like to think there is always room for the honourable! So far, life is good for me! However, the 'dishonorable' types of Eve keep me on my toes, which is a fun thing!
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation	Posted - 2007.06.28 22:53:00 - [59] Got to say to the OP - Great Post! As a CEO I have to say the greatest detractor (real word?) from enjoying the game for me was the fear of alt spies, corp thieves, saboteurs etc... I like the idea of those roles, but metagaming in my mind just sucks. If you cant achieve what you want and be accountable for that with the same character then I say you're a poor player. But anyway....rant over. Yes, Make us all play more 'honourably' please CCP. What I really wanted to comment on was your analogy. Have you by chance watched 'Last of the Mohicans' a few too many times or what? Sure, standing in formations to be picked off may seem daft now, but back then the discipline and strategy was the finest the world had seen, and in fact those ebil redcoats conquered a large part of the world thanks to it! The 'honour' of those days has been lost forever now where bombs are left to kill indescriminately, and the success of wars is measure on the numbers of kills rather than the actual war's objectives. Ooops I ranted again...Sorry, its the Campo Viejo Crianza 2004...Yummy. ......Parp! - Ideas are my business...maybe thats why I'm always skint! Please read my ideas
Takahashi Arran coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.06.28 23:04:00 - [60] Originally by: CCP Wrangler There's no greater honor than winning. yeah the Americans spell it honor, we english spell it correctly



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.