These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

(Dis)honorable dueling - A call for a revamp of a broken system

Author
Gori Thane
Last Rites.
#41 - 2014-03-01 02:53:28 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Gori Thane wrote:
A criminal flag for RR interference would be nice.


Criminal is a bit harsh, because that will invoke Concord in highsec.

But are you sure the logi received no flag at all. He should have received a suspect flag and then been engagable by anyone.

Also, if you are going to duel, make sure you are off station so they can't dock immediately, or ensure that they engage you so they have an aggression timer.

If they dock up or warp off (some leave ships in space for quick change), then either dock up yourself and wait out the 5 minutes, or warp off.

In addition to logi, many of the highsec station gamers have links too. Taking one on is a lottery if you aren't familiar with them and know how they are setup.


I agree that a criminal flag would be harsh, but I think a harsh consequence might be needed as often times a suspect flag doesn't do a whole lot for the guy fighting against a RR battleship supported enemy.

Yes, I"m sure there was no flag at all. That's where my confusion came in over there being a standard suspect flag. But it was just a bug.

I think there's nothing to be gained from the ridiculous docking games and it robs us of the most popular and accessible location for finding duels: fighting above stations. Currently if I want to duel, I know that fighitng above a station would most likely result in dirty tactics, so I have to private convo someone and hope they don't deny it, then ask them if they want to meet at a planet, then both warp there, then challenge to duel. Take away all the dirty tactics and we don't have to go through all these added steps to get a decent duel! =)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#42 - 2014-03-01 02:54:26 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Gori Thane wrote:
Trolling replies attacking me aside,


Why are people that disagree with another person "trolling"?


Because when all you have is a bad idea, disagreement=trolling.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Gori Thane
Last Rites.
#43 - 2014-03-01 02:56:59 UTC
This is what I mean by trolling, nearly all the other replies are contributing to a healthy discussion. =)

Perhaps the OP would contribute something on the scale of Hamilton's contributions as Secretary Of The Treasury, and he could be immortalized on something forever, like an Aurum token. Or something, vOv.

Instead, he will simply fade into obscurity as another person who argued the same points that were argued a thousand times before in General Discussion, simply because he wasn't bright enough to use the search function.

So sad.

Roll[/quote]

Seriously...no reason to be such a jerk about it.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#44 - 2014-03-01 03:18:58 UTC
Gori Thane wrote:
A criminal flag for RR interference would be nice. Now allowing docking and coming back in bigger and ba

No, that would be utterly retarded. It's not a criminal act; it is not undue aggression (which is what the c-flag penalises). The s-flag you get at the moment is more than enough and docking up is not even remotely a problem.
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
#45 - 2014-03-01 03:36:58 UTC
This thread needs 100's of pages with people just saying that annoying word TEST guys used. What was it, hodar or something?

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.

Your Dad Naked
Doomheim
#46 - 2014-03-01 03:48:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Your Dad Naked
I'd like to see this fixed too, although I don't have a solution in mind.

It would be nice to be able to acceot a 1v1 duel and know it will stay 1v1. That is the premise of what any point in regards to this should be. How CCP can achieve that is up to them, I'm not their game designer.

In terms of why suspect doesn't solve this:
1) Can't rely on other players interfering when not in a handful of trade hub grids / gates
2) Those RR battleships used in these scenarios are uber tanked and can withstand fire for 1 minute in order to dockup if needed. The obvious solution here is not to duel outside stations, but those are the only places where duals can logically happen beyond planned ones elsewhere or the super-rare impromptu one in some sort of PVE site.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#47 - 2014-03-01 03:51:34 UTC
Your Dad Naked wrote:
It would be nice to be able to acceot a 1v1 duel and know it will stay 1v1.
Have a fleet of ganknados standing by that will insta-fry anything that gains a suspect flag… Honesty through superior firepower — it's the EVE way. Twisted
Alyth Nerun
Foundation for CODE and THE NEW ORDER
#48 - 2014-03-01 03:52:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Alyth Nerun
I think the problem started when CCP called the limited engagement agreement "duels". Now everyone and their mom comes from WOW to EVE and thinks it means the same thing they where used to in that other crappy game.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#49 - 2014-03-01 03:58:42 UTC
Alyth Nerun wrote:
I think the problem started when CCP called the limited engagement agreement "duels". Now everyone and their mom comes from WOW to EVE and thinks it means the same thing they where used to in that other crappy game.


Correct. Change the name to fit what the mechanic actually is.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#50 - 2014-03-01 04:02:26 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Alyth Nerun wrote:
I think the problem started when CCP called the limited engagement agreement "duels". Now everyone and their mom comes from WOW to EVE and thinks it means the same thing they where used to in that other crappy game.

Correct. Change the name to fit what the mechanic actually is.

But “mutually agreed combat with penalties for external interventions” is such a cumbersome term. Blink
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#51 - 2014-03-01 04:10:08 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Your Dad Naked wrote:
It would be nice to be able to acceot a 1v1 duel and know it will stay 1v1.
Have a fleet of ganknados standing by that will insta-fry anything that gains a suspect flag… Honesty through superior firepower — it's the EVE way. Twisted


Or, gasp, don't do it within undock range of a major trade hub.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2014-03-01 04:37:33 UTC
Gori Thane wrote:
When Retribution 1.1 was released, players were finally given an official method of hi-sec dueling in lieu of of can flipping. The banner given to dueling by CCP was "A proper 1 on 1 for the modern pilot." The idea of dueling is not to eliminate risk of losing your ship or even your pod, but to create an avenue for players to be able to choose their engagements and to know what they kind of fight they are getting into, which would be a nice alternative to engagements in low or null sec space where you may be tricked into thinking you have a fair engagement only to have a fleet warp in on you.

******My example was based on a bug, not the norm. I apologize for that misunderstanding******
Problem #1: Contrary to the advertised premise of an "honorable duel" between two (or more if multiple simultaneous duels are accepted) pilots, players may bring in assistance via logistical support and thus destroying any chance of a fair fight and they can use logistical support both without agreement from the other dueling pilot(s) OR retaliation! Any retaliation against any ships providing logistical support would actually result in CONCORD intervention!

An example of how current mechanics allow for completely unfair combat: I undock in a frigate from Jita and have a pilot (also in a frigate) issue me a duel challenge. I unwisely accept to the supposed terms of a "frig 1v1". The enemy pilot then immediately has a nearby logi transport shields with a medium or large remote shield booster. Obviously my frigate would never be able to brake a tank supported by logi, so I never stood a chance. I never got a window pop up telling me "Eveplayer002" would like to join the duel and asking me to accept or decline. I never even got the chance to fire upon the logi when he gave reps. CONCORD never intervened. I just died.


Problem #2: A far more common issue with the current dueling system's premise of a "fair fight" come from the ability of pilots to dock after accepting a duel. This leads to two common abuses. The first is that pilots will issue a duel and once their target accepts, they immediately dock and then quickly undock in a completely different (and often much larger and/or more expensive) ship and then proceed to quickly destroy the unsuspecting pilot who thought he or she as agreeing to a duel with so-called even odds. The second, less grievous way pilots abuse the ability to dock with an active duel is that they will agree to a duel and engage, but once the fight tips against their favor, they will wait out the combat timer and then simply dock.

My proposed solution for problem 1 is to simply make any logistical support illegal unless a duel request has been issued by the logistical pilot and accepted by the enemy pilot. This would allow the opposing pilot to know what he's getting into and also for him or her to retaliate! I think is solution is very intuitive and I"m at a loss as to why this isn't the way dueling was from the start. A second option would be to allow logistical support without permission from the opposing pilot(s), but then to allow the opposing pilot(s) to retaliate against the ship providing logistical support as soon as aid is given to an opposing pilot in a duel. I think this second option is by far less preferable, but I wanted to give more than one solution.

My proposed solution to problem 2 would be to start a combat timer as soon as a duel is accepted, making it impossible for a dishonorable duelist to dock and return with a larger ship. A second solution would be to immediately end the duel when one or more pilots dock. Again I like the first option better. As far as stopping pilots from waiting out the combat timer and docking when the tide turns against them...I"m not so sure this needs to be fixed. Waiting out the combat timer does give the other pilot ample time to destroy you before you dock.

Please let me know what you think and I welcome any and all additional ideas for solutions for making the honorable dueling system a little more honorable!

-Gori Thane


I actually read all of this, and when I got to the end, I realised that all of your 'problems' are based on the assumption of a false premise. It's called 'invite to duel', not 'invite to honourable 1v1 only duel'. You have to remember that you're still playing in a sandbox environment, and even in highsec, the possibility of other entities to interfere is always there.

You need to begin with the assumption that this is EVE, and nothing is fair. Nothing is true, everything is permitted. Then you'll understand why the duel system is really broken - because it furthers the illusion of safety in highsec. As long as an "I consent" system like this exists, it gives people the idea that if they don't 'consent', they are safe.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

KnowUsByTheDead
Sunlight...Through The Blight.
#53 - 2014-03-01 05:52:19 UTC
Gori Thane wrote:


Seriously...no reason to be such a jerk about it.


I see you must be new to General Discussion.

How cute.

I bet you also thought that PvP ends where your client stops and the forums begin.

But, much like your ill-informed ranting over supposed "honorable dueling," because someone outsmarted you, you continue to make false presumptions.

However, selectively quoting me won't do you a bit of good. Especially when I made myself very clear when I said that "you have the exact same tools in your toolbox as everyone else."

If you, at any point in time think I am being a jerk, you again are misinformed.

Unlike Tippia (as an example...only love Tippia <3), I do not spend my time in GD hand-holding and slamming people's heads against the logic wall, especially when there is a search function for you to use in these forums to see that this is not the first time this topic has reared it's head. And you certainly won't be the last who is "forum pvp'd" by trollish individuals such as myself on the exact same topic.

You are stuck on an advertising ploy on the part of CCP. Honorable duel in the EvE Universe, which is dark, harsh, and built by the players, simply means "a way to fight in high sec without CONCORD intervention." In fact, I bet every time someone accepts a duel, and gets wrecked by superior tactics, half a dozen devs and GMs are secretly snickering.

So, seriously, get over yourself, and play the game like everyone else. You have options at your disposal that are no different than anyone else's.

FFS.

Ugh

Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2014-03-01 07:33:38 UTC
KnowUsByTheDead wrote:
Gori Thane wrote:


Seriously...no reason to be such a jerk about it.


I see you must be new to General Discussion.

How cute.



This is irrelevant. He's right. Even if he's new, it just means he doesn't know better about checking the forums for existing threads or ideas like the one he's proposing. In any case, being a jerk on GD just by virtue of this being GD, it doesn't make you any less of a jerk. There is no call for it, unless you are responding to a jerk IMO. There's no reason why the OP cannot simply be told that his idea has been suggested before, and told why it's a bad one, and then advised to use the search feature in the future if he has any other suggestions.

GD has just had a big debate about why being a jerk in EVE doesn't necessarily make you one in reality, depending on the circumstances. Discourse on the forums, however, which is discussion about EVE rather than gameplay itself (in most cases, especially GD), can be a much stronger indicator.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Rastafarian God
#55 - 2014-03-01 08:33:11 UTC
FFS

The dual system was intended to make it easier to gain aggression. That is all.

It was basically implemented so people could get the same aggression from can flipping (but with the "new at the time" aggro rules being in place), without actually having to go to the work to jetcan 1 unit of ammo or what have you. It was not intended as a "sub game", it was only intended to make consensual non corpie highsec pew pew easier. Or lowsec pew pew without sec loss.

Everything the OP said has valid merit but it does not apply to the current dual system. If both the game community and the devs feel that having a second "1v1 dual" option that would implement these proposed changes would be useful, then I would see no reason against it other then a normal dual being seen as a flag for something shifty. But the current system is working as intended.

If they are going to change anything about the current system, they should add the blocking options to dual invites that are already in place for "start conversation". Now that is something I would back whole heartedly and feel should be done.





Uma D
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#56 - 2014-03-01 10:43:03 UTC
Erotica 1 wrote:
This thread needs 100's of pages with people just saying that annoying word TEST guys used. What was it, hodar or something?


Hodor!!!!!

Also if you do not know what that is about you really should go and watch Game of Thrones :).

On the topic:

Fights in EvE are not fair and if you ever go into a fight expecting it to be fair, you simply made a big mistake and taking away any options to "outsmart" your enemy would go against the very nature of EvE.




March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2014-03-01 10:56:00 UTC
Kimmi Chan wrote:
Gori Thane wrote:
Trolling replies attacking me aside,


Why are people that disagree with another person "trolling"?

it isn't.

so why do you say that "trolling replies" == "disagree with another person"?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

DSpite Culhach
#58 - 2014-03-01 11:52:55 UTC
To the OP:

No mechanic in Hisec is there to create "new gameplay", they are simply there to stop "worse things happening".

There is no such thing as a "duel system", it's a "stopgap measure to stop outright noob farming". I post the odd whacky idea in FID as well, but when the sleep deprivation wears off, I remember that we are not really meant to take Hisec as a legitimate play zone, it's more akin to starter areas in other MMO's.

Sure we do lots of stuff there and CCP keeps "making it harder for pirates and gankers", but for the love of god we need (me included dammit) to try and not think up new stuff to make hisec "work better".

It will never work better. It's not SUPPOSED to work better, it's just supposed to allow a reasonably painless insertion of new players, and It's doing a reasonable job - not great - but reasonable, so I don't really have too many issues with it.

I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.

Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#59 - 2014-03-01 12:17:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Your Dad Naked wrote:
It would be nice to be able to acceot a 1v1 duel and know it will stay 1v1.
Have a fleet of ganknados standing by that will insta-fry anything that gains a suspect flag… Honesty through superior firepower — it's the EVE way. Twisted


Or, gasp, don't do it within undock range of a major trade hub.


Ah, but effort. You forgot about effort!

Remove standings and insurance.

Gori Thane
Last Rites.
#60 - 2014-03-01 22:55:18 UTC
Hey guys, I restarted this post in the proper channel of Features and Ideas. I also took out the section that was based on my misunderstanding and replaced it with a section that suggests replacing the suspect flag for RRing to a criminal flag.

For simplicity's sake, I ask that everyone use the new thread. =)

Thank you guys for your input!