Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
   New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Dueling
   FAQ FAQ   Forum Search    Register Register   Login Login

Dueling
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
   Topic Search Topic Search   Topic Options Topic Options
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2015 at 21:30
Let's keep this thread on topic, as I think the subject of duels has merit in the Illy sandbox. Presently the two most common means of dispute in Illyriad are to trash talk in GC, and to declare war. If someone doesn't like the results of the former, and is sufficiently determined, then it eventually results in the latter. A commonly accepted duel format would be a good intermediate step that reduces game tension and provides for less risky PvP engagements. Factors to consider:

Should the challenged party be allowed to appoint a champion?
Should the challenger be allowed to appoint a champion in response?
What are the standard formats for an engagement?
Should the combatants be obligated to disclose their forces?
What are the victory conditions?
Are draws possible?
Should a time limit be included?
What are the consequences of winning or losing?

I personally believe that the challenged party should be allowed to appoint a champion. This prevents very strong players from challenging very weak players. If a doomed player can't find a champion, that is a good indication that their argument has very little support within the community. I am lukewarm that the challenger could also appoint a champion if the challenged party does so. In that situation, it would be better to withdraw the challenge, or else have the new champion make their own challenge directly.

There are many possible formats. It's just unlikely that the combatants will be agreeable to hammering out the rules when they are in contention. Typical formats might include clearing a city, tournament style hold-the-square, blockade Olympics, wall destruction, or even the actual destruction of predetermined cities. Some thought should go into whether a standard Illyriad duel allows the format to be selected by the challenger or the challenged. I'd lean towards the challenged. Or perhaps the challenged should be able to select the format, and then the challenger can select the coordinates or city.

Some thought should be put into whether support units like diplomats are allowed, and whether magic is allowed.

I'm sure people might have good ideas about victory conditions and consequences.
Back to Top
ajqtrz View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 24 May 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 500 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ajqtrz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2015 at 21:55
Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

Let's keep this thread on topic, as I think the subject of duels has merit in the Illy sandbox. Presently the two most common means of dispute in Illyriad are to trash talk in GC, and to declare war. If someone doesn't like the results of the former, and is sufficiently determined, then it eventually results in the latter. A commonly accepted duel format would be a good intermediate step that reduces game tension and provides for less risky PvP engagements.


I agree that "the two most common means of dispute in Illyriad are to trash talk in GC and to declare war."  One does have to wonder if outside of insults and those sorts of things (the traditional reasons for dueling in most Western countries when dueling was more common) where one's "honor" has been accosted, if there is any other reason for issuing a challenge.

There is a difference between a battle of champions (each representing his or her side) and a duel.  A battle of champions has, in the distant past, been used to decide the outcome of a battle so that both sides do not waste all their resources and run amok...or at least that's why I think it may have been done. 

A duel is a more personal thing focused upon one's honor.  Unfortunately some players do not understand the traditional purpose of a duel is NOT to decide the outcome of a debate (who is right and who is wrong) but to re-establish the honor of one gentleman or another.  (In the Hamilton/Burr Duel of around 1800 Burr thought Hamilton had insulted him over the course of several months in speeches and demanded "satisfaction," which meant Hamilton could retract, modify or somehow re-state the various things he had said.  Hamilton refused.  He could have also refused to duel, but as a gentleman his honor was also at stake and refusing would have hurt his "sacred honor."  Thus, because Hamilton viewed his statements as merely political, and Burr saw them as personal, and each refused to acknowledge or back down, Hamilton ended up dead and Aaron Burr destroyed his reputation.  Just a summary of Chapter 1 of Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis.)

Thus, I agree that sides could pick champions and let their champions fight it out, but of course, they would have to negotiate the consequences to the losing side and what it meant to lose.

Good comments though and thoughtful as well, imo.

AJ

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.