The Caravanserai

Print Page | Close Window

Dueling

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: The Caravanserai
Forum Description: A place to just chat about whatever takes your fancy, whether it's about Illyriad or not.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=6479
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2022 at 22:14
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Dueling

Posted By: ajqtrz
Subject: Dueling
Date Posted: 26 Jun 2015 at 15:28

Over the course of my time in Illy I have been challenged to "duel" on at least a couple of occasions. These are my thought on dueling in general, and dueling in Illy in particular.

First, dueling is illegal in most civilized societies. Why is that? Because it tends to be used to satisfy the "honor" or a person who has been bested (fairly or not) in an argument. In other words, it's usually an escalation of a verbal altercation and therefore not thought of an an acceptable means of answering the question around which the debate was centered. Most civilized societies have a sharp distinction between verbal exchanges and physical violence.

Second, dueling has always been rare even when it was legal. This is because there developed a set of steps necessary for a gentleman to actually engage in the duel. The steps were, roughly, a follows.

1) Perceived offense to the honor of the gentleman.
2) Confrontation of the offender and announcement of the point of contention
3) Opportunity of the "offender" to give "satisfaction."
4) Issue of the formal challenge.
5) Selection of the "seconds" (the persons who from this point forward would be expected to assist in the negotiations and details of the duel, should it actually take place)
6) First Negotiations (to determine if the altercation can be resolved peacefully)
7) Formal acceptance of the duel
8) Selection of means of dueling (the weapons and the place).
9) Second Negotiations (to come to agreement re the weapons and the place and to try again for a peaceful resolution).
10) Formal agreement of the terms
11) Arrival at the dueling location
12) Inspection of the weapons by the seconds and/or (sometimes) a neutral party selected by the seconds.
13) Final request for satisfaction (Final attempt to negotiate a settlement)
14) Final denial
15) The duel

As you can see, it was a long and very formal procedure, which is why it almost never occurred. Some key points to consider though, are that there was every effort to avoid the actual duel, and that the challenger did not have the right to select the weapon or the place. The one challenged would select the weapons and location. The challenger could reject the weapons, but once the weapons were selected the challenger was expected upon his honor as a gentleman to accept the weapons and place if they were at all deemed reasonable.

Now for some thoughts on dueling in Illy. The steps here appear to be:

1) Decide you don't like what the other person is saying, whether it's dishonorable to you personally or not, and challenge them to a duel, usually in GC.
2) Keep needling until they respond.
3) Bluff if you don't really want to duel but are just doing it for the sake of appearances.
4) If you really want to duel and if they don't accept attack anyway.

It does seem to me that "dueling" in Illy is hardly honorable. But, perhaps, more to the point are these observations:

1) If you are challenged to a duel the challenger is hot blooded and/or has planned in advance to do so.
2) If he or she has planned to do so in advance then he or she is prepared while you are not.
3) If they are just hot headed and haven't prepared it's quite likely they have been in many more wars than you (lack of verbal discipline does have that advantage) and thus are much more experienced.
4) If they are a warrior, even if they didn't prepare, they usually have larger standing armies than non-warrior types, hence are better prepared.

So in the end, if one is challenged to a duel you are probably at a great disadvantage from the start. You haven't chosen or prepared to duel, You won't have time to prepare. The challenger is not only probably more prepared but, if he's also cunning, has support already lined up (if he's in a large alliance or at least one much larger than your own he most certainly will have more resources upon which to draw).

And then there are the practical matter of confirmation. Should you negotiate a set of limits about your duel you may find it difficult to say who thieved you, who sent saboteurs, or from where the support your opponent is receiving is coming, etc, etc. So even if you are an honorable duelist, in a protracted conflict if you get the upper hand it may be that your little war may not stay in the boundaries negotiated at the start. As I noted above, the person challenging you has little compunction to avoid escalating things. You know he or she did so since they chose to escalate a verbal exchange into a duel. From being beaten verbally, they go to a duel. From a duel, should they also lose the military exchange, to a war.

Now you know why I refuse to duel in Illy and probably always will.

AJ

Replies:

Posted By: Agalloch
Date Posted: 26 Jun 2015 at 15:59

Even tho I almost nodded off reading your looooong post :) :o :P

Its very valid and to the point!

Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2015 at 04:48

i know of no illyriad tradition of dueling nor of any reason why ajqtrz ought to accept one, but some of his points about historical dueling beg dispute or correction.

ajqtrz wrote:

First, dueling is illegal in most civilized societies. Why is that? ...it's usually an escalation of a verbal altercation and therefore not thought of an an acceptable means of answering the question around which the debate was centered. Most civilized societies have a sharp distinction between verbal exchanges and physical violence.

this reason for the decline of dueling is far from established. duel would have been an extension of the idea of trial by combat, which has the virtue of producing a clear winner every time even if the "right" of the situation is somewhat murky. (also, it has the virtue of settling an argument between irreconcilable nobles without requiring a liege to show partiality.) i suspect the decline of duels tracks closely with the development of effective and available civil courts and a legal structure to punish crimes against honour (libel, etc.). there are, of course, no such courts available in illyriad and so, in the absence of a dueling culture, illy is stuck in a cycle of personal insult fueling group resentment and ultimately alliance war. far from being more advanced, the illy system seems to me less advanced than dueling, which at least decides a winner by involving only the aggrieved.

ajqtrz wrote:

Second, dueling has always been rare even when it was legal.

this is a bit vague and entirely unsupported. in what sense was it "rare"? per capita? common enough for hundreds to die in a single country each year, it seems.

According to Ariel Roth, during the reign of Henry IV, over 4,000 French aristocrats were killed in duels "in an eighteen-year period" whilst a twenty-year period of Louis XIII's reign saw some eight thousand pardons for "murders associated with duels". Roth also notes that thousands of men in the Southern United States "died protecting what they believed to be their honour."

the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel" rel="nofollow - wikipedia entry is highly available; others who crave more authoritative sources can search them out and post as it suits them.

Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2015 at 05:25

ajqtrz wrote:

So in the end, if one is challenged to a duel you are probably at a great disadvantage from the start. You haven't chosen or prepared to duel, You won't have time to prepare. The challenger is not only probably more prepared but, if he's also cunning, has support already lined up (if he's in a large alliance or at least one much larger than your own he most certainly will have more resources upon which to draw).

Precisely why many "trial by combat" systems allowed the challenged to appoint a champion. Presumably if the challenge were terribly unjust (or the challenger sufficiently hated), a suitable champion would volunteer their sword.

I agree with Angrim, a duel culture with commonly accepted rules would be more sophisticated than Illyriad's current state. Such a system might not even make sense in Illyriad, given the comparative ease of defense vs offense in this game, assuming a competent military player. Carrying a siege to completion is far more challenging than destroying one, given approximately equal budgets (and admittedly assuming no major city construction mistakes).

Posted By: Thexion
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2015 at 19:24

I been thinking Idea of something that could be fair duel setting in Illyriad:

The 5 square Duel

After the challenge, and the stakes are accepted.

Duelists, adjutants or mediators (such as alliance leaders for example) agree on neutral party who will make sure terms are followed and inspects the evidence of rule breaking and declare victor and looser.

Each duelist chooses One of their city
Duelists or adjutants agree on starting time.

If these cannot be agreed Duel can be still canceled honorably.

Duelist can use maximum of 4 commanders, armies and divisions the composition can be selected freely.
Duelist can use only elite sized divisions with commander.

Five duel squares 1 mountain, 1 hill, 1 forest, 1 plains and one random square that has shortest possible distance from both Dueling cities. Other duel squares also must have equal distance from both dueling cities preferably short as possible.

Who holds most squares after 2x catapult (Back and forth) moving time to the farthest duel square is victor.

Duel begins when duelist has sent a catapult with orders of feint to farthest battle square after the agreed time has passed. Duel ends when First catapult returns to its duel city.

No other attacks, magic or diplomatic actions.
No other player involvement.

In case of infringement of rules:
Clearly rule breaking Duelist is considered to be yielded and lost according the terms.
Refusing to follow terms after loosing or during the duel. Duelist should be declared honourless in Forum and should face punishment such as loosing the dueling city for example.

Any Outside influence to dueling cities or armies in beginning of Duel (including anything from random animal encounter to attack by other player):Duel should be considered unsettled and Duel repeated if both parties still willing.

If there is Outside influence when one or two duelist has already lost armies in duel battles, it must be repeated with handicap of lost armies included, no acceptable canceling anymore except for yielding.

There is some benefits to this setting:

It give chance to have duel between 2 different sized players because of using only elite sized units.

Involves tactic and strategy not only brute strength but still gives a edge to prepared player.

Painless:
No remarkable strain on the players militaries if you would happen to be waiting for tournament or war.
Relatively short and has clear ending time.

Problems:
Outside involvement.
Requires agreements on practical matters.
Might not be considered fun by martial types with big armies.
Its Bit Complicated (a duel tool would be great)
Im not sure about the timing it could be just agreed time also since you have to use one commander with the catapult and the time can vary since commander and horses have speed bonuses.

Opinions, suggestions welcome :) You may try this out just for friendly fun or training with less rules.

Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2015 at 19:38

This proposal would strongly favor dwarf accounts, players with very high level commanders, and players familiar with elite divisions and crafted gear.

Posted By: Thexion
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2015 at 19:48

True perhaps time and army limitation is useless. Then you could resurrect low level commanders and army speed is a more important factor.

Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2015 at 14:30

That there were a lot of people who participated in duels and many who died in "trial by combat" is certainly true, but the number of actual duels was a very small percent of the actual challenges issued. My choice of the term "rare" was an overstatement perhaps, but the fact is, duels were the last resort to resolve a gentleman's disagreement. "Discipline and Punish" by Foucault is a good source and the source of my comments. His analysis examines French judicial systems and the shift from public displays of trial and punishment to the movement of such spectacles into the private realm (meaning the public could not observe). In this Angrim may be right as the sophistication of legal systems does increase during the same period.

But that is a side issue, I think. My points were that dueling in Illy is nothing like dueling in any part of the world because a wise duelist in Illy would be well prepared to duel before issuing the challenge. And the unprepared ought not to engage in that for which they are not prepared.

Finally, perhaps we should have a judicial system in Illy to negotiate disputes. I tried once to do that and came to a conclusion with which both parties seemed to agree...but alas, one party was then hounded out of the game anyway. Ultimately a judicial system is only as good people are willing to submit to it.

AJ

Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2015 at 19:51

ajqtrz wrote:

My points were that dueling in Illy is nothing like dueling in any part of the world because a wise duelist in Illy would be well prepared to duel before issuing the challenge. And the unprepared ought not to engage in that for which they are not prepared.

this is not less true of rl dueling than it would be of illy dueling. fortune favours the prepared. i took from the OP that you disliked the fact that trial by combat advantages the combative, but the idea behind trial by combat is that the righteous side of an argument is not apparent, perhaps not knowable, and that the two sides cannot abide one another. a judicial system similarly favours, depending on its form, the well-connected, the wealthy, or those gifted in oratory--skills the rising middle class of the period were more likely to possess. although western society clings to the idea that a trail by jury renders a more correct verdict than trial by combat, all we can know is that trial by jury renders a verdict generally more palatable to those who will survive the judgement (i.e., the jurors themselves, and by extension, the public).

ajqtrz wrote:

Ultimately a judicial system is only as good people are willing to submit to it.

a judicial system is only as good as the the force of coercion that enforces its rulings. what i hear from most players is that they would prefer not to play the game in an environment where a single entity holds power enough to "govern" illy. what i think you are describing here i would term "mediation".

Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 05 Jul 2015 at 00:59

Angrim,

Had the pragmatic reasons for avoiding dueling listed in my original post been all I said, you could indeed, conclude my avoidance of a duel was based entirely upon my not being prepared for such an encounter. However, I do have a couple of observations re your response.

When you make the claim that, "but the idea behind trial by combat is that the righteous side of an argument is not apparent, perhaps not knowable, and that the two sides cannot abide one another" you are perhaps correct. However, quite often the problem has little to do with the logic of one side or another but a lot to do with ego. It is very difficult for a person, once they have taken a public stance, and once they have become, or feel they are, a "guardian" of the stance they take...representing many and gaining some social benefits from their skills....to admit that their logic is flawed. This happens a lot more often than you think but it is just human nature.

One thing that prompts admiration in many is exactly the certainty with which the person handles the arguments against their own position. This is especially true if they address those arguments in a non-threatening manner. The fastest way to see who has the weakest arguments (tho not necessarily the weakest position, I my add) is to see who attacks the motives of the opposition or tries to change the question from "What is the most reasonable answer" to "who has the biggest armies." Thus, it should surprise no one that we are in the state we are in with challenges being issued and wars declared.

I sometimes agree with you re the state of the legal system in the West. We have, in some ways, merely exchanged the swords for legal briefs and gladiators in three piece suits charging hundreds of dollars an hour to make a group of people -- usually selected for their lack of knowledge in a particular area -- believe one narrative over another. On the other hand, at least in most cases, nobody is carried out of the courtroom run through with a sword. Progress...probably. Ideal -- certainly not.

In any case, it's the change of the question that I object to with dueling. If the question is "what is a reasonable thing to think" and you want to decide it by the strength of armies then you haven't answered the question at all. And thus, it will be asked again someday.

You are certainly correct that, ultimately, force is implied in a court system. However, if the system is seen by a large majority as the best that can be hoped for and at least at some level just, they are more willing to submit to it's rulings. A corrupt court is an abomination and destructive of the society is should be serving. But sometimes it isn't force which causes a person to submit, sometimes it's respect and sometimes it's honesty. When the court is neither respected or honest, then force is the only option they possess.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

AJ

Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 05 Jul 2015 at 06:10

ajqtrz wrote:

However, quite often the problem has little to do with the logic of one side or another but a lot to do with ego. It is very difficult for a person, once they have taken a public stance, and once they have become, or feel they are, a "guardian" of the stance they take...representing many and gaining some social benefits from their skills....to admit that their logic is flawed. This happens a lot more often than you think but it is just human nature.

a curious way to say that. how often do i think it happens? but this seems a bit patronising. both sides are likely to be driven by ego, and there is likely to be some truth in both arguments. the one you think is driven by ego is likely to be the one you oppose, just as you feel logic to be on your side. this, too, is human nature.

ajqtrz wrote:

One thing that prompts admiration in many is exactly the certainty with which the person handles the arguments against their own position. This is especially true if they address those arguments in a non-threatening manner. The fastest way to see who has the weakest arguments (tho not necessarily the weakest position, I my add) is to see who attacks the motives of the opposition or tries to change the question from "What is the most reasonable answer" to "who has the biggest armies." Thus, it should surprise no one that we are in the state we are in with challenges being issued and wars declared.

perhaps. i'll not do Pico and Stomp the disservice of saying that they attack because their argument is weak; they have barely been represented on the forum to know. sometimes, if one is convinced that conflict is inevitable, war represents foresight rather than weakness. why delay the inevitable? although i enjoy the discussion, i've rarely seen anything in illy decided in the forum. most disputes are settled in igm or other chat, and the really contentious ones are settled on the map--no matter how much discussion precedes them.

ajqtrz wrote:

If the question is "what is a reasonable thing to think" and you want to decide it by the strength of armies then you haven't answered the question at all. And thus, it will be asked again someday.

i agree that a war will not prove land claims right or wrong, but it may prove them sustainable or unsustainable. i feel certain that all parties to the war understand the limitations of a military victory...and also the limitations of a forum discussion.

ajqtrz wrote:

But sometimes it isn't force which causes a person to submit, sometimes it's respect and sometimes it's honesty.

where respect an honesty can resolve an illy argument, there is no war...and thus no need for a court.

Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2015 at 23:21

That "truly contentious ones are settled on the map", as you say, Angrim, is often because once you have begun to flesh out the various opinions on a subject you begin to get to the underlying principles or attitudes toward the subject. In land claims those principles are best expressed as "It's just a game" or "It's about how players ought to treat each other as human beings." If the former is true then of course land claims opposition is just another excuse for war and pretty meaningless since nobody should care if avatars go to battle and get mad and express themselves for good or ill. If it's the latter though, then the whole matrix of play becomes a social interaction and how we treat others is a moral question. "It's just a game" lets us off the hook and allows us to treat all others as pixels on the page. "I'm sitting here playing a real person a game" means I have, if I'm a moral person, to consider how my actions effect and affect the person, and therefore, sometimes modify especially the "meta-game" aspects of my behavior so as to be a good sport.

So the real problem is that just as we got to the question of "If the avatars of this game represent real people, how should those real people be treated" the moderator decided that we had strayed from the question and closed the thread. It's kind of a shame that he either couldn't see the relevance or didn't like the intensity of the debate (or perhaps some other reason of which I am not privy) and closed the discussion, because I've always found that often when we begin to examine the assumptions upon which we are arguing we find more common ground and resolve conflict....without armies at that.

AJ

Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2015 at 20:22

Just a note on dueling: A Pulitzer Prize winning book, "Founding Brothers" by Joseph J. Ellis (Vintage Books, 2000) has a great chapter (The Duel, Chapter 2) on the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. It's quite illuminating as it outlines what happened, what caused the controversy, and the lengths both sides went to avoid the actual duel.

AJ

Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2015 at 21:46

most players find what is considered dueling in this game boring....maybe if the devs would add functions or features to enhance it but as of now military is more fun playing it as a team...you should play the ranking game a j...it is more your playing style and we need more nerds...I mean players competing in it

Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2015 at 22:29

"If the avatars of this game represent real people, how should those real people be treated?" is a red herring. In Illyriad, if you play it, you must separate the avatar from the person. Not doing so removes the game from the game.

I doubt there are very many folks who would, in real life use the sort of cutthroat tactics needed to thrive in Monopoly against their friends or family. Even if playing Monopoly with absolute strangers, in our daily, common interactions, it is likely we would not treat those strangers as we would treat their game pieces. Separating real people from their game pieces is an absolute necessity to play Monopoly in a competitive way. If we followed ajqtrz's suggestion while playing Monopoly, we would go around the board ad infinitum.

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo

Posted By: Raco
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2015 at 22:31

Or we don't capture any piece on chess.

Posted By: Hyrdmoth
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2015 at 22:50

Monopoly is a bad example, because it's such an awful game that inevitably ends in frustration, and the opportunity for sneaky play is limited. Carcassonne is a much better example, because there it is possible to prosper by means of sneaky play that steals points from your opponent.

Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2015 at 20:36

abstractdream wrote:

"If the avatars of this game represent real people, how should those real people be treated?" is a red herring. In Illyriad, if you play it, you must separate the avatar from the person. Not doing so removes the game from the game.

Why must you "separate the avatar from the person?" Does the avatar have feelings, reactions, spend money, spend time and energy? In the end it's a person playing and the avatar is nothing more than a bunch of pixels used to enact the persons decisions. The game is a real thing...within real life. It is a social activity. It is this 'separating" of what you do in the game from real life that makes it easy for you to do something in the game you would not do in real life. You wouldn't make up new rules and use intimidation by threats of coercion to get others to agree to them. There is no mechanism in the game for intimidation by threats of coercion, as that is generally a verbal thing you bring to the meta game...as often published in your alliance profile. But that you can do one thing does not mean you should be allowed to do it.

I don't play the car in Monopoly. The wheelbarrow doesn't make decisions. I play the person across the board from me and if they decide to make up a new rule to benefit themselves Monopoly has no real way to deal with that. The only ways they can make a new rule is to either get me to agree to the new rule that benefits them to my detriment, or to intimidate by threats of coercion. The intimidation by threats of coercion is part of the meta game one supposes, but what would be the limits of such a meta game? I mean if I use intimidation to get you to go along with the new rule, how far should I be allowed to take that intimidation?

In a game like Illy such behaviors are much easier because you have an easy way to enact the coercion. But should that be allowed? Since I'm not playing the avatars but the people behind the avatars SHOULD I be allowed to use the in game methods to bully the other players into accepting my new rule?

On a different note, some people seem to think my illustrations are miss-leading or "lies." I think it's a dangerous fantasy to remove the real person from your view of the game. Such tactics have, in other venues, resulted in behaviors that have led to real deaths.

And finally, it appears to me that if you can pretend that you are just playing monopoly pieces and that the people who are using those pieces to represent their place on the board aren't real, you are living in more of a fantasy world that even Illy can hope to present. Once you figure out that you have social relationships and responsibilities toward the other players in the sandbox, you take a giant step in the direction of being a responsible and mature player. Until then you probably can't tell the difference between competitive play and bullying. More the pity. My question is, by the way, based upon the understanding that real people play Illy, and avatars are just markers in the game representing real players. So I ask it again: "If real people are playing Illyriad, how SHOULD they be treated?"

AJ

Posted By: Raco
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2015 at 20:43

ajqtrz wrote:

So I ask it again: "If real people are playing Illyriad, how SHOULD they be treated?"

And I will answer again: Like players.

Posted By: Kavenmetack
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2015 at 02:25

ajqtrz wrote:

So I ask it again: "If real people are playing Illyriad, how SHOULD they be treated?"

Why do you keep asking this question? It has been answer so many times

abstractdream wrote:

ajqtrz wrote:

"If the avatars of this game represent real people, how should those real people be treated?"

is a red herring. In Illyriad, if you play it, you must separate the avatar from the person. Not doing so removes the game from the game.

http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/dueling_topic6479_post88274.html#88274" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/dueling_topic6479_post88274.html#88274

ajqtrz wrote:

If the players of Illy are real people how OUGHT they be treated?

Originally posted by </span><font face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif><span style=font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; : rgb251, 244, 225;><b>Angrim</b></span></font><span style=line-height: 16.7999992370605px;>

Angrim wrote:

no one has answered because the question is meaninglessly broad and without context. how ought one treat areal person at all? now we have the entirety of religion and philosophy to discuss, as humanity has been trying to answer that question for more or less its entire existence. what i suspect you want is the tautological "like realpeople". but that answer doesn't actually help anything, because ILLYRIAD IS A GAME. the players of poker arereal people, which doesn't stop one from taking the other players' money when one wins. are the other players upset by the loss? perhaps. is winning poker, then, tantamount to robbery? to assault? is it indistinguishable from a fistfight over the result because the loss of all that money causes the players (emotional) pain? law certainly doesn't equate the two. if the game is played online where a fistfight is no longer convenient, does that change the morality of winning? i think not.

some players spend real money and all spend real time in illyriad building their digital empires. when they suffer reverses, things don't go as planned, they encounter resistance, some of those assets will be lost. this is all the "fault" of other players; there is no other agency. but that is the nature of the sandbox. it is a risk, a gamble...and as in other gambling games, do not bet what you cannot bear to lose. a gambler who cannot obey that maxim is not being victimised by anyone but him/herself.

so my answer is this: If the players of Illy are real people, they ought to be allowed to play a game as a game, within the rules and otherwise according to their own consciences, without being shamed because another player is not mature enough to manage his/her own wager.

your misaligned metaphors are all in the service, not of a better discussion, but of channeling readers toward the answer you have ordained for them. shame on you for using only the trappings of logic rather than the substance of it.

http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/meta-discussion_topic6407_post88309.html#88309" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/meta-discussion_topic6407_post88309.html#88309

Raco wrote:

ajqtrz wrote:

I repeat it here: If the players of Illy are real people, how should they be treated?

Like players.

http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/why-isnt-there-talk-of-the-war-here_topic6454_post87714.html#87714" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/why-isnt-there-talk-of-the-war-here_topic6454_post87741.html#87741

Originally posted by </span><span style=font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 21px; : rgb251, 244, 225;>phoenixfire</span><span style=line-height: 16.7999992370605px;>

phoenixfire wrote:

if they are real people they should be treated with respect IF they deserve it. However I'm not going to bend over backwards to make someone else in game happy. It's a game, I'm going to play the way I want to play and if someone stronger than myself decides I can't play that way then so be it.

The players may be real but the world is not. Saying I have to be all chipper and super nice to someone in illy is like saying I can't shoot someone in Call of Duty mulitplayer. Most people can distinguish between being disliked in a fake world and the real world. Why can't you?

http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/are-land-claims-bad-for-illy_topic6362_post87706.html#87706" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/are-land-claims-bad-for-illy_topic6362_post87706.html#87706

Posted By: Brandmeister
Date 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.

Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2015 at 21:55

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