Dueling Option: Challenge or Ambush

[DeletedUser]

You can't be dueled if You don't belong to a town .
You can't initiate a duel unless Your town has a mortician .
Neither of these things would change if this proposal was incorporated .

 

[DeletedUser]

That's just the point. Vultures are already ambushing without honor and glory. Want your honor back? Look me in the eye before you pull your sixgun (or slingshot). Want to play the honor-deficient bandito? Be willing to face to consequences of the lifestyle. Seems like I've heard of a hanging or two in the Old West.

vultures don't ambush, they are scavengers, they eat dead things

your words are surrounded in orangey goodness

 

[DeletedUser]

Vulture as a derogatory term not literal .
When a woman is referred to as a "female dog in heat" You don't
think the speaker truly believes Her to be a canine do You ?

 

[DeletedUser]

yes that may be so, but you dont refer to people who go out and maim or kill people as vultures
that just makes no sense
and ***** has gained numerous meanings over the centuries and has always been used as a derogatory term
and i still don't see the benefit of an ambush does it heighten the chances of winning?

 

[DeletedUser]

Honor of Duelling?

A little background on duelling, to distinguish what happens here from the practice in the antebellum South and other areas. The code duello set very specific rules for conduct of a gunfight. The aggrieved party went and often challenged his adversary either by strikimg him with a glove, or throwing the glove on the ground in front of him. "Throwing down the gauntlet." The challenged party had the option to accept or decline. If the duel went off, both parties would have their seconds inspect the weapons. Once all was accepted, the parties were positioned back to back and the person officiating would count off ten steps, at which point the adversaries would turn and fire. One shot, that was all. Because the weapons employed were .69 caliber smoothbore single shot pistols. Also, the challenged party would have the option to apologize to his challenger for whatever wrong he committed to cause the duel to begin with. Also, if one party fired and the other did not, the party not having fired had the option to decline to fire his weapon.
Now look at what we have here. No option not to accept, usually a vast disparity in weapons, and what seem to be entirely random results. If you get jumped, but your town doesnt have a mortician, you dont even get the option to go get your money back. This practice, although colorful and in some respects reflecting of the flavor of the old west should be called something other than duelling, because as above the two practices bear scant if any resemblance to each other

 

[DeletedUser]

Well put Prudhomme . While there are some parties that will argue incessantly that "dueling" as it is in the game is just fine , and should not change in any way . I see it , in it's current form as a major game flaw . Settlers in the West had to worry about a lot of things , drought , Indian renegades , bandits and drunken cowboys thinking that shooting some one was acceptable . What they did not have to be concerned about being mugged every time they stepped out of their homes . Dress it how ever You like , but that is what "dueling" is in the game as it stands now . Mugging and robbery .

 

[DeletedUser1105]

Nothing in this game is how it was in the old west.

Because it's a game.

It's BASED on the old west, but it does not claim to be a faithful reinactment. If it was, it would be a very boring game with not much going on. The old west was not like the movies.

If you want realism, this is not the place to be.

 

[DeletedUser]

Apparently ther murder rate in many major us cities is actually higher than in the notorious old-west towns. The last thing we need is true realism. What we need is a realistic flavour of our romantic perception of the old west.
Prudhomme- thanks for the info it's interesting. I don't have an 'in principle' objection to this suggestion as long as;
1. it actually results in an increase in duelling/ambush
2. it increases the amount of money changing hands in combat.

At the moment nothing in proposal has anything but the opposite effect.....but i'm open to persuasion.
I win about 3 duels a day and make an average of less than $20 a duel. Does anyone seriously think that is too much? Do you realise that when you choose dueller class you do not get ANY advantage in duelling? whereas soldiers do?

 

[DeletedUser1105]

Ulthor is right. There are lots of ways to ensure that even if you are duelled, you won't lose a lot of money. Just don't keep the cash on you and it cannot be stolen.

I am not a dueller, but I do get duelled occasionally. I don't lose much money (never lost more that $30), but if I was given a chance to turn down a duel, I would do so, so it would result in much less duelling.

 

[DeletedUser]

what would happen if i go offline when i should choose between continuing gunfight and going to jail?

It sounds a good idea but I like the current dueling system.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think the point to discuss is whether or not having two options for pvp would work. An idea was proposed as to if it could work if you could have both consensual and non-consensual pvp as dual options.

IMO this would improve pvp a lot, just how it could be implemented without screwing up the game is what to discuss, not how messed up duelling is atm or whether or not it should be named so, thats for another thread.

For having consensual challenges, how about if someone doesn't accept/deny within 60 mins or something then the duel begins. If you aren't offline you should be sleeping, so unduellable anyway, if you've just woken up from sleep you will have full health or almost that anyway. If you don't like it you should stick to Greenhorn or not join a town. If you cue jobs and sleep, in a large chunk and go afk for the period, being duelled while offline is a risk you have to take. I'm sure if your character is capable of defending a fort while you're offline, hes capable of duelling another player.

I still like the basic idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

if it isnt broken don't fix it is the phrase that comes to mind on dueling . i think the way it works now is fine

 

[DeletedUser]

60 minutes isn't enough for 'consensual' because there is approximately a 5% chance that the person challenged will be online during that time. We therefore have the problem of queueing. you would have to make a specific exception for queueing these kind of challenges. In an ideal world it is quite a good idea but given the amount of rejigging of the game entailed and the risk that it may imbalance the game in some unforeseen way then I'd say that if we want the developers to implement something I'd rather have some of the other ideas currently being debated.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why not set up parameters that each player can tweak to automatically accept or deny any challenges that come their way. For instance, you will accept any challenge from a player within 3 levels of you, or within a percentage based on your dueling experience. Maybe this would only work for the first 3x you are challenged or something similar and then you would have to accept any challenge after that until you get back online again. Would have to put some thought into that I guess.

I do like this idea but it would take some ironing out to make it workable with the game.

 

[DeletedUser]

The problem from the dueller perspective is that it is not as though there are too many options to duel. if we take a town of 20 people, then five might be too low to duel and five too high. of the others, some will be in the hotel and others will be unavailable due to having been killed. So restricting it further will box it in too much.

 

[DeletedUser]

if it isnt broken don't fix it is the phrase that comes to mind on dueling . i think the way it works now is fine

Thats how how i see it.... :nowink:as if the duleing class isn't hard enough to play.
non-duelers may think it's easy beacuse they keep getting whooped. but I challenge those same players to take up duelist on w4 and see how 'easy' it is then...

 

[DeletedUser4547]

Don't understand this;
When is 'high noon'? If you are saying that both players need to be online at the same time, then that is impractical.
if you choose to 'ambush' [which is the current default, i guess] why would that put you at a disadvantage?

If this is yet another attempt to make duelling even less possible then don't bother responding cos i ain't interested.

To answer the question, There were very few clocks in the west, time was told by the sun. "high noon" was when the sun was at its highest point. This was so neither combatant was at a disadvantage because of the sun shining in one's eyes.

 

[DeletedUser]

What i really wanted to know was; when the challenged has accepted the challenge, do they then have to wait for the challenger to be online again? So is high noon;
a. when the challenged accepts the challenge
b. when both players are online again.
c actually at noon gmt+1 perhaps
d. some other time

My underlying objection was that it makes the whole business of duelling too difficult and frustrating and that you hadn't really explained how your idea would work in practice. There's the whole queueing business to sort out too.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thanks Ulthor

You raise numerous good points.

My original idea was that once the target ACCEPTS the duel, the game logic runs automatically and both players get their combat report.

I did not think about distance and location (off the top of my head I'd say challenges might need a range, and only charge fatigue if the vic accepts).

I didn't think about the queuing problem because as a role-player I hadn't imaginged myself whilly nilly challenging seven people a day... I did not realize how many players find satisfaction in the notches on the barrel of their six-shooter (in the old West most folk fought for a REASON not an XP)

In my mind, RANK is just another word for stink.

The balance I was seeking was between the builder/role-palyer and the shoot-everything that moves attacker.

I like duels. I like robbers (as part of the Wild West setting) I was just looking for other options than "hiring your own gunslinger to get revenge" Many villians were brought to justice by posse etc.

Jail time was also a big part of the West.

As a good guy role-player, and as a man, if you attack my friend, I'm gonna get involved. Unless my friend waves me off and says, "I got this."

 

[DeletedUser1105]

I think this would cause more problems than it would solve.