ANNIHILATE THE HEATHENS! For the Republic! - Page 5

Googi · #61 02-13-2006, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damix2

Googi, you just proved my point by showing that 2k1 and 2k2 had/have different standards. Your "attack" on our castle could have been called a war on 2k1, but not on 2k2.

Except that there isn't a 2K1 version of a battle and a 2K2 version of a battle, there's a definition of a battle that exists independantly of Graal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

bat·tle Audio pronunciation of "battle" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (btl)
n.

1.
1. An encounter between opposing forces: an important battle in the Pacific campaign.
2. Armed fighting; combat: wounded in battle.
2. A match between two combatants: trial by battle.
3.
1. A protracted controversy or struggle: won the battle of the budget.
2. An intense competition: a battle of wits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oasa

We can just say its a tie.

No, though it is likely to turn out that way. Like I said victory isn't based on some kind of scoring system of kills/deaths or battle victories/defeats, but on accomplishing objectives. Victory for Samurai would be accomplishing their stated objective of the removal of you, Mech and EndlessX (was it?). Victory for Zormite would be accomplishing our stated objective of getting Samurai to back down on this demand. Neither of these outcomes is likely.

Matthew White · #62 02-14-2006, 12:32 AM

Googi has summed this up wonderfully.

Damix2 · #63 02-14-2006, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Googi

Except that there isn't a 2K1 version of a battle and a 2K2 version of a battle, there's a definition of a battle that exists independantly of Graal.

No, though it is likely to turn out that way. Like I said victory isn't based on some kind of scoring system of kills/deaths or battle victories/defeats, but on accomplishing objectives. Victory for Samurai would be accomplishing their stated objective of the removal of you, Mech and EndlessX (was it?). Victory for Zormite would be accomplishing our stated objective of getting Samurai to back down on this demand. Neither of these outcomes is likely.

Graal isn't about text book definitions. There is a difference between a battle on 2k1 and 2k2 because in pretty much every way, they are different games.

The war will in all likelyhood be a tie, but we are taking about the battle. The one where you attacked us and we forced you to retreat. That is a victory for Samurai, not Zormite.

Valder · #64 02-14-2006, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Googi

Victory for Samurai would be accomplishing their stated objective of the removal of you, Mech and EndlessX (was it?). .

The only way to "remove" anyone in this game is to either have them quit or them banned for some reason. Roleplaying on 2k2 is pretty much useless because there's no way to enforce what happens to people. The fact that most roleplaying events on 2k2 are so unorganized and pretty much pointless makes what happened yesterday just a random PKing by 2 "guilds".

CidNight1142 · #65 02-14-2006, 01:59 AM

If it is considered a "tie" then samurai actually wins. In a defensive war, "tying" means you win. I don't know, thats just how it is in the real world, a stalemate is generally a victory for those being occupied.

Googi · #66 02-14-2006, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damix2

Graal isn't about text book definitions. There is a difference between a battle on 2k1 and 2k2 because in pretty much every way, they are different games.

Then explain why there's a difference between a battle on 2K1 and one on 2K2 and how this difference is based on actual inherent differences in the two servers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damix2

The war will in all likelyhood be a tie, but we are taking about the battle. The one where you attacked us and we forced you to retreat. That is a victory for Samurai, not Zormite.

In the first battle, yeah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valder

The only way to "remove" anyone in this game is to either have them quit or them banned for some reason. Roleplaying on 2k2 is pretty much useless because there's no way to enforce what happens to people. The fact that most roleplaying events on 2k2 are so unorganized and pretty much pointless makes what happened yesterday just a random PKing by 2 "guilds".

Removed from their high ranks (or possibly the entire kingdom), not removed from the game itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CidNight1142

If it is considered a "tie" then samurai actually wins. In a defensive war, "tying" means you win. I don't know, thats just how it is in the real world, a stalemate is generally a victory for those being occupied.

It's not a defensive war. Samurai made demands of Zormite.

Damix2 · #67 02-14-2006, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Googi

Then explain why there's a difference between a battle on 2K1 and one on 2K2 and how this difference is based on actual inherent differences in the two servers.

In the first battle, yeah.

Removed from their high ranks (or possibly the entire kingdom), not removed from the game itself.

It's not a defensive war. Samurai made demands of Zormite.

You screwed up your quotes. I didn't say the last thing.

I'm saying that *if* a random kingdom attacks another kingdom without any knowledge by one ruler then it is not a battle. If this was considered a battle on 2k1, then 2k2 and 2k1 battles are different.

According to that, Samurai just one a battle against every other kingdom because we PKed their players and stormed their castle.

If a war is to be properly roleplayed then all battles will be known about in advance and both leaders will agree on it.

Shotoo2 · #68 02-14-2006, 03:18 AM

As an uninvolved observer of the battle, I would have to say Samurai won the battle.
During the actual battle, most of the fighting never even made it off of the western beaches.
It sounds like Zormite's trying to compensate for their loss by bringing technicalities into the picture.
The "battle at the castle" was basically when most of the Samurai had left/logged off when Matthew White retreated and three remaining Zormites stood around yelling at James.

Googi · #69 02-14-2006, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damix2

I'm saying that *if* a random kingdom attacks another kingdom without any knowledge by one ruler then it is not a battle.

Why not? What is the basis for this kind of definition of "battle".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damix2

According to that, Samurai just one a battle against every other kingdom because we PKed their players and stormed their castle.

And?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damix2

If a war is to be properly roleplayed then all battles will be known about in advance and both leaders will agree on it.

What kind of RP principle are you deriving this rule from?

Damix2 · #70 02-14-2006, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Googi

Why not? What is the basis for this kind of definition of "battle".

And?

What kind of RP principle are you deriving this rule from?

The widely accepted definition of battle. This is a game not real life, people need to know when things happen so they are on for it to happen.

So according to your definition we had 47 battle today and we went 47-0. I believe that would make me the supreme ruler of Kingdoms.

Again, the accepted one. Its just how things work.

Googi · #71 02-14-2006, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damix2

The widely accepted definition of battle. This is a game not real life, people need to know when things happen so they are on for it to happen.

The true definition and the definition that's convenient to you are two different things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damix2

So according to your definition we had 47 battle today and we went 47-0.

If you're telling the truth, then this would be correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damix2

I believe that would make me the supreme ruler of Kingdoms.

No, because as I said before battle victory and casualty statistics don't actually mean anything in and of themselves aside from maybe feeding your ego.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damix2

Again, the accepted one. Its just how things work.

Then when did the "accepted" definition change from the one used on 2K1. If what you say is true (that the definition difference is based on differences between the two servers) it must have changed when 2K2 was released. What is it about the release of 2K2 that caused this change?

Damix2 · #72 02-14-2006, 05:32 AM

Your guess is as good as mine. EVERY battle I have been in (note: I'm one of eldest GK players (and 2k1 players for that matter)) has been known by both leaders. Its just widly accepted as proper roleplaying. Who are you to change it?

GryffonDurime · #73 02-14-2006, 05:44 AM

Why can't we stop this unsavory fight, and just agree that in the absence of a semi-nuetral third party acting with appropriate knowledge and power of Roleplaying and its graalian precepts, war quickly degrades into a Player-killing uberspar thinnly veiled attempts to lolrp?

Damix2 · #74 02-14-2006, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GryffonDurime

Why can't we stop this unsavory fight, and just agree that in the absence of a semi-nuetral third party acting with appropriate knowledge and power of Roleplaying and its graalian precepts, war quickly degrades into a Player-killing uberspar thinnly veiled attempts to lolrp?

I've agreed to that many times, if they would like to admit to that, then Samurai was still victorious.

Zero Hour · #75 02-14-2006, 05:47 AM

Personally, since the other party wasn't aware of this in a RP sense, I would think that this battle should go unmentioned as far as RP goes.