Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Attack on a training alliance army
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Attack on a training alliance army

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Millia36 View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Millia36 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Attack on a training alliance army
    Posted: 07 Mar 2016 at 11:16
During the early morning hours one of our VICXM newbies had a siege army destroyed by a player named Adrian Shepard. He was contacted immediately after it was reported, but he has not replied despite reading the message within half an hour of sending it. As a training alliance our members are supposed to be protected against any hostilities, yet one of our members was attacked. We will not tolerate any acts of aggression against our members, especially our newbies, whether it's attacks on their siege armies/blockades/occupying forces/towns or thieving. We intend to defend our members and we are not going to let this unprovoked attack go unpunished. This action may or may not be linked to an earlier minor action and we are looking into this as well. 
Back to Top
Jane DarkMagic View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jane DarkMagic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2016 at 20:25
Anyone can attack anyone else in Illy for any reason at any time.  If you want them to stop, I'd suggest either diplomacy, defending yourself, or getting someone else to defend you.  Forum posts are generally the least effective way to deal with these situations.  Have fun with all the drama and trolling that comes out of your post!
Back to Top
Arian View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 139
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Arian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2016 at 21:26
Get over yourself Jane. 

Reading the initial post properly.......
a) It's a training alliance that was hit, that's a no no
and 
b) he isn't responding to diplomacy and is in an alliance with only his alt.

I read the above as simply a "for your information" posting, not as a request for anyone else to do anything about it.  I'm sure Vicxm can manage just fine without any assistance.




Edited by Arian - 07 Mar 2016 at 21:30
'Do you want ice with that?'
Back to Top
Jane DarkMagic View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jane DarkMagic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2016 at 21:41
See already with the trolling.. nothing I said was untrue.  So maybe you should just "get over yourself"
Back to Top
Dungshoveleux View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 09 Nov 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 736
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dungshoveleux Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2016 at 22:46
As if VICXM need any advice on how to do diplomacy (or anything else for that matter).
This is just a public "Wanted Reward" notice to publicise the actions of the player they are surely going to squash.  The original response makes assumptions about the experience and capabilities of VICXM which are probably incorrect.  Incorrect on purpose or just incorrect - I can't say.  None of the responses I can see indicate trolling. 
Back to Top
Jane DarkMagic View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jane DarkMagic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Mar 2016 at 22:55
It makes no assumptions about anyone.  It's a general response regarding ways to respond to anyone being attacked.  Incorrect is your assumption that I was making assumptions.  Telling me to "get over myself" for having a rational response to a public announcement that an alliance was going to attack a player seemed pretty trollish.. I think it's unnecessary to post a forum thread every time you defend your alliance.  It tends to devolve into nonsense pretty quickly and usually doesn't get read by many people or serve much purpose.  If you are one of the 5% of the players that read the forums, you might gain information from the announcement.. other than that, IN MY OPINION, it's best to deal with these situations quietly.
Back to Top
DeathDealer89 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 868
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeathDealer89 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2016 at 01:42
You seem to skip over that it was his 'siege army' army that was attacked.  Yet you don't mention the city the siege army went to.  Sounds like a contested claim on a city not an attack on a new player.
Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2016 at 02:34
I thought the same thing. Odd that the city wasn't mentioned, as it would be the prize they fought over.

Also interesting that the original post equates attacks on armies to be the same as attacks on alliance towns themselves. While I can understand a fierce squabble over an attacked mine, all smart players will sov their prized possessions. I do, incidentally, see canceling sov on a valuable resource as a more serious infraction, as it constitutes an intention to seize that valuable resource by force. But a destroyed army doesn't necessarily warrant the same defensive reaction as an attacked city.

If the intention was to justify some kind of hostile action to the community, then a lot more context is required. But as Jane pointed out, there is rarely much to be gained from making such statements on the forums, as bored onlookers offer their unsolicited advice.

I wouldn't read much into the mail myself. Sitters read mail, and it's only good sense that they defer to the account owner during conflicts.
Back to Top
KillerPoodle View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1847
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote KillerPoodle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2016 at 02:58
I'm getting a massive sense of entitlement from the op - I guess "training alliances" don't really appreciate any more how lucky they are that they mostly live fear free in this game aside from the odd collision in the field.
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Mar 2016 at 05:15
My thought on this is that if a training alliance member is sieging a non-aligned city, then it is open for others to compete for that city.  The training alliance might choose to respond to that competition in a variety of ways, such as crushing competing sieges.  However, when it comes to competing for resources outside of cities (including non-aligned cities that may be being sieged), I am not convinced that training alliance members should assume they have special protections.

The purpose of training alliance neutrality and the commitment of large alliances to protect and defend training alliance members, in my understanding, is to give new players an opportunity to learn and grow.  It is not intended to provide a privileged position in competition for resources with non-training-alliance players.  This does not mean that training alliances may never compete for resources, simply that if they choose to do so they should expect other people to compete right back.  I am not suggesting that VICXM is trying to do that here; I don't know the details of the situation other than as outlined above.

While there is community consensus that the cities of members in training alliances should not be attacked, diplo'd, blighted, etc., I am not aware of a consensus regarding limitations on competing for resources outside of cities.  Honestly I don't know what the limits should be, but I feel intuitively that training alliance status should not result in immunity from competition.  I'm interested to hear what other players think about this question.

As a preliminary measure, I suggest caution is in order when responding to armies running over each other outside of cities, particularly if it is an isolated incident.  If there is a repeated pattern of a player going after armies or harvesters of training alliance members, then that might require a more forceful response.

This sort of restraint of course cuts both ways, and it would be advisable for players who do not wish to create conflict to attempt to avoid running over other players' armies.

These statements reflect my personal opinion and do not reflect the policy of my alliance, any confederated alliances or anyone but me.

So ... what do people think about training alliance members competing for resources?  What limits are there for training alliance members to compete and/or others to respond competitively?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.07
Copyright ©2001-2016 Web Wiz Ltd.