Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - H? attacking players at Standing Stones
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedH? attacking players at Standing Stones

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 12>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 5.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Darah View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 17:21
I do not think H? was doing it intentially. And if you lost troops it sucks to be you. That is the game lose troops make more there is no point on getting all angry at people.  Or lose diplomats make more its all just what makes the game fun. Wink
Back to Top
Nokigon View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Historian

Joined: 07 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1452
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 17:57
I have many, many many many opinions on this matter since I was informed about a separate incident a week or so ago.
One, I doubt there is any question as to whether this attack was intentional or not. I mean, Creat's post, plus the distance plus the separate incident- these mean that any doubt as to whether the attack was intentional should be put to rest.
Two. Was it it moral? Well, maybe not. The thing I don't like is the size difference, but if that's how H? want to play it then that's their ball game. If you guys don't like it, hit their camps!
Three. If it was me, or one of my alliance mates, or indeed one of my allies, I would be very annoyed. And do you know what I would do about it? I would take it in the spirit of the tournament, supply the victim with resources and, if the attacker had troops on tourney squares, I would hit those squares! In the spirit of the tourney! And come on, don't you guys like the idea of fighting someone else, not just NPCs? I know I do, but maybe I'm just odd.
And four.... actually, no, that's it.
My two cents.
Back to Top
StJude View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 18:00
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

My personal opinion: Like in the King's First and Third tournaments - H? sees official tournaments as a time for really competiting against each other in a 'safe' framework - I.E. we get to smash armies against each other and once the tournament is over we can go back to normal politics. And we have always made it clear that we would not hold anything against anyone else who chose to bring competitive pvp elements like this within the tournament framework.

This view is nothing new - i'm sure all you older players will recall that H? also brought player-vs-player elements (such as 'locking tiles' near competitors and placing occupations) into the second tournament which was widely considered a simple activity test/button bashing fest.

I have no problem with the above, however, I do have a problem with the rationale employed by Honoredmule for engaging in those tactics. If H? indeed "frowns" upon tactics that promotes the victory in this tournament being awarded according to level of activity, then why engage in the exact same activities yourselves and then use THAT vehicle for justifying your attacks?

What you wrote makes much more sense.

However, after observing what happened to VALAR as a result of winning the last tournament, I can't agree that "normal politics" as you call it are indeed separate from this so called "safe" framework.
Back to Top
Createure View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 18:26
I'm not entirely sure HM was using that as a justification for H? actions - I guess he was saying he didn't like that way that without player-player interaction this tournament (in the higher leagues) is more-or-less a test of activity of people that happen to live somewhere where they aren't asleep between 7pm-7am server time. Player-Player (and alliance-alliance) direct interaction in the tournament adds additional tactical elements to consider in this competition which gives people who live in europe (and/or can't micromanage their armies at night) more of a chance to influence the result of the tournament and generally be engaged in this thing.

Maybe you could say a particular 'reason' and a 'justification' for doing something are sorta the same thing - i'm not sure. Personally I'd say the actions of a particular alliance in a tournament need no justification - as long as they are clearly within the spirit of a tournament and not an attempt to cause real damage to other players/alliances accounts and their ability to enjoy the game once the tournament is over.

I don't know about other people in H? but I had a full respect for the members of VALAR (in particularly Boromir) for their well deserved victory in the second tournament - particularly the manner in which they effectively handled H? raising the stakes by competing more directly with them. [Although not the amount of whining that went on in the forum from some members of VALAR and other alliances - that was pretty boring - think it would have been much smoother to beat H? at our own game and then be cool about the whole thing].

Personally I understood there were several reasons for going to war with VALAR, none of which were related to their tournament victoy - whether or not you or others wish to believe that statement is up to you, i've no time or inclination to try and persuade people otherwise. But I can see this becoming a red-herring in this thread so if anyone does wish to discuss reasons for the VALAR war (again) open a new thread and keep this one for discussing player-on-player attacks/interaction in this tournament.
Back to Top
Kumomoto View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 18:52
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

I'm not entirely sure HM was using that as a justification for H? actions - I guess he was saying he didn't like that way that without player-player interaction this tournament (in the higher leagues) is more-or-less a test of activity of people that happen to live somewhere where they aren't asleep between 7pm-7am server time. Player-Player (and alliance-alliance) direct interaction in the tournament adds additional tactical elements to consider in this competition which gives people who live in europe (and/or can't micromanage their armies at night) more of a chance to influence the result of the tournament and generally be engaged in this thing.

Maybe you could say a particular 'reason' and a 'justification' for doing something are sorta the same thing - i'm not sure. Personally I'd say the actions of a particular alliance in a tournament need no justification - as long as they are clearly within the spirit of a tournament and not an attempt to cause real damage to other players/alliances accounts and their ability to enjoy the game once the tournament is over.

I don't know about other people in H? but I had a full respect for the members of VALAR (in particularly Boromir) for their well deserved victory in the second tournament - particularly the manner in which they effectively handled H? raising the stakes by competing more directly with them. [Although not the amount of whining that went on in the forum from some members of VALAR and other alliances - that was pretty boring - think it would have been much smoother to beat H? at our own game and then be cool about the whole thing].

Personally I understood there were several reasons for going to war with VALAR, none of which were related to their tournament victoy - whether or not you or others wish to believe that statement is up to you, i've no time or inclination to try and persuade people otherwise. But I can see this becoming a red-herring in this thread so if anyone does wish to discuss reasons for the VALAR war (again) open a new thread and keep this one for discussing player-on-player attacks/interaction in this tournament.


+1. Very well stated, Creat. The bottom line is that we have been having a lot of fun pvping with Peace on the squares around Shadow's city (and some other areas).  Both Peace and H? have been actively participating and it has added tons of more interesting activity to what otherwise would be a farming tourney. Up until we got lucky and caught Shadow's general, Peace had been doing a really excellent job of defeating our occupations and even sending some of their own against our tourney leaders. And, as Creat said, we have tons of respect for the active participants in the tourney of all stripes (as we did Valar in the last tourney). Our respect is that much greater because the folks at Peace rolled up their sleeves and jumped in with a competitive spirit, in most cases doing better than H? without any of the public whining that we saw from Valar last time. Nobody has touched the other sides cities, only standing stones, and I think that if anyone views this as "wrong" or "immoral", they need to start appreciating that this is a sandbox game and not a Sunday school.
Back to Top
HonoredMule View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 18:53
I hate to break it to you Jude, but attacking our successful competitors takes way, WAY less effort than babysitting accounts 12 hours a day.  Perhaps a half-dozen players launched occupations and attacks to whittle down his competing army and supporting forces.  We're working smarter, not harder, which is exactly what we've always advocated.  The collective efforts of our entire alliance in both harvesting xp and disrupting Shadow amount to less activity than Shadow alone exerted in monitoring the map for incoming NPC and Harmless attacks, sniping and dodging throughout the night.

As for this particular attack by NightFury, it was not part of any coordinated effort but an isolated incident.  We did actively harass Shadow, and we did so because we want a Harmless member to win.  Seeing button-mashing strategies fail is just the the inch-thick layer of icing on our cake.  In both cases I'm quite content with what's happening.  Harmless are a team and we play as one regardless of whether we all benefit directly.  This is what good alliances do.

There is no inequity here.  We have some small players who have access to assistance from us.  Every other player of comparable size has had the same opportunity to forge a relationship with some alliance that would do the same for them, and possibly us specifically.  Failing to do as well in certain strategic aspects of the game is no justification for complaint.  We're not even talking about requiring high-class alliance muscle.  Sansoran's competitor was attacked in the field by one friend of middling strength.

Morals aren't even a factor here.  This is a tournament with set rules.  There is no such thing as a "questionable" grey area.  There is only obeying the rules and breaking them.  Everything else is competition.  It is a credit to Lady Eira that she herself isn't here whining about losing.

Bottom line: if you can't exercise PvP tactics during a Tournament, then when on earth can you?
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
Back to Top
StJude View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 18:59
Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:

I hate to break it to you Jude, but attacking our successful competitors takes way, WAY less effort than babysitting accounts 12 hours a day.  Perhaps a half-dozen players launched occupations and attacks to whittle down his competing army and supporting forces.  We're working smarter, not harder, which is exactly what we've always advocated.  

Either you are not reading my posts in their entirety, or you are, and in typical fashion are avoiding the actual question posed.

Killerpoodle's commander Cav4 has 37786 XP
Shadow's has 36787

Are you claiming that Killerpoodle closed the gap by occupying only one standing stone and not exerting the effort that Shadow has? Because if you are, I ain't buying it.

Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:

Bottom line: if you can't exercise PvP tactics during a Tournament, then when on earth can you?

You don't need to argue PvP with me, as you should well know by now, I am a firm advocate. I will consider this aspect closed.

I am interested in arguing your flawed reasoning for attacking Shadow. It was thinly veiled and from the evidences observed, seems hypocritical.

Hows that for a breakdown?
Back to Top
Createure View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 19:04
It's a fair point I guess Judy.

I guess the answer is that our 'reason' for engaging in pvp action with shadow and peace on tourney squares was not because of the tactics that shadow was using - but because they were the number one competitor in A league - hence I don't see that there is anything hypocritical about members of H? using the same tactic should they happen to have the time+inclination to do so.

Likewise we have no problem with shadow or peace or any other alliance chosing to engage in similar pvp actions against us or each other, providing that they are clearly within the spirit of trying to beat the competition in the tournament.


Edited by Createure - 17 Jan 2012 at 19:06
Back to Top
Ander View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 19:10
yea yea we know H is all for PvP when their large players (like Nightfury) do PvP with players in league F (2K - 500 pop). I didn't think even other members in H would support such cheapness.

No pain, no gain.
No harm, no shame.

Commanders positions in League F

Population 2k to 500
#PlayerTownCommanderXP
1
[-- ]
Sansoran [H?]Bel-EgeriaTannlore20752
2
[+2 ]
Locke [peac2]KohlingenRichard19508
3
[-1 ]
R-Man [nCrow]THANK YOU !!!CROWS & FRIENDS19206
4
[+1 ]
ToothLess [T?]1M118667
5
[-2 ]
Lady Eira [Frost]Echoes-Of-Lost-VoicesElyoth Sureshield (Marshal)18086
Back to Top
Brids17 View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 19:16
Indeed. I imagine if I started smashing newbie T? armies there would be a whole different view on the matter. I don't care if large players are attacking similarly larger players but when a large player attacks a much much smaller one, I see bullying no matter which way you spin it. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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