Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Peaceful Illy Group (PIG)
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Peaceful Illy Group (PIG)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
Author
Consul Zynot View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 08 Aug 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 110
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Consul Zynot Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Aug 2014 at 23:46
Ignore the negative comments  Kumomoto,  RE  will join these PIG alliance  and think it is  a wonderful idea by both parties. Clap
Back to Top
Ammianus View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 04 Sep 2014
Location: Deutschland
Status: Offline
Points: 29
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ammianus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2014 at 14:49
Is there any kind of update except what was leaked in GC this morning?
Qui secundos optat eventus, dimicet arte, non causa.
[Vegetius]
Back to Top
Kumomoto View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Kumomoto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2014 at 15:35
We're getting close to coming to a draft of an article... Not the easiest thing when you have 35 members from over 20 alliances, but we're making really good progress!

Back to Top
Jejune View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jejune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Sep 2014 at 10:27
I think this is a great idea, and I am mainly a proponent of it because I've always hoped that the dimension of war in the game could become less personal and more strategic. The former leads to much vitriol and people getting feelings hurt, thus leaving the game in a huff. The latter would be more like the mindset of those who play the board game Risk. Obviously, there is no possible endgame in Illyriad where you "win the whole game" in world conquest as in Risk, but the spirit of the game could involve more conflict over strategic maneuvering and less over personal squabbles.

I'm hoping that PIG could be a vehicle for some "cognitive remapping" of Illyriad when it comes to the motives and perceptions of the war dimension in the game.  

Back to Top
M6 Redneck View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 09 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote M6 Redneck Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2014 at 08:09
Winnie Churchill, "No Ministery of defence ever won a war" or similar.
 
I doubt any in game "UN" will ever regulate war. However i am interested to see how this goes and look forward to enjoying the inevitable bickering come the next war over the finer points of the Articles.
 
Now without any perimissions I wish to make a prediction, might will make right!
 
Anyhow this is a great example of what makes this game stand out from the crowd. But i do take exemption from asking the development team to implement tools/features that assimilate the said Articles into the game.
 
Do not seek to implement your will as not all present or indeed future players will agree with the way you wish the game to be played.
Let those who wish to play your way play your way. As for the rest, let them play their way.
Sounds fair to me.
 
And what is war without risk - glorified tournement?
 
Just my humble opinion,
Love and hugs,
M6
 
PS. Can any of you PIG guys place you hand over you heart and say you are not upgrading your towns/armies/commaders/res stocks/weapon stocks/etc in preparation to either defender yourself or impose your will on others as the future may dictate?
 
PSS. If you answer yes and your alliance does likewise I doubt a memorial to your inevitable demise will appear on the map.
Back to Top
Jejune View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jejune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 2014 at 10:07
I was reading the thread about PIG requesting a new city/population tool for determining these data from specific dates, as well as some concerns being expressed about the Convention in general, and it led me to these questions:

1. Has PIG discussed and/or voted on a rules or a resolution on how to enforce its new rules of engagement? For example, if one of the new resolutions is that no player can lose more than 3 cities in a conflict, and an alliance attempts to raze every player's cities, will PIG enforce repercussions on that alliance? In other words, will PIG enforce its resolutions with force?

2. Will alliances that do not sign on to PIG be considered "rogue alliances" and thus be marginalized?

These aren't skeptical questions -- again, I really like the idea of this. But these are questions that I think need to be answered sooner rather than later so that players and alliances understand the gravity of PIG; whether it will be a set of non-binding guidelines, or a new world order in the game.

Thanks!

Back to Top
Kumomoto View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Kumomoto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 2014 at 16:20
PIG has no intentions of creating any sort of enforcement mechanism to force people to comply with its Convention. Signatories to the convention will police their own behavior. And if you are a signatory and don't follow your own agreed upon rules, then hopefully others will think less of you. Likewise people who refuse to sign. This is loosely modeled after the Geneva Convention and relies on people to regulate their own behavior. Will people cheat? Of course. But, just like the Geneva Convention, most will likely be honorable and that in and of itself would be a titanic shift for the better, imo, to Illy. I don't think anyone wants another war of account extermination like this last one and this is an honest attempt at codifying some standards to try to prevent that. It won't be perfect. Probably not even close to perfect. But if it means we move the standard for most alliance's behavior away from account extermination, then we have been very successful.

Also, regarding our question to the Devs, we were just wondering if that information could be easily made available. If so, it would make this Convention possible without complicated involvement of third parties. It seems there might be a third party tool that does this based upon posts. Not sure.


Back to Top
Cilcain View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 106
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cilcain Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 2014 at 18:02
Just thinking out loud (or as loud as my keyboard rattles anyway)....

If Alliance A and Alliance B go to war (with Alliance A being a convention signatory - Alliance B may or may not be), both start with 100 players each with 10 cities.  If Alliance A are the superior tacticians, and eventually get to a stage that they have lost no cities, but Alliance B has lost 3 cities per player; then (assuming the much talked about 3 city per account limit is in the convention), does that mean that Alliance A must stop all sieges against Alliance B, whereas Alliance B can continue to throw cats at Alliance A?

I ask this because, although I did not see any account extermination in the last war, I certainly saw some accounts come close to the brink - but in my opinion this was down to stubbornness/valour (delete as you wish) where the losing players just would not concede, and continued hostilities against the winning Alliance.

For me, the "3 city/account" mechanism should simply be a requirement for the "winning" side to offer terms (either unconditional, or conditions within agreed limits) to each "losing" player that qualifies under this agreement.  If the "losing" player then refuses to concede and withdraw from the war, then the requirements of the convention are removed from the "winning" alliance for that particular player (either for the duration of the war, or until the "losing" player subsequently accepts the terms).

So, my thoughts in summary;
  • If a player wishes to fight to the death (after being given an opportunity to exit), then it is their right to do so - but not with impunity,
  • If an alliance continues to be attacked by a player who has lost more than the "x" cities - then that player loses their protection under any convention.



Back to Top
Jejune View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jejune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Sep 2014 at 09:26
Originally posted by Cilcain Cilcain wrote:

If Alliance A and Alliance B go to war...

I think your scenario is a valid one, Cilcain, but from what Kumomoto said above, I don't think that the PIG effort is about micromanaging smaller alliance-versus-alliance wars, but rather ensuring that when the large geopolitical power blocks in the game go to war again and start a world war (which they will, eventually), that those large forces don't destroy the game or greatly degrade player engagement.

Illyriad is a strange game in that war actually makes people leave the game, rather than engaging with it more. I'm not sure why -- maybe the predominant gamer demographic here is the kid who "took his ball and went home," or said when choosing game pieces in Monopoly, "if I can't be the car, I'm not playing." Who knows?

In any case, my guess is that PIG has a wider, more macrocosmic goal of making sure that the BIG wars don't cause the game to shed engagement -- a phenomenon that has happened after every war of latw.

Back to Top
Cilcain View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 106
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cilcain Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Sep 2014 at 17:19
I agree with what you say Jejune - but the challenge then becomes knowing what the tipping point is between micro and macro.  And also, is a collection of seemingly discrete micro-wars actually a macro-war?

Hats off to anyone who can legislate around all of these (and other) variables!!

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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