Print Page | Close Window

H? attacking players at Standing Stones

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Tournament IV - The Undead Horde
Forum Description: 4th Tournament - Details, progress, reports & awards
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=3077
Printed Date: 28 Mar 2024 at 23:09
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: H? attacking players at Standing Stones
Posted By: LordOfTheSwamp
Subject: H? attacking players at Standing Stones
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2012 at 22:48
I'll admit I would have preferred a a tournament where small players could excel on their own merits. But OK, we got a tournament where small players required their own merits + the support of an alliance. Fair enough.

But now it seems conditions for success are "own merits" + "support of alliance" + "not getting attacked by H?"

Is this part of a general H? strategy to attack players at standing stones, or was this player just "special"? Obviously not accidental - this required a journey of 1,000+ squares, so, what's the story?

FW: Failed defense by Lady Eira's forces at Square 21|832 under attack by NightFury's forces from 4. Astro82

Sent By:Lady Eira [Frost]
Received By:You
Date:1/16/2012 10:32:14 PM

wtf?!
 

> FW: Failed defense by Lady Eira's forces at Square 21|832 under attack by NightFury's forces from 4. Astro82
> Received: 16 Jan 2012 20:33
> Original Message:
Two opposing forces clash against each other.

Cavalry comes into its own when able to strike hostile forces at will, and from unexpected directions - and nowhere is this more feasible than on open plains. Lightly armoured spear units, however, prefer terrain where there's some cover available.

Fighting defensively on open plains, cavalry draws strength from the ability to form and reform their lines of engagement depending on the direction of battle, and it is here where cavalry excels.

Your army was driven back and enemy units have taken control of this location.

Your defending army was entirely destroyed at Square 21|832 by NightFury's forces from 4. Astro82

Attackers:Unit:Quantity:Casualties:Survivors:
Commander: knight tempKnights Knight1Damaged for 59, 41 health remains.
Troops:Knights Knights682408274


Defenders:Unit:Quantity:Casualties:Survivors:
Commander: Elyoth Sureshield (Marshal)Marshals Marshal1Damaged for 200, 0 health remains.
Troops:Elven Trueshots Elven Trueshots102510250

  


-------------
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.



Replies:
Posted By: LordOfTheSwamp
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2012 at 22:53
BTW, having just checked the reasons behind this, presumably H? were concerned that Lady Eira might have caught up with Sansoran. I'd have assumed that if both players had continued on their trajectories, this would have been impossible - Sansoran would have won anyway.

#PlayerTownCommanderXP
1
[-- ]
Sansoran [H?]Bel-EgeriaTannlore20681
2
[-- ]
R-Man [nCrow]THANK YOU !!!^ cupid ^18359
3
[-- ]
Lady Eira [Frost]Echoes-Of-Lost-VoicesElyoth Sureshield (Marshal)18086
4
[-- ]
Locke [peac2]KohlingenRichard17357

So...

If anyone can slaughter Sansoran's forces, then if either Locke or R-Man win that Division, I'll be sending about 20 million big thank yous to whoever's forces take out Sansoran.



-------------
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.


Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2012 at 23:17
I'm interested to hear H? side of this, considering they have had questionable tactics in pretty much every tourney we've had. 

-------------


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2012 at 23:43
It's part of a general Harmless? strategy, so don't take it personally.

H? already took out Starrbuck earlier in the tourney and may have been involved in trying to assassinate Shadow's commander (that bit is speculative, I have no confirmation).  I honestly have been surprised that there wasn't more of this in the tourney, but for the fact that it's mostly not likely to be very effective, since most players move their armies multiple times a night and the likelihood that a commander and army would be in the right spot to be hit is not that high.  Then again, maybe we only hear about the successful attempts.

A competitor scouted the city of a HUGS player who is high up in the tourney rankings, presumably to try to determine the position of his army.  Said competitor was NOT in Harmless?, so it's clear that other alliances have at least contemplated this action.

A tip of the hat to Lady Eira for her work in the tournament thus far.  Sorry to see it end this way.

Edited to add:  Shadow confirmed to me that he has been stalked by Harmless and they finally caught up to his forces.  This is probably what Kumomoto was crowing about in global chat yesterday.


Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 00:40
But a 50k pop player attacking a 3k pop player? That seems just cheap and dishonorable to me, tournament or not. 

-------------


Posted By: G0DsDestroyer
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 00:44
Do we know that the attack was intentional? 

-------------
http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamertag=G0DsDestroyer" rel="nofollow - Tia mi aven Moridin isainde vadin


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 01:10
Originally posted by G0DsDestroyer G0DsDestroyer wrote:

Do we know that the attack was intentional? 

NightFury's cities are in Lan Larosh and Azura.  Lady Eira's cities are in Wolgast.  I somewhat doubt that NF was going all that way because it was the closest activated standing stone.  NightFury is my friend; we were in Toothless? together.  What he did was within the bound of tournament rules.  Nevertheless, it does speak to a certain lack of perspective.


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 01:52
It's a bit naive to not expect any PvP to occur when it comes to a tournament.

I think most players expected some sniping to occur in the form of attacks on the armies defending the standing stones themselves, in fact, there was a short discussion in GC regarding the length of time armies should be set to occupy. Those in favor of shorter occupy times were quick to point out that leaving your army there throughout the day was risky.

When this tournament ends, we may hear of other players who felt the heavy hand of H?. The question I will be interested in, will be, did any other alliance employ this sort of tactic?

Anyway, with all that said, if any of you happened to see Honoremule's ridiculous justification for this action, you need only look at the experience H? commanders gained in League A to see that they themselves also contributed to a pattern that endlessly punished those who have a life. Instead of promoting a viable alternative as they claimed, they reproduced the tactic they were so adverse to and added their own twist.

Again, I'd have a lot more respect if H? just said. "We don't like losing, so....WE R IN UR STANDING STONS KILLIN' UR DOODZ"



Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 01:54
I think it'd be more honorable if it were the H? player involved in that league alone that was doing the attacking... But that's just my opinion!


Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 01:55
I mean, where's the glory in winning a tournament because your alliance of big people strong-armed all the people in the smaller population league?


Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 01:56
Yes, you'll win the t-shirt, but I know I won't look at that person in admiration or as any kind of military power in their size group.  Which is the real prize!


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 02:01
Originally posted by Jane DarkMagic Jane DarkMagic wrote:

I mean, where's the glory in winning a tournament because your alliance of big people strong-armed all the people in the smaller population league?

Because, if you're not first, you're last.




Posted By: Darah
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 02:37
Maybe H? was trying to occupy the standing stones but you got there first and interfered.  So they had to destroy your troops!


Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 02:39
Originally posted by Darah Darah wrote:

Maybe H? was trying to occupy the standing stones but you got there first and interfered.  So they had to destroy your troops!
 
If you look at the two players on the attack report, the attacker came from a different state.  Doesn't make sense to go to the farthest stones possible!  Just sayin....
 
Jane DM, general illy busy body


Posted By: Starrbuck
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 03:17
I would just like to say that all this talk saddens me. And by talk I mean Ryelle implying that I was "Taken out of the tournament..." 

I AM NOT OUT OF THE TOURNAMENT. Cry

IT'S CALLED STAGING A COMEBACK! 




Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 03:23
Sorry, was referring to them killing your army and commander.  Best wishes for success in the tournament.


Posted By: Eryn
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 03:27
I just had to step in on this - a member of World's End who is close to me and myself, have been running into each other the whole tournament. We must be on at about the same time and we both were sending to the same stones. Both of us would check to see if the other was sending their armies out. But you couldn't always tell if they were headed for the same stones. Some times he would take my army out and some times I would take his out. There were a lot of IGM with 'sorry, didn't mean to take you out' and 'oppps, looks like it happened again'. We both would apologize and try harder next time. NO hard feelings - it happens. This is a game not real life. I'm not saying that some times (with some players) it is on purpose but not ALL the time. 


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 03:48
Originally posted by Eryn Eryn wrote:

I just had to step in on this - a member of World's End who is close to me and myself, have been running into each other the whole tournament. We must be on at about the same time and we both were sending to the same stones. Both of us would check to see if the other was sending their armies out. But you couldn't always tell if they were headed for the same stones. Some times he would take my army out and some times I would take his out. There were a lot of IGM with 'sorry, didn't mean to take you out' and 'oppps, looks like it happened again'. We both would apologize and try harder next time. NO hard feelings - it happens. This is a game not real life. I'm not saying that some times (with some players) it is on purpose but not ALL the time. 

I am sorry, I am having a hard time understanding what your point is specifically? If you read Kurdruk's post, the one at the top of the thread, I believe you will see that your situation and the situation you are referring to have very little in common. (Other than the fact that one player killed another player's army and commander that is...)


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 04:39
I think Eryn's point is that not every Harmless? player is participating in this tactic.  Perhaps there are even some H? players who are not comfortable with it.


Posted By: Darah
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 06:08
Maybe they wanted to occupy every stone there was to win the tournament. Confused


Posted By: kitmub
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 09:21
i think the best question to answer is whether it is intentional

since from what i understand the big one has left their tow first before the smaller one because of distance or did i misunderstood something



-------------
just popping on and off
abit crazy also


Posted By: jordigui
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 09:39
Well, I am (at the moment in H), and I did not participate in any attacks to other players' stones (just hitting a couple of caravans :) 
And I was not very much aware of H tactic in the tournament (my fault, I guess).
But any way, I was attacked close to my capital (where I had sovereignity) by a member of Peac3 (shall we say names?) when I was sleeping on the 12/01/2012. He had to travel more than 625 squares. I won but lost more than 766 knights.

A tournament that only takes place at night (for more than 1 night) is a problem to "European time" players because we have to sleep some time ... 



Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 09:48
Its a sandbox yes? Its free for all, why then restrict the game by imposing moral codes to tournaments?

As it is, this very strategy might have impeded H?'s progress had anyone attacked their occupations at standing stones earlier, the scores might have been very different today.

In a way I think this thread is very descriptive of the current state of Illyriad.
Instead of small er alliances ganging up to "sabotage" H?'s tournament efforts, they (we) resort to complaining and resentment, in spite of the fact that there nowhere in the annals of Illyriad is any mention of a moral codex that should be upheld.

So this is not about doing right or wrong, its about how bad you want the T-Shirt, and without being disrespectful to anyone I believe this is a hint to smaller alliances that you will need to cooperate to beat the opposition, especially within tournaments where military prowess is a deciding factor and where wars are absent. There is nothing to fear so attack away, and dont expect others to play by your idea of a moral code.

With all due respect, Tordenkaffen


Posted By: jordigui
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 10:00
Well, I am not sure if anyone at H really wants the t-shirt so much, or that the prestige is worth all these losses ...

Another issue is that if the tournament is aimed to kill as much undead as possible, attacking each others really prevent to maximize the number of undead kills.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 10:08
Torden, one of the things I like and value about Illy is that many players, including Harmless? players as well as players from other alliances, choose a code of conduct that is higher than that dictated by game rules.  Such an ethical system can greatly enhance the game, but it could also prove stifling.  Another thing that I like and value about Illy is that we talk about that balance.  I'm glad you've made your voice heard on the issue --  it's good to get a lot of different perspectives.


Posted By: Southern Dwarf
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 12:41
I aborted the tournament last year after the most of my army has been wiped out by a player who did not read about the tournament rules and thought that she must look for the nearest activated stones and did not know that she was able to activate them herself.

But it is known that H? even camps Alliances they have a nap with to reduce the xp they get.

-------------
Also known as Afaslizo ingame.


Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 13:03
Originally posted by Brids17 Brids17 wrote:

But a 50k pop player attacking a 3k pop player? That seems just cheap and dishonorable to me, tournament or not. 

And shameless?





Posted By: LordOfTheSwamp
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 13:14
Originally posted by Eryn Eryn wrote:

I just had to step in on this - a member of World's End who is close to me and myself, have been running into each other the whole tournament. We must be on at about the same time and we both were sending to the same stones. Both of us would check to see if the other was sending their armies out. But you couldn't always tell if they were headed for the same stones. Some times he would take my army out and some times I would take his out. There were a lot of IGM with 'sorry, didn't mean to take you out' and 'oppps, looks like it happened again'. We both would apologize and try harder next time. NO hard feelings - it happens. This is a game not real life. I'm not saying that some times (with some players) it is on purpose but not ALL the time. 

Eryn -

One of the great things about Illyriad is that I get to share the game world with people like you and your WE neighbor.

Thumbs Up 

People like you make this game great. Thank you for being here. 


-------------
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.


Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 13:37
I have to agree with Eryn. We clashed on stones a few times but as neighbors we have a good understanding. I cannot comment on other alliances tactics during the game but when it comes to winning, some people take it very seriously and will be very devious and underhanded to get the victory. As it was tournament I guess alliances worked together to get their players ahead of others. As the tournament went on for a while, I guess it is not so much a thing of "they killed my armies" but of why the hell your alliances did not kill theirs back.

Attacking players cities is just cowardly but attacking the stones seems like fair game to me. As to the final victor, everyone will know who actually deserved to win and who was helped to win. There is no glory in winning knowing you were not the best. The Global Chat and this forum will ensure information goes out and so the whole community will know. As to the outside world, they just do not care who wins so all that really counts is the opinion and respect of the people in Illy.



Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 17:11
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.


Posted By: Darah
Date 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


Posted By: Nokigon
Date 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.


Posted By: StJude
Date 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.


Posted By: Createure
Date 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.


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date 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.


Posted By: HonoredMule
Date 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


Posted By: StJude
Date 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?


Posted By: Createure
Date 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.


Posted By: Ander
Date 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


Posted By: Brids17
Date 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. 

-------------


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 19:45
Originally posted by Ander Ander wrote:

I didn't think even other members in H would support such cheapness.

Yeh I think you are correct. Although I wouldn't exactly call it 'cheapness'.

Still there is not any major harm done by this - loss of troops is what is expected in a tournie. I do feel a bit bad for Lady Eira but then again L.E seems to be taking it in good spirit so I don't see that there is a big issue.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 20:06
Originally posted by Brids17 Brids17 wrote:

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. 

This.  As I indicated, I was actually surprised at how little PvP there was in this tourney, although there were a couple encounters on The Rift as well.  (I was rather hoping for more action there since Ryelle had front-row seats.)

This tourney provided a great opportunity for smaller players to compete against each other rather than against the bigger players, and maybe we should honor the fact that MOST of the larger players honored the spirit and intention of the tourney.  Well done all.


Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 22:22
Originally posted by StJude StJude wrote:

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.
Buy it or don't.  KP has not been babysitting his account, neither has anyone else been doing it for him.  The only extra activity exerted besides plumping down the army each night was redeploying it elsewhere if he noticed the camped stones go dark.  Instead of increasing his commander's xp gain, we decreased Shadow's.  We only managed to overtake Shadow after whittling down and ultimately destroying Shadow's competing army.

It frankly annoys me that the competition still came down to who had the most/closest stones and thus a chance at getting more than 3 hits per night.  On the second last day of the tournament, my armies are still growing faster than the NPCs can kill them and I'm nowhere near the leader board.  But at least some intelligence and tactics played an effectual role.

But hey, apparently my reasoning is flawed, thinly veiled hypocrisy.  So why don't you explain what our real motives are?  What are we hiding, Jude?  Are we all secretly basement dwellers obsessively hyperventilating during our bathroom breaks away from the game?  Maybe we're just pretending to prefer a moderate approach, so everyone else gets lax.  Yeah, that must be it. LOL


-------------
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule


Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 22:35
I love how the second post in this rapidly growing thread noted that Sansoran's position was not actually threatened by Lady Eira's commander, yet it hasn't occurred to a single of you lemmings that maybe something else was going on that had nothing to do with Sansoran.  Rage first, think later, right?  Thumbs Up

Come on guys, I shouldn't have to spoon feed you mudslingers our own dirt.


-------------
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 22:46
Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:

Buy it or don't.  KP has not been babysitting his account, neither has anyone else been doing it for him.
 

I don't.

Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:

The only extra activity exerted besides plumping down the army each night was redeploying it elsewhere if he noticed the camped stones go dark.  Instead of increasing his commander's xp gain, we decreased Shadow's.  We only managed to overtake Shadow after whittling down and ultimately destroying Shadow's competing army.

You were gaining on both Shadow and Canes before you took out Shadow's commanders. Is this some new math I am unaware of where your gains matched Shadow by sheer inactivity? Must be I suppose, because either way you look at it, the numbers tell a much different story.

Hey, at least you are finally showing some consistency in your denials, because you sure weren't when you explained your reasoning for pursuing this course of action.

Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:

 
It frankly annoys me that the competition still came down to who had the most/closest stones and thus a chance at getting more than 3 hits per night.  On the second last day of the tournament, my armies are still growing faster than the NPCs can kill them and I'm nowhere near the leader board.  But at least some intelligence and tactics played an effectual role.
 

That annoys me too, but it is what it is.


Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:

  
But hey, apparently my reasoning is flawed, thinly veiled hypocrisy.  So why don't you explain what our real motives are?  What are we hiding, Jude?  Are we all secretly basement dwellers obsessively hyperventilating during our bathroom breaks away from the game?  Maybe we're just pretending to prefer a moderate approach, so everyone else gets lax.  Yeah, that must be it. LOL

You know, I think you nailed it. I would leave out the "moderate" part as I don't see anything moderate about the effort you put into taking out the top three players. I would also tack on the end of all that, that you enjoy waving your e-peens around too.

In short, I'd respect you more if you just came out and said at the beginning that PvP adds an interesting element to the tournament and didn't prattle on about this tournament favoring the "no-lifers".....and then go to show yourselves as....well...."no lifers"


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 22:54
Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:

... yet it hasn't occurred to a single of you lemmings....

UMADBRO?

Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:

Come on guys, I shouldn't have to spoon feed you mudslingers our own dirt.

Please continue sir, you are doing an amazing job! Lemmings eh? I love it!

You make my job easier and easier.


Posted By: LordOfTheSwamp
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 23:03
Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:

I love how the second post in this rapidly growing thread noted that Sansoran's position was not actually threatened by Lady Eira's commander, yet it hasn't occurred to a single of you lemmings that maybe something else was going on that had nothing to do with Sansoran. 

You mean like trying to secure a "scoring" place for your henchman in T?

No, that would never have occurred to me.

I'm just a suicidal rodent, right? Intelligent thoughts never occur to me. Not like the great HonouredMule. Only the great Honoured Mule would ever have intelligent thoughts.


-------------
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 23:10
point of information: lemmings aren't actually suicidal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDqlZjpSJCc" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDqlZjpSJCc


Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 23:16
Originally posted by LordOfTheSwamp LordOfTheSwamp wrote:

Only the great Honoured Mule would ever have intelligent thoughts.
Why thank you.  I'm glad you noticed. Big smile

Here's a crazy thought.  What if NightFury and this "henchman" in T were the same guy?

Woah.

Mind = blown.


-------------
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule


Posted By: Bartozzi
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2012 at 23:33
Originally posted by HonoredMule HonoredMule wrote:

It frankly annoys me that the competition still came down to who had the most/closest stones and thus a chance at getting more than 3 hits per night.  On the second last day of the tournament, my armies are still growing faster than the NPCs can kill them and I'm nowhere near the leader board.  But at least some intelligence and tactics played an effectual role.

As someone who has benefitted from having multiple stones in the near vicinity, I agree. I believe that for most of us in the lower leagues, though, it has still come down to the strategy of allotment of commander upgrades, use and setup of sov squares, and composition of armies. Patience and persistence have been the other winning factors. Take away any one of those factors, and the advantage of multiple stones would be negated.

As for the initial subject of this thread, I tend to agree that the *unfairness* lies not in the tactic, but in the size differential between the players. However, this is an internal matter for H? to handle (or ignore), and their response (or lack of it) will be for the rest of us to interpret as we see fit.


Posted By: Truth
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 00:09
Originally posted by Brids17 Brids17 wrote:

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. 


Very good point. I still have not read a response to this from H?. And based on experience, most players have a pretty good idea that H? would be very upset if the same thing happened to T?.

H? has a history of doing anything they can to win in a tournament. Morals in a tournament is a word that means nothing to them.

That is the Truth.


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 00:16
The truth is, whatever we feel about that action, we certainly are not going to respond to someone who isn't brave enough to use their character name in the forums.

Where's a good Billy goat when I need one?


Posted By: Truth
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 00:39
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

The truth is, whatever we feel about that action, we certainly are not going to respond to someone who isn't brave enough to use their character name in the forums.

Where's a good Billy goat when I need one?


The truth is, I am not going to respond to a player that hides in the most powerful alliance in the game. As such can say whatever they want because of this. aka = to a player that does not use their character name in the forums. See what I did there? Kumo, we are doing the same exact thing, you hide in big alliance, I hide my character name. No difference.

And back to the quote... Brids wrote that quote, not me... So respond to him.


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 00:44
Originally posted by Truth Truth wrote:

H? has a history of doing anything they can to win in a tournament. Morals in a tournament is a word that means nothing to them.

That is the Truth.

It is true - the word 'morals' does not mean much to us. We tend to steer clear of such subjective frameworks upon which to build our strategies.

If you had to pin us down to something though, it would be that we do not believe in attempting to adversely affect people beyond friendly competitiveness within the tournament. And we've always taken a "do unto others what you would have done unto yourself" attitude - as such we always made it clear that we would not hold grudges against people for tournament-centered pvp actions.

For example - If H? would truly do "Anything" to win tournaments we would probably have just seige+destroyed cities of the top commanders of our main competitors.

But I guess we've come to expect this kind of blatant propoganda from mr "Truth".


Posted By: Truth
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 00:50
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:




For example - If H? would truly do "Anything" to win tournaments we would probably have just seige+destroyed cities of the top commanders of our main competitors.




So should all the alliances expect this strategy in the next tournament?   


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 00:51
Originally posted by Truth Truth wrote:

Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:




For example - If H? would truly do "Anything" to win tournaments we would probably have just seige+destroyed cities of the top commanders of our main competitors.




So should all the alliances expect this strategy in the next tournament?   

Yeh you got it exactly right! How did you get so smart? Clap


Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 00:53
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

The truth is, whatever we feel about that action, we certainly are not going to respond to someone who isn't brave enough to use their character name in the forums.

Then how about you respond to me, since I was the one who posed the question to begin with. Does H? truly support large players attacking newbies as long as they are taking part in the tournament? 


-------------


Posted By: Bartozzi
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 00:56
Kumomoto is a player who "hides in the most powerful alliance in the game?" Really? He's hiding? Right, he obviously needs protection and would crumble like a sand castle if he belonged to a smaller alliance. Uhhh, right.....


Posted By: Truth
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 00:58
Originally posted by Bartozzi Bartozzi wrote:

Kumomoto is a player who "hides in the most powerful alliance in the game?" Really? He's hiding? Right, he obviously needs protection and would crumble like a sand castle if he belonged to a smaller alliance. Uhhh, right.....


You are right. He is hiding. Hiding in the biggest alliance in the game. And yes needs protection. Thank you for supporting me.


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 00:58
If I may may a stab at an answer on Kumo's behalf?

I think I already answered the question above when I mentioned that Ander was probably correct when he wondered if most members of H? didn't support such a thing.

I guess you can appreciate though that we aren't going to publicly denounce an alliance mate at the behest of a bunch of people who this incident does not even directly concern. If this matter gets dealt with it will be internally and with the parties it concerns.

edit: In response to Brids' question above.


Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 01:07
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:


+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.
 
 
-927, The funny thing is no one considers the situation involving H? and what happened in league F as worthy of respect.  Bullies have been justifying themselves in the manner above for many centuries.  I have great respect for peac as competitors in the tourney.  For Sansoran and Nightwolf... None at all.


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 01:30
FYI sansoran had nothing to do with this - he stood to gain nothing from the Nightfury hit and did not request it either.


Posted By: G0DsDestroyer
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 01:50
If someone has a problem with H?, then go ahead and take them down :P

-------------
http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamertag=G0DsDestroyer" rel="nofollow - Tia mi aven Moridin isainde vadin


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 01:51
And truth, anytime you want, I'll leave H? and take you on, whoever you are without any help from my alliance mates... Am I still hiding?


Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 02:06
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

FYI sansoran had nothing to do with this - he stood to gain nothing from the Nightfury hit and did not request it either.
 
I know I at least appreciate that statement.  I know you can't really control every member of an alliance.  I just didn't like that it was trying to be somehow spun into a sporting move.


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 02:11
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

And truth, anytime you want, I'll leave H? and take you on, whoever you are without any help from my alliance mates... Am I still hiding?

If Truth declines, I'll take that challenge. You game?


Posted By: Truth
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 02:39
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

And truth, anytime you want, I'll leave H? and take you on, whoever you are without any help from my alliance mates... Am I still hiding?



And when you are about to lose a city, I am sure H? will help you. H? will do anything to win am I right? Why should I start to believe that H? will start to play fair now, when in past history, they have not been to honorable.

This call out by you is just a mere ploy to get my in-game name. Everyone can figure that out. And once that name is out, there will be more than just you attacking me. Why you ask?

BECAUSE I AM LIONZ HEARTZ!

However, St. Jude can fight you in my place. We all know he can beat you in a fair fight. And he is smart, I mean look at his picture with that big brain.


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 02:43
Just as I thought...


Posted By: Gemley
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 02:49
grabs some pancakes and gets ready to watch the action

-------------
�I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend� - J.R.R. Tolkien


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 02:57
Originally posted by Truth Truth wrote:


However, St. Jude can fight you in my place. We all know he can beat you in a fair fight. And he is smart, I mean look at his picture with that big brain.

I'm a Mutha Flippin' Talosian.



So Kumo, you dodged the question....you game?


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 02:59
This thread seems to have gotten a bit off topic.  Maybe some of the later posts should be moved by their sponsors to another location?  Oh wait, the Bitter Sea is no more ...


Posted By: Gemley
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 03:06
Originally posted by StJude StJude wrote:


Originally posted by Truth Truth wrote:


However, St. Jude can fight you in my place. We all know he can beat you in a fair fight. And he is smart, I mean look at his picture with that big brain.


I'm a Mutha Flippin' Talosian.



So Kumo, you dodged the question....you game?

Funny video

-------------
�I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend� - J.R.R. Tolkien


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 03:15
Maybe now that we no longer have the bitter sea, Luna might allow us to create a "lionz den", where lth & st Jude can hold court with each other...


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 03:19
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

Maybe now that we no longer have the bitter sea, Luna might allow us to create a "lions den", where lth & st Jude can hold court with each other...

C'mon Kumo, I meet the criteria, I am almost a 9th of your size popwise.....


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 04:24
Honestly, Jude. This is boring. Find some other windmill to tilt at.


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 04:40
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

Honestly, Jude. This is boring. Find some other windmill to tilt at.

You are gonna have to work harder than that to not look like a chump mi amore.


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 05:52
Lol Judy - you think the community will see a leader of the most powerful alliance in the game as a chump because they refuse to waste their time playing silly games with you?

Personally I'd see Kumo as a chump if he DID take you up on your offer. It must be lovely, having your own version of reality. ^^


Posted By: Gossip Boy
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 07:25
hey kurdruk,you will be happy to know that locke has pipped sansoran to the top of the league


Posted By: Gossip Boy
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 07:26
Originally posted by LordOfTheSwamp LordOfTheSwamp wrote:

BTW, having just checked the reasons behind this, presumably H? were concerned that Lady Eira might have caught up with Sansoran. I'd have assumed that if both players had continued on their trajectories, this would have been impossible - Sansoran would have won anyway.

#PlayerTownCommanderXP
1
[-- ]
Sansoran [H?]Bel-EgeriaTannlore20681
2
[-- ]
R-Man [nCrow]THANK YOU !!!^ cupid ^18359
3
[-- ]
Lady Eira [Frost]Echoes-Of-Lost-VoicesElyoth Sureshield (Marshal)18086
4
[-- ]
Locke [peac2]KohlingenRichard17357

So...

If anyone can slaughter Sansoran's forces, then if either Locke or R-Man win that Division, I'll be sending about 20 million big thank yous to whoever's forces take out Sansoran.



Posted By: LordOfTheSwamp
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 08:11
Originally posted by Gossip Boy Gossip Boy wrote:

hey kurdruk,you will be happy to know that locke has pipped sansoran to the top of the league

I saw. Smile whoever hit him, FW me the combat report -  I have a promise to keep.

And the other H-sponsored beneficiary of H's actions in that Division is out of the top 3 as well:

Victorious battle against ToothLess's forces at Square 7|313 by Kurdruk's forces from Frozenpeak

Sent By:System
Received By:You
Date:1/18/2012 2:14:21 AM
Two opposing forces clash against each other.

Cavalry comes into its own when able to strike hostile forces at will, and from unexpected directions - and nowhere is this more feasible than on open plains. Lightly armoured spear units, however, prefer terrain where there's some cover available.

Fighting defensively on open plains, cavalry draws strength from the ability to form and reform their lines of engagement depending on the direction of battle, and it is here where cavalry excels.

Attackers:Unit:Quantity:Casualties:Survivors:
Commander: Korgur FrostfootWolfriders Wolfrider1Damaged for 15, 185 health remains.
Troops:Death Packs Death Packs37315803151


Defenders:Unit:Quantity:Casualties:Survivors:
Commander: M1Militiamen Militiaman1Damaged for 197, 0 health remains.
Troops:Longbowmen Longbowmen215621560




Oh - did I not mention in my second post having sent a few armies out? Maybe I thought it would be a bad idea to tell H? I was coming for their henchman? No no, that can't be it, that would have been prudent - and those of us outside H? are incapable of such rational thought, being mere "lemmings".






-------------
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.


Posted By: Juswin
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 10:54
Originally posted by LordOfTheSwamp LordOfTheSwamp wrote:


Oh - did I not mention in my second post having sent a few armies out? Maybe I thought it would be a bad idea to tell H? I was coming for their henchman? No no, that can't be it, that would have been prudent - and those of us outside H? are incapable of such rational thought, being mere "lemmings".


LOL Kurdruk. This is priceless. :))

I have to agree, its a bit unfair for a bigger player to hit a smaller player in another league so that his alliancemate can preserve his position or catch up. No matter how H? explains it, it does look that way, An army traveling over a thousand squares has to have some sort of purpose. Perhaps Nightury should explain himself as to what his armies were doing that far out.



Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 11:32
Originally posted by LordOfTheSwamp LordOfTheSwamp wrote:



And the other H-sponsored beneficiary of H's actions in that Division is out of the top 3 as well:


I hope that solves someone's complaint that only H was being strategic while the lemmings were being 'just so boring!' :P

Well done Kurdruk!


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 15:02
Well played, Kurdruk!


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 15:39
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

Well played, Kurdruk!

This is Damage Control to Major Tom.....


Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 18:42
Originally posted by StJude StJude wrote:

Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

Well played, Kurdruk!

This is Damage Control to Major Tom.....


It's called good sportsmanship. Look it up. You might learn something.


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 18:44
Yes, it seems like damage control... i'm sure the evil Kumomoto would be incapable of genuinely applauding someone for some decent, fun, pvp tourny competitiveness with himself and his allince - because EVERYTHING is a conspiracy right Judy?

Now where is my tinfoil hat? The queen is coming to tea and I don't want her to take my skin for making human suits for her lizardmen henchmen.

Thumbs Up


Posted By: Silverlake
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 19:22
I think several of my alliance mates are brilliant, and have come to expect this type of post.  You know, where all H? members are generalized as being "evil bullies."   But we are diverse, and our domination of the B league proves that (7 of the top ten).  Let us not forget... it's just a game, and this tournament enhanced it.

Come on Jude, what did I write you when you destroyed my siege army?  "Well Played," I believe and it was far more sportsmanlike than what you wrote me.  H? does share a common trait where we recognize good game play.  You on the other hand only seek to get attention.  


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 19:49
Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:


It's called good sportsmanship. Look it up. You might learn something.

Oh the irony...../facepalm
 

You know what real good sportsmanship is? Not attacking players armies who were doing a better job than you were in a tournament.....

You know what even better good sportsmanship is? Not attacking players who are a fraction of your size.






Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 20:04
Originally posted by Silverlake Silverlake wrote:

Come on Jude, what did I write you when you destroyed my siege army?  "Well Played," I believe and it was far more sportsmanlike than what you wrote me.  H? does share a common trait where we recognize good game play.  You on the other hand only seek to get attention.  

Forgive me, I fail to see the "sport" in your alliance continually sending attacks and siege engines at one city that happens to be well OUTSIDE the 10 square boundary you declared after the fact.

You call it sport, I call it bullying. You would have seen more amicable mails from me if I wasn't on the receiving end of your catapults.....


Posted By: LordOfTheSwamp
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 20:55
Originally posted by StJude StJude wrote:

Originally posted by Kumomoto Kumomoto wrote:

Well played, Kurdruk!

This is Damage Control to Major Tom.....

Not strictly fair. There's no reason to think that Kumomoto didn't sincerely mean that.

So,

Kumomoto: thank you.


Now in general, if I can adopt a slightly less combative tone that that which prevails (and which I may grumpily have contributed to - my apologies if I did so)...

This situation allows me to simultaneously ride my two current favored hobby-horses (neat trick, by the way, which should further my rodeo career if I don't damage my groin... but I digress...)

1)

There are lots of ways that Illyriad can be played. It has to be played as a city builder, but after that it can be played solely as a builder, or as a wargame, or as a trading game, and there are early signs that it might also in future be playable in other styles such as as a mystery game (note the Mysteries), etc. However, the wargame approach, as the rules stand, will always trump the others. So, in the tournament just passed, most players played the tournament as a solitary or alliance-based building and planning exercise, often deliberately avoiding conflict or changing their approach to accommodate their neighbors. H? (and, I infer, a couple of other alliances) chose to impose a wargame approach on this where "of course" PvP combat ensued.

Now, this wargame approach was not the only approach - there was no "of course" it should go that way. Rather than unsentimentally attacking smaller players, there was a collaborative / respectful / deferential approach evidenced up in Wolgast between Frost, Absa and PA (I had several conversations wherein people were seeking to avoid inconveniencing oneanother); and earlier in this thread a similar approach was referenced between WE and another player; most people seem to have taken this more laid-back approach.

There were two approaches. Nowhere is there a divine writ stating that one is right and the other wrong. But the fact is that the wargamers had the power to impose their approach on the others - on, I think, the majority. The more laid back types cannot impose their view on the wargamers. 

Now, in this instance I believe - and I may be wrong - that the wargame approach rendered the tournament less interesting. But it's too late to moan about that now, and honestly I don't think it's interesting. What is interesting is that in this, as in so much of Illy, there rules put all the power in the hands of the wargamers. Ultimately, they decide how things will unfold.

2)

H? are the feudal lords of Illyriad. They have just demonstrated that they do, excellently well, what feudal lords did to maintain power - and what the current setup of Illyriad requires that people do in order to hold a dominant position of power: they wield superior military force with superior skill.

This is not a sycophantic piece of flattery, fawning before the "glorious monarchs". It is also not some sort of liberal or Marxian critique leading to a call for revolution against the "unjust oppressors". It is just a statement of how things are.


The point that I am trying to make is that people should not over-react, either way. It would be more helpful, if before either slating H? too harshly, or contrawise disregarding all criticism of them, people were to understand the dynamics and different perspectives.

There are different approaches to Illy; H? do what they do, and personally I think it was to the detriment of the game in this instance, but that's just IMHO; and this neither makes them heroes nor villains.


-------------
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.


Posted By: LordOfTheSwamp
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 20:59
bleedin' 'eck that was a ramble - sorry about that!

-------------
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 21:31
Originally posted by LordOfTheSwamp LordOfTheSwamp wrote:


Not strictly fair. There's no reason to think that Kumomoto didn't sincerely mean that.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point I think. From where I am standing, there is plenty of reason to suspect that was not sincere. But I'll leave it be at that.


Originally posted by LordOfTheSwamp LordOfTheSwamp wrote:

Now in general, if I can adopt a slightly less combative tone that that which prevails (and which I may grumpily have contributed to - my apologies if I did so)...

This situation allows me to simultaneously ride my two current favored hobby-horses (neat trick, by the way, which should further my rodeo career if I don't damage my groin... but I digress...)

1)

There are lots of ways that Illyriad can be played. It has to be played as a city builder, but after that it can be played solely as a builder, or as a wargame, or as a trading game, and there are early signs that it might also in future be playable in other styles such as as a mystery game (note the Mysteries), etc. However, the wargame approach, as the rules stand, will always trump the others. So, in the tournament just passed, most players played the tournament as a solitary or alliance-based building and planning exercise, often deliberately avoiding conflict or changing their approach to accommodate their neighbors. H? (and, I infer, a couple of other alliances) chose to impose a wargame approach on this where "of course" PvP combat ensued.

Now, this wargame approach was not the only approach - there was no "of course" it should go that way. Rather than unsentimentally attacking smaller players, there was a collaborative / respectful / deferential approach evidenced up in Wolgast between Frost, Absa and PA (I had several conversations wherein people were seeking to avoid inconveniencing oneanother); and earlier in this thread a similar approach was referenced between WE and another player; most people seem to have taken this more laid-back approach.

There were two approaches. Nowhere is there a divine writ stating that one is right and the other wrong. But the fact is that the wargamers had the power to impose their approach on the others - on, I think, the majority. The more laid back types cannot impose their view on the wargamers. 

Now, in this instance I believe - and I may be wrong - that the wargame approach rendered the tournament less interesting. But it's too late to moan about that now, and honestly I don't think it's interesting. What is interesting is that in this, as in so much of Illy, there rules put all the power in the hands of the wargamers. Ultimately, they decide how things will unfold.

2)

H? are the feudal lords of Illyriad. They have just demonstrated that they do, excellently well, what feudal lords did to maintain power - and what the current setup of Illyriad requires that people do in order to hold a dominant position of power: they wield superior military force with superior skill.

This is not a sycophantic piece of flattery, fawning before the "glorious monarchs". It is also not some sort of liberal or Marxian critique leading to a call for revolution against the "unjust oppressors". It is just a statement of how things are.


The point that I am trying to make is that people should not over-react, either way. It would be more helpful, if before either slating H? too harshly, or contrawise disregarding all criticism of them, people were to understand the dynamics and different perspectives.

There are different approaches to Illy; H? do what they do, and personally I think it was to the detriment of the game in this instance, but that's just IMHO; and this neither makes them heroes nor villains.

With all due respect, I simply do not understand why you would write the above and be so ambivalent. There are several ideas here that are not subject to relativistic interpretation.

Sportsmanship has a definition, from that definition we can evaluate actions and see if they fit within the bounds of that definition. What is being argued here in this tournament is fairness or sportsmanship.

Is it sportsmanlike to squash a smaller players armies, simply because you have the military might to do so?


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 21:35
One of the best stories of this tournament is that some of the most compelling action was outside of the big leagues.  A salute to the dedicated small to mid-sized players who fought hard, learned so much and did so well!  And congratulations to the devs for creating a tourney that allowed them to shine!


Posted By: LordBliss
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 22:22
[. There are several ideas here that are not subject to relativistic interpretation.

Sportsmanship has a definition, from that definition we can evaluate actions and see if they fit within the bounds of that definition. 
[/QUOTE]

This is kinda silly.  You seem to think that the term sportsmanship has an absolute definition, (which of course will be exactly the same as your idea of what it  is).  Apparently you believe this to the degree that you casually assert that there is "a definition" and that we all subscribe to it, and you don't even have to state what this supposed non-relativistic interpretation is.  We are not only to read your mind, but agree with it.

The fact is, the concept of sportsmanship is very much a relative term.  It means different things to different people at different times under different circumstances.  If you can't grasp that, your ego is probably using all the blood in your body, depriving your brain.  

If you pay me a nickle per description, i will describe instances where the concept of what is good sportsmanship or not can be viewed differently by people and reasonably by all.  You will end up owing me a million dollars.  




Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 22:40
Human beings reason by means of concepts and definitions.

I can see you have a hard time being reasonable.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 22:43
StJude, you are the one who claimed that there was a single definition of sportsmanship without providing one.  If humans reason by means of concepts and definitions and you have not clarified what yours are, who is failing to be reasonable?


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 22:45
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

StJude, you are the one who claimed that there was a single definition of sportsmanship without providing one.  If humans reason by means of concepts and definitions and you have not clarified what yours are, who is failing to be reasonable?

1.) Please show me where I said there was a "Single" definition.

2.) Play on words, meet Rill, Rill, meet.....nevermind she won't get it anyway.


Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 22:48
I like LoTS' breakdown there.

It seems the biggest issue in this thread [other than Truth+Judy doing their usual inflammatory anti-H? rhetoric] is not related to H?, peace and some other alliances engaging in direct competitive conflict during the tournament - but to do with a single attack by an H? member against tournament forces of a player in a lower league.

I don't try and pretend H? is perfect - we don't try and justify our actions with some 'moral code' that more often than not comes across as a poor excuse for furthering one's own goals than a genuine set of beliefs about the ever subjective 'right and wrong'.

I agree though with other people in this thread though that the attack in question was not wholly within the spirit of friendly competetivness within the tournament - a mistake if you like.

You guys with a bee-in-your-bonnet about this need to understand though that although people involved in this might admit a mistake was made - H? is not going to publicly denounce a good guildmate for a single mistake - and definatly not when several of the people shouting about this mistake on the public forum clearly have an ulterior motive than genuine concern for the well-being of a player they don't even know. Indeed the rhetoric seems even more thin when the victim of this mistake has shown such good-sportsmanship in their response to this already.


Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 22:55
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:


I don't try and pretend H? is perfect - we don't try and justify our actions with some 'moral code' that more often than not comes across as a poor excuse for furthering one's own goals than a genuine set of beliefs about the ever subjective 'right and wrong'. 
 

You don't get off that easy, would I be right to assume you didn't read Honoredmule's letter justifying his attacks? If you didn't, it flies in the face of what you are saying here

Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

 
I agree though with other people in this thread though that the attack in question was not wholly within the spirit of friendly competetivness within the tournament - a mistake if you like.

You guys with a bee-in-your-bonnet about this need to understand though that although people involved in this might admit a mistake was made - H? is not going to publicly denounce a good guildmate for a single mistake - and definatly not when several of the people shouting about this mistake on the public forum clearly have an ulterior motive than genuine concern for the well-being of a player they don't even know. Indeed the rhetoric seems even more thin when the victim of this mistake has shown such good-sportsmanship in their response to this already.

No one asked you to publicly denounce the player in question. (although it amuses me that this line of reasoning was used when Azreil was on the hot seat.) Besides yourself, I have yet to see anyone in a position of H? leadership admit there was a mistake to begin with. (Although LordBliss would disagree as he seems to have a rather wide and fluid notion of what sportsmanship is)

What I do see is the 5 D's of dodgeball.....




Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2012 at 23:02
Yeh the comparison with Azreil defending duq with the "we aren't going to throw a guildmate to the masses" line crossed my mind too judy. It seems like a favourite of yours to compare as much as you can to assorted VALAR incidents.

Perhaps you can't see the difference between 'one large guy knocking out the forces of a smaller player one time during a tournament for the furtherment of tournament goals' to 'one large guy constantly hammering/seiging all the cities of a small guy for weeks for no apparent justification other than a mixture of boredom/personal space'. I know I can see the difference between these two - and I suspect most of the rest of the community can too. I suspect you can too but it is convenient for you to try and draw these ill-thought out comparisons to try and further your inflammatory rhetoric.

And yes I did read HMs posts of course - and I realise that what I've said above differs. I am not a spokesperson for H? - I am just presenting an opinion for those who might wish to see things from a different perspective.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net