Print Page | Close Window

Tournaments and War - Proposal

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=7256
Printed Date: 19 Nov 2017 at 02:45
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Tournaments and War - Proposal
Posted By: Fanuidhol
Subject: Tournaments and War - Proposal
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2017 at 03:45
In the spirit of the game I hereby propose a minimum 30 day truce for declaring war after a server wide tourney. Unless of course there were extreme circumstances that would require such action.









Replies:
Posted By: Yitshak
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2017 at 04:02
Originally posted by Fanuidhol Fanuidhol wrote:

In the spirit of the game I hereby propose a minimum 30 day truce for declaring war after a server wide tourney. Unless of course there were extreme circumstances that would require such action.

Hmmm, I think that declaration of war would be the result of extreme circumstances, or at least I would hope so. I doubt many would go to war on a whim....


-------------
You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2017 at 04:55
Planning and declaring a war after player sponsored tourneys isn't "on a whim" or "extreme circumstances." We can omit "extreme circumstances" if everyone abides by the 30 day truce.

QUOTE=Yitshak]
Hmmm, I think that declaration of war would be the result of extreme circumstances, or at least I would hope so. I doubt many would go to war on a whim....
[/QUOTE]


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2017 at 05:26
In the spirit of the game? You can't be serious. Nobody has trampled the goodwill of tournaments more than Valiant Crow. In the last tournament, vCrow used battlefield tactics like weaponized cities to solidify square dominance. The implied threat is clear--touch the city and risk a war with the #1 alliance, or back down and concede the square.

You can't deliberately blur the line between war and tournament, and then complain because an adversary blurs it further.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Eresh
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2017 at 05:33
I tell all the Loki newbies to figure out what they wanna be when they grow up in response to their queries about where they should exodus to or how they should build their cities. When they ask what I mean I tell them that they can be traders, crafters, npc harvesters, pvpers, or some combination thereof, or all of the above. I tell them that if they want to specialize in one particular thing they can be really good at it, but at the expense possibly of the speed or strength in another thing.

For example, if they wanna be a military player and they wanna go with a 5-5-5-5-5 type res distribution with high troop sov they can crank out troops super fast, but at the expense of having a higher population or more cities or more gold from taxes. If they wanna grow big and huge with 20 or even 40 cities then they need the 7 food tiles and that will come at the expense of being able to crank out the 400% or better troop sov. It's a balancing act, a give and take. Be "pretty good" at everything, or be "freaking awesome" at one thing.

So here's my advice to you just like the newbies... if you want to be the #1 tournament alliance, then you're going to have to be #2 (or #3, etc.) somewhere else. You can't be "freaking awesome" at everything, the game doesn't work like that. You can't change the server to keep your undisputed strength in one area while also removing your weakness in another. If you want to win a tourney do it, go all in, but understand that another alliance may be going all in for a war instead. If you want to be strongest in war, go for it, but that means another alliance will sweep the tourney out from under you. It's a balancing act, a give and take. Pick your path and be the best at it. 


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2017 at 05:47
This is a proposal/game suggestion for the future regardless of what has happened in the past.

Attacking/defending player cities vs. tourney squares are very different things. I'm not sure what you mean by using weaponized cities in a tourney since any weapons would have to be used and lost on a square in the tourney. As far as I know vCrow has never declared war over tourney squares.

Originally posted by Ten Kulch Ten Kulch wrote:

In the spirit of the game? You can't be serious. Nobody has trampled the goodwill of tournaments more than Valiant Crow. In the last tournament, vCrow used battlefield tactics like weaponized cities to solidify square dominance. The implied threat is clear--touch the city and risk a war with the #1 alliance, or back down and concede the square.

You can't deliberately blur the line between war and tournament, and then complain because an adversary blurs it further.


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2017 at 14:01
Originally posted by Fanuidhol Fanuidhol wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by using weaponized cities in a tourney since any weapons would have to be used and lost on a square in the tourney. As far as I know vCrow has never declared war over tourney squares.

vCrow moved multiple cities directly adjacent to tournament squares. For any square vulnerable to a specific attack type, the adjacent city undermines the "clear big, hold small" strategy for all other alliances. The classic example is a plains square, where large cavalry armies clear, and people typically hold with 1-60 troops. With a city adjacent to the tournament square, it is trivial to pick off small occupying armies with elite commanders.

In order to restore any semblance of tactical balance to those tournament squares, the other alliances would have to remove the adjacent cities. Sieging a city is typically interpreted as an act of war. So placing the city adjacent to a tournament square presents your opponents with the choices of eating massive casualties, conceding the square due to the asymmetrical tactical advantage, or attacking the city (and risking a real war declaration over a tournament square).

Advancing a city in such an aggressive manner is a tactic commonly employed in PvP wars. Such a beachhead allows the dispatch of siege engines from close range, which shortens the time between siege launches, cuts warning times down considerably, and holds entire areas in jeopardy of siege. In short, a weaponized city. Contrasted with a typical city used for account growth and traditional purposes.

Using weaponized cities to dominate tournament squares is a valid meta-game tactic. But it blurs the line between tournaments and warfare. Your proposed 30-day cooldown between tournaments and war declarations implies that there is a protected nature to tournaments. There isn't. Especially not when your alliance is using battlefield tactics to tip more tournament squares in its favor.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2017 at 20:09
http://illywarmonger.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/yellow-is-new-red.html" rel="nofollow - http://illywarmonger.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/yellow-is-new-red.html

If someone has an issue with you then them declaring war or not is irrelevant. They can attack you just as easily with out a declaration as with one.
Going to war with someone after a tourney, imo, is a pretty cheap move in the same way as it would be to declare on someone right after they have been to war with someone else.
However, I also think that if you are going to war then you need to seize every advantage you can so I can see why people do it and would probably do it myself if I was ever put in that situation.


Posted By: Tink XX
Date Posted: 08 Jul 2017 at 20:36
For anyone who thinks vCrow was really low on troops, I have some prime real estate in Farshards to sell you.




Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 02:20
I see your point, being closer to the square is a strategic advantage. I don't see how that's blurs the lines of war since anyone is free to move their city near the square as well... Unless of course there are "land claims." Don't tourney squares move now?

Originally posted by Ten Kulch Ten Kulch wrote:

Originally posted by Fanuidhol Fanuidhol wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by using weaponized cities in a tourney since any weapons would have to be used and lost on a square in the tourney. As far as I know vCrow has never declared war over tourney squares.

vCrow moved multiple cities directly adjacent to tournament squares. For any square vulnerable to a specific attack type, the adjacent city undermines the "clear big, hold small" strategy for all other alliances. The classic example is a plains square, where large cavalry armies clear, and people typically hold with 1-60 troops. With a city adjacent to the tournament square, it is trivial to pick off small occupying armies with elite commanders.

In order to restore any semblance of tactical balance to those tournament squares, the other alliances would have to remove the adjacent cities. Sieging a city is typically interpreted as an act of war. So placing the city adjacent to a tournament square presents your opponents with the choices of eating massive casualties, conceding the square due to the asymmetrical tactical advantage, or attacking the city (and risking a real war declaration over a tournament square).

Advancing a city in such an aggressive manner is a tactic commonly employed in PvP wars. Such a beachhead allows the dispatch of siege engines from close range, which shortens the time between siege launches, cuts warning times down considerably, and holds entire areas in jeopardy of siege. In short, a weaponized city. Contrasted with a typical city used for account growth and traditional purposes.

Using weaponized cities to dominate tournament squares is a valid meta-game tactic. But it blurs the line between tournaments and warfare. Your proposed 30-day cooldown between tournaments and war declarations implies that there is a protected nature to tournaments. There isn't. Especially not when your alliance is using battlefield tactics to tip more tournament squares in its favor.


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 02:29
Going to war after a tourney could be a huge advantage and someone even suggested that we should use that tactic in the future. It makes competing in tourneys risky so that's why I suggested a 30 day truce.  

QUOTE=eowan the short] http://illywarmonger.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/yellow-is-new-red.html" rel="nofollow - http://illywarmonger.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/yellow-is-new-red.html

If someone has an issue with you then them declaring war or not is irrelevant. They can attack you just as easily with out a declaration as with one.
Going to war with someone after a tourney, imo, is a pretty cheap move in the same way as it would be to declare on someone right after they have been to war with someone else.
However, I also think that if you are going to war then you need to seize every advantage you can so I can see why people do it and would probably do it myself if I was ever put in that situation.[/QUOTE]


Posted By: Fiona
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 02:40
Truces are for the weak. Grow a pair and accept what happened and quit whining. It's annoying. If you don't like the way the game is played then log off and move on.

Cheers
Saffron


Posted By: robmc
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 03:24
Baby need a baba?


Posted By: Hobblez
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 03:28
I propose a 30 day truce from any tournament activity after a war. If your alliance is involved in a war, then you can not compete in a tourney for 30 days after the peace declaration. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, do you realize how dumb it sounds?


Posted By: Tink XX
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 04:05
Originally posted by Fanuidhol Fanuidhol wrote:

It makes competing in tourneys risky
 LOL


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 04:50
I was making a suggestion.

You don't have to agree but it'd be cooler if you were respectful about it.

Originally posted by Fiona Fiona wrote:

Truces are for the weak. Grow a pair and accept what happened and quit whining. It's annoying. If you don't like the way the game is played then log off and move on.

Cheers
Saffron


Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 07:41
Originally posted by Hobblez Hobblez wrote:

I propose a 30 day truce from any tournament activity after a war. If your alliance is involved in a war, then you can not compete in a tourney for 30 days after the peace declaration. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, do you realize how dumb it sounds?

Actually that could be interesting. Set up an alliance with your alt then declare war on all the other alliances and have the tourney all to yourself Wink


Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 07:48
You don't need to declare war to siege enemy cities.  Only thing declaring war does is turn their cities red for you.


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 08:15
Confused You're kidding right? 

Originally posted by Tensmoor Tensmoor wrote:

Originally posted by Hobblez Hobblez wrote:

I propose a 30 day truce from any tournament activity after a war. If your alliance is involved in a war, then you can not compete in a tourney for 30 days after the peace declaration. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, do you realize how dumb it sounds?

Actually that could be interesting. Set up an alliance with your alt then declare war on all the other alliances and have the tourney all to yourself Wink


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 08:18


Originally posted by robmc robmc wrote:

Baby need a baba?


Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2017 at 14:26
Originally posted by Fanuidhol Fanuidhol wrote:

Confused You're kidding right?

Of course I am. It's a completely unworkable idea.


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2017 at 13:56
Oh I see what you mean.

It was meant as a general player agreement, like veteran players not attacking newbies.

 
Originally posted by Tensmoor Tensmoor wrote:

Originally posted by Fanuidhol Fanuidhol wrote:

Confused You're kidding right?

Of course I am. It's a completely unworkable idea.


Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2017 at 15:42
Ok, having read this post now I sense that it is an attempt to complain that fCrow declared war on vCrow directly after a tournament. Looking at troop numbers and players that took part in the tournament it seems both sides had players taking part in the tournament.

The issue you should really be addressing is "Active alliances with players who actually know how to wage war should give tournament based permasat alliances with very few real active players 100 days grace before declaring after a tournament".

If tournaments were actually more often and players were more active I am guessing this thread would actually have hit home to a few.


-------------
Kaggen is my human half


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 16:56
fCrow friendlies have responded that this is a complaint because they are self-conscious that declaring after a tourney is/was a weasel maneuver. Regardless of recent events my point is still to nip it in the bud moving forward.

Originally posted by Gragnog Gragnog wrote:


I sense that it is an attempt to complain that fCrow declared war on vCrow directly after a tournament.


What then would be the harm in asking for 30 days after a tourney for any alliance? If one knows how to war and the other are chumps the outcome would be the same.

 QUOTE=Gragnog]
The issue you should really be addressing is "Active alliances with players who actually know how to wage war should give tournament based permasat alliances with very few real active players 100 days grace before declaring after a tournament".
[/QUOTE]



Originally posted by Gragnog Gragnog wrote:

Ok, having read this post nowI sense that it is an attempt to complain that fCrow declared war on vCrow directly after a tournament.Looking at troop numbers and players that took part in the tournament it seems both sides had players taking part in the tournament.

The issue you should really be addressing is "Active alliances with players who actually know how to wage war should give tournament based permasat alliances with very few real active players 100 days grace before declaring after a tournament".

If tournaments were actually more often and players were more active I am guessing this thread would actually have hit home to a few.


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2017 at 20:10
Originally posted by Fanuidhol Fanuidhol wrote:

fCrow friendlies have responded that this is a complaint because they are self-conscious that declaring after a tourney is/was a weasel maneuver.

That's the kind of argument a child makes. "If you aren't really a (obnoxious accusation), why are you so mad?" Possibly because being called a weasel on a public forum is worthy of a negative reaction, regardless of truth or falsehood.

All I see here is a defeated opponent being bitter on the forums.

Originally posted by Fanuidhol Fanuidhol wrote:

What then would be the harm in asking for 30 days after a tourney for any alliance? If one knows how to war and the other are chumps the outcome would be the same.

The Phalanx will never allow external factors determine whether we can go to war. I can't imagine any other military alliance agreeing to those kinds of absurd limitations, either.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2017 at 02:14
I doubt another war will happen after a tourney again so this idea is meaningless. never the fact you havent offered an idea of what would happen if someone broke this "rule" which is key to enforcing this idea  


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2017 at 04:18
Originally posted by kodabear kodabear wrote:

I doubt another war will happen after a tourney again so this idea is meaningless. never the fact you havent offered an idea of what would happen if someone broke this "rule" which is key to enforcing this idea  

There is no mention of punishment for the commonly accepted convention that students in training alliances should not be attacked, or the 10 square convention. By and large, the Illyriad community is cooperative about honoring conventions once they reach common consensus.

Obviously nobody is going to agree to a 30 day tournament cooldown on wars, so it's a moot point here.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Captain Kindly
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2017 at 06:38
I've been in an alliance that got declared upon right after a tournament, by a bunch of warmongers that timed for it. There was a lot of language in AC that would make a sailor blush. We just accepted it though. However you put it, like it or not, it is a valid strategy. Maybe you don't find it chique, but that doesn't change things.

I don't see why alliances should take a month after tournament end before declaring war, just because you choose to fully commit to a tournament, especially now tournaments can happen all the time. Illy is pretty peaceful as it is compared to other games, and this is mostly about top 10 alliances. Well, if you want to be big, act like big. H? managed to wage war and do a tournament at the same time during the Consone War.

On a side note, if you are empty of troops because of a tournament, those 30 days cooldown aren't going to make a difference anyway against an opponent that did not join your tournament.




-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/60249" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2017 at 02:46
is the OP intended to prevent alliances which have chosen to participate in a tournament from being ambushed immediately thereafter (when they are, one assumes, vulnerable), or is the OP intended to allow alliances to participate in tournaments as a way to forestall the consequences of their dealings with the rest of the server?

imo, the first is poor form but rather difficult to prove. accusations that H? timed its conflict with Consone were made freely by many agencies and denied just as often by H? itself. no other instances come to mind, leaving me, at least, in the position of not being able to establish that this sort of thing actually happens (and if it doesn't, it certainly doesn't need another unenforceable global convention to fix it). in the immediate instance, fCrow certainly did not ambush vCrow, as Stukahh was in gc several times during the tournament foreshadowing the coming attack in not-very-veiled terms (Stukahh has been called many things, but not, to my knowledge, "subtle").

in the other case, if it's intended to afford alliances the luxury of behaving badly on the eve of a tournament and then hiding behind the global event for two months (duration of the tournament, duration of the peace)...well, that's going to end the same way the "king's peace" in BL would have ended, which is to say if you create a space where the consequences of offensive actions cannot follow, trolls will take refuge there. regardless of the OP's intent, this suggestion would create such a space, and i think that is very much at odds with the nature of the game. it is, after all, a sandbox and not a gladiatorial arena.


Posted By: Captain Kindly
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2017 at 07:54
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

is the OP intended to prevent alliances which have chosen to participate in a tournament from being ambushed immediately thereafter (when they are, one assumes, vulnerable), or is the OP intended to allow alliances to participate in tournaments as a way to forestall the consequences of their dealings with the rest of the server?

imo, the first is poor form but rather difficult to prove. accusations that H? timed its conflict with Consone were made freely by many agencies and denied just as often by H? itself. no other instances come to mind, leaving me, at least, in the position of not being able to establish that this sort of thing actually happens (and if it doesn't, it certainly doesn't need another unenforceable global convention to fix it). in the immediate instance, fCrow certainly did not ambush vCrow, as Stukahh was in gc several times during the tournament foreshadowing the coming attack in not-very-veiled terms (Stukahh has been called many things, but not, to my knowledge, "subtle").

in the other case, if it's intended to afford alliances the luxury of behaving badly on the eve of a tournament and then hiding behind the global event for two months (duration of the tournament, duration of the peace)...well, that's going to end the same way the "king's peace" in BL would have ended, which is to say if you create a space where the consequences of offensive actions cannot follow, trolls will take refuge there. regardless of the OP's intent, this suggestion would create such a space, and i think that is very much at odds with the nature of the game. it is, after all, a sandbox and not a gladiatorial arena.

I am posting this from a POV from before I joined H? and I have never discussed history after joining. 

I was in FF (a training alliance for EE) at the eve of the Consone war. I observed my H? neighbour who had 9 cities circled around one of my cities go into war preparation mode as soon as the Consone confed was announced in the forums. All the cav supporting sov spots in the whole area suddenly got taken. That was months before the tournament started, and I never had the idea H? used the tournament to ambush Consone alliances. From what I sensed in talking with EE, they knew that war was coming at one point. And war season is usually in Autumn ;)

A better example would be NC hitting BANE right after a tournament. NC never did tournaments but was an excellent military machine. Whether you liked them or not, they were good at what they did. BANE had some key players assisting Crow (vCrow after they merged with VALAR). But He-Man's policy always was not to commit all troops in a tournament.

But that's history. Water under the bridge and all :)


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/60249" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Djehuti
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2017 at 01:10

Despite being a member of an alliance which very much enjoys tournament participation and would also find benefit in a 'rule' such as this, I cannot support this idea.

I get the impression that, for the most part, most wars that have happened have had enough preamble that the involved parties had time to strategize and prepare to some extent. If an alliances preparation includes using your troops to fight a tournament, then perhaps it's time to reevaluate your priorities. Regardless of your alliances specific goals and desires for game-play, this is still a sandbox game heavily focused towards warfare, and ignoring the other aspects of the game does not stop the other aspects from happening to or around you. Yes, you certainly have the right to play as you see fit, but so does everyone else - your strategy and goals should reflect this truth.

This proposition also heavily favors tournament players, without giving thought to other game styles. So, if you're going to agree with this idea, why stop there? a 30 day truce after someone is involved in a war. a 30 day truce after the HoC awakens, for mystery-seekers. A 30 day truce after a crafter invests all their gold/resources into production ques or materials. A 30 day truce after holidays for people who claim to have a real life (i hear they exist). A 30 day truce after a 30 day truce, for people who dont log in as often as those who wish to attack them. Silly, yes?

If you don't want to war with other alliances, work harder on your diplomatic skills and inter-alliance relationships to prevent such events from happening. One reason Stuk & company were so successful in recruiting players for this most current engagement was due to the reputation vCrow has established for itself throughout that alliances history here. While I wasnt yet playing this game when vCrow rose to its current position of glory, by all accounts that ive read and heard, that position was gained through aggressiveness and strategic diplomatic arrangements. But, now that youre at the top, you claim to no longer seek such things, and yet still expect to retain your position as number one in whichever facets you desire. That is nonsense. I have no doubt you earned your spot at #1, but if you plan on keeping it you can't complain every time someone tries to take you down a notch or seeks vengeance for past actions.

Originally posted by Fanuidhol Fanuidhol wrote:

As far as I know vCrow has never declared war over tourney squares.


While it may have never made it to the War declaration stage, veiled threats have been made over it, telling us (Horde) to stop and 'reminding' us that most alliances would have already declared war over having their city attacked during a tournament (I'm told i cannot copy and paste direct quotes from IGMs for whatever reason, so that's an abridged version of a comment made towards our alliance from a leader of vCrow after we Attacked and Blockaded a vCrow city that was exo'd to a tourny tile during our first participation in a tournament). At the time, we agreed to cease hostilities and discuss the matter of exo'ing cities after the tourny ended. Im also aware of similar threats made under similar circumstances, which leads me to believe vCrow is fine with making threats of war when its to their advantage. Tho, to be fair, the conversation itself was very polite, and the vCrow member did offer alternative options to help level the playing field.

Furthermore, in that same discussion and the discussion that followed on the forums after that tournament, we were told that because the game had no system-backed rules that said a city could not be exo'd next to a tourny tile, that it was a valid game strategy. Fair enough. But, i would argue that sieging those cities or declaring war after a tournament is also allowed by the game system, and is therefore also a valid game strategy.



Originally posted by Fanuidhol Fanuidhol wrote:

fCrow friendlies have responded that this is a complaint because they are self-conscious that declaring after a tourney is/was a weasel maneuver.


Maybe. But that's sort of wrapped up in the ideals of RL morality. RL morality comes from RL experience, histories, religions, etc. Illyriad and RL are not the same thing, and do not share the same details that define things such as morality and ethics. Read the in-game history and faction lore and you'll find that the actions of attacking an opponent at their most vulnerable point is very much inline with the moral qualities one might expect from a being of this realm.

Additionally, when quite a few players argued against other players exo'ing cities next to tourny tiles because they thought it also "was a weasel maneuver", vCrow (and some others) said they would not stop because they felt they were entitled to pursue any strategic maneuver allowed by the game to gain advantage in the events which they were striving for. The concept of attacking an alliance just after they've participated in a tournament is no different.

And, of course, in terms of RL, the winners and losers of war are often determined by which side is willing to take advantage of opportunities presented to them. If you're concerned about this strategy, perhaps it would be worth devoting more effort towards limiting such vulnerabilities.


Originally posted by Kodabear Kodabear wrote:

I doubt another war will happen after a tourney again so this idea is meaningless. never the fact you havent offered an idea of what would happen if someone broke this "rule" which is key to enforcing this idea


Seems like a dangerous assumption to make, considering now it has been done and shown to be effective. People don't tend to just ignore successful strategies. (Im not saying fCrow won because of this alone, only that many will likely attribute their success - at least in part - to that strategy.)

Tho, i do agree with your other point. Players who break the 10-tile rule or pick on newbies are threatened with hostilities. But how do you use war to threaten someone who is already threatening war? And, if not threats of aggression, what other tools do you have to enforce such a rule? And is vCrow, who is consistently saying they are not interested in war, willing to go to war on behalf of someone else who's being attacked directly after a tournament in order for enforce this 30 day truce idea?





Also, though perhaps not directly related to this topic, I am curious: are you suggesting or under the impression that this fCrow/vCrow conflict would have panned out different if fCrow had waited 30 days before attacking? I am only an observer here, so i certainly may be wrong, but there doesnt seem to be much evidence that things would have gone differently had an extra 30 days of preparation been given.

As I mentioned above, you knew that war was coming, even before the event. A number of players, including members of your alliance, have already confirmed this. Maybe out of hubris, or denial, or higher expectations of your BL players, you STILL chose to fight in the tournament. Those cities and players lost in the BL could have been avoided. You could have exo'd out before the war. You could have exo'd more into that area to support your players. Bribery could have been attempted. You could have reached out to Stuk & Company before hand, learned what they wanted, and arranged peace terms before a single army was sent. But you didn't do any of that - as far as I know (which could be mistaken), you didn't make any effort to avoid the conflict, and even allowed some of your members to participate in the GC trash talk just prior to and during the war. This wasnt a matter of some newbie or small alliance being picked on - this was one of the largest and most established alliances in the game ignoring a very real and known threat on the horizon in favor of taking home another gold medal.






Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2017 at 02:55
Originally posted by Djehuti Djehuti wrote:



Originally posted by Kodabear Kodabear wrote:

I doubt another war will happen after a tourney again so this idea is meaningless. never the fact you haven't offered an idea of what would happen if someone broke this "rule" which is key to enforcing this idea


Seems like a dangerous assumption to make, considering now it has been done and shown to be effective. People don't tend to just ignore successful strategies. (Im not saying fCrow won because of this alone, only that many will likely attribute their success - at least in part - to that strategy.)




The main issue with this happening again is not knowing ahead of time a tourney is happening. THis last tourney player were aware 6 months ahead of time.  And with dev tourney, you only get one day notice about the tourney.  And if it's a player tourney you can't say for sure if the said alliance you want to go to war with will be taking part fully or at all (since some alliance won't or drop their activity in player ran tourney.  plus wars are still pretty rare and so are tourney so imo it won't. likely happen again for this to even matter


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2017 at 23:23
The forced exodus is related, but I wouldn't of gone to the forums if not for the post-tourney declaration. It was only the maneuver that was called weasel(ish), a "military alliance" shouldn't have to resort to such measures.

P.S. Weasels do help control the rabbit population as we learned today in trivia Wink 

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

Originally posted by Ten Kulch Ten Kulch wrote:

Originally posted by Fanuidhol Fanuidhol wrote:

fCrow friendlies have responded that this is a complaint because they are self-conscious that declaring after a tourney is/was a weasel maneuver.

That's the kind of argument a child makes. "If you aren't really a (obnoxious accusation), why are you so mad?" Possibly because being called a weasel on a public forum is worthy of a negative reaction, regardless of truth or falsehood.

All I see here is a defeated opponent being bitter on the forums.

Originally posted by Fanuidhol Fanuidhol wrote:

What then would be the harm in asking for 30 days after a tourney for any alliance? If one knows how to war and the other are chumps the outcome would be the same.

The Phalanx will never allow external factors determine whether we can go to war. I can't imagine any other military alliance agreeing to those kinds of absurd limitations, either.


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2017 at 23:31
Yes, it is/was meant as a sort of co-operative rule. Idk about you all but I can certainly use a break for RL purposes after a 30 day tourney.

Originally posted by Ten Kulch Ten Kulch wrote:

Originally posted by kodabear kodabear wrote:

I doubt another war will happen after a tourney again so this idea is meaningless. never the fact you havent offered an idea of what would happen if someone broke this "rule" which is key to enforcing this idea  

There is no mention of punishment for the commonly accepted convention that students in training alliances should not be attacked, or the 10 square convention. By and large, the Illyriad community is cooperative about honoring conventions once they reach common consensus.

Obviously nobody is going to agree to a 30 day tournament cooldown on wars, so it's a moot point here.


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2017 at 23:31
Until the day comes where the metagame is somehow effectively "turned off" in Illyriad, participating in tournaments will always be a risky proposition for players and alliances. It always has been and always will be a military gambit. 

Alliances should always weigh the risk of participating in a tournament before entering and committing a large portion of their standing armies.


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/263810" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2017 at 23:36
Yes, 100% for this.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

is the OP intended to prevent alliances which have chosen to participate in a tournament from being ambushed immediately thereafter?



Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2017 at 23:43
Yea, 30 days is hardly enough to make up for using 6+ months of troops in a tourney but it's a lot better than 2 or 3 days.

Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

participating in tournaments will always be a risky proposition for players and alliances.


Forgot about this pic LOL





Posted By: Fiona
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2017 at 23:44
Is this still going on? Aren't you tired of whining? It happened and it's over. I only comment now so you remember I'm here and still a pain in your butt.
Lalala
Move on

Cheers Saffron


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2017 at 23:48
Good points, this is probably why the devs don't pre-announce a tourney.

Originally posted by kodabear kodabear wrote:

Originally posted by Djehuti Djehuti wrote:



Originally posted by Kodabear Kodabear wrote:

I doubt another war will happen after a tourney again so this idea is meaningless. never the fact you haven't offered an idea of what would happen if someone broke this "rule" which is key to enforcing this idea


Seems like a dangerous assumption to make, considering now it has been done and shown to be effective. People don't tend to just ignore successful strategies. (Im not saying fCrow won because of this alone, only that many will likely attribute their success - at least in part - to that strategy.)




The main issue with this happening again is not knowing ahead of time a tourney is happening. THis last tourney player were aware 6 months ahead of time.  And with dev tourney, you only get one day notice about the tourney.  And if it's a player tourney you can't say for sure if the said alliance you want to go to war with will be taking part fully or at all (since some alliance won't or drop their activity in player ran tourney.  plus wars are still pretty rare and so are tourney so imo it won't. likely happen again for this to even matter


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2017 at 23:56
Don't sell yourself short, you're much better than a hemorrhoid Tongue

Originally posted by Fiona Fiona wrote:

I'm here and still a pain in your butt.

Cheers Saffron


Posted By: Fiona
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2017 at 04:37
I have always been short. 
And im never going away Big smile

honestly the Devs should shut this post down. Just someone crying cause they lost.
Good Grief.

Saffron


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2017 at 22:04
Notes that the crying in this post is from people making false claims. Big smile 
 

QUOTE=Fiona]I have always been short. 
And im never going away Big smile

honestly the Devs should shut this post down. Just someone crying cause they lost.
Good Grief.

Saffron
[/QUOTE]


Posted By: Fiona
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2017 at 03:41
False? hmm Cool


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2017 at 16:36
Illyriad is a medieval society. In medieval Earth, war was frequent. In fact medieval princes were scumbags, the biggest scumbags in their areas, extracting money for 'protection'. So its only right that war in Illy would be waged by similar types.

What is different in Illy is not the war, its the tournaments. Medieval tournaments were played on level fields and the players did not generally die.

So in stead of contemplating silly changes to the rules of war, let's change the rules of tournaments.

1. Let's take distance out of the equation. During tournaments, when you send troops at a tourney square, let the army appear from the direction of the town, but 80 squares out. Everyone has the same distance to the target and a 'level' playing field is achieved. Make sure there is an equal spread of the 5 terrain types and throw in some jungle, desert and ice as well. When you leave the square your army is instantly at home. Advantage is that all squares come into play for every alliance and players who play morning/evening can have two sends in a day - in the last tournament some of my guys traveled 9 days to hit a square.

2. When the tourney is over, all troops get resurrected in their home town. Play with virtual virtual soldiers rather than virtual ones! This more accurately mimics medieval tournaments and would increase the level of participation in tournaments AND the number of wars - at the end of a tournament, people would have too many troops because of the ones they rush built during the tournament.

'Locals' would still have the advantage of diplo visibility and the ability to harvest more easily.


Posted By: Tink XX
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2017 at 00:48
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

Illyriad is a medieval society. In medieval Earth, war was frequent. In fact medieval princes were scumbags, the biggest scumbags in their areas, extracting money for 'protection'. So its only right that war in Illy would be waged by similar types.


Did you just call me scumbag? Shocked

Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

2. When the tourney is over, all troops get resurrected in their home town.

Nice try! Clap

Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

This more accurately mimics medieval tournaments


Yasss, let's resurrect the troops just like the medieval alchemists resurrected knights after they were killed in the tourney! Oh wait...

In fact participants in medieval tourneys frequently died in the event or shortly after due to non-existence of antibiotics and ICUs. To think that jousting knights wouldn't risk major bone fractures and/or internal organ damage is outright naive.



Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2017 at 01:05
. . . and not to sound pedantic, but Illyriad isn't a medieval society.



-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/263810" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2017 at 03:29
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

. . . and not to sound pedantic, but Illyriad isn't a medieval society.


It is, however, played predominantly by people in their Middle Ages.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2017 at 23:19
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

1. Let's take distance out of the equation.
it's worth remembering that in "medieval society" distance was very much in the equation, and a very real factor that limited which tournaments a prince or knight might participate in. not only were one's knights out of contact should the kingdom be attacked in their absence: they might be killed en route or while returning, or held hostage against some debt or to avenge some perceived slight by more or less any principality through which they passed.
medieval tournaments, of course, were not "king of the hill" affairs; one may as well think of them involving only commanders, and that might not be a terrible idea for a tournament. but please don't advocate for ignoring distance based on "medieval realism". that's just silly.


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2017 at 14:15
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

. . . and not to sound pedantic, but Illyriad isn't a medieval society.


Knights, Archers, Swords, Spears, cities with walls, scavenging battle fields, no central government, warring city states.....

Of course it is!


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2017 at 14:47
No. The medieval period ran through the 5th to 15th century, and the people who lived through that era were starkly different from the people of today in more respects than could easily be covered in a forum post (unless I was ajq, which I am not). Perhaps if Illyriad was a role-playing game where we all attempted to play in the style of medieval people, you'd have a point. But this is a contemporary society, and we bring our modern sensibilities to the game.

The real problem with tournaments and meta-war is that they cannot coexist without tournaments being exploited. I suspect the game developers are somewhat regretful that they created the siege mechanic, since they didn't anticipate that the predominant demographic that would end up playing and monetizing their game would be Farmville-style players who really don't have much of an interest in stretegic conquest (aka, most of you). Given this demographic, the tournament is a great idea -- it lets Farmville-style players use their troops without their cities being damaged. 

The problem is that the minority population of meta-warriors in the game can (will, and should) use the troop bleed from tournaments to their strategic advantage in their own games of conquest. A seemingly easy solution for the devs would be to shut down the siege mechanic, but that would lead to other problems, because siege is used for other non-meta-war means (terraforming, getting rid of inactives, etc.)

I don't think that there is any easy solution to reconciling tournaments and meta-war, since they both represent the disparate gaming styles present in Illyriad today. The only way to really solve the problem from the perspective of the majority would be for the Farmville-style players to band together and use meta-war to try and n00b-ring every meta-warrior out of the game, and then keep a police force in place to n00b-ring all potential threats to the Farmville peace going forward.

Of course, doing this would require a massive meta-war. 


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/263810" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2017 at 18:51
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

The only way to really solve the problem from the perspective of the majority would be for the Farmville-style players to band together and use meta-war to try and n00b-ring every meta-warrior out of the game, and then keep a police force in place to n00b-ring all potential threats to the Farmville peace going forward.

A.k.a. the second server war.

Although to be fair, many players in that war were motivated by a strong desire to topple Harmless as the reigning tournament champion of that era.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2017 at 01:25
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

I don't think that there is any easy solution to reconciling tournaments and meta-war, since they both represent the disparate gaming styles present in Illyriad today.
if one must belong to one or the other of these camps, i suppose i am a farmville-style player. so with my farmville cap on, let me say that these two activities are already reconciled. they exist in the sandbox. one can stand aside from tournament play because one expects an impending attack; one can surprise an opponent by attacking when his/her troops are otherwise engaged (either in tournament, in another conflict, hunting, assisting another alliance, etc.). i do not wish to see either of these options regulated or abridged. they go directly to why i still play the game. actions have consequences in illyriad. no saved games, no replays, no restarts. i can't think of anything that could be more realistic than that, in modern or medieval times. if you want to play a game without those sorts of long-term consequences, there are thousands. choose one. if you want to play only with players you like or who play your way, invite them to your home or choose any of a dozen online venues that facilitate long-distance play over the internet. stop trying to change the rules of this one to make your favourite activity in illyriad risk-free. you're making the game less fun for someone else.

as an aside, i'd like to see the community get over this habit of using disparaging nicknames to bait players with styles different from their own. it's unworthy behaviour for most players here, and it undermines the impact of otherwise compelling argument.


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2017 at 01:38
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

as an aside, i'd like to see the community get over this habit of using disparaging nicknames to bait players with styles different from their own. it's unworthy behaviour for most players here, and it undermines the impact of otherwise compelling argument.

In the context of my post, "Farmville-style player" was not meant to be disparaging. My wife plays Farmville -- she loves it. I've watched her play it enough to understand its game mechanics, and, while Illyriad is vastly different to Farmville in many gameplay respects, Illyriad players who 1) build cities, 2) craft, 3) trade, and 4) compete in tournaments but echew meta-war are engaging in similar gameplay to Farmville. You do all of those same things in Farmville, including competitions that are not in any way destructive to each other's farm. Illyriad lets you do similar things, plus it adds the element of meta-war.

In short, "Farmville-style player" -- not meant to be a disparaging term. I believe it to be a fair , if imperfect, descriptor for the majority of Illyriad gamers.

And for the record: if I could roll a siege in Farmville, I'd probably play Farmville, also.


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/263810" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2017 at 11:31
Tournaments should be training for war. You don't kill 75m troops preparing for war. Nor should players be split into tournament players OR war players. My proposal was to let training be training and war be war. It would increase the number of wars because there'd be more troops out there. It would allow for 'all in' in tournaments and would kill the long inactive periods following tournaments (I currently won't commit more than 33% of my troops to a tournament for example). It would increase player retention. It would cost the devs nothing as, perhaps foolishly, you cannot use sov to accelerate troop production in any meaningful way. It would speed up the game.


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2017 at 15:48
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

perhaps foolishly, you cannot use sov to accelerate troop production in any meaningful way.

A good military player averages 200-300% troop sov on all cities. That's a 3-4x multiplier on troop building speeds.

I wouldn't want to see the troop system make major changes. This isn't Game of War. The slower nature of army building and troop travel allows strategies to emerge over time. I rather like that opponents can't just spend money to poof an entire fresh army into existence.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2017 at 17:14
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

Tournaments should be training for war.
do you mean that you *wish* them to be, or that they should be by their nature? because if it's the latter, you should consider that tournament is sport, and sport is as or more often regarded as a substitute for conflict than as training for it.


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2017 at 19:39
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

i'd like to see the community get over this habit of using disparaging nicknames to bait players with styles different from their own. it's unworthy behaviour for most players here, and it undermines the impact of otherwise compelling argument.

Is "muggles" considered pejorative, or is it sufficiently benign?

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2017 at 23:28
Originally posted by Ten Kulch Ten Kulch wrote:

Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

perhaps foolishly, you cannot use sov to accelerate troop production in any meaningful way.

A good military player averages 200-300% troop sov on all cities. That's a 3-4x multiplier on troop building speeds.

I wouldn't want to see the troop system make major changes. This isn't Game of War. The slower nature of army building and troop travel allows strategies to emerge over time. I rather like that opponents can't just spend money to poof an entire fresh army into existence.

Sorry typo, meant pres not sov!

A good player moves his/her sov about all the time.

Don't want pres acceleration of troop production either (just odd that devs cut out an obvious money spinner)

Just making a suggestion to encourage more players into more aspects of the game.



Posted By: Eresh
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2017 at 14:56
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

Nor should players be split into tournament players OR war players.

I think all, or at least most, members of fcrow participated in the tournament. We just had troop sov to replace the losses as we suffered them. I was gaining troops during the tourney even despite the fact I was ~3 months old in the game and nowhere near able to sustain full sov or cities yet.

You can be both tournament and war player, you just can't be #1 at both. Which, IMO, is how it should be. 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net