Print Page | Close Window

Towards a better Illyria

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Elgea
Forum Description: For everything related to the Elgea Continent
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=7320
Printed Date: 17 Jun 2019 at 15:52
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Towards a better Illyria
Posted By: Hucbold
Subject: Towards a better Illyria
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 15:29
"We, the free citizens of Illyria, refusing to live under the yokes of tyranny and appression hereby resolve and mandate the following fundamental laws for the good governance of the kingdom.

All Illyrians are free to pursue their own course, free from intimidation or burdens of any kind provided that they observe the laws set out herein.

All Illyrians are free to live where they choose subject only to the terms allowed herein for land claims.

These laws recognise that towns and players each have the right to declare themselves non-combatants by appending the letters NC to their town name.

A non-combatent town may not attack another active town either militarily or diplomatically. One that does is guilty of a war crime.

A non-combatent town may defend itself but may not attack any other player town or encampment. Allowence will be made for hunting accidents where the encamped army was not present when the hunters were despatched.

A non-combatent town in an alliance at war may be attacked, blocaded, thieved, spied and scouted but may not be sieged.

A non-combatent town in an alliance at war changing its status to combatant is guilty of a war crime.

An attack on a non-combatent town not at war or a siege on any active non-combatent town is a war crime.

The punishment of a war crime is a just cause for war.

A town with less than 1000 population is automatically regarded as non-combatant.

Land claims are legal but are not automatically recognised. The opposition to a land claim is a just cause for war.

Non-combatant towns are allowed, by right, within land claims. However, they may not have a standing army exceeding 2,000 troops; they may not have more than 10 T1 scouts (for hunting purposes); they may not set a ward targeting scouts. Land claimers have the right to scout at will any non-combatent towns within their claim. Land claimers may excercise lesser conditions but more severe ones.

Cities within a land claim have the right to declare themselves non-combatent or to leave within 100 days of the establishment of the claim without interference from the land claimer. A failure to observe this law is a war crime.

Individual combatent players who have a dispute may settle the dispute diplomatically or militarily. If they chose a military route, they do so by posting a notice on the forum. Either party may appeal to at most one other player for assistance. Other parties may not interfere.

Individual disputes may excalate into alliance versus alliance wars. This may only be done by a war declaration. Extensive hostilities against another alliance without a declaration is a war crime.

Alliances and individuals are free to attempt to set rules about encampments and harvesting within 10 squares of their cities. Attempting to set rules outside this area, other than via a land claim, are war crimes.

Enforcing rules not displayed clearly on either the player's profile or the alliance's profile is a war crime.

Player's have the right to leave an alliance during a war. They also have the right to define certain towns as non-combatent during a war. If a player rejoins an alliance during a war or redesignates a city as combatant, having previously designated it as non-combatant then both the player and the alliance are guilty of a war crime. A 'Pertual Pursuit Policy' is a war crime.

The surrender terms for a war may include reparations in gold or resources, the disbandment of specified quantities of troops and diplomats and the exodus of no more than one town per player from or to a specified area on the map.

If war crimes have been committed then the winner may petition the United Illyrian Security Council for more punitive measures.

There will be a United Illyria Security Council. It will consist of the leaders of 10 alliances. The five alliances with the most towns will automatically be members - this membership may change as town numbers change. The other 5 members will be elected annually by the other alliances. The election will be performed via a forum thread. Each voting alliance will cast 1 vote per town that they own at the time of the election and may only vote for one alliance. Alliances may nominate themselves but alliances may not vote for themselves. In council votes, council members cast the number of votes for the towns they represent - either the number that voted for them or, for permanent members, their current number of towns. For resolutions to be carried, at least 6 members must vote in favour and members representing 60% of the represented towns must vote in favour.

The UISC may alter the terms of this declaration - in which case the threshold for adoption is 7 members and 70% of represented towns' 

Any Security Council member may propose a motion. Voting concludes 7 days after the motion is proposed. The motion is put by posting in a forum thread. Voting is by alliance leaders in that thread.

Persons who do not accept these rules may not seek any protection under its terms and may be subject to collective action by those who do."

This is a PROPOSAL

Discussion and proposals for ammendment are welcome.




Replies:
Posted By: The Reaper
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 15:40
Don't piss in my sandbox.


Posted By: Zenorra
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 16:12
You can do as you please, OUTSIDE of our land claim. 

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


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 16:28
So to recap: The biggest alliances (by towns and population) would like to impose a number of restrictions and rules on the military alliances who scare them. 1. Players can decide if they are safe non-combatants, 2. Players can declare individual towns safe and non-combatant, 3. Only big alliances get a vote, 4. If we don't get our way, we will try to pig pile the alliances we don't like.

When are you muggle autocrats going to get it? Just because your accounts and alliances are big, and you have a half dozen permasat farms each, does not mean you are virtuous. You'd like to imagine that size alone is justification for making all the rules. There is no rational reason to let you decide the rules for all regions, alliances, and players, except one: force. You acknowledge that by the last lines, issuing an implied threat to everyone who doesn't agree to your rules. You've already ruled out their participation by slanting everything for size and population. This is the way that Elgea has been run for the last few years, and exactly why it is a stagnant husk. You are trying to preserve a doomed political system that is suffocating your continent.

The server is being refreshed. The stagnant is being broken apart. The remaining active accounts are already moving to active alliances, which are far healthier and more engaging. Even if that renewal process threatens the big, old alliances, the breaking of that giant log jam can only be good for the game.

-------------
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: Wartow
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 17:28
I'm "a-ppressing" my back button to see what else is in the forums...


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


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 17:50
Originally posted by Ten Kulch Ten Kulch wrote:

3. Only big alliances get a vote,

Wrong. Every alliance gets to vote. Top 5 have permanent seats - they represent 394 towns out of 3216. The votes are weighted so they only have 12 1/4 % of the vote on any issue. The law of the land is then what the land decides. That's called democracy.

You may win and 30 of you may be left playing the game with each other. This is genuinely an attempt to save a complex game from terrorists who could just as easily play violent games that abound out there. I'd be on your side if it took a couple of weeks to build up. In fact it takes years - so the destructive faction is wiping out years of people's effort - and laughing at them. That's what I want to stop.  


Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 17:52
We already tried something along these lines with pig but the failed due to being two sides. One side wanted to limit war and the other wanted to limit the damage of wars.


Posted By: Fiona
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 18:07
A lot of words to go from calling us terrorists to war criminals. Nice job


Posted By: Grom
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 18:12
I could not be bothered to read the whole thing. But what makes you think you are the right person to set out guidelines (or even proposals) for server-wide behaviour? Your own behaviour landed you in a conflict that has not even seen its conclusion yet, and you seem to have a hard time inspiring just your own alliance. 


Posted By: Stukahh
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 18:26
From the description of Illyriad on Steam -- "Build a city, Create an Empire! Research 400+ technologies, and Build 70+ buildings, Craft and Trade 380+ items in an entirely player driven market. Fight Wars and Forge Alliances with thousands of players and create your own Empire in this award-winning, critically-acclaimed MMO."

I assume the Developers wrote this brief description.

The SINdicate is creating its own Empire as have many other alliances and confeds in the history of the game.  It is impossible to be labelled a terrorist or war criminal in the context of this game.  The devs are encouraging Empire building.  You can only build an empire by stepping on the throats of your enemies.

Such is life.  We are doing what we are supposed to be doing and you are the person who is part of the problem rather than the solution.

Stukahh



-------------
I don't always drink. But when I do, I prefer the blood of my enemies.


Posted By: Lotharblack
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 19:21
Why on earth should Illyriad have a democracy system? Feudalism would be much more interesting in my opinion. This is not a real world , why do so many people try to act as if it is?  

-------------
Lord Loth


Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 19:49
As a member of the one and only truly free alliance in Illyriad, I say we do not want your council, we do not need your council, and we will continue to be free and wanton as we please. Loki members have voiced their opinion and its a resounding NO. HELL NO. We will continue to be free and do what we want without anyone trying to tell us different.

If you do not like it, well, then you do not like it. As to "War Criminals" we embrace the medal and strive to wreak more havoc and chaos in the hope we can recruit more people who play as we do. Our alliance along with the other SINdicate members probably have more active members than all your council alliances combined.

Our off site chat rooms are more active, more fun, more entertaining in one hour than GC is in a whole week. I know it sucks, but hey, not everyone can be in the cool crowd. Some of you have to be the victims.


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


Posted By: Mahaut
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 20:43
As a player uninvolved in any current conflict I'm going to throw my hat into this arena.

I have no interest in player councils or any other way to control the game, or turn a group of alliances into some sort of server police. 
a) It won't work, each alliance has its own vested interests
b) It's not in the spirit of a sandbox game


But you know what raises my hackles about almost every post in the forum and on GC at the moment?
"War Criminal", that's what. War criminals throw groups of people into gas chambers or mow down real life civilians.  Notice that small but significant difference?  REAL LIFE.

*No real life politics/news events please*

This is a game, a part of which is a war game. NO-ONE in this game, no matter what they choose to do is a War Criminal or a Terrorist. It's pixels  - it ain't people. No one is threatening your family or your employment or your life.

Get some perspective and grow up folks. 

Cerberus edit for Forum Rules.


Posted By: Captain Kindly
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 21:33
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

These laws recognise that towns and players each have the right to declare themselves non-combatants by appending the letters NC to their town name.


I remember an alliance that did that. Hi Stukahh! LOL


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


Posted By: Mak
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 21:41
It seems like it would be hard to enforce a "non-combatant" clause. Judging from the community response to bureaucratic red-tape.

-------------
"Life is a Beautiful Struggle"-Mos Def

Former Player-Makanalani (World's End)
Proud Member of Dark Blight


Posted By: GM Cerberus
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 21:54
Hello everyone!

The term "terrorist" being thrown around a lot is now creating problems because of the real world implications of the term.  From here forward anyone accusing anyone of being a terrorist will be moderated, any beyond that will result in a ban.

Thank you for your understanding, please play nicely.

Regards,

GM Cerberus


Posted By: Jamie
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 22:19
I agree, people should be able to play the game how they want and not have someone control how they do it


Posted By: Derby
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2017 at 22:54
I want to make something perfectly and succinctly clear to all who read this Forum post started by Hucbold.  VTX will not participate in nor support any "Illy Council" attempting to control/police the game.  If you cannot tolerate and keep up with the game - hit the big Red button.  As to the implied threat - if VTX does not take part - well we will look back on your attempts to punish us with fond memories.  That is it from VTX - nothing more to say.  


Posted By: Whakomatic
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 03:05
I wonder what your "league" would have thought of the poor muppets in EE getting beaten up by those dastardly villains from 300. 

The Tyranny of the Majority





Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 03:47
Originally posted by Whakomatic Whakomatic wrote:

I wonder what your "league" would have thought of the poor muppets in EE getting beaten up by those dastardly villains from 300.

I wonder what his League would have thought of all the provocation and meddling that led up to our formal declaration of war.

-------------
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: zolvon
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 06:59
Hahahahaha!!LOL

You gotta LAUGH!!!


Posted By: Celebrant
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 13:15
Pointless.

Developers have written rules. The new rules will write if they estimate they will bring more money to them. This kind of situation in the game was due to their inability to do so. What the Sin works with his ally today is the job that should be done in a much more discreet way by those with the greatest responsibility, which are owners and developers. They had an ax in the honey. The map will be cleaned and they will fill their pockets. Frankly, I want a different game, a different environment, but I'm not asking anything about it, I'm just a grain of sand, the number at the end of the link. Remember, you " world map" cleaners " , you are just the number at the end of the link, the grain of sand.(if you are not developers)


This could be done by developers, but my humble opinion is now too late:

Traffic with gold, advanced and crafted with rare plants and minerals - just across the market.

Basic resources, plants and minerals can be transferred to a player - player.

The player can attack only stronger or straight. (If there is an attack on an abandoned account there is no limit)

Remove sitter.

Determine clearly and loudly that this is an inactive account and how to remove this account from the map, and that the player who removes it does not call a terrorist.

Limit the use of prestige for military and diplomatic purposes.

Prevent GC from being used as an Ad Plate.
Reduce the inflow of third-party apps.

If you already allow them to say clearly and loudly: SAFE THIS APPLICATION IS SAFE!
I would have more, for now this is enough.
Some of you and too.

Google translate, from Bucharest, Romania.

Star






Posted By: Tink XX
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 15:48
Originally posted by Celebrant Celebrant wrote:

The player can attack only stronger or straight. (If there is an attack on an abandoned account there is no limit)


So how do you determine who is stronger? What's the application logic gonna be like? Do you just compare troop counts at any given instant and block an attack/siege/blockade when the attacked player's troop counts are lower? Do you compare individual players troop counts? We'll just start sieging people with 1k stalwart siege armies on top of a million troop occupying stack. People will start disbanding their troops as soon as they see incoming. Fun times!

See, this is why TenK and I use the term "muggles". We aren't stronger than most of you guys. 300 in its current form is a 7-people alliance taking on a 71-people alliance with 500+ cities. In theory, their whole alliance could have rallied and knocked us out. Our strength is not in our numbers or population size or city size. It's simple, really: we stand up for each other and coordinate. If, instead of whining on forums and engaging in wishful thinking, SINdicate's opponents did the same, they wouldn't have to keep losing and the game would be a lot more interesting.


Posted By: Wartow
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 16:17
I don't believe anyone can, or should, be prohibited from attacking a smaller player but in general there isn't much for a larger player to gain by making the lives of much smaller players difficult.  The community has accepted that smaller players can be stashed safely away in training alliances without immediate threat from larger players and even hostility from other smaller players can be put down if it is not desired (or without cause).

What the DEVS can do is adjust rankings to reward successful defense and attacks by smaller players (population) against larger players or weigh such rankings to favor the PvP.  Climbing the rankings by NPC and inactive attacks should be dampened (or classified as hunting rather than attacking).  I've got no business being ranked #118 in attack rank, for reference, Stukkah is #114.  The discrepancy is clear when you compare our 600+ difference in defense rankings.

I feel this should probably be a post for another thread...

Wartow


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


Posted By: Celebrant
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 16:18
Originally posted by Tink XX Tink XX wrote:

Originally posted by Celebrant Celebrant wrote:

The player can attack only stronger or straight. (If there is an attack on an abandoned account there is no limit)


So how do you determine who is stronger? What's the application logic gonna be like? Do you just compare troop counts at any given instant and block an attack/siege/blockade when the attacked player's troop counts are lower? Do you compare individual players troop counts? We'll just start sieging people with 1k stalwart siege armies on top of a million troop occupying stack. People will start disbanding their troops as soon as they see incoming. Fun times!

See, this is why TenK and I use the term "muggles". We aren't stronger than most of you guys. 300 in its current form is a 7-people alliance taking on a 71-people alliance with 500+ cities. In theory, their whole alliance could have rallied and knocked us out. Our strength is not in our numbers or population size or city size. It's simple, really: we stand up for each other and coordinate. If, instead of whining on forums and engaging in wishful thinking, SINdicate's opponents did the same, they wouldn't have to keep losing and the game would be a lot more interesting.


Do not worry.
They have solution for everything.
And if is magic word in their language.
Do not worry.

Star


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 16:37
Many thanks to Google Translate for making this thread all that more surreal.

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


Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 16:39
Originally posted by Celebrant Celebrant wrote:


Reduce the inflow of third-party apps.

So you want me to close down DurcTools, Faction Action, Likely NPC Locations etc? I'm not perfect but I have tried to make a set of tools/utility pages that are balanced in that they offer something to all players no matter their playing style. I'm constantly trying to come up with ways to make tools that are available to everyone whether they play on a desktop, tablet or phone. I don't however have a large budget so I can only test and develop on my laptop using free software. If you know of a way to make tools/apps that will work on all platforms then I'm listening.

Perhaps if you used your in-game name I might listen to you. As it is I don't even know if you have an account in the game.


Posted By: Celebrant
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 16:46
Originally posted by Tensmoor Tensmoor wrote:

Originally posted by Celebrant Celebrant wrote:


Reduce the inflow of third-party apps.

So you want me to close down DurcTools, Faction Action, Likely NPC Locations etc? I'm not perfect but I have tried to make a set of tools/utility pages that are balanced in that they offer something to all players no matter their playing style. I'm constantly trying to come up with ways to make tools that are available to everyone whether they play on a desktop, tablet or phone. I don't however have a large budget so I can only test and develop on my laptop using free software. If you know of a way to make tools/apps that will work on all platforms then I'm listening.

Perhaps if you used your in-game name I might listen to you. As it is I don't even know if you have an account in the game.


I said reduce, i didn't say close , or not allow, sir.
( I do not allow everybody to snatch me in my own yard)
I have nothing against you, or apps you made and maintenance.
No thanks for you, because I've not used it, but I respect your work.
Want word or two from Devs, nothing more.
My name, nick name isn't important.



Posted By: Celebrant
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 16:50
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Many thanks to Google Translate for making this thread all that more surreal.


You are welcome

Smile


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 16:54
Originally posted by Tink XX Tink XX wrote:

300 in its current form is a 7-people alliance taking on a 71-people alliance with 500+ cities.

Correction: we are fighting a 71 account alliance. Just based on growth patterns, I'd say there might be 12-15 actual players in Eagles Eyrie.

-------------
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: Jamie
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2017 at 22:30
Thanks for creating the tools btw, just ignore the guy complaining about the game. He clearly doesn't want to state his in-game name so we have no idea even if he came on for 1 hr and got angry at this game :P


Posted By: viperone
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2017 at 06:14
I think the developers should eliminate Sat Accounts period.  Provide an option for players to deactivate their account for a period of 30 days once every 6 months.  During the deactivated period the town will be under a temporary rainbow so to speak.  Players will not be able to deactivate their towns however with activity in progress, much the same as in exodus.  Nor can players deactivate a town with inbound attacks.
Once the town's max of 30 days has expired the rainbow disappears and the town returns to normal status: whether or not the player logs in or not.
This will level the playing field so to speak by eliminated all the permasat farms.  Inactive accounts will be cleared or go poof over time.
This really will have little impact on wars as troop movements and wars generally take substantial time; way more then the 30 day deactivated period.


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2017 at 13:57
The big, old alliances use password sharing to accomplish permasitting. You don't really think the original players are logging back in to reset sitter priveleges, do you?

-------------
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: Wartow
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2017 at 14:01
Sitters/Vacation capacity is valuable.  Steps have been taken in the recent past to limit the duration that one can be appointed a sitter but I understand that these changes still do not make the system a perfect one.  

Perhaps a sitter-day can be claimed daily (or weekly) similar to how the free prestige reward is claimed?  A bank of time can be accumulated up to a certain limit (perhaps 30 days).   Additional sitter-day bonus cannot be claimed while an active sitter is appointed.  

From an administrative perspective there would need to be a sustained effort for the password sharing violation hazard that may be induced by such an additional restriction.

I agree with a previous recommendation (Ten Kulch, another thread) where an account that is being siege-held from deletion should be listed as abandoned and all towns without an active siege should be deleted.

Again, I think I'm in the wrong thread...


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


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2017 at 15:41
Wartow, although the conversation has wandered a bit, it is relevant to consider permasats in Hucbold's proposal. He sees bulk as a virtue. Much of the bulk in big, old alliances can be attributed to permasats. This is a major bone of contention between old Elgean alliances and new Broken Lands alliances. We (BL) feel that the active, vital alliance model is healthy for the game. We don't see a good reason why Elgea should continue to exert disproportionate influence over tournaments, politics, and the meta-game simply because they have amassed large rosters of zombie accounts that have been long abandoned by their original owners. Hucbold's proposal highlights that difference in mentality. Everything he proposes is directed towards assigning influence based on number of accounts, number of towns, and by extension raw population.

-------------
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: Turgon of Rhavenia
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2017 at 22:17
I'm really new here but here are my 2 cents

FREEEEEDOOOOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!

Thanks for listening


Posted By: OssianII
Date Posted: 07 Dec 2017 at 09:52
United Security Council of Illyria?  What has G0ds been slipping in to your porridge, son?Clown


Posted By: Neytiri
Date Posted: 24 Dec 2017 at 03:51
This train is off the rails.  I'll get it back on for you:

Nobody gets to be a self-declared global governing body in a MMORPG without killing the game.  How should that make everyone else feel?  I've been playing longer than you, Huc, and nobody asked me to be on any global security council. . . . Can't you guys create your own land claim and be all dictatorial on that part of the map?  It's a big 'ole map, after all.  Mal Motsha isn't even 10%.  

Don't kill my game, Hucster.



-------------
"It is well that their bodies know the heat and the cold; it will make them strong warriors and mothers." - Absaroke elder (from Edward S. Curtis's book 'The North American Indian')


Posted By: TheIceMan
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2018 at 22:55
i agree with Neytiri. and I say no to a council as no one is going to force a play style on me, and that is exactly what it would be 


Posted By: zap
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2018 at 01:16
Hogwarts agrees with TheIceMan we will play as we choose > Don't even try to force your play style here

-------------
Just here



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