Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Tournaments and War - Proposal
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Tournaments and War - Proposal

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
Djehuti View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 21 Dec 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 30
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Djehuti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.




Back to Top
kodabear View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Astronomer

Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Location: Lucerna
Status: Offline
Points: 1112
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote kodabear Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Fanuidhol View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2017
Location: Nor Cal USA
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fanuidhol Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Fanuidhol View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2017
Location: Nor Cal USA
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fanuidhol Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Jejune View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 616
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Jejune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
Fanuidhol View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2017
Location: Nor Cal USA
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fanuidhol Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?

Back to Top
Fanuidhol View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2017
Location: Nor Cal USA
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fanuidhol Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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



Back to Top
Fiona View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 02 Jul 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 104
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Fiona Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

Edited by Fiona - 18 Jul 2017 at 23:45
Back to Top
Fanuidhol View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2017
Location: Nor Cal USA
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fanuidhol Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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


Edited by Fanuidhol - 18 Jul 2017 at 23:49
Back to Top
Fanuidhol View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2017
Location: Nor Cal USA
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fanuidhol Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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


Edited by Fanuidhol - 19 Jul 2017 at 00:03
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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