| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Lord Harvey
New Poster
Joined: 27 Aug 2011
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 5
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2011 at 09:20 |
This is a HUGE debate.
I feel for both sides of the argument so therefore I can't really decide LH
|
 |
Sheogorath
Wordsmith
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Location: Shivering Isles
Status: Offline
Points: 103
|
Posted: 28 Aug 2011 at 19:07 |
|
^ ?
Edited by Sheogorath - 28 Aug 2011 at 19:07
|
|
=Colonialism At Its Finest=
|
 |
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 01:07 |
Sheogorath wrote:
^ ?
|
yea it him. he makes it so obvious... yet i kinda find him cuddly..
|
 |
Tinuviel's Voice
New Poster
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 37
|
Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 08:00 |
|
Some of us invest a lot of time and resources helping our alliance members build their cities. So it is only fair that, if one of our players decides to quit the game, to recover some of that investment by capturing his towns.
|
 |
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 15:01 |
Tordenkaffen wrote:
The reason is that it has become a far too common practice for new inexperienced players to take over dormant large cities within an alliance. It is key to maintaining a committed Illyriad community that players feel they have made an investment of time in their account and are rewarded accordingly. |
I took over an inactive city when I was still inexperienced and that certainly didn't stop me from becoming committed in the game. In fact, being able to boost my pop like that and work on a town that had a different layout and having to rebalance the city was actually a lot of fun and got me playing more.
Tordenkaffen wrote:
The alternative means cheapening the game considerably and admit potent inexperienced players with a complete disregard for their own and others accounts, thus making the game far less attractive for the vast majority of stable dedicated players that ultimately are contributors to the community. |
Please don't speak for the entire community as a whole, you have no right and you certainly don't know what we all think. I don't see what harm a few players who took over old inactive cities would do. If they have a disregard for the cities then so what? They go off and attack someone and then they get completely destroyed. Or better yet, maybe they get backed by their alliance and the lucky targets get some action. Ultimately, I just don't see the difference. Even if they are kicked from the alliance, how will that stop players from taking over their cities? All an alliance needs to do is come onto the forums and say "Yo, don't siege anyone who was last in our alliance without our permission". And even if an alliance didn't do that, there is an abundance of large inactive cities scattered across the map. Small players are going to take over those cities regardless of whether or not those cities are in an alliance.
|
|
|
 |
Tordenkaffen
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 821
|
Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 17:18 |
Tinuviel's Voice wrote:
Some of us invest a lot of time and resources helping our alliance members build their cities. So it is only fair that, if one of our players decides to quit the game, to recover some of that investment by capturing his towns.
|
Then go ahead and capture them - who's stopping you? I simply argue that if alliances are allowed to perpetuate itself by hiding their inactives for more than 2 months, it will create a nepotistic culture in the game where competing for ranking becomes a question of who you know, and not what you do or how hard/long you work on it. Players who do not want to join the already established alliances and their ingrown culture will be deterred from joining Illyriad altogether since they will have months of extra work compared to the exploiters. Its a cheap and lazy trick - especially in its present organised form. That newbie players can focus singlemindedly on military progreess and build a level 20 barracks IS NOT IMPRESSIVE by any standard, and can in no way be compared to levelling your own town up from scratch. Not to mention the full/well grown research tree you take over as well - how many months of diligent work does that take? Lastly - Alliances don't own players - its absurd when an alliance claims ownership of what used to be an active player - if the player left the game, maybe its not a kudos to the alliance - maybe the alliance itself did not motivate their members to stay - and I see no reason why the cities should remain "private property" of the alliance. That alone speaks volumes about the mentality in the alliance and its way to perpetuate itself.
Edited by Tordenkaffen - 29 Aug 2011 at 17:54
|
 |
Llyorn Of Jaensch
Postmaster
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 924
|
Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 17:36 |
|
IMO the intent of the Devs was for a new player to progress methodically throughout his/her growth learning in a periodical, step by step basis. Not to avoid steps 5-19 and jump straight to 20.
As the Devs have pointed out regards their tax/resource amendments, though a legal 'exploit', that was never the intent for the game mechanics and hence those loopholes were closed. I believe this is the case here.
Although I differ in view on Tords time-frame, I believe his principles have merit and the issue should be addressed.
Edited by Llyorn Of Jaensch - 29 Aug 2011 at 17:37
|
|
"ouch...best of luck." HonoredMule
|
 |
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 17:42 |
Llyorn Of Jaensch wrote:
IMO the intent of the Devs was for a new player to progress methodically throughout his/her growth learning in a periodical, step by step basis. Not to avoid steps 5-19 and jump straight to 20.
As the Devs have pointed out regards their tax/resource amendments, though a legal 'exploit', that was never the intent for the game mechanics and hence those loopholes were closed. I believe this is the case here.
Although I differ in view on Tords time-frame, I believe his principles have merit and the issue should be addressed.
|
and you know what the dev want right?  btw at the time a player CAN actually siege he has gone trough all the steps he needs to do.
Edited by Kilotov of DokGthung - 29 Aug 2011 at 17:44
|
 |
Llyorn Of Jaensch
Postmaster
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 924
|
Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 17:45 |
Kilotov of DokGthung wrote:
Llyorn Of Jaensch wrote:
IMO the intent of the Devs was for a new player to progress methodically throughout his/her growth learning in a periodical, step by step basis. Not to avoid steps 5-19 and jump straight to 20.
As the Devs have pointed out regards their tax/resource amendments, though a legal 'exploit', that was never the intent for the game mechanics and hence those loopholes were closed. I believe this is the case here.
Although I differ in view on Tords time-frame, I believe his principles have merit and the issue should be addressed.
|
and you know what the dev want right?

|
Llyorn Of Jaensch wrote:
IMO |
Llyorn Of Jaensch wrote:
I believe this is the case here. |
Edited by Llyorn Of Jaensch - 29 Aug 2011 at 17:46
|
|
"ouch...best of luck." HonoredMule
|
 |
Tordenkaffen
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 821
|
Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 17:57 |
|
Llyorn puts it clearer than I could myself (thanks) - and the timeframe for kicking could easily be shorter in my opinion.
My last 2 cents, waiting for the devs to reply.
|
 |