Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Faction Play: SiegeQuest 1 - OCT 7, 2020
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Faction Play: SiegeQuest 1 - OCT 7, 2020

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
wolfhound01 View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 08 Dec 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhound01 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Oct 2020 at 23:05
good show good show here here
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/b/401140/av.jpg
Back to Top
Jejune View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 812
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Jejune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 01:55
Wow -- I totally missed the post-event debate on all of this! Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I'll throw in my two cents regarding the situation involving the abortive Elgean siege.

It's true that there wasn't a great deal of details in the rules we set forth for SiegeQuest 1. Referring back to the original post:

  • No elites.
  • No T3 gear that increases attack or defense. (Gear that speeds armies and/or reduces attack/defense are ok.)
  • Army sizes are limited to 5K in XP value.
  • Siege armies will be allowed up to 25K in total forces, not including siege engines.

Never in a million years did I think we needed a lot of biolerplate or legalese for this event. I thought it was pretty straightforward -- particularly the specs around siege armies.

From the perspective of the factions themselves (ELVES, ORCS, Dlord), I thought we were in agreement that the #1 goal of SiegeQuest 1 was not about winning a siege or a siege break. The goals were to 1) get as many people outside of Faction Play involved and 2) to make it as fun as possible. It was essentially an "Open House."

The fact that the rules were so limiting, as well as the city siege targets (an abandoned city donated by YARR and a city on Eowan's ill-used Elf alt that he donated) by definition made it a low-stakes event. The cities (with maybe the exception of Eternal Fire's city, which became an unexpected target) were nothing more than that set-pieces. 

In my opinion, spending gold on terraformers to block the siege spots around the Elgean siege target was not in the spirit of what the Faction Play coordinators had planned. Having troops bounce off those villages instead of getting to be a part of a multi-alliance siege would be demoralizing, I think. It would not be fun, and not encourage future participation. To me, this siege defense tactic (which I think is very clever in its own right) is a species of metawar, where it's no holds barred. SiegeQuest is an event that's all about encouraging participation. It's more like a tournament.

Eowan has pointed out that those terras could have first been sieged to make way for a siege on the siege target. That would have taken days if not a week, plus another week to land the actual event siege. The idea of SiegeQuest was that all of the sieges were going to happen on 10/7. 

Moreover, one of the terras was not in ORCS on 10/7 when I checked. Because all of the siege and military action occurs within the Faction Play gaming sphere, no one would have been allowed to siege that town.

I'm committed to not focusing on the negative and really just want to emphasize the positive of the event, as well as all of Faction Play's support. I am so thankful for all of your interest and willingness to participate; I do not take it for granted.

I'm fine with laying out a bunch of extra rules for the next event if that's what we need to do. Instead, it'd be nice to think that we can use our own common sense guided by experience in the future to support the spirit of Faction Play. I do fully expect SiegeQuest and other spontaneous Faction Play skirmishes to become increasingly competitive and intense as time goes on. In the meantime, it's Faction Play's mission -- and mandate -- to get as many people involved, and above all, make it fun by giving them a chance to participate.




Back to Top
eowan the short View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 783
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eowan the short Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 04:03
Jejune, just before I move into my response to your post, I'd like to request that you respond to my comments about you changing the rules without my consent. 
In addition to this, what are your thoughts on Dlord/SkB sending troops well above the xp capacity?

I agree, the point of this was to have fun and to get people involved. I've stated previously my thoughts on the impact of blocking towns on fun and participation.

As part of the planning, you had suggested that you might put up one of your towns as a siege target, after which I offered one of mine; Grey, a legendary city that is also the capital city of Eowan the Elf. Therefore, to say that this was a low stakes event is somewhat misleading. There were stakes, stakes which were agreed upon as part of the planning process. The rules also weren't limiting, they were vague.

Your opinion on the validity of square blocking is not one shared across the board, it's not even shared by Thirion who was on the receiving end of such a tactic. Blocking squares is a mechanical tactic in nature..

Something to note is that only 2 squares were taken up by towns I had paid for, one of which was soon captured by Eowan the Elf. The last terra’s town name was Property of Eowan, it had only been in ORCS, and it was well known that I'd bought it. It was clearly an ORCS asset, and therefore part of faction play.

The first terraform was placed sometime on the 29th. The final blocking towns arrived on the 1st. This meant that there were no troops sent at those squares before the towns were in place. If troops had been sent, I'm fairly certain that the mechanics would work out with the troops occupying the town rather than bouncing. Sieges being placed on towns is not unheard of, in fact it's a tactic I've used against you in the past.

4 of the towns had 0 population, making them easy siege targets which could have been destroyed in time. SkB did land a small siege on Rezyrve's town, though it was quickly destroyed. As long as there was a siege of some kind underway by the 7th, I’d say the siege quest would have still been live. This was quite likely as both Black and Warspite had incoming that looked to be sieges.

I don’t think a large number of extra rules are truly necessary. Please see my suggested framework for my thoughts on how to deal with the issues. 



Edited by eowan the short - 13 Oct 2020 at 04:05
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...
Back to Top
eowan the short View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 783
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eowan the short Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 05:54
I've created a separate thread for the discussion of systems to fix the issues that faction play has faced: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/a-framework-for-future-faction-play_topic10823.html
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...
Back to Top
Thirion View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 81
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thirion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 08:03
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

It shouldn't have been a gamble. I stuck to the rules, and I expected others to do the same. Instead Dlord/SkB decided to escalate this beyond the bounds of the siege quest. I did offer Duran a withdrawal when he pced me about it. This would have allowed time to deal with the issue before relaunching the quest once that was resolved.
You used a loophole in an untested framework to get a huge advantage. You screwed up our plans and we had to react in a very short time. You knew some of us dislike you. How is that not a gamble?

There are usually 2 sides in escalating something. We planned to send small armies (we got reminded multiple times actually) to siege the initial town. Without your "advanced strategies" there wouldn't have been a reason to "break" the rules and we would have an easy "test SiegeQuest".

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Which brings me to a question I'd like to ask of you. Why are you calling me out, while praising those who broke the rules / changed the rules without my consent? 
Up until this post i did not mentioned the others. Or even praised them. Where are you getting this?

I think both sides screwed up. In my opinion you "threw the first stone" and nobody called you out for it - thats why i did it. You called out the other side, thus there was no reason for me doing it.

So yes, we screwed up. We had our reasons for it though. You on the other hand at least enabled it. And "bending" the rules or using "gray zones" is in my opinion almost as bad as breaking them. And as i tried to argue in my previous posts there wasn't really a reason to do it (at least not in the early stages of faction play). But i do not really want to go further into the "blame game".

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Your opinion on the validity of square blocking is not one shared across the board, it's not even shared by Thirion who was on the receiving end of such a tactic. Blocking squares is a mechanical tactic in nature..
You are taking what i said out of context. I said i like the idea in a LATER and thus more advanced siege. Thus my opinion was quite close to Jejunes (or better: in between yours and Jejunes). The use of terras was not the point i was trying to make though, thus i intentionally did not go into more detail (e.g. should the attackers know about the (possibility of) terras, ...).

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Grey, a legendary city that is also the capital city of Eowan the Elf. Therefore, to say that this was a low stakes event is somewhat misleading. There were stakes, stakes which were agreed upon as part of the planning process.
That was your decision and choice though (and in my opinion it was a bad one).
Back to Top
eowan the short View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 783
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eowan the short Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 09:40
Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

You used a loophole in an untested framework to get a huge advantage. You screwed up our plans and we had to react in a very short time. You knew some of us dislike you. How is that not a gamble?

There are usually 2 sides in escalating something. We planned to send small armies (we got reminded multiple times actually) to siege the initial town. Without your "advanced strategies" there wouldn't have been a reason to "break" the rules and we would have an easy "test SiegeQuest".

I used the rules as they were written, if you have an issue with their vagueness, then take it up with the guy who wrote them. Yeah, it gave me an advantage, just as numbers gave you an advantage. However, that advantage was not insurmountable in my opinion.
You had plenty of time to react, to the point where 2 sieges landed, and it looked like 2 more were going to land soon after I withdrew.
As for the disliking me thing, there's even a section in the FAQs telling you that fulfilling personal vendettas is not what this is for. If you felt that you couldn't control your dislike of me, you should maybe have taken that into account when deciding whether to participate.

Yeah, there's 2 sides in escalating something, but there's a big difference between what I did and what you did. One of them is intelligent play, the other is cheating.
There were other options available. You could have gone for within-rules sieges of the blocking towns. You could have withdrawn pending rules clarifications. I didn't force you guys to cheat, that's entirely on you.

Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

Up until this post i did not mentioned the others. Or even praised them. Where are you getting this?

I think both sides screwed up. In my opinion you "threw the first stone" and nobody called you out for it - thats why i did it. You called out the other side, thus there was no reason for me doing it.

So yes, we screwed up. We had our reasons for it though. You on the other hand at least enabled it. And "bending" the rules or using "gray zones" is in my opinion almost as bad as breaking them. And as i tried to argue in my previous posts there wasn't really a reason to do it (at least not in the early stages of faction play). But i do not really want to go further into the "blame game".

I got that from your original post:
Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

That said, thanks a lot Jejune and team, you are doing an amazing job.

That's how it reads to me, particularly when your initial post consists of calling me out, and then just saying that about everyone else.

I agree, all sides have screwed up in this. I didn't expect the use of blocking towns to be anywhere near as controversial as it turned out to be. I certainly didn't expect anyone would resort to cheating. I also didn't particularly want to play the blame game, my original posts simply said that there were issues with the interpretation of the rules, and that they'd be learnt from. 

You say you don't like gray zones, but you guys went straight to black. There isn't an argument to be made that you guys were operating within the rules. Objectively, you broke them. To me, there's a big difference there. To use the stone analogy, I put a pebble in your shoe, you threw a boulder.

Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

You are taking what i said out of context. I said i like the idea in a LATER and thus more advanced siege. Thus my opinion was quite close to Jejunes (or better: in between yours and Jejunes). The use of terras was not the point i was trying to make though, thus i intentionally did not go into more detail (e.g. should the attackers know about the (possibility of) terras, ...).
 

The point I was trying to make there, which you have reiterated to an extent, is that there's a spectrum of opinion on the subject. This isn't a black and white issue, and as such a proper ruling would be required on it.
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...
Back to Top
wolfhound01 View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 08 Dec 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhound01 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 10:58
i love how he says there wouldnt have bin a reason to break the rules but theres never a good reason to break rules especially if you have integrity
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/b/401140/av.jpg
Back to Top
Thirion View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 81
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thirion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 13:08
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:


I agree, all sides have screwed up in this. I didn't expect the use of blocking towns to be anywhere near as controversial as it turned out to be. I certainly didn't expect anyone would resort to cheating. I also didn't particularly want to play the blame game, my original posts simply said that there were issues with the interpretation of the rules, and that they'd be learnt from.

For me that part is a good conclusion and i think we both got each others point(s). In my opinion there is not really a point arguing about some details that are not that important.

Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:


That said, thanks a lot Jejune and team, you are doing an amazing job.

That statement was meant as an honest thank you to the faction play team, including you. You make the game more interesting and add a new component.

Sorry Eowan if my posts were too harsh. I was a bit salty because it seemed like only one side was blamed. My posts should have been calmer and less aggressive, again sorry for that.

Originally posted by wolfhound01 wolfhound01 wrote:

i love how he says there wouldnt have bin a reason to break the rules but theres never a good reason to break rules especially if you have integrity


With that argument there would be no wars, no prison and no police/lawyers. Its not black and white like you are saying - there are usually a lot of different and valid reasons.


Edited by Thirion - 13 Oct 2020 at 13:11
Back to Top
ES2 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 535
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ES2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 16:54
My own thoughts

@eowan

There were several instances where I have defended the use of terras. People largely disagreed over the use of them, but I stated it was a clever use of in-game mechanics. Was it in the spirit? No. Was it a clever use? Yes.

That is the extent of my support on this discussion. You surely have to admin that people here that are replying to you also saw your.. realization that you could exploit the rule-base with military sizes. Specifically "y'know, there's an interesting loophole in the rules for the siege quest.Siege armies can be up to 25k xp, right?Well, it never says whose siege armies that applies to.So, let's say I were to know what square an encampment was going to land on, hypothetically. Well, without breaking the rules, I could arrangefor my allies to send sieges set to land on the same square.Each siege could potentially contain 5x the normal number of troops...We should probably patch that for future siege quests." When the discussion began in slack and as other people began to wonder if those exploits would occur you stated "as for whether we will use said loophole, I will not discuss orcish strategy with an elf". You then proceed to more grey areas with "I could exodus Grey into a troll-hole". It was only after you pulled Orcs out, after people in the same slack started saying what has been said here, that you mentioned a discussion on it.

As for the unit sizes being wrong. I get that too. People have made errors, I have recovered plenty of t3 gears in Pirate Isles that were accidentally used on both sides. It was treated more as an "oof someone must not have read it right, sorry about that" by both sides. We continued on with both sides to have fun and continue running the groundwork of this Siege Quest so we'd have a better idea for the next one. 

While no one is certainly unopposed to the challenge of tile blocking with terras or exodusing into troll-holes, you surely can understand these actions (both the in your face 'hypotheticals' and the terras were starting to make people question about Orcs intentions revolving around the spirit of the first Siege Quest.


With it all said in done, there is no further need for discussion here. Personally, I would have rather seen all this activity in lore-based battle reports over the cities to attract outside attention to Siege Quest (especially since our actions are rp based) than what will always devolve down into a pissing fight. 
Eternal Fire
Back to Top
eowan the short View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 783
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eowan the short Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Oct 2020 at 02:56
Originally posted by ES2 ES2 wrote:

My own thoughts

@eowan

There were several instances where I have defended the use of terras. People largely disagreed over the use of them, but I stated it was a clever use of in-game mechanics. Was it in the spirit? No. Was it a clever use? Yes.

Whether it's in the spirit of things is a matter of interpretation. I personally view advanced strategies as an interesting addition to pvp that make it a lot more fun. That goes not just for me using terras, but also people using unorthodox strategies against me.

If someone does something that I hadn't considered during pvp, that's something I can learn from. For example, I was once involved in a mercenary contract on a player, and when he saw that there was a siege inbound for him, he switched his city names. This led to confusion in where to send troops, and as a result the siege failed.

It was an effective strategy and it's one that I've used on occasion in pvp. Participating in pvp systems shouldn't be contingent on using mundane strategies, because that would be boring, particularly for people looking to learn the ins and outs of various mechanics in a pvp setting.

Originally posted by ES2 ES2 wrote:

That is the extent of my support on this discussion. You surely have to admin that people here that are replying to you also saw your.. realization that you could exploit the rule-base with military sizes. Specifically "y'know, there's an interesting loophole in the rules for the siege quest.Siege armies can be up to 25k xp, right?Well, it never says whose siege armies that applies to.So, let's say I were to know what square an encampment was going to land on, hypothetically. Well, without breaking the rules, I could arrangefor my allies to send sieges set to land on the same square.Each siege could potentially contain 5x the normal number of troops...We should probably patch that for future siege quests." When the discussion began in slack and as other people began to wonder if those exploits would occur you stated "as for whether we will use said loophole, I will not discuss orcish strategy with an elf". You then proceed to more grey areas with "I could exodus Grey into a troll-hole". It was only after you pulled Orcs out, after people in the same slack started saying what has been said here, that you mentioned a discussion on it.

That was me s***posting because I was pissed off that not only had the rules been changed on me, but also that I'd been threatened by Duran with being attacked outside of faction play. 

I can provide evidence that it was only s***posting rather than an actual plan if needed.

Originally posted by ES2 ES2 wrote:

As for the unit sizes being wrong. I get that too. People have made errors, I have recovered plenty of t3 gears in Pirate Isles that were accidentally used on both sides. It was treated more as an "oof someone must not have read it right, sorry about that" by both sides. We continued on with both sides to have fun and continue running the groundwork of this Siege Quest so we'd have a better idea for the next one. 

If it was accidental, I'd agree that there really shouldn't be much in the way of blame. But it wasn't accidental, Duran confirmed as much in an IGM to me, saying that he told his players 'to take the gloves off when you pulled the terra thing'

Thirion has also confirmed in this thread that SkB decided to break the rules intentionally as well.



Edited by eowan the short - 14 Oct 2020 at 02:57
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.