Game On

Createure wrote: Dakota Strider wrote: They put up a very vocal front on GC and the forums, claiming how pure they are, and how they want to protect the little guy. 1. I have read more words from VALAR members than any other alliance in the last 48 hours... to me that is a 'vocal front' 2. We never claimed to be pure. We never claimed to be just. KP put the simple explanation for our war declaration in the OP and we have not tried to rub this in people's face. We prefer to leave the community to make up their own mind instead of launching an exhausting spin campaign to try and get people to join our side. 3. Precisely what is bad about wanting to protect 'little guys' (new players) anyways? It is good for the game and the community - it brings more people into the game which means more money for the devs which means faster/better development that everyone benefits from.

This is what I mean about taking someone out of context to prove a point.  The quote you are disputing me on, is in regards to to a certain few vocal attention-getters that frequent GC.  It was my understanding that H? generally did not fit that category.  If I am mistaken, then you can be lumped in with the Sandbaggers, err Boxershorts...or whatever they are called.   I did not refer to H? until the latter half of that post.  

And regarding protecting the little guys, Valar players do it all the time, but do not feel the need to make a big fuss about it and wave our own banner for doing it.  And the one public example of helping the little guy, got us nothing but grief, because the big bully was one of the GC divas.

And Llyorn, apparently I am on H?'s planet, and you all want me and my friends to get off.  Since it seems that whatever you guys say is law.


Edited by Dakota Strider - 26 Sep 2011 at 00:13

If I recall correctly there are several threads in the forum over 20 pages long asking leading questions like: "What to do about H?" and "Lets all gang up on H?" etc... Post war critisism and grievance after White dissisipated.

I have to agree with Scottfitz that considering how invisible H? are outside of tournaments in general, you would never guess that they were by a good stretch the largest alliance in Illyriad.

I have seen H? get heaps of negative press, constantly , with little or no justification, "they are big therefore they must be bad"  Rubbish!  H? has had a  large part in contributing to the way this game community is right now and I like the way the game community is!

TD, I guess I was mistaken.  I thought you were unbiased in this.  But it seems clear you have chosen sides.  I take offense that you have lumped myself and my compatriots in your group of Zergers.  That is part of the propaganda that the GC crowd is trying to paint Valar with.  We do not go around picking fights with our neighbors, of any size.   The isolated incidents of that you can find regarding Valar members being involved in such behavior I would argue is much smaller than the amount you will find in your group of Sandboxers.

Yet, some of your Sandboxers try to be both.  They put up a very vocal front on GC and the forums, claiming how pure they are, and how they want to protect the little guy.  But then they use that excuse to pick winners and losers in disagreements, and be the bully policeman.  Thus they get to satsify their inner "Zerger", while maintaining their saint act.   

I think the reason that Valar catches so much flak from you Sandboxers, is that we call you on your hypocrisy and do not kowtow to your demands to play the game exactly as you desire us to. 

And I find it hilarious how H? is made to look like one of these heroes that are protecting the little guys.  About 5 or 6 months ago, when I was just starting my 5th town, I had an H? elder blight my city several times in the space of two days.  I did the research to prove who was the one attacking me, and with about 99% certainty, I found that it was a player in H? that is currently more than 4 times my size.  I am guessing back then, he was about 8 times my side.  I documented the method I used to determine who it was in another thread.  But when I called him on it, I got no reply.  Except the spell attacks suddenly stopped.

I do not feel the need to bring names into this, I believe the H? leaders know who this is.  My point is, H? members have done things just as bad or worse than anything Valar members are accused of.  Yet somehow, because they associate with the right people, they do not receive the same negative press that their enemies do.  Go figure.


Edited by Dakota Strider - 25 Sep 2011 at 23:24

The_Dude wrote: Let me sum up... It appears to me that this war is rooted in an inherent conflict of playstyles within the sandbox that is Illyriad. Some players come into Illy looking to beat up on anyone smaller than them.  This is a dominate playstyle in many other MMOs.  And in the early days of Illy, this was probably the dominate playstyle here. A group of players decided about a year ago that such a playstyle, if allowed to dominate Illy, would render the complexity of Illy meaningless.  It would also mean that Illy would not be a sandbox, it would just be another Zerg MMO.   In short, the 2 fundamentally opposed groups can be called "Sandboxers" and "Zergers." Lorre and Amroth are just 2 of the many players that are Sandboxers.  However, both of them are very vocal on GC and thus draw the attention of the Zergers. Over time, the Zergers have grown and become more brazen.  This war is brought by the Sandboxers against the Zergers to preserve the sandbox nature of Illy. The Zergers have brought this on themselves by refusing to limit their attacks among players and alliances that have the same playstyle.  As StJude told me on GC, that's just not fun to them to fight agreed battles.  So they attack players that are not interested in Zerging.  Well, when a Zerger imposes a battle on a player trying to do other things in the sandbox, then the Sandboxer is being deprived of his right to enjoy his playstyle. Folks have been asking about Victory Conditions for this war.  Here's what I have gleaned... H? has no specific Victory Conditions, they will decide as the war progresses when they have made their point.  The OP in this thread clearly says that H? does not intend player or alliance destruction ... so that is not the starting point for victory in H?'s eyes. If I'm on target regarding this being a conflict of Sandboxers vs. Zergers, then it would make sense that the final resolution will be the Zergers realizing that attacking other players for the fun of it is NOT a playstyle that a strong group of players will abide.

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000