| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Brandmeister 
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
 Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 06:30 |
|
It's like a little koan. "Who can win the Loser War?"
Or perhaps a fortune cookie riddle...
|
 |
Epidemic
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 768
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 06:31 |
|
Who cares if inactives and permasat accounts are wiped out! They're taking up space for those of us who do want to play the game. The devs should of gotten rid of the permasits long ago.
|
|
BellusRex
Wordsmith
Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Location: Mountains
Status: Offline
Points: 156
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 07:15 |
One last attempt to clear up Kumo's spin, and then I am done with this...the player sieged was not abandoned, nor permasat. He was busy in real life and was not able to log in. He logged in long enough to send an iGm asking for a short term sitter until he got back. Within a day or two, Kumo was sieging his capital, which was his only city of size. The player is a crafter/trader, with an almost non existent military. The sitter appointed logged on to find the siege long under way and the city about to fall, and sent out all the troops he had, which cleared a 100 man blockade before the city was razed.
I do not complain about the siege itself, perfectly valid strategy in a war to pick off vulnerable players. Foolish to attack in to a stronghold. My objection is to the hypocrisy of claiming not to do something they did quite thoroughly.
|
|
"War is the father of all things..."
|
|
Spheniscidae
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 117
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 08:42 |
HM,
I have no doubt that H?, in the past, has maintained high standards of honour and decency. Unfortunately, over the last months, while the sentiments expressed in your post are all fine and noble, you are unable to hold to these sentiments because you have lost control over your allies, and even your fellow directors and members.
Let's look at tourneys for an illustration. In the past, tourneys were a fun opportunity to spend some troops, engage in friendly competition, and have some "war" at no lasting cost to anyone on a server without real war (maybe, about once a year). If the devs were to announce a new tourney tomorrow, even without this server-wide war, among the top 20 alliances who would dare to commit anything but a token force to it considering what happened to Consone and BANE in the last 2 tourneys?
over the last few months, NC has been attacking other alliances larger, but less prepared than it, with the only apparent limiting factor being that they don't fight more than 1 war at a time. Kumomoto, a leading member of H? has been strident in his approval of their policies. TCol has been pushing smaller players out of Mal Motsha (sounds similar to 1 of the founding myths of this game, doesn't it?)
"War is an integral part of Illyriad", they tell us. "Players should neither be ashamed nor afraid of war in Illy", they say. " The player who wants peace above all else in a fictional game like Illy is not a mature gamer", I hear. And so the "militarisation" of Illy gradually progresses, where war between players becomes more and more common. And now a server-wide war, currently involving 14 of the 20 top alliances at last count, is something we are apparently prepared to countenance when war used to be rare and brief in Illy.
The tragedy is that H? (well maybe except for Kumo and his running tally of cities sieged) has nothing to do directly with any of the above. People are only coming after you because you stand between them and alliances who want to "militarise" the server.
And as long as this warmongering, E-word like sentiment in Illy stays (which, in defence of H?, they did nothing to introduce), we will never be able to compete in tourneys without a beady eye on the tourney standings to see if certain alliances have or haven't committed. Every little thing, like claiming sov next to a new, 112 pop player which just appeared, could be a causus belli. Soon, like more pvp oriented mmorts, we will have to log in every hour just to see that there are no red armies heading to our capital.
I think Epidemic said before in one of the other 1578676163 threads dedicated to this war that many players here are in retirement from that dog-eat-dog, kill or be killed mode of play and want a more slow-paced game, with lore to explore and mysteries to discover. (Epi, if you think I'm quoting you out of context then attribute this to me).
In that case, this war was never about power, glory or whatnot. This is a war over the future direction of Illy, whether we continue in the same vein or transit to "more war". Nothing to do with H? per se.
 HonoredMule wrote:
In this, we are quite happy to let you take the lead down this dark path. |
Illy has already gone some way down that dark path. Will H? help bring it back from the brink, or will this devolve into a spiral of shattered cities and abandoned accounts because, on both sides, we are going to war because they "attacked our confeds"?
|
|
Epidemic
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 768
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 09:17 |
Spheniscidae wrote:
I think Epidemic said before in one of the other 1578676163 threads dedicated to this war that many players here are in retirement from that dog-eat-dog, kill or be killed mode of play and want a more slow-paced game, with lore to explore and mysteries to discover. (Epi, if you think I'm quoting you out of context then attribute this to me). |
You hit it on the nail Spheniscidae! Those of us who are true war gamers consider Illyriad as retirement and want to explore the social, lore and mystery part of the game.
|
|
Caconafyx
Greenhorn
Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Location: Stamford, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 87
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 14:01 |
In my dealings with H? senior figures post-Consone war, I have to admit that I found them honest and decent people to negotiate with despite the levels of animosity that had festered for the 6 months plus that the war went on for.
I was grateful that it was players like KillerPoodle I was dealing with, rather than alliance leaders from the other victorious alliances, many of whom whilst dominant in battle were sadly lacking in humility and common decency.
And this leads me to the point of my post. H? as the most senior alliance in the last war had the opportunity back then to not only lay down the ground rules for how server-wide Illy warfare was conducted but also to enforce those rules amongst their own allies. Instead the precedent was set this time last year for how Illy wars are to be conducted namely:
1. don't join a war because it is the moral thing to do, but for cheap opportunistic gain instead. 2. Don't attack anyone that isn't smaller than you. 3. Pursue a policy of diplomatic bullying even when a player leaves a warring alliance. 4. Use sat accounts and undeclared alts to spy on opposing alliances. 5. Use GC to publicly humiliate players taking this from just a game to something bordering on cyber bullying.
Of course being out of this war it is easy for me to take the moral high ground. All I can hope for is that the victors of this war conduct themselves in a manner more befitting this game and less like spoilt children so that when war returns to the game in October 2014 we can conduct ourselves like adults.
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 16:09 |
|
Edit: my rambling thoughts on sandbox PvP and PvE are not really relevant to this thread. Apologies for the clutter, everyone.
Edited by Brandmeister - 10 Nov 2013 at 19:50
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 16:32 |
ES2 wrote:
>Kumomoto</span>> New name! It's the Loser War!
Very class Kumo
|
It's actually a really great name for this war. There will be no winners in this conflict. Only bloody battered exhausted combatants. So yes, everyone is going to lose if we don't find peace! But "A" for effort on trying to make me look bad! Isn't it interesting that the numbers of ad hominem attacks increase directly in proportion to the weakness of your opponents position?
Edited by Kumomoto - 10 Nov 2013 at 16:35
|
|
ES2
Postmaster
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 550
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 16:40 |
Kumo,
That was not what you meant by that naming of the war. You were deliberately issuing the same threats over and over again (about nine or so hours ago at the time of this reply). You grew exceptionally cocky and started encouraging the participants in the "discussion" with you to begin flaming the other sides.
Since you so stubbornly believe that you will win, and that coupled with your behavior in GC only shows that you meant it as an insult for those fighting against you.
|
|
Eternal Fire
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 10 Nov 2013 at 18:00 |
EF, I want to congratulate you on finally being the grown-up in the room. I realize that can sound condescending, but honestly I've watched you mature over years in the game and gosh darn it if you haven't turned out to be a fairly interesting person. (Even though we still might not agree on many things.)
Kudos to you.
|
|
Tweet
Harmless Wartime Policy Announcement