| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Graffix 
New Poster
Joined: 05 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 35
|
 Posted: 25 Nov 2010 at 17:06 |
|
Where is, Because I want to?
|
 |
yahweh
New Poster
Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 6
|
Posted: 25 Nov 2010 at 17:08 |
The main problem with this question is that depending on who within the alliance starts the problem if a noob starts something the alliance should be able to handle it but if the key "protector" starts it then they should be held to a higher level of diplomacy. the Larger the player the more they should be held responsible for there actions, and the more their actions speak for the alliance. You can't say that someone with a 500 pop and a person with a 10,000 pop are equaly responsible because the potential for damage is alot higher. For instance in the recent we/pos war 3000 thieves will empty out most smaller players. it is easy to appologize for sending 10 scouts but how do you appologize for draining someone?
I personaly put thieving but anything that has a potential to destroy diplo or troops that is sent multiple times shows intent to start a war.
Escalation on each side would take it there in due time.
The way the pole is set up you would have to vote for the smallest reason a war is acceptable NOT the most important.
Edited by yahweh - 25 Nov 2010 at 17:29
|
|
bartimeus
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Right behind U
Status: Offline
Points: 222
|
Posted: 25 Nov 2010 at 18:03 |
|
edit; stupid post which I deleted. Made fun of someone for no good reason. (can you make fun of someone for a good reason?)
Edited by bartimeus - 25 Nov 2010 at 18:14
|
|
Bartimeus, your very best friend.
|
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 25 Nov 2010 at 18:09 |
The word "OFFICIAL" has been removed from the topic line of this thread,
as it was leading in some cases to confusion about whether this was
"official Illyriad" or "official Lionz Heartz"  and for the avoidance of doubt, it's the latter. Regards, GM Stormcrow
|
|
scottfitz
Forum Warrior
Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Location: Spokane WA USA
Status: Offline
Points: 433
|
Posted: 25 Nov 2010 at 18:38 |
|
Players and alliances are free to undertake any actions they please, whenever they please—and other players and alliances are free to respond to those actions in whatever manner they deem appropriate.
|
|
G0DsDestroyer
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Location: Ásgarð/Vanaheim
Status: Offline
Points: 975
|
Posted: 25 Nov 2010 at 21:02 |
 scottfitz wrote:
Players and alliances are free to undertake any actions they please, whenever they please—and other players and alliances are free to respond to those actions in whatever manner they deem appropriate. |
This guy sounds smart  Maybe that's why i agree with what he is saying.
Well put Scott 
|
|
|
|
Baldrick
New Poster
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 37
|
Posted: 26 Nov 2010 at 00:07 |
An interesting poll Lionz Heartz as it could give some good insight into players approach to the game.
I haven't voted though, as personally speaking I think that any of options 1, 3 or 4 would be valid reasons because they were consious decisions to attack a member of an alliance and therefore must expect reprisals.
I know that option 2 (thieves) is a bit emotive, but it is within the game (rightly or wrongly) and so is a useful tool along with your caravans for gathering resources.
I have not listed option 2 as a cause of a war because if you think a player has become inactive then it provides a very good 'farm' for recourses. That does change of course if the player, or anyone else, advises you that they are actually active - then the same as options 1, 3 and 4 you are making a consious choice to attack an alliance.
In a nutshell, anyone who consciously attacks another player who they know to be active and belongs to an alliance is committing an act of war.
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 26 Nov 2010 at 01:44 |
Lionz Heartz wrote:
In order for the community of Illyriad to police |
When was it decided that the community of Illyriad was going to police anything?
|
|
Zangi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295
|
Posted: 26 Nov 2010 at 02:27 |
Brids17 wrote:
Lionz Heartz wrote:
In order for the community of Illyriad to police |
When was it decided that the community of Illyriad was going to police anything?
|
Well.... you do get that perception with harmless....
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 26 Nov 2010 at 21:38 |
Zangi wrote:
Well.... you do get that perception with harmless.... |
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/should-harmless-get-involved_topic1291.html Doesn't sound like Harmless? wants to police the server.
|
|
Tweet
Just cause to start a war...