| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
threefoothree 
Greenhorn
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Location: tampa, florida
Status: Offline
Points: 88
|
 Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 13:33 |
|
its not a should have or could have situation.
its is simply a strong and weaker situation
EE simply is not in a place to negotiate
and not accepting simply hurts ee members.
personally, i would take a bad deal all day long to save my members who have tons of time and in many cases real money invested, and we have in the past several times.
|
 |
realist
Greenhorn
Joined: 28 Mar 2013
Location: Be Positive
Status: Offline
Points: 40
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 13:21 |
 threefoothree wrote:
i dont get it, h? doesnt even need to offer terms. they got the power to continue until your alliance does not exist. the fact they are giving you and your members a out in my opinion is very nice of them.what they ask for in terms they can just take from you if they choose, and really they could take a lot more. i would of accepted the terms if it was my alliance, and if talks were on the table i definitely would not get impatient and send another siege. i expect h? to increase the terms further at this point since you made this public in a attempt to get sympathy from the illy community and hope they would put pressure on h? for you guys. all i see is a larger alliance trying to give a smaller one a chance to survive and regrow, and a smaller alliance who seems to be to prideful to want to survive. take the deal work man, the longer you wait, the more public you make it, the worse it will be... in my humble opinion of course |
It is easy to say after the fact what an alliance should have done or could have done. One side is stating this and the other is stating that. There is no way for an outsider to know for sure what was thrown on the table since that evidence is not allowed on the forums. Beliefs and what is important to a player or an alliance differs. Opinions are different from one player to another. If this alliance chooses to fight for what they believe in, then good for them. Because guess what, that is what H? is doing right now. I feel the reason their alliance decided to reject the offer is because the belittling will never end. Once all of the chosen towns are razed, they can sense H? will not be satisfied. There is nothing wrong with playing for pride. Especially if 'pride' has become the last meaningful thing worth playing for. Games are fun, if playing for pride is fun, then do it.
Edited by realist - 28 Mar 2013 at 13:25
|
|
Elmindra
Forum Warrior
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 464
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 13:20 |
|
H? can very well take all of our towns if they so choose. I do not accept the terms given (for my alliance mates, I personally am wounded that I am only worth 1 town), and since they have met attempts to negotiate with threats and sieges then I say go ahead and wipe me. I personally don't feel the need to be held hostage in a game, and one that I actually pay money to play. I don't have any beef with a good portion of The Coalition , but I do not agree with their style of play at this juncture.
|
|
|
|
threefoothree
Greenhorn
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Location: tampa, florida
Status: Offline
Points: 88
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 13:07 |
i dont get it, h? doesnt even need to offer terms. they got the power to continue until your alliance does not exist. the fact they are giving you and your members a out in my opinion is very nice of them. what they ask for in terms they can just take from you if they choose, and really they could take a lot more. i would of accepted the terms if it was my alliance, and if talks were on the table i definitely would not get impatient and send another siege. i expect h? to increase the terms further at this point since you made this public in a attempt to get sympathy from the illy community and hope they would put pressure on h? for you guys. all i see is a larger alliance trying to give a smaller one a chance to survive and regrow, and a smaller alliance who seems to be to prideful to want to survive. take the deal work man, the longer you wait, the more public you make it, the worse it will be... in my humble opinion of course
|
|
opk
Greenhorn
Joined: 23 Mar 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 60
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 12:36 |
Don't want to say no harm to H?, but from my eyes the game suffers from this war. With the rhetoric used, anyone could be attacked for any reason by someone way above them. This game is for a good part what we make out of it. So, is this feeling of unsecurity good for the game and for the community? Is that really what we all want? Not against war, but for fair fight and respect... and fun. I'd like to see more stories like the one of the war between NC and II. From my eyes, consone was as a project to bring people of various horizons together and give more signification to the confederation system: confederates confed with each one other as a real group, which is something rare currently if you think about it. Could have developped trade, friendship, mutual help, exciting competition during tourneys. Maybe if this project had had the time to mature, other alliances would have followed, giving more meaning to their confederations and Illy may have gone to a higher level: in any case something very interesting would have come out of it im sure. If community initiatives like this one are so harshly threatened, for me it blocks the possibilities of innovation and the positive evolution of the game. Some people say this game aims to be different (i think GM SC said this too) and people sound more mature than on the majority of the other games in general... but if we block innovations and possible community progress we are not making a so different and mature game. Some say this war made people do something, but still many people leave cause it's not funny anymore. When i see what happened between NC and II it makes me think we have a huge potential to make this game more funny, enjoyable and attractive. And it's for a good part up to us, the community.
Those were my two cents ^^
|
|
Old Penitent Knight
|
|
sarsfield
New Poster
Joined: 17 Jun 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 28
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 12:28 |
|
If you can recall back to the actions leading to the onset of this war, HATH was the first to state, Consone does not want war and will do all that they can to avoid it. This has always been the stance of EE. It was posted in this forum for you to pull up and review.
With that said, we are loyal to our allies and as such were pulled into this war. The idea that we have prolonged this war is unfounded. But yes we do seek a middle ground in peace (if you prefer: surrender) terms which is obviously not an option, hence Haths note this morning. The request of your terms are outrageous given our only cause for our participation is loyalty. We admit Consone was good in principal bad in concept and execution. We have paid enough for our role in consone with your continuous and public insults (you may recall "soup"). Thank god we have thick skin in this virtual database. Shall we pay more due to our effectiveness in a war we didnt even want.
Now the tide has turned, the coalition is guilty of "bullying" as they call it, of ganging up on an alliance this wishes a fair peace. Isn`t this the exact attrition you are standing against? I believe it was said just a few nights ago, illyriad is finally free of bullying ways. Fight fire with fire?
I challenge h?, the leader On behalf of the coalition, if you will not seek what we calk for a fair peace, at least allow for a fair fight. Call back, if you dare, the coalition and fight one on one. ( my best guess is you will ignore this request)
Btw, i will not and can not accept to terms that causes one of my alliance mates to lose 5 of 8 cities. Is it peace you wish, or extinction?
Lastly, how did you happen to come across quotes from EE`s AC? My hope is that it was a spy and not a computer written program, i hear they are not welcome.
Good day.
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 12:09 |
|
sure losing 421 towns is way more rational then just 40, you sure are putting it to the man, WooHA!
|
|
Starry
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 612
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 12:07 |
HATHALDIR wrote:
It's quite humuorous to see the debate on the conditions of our surrender, you continually threaten us with harsher terms, i was pretty sure you would have understood by now that we reject your demands utterly, your insults and your innuendo, your trolling of forums, and character assasinations, and your all too late apologies to people. We figure freedom of choice is a much better option than living under the yoke of oppression.
We are not as strong as you, never have been, never will be, but what we are seen to be doing is more important than someones good opinion of me.
And Dude there was no privacy policy in the agreement! Their bad!
You should really get to see the terms offered before commenting on them, just as a guideline
|
That's not true, HATH, you agreed to confidentiality in previous talks, it has been stated on this forum that we would not discuss or entertain any discussion of terms in this forum. You did agree to confidentiality. Your statement here just proves my previous comment that you have no honor. Continue with your posts as your comments serve to prove what we are saying about your leadership, integrity and judgment.
|
|
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?
"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule
|
|
Elmindra
Forum Warrior
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 464
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 11:01 |
The simple facts are this, you demand that we lose over 40 cities from players of your choosing in order to be allowed to leave this war. You have rejected any counter offers and have stated accept our offer or be destroyed. You derided our actions of attacking your less defensible players when that is a strategy used against us.
Illy is a game, and games are supposed to be fun. This is simply the point in which it is no longer fun. Between apparently reading our Alliance Chat and punishing people for what they say, and constantly threatening to wipe us out if we do not agree to your terms it has lost it's luster.
This is the reason we have finally decided, if you want our cities and to teach us a lesson then come and take them. We know we can't win, and it doesn't really matter anymore.
|
|
|
|
Ossian
Forum Warrior
Joined: 12 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 456
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2013 at 10:59 |
The_Dude wrote:
Of course rejecting the initial offer with more fight means harsher terms. The benefit to quick resolution is lost. Hath, you seem to think prolonging the inevitable means you get a discount. This is absurd. If you increase the price of victory, expect the victors to increase the cost of defeat.
Think of it like this ...
Why should EE be rewarded for dragging out the war?
I am truly baffled. |
As with everything concerning H? there is more to this than meets the eye.
T_D it is difficult for the community to believe your assertion that Hath tried to prolong the inevitable when he, notably, was the Consone leader that announced the dissolution of Consone purely in the interests of genuine peace - and then initiated the surrender of the member alliances. In effect Hath and others more or less moved mountains, in the interests of the game, to bring about peace and now he finds himself derided, belittled and insulted.
Shame on you. Shame on H?
Edited by Ossian - 28 Mar 2013 at 11:03
|
|
Tweet
Just the facts Ma'am
