NC crusade vs. STEEL

Chaos Armor wrote: I would like to have seen your opinion if everyone had said  "Let them have at it." when Aesir had declared war on you.

I would like to have seen your opinion if everyone had said 

G0DsDestroyer wrote: abstractdream wrote: ... perhaps bringing your friends in from the beginning things would have ended better for you... Uh..yeah, of course it would, and we didn't want to gang up on you, and kill you all, which has been said by me already no need to say this other than to remind you. Seems this comment is telling me that you would want a bigger alliance to gang up with a bunch of larger ones to kill a small one, to be smart.  lolololololololol

I'm actually not surprised you would interpret my words in that way but the thrust of the statement was that you acted unilaterally. Acting on your own piles all the consequences for said action on your own head (metaphorically speaking.) Bringing your friends in from the beginning and enlightning them, enlightning anyone actually as to your motives and goals would have dulled the sharp reaction. With consensus the concequences are spread out, sometimes to the point of non-existent. Not a difficult concept really.

My opinion on NC vs STEEL is not going to surprise anyone. Let them have at it. The Forum is available to players and NC engaged it. Why is that even an issue? These debates are enticing to a lot of us. For me personally the metagame is the only thing keeping me here. I assume that a few players would rather I had gone, but this is the very sort of thing that has kept me hanging in there. I am not a grinder. I do not enjoy battling NPCs or building population. I am a thinker, or at least I would like to be. Illy gives me an opportunity to do just that.

Successful ideas are as rare as successful anything else. One is required to spew a bunch of crap and be good enough at spotting gems buried in that crap to make a real go of it. In RL one usually cannot afford to fail over and over again but in a game like Illy, failure is not as scary. None of this is real. Loosing a city is not going to cause one to loose sleep (assuming one is well enough balanced to understand it's not real.) Fight a war, rebuild. No big deal. No one is dead. No one is living in the street. Move on.

Allies stand up for each other. One need not ask, it is assumed that it will happen. What they don't do is interfere in the actual proceedings without an invitation.

Speaking up, here or in GC does not interfere in the actual proceedings, however words have power. What we say has strength in as much as words carry ideas and those ideas can affect and alter the proceedings. That is not action, that is ideas. The difference is that one need not participate personally to cause affect. One only need speak (or in this case, write) to be involved, even in a small way. Most players have no interest in this sort of "manipulation" but those of us who do can find great enjoyment in a successful play.

As for the hugs vs hits debate which has sprung up again, it is entirely bogus. Many huggers fight and many fighters hug, as has been attested to by a few here and elsewhere.

Daufer wrote:   If they ASK for help, fine.  That's the point.  Is Gimardoran asking you for help?  No?  Then he apparently feels that he can handle it by himself, or that NC will get bored and quit if he doesn't respond.  It isn't your place to butt in and say "uh uh, no hitting my little buddy".  That's basically the same as saying "I don't care if you find him annoying or you think he is up to something sneaky, you better just ignore him because you can't do anything to him without my permission".  Are you going to do this for everyone, or just the blessed handful?

Rill wrote: It seems that there is a segment of people who think that it's perfectly fine for a group of warlike folks to pick a relatively peaceful party and make war on them.  I actually don't have a problem with that -- or rather, I think it is a fairly shortsighted plan that tends to be unfun for other people, but I recognize it as an honest game strategy.  What I DO have a problem with is the idea that no one else should intervene on behalf of the relatively peaceful group and strive to assist them.  That to me is the height of hypocrisy.  For shame! Those who play the metagame to seek to prevent other people from interfering in their war are of course welcome to do so.  Long live the metagame.  But let's call a spade a spade and recognize it for what it is:  A strategy intended to make it easier to win a war against an already weaker party by confusing the issue and making it less likely that others will take a stand.  Probably a lot of people will fall for this because they are do not think it through clearly.  Hopefully many will also see through it. The question is:  Is it right to stand up for people who prefer to play in peace?  Is it acceptable to defend such people, if one wishes? I contend that it is.