| Author |
|
Vanerin 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
 Posted: 12 Sep 2012 at 22:12 |
 Faenix wrote:
|
Should a fighter be expected to snuggle? |
Fighters across Illyriad already deal with snuggling on a regular basis since it happens in GLOBAL Chat day in day out. How many snugglers have to deal with fighting on a daily basis? |
Hey. I gots an easy solution for you. "Block in chat"
Do you have a similarly easy solution for friendly people being attacked?
~Vanerin
|
 |
Faenix
Forum Warrior
Joined: 29 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 283
|
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 at 22:10 |
|
Should a fighter be expected to snuggle? |
Fighters across Illyriad already deal with snuggling on a regular basis since it happens in GLOBAL Chat day in day out. How many snugglers have to deal with fighting on a daily basis?
|
|
Vanerin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 at 22:03 |
Aurordan,
If it involuntarily interferes with someone's reasonable enjoyment of the game, I am not cool with it. In your example of a "friendly" involved with a fight with a "militant", if the "friendly" did something to provoke the attack, the interference is not involuntary. But if a "militant" wants to pick on some "friendly" (without good cause) that interferes with the "friendly"'s enjoyment of the game.
What if we flip your example? You say "that a trader or magic specialist should be expected to be able to fight." Should a fighter be expected to snuggle?
~Vanerin
|
|
Princess Xanax
Greenhorn
Joined: 26 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 53
|
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 at 22:00 |
Vanerin wrote:
Princess Xanax wrote:
If you don't like it, I suggest you choose a different game where you can chat and snuggle with each other all day and have no challenges whatsoever.
|
Princess Xanax, the same could be said to you. If you do not like the chat and snuggles, there are plenty of war games out there. Am I saying that there should never be a fight? Not at all. But I don't think that one group needs to push the other out of the land. If there are people that wish to fight, then they should fight. Those that wish to trade, should trade. Those that wish to chat and snuggle, should chat and snuggle.
~Vanerin |
You have missed my point and chose not to quote other pertinent parts of
my post. We are all given tools to use and play with as we wish - if
someone wants to snuggle and chat so be it. What I have a problem with
is when others get their panties in a wad when there is conflict, go
crying in GC, and do their best to quash conflict. I don't try to
control how others play this game, but some do. Those that get upset
when there is conflict, and try to control others, need to go where
there is no conflict if that's the kind of game they so obviously
prefer. My preference is to fight NPCs and build up my
commanders that way. But if I am needed by my alliance or confeds, I am
there for them within reason. It adds variety to an otherwise slow
moving game. And it is FUN.
Edited by Princess Xanax - 12 Sep 2012 at 22:01
|
|
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 at 21:47 |
Vanerin wrote:
Princess Xanax wrote:
If you don't like it, I suggest you choose a different game where you can chat and snuggle with each other all day and have no challenges whatsoever.
|
Princess Xanax, the same could be said to you. If you do not like the chat and snuggles, there are plenty of war games out there. Am I saying that there should never be a fight? Not at all. But I don't think that one group needs to push the other out of the land. If there are people that wish to fight, then they should fight. Those that wish to trade, should trade. Those that wish to chat and snuggle, should chat and snuggle.
~Vanerin |
See, this is kind of a strawman though. Because what if someone who wants to fight is drawn in to conflict with someone who wants to snuggle? I would say that a trader or magic specialist should be expected to be able to fight, just like a soldier has to trade and maintain spells to support his armies, or carry out some reasonable degree of diplomacy. What seems to be going around nowadays is the belief that because a player might enjoy other aspects of the game, they should somehow be immune to a war they would otherwise have to fight. You may have guessed from my tone that I disagree with this idea, but that's what I'm seeing.
|
|
Vanerin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 at 21:36 |
Princess Xanax wrote:
If you don't like it, I suggest you choose a different game where you can chat and snuggle with each other all day and have no challenges whatsoever.
|
Princess Xanax, the same could be said to you. If you do not like the chat and snuggles, there are plenty of war games out there. Am I saying that there should never be a fight? Not at all. But I don't think that one group needs to push the other out of the land. If there are people that wish to fight, then they should fight. Those that wish to trade, should trade. Those that wish to chat and snuggle, should chat and snuggle.
~Vanerin
|
|
Daufer
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332
|
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 at 21:28 |
Rill wrote:
Daufer wrote:
for crying out loud let people fight if they want!
|
Wait ... NC can beat on Gim and that is just letting people fight if they want. But if an nCrow player happens to want to jump on a couple of sieges against Gim because of feelings of friendship, that is somehow a violation of the above principle?
|
I didn't say he can't fight. I said if he is so keen to jump in either leave nCrow and join STEEL for the duration or confed with him and wait for Gimardoran to ask for aid. Until then it isn't nCrows business... or Harry's... unless nCrow wants to arbitrarily declare war on NC. That would be grossly unfair though since nCrow is about 3x as large as NC whereas NC and STEEL are a pretty even match.
I agree with Harry -- I am not sure I'm all that happy about having to tell my players that everyone gets to fight except them.
|
That's the point Rill. NO ONE gets to fight because they are all wetting themselves over the probability of a powerful outsider stepping in and announcing that, even though the war has nothing to do with them, they have chosen Side A and will not let it lose. It's kind of like in school where you think so and so is a jerk but no one dares say anything because his brother is in a gang. If you are in a large alliance confederation, or make friends with them in chat, you have carte blanche to do whatever you like.
I personally hate war, and if attacked I would be rather pissed, but if I think I can deal with the situation diplomatically I'll do that. If I can't negotiate peace but think I can deal with the military threat I will do that. If I can't do either then I'll call on allies until the balance of power is in my favor. If my allies won't help me then I will appeal to anyone who will listen for help, but shame on my fickle friends. Until then kindly pick your own fights, thank you.
|
|
Princess Xanax
Greenhorn
Joined: 26 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 53
|
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 at 20:57 |
|
Do I really need to remind people we are playing a game here? I personally don't want "real world politics" in a game I am playing for fun. And Illy, as it is, is meant to be played however we see fit with the tools we are provided- even if we wish to play as "barbarians". Pick whatever labels you wish, but I am here to have fun and escape real life every once in a while. If that means I am militaristic in my gaming style, that is allowed. This is not the real world. If I attack or diplo your city, or you attack or diplo mine, we aren't really losing anything. It's my, and a whole lot of other people's, idea of fun. If you don't like it, I suggest you choose a different game where you can chat and snuggle with each other all day and have no challenges whatsoever.
Edited by Princess Xanax - 12 Sep 2012 at 21:00
|
|
Arakamis
Greenhorn
Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Location: Waterdeep
Status: Offline
Points: 97
|
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 at 20:44 |
Faenix wrote:
Arakamis, I think what you're missing is that TLR was a spin-out from ~N~. We had a shared history. It wasn't like they were just some random alliance that was being attacked and some other random member of the community joined in. EF was an alliance mate at one point, TLR was originally going to be a ~N~ confederate but due to past history it didn't turn out that way.
So, when TLR was attacked by a larger alliance after just finishing with another fight that they didn't choose, and their members were being threatened, we offered our assistance because of the shared history. Some of the posts here make it sound like TLR was begging the whole world for help, and that wasn't the case at all. They were willing to fight it out alone if needed.
There's nothing to stop STEEL's various confeds from entering on their side. That's what confeds are for, right? |
Well, that I can understand and thank you. There is/was absolutely no need to find another excuse (manipulating an IGM for e.g.) for helping your friends.
|
|
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 at 20:39 |
Arakamis wrote:
bansisdead wrote:
Arakamis wrote:
Show me one word/sentence from that message indicating an annihilation!
abondon those who are leading you to nothing but your death. |
|
there's one. |
 I was expecting this. Death as in Failure, Fall etc.
Come on mates, be serious.
See:
|
...Seriously?
|
|
Tweet
NC crusade vs. STEEL
Topic Options