Peace Offer Rejected |
Post Reply
|
Page <1 6789> |
| Author | |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 19:23 |
|
I note that the post that raised the point about leaders "killing" people who chose to leave comes from a neutral party, perhaps speculating based on his experience in past games rather than anything that has actually occurred in this war. Illyrians have traditionally stood against both "join or die" and "leave and die" as alliance philosophies. I doubt that either side would long tolerate an alliance that espoused either of these principles in their ranks.
|
|
![]() |
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1005 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 19:35 |
|
That is what I would think, but I have heard rumour of an alliance telling its members if they leave they must exo all cites out of the alliance territory, or face retribution.
However, this is little more than a rumour as I have said. I have not seen the alliance put such a threat into action. |
|
|
<Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that
[21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
|
![]() |
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 20:03 |
|
Darkwords, forcing someone to move their cities isn't the same thing as killing an account. It isn't even close. I'm not saying that kind of policy is justified, but I've exodused many cities. It takes a while to rebuild again, but the process is much faster with friendly players and $5 of prestige.
I would also point out that alliance strongholds tend to be densely packed, and a departing player could block exodus into the alliance stronghold for people trying to retreat. Does that justify making them move away? I don't know. On one hand, it seems like a brutal penalty for desertion. On the other hand, if I were fighting to keep my cities alive, I would look very unfavorably on a deserter blocking my move to the alliance HQ, when it might be my only chance to save the city. There's a big difference between simply leaving, and actively screwing over your former comrades. If the deserter's cities weren't in the alliance HQ... that would be unbelievably petty by the standards of the Illyriad community. |
|
![]() |
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1005 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 20:15 |
|
I never said it was the same thing BM, but then from what I have heard the ultimatum is you exo or we kill you. Something that I think is a pretty crazy thing to apply to your own members/ex-members, its the kind of thing I reserve for my enemies.
Anyway it does not really matter does it, as I said it is a rumour, or do you know more about this than I perhaps? |
|
|
<Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that
[21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
|
![]() |
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 20:44 |
|
Brand, I still think your example is one of the alliance leadership putting its interests over the interests of members. Yes, ex-members cities' might be in a place that's inconvenient for their former alliance mates. But the idea that the existence of a neutral city is responsible for one's own city being sieged is a bit far-fetched. Perhaps retreating people won't get the exact plum spot they want -- so that's a reason people should be forced to Exo? THAT is what seems petty to me.
|
|
![]() |
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 22:37 |
|
Darkwords, I don't know any more about the situation than what you've just stated.
Rill, a leader almost always put the good of the team over the good of individual members. That's the very definition of being on a team. I didn't say that former members were responsible for anyone getting sieged. I said they could be blocking key exodus moves. Why are the departing players in the middle of a stronghold? Presumably they were placed there as part of the team, to be tightly integrated with their comrades. Being in the alliance core is a privilege extended by your alliance because you are a trusted member. The favorable placement doesn't strike me as some kind of permanent individual right. Quit the team, leave our fortress, sounds like a reasonable demand to me. It's better if that policy is stated up front, but war catches people by surprise sometimes. City placement is like 40% of defense in this game. Alliance is another 40%. Why do alliances jealously hoard their abandoned cities? Why do they form cores in the first place? Why is map crowding such a polarizing issue? Why do alliances siege members at 45-60 days inactivity, or sometimes even raze at key locations to prevent capture or open up squares for exodus-in of current players? It's because map placement is so key. I wouldn't hesitate to make that demand in other games, and if it seems overly harsh, I think that's because people are underestimating the importance of good placement and overestimating the damage caused by exodus. I've seen enough placement disputes in eCrow to understand that placement is critical in ordinary circumstances, let alone when people are trying to destroy your cities. |
|
![]() |
|
Nokigon
Postmaster General
Player Council - Historian Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1452 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 23:22 |
|
This seems like a fairly in-depth conversation on the basis of what is rumour, hearsay and, to the best of my knowledge, untrue.
|
|
![]() |
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Jan 2014 at 00:05 |
|
Brand, I guess what I'm saying is that people going nuts over city location is just that -- nuts. It's possible to be successful in a variety of locations and threatening to siege people who just don't want to participate in a war anymore (perhaps because they have doubts about their alliance leadership) does not seem like a healthy policy. Certainly it would be very easy to use it as an excuse -- it is so easy to fool ourselves into believing that what is most convenient is the only possible way.
Hopefully those who seek to lead alliances would have the humility to consider other possibilities rather than engage in this sort of knee-jerk reaction. Noki, in my discussion of this matter I hope I do not imply that I believe this is actually happening. Rather, I am talking about why I think it would be unwise and unnecessary for the leadership of an alliance to take this path. At the same time I recognize that this topic has wandered rather far from that of the original post, so perhaps if further discussion is desired someone should start a new thread.
|
|
![]() |
|
Elmindra
Forum Warrior
Joined: 10 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 464 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Jan 2014 at 00:08 |
|
I have seen a certain alliance leadership specifically offer a way out of the war, but required leaving their territory as a price. While I don't personally agree with such behaviour, who am I to argue with their poilicy as long as they have the power to enforce it.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Jan 2014 at 00:26 |
|
Who are you? A person. This is a forum, which is a place for the exchange of ideas. Perhaps a majority (or even a minority, or even one person) may not agree with one's opinion, but that should not prevent you from expressing it.
What you may be saying is "I would not be willing to take active steps to impose this opinion on other people"; that stance I understand and agree with. There are very few ideas I would be willing to fight (even with bits and bytes of data, which is what our armies in this game are) in order to support.
|
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 6789> |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |