Peaceful Illy Group (PIG) |
Post Reply | Page <12345 10> |
Author | |
Consul Zynot
Wordsmith Joined: 08 Aug 2014 Status: Offline Points: 110 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ignore the negative comments Kumomoto, RE will join these PIG alliance and think it is a wonderful idea by both parties.
|
|
Ammianus
New Poster Joined: 04 Sep 2014 Location: Deutschland Status: Offline Points: 32 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Is there any kind of update except what was leaked in GC this morning?
|
|
Qui secundos optat eventus, dimicet arte, non causa.
[Vegetius] |
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General Joined: 19 Oct 2009 Status: Offline Points: 2224 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
We're getting close to coming to a draft of an article... Not the easiest thing when you have 35 members from over 20 alliances, but we're making really good progress!
|
|
Jejune
Postmaster General Joined: 10 Feb 2013 Status: Offline Points: 1035 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I think this is a great idea, and I am mainly a proponent of it because I've always hoped that the dimension of war in the game could become less personal and more strategic. The former leads to much vitriol and people getting feelings hurt, thus leaving the game in a huff. The latter would be more like the mindset of those who play the board game Risk. Obviously, there is no possible endgame in Illyriad where you "win the whole game" in world conquest as in Risk, but the spirit of the game could involve more conflict over strategic maneuvering and less over personal squabbles.
I'm hoping that PIG could be a vehicle for some "cognitive remapping" of Illyriad when it comes to the motives and perceptions of the war dimension in the game.
|
|
M6 Redneck
New Poster Joined: 09 Nov 2011 Status: Offline Points: 28 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
Winnie Churchill, "No Ministery of defence ever won a war" or similar.
I doubt any in game "UN" will ever regulate war. However i am interested to see how this goes and look forward to enjoying the inevitable bickering come the next war over the finer points of the Articles. Now without any perimissions I wish to make a prediction, might will make right! Anyhow this is a great example of what makes this game stand out from the crowd. But i do take exemption from asking the development team to implement tools/features that assimilate the said Articles into the game. Do not seek to implement your will as not all present or indeed future players will agree with the way you wish the game to be played. Let those who wish to play your way play your way. As for the rest, let them play their way. Sounds fair to me. And what is war without risk - glorified tournement? Just my humble opinion, Love and hugs, M6 PS. Can any of you PIG guys place you hand over you heart and say you are not upgrading your towns/armies/commaders/res stocks/weapon stocks/etc in preparation to either defender yourself or impose your will on others as the future may dictate? PSS. If you answer yes and your alliance does likewise I doubt a memorial to your inevitable demise will appear on the map.
|
|
Jejune
Postmaster General Joined: 10 Feb 2013 Status: Offline Points: 1035 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I was reading the thread about PIG requesting a new city/population tool for determining these data from specific dates, as well as some concerns being expressed about the Convention in general, and it led me to these questions:
1. Has PIG discussed and/or voted on a rules or a resolution on how to enforce its new rules of engagement? For example, if one of the new resolutions is that no player can lose more than 3 cities in a conflict, and an alliance attempts to raze every player's cities, will PIG enforce repercussions on that alliance? In other words, will PIG enforce its resolutions with force? 2. Will alliances that do not sign on to PIG be considered "rogue alliances" and thus be marginalized? These aren't skeptical questions -- again, I really like the idea of this. But these are questions that I think need to be answered sooner rather than later so that players and alliances understand the gravity of PIG; whether it will be a set of non-binding guidelines, or a new world order in the game. Thanks!
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General Joined: 19 Oct 2009 Status: Offline Points: 2224 |
Post Options
Thanks(2)
|
PIG has no intentions of creating any sort of enforcement mechanism to force people to comply with its Convention. Signatories to the convention will police their own behavior. And if you are a signatory and don't follow your own agreed upon rules, then hopefully others will think less of you. Likewise people who refuse to sign. This is loosely modeled after the Geneva Convention and relies on people to regulate their own behavior. Will people cheat? Of course. But, just like the Geneva Convention, most will likely be honorable and that in and of itself would be a titanic shift for the better, imo, to Illy. I don't think anyone wants another war of account extermination like this last one and this is an honest attempt at codifying some standards to try to prevent that. It won't be perfect. Probably not even close to perfect. But if it means we move the standard for most alliance's behavior away from account extermination, then we have been very successful.
Also, regarding our question to the Devs, we were just wondering if that information could be easily made available. If so, it would make this Convention possible without complicated involvement of third parties. It seems there might be a third party tool that does this based upon posts. Not sure. |
|
Cilcain
Wordsmith Joined: 13 Oct 2012 Status: Offline Points: 106 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Just thinking out loud (or as loud as my keyboard rattles anyway)....
If Alliance A and Alliance B go to war (with Alliance A being a convention signatory - Alliance B may or may not be), both start with 100 players each with 10 cities. If Alliance A are the superior tacticians, and eventually get to a stage that they have lost no cities, but Alliance B has lost 3 cities per player; then (assuming the much talked about 3 city per account limit is in the convention), does that mean that Alliance A must stop all sieges against Alliance B, whereas Alliance B can continue to throw cats at Alliance A? I ask this because, although I did not see any account extermination in the last war, I certainly saw some accounts come close to the brink - but in my opinion this was down to stubbornness/valour (delete as you wish) where the losing players just would not concede, and continued hostilities against the winning Alliance. For me, the "3 city/account" mechanism should simply be a requirement for the "winning" side to offer terms (either unconditional, or conditions within agreed limits) to each "losing" player that qualifies under this agreement. If the "losing" player then refuses to concede and withdraw from the war, then the requirements of the convention are removed from the "winning" alliance for that particular player (either for the duration of the war, or until the "losing" player subsequently accepts the terms). So, my thoughts in summary;
|
|
Jejune
Postmaster General Joined: 10 Feb 2013 Status: Offline Points: 1035 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I think your scenario is a valid one, Cilcain, but from what Kumomoto said above, I don't think that the PIG effort is about micromanaging smaller alliance-versus-alliance wars, but rather ensuring that when the large geopolitical power blocks in the game go to war again and start a world war (which they will, eventually), that those large forces don't destroy the game or greatly degrade player engagement. Illyriad is a strange game in that war actually makes people leave the game, rather than engaging with it more. I'm not sure why -- maybe the predominant gamer demographic here is the kid who "took his ball and went home," or said when choosing game pieces in Monopoly, "if I can't be the car, I'm not playing." Who knows? In any case, my guess is that PIG has a wider, more macrocosmic goal of making sure that the BIG wars don't cause the game to shed engagement -- a phenomenon that has happened after every war of latw.
|
|
Cilcain
Wordsmith Joined: 13 Oct 2012 Status: Offline Points: 106 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I agree with what you say Jejune - but the challenge then becomes knowing what the tipping point is between micro and macro. And also, is a collection of seemingly discrete micro-wars actually a macro-war?
Hats off to anyone who can legislate around all of these (and other) variables!!
|
|
Post Reply | Page <12345 10> |
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 |