Print Page | Close Window

Faction Play: SiegeQuest 1 - OCT 7, 2020

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Events
Forum Description: For Discussion of Illyriad World Events
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=10821
Printed Date: 03 Dec 2020 at 11:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Faction Play: SiegeQuest 1 - OCT 7, 2020
Posted By: Jejune
Subject: Faction Play: SiegeQuest 1 - OCT 7, 2020
Date Posted: 11 Sep 2020 at 01:46
Hello, Illyrians!

I am pleased to announce the launch of Faction Play's first official server-wide event: SiegeQuest 1! The military event is set to begin on October 7, 2020, but preparations for the event are already underway. 

A SiegeQuest is a dynamic military event within the Faction Play gaming circuit that gives players and alliances the opportunity to participate in an active siege battle -- either on offense or defense. This is NOT a war -- it is more like a tournament. The cities being sieged are either inactive or owned by players who consent to be sieged, and all participation in the event is 100% voluntary. It is simply a fun way for players to experience a real siege battle without anyone getting offended or sucked into a war that they don't want to be in.

Here are the details:

  • SiegeQuest 1 will involve two sieges -- one in Elgea, and one in the Broken Lands.
  • The conflict will pitch player-led factions  https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Alliance/2123" rel="nofollow - ELVES and https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Alliance/42" rel="nofollow - Dlord against https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Alliance/2192" rel="nofollow - ORCS .
  • Players and alliances will have the opportunity to join either ELVES/Dlord or ORCS and assist them in their siege/defense.
For this first SiegeQuest, there are some limits on the amount and types of troops that players can use. This is to keep the playing field even so that smaller players and alliances can participate. The rules are as follows:

  • No elites.
  • No T3 gear that increases attack or defense. (Gear that speeds armies and/or reduces attack/defense are ok.)
  • Army sizes are limited to 5K in XP value. If you are unsure how to calculate this, please consult this chart:


  • Siege armies will be allowed up to 25K in total forces, not including siege engines.

Again, in future SiegeQuest events we'll open up the rules considerably, but baby steps for now.

All are welcome to participate, no matter how big or small you are. Here's how:

  1. Consult the Faction Play Alliance Rankings to see which faction your alliance ranks positively with. You can see consolidated rankings here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uoMq3KZQDhywSucwA-9tmb_NfO3tIFDz-OU6_gdPL5w/edit#gid=0
  2. Send a message to the Faction that you want to align with and pledge your support.
  3. The Faction will coordinate with you on offense or defense.
  4. NOTE: Your alliance will have to arrange a NAP withthe Faction you are supporting if you intend to reinforce.
It is strongly advised that participants join the Faction Play Slack Account, which will serve as a central planning platform for both sides. You can join https://join.slack.com/t/illyriadfactionplay/shared_invite/zt-g4ivobud-kNm_eUncqlQxANVeUrQ~FA" rel="nofollow - here .

FAQs

War is really, really mean / we are a peaceful alliance. Wouldn't this constitute war / PvP?

SiegeQuest is definitely PvP, but it is nothing like the "metawars" that many echew in Illyriad. SiegeQuest is like a tournament in that 1) the battle is a set-piece and not a tactical/strategic maneuver to hurt or weaken another player or alliance, and 2) everyone involved wants to be involved and players decide how many of their troops they want to risk in the event.

Sieging people is really, really mean. It breaks my heart to think of someone losing their precious city!

No worries! All players within the Faction Play gaming circuit are 100% opted in to the action. No one is ever sieged against their will; they are willing to put their cities on the line for the sake of making Faction Play events more dynamic and realistic for other players like you. Faction Play also looks for inactive cities to use as set-pieces as well. No matter what, the only players who ever risk the loss of a city are consenting Faction Players.

I'm not in an alliance. Can I still play?

Sure! If you re an elf, you can request to join ELVES temporarily for the event. The same is true for dwarves and Dlord, or orcs and ORCS. If you are a human, we can likely help to place you in an affiliated alliance so that you can be involved. [NOTE: we still need an all-human Faction!]

Faction Players like to role-play their characters, but I'm not interested in that. Can I still play?

Absolutely. Not even everyone in the player-led Factions role play, and you don't have to, either. We strongly encourage role playing because we feel that it makes interactions less "personal," and we all know that personal conflicts have long driven very ugly, messy, and divisive wars in the game. Playing a character adds richness and fun to conflicts, as well as some "distance" between ourselves and the actions that occur in the game. But it is not a requirement.

I really don't like [insert Faction Player name here] and I'm going to break the rules of your stupid event to seek revenge on them.

This is exactly what Faction Play is trying to get rid of in the game. If you have a beef against one of us, that's fine, but flagrantly breaking the rules to get at a specific player, or just to ruin the fun for a bunch of people will not be tolerated. Some of the player-led factions loathe one another as part of role-playing fun, but as a gaming league, we are 100% unified and support each other completely in the game. We ask that you please bring this level of respect to your interactions with Faction Play as well.

Who should I contact?

  • ELVES/Dlord -- For Elgea: Ironhand, Duran / For BL: Jejune
  • ORCS -- Elgea/BL: Eowan the Orc

We really hope you'll give this a try! Our goal here is not to win or lose a siege, but to get as many of you involved as possible. A modest goal is to have about a dozen or so players involved on each team, outside of the members from ELVES, Dlord and ORCS. If you want in, then we want to hear from you!

Alliances: feel free to pledge support of a faction in this thread!


-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">



Replies:
Posted By: OssianII
Date Posted: 11 Sep 2020 at 09:39
One of the best player initiated set-ups. Easy to follow and fun to play. Faction Play combines role play with action, attacks and defences.  It can combine with Illyriad's Faction narratives making each event original and entertaining. This a refreshing way to play Illyriad.  Alliances join up!Clap

-------------
“If anyone was to ask for my opinion, which I note they’re not, I’d say we were taking the long way around.”
Gimli son of Gloin.


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 11 Sep 2020 at 14:14
Thank you, Ossianll! We agree about incorporating the NPC/dev-created Factions as well. Were already using them in quests that we do with players, as well as with our alliance ranking algorithm. For the algorithm, each faction has unique modifiers assigned to their faction hubs and, depending on how close an alliance's capital is to those hubs, they affect the overall ranking of the alliance in relation to the player-led factions.

that being said, we're looking for even more ways to incorporate the NPC Factions. We'd love to hear more ideas!


-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2020 at 00:54
Hello, Faction Play enthusiasts! 

Just a quick update to say that we're seeing a high level of interest and engagement from players and alliances in both Elgea and BL for the SiegeQuest event. Some of the game's biggest alliances are signing on to aid either ELVES, Dlord or ORCS.

Thanks to a generous presence scroll donation from Fellos in YARR, every player who participates in SiegeQuest is going to get a limited edition medal that will never be minted again

If you are a medal collector, this is going to be a rare one. (We will do subsequent medals for future SiegeQuests, but each one will be different.)

Please be sure to https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uoMq3KZQDhywSucwA-9tmb_NfO3tIFDz-OU6_gdPL5w/edit#gid=0" rel="nofollow - check your rankings and sign on with a Faction for SiegeQuest today!


-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2020 at 21:27
ORCS is formally withdrawing from the siege quest. This is due to significant issues with the rules, and their interpretations.

We're also going to be withdrawing from faction play as a whole until such a time that a system is in place that we feel is fit for purpose with regards to inter-factional quests, and until we are large enough to compete in whatever system is created.

A lot of lessons have been learnt as a part of the first siege quest. Obviously, there were always going to be teething issues with a new system. I would like to thank everyone who was getting involved. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the yarr/elves siege in BL.


-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2020 at 22:49
We are sorry to see that ORCS is withdrawing from the event, and from Faction Play as a whole. Eowan is right that it is not easy to immediately unlearn the long-established behaviors and tendencies of the meta game and "Metawar" as I call it. We clearly needed a lot more internal discussion and agreement on very granular rules than we established, and we'll be sure to do so in the future.

We will huddle on what we will do for the Elgean potion of SiegeQuest, but we will definitely make sure that there is Elgean participation. Stay tuned.

As for the SiegeQuest event, I can tell you that the event is still very much on in the Broken Lands, where ELVES is planning a siege and is being sieged at the same time! For those of you engaged in the BL battle theatre, there is no disruption in this action.


-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Skorg
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2020 at 02:30
poor Eowan


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2020 at 05:07
Not really, things like this very much are to be expected early on with a system like this.

Part of the issue was that the rules were not properly designed to accommodate for creative play. Jejune wrote them assuming that only conventional mechanics would be used. As such, there is disagreement within the faction play community as to whether things like using terras to block squares is a valid tactic or against the spirit of things.

The goal of faction play is to allow pvp without all the personal bs, however when the rules are not clear, personal bs has a tendency to stray into it. Clear rules that are flexible enough to deal with creative play are essential to a project like this.

I've proposed this framework in an attempt to deal with many of the issues discovered within this siege quest:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N53gAKWkePjwhgVNdJhHr5t_SMUASNKbr8aY5X4NUuk/edit?usp=sharing" rel="nofollow - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N53gAKWkePjwhgVNdJhHr5t_SMUASNKbr8aY5X4NUuk/edit?usp=sharing



-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2020 at 02:17
SiegeQuest 1 Recap

SiegeQuest 1 is now officially concluded, and I’d like to thank everyone who participated. While it was a shame that the Elgean portion of the event was cancelled, the Broken Lands theatre of battle was a great first step in making SiegeQuests a dynamic, tournament-like server event that lets people experience unlimited siege warfare in a 100% consenting, opt-in, role-playing environment.

Rest assured, SiegeQuest 2 (slated for December) will include an exciting Elgean event with high-stakes sieging!

Elgea

In spite of the Elgean cancellation, Lord Duran and the Dlords assembled a total of 52 participants who were ready to participate. We’ve provided medals for all of those folks, whose participation was cut short by no fault of their own.

Factions and Alliances included:
  • Dlord
  • ORCS
  • MAIAR
  • SkB
  • ELVES
  • RUM
  • ITG

Broken Lands

There were two simultaneous sieges going on in the BL — a siege sent by ELVES on a YARR! city (role-playing lore liked YARR with ORCS for this siege), and a siege from The Shadow [?] sent at ELVES.

Over 40 separate players participated in these two sieges! Alliances involved included:
  • ELVES
  • ?
  • YARR!
  • mCrow
  • DiL
  • SAINT
  • RUM
  • AESIR

Here is a recap of some of the action:

Siege on dogbert’s (YARR!) city of Solatin

ELVES launched two siege armies at the derelict city, which landed on the north and south small hills. RUM mounted a third siege stack on the southeast forest square, with the siege army being provided by Eternal Fire (a joint operation). The Shadow launched several attacks at the sieges and YARR reinforced the city with some local troops. The city was directly attacked by a host of players, including Darth Darius (SAINT), Ria (DiL) and other players from alliances who are not in Faction Play.

Finally, the city was razed.

Siege on Eternal Fire’s (ELVES) city of ioFlip

The Shadow mounted a surprise siege on Eternal Fire’s city of ioFlip, placing a cornucopia of spears on a building square to the southeast of the city. They also locked the city down with a blockade. Inbound attacks came from ELVES and mCrow, but nothing could slow down the siege engines, and they destroyed the city down to a population of 1.

The keep of the city (the wall) remained intact, however, as well as a contingent of small defensive forces composed of about 15 different players. Direct attacks on this force buckled them, but when the siege force attempted to storm, the greenskins were overwhelmed by the host of reinforcing troops that remained in the keep. The siege was thwarted, but not after laying total waste to the city. This siege could be marked as a draw.

Medals

Medals have been given out to all participants. These are special medals, because they give the bearer the ability to impart a +1 ranking change for the alliance they are in that lasts for 90 days with the Faction who gave it to them. So, medals given by Dlord can be used to affect rankings with them; the medals given by ELVES do the same.

Please note that, due to ORCS withdrawing from SiegeQuest and Faction Play, there was no orc-friendly Faction to provide medals to The Shadow or ORCS’ allies who participated. Thus, ELVES issued these medals.

Next Up: SiegeQuest 2

If you missed out on SiegeQuest 1, don’t worry: SiegeQuest 2 is right around the corner. we will look to launch it in early December, just off of the end of the November tournament. We really want as many people involved as possible. If you want to get ready for it, the best thing to do is get involved in Faction Play with any of the Factions. Feel free to https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uoMq3KZQDhywSucwA-9tmb_NfO3tIFDz-OU6_gdPL5w/edit#gid=0" rel="nofollow - check your rankings and act accordingly. There are plenty of quests, role playing, and other fun things to do.

Also, be sure to join https://join.slack.com/t/illyriadfactionplay/shared_invite/zt-g4ivobud-kNm_eUncqlQxANVeUrQ~FA" rel="nofollow - Faction Play Slack . It’s the most central place to stay in touch.

Still Needed: More Factions!

Do you run an alliance that would be a good fit for Faction Play? We want you to be a part of what we’re building! The Faction Play circuit will provide you with all of the support you need to make the jump into being a Faction. It does NOT preclude you from playing in tournaments at all. Contact Jejune if interested.


Thanks!


-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2020 at 16:02
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Not really, things like this very much are to be expected early on with a system like this.

Part of the issue was that the rules were not properly designed to accommodate for creative play. Jejune wrote them assuming that only conventional mechanics would be used. As such, there is disagreement within the faction play community as to whether things like using terras to block squares is a valid tactic or against the spirit of things.

The goal of faction play is to allow pvp without all the personal bs, however when the rules are not clear, personal bs has a tendency to stray into it. Clear rules that are flexible enough to deal with creative play are essential to a project like this.

I've proposed this framework in an attempt to deal with many of the issues discovered within this siege quest:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N53gAKWkePjwhgVNdJhHr5t_SMUASNKbr8aY5X4NUuk/edit?usp=sharing" rel="nofollow - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N53gAKWkePjwhgVNdJhHr5t_SMUASNKbr8aY5X4NUuk/edit?usp=sharing



Sorry for the late reply, i just read Eowans message. In my opinion it is important though to call out Eowan on some of the things he does.

I really do not get what you were trying to do. The first SiegeQuest was supposed to be a test who wants to participate and to see how it works out. The player faction play is a new concept that was not really tested. So why not start slow, see how it works out and then step up? Why not give us a terra to siege and see how that works?

Instead you skipped the "start slow", "test the rules and participation" and went into full "advanced PVP strategy" with a new and untested concept? Why?

I do like the idea of using terras to make the siege harder. I do think people should use/try that (or similar stuff) later on. But not on the first one.

A lot of people where looking forward to the siege. Some of our players put a lot of work into it. All gone to waste because of Eowan. And for what?

In my opinion Eowan really screwed up.

That said, thanks a lot Jejune and team, you are doing an amazing job.


Posted By: DeliciousJosh
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2020 at 18:30
I am not sure what is to be expected in a new scenario like this. With that said I was also under the impression that things should be played in a slow and non-elitist kind of approach. That went down the drain in Elgea.
I still think Eowan is an important figure in this and maybe wanted to prove something. To me he proved that sieging Eowan is hard. 
I think a learning curve has occurred and maybe some salt will spice things up a bit, even thougg we have plenty of that in the metagame already :))

Moving forward now is the thing to do imo.


-------------

PublicRelations
HumanResources


Posted By: OssianII
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2020 at 10:01
Faction play is a bright way to play this game. All credit to Jejune for the effort he has put in to launching it! We all know that Ego's have always been a part of game-play in Illyriad. I know this from my own personal experience.  Jejune's initiative  was always going to produce varying opinions on conduct of play. Hopefully the various parties can solve any variations in opinions  in the spirit  intended when "faction play" was promoted. Eowan has contributed a lot to Illy and also "faction play"  I hope that he and Orcs rejoin the group. 

-------------
“If anyone was to ask for my opinion, which I note they’re not, I’d say we were taking the long way around.”
Gimli son of Gloin.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2020 at 17:31
Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

Sorry for the late reply, i just read Eowans message. In my opinion it is important though to call out Eowan on some of the things he does.

I really do not get what you were trying to do. The first SiegeQuest was supposed to be a test who wants to participate and to see how it works out. The player faction play is a new concept that was not really tested. So why not start slow, see how it works out and then step up? Why not give us a terra to siege and see how that works?

Instead you skipped the "start slow", "test the rules and participation" and went into full "advanced PVP strategy" with a new and untested concept? Why?

I do like the idea of using terras to make the siege harder. I do think people should use/try that (or similar stuff) later on. But not on the first one.

A lot of people where looking forward to the siege. Some of our players put a lot of work into it. All gone to waste because of Eowan. And for what?

In my opinion Eowan really screwed up.

That said, thanks a lot Jejune and team, you are doing an amazing job.

This whole thing was a mess. The rules that I agreed to were not the ones posted here on the forums by Jejune- the ones I agreed to explicitly did not exempt siege engines from xp caps, and draught horses were the only exemption from the equipment ban.

These are relatively minor changes to the rules, but they do allow for strategies such as siege trains, a strategy that Dlord were apparently intending to use.

The thing that actually caused me to withdraw was cheating by Dlords/SkB.

As a result of my entirely legal decision to use advanced pvp strategy Dlord/SkB decided to ignore the rules and start using armies well above the cap.

The first of these was a siege by Ubluntu on one of the terra towns using 30k stalwarts. These had an XP value of 90k, more than 3x the size of allowed siege armies under the rules. Duran had threatened to break the rules when he saw that I was using terras, so I decided at that point to withdraw rather than allow an already messy situation to escalate.

Of the armies that hit my towns as attacks after withdrawal, all of them were above the cap. Most were in the range of 6-9k xp values, though one from Ubluntu again had an xp value of 150k (50k stalwarts). 

Now, did the terras make things more difficult? Of course. But then I think as the defender it is my job to make things difficult. They were perfectly siegable; the terrain around my towns may be plains, but there were building tiles and more 2 squares out. As Dlords does have the advantage of numbers and nearly a decade of political ties, I felt that to make the siege quest at all interesting, I'd have to pull something unorthodox.

So, to sum up, there was crap going on on all fronts. Of these, I'd say that my use of terras was probably the least problematic. I chose initially to make the forum posts more focused on the terras because it seemed like a good way to explain things without raising too many doubts as to the sustainability of faction play. However, if I'm going to be called out, I will explain myself.

To be clear, I still feel like faction play definitely can work, however it does need a better framework for organising inter-factional pvp.



-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2020 at 18:04
Originally posted by OssianII OssianII wrote:

Faction play is a bright way to play this game. All credit to Jejune for the effort he has put in to launching it! We all know that Ego's have always been a part of game-play in Illyriad. I know this from my own personal experience.  Jejune's initiative  was always going to produce varying opinions on conduct of play. Hopefully the various parties can solve any variations in opinions  in the spirit  intended when "faction play" was promoted. Eowan has contributed a lot to Illy and also "faction play"  I hope that he and Orcs rejoin the group. 

We definitely do intend to rejoin but, due to the issues mentioned in my previous post, this will not be until there is a proper framework in place and we're large enough we can enforce rules through military intervention if necessary.


-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: wolfhound01
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2020 at 18:41
i have something to say aswell.


Moo


that is all.

-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/b/401140/av.jpg


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2020 at 18:52
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

This whole thing was a mess. The rules that I agreed to were not the ones posted here on the forums by Jejune- the ones I agreed to explicitly did not exempt siege engines from xp caps, and draught horses were the only exemption from the equipment ban.

These are relatively minor changes to the rules, but they do allow for strategies such as siege trains, a strategy that Dlord were apparently intending to use.

The thing that actually caused me to withdraw was cheating by Dlords/SkB.

As a result of my entirely legal decision to use advanced pvp strategy Dlord/SkB decided to ignore the rules and start using armies well above the cap.

The first of these was a siege by Ubluntu on one of the terra towns using 30k stalwarts. These had an XP value of 90k, more than 3x the size of allowed siege armies under the rules. Duran had threatened to break the rules when he saw that I was using terras, so I decided at that point to withdraw rather than allow an already messy situation to escalate.

Of the armies that hit my towns as attacks after withdrawal, all of them were above the cap. Most were in the range of 6-9k xp values, though one from Ubluntu again had an xp value of 150k (50k stalwarts). 

Now, did the terras make things more difficult? Of course. But then I think as the defender it is my job to make things difficult. They were perfectly siegable; the terrain around my towns may be plains, but there were building tiles and more 2 squares out. As Dlords does have the advantage of numbers and nearly a decade of political ties, I felt that to make the siege quest at all interesting, I'd have to pull something unorthodox.

So, to sum up, there was crap going on on all fronts. Of these, I'd say that my use of terras was probably the least problematic. I chose initially to make the forum posts more focused on the terras because it seemed like a good way to explain things without raising too many doubts as to the sustainability of faction play. However, if I'm going to be called out, I will explain myself.

To be clear, I still feel like faction play definitely can work, however it does need a better framework for organising inter-factional pvp.


Can you please read my post again and answer the question i was asking instead of answering a question i did not ask?

I do get why you pulled out. I do not get why you used advanced strategies in a first "training exercise" that escalated things.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2020 at 19:14
Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

As Dlords does have the advantage of numbers and nearly a decade of political ties, I felt that to make the siege quest at all interesting, I'd have to pull something unorthodox.


Can you please read my post again and answer the question i was asking instead of answering a question i did not ask?

I do get why you pulled out. I do not get why you used advanced strategies in a first "training exercise" that escalated things.

To explain the above further, how much fun would it be if there were 6 sieges, 2 blockades, and the siege was over in less than 2 days? Unless people were involved for entirely the wrong reasons, the fun comes from facing a challenge and overcoming it. I had to deal with the numbers issue that was facing me, and the use of advanced strategies was key to that, otherwise it would have been very boring. It could easily have become a very interesting series of sieges where slowly the meatshields were whittled away. A long term event like that could easily have drawn more people in, increasing participation.


-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: wolfhound01
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2020 at 20:13
concurs with several above moo moo's


good day

-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/b/401140/av.jpg


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2020 at 21:27
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

To explain the above further, how much fun would it be if there were 6 sieges, 2 blockades, and the siege was over in less than 2 days? Unless people were involved for entirely the wrong reasons, the fun comes from facing a challenge and overcoming it. I had to deal with the numbers issue that was facing me, and the use of advanced strategies was key to that, otherwise it would have been very boring. It could easily have become a very interesting series of sieges where slowly the meatshields were whittled away. A long term event like that could easily have drawn more people in, increasing participation.


And why not do that in a SiegeQuest 2 when some of the "starting pains" are solved? Its not like Illy is a fast game and we have limited time. Its not like you gain something huge using the advanced strategies in the first one instead of later ones.

In my opinion what you did was a gamble that was never worth it. A lot of risk and not really a reason to take that risk.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2020 at 21:59
It shouldn't have been a gamble. I stuck to the rules, and I expected others to do the same. Instead Dlord/SkB decided to escalate this beyond the bounds of the siege quest. I did offer Duran a withdrawal when he pced me about it. This would have allowed time to deal with the issue before relaunching the quest once that was resolved.

Which brings me to a question I'd like to ask of you. Why are you calling me out, while praising those who broke the rules / changed the rules without my consent? 


-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: wolfhound01
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2020 at 23:05
good show good show here here

-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/b/401140/av.jpg


Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 01:55
Wow -- I totally missed the post-event debate on all of this! Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I'll throw in my two cents regarding the situation involving the abortive Elgean siege.

It's true that there wasn't a great deal of details in the rules we set forth for SiegeQuest 1. Referring back to http://https://forum.illyriad.co.uk/faction-play-siegequest-1-oct-7-2020_topic10821.html" rel="nofollow - the original post :

  • No elites.
  • No T3 gear that increases attack or defense. (Gear that speeds armies and/or reduces attack/defense are ok.)
  • Army sizes are limited to 5K in XP value.
  • Siege armies will be allowed up to 25K in total forces, not including siege engines.

Never in a million years did I think we needed a lot of biolerplate or legalese for this event. I thought it was pretty straightforward -- particularly the specs around siege armies.

From the perspective of the factions themselves (ELVES, ORCS, Dlord), I thought we were in agreement that the #1 goal of SiegeQuest 1 was not about winning a siege or a siege break. The goals were to 1) get as many people outside of Faction Play involved and 2) to make it as fun as possible. It was essentially an "Open House."

The fact that the rules were so limiting, as well as the city siege targets (an abandoned city donated by YARR and a city on Eowan's ill-used Elf alt that he donated) by definition made it a low-stakes event. The cities (with maybe the exception of Eternal Fire's city, which became an unexpected target) were nothing more than that set-pieces. 

In my opinion, spending gold on terraformers to block the siege spots around the Elgean siege target was not in the spirit of what the Faction Play coordinators had planned. Having troops bounce off those villages instead of getting to be a part of a multi-alliance siege would be demoralizing, I think. It would not be fun, and not encourage future participation. To me, this siege defense tactic (which I think is very clever in its own right) is a species of metawar, where it's no holds barred. SiegeQuest is an event that's all about encouraging participation. It's more like a tournament.

Eowan has pointed out that those terras could have first been sieged to make way for a siege on the siege target. That would have taken days if not a week, plus another week to land the actual event siege. The idea of SiegeQuest was that all of the sieges were going to happen on 10/7. 

Moreover, one of the terras was not in ORCS on 10/7 when I checked. Because all of the siege and military action occurs within the Faction Play gaming sphere, no one would have been allowed to siege that town.

I'm committed to not focusing on the negative and really just want to emphasize the positive of the event, as well as all of Faction Play's support. I am so thankful for all of your interest and willingness to participate; I do not take it for granted.

I'm fine with laying out a bunch of extra rules for the next event if that's what we need to do. Instead, it'd be nice to think that we can use our own common sense guided by experience in the future to support the spirit of Faction Play. I do fully expect SiegeQuest and other spontaneous Faction Play skirmishes to become increasingly competitive and intense as time goes on. In the meantime, it's Faction Play's mission -- and mandate -- to get as many people involved, and above all, make it fun by giving them a chance to participate.





-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 04:03
Jejune, just before I move into my response to your post, I'd like to request that you respond to my comments about you changing the rules without my consent. 
In addition to this, what are your thoughts on Dlord/SkB sending troops well above the xp capacity?

I agree, the point of this was to have fun and to get people involved. I've stated previously my thoughts on the impact of blocking towns on fun and participation.

As part of the planning, you had suggested that you might put up one of your towns as a siege target, after which I offered one of mine; Grey, a legendary city that is also the capital city of Eowan the Elf. Therefore, to say that this was a low stakes event is somewhat misleading. There were stakes, stakes which were agreed upon as part of the planning process. The rules also weren't limiting, they were vague.

Your opinion on the validity of square blocking is not one shared across the board, it's not even shared by Thirion who was on the receiving end of such a tactic. Blocking squares is a mechanical tactic in nature..

Something to note is that only 2 squares were taken up by towns I had paid for, one of which was soon captured by Eowan the Elf. The last terra’s town name was Property of Eowan, it had only been in ORCS, and it was well known that I'd bought it. It was clearly an ORCS asset, and therefore part of faction play.

The first terraform was placed sometime on the 29th. The final blocking towns arrived on the 1st. This meant that there were no troops sent at those squares before the towns were in place. If troops had been sent, I'm fairly certain that the mechanics would work out with the troops occupying the town rather than bouncing. Sieges being placed on towns is not unheard of, in fact it's a tactic I've used against you in the past.

4 of the towns had 0 population, making them easy siege targets which could have been destroyed in time. SkB did land a small siege on Rezyrve's town, though it was quickly destroyed. As long as there was a siege of some kind underway by the 7th, I’d say the siege quest would have still been live. This was quite likely as both Black and Warspite had incoming that looked to be sieges.

I don’t think a large number of extra rules are truly necessary. Please see my suggested framework for my thoughts on how to deal with the issues. 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N53gAKWkePjwhgVNdJhHr5t_SMUASNKbr8aY5X4NUuk/edit?usp=sharing" rel="nofollow - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N53gAKWkePjwhgVNdJhHr5t_SMUASNKbr8aY5X4NUuk/edit?usp=sharing



-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 05:54
I've created a separate thread for the discussion of systems to fix the issues that faction play has faced:  http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/a-framework-for-future-faction-play_topic10823.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/a-framework-for-future-faction-play_topic10823.html

-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 08:03
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

It shouldn't have been a gamble. I stuck to the rules, and I expected others to do the same. Instead Dlord/SkB decided to escalate this beyond the bounds of the siege quest. I did offer Duran a withdrawal when he pced me about it. This would have allowed time to deal with the issue before relaunching the quest once that was resolved.
You used a loophole in an untested framework to get a huge advantage. You screwed up our plans and we had to react in a very short time. You knew some of us dislike you. How is that not a gamble?

There are usually 2 sides in escalating something. We planned to send small armies (we got reminded multiple times actually) to siege the initial town. Without your "advanced strategies" there wouldn't have been a reason to "break" the rules and we would have an easy "test SiegeQuest".

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Which brings me to a question I'd like to ask of you. Why are you calling me out, while praising those who broke the rules / changed the rules without my consent? 
Up until this post i did not mentioned the others. Or even praised them. Where are you getting this?

I think both sides screwed up. In my opinion you "threw the first stone" and nobody called you out for it - thats why i did it. You called out the other side, thus there was no reason for me doing it.

So yes, we screwed up. We had our reasons for it though. You on the other hand at least enabled it. And "bending" the rules or using "gray zones" is in my opinion almost as bad as breaking them. And as i tried to argue in my previous posts there wasn't really a reason to do it (at least not in the early stages of faction play). But i do not really want to go further into the "blame game".

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Your opinion on the validity of square blocking is not one shared across the board, it's not even shared by Thirion who was on the receiving end of such a tactic. Blocking squares is a mechanical tactic in nature..
You are taking what i said out of context. I said i like the idea in a LATER and thus more advanced siege. Thus my opinion was quite close to Jejunes (or better: in between yours and Jejunes). The use of terras was not the point i was trying to make though, thus i intentionally did not go into more detail (e.g. should the attackers know about the (possibility of) terras, ...).

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Grey, a legendary city that is also the capital city of Eowan the Elf. Therefore, to say that this was a low stakes event is somewhat misleading. There were stakes, stakes which were agreed upon as part of the planning process.
That was your decision and choice though (and in my opinion it was a bad one).


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 09:40
Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

You used a loophole in an untested framework to get a huge advantage. You screwed up our plans and we had to react in a very short time. You knew some of us dislike you. How is that not a gamble?

There are usually 2 sides in escalating something. We planned to send small armies (we got reminded multiple times actually) to siege the initial town. Without your "advanced strategies" there wouldn't have been a reason to "break" the rules and we would have an easy "test SiegeQuest".

I used the rules as they were written, if you have an issue with their vagueness, then take it up with the guy who wrote them. Yeah, it gave me an advantage, just as numbers gave you an advantage. However, that advantage was not insurmountable in my opinion.
You had plenty of time to react, to the point where 2 sieges landed, and it looked like 2 more were going to land soon after I withdrew.
As for the disliking me thing, there's even a section in the FAQs telling you that fulfilling personal vendettas is not what this is for. If you felt that you couldn't control your dislike of me, you should maybe have taken that into account when deciding whether to participate.

Yeah, there's 2 sides in escalating something, but there's a big difference between what I did and what you did. One of them is intelligent play, the other is cheating.
There were other options available. You could have gone for within-rules sieges of the blocking towns. You could have withdrawn pending rules clarifications. I didn't force you guys to cheat, that's entirely on you.

Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

Up until this post i did not mentioned the others. Or even praised them. Where are you getting this?

I think both sides screwed up. In my opinion you "threw the first stone" and nobody called you out for it - thats why i did it. You called out the other side, thus there was no reason for me doing it.

So yes, we screwed up. We had our reasons for it though. You on the other hand at least enabled it. And "bending" the rules or using "gray zones" is in my opinion almost as bad as breaking them. And as i tried to argue in my previous posts there wasn't really a reason to do it (at least not in the early stages of faction play). But i do not really want to go further into the "blame game".

I got that from your original post:
Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

That said, thanks a lot Jejune and team, you are doing an amazing job.

That's how it reads to me, particularly when your initial post consists of calling me out, and then just saying that about everyone else.

I agree, all sides have screwed up in this. I didn't expect the use of blocking towns to be anywhere near as controversial as it turned out to be. I certainly didn't expect anyone would resort to cheating. I also didn't particularly want to play the blame game, my original posts simply said that there were issues with the interpretation of the rules, and that they'd be learnt from. 

You say you don't like gray zones, but you guys went straight to black. There isn't an argument to be made that you guys were operating within the rules. Objectively, you broke them. To me, there's a big difference there. To use the stone analogy, I put a pebble in your shoe, you threw a boulder.

Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

You are taking what i said out of context. I said i like the idea in a LATER and thus more advanced siege. Thus my opinion was quite close to Jejunes (or better: in between yours and Jejunes). The use of terras was not the point i was trying to make though, thus i intentionally did not go into more detail (e.g. should the attackers know about the (possibility of) terras, ...).
 

The point I was trying to make there, which you have reiterated to an extent, is that there's a spectrum of opinion on the subject. This isn't a black and white issue, and as such a proper ruling would be required on it.


-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: wolfhound01
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 10:58
i love how he says there wouldnt have bin a reason to break the rules but theres never a good reason to break rules especially if you have integrity

-------------
https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/b/401140/av.jpg


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 13:08
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:


I agree, all sides have screwed up in this. I didn't expect the use of blocking towns to be anywhere near as controversial as it turned out to be. I certainly didn't expect anyone would resort to cheating. I also didn't particularly want to play the blame game, my original posts simply said that there were issues with the interpretation of the rules, and that they'd be learnt from.

For me that part is a good conclusion and i think we both got each others point(s). In my opinion there is not really a point arguing about some details that are not that important.

Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:


That said, thanks a lot Jejune and team, you are doing an amazing job.

That statement was meant as an honest thank you to the faction play team, including you. You make the game more interesting and add a new component.

Sorry Eowan if my posts were too harsh. I was a bit salty because it seemed like only one side was blamed. My posts should have been calmer and less aggressive, again sorry for that.

Originally posted by wolfhound01 wolfhound01 wrote:

i love how he says there wouldnt have bin a reason to break the rules but theres never a good reason to break rules especially if you have integrity


With that argument there would be no wars, no prison and no police/lawyers. Its not black and white like you are saying - there are usually a lot of different and valid reasons.


Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 13 Oct 2020 at 16:54
My own thoughts

@eowan

There were several instances where I have defended the use of terras. People largely disagreed over the use of them, but I stated it was a clever use of in-game mechanics. Was it in the spirit? No. Was it a clever use? Yes.

That is the extent of my support on this discussion. You surely have to admin that people here that are replying to you also saw your.. realization that you could exploit the rule-base with military sizes. Specifically "y'know, there's an interesting loophole in the rules for the siege quest.Siege armies can be up to 25k xp, right?Well, it never says whose siege armies that applies to.So, let's say I were to know what square an encampment was going to land on, hypothetically. Well, without breaking the rules, I could arrangefor my allies to send sieges set to land on the same square.Each siege could potentially contain 5x the normal number of troops...We should probably patch that for future siege quests." When the discussion began in slack and as other people began to wonder if those exploits would occur you stated "as for whether we will use said loophole, I will not discuss orcish strategy with an elf". You then proceed to more grey areas with "I could exodus Grey into a troll-hole". It was only after you pulled Orcs out, after people in the same slack started saying what has been said here, that you mentioned a discussion on it.

As for the unit sizes being wrong. I get that too. People have made errors, I have recovered plenty of t3 gears in Pirate Isles that were accidentally used on both sides. It was treated more as an "oof someone must not have read it right, sorry about that" by both sides. We continued on with both sides to have fun and continue running the groundwork of this Siege Quest so we'd have a better idea for the next one. 

While no one is certainly unopposed to the challenge of tile blocking with terras or exodusing into troll-holes, you surely can understand these actions (both the in your face 'hypotheticals' and the terras were starting to make people question about Orcs intentions revolving around the spirit of the first Siege Quest.


With it all said in done, there is no further need for discussion here. Personally, I would have rather seen all this activity in lore-based battle reports over the cities to attract outside attention to Siege Quest (especially since our actions are rp based) than what will always devolve down into a pissing fight. 


-------------
Eternal Fire


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2020 at 02:56
Originally posted by ES2 ES2 wrote:

My own thoughts

@eowan

There were several instances where I have defended the use of terras. People largely disagreed over the use of them, but I stated it was a clever use of in-game mechanics. Was it in the spirit? No. Was it a clever use? Yes.

Whether it's in the spirit of things is a matter of interpretation. I personally view advanced strategies as an interesting addition to pvp that make it a lot more fun. That goes not just for me using terras, but also people using unorthodox strategies against me.

If someone does something that I hadn't considered during pvp, that's something I can learn from. For example, I was once involved in a mercenary contract on a player, and when he saw that there was a siege inbound for him, he switched his city names. This led to confusion in where to send troops, and as a result the siege failed.

It was an effective strategy and it's one that I've used on occasion in pvp. Participating in pvp systems shouldn't be contingent on using mundane strategies, because that would be boring, particularly for people looking to learn the ins and outs of various mechanics in a pvp setting.

Originally posted by ES2 ES2 wrote:

That is the extent of my support on this discussion. You surely have to admin that people here that are replying to you also saw your.. realization that you could exploit the rule-base with military sizes. Specifically "y'know, there's an interesting loophole in the rules for the siege quest.Siege armies can be up to 25k xp, right?Well, it never says whose siege armies that applies to.So, let's say I were to know what square an encampment was going to land on, hypothetically. Well, without breaking the rules, I could arrangefor my allies to send sieges set to land on the same square.Each siege could potentially contain 5x the normal number of troops...We should probably patch that for future siege quests." When the discussion began in slack and as other people began to wonder if those exploits would occur you stated "as for whether we will use said loophole, I will not discuss orcish strategy with an elf". You then proceed to more grey areas with "I could exodus Grey into a troll-hole". It was only after you pulled Orcs out, after people in the same slack started saying what has been said here, that you mentioned a discussion on it.

That was me s***posting because I was pissed off that not only had the rules been changed on me, but also that I'd been threatened by Duran with being attacked outside of faction play. 

I can provide evidence that it was only s***posting rather than an actual plan if needed.

Originally posted by ES2 ES2 wrote:

As for the unit sizes being wrong. I get that too. People have made errors, I have recovered plenty of t3 gears in Pirate Isles that were accidentally used on both sides. It was treated more as an "oof someone must not have read it right, sorry about that" by both sides. We continued on with both sides to have fun and continue running the groundwork of this Siege Quest so we'd have a better idea for the next one. 

If it was accidental, I'd agree that there really shouldn't be much in the way of blame. But it wasn't accidental, Duran confirmed as much in an IGM to me, saying that he told his players 'to take the gloves off when you pulled the terra thing'

Thirion has also confirmed in this thread that SkB decided to break the rules intentionally as well.



-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2020 at 22:58
Regardless,

At the end of the day we have counted Siege Quest 1 a success. We are actively planning Siege Quest 2 and are confident no further issues will arise. Perhaps around Siege Quest four or five you will rejoin us, but that of course is entirely up to you.




-------------
Eternal Fire



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net