Valar, Newbs and Rainbows.
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Elgea
Forum Description: For everything related to the Elgea Continent
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=2499
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 20:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Valar, Newbs and Rainbows.
Posted By: StJude
Subject: Valar, Newbs and Rainbows.
Date Posted: 29 Sep 2011 at 23:59
|
I figured I would start this here and save the devs the hassle of moving it later on. When you can't clear the wreckage yourself, find a new place to crash. Simple Question: Why is it wrong to attack newbs? Anyone willing to answer that?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 00:02
|
To answer that you would first have to define: What constitutes a newb?
------------- "FYI - if you had any balls you'd be posting under your in-game name." - KP |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 00:05
|
Also I would say that the reason you have to attack a newbie (pending definition) is rather crucial. ------------- "FYI - if you had any balls you'd be posting under your in-game name." - KP |
Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 00:05
|
Fair point, this game is complex. I would argue, once you hit 450 pop you are no longer a newb. Will that work as a definition?
|
Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 00:06
Me too, several people will see where I am going with this, which is why I suspect most of the Coalition of 6 will stay out of this.
|
Tordenkaffen wrote:Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 00:13
|
Well not really sure. I define a newbie as a player who is defenseless. This means having no defense, and no contacts ingame. Its been a while since my pop was 450, so memory is a little rusty, but assuming it is possible to raise a small army or a significant amount of diplomats, these may be a contributing factor in an attack - as they themselves will be able to harm/harass other players. In my view there are players with over a 1000 population, who are newbies not by virtue of their population but by severe lack of experience with Illyriad. On the flipside you could bring in the example of TD who with a miniscule population and no virtually no units succeeded in defeating and removing a seasoned opponent with over 10000 pop. Simply because he knew Illy better than his adversary and had contacts in Illy upon his return to the game. So its not a simple question to answer Jude. ------------- "FYI - if you had any balls you'd be posting under your in-game name." - KP |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 00:31
|
All in all Jude, I think the newbies issue comes down to not picking on those trying to get to grips with the game, but to set your ambitions a little higher. Its quite easy for an established player to run off with basic resources from an unprotected city, but its unnecessary and very unkind. On the other hand, larger accomplished players should not overreact if a smaller player has courage to try and rob him of a few advanced resources. If caught, the player in question could expect some form of retaliation, but nothing even close to a siegecamp or the like. So ultimately its about doing what serves the game best, meaning creating a culture where "the lowest blow" is frowned upon and showing courage is acknowledged. If ever this culture was cast in stone and followed by the Illyriad player population our wars would have different character altogether. My 2c ------------- "FYI - if you had any balls you'd be posting under your in-game name." - KP |
Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 00:33
Thank you Sir. That Sums up 35,000 pages of outrage for me.
|
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 00:36
|
Youre welcome sir, but please consider the contribution in its entirety - as excerpts do not convey the full meaning of my post. Off to bed for me. Tataa... ------------- "FYI - if you had any balls you'd be posting under your in-game name." - KP |
Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 00:39
Understood, i was looking for something short, sweet and succinct. I realize that this is 10 gatrillion times more complicated than this. If you feel you have been unfairly represented and let me know when you wake up that I have done so. I will remove my post or edit it. But I think this drives home my point better than anything else I can do or say.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 00:42
First of all, I don't see this as a question of morality -- I don't see it as morally wrong to attack new players. (I myself wouldn't do it, but there are lots of things I choose not to do that are not morally wrong.) I would second say that the SPECIAL care we afford new players is only one example of a principle I see to some degree in Illy. That principle is: Live and let live. Not everyone in Illy thinks war is fun. The people who think war is unfun should not have to play war. Attacking players who don't want to play war makes the game unfun for them. And my preference is to have the game be the most fun for the most people possible. Presumably an attacking player could derive the same amount of fun by attacking another player who DOES enjoy war. So let's set up two groups: Peaceniks and Warriors Situation A: Warrior attacks Peacenik Warrior has fun (+1). Peacenik has unfun (-1) Resulting fun: 0. Situation B: Warrior A attacks Warrior B Warrior A has fun (+1). Warrior B has fun (+1). Resulting fun: 2. Situation C: Warrior does NOT attack Peacenik Warrior has no fun (0). Peacenik has fun (1). Resulting fun: 1. So the game is the most fun when people who want war fight with other people who want war, and do NOT attack people who do not want war. Ironically, this has created another scenario Situation D: Peacenik A attacks Warrior to prevent Warrior from attacking Peacenik B. Peacenik A has unfun (-1). Warrior has fun (1). Peacenik B has fun (+1). Resulting fun: 1. Some combination of Situation B and Situation C, since they are not mutually exclusive, seems to result in the most fun possible. (Resulting fun: 3) The situation involving new players is a slightly different case and is the only one to result in negative fun. Situation E: Warrior attacks Defenseless New Player Defenseless New Player has unfun (-1). Warrior has fun, but new Player is not much of a challenge, so it's not much fun (+1/2). Resulting fun: -1/2. So, it's "wrong" to attack new players because mostly they have unfun when they are attacked. It is fine to attack new players who are Warriors -- each Warrior new player should decide for him/herself when to identify as a Warrior instead of as a Peacenik or Newb. Most Warrior new players will proclaim themselves as such by attacking another player -- hopefully another Warrior. And the most fun can be had by the most people. Because the game is supposed to be Fun!
|
Posted By: Silent/Steadfast
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 00:56
|
A newb, according to Urban Dictionary, is "A term used to describe a inexperienced gamer/person/etc. Unlike a noob, a newb is someone who actually wants to get better." Newbs are responsible for Illyriad's growth. As veterans find they can no longer upgrade their cities, Illyriad is dependent on new players to provide the GMs with an income (prestige) Large players don't need to use as much prestige because their cities eventually don't need to "insta-build," so new players have to be the wind beneath the game's wings. The reason this differs from other games is that usually there is no growth limit set in the game, so players must spend continuously to keep building. This, in turn, means that newbs are "expendable", because they aren't as crucial to the GMs paycheck. The reason above is a purely analytical approach to the matter, but there are also social reasons. New players provide new forum posts, a larger playerbase which consequently leads to more ideas for the GMs to consider (some of these might be of the "what if we changed the game into an Evony clone?" type, but many aren't). Also, new players make new alliances, which leads to more levels of complexity in the meta-game, and new players aren't viewed as "competition" because the server has no goal. I think that sums it up pretty well. ------------- "Semantics are no protection from a 50 Megaton Thermonuclear Stormcrow."-Yggdrassil (June 21, 2011 6:48 PM) "SCROLL ya donut!" Urgorr The Old (September 1, 2011 4:08 PM) |
Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 01:12
The simple answer is that players' capabilities are wide-ranging, and it takes time for a player to build up.
Why is it wrong to attack a newb?
The celebrated Illyriad community spirit enforces point 2, when opportunity allows. If newbies can shout for help, they'll get it from players who make a judgement on the fairness of the situation. I think this is why most Alliances have declared war recently: it's a stand against behaviour that makes playing the game a bad experience. Just like in real life, if people are bullied, then (hopefully) others may take up the victims' cause. Personally, I think battles in Illy are a part of the game, but there should be a sense of fair play in their execution. I explained in a very rounded way a few days ago:
|
Posted By: scottfitz
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 01:24
|
Simple answer; There is nothing "wrong" with attacking new or weak players. There is also nothing "wrong" with attacking characters who exhibit such cowardly behavior.
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 02:12
|
I really like how Rill describes the situation. I would offer a slightly different viewpoint on "Situation B" however. When warrior A fights warrior B, it is very unlikely that both warriors will have fun (at least in somewhat equal measures). Even for military players the development and "sandboxing investment" is high, and the the risk and cost of war high. Only the winner has the majority of fun. The more equal the match, the more fun the war and the more gratifying the victory. But because one side will lose and pay the heavier price besides, war even between two warrior-types will rarely if ever be "consenting" on both sides...at least in simplistic terms. In more complex terms, warriors are constantly at war as they size each other up, perform risk-analysis, monitor ongoing threats, choose friends, train and prepare, and maneuver politically. By the time troops are launched, an intellectual war has been already played out nearly to its conclusion. I speak in the context of Illyriad's environment--other places like Tribal Wars know only the zerg rush and completely miss the beautiful complexity of running an organization competitively. Alternatively, you can have pretend wars fought over titles only with no cause or risk, but removing the risk and the cost of losing also emotionally detaches the participants and renders the exercise academic. It's also only the last chapter in what should be a much bigger story, without the rest of which proves deeply unsatisfying. Basically what I'm trying to point out is two things: a) For warriors fighting warriors, there is no "win-win" situation. No one is interested in fighting over meaningless titles, but for solidarity, ensuring one's own security, exerting dominance, or sharing camaraderie. Having no value in fighting without a cause implies the need for real causes and thus conflicts. For the most part, human nature supplies that, and we can only accept that war is by nature a 0-sum game not for the faint of heart. Either someone gets "unwanted" attention, or everyone twiddles their thumbs. We're all seeing right now what happens when military alliances are stuck twiddling their thumbs for too long. b) Sandboxers want freedom from oppression by warriors, and I see no reason why warriors would have a problem with that unless it be from lack of defeatable peers amongst the warrior class. Hitting much smaller players is little more than cheap sport. There is no thrill in victory unless you're the type to thrill in the misfortune of others in and of itself. There is profiteering, but that is heavily marginalized by Illyriad's game mechanics. There is also no worthy enemy if tiny threats are not allowed to grow. (However, allowing a threat to grow at least requires said threat to do a good job of maneuvering quietly and intelligently, lest they exhaust their opponent's patience. We're all seeing that right now too.) ---- Now as for what is a newbie? There's a very long and steady learning curve in the game such that I could mark out any arbitrary value. If I were to pick such a value, I'd say "any player who has not yet been able to settle a second city." I could argue for even much later points, as much remains at that point to be learned of sovereignty, organization, politics, and warfare. But I'd rather skip the leading question and jump on the real one: who should not be attacked? To that I say: - Small or younger players (i.e. less than half your size or under 2 months healthy growth) with the exclusion of those who exhibit foul attitudes and offensive behavior and provoke reactions themselves. - Any "pacifist" player with a good attitude and decent etiquette. This refers explicitly to players who are not interested in military interaction or influencing the community/political landscape at all. If you have an opinion and stand up for it, you should actually stand up for it...not just speak for it. Committing less of yourself only labels you a hypocrite. The former because "they are the future" and the latter because they are simply not a part of our (warriors') world and should not be dragged into it unwillingly. This is a short, simple blanket statement, made thusly to provide maximum simplification on what we'll all agree is a very complex and situationally-fluid issue. But lets at least cover some related questions: Who can you attack? Any "warrior-type" player, for any reason you deem fit. How well that works for you and whether you succeed depends on your strength, the value of your motivations, and the quality of enemies that you choose (or that choose you). Hopefully, you'll be paying attention so that you know when you've been chosen, because when you play aggressively, you announce yourself as entering the warrior realm. Who should you attack? Any warrior of remotely comparable size who provokes you first and/or otherwise demonstrates enmity. When do you attack? That depends on threat urgency/credibility, the desire to cultivate real challenges, the ability/limits in maintaining diplomatic tolerance or excusing ongoing provocations, and if it's even relevant, the progress of political maneuvering for allies or other means of influencing the final outcome. There's really no right or wrong answer here. Here's just one more possibility: when you want to turn a half-hearted enemy who's going nowhere into a full-hearted one who will strive harder to grow, influence others, and present a real challenge. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Erik Dirk
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 02:54
|
There is another option which I would like to see come into play. A T1 war/tournament. A slightly smaller alliance may agree to go to war against a slightly larger alliance if the war was restricted to T1 siege as there is some loss/gain but the level of damage is very low compared to an entire town although maybe a new siege unit that also destroys barracks mage tower and consulate would be more exciting. Alternatively the old suggestion all warrior players could say to the devs "new specialising buildings are all very nice, but how about some forts or other strategic tiles scattered around the map so we have something to fight over"
|
Posted By: tallica
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 03:05
I agree with 90% of this. Taking prestige out of the picture, and I think we can all begin to see why this game is 100% different from the other games out there. I've played several 'city building' games, and this one is so different because there is an obtainable end point for every player. Once you hit 9-10 towns, you are done expanding (of course there's sov, but that's limited as well). Couple that with the enormity of the world map and you have the forumla for a 'peaceful game'. Newbs aren't targetted mainly because there is no gain in doing so. In similar games, if you take down a newb, you gain area to expand in. Here (with limited exceptions) you don't gain a thing. Now, think about all the balancing factors here. I'm proposing that newbs are mostly safe to build up from a New Settlement to a group of at least 3-4 towns before possibly being 'in trouble of attack'. I think we can agree this is true at least 95% of the time (exceptions are when a newb does something stupid, like being aggressive or placing a new town too close to someone else). Keep in mind those balancing factors. We've seen considerable growth of the Illy community, newbs are streaming in daily. As these newbs (and the now 'young players' such as myself) continue to grow and turn into 9-10 town players, we will start to see a rapidly diminishing area of settlement. As the world map fills in with new towns, new conflicts will arise over players due to the need to expand. This is the point that the balancing factors become unbalanced. Once we hit the point of 'over-population' where all of the 'young players' are maxxed out along with the current 'vets' and as the newbs continue streaming in, we will be forced to start eliminating new towns in order to claim new sov spots or settle new towns. Illy is still a very young game, because of this, and the fact that there is still plenty of open map area to settle in, and that we have a limit to how large we can each grow, both as individual players and as alliances, and we have a 'safe-haven' for new players. Once you start tearing down these factors, Illy will start to change face. In the end, it's the dev team who make Illy the way it is. If they wish Illy to continue as it has they will need to carefully monitor when the world map begins to fill up, then offer a new server or a map expansion. If growing players don't feel rushed or squished, things remain peaceful. |
Posted By: Celebcalen
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 03:12
I can't believe what I am reading - a whole series of posts and paragraphs on the definition of newbe 
|
Posted By: E5C4P3
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 03:43
| thats funny you would say that.. thats is excactly what is happening to me.. yet you didnt seem to care. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 03:59
+1
|
Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 30 Sep 2011 at 06:24
|
This is a pretty good discussion, I may actually remove my asshat in this one. Replies today/tomorrow folks when I have more time. In the meantime, can someone fill in for me and come in here and act like a complete moran for a bit? Cheers!
|
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2011 at 05:45
|
Your question... "Why is attacking newbs wrong?" My question in response... Why is attacking people who attack newbs wrong? You are targeting people who haven't even gotten a chance to learn how to play the game yet. Why not have an actual two-sided battle with someone similar in size as you or who at least has a basic understanding of combat mechanics? How does this create fun for you or them? It may make you feel big and important to farm new players for resources, but I think a lot of people actually want other people to enjoy the game and the illy community to expand. And that doesn't happen if the player is attacked the day after they get out of newbie protection. If you want to battle it out, why not pick on someone closer to your own size? -Jane DarkMagic
|
Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2011 at 06:23
Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?
|
Posted By: Ecophagy
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2011 at 09:57
There's no reason why two alliances can't agree to these terms. Even in a hostile war, a suitably sporting larger alliance could agree to this. It seems like a good idea. In response to what HM as talking about, re: zero sum games, I think that tournaments and organized wars (where a number of alliances duke it out for the heck of it) are exceptions, and can result in fun for all parties and contain significantly less butthurt.
|
Posted By: Celebcalen
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2011 at 11:18
I think she does. I certainly do. |
Posted By: Kurfist
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2011 at 21:52
It seems like every month this debate pops up on the forums. Attacking new players doesn't meant that the attacker wants the newbs resources, some newbs are a pain in the ass and should be attacked. When your dog is acting up do you talk to him nicely, scold him a little bit and toss him a treat"resources" no, you scare him with coins in a can "shaking" squirt him with some water etc. As long as theres a good reason for the attack, it should be allowed, by good reason i mean, : he knew i was in that secluded area for these four sov nodes, yet he moved there anyway, or He's a disrespectful ass-die. ------------- Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin |