Sorry Kilotov, I completely 100% disagree.

Ask Geofrey, I know he got some fun from the whole deal as did Baughb, Meganips and I.

 

I bet if you ask Demdigs he would also agree.

We had a lot of fun back in those early days.

yes that is true.

Are you saying production is the only means to fun?

Just not a fan of a vet killing newbs for sport...

Edit: Big fan of Vets duking it out too! or midsize players... Everyone needs to not confuse the reasons that some folks had behind this most recent war with an end to war in Illy. It's not.

In fact, I think that we need MORE wars in Illy. And I think that alliances should conduct them with restraint (refrain from annihilation) and I think that would make the game much more fun for many...

Sure it takes a while to build up cities, but losing a couple in a war when you have 9 or 10 isn't the end of the world...

I think this game could benefit from a sort of gentlemen's agreement that wars are fun and alliances will conduct them without every one of them having to be a moral crusade. (Although those do exist occasionally, and rightly so). Sorry to stir the pot up, but I think this is a GREAT topic for the community to discuss...

What if a newb mouths off to a vet?

Or

He sends 1 thief and it is caught?

Cool then?

Disagree, when you have big cities, you are generally reluctant to risk them.

Then the newb is provoking the vet, no? But, in that case, I still don't think it warrants the vet sieging the newbs town... maybe smack him around a bit...

The main problem with newb on newb violence is when it's non-consensual.  And I don't buy the "it's a war game" excuse.  Illy is only a war game if we make it one.

Establishing the boundaries for what constitutes provocation of war action and how one can go back to peacenik status once having been in a war are matters on which I'd like to hear input.

I don't see why there can't be these two playstyles (and more) in Illy.

Domo arigato Kumomoto, you are earning my respect here...

I will turn off sarcasm and agree...gentlemanly, of course, to engage this thread with civil debate.

And my suspicion is that only war by mutual consent is going to severely stifle the game. I think there are going to be unfair and unwarranted wars. And everyone has the right to vote with their feet if they feel that they want to jump in on one side or the other... That's what is so damn beautiful about the model! PR, Diplomacy, spying, military, economic, and, yes, out of game diplomacy, will all have huge impacts on who we are and will be as a world in our (not so little anymore) ant farm...

But an Illy World without war unless there was mutual consent is not one I would espouse...

That said.

Would you be open to changing the title to something more appropriate? You can do this by editing the original post and modifying the subject line field.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, hopefully unintentionally.  I'm not saying there should be mutual consent in any given war.  I'm saying there should be a place in Illy for noncombatants -- people who elect not to participate in war in general.  In all likelihood, the only way this can happen is if a substantial portion of the combatants are willing to stand up for the rights of noncombatants to go about their business peacefully.

If there is not a place in Illy for noncombatants, there is not a place for players like me, and that would be sad, for me anyway.

I would never intentionally misunderstand you...? Unless you think I have some sort of hostility/other motives toward you that baffle me?... All ridiculous!

Regardless... this is a very important intellectual conversation on the nature of Illy... 

So what mechanism could be created, Rill for Noncombatants? How would it be judged? Unless it was a pacifist alliance or training alliance? I would imagine that such alliances would NEVER be allowed to conduct war, otherwise they would be fair game... no?

FYI-- if you private message someone, you should clear out your mail so that they can pm you back...

You may say we only represent 1% of the active illy population but we also represent more like 100% if you look at large alliance heads, I'm pretty sure all the top 10 alliances are often represented in these forums and some of these alliances act as the police force of illy (or perhaps the threat of police force) so what is decided here is important.

 

The problem still is the risk of complete anhilation of a town for no real gain. From when siege was introduced I was unhappy with the idea. I'd really like to see current T2 siege become prohibitivly expensive. say 50K per hour so only really possible in "community cruisades" And a less destructive siege unit introduced, which hits everything but basic res plots for example.

 

I think we all want risk but at the moment the current war mechanics seem to be like playing a poker game where we can only fold or go all in.

 I am all for newbs fighting...I will happily sell stuff to both. This is a war game. Anyone opposed to war should be in an alliance dedicated to peace. Also war and attacks should only be sent to those who wish to engage in them. Those who wish to remain at peace should be given the option, though I ask you to remember, this game puts all of us together on a map. This means there will be mix ups, players who cross, ego clashes and all manner of human reactions to the condition here. 

 There are more things found in Heaven and earth and Illy Horatio, then are contained in your philosophies. This is a changing game, evolving and becoming more then it was. All should be careful to own their words, and deeds alone are the measure of all.

I don't think you're hostile toward me, although I thought it might be possible you were arguing against a slightly less nuanced stance than I was taking because it would be easier to disagree with.  I wasn't even convinced that this was the case -- I merely entertained the possibility.

And the "rules" for such noncombatants would need to be evolved by the community through discussions like this.  For example, I am close to coming to a decision that I am going to limit Ryelle to two cities -- with the caravans available in those cities, I am able to assist as many new players as generally appear in global chat, and at the same time hopefully it will be unlikely that I will be perceived as a threat to anyone.

"Rules" about noncombatants could include the degree to which they can freely express themselves without being considered to have provoked a war and would likely be determined on a case-by-case basis within some broad guidelines.

Whether or not non-combatants could maintain armies for the purpose of competition in tournaments or completion of (yet-to-be-released) military quests is another question.  Whether they could attack inactive players with those armies could also be an issue.

Certainly noncombatants would be giving up a lot in order to receive their "protected" status.  Probably not many players would want to make those sacrifices.

If anyone is wondering why Rill is in mCrow if I wish to be a noncombatant, I am there to seek further training in order to better be able to advise new players in this important aspect of Illy.  If it were determined by the community that it is inappropriate to have an alt in an alliance that can participate in war, that would be something I would have to think hard about in terms of Rill's future.

One thing about war in Illy (and similar games) that really does bother me is the ability of a larger player to simply zero out a smaller one. But I think the controls on that need to be an organic part of the game. I think the open-endedness of Illy (no endgame) is really positive in that regard because it cuts out some of the motivation for getting rid of a potential rival. But there could be more structure in place. For example, military campaigns often crush the economy of the combatants. So maybe setting up a siege could crush the resource production of the aggressor, making it difficult to sustain the siege and resulting in the player launching the siege losing ground against the community baseline. Of course, that might relegate sieges to the very few largest players with the resources and willingness (bitterness?) to deal with price.

Tough balance to strike.

Another option, for those that fall on the wrong side of the community, is to create a zone for banishment. Imagine when someone is defeated they are banished to the wasteland for instance. You could even have the strong players create a border force to make sure they don't cross over into more civilized areas that would affect the larger community. This would help prevent the all-or-nothing aspect of Illy warfare where players get sieged out of the game. And this is really an unfortunate aspect to the game because frankly, without people like StJude who stir things up the forums and our sandbox in general would be a very boring place. - M.

Wow! I think that's actually a really fun, original idea...

So... instead of annihilating someone, you give them 24 hours to relocate to the "Bleak Lands"... a de facto exile... from which they are free to plot grow, etc... to return... fun! 

(this thread is getting better and better)

If the "zones" were scattered throughout Illy, this could work.  If the "zones" were limited to the periphery or one particular area, there would be problems for folks like Ryelle who want to be able to help the newbs -- although these problems might be resolved by Trade v2

The biggest problem I see is getting the "warriors" who already inhabit those zones to agree to move -- what would motivate them.

As an alternative, perhaps the devs could implement a "peace" flag (simple graphic with no underlying function) to indicate to folks that it was a peacenik.  Another alternative would be a hard-coded "peace" status that would make a player immune from attack but also unable to take certain actions -- as either a permanent or very long-term status.  I'm not convinced hard-coding is the right answer, though.

Kumo--the thought about the add difficulties of a siege is more one of bringing in-game sieges in line with real-world military action. Of course sieges have rules that apply to all. The only question is how are those rules most fairly balanced. I don't think we need to stand pat on the existing rules. There may well be ideas out there that will enhance the game.

With regard to Illy being what we make of it, I couldn't possibly agree more. That is very much the spirit of the first paragraph of my post: war is organic part of the community and the relationships that ebb and flow within it. There was nothing in there to suggest otherwise.

The following are my opinions / thoughts alone.

Great game and with future developments has the potential to be truly greater.

OP states that newbie warfare is discouraged. Now I have not been here long, 3weeks or so but I too wondered why, within a *Military Strategy* game, this was so. My answer was not long in coming. The community or a good portion of it, set their own boundaries long ago as I understand it, not too constrict nor constrain play, players and play-styles but to encourage new growth within Illyriad by offering protection to new players so they could first learn and grow before taking their own path within the game. Brilliant I thought to myself, finally a game where I'm not looking over my shoulder from day dot.

Time passes, I grow a little and take direction and advice [and res, I do so admit ] from the geriatric...I mean vets . War breaks out. Wait a minute...war?? But didn't those same vets tell me that war is to be discouraged here? What am I missing? I am so confused. But wait, I'm playing a Military Strategy game so it must be okay, or not...or is it, or do only a few get to play with their toys? Still confused.

So I join an Alliance of like-minded folks. Please take note that I wrote "like-minded" it's important. Turns out that this Alliance is not the most popular in the world of Illyriad. I shrugged because I knew exactly what I was getting myself into. I was not blinded by rhetoric nor baffled by bull-****. I joined knowing full well the implications. This too is important to note.

Thus far I have abided and agreed to the *unwritten* and therefore *implied* rule asked by the vets that I conduct myself with decorum and thought toward my intended play-style and how that would impact on my fellow Illyrians. I have not abused verbally [read:Diplomatic], physically [read: with Military] nor spiritually [read: Magic] any player in Illyriad. I say now, in full view of all, it will not always be the case. I also understand, as I am in full control of my faculties [compos mentis and all that] that there may be repercussions to my actions. It is after-all, a Military Strategy game. If my *kung-fu* is not strong, I deserve an a** whipping. No tears, no bleating, no soap-boxes, no rants. Just a good-o chap, well done what what, cheerio for now [watch ya back! ]

I play games for my amusement and enjoyment first and foremost. I play to the best, or in most cases, worst of my ability within the strictures and rules of the game. I don't cheat, I just learn and get better, most-times. I can't recall ever having griefed, bullied, picked on a new player in any game I've played. I may use a firm hand or sharp knife, which-ever's appropriate from time to time but they are not a legitimate target to my goals. I wait, bide my time then have at it if he's still so inclined [and I've lost a lot of those too, I'm not a meta-gamer, but I do learn and get better]. Mostly however, I like helping others understand what can be a very confusing landscape. I get enjoyment from that too.

So yes Rill, I heartily agree that there should be room within a Military Strategy game for the *peaceniks*[and I don't mean that sarcastically]. I heartily agree that all play-styles be welcomed here and helped to find both enjoyment and a home here. But I would also caution those who wish a *peaceful* existence here to not raise their flag too high that it discourages those that wish to take part in the militaristic play of Illyriad from also enjoying themselves. 

Another poster asked "what if a newby attacks a vet?" or words to that effect. The reply was a classic in my opinion "He asked for it....smack him around a bit?" Brilliant. Says everything. It also leaves room for both to retire to their respective corners with as much dignity as possible still intact. 

Avenues to neutrality exist already within Illyriad. New Player Protection [limited I know], Training Alliances and Big Brother Alliances. Then there are folks like Rill and Ryelle that have, through their own playstyle that is selflessness, garnered for themselves the biggest Alliance of all, it's called Illyriad. Anyone foolish enough to attack them will find out what that means because regardless of my militaristic tendencies, I'll be standing next to them with my puny T1 Sentinels!!

Can an Illyriad Non-Aggression Charter exist? Of course it can. It just needs to be worded. It is the enforcement of said Charter that is the problem. Who becomes the ultimate Judge and Jury? Do we nominate an Alliance to be the Illyriad police force? Do we create one? What happens if someone disagrees? It hardly works in a real-world application, if we find an answer here, I'm voting you all to the UN!! This does not mean we should not try. 

Wow, I just saw how long this is getting so I'm going to finish here. I'm for War on Illyriad, I'm also for Peace on Illyriad. Both exist. Just don't confuse the two if you suddenly find yourself chewing off more than you can swallow.

Peace all.....but watch your backs! 

PS: Think about tomorrow.....Factions coming....shhh...

How the hell did we land you in our alliance?

Bloody well written. I would say /thread over, but this is the best thread EVAR in the history of Illyriad.

Good show old chap!

Sovereign, the rest of your post was well written and while I don't disagree, I am not sure yet I agree with everything in it. That said, I think most people are in support of changes to the siege mechanic. The details can be debated, but I think one of the root issues is how destructive it is and how quickly that destruction occurs in relation to the time invested. Spending months on a city to have it levelled in 2-3 days feels a little "unfair".

Anyway, I quoted part of your thread to add something.

It's a sandbox, and maybe my opinion is skewed, but this is a GAME and so should be fun.

Here is the "maybe my opinion is skewed" part, while this is a complex sandbox, I think the word PvP is a much better descriptive term.

There are a lot of players in Illyriad who are in the military. I don't think any of them would like to play Illyriad to relive their real life war experiences.

I am not trying to be pedantic with the term either, but I think this issue is better described in this way.

I do not want to "WAR" with anyone. I do however want to "COMPETE" which is where some of the confusion is coming in here.

Ah, understood!

To be honest, I used your statement to put the PvP idea out there to lend clarity to the debate and piggyback off of Xeno's excellently written post.

While you may not have said it directly, I did read into your "War is ugly..." phrase.

Anyway, carry on!

(This thread is approaching "LEGENDARY CITY" status.

What the game probably needs for these players are speciality options for defence. eg dyadin mess hall; town can no longer attack and only re-inforce another town if it too has this building. Effect at level 20; + 300% to sally forth, success means siege units are disabled for 10 hrs. To change to a warlike town requires the demolition of the building + another 30 days

Now a training alliance with these buildings would almost impossible to mount a successful 

war on, but requires defensive speciality. 

A point of clarification from what I saw:

Real medieval sieges almost never ended with a short bombardment of a town's walls.  They lasted for months often and ended when the besieged had eaten their last rat or saw no hope of rescue.

Instead of siege weapons, why not have a sieging army act as an interdiction instead.  Everything inside the walls functions normally (you can still make weapons and troops), but everything outside the walls stops producing.  No more resource production, and above all no food production.  Besieged cities will have to rely on what they have stored or whatever their friends and allies can smuggle past the blockade to sustain them.

When the city runs out of food defensive armies disband and the attacker can then occupy the city and have two options: conquer or raze, with reasonably long timer... several days anyway.  If the occupation hasn't been dislodged in that length of time then they will have successfully taken control of the city or burned it to the ground.

I think this would give people more of a chance to rescue their city intact rather than losing it in 24 hours or recapturing a bombed-out shell with half the buildings gone.  We aren't running around in Panzers, but you wouldn't know it the way siege works now.

Ander, are you just trying to make me look bad by taking things out of context? What I meant is that this is a multi player game. If you don'y like the fact that players can interfere then play farmvill. What we should provide is a means to make it very, very difficult to attack these players who don't want to explore this part of the game. The peaceful players have complained that the new buildings don't benefit them. Give them options to sacrifice military options in favour of defensive, trade, buildings

e.g. Up to about 5K pop a mage tower with runes should be fine to protect any peaceful player.

New building which replaces barracks "Illy trade council guard house" Recruits guards that are very good at defending caravans (when path finding comes in).

Not much goes on in the world of illyriad which the trade council doesn't know about, and the Councillors look after their own (for a fee ofcourse) in addition to recruiting caravan guards this building will call a large army from the trade council when your city is under attack.

Upkeep = X gold/h. Trade council army could be about 40K for lvl 20 plus an army for each of the council buildings in your alliance.

I think we should have a Forum Thread where aggressive alliances can publicly announce that they are interested having limited wars with other aggressive alliances.  Then they know who they are and they are free to have their wars all they want without the rest of us getting peed on.

I have suggested this many times.  There is even an old forum thread I started many months ago for this.  I also posed several ideas for conduct of those wars.

However, StJude has told me that this is not fun to him.  He thinks it much more fun to attack those that do not want war.  It is, to him, a War Game.  And do not stand his way for his use of the sandbox on his terms.  OK.  There are a zillion other MMOs that offer that experience for StJude.  Illyriad is different, though.

My view is simple: Your right to enjoy the sandbox ends where someone else's cities begin.

I would request you leave personal issues out of this thread and head to the Bitter Sea please if you have objections to my playstyle.

We REALLY need to keep this thing on track.

Focus on ideas, not individuals.

Kilotov, I appreciate your enthusiam! Could I request we tone things down a tad so as not to spin this thing out of control?

This is an extremely important thread! Opinions and ideas should be heard and encouraged.

HU WHAT? Iknorite?

This pretty much echo's my opinion as well.  

I would go further and state:  If you do not allow a player an opt-in mechanism to aggression/war(what have you) then be prepared for the community to step in (as it has done so in the past) as the opt-out mechanism.  

The_Dude's suggestion about a forum for such an opt-in would be a great first step.  

 

1. Pacifist... Ok, fine, but you better figure out how to pay someone for protection, build great defenses, or politic (through threads like this, I guess) your way into a "safe" place by shining the halo up enough that alliances will avoid the negative PR associated with attacks. 

2. War like... Ok, fine, but you either better be the biggest and baddest, or you'll get smashed by coalitions of allies that resent your attacks.

I understand threads like this are all part of "it," but this is all a big role-play, right?  Setting up an arena like system where the only wars are fought through negotiated times and places drains the fun of "real world-like" dynamics that appear fundamental in the game as it is.  Also, setting up "Peace Communes" where no-one attacks is ripe for abuse and un-policeable, in my opinion.

So, for what it is worth, I'm not sure I see the massive problem with letting things play out as they are.  Even in the most recent "clash of elites," there was barely any real bloodshed... a couple of cities either way.  In aggregate, it seems barely a punch in the nose, and in this way I agree with Celebcalan, it was a bit of a alpha/beta aggression show where no one really got hurt and the "status" was re-affirmed.

"Elites" rise and fall based on merits and organization, not just age.  While there is an advantage to age, I think the real advantage is the organization and cohesion.  And frankly, if someone organizes and manages an alliance or coalition of alliances well, they are certainly capable of overcoming anyone in this game.

Net/net... all the mechanics are there.  Make use of them and thrive... or fail.  Just like everyone else and just like the "real world."

Nor can it be equally "fun" when one of the two people "warring" receives a huge influx of resources...

I think maybe those thinking "war" is fun or that "war" is the way things should be need to set about defining what exactly they view "war" to be.

What is being stated is that if you plan to enjoy the "war" (aggressive) aspect of the game then be prepared to suffer the "community/diplomacy" aspect of the game, if you have not established an opt-in for involved parties.

Anjire, it is definitely fun when BOTH parties are receiving an influx of resources....

However, I see that you have an alternate agenda in this thread too. If you would be so kind, could I request you head to the Bitter Sea if you wish to single out individuals or alliances? This thread is starting to veer considerably off-topic.

You of course are entitled to quote Captain Barbossa by saying:

+1 Well written, well communicated.

I especially like: 

Uther wrote: I understand threads like this are all part of "it," but this is all a big role-play, right?  Setting up an arena like system where the only wars are fought through negotiated times and places drains the fun of "real world-like" dynamics that appear fundamental in the game as it is.  Also, setting up "Peace Communes" where no-one attacks is ripe for abuse and un-policeable, in my opinion.

However, if folks want to try, have at it!

 I am not surprised in the least you would want to try and silence a dissenting opinion from your own rather than discuss and/or offer counter arguments. My position has been quite clear and admittedly counter to your agenda ,not just on this thread but many others. 

For those wishing to push their "this is a war game" therefore, I have a right to "war" (aggression) agenda,  I agree; however, if both parties have not opted into the "war" (aggression) then I feel the community has every right to become involved as the it sees fit.   So, if you wish to "war" (play aggressively) go right ahead but at least have the guts to own the consequences of your actions.  

Pure and simple response to the OP.  

Please feel free to counter, StJude with your own opinion/agenda.

Excellent! We are now getting back on track.

This is where we are asking for some lines to be drawn. There are several ways to be "aggressive" in this game.

1.) Send hostile diplomats

2.) Send Military ....ahem....diplomats :P

3.) Challenge the status quo and verbally goad people.

Correct, players should own all three of those actions. But to expect said players to lie down and say "Well, have at it" is a rather silly expectation.

What I love about Illyriad is the political maneuvering, the behind the scenes diplomacy and the manipulation of your opponent. I would call this "metagaming."

To me, Illyriad is one of the FEW games where all of the above can be explored. I hope the metagame flourishes.

At the heart of all this though is this; In a sandbox, in order to keep the above spirit alive, you need to accept that a "No Mercy" approach to conflict is both bullying and counter-productive to the game as a whole.

That has always been my track, I didn't veer: 

Players should have the guts to own the consequences of their actions.

I feel that the community as a whole responds admirably to the "sandbox" game.   I don't feel anything is broken that needs fixing.  I do feel it is the players pushing the "aggressive" style of play that rarely wish to own the consequences of their actions.  

You will need to clarify and expand on your "No Mercy" statement because it is too generalized and I don't think it is as widely practiced and you imply with your statement.

Let me ask this then.

In the game of Illyriad, how would you define Mercy?

You brought up the term, you clarify your usage and definition of it.

Yes sir, in the spirit of debate I would be happy to!

Let me start with a dictionary definition.

"Compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm." My source is from the top of a search in Google using the terms "mercy definition"

Is that an acceptable start?

Please continue and translate that into "Illyriad" mechanics as per your original request.

Excellent! Thank you.

A little exercise if you will permit.

Let's take the following scenario and see if we can break it down. I will endeavor to leave ICON specific actions out of this, I would ask that if you see me bringing up alternate agendas that you bring them to my attention specifically and I will retract.

So, here is the scenario to illustrate the above.

Is this scenario acceptable to you?

 

Thank you Sir.

This is where this can get tricky. The question here is how far does the player that was "thieved" (or at least an attempt) take their reprisal before the line of Mercy is crossed?

There are multiple ways to respond.

So, I think you and I could both agree that sieging Player A to zero pop for his offense is not merciful?

Am I correct in that?

Since I have been gracious in responding to your request, would you lay out the most extreme reprisal you are willing to take in this scenario if you are the recipient of the lone thief?

I will agree that there are many different ways that this situation can be resolved.  I believe that the extent of the resolution depends solely on the extent and manner in which the player that was caught(player A) owns up to their misdeeds.

So I will have to disagree with you on the degree to which Player B should be restrained in dealing with the situation...

I would have no problem razing Player A to the ground if said Player A, both refused to own up to the misdeed after being caught and was a complete asshat (to steal a phrase) in his/her responses.

That said, my personal response has been to send a friendly note to Player A laying out that what he/she did was considered an aggressive act and suggest that they refrain from future attempts verse active players because it can result in retaliation.   I also point out how to determine if a player is inactive so that Player A can utilize thieves/diplomats verse such targets.

So, I would once again put the extent of the reprisal in the hands of the perpetrator and their willingness to own up to their actions and face the consequences.

Then regardless of the response of the thief sender, you are essentially espousing a "No Mercy" philosophy. As I consider a siege to 0 pop "No Mercy"

Wrong, reread what I wrote.

I am saying that the extent of "Mercy" rests entirely in the manner in which the thief sender responds.  

If the response is BOTH denial and asshattery then yes, I believe razing the offending players city to 0 pop is an acceptable response.    Note:  BOTH

Once again, there are many different ways of dealing with such a situation.  I will start out friendly and helpful to gauge what type of player/neighbor I am dealing with.  The extent of  my "Mercy" will vary depending on the response to my extending hand...

There is a saying: "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you"

My contention is this, as the player with more power, it is your (and mine if I am in the situation) responsibility to set the example.

To me, denial and asshattery of a thief attempt are not grounds for a sieging of a pop to 0.

I would escalate the disagreement differently.

However, I can see that this debate can go round and round and I am not convinced that we will reach an agreement or persuade the other.

Let me throw out a tired old cliche.

"With great power, comes great responsibilty". (I almost threw up writing that)

So, that said, as it relates to this game. 

ANY, I REPEAT ANY (This is not a metagaming attempt to undermine H?) alliance that finds itself in the number one position and with supreme executive power needs to realize that how they conduct themselves, will essentially set the tone for the whole game.

I feel I have made my points sufficiently, I welcome your response Anjire, and I hope you will not take offense if I do not respond. I feel I must conclude on that note.

A good day to you!

I wasn't around for TMM, but I think I understand your point.

My issue is this. The scenario I outline above happened to a player.

He sent a thief, it was caught and the player identified. After that, the details are sketchy.

A siege was sent at this player and he came into GC asking for assistance.

None was given. To me, the community spoke loud and clear and affirmed the tone of the game.

This player was sieged to 0 pop.

They may have started another account. I have no idea.

That right there is an embarrassing and shameful act on behalf of both the sieging player, his alliance and we (yes, I said we) the community as a whole.

I should have done SOMETHING to help that guy out.

My apologies.  I'm moving my post to the Caravanserai.

Once again you misinterpret my response and jump to erroneous conclusions...

If a thief is caught and refuses to take the steps necessary to defuse the situation via diplomacy then I will not bat an eye when his/her city is reduced down to 0 population.

I have caught countless thieves and helped both sides come to a satisfactory solution.

Razing and besieging is not my first option no matter how you might try to twist my words.  I responded, as you asked, to what would be the extreme case scenario.   In an extreme case, such as a thief showing no concern for their own well being, nor that of the community, nor any sort of common decency via IG communications deserves neither my respect nor my Mercy.    This has not happened to any thief that I have personally dealt with or been in communication with - just for the record.

I will repeat what I stated about the Community as a whole in another thread.  It is a fluid creature, it is not always fair, it is not always right, it is not always just; however, more often then not it is fair, it is right, and it is just.  More so then you will find on any other MMO of like game mechanics.  The community should be proud of what it has become and how it treats players of all status, new and old alike.  Here, you will face consequences for your actions and no amount of money will enable you to escape.  

Indeed, with great power comes great responsibility and, in my year plus experience with the Community of Illyriad, most of the top alliances have shown great restraint and willingness to find diplomatic solutions to issues first before jumping to the final solution which as you, StJude are pointing out, isn't actually a final solution.  

My point is that sending a military attack in response to thieves is either going to just get basic res back, for the advanced res stolen, or a totally out of proportion siege.

I still think a cheap T3 siege unit and making the current T2 massively expensive is a good start.

Part of my argument about attacking sandbox players is that a community supporting them is good, however under current game mechanics a defensive city is set out very much like an offensive city. There should be mechanics for a build structure that generally makes it not worthwhile to attack these players, even without community involvement, however the risk is still there, We shouldn't make the mistake that all sandbox players want to be considered taboo, why can't we also be playing a peaceful trader who needs to protect trade caravans and take necessary precautions, that is the fault of a war forum, not all players would wish to be left alone or paint a target on their back but walk a middle ground where a small risk is always present.

p.s. ballistic towers with high upkeep may sound good however players with this build type would be unable to reinforce each other. However if the tower required no upkeep but the engineer working the tower did then this would be another story.