Discuss

you just dont want to get eliminated so you dont play the way you want 

So apparently I don't fit the model.

How would you like to play?

Those that want to be aggressive, can be aggressive.

Those that don't, will still employ self-defense.

Assuming the driving idea behind opposing "Play nicely or we'll eliminate you" is "I want to fight", then I think there's a function in the game to fulfill the "Fight" thought. Form an alliance with others that agree with that idea. The game is fully capable of aggressive playing. 

"Play our way" dominates because people fight back. With greater numbers. I suppose you could get around that with some creative recruiting for a war-faring alliance, if you were inclined to do so.

If I wanted to have an all out war without everyone jumping in on me, I'd have to first find a willing alliance that agreed not to involve anyone else in it, make it clear to everyone else to stay out of it(good luck), make sure that nothing I did was seen as "bullying" or I'd have to face the wrath of the community and hope none of that fails. And so easily could it fail. All it would take would be on guy to complain to GC or one alliance or player to jump in because they think they should be part of it and then entire thing would come crumbling down. 

That's just not sandbox. That's trying not to step on the pacifist communities toes all the while still not fully experiencing all out war because it would be a planned out setting between two hopefully trustworthy alliances that had nothing against each other. You have to cut yourself short and that's cutting the sandbox short. It's like I can build a sandcastle but I can't build towers or a moat. Sure, I still built a sandcastle but it's limited. 

Nailed it 

That's exactly what I was thinking how to say.

Sandbox or no, there will always be reactions to actions. Make your choices, take your chances, I guess.

I'm not saying that there should be no consequences, I'm saying the consequences shouldn't be as extreme as they are. You raze one guy's city and suddenly they raze all of yours. It's just not proportionate to what you have done. Everyone goes "justice" mode and before you know it you're basically a newbie again. I can't think of any other sandbox game that had a community that would punish you so harshly for aggressive actions. 

As it is, we almost rely on some new guy who doesn't know what the community is like to come in and start trouble so we can get some kind of action. I've played the game for nearly two years and I've never had an army (aside from NPC) attack my cities. Never. That's how one sided every altercation I've ever been in has been. So sure, it may have the potential to be a sandbox game but if you play aggressively, don't expect to play for very long. 

Calico_Jack wrote: yea.... im sure he never played a single player sandbox game, usely things tries to kill you there aswell

Let the wall of text commence! =D

 

This I think,  about sums it up just right.

Wish I could remember where I first saw this suggestion in order to reference and to give credit where credit is due.

Best to all.

WOW!  Never been attacked in your cities!  WOW!  You need to get out more.  I had my first inbound hostile on my #8 day in Illy.  Oh, let's see, my capital was sieged in less than 2 months of being in Illy (and that was just the first time).  I had 21 hostile armies in my cities in just a single day once.  By no means is the above an exhaustive listing of attacks I have had at my cities.  I think the last hostile army in one of my cities was about 6 months ago.  I didn't notice the mob justice that you speak of following any of these attacks against me, B17.

Maybe, and this is just a theory, players that want to see more PvP should not join the mega-alliances that insulate them from conflict or even the consequences of their own actions.  Step into the minor leagues and see if the pace of action picks up.

Let's be truthful, folks, Illy is not the land of peace that y'all pretend it is.

I'll say my current two cents now.

I can say that TLR once never wanted to someday become like the Crow Federation *multiple branch offs wise* until we gather'ed round our own encampment and found that even when we told members transitioning in that we'd like the site to remain just TLR, sure enough when they left the community came up with the standard "You force them to leave we'll force a siege down your throat". non tlr cities currently residing in tlr encampent..

also,  TLR had it's mini war that was justified against HEAT, until heat was on the losing end and a few members ran out and cried on global that we were bullying them, what happened? oh wait the *justice* mode clicked on (thank you brids for that phrase) and we either had to open up negotiations or get *a few sieges forced down our throats*.

Too protective of a community/too nosy imo

Exactly. +1 

Yes, Myr.

also dont forget, once one side is losing they will go running to GC to get saved, since losing is really really bad and costly

Qaal, I think you had a good point. I think a big issue is that the "panic" that arises from being attacked is the very likely possibility to be destroyed, as opposed to just an attack. It'd be interesting to size up two equal players and keep it just between those two without the threat of being annihilated. I'm sure that'd be a great way for both players to learn more about strategies and game mechanics. And it should satisfy some Restless Army Syndrome.

Ok so I will revisit my post and adding here that the "victim" can call GC at any time if they find themselves losing :) instead of the one losing

Let's not forget this is a game. Even all out, super-end of the world war would never harm a single hair on a single head.

Quackers wrote:  This game is a sandbox. The developers made this game an open game so that we are free to do what ever we want inside the rules of the game. So the vets and alliances that were here the longest set up rules for new players to follow. That was their right to do in a sandbox game. If you want the rules to change, then create a more powerful alliance and nation to fight against the other alliances. That is your right under a sandbox game. Then once your in control, you can make the rules. Until then, play smart.

Ditto

Really the problem people has with H? is just because of the GC crusaders, if H? or other alliances and people finds themselves able to attack an alliance without fear of any repercussions I and many others would never doubt that they would jump at this opportunity and this is what a lot of people fear.

I dont mind that super powers exists, they have worked hard and are still working hard to maintain that power, thats great, but like kings in some countries let their vassals fight their wars without interfering i would like that promise from powers like H? and Crows aswell.

To let smaller groups have a chance of expanding their power in the world with force if they so want. This ofcourse does not mean crushing of much smaller groups just because they can, doing this case by case is ofcourse the way to go.

It was my understanding that it was between LWO and BSH and that BSH called it's confed in. 

Skim Milk wrote: There are usually people willing to set up war games as well. Probably not quite the same as impulsive warfare, but it's an option.  Qaal, I think you had a good point. I think a big issue is that the "panic" that arises from being attacked is the very likely possibility to be destroyed, as opposed to just an attack. It'd be interesting to size up two equal players and keep it just between those two without the threat of being annihilated. I'm sure that'd be a great way for both players to learn more about strategies and game mechanics. And it should satisfy some Restless Army Syndrome.

I had a newb with barely two cities write me a mail recently haranguing me because an nCrow player settled 9.8 squares from him without asking permission.  (He just sent a friendly introductory mail.)  In contrast, other players settle 5-6 squares from our leaders' cities (or closer!) with no second thoughts or even a courtesy acknowledgement.

This does not seem to be the behavior of people who are intimidated nor cowed.

Well most only know of H?, but with all the anti-H? talk i felt i needed to add the other super powers to not put all if any blame on H? alone.

How will research help a city to build up from 0 pop? I cant really think of any research that would give an advantage for growth. The warehouse research may give the slight advantage of not having to build a storehouse. You still need the required building levels to train units and you can get geomancy spells from any nearby player. Are there any other advantages?

Most players that are sieged to 0 pop leave Illy or start new accounts and try to hide their connection to the "destroyed" account since a 0 pop siege-out usually is the result of some seriously bad-blood between the combatants.

Back when I was in GOON we used to siege people from largest to smallest, to leave them with as little as possible. So really only 10 city (or 9 if you stop there) players really get the full benefit of that. 

After you have all done and set, you better like to chat...

While this may not seem like a big deal, intelligence is of significant importance in warfare and new players are very useful in that regard, since scouts are relatively cheap and quick to build and maintain.

With diplo units being able to protect armies, it will be a bit more of a challenge for new players to fulfill this role, but I think with support from alliance mates it will still be viable.  Time will tell.

About the "play my way or get siege out of the game", and the "justice mob" that usualy follows.

From the Orc point of view, i think the big deal whit illy its almost every one is so concern on being the "good guy" and all that, that must have large armys sitting on ther hands doing nothing for months. ( besides some npc hunt..) 

This for me its a big prbl. cuz when a importunity arise to do some "pvp" for the right "cause" must ppl just lose ther selfs a bit and can lead to the situations going to far to fast. Cuz.. they just were months itching for some pvp... but cuz the comunity says no - no... all blow out easy out of proportion when the comunity say yes -yes to pvp.

Another thing... I'm a pvp player since i started illy, Most of my attack rating is from pvp. I started attking when i had only one village. I was also  attacked by the Crows, Champs, H? and a few less know alliances and i must say i did end up whit almost of them (Crows, champs ) being friendly to me. Crows even end up helping me whit a LOT  stuff.

So, my 2 points im trying to make are:

- Point one, the community should do more fighting... and not all fight must end in sieges. ( I for once have never siege a town in all this time. Just some "distraction sieges" that dont go all the way. ofc it doest men that i will not in the future).

Anyway... if theres more pvp, i think the community will start to go a littel less eager when a "Justice war" arises.

- point two. IF you do find your-self in the receiving end of over power adversaries, just do what i do. "G0dsDestroyer will bash you to oblivion if you dont leave me alone!" in the rare times that doest work  just REASON whit them! Keep in focus this is a game. Must of the time what i see is too mutch of the ego, and few role play in the war's/ pvp. More role play and less real life ego would help us all have more fun and less pain in illy. Keep the communication channels open.

Even H? let me have a village near them, after some talk..  and after wiping out my troops and saying they would siege all my littel towns of illy if i dint move. See? but did they? No. They are reasonable if you are too (i dint move, but discussed the matter). (its just ther way of showing love for you. -secretly the like me! i know it-)

Anyway, is just my orc opinion. More role play, less ego. More fighting, less punishing crusades.

Wolfgangvondi

(just another Orc)

 

Demanding that everyone PvP more simply because some people would like to PvP more is as silly as demanding that nobody PvP because some people don't want to.

So, some people should PvP more and others not.

I will observe however, that there may be a third class of people:  People who think they want to PvP but actually don't want to assume the risks of doing so and therefore prefer to talk a lot about how they wish there were more PvP.  If this is what's fun for them ... well, I guess that's just fine too.

Carry on.

Ummm ... actually it was a war.  But H? didn't start it, StJude did.  Well, sort of.  It sort of slipped in at the end of the Valar war.

H? ended it tho.

Players with a bent towards non-NPC action could join alliances that have declared themselves as military oriented, or even have a "history" of such things. They could play around in their corner of the sand-box, fighting for land and resources against other players and alliances with this same bent.

Is this not what already exists?

Let's assume that's true. Then what is the problem? 

As I see it, rogue players cause problems that are usually dealt with without any far reaching consequences. The rogue player usually backs down in the face of overwhelming condemnation. I think we have all seen variations on this scenario. The mechanism in place, completely player driven, effectively deals with the problem.

In my opinion, the real problem is with players and alliances who disguise themselves as non-aggressive while at the same time plotting in private to attack their neighbors. These are the sort of players who know that when the time comes to break and run, they will be saved by the same mechanism that so effectively deals with rogue players. All they have to do is get their "story" out first and paint themselves as the victim. In this case, aggressive players and alliances are required to sue for peace lest they be "dealt with" by the vocal community.

This is not be a big issue for most, but I think it's one of the reasons why there is such animosity from a minority towards some in the GC community. It looks to me like just another aspect of the game, requiring logic and subterfuge but others take it personally. I suppose they forget it's a game.

Very interesting. I'd say make the thread and see how it goes!

An idea I have for that thread, I'll just say here now. What about player-run tournaments?

Were u saying the the reason for the 10 plot rule from H? was an way to start an global war in illy?

Would not be very imaginative from H?... But.. only H? can answer that.

In my personal experience whit all of 10 plot thing from H? that was a bit "au contraire"... at the time i was in the ICON alliance ( yes that one that every alliance could , and almost a third did attack just cuz the comunity said it was oky, - realy dont want to go in to that now - ) ... and they (they = H?) were totally conviced that STjude were scheming a master plan to defeat H? in one day and an half - I heard about a Doom machine in the base of STjude - .. and so H? did really not wanted to have ICON associates near they. ( in true we, yes we, were moving there to trying to escape champs - You Evil, Evil CHAMPS! : P  

Anyway, i Just explain that.. a LOT of times to Llyorn Of Jaensch (fom H?) , and ofc me NOT doing any diplos or other stuff vs him, did help too... till he, after wiping out my troops : P started to believe.

Ofc, i know i could just crush Llyorn easily - every one knows that, (sorry Llyorn) but keeping things friendly in communication end up resolving all the mistrust he had of me.  

And that was what i mean by keeping comunication open, and leave your RL egos out. ( or at least make the best try to do that ; ) )

RILL - i was not saying we should "enforce PVP"... im saying we should do more fighting if we are itching to do it. And not necessarly sieging. AND if someone does not like PVP, Still its really less dmg to them to lose troops and resources , than village(s).

WE will never have every one happy ofc.

This Is just the way i see things in illy. to much itch for pvp keeped down for so long, turns out more ugly when the chance to finaly let it go (pvp) do arrive.

AND last.. even if you like PVP, u don't have necessarily start attacking players rundown... ( thus its fun too : P ) normally theres something that leaves to that. i already attaked some one ( just a littel attack) cuz of Roleplaying in GC. the talk went to a point when looked to me it would make sence for an ORC to attack an ELF. ( no i dint ask him if he would want to be attack. any way He just lost what i lost..some troops. no big deal)

In the other side i already breaked sieges of my adversaries. CUz it looked to me it was not right.

 

So, the rules i try to follow: keep in mind its a game. Try to role play the conflicts. Communicate a lot, especial whit the ones that are attacking you. IF you real don't want to go all the way ( losing citys) make that clear, and reason, reason, surrender, pay a "fine" whatever. u prbly will end up not losing citys, or losing only one. Ofc, turning around and DO all the same again that put u in that spot, will invalidate everthing you accomplished in the talks. 

the only 100% free of risk of losing any of your hard work citys. its playing other game.. like far**ville or something like that. JUst dont be a jerk when you are the overpower, but also dont be one when you are the "victim" .. unless thats you role player character... but more risk, ofc for that fun ; )

now my head hurts of writing so many words in the same day...

Wolfgangvondi

edit: for some "bolding" of the text

Well that's something. I wonder if it could be done. :D

seeing that H? is still here.. and STjude is not... I guess the doomsday machine failed. : P btw , now that i think of it.. is it possible that H? has something to do whit STjude disappearing?  Did H? reached beyond illy somehow? Or did the doomsday machine blow up STjude it self ? So intriguing this world of illy.

Wolfgangvondi

(the intrigued Orc)

Perhaps Quackers meant that this is not something that the devs decided to rush out and implement?

They have extended new player protection a couple of times.  (I think it started out at 3 days; when I joined it was 5 days and now it is 7.)

I don't know if the soul was crushed, but I do find it highly annoying when players with a messiah complex try to save us from the natural evolution of the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization" rel="nofollow - Hasty generalization  bordering on  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope" rel="nofollow - Slippery slope

This is why I liked illy community wise better in 2010.  Newbies were protected *more so after TMM* but there wasn't a massive influx of GP's patrolling every scenario.

sorry Kumo, can't find it.  Maybe ask HM why it's not on the wiki.

You put to words the thoughts in my head. lol

and yes to those that meddle in affairs that do not concern them usually get the title of a GP because they think they are upholding their standards of law and order *police geddit?*