On a side note I know there was a semantics quote by HM i'd love to throw in here but its 2 am here and i cant remmy it

The rare resources have done exactly as the DEVs had planned by stirring up contention among the players. I don't mind land claims and the disputation of land claims. What I dislike is the destruction of people's villages that represent the entirety of what they have built in the game. Of all the escalations that don't make sense to me though is the one that really stands out as odd. This is where an ally/confed answers the call for help to break a siege and is accused of unprovoked aggression for it. No retaliatory sieges. No wave of strikes on cities. Just defensive strikes against armies laying waste to friends and neighbors.

I am sure my understanding of the matter is flawed and incomplete as my only awareness of the matter is through GC and the Forums, neither of which is famous for dependability. In this I would like more clarity on the matter, but realize none will likely be forthcoming.

That is my main confusion in this whole earthshaking matter. It seems that this war is happening because some parties want a war. To me that seems the scenario that makes the most sense. If not, none of the things leading up to where we are today would have sparked the fires of war. I hope matters are resolved peacefully as the destruction of either side will be a loss to all who virtually cohabit Elgea.

These are my thoughts alone and do not represent my alliance or confederation. 

For my part, I prefer the pursuit of peace to the pursuit of war.

Luna

I agree with this post. You combine these points with the very clunky and restrictive combat system and it isn't hard to see how difficult it is to stop wars once they start. Way too little player control. Messengers, for example, could have significantly more functions. If peace is a viable goal, the clunky combat system doesn't support it well. Don't get me wrong, no mmo is perfect and they are never finished. But you HAVE to get combat right in any mmo!

As to the original question, I don't associate maturity with peace in a game. But I do want players to have fun, enemies and friends alike. In some games, it can even be fun (and somewhat rewarding) to lose in combat. However, and I have played many mmos over the years, Illyriad is a slow, slow, game requiring much patience. The usual game rule of increased risk equals increased 

chance of reward doesn't really apply to this game. 

I will not repeat objections of others nor add more of my own, as it seems pretty pointless to discuss a text created on such unbased supposition, but I will point out only one thing. 

After writting aaaaaall that wall of text, you went in the end and blew your cover and possibly Consone's intentions (we shall call them "your expectations of them" of course, but I think everyone got your point after my underlining ) to the public ... :p 

So, next time, if you want to hide the important bit, try to spread it out equally in the text ... it will seem less crude that way ...  :p

There is only one problem, it's not my thesis.  I've been told many times that Illy (the name of the sandbox) is as wonderful as it is because of H?  I can find one or two reference to that point in the mega thread as well as consistently scattered references going back as long as I've been here.  Illy is so great because H? won the last war.  They were the champions.  Is that point under dispute?

Certainly, H? let in a bunch of new people and let a bunch of old people grow and certainly it appears that the power of the non-H? rivals or exceeds that of H?  Until there is a disagreement and a conflict for control, or until H? cedes power the de-facto power remains with H?  If the champion enters a fray then he's still the champion until he looses.  If H? thinks this is a "game" then that's how games work.

It seems that what you are saying is that H? never stood a chance and entered this war as a futile suicide gesture.  Does H? want to die or are they fighting for a principle and is their suicide meaningful in some way?  Is the principle that there should be no conflict, no war in Illy?  Is the principle that there should be no rules, no organization in Illy?  Is the principle that conflict is fine, that organization is fine, but that Consone isn't the right answer to these problems?  If the principle is the last, then what is H? offering instead?  Secret pacts, overwhelming alliance wide attacks to avenge "dis-respectful" communications and minor battles?

I've got my ears open, what is it that H? offers?

I assume the above refers to the below.  It's the only thing specifically pointed out as wrong.  It's probably the beginning of the excessively subjective part so maybe if it were not as excessively subjective it would make the rest less excessively subjective?  You judge.

Hadus wrote: The error you made was assuming H? owns the sandbox. They own a portion of the sandbox. As long as your own game does not cross into their edge of the box, you're fine. The trouble being that the lines drawn in the sandbox are completely grey.

I didn't make that point, I was told that H? made Illy as great as it is.  Someone should tell me how H? did that without exercising control.  If it was H? and other people that made Illy as great as it is, then it should be clear why we should give H? special credit but none to the nameless others?  Are some of the nameless others in VIC?  What sort of propaganda gives H? credit but VIC none?  Why should we ascribe credit for a dead if H? was not in control?  Why should we ascribe credit for a situation, if H? did not maintain control?  It seems to me that two people here have failed to address statements saying H? should get the credit for how great Illy is but also made the point that H? was not in control.  It's not logical to give someone credit for something they didn't control.

Yes, the sandbox has some serious flaws.

  

KillerPoodle wrote: Having been around for a while and having been the preeminent alliance pretty much from the beginning we have naturally made enemies - people who don't like our style (White hated the fact we wouldn't play dirty), people who've been on the wrong end of our defense of the defense-less, people who made bad decisions on which side of a war to join and paid for it, people (like those in VIC) who were desperate to join the White war against us but couldn't due to the integrity of their leader at the time refusing to break their NAP with us. In short - quite a few people with beef against H?

http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/the-full-story_topic4334.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/the-full-story_topic4334.html

Is Consone a reaction to H? as KillerPoodle states or is it something separate over which you have no control as you state.  You can't state something is a reaction to you if it doesn't react to you.  If it reacts to you, you exercise control.  Notice, I'm not saying complete, utter and total control.  Just that Illy is reacting to you because you are #1 and until you are not #1 you will set the course.

I'm sick of going round and round on your propaganda train.  It's clear you guys have different views.

Illy is a social network with a game wrapped around it.  ...  I think this part is 100% spot on and is exactly what I wanted to say but didn't really care to support.  I really enjoyed the lecture on the word "sandbox", thank you.  But you missed my point.  My point was this Illy isn't "just a game", there are a lot of other elements to it and it's missing a lot of elements necessary for a game.  You've actually taken it further, which in light of the "it's just a game" perspective I was struggling against I didn't want to do.

For example, everything you say above shows how Illy isn't a game.  But I feel you have left out one group of players.

The first group you identify is the mature gamer.  He/she is someone not over-connected to the game.  The second group is the not mature gamer (can I say immature, is that rude) is lonely, isolated and disconnected from people.  The immature gamer finds something in Illy that they can't get in traditional society.  The mature gamer has a life and just does this for "fun".  The mature gamer understands how important Illy is to the immature gamer, and his or her goal is to find other mature gamers and "play the game like a game".  The mature gamer is not interested in "peace" in Illy because he has peace.  The mature gamer plays the game against immature gamers in an effort to removes peace from the virtual lives of people who are "desperately trying to preserve the peace in their own lives."

If you are right and this is Illy, how is that mature or right?  If it's not right, what do you call someone who sees that isn't right?  He isn't mature, because clearly he doesn't share the perspective you outline.  But what if he has a life, children, coaches soccer, teachers at school, runs, bikes, lifts weights, skis, goes to theater, fundraises, etc...  What is missing from that person's life that he can get upset about a wrong in a virtual world when he knows there are people in it like you have described are in it?  How long did you think about this when you wrote it?

Maybe you both can agree that regardless of whether H? was intentionally trying to shape the world a certain way, people reacted to their presence and actions in general?  I think very few people aspire to be the best at something so that they can be a role model, that just ends up being one of the consequences of the position.  

It would be impossible to characterize anyone as "anti-H?" in an imaginary alternate timeline where H? loses the White War (not sure if that was even a possibility, but lets play pretend) and departs for other more favorable realms.  It would be like saying anyone these days is anti-White: more or less without substance.

While I was typing this, I thought of something.  Perhaps a scenario that is agreeable(ish) to everyone.  I hear there are a fair number of Brits around here, so maybe some Doctor Who fans as well?  I refer you to the events surrounding "The Pandorica":

---

---

Interesting, or the random correlation of a tired mind?  All this in fear of you, Harmless?

To me, a mature player is one who plays the game carefully, someone who doesn't blow up for the smallest thing, be it a word in GC or forum post, the attack on a camp or the loss of some diplos.

No matter what you call it, this IS a game. Illy is a virtual world, and yes, it is in many ways a social network, or a sandbox as well, but it is a game, because it isn't real. We invest time, and maybe money, in this, but when we send out thieves, they are not real people. 

We roleplay... some more than others, and to me, that is a game as well. The "competition" is in who plays the best part, who is most convincing.

And why do some people want peace and fear war so much? Illy has drawn different people for different reasons, and compared  to other virtual worlds with the possibility of war, this one has for some reason chosen peace rather than war.

When I started playing, I expected to be attacked as soon as I was out of protection. I was told through this forum that I would be safe for much longer, and that has certainly been true. I'm not an agressive player, and that has kept me safe. I did however chose to be part of an alliance and in doing so, I have extended my playing of this game into diplomacy and war.

Why do I still play? I like it here, this game, this roleplay, my friends here. I have a life outside of Illy and concider myself a mature player with plenty of patience. Hoping for peace, I prepare for war... I have been ever since I started playing.

And now, I expect people to bite my head off, call me names, and generally tell my I have it all wrong, just because I belong to the Dwarven Lords. I don't mind, it is part of the Illy-game, and I grew up being bullied in school, so I know the drill.

Those are a lot of questions to answer! 

I think you're misconstruing my appropriation of "mature" and "immature" as "right" and "wrong." I'm simply saying that the "mature" gamer may be (and it isn't as if I have empirical proof of this -- it is just my own anecdotal observation) the gamer who doesn't feel the same moral and emotional consequences to rolling sieges on other players and going to war in Ily as the "immature" gamer. He or she is not nearly as engaged in that level of verisimilitude where game and real life have conflated. I would argue that a person who feels as if war in this game disrupts a very real peace in their actual life -- even if they have some of the external elements of self-actualization that you listed above -- has some level of emotional immaturity. It is a more rational, grounded, and mature person who doesn't ascribe in-game events like war to being invasions of their own personal peace and happiness. That really is the crux of my point.

Admittedly, maybe "mature" and "immature" isn't the right binary opposition.

I will say this, however: for those players in the game who rely on in-game peace to maintain their own internal peace and happiness, then I think that they may have chosen the wrong social community. For as much as global chat, these forums, and alliances function like a social network, Illyriad also has a robust military component and, just as in real life wars will always occur in this sphere. Therefore, it is fraught with peril for the "fragile" player.

It seems like if H continues with these sieges to a point where VIC is damaged beyond reasonable repair, that would seriously hurt current player retention. It puts players such as my self in a position where, I know that the dominant force in illy will not change for at least a year, but after seeing how this situation has played out, probably indefinitely.

With that knowledge, theres really no hope of becoming anything more than an H vassal/little brother. 

I really love Illy, I've been playing for over two and half years, I have two accounts totalling 280k population and I've spent a steady amount of cash on prestige, but this is the first time I have seriously considered packing it in. I mean, why play if not to win? and if winning becomes next to impossible....

Over the years I've made solid relationships with a good number of the stalwart (no pun intented) veterans, I am not alone in feeling this way.

If you can't beat them join them would apply, but there's a 99 member cap on alliance membership.

But I must ask which do you think is more likely to be a problem?  Playing a game designed for war but no one ever goes to war.  Or playing a game where people are constantly at war, yet the newer players (the ones like to quit) are simply off limits.  

I dare say the devs are more worried about players getting bored with the game than players rage quitting because they are going to war in a game where well lets face it you build cities to build troops to kill things.

My bad i misunderstood your post.

But, hey, that's the spirit of the Illy forums, so its no big.

And using Ad Hominem arguments is the same.

Step your forum game up laddie buck, I used to look up to you.

EDIT: Grammar correction.

I think the lack of clever on these forums is slightly contagious.

I've sent you an IGM.

Hooroo.

I smell conspiracy.

DeathDealer89 wrote: Playing a game designed for war but no one ever goes to war.

Because there is only one server, and it is eternal? If we break the world server, it's going to stay like that. Actions in Illyriad carry more consequences because there's only one. Hence why war isn't taken lightly. That's my take on it.

Easy one mate. "Lego"

Lots of military equipment, lots of troops, no actual fighting.

At the moment, business (trade and crafting) is based on military, and in smaller parts, diplomacy. As long as we have nothing else to base our Illy economy on, we have to base it on the military. Maybe with these new resources, there will be a shift? Who knows. Making and selling pretty jewelry to adorn our avatars might be a new take? But hopefully we can see some kind of shift into magic, and maybe get tools to terraform the land itself. Then economy would shift to a more balanced military/non military trade system.

Are you kidding? 

First, the peace you had in last years was CREATED by H? no one can argue that.

Second... i'm full of this crap, you know how many players left becouse they were bored of the game? i can remember 30-40 old players. How many left for war? 

You talk of different play style and you fail to understand that other players might look for some action from time to time ...you are calling warmongers people who have never sieged anyone.......please....

Peacefull alliance can live happily in Illyriad they just need to stay NEUTRAL!

You can't ally with a military superpower in a cold-war and pretend not to be in a fight...

This is a GAME, if you can't see it you should look for some help, and in this game 95% of the things (right now) are based on military.

You can have fun in military terms by participating in tourneys, where you can show your strengh in a sportive event, and gain prizes.

Now that pill is hard to shallow. H? indeed took a great part in the institution of peace over Illy, and from the start, by crushing White and Black (H? and White where already the 2 most powerful alliances in the first month of the game). White only wanted to bring utter chaos to Illyriad from its start... It's quite easy to be less warmongering than them (self-note). Even if this account deletion fest was ""justified"", H? already deleted a good amount of accounts. Not to mention H? leaders pursued their retaliations against those who did something during the war or had a link with White... Did all the players deleted by H? really deserved it? I doubt, as many didnt know White's leadership's true personality, and just followed orders.

 

Only because of this war and retaliations i think we can estimate accounts 100% deleted by H? (leaving a 0 pop capitale per account) around 30-40, and around 100 and 150 if we count those leaving cause of boredom, after they lost some or most of their cities in war or retaliations.

Then there were the Valar war, where H? ""justified"" them as well. It's ok, but it's also some more accounts deletion. H? are not the best ranked in terms of Sieges stats, or raze/capture attempts, but it's important to point out that a great part of the towns they razed/captured, belonged to active players, contrary to most of the top siegers we can see, who quite only razed/captured inactive cities. 

For White and Valar (who was 2nd rank when war started), even if we can strongly suppose H? had personal interests to defend, they at the same time promoted peace, as Valar and mostly White had a quite agressive leadership.

I hardly can compare White or the former Valar with the current VIC or Consone, who are seeking to develop friendship and to have fun during tourneys. The most agressive player i've seen in VIC, and who for exemple thieved his own mates cause of different points of views, and harrassed and insulted others for the exact same reason, now sees fit in H? (and participated in the "territorial incidents" VIC had with H? after the creation of Consone)

In the current context, i note the apparent efforts from H? to prepare the ground for the today's war:

- not accepting Consone from it's birth while they came in peace, followed by hostile behaviours and more or less subtle insults on the forum or in game. And closed doors to discussion or diplomacy.

- constantly initiating territorial incidents with VIC, certainly to test their reactions: For exemple: attempts to relocate by force (sov 5/relocate tactic) some H? cities ridiculously close to VIC's ones.

- this point is only my own point of view, but i suspect H? leaders to have advised RHY to launch the first sieges against Absa... everyone was quite surprised of RHY's reaction: Deimos (RHY) was claiming a mine far from him, in the middle of Skb, and not respecting the rules of his own alliance by claiming specifically on the 2 sq range of 2 Skb members. And while Deimos obviously did wrong and while Absa and Skb re-opened negociations after first one failed, they sent sieges? Nobody knew RHY were so agressive, it was a surprise. When we add the suspisciously hiden bonds between RHY and H? into that, my archaic mind directly suspects an agreement RHY/H? to start those sieges against Absa, which would permit to push Consone into action, and then easily declare war, while Consone lost already many troops in the tourney (i note that they did the same for Valar, they waited the middle of the tourney, while saving their troops, to declare the war).

All that to say that im not sure if H? changed or if we now are seeing a part of the bottom of the iceberg, but for me, H? leaders are nowadays acting beyond their bond to maintain peace, as being the leading alliance. I am a bit disapointed of what i see today of this leading alliance, as for me, it shelters many Veterans who i hold in high respect, and who did a lot for this game. 

I know i melt actual facts with some personal feelings, but i tried to give a balanced thought. This message is for the players external to this story, and who may want to read a more serious and a bit less biased comment than what this forum currently offers. 

I thought the capital was randomly moved, and you had to start over? If they chose to leave instead of starting rebuilding, it's their decision, right?

If your smallest town gets razed last, you practically have nothing left, not even research.

Further, there was the possibility, that H? would have burned restarted cities, too (As I said, retaliation and persecution went on for many months...!)

Starting a new account, or quitting altogether, are the only options in this case...

Here is the demostration!

I'm sieging not becouse i'm bored but becouse it's my duty, i've NEVER sieged an active player out of the game, actually you can almost say i never razed an active player.... and you assume i do that becouse i'm bored.

I enjoy some fights true... 

i will not cry if a loose a few cities buti will leave this game the moment the pvp will be not possible at all or when the only fight will be the boring time consuming tournments.

Right now i've soooo many things to do in real that i would happily avoid any war, but it's here and i will fight as much as i can...that does not make me immature or warmonger, make me a player who know what is a game.

I was a key military officer for MK in those actions.  The_Dude, El_Jeffe, Rupe, DarthVader98, Ratboy, Magictronian, Cesear, Xoref Kliss ... the list is long of players that lost NOT A SINGLE city to H? or their allies in that war.  Pasi fought, too, but left much later for his own reasons unrelated to that war.

H? wanted to let TMM live.  Shadar Logoth and I had a different end-game there due to our individual histories with the leader of TMM.

It looked to me like most of the leaders of Old VALAR quit before the battle had even fully developed.  DarthVader98 and Magictronian fought in that war as members of VALAR and lost no cities at all.

If you really think you will be perma-sieged, you would not waste your time fighting a pointless battle over digital bits of 0's and 1's.

I've got this image in my mind of a group of large male orcs trying to make jewelry and sipping tea.

The statement WAS a joke, and thank you for making it even funnier. 

not quite the same analogy there Llyorn...you choose to fight said pumas therefore you expect losses, some ppl dont play to expect to be in a war and get sieged and loose most of what they have spent months if not years building albeit everyone knows the risk.

In Illyriad, it is possible competing for res while being diplomatic. I know of no other strategy (not "war") game, where it could have been possible for me to play 2 years straight without being attacked.

Yes, fighting may be fun, but many players prefer tournament.

If you want a fight, why don't you ask all those other small war alliance to band together and make a try? Why choose other targets than those?

This is an excellent question.  We should ask the 8 alliances that declared war why they chose to not target a small band of warfaring alliances.  Of course if they declared war  on the small band of warfare alliances the forum would go crazy about how they are attacking smaller alliances.  

I would add that even if you did expect to play a wargame without expecting to be in war.  You certainly can't expect to play a wargame have an alliance declare war and then not expect to get attacked.  

As i've said if you want to play a game where all you do is build up and there is no warfare go play the sims.  You can build a city and your neighboring cities won't try and rampage through your city no matter what.  

Oh PLEASE stop that nonsense about 2 to 8 declarations...

Sages did 1 declaration on H? and got 2 declarations back from NC and DLord.  Smaller scale, but same setup.

Yes, Hadus. You're complete right about those compromisses, but even a pacifist has the right to apply onto common logic of the challenger, when it comes to, let's say, herb plots just before the doorstep.

If formulated nicely, it works sometimes