What do you think the demands are?  Why do you think those demands are ridiculous?

The essential element of war is breaking the will of the opponent to continue to resist.  

Players that choose to leave Illy because their will has been broken are free to do so.  Many players have simply exited the warring alliances to non-warring alliances when their will has been broken.  

In Illy, only the player himself can take himself out of the game by quitting.

CK, if you are not enjoying Illy for what it is - entertainment - then you should either find a way to enjoy Illy or move on to a new entertainment venue.  

Emotional Blackmail will not work, though.

Seems to me your 'mother' alliance was one of the earliest aggressors. If aggressors are vanquished they're usually required to make reparation to the victors. Fairly straightforward, and normal practice.

You say then : "One knight costs 5800 gold, we lost 100000, so we want  580.000.000 gold !!!" 

With regard to the question of why someone might quit the game as a result of this war ...

I personally prefer to focus on the many lovely people who play Illyriad rather than the few folks who are unpleasant or distasteful.  Others might decide that the balance is such that they are no longer willing to do so.

As for no one looking down on peaceful players, nothing is further from the truth.  I have frequently been jeered, insulted and singled out simply for proposing that those who enjoy war should war and leave those who don't enjoy war out of it.  And that is merely for expressing my opinion -- not for any actions I took that would limit the freedom of others to engage in the game as they see fit.

There are those who believe in attempting to impose their will through brute force and there are those who choose instead to employ persuasion.  Others might use a mixture of these strategies.  This is a sandbox.  I'm not sure there is a "should" about it.  What will be, will be.  The only question is whether one wishes to hang around to see what it becomes.  Very much up to the individual.

Excuse me, but in this huge map populated by thousands of players, this makes no sense. 

Similar things that make no sense are : 

• Quitting your job because the parking guy in the lobby - 30 stories down - is a jerk and mistreats people.
• Getting a divorce because two blocks away there is a drunk who is making his wife miserable.
• Selling your car because you hate cruise ships down in the harbor
• Demolishing your house because in the woods you saw someone living in a cave.

etc etc ... 

Would you take these people seriously .?. Really .?.

In such a huge map you can't say "hey I do not like a couple of people out of all those thousands, so I am outta here" and expect anyone to take that into consideration. So many people to meet, so many different alliances with many different purposes, so many things to do and enjoy and IN SAFETY, but somehow they are bothered by a war fought by others so they pack up and leave .?. 

Don't they know that in any amount of people (let alone a few thousands like here) there will be an assortment of the characteristics that one sees in real life .?. Do they quit their real life and go become hermits just because some people far away do things they do not like .?. No, they do not !

But here they demand everyone to behave in a saintly manner (of their definition, of course ) or else they'll leave !! ( maybe they'd like to venture in other communities and take a look at the veritable trollstorm and jerkmaelstorm that is raging in most of the internet and appreciate that this community here is imho among the best in such games )

If they are so unreasonable what are we supposed to do about that .?.  Send players they do not like in behavioural rehab .?. Bribe those players back and promise them millions of gold or a couple of free cities  .?. Should we enwall a place in the server were PvP is prohibited (the DEVs did that for the expansion, so this makes their excuses even thinner ) .?. 

If the people's personalities are their problem, war or peace, those personalities will still be around, so what exactly do these people want in this case .?.

However, we all have choice in Illy and in real life, and people are free to move from the hostilities of war and into move peaceful alliances if they wish. Some might even want to do that as a form of temporary sanctuary from the war - this too is a possibility in real life and in Illy.

Let those who want to rant and rave and drag on a war ad nauseum do so, and those who don't want to participate find other ways to enhance their enjoyment of the game.

Noone said the opposite.

Cool, I am all for that and I am just pointing out that what people claim to find "unpleasant" actually exist EVERYWHERE and there is no way to participate in any social interaction (even in something as innocuous hobby like joining a church choir) and not meet some people that will be petty or arrogant or selfish or pure jerks. It is a simple fact of life (and it is only enhanched in the internet)

So, I am just pointing out that using a war that OTHERS FIGHT is a very poor excuse for leaving the game. I respect their decision, but I cannot sympathize with it. I would by all means sympathize with someone getting attacked and pushed out of the game, but people that are not even IN the war, nagging and leaving about it .?. Sorry, but I just can't take them seriously ... 

 As for the person who asked how does the war affect those of us not directly involved in it? Well. The trade alliances are definitely affected. There have been tense moments in the very verbal war where trade and traiining alliances were afraid of trading with anyone involved in the war due to being seen as a sympathizer and get pulled into the war. Is it fair to other players not affiliated with the war to be singled out for hostile intentions?

Another part of this is that many people previously in accounts in the war have abandoned and then come back. Some started new alliances prop or con the war movements. Others have tried sneaking into the sides camps with alts. This has created distrust in dealings with strangers. Does that affect non affiliated players or peaceful alliances? I say yes.

The longer the war goes on, the more far reaching do the effects of this war have on the entire Illy community. Therefore, I do not find it offensive in hearing a player say they just want it to end. Because whether you are an affiliated member or a silent unaffiliated player, the war has definitely affected players. From trade to hostilities in gc. 

I too would like to see this war ended. Not necessarily taking sides on right but rather that the effects have become tiresome.

and we dont live in fear even if we're being attacked by your affiliations.

Prologue: I'm a complete newb, and admittedly feel a little out of my league posting in this thread with some of the big heavy hitters in here.

Having played some intense sand box type games before, thinking mainly of Eve-Online and DarkFall, I don't understand the side that says, "stop attacking us or we will leave the game."  I want to understand and I am listening.

My current perspective is summed up in a few points:

- If everyone else has to play a certain way for you to have fun, you are going to have a bad time.

- As Illyriad's popularity continues to grow there will more often be players who will not accept your community rules, ideals, ethos. (edit: By community rules, I mean the rules that the community has made up, like the 10-square rule, and the no attacking me rules - not the rules enforced by the devs/community managers)

- If this is a sandbox game, then people playing differently then you are not wrong.

- If your character in a game is at war, you can still be civil to the people behind the characters.

- Dying is fun. (Dwarf Fortress Trademark)

- If you build something you don't want destroyed in a game that allows annoymous people to destroy it, you are going to have a bad time.

- The sweet spots in Illyriad are finite.  Other people do/will want yours.

- Interesting conflicts will make more people join then leave.

No doubt some will agree and disagree strongly.  I reserve the right to change my mind.

Yours humbly,

--The player behind WeeAshley

Well, I totally agree on those and I'd like to add something about the people that say "we spent money/time on our towns, we do not want to see them destroyed." 

Ok, this is reasonable, BUT why should they be destroyed .?. It is not set in stone that you will lose ! Don't you want the challenge to make your towns better and better and better .?. How will this be achieved if someone doesn't challenge you .?. 

I attacked someone with a larger account during the war and he was without ANY defence whatsoever - no wards, no thieves, no blights (no mana blights landed on him O_o), no assassins, no sabs, no spears ... just plain cavalry aaaaall the way, so he counter-attacked and smashed all my cities.

And now .?. He fixed most of all those problems and his defence is rock solid and he immediately raised the antes and we are still at it and with a great spirit, I'd say, and in a quite polite manner between us ( as you said a conflict in a game, does not equate rudeness nor bad behaviour ). Didn't the war make him use his knowledge of the game and actually implement more and more of the game mechanics instead of sitting placidly on his huge population account thinking that noone will ever attack him .?. 

It did and frankly I am happy about it because instead of the usual nag one can meet in such cases, he behaved honourably and we are both enjoying the challenge of trying to outwit each other and this is FUN ! What is a game without a challenge, anyway .?.  

Just my two cents on the matter ... 

Oh, would you STOP... You declared war, you got involved, and now you are AT war.

Initially you had 6 Consone alliances against one (Harmless).. didn't here you shouting how unfair that was. Let's look at another ... How many are at war with VIC, that is us against one well... OH WAIT, no it isn't, because you are all basically one big confederation of allaince who work together yet are separate to some undefinable extent. 

Therefore, you being at war, makes those who are IN the war also against you. So it isn't just us against WE and you complaining how unfair it is.. it is us against Consone alliances. WE does not wish to get out of the war, WE desires to stay and in continue IN the war. If you wanted out you could have taken the myriad of opportunities we gave you (more than any other alliances in this war) and the initial negotiations were very very reasonable.

War is what War is, it is one group(s) stating we will militarily force you to submit or wipe you down to a point where whether or not you verbally will submit, your reduction forces places you in a position where logistical opposition is almost non-existent.

When Consone chose to go 6 on 1 against Harmless, that was their intent. When Harmless friends got involved, we said we will take your challenge and make it our own goal. 

You stepped into the war, as did we... surrender and make peace, or continue till peace is made. In either case.. peace will come.. soon or eventually.. it is your decision as to when. We offer it now - surrender.. or you can choose to continue the war.. that is YOUR choice and thus the war continues based on YOU.

See, having more allies in the attack just sounds smart to me - not insulting at all.  I mean, if you are going to battle it makes sense to stack the deck in your favour. No?  I'd hate to play other games with someone that said stuff like this:

Risk: "Big talk from someone... who has more armies than me."

Monopoly: "Big talk from someone... who has more money than me."

Tennis: "Big talk from someone... who has taken more lessons than me."

Football: "Big talk from someone... who has more superbowl wins than me."

Crazy 8s: "Big talk from someone... who has more 8s than me."

I admittedly don't get it.  My best guess is that it has something to do with those parents who let their child win at games too often.

“Never fight fair with a stranger, boy. You'll never get out of the jungle that way.”

―  http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/8120.Arthur_Miller" rel="nofollow - Arthur Miller ,  http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6556574" rel="nofollow - Death of a Salesman

Edit: quote formatting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6wOt2iXdc4 " rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6wOt2iXdc4 

In the words of George Carlin ... 

But why don't those who don't want war just find a new alliance that isn't fighting?  H? and company seem more interested in ending consone than tracking down it's individual members who choose to flee.  I'm sure it wouldn't be an easy choice, but no one is forcing anyone to stay and fight!

To take up on our discussion from this morning, I don´t think it is THAT easy, due to different causes:

As you said yourself, and the threads with copious ammounts of posts trying to proof that the own side is the "right one", there is a code of civility involved that "should" be kept up. But quite obviously the notion of civility, and more important here, the extent of it, might be percieved quite differently. In many cases in real-life the ganging up of many persons against another single persion would be percieved as the epitome of anti-civilizedness, because it is so obviously unfair, no matter how logical it may be from the point of realpolitics.

You may say, that this is just a game, but again the character of the game and the extent of it might be seen quite differently. This game is complex enough to be played by players just interested in building up towns, trading, crafting and interacting with NPC´s, Tournaments and chatting with friends. For people that are playing it (mainly) for those reasons it can get quite uncomfortable and "unfair" (because against the perceived character of the game) to be "draged" into a war as a "victim" (of course a matter of perception again, for all of us here. And frankly, I don´t buy the account of any of those two opposing factions here to 100% though i tend to believe H? more. Just to reveal where I am standing in this issue). I would not be suprised or really pissed off if I would play a game of Risk (hope the game has that name in english too^^), or for that matter any strategy game, and the others are fighting me or even banging up on me. But i would very surly not play a game of Settlers of Catan (or other building-up-games) again with people that are just playing against me.

To the issue of the extent of the game: your notion of civility seems to be aiming at the meta-level, but other people might be taking the game-level much more serious than you. And I don´t think it´s dump or an error of category, but I think humans usually do it least to some degree with made-up things like games or the arts (obviously you are taking "real" fun in the game here, wich is of course good :) others take fictious novels somehow seriously and can get something for their RL out of it on this account, what is of course also a good thing. I am starting my paper for University I am working on with a citation from Frank Herberst "Dune" for example^^). But players taking for example their towns much more serious than you can really have big problems with other players destroying their towns (because they see them as under the protection of civility (that is on the "real" sinde of the game), they extend it to the towns, you just refer to the meta-level with your notion. So you end up in disagreement without anybody beeing "right" or "irrational" in my humble opinion). And I am not saying this because my parents let me win, I lost for more than a year chess against my father before stopping it, and more often than not I am not even the 2nd in my playing-evenings with 3 other friends nowerdays.

That leeds to the motivation, and a more general remark on what some other distinguished players have written here. Of course persons can play games for the challange and contest (never understood that, I seem to be a reborn egalitarian stone-age hunter-gatherer), but another motivation is to have fun interacting with the environment and other players. And there are quite obviously players NOT enjoying that part of Illy if war and agressive interaction is involved. There were niches for those players in the past and now, and I really hope there will be niches for them in the future (that´s why I will stick to the training alliance, of course next to the joy of helping others), otherwise I would leave here, not because the other players are mean (they are just playing what they perceive a fair game), but because I just don´t enjoy playing war and challenging other people or be challenged by them. From personal and intellectual experience I can just say that I don´t think that that tend to make a person better in any aspects of existence i deem productive (totally personal judement of course, probably at least partially wrong, because it worked somehow for quite some time in human history). And I think that´s at least to some part that what Rill and Sliveen also pointed out, when people see there perception of the character of this game falsified (for example because they beleif the Consone-cause and see "innocent victims" beeing pushed out without having done anything wrong (and so see themselves as no-wrong-doers endangered)) or there way of playing and enjoying this game (trade/chatting) impinged upon, they could quit. 

Sorry for the bad english, but reading and writing are different things 

Jane, You are partly correct.

There are certain players that will lose cities so the war will follow them.

There are certain cities that must Exodus so the war will follow them.

Now keep in mind, if most players in an alliance exit and leave behind a small core of warring members, those remaining members will not have the economic wherewithal to pay the reparations required for peace.  So this could result in a "death spiral."  This is not the goal of the Coalition but if these alliances choose the path of White I doubt the Coalition will blink an eye in hesitation.

"Consone", to be or not to be.    Once all warring parties have made peace, no one cares about what Confeds/NAPs are made (AFTER the war is concluded.)  

As to the Nom d'Guerre "Consone" -The Coalition does not want to hear about how great, mighty, and fearsome Consone is anymore.  

From the perspective of the Coalition, Consone came to being with a lot of bragging about being invincible and, soon, many in Illy began experiencing a dramatic spike in attacks from Consone players.  From the perspective of the Coalition, Consone appeared to think it was above reproach. 

My personal experience was that Consone had ZERO interest in behaving nicely - RES was attacked many times and Consone refused at every turn to make reparations or even agree to cease such wanton aggression against RES.  Consone even asked RES to join the war with them against Coalition - despite refusing to make things right with RES - and when that request was refused, Consone sent a siege against RES.

So, I think it would be wise for the survivors to abandon the brand name "Consone."  Their misbehavior destroyed the brand and it will never represent a peaceful confederation.

The foregoing is not a topic for debate.  I am simply advising as to how peace will come - whether sooner (by accepting the terms on the table) or later (through destruction).

  That is why I am  in a training alliance tired of leaders never saying anything or asking  their allince if it want's to go to war.

You may be somewhat forgetful...

but WE entered the war on their own volition...

http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Diplomacy/165

This is not a lesson in physics- actions do not always equal, nor opposite reactions...

Use of brute force is, in my opinion, one of the least interesting (and ultimately least effective) ways to get things done in Illyriad.

Whether my opinion turns out to be validated by the events of this particular war or the longer arc of Illyrian history remains to be seen.  In fact, it may be one of those things about which reasonable people will perpetually disagree.

 

• Be considerate and kind to other players."

Hey Rill!  Hope everything is awesome! :)

I think you and I agree overall.  And I'm not just saying that because you are one of my favourite people in the game.  Thanks again for helping me out so much in the first couple days!

This for sure makes it interesting from my perspective!  I particularly like the influencing bit.  My only footnote would be: there are lots of equally permissible ideas of what you should do.  Mine is one of them.  Listening to others ideas is only going to make my position stronger and/or better.

I would suggest that posts along the line of "I'm quitting because I don't like war games and omg some people play this as a war game wtf they are playing it wrong!!!"  would indicate that someone was not prepared for what is clearly part of the game.

I don't know - are we really that different in our view points?

BSH is fast learning from RES! First "Masters" and now "Gods"? 

I mean, 'abiding' was not enough for you, now you need to worship them?

Wannabe wargamers never wage war between them, they always go for someone who doesn't want war. If you are not prepared for war, it will find you. It is as simple as that.

I think the main difference between our ostensible positions is that I would advocate for interfering as little as possible in other people's way of playing Illyriad.  There are those who would contend that me advocating for this view is a way of interfering, by attempting to influence; they are correct.  However, others also have to freedom to mock me, insult me or completely tune me out -- as many do.  There are those who would say that I could achieve my aims more effectively by acting directly, such as by joining one side or another of the war.  Those people miss my point, or possibly deliberately ignore it, I'm not sure with.

I also acknowledged that this is a standard that I attempt to meet -- I do not claim to have perfected it.  It is, as I attempted to articulate, a struggle for balance.

To keep it on topic, I'll reiterate what I and others have said before.  The war will end when both sides want peace enough to be able to agree on terms.  This will likely happen sometime in the next year or two, but maybe not.  

And by the way, calling yourselves the gods of Illyriad is kind of obnoxious, in my opinion.  I can't imagine it will be helpful in the long term.  

Rorgash

And I like how Rorgash says the gods will change over time - how obnoxious is that?!

Fair enough.. I will back out and leave the rest to you all

This is, frankly, an absurd portrayal of current events.  BSH, RES, and H? are all coalitionally at war with the alliances of Consone.  Your all fighting everyone on the other side, as I believe you have actually said, directly or indirectly.  In turn, they are all directly or indirectly fighting you.

I can't read in to what exactly he might have meant, and I won't try.  But a reasonable, unbiased reading would not be able to avoid the conclusion that he was referring to himself and his allies.    

Your comments betray your claims of being unbiased.

But if you think the only reasonable God of Illyriad is me, OK.  I can live with that.  

What, to know it's harder to fight a war when there are more people attacking you?  My vast network of spies and minions told me this after months of exhaustive research.  

Of course I have some biases, every human does.  But I would hazard the guess I have fewer than the leader of an engaged alliance, who would have absolutely no interest at all in spinning the potential missteps of his allies.  

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  

So, expressing an opinion is interfering with how people play, but sieging people is not using brute force?

Seriously?

Human nature does allow for many things I don´t like, that does not stop me from being a human being and quitting my existence. We are not gas that fills out every possible corner of the given room, we can think and thereby restrain from some things and open up other things. And usually that is what humankind is doing, even in "bad times" (at least to a certain degree), so from my knowledge of my race and my experience here I am playing here because i feel I am quite secure where I actually am, even the parties of this war tried to make that clear (as they still wanted to be the good guys). But right now you are the only person telling me I am going to get crashed no matter how civilized I am bevaing, I can live with that, as long as the majority and the big guys are saying it. So right now my communal declaration this game is not like you discribe it and thats why some players are here...

why are you back on page 10 :)

 

I think it is fair to say that Consone no longer have any military clout in Illyriad ( which is probably the reason a number of leaders from lesser alliances have joined H? in the prosecution of their war).

 

However, if Consone are no longer a threat militarily then why prolong the war any longer?  Various peace offers have been made but it seems that the Coalition ( or rather H?) will not accept them because they want Consone as an entity to cease to exist. I would understand this position if Consone were capable of becoming a military threat in the future  but as we have seen , in practise, they are no longer able to do that Therefore it seem logical , to me that peace negotiations should at least begin without the bitterness and rancour that we have seen over the last few weeks.

 

As this war drags on and the forums continue to become inflammed with bitter and provocative threads -  so the eminity and anger between to the sides seems to grow and it times it is becoming very personalised. Without doubt players are starting to quit the game because of the way this war is dragging on.  I think that there is real danger more players will quit and perhaps alliances may disband when there was no need nor justification for that to happen.

 

There is more to success in the sandbox, that is Illyriad,  than just knowing how to prosecute a war.  If a leader really wants positive success for his/her alliance then s/he must also know how to bring about "peace and reconciliation" . This is not Travian. This is "Illyriad"!

 

If both protagonists seem unable to negotiate peace directly then I support the idea of peace being brokered by an intermediatory and the sooner the better.

 

I think the community in Illy would all rather be looking forward to the impact and opportunities of the new Broken Lands expansion than they would reading inflammatary posts about this war. Lets solve it get it out the way and move on....

 

 

 

Please do not project your thoughts and innermost wishes to other people. 

Aurordan wrote: Rorgash wrote: "- As Illyriad's popularity continues to grow there will more often be players who will not accept your community rules, ideals, ethos." This part is protected by the ancient gods of Illyriad, and as such will be protected. but being gods and not written stone tablets these might change over time. Soup tried and failed in challenging the gods, and in so failed to implement their own rules, ideals and ethos. Rorgash

I could be wrong, but Rorgash is roleplaying an orc, so I have noticed that he he is prone to such over-the-top remarks ... or at least that is how I perceive them ... as role-playing. 

Apart from that noone is considering, or claiming, to be neither "master" nor "god" nor any such similar epithet of the game, apart from the DEVs.