| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Silverlake 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 417
|
 Posted: 11 Aug 2012 at 05:18 |
 Rill wrote:
I can feel for the larger alliances in such a dispute. |
Oh please, this is a little guy against a big guy, and hypocrisy is transparent.
|
 |
Myr
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 May 2011
Location: Orlando, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 437
|
Posted: 11 Aug 2012 at 01:53 |
In this situation, the smaller alliance was there long before the larger alliance. The larger alliance decided they want that spot, the smaller alliance will fight as best they can for as long as they can but they don't stand a chance. The larger alliance isn't interested in agreements or sharing, just getting the spot for themselves.
Rill, you and I disagree on many things, but I don't think you would ever allow your alliance to attack a square that is being held by a smaller alliance.
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
Posted: 11 Aug 2012 at 01:23 |
Rill wrote:
Myr wrote:
LoS, they SHOULD be easily solved, but won't always be. Even now there is a page one top 10 alliance trying to knock a much smaller alliance off of a resource the smaller alliance held first. Some of the larger alliances have enough military power to do that when ever and where ever they like. I think we will see a lot of it simply due to arrogance. |
I can feel for the larger alliances in such a dispute. They have as much a right to compete as anyone, and if "you are bigger so you lose" is the default, that's not very fun for them either. I can say from experience as a leader of a not-as-small-as-we-once-were alliance that the line between being kind and giving everyone a chance and letting people walk all over you is a difficult one to discern. I can only imagine how hard it would be for a top 10 alliance.
I have been thinking in such situations one option would be to have a competition, sort of a king of the hill competition for a set period of time to determine the owner of a square. The result could be the "winner" receiving 75% share and the "loser" receiving a 25% share. That way everyone has fun, and in many ways everyone wins in the end.
Am interested in what people think of this. |
Great idea, unfortunately I don't think its applicable.
A tournament or competition becomes impossible to control when the sides start getting help from other alliances. Then the bickering continues about who broke what rules in what order and what the consequences should/are for that.
If a square is a big deal to you, fight for it. If not, don't fight for it. If you are unable to fight for it, then wait. Come up with a good game plan, and strike when the moment is right.
|
|
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 11 Aug 2012 at 01:13 |
Myr wrote:
LoS, they SHOULD be easily solved, but won't always be. Even now there is a page one top 10 alliance trying to knock a much smaller alliance off of a resource the smaller alliance held first. Some of the larger alliances have enough military power to do that when ever and where ever they like. I think we will see a lot of it simply due to arrogance. |
I can feel for the larger alliances in such a dispute. They have as much a right to compete as anyone, and if "you are bigger so you lose" is the default, that's not very fun for them either. I can say from experience as a leader of a not-as-small-as-we-once-were alliance that the line between being kind and giving everyone a chance and letting people walk all over you is a difficult one to discern. I can only imagine how hard it would be for a top 10 alliance.
I have been thinking in such situations one option would be to have a competition, sort of a king of the hill competition for a set period of time to determine the owner of a square. The result could be the "winner" receiving 75% share and the "loser" receiving a 25% share. That way everyone has fun, and in many ways everyone wins in the end.
Am interested in what people think of this.
|
|
Myr
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 May 2011
Location: Orlando, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 437
|
Posted: 11 Aug 2012 at 01:00 |
|
LoS, they SHOULD be easily solved, but won't always be. Even now there is a page one top 10 alliance trying to knock a much smaller alliance off of a resource the smaller alliance held first. Some of the larger alliances have enough military power to do that when ever and where ever they like. I think we will see a lot of it simply due to arrogance.
|
|
LordOfTheSwamp
Forum Warrior
Joined: 23 May 2011
Location: Swamp of Fyrgis
Status: Offline
Points: 481
|
Posted: 09 Aug 2012 at 16:54 |
JimJams wrote:
I think many people sent out armies to hold spots regardless of position. But I am also sure most of them will just step back if asked. So I suggest you to just contact him, and ask politely to move away. If this doesn't work, ask his alliance leadership.
We are all a little foolish those days because of the news, (included me), but I am confident all those issues can be easily solved.
|
From my limited perspective, it looks like all these issues are being resolved amicably where-ever both parties wish to do so - and that is in almost all cases.
This isn't a big statistical sample, but from a Lords of Frost perspective, I'm aware of 6 "resource disputes" in the last week. 3 were resolved by individual players dropping one another an email. 1 is ongoing, but nobody seems much bothered - all perfectly friendly. 1 involved a slightly more official "on behalf of the Alliance" type email, but still led to a friendly resolution
That's 5/6 being easily sorted by people being decent and pleasant. It's testament to the friendly attitude of many of the Aliances up in the north - EE, Camelot, etc.
I guess a lot of us settled up here to get away from potential conflict, so maybe this is unrepresentative, but certainly my limited experience supports JimJams' expectation. These issues should be easily resolved, and generally are.
|
|
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.
|
|
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
|
Posted: 07 Aug 2012 at 21:40 |
Rill wrote:
Salararius wrote:
Another thing people might want to consider is animals. Without an army on a rare resource you risk loosing your specialist gatherers to animals. Cotters aren't such a big deal to replace, requiring just a tiny amount of gold. Having to keep building specialists costs you herbs/minerals/skins that for an individual with a big city (less cotters) might be less abundant.
|
This has been changed so that incoming animals will not kill harvesters. As long as there are no live animals on a square when your harvester lands, it will be OK. It is NOT necessary to occupy a square with an army to protect a harvester from animals, only to ensure that there are not live animals there when they arrive, either by sweeping with an army directly before their arrival or for short harvesting runs checking to make sure there are no animals incoming to the square. |
That's the advantage of parking an army there. One soldier can protect your gatherers from a legion, myriad, etc... of animals. How big an army do you send out to sweep plots? The game also provides no easy mechanism to coordinate arrival times. Sure sweeping would work, but what is the advantage and how do others know you have incoming gatherers that will not bump? I started off not parking armies. But other people gunning for the same places and then animals made it just painful and impractical. I have armies of 1 on all the rare resources I'm harvesting and I've negotiated out the division with all my neighbors.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 07 Aug 2012 at 21:09 |
Salararius wrote:
Another thing people might want to consider is animals. Without an army on a rare resource you risk loosing your specialist gatherers to animals. Cotters aren't such a big deal to replace, requiring just a tiny amount of gold. Having to keep building specialists costs you herbs/minerals/skins that for an individual with a big city (less cotters) might be less abundant.
|
This has been changed so that incoming animals will not kill harvesters. As long as there are no live animals on a square when your harvester lands, it will be OK. It is NOT necessary to occupy a square with an army to protect a harvester from animals, only to ensure that there are not live animals there when they arrive, either by sweeping with an army directly before their arrival or for short harvesting runs checking to make sure there are no animals incoming to the square.
|
|
Loud Whispers
Wordsmith
Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Location: Saltmines
Status: Offline
Points: 196
|
Posted: 07 Aug 2012 at 19:53 |
Rashaverak wrote:
A new player has more important things to do than worry about what equipment to give their commander. |
Likewise new players shouldn't have to worry about armies parked right next to their villages, especially for those who've recently moved from more aggressive RTS games to Illy. And unfortunately since scarce resources have been invested this large value into them, they are going to inevitably seem very valuable to new players as well.
|
"These forums are a Godwin's Law free zone."~GM Luna
|
|
Rashaverak
New Poster
Joined: 12 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 14
|
Posted: 07 Aug 2012 at 18:30 |
|
Of course newer players will be at a disadvantage in regards to accessing nodes; that's how it should work, especially in the more crowded regions. Once the trade hubs get established I think they'll be able to buy what they need. A new player has more important things to do than worry about what equipment to give their commander. Illyriad is a slow game, a new player should not expect to be able to do everything without difficulty or consequence.
|
|
The one-and-only Wallace Wells of Cave of Knowledge
|
|
Tweet
Rare Res and their Armies
