| Author |
|
LordOfTheSwamp
Forum Warrior
Joined: 23 May 2011
Location: Swamp of Fyrgis
Status: Offline
Points: 481
|
Posted: 13 Nov 2011 at 11:04 |
Mr Damage wrote:
Seem to remember a similar issue a while back, now what happened there? Oh yeah big player was not happy with a smaller player being close to his city................you all know the story, the bullying word got bandied about, anyway territorial claims are quite within the rules, quite a realistic method too, boom tish! Its a bit hypocritical on H's behalf considering their previous actions but I see it as unavoidable for not just H but all of us so I support the tactic, lets see how it goes from here with the rest of the alliances. |
Broadly: "what he said".
On the fine print: it is not hypocritical of H? to claim the right to approve settlements within X of their holdings. They have never said, AFAIK, that anyone shouldn't do this. Of course there has been outcry over this sort of thing before, and if anyone were inclined to scream and shout in previous incidents, it would be fair to accuse them of hypocrisy if they didn't make noise now.
|
|
"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.
|
 |
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 13 Nov 2011 at 11:28 |
|
hypocritical? no no my dears.. subjects may move their towns if they want to accommodate the player that requests such move.. if not, may get removed by force. sorry but newbies get enough privileges in this game. this is simply the rule.
|
 |
Binky the Berserker
Forum Warrior
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 257
|
Posted: 13 Nov 2011 at 12:17 |
sounds pretty much like the same tactic an Austrian painter used to go for. "I want that area." some time later: "I also want that area." Just going on and on until it was almost to late to stop him and millions died because others gave in to the first requests. Glad no one dies in illy, but still...
Edit: This post is not meant as an insult. Great tactic to control the server.
Edited by Binky the Berserker - 13 Nov 2011 at 12:25
|
 |
Truth
Greenhorn
Joined: 07 Oct 2011
Location: Truth
Status: Offline
Points: 57
|
Posted: 13 Nov 2011 at 13:27 |
|
I can understand the 10 square rule if an alliance had a big hub of one area on the map. However, H?'s members have towns all over the map. So, this request or I mean order by H? is an unfair one. Like a few members said already, this method can be abused by H? members all over the map by simply moving a town in an area, thus causing turmoil.
How is this request much different then the alliance that got sieged out of the game for stating claim to one territory on the map? The alliance said they would siege any non member on the map that moved in the territory. H? and the coalition did not like this and sieged them out of the game. Here H? is now doing what they did not like in the past and it is okay now. Irony at its best.
I feel it is time for a new server as well.
|
 |
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 13 Nov 2011 at 13:34 |
Truth wrote:
I can understand the 10 square rule if an alliance had a big hub of one area on the map. However, H?'s members have towns all over the map. So, this request or I mean order by H? is an unfair one. Like a few members said already, this method can be abused by H? members all over the map by simply moving a town in an area, thus causing turmoil.
How is this request much different then the alliance that got sieged out of the game for stating claim to one territory on the map? The alliance said they would siege any non member on the map that moved in the territory. H? and the coalition did not like this and sieged them out of the game. Here H? is now doing what they did not like in the past and it is okay now. Irony at its best.
I feel it is time for a new server as well. |
And that statement is based... on what exactly? easy, H? is kind-hearted and will let the people MOVE before actually sieging (if it comes to that). btw, claiming a whole region is weary different from this. still grudges from the TMM affair? groundless statement. first H? doesn't give "annexation of demolition " option as the TMM. as i said this IS different. if you can't see this then.. you can't tell irony from sarcasm.
|
 |
Thexion
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 258
|
Posted: 13 Nov 2011 at 13:38 |
|
I think its just common courtesy to discuss first if you plan to build your new city less than 10 squares from someone including harmless.
|
 |
Celebcalen
Forum Warrior
Joined: 18 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 288
|
Posted: 13 Nov 2011 at 14:02 |
|
If past examples are anything to go by it is unlikely that H? will compromise the the position on this imposed 10 square rule, which after all does in part reflect the some of the preconditions of Tenaril's transportation spell.
Perhaps it is not so much that fact they have raised a notification but more the way in which they have done so that provokes a reaction from , StJude, Binky and others. I am a little surprised that Mr D is so vocal in his opposition.
On the other hand we have the former ordinary Valar member Kurdruk and Kurfist both defending H? against accusations of hypocrisy as well as accepting the dominant position (and posturing) of the Harmless? alliance.
What it boils down is this, when a newbe has their settlemenet razed by an H? player - NOTHING will be done. No one will defend the newbe , for fear of losing a city, for breaking an H? siege ( as we saw in the Valar war) and players like Kudruk, Kurfist and others will openly support H? for their actions.
Actually the majority of players have not read this thread and those who have by and large couldn't really care one way or the other so long as it doesn't interfere with their personal enjoyment of what is rapidly become a social networking vehicle.
Someone said that this is another H? tactic to dominate the land. It isn't. All it is - is the equivalent of some red neck farmer on a any hot sunny day raising his 12 bore and saying "Get off my land! Get!
Kumo, KP and Lawn love to revel in the supremacy of the alliance to which they belong and they also get a kick out of rubbing other players noses in it and that is all that this thread is about. So what?
Unless you are prepared to develop a backbone and put your cities on the line then there is no point in complaining.
|
 |
Sloter
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 304
|
Posted: 13 Nov 2011 at 14:11 |
|
It is Thexion, in areas where there is not many players, but like i said in one post what about central regions like Middle kingdom.I have many new players within 10 sq.They dont use move option and just continue to settle new cities in that area where they spawn in first place.Am i to tell them all "get lost" when they settle their second city?
Also what about NPC hubs.In one area there is one player from Invictus and H? within 10 sq of NPC hub, and our player has cluster there so if he wants to settle his 4th or 5th city near his first cities he is first to discus it with H? neighbour when settling his 5th city where he already has 4 cities?
I think that 10sq rule could work but you need to define where and in which situations.Cos if you only say that nobody settles within 10sq anywhere on map near your cities without discusing you will have hard time keeping that rule.You are large alliance and you are spread all over the map, there will be many situation that are in grey zone if you dont define 10 sq rule
|
 |
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
Posted: 13 Nov 2011 at 16:38 |
|
All responses are as expected - you people are pretty predictable - even down to the proof of Godwin's law (thanks Binky).
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
 |
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 13 Nov 2011 at 16:44 |
|
More than a bit I would say....
but hey, thats hardly new.
|
 |