| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
waylander69 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Location: spain
Status: Offline
Points: 316
|
 Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 11:09 |
 col0005 wrote:
Part of me say's yes, but another part of me say's that it's kind of cool to have a hostile, player faction, limited to a certain area. Could we perhaps just really hurt their leadership as a message, say one major city each and petition the GM's to dis-allow newbie spawning in the area.
Oh and re-activate teleport for those already in the area. |
Col, why should we then just hand over a large area to an alliance that turns round and says this is our land, join us or die....whats to stop all alliances doing the same thing...i think the actions of the alliances involved are the right one, leave it up to players to decide whats right and wrong in the game.
|
 |
Mr Andersson
Greenhorn
Joined: 03 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 56
|
Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 11:12 |
col0005 wrote:
Part of me say's yes, but another part of me say's that it's kind of cool to have a hostile, player faction, limited to a certain area. Could we perhaps just really hurt their leadership as a message, say one major city each and petition the GM's to dis-allow newbie spawning in the area.
Oh and re-activate teleport for those already in the area. |
I don't like this idea at all. Why should some areas be off limit for spawning of new players just because a few players which so? I don't mind the concept of claiming territory and I can see the possibility for a more protective stance within regions when the option to resettle come in to play.
Therefor I much prefer a longer beginner protection and the possibility to for new players to resettle to other location. That way they can choose if they which to stay and join, or settle else where. The possibility to stay and not join is always there I guess. But, that would only be theoretical as we could never have such long protection periods for new players as to build up a defense capable of holding off whole alliances and fight for their independence in a claimed territory.
TMM have choose and stance that is not really reasonable (my subjective opinion) based on the present game mechanisms. This has been acknowledged bye most people in the game, hence the development during the last month.
Edited by Mr Andersson - 23 Nov 2010 at 11:13
|
|
MrA
|
|
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 13:08 |
Look the truth is from a moral point of view I totally agree, but from a flavour of the game side i like it. Could we perhaps speak the GM's about it. Perhaps still kill off the leadership to discorage other alliances following suit, but allow the lesser members to continue as they are. If the GM's change the mechanics just for this area it would solve the problem of new players leaving the game as well as adda character to the area.
Obviously we'd only ask the GM's to step in once the war had been won.
By the way, I am in no way supporting TMM methods and behaviour i'm just trying to point out how we could use this situation to further improve the game, not just maintain what is already good
|
|
Mr Andersson
Greenhorn
Joined: 03 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 56
|
Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 13:38 |
The dev interest are off course also to get players to stay in the game, but a specific solution for a specific alliance is just too much for me. We as players pass judgement, the dev provide opportunities/possibilities. That is how I think it should work I'm quite convinced that if this was a real problem actually killing the game, some dev solutions would have been introduced already (which was not alliance/player specific). Yes a few players might have left the game because of harassment from TMM but I dont think it is significantly impacting the destiny of this game
I believe that it actually is the moral point that is causing the commotion we now see. People feel that all new players deserve a chance and they see that they can do something about it, so they do. The situation obviously provides many players with the opportunity for some action as well - regardless of their view of the situation the pick the winning side to get some of the cake. I think the whole situation that has developed attracts player to the game rather then drive them off (in general term speaking)
Edited by Mr Andersson - 23 Nov 2010 at 13:39
|
|
MrA
|
|
Zangi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295
|
Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 15:09 |
col0005 wrote:
Look the truth is from a moral point of view I totally agree, but from a flavour of the game side i like it. Could we perhaps speak the GM's about it. Perhaps still kill off the leadership to discorage other alliances following suit, but allow the lesser members to continue as they are. If the GM's change the mechanics just for this area it would solve the problem of new players leaving the game as well as adda character to the area.
Obviously we'd only ask the GM's to step in once the war had been won.
By the way, I am in no way supporting TMM methods and behaviour i'm just trying to point out how we could use this situation to further improve the game, not just maintain what is already good |
GMs have no place in this.
It is in the hands of the players. They have to maintain neutrality... else people will accuse them of being biased curs. That is worse then doing nothing for the longevity of the game. How can I trust the GMs to not step in whenever someone goes crying to them to intervene if they do so here? If TMM exploited bugs. That is in the realm of GM interference, where other players would have no hand in it. TMM action is purely legal from a mechanics stand-point.
|
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820
|
Posted: 23 Nov 2010 at 16:12 |
Mr Andersson wrote:
The dev interest are off course also to get players to stay in the game, but a specific solution for a specific alliance is just too much for me. We as players pass judgement, the dev provide opportunities/possibilities. That is how I think it should work
|
This is exactly how it works, and is well put. We build a framework of game mechanics, and players put these mechanics to use - for better or worse. There are some instances (especially regarding the "new player experience") where we are particularly interested in trying to ensure that people have a fighting chance, but on the whole our philosophy is very much against the GM team becoming moral arbiters in the gameworld. Regards, GM Stormcrow
|
|
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 24 Nov 2010 at 02:01 |
Ok I can see i'm not getting much support here so I won't post again. I wasn't suggesting that the gm's step in and do our work for us, rather I was suggesting that after TMM leadership falls to global armies, which they will, that if my idea to enhance the flavour of the game was well recieved they could then put an ingame framework around the remains of the alliance as TMM would likely be grateful for this option out and it would be everyone elso who'd asked for it.
Therefore not really dev intervention
As it hasn't been well recieved I change my vote from "other" to "yes" it's fine for harmless to get involved
Oh also when the GM's allow moving cities I hope that they make it so the cost is entirely in gold and resources so as to allow an alliance that wishes to re-instate a TMM style alliance can do so in a more player friendly manner, and foot the entire bill (plus extra) for moving players already in their area. (not that I believe TMM did, or even would do this)
Edited by col0005 - 24 Nov 2010 at 02:54
|
|
King EAM
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Location: Nun'ya
Status: Offline
Points: 272
|
Posted: 27 Nov 2010 at 20:24 |
I voted other. It really just depends on the situation. It is H?'s decision they can do whatever they want with their alliance, good or bad.
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 28 Nov 2010 at 04:17 |
|
Thank you. The poll is over now. H? has gotten involved in a limited capacity and the proverbial Alia is iactum...
|
|
Nokigon
Postmaster General
Player Council - Historian
Joined: 07 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1452
|
Posted: 28 Nov 2010 at 13:06 |
|
I know the poll is over, but I'd just like to add my opinion. Harmless has the right to attack whoever they want, doubly so if their sister alliance has been threatened. My alliance, Dark Blight, are well known for being 'warmongorers' or however the hell you spell it, but we only attack unaffiliated players or those who have attacked us. What TMM is doing is different. I know this is only a game but it can be compared to what Hitler did- killed people because they don't fit in. TMM are being a little more benevolent, but they are still ruining the game for many players. I dont think that that is right, and even if Harmless had not joined in we still would've won this war, because we will always have more people joining our cause. There is no place for what TMM is doing in Illyriad, so... my soldiers ready.
|
|
Tweet
Should Harmless get involved