Azreil, our tactic may or may not work as intended. At this point, it
appears you've catalyzed your members well with enough righteous fury to
hold the lead. Whatever the means, may the best alliance win. That
will probably be Valar, and I shall be the first to congratulate you
all. And I appreciate your distaste for having faced an unexpected form
of opposition. But I very much take exception to continued attempts,
by yourself and others who speak for your alliance, to brand it as "a
questionable exploit."
 GM Stormcrow wrote:
We feel absolutely 100% that this is not an exploit...It's a clever, legitimate use of an ingame mechanic to hamper a competitor's tournament progress. |
Calling
it an exploit is a smear with no purpose but to wage a slander war and
encourage negative opinions toward us. Doing so will have no influence
on the outcome of the tournament, and I doubt it sways the opinions in
other alliances either. You don't
like it. Fair enough.
Anti-Harmless propaganda that elegantly dances around inconvenient facts
has likely been a valuable tool to motivate the membership. But
persisting with this already refuted slur in public only shows everyone
else
your character. Simply put, you color our name with blatantly
false and only thinly veiled accusations, and you do so completely
without justification or even
purpose, save to falsely besmirch our honor. We have
not
earned this insult. I will not bear any grudge regarding this, but you
should realize exactly what you are doing and that we recognize it for
what it is.
So, setting aside this implied and unfounded insult,
can you please clarify the exact nature of your complaint? You say we
have "disturbed such coherence and balance." What exactly is now
unbalanced?
You speak of fearing this becoming a normal acceptable thing in the
game." What exactly is wrong with that? Attacking and sieging cities
is one of the core, intrinsic mechanics of the game--
very much intentionally so.
So also is the use of diplomats to kill commanders, steal resources,
find out about the strength of your army encampments, etc--even with
difficulty, sometimes near impossibility, in uncovering the aggressor.
Who will be the defenseless victims plagued by "legions camping
nearby?"
Suppose there actually is someone negatively impacted
by an enemy employing this tactic. Heck, I'll even offer an example of
how it might matter at all: perhaps someone with an incoming siege
attack will ensure legions stick around to help him defend an adjacent
tile. Whatever the case, any "victim" has the freedom to seek redress
according to whatever offense or grudge he bears, as he would for an
offense by any other means. Game mechanics don't kill people, people
kill people.
The most pivotal question in all this is the premise no one in Valar has even attempted to address, and
without it you have no case whatsoever:
What harm was done?
Are your cities in rubble? Have your armies been poisoned? Have you been
robbed of some thing you were
entitled
to attain? Is all that you've built in this game suddenly for naught?
Do legions of giant rats taunt you and recite Vogon poetry in the town
square?
We have altered the progress of the tournament, as is the very thing
we're supposed to try to do when losing.
There have been great volumes of talk, rhetoric, and outpouring of anguish. Far more in fact than I could possibly have imagined coming from a very simple attempt to merely slow down a competitor. But not a single attempt has been made yet to actually respond to any of my original points by explaining, in factual terms, how a problem actually exists and how Valar have been
mistreated. And it's no surprise, for you simply have not been.
Tweet
The use of subterfuge
Topic Options
