| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Rorgash 
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
 Topic: Thoughts From A New Player On Current Controversy
Posted: 26 Oct 2012 at 11:10 |
Its a peaceful game, but as it is a permanent world, and to get to 200k pop takes between a year to 3 depending on use of prestige and how active one is, things are starting to heat up for as more players gets big.
You are currently safe to grow being in Skulls Training Pit, readying yourself for wars. but i wont lie, unlike games like tribal wars, wars more much bigger, much longer, usually lasting much longer then a whole round of Tribal wars, with entire months of work being leveled to the ground on both sides. its not something one gets into without knowing that they will win :) and then you get the politics, problem with this is the existence of this hyperlink between all members of the world. and love this, another H? Consone topic :P oh well its understandable, first real war for the world in atleast one and a half years..
Maybe limit Global Chat and parts of forum same as market?  |
 |
Abracax
New Poster
Joined: 21 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 6
|
Posted: 26 Oct 2012 at 06:43 |
Thoughts From An Even Newer Player:
...please don't mislead new players by pretending that it's something it isn't. -Llyr
I found this game via the chrome store and do not feel mislead and would never have made it past the creation screen if this was not a war game. Of all the mmorts games I've played, Illyriad has the most welcoming community towards new players. Not once yet have I had to ask for resources. I mail my neighbors with legendary cities and in answer they fill up my warehouse instead of a 'move or die" mail. Reading threads here and watching global chat it's obvious bullying and griefing are frowned upon and enforced but of course it will still happen here and in any rts game. If someone complains about being attacked in a war game all I can say is to check out some facebook games where you can build your city and never worry about attacks.
I like some of the depth in building and managing accounts but if all we do is micro-manage our cities the game would get (for me at least) incredibly boring incredibly fast. I've yet to look into the battle mechanics here much but in my last game a thorough understanding of them allows someone to defend and drive off attackers ten times their size. In learning the mechanics for that game I had been "pwnd" hundreds of times and instead of crying bully I would learn from it and when I was the bigger player attacking someone smaller I would only take their resources and leave their cities intact (unless they're filling up chat insulting my mother) and offer advice, links to guides, or at least a "gg".
I've only been here a few days so if I'm getting the wrong idea on how this game is supposed to be played (or how the majority of the community here want it to be played) then let me know so I can move on.
|
|
Darmon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 315
|
Posted: 16 Oct 2012 at 06:27 |
I suspect the people who make the most use of the current military environment also appreciate the strategic flexibility that being able to pick any target provides. It certainly opens up a lot of options (which is handy, considering how limiting the actual attack-type options seem to be). Would people really agree to abide by something that limits their options? (Besides The_Dude, I hear he abides.)
Also, wouldn't it require an overhaul of the various benchmarks that are currently in place to make them more meaningful? Plus, if it's just based on population, couldn't people still find ways to put themselves on the advantageous end of an undesirable match-up? Like having their allies pour resources into smaller players who are deeply in the red but have a sizable army, for the sole purpose of keeping population low to attack much smaller/weaker players?
I have to say though, if there were various brackets or something at an individual-level, wouldn't it make having a diverse set of player sizes more advantageous to an alliance? As it stands, it seems like bigger is better, and there's really no reason not to shoot for a 100-player alliance of all 200k+ players. Isn't that what gave rise to training alliances--the susceptibility of smaller players during war, and the relatively low benefits they give to (I dunno what you call non-training alliances...real?, true?, potty-trained?) alliances.
|
|
Fenrisulven
Greenhorn
Joined: 14 Oct 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 65
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 18:29 |
While I do not play Bridge, I do play tournament Chess which uses a rating system to organize tournaments. When you enter a chess tournament, there are usually two options: (1) You play in your bracket based on your rating or (2) you can opt to play in the "Open" division. Typically, players of a certain rating (usually 1800+) are required to play in the Open division while players under that rating can optionally play in the division provided that they are willing to pay the extra entry fee and don't mind getting slapped around like a redheaded stepchild. 
Perhaps at some point Illyriad could institute a similar system. Players of a certain population can only attack/be attacked by players within their population division. However, a player can opt to enter the "Open" division of Illy. This option would have to be a permanent one time decision (much like the relocation spell). By default, you would play in your own division, but once you opt to play in the open (or reach a certain population) that decision is permanent.
Not a solution for the current situation, but perhaps some food for thought for the future of Illy.
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 17:18 |
 Uno wrote:
The_Dude wrote:
My presence and prosperity in Illy is proof that H? allows survivors among their war opponents.
|
Actually it is the game and the player wits that allow it. There is nothing H? can do to stop the game respawning a player's last city or sign up with a new account. |
Apparently you do not understand perma-siege theory. You siege to respawn and if you see growth on the New Settlement, you siege it and respawn it again. Rinse, Repeat until the player gives up.
As to creating a new account, once the ID of the player is learned, the new account is perma-sieged. So the player would always need to preserve the secrecy of his past ID.
|
|
Uno
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Location: Torino
Status: Offline
Points: 101
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 13:43 |
The_Dude wrote:
My presence and prosperity in Illy is proof that H? allows survivors among their war opponents.
|
Actually it is the game and the player wits that allow it. There is nothing H? can do to stop the game respawning a player's last city or sign up with a new account.
|
|
Eréc of Caer Uisc
King of Dyfneint
Indomiti Alliance
|
|
Silverlake
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 417
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 03:09 |
|
well you abide... LOL
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 14 Oct 2012 at 23:55 |
Myr wrote:
*****
Why is that so many people think that an attack means they are going to be wiped out of the game? I have really only seen a players entire account wiped down to one city once, and that was St. Jude. Does anyone know of another incident?
****
|
Yes, Myr. I have perma-sieged several accounts. Some where trolls. Most made it clear that I was in a perpetual death-match with them so it was either let them keep attacking me or achieve a permanent solution. I think that has been about 7-8 accounts involved in the death-matches.
HOWEVER, If H? were always hell-bent on perma-sieging players because of pesky little wars, I would not be here today. My presence and prosperity in Illy is proof that H? allows survivors among their war opponents.
Edited by The_Dude - 15 Oct 2012 at 06:42
|
|
Uno
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Location: Torino
Status: Offline
Points: 101
|
Posted: 14 Oct 2012 at 21:57 |
Myr wrote:
Why is that so many people think that an attack means they are going to be wiped out of the game? I have really only seen a players entire account wiped down to one city once, and that was St. Jude. Does anyone know of another incident?
|
Yeah. Incidentally roughly the same period past year. Must be the season... Spring for Love and Fall for War.
|
|
Eréc of Caer Uisc
King of Dyfneint
Indomiti Alliance
|
|
Deranzin
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845
|
Posted: 14 Oct 2012 at 20:43 |
Llyr wrote:
But as a scientist I hope I'm wrong -- that's the only way I'll learn something new. |
My congratulations to you then for that attitude. :)
|
|
Tweet
Thoughts From A New Player On Current Controversy