Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - TLR Plunder & Pillage Policy
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

TLR Plunder & Pillage Policy

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Capricorne View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 117
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Capricorne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 00:41


[/QUOTE]Plain revenge had nothing to do with RE so seriously.
[/QUOTE]

Well... Seems like everyone agree.
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1171
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 13:58
Originally posted by Tamaeon Tamaeon wrote:

Generous surrender terms were offered early on, but you refused them then... and continue to refuse them now. So your assertion that the war and even destruction couldn't (can't) be avoided is simply false.
clearly TVM disagrees with your characterisation of the terms or they would have agreed to them. has "generous" some specific meaning here beyond the advertising sense of "you won't see an offer this good again"? surrender terms are a market with one seller and one buyer; assessing the value of a particular opportunity is a black art indeed. in this case, it seems your use of the word is not related to the value of the opportunity at all, but only meant to shift responsibility for what comes after from the actors to the targets.

yes, i have heard the arguments about the relative value of surrender offers, first from H? and now from its opponents. they all run in the form of "if i hurt you badly enough for long enough, surrender will look like good value at any price". the trouble with this argument is that illyriad is a game, and there is a threshold beyond which players will simply quit because, as Sir Bradly noted in gc long before it applied to any of his allies, "losing is not fun". if you prolong losing for long enough, any player will quit. that can be part of the sandbox, but i should think leaders who do not condone the chasing of players from the game will want to consider the interaction in total.
Back to Top
jtk310 View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 35
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote jtk310 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 14:12
Wow, this is a very old thread. EF's was the first post in 2 years in fact! I seriously doubt any discussion happening here has to do with the TLR Plunder & Pillage Policy. Why not make a new thread instead of resurrecting this dinosaur?

Edited by jtk310 - 17 Feb 2014 at 14:14
Back to Top
Capricorne View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 117
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Capricorne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 16:45
Hey Angrim (and others). 
Are you really blaming the alliances at war for the fact that players quit illy? You can't be serious cause if one don't want to be destroyed, one just have to exit the war. Lot of players have done if so far on both side with, for most, the olny condition to not get involved in the war again and have no trouble with it. 

So if players play the wargame until destruction and quit, it's their choice to play so. What the alliances at war should do with it? Let players alone to let them the time to rebuild and come back strike the opponent in the back? 

What's your solution?




Back to Top
KillerPoodle View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KillerPoodle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 17:49
Originally posted by Capricorne Capricorne wrote:

 for most, the olny condition to not get involved in the war again and have no trouble with it.


More PR spin.
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
Back to Top
Capricorne View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 117
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Capricorne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 18:47
Er, yes... As everyone seems to enjoy it I wanted to join the fun and tried it too Big smile
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1171
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 20:57
Originally posted by Capricorne Capricorne wrote:

Are you really blaming the alliances at war for the fact that players quit illy?
no. only the player can abandon his/her account. but i do think that making the game miserable for a player or an alliance can lead to that end, and when other players or alliances have contributed to that, they ought to own it.

Originally posted by Capricorne Capricorne wrote:

Lot of players have done if so far on both side with, for most, the olny condition to not get involved in the war again and have no trouble with it.
i wouldn't know. alliances which have exited the war tell me the terms are secret, Tamaeon says they are not but does not volunteer any further information, and i do not ask. but i know some details that have come to me because eCrow had an interest here or there, and they are very far from "just walk away". i do not know if they are better or worse than the terms H? gave to various Consone alliances, but they are certainly reminiscent of them. if you believe your allies not to be punishing your opponents in retreat, you have been misled.

Originally posted by Capricorne Capricorne wrote:

So if players play the wargame until destruction and quit, it's their choice to play so. What the alliances at war should do with it? Let players alone to let them the time to rebuild and come back strike the opponent in the back?
yes, always their choice, and the choice of the victors to continue to strike them. but there is a point in the victory beyond which there is nothing more to be gained from further attacks. it is possible to win the war and not the peace.

regarding specific solutions, it's never been a good idea to make policy in the forum. i am available via igm.

Back to Top
Capricorne View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 117
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Capricorne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2014 at 21:09
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

 but there is a point in the victory beyond which there is nothing more to be gained from further attacks. it is possible to win the war and not the peace.

Totally agree. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.