Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - TVM - SHARK Conflict
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

TVM - SHARK Conflict

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 11>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 1 Votes, Average 1.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Ashmadia View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 19 May 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 54
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ashmadia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 17:30
Ricky,
Exactly, but i have to direct you back to my original post. I never said SHARK was doing something wrong playing their strategy, i criticized their policy behind their actions only. As you stated, this is exactly what land claims hope for: challenges, friction and intrigue. So, do you find Demdig's reply appropriate to my criticism? Legoman's?

Also, i never cried in outrage against SHARK's superiority over this or that alliance. I wouldn't be offended if you said i cried in outrage because they use that superiority to disregard and disrespect other alliances' policies, overstatement maybe (crying outrageously), but it would be acceptable.

Edit: I have to ammend this sentence:
"Exactly, but i have to direct you back to my original post. I never said SHARK was doing something wrong playing their strategy, i criticized their policy behind their actions only."
I actually criticized their justification of strategy too, colonizing Newlands for the strategic advantage of future Tournaments. I believe my sarcastic exlamation mark was exactly appropriate to the above "sarcastic" justification to colonize Newlands by SHARK.


Edited by Ashmadia - 23 Sep 2015 at 17:36
Back to Top
Rosie Blackeye View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2015
Location: Orken Coast
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rosie Blackeye Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 17:29
Originally posted by Ricky Ricky wrote:

  If so, then I suspect the cries of outrage against SHARK are not that they are breaking any codes or laws, but rather that they overmatch TVM.
Shocked And here I thought it was SHARK outraged about TVM's aggression against them? After all, TVM was stomping all over their daffodil beds.
Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:

At this time and before major damage is caused, SHARK has only one demand of TVM and RE: alt your aggression.
To any others contemplating support of TVM and RE's aggression: Please don't.
Ricky, you are saying that the outrage is about SHARK breaking the rules and challenging TVM and that we shouldn't be outraged about this.
Originally posted by Ricky Ricky wrote:

If so, it appears that SHARK is doing as you wish and challenging TVM for the rights to their claim.
I 100% agree with you, LC alliances shouldn't get outraged about that. And, trust me, we aren't! But that's not what's going on according to SHARK. The leaders have explicitly stated on this thread that they are not challenging TVM but rather came in peace, whereas TVM is being aggressive.
Originally posted by Pico Pico wrote:

Shark´s actions are by no means a direct challenge to TVMs land claim.
Originally posted by Halcyon Halcyon wrote:

Shark does not say to TVM: "get out", we say that we can coexist in peace.
Pico, I don't understand why you are cheering Ricky's post because you said you guys aren't challenging TVM's claim.

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

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 17:18
I like Ricky's observation. You can't be King of the Castle without facing challengers.

However, I think Dung is completely wrong that the 10 square rule worked well for everyone and had no shortcomings. Distance is the single biggest factor in Illyriad warfare. When enemy cities are mixed into your alliance core, you are always in danger of attack on short notice. It only takes a single city to deliver a fatal siege. Therefore, I can understand that true military alliances would want a much larger zone of control to prevent ambushes. Suggesting they accomplish their zone security by making sure that all their cities overlap the 10 squares is terribly naive (and perhaps willfully naive). People move cities, change alliances, and leave the game. Other alliances create infiltration accounts. Enforcing a territory has its downsides for the sandbox, but it is disingenuous at best to claim that the 10 square rule was working well for military alliances. I don't have to agree with their territory policies to understand that they exist for a legitimate strategic reason.
Back to Top
Pellinell View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 298
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pellinell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 17:06
Ricky, nearly every BL based alliance has a land claim. It isn't to start conflicts but rather the way these alliances on a new continent decided to control their areas. Much like the 10 square rule in Elgea. The only conflict has been Shark and their proxies starting trouble as is common with SHARK.


Edited by Pellinell - 23 Sep 2015 at 17:09
Back to Top
Pico View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 22 May 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pico Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 16:05
Great post Ricky!
Back to Top
Ricky View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 22 May 2015
Location: Elgea
Status: Offline
Points: 50
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ricky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 15:39
Ashmadia,

In your response to Dungshoveleux, you mention "...strategic gameplay that a claim allows."  Does this mean you view claiming as a variant of "King of the Castle", by claiming an area and daring others to contest you for it?  If so, it appears that SHARK is doing as you wish and challenging TVM for the rights to their claim.  If the intent of land claiming is to increase the opportunity and probability of conflict in B/L, then TVM's claim has worked as planned, and SHARK is doing what they're supposed to.  If so, then I suspect the cries of outrage against SHARK are not that they are breaking any codes or laws, but rather that they overmatch TVM.  Unfortunately, TVM didn't provide a desired profile for those who had to obey their claim ("must be smaller than TVM, and preferably without any military)...
Back to Top
Ashmadia View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 19 May 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 54
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ashmadia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 15:09
Dungshoveleux, you also drift away from the essence of my words and contradict your own self in the end:

'
A Land claim does put limits on what you can do because it allows the claiming alliance to veto city placements.  The claiming alliance will enforce this right of veto with hostile action. This does put limits on where a player can place a city, and these limits exceed the historical 10 square radius "rule" or "convention".  The notion that a Land Claim is merely a suggestion is frankly not correct. '


The word suggest, combined with a threat or not, still means just that: suggest. It has nothing to do with your ability to conform to the suggestion or not: you still can do whatever you choose, evidently too, since your alliance was able to penetrate TVM's zone1 claim. Also, the notion that the 10 square rule or convention is the most ultimate of "laws" is frankly not acceptable.

Can we also say that your request to conform with the 10-sq "rule" (that works perfectly fine until it doesnt) instead, offers the same freedom of choice? Sure, i will still be able to penetrate 10 squares in the same essence like land claim, but i will have to give up on my ideas of strategic gameplay that a claim allows. That is too much for me to give away, while you believe that with a claim i take even more away. Lets agree to disagree and move on. There were more threads circulating arguments for and against land claims, and i will not make this another one when i merely ask my words to be read as they were written.
Back to Top
Dungshoveleux View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 09 Nov 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 935
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dungshoveleux Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 08:49
A land claim does not state "you CANNOT (emphasis on the ability) do this or that".
A land claim is SUGGESTING (emphasis on the request) the community what to do.

A Land claim does put limits on what you can do because it allows the claiming alliance to veto city placements.  The claiming alliance will enforce this right of veto with hostile action.  This does put limits on where a player can place a city, and these limits exceed the historical 10 square radius "rule" or "convention".  The notion that a Land Claim is merely a suggestion is frankly not correct - something about this:-

"You can get further with a kind word and 500,000 knights, than you can with just a kind word".

The point is this: a land claim "suggestion" backed up by the threat of force isn't a suggestion.  It's more than that.  It seeks to own a chunk of real estate by means other than the historical 10 square radius. In effect to reserve unoccupied and un-10-squared land. The older "convention" or "rule" worked perfectly fine and there is really no need to change it.


Edited by Dungshoveleux - 23 Sep 2015 at 08:50
Back to Top
Ashmadia View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 19 May 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 54
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ashmadia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 00:42
Originally posted by demdigs demdigs wrote:

Ashmadia, By your comments it shows your obvious bias involved. Playing out to be the good guys and "Evil Elgean masters" I personally have 5 cities in Elgea and 8 in TBL, by your bias just because i have 5 cities in Elgea makes me an evil Elgean and have no say in politics in TBL. Such absurdities like this prove that TBL land claims are like school yard bullies, this is my land you do as i say or else, proof is B!B's and RE's statements that if you move into "their" land they demand screenshots of your troops and troop movements or get sieged immediately.  Additionally, there is a rule in law, saying an unjust rule is no rule at all, that being, said alliance, claiming land arbitrarily, without paying taxes for said land, or no rule in game allowing it specifically, IE no teleporting within 10 squares, it should not be a law. You pay no taxes for the land, you don't lose any resources for said land, nor do you loose any research points, this makes it arbitrary land claim. And your saying it's my way or the high way concerning honor, if you obey  your "Land Claims" you have honor, if you don't you don't have honor. As far as you hating Elgean politics, you haven't even been around for a year, this game has been around for 5 years, you need some perspective on why certain things came around. And finally, I have a city in the Orken Coast, that gives me a legitimate opinion in B!B's land claim. Thank you very much for your time. :)  



But of course, ignoring the very essence of my post, trying to lure me in an endless fight of words.

I will only say this - you, of all players (emphasis, cause you tend to "halucinate" most of the time), will be under judgement soon. Your actions and re-actions will determine and prove my words, or not, and not my bias.


Originally posted by Legoman Legoman wrote:

Originally posted by Stukahh Stukahh wrote:

TVM is a tiny alliance.  

I am more concerned with Shark's aggression.  

Shark is 8 times the size of TVM.  I admire them for standing up for what they believe is right.  They must have a valid reason to do so.  Sometimes you just have to fight even though the odds are stacked against you.  

So people shouldn't support TVM because you are requesting they don't?  How about we lay the facts out on the table and let people think for themselves?

I don't think the community should be told what to do.  If you want to make this a public conversation we would be happy to hear both sides of the argument.

Stukahh

Isn't a land claim telling the community what to do, I.E stay out of my sandbox, even thou Illy is a sandbox for all players?


Like a lot of people, you misinterpreted the whole situation.
A land claim does not state "you CANNOT (emphasis on the ability) do this or that".
A land claim is SUGGESTING (emphasis on the request) the community what to do. Like your alliance's current policy on the matter (ignoring any and all land claims), everyone is free to make their own choices here.
(being in SHARK you actually self-defeated your own argument there, cause if you ignore them, noone effectively tells you what to do)



Seems like your late post about "upstarts" that "haven't been playing for long" was directed at yours truly. Yet this upstart replied to your post above in private to avoid de-railing this topic, and got no answer. Do you expect this upstart to also apologize for your own failure to read and understand? Because this upstart never just "decided that ALL the established players are evil and wrong", instead tried to explain why she felt and thought CERTAIN established players are wrong. Concluding, why should this upstart care for what you observe or write from now on?

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

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Sep 2015 at 21:57
Originally posted by Legoman Legoman wrote:

Thou even at it's most crowded there were less conflicts then then now with all this extra room.  

This game has seen three huge wars, and all of them were before the Broken Lands was released. Compared to those server wars, the conflicts that have happened in the Broken Lands were barely skirmishes. All of the recent wars were short, and none of them appeared to result in large-scale account destruction.
Originally posted by Legoman Legoman wrote:

If you agree with land claims you will never see the other person's side clearly, just as if you don't agree with them you won't see their side clearly either.  Everyone has their opinion and is entitled to it, it just gets tiring when people use a new excuse to rehash old issues.

I neither strongly support nor strongly oppose the idea of land claims. Does that mean I see both sides clearly? My perspective on the matter is quite simple. In the absence of any other substantive Illyriad activity, the territory debate (both words and battles) has been the only interesting thing happening in this game for the entirety of 2015. I think it's great that territories were established aggressively and then opposed vehemently, because the conflict is creating interesting activity in the sandbox.

If you guys weren't arguing, we would have nothing to talk about. If you guys weren't building troops at a furious pace, I wouldn't be selling munitions to anyone. The conflict, while tense for its actual participants, has been a net positive in generating player action both directly via wars and debates, and indirectly via trade and politics. Illyriad would have been boring in 2015 without them.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 11>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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