| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Kurfist 
Postmaster
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 824
|
 Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 18:55 |
|
I believe that you shouldn't punish a player thieving another player by sieging the thief.
Thieve him, raid him, dont siege him.
By the way, I recall a time when guess what.. you got thieved, you could comment about it on global, get a few reosurces like books and horses and have to make your own thieves to combat the threat, there shouldnt be outside sources barging in ready to siege the "wrongdoer"
Edited by Kurfist - 06 Oct 2011 at 18:55
|
|
Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin
|
 |
StJude
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 18:58 |
 Brids17 wrote:
Not really. If Harmless had lets say, the ideals of TMM and everyone else was all like "F that" do you really think they're going to set the tone for the game? No, they're going to sieged into the number 2 or 3 or 10 position. The community sets the tone for the game, not one alliance.
|
I wasn't around for TMM, but I think I understand your point.
My issue is this. The scenario I outline above happened to a player.
He sent a thief, it was caught and the player identified. After that, the details are sketchy.
A siege was sent at this player and he came into GC asking for assistance.
None was given. To me, the community spoke loud and clear and affirmed the tone of the game.
This player was sieged to 0 pop.
They may have started another account. I have no idea.
That right there is an embarrassing and shameful act on behalf of both the sieging player, his alliance and we (yes, I said we) the community as a whole.
I should have done SOMETHING to help that guy out.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 19:02 |
|
moved to Caravanserai
Edited by Rill - 06 Oct 2011 at 19:36
|
|
Kurfist
Postmaster
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 824
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 19:03 |
|
Rill I have an idea, stay with the topic on hand and not turn this into an off topic thread.
thank you.
|
|
Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin
|
|
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 19:07 |
|
siege is last resort...yet its the first thing ppl throw at you
|
|
Kurfist
Postmaster
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 824
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 19:15 |
|
So there should be a bigger penalty for using siege, or having siege engines.
|
|
Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 19:35 |
Kurfist wrote:
Rill I have an idea, stay with the topic on hand and not turn this into an off topic thread.
thank you.
|
My apologies. I'm moving my post to the Caravanserai.
|
|
Kurfist
Postmaster
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 824
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 19:36 |
|
thank you.
|
|
Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 20:10 |
StJude wrote:
Anjire wrote:
Wrong, reread what I wrote.
I am saying that the extent of "Mercy" rests entirely in the manner in which the thief sender responds.
If the response is BOTH denial and asshattery then yes, I believe razing the offending players city to 0 pop is an acceptable response. Note: BOTH
Once again, there are many different ways of dealing with such a situation. I will start out friendly and helpful to gauge what type of player/neighbor I am dealing with. The extent of my "Mercy" will vary depending on the response to my extending hand...
|
There is a saying: "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you"
My contention is this, as the player with more power, it is your (and mine if I am in the situation) responsibility to set the example.
To me, denial and asshattery of a thief attempt are not grounds for a sieging of a pop to 0.
I would escalate the disagreement differently.
However, I can see that this debate can go round and round and I am not convinced that we will reach an agreement or persuade the other.
Let me throw out a tired old cliche.
"With great power, comes great responsibilty". (I almost threw up writing that)
So, that said, as it relates to this game.
ANY, I REPEAT ANY (This is not a metagaming attempt to undermine H?) alliance that finds itself in the number one position and with supreme executive power needs to realize that how they conduct themselves, will essentially set the tone for the whole game.
I feel I have made my points sufficiently, I welcome your response Anjire, and I hope you will not take offense if I do not respond. I feel I must conclude on that note.
A good day to you!
|
Once again you misinterpret my response and jump to erroneous conclusions...
If a thief is caught and refuses to take the steps necessary to defuse the situation via diplomacy then I will not bat an eye when his/her city is reduced down to 0 population.
I have caught countless thieves and helped both sides come to a satisfactory solution.
Razing and besieging is not my first option no matter how you might try to twist my words. I responded, as you asked, to what would be the extreme case scenario. In an extreme case, such as a thief showing no concern for their own well being, nor that of the community, nor any sort of common decency via IG communications deserves neither my respect nor my Mercy. This has not happened to any thief that I have personally dealt with or been in communication with - just for the record.
I will repeat what I stated about the Community as a whole in another thread. It is a fluid creature, it is not always fair, it is not always right, it is not always just; however, more often then not it is fair, it is right, and it is just. More so then you will find on any other MMO of like game mechanics. The community should be proud of what it has become and how it treats players of all status, new and old alike. Here, you will face consequences for your actions and no amount of money will enable you to escape.
Indeed, with great power comes great responsibility and, in my year plus experience with the Community of Illyriad, most of the top alliances have shown great restraint and willingness to find diplomatic solutions to issues first before jumping to the final solution which as you, StJude are pointing out, isn't actually a final solution.
|
|
Erik Dirk
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158
|
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 01:03 |
This is why I think that we need another siege unit which only destroys a portion of the buildings. If a player gets caught thieving and gets his barracks, consulate and mage tower destroyed. then I'd say maybe a little excessive but ok. If however the player gets sieged to 0 pop. then that is entirely unreasonable. My point is that sending a military attack in response to thieves is either going to just get basic res back, for the advanced res stolen, or a totally out of proportion siege. I still think a cheap T3 siege unit and making the current T2 massively expensive is a good start.
Part of my argument about attacking sandbox players is that a community supporting them is good, however under current game mechanics a defensive city is set out very much like an offensive city. There should be mechanics for a build structure that generally makes it not worthwhile to attack these players, even without community involvement, however the risk is still there, We shouldn't make the mistake that all sandbox players want to be considered taboo, why can't we also be playing a peaceful trader who needs to protect trade caravans and take necessary precautions, that is the fault of a war forum, not all players would wish to be left alone or paint a target on their back but walk a middle ground where a small risk is always present.
p.s. ballistic towers with high upkeep may sound good however players with this build type would be unable to reinforce each other. However if the tower required no upkeep but the engineer working the tower did then this would be another story.
Edited by Erik Dirk - 07 Oct 2011 at 01:05
|
|
Tweet
whaever