| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Lashka 
Greenhorn
Joined: 29 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 89
|
 Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 06:40 |
Wow. Jude and I may have some points of agreement here. ;)
A point of clarification from what I saw:
Xenofobe (apologies if I didn't get this right.), the original quote I see is not 'what if a newb attacks a player' but is 'What if a newb mouths off to a vet?'.
Big difference in my book, and one that I think illustrates one of the underpinning issues of the war, and now some of the 'aftershocks'.
There's a big difference for me between taking an action in-game ( what I'd call poking by game mechanics) and what seems to be the tendency by some of the vets conflate their person-hood with this game ("They insulted me and I'm the big bad vet, so I must teach them a lesson.").
I'm not going to waste the time to give examples of the latter - there are pages and pages of it on all sides in the Politics and Diplomacy section, under at least 3 threads.
A new person does the first - Magically, Militarily, or Diplomatically decides to attack you? Well, my grandfather would have called those people 'life-expectancy impaired'. Game on.
But to attack someone simply because they did not show you the deference you presume you're entitled to? It's pretty petty. It's also part of the dynamic that leads to this 'let me drag my entire alliance into a war because of two competing egos' that seems to underpin a decent amount of the conflict recently.
I'm part of an alliance. I don't see me myself picking many fights, and right now I'm avoiding conflict as much as possible because I feel like I still need to grow my cities and get a handle on the mechanics.
I would welcome structured (as in limited to a 1-on-1 or 1-on-2 type of conflict where the conflict is rationally limited to parties or alliances without it becoming this huge kitchen-sink free for all among everybody.)
I joined an alliance knowing that I may be called to military action. It's the price all alliance members owe for the mutual protection that alliance brings.
But I have discussed my feelings with my leadership that players who I may find antagonistic towards me or who attack me verbally (but who take no in-game action towards me M,M,D) won't face game-mechanic reprisals. I don't see the need to engage in punitive in-game actions against players who aren't exercising MMD against me; my ego is healthy enough to take a knock or two.
Should there be war in Illyriad? Absolutely. War can be an enjoyable dynamic of this game. But everyone benefits when there's legitimate strategy behind it, and when its not predicated on vendettas, crusades or some paper-tiger conception of honor. And if people get serious about creating trading and growth alliances people should be respectful of that ethos too.
Which brings me back to another point. Why has there been no further discussion of designating map countries for different functions? Like Norweld for city growers and Perrigor for PvP (not actual suggested countries, just examples)?
EXODUS would allow for this. Then PvPers and Growers could each have the type of experience they want, in a region that would allow them to expand or clash to their heart's content. Growers shouldn't have to look over their shoulders, and frankly, neither should the PvPers. Pick regions outside the 'newb' ring, and the issue of 'vets' and 'newbs' infringing on each other might become much less common.
People should be free to duel, on their terms, without worrying that someone is going to pull in the rest of their alliance. Alliance leaders and members should show restraint once the parties to a duel - whether individual players or alliances - have been established.
Respect is earned by taking the high road, not by wallowing in the mud - by being chivalrous and merciful to defeated opponents and by never losing sight of the face that a person's honor is never measured by the size of their army and the strength of their arms, but how they treat the weakest among them.
I'm not expressing myself as clearly as I'd like at almost 2 am, and I'll most likely have more to add, but here's my 2 cents.
|
 |
Daufer
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 332
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 06:50 |
This probably belongs in the suggestions box rather than here, but since the imbalance of siege seems to be a major issue when wars do break out this is a thought I have had:
Real medieval sieges almost never ended with a short bombardment of a town's walls. They lasted for months often and ended when the besieged had eaten their last rat or saw no hope of rescue.
Instead of siege weapons, why not have a sieging army act as an interdiction instead. Everything inside the walls functions normally (you can still make weapons and troops), but everything outside the walls stops producing. No more resource production, and above all no food production. Besieged cities will have to rely on what they have stored or whatever their friends and allies can smuggle past the blockade to sustain them.
When the city runs out of food defensive armies disband and the attacker can then occupy the city and have two options: conquer or raze, with reasonably long timer... several days anyway. If the occupation hasn't been dislodged in that length of time then they will have successfully taken control of the city or burned it to the ground.
I think this would give people more of a chance to rescue their city intact rather than losing it in 24 hours or recapturing a bombed-out shell with half the buildings gone. We aren't running around in Panzers, but you wouldn't know it the way siege works now.
|
|
Grego
Postmaster
Joined: 09 May 2010
Location: Klek
Status: Offline
Points: 729
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 07:55 |
|
Daufer, that's what I was hoping for since I came to Illy. Player who is not interested in raising big armies could focus on advance defensive structures, such as balista towers, reinforced gates, boiling oil, food storage inside walls, garrison quarters etc. Such city, if properly supplied, could succesfuly defend against much bigger odds, for long time. It would take lot of resources and gold, so it would be hard to have both, big army and fortress.
|
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 08:14 |
 Erik Dirk wrote:
Really i dont think we should be encouraging a point of view where players say "i don't want war so no one attack me ever!"
|
If someone doesn't want to engage in military activities and hasnt offended you in any way, why should you force a war on them? That is plain cowardice - you attack him because you don't have the guts to attack a militaristic player? There are many players who'd happily welcome a small squabble. Engage them.
Apart from that, I'm all support for people duking it out. It is better to experience the exciting aspects of the game when you can rather than to 'keep the production up' and wait indefinitely for a 'grand futuristic military adventure' that will never come. The more cities one has, the more reluctant one will become to risk them.
Edited by Ander - 06 Oct 2011 at 08:15
|
|
<Squill>
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 Jun 2011
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 218
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 09:44 |
|
I am all up for WARRRRRR!!!!!! Though I don't think it's right to siege a player out of the game. It's takes away diversity from Illy. Like when you have finished a good book and towards the end you feel disappointed /sad that you will have to say good bye to some good characters. ALSO: I don't like war when the odds are against me. I am sure others have the same opinion. ;)
|
|
Silent/Steadfast
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Jun 2011
Location: Pacific County
Status: Offline
Points: 553
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 10:03 |
|
Before I start, I'd like to say sorry for any bad spelling, odd usage of words, or lack of puncuation. I am using a mobile device, which doesn't always type what I want it too.
That said, I notice that what all the posts here agree on is that three types of players inhabit Illyriad. There are the peace-loving, newbie helping players, then there are the casualy warring players, and finally, there are the "stand up for your rights" players. All three types are fine to play, but when they try to convert others to their playing style, trouble starts. A simple solution would be to give these players their own places on the map, but I don't think this is the most viabe option. A bloodthirsty extremist would start mowing down pacifists, or a casual war player would start causing trouble in a pacifist alliance. If this idea were to be taken deeper, into the game mechanics, the reault would not be one game, but three, each with its different rules and expectations. Some say that Exodus is the "philosopher's stone" that will allow playera to move away from anyting they don't like, but exodus can only be researced at lv 20 warehouse, which usually is achived when a city reaches 5k pop. No amount of seperation can make everybody happy. The answer that I see is the future. Factions, more buildings, pathfinding, all of those things will allow a player to achive their potential to the fullest extent. If we try to create a set of rules for a game not yet finished, something will pop up and surprise us.
So we've gotta wait, you ask. What about the time till then?
Simple- what is wrong with what is already in place? Do we NEED to dictate how players behave when they already get along fine? We shoudn't dictate how to play the game, the game should dictate how we play it. Sure, in a sandbox environment players are important, but we need to ask ourselves, how has the game shaped us around it? Well, in the beginning, as I understand it, the only accesable chat box was out-of game, and only a few players talked in it. Result: huge war, because only a tiny portion of the world knew they could talk with the rest of the world. Next: an in game chatbox is introduced, but it is easily minimizeable, and chatnaps lasted for hours. Result: a group of people got to know each other, and started a policy of giving away small care-a-vans to any new players who didn't ignore the chatbox. Now: chat is hard to get rid of, a large base of players chats regularly. Result: new players learn from their friends that popping into chat = resources. Misc. desperados, trolls, freedom fighters get the power they need to support their ideas; in short, the illy community knows more and more what is going on.
Why this is so important is that wirh the growth of the communications, the smaller the distance between players is (seemingly). This influences the type of behavior the community exibits. Recently, sieges in chat show what bloodyness is happening, and via peer pressure, others wonder if illy is so peaceful after all. So coming back to the three groups of players, each group sees the game a different way. And that is fine. But in then end, the game dictates what we see, and ultimately what we do.
|
|
"Semantics are no protection from a 50 Megaton Thermonuclear Stormcrow."-Yggdrassil (June 21, 2011 6:48 PM)
"SCROLL ya donut!" Urgorr The Old (September 1, 2011 4:08 PM)
|
|
<Squill>
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 Jun 2011
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 218
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 11:41 |
|
+1 :D
|
|
Erik Dirk
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 12:53 |
Ander wrote:
Erik Dirk wrote:
Really i dont think we should be encouraging a point of view where players say "i don't want war so no one attack me ever!"
|
If someone doesn't want to engage in military activities and hasnt offended you in any way, why should you force a war on them? That is plain cowardice - you attack him because you don't have the guts to attack a militaristic player? There are many players who'd happily welcome a small squabble. Engage them.
Apart from that, I'm all support for people duking it out. It is better to experience the exciting aspects of the game when you can rather than to 'keep the production up' and wait indefinitely for a 'grand futuristic military adventure' that will never come. The more cities one has, the more reluctant one will become to risk them. |
Ander, are you just trying to make me look bad by taking things out of context? What I meant is that this is a multi player game. If you don'y like the fact that players can interfere then play farmvill. What we should provide is a means to make it very, very difficult to attack these players who don't want to explore this part of the game. The peaceful players have complained that the new buildings don't benefit them. Give them options to sacrifice military options in favour of defensive, trade, buildings
e.g. Up to about 5K pop a mage tower with runes should be fine to protect any peaceful player. New building which replaces barracks "Illy trade council guard house" Recruits guards that are very good at defending caravans (when path finding comes in). Not much goes on in the world of illyriad which the trade council doesn't know about, and the Councillors look after their own (for a fee ofcourse) in addition to recruiting caravan guards this building will call a large army from the trade council when your city is under attack. Upkeep = X gold/h. Trade council army could be about 40K for lvl 20 plus an army for each of the council buildings in your alliance.
|
|
Southern Dwarf
Forum Warrior
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 281
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 13:33 |
|
I am more of the sandbox settling player than the warrior but I am for war too.
But in all browser games - and a lot other games as well - war options feel to limited. I want options to influence the outcome of battles aside the mass of units and the whim of other players. If I pay the attacking player off he is still able to attack now or later again. If I would be able to pay off his troops (or commanders) instead they might be unwilling to fight me. Loyality of troops (or commanders) should be a feature - so if a commander is unwilling to fight someone his troops are fighting worse (a debuff on the attacking forces if you wish). To be fair one may able to corrupt the defending forces as well.
Or diplomatic option to misled foreign armies, exhaust them oder get them into terrain they are unsuited for. Those options would give weaker players or players who invested more in other fields than directly masses of military units to avoid being forced in a playstyle they don't like.
Add an option for magic as well such as phantom forces or other mind tricks.
If any other options than those already ingame are implement to fit different playstyles I would agree to fights most of the time because you may prevent to be at the mercy of another player with a broader range of tools.
|
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 13:54 |
Erik, I think I misunderstood your previous post. really sorry for that. What I meant to say was that if someone is not interested in military, let them play it their way. Looks like we were saying the same thing but talking of different ways.
The defensive buildings need not be a replacement for anything. If defensive buildings, keeps and watch towers take up a lot of upkeep, that is good enough - since keeping a lot of defense would compensate on the army size.
again, really sorry!!
Edited by Ander - 06 Oct 2011 at 13:56
|
|
Tweet
whaever