| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Celebcalen
Forum Warrior
Joined: 18 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 288
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 14:44 |
There are many interesting posts in this thread . A credit to the Illy Community. The debate about the necessity of war in this sandbox setting and has been ongoing since the early days of the game (does anyone remember Ivorich von Forge  ). I would like to throw a number of points into the discussion which I think are important : 1. Uk1 is finite and it seems set to continue for the forseeable future; 2. Consequently Illy has a significant number of players who have been here since the developmental days of Uk1 and have amassed large cities (armies,resources etc) which are unlikely to matched by any incoming newbe; 3. The power that these players exert has a very significant effect on the game to the extent that they have become Super Elites distinct from later incomers; 4. Within the sandbox context these elites have created a culture where the achievement of status and success has become one of the most foremost drivers of the game. To many in Illyriad it is so important that it transcends the narrative and codex of the game itself; 5. In this sandbox setting it has given rise to an informal but highly significant form of patronage where Elite players (either as alliances or individuals) can exercise significant sway over the opinions and aims of incoming players 6. I believe that we have just seen an example of a clash of elites which although painted in other terms was driven by maintaining status and achievement ( crudely put King of the Hill) The main form of conflict centred a round the "achievement of status" however is not military, which is secondary. It is diplomatic - involving social networking and, pvp etc. Conflict remains inevitable in this context as one side seeks to enhance it's status by attempting to invalidate the achievements of its opponent and this, as we have seen, can lead to significant conflicts within the game War then will always be a part of this setting, so long as the sandbox ethic and the finite setting of Uk1 continue. Having created and maintained Elites it promotes a cultural driver based on status anxiety and acquisition which leads to, sometimes, highly personalised conflicts which become more important to the players than the game itself.
|
 |
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 15:15 |
|
Wow! What an amazing discussion!
Several have discussed the need to protect the peaceful players. I'm not so worried about that... I think (and quite uniquely) the Illy community is quite good at that. I'm more worried about alliances and/or individuals being able to pursue limited wars for fun. So, I guess, that is the trickiest question-- How do we preserve war as a fun action in Illy?
|
 |
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 15:21 |
Kumo,
I think we should have a Forum Thread where aggressive alliances can publicly announce that they are interested having limited wars with other aggressive alliances. Then they know who they are and they are free to have their wars all they want without the rest of us getting peed on.
I have suggested this many times. There is even an old forum thread I started many months ago for this. I also posed several ideas for conduct of those wars.
However, StJude has told me that this is not fun to him. He thinks it much more fun to attack those that do not want war. It is, to him, a War Game. And do not stand his way for his use of the sandbox on his terms. OK. There are a zillion other MMOs that offer that experience for StJude. Illyriad is different, though.
My view is simple: Your right to enjoy the sandbox ends where someone else's cities begin.
|
 |
StJude
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 15:24 |
The_Dude wrote:
Kumo,
I think we should have a Forum Thread where aggressive alliances can publicly announce that they are interested having limited wars with other aggressive alliances. Then they know who they are and they are free to have their wars all they want without the rest of us getting peed on.
I have suggested this many times. There is even an old forum thread I started many months ago for this. I also posed several ideas for conduct of those wars.
However, StJude has told me that this is not fun to him. He thinks it much more fun to attack those that do not want war. It is, to him, a War Game. And do not stand his way for his use of the sandbox on his terms. OK. There are a zillion other MMOs that offer that experience for StJude. Illyriad is different, though.
My view is simple: Your right to enjoy the sandbox ends where someone else's cities begin. |
I would request you leave personal issues out of this thread and head to the Bitter Sea please if you have objections to my playstyle.
We REALLY need to keep this thing on track.
Focus on ideas, not individuals.
|
 |
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 15:28 |
The_Dude wrote:
Kumo,
I think we should have a Forum Thread where aggressive alliances can publicly announce that they are interested having limited wars with other aggressive alliances. Then they know who they are and they are free to have their wars all they want without the rest of us getting peed on.
I have suggested this many times. There is even an old forum thread I started many months ago for this. I also posed several ideas for conduct of those wars.
However, StJude has told me that this is not fun to him. He thinks it much more fun to attack those that do not want war. It is, to him, a War Game. And do not stand his way for his use of the sandbox on his terms. OK. There are a zillion other MMOs that offer that experience for StJude. Illyriad is different, though.
My view is simple: Your right to enjoy the sandbox ends where someone else's cities begin. |
this idea is not so fancy war is NOT a thing to do in a friendly way. alliances have to figure out how to "survive" in illy whit their own skills. may be peace loving people, may devious alliances, they have to find their own way, and Play as they see fit. what you propose is an abomination, the ultimate crippling of free game will. edited
Edited by Kilotov of DokGthung - 06 Oct 2011 at 15:42
|
 |
StJude
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 15:40 |
Kilotov of DokGthung wrote:
this is bull. war is NOT a thing to do in a friendly way. alliances have to figure out how to "survive" in illy whit their own skills. may be peace loving people, may devious alliances, they have to find their own way, and Play as they see fit. what you propose is an abomination, the ultimate crippling of free game will.
|
Kilotov, I appreciate your enthusiam! Could I request we tone things down a tad so as not to spin this thing out of control?
This is an extremely important thread! Opinions and ideas should be heard and encouraged.
HU WHAT? Iknorite?
|
 |
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 15:42 |
StJude wrote:
Kilotov of DokGthung wrote:
newbie warfare is utterly pointless
|
Sorry Kilotov, I completely 100% disagree.
Ask Geofrey, I know he got some fun from the whole deal as did Baughb, Meganips and I. I bet if you ask Demdigs he would also agree.
We had a lot of fun back in those early days. |
Warfare is fun. Especially newbie warfare when neither side can send sieges, and when every resource is valuable. Every newbie should get a little action in early, before they get too big and get all serious. It will keep them playing the game longer, once they realize how enjoyable combat can be. That said, Not fun is when two newbies are going at it, and someone with a huge population decides to step in and say "knock it off, or else!"
|
 |
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 15:47 |
The_Dude wrote:
Kumo,
I think we should have a Forum Thread where aggressive alliances can publicly announce that they are interested having limited wars with other aggressive alliances. Then they know who they are and they are free to have their wars all they want without the rest of us getting peed on.
I have suggested this many times. There is even an old forum thread I started many months ago for this. I also posed several ideas for conduct of those wars.
However, StJude has told me that this is not fun to him. He thinks it much more fun to attack those that do not want war. It is, to him, a War Game. And do not stand his way for his use of the sandbox on his terms. OK. There are a zillion other MMOs that offer that experience for StJude. Illyriad is different, though.
My view is simple: Your right to enjoy the sandbox ends where someone else's cities begin. |
This pretty much echo's my opinion as well.
I would go further and state: If you do not allow a player an opt-in mechanism to aggression/war(what have you) then be prepared for the community to step in (as it has done so in the past) as the opt-out mechanism.
The_Dude's suggestion about a forum for such an opt-in would be a great first step.
|
 |
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 15:48 |
war happens when someone has something to go against another. that is the way it is supposed to be.
And exactly what Geofrey said - It is not fun when two people are going at it and someone much bigger joins in for no business of his own.
|
 |
Uther
New Poster
Joined: 14 Mar 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 16
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 15:59 |
Seems to me that all the mechanics are in the game now to allow whatever playing style anyone wants to play, they all have trade-offs and advantages.
1. Pacifist... Ok, fine, but you better figure out how to pay someone for protection, build great defenses, or politic (through threads like this, I guess) your way into a "safe" place by shining the halo up enough that alliances will avoid the negative PR associated with attacks.
2. War like... Ok, fine, but you either better be the biggest and baddest, or you'll get smashed by coalitions of allies that resent your attacks.
I understand threads like this are all part of "it," but this is all a big role-play, right? Setting up an arena like system where the only wars are fought through negotiated times and places drains the fun of "real world-like" dynamics that appear fundamental in the game as it is. Also, setting up "Peace Communes" where no-one attacks is ripe for abuse and un-policeable, in my opinion.
So, for what it is worth, I'm not sure I see the massive problem with letting things play out as they are. Even in the most recent "clash of elites," there was barely any real bloodshed... a couple of cities either way. In aggregate, it seems barely a punch in the nose, and in this way I agree with Celebcalan, it was a bit of a alpha/beta aggression show where no one really got hurt and the "status" was re-affirmed.
"Elites" rise and fall based on merits and organization, not just age. While there is an advantage to age, I think the real advantage is the organization and cohesion. And frankly, if someone organizes and manages an alliance or coalition of alliances well, they are certainly capable of overcoming anyone in this game.
Net/net... all the mechanics are there. Make use of them and thrive... or fail. Just like everyone else and just like the "real world."
|
 |