| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Anjire 
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
 Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 16:05 |
 Ander wrote:
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.
|
Nor can it be equally "fun" when one of the two people "warring" receives a huge influx of resources...
I think maybe those thinking "war" is fun or that "war" is the way things should be need to set about defining what exactly they view "war" to be.
What is being stated is that if you plan to enjoy the "war" (aggressive) aspect of the game then be prepared to suffer the "community/diplomacy" aspect of the game, if you have not established an opt-in for involved parties.
|
 |
StJude
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 16:11 |
Anjire wrote:
Ander wrote:
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.
|
Nor can it be equally "fun" when one of the two people "warring" receives a huge influx of resources...
I think maybe those thinking "war" is fun or that "war" is the way things should be need to set about defining what exactly they view "war" to be.
What is being stated is that if you plan to enjoy the "war" (aggressive) aspect of the game then be prepared to suffer the "community/diplomacy" aspect of the game, if you have not established an opt-in for involved parties.
|
Anjire, it is definitely fun when BOTH parties are receiving an influx of resources....
However, I see that you have an alternate agenda in this thread too. If you would be so kind, could I request you head to the Bitter Sea if you wish to single out individuals or alliances? This thread is starting to veer considerably off-topic.
You of course are entitled to quote Captain Barbossa by saying:
"I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request...."
|
|
StJude
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 16:20 |
Uther wrote:
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."
|
+1 Well written, well communicated.
I especially like:
Uther wrote:
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. |
However, if folks want to try, have at it!
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 16:32 |
StJude wrote:
Anjire, it is definitely fun when BOTH parties are receiving an influx of resources....
However, I see that you have an alternate agenda in this thread too. If you would be so kind, could I request you head to the Bitter Sea if you wish to single out individuals or alliances? This thread is starting to veer considerably off-topic.
You of course are entitled to quote Captain Barbossa by saying:
"I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request...."
|
I am not surprised in the least you would want to try and silence a dissenting opinion from your own rather than discuss and/or offer counter arguments. My position has been quite clear and admittedly counter to your agenda ,not just on this thread but many others.
For those wishing to push their "this is a war game" therefore, I have a right to "war" (aggression) agenda, I agree; however, if both parties have not opted into the "war" (aggression) then I feel the community has every right to become involved as the it sees fit. So, if you wish to "war" (play aggressively) go right ahead but at least have the guts to own the consequences of your actions.
Pure and simple response to the OP.
Please feel free to counter, StJude with your own opinion/agenda.
|
|
StJude
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 16:40 |
Anjire wrote:
For those wishing to push their "this is a war game" therefore, I have a right to "war" (aggression) agenda, I agree; however, if both parties have not opted into the "war" (aggression) then I feel the community has every right to become involved as the it sees fit. So, if you wish to "war" (play aggressively) go right ahead but at least have the guts to own the consequences of your actions.
Pure and simple response to the OP.
Please feel free to counter, StJude with your own opinion/agenda.
|
Excellent! We are now getting back on track.
This is where we are asking for some lines to be drawn. There are several ways to be "aggressive" in this game.
1.) Send hostile diplomats 2.) Send Military ....ahem....diplomats :P 3.) Challenge the status quo and verbally goad people.
Correct, players should own all three of those actions. But to expect said players to lie down and say "Well, have at it" is a rather silly expectation.
What I love about Illyriad is the political maneuvering, the behind the scenes diplomacy and the manipulation of your opponent. I would call this "metagaming."
To me, Illyriad is one of the FEW games where all of the above can be explored. I hope the metagame flourishes.
At the heart of all this though is this; In a sandbox, in order to keep the above spirit alive, you need to accept that a "No Mercy" approach to conflict is both bullying and counter-productive to the game as a whole.
Edited by StJude - 06 Oct 2011 at 16:42
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 16:55 |
StJude wrote:
Anjire wrote:
For those wishing to push their "this is a war game" therefore, I have a right to "war" (aggression) agenda, I agree; however, if both parties have not opted into the "war" (aggression) then I feel the community has every right to become involved as the it sees fit. So, if you wish to "war" (play aggressively) go right ahead but at least have the guts to own the consequences of your actions.
Pure and simple response to the OP.
Please feel free to counter, StJude with your own opinion/agenda.
|
Excellent! We are now getting back on track.
This is where we are asking for some lines to be drawn. There are several ways to be "aggressive" in this game.
1.) Send hostile diplomats 2.) Send Military ....ahem....diplomats :P 3.) Challenge the status quo and verbally goad people.
Correct, players should own all three of those actions. But to expect said players to lie down and say "Well, have at it" is a rather silly expectation.
What I love about Illyriad is the political maneuvering, the behind the scenes diplomacy and the manipulation of your opponent. I would call this "metagaming."
To me, Illyriad is one of the FEW games where all of the above can be explored. I hope the metagame flourishes.
At the heart of all this though is this; In a sandbox, in order to keep the above spirit alive, you need to accept that a "No Mercy" approach to conflict is both bullying and counter-productive to the game as a whole.
|
That has always been my track, I didn't veer:
Players should have the guts to own the consequences of their actions.
I feel that the community as a whole responds admirably to the "sandbox" game. I don't feel anything is broken that needs fixing. I do feel it is the players pushing the "aggressive" style of play that rarely wish to own the consequences of their actions.
You will need to clarify and expand on your "No Mercy" statement because it is too generalized and I don't think it is as widely practiced and you imply with your statement.
|
|
StJude
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 17:11 |
Anjire wrote:
You will need to clarify and expand on your "No Mercy" statement because it is too generalized and I don't think it is as widely practiced and you imply with your statement. |
Let me ask this then.
In the game of Illyriad, how would you define Mercy?
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 17:12 |
StJude wrote:
Anjire wrote:
You will need to clarify and expand on your "No Mercy" statement because it is too generalized and I don't think it is as widely practiced and you imply with your statement. |
Let me ask this then.
In the game of Illyriad, how would you define Mercy? |
You brought up the term, you clarify your usage and definition of it.
Edited by Anjire - 06 Oct 2011 at 17:12
|
|
StJude
Postmaster
Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 17:20 |
Anjire wrote:
You brought up the term, you clarify your usage and definition of it.
|
Yes sir, in the spirit of debate I would be happy to!
Let me start with a dictionary definition.
"Compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm." My source is from the top of a search in Google using the terms "mercy definition"
Is that an acceptable start?
Edited by StJude - 06 Oct 2011 at 17:21
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 17:28 |
StJude wrote:
Anjire wrote:
You brought up the term, you clarify your usage and definition of it.
|
Yes sir, in the spirit of debate I would be happy to!
Let me start with a dictionary definition.
"Compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm." My source is from the top of a search in Google using the terms "mercy definition"
Is that an acceptable start?
|
Please continue and translate that into "Illyriad" mechanics as per your original request.
|
|
Tweet
whaever