| Author |
|
Diomedes 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 208
|
 Posted: 14 Oct 2012 at 08:08 |
Sometimes it takes a newcomer to cut through all the self-indulgent garbage that is spoken in forums, and especially so in the case of war. Gon is quite correct: wars happen because some people want a war. The only choice is whether we want to indulge them by jumping on their war-mongering bandwagon or not. It is much easier to spit the dummy and go to war over some trifle, than to exercise and hone one's skills at communication in order to find an accomodation of all parties. For my part, I prefer the pursuit of peace to the pursuit of war.
|
|
"Walk in the way of the good, for the righteous will dwell in the land"
|
 |
hellion19
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 310
|
Posted: 14 Oct 2012 at 08:14 |
 Diomedes wrote:
Sometimes it takes a newcomer to cut through all the self-indulgent garbage that is spoken in forums, and especially so in the case of war. Gon is quite correct: wars happen because some people want a war. The only choice is whether we want to indulge them by jumping on their war-mongering bandwagon or not. It is much easier to spit the dummy and go to war over some trifle, than to exercise and hone one's skills at communication in order to find an accomodation of all parties.For my part, I prefer the pursuit of peace to the pursuit of war. |
Wars are started because 2 sides have opposing ideas that are not always solved through diplomacy.
|
|
GM Luna
New Poster
Community Manager
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Location: Illyriad
Status: Offline
Points: 2042
|
Posted: 14 Oct 2012 at 08:42 |
Stay on topic, please or I will continue to remove spammy posts.
Luna
|
GM Luna | Illyriad Community Manager | community@illyriad.co.uk 
|
|
Khells
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 103
|
Posted: 14 Oct 2012 at 09:54 |
Gon wrote:
I've just been confused by this whole mess as it's unfolded. I have considered myself a supporter (not that of the way H? members have handled themselves and enjoyed reading their version of Elgea's history as a new player. I have no ties to either of the groups involved and yet find the whole turn of events disturbing.
The rare resources have done exactly as the DEVs had planned by stirring up contention among the players. I don't mind land claims and the disputation of land claims. What I dislike is the destruction of people's villages that represent the entirety of what they have built in the game. Of all the escalations that don't make sense to me though is the one that really stands out as odd. This is where an ally/confed answers the call for help to break a siege and is accused of unprovoked aggression for it. No retaliatory sieges. No wave of strikes on cities. Just defensive strikes against armies laying waste to friends and neighbors.
I am sure my understanding of the matter is flawed and incomplete as my only awareness of the matter is through GC and the Forums, neither of which is famous for dependability. In this I would like more clarity on the matter, but realize none will likely be forthcoming.
That is my main confusion in this whole earthshaking matter. It seems that this war is happening because some parties want a war. To me that seems the scenario that makes the most sense. If not, none of the things leading up to where we are today would have sparked the fires of war. I hope matters are resolved peacefully as the destruction of either side will be a loss to all who virtually cohabit Elgea.
These are my thought alone and do not represent my alliance or confederation. |
I agree with this post. You combine these points with the very clunky and restrictive combat system and it isn't hard to see how difficult it is to stop wars once they start. Way too little player control. Messengers, for example, could have significantly more functions. If peace is a viable goal, the clunky combat system doesn't support it well. Don't get me wrong, no mmo is perfect and they are never finished. But you HAVE to get combat right in any mmo!
As to the original question, I don't associate maturity with peace in a game. But I do want players to have fun, enemies and friends alike. In some games, it can even be fun (and somewhat rewarding) to lose in combat. However, and I have played many mmos over the years, Illyriad is a slow, slow, game requiring much patience. The usual game rule of increased risk equals increased chance of reward doesn't really apply to this game.
|
|
Deranzin
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845
|
Posted: 14 Oct 2012 at 20:27 |
Salararius wrote:
If Consone wins, we'll find out if they fulfill their promise of allowing some conflict and hopefully equal rules for the "rulers" and "subjects". |
I will not repeat objections of others nor add more of my own, as it seems pretty pointless to discuss a text created on such unbased supposition, but I will point out only one thing.
After writting aaaaaall that wall of text, you went in the end and blew your cover and possibly Consone's intentions (we shall call them "your expectations of them" of course, but I think everyone got your point after my underlining ) to the public ... :p
I now wonder where was that promise was handed out and what exactly did it entail ... ;)
So, next time, if you want to hide the important bit, try to spread it out equally in the text ... it will seem less crude that way ... :p
|
|
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 02:55 |
Llyorn Of Jaensch wrote:
Your thesis is based on one fundamentally false premise.
Harmless are the big dog and dictate some sort of 'policy'. |
There is only one problem, it's not my thesis. I've been told many times that Illy (the name of the sandbox) is as wonderful as it is because of H? I can find one or two reference to that point in the mega thread as well as consistently scattered references going back as long as I've been here. Illy is so great because H? won the last war. They were the champions. Is that point under dispute?
Certainly, H? let in a bunch of new people and let a bunch of old people grow and certainly it appears that the power of the non-H? rivals or exceeds that of H? Until there is a disagreement and a conflict for control, or until H? cedes power the de-facto power remains with H? If the champion enters a fray then he's still the champion until he looses. If H? thinks this is a "game" then that's how games work.
It seems that what you are saying is that H? never stood a chance and entered this war as a futile suicide gesture. Does H? want to die or are they fighting for a principle and is their suicide meaningful in some way? Is the principle that there should be no conflict, no war in Illy? Is the principle that there should be no rules, no organization in Illy? Is the principle that conflict is fine, that organization is fine, but that Consone isn't the right answer to these problems? If the principle is the last, then what is H? offering instead? Secret pacts, overwhelming alliance wide attacks to avenge "dis-respectful" communications and minor battles?
I've got my ears open, what is it that H? offers?
|
|
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 03:13 |
Hadus wrote:
Wow Salarius, you had a wonderful sandbox allegory going that I was really enjoying, until you completely misrepresented it and turned it into an excessively subjective vent. |
I assume the above refers to the below. It's the only thing specifically pointed out as wrong. It's probably the beginning of the excessively subjective part so maybe if it were not as excessively subjective it would make the rest less excessively subjective? You judge.
Hadus wrote:
The error you made was assuming H? owns the sandbox. They own a portion of the sandbox. As long as your own game does not cross into their edge of the box, you're fine. The trouble being that the lines drawn in the sandbox are completely grey. |
I didn't make that point, I was told that H? made Illy as great as it is. Someone should tell me how H? did that without exercising control. If it was H? and other people that made Illy as great as it is, then it should be clear why we should give H? special credit but none to the nameless others? Are some of the nameless others in VIC? What sort of propaganda gives H? credit but VIC none? Why should we ascribe credit for a dead if H? was not in control? Why should we ascribe credit for a situation, if H? did not maintain control? It seems to me that two people here have failed to address statements saying H? should get the credit for how great Illy is but also made the point that H? was not in control. It's not logical to give someone credit for something they didn't control.
Yes, the sandbox has some serious flaws.
|
|
glorfindel
Wordsmith
Joined: 02 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 129
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 04:06 |
Salararius, you certainly managed to lay out your vision of what a "sandbox" style game is. And for as much as you have given us plenty of minutiae on its true meaning, it is entirely your own definition. "Sandbox" objectively refers to how Illyriads' game parameters are constantly evolving by the game developers. It is a term used frequently in computer programming and the creation of games. Any gamer has played video game that featured "sandbox mode."
Therefore, I think you've misappropriated the meaning of the game based on an erroneous understanding of why the term "sandbox" is used to describe Illyriad.
But I have a couple reflections of my own, and I admit they are as subjective as yours. When I took to Illyriad, I thought that it was meant to function not as game, or a "sandbox" by your definition, but as a world. A sphere. After all, we have a map. We have terrain. Regional boundaries. Different races. Combined with all of the peoples' personalities who play the game, I thought that Illyriad was meant to be a kind of world unto itself, assuming that role playing would factor heavily.
But that isn't what Illyriad is.
What I perceive it to be is a social network, not unlike Facebook or Twitter, with a non-linear game wrapped around it. Players play themselves, and they make interpersonal connections with others. For some, I think there are many lonely, isolated, and disconnected people who play the game, and find some semblance of socialization and human interaction that they are not getting out there in traditional society. And that's fine.
However, I do not think that these sorts of players constitute the "mature gamer" that H? is seeking for their alliance roster.
My guess is that the "mature gamer" is not emotionally over-connected to the game -- not concerned that war will somehow bring their own personal support structure crashing down. Instead, the mature gamer has a majority portion of their life outside of the game, and see the game as just that. That's my interpolation of it, at least: the player who wants peace above all else in a fictional game like Illy is desperately trying to preserve the peace in their own lives. The mature gamer just wants to play the game like a game, and leave it to return to the peace and happiness they find in their exceedingly more self-actualized lives.
|
|
Llyorn Of Jaensch
Postmaster
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 924
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 07:50 |
Salararius wrote:
Llyorn Of Jaensch wrote:
Your thesis is based on one fundamentally false premise.
Harmless are the big dog and dictate some sort of 'policy'. |
There is only one problem, it's not my thesis. I've been told many times that Illy (the name of the sandbox) is as wonderful as it is because of H? I can find one or two reference to that point in the mega thread as well as consistently scattered references going back as long as I've been here. Illy is so great because H? won the last war. They were the champions. Is that point under dispute?
Certainly, H? let in a bunch of new people and let a bunch of old people grow and certainly it appears that the power of the non-H? rivals or exceeds that of H? Until there is a disagreement and a conflict for control, or until H? cedes power the de-facto power remains with H? If the champion enters a fray then he's still the champion until he looses. If H? thinks this is a "game" then that's how games work.
It seems that what you are saying is that H? never stood a chance and entered this war as a futile suicide gesture. Does H? want to die or are they fighting for a principle and is their suicide meaningful in some way? Is the principle that there should be no conflict, no war in Illy? Is the principle that there should be no rules, no organization in Illy? Is the principle that conflict is fine, that organization is fine, but that Consone isn't the right answer to these problems? If the principle is the last, then what is H? offering instead? Secret pacts, overwhelming alliance wide attacks to avenge "dis-respectful" communications and minor battles?
I've got my ears open, what is it that H? offers?
|
See you're not listening. The clue is in the words and what they mean. We'll try again. Your thesis is based on one fundamentally false premise. 'Harmless are the big dog and dictate some sort of 'policy''. To elaborate. How much influence did H? have on VIC, the Crows or ANY of the top 1000 alliances on how they played the game? With the relatively irrelevant exception....NONE. If we dicate Illy policy/law/rules blah blah etc etc... We're exceeding bad at it. Penny dropped?
|
|
"ouch...best of luck."
HonoredMule
|
|
The_Dragon
Greenhorn
Joined: 03 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 103
|
Posted: 15 Oct 2012 at 08:07 |
glorfindel wrote:
My guess is that the "mature gamer" is not emotionally over-connected to the game -- not concerned that war will somehow bring their own personal support structure crashing down. Instead, the mature gamer has a majority portion of their life outside of the game, and see the game as just that. That's my interpolation of it, at least: the player who wants peace above all else in a fictional game like Illy is desperately trying to preserve the peace in their own lives. The mature gamer just wants to play the game like a game, and leave it to return to the peace and happiness they find in their exceedingly more self-actualized lives. |
|
|
Tweet
Why do you associate maturity with peace in a game
Topic Options