 KillerPoodle wrote:
Why do you associate maturity with peace in a game designed for war? |
It's a very good question, it deserves an answer.
It's been stated by someone who should know better that Illy is "just a game". That's clearly not true. I could be trite and say Illy is what the devs say it is and the devs say it is a sandbox. The argument is stronger than that. Games have beginnings with relatively equal positions. Games do have equal rules for all players, Illy has that. Games have clear victory conditions and an end. Illy has one of three, is it enough to make it a game? Who want's to play me in chess, I'll let you start with a pawn? Who would like to play a game of monopoly, I get all the properties with hotels and 5,000 cash and you can have $1. Anyone want to play football with Ray Lewis? Are those games the vast majority of people would enjoy playing? How about if those people paid to play these crappy games believing they were something else? A sandbox is clearly not a game. You can play games in a sandbox, but no matter how cool the sandbox is, a sandbox is not a game. A sandbox can be made for war, but that doesn't turn a sandbox into a wargame. If we want to play games in this sandbox, then the games must have rules. The rules of games must be "fair" in that all participants must feel they have a chance to "win" or participate. Sadly, before we play games in a sandbox, someone must establish primacy in the sandbox. Someone should make the rules or at least the rules in certain parts of the sandbox. Sometimes there is a fight over that.
First rule of the sandbox, in order to make rules in the sandbox, you must control part of the sandbox. Second rule, the games you create must be clear and appealing to other people who might want to play in that part of the sandbox. Only if you fulfill both criteria can you say it is "just a game". Before these criteria are filled, you are clearly fighting to control a tangible and valuable asset. Illy is that. To some, that fight for control is a game. That game from an even and balanced start, is over. It was fought and won by H?. Any new game would be against someone (H? right now) in the same position (or stronger) than when they won the last game. That is not a game very many people would enjoy. I doubt anyone in H? would play that game, that's why it's so important to them to stay on top. The only way you win against an opponent who's already won the game is if they've stopped putting their all into it.
The sad part is, H? fought for the sandbox and won. They then failed to say what the game they wanted to play in the sandbox was and in many ways stopped leading. They did not make fair rules for conflict nor stay active mediating disputes. They grew isolated from most of the community and drifted. I can find two universal rules for their game.
- no overt violence against "new" players
- don't threaten our control of Illy
Illy was generally leaderless and it got boring. The devs created games (tournaments) for the sandbox. H? control was limited to vigorously enforcing their second rule; loosely enforcing their first rule (mostly in regard to T?); and winning tournaments. H? established no rules for combat and no rules for conflict. They told everyone else to "make their own rules" because they were not in control even though they were in control and clearly want to remain in control (who can doubt that). They formed no confeds and thus very few Illy players enjoyed the protections of rule two.
The devs saw the lack of conflict and knew that was bad for the sandbox. I don't think they realized that the community had organized in the form of H? to eliminate war and not allow it flourish in any manner. The devs did know players were bored with no conflict and there needed to be some sort of "game", something to do. The devs created this additional system to create conflict. Some reason to fight over something not a city.
Now H? wakes up and says basically we forbid any conflict of any sort by any group outside our click. They didn't say that outright. Ironically, that isn't their style. What H? said was "we have secret alliances and if you get the upper hand against one in what we deem an "unfair" manner we will seek to remove (or reduce as much as possible) your ability to play in the sandbox". Remember that this is H? sandbox, and this is the rule they make? H? tells us it's a "wargame" but it's their sandbox and they have a rule that they will randomly kick out some players (not necessarily all) who pursue some (again, not clear which) conflicts? Wow, awesome war game, sign me up. Why do I want to play a game where following the rules may get me arbitrarily eliminated by those who control the sandbox? What is the game, dance around and hope you or someone you've allied with doesn't tick off H? or someone who's in H?'s secret camp? If H? would like to be in charge, they need to think of a better game than "fight us for the sandbox". When you strip out all the BS, that's clearly the only real game they created and that's clearly why there is a fight for the sandbox now. If you don't like that H? game, the other game is hunker down and don't talk because you might say something H? or an ally doesn't like and then they may (they use that word 4 times in the "diplomacy" section of their alliance page) remove you from the sandbox.
If this is H? sandbox then could they make it very clear what the rules are? It's clearly not a "wargame". If it's "fight us for the sandbox" or be our playthings, I think 90% of the community will leave. The 10% that might consider contesting the sandbox will then leave because they'll realize that they can't beat H? when H? has a head start.
So, how do I answer the original question? We associate maturity with peace starting with the belief that Illy is not a game. That's why H? fought the first war. Illy needs a structure to be fun. War is chaos, the absence of structure. To the vast majority of people playing Illy, the sandbox is no fun without some order (which is the reason for peace). As a wargame, the rules H? created suck too (sorry, see above) but the rules H? created were distinctly better than no rules. Illy can be better than what H? did, much better. So, mature people will try to create a peaceful structure (just like H? did) that allows for a comfortable level of conflict and competition that falls short of random removal from the sandbox for conflict (verbal or in game). That is the meta-game. H? plays for keeps, it's their game or the highway. 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". Consone can only be worse than H? in one way, if they have no rules. H? didn't set the bar very high.
Harmless Alliance Page wrote:
Turn-offs are intentionally sloppy grammer |
It's desist, not decist. I think H? will appreciate the correction. Doesn't anyone read these things?
Tweet
Why do you associate maturity with peace in a game
Topic Options
