Why Preach?

ajqtrz wrote: But the argument we have here is if the land claimers have the right to take any area of the map from the rest of us for their exclusive use by other methods than the currently accepted settlement rules.  I argue that they do not, and you, apparently, that they do.  That is a point of contention. Brandmeister wrote: Accepted by whom? The developers created the rules of the sandbox. Those players have taken action within the scope of the game rules. The imposition of additional conventions has been projected by the community. That is by definition the metagame, and it is a messy process. Nowhere have you provided that there is a moral, ethical, or logical basis for the "community" (as you egregiously misuse the term) to inflict its rules upon everyone in the game. There is also no precedent that an aggrieved minority must accept terms dictated by people on the forums, in GC, or anywhere else, when they have full recourse to other methods within the scope of the game. I missed this point in your last post.  You argue that "those players have taken action within the scope of the game rules," a point with which I disagree.  To be in the scope of the rules the rules must say that you can grab sovereignty of an area.  ....well, how about that...they say exactly that...then they spell out how to do that...let's see....hmm......put an army on the square.....claim sovereignty.....done. Now I'm looking for the: "claim a wide area without cities by using intimidation by threats of coercion......." still looking.....can you give me the page number because IT ISN'T HERE! But of course, you aren't arguing it's in the rules (even though you imply it's in the "scope of the game rules."  It's in the "scope of the meta-game rules" but that is of what we are arguing...if it should be or not. Now how do we decide that?  I'm for looking to the health of the game.  Does the use of intimidation by threats of coercion improve the health of any society, online or not?  Does it make it more fun? Does it not lead to less freedom?  You seem to forget that I"m not trying to force anybody to do anything.  I'm trying to persuade them.  Persuasion is about getting them to make the rational choice and that means laying out the rational for each side and finding where it takes you.  Most player, myself included, make intuitive choices and then go out and find the rational for their choice.  Thus, in a debate like this it takes a long, long time to move anybody exactly because most people, once they've made a commitment to a side, are reluctant and somewhat embarrassed to admit they didn't think it through before they made the commitment.  But if you keep examining any complex question like the one before us, you eventually either become more committed as the argument on your side becomes stronger, or, if you are an honest person, you come to the conclusion that your original commitment was an error, and switch sides.  I'm thinking that if we continue, eventually one of us will switch sides.  As it stands now, from my perspective, the use of intimidation by threats of coercion is not a rational choice, or, to make it more accurate, it is not a rational choice if your goal is to make the game more fun for everybody.  It may be a rational choice if your goal is to make the game more fun for the few who would use this tactic.  That the opposition has clearly shown to be highly likely.  Thus, it boils down to the whole or the part.  Which do you wish to improve?  If you hold a "win at all costs" and "winning means being dominate" philosophy  (what might be called "aggressive game play") you will not see the need to concern yourself with the health of the overall game.  If you are less than gung-ho over that philosophy, (which means you recognize the need for moderation) and you are even a bit concerned with the overall social health of the game, you will ask yourself if the move to using intimidation by threats of coercion as a tactic will hurt or help the game.  My bet is that since I've shown that: 1) the tactic is personal...meaning real people are discouraged from doing things in the game which they would otherwise do and thus suffer (however minor or major that suffering might be); 2) I've shown that when people are discouraged they are less likely to continue playing (I actually don't do much with this as it's so obvious that I thought it needed little attention, but of course I can produce a lot of evidence if needed); 3) I've shown that the tactic, strictly speaking, is not needed; and, 4) I've shown an alternative route (Declarations of Homeland) to get the same results.  Thus, I've proved the unhealthy nature of intimidation by threats of coercion from moral principals and from pragmatic considerations (utilitarian philosophy is that you don't use what is not needed to be used when you can accomplish the same thing with less expenditure of energy). I've done my part.  And I've challenged over and over my opposition to explain themselves.  A few have laid out a few things, but each of them has proven to fall short of the complete argument I've presented.  The best ideas of the opposition is that it's an evolution in the game and that it is needed by the land claimers.  I've shown it's not needed.  Yet, to give my opposition credit, it may be an evolution of the game.  But most scientist will tell you that evolutionary change usually ends up in extinction far more than survival.  I want Illyriad to survive and thrive.  AJ

Edited by ajqtrz - 09 Feb 2016 at 16:32

Princess Botchface wrote: Yeah its not my or anyone elses job to make the game fun for anyone else but myself. It is a game that I am playing to get some perhaps minor break from my crappy pointless life. It would be impossible to have a fun game otherwise anyway.

First, I'm truely you have a "crappy pointless life."  I don't wish that on anybody.  Still, maybe some of that "crappiness" comes from people not caring about you?   So, since people are present in Illyriad, why not try to help us make it more friendly?

You are, I think, right to say it's not your job to make the game fun for anyone, but then again, is it your job to needlessly make it an unhappy place?  If not then maybe it's your job to keep it as open as it can be so that others have a chance to make it a happy place for them.  Intimidation by threats of coercion, last time I checked, is not a happy thing to experience.  So maybe, to get us back to just neutral where everybody can "get happy" their own way as much as possible, we should remove the hindrances?

Just a thought.

AJ

Yeah its not my or anyone elses job to make the game fun for anyone else but myself. It is a game that I am playing to get some perhaps minor break from my crappy pointless life.

It would be impossible to have a fun game otherwise anyway.

To be brutally honest, this game is nothing like LoU and never will be. Yes there are people who do not like conflict and there are those who do. I have been in this game for a long time now and the only things that have changed are the following:

1. The last server war set the mindset of people against PvP because the victors were so brutal in the destruction of accounts that people are afraid. These same people are the ones who oppose land claims. Lets face it, the land claims alliances have not once asked for unreasonable peace terms in any conflicts they have been involved in. They have even said they will keep conflicts in BL thus giving people in Elgea peace and comfort without fear.

2. Over the years the devs have become less and less interested in the game with nothing really new or exciting happening that would keep people in the game. Tournaments are now a myth that new players have heard of but never seen. The only thing financing the little bit of development we see are the current wars that bring in a bit of prestige money for them. Without BL and their ways there would be very little money flowing into this game as there is no point to get cities built up and ready for conflict. People at peace and who socialize in GC and craft have no need for prestige as it does not affect their way of playing.

3. This is just a game and the community is pretty friendly, even though it is a tiny game with very few active players. There just is not the numbers you need and the time to build and wage war too long for it to evolve into anything like the pay to win games.

Thus what I am saying is get off your soapbox and just play the game or leave. Your fears and concerns do not apply to Illyriad.

Gragnog wrote: This is from the mouth of Kaggen. If you do not like us land claimers join SHARK, wait, they have already been destroyed, join Unbowed and try do something about it. All your whining here will not change the fact that land claimers are here to stay and you will be hard pressed to rid the game of them. There are 2 distinct regions in this game and if you so fear us land claimers best you move your cities back to elgea where you can play your way.

If I were interested in my own welfare and having a big safe empire and not about the game itself I'd have followed suit and made my own land claim when my alliance was a bit larger.  That's the difference between those who would use intimidation by threats of coercion and those who would not.  Those who want to use that tactic think they can't do otherwise and "win" their game (though all the mechanics of the game say otherwise) and don't really concern themselves with making the game better for ALL players, and those of us who, in the long tradition of Illy DO care about the heart and soul of this playground...concern for others that they keep their freedom to play the game the way they wish.  If we follow this route you propose why would we not then start harvesting newb's if it was too our advantage?   If you play the game strictly to your advantage and ignore the health of the game you get an unhealthy game....there are plenty of those types of games out there.  It is with good reason the Illyriad community is though of as one of the most friendly communities out there. We take our duties as players of Illyriad seriously, especially in maintaining an open sandbox.

Let me tell you a story.  When Lords of Ultima started each server had vast areas to settle.  Long before an area filled up new areas were opened until all the continents were open for settlement.  When it first started things were pretty open.  But within a year smart players discovered two things: 1) their was strength in clustering, and 2) they could use intimidation by threats of coercion to claim whole continents.  They did both.  Soon their "GC" was silent except for pretty much constant trash talk.  Few players ventured into that pit.  Wars were rampant and sometimes vicious. And us "peaceniks" had to submit or be crushed. 

In that "winning" became defined by the aggressive types as "being the first, second or third to "crown"-- which is just a set of conditions the developers put forward as "winning"  a set that you didn't even need an alliance to do..."solo crowning" was rare but I saw it twice and was attempting it on W56 myself.  But those who used intimidation by threats of coercion, in place of the actual game mechanics, dominated by following up and actually coercing when necessary. 

Here's the danger.  LoU is dead and gone because while they could attract new players, they couldn't keep them.  They couldn't keep them because the intimidation by threats of coercion meant that once they got to relatively small size they would be coerced into whatever role the dominant alliances wanted them to play.  In that atmosphere revenues fell and eventually the game folded.  I fought there as I'm fighting here now.  I've experienced the destruction of one game and I would like to avoid another.  The reason people left there was because they didn't like the intimidation by threats of coercion the claiming of whole continents made possible.  They didn't like the negative and constant trash talk that the attitude of intimidation by threats of coercion brings with it and is demonstrated in how people talk to each other.  And they too often landed on or wanted to land on those claimed continents but were not free if they were there and not free to land should they wish to do so.  In the end it was not the in ability of the game to attract new players, it was the inability of it to keep players because for a game to be financially healthy it is not the new players who fork out the cash, it's the long term and committed players.  Once you begin to make the place less friendly the retention rate drops and so do the revenues.

You see, it's not me I'm worried about. It's you. It's every player, land claimer or not, who likes playing this game.  I invested years of effort in LoU.  I spent real money and had, and still have, friends.  I hope to say I still have friends here and those who have been a bit unfriendly lately will eventually return to being friendly.  But most of all I do not wish this game to go the way of the last where clustering was enforced by overt intimidation.

I hope this helps you understand that it's not about me, it's about the heart and soul of Illyriad, all it's great and fun players and the freedom of the sandbox.

AJ




Edited by ajqtrz - 07 Feb 2016 at 17:41