Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
   New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - soon no more anti war crying
   FAQ FAQ   Forum Search    Register Register   Login Login

Topic Closedsoon no more anti war crying
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 8>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 2 Votes, Average 1.00   Topic Search Topic Search   Topic Options Topic Options
The_Dude View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Feb 2013 at 22:21
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

 

Depends what you mean by land claims. ****
There is no ambiguity about my statement.  Declare a 5 sq "keep out" zone, you have expressed a willingness to fight anyone in that zone.
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Feb 2013 at 22:32
You still haven't clarified whether you view sovereignty as a land claim or not.  To take it at its literal meaning, you do, but to then contend that anyone who claims sovereignty is expressing a desire to PvP is a statement with which I would take issue.  The majority of people who claim sovereignty do so for economic reasons, although those may also feed into military aims in some cases.

There is also a difference between a willingness to fight (if one must) and a desire to fight (because one enjoys it).
Back to Top
geofrey View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Feb 2013 at 22:45
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

You still haven't clarified whether you view sovereignty as a land claim or not.  To take it at its literal meaning, you do, but to then contend that anyone who claims sovereignty is expressing a desire to PvP is a statement with which I would take issue.  The majority of people who claim sovereignty do so for economic reasons, although those may also feed into military aims in some cases.

There is also a difference between a willingness to fight (if one must) and a desire to fight (because one enjoys it).

Rill, i'm afraid you might be confusing TD here, and when that happens condescending questions happens, and then the whole post gets derailed and we end up arguing about who can use better punctuation. 

So lets pretend the last 5 post didn't happen. And instead talk about if Broken Lands will bring an end to anti-war crying. 

To get back on topic, I think Elgea will become new PVP zone, and Broken Lands will be the safe zone. 

Back to Top
Brids17 View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Feb 2013 at 23:56
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Given the severe limitations of the "peace" zone (5 food, no sov), placing a city outside of it will not necessarily indicate a desire for PvP.  It might just indicate a desire to claim sovereignty in order to become an A1 cattle merchant.  Probably there will be lots of people who will say wishing to be peaceful outside the dedicated peace zone is not a valid option and to "go back to Verten."  Hur, hur, hur. wargarble garble.

What do you need sov for if you're not going to build troops? Food sov? Even then, you don't actually need food sov in order to acquire 10 cities. If you want peace either stick with Elgea or say in the peaceful part of the map. The devs are obviously trying to encourage pvp, as such, it's going to be a free for all in that area. 

Originally posted by Rorgash Rorgash wrote:

for me, i see it following us here aswell, you attack my towns there you should be ready to lose all your towns here aswell.

Don't place cities in the PVP section if you don't want to get attacked. 
Back to Top
bansisdead View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 08 Jan 2012
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 609 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2013 at 00:08
Whilst we have GC mob rule, we will be stuck with anti-war crying.  Elgea is and always will be the original PVP & PVE zone, no holds barred, until the anti-war crying starts.  Whilst im not a fan of the GC cry babies, being a 'victim' of this fairly recently, verbally not physically, I do think that it is also an endearing feature of Illy.  There is a problem tho with this set up, as someone like me, who doesnt frequent GC other than for recruitment purposes, can be easily wronged.  I had an incident with a player who has just left the game, they murdered some of my orclings harvesters, but when I approached them on this issue they became very defensive and aggressive, too the point of being rude, they offered no apology and instead ran to GC and demanded BSHx give her an apology.  She was very active so had the support of GC, what can we do agaisnt this?  GC mob rules, to hell with justice or fact.
Back to Top
twilights View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2013 at 00:13
omg are we going to play old peoples rules in broken too, war zone should mean war zone, shame the old people are already threatening the thing before it has even started, why not continue trying to ruin the game?
Back to Top
bansisdead View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 08 Jan 2012
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 609 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2013 at 00:25
Who u calling old gameplayer? /me attacks gameplayer with my zimmer frame .

Edited by bansisdead - 02 Feb 2013 at 00:32
Back to Top
Meagh View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 224 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2013 at 00:50
Originally posted by bansisdead bansisdead wrote:

Originally posted by gameplayer gameplayer wrote:

of course there is no need for training alliances on broken lances with the protected area.


I dont think the Devs should be getting involved in what an alliance does or doesn't do.  It is the players choice and not the devs.  Just because there is a protected zone doesn't mean new players wont benefit from being a member of a training alliance.  After all a protected zone isn't able to offer resources and advice on how best to build a city, this is down to the goodness of the player base.  Long live training alliances!

half of the current training alliances don't do this half as much as they should and and no decent regular alliance neglects it half as much as training alliances imply. - M.

Originally posted by gameplayer gameplayer wrote:

omg are we going to play old peoples rules in broken too, war zone should mean war zone, shame the old people are already threatening the thing before it has even started, why not continue trying to ruin the game?


-1 for decrying old people.

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

There is also a difference between a willingness to fight (if one must) and a desire to fight (because one enjoys it).

There really isn't when it comes to pvp. If you tell another player that they cannot settle on square X then you are engaged in pvp. imho everyone currently in game is a pvp player because all of elgea is in a pvp zone. Diplomacy conducted in GC and the forums is also part of that pvp gameplay. - M.


Edited by Meagh - 02 Feb 2013 at 00:50
Back to Top
Kumomoto View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2013 at 01:50
Originally posted by Meagh Meagh wrote:


There really isn't when it comes to pvp. If you tell another player that they cannot settle on square X then you are engaged in pvp. imho everyone currently in game is a pvp player because all of elgea is in a pvp zone. Diplomacy conducted in GC and the forums is also part of that pvp gameplay. - M.


This is one of the most astute things I've read on the Forums recently. Well said!
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Feb 2013 at 02:44
I agree that to some degree it doesn't matter whether one fights because one wishes to or because one is forced to.  If one is willing to fight, one is willing to fight.

However, to suggest that settling in an area where PvP is allowed means that one wishes to engage in PvP is similar to saying that because airplanes can crash, when one chooses to fly by plane, one wishes to be in an airplane crash.  Assumption of risk doesn't mean that one desires to have the adverse event occur.  There may be many reasons to settle in an area that allows PvP other than desiring PvP, especially with the way this proposal is set up.

For example, Brids claims that there is no reason to want sovereignty if you don't want to engage in open PvP.  This is obviously untrue.  One compelling reason to claim sovereignty is to speed troop production during tournaments.  Tournaments tend to be competitions of endurance and attrition, and the ability to reproduce troops quickly is a major determinant of success.  Not having sovereignty will limit the ability to succeed in tournaments.

I am not arguing one way or another about whether the design is "fair" or "a good idea."  I'm simply describing one of a number of reasons that under this design players with no desire to engage in open PvP may decide to risk the potential anyway (even though they'd rather not) because the game mechanics force them to do so in order to accomplish other goals.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.