Ok, first time poster in the Forums
First, let me say this - my views are my own, do not represent my alliance or any other player in Illyriad.
That being said, this poll is the most constructive dialogue I've seen on this in days. Not saying its perfect, but...it's a heck of a lot better than the degenerating name-calling, trollng and otherwise petulant behavior I've witnessed over the past week.
I will admit I'm rather new to Illyriad. I will admit, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. I will further admit that I have used humor in GC to try to deflect some of the simmering tensions between the vets that most of us in the new players camp find incomprehensible. If that has offended the vets, then I am sorry.
But you must concede that to someone who doesn't know the history, neither side seems to shine in a positive light when all you have to judge is pages and pages of what can be termed lightly as character assassination by both sides.
That being said, I've watched with interest that the only clarifying debate has been a series of notes between Curse (the player's name is escaping me) and Dakota Strider. Rill I know has asked the Five Armies and Valar to state their respective goals, aims, and outcomes succinctly. As far as I'm aware, this has not happened - or if it has happened between the sides, it has not been shared with the global community.
If, as at Curse suggests (in their case ), this is about territory and intrusion, then perhaps relocation would be an option. It might have the benefit of putting some physical space between the parties. And perhaps one of the territories could be designated the PvP corner, where people can settle to duke it out to their heart's content. Not saying this s feasible, or even likely.
Back to my previous thoughts:
The exchanging of outcomes should happen - if only because by sharing their terms with us, both sides become accountable to the global community if they fail to live up to or break their promises.
I do wish that both sides would explicitly state their outcomes. It would make parties interested in shuttle diplomacy more capable to the task. I actually have an academic degree in conflict resolution. What I'm seeing is a lot of talking over each other., and not much discussion of the actual conditions.
Unfortunately, TD has a point when he says that finding a 'true neutral' is going to be hard - simply because even those alliances sitting on the sidelines may feel a vested interest in playing to both sides - i'm talking about war profiteering here.
That doesn't mean you can't have a third party insider - someone whose interests allow them to be impartial because of ties to both sides. Sometimes the hardest thing in CR to do is to admit that everybody comes to a situation with a set of preconceived notions. As a professional, I try to always be aware of how I'm asserting my views into the process.
So I hope that person can be found.
I want to acknowledge for all players that this is going to involve some difficult choices. The reality is that as things currently stand, the harsher concessions will most likely have to come from VALAR because of the power asymmetry.
One can argue fairness and opportunism all they would like, but given the situation, in its current form, one must deal with the reality on the ground.
I know that for the VALAR the prospect of the loss of all that time and energy in building up an alliance - and their cities - must be devastating.
For the Five Armies, there seems to be a sense - for whatever reason - that VALAR is unable to rein in its members. Some would argue that this is a smokescreen for a strategy that would consolidate H? power. Maybe so.
But lets take H? at its word. That suggests that from their perspective - at a minimum - there will need to be a firmer, more explicit commitment from VALAR leadership to discipline its members. I'm not going to address calls for regime change or the ostracism of members because, well, that is petty. So let's put the assertions of Godwin's Law aside, and have some perspective; it's a game, not real life.
However, it doesn't change the dynamic, even if you take the position that it is bullying.
Because again, unfortunately, and I mean this with all sincerity, this is not real life. Most of the people, like me, see this as just a game. We simply don't have enough of an emotional connection to take the risk. I play to escape my stress, not add to it. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in justice, or helping the weak or that ganging up on players is the honorable thing to do.
Not taking up this fight doesn't make any of us callous or cowards; it just means that we don't want to invest additional emotional energy in this particular conflict. Doesn't mean we can't facilitate a discussion, but this is up to the parties themselves to resolve.
I think that even with the Fiver Armies, it is likely that only the most veteran players will be involved with this. And I would suggest that limits are put into place by both sides to limit damage to smaller players, who likely had little to no part in the precipitating events; I know one alliance has offered to act as de facto peacekeepers for any player targeted with less than 5,000 pop.
It is in the common interest for players to have as much latitude in playing styles as possible. It's also in the common interest to have as diverse a game as possible. These two items are not mutually exclusive.
This is a game - online - and that means that we don't have to look the other person in the eye. We forget that on the other side of our monitor there is another human being. This means unfortunately that we forget to check our vitriol at the door sometimes.
The purpose of this game is ultimately to have fun in a community. When we forget that I think the world feels a little colder, a little grayer, and frankly I think that's a real shame.
Tweet
What outcome would you LIKE for the Valar war?
Topic Options
Kilotov of DokGthung wrote:
