Author Topic: OOC power-gaming???  (Read 885 times)

Zatirri

  • Marketing
  • Freeman
  • *****
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #45: May 17, 2020, 08:02:22 PM »
Quote
I don't mean to be picky here, but it was actually the "GOTLAND vs. CAELINT" war.

I agree with you there, but not that it was evenly matched. Caelint had Nothoi. Caelint however didn't die or disband, it changed it's name when it took in the other realms. Caelint by far won that war. They went from a tiny realm to a power of the North, that's a win, and a huge plus point for both the realm and the continent. Lots of small 6 man realms is really no good for anyone, but Irondale as it is now is a lot better.

Quote
But, at that time, anyone who asked on DISCORD about advice for joining a realm on BT, Obeah realm(s) and Thalmarkin were the "goto" advice that was given.

The reason Thalmarkin was recommended was because joining Thal would get them interaction. Many realms, on all continents, are silent. There are no prospects, and they are content with what they have. This might be good for the people there, but new players aren't looking to commit to a long term game of no interaction and idly sitting in capital. OS was recommended for the exact same reason despite being an enemy of Thalmarkin, so the IC bias was not there. It was purely recommended due to activity levels in the same way Perdan would be on EC. If your realm isn't being recommended, ask why, and try to see what you can do to make you realm more inviting.

Quote
You mention the "unofficial alliance block" of SV and Nothoi (and now include Irondale),

The quotation marks are disingenuous. This isn't speculation, there is one confirmed both IC and OOC. I haven't now included Irondale, it carried over from Caelint, as it is the same realm. In addition, SV was there during that conflict, they declared war on Thalmarkin quite early on.

Quote
I was not there for this, but I ask you this "what choice did they have?"  I would think they really had no choice.  Thal had, by that time, practically decimated every realm in the area that could have offered Gerhkia any type of assistance.

A realm of 6 people or less like Grehkia was, is going to die in any war. They could be against anyone, they're going to lose the war because they're just too small to really do anything. Merging was their best option and I am glad they took it and those players are doing much better in their new realm.

Quote
SELF IMPORTANCE.

Not so much importance, but responsibility. The players in Thal that you mention take their roles as community members seriously, and consider all sides fun when engaging with people. The OS war was fought almost entirely by 2 nobles doing role plays with them. The murder of their head priest was done entirely through roleplay. It was fun, it got people involved, and no one actually lost out. When people join the rebellion, the fun of those rebels is consider in action we take against them. When people protest, they are given a platform.

My point here, is that it doesn't matter if they are friend of foe IC, they are community members and we treated them like that to engage them where we could, through any medium we had available. It's not that no other realm could do that, they all could. But only Thal actually did.

You could spread all the players out, sure. But no. It isn't their job to all abandon their realms to go and put effort and time into your realm so you don't have too. Everyone should be putting in that same effort that they were. I am going to name and shame here, the players of Rea and Luitolf were especially positive. They have engaged more players on their own than many realms on BT have nobles, total. The idea that they should abandon everything they've set up to do that to come go make other realms more engaging so their nobles don't have too is a bit insulting.

Quote
And then you are surprised when suddenly most of the continent wants a piece of Thal

I made an active effort to balance things. Yes, I was surprised that the other realms on the continent, as players, chose to look at a realm that had administrated its own balance and see that as a weakness to be exploited. I don't expect everyone to care about everyone else's experience, as nice as that would be. But I do expect rulers too.

Quote
I have not played a noble on EC for a while now either, but when I was there, I know for a fact that the war could have been ended at the time by the "south" admitting defeat and giving up ONE city (Perdan) to end the war.
War over.

This is the exact issue. the North aren't winning, they are not gaining ground. Perdan is holding them without any issue and could go aggressive if they wanted, they don't want too. Perdan is a good realm irrelevant of that war. The fact you say the north would turn agaisnt eachother if this war ends is funny, because that's the point... half the continent should not be in eternal peace with eachother and doing nothing else.

If their entire identity revolves around a single war, that is a huge failure by those rulers and councilors and the lower down nobles should look to replace them.

Thalmarkin was quiet when I got there. It took work and time to grow it and make it into what it became. Same as with Perdan. It doesn't happen for free or because of OOC inviting. It happens because we created an environment that keeps people logging in. I absolutely agree that Thal and Sirion were similar. Both Northern realms, surrounded by allies doing nothing. But Thal turnt it around. Sirion refuses to do so.

I already had a clear picture of the other side, for I started OOC talks with Irondale's ruler the second I declared war. I sought to ensure we got on OOC so that we could make sure everyone's enjoying themselves and I also read EVERYTHING. Every IC letter, OOC letter, and discord message.
The vast majority of them trying to label it crying 'cause my realm lost a war, which is a strawman, and at this point has been explained so extensively how incorrect that is, that continuing to use that strawman is just embarrassingly transparent that they are trying to cover themselves.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2020, 08:21:39 PM by Zatirri »

Abstract

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #46: May 17, 2020, 09:03:16 PM »
OK, Thal was accepting of anyone regardless of their previous history, I will give you that point.  But, at that time, anyone who asked on DISCORD about advice for joining a realm on BT, Obeah realm(s) and Thalmarkin were the "goto" advice that was given.  I have not seen this so much in recent times, but it was the case then.

Just to clarify, other realms were recommended on discord. I know this because I personally recommended Gotland and Caelint as realms to join during that war. Seeing as I have been a pretty active member on discord, I'd say most new comers that looked for recommendations would get a message from me with recommendations.

The reasoning for recommending Gotland and Caelint was quite simple: they were at war and neighbors. Having short travel times helps make war more interesting because you don't have to spend a week or two travelling to get to the front. Though the message counts were lacking I was perfectly happy to recommend a realm that could be interesting for the war focused players.

Quote from: Zatirri
In addition, SV was there during that conflict, they declared war on Thalmarkin quite early on.

SV against Thalmarkin at the time was a separate conflict. SV declared war in response to Thalmarkin declaring war on OS. Thalmarkin declared war on OS because OS was sending infiltrators up to Thalmarkin and attacking nobles. So, it isn't really like Thalmarkin started that war or anything. The war between Thalmarkin & the southern realms (OS & SV at the time) was going to come regardless of what Thalmarmin did.

Now the reason for war was because of Mordok (surprise, it is still the reason.) As the ruler of OS at the time my thoughts of the war were as follows: we try to kill Mordok even though we almost certainly can't. Though the distance between realms are large the reason for war is interesting. When the forces met there would be the chance for interesting interaction (RP & messages). After a couple trips hopefully the birth of the Jidington realm (Lux Nova as it would be called) would have happened. Then a potential war in the south could be conceived. The war with Thal was never meant to be effective. (Edit: to clarify, at the beginning it was never meant to be effective. Later there was a desire to be effective because it was decided that it was possible to move OS, and maybe even Nova, to the north. That is a different story though.)

As far as I remember, other than infiltrators, OS and SV never acted against Thalmarkin during that time. (My character also went up to Thalmarkin with scrolls but this was just before the OS-Nova war started.) Thalmarkin also never really acted against OS. One Thal noble made a trip down there with a unit and a couple minor skirmishes happened but nothing actually important. Another went down with scrolls but the impact of that is debatable.

I bring up the points in that last paragraph in part because it seems that Thalmarkin getting "involved" in southern affairs was used to prove that Thalmarkin were "bullies". If the references to scrolls in the past parts of this thread are the scroll events I am thinking of then the interpretation is completely wrong. OS and Nova were not at war at the time and just negotiating. More importantly, it will be blaming Thalmarkin for a war that was essentially declared upon them.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2020, 09:28:11 PM by Abstract »

PolarRaven

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #47: May 17, 2020, 11:24:47 PM »
Quote
Quote

    I don't mean to be picky here, but it was actually the "GOTLAND vs. CAELINT" war.


I agree with you there, but not that it was evenly matched. Caelint had Nothoi. Caelint however didn't die or disband, it changed it's name when it took in the other realms. Caelint by far won that war. They went from a tiny realm to a power of the North, that's a win, and a huge plus point for both the realm and the continent. Lots of small 6 man realms is really no good for anyone, but Irondale as it is now is a lot better.

So that I don't re-quote myself quoting myself, I would ask that you read the very first post in this thread. 
A one on one war with no allies involved.  (the quoted message was copied from an in game message, no interpretation needed)

Caelint NO longer exists. 
They were merged with other realms to form a NEW realm. 
I suspect the name change was made to accommodate the various realms coming together as "equals". 
It is NOT the same realm any more.  Yes, I suspect that Irondale is a much better realm, but it is no longer Caelint. 
Were I to return as the former "King of Caelint", I suspect that there would be major difficulties in "reclaiming" the throne. 
One of the first arguments that I would expect to see is: "This is no longer Caelint and you have no claim to Irondale's throne." 
There may be a few that might accept the claim as valid, but I suspect that most of the current nobles would balk at the idea.

Matthew Runyon

  • Freeman
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #48: May 18, 2020, 01:58:31 AM »
The quotation marks are disingenuous. This isn't speculation, there is one confirmed both IC and OOC.

I think a point that I and others take issue with here is the description of the coalition as an alliance bloc.  Our characters all had different reasons for wanting to fight Thalmarkin, the fact that everything lined up all at once does not, in any way, indicate that those realms would have ended up at peace with each other afterwards.  There is a substantial segment of Obia'Syela that wants to fight the Vales and Nova again, as soon as is practical.  Saoirse is very leery of the Sanguine Order, and conflict there is almost inevitable if she stays in power (which is by no means guaranteed).  And that's just the stuff that I personally know about that could cause the whole thing to come tumbling down.

The fact that Thalmarkin gave reasons to so many realms, in my view, renders the argument about the alliance limitations moot.  I think it would be extremely poor form to, for example, insult literally every other realm on the continent, and then go "nyah, only one alliance bloc gets to attack me!", which is obviously an extreme example but in this particular case, not all that far off from what happened.  I recognize there is an ongoing disagreement about how to handle the intersection of IC justifications and OOC fun considerations, however.

Quote
I made an active effort to balance things. Yes, I was surprised that the other realms on the continent, as players, chose to look at a realm that had administrated its own balance and see that as a weakness to be exploited. I don't expect everyone to care about everyone else's experience, as nice as that would be. But I do expect rulers too.

This, to me, is a really big problem.  Thalmarkins characters took actions, IC, that resulted in various situations.  We heard after the fact that this was all part of an OOC plan to help balance out the fun of the continent.  Which, even if true, was not discussed with people OOC.  I've talked to a few people who play in Thalmarkin who had never heard of this idea.  No one outside of Thalmarkin that I've ever talked to has indicated that they had any idea this was the plan.

So, some number of the players in Thalmarkin, which was not all the players, decided that for the good of the continent OOC they would take actions that impacted almost every other realm on the continent IC, never said why they were doing this except IC, and then were surprised when people did not respond their hidden OOC planning, and instead responded to the IC actions.  To the outside perspective, this all looked like Thalmarkin's leadership had gone mad with power.

If you're going to take actions OOC for the fun of others, it's a good plan to tell those others what you're doing.  As a for-instance, when Jenred was in charge of Arcaea after the Sunset Crusade finished, I similarly felt like we needed to stir some stuff up.  So I talked with people OOC, made it clear why I was making the decisions I made, and when Jenred declared war on Zonasa over an old insult to his wife, everyone understood what was happening, and responded accordingly.  I'm not the only one who has done this, to be clear, I've seen it happen before which is what inspired me to do it.

It's also a good plan to not go from handling everything in character to immediately attacking everyone OOC, insulting all of the players involved, and demanding that they take action.

The number one problem with all of this, as far as I can tell from beginning to end, was a lack of player-to-player communication.

Zatirri

  • Marketing
  • Freeman
  • *****
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #49: May 18, 2020, 02:17:31 AM »
Hey Mathew,

I don't actually count OS as part of that alliance block. The block as far as I knew was always SV, Nothoi and Caelint/Irondale. OS has always been somewhat it's own thing, and has both aided and been opposed by the other realms at varying stages. I have no issue with OS, sinse the second they started the war on Thal it was nothing but entertaining.

As for speaking to no one, that isn't entirely true. The same turn I declared war on Irondale, I opened a dialogue OOC with Tiberius where I underlined what I was hoping for the war OOC, and offered what I could to ensure his realm could enjoy it too. I like Irondale, the smaller realms merging together to make a bigger more sustainable realm was always something I wanted to see and I very much wanted that merge to succeed. I believe Tiberius would even agree with me on this. This was done from day 1.

You are correct I didn't discuss it with everyone, but not everyone is accessible to be discussed with, and I was unaware at the time that declaring a war on one border would result in the entire continent turning against us. I expected Nothoi, and they joint as expected. I didn't insult the whole continent, though, I didn't speak to anyone beyond Nothoi and Irondale and the Daishi leaders. The chat with the Daishi leaders (IC) was not insulting either, it was requesting them to not weaponise the faith, as Daishi is a protected faith in Thal, but if it became a weapon that would no longer be viable.

Matthew Runyon

  • Freeman
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #50: May 18, 2020, 07:02:43 AM »
Hey John,

This thread is the first time I've heard about an OOC dialogue started with Tiberius' player, which I definitely think was a good step to take, but the fact that it hasn't come up in any of the other discussions I think speaks volumes.  Some if it about him, to be clear, but that goes back to what I see as the central point.  People who aren't involved on the OOC side of things are going to respond to the IC side, and if that starts causing OOC fun issues, then talking about it OOC is a good plan.

And if we're excluding OS from this, then what I'm hearing is that the issue was the Shattered Vales.  So we're down to talking about one realm joining that you weren't anticipating, who again was not in the loop on the OOC discussions.  Going back to Tim's comments that made me start talking on this forum thread, I'm failing to see how one realm jumping on outside of what was expected turns something from being a perfectly fine IC conflict to an OOC fun-killing conflict, which is again where I come back to having reservations about the entire approach on this.

I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who agrees we should have looked at the OOC side a little further, but even with hindsight I'm not clear where the line between the IC and OOC aspects of this starts.  And if I can't figure it out, in hindsight, with the kind of diplomatic experience I have, then I don't think it's likely we're going to have broad agreement on this, and we're going to end up with Titan intervention on all kinds of stuff, just because people have different interpretations of things.

PolarRaven

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #51: May 18, 2020, 08:48:49 AM »
Quote
The block as far as I knew was always SV, Nothoi and Caelint/Irondale.

I am not sure about what happened in Caelint after I left (ie when Tiberius took over as ruler), but I can assure that there was never any formal agreement between SV and Caelint while I was ruler.
SV and Nothoi have always had close ties, as far back as I can remember, but not Caelint and SV.

I don't believe SV ever once participated in the Gotland/Caelint war while I was there.

Zatirri

  • Marketing
  • Freeman
  • *****
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #52: May 18, 2020, 11:14:06 AM »
There was indeed an OOC conversation between myself and Tiberius, it wasn't addressed much publicly though which may have been an issue. But as a testament to the fact I really did want Irondale to succeed, and the war really was declared to allow their nobles that retribution and to spur some activity in both realms, as Thalmarkin was in a lull in activity at the time, I even assisted with the Irondale realm icon. To reiterate, I really do like Irondale, I want them to succeed and I want their merge to go well so that other small realms can look at their success through merges and see that as a viable option themselves.

I'm not so much excluding OS from it, but they aren't part of the unofficial alliance issue, but a separate one. They still saw a situation that was clearly not going to be fun, a complete stomp, and thought to add to the stomping. This situation was reversed a few months ago, where OS was at war with Nova, a fairly balanced war, and SV joint in to turn it into a stomp. Thalmarkin could have joint in as we were at war already, but we did not. We saw a stomp, and we began negotiations with the then ruler for Thalmarkin to actually come down and assist OS with their defence. We saw a crappy situation and looked for a way to make it more enjoyable, rather than a way to get an easy victory. It saddened me as a player to see so few other people thinking about anything other than their own success.

The line between IC and OOC, at least for me, is wherever the fun is. That's going to vary for different people. But if you're playing a Tyrant King, you can't play it fully IC... because a tyrant by their very nature is controlling and oppressive, which isn't fun for anyone, so you have to spread it out a bit, create vulnerabilities, sometimes you have to let some things go or pretend you didn't see something that you did. When it comes to wars, no war is going to be perfectly balanced and there will always be some people unhappy. This gets harder as realms get smaller, as I mentioned with Grehkia, because no war they can possibly get in would be balanced as they were that small. But a realm that small is really at fault themselves for not doing anything for so long that they lost noble support. But in general, if there are no options for remaining players, to the point that 30 nobles were just afk waiting to die because they couldn't move anywhere, something is seriously wrong.

Weisz Guys

  • Freeman
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #53: May 19, 2020, 04:19:00 AM »
Quote
The quotation marks are disingenuous. This isn't speculation, there is one confirmed both IC and OOC.

I don't accept this characterisation at all.  Polar Raven's use of inverted commas is perfectly reasonable.  This was very much the case of realms finding common cause/enemy on a singular issue.

Matthew R's characterisation is much more accurate:

Quote
I think a point that I and others take issue with here is the description of the coalition as an alliance bloc.  Our characters all had different reasons for wanting to fight Thalmarkin, the fact that everything lined up all at once does not, in any way, indicate that those realms would have ended up at peace with each other afterwards.  There is a substantial segment of Obia'Syela that wants to fight the Vales and Nova again, as soon as is practical.  Saoirse is very leery of the Sanguine Order, and conflict there is almost inevitable if she stays in power (which is by no means guaranteed).  And that's just the stuff that I personally know about that could cause the whole thing to come tumbling down.

Yet you respond to this by saying you didn't regard OS as being in the same block/behaviour?  What determines that other than your arbitrary say so - or your desire to court favour with players you deem superior? (which is a problematic mindset in itself).  SV's connections with OS despite being complicated as Matt R observes, are closer than with Nothoi or Irondale but by no means fixed.

The problem comes in that you made an OOC decision to forsake diplomacy, Irondale made a decision to go heavy on generating common cause diplomacy around the same time; having the potential to negate VS and draw common cause with SV.  It isn't for you OOC to tell them they cannot do that when they had already been making those connections prior to your declaration.  You seem to feel entitled to determine not only your dominant realms actions but everyone else's too.  If this war was going to be so much in Irondale's interests "fun" wise or otherwise, you failed to even make that case to them. 

Irondale/Nothoi's dominance as supposed inevitable victors in determining the terms on which the conflict ends seems something you failed to factor in also, even if as you tenuously argue, there would ever only be one outcome from even that more limited conflict.  You didn't let the losers in previous wars set the outcome for the end of those wars.  How were you planning to bring this war to an end after you lost some ground?  But the truth is that it would more accurately only be presented as posing a greater challenge for your realm rather than being a selfless war you were bound to lose, it was something Irondale clearly did not welcome with the risks it brought to the fragile bonds of a new realm.  Were you guaranteeing not to take any regions from them?  Irondale was already vulnerable on food and with trying to bring disparate players together who were already at a low morale from previous defeats.  It would have been better to seek agreement before setting that in motion rather than arrogantly to tell everyone how you have decided things should be - not only for your own realm but everyone else's too.  Thalmarkin's day of reckoning was always likely to come eventually, again it is not for you to be the sole decider in how that might come about.  As this thread lays out from different players, there were already plenty of IC stories building towards settling those scores.

As Matt R points out there are headaches regarding when and how to go OOC on these matters.  When we have been contacted OOC in a semi adult manner we have reacted promptly to mitigate the imbalance concerns.  There is still the counter balancing real sentiment that this takes advantage of our better nature in the process given your flimsy dismissal of hardships you inflicted on both characters and players through past events, which you justify only in retrospect and not with engagement with those players' concerns.  Hardships you have not shown willing to face up to for your own realm which you imply deserves some special status.  For ourselves going OOC too soon with VS would have removed the IC tension from the situation.  There was great uncertainty when our forces rounded the point of no return at Reeds leaving our homelands exposed.  If we had gone OOC too soon it would have stifled that tension and limited VS's agency to react in what turned out to be a very unexpected manner (but again justifiable IC).

Issues regarding imbalance could have been and ultimately were, addressed promptly when we were contacted in a mature manner OOC rather than an escalating mix of IC/OOC arguments culminating in you inferring we/I was borderline cheating.  We shared a good natured enough brief OOC exchange where the only point I made was if you wanted to look at OOC resolutions message me directly rather than playing to the crowd as you had been with your mixed IC/OOC arguments.  You chose to do the opposite to that.

Other than the difficulty of determining when to go OOC, and the need for that to be consultative where possible rather than telling people how you expect them to behave, it does also reveal a common likely problem.  Players will inevitably disagree on interpretations of past and present events.  Your attempt to present yourself as IC bully, OOC teachers pet with "special" insight or presumed (by you) approval from the mods is problematic for me when different interpretations are inevitable.  If we are working towards a good protocol outline with the declarations that could be positive, but if there is sufficient grey areas around the OOC side then debates seem more likely to be inflamed rather than mitigated.

Zatirri

  • Marketing
  • Freeman
  • *****
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #54: May 19, 2020, 03:50:13 PM »
Quote
I don't accept this characterisation at all.  Polar Raven's use of inverted commas is perfectly reasonable.  This was very much the case of realms finding common cause/enemy on a singular issue.
Quote

Are you saying you do not refer to it as a federation or coalition? If I were to link in evidence of you doing so, would that make you change your story? Are you also claiming you did not join because you were requested too?

Quote
Yet you respond to this by saying you didn't regard OS as being in the same block/behaviour?

OS has fought against people in that alliance block. SV has not. Having common ground in one war makes sense, having an unofficial alliance so that you side with them on all, does not. OS fighting against people in the block aswell shows dynamic relations. Always siding with the same people shows the inverse.

Quote
The problem comes in that you made an OOC decision to forsake diplomacy, Irondale made a decision to go heavy on generating common cause diplomacy

"You made an OOC decision to prioritise continent health over personal strength, Irondale chose themselves."

Quote
If this war was going to be so much in Irondale's interests "fun" wise or otherwise, you failed to even make that case to them.

It was made very clear. You just weren't in the discussion as I was not aware a neutral realm leader would have to be involved in all talks.

The rest of your comment is just personal attacks against me so I wont bother with that.


Weisz Guys

  • Freeman
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #55: May 19, 2020, 09:19:33 PM »
Federation and a coalition have different meanings, so it is you who are changing your story from my perspective by trying to switch those terms.  There may have been some expressions of IC solidarity in response to what were at the time your IC complaints, but these are understandable responses to you trying to drive an IC wedge between those opposing you.  You left it very late in the day to make any OOC points at all to us when we were clearly involved and they were made in pretty bad temper.

A coalition is a more temporary arrangement by definition.  In this case a shared IC common cause against Thalmarkin aggression, something that for us has roots beyond this event.

A coalition is < than an alliance.  A federation as the word meaning and the game set up will tell you is > than an alliance.

Switching those words about as though the same would be disingenuous, a word you deployed against someone who was quite aptly reflecting their scepticism on your own claim of us all being in an ““"unofficial alliance block.”””

If you think there is an agreement between Irondale/Nothoi/SV to fight on the same side in any conflict you are incorrect.  There is a treaty involving OS and SV, called the “Southern Coalition” that is also more complicated than it might seem based on IC and maybe even some OOC resentment remaining from our preceding war.

OS have not fought Irondale or Nothoi in the past.  They only fought us.  By that logic we would equally be eligible to be excluded from what you wish to present as a "uniform alliance" for the sake of your own argument.  But that does not fit with your previously stated dislike for my realm.

Making something “clear” to Irondale and reaching agreement with them are also very different things.  You only get to police who and how Irondale can talk to other parties if they agreed to your idea for a specially defined war.  They obviously didn’t agree thus you failed at the first hurdle.

It is not a personal attack to criticise a flawed argument.  If you want to be more sensitive about criticism maybe throw less of it around.  Policing people's use of inverted commas and now criticising Irondale for not agreeing with you with for what you say was in their best interests, ergo their decision was selfish etc.

Someone else is probably better placed to communicate these concepts to you so I am not looking for an ongoing flame war OOC.  I did not engage with your own posts on your personal interpretation of events as that is your subjective view and good luck with it.  If you are going to object to other players taking even "mildly" different views on events though, then I am entitled to set the record straight.

PolarRaven

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #56: May 19, 2020, 09:39:13 PM »
Quote
"You made an OOC decision to prioritise continent health over personal strength, Irondale chose themselves."

It seems to me that Tiberius did what he could to garner support from whereever he could.  Maybe this is was wrong of him, but look at the history of recent events.  Thalmarkin has impacted pretty much every noble of Irondale in a negative way.  Each of the realms that joined Irondale were defeated by Thalmarkin in recent times and were forced to move together by the actions of Thalmarkin.

Of course he would garner support from outside his realm, considering Thalmarkin had been the one to decimate every realm that merged into Irondale.

The one thing that stands out in your various posts is that YOU decided.
YOU decided who should be involved.
YOU decided how it should be done.
YOU felt it would be good for the continent.
...

If you felt that your actions were done for the betterment of the entire continent, I would have thought that you should have included more of the continent in YOUR decision making.  From the conversations I have seen (OOC) there was not much "sharing" on your part when you were planning this all out.  It seems that most of the rulers of BT were unaware of your plan.  I have heard from people in Thal that they knew nothing of your plan. 
I offer this thought, when YOU are making plans for the entire continent, maybe YOU should include more people in your plan making process.  You can not just make up a plan and expect everyone else to just fall into line with your idea. 
You have made too many assumptions in your plans without speaking to those involved (or who may become involved).

It has been pointed out to other players about assuming being a big part of the problem.

« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 09:41:30 PM by PolarRaven »

Zatirri

  • Marketing
  • Freeman
  • *****
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #57: May 19, 2020, 10:28:42 PM »
It was discussed publicly. Anyone in Thal that was not aware, were people who actively choose to not read their letters. I can put the letters out, I can't force them to be read.

I've explained all this already so I am not going to go into a circular arguement.

This has nothing to do with Thal losing a war no matter how much you want to spin it as such. This was an issue on all continents. This was an issue ruining fun on all continents. This was an issue that was already meant to have been addressed. There was a resolution that a few players tried to bispass for an in character advantage.


PolarRaven

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #58: May 20, 2020, 07:09:07 AM »
Maybe You misunderstood what I was trying to say.

You seem to want to blame anyone and everyone for the circumstances that led to the failure of what you have tried to set up/plan out.
Irondale should not have invited others into your war.  (except of course Nothoi, because you planned for their inclusion in your plans)
Your former allies should not have become involved in your war.  (You disrespected them so as to not have your side over powered for the upcoming war, though you failed to consider that your actions against them may have actually pushed them to the "other" side.)
People from your own realm are at fault because they obviously ignored your posts.  (no, I do not need to see them.  For one reason or another, your reasoning/plans were not clear enough to those members in your own realm.)

Have you considered that maybe some of the fault is your own in this situation?
Would your former allies have become involved if you had clearly explained your motives behind your actions?
Would Irondale have gone seeking support from other friendly realms if they had actually been given a clear picture of the plan you were trying to implement?
Do you truly believe that the members of Thal deliberately ignored your plans for this particular war?

Have you considered that maybe some of the fault could be yours in how this situation arose?
Instead of blaming everyone else, it may be time to consider that your plan was not clearly explained to those that needed to be involved in making such huge continent-wide decisions. 

Maybe consider a re-read the govt rules:
Make failures your responsibility
If things do not work out the way you planned them, ask which mistakes you may have made first, before you flame other players for being dimwits.
If your orders were not followed, check if you posted them early enough, taking timezones into account, and if they were clear and easy to understand, especially to people whose native language is not english.
You should question your own abilities first, before you question others.


I don't believe that we have seen anything from you that would show you have accepted any responsibility for the recent troubles on BT. 
Rather, you have blamed everyone else for willingly and knowingly joining in on a bash Thalmarkin in a dogpile situation as though they all got together and INTENTIONALLY broke the rules of fair conduct to subvert the alliance bloc limits. 
Also implying that this is, and will continue to be, an ongoing breach of the rules by those players who will continue to perpetrate this poor behavior in an effort to "further their own gains" illegally.

Look around, not everybody is a cheater/opportunist waiting for a chance to get ahead by breaking the rules. 
Circumstances that Thalmarkin, and yourself most recently, created are what led to this confusing situation.
Accept some ownership for your own actions that likely led to this current misunderstanding.

Zatirri

  • Marketing
  • Freeman
  • *****
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: OOC power-gaming???
« Reply #59: May 20, 2020, 12:43:26 PM »
PolarRaven,

I do not misunderstand your point. Your point is irrelevent. You want to contain this to being me having an issue purely with Thalmarkin. It is not. It is a widespread issue, Thalmarkin was just one individual circumstance. You are also very clearly unaware of what actually happened.
I did not insult VS. They declared war before I spoke poorly of them. Prior to that, I worked with them in an attempt to maintain the neutrality. Neutrality became less worth it to them as time went on. Nothing from myself was going to change that.
I did not insult SV. The only interaction I had with SV was their priest, Yao Ling Pride or something like that, where I tried to stress the importance of stopping Daishi being used as a weapon for the faith was protected.

No, none of the fault for some people bipassing game mechanics for an advantage is my fault. That is my only complaint.
Stop trying to spin it to being abut me being annoyed Thalmarkin lost.
It's not working.
You can keep trying, but it false, and everytime you try to do it, it becomes very clear that you are trying to strawman to push your agenda.