Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Elgea Community Harvesting Norms
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Elgea Community Harvesting Norms

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Wartow View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 May 2014
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wartow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Elgea Community Harvesting Norms
    Posted: 13 May 2015 at 15:10
Hi all,

I'm one week out from my first Illy anniversary.  Yay me!  

But I have more to say than that...

What are the accepted norms for harvesting in Elgea?  I have an over abundance of harvesters in my Elgea cities and often send them on long journeys.  I do my best to make sure that the spot to which I am sending them are not occupied by an encampment, have a sov claim, or are within 5 squares of another city.

However... It seems not everyone shares the same general parameters and have taken issue with some of my harvesting activities.  Different players have taken different responses but for the most part many of them are courteous and our interactions have remained positive.

I could review the profiles of every player and alliance near every spot on which I want to harvest, but who has time for that?

Is my understanding of the parameters (5 squares, sov claim, encampment) really the norm or is it widely accepted that players and/or alliances can expand the number of squares (10, 15, 20) or claim entire regions around a cluster of cities to be their exclusive harvesting domain?

Let's go one further... harvesting kills...  Should the same parameters apply?

In general, I look to be a positive and active player in this game and seek to be a trading partner, an educator of new players, and in the Illy tradition very generous with the resources to those with the potential to do likewise.

I'll leave this for you, the Illy Elgea community, to resolve and move towards a consensus.  And yes, let's assume we are talking about matters outside of the newbie ring (where the 5 square rule and general tolerance for others is generous).

Take care,

\/\/artow
Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2015 at 16:37
Opinions vary widely on this issue. The following are my personal opinions, and some observations on common sense.

I distinguish between rare herbs and minerals, and hunting kills. I find it more reasonable to consider permanent resources within 5 squares of your city to be your personal property. However, I also believe that if you find a resource particularly valuable, you should establish a level 1 sov claim on that tile to clearly declare ownership. Many people argue that a sov claim is too expensive, to which I reply, if the sov claim is too expensive, then the resource isn't valuable enough to squabble over. I also post guards on herbs and mines, which also should be respected as establishing ownership. Guards prevent over-harvesting of herbs, and also protect your miners and herbalists from getting eaten by random animals. I have the unusual view that mines (and not herbs) with sov claims but no guards can be harvested by anyone, since mines cannot be destroyed. If the owner wants exclusive access, that's what armies are for. If the army cannot be spared, then the resource isn't worth squabbling over.

It is remarkably bad form to send large numbers of herbalists across the map, potentially destroying rare herbs that closer people might harvest.

For hunting, I avoid landing on people's sov claims, and I never put encampments next to their cities. Since hunting is active, ownership belongs to the hunter. It is good form to keep your army on a kill while you are harvesting. This resolves any ownership questions. Animals kill each other on the map frequently, and those piles are indistinguishable from player kills. When a player is finished with a kill, removing the army signals to everyone that the kill is now public property. If you want the kill but don't want to keep the army there, tough, if it isn't valuable enough to guard for several hours, it isn't valuable enough to squabble over ownership.

Under no circumstances should players send an army to a kill that isn't theirs. That's a great way to kill someone else's skinners and cause a pointless argument. I consider it foolish to send skinners to kills that aren't mine, for two reasons. First, some moron might send an army there and kill my skinners. Second, animals often re-spawn on the same tiles, and they can appear without warning between harvester dispatch and arrival. One baby puma can eat 25M gold worth of skinners, and that isn't worth the risk.

People who send armies to elementals more than 100 squares away should be buried to their neck in the sand and coated with honey and fire ants.

Regarding basic resource harvesting, people should be allowed to clean the map anywhere except sov claims. Whining about caravans when you don't intend to harvest yourself is just petty, no matter how close they get to your town. Likewise, if your caravans or cotters get killed by someone else, suck it up and rebuild them. Nobody cares about your 100 gold of lost units.
Back to Top
Diva View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 399
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Diva Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2015 at 17:20
Truly, that is a question. Some people do kill out side their normal territory for the variety that isn't found in their own neighborhood. 

Respecting the sov/sq rules seems adequate to me. And assuming 5 squares seems pretty reasonable. 

Is it a new breed of alliance ruling areas?.. I know of 1 or 2. I'm not so happy about it, it seems to cause more friction (and of course I've heard that's what some want)... 

Seems we are changing into another game with some of the changes. I left that game, just sayin'.


"Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire
Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2386
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2015 at 18:33
Originally posted by Diva Diva wrote:

Truly, that is a question. Some people do kill out side their normal territory for the variety that isn't found in their own neighborhood. 

That's why the Artefores invented trade.

Not sure I understood the other comment about changing games.
Back to Top
Wartow View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 May 2014
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Wartow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 May 2015 at 20:02
Point of Clarification: When I send my harvesters long distances... It is never in large groups.  95% of the time it is a single harvester.  The other 5% of the time it is 2-3 harvesters and usually for those herbs or minerals that are harvested in a short period of time.  Getting bumped because I sent too many just means long and unproductive walks for my harvesters.  I also do my best to avoid over harvesting.
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2015 at 04:49
My personal opinion is that if there is someone harvesting from 200 squares away (or 2000 squares away) and someone else wanting to harvest from 20 squares away, it's reasonable to give precedence to the person who is closer.

All of these things whether 5 squares, 10 squares, whatever, are of course a matter of conventions and agreements between players, so I recognize that reasonable people might disagree on this matter.

In general I would observe that there isn't much that is so valuable that insisting on priority in harvesting it is really worth pissing someone else off.  I would generally recommend a cooling off period before engaging in a dispute of this type.  I know that I need one!  Usually if I take a day or two, I decide that it is not such a big deal.
Back to Top
Janders View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 02 Jul 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 36
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Janders Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2015 at 18:19
I agree with the general tone.

In order of ownership:

Sov'd w/ army > Sov'd > w/i 5sq with army > w/i 5 square > w/i 10q w/ army >w/i 10 sq > random army off in the ether.

I think any resource that is sov'd or within 5sq of a city is a reasonable claim, and placing an army there is a wise move to further your claim and protect your harvesters.

I think unique resources out to 10sq from your city CAN BE reasonably claimed, but you really should plant an army to delineate this.  Remember, other cities may be within 10sq of said unique resource so you may need to share.

I agree, any hunting kills not within 5sq of your city really should have an army left to occupy if you want sole ownership of the corpses.  In some areas of the map I send harvesters at apparent animal kills all the time (cotters mostly).

What I find most questionable is the act of planting an army on a resource (aside from a kill) that is 50+ sq from your city.  You see some mines in BL with a random army from a city 200sq away guarding them.  IMO they have no reasonable claim to said mine, and while they are welcome to harvest from it, they shouldn't be surprised if others ask them to move their army.

I think its fine to send harvesters across the map to gather things if you like, knowing there is a decent chance they might get killed by animals/armies when they arrive.  The fault of that entirely lies on the distant sending player, and isn't a big deal as long as they go into the situation understanding that.
Back to Top
Dungshoveleux View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 09 Nov 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 736
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Dungshoveleux Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2015 at 20:26
Harvesting is a sometimes hazardous occupation but I can honestly say that disputes are few and far between.  Some alliances and players have a much more stringent and greedy set of rules, but mine are fairly relaxed, almost horizontal in fact.  Most situations result in new friends, compromises and beneficial trade.  I could name exceptions to this "rule" and doubtless some would mention me as an exception.  One point - I don't deliberately kill other harvesters but scout and bump them and if necessary send a polite note to the other party.  Sometimes long distance harvesters run into my occupying army but as said before, it is their problem sending from so far away, it's more risky.  But I like to think that most of  those I've interacted with have become "allies" working together, swapping stuff, harvesting and so on.  Hell, I even sent a tentacle and a beer to someone the other week just because I was feeling generous after polishing off half a bottle of wine.  Just saying!

Edited by Dungshoveleux - 14 May 2015 at 20:27
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.07
Copyright ©2001-2016 Web Wiz Ltd.