The 10-Square Myth

First, my primary argument: there is no 10-Square "Rule" in this game - that is a myth that needs to be broken apart and shoved down the throat of Audrey in her awakened state.

There is only a 10-Square "restriction" in this game, coded in by the developers to restrict settlement specifically by the Exodus or Tenaril movement processes, and that restriction is overcome by Sov 5 on the desired tile.  We can ask GM Stormcrow all day long as to "why" this was coded into the game, but the history will only be partly beneficial.

You can Settle a town within 10 squares!!  A Settler can be sent within the 10-square distance and settle a town, so what does this say about the intent of the dev's?  Again, none of these game coding dynamics results in a town "owning" squares around it - so why do we insist in speaking of and labeling a "10-Square Rule" that does not exist?

Okay, so you say your alliance upholds the "10-Square 'Rule'" for your alliance's sake.  Let's be clear on the terminology, and the semantics matters - what your alliance publishes is not a rule, it is an alliance policy.  None of us alliance leaders set rules in the game, we can only try to publish and enforce alliance policy.  So before you flame this post, recognize that.

More terminology: "tradition" - or even "Dogma."  Please look those up in your dictionary of choice.  That's a bit of what we have here in game with the 10-Square "Rule."

Land Sovereignty (not ownership).  We need to first be reminded that Sovereignty as defined means that the area is controlled and free from external influence.  However, a "Sovereign" tile can most certainly be influenced in this game!  If you do not have an army actively camped on a sovereign tile, the "locals" are not chasing off a neutral/enemy harvester, cotter, miner, herbalist, and especially not an enemy army.  Sovereignty, while the game continues to disallow counter-sov claims, is a (for now) permanent label but there is only one thing that sovereignty prevents: Settlement!!  So why do you think this gives you further ownership, when ownership in itself is different than sovereignty?  Sovereignty is the only coded-in labeling system to show a player's claims outside a town.  But - there's no 10-Square restriction to claiming sovereignty!  Think about that - the game coded in a system to claim land anywhere on the map, so long as your army can hold the land for the claim, and so long as you can afford to pay the gold.   

Land Control.  Now this is different, and regardless whether sovereignty does or does not exist on the tile - an Occupying Army can control land in this game.  That control by the army(s) will not last past 14 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes, unless the army is back-filled with another army before that time to continue the process of controlling the land.  Neutral or enemy harvesters are killed on site if they attempt to harvest from the same square an Army is occupying. 

While I am stating the obvious in terms of game dynamics, code, gameplay for many of you, I am putting all this in one thread because the primary argument is that we have a "norm" that is over-stated and misused in this game, to try and tell alliance members, newbs, and the whole community that there is a 10-Square "Rule" - but the rule is a myth.  Each alliance can try to make this a policy, and then fight to uphold their policy, but for the love of pete stop saying there is a 10-Square "Rule" that does not exist!!!

Myll

To be clear, my intent for this post is to prove once and for all that there is no 10-Square "Rule" and that we need to start calling it by the correct terminology in game and within our alliances.

 

KillerPoodle, you only reinforced this point, which actually bolsters my argument.  However, your alliance profile still has a hyperlinked "10-Square Rule" to an older discussion on the matter, in which more of the same is mentioned and shows that it is alliance policy and not a rule.

 

I am not trying to specifically make a point about Settlement.  That is only one aspect.  However, Settlement does need at least one follow-up clarification:  Within the game's code, Settlement can never be done on a tile on which another player has claimed Sovereignty.  That is a solid "Rule" if you will.  However, even this could be overcome in the future, when/if counter-sov claiming process is fixed, but then what does it get back to? Armies.  Those with a larger army will be able to claim or counter-claim the sov, and then the land gets controlled by the player who holds it.

 

I say this especially because the same is true already for resources.  Within the land surrounding a town, there is no game coded system to restrict other players from harvesting resources of any type, even when that res is just 1 square outside the town.  The only claim on those resources can be sat on by force, with an army.  Players may choose to play a calm/peaceful route, bumping each other's caravans, or they can attempt to control the res by force with armies.  But - to announce even in your alliance profile an alliance policy about such makes little difference to a player new to the game who shows up harvesting at your doorstep - why?  Because on average, they're not bothering to read your alliance policies, because they're not in your alliance.  I have a bunch of new players in my alliance, so I'm a bit more passionate about this issue now.  There are no divine mineral rights granted within 10-squares of towns, and many of you game veterans need to get over that.  In fact, if we get crowded and struggle for resources due to so many players being in this game - Great! That means the game company likely has more revenue, and we will see Broken Lands that much faster.  Maybe we'll see a duplicated Elgea server one day also.  Maybe the game dev's will make a non-pvp server for those who want armies to bounce off each other.  Regardless, we have the game as it exists now, without even the counter-sov capability yet, but some of you live in this game as control freaks.

 

If anything, many of you game veterans have developed policies and practices that sometimes can turn off many new players to this game.   The first 24-48 hours of gameplay are critical to retention of players for the long term.  I don't particularly like the tutorial system and timing, but it's what we have for now.  I am teaching my new alliance members to be resourceful, do quests, get into the Marketplace and trade, and avoid simply getting resources dumped on them.  All this requires a more open-ended gameplay for them, although they also know an army can show up and kill their harvesters (i.e. they aren't ignorant of risk/reward).  But to simply "say" you own things in the game that aren't coded in is ridiculous - put an army on the ground if you want to control something, otherwise the written policies are rubbish.

 

Myll

 

I already understand the diplomacy here, but it's the front-side of diplomacy that you veterans are missing - you need to show and display ownership first (i.e. harvest with armies present to control resources), not hope it happens with words.

 

Otherwise, be satisfied with caravan bumps.

Myll