Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Land Claims
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Land Claims
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
geofrey View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 185 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote geofrey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2012 at 14:49
OP created this forum for the land claims / territories that already exist. You are all acting like land claims do not exist in-game. They do. They have. You've all acknowledged them. If you disagree with these statements go elsewhere. Personally I would love a master list of territories that are nearly exclusive to different alliances so I DONT have to scourge the map or send 100 ravens with messages requesting information on territorial claims. 

Mal Motsha is under rule of the Dark Star Nation ruled by the Black Skull Horde and The Colony alliances. That would be a land claim worth noting. 

Fara Isle has been claimed by STA. That seems important. 

I have heard "Crow lands" and "Valor Territory" many times in global chat and I still don't know where those are. 

Nearly all of the Islands have been occupied, and I can't keep up with who or what alliance owns them. That seems pertinent. 

Invictus [VIC] has a very strong and dominant presence in the border between Zanpur and Turalia. It seems like they are planning on owning the river that seperates the two states. However, I don't know what nature their occupation of this territory is, and if they would oppose other alliances setting up camp on the river front. 

If you want to argue about the best ways to mark your territory, please do that elsewhere. If you want to list territories that you or your alliance claim, continue posting. 





Edited by geofrey - 09 Feb 2012 at 18:43
Back to Top
dunnoob View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Status: Online
Points: 106 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote dunnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2012 at 18:02
IMHO land claims are either obvious or bogus.  The proclaimed 10sq "rule" inspired by the real teleport rule presumably made sense when Elgea was less populated, but as it is today there are towns in this distance almost everywhere (excl. oceans, deserts, and ice).  Quick sanity check, the map covers roughly 2,000*2,000 = 4,000,000 squares.  There are more than 150,000 towns reported on the H statistics page.  If only 40,000 are "real" towns that's in theory 4,000,000/40,000=100=10*10 arguably justifying a 5sq "rule".  

Of course allied cities can be closer to each other, leaving more room for others, but in essence Elgea is too populated to stay 10sq away from all existing cities.
  
Back to Top
geofrey View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 185 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote geofrey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2012 at 18:36
Originally posted by dunnoob dunnoob wrote:

IMHO land claims are either obvious or bogus.  
  

Name all the land claims that are obvious to you, and I will find a player (most likely me) that didn't know about it. 

I think it is clear that actual "you shall not pass" land claims have not been effective in the past. We all get it. OP didn't create this post so we could poke fun at it, or so we can debate how best to claim land. 

I don't understand everyone's pursuit to de-rail this topic. If you, or your alliance want to claim any land, do so in this post. Otherwise go make your bogus claims and exclamation of gameplay mastery elsewhere.  




Edited by geofrey - 09 Feb 2012 at 18:42
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 2160 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Feb 2012 at 19:53
I think discussion of whether the idea of land claims is valid or not is very germane to a topic that invites people to post land claims.
Back to Top
Albatross View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Online
Points: 267 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Albatross Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2012 at 00:23
OK then, let the OP try again with a fresh thread, with a note to discuss the merits of such claims only in this thead. We'll all be good, and not junk it :o)
Back to Top
Bonaparta View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2011
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 188 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bonaparta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2012 at 14:25
Originally posted by dunnoob dunnoob wrote:

IMHO land claims are either obvious or bogus.  The proclaimed 10sq "rule" inspired by the real teleport rule presumably made sense when Elgea was less populated, but as it is today there are towns in this distance almost everywhere (excl. oceans, deserts, and ice).  Quick sanity check, the map covers roughly 2,000*2,000 = 4,000,000 squares.  There are more than 150,000 towns reported on the H statistics page.  If only 40,000 are "real" towns that's in theory 4,000,000/40,000=100=10*10 arguably justifying a 5sq "rule".  

Of course allied cities can be closer to each other, leaving more room for others, but in essence Elgea is too populated to stay 10sq away from all existing cities.
  

I agree with you. There is no space on the map to make 10 square claims viable for all...

Well let's calculate H? 10 square claim...

1 town occupies 314 squares on the map.
H? alliance page shows 693 towns which means 194K squares. That is 4,85% of the map. Of course some of those towns are close to each other so the real result would be around half of those squares. But big chunks of map are simply uninhabitable so the % might be right.  

If every alliance would made exactly the same claim as H? did, the map should be 3 times bigger to make this possible (assuming 40K towns). 
Back to Top
Llyorn Of Jaensch View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 604 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Llyorn Of Jaensch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2012 at 14:41
Originally posted by Bonaparta Bonaparta wrote:

Well let's calculate H? 10 square claim...


Getting annoying.

Harmless has SIMPLY REQUESTED DIALOGUE before moving within that proximity.

You can have your own opinions but you cannot have your own facts.

Understand what you are talking about before talking about it please.
"ouch...best of luck."
HonoredMule
Back to Top
SugarFree View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 09 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 99 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SugarFree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Feb 2012 at 14:44
Originally posted by Bonaparta Bonaparta wrote:

Originally posted by dunnoob dunnoob wrote:

IMHO land claims are either obvious or bogus.  The proclaimed 10sq "rule" inspired by the real teleport rule presumably made sense when Elgea was less populated, but as it is today there are towns in this distance almost everywhere (excl. oceans, deserts, and ice).  Quick sanity check, the map covers roughly 2,000*2,000 = 4,000,000 squares.  There are more than 150,000 towns reported on the H statistics page.  If only 40,000 are "real" towns that's in theory 4,000,000/40,000=100=10*10 arguably justifying a 5sq "rule".  

Of course allied cities can be closer to each other, leaving more room for others, but in essence Elgea is too populated to stay 10sq away from all existing cities.
  

I agree with you. There is no space on the map to make 10 square claims viable for all...

Well let's calculate H? 10 square claim...

1 town occupies 314 squares on the map.
H? alliance page shows 693 towns which means 194K squares. That is 4,85% of the map. Of course some of those towns are close to each other so the real result would be around half of those squares. But big chunks of map are simply uninhabitable so the % might be right.  

If every alliance would made exactly the same claim as H? did, the map should be 3 times bigger to make this possible (assuming 40K towns). 

exactly. that's why we have military to discuss this matters in a more uncivilized way. 
those that can back their claims up will have it their way. Goes without saying that H? has the means to virtually claim their 10sq terrain. 
so, one thing i would advice is for the peoples of illyria to mind their own business and act against land claims only if directly involved or if the newbies are pushed out off the game. ( still, there is this exodus system to move away)
Nuisance
Back to Top
Jefke View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 08 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 12 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jefke Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2012 at 11:25

interesting variation on land claims ... I hope to have removed references to real players & alliances (SkB is obviously involved and we did not start this conversation) - read from bottom to top.

> FW: RE: RE: RE: RE: hub infringement
> Received: 22 Mar 2012 22:07

the neutrals i can recruit but since i will be getting a lot of 12345 there  aaaaa will see an increase in 12345 player surrounding that city as it will be 12345 hub as will the others my sov will be going on max for 50 squares

> RE: RE: RE: RE: hub infringement
> Received: 22 Mar 2012 22:04
> Original Message:

I dont know what to say really.  xxxx is the only one of those players to have settled new towns (other than yyyyy's right next to her spawned capital) and he is a good distance from any of your cities.  I would have considered it aggressive if someone settled within say 5 squares and threatened to steal some of your sovereignty squares but this hasn't happened.

There are also plenty of players from other alliances and many neutrals in the area as well.  Its very mixed and no one can realistically claim it as their own.

ZZZZZZZZ

> RE: RE: RE: hub infringement
> Received: 22 Mar 2012 21:54

i feel threatened as it not only him aaaaaa bbbbbb n ccccccc are like surrounding me n also our hub is gona be around my main city n between the  said city n my 2nd largiest  

> RE: RE: hub infringement
> Received: 22 Mar 2012 17:24

Hi AAAAAAAAA,

As far as I can tell no one has settled a new city within 10 squares of AAAAAA.  Our closest player to you, 111111111 , has been in the alliance for 2 months and I believe is in his original spawn spot.

Can you be more specific about what infringement you are talking about?

ZZZZZZZZZ

 > RE: hub infringement
> Received: 22 Mar 2012 15:30

hi ZZZZZZZZZ,

what is your alliance intentions too my cap and the 12345 hub as you are infringing on the hub and surrounding it 

regards

AAAAAAAAA
Back to Top
Mona Lisa View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 11 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mona Lisa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2012 at 03:16
This whole topic is always destined to end up as troll bait.

Seems common sense rules work best... the 10 square "Rule" is really somewhat of a common sense way to avoid conflict.  Many of those posting above seriously are was off base in calculating how many squares are actually consumed by this 10 square construct....  remember if you abide by a 10 square rule and actually build a city 10 squares away....  your 10 square radius will then overlap ...  the calculations people were tossing out above were way off base ( they would require 20 square city to city which is insane)...  10 squares city to city essentially allows a buffer for the most commonly extended SOV usage for each city to be clear of controversy... it is not an unreasonable land grab...   if each person built typical sov out from their city center ( rarely more than 4 squares away anyway)  two cities 10 squares away from each other will still not risk overlapping SOV.

People just blow the 10 square thing so out of proportion it is just silly, its not unreasonable, its just a safe common sense rule of thumb that will avoid issues in 99% of the cases.....

.. If you try to build a city 5 square from my city center...  chances are you would be greatly hampered by the SOV landing close to your doorstep.. so why bother?  There is ample, ample room to leave the 10 square rule of thumb as a good guideline.  If you wish to settle settle closer.. mail the potential neighbor and see how close the comfort zone is...  often the 10 sq zone is negotiable....  but if you plop a city within the logical SOV zone of someone elses city unannounced. . . expect to cause conflict.... and few people would rush to your defense.....

Just common sense seems so easy to apply... why is it so hard in practice?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down