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

Topic ClosedValid Land Claims in the New Era

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
Author
Gragnog View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 11:03
Lets face it, if you place an army near someones city without informing them, it is an act of aggression and you should expect and aggressive response. If someone places an army near my cities, I will destroy it unless some sort of agreement has been reached without bothering to message them. If the area around me is shared by other players, I will try reach an agreement with those players, and no others.

The bottom line is respect my space and I will respect yours. 
Back to Top
TomBombadil View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 59
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 11:06
I have no problem with seeing sovereignty directly connected to a city as sacred owned territory as it very much forms part of your city, but claiming sovereignty on a square far away is no more than a flag to me.

A flag popping up in a territory dominated by others is even more meaningless unless they already consider your claim fully valid. If the claim goes unsupported the flag is more of an passive aggressive gesture than anything.

Granted, there are some accepted norms regarding which claims are supported, but a server-wide rule would be unfeasible.

For example, in Northern Wolgast, claims of ownership on rare resources are mutually supported by a large number of alliances if that resource is closest to your city. A stable and quite fair norm. No sovereignty is needed to confirm your claim.

On some of the Southern islands all the rare resources are claimed by a single alliance with only a small number of harvesting rights being granted to non-alliance members who happen to live directly next to these squares. That might seem unfair but that's what you can expect if you live in the middle of another alliance's cluster. Placing a sovereignty flag there is meaningless since everything is already regarded as owned.

If you live in the newb ring you can pretty much expect the strongest to hold whatever they want.

If you live far off in the huggy wilderness you can likely expect neighbours to be much more friendly about these things.

The best you can really hope for is a stable regional norm.




Edited by TomBombadil - 07 Sep 2012 at 11:09
Back to Top
Myzel View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 101
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 11:10
Originally posted by Smoking GNU Smoking GNU wrote:

Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I disagree that placing an army is necessarily an act of aggression.  


I'm confused by this.
An Army is by it's DEFINITION a tool of aggression. You kill people with it. You use it to siege and destroy/take over cities with it. You blockade peoples cities with it. How could placing it close to someone elses' city NOT be considered in any way aggressive?



Aggression by definition has a target, and the target depends on the intent of the person being aggressive. If the target is a group of animals that happen to be near Player X's town, it is an act of agression towards those animals, not Player X.

On topic: It's good to understand what people would find rude, but it seems a little naieve to think that it is the (forum!) community's job to come up with some kind of inernational law to regulate this. Even those guiding principles up there read like a legal document. Players and alliances seem to be very capable of resolving 'friction' through diplomacy. Not having guiding principles or international rulings that people can base their claims on can actually make things easier in diplomacy. Or at least simpler.
Back to Top
Grego View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 09 May 2010
Location: Klek
Status: Offline
Points: 729
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 13:02
"Aggression by definition has a target, and the target depends on the intent of the person being aggressive. If the target is a group of animals that happen to be near Player X's town, it is an act of agression towards those animals, not Player X."

Aggression toward animals near my towns will face agression of my armies, unless we are friends.

"Players and alliances seem to be very capable of resolving 'friction' through diplomacy. Not having guiding principles or international rulings that people can base their claims on can actually make things easier in diplomacy. Or at least simpler."

Absolutely! It will always be individual solution for involved parties, not some higher laws which we all should obey. Of course, strong will tend to inforce them, when and how it suits them..
Back to Top
Berylla View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2011
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 13:57
Let's asume I have a farm, a large property, with a nice pond, a stream with fish, large pastures, some horses, cattle, pigs and so on, as well as some apple trees and berry bushes.
One day I ride out to enjoy my land as well as check on my animals and see if the apples are right for the picking. Suddenly I come upon a campsite with tents and a large camp-fire. There are men sitting around it. A pig is roasting on a spit and a basket of apple can be seen outside one of the tents. A string of fish is drying in the sun.

Now... I can do a number of things in this situation.

1. Take out my shotgun, and kill them all, disposing of the people. After all, it is MY land and MY pig, MY apples and MY fish. In some countries, this would be completely fine by the law.

2. Talk to them, ask them what they are doing, who they are, and then politely inform them that they are trespassing.

In no 2, I can get several responses, and my action will follow according to what they say.
I can then let them stay if they pay for the pig, fish and apples. I can run them off my land. I can call in the police and have them arrested. 
Or I could just kill them because I didn't like their snot-nosed replies and bury their bodies. Who will know? It's MY land and it's huge, and they had no right to be there.

I personally follow no 2, but I guess some people follow no 1. If it's THEIR land, it's in THEIR right to do what they like, as long as the law accepts it.

BTW... you don't hunt the king's deer on the king's land... unless you're Robin Hood.
I speak peace, but carry a war axe.
Back to Top
Drejan View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 234
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 14:27
I'm talking for me, not for Dlords.

Originally posted by Hewman Hewman wrote:

 To expect the entire community to only harvest from resources that are not within 5 squares of ANY city but their own or no city at all is silly.

That's where all the post fail.
You all say the map is full of cities and 10 square is too much, than say you have the right to harvast from places far from your cities.
Sorry but this is greedy, not what we did, Dlords is harvasting only near their cities, you should not see any 30-60-200 range sov. or troops by us, like i see every day from many alliances that cry when killed.
We had many times found pact with neighbours, and usually the nearest city has the greater right, but we do not like people claiming resource in our land from far (placing 2 troops is a claim, they will not allow anyone else to harvast).

Originally posted by Hewman Hewman wrote:

  You have DONE nothing to claim this land, you have expended no resources, time or energy... you've simply waived your wand and said it's so.
We settled in our homeland the first day of exodus, in a place without a single square with more than 5 food, and i can assure we all know what a 7food square mean. We clustered cities one near the others: http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/World/Map/399/-409/9 without space for appropriate sov. just to call this place our.
Now a few non-so-rare resource spawn in our homeland and you say we did nothing to own that squares? I disagree, placing an army there look greedy to me.

Fact is that we are claiming lot less resource than most of you,
 most of us (like me) does not care at all about them but want to defende their homeland from jackals.

I  believe a camped army near my cities are an act of aggression, expecially on resource or claiming sov., killing them is an act of defence, the fact that you do not agree does not make you right.
In this post i see some people who have their opportunistic vision of the game and claim to be the only truth, pretending that if we do not play as you like we are bad guys, we are not.



Back to Top
Hewman View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 14:41
I am going to directly quote Berylla, but this is really a response to several posts...

Originally posted by Berylla Berylla wrote:

Let's asume I have a farm, a large property, with a nice pond, a stream with fish, large pastures, some horses, cattle, pigs and so on, as well as some apple trees and berry bushes.
One day I ride out to enjoy my land as well as check on my animals and see if the apples are right for the picking. Suddenly I come upon a campsite with tents and a large camp-fire. There are men sitting around it. A pig is roasting on a spit and a basket of apple can be seen outside one of the tents. A string of fish is drying in the sun.

I am totally onboard with everything I've quoted and the things you lay out afterwards.  But I think this post and others are missing a crucial logical step.  What is YOURS?  What is YOUR farm?  We all understand the need to respect property rights and land claims... the question we must first answer tho, is how are those property lines drawn?  Is your "farm" found on the square on which your city rests?  Does your "farm" extend to a 5 square radius around your city?  a 10 square radius?  What is YOURS and what is public or unclaimed land?  We must define this first and foremost before we discuss solutions and etiquete for those who trespass.

I think this thread has gotten a little off track, and thats fine, but to clarify the purpose... do we as a community (a sandbox community, but a community nonetheless), want to lay out social NORMS for how to define what our farms are, where they begin, where they end, etc.  From this discussion so far, there seems to be two schools of thought:
1. The DLords definition of their "farm" - Our "farm" is anything within 10 squares of any of our cities (oh and by the way, if you stumble upon our farm, we're going with option 1 and using the shotgun).
and
2. The CLAIMED land definition of one's "farm" - Our "farm" is our city, any land we've claimed sov. on, and any land where our troops occupy (assuming they are not roasting a pig on a spit on YOUR farm).

There are other slight variations that have been discussed (3 or 5 squares rather than the DLord 10) but it seems to me the definition of our "farms" - our land that we can expect solitude and dominion over - boils down to these two views.  

I personally think that view 1. is unrealistic, impractical, and leads to hostility rather than peace.  Allow me to explain why:  
First, it is unrealistic because there is no NOTICE.  Sure, if you have read this thread you are on notice of DLords position, but for the thousands of players who dont follow the forum closely, how are they ever supposed to know that you consider that your land?  Bela, you say, "if they come onto my land they should have the courtesy of at least telling me before," well how will they know to message you if they dont know you consider that YOURS rather than public?  
Second, it's impractical (especially in dense regions like Norweld, Lucerna, newb ring, etc).  It's impractical because there are hundreds, maybe thousands of instances where cities 10 square radii overlap.  Sure, if it's just two players they can work it out cordially.  But I live in Norweld where it is not rare (and actually quite common) for 5, 6, sometimes 7 or 8 cities to have 10 square radii that overlap.  It's simply insane to think that the 10 square, or 5 square rule that DLords propose could ever work in such a region.  *I know what you're going to say Bela, "if you don't like it then move out of Norweld" -- well that's not the point.  We can't ALL retreat to Kumala or Ursor to avoid being close to other players.*
Third, this position leads to hostility.  I recognize and support that ULTIMATELY you CAN do whatever your military might allows you to.  If DLords (and sorry for continuing to use DLords, I'm not picking on them, I'm just using it to refer to their position which I'm sure is not theirs alone), if DLords or any other player/alliance wants to claim 30 squares then I suppose they CAN as long as they have the military might to police that policy... but that forces people into hostility.  The point of this thread is to find common ground to AVOID hostility.  I'm not anti-war, I'm not anti-agression; we have armies in Illy for a reason... that said, we should still be able to have generally accepted principals to harvest, settle, and occupy land without it starting a needless or unwanted war.

So for those three reasons, I think the stance that Bela (and others) put forth does not make sense for how we define what and where our "farms" are.  View 2 answers all the problems with view 1... It is realistic because even if a player has never set eyes on this forum, they can see in-game whether there is sov. or military on a square and have fair notice that land is OWNED by someone else.  It is practical because no matter how close your city is to another city, you can never overlap sovereignty or occupation (that still leaves room for neighbors to bicker, dispute, and resolve their desire to own land, as neighbors will always do).  And it is peaceful rather than hostile because of the fair notice given to the world that this is my land... players can avoid that square... or they can choose not to, but at least they choose not to KNOWING military hostility is likely to follow.

That is my two cents.  Maybe I am biased because I am in Norweld - maybe others are biased because they are in the remote corners of Elgea - maybe we need two sets of principles; one for dense areas and one for remote ones.  But no matter which way you slice it, I can't see DLords view 1 working as a social norm that everyone can follow peacefully.


Edited by Hewman - 07 Sep 2012 at 14:48
Back to Top
Hadus View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 14:42
I'm fine with considering occupying armies and soving spots acts of aggresion when they appear on your land without the player contacting you first.
 
But if you kill a first-time offender's trespassing army, or attack the player who sov'd, without first giving them a chance to remove it first, that is also, in my eyes, an act of aggression. There is no reason why you can't scout and message them a request to vacate, unless they've padded their army with scouts, in which case they can immediately be assumed hostile.
 
Seems to me like some players who take this kill-first ask-later route are as hungry for conflict as the trespassers, and seek out the above situation since they can defend their actions by claiming "He started it!"
 
Originally posted by TomBombadil TomBombadil wrote:

I have no problem with seeing sovereignty directly connected to a city as sacred owned territory as it very much forms part of your city, but claiming sovereignty on a square far away is no more than a flag to me.

A flag popping up in a territory dominated by others is even more meaningless unless they already consider your claim fully valid. If the claim goes unsupported the flag is more of an passive aggressive gesture than anything.

Granted, there are some accepted norms regarding which claims are supported, but a server-wide rule would be unfeasible.

For example, in Northern Wolgast, claims of ownership on rare resources are mutually supported by a large number of alliances if that resource is closest to your city. A stable and quite fair norm. No sovereignty is needed to confirm your claim.

On some of the Southern islands all the rare resources are claimed by a single alliance with only a small number of harvesting rights being granted to non-alliance members who happen to live directly next to these squares. That might seem unfair but that's what you can expect if you live in the middle of another alliance's cluster. Placing a sovereignty flag there is meaningless since everything is already regarded as owned.

If you live in the newb ring you can pretty much expect the strongest to hold whatever they want.

If you live far off in the huggy wilderness you can likely expect neighbours to be much more friendly about these things.

The best you can really hope for is a stable regional norm.
 
I think we're actually agreeing, not disagreeing. I would not recognize a sov spot near me claimed by a far off town as legitimate either.
 
The important thing for conflict resolution is to assume the player claiming it considers it their land. Assume they claim a 10 square radius around their city. Assume all players are only going to consider the 2-3 squares near your city as your land and everything else as public. Assume all these things--until you find out from the player, directly via IGM, forum message, or otherwise.
 
Let me repeat myself yet again: there's no reason to act against a player without contacting them first. If you don't use your words first, you're as much of an aggresor as they are.


Edited by Hadus - 07 Sep 2012 at 14:52
Back to Top
Drejan View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 234
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 15:04
Hadus, people can be gentle and spend real time to scout message and answer to the average of 10 message the player will send you becouse he think to be right. 
But the fact is that you have no right to place that army there and when you send the army you should expect to loose it, someone can argue i can ask you the resource lost attacking your troops too.
 In a real world wars have started just becouse of troops placed near someone territory.
You are focused on the right to claim a land but what is your right to send troops far away or to claim sov?

Anyway again you say you do not want to ruminate on your personal view and keep enforcing your view to anyone else.

Edit: sorry maybe you are not the same person


Edited by Drejan - 07 Sep 2012 at 15:09
Back to Top
Drejan View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 234
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 15:28
What you say is everything more than 3 square is free for all becouse you want to harvast all the possible territory in the map.
What we say is what is near our lands is our or of our nightbours, not free for all.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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