| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Gragnog 
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598
|
 Posted: 17 Mar 2013 at 17:23 |
|
I have no problem with people placing claiming armies, but if I feel if those claiming armies infringe on my space, I also have no problem killing those claiming armies. If those claiming armies happen to be out of the 10 square radius, then the issue becomes one of who ever gets the city there first lays claim to the spot. As much as I would like to claim all land within 20 squares of my cities I understand that is not feasible and have lost spots to players who have been able settle before me. That is the nature of the game. It might actually be beneficial in the long run as someone develops a city for you and when you are ready you can go and capture the city. Of course it would be better if the player had become inactive.
|
|
Kaggen is my human half
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 17 Mar 2013 at 02:14 |
With regard to the question of marking a future Tenaril spot while another city is in Exodus: I do not see this any differently than any other attempt to reserve a city location for future use. (That is, marking a spot not because there is a settler or city on the way there, but because one might be put there in the future.)
When new players in my alliances need to undertake long Exoduses to get to the alliance hubs, I often advise them to do a "short-hop" Exodus first: To exodus somewhere within 100 or so squares, which takes under one day, then to do the Tenaril move, then after 5 days send the city on its final journey. The overall process is more cumbersome, but I think it is more respectful of others and of general conventions that suggest that marking armies are to be used for cities already in motion, not to reserve potential future settlement spots.
That said, I'm sure everyone is not going to agree to do things the same way; my comments are directed at those practices I would predict would most likely to be acceptable to many in the Illy community.
With regard to the question of whether this is about the "rights" of new players, I don't think that anyone is asking anything of new players that we don't ask of existing players: That is, in general many people find it unacceptable to attempt to reserve a spot for future use by a city. This applies both the Tenaril and Exodus moves. The short-hop Exodus can be used by players who want to be assured an opportunity to Tenaril to a particular location.
If a desired Tenaril location becomes unavailable before a move can be made, that is a consequence of playing a game that has other players in it. Sometimes someone else gets something you wanted. New players who have difficulty with this fact will probably struggle with it in other aspects of their Illy career.
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 20:06 |
|
@Auraya: I personally wouldn't find demolishing the original city to be soul destroying. More like a cocoon, getting discarded for something optimal that I had designed and built myself. Thanks for answering my question; I hope the tangent wasn't too distracting to the overall thread.
|
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401
|
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 19:55 |
 Angrim wrote:
belargyle wrote:
The OP is asking about Marker armies, and this is one aspect to which 'markers' are used and thus can be discussed. |
i am, have been, and will continue to be at your service should you wish to discuss policies specific to eCrow (ad nauseum, as necessary). they are not appropriate to this thread because the question Meagh has posed is whether or not markers are widely used, understood, recognised and respected. eCrow's policy on resource garrisons, as i will point out a second time, is native to eCrow. there can be no question of it being widespread; it is not.
|
For informatioal purposes to others - I'm not belittling eCrow polices.
Angrim - I misunderstood the OP and 'presumed' it was referring to the usage of marker armies (and thusly all aspects to which they are applied).
Since he is speaking primarily to one aspect, that of holding a position for a town, I will of course step out.
From Dlords standpoint, marker armies are fine, if the person understands it can be contested, and as such the contestor should have valid reasons. Now, if a person is using marker armies and no one is contesting fine.. however if I see an army in a place we might like to use but the army is there already, I will message that person to see when their town will be landing, if they can give a definate landing time (and 'typically not greater than 15 days) - great... if not - the location is still free game and the armies sitting there can be removed.
Edited by belargyle - 16 Mar 2013 at 21:39
|
|
Auraya
Postmaster
Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 523
|
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 19:25 |
Brandmeister wrote:
Auraya, perhaps you can clarify something about newb terraforming. Why would you not have them reach 450 pop, settle a 7 food square, then have someone else demolish the original capital, and Tenaril the new 7 food capital wherever you like? No exodus research required, and it's pretty fast to get to 450 population if people are feeding you resources. It seems a lot more straightforward than what's being proposed here. |
Because to a newbie, that would be soul destroying. They work hard and are very proud to settle their second village, destroying their first might be easier but it takes all fun out of the game. Aiming for, and achieving, exodus is much more exciting and a more fufilling experience. To address Meagh's previous statements, I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing them up to feel equally important to larger players actually. I've been placing marker armies since I started 18 months ago and they were always respected - by players over 200x my size who went above and beyond to assist my new village! At the risk of sounding like an inebriated grandparent, things aren't like they used to be! Maybe I'm old fashioned in my Illyrian values but I will always stand true to them. I try to educate those who join Q&S to be respectful of all and follow the old ettiquette. I may not always succeed (as the newbie who settled 1 square from my city will attest!) but I do my best to raise them right lest Illyriad become the next Travian, Evony etc. (p.s. Sorry to those who have not received replies to mails, I've been working away from home - will sort through tomorrow)
|
|
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
|
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 18:51 |
belargyle wrote:
The OP is asking about Marker armies, and this is one aspect to which 'markers' are used and thus can be discussed. |
i am, have been, and will continue to be at your service should you wish to discuss policies specific to eCrow (ad nauseum, as necessary). they are not appropriate to this thread because the question Meagh has posed is whether or not markers are widely used, understood, recognised and respected. eCrow's policy on resource garrisons, as i will point out a second time, is native to eCrow. there can be no question of it being widespread; it is not.
|
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 18:42 |
Individuals will always have their own agenda, if there were none then yes the game would be a graveyard of inactive accounts.
The fact is, if you place an army on a herb patch even 100 squares from your city, you are claiming that land for yourself. Someone may always dispute your claim though and that is what this is about if you ask me.
|
|
Epidemic
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 768
|
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 18:30 |
|
I don't get the game politics anymore. Claiming an area because you have an army on the spot is nonsense in all mmorts games, even more so here.
If I have an army on a mine or herb patch 20+ squares from my town I run the risk of someone else with a bigger army taking claim of that square, which is acceptable because it is not within my 5x5.
There comes a point when a game quits becoming a game and starts becoming a graveyard of inactive accounts, when its over policed by individuals with their own agendas...
|
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401
|
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 18:24 |
Darkwords wrote:
Exactly Arakamis, it does not matter if someone legislates something, or whether the community they are legislating over accepts it or not. What matters is if you have the resources to enforce such legislation, or if others have the resources to overcome your enforcement.
I expect this debate has begun simply because someone lacked the resources to overcome such enforcement. And as a result they are hoping that by bringing the issue to the forums they may gain new resources for them to counter any further enforcement. |
On this I disagree. While it 'can' take such a turn, I believe discussing it and letting others know what your policies are, hearing from them.. these allow alliance to make better and more informed decisions on adapting, continuing, or modifying they policies.
While I might not necessarily agree with eCrow policy, being as it IS their policy, and now that I know of it, we will try to work with it and abide by it as best is able, and the same can be said for them.
We all have little quirks in our policies that some don't like, don't feel is right.. but hey, as an alliance we have (they) have chosen what we would like to see. Peace can come from 3 avenues: acquiescense, negotiations, aggression, most choose the latter 2, and few will remain who hold to the last.
Edited by belargyle - 16 Mar 2013 at 19:44
|
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401
|
Posted: 16 Mar 2013 at 18:18 |
But Angrim, in our previous discussions.. you stated they 'are' maker armies. To reduce our many exchanges into a summation sentence - Whether for a town or resources they serve the same purpose in practice, in establishing claims showing ownership, and therefore they claim all surrounding lands as well (again, for towns or resources). Just for giggles - In the above post you even call the resource garrison a 'marker' army :P
So they are the same thing in practice and not necessarily a separate subject at all. The principle is separate but the practice is the same and that is why I spoke to it.
The OP is asking about Marker armies, and this is one aspect to which 'markers' are used and thus can be discussed.
|
|
Tweet
A new exodus marking "rule"?