Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Abandoned Mine?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedAbandoned Mine?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Meagh View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 224
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 22:52
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I think it's "Possession is eleven points of the law, and there are but twelve."

The twelfth is, of course, catapults.

lol! now that's a quotable quote for Illy ;)
Back to Top
Elmindra View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 464
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 17:14
Well, I for one have stopped harvesting rares for two reasons.  One, it is so darn time consuming and I am busy.  Two, I have a large enough stockpile to last me quite a while and enough gold now that I can simply buy what I need.  To be honest, the equipment is only needed for commanders and that means you really don't need much at all.  

I wouldn't be surprised if more rare resources become "abandoned" like this and available for the newer players.  In fact, I think it is a pretty good idea really.  I had a newbie neighbor of mine ask about an Ancient Oak patch that I had "claimed" and it felt pretty good to just tell him "it's all yours buddy."

Hmm, don't know what that had to do with this but I was bored and I wanted to type something.
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 15:57
I think it's "Possession is eleven points of the law, and there are but twelve."

The twelfth is, of course, catapults.
Back to Top
Meagh View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 224
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 15:22
u know.. it's not really so much about 'Might Makes Right'..the more apt axiom would be 'Possession is nine-tenths of the law'. The two are not always the same.  - M.
Back to Top
Deranzin View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 14:09
Originally posted by Darmon Darmon wrote:

"Might makes right" is a terrible cliche that only exists because it rhymes nicely.  Having the strength to do something doesn't justify doing it, but it does put it on the table as an option.  Now if someone could just think of a catchy way of saying that...

MIGHT means "might" ? Wink
Back to Top
ES2 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 13:47
Originally posted by Darmon Darmon wrote:

"Might makes right" is a terrible cliche that only exists because it rhymes nicely.  Having the strength to do something doesn't justify doing it, but it does put it on the table as an option.  Now if someone could just think of a catchy way of saying that...

"Might makes Right" isn't unique to this game only, it's all over the digital world and in the real world. A real life scenario would be the law makers have the might to force you into jail if you drive drunk (a punishment for opposing their law) so you debate if it is worth driving drunk.

And here, the lawmaker in this sense is the mine owner, who may or may not have the power to force and encourage you not to send an army at what they perceive to be their mine.
Eternal Fire
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: 24 Jan 2013 at 12:26
Agreement between SkB, Absa and RHY is one way how disputes can be resolved:

Rare Mine or Resource Allocation

3a Ownership is automatic if within three squares of a city or nearest existing city if that is closer than three squares. A city settled with permission will be considered existing.

3b A sovereignty claim will be considered ownership provided it is not made within three squares of an existing city. A prior sovereignty claim will take precedence over 3c.

3c New cities establish ownership five days after notifying the party who currently claims ownership. Any occupying armies of the previous owner shall be withdrawn within those five days.

3d No new cities to be settled closer than seven squares of an existing city.

3e For other squares ownership shall be on the basis of occupying armies.

3f Were by merit of occupation, proximity or any other factor that the alliances consider open to interpretation a resource location is in dispute and two players have a claim that 3a to e does not resolve the player gathering will provide 30% of the resource gathered to the other player.

3g The player who holds ownership for a location may provide permission for another player to harvest that location. Once given permission will require renewal every six months the share of resources shall be as 3f above.

3h Resource locations belonging to inactive cities (defined as no player growth in 21 days) will be considered available for claim under rules 3a to e. If the inactive city concerned comes under new ownership it is to be considered settled with permission.




Back to Top
Garth View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2012
Location: Somewhere, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 249
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 11:44
There are other possibilities than that "it's abandoned," though I'm not saying that's what happened in your case. Oftentimes, players have agreements about mines/herb patches in their area, and part of that agreement can include not putting an army on the spot.
 
One of our players has such a spot located between him and a TVM player. The mine is a bit outside of 5 squares from the HugCr player, and a bit under 5 squares from the TVM player. HugCr and TVM are neutral to each other, so in order for both players (and others) to be able to mine, the square has to stay unoccupied. In a case like that, it's a bit unreasonable for an outside party to plop an army down and then state that their claim has more substance than the players who made the agreement to leave it unoccupied. 

--edited for clarity


Edited by Garth - 24 Jan 2013 at 12:07
Garthen
Back to Top
Magnificence View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 122
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 09:14
@darmon, cool story bro.
Back to Top
Meagh View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 224
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 09:10
Originally posted by Llyr Llyr wrote:

I would say if there's no army, and it's not on a sov square, then it belongs to no one. There's room for argument if it's within 5 squares or so of the player claiming to "own" it, even if it isn't sov. Maybe 10 squares if that player is in a big alliance with nasty catapults and stuff.

This is by far the best reply posted here (emphasis added). If you have sov over it any square, if you control any square then it's yours.

Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

Some players purposely build towns near a mine to lay claim to it. If they don't place an army on it that doesn't negate the fact it's within their 5x5. If its within the 5x5 of a town I wouldn't send occupying troops, that is considered an aggressive move in some alliances. Try sending your miners in, if you're constantly bumped start looking elsewhere for a mine.


I relocated most of my towns when the new resources came out in order to align my cities with the new game play... however every where I went was devoid of any activity. In contrast to that, I notice that some newer players have gotten it in their head that they can settle near a resource that is currently being used by other players and then try to lay exclusive claim over it. Just because you move a city near a mine doesn't make it yours. That is just a silly notion. If you exodus your town with the intent to interfere in another players game play (be it mining or just settling right next to their city) then you are should expect pushback from that player and you probably wasted an exodus.

@Machete two weeks went by? That mine was open imo. By your account they had no control over it for at least two weeks. If they were serious about any claim then they would have stationed troops there and / or claimed sov, not left it unattended for so long. In fact they had no control over it and now you control it ergo it is yours and yours rightfully imho (you didn't bump them out to make use of it). That said, pay notice to Llyr's post. It's yours to control as long as you can control it. IF he's got bigger catapults...

gl with your mining - M. as long as it's no where near me...


Edited by Meagh - 24 Jan 2013 at 09:11
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.