Are Land Claims Bad for Illy?

ajqtrz wrote: You see, what PhoenixFire is saying is that Illyriad is a game where each of us is free to play it as we like.

Part III  I've written about the first five points.  If you've been following you understand that the whole argument for land claims resides on the false premise that you need not worry about ethics because "it's just a game. and it's a game of conquering and domination"  The rest of the points lay squarely on these premises.  Nevertheless, each of them does bring out some aspect of the structure so I've addressed each in turn.  This, final, part will address point six and then conclude with a summary and suggestions.

The outline of the case FOR land claims says:

First:  Illyriad is a game.

Second:  It is a game of conquest and domination. 

Third: Any strategy allowed by the formal rules which enhances an alliance or players ability to conquer and dominate should not be thwarted by "informal rules."

Fourth: The strategy of land claims enhances the ability of alliances and presumably individuals, to conquer and dominate.

Fifth:  If a person or alliance is unable to use a strategy or tactic it only shows that they aren't going to be the ones conquering and dominating.  No need to cry about it...that's the game.

Sixth: Land claims is a strategy which makes the game more attractive to those who will "play, stay and pay."

Finally:  As healthy game is one which attracts new players and keeps old ones, and since land claims will do that, one should not oppose land claims.

Sixth point : Land claims is a strategy which makes the game more attractive to those who will "play, stay and pay."

If this point were true then the land claims might be acceptable as a pragmatic choice.  If land claims add a dimension of interest to the game, and they do, and if that dimension of interest were enough to overcome the negative aspects of land claims, (doubtful) and if we wanted the game to be strictly about conquest and domination (probably not) and if it weren't real people playing it (thus allowing us to do away with those pesky questions of morality and ethics) then we might be able to argue that more players will come, play and pay.  That's a lot of "if's" if you haven't noticed.  The problem is, while land claims are an interesting and strategically good idea, they are not divorced from rest of it.  In fact, as I hinted before, it is unlikely they would attract more players.  Here's my reasoning, which I mentioned briefly in Part II.

Why do those interested in playing a "conquest and dominate" type game play the game they do?  Simple, being competitive they like to rise against the competition.  I think we can all agree with this observation.  So if they wish to do this and come to a game where there are already established alliances and the power structures are fully or pretty closet to fully in place, is there an opportunity there?  Of course not.  No opportunities  or less opportunities, even if you take the game as a "war game" means fewer players joining and staying.  Do you think for a moment, upon seeing the calcification of Elgea and the growth of claimed lands in TBL, players who wish to be competitive (with and "aggressive game play" style) will hang around if three quarters of the land in Illy is already claimed?  Strategically it would be pretty close to impossible to become one of the top alliances.  And if they joined an already established one?  Most of these players do not get their enjoyment by being "johnny come lately" types.  They wish to be on servers and in games with opportunity.  Land claims reduce that opportunity to nearly nil for the warriors.  And that's the group land claims are supposed to attract!

Of course, that is nothing in comparison to the amount of players who, coming to Illy and finding they can't settle where they wish, and at best would be restricted to the "reservations" (upon threat of force) who might just go elsewhere.  The key to attracting and keeping new players is: opportunity.  The greater the opportunity to grow and have fun, and the wider that opportunity, the more players will come, play and pay.  Land claims restrict new players geographically, militarily, and psychologically.

Final point:  As healthy game is one which attracts new players and keeps old ones, and since land claims will do that, one should not oppose land claims.

I've been gaming for about seven years.  Been on several games like this one.  This on is unique in that the players, in the past, have put the game first.  They have decided to restrict themselves even if the proposed strategy gives them advantages over other alliances and players.  And they have put their cities on the line to insure the game is healthy and all players find opportunities to grow.  That is the spirit of Illy.  For me the health of the game comes first.  And since land claims do NOT improve the health of the game we need to resist them.

Summary.

As I said in the beginning, if you start with premises that are untrue and use perfect logic, you will end with the wrong conclusions every time.  Land claims are only tenable if you are playing against robots or are playing in a strictly warfare setting.  Once you admit you are dealing with people in an open sandbox environment you it becomes almost impossible to pretend their hard work, time, creativity and money is "just hard work, time creativity and money" to be run over because you are bigger than they.  Once you admit that you have a responsibility to the players to treat them with respect (this does  not mean agree with them in everything) and consider their feelings in matters of the game; once you understand that while land claims may be good for a few alliances they are bad for attracting and keeping new players; and once you comprehend that land claims are a subtle form of "in-game bullying" you must conclude they are not a healthy alternative for Illy. 

Then, if you come to that conclusion, you must decide what you are going to do about it.  War is upon us unless those making the land claims come to understand what they are doing is not healthy and change their minds.  They can still do that.  But if not, if you think keeping the playground free of anything that looks like bullying behavior is important, then maybe you too will speak up and be counted.

As always, civil and well reasoned responses are welcome.

AJ

Having waited a number of days for responses and corrections I now present the full and complete rebuttal of Land Claims.  It is in three parts and is long.  If you don't have the stomach for complex argument don't pretend you understand the argument being made.  That would be like trying to present a good book report without having read the book.  That is my recommendation.

Part 1

The following discussion will be in three parts.  Each will address one or two of the six points I outlined in my post The Argument FOR land claims.  And yes, it is long as it attempts to summarize and refute a large and complex subject that applies to much, much more than land claims.

The argument for land claims was presented my myself with the following points:  Of the seven, only one person has offered any correction and so I will proceed to address each point in turn.

First:  Illyriad is a game.

Second:  It is a game of conquest and domination. 

Third: Any strategy allowed by the formal rules which enhances an alliance or players ability to conquer and dominate should not be thwarted by "informal rules."

Fourth: The strategy of land claims enhances the ability of alliances and presumably individuals, to conquer and dominate.

Fifth:  If a person or alliance is unable to use a strategy or tactic it only shows that they aren't going to be the ones conquering and dominating.  No need to cry about it...that's the game.

Sixth: Land claims is a strategy which makes the game more attractive to those who will "play, stay and pay."

Finally:  As healthy game is one which attracts new players and keeps old ones, and since land claims will do that, one should not oppose land claims.

Point 1: Illyriad is a game.

There are two great categories of "games"....ones you play alone and ones you play with others.  I think we can agree upon that.  "Solo" games are really puzzles to be solved as they pit the single person against either a static set of problems or an artificial intelligence of some kind programmed by somebody to present a series of challenges.  The distinctive quality of a solo game is that there is no social aspect of it and thus, no socially negotiation is necessary.  Playing alone you are allowed to act pretty much as you wish because you aren't having an effect upon any living person.  The other type of game, and the one in which Illyriad fits, is the social game.  A social game is a game played with others and the more players you have in the game the more likely you will have negotiated or need to negotiate standard expectations not covered by the formal rules and games mechanics.  Illyriad is a game with players who, in the past, have come to an agreement about how the game will be played, an agreement that allows certain members to be protected and punishment of other members who violate certain social rules.  You can't pick on a new player unless that player has violated social rules like name calling and such.  You can't harvest within so many squares of a city unless you wish to got to battle with the owner of that city AND if you harvest within the prescribed bounds and the owner deals with you his or her armies, nobody thinks he or she is out of line.  These are some of the conventions that have become "informal rules" in Illyriad based upon the desires of at least some part of the community and have been accepted by the larger majority.

Now when it comes to the game of Illyriad it is often argued by those supporting land claims that "it's just a game."  This is the phrase they use.  Notice that they desire to limit the effects of the game and use the word "just" to do so.  "It's just a game" means that if you think it should effect your "real life" you should go play something else, like "Farmville" which presumably means you will be less effected.  But here's the problem with this formulation of the game.  By saying "it's just a game" those arguing the point are implying that it does not effect players in the real life or at least that it should not.  But I ask, what avatar ever felt angry?  What avatar ever rage-quit?  What avatar ever wanted revenge?  What avatar was ever proud of their cities?  Avatars are not real!  Behind every avatar though, is a real human being and that is why we need to understand that it's NOT "just a game."  If you play the game as a solo game here it's you against a bunch of avatars you consider unimportant (and they really are just bits, you know) then you forget that it's not a solo game and you need to take responsibility for what you do to other real people, spending real time, energy, creativity and money on the game.  Real people are playing and that means you should be ethical in your stance toward them.

From this we move on to the question of ethical standards.  To see what the ethical standards might be lets forget the avatars for a moment and put the whole thing on a real playground.  On a real playground with real kids attempting to play.  On that playground, if you saw a bunch of bigger kids intimidating, threatening and/or coercing little kids to give up areas of the playground you might react with anger.  You might march over and correct the ones doing the intimidating, threatening and/or coercing. And you would be correct to do so exactly because that is unethical behavior.  You do not intimidate, threaten and/or coerce little kids (or any kids for that matter) because it's considered bad and uncivilized behavior.  And if you are the one doing the correcting, if the bigger kids decide they are going to ignore you, you do one of two things.  You take your own kids and leave, or you get help from other parents or from the authorities if necessary.  In other words, you have a choice to allow the behaviors to continue but absent yourself from them or to correct them directly or indirectly.  What you don't have is the choice to call them acceptable behaviors because clearly society has already said they are not.

Now Illyriad is not a playground in the "real world" in the same way.  I recognize that.  And, thankfully, there is no physical threat to the players as far as I know.  However, in reality the bullies on the playground very seldom need to actually coerce anybody.  Most little kids either leave or placate the bullies and the bullying behavior continues.  In Illyriad the desire to avoid the "B word" is nothing more than an attempt to avoid an accurate social label because you agree that "bullying in the real world is bad" but want to make Illyriad "just a game" to avoid admitting that your "intimidation, threats and coercions" amount to bullying.  Ask yourself this.  Have you ever seen a player hounded out of the game?  Have you ever heard what they have to say as they lose all their cities or so many that they just give up?  Especially if it's over something they "could have said better' in GC but didn't?  I can attest that in my year or so of playing I've seen several instances of this kind of behavior.  So bullying does exist.  And the definition of bullying is "the use of intimidation, threats or coercion by  a person to get another submit."  

Point 2: It is a game of conquest and domination. 

Along with this, many players wish to say "it's just a [war] game."  I think PhoenixFire got it right when she disagreed with this point and said:

"No. Illyriad is a game of growing, and then doing whatever you like after you grow. If that happens to be conquering then that is what illy is to you. For some illy is a game of hunting and trading. For others its crafting and trading. Illy is different for everyone. For some making claims it's about growing with their alliance to become stronger as an alliance."

You see, what PhoenixFire is saying is that Illyriad is a game where each of us is free to play it as we like.  That's the meaning of "sandbox" to me.  To allow land claims is, though, to agree with some players in the forums who have claimed that Illyriad is a game of "conquest and dominion."  For if you allow land claims you allow some players to tell other players where and how they must play.  "Where" because in telling them where not you restrict their where.  And "how" if they choose to believe they have the right to settle where they will, as you will then force them to become a military as they defend themselves from being "removed."  In a game where my movements are restricted by bigger players without my willingness to be restricted I am not free to play as I would.  I cannot be "doing whatever you like after you grow."  And what of the hunters, traders, crafters, and gatherers?  If they are not free to roam all of Illy, and there is no reason such activities can't also be controlled by the ones who are claiming the very land, then how are they able to play the game as they desire?  They aren't.  Allowing land to be claimed outside the currently accepted rules (formal and informal) is the basis for full control of that space.  In fact, once you give up the land, there is no reason tribute can't be extracted (by a gentlemanly agreement. no doubt) and if necessary a player required to go to war for the dominant alliance.  That is not freedom and once you allow land claims there is no reason it cannot happen.  Sovereignty is sovereignty and in my book the only players sovereign over a spot are those who settle that spot and any land not yet claimed is owned by all of Illy. 

It is true that strategically land claims enhance the growth and opportunity of the alliances doing the claiming.  It is a pragmatic move.  However, would you also claim the bigger kids have the right to claim the swings using intimidation, threats and coercion?  I didn't think so.  Illy is a game.  The playground is a game.  Both are sandboxes in that whoever plays there can play as they wish.  But there are rules about such conduct one of which is you can't claim a swing you aren't sitting in.  I think the same should go for our own sandbox.

And finally, in this post anyway, it might be noted that once you get past the concept that "it's just a game" and recognize that while it may be a game, it's still about people, you come a lot closer to seeing why land claims are a form of play we don't want in our playground.

More to come......

Edited by ajqtrz - 21 Jun 2015 at 16:59

I think it would be premature, and a bit naive, to presume that current actions will have much bearing on the Pro LC or Anti LC debate in the long term . . . a entertaining sidebar for some no doubt, but just a ripple in the grand scheme of Illy . . .

who will reign victorious? The Pro LC or Anti LC...