It's always interesting to take a stand on a controversial
subject.
Sometimes, if you are honest
and work hard, you may even change your mind.
One of the best ways to accomplish an understanding of the opposing
views is to try to lay them out as if you were actually on that side.
Once you have that you may find the arguments
you present in opposition to whatever you are arguing, are more convincing than
your own arguments.
And at the very
least, if you do a good job, you may understand the opposition more and thus be
better equipped to convince them.
In
that spirit here are the arguments FOR land claim as I have understood them
based upon this long and complex thread.
The arguments for land claims suggest the following points:
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.
More detail.
Illyriad is a game and as such should be required to reflect
in any way the "real world"
Whatever is done in the game if for entertainment alone and to make more
of it is just silly. Those who try to
argue that behind the avatars are real people need to emphasize to those real
people that they shouldn't take things so seriously and if they don't wish to
play a game of conquest and domination they should go somewhere else.
It is a game of conquest and domination. There are cities to be conquered, lands to
dominate and all sorts of wars to be fought.
You cannot conquer without armies and since conquering and dominating
are the point of the game, why play if you don't wish to fight? The developers decided to allow it to be a
sandbox exactly as they did not wish to restrict the methods and means of
conquering but to allow the gamers to find their own way. Since the basic design of the game is warfare
based it is silly to attempt to change it as it will always return to its roots
as new players join, grow and conquer.
The devs made the game to be flexible enough that you can
develop new strategies or enhance old ones.
The rules of conquering and dominating are few and only within the range
needed to make the game more interesting.
For a player or group of players to burden the game with increased
"informal rules" is to restrict some players unnecessarily. Land claims are just an application of a less
formal system that has been in use for a few years. It's not new so the whole question of
"should we allow it" is returning to ground already covered and
decided long ago.
Land claims enhance the strategic abilities of alliances and
as such make it easier for them to plan their conquest and domination over the
long term.
Land claims in no significantly way restrict other players
or alliances unless they are too small or inexperienced and therefore deserve
to be conquered and/or dominated. After
all, it's a conquer and dominate game so let's play it that way. Crybabies can go play Farmville.
The world is filled with all kinds of players who want a
good, complex, and flexible game of conquering and domination. Land claims make that easier and thus will
attract more players. Since more players
means more money in the devs pocket it generally means more development done in
a shorter amount of time. This, in turn
will bring more players as factions go on line, and all sorts of other
suggestions are implemented.
So, if the game is a conquer and dominate game and we make
the game a more robust conquer and dominate game we can see new players, new
procedures, and all sorts of enhanced play.
All we have to do is get on board the bandwagon for enhanced strategies
and tactics as they are discovered and implemented.
Summary and Conclusion
Those are the arguments as I understand them. Do feel free to add/correct my perceptions
before I discuss them in a more systematic manner.
I will, of course, after receiving due correction, present a rebuttal. But lest somebody think I'm setting up a "straw man" argument, I give you the opportunity to correct and make sure the man I intend to knock down isn't a scarecrow.
AJ