|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 45678 18> |
| Author | |||||
Veneke
Wordsmith
Joined: 07 Nov 2014 Status: Offline Points: 116 |
Posted: 20 May 2015 at 09:07 |
||||
|
Although I don't agree that the community response is relevant to the question of whether there is a conceptual difference between the 10 square rule and a land claim, I quite readily accept that - for these land claims to be useful and to become accepted - they require more consideration in their implementation than the 10 square rule.
|
|||||
|
"May have been the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one." - Captain Malcolm Reynolds
|
|||||
![]() |
|||||
Ashmadia
Greenhorn
Joined: 19 May 2015 Status: Offline Points: 54 |
Posted: 20 May 2015 at 17:53 |
||||
First of all, i say that i too share Vaneke's point, that regional claims are similar- if not identical (though enlarged)- to the 10 sq rule. It's a point i acknowledged privately to ajq, along with some other points, long before this topic started. Now to justify the above, showing you my viewpoint by replying to your points. 1) An alliance claiming a territory almost obviously will claim the one they mostly inhabit already. Thus, regional claims are also based on real existing cities. 2) Anyone, aligned or not, is free to make a regional claim, even those currently claimed by others 3) Regional claims also have practical uses, just like the 10-sq: Random cities in a territory can fiddle with your alliance-scale clustering plans. 4) I simply reverse your very argument. Claiming land and formally announcing it can prevent friction, like it's already written some pages before. On another note, i believe this topic to be worthless. Words alone can't kill my armies, so i advise ajq to either gather the strength to fight over this, or let it go completely. To his passionate obsession on the matter, leading to accusations of intimidation, bullying and coercion, i only wonder why no equally passionate scumbag appears, to actually thank him for all the compliments. Shul-nak, you dissapointed me :P Disclaimer: My beliefs do not represent my current training alliance or any alliance at all. I understand that leaders handle diplomacy so not being one gives you the right to completely ignore me. Edited by Ashmadia - 20 May 2015 at 17:56 |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
ajqtrz
Postmaster
Joined: 24 May 2014 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 500 |
Posted: 21 May 2015 at 00:07 |
||||
|
In response to the person who has said that the "playground analogy" (or metaphor, if you like) was inappropriate because in that analogy there are the adults who ultimately decide if something on the playground is good for all the kids or not. I guess I should have continued the explanation and pointed out that, ultimately, it's the players of Illy who decided what is acceptable or not. Just as in a playground situation where kids are "claiming" the swings to the exclusion of other kids, the adults have to decide if they want to take action or not, so too in this matter in Illy. Thus, the analogy actually fits perfectly once you give ultimate control tot he Illy community. And just as the adult playground supervisors have to agree on what constitutes "bullying" and what doesn't, so too in Illy, we, the community at large, must do so as well.
As for the idea that telling smaller players and alliances they cannot settle in certain areas, and that if they do, they will be "removed", one has too wonder what Ash would call "intimidation" and "coercion." I'm not describing the actions by slanting them, because the very definition of "intimidation" " : to make timid or fearful : frighten; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats <tried to intimidate a witness>" Merriam Webster Dictionary. So if I refrain from settling in an area that has been claimed because I've been threatened with "removal" I'm acting intimidated and the threat of removal is intimidating. You really can't get any more clear than that.
Why some people do not want to accept the term "intimidation" and it's enacted counter-part, "coercion" is that it just doesn't sound like something those in a friendly game should be doing outside the strict formal and accepted rules. I can understand their reluctance, but if you don't label things according to what they are you will never face up to what they are and take responsibility. As for my "passion" for the subject at hand, I'm actually hoping others become more passionate about the subject. The more civil discussion we have...and it's really been, overall, quite civil, hasn't it? ... the more we will understand the social implications of what we are allowing. And make a clear choice. Right now it appears to me that most of the defense of the practice is coming from those who are well established and don't expect the current crop of land claims to effect them...and thus can argue for the practice pretty easily. However, my cities are in TBL and I'm don't want myself or any other players to be hedged in by large alliances claiming the land around me. If they wish to do so, let them plant the cities in the same manner as I and use the existing and well accepted methods. Finally, because I am, of course, getting a bit repetitive, if the practice of claiming a "homeland" has been done in Elgea for a long time, and there are no wars over it, it's probably only allowed because nobody made the effort to stop it, or they didn't have the strength to do so even if they wished. Which is really the problem we face even if we did decide to deny land claims, we have to exercise the authority to either deny the new rule by coming to the aide of the first person who decides to knowingly settle (and not be coerced into moving) or allow the same dynamic become a reality in TBL as it is in Elgea. I don't think it was a healthy development there, and I doubt it will be on in TBL. Of course, if you have a large alliance and can take advantage of the new proposed rule, then you will like it...but concern for yourself and not that of the players you effect (except to be so generous with them that you "assist" them in kicking them out) has always has been the easy way out. AJ |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
Captain Kindly
Forum Warrior
Joined: 19 Aug 2011 Location: Fremorn Status: Offline Points: 276 |
Posted: 21 May 2015 at 01:27 |
||||
I think the responses in this thread have proven that you are not speaking for 'the players of Illy'. This seems to be your own Crusade.
I suggested this earlier in GC, but you weren't there, so I will repeat what I said. I suggest you start using the Strategic Map, and select SIN, HALO and Fam to see where they are on the map. And then check Northern Fellandire, the part which SIN claimed. Then check the area T-SC claimed. You will see that Northern Fellandire is loaded with cities already, by 3 alliances who you know will want to expand there. From your tone in this whole debate I am pretty sure you didn't bother to do that first. Use the Strategic Map. I do it often. And it helps placing things in perspective.
Illy is not the United Nations. There are no formal rules when it comes to an alliance claiming an area. In this case SIN made the claim, but it's basically a claim for 3 alliances. You may call it intimidation. I call it a good arrangement that confirms a fait accompli. The 3 alliances there already worked it out between them, and decided that existing 3rd parties will not be forced to move. They just do not want more newcomers. I guess the same can be said for T-SC's claim, since I noted TVM has cities within their claim, and they are confeds in the DarkStar Dominion. Again, use the Strategic Map.
So, basically this whole argument is about you and your cities in BL. You don't need to fear. When an alliance claims an area, it means that they already have a huge presence there. And being forced to move is a rare thing. I have seen the threats, but I have never seen those being executed. Also, BL is a pioneering area, as Elgaea was 3 years ago. If you want to be protected by the Law, move back to Elgaea. Or else, get out of Dodge City. Or join an alliance that can protect you. Not mine though, HUGcr is a very relaxed alliance, but somebody debating every decision would even get our Rooks annoyed.
AJ: 'even if "we" did decide'? CK: Who are you representing here again? The United Nations of Illy? AJ: 'we have to exercise the authority to either deny the new rule by coming to the aide of the first person who decides to knowingly settle (and not be coerced into moving) or allow the same dynamic become a reality in TBL as it is in Elgea. ' CK: You really do not have a clue, do you? BL never was supposed to be the same as Elgaea. In fact, the original blueprint meant it to be a peaceful part in the west, and a full out war part in the east. That never happened, because of the influx of LoU players needing space. AJ: 'Of course, if you have a large alliance and can take advantage of the new proposed rule, then you will like it...but concern for yourself and not that of the players you effect (except to be so generous with them that you "assist" them in kicking them out) has always has been the easy way out.' CK: This is not a new proposed rule. You admitted that yourself earlier. Throughout this thread of yours it has been pointed out by many players that you are wrong. To conclude, I will add to that that to me you seem to be acting like a little kid that wants to be proven right and wants to have the last word in the best case. In the worst case, you are trying to set up a lynch mob. In both cases, as I see this, this is not about Illy, but about your cities in BL...
|
|||||
![]() |
|||||
ajqtrz
Postmaster
Joined: 24 May 2014 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 500 |
Posted: 21 May 2015 at 23:59 |
||||
|
Captain Kindly said
" I
suggested this earlier in GC, but you weren't there, so I will repeat
what I said. I suggest you start using the Strategic Map, and select
SIN, HALO and Fam to see where they are on the map. And then check
Northern Fellandire, the part which SIN claimed. Then check the area
T-SC claimed. You will see that Northern Fellandire is loaded with
cities already, by 3 alliances who you know will want to expand there.
From your tone in this whole debate I am pretty sure you didn't bother
to do that first. Use the Strategic Map. I do it often. And it helps placing things in perspective. "
To which I respond: It's not that I've been bothered or denied anything by the current claims, so the map I happened to have looked at, was, and is irrelevant, to my point. It's that there is a map at all designating certain areas as "off limits" to some player but not others. And as for "speaking for the players of Illy," I'm not certain where I claimed I was doing so...I think the whole purpose of speaking is not to speak for somebody else, but to invite others to speak up for themselves, and to try to get their voices to agree with you. Your point that others have also had claims along with the idea that somehow because they have done it makes it good for the game, I find misses the point completely. Bullies on the playground are not good for those who wish to play anywhere they wish, the way they wish. Of course, that's the "real world." What I'm asking here is if we...the collective group I refer to as "players" wish to continue and expand the practice of land claims....not "has it been done before," or "where is it being done now." Because a person applies a perspective to his or her own situation and shows why it may, at some point, be beneficial to him or her, does not make the perspective false. You imply my "passion" is only because it may someday effect me. It might, but it's doubtful I'd care at that point as it would probably be too late anyway. More to the point, the strategy of using a persons motivations as an argument against the argument they are, in fact, making is not a useful strategy and borders on being an ad hominem remark. If this "rule" has been in existence for a long time, and if it was imposed upon all the players of Illy without any discussion, then why was there so much surprise when the TBL alliances made their formal declarations? But more to the point, even if it has been a "rule" one question is: "Is it a good rule for all the players of Illy...meaning a fair and reasonable one? And, just as importantly, if it's not a good thing, which I think overall it is not...then what can we do to change it? Finally, the tone of your replies seems to more about belittling me than addressing the basic issue at hand. While you may think it a positive thing to claim "you don't have a clue," to claim my motives are strictly "about your cities in BL" and so on, it is not answering the basic question of using land claims to restrict the rights of some players because you are bigger than they and can do so. The sandbox isn't going to be a lot of fun for a lot of people once the bullies take over in TBL, which certainly contributed to why so many left Elgea so fast as well. I would like to hear you comments on the forum post about are things stagnant in Elgea. AJ |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
Bobtron
Wordsmith
Joined: 21 Mar 2015 Location: Canton Status: Offline Points: 123 |
Posted: 22 May 2015 at 05:40 |
||||
|
Well I didn't bother with reading 6 walls of text so I may be restating some opinions, but as a trader in illyria, both in Elgea and BL, I'm not too enthusiastic about these land claims. I personally prefer to harvest raw materials instead of buying them at inflated market prices and then manufacturing or selling them. If an alliance claims a part of BL that contains exotic resources, who knows what will happen to the supply of that resource? Sure, players could have already settled there and continue to harvest that resource, but that would be unfair for new players, being unable to move in. Access to local trade hubs would decrease, and the market would be monopolized by that alliance.
Edited by Bobtron - 22 May 2015 at 05:43 |
|||||
|
I support the Undying Flame!
|
|||||
![]() |
|||||
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Posted: 22 May 2015 at 16:23 |
||||
|
Speaking as a knowledgeable crafter: there are very few useful materials that are restricted to a small geographic zone. You can find ancient oak, giant palm leaves, Iceheart, queens hair leaves, spidertree leaves, and other raw materials in many different regions. Arterium was the only material that came immediately to mind as heavily geographically concentrated, and nobody will be claiming that section of the new player ring, because the current game mechanics would make it impossible. The same is true of the animals hunted for rare parts. Almost everything useful--wolves, bears, wild dogs, giant rats, scaled chargers, simien wolves, and others--can be found across huge areas. Only a few creatures like gharials and black bears have small ranges. Again, those ranges are in heavily populated Elgea regions that are unlikely to see a permanent claim. While the fear of losing access to crafting materials seems to be a potential concern, I believe it is an almost entirely unfounded concern. If anyone can name a valuable plant or mineral that I have overlooked, I will stand corrected.
As a side note, I believe that if alliances claim territories, you might actually have a better chance to access to stationary crafting materials. In the current setup, ownership is typically claimed with an army. If you ever forget to renew your guards, other people can quickly stick a different army out there, and ownership is lost in the eyes of many. In claimed territory, you really only have to negotiate with a single alliance or two. If they grant access to your harvesters, you can reasonably expect that they will maintain continuous ownership, and your access will be smooth until you are done or they rescind access to their resource. If you believe the current harvesting system is smooth, then you have never been an Iceheart miner in the cold north. Claim jumping and aggressive ownership via armies from huge distances is the status quo, and can create significant tension around the larger (and thus more valuable) Iceheart-bearing ice caves. Regarding the hubs themselves, you can always send a trader to a friendly hub. I believe regional alliances are well incentivized to keep their hubs friendly to traders. Claiming all the land around a hub could be a problem, and I believe a trade zone halo might need to be addressed with some sort of universal conventions around land claims. It does make good sense to allow permanent and roaming traders to exodus close to trade hubs for the purpose of cross-continent trade. |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011 Location: Oarnamly Status: Offline Points: 1857 |
Posted: 22 May 2015 at 16:30 |
||||
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
![]() |
|||||
ajqtrz
Postmaster
Joined: 24 May 2014 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 500 |
Posted: 23 May 2015 at 01:30 |
||||
|
Brandmeister. you claim that with regard to Arterium, there is a place where it is concentrated, where "nobody will be claiming that section of the new player ring, because the current game mechanics would make it impossible." I really wonder how the game mechanics accomplish this? Land claims are not in the mechanics so it's conceivable that one could claim that section.....and then "kindly" assist all the new players with their imposed moves...once they get to a certain size, of course. You could also just tell all those in the area that they are not to harvest anything without asking, then tell them that they can't because even though they asked, too bad. So do explain how the game mechanics make it impossible to claim that region. Or did you really mean, impractical?
But you also claim that: "In claimed territory, you really only have to negotiate with a single alliance or two. If they grant access to your harvesters, you can reasonably expect that they will maintain continuous ownership, and your access will be smooth until you are done or they rescind access to their resource," which leads me to ask why those alliances claiming the area and also the resources of those areas would actually allow anybody to harvest those resources....especially the ones that are useful. Can you guaranty access to all resources by all the people of Illy once they have become the "property" of alliances? If those making the land claims are doing so out of a clear strategic goal, what is to keep them from claiming all the ice heart territory in south BL? Once you admit people can simply claim an area and it's resources, you open up the possibility of monopolistic practices. In fact, if I were a believer in land claims as good for Illy, I'd be staking out some spots exactly where the valuable resources exist. Why have to park an army when a few cities and a formal announcement will do just as well? And BTW, there is a lot of Ice Heart in TBL and I've been lucky enough to harvest a bunch before somebody just claims the whole area. Better hurry. AJ |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Posted: 23 May 2015 at 03:25 |
||||
|
The areas of Tor Carrock and bordering regions that contain Arterium are some of the most densely populated areas of the new player ring. I don't think that an alliance of 100 players working catapults non-stop could clear that region faster than new players arrive. This ignores the fact that there would be huge political backlash against someone trying to evict new players from the new player ring. Backlash from the current owners of the Arterium mines. Backlash from the many alliances large and small who are already established in Tor Carrock. Backlash from the allies of those alliances. Backlash from the community at large for trying to claim a densely populated area. I'm comfortable stating that the idea of such a claim is so farfetched as to cross the line through Impractical and straight to Impossible. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
Over the years, I have worked many deals to gain access to valuable materials that were not being actively harvested by their owners. Many players have captured resources that they only harvest occasionally. Some people generously granted free access to their herbs and mines, and other times I worked out mutually beneficial arrangements. I think there is some confusion about my statement though. I believe that if alliances were not harvesting valuable materials in their own territories, it would be possible for some people to negotiate for access. But everyone? No. It would not be my goal to "guaranty access to all resources by all the people of Illy". Why would I want to do that? I would want exclusive access to valuable materials to craft increasingly valuable equipment, which I could sell at a profit or use to the tactical advantage of my alliance and my allies. If they would choose not to grant access to me, so be it. As I have stated before in this thread, I am not aware of any useful rare resource except Arterium that is so geographically concentrated that I could not acquire it elsewhere via harvesting or trade.
Raw geography? The Long White is enormous. It touches both sides of the map. Such an area could never be policed effectively. Also, the gain would be tiny. Iceheart is already in oversupply in Elgea. While useful, it is also abundant.
People did lock down a rare resource: Silversteel. There are only five mines in all of Elgea, and now another five in the Broken Lands. For a long time, the owners formed a cartel that kept Silversteel prices astromically high, like De Beers and diamonds. I thought their monopoly was one of the coolest things ever attempted in Illyriad. That cartel eventually fell apart for many reasons. Owners broke ranks and sold extra metal. Mines changed hands. Also, the supply of earth and fire salts for making useful Silversteel items is probably 0.1% the size of the actual Silversteel supply. Your statement also ignores the likelihood that claims will go unchallenged. Could you make a paper claim to the entire Long White? Sure. Go ahead, put it on the land map. But you will never be able to enforce that claim if anyone breaks it. Now, if one of the Top 5 alliances moved into Calumnex and declared, "All the Silversteel and Obsidian mines in this region belong to us. Move your cities away from the mines and withdraw your guards by tomorrow," that would be a serious claim backed up by serious firepower. |
|||||
![]() |
|||||
Post Reply
|
Page <1 45678 18> |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |