| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
abstractdream 
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
 Topic: Articles of the Confederation of Illyriad
Posted: 27 Apr 2012 at 07:31 |
|
Yes, the basic concept, representative organization is a well tested one in RL but has thus far had limited success in Illyriad. Perhaps a simple, useful organization like a land claim confed could get some measure of support?
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
 |
Naxos
New Poster
Joined: 18 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 20
|
Posted: 26 Apr 2012 at 18:48 |
|
This is has a similar concept to the Illyriad Trade Union, but of course it is for a different purpose.
|
|
LordBliss
Greenhorn
Joined: 16 Oct 2011
Location: US
Status: Offline
Points: 65
|
Posted: 25 Apr 2012 at 00:23 |
 abstractdream wrote:
.......The land claims of small and mid sized alliances are scoffed at by larger alliances........ |
I have happily found the opposite to be the case. I suppose one's view on the accuracy of this depends on one's experience, but i have appreciated the efforts and time of others, and so just wanted to put this out there.
as to the OP, i think its an interesting idea, but the appealing part is a set of standards to which alliances agree to abide by, as opposed to a confederation. By way of example, many professions have trade associations/organizations that when the person joins them, they agree to certain standards and in return they get a stamp of approval of the organization.
I think it would be hard to establish anything with any real "teeth" to it, but a general statement of of principles/standards/procedures that alliances could then say, "yes, we will sign off on that."
see also: the United Nations
Edited by LordBliss - 25 Apr 2012 at 00:24
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 22:10 |
geofrey wrote:
It need not be enforced as much as recognized by the community. Part of being recognized by the Land Confederation is that you recognize all the other land claims of the confederation. Through mutual respect and cooperation we could reduce the amount of turf wars. |
This is the optimal function of the Land Confederation.
geofrey wrote:
This whole concept is centered around the idea that you "enforce" your land claim by agreeing to respect other alliance's land claim. No siege necessary. |
I agree. This whole concept is centered around mutual agreement and any enforcement must be as well.
geofrey wrote:
Now if someone where to ignore the land claim of an alliance. I think it would be up to that alliance to rally forces behind its cause to defend it's territory. They would have a whole confederation of alliances who have something to loose by letting an alliance's land claim be ignored. |
This seems to me to be the best way to enforce the claims. Should there be a conflict, the plaintiff alliance would proceed with business as usual and the only time there would ever need to be any diplomatic or military action taken by the Land Confederation (resource aid not withstanding) would be in the event the defendant alliance was too strong for the plaintiff to remove on their own.
There would need to be simple and limited guidelines agreed to in advance as far as when and how the Land Confederation would act to enforce any legitimate claim.
Inter-Confed disputes should be reduced to next to nothing with the right charter. Any alliance agreeing to join would also be agreeing to the legitimate claims of the other members.
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 22:07 |
abstractdream wrote:
Well we have at least two interested alliances (AA & TLR) 10 more could get it off the ground I think. I'm ready to give it try.
I would like to open up in game communication with you, geofrey so we can piece together a proposal document and begin networking our individual contacts to find more interested alliances.
I'm at work right now so if I haven't heard from you by the time I get home I will message you. |
Certainly, contact me in-game. Anyone else interested in being a part of this is welcome to send me in-game mail.
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 20:29 |
|
Well we have at least two interested alliances (AA & TLR) 10 more could get it off the ground I think. I'm ready to give it try.
I would like to open up in game communication with you, geofrey so we can piece together a proposal document and begin networking our individual contacts to find more interested alliances.
I'm at work right now so if I haven't heard from you by the time I get home I will message you.
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
geofrey
Postmaster General
Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
|
Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 20:14 |
Rill wrote:
It seems like one issue this proposed confederation will have is gaining recognition for and defining the idea of land claims.
The proposal that a land claim include "any business done" in the area of a claim, which would seem to include NPC hunting, trade, travel across the region, etc., is a pretty significant limitation on other players' ability to participate in the game in that region. Historically land claims have reflected where people do not want other people to place cities.
As new features are introduced, a broader definition of land claims may be adopted, but I think that if the intention is to make claims as broad as the one I've described above, any such attempt is premature, since it currently is unenforceable under any reasonable application of game mechanics. |
I see your point about "any business done" being to broad. Limiting it to new settlements makes more sense.
It need not be enforced as much as recognized by the community. Part of being recognized by the Land Confederation is that you recognize all the other land claims of the confederation. Through mutual respect and cooperation we could reduce the amount of turf wars.
This whole concept is centered around the idea that you "enforce" your land claim by agreeing to respect other alliance's land claim. No siege necessary.
Now if someone where to ignore the land claim of an alliance. I think it would be up to that alliance to rally forces behind its cause to defend it's territory. They would have a whole confederation of alliances who have something to loose by letting an alliance's land claim be ignored.
|
|
abstractdream
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 19:56 |
|
Yes, the claims should be limited to city placement. Moving beyond that would invite trouble, imnsho.
As for enforcement, siege is the only way to do it once all other avenues have been exhausted.
The issue of recognition by the community would have to come with time. Certainly the member alliances could and would recognize legitimate claims of fellow members and the larger the organization becomes the more likely it is that the community at large would recognize it as well.
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
|
Subatoi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380
|
Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 19:18 |
It is only enforcable under siege because often the party that violates the claim and refuses to move, via exodus will refuse to do so.
If the violator is too stubborn to clear out under an allocated time frame, then drastic measures should be considered, less you risk having the rest the of your system^ challenged.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 24 Apr 2012 at 18:56 |
It seems like one issue this proposed confederation will have is gaining recognition for and defining the idea of land claims.
The proposal that a land claim include "any business done" in the area of a claim, which would seem to include NPC hunting, trade, travel across the region, etc., is a pretty significant limitation on other players' ability to participate in the game in that region. Historically land claims have reflected where people do not want other people to place cities.
As new features are introduced, a broader definition of land claims may be adopted, but I think that if the intention is to make claims as broad as the one I've described above, any such attempt is premature, since it currently is unenforceable under any reasonable application of game mechanics.
|
|
Tweet
Articles of the Confederation of Illyriad