Claims of Ignoration of Claims |
Post Reply | Page 123 9> |
Author | |
Hora
Postmaster Joined: 10 May 2010 Status: Offline Points: 839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 14:19 |
Hi fellow Illyrians,
some big alliances made statements neither related to firm claims nor fixed counter/anti-claims or rigid no claim zones. So far those statements had been moved to the discussion thread, where they are lost between all the talk about general pros and cons. This thread is planed to collect the statements of ignoration and denial. Please keep it as free of discussion as the other official thread...
|
|
Hora
Postmaster Joined: 10 May 2010 Status: Offline Points: 839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Official Statement of Invictus regarding the Land Claims:
Dear fellow Illyrians, The recent weeks have seen some land claims in the BL, and VIC was asked, whether they'd like to do one, too. In short: We won't. Invictus is a big and widespread alliance, defining a heartland would be difficult. Further, why should we restrict other players? On the other hand, why should they restrict us? We Consuls of VIC are suspiciously watching the new territories and their future development. We won't intervene right now, as we don't have a reason to do so, but we won't recognize any claims in or widely around High Hills for now. Don't be afraid, we plan no counter claim, or anything... We'll just ignore! That means business as usual: Settling/harvesting accidents will be solved diplomatically. Intentional actions against our units (be it by claim or not) won't be tolerated. We stay true to the widely accepted 10-square-please-ask-before-settling radius. Claiming alliances concerned about this statement will recieve a more detailed IGM and are encouraged to ask any questions appearing also directly via IGM to keep this thread clean. Thank you. Kindest regards, the Consuls of Invictus Edited by Hora - 06 Jun 2015 at 14:23 |
|
Halcyon
Forum Warrior Joined: 17 Aug 2012 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 360 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
10 alliances, most of them very small, have claimed about 15 percent of Broken Lands (that's what my eyes are telling me when looking at Jejune's map). This means that a relatively small part of the players are trying to dictate to the majority where to place their cities. It won't stand.
Dark Shade does not recognize these claims and, like Invictus, will ignore them. We do not settle inside a land claim with an intention to force a conflict, but we settle where our strategy indicates even if this means settling inside a land claim. Militray or diplomatic actions against our cities will be answered with disproportionate military action. Don't start none, won't be none!
|
|
Han Dynasty
Wordsmith Joined: 21 Sep 2014 Location: Kingdom of Shu Status: Offline Points: 123 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
If you are settling within a land claim, it is with the intention to force a conflict. You not recognizing a land claim is well within your 'right', and certainly refusal to recognize claims is to be expected, but you can't hide behind 'but we're not forcing conflict'. I also wonder how many players in Illyriad are comfortable, or have been comfortable with the peacenik atmosphere. It could very well be that the majority have been uncomfortable, but have been subjugated by the minority that possesses the military prowess. You're directly challenging and threatening with vast destruction. How could anyone look at it and say 'yep, they're just interested in settlement as well'. |
|
The official forum profile for Han Dynasty.
|
|
Diva
Forum Warrior Joined: 20 Dec 2011 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Peacenik... ok, planned PvP going on down in BL (short of the opposition to Land Claims) isn't peacenik type? With negotiations on who is participating, which cities cannot be attacked ...There isn't any kind of legitimate PvP going that you think BL should have going on. BL is just an extension for ROOM, and we know when that happened. And we also know the devs planned it another way that didn't develop.. so now you are forcing conflict ALL over BL your way, with land claims... And please, mention who runs Elgea, that can't in BL, which is why this is headed the way it is due to them? |
|
"Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire
|
|
Diva
Forum Warrior Joined: 20 Dec 2011 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Wheel of Time Statement on Land Claims
LAND CLAIM POLICY OF Wheel of Time
Edited by Diva - 08 Jul 2015 at 01:28 |
|
"Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire
|
|
Mr Damage
Postmaster Joined: 01 Jan 2011 Status: Offline Points: 598 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
LAND CLAIM POLICY OF GREY..........Do what you want, we don't care either way.
|
|
Jejune
Postmaster General Joined: 10 Feb 2013 Status: Offline Points: 1035 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thank you for posting your land claim policy, Diva! This is a great policy and should really further enrich the land claim experiment in the Broken Lands. For the point above, can you clarify the area that constitutes "where WoT resides and harvests?" The way you've currently described this is unclear, and players in land claiming alliances need to have exact boundaries so as to avoid conflict by settling in an area too close to your no-land-claimers-allowed claim. Thanks!
|
|
Diva
Forum Warrior Joined: 20 Dec 2011 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
There is no stretching out to assume new boundaries by LC's placing cities near WOT. If WOT is not allowed it's free access without hostilities INSIDE a land claim, then expect the same near any WOT player.
LC's have marked their territory. We don't feel they should have both when near WOT players/or WOT clusters. Edited by Diva - 08 Jul 2015 at 15:29 |
|
"Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire
|
|
Janders
New Poster Joined: 02 Jul 2014 Status: Offline Points: 36 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Jejune, we mean this in a case-by-case basis. Just a VERY hypothetical example--
(1) HYPOTHETICALLY, SIN claims Fellandire, and despite WoT having cities on the border / a few squares within, states we don't have the right to harvest or expand around those cities. (2) HYPOTHETICALLY, WoT has a large cluster of cities (say 45) spread around Farshards outside of the SIN claim. However SIN has 5 cities mixed into this area, which they plan of leaving there and using to harvest aggressively. We would be AGAINST this arrangement. We are against LC in general, but especially if you are going to kick us out of an area and tell us not to harvest there, but then leave cities of your own outside of your claim and harvest amongst us. Certainly we don't mind random people settling within our loose clusters, and harvesting as they see fit as friendly neighbors. But if you are going to restrict our livelihood, crafting, hunting and trade, we will feel free to do the same in return. Now all of this is quite hypothetical, we don't have clusters of cities next to SIN and SIN doesn't have cities amongst our cluster stealing our earth salts ;) |
|
Post Reply | Page 123 9> |
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 |