Let's Discuss the 10 sq rule with settlers

Neytiri wrote: I have a simpler solution for the developers: Enforce the "two account" rule and dispense with permanent sitters.

+1

Although I think most people who argue over perfect locations will never utilize them, it's undeniable that too many prime locations are occupied by perma-farms.

Miklabjarnir wrote: The 10 square rule still makes good sense, the map is far from filled up. Occationally there is even a new "choice" spot when somebody abandons an account, but I think many are too preoccupied with getting perfect military locations. Unless you plan to specialize in warfare, you can get a lot of enjoyment out of Illyriad with most of your cities on 5 or 6-food squares. It is all about the kind of role you want to play in this world. As a miner, hunter or trader you can be better served and gain more gold from a desolate location with ample game, minerals and herbs nearby. The best argument for the 10-square rule is that it leaves space for future expansion and enables the first settlers in a place to be a little bit selective about who they want as neighbours. Unless they plan to use it for their own expansion, most people will let you settle inside their area of interest if you have a good reputation.

The 10 square rule still makes good sense, the map is far from filled up. Occationally there is even a new "choice" spot when somebody abandons an account, but I think many are too preoccupied with getting perfect military locations. Unless you plan to specialize in warfare, you can get a lot of enjoyment out of Illyriad with most of your cities on 5 or 6-food squares. It is all about the kind of role you want to play in this world. As a miner, hunter or trader you can be better served and gain more gold from a desolate location with ample game, minerals and herbs nearby.

Okay as a new player I want to understand this 10 sq unwritten courtsey rule better. Is it a 10 sq radius (which in efffecy becomes a very large 20 sq diameter) or a 5 sq radius? The 10 sq radius then equates to a 40 sq circumference (10 sq in all directions) around a city. Now maybe in the beginning of the game it made it sense and could be easily adhered to. But with the growth of the game and new players joining, doesn't it seem prudent that it be reconsidered. I mean don't you want the game to grow and new players added? I think the unwritten rule should be changed/amended to 5 sq radius, which gives you a 10 sq diameter and 20 Sq circumference.

Diva wrote: My example below .. I am LEGAL in the circle correct?  I can't  build a city over by any of those 7's around me after I exodus, tenaril, settle in on that ?

you are "legal" at the location you've selected. after settling, convention suggests that the five squares closest to your city in any direction are available for your city's use...but not necessarily for further settlement.

Diva wrote: But I have created my own 10 sq circumference.. do I need to ask anyone? can I build ALL over my 10 if I want to cluster?

the 10 square rule is still in force, so if you settle within 10 of another city, the "rule" states that you should ask permission. distance to your city is not pertinent. (radius, not circumference.)

Diva wrote: Of course building in someplace too close is friction, I understand that.. but I would choose to build (send settlers) to the outskirts of my neighbors. And I certainly would sov up to level 5 on one of the two sovs north, to get the benefit of the dolman, and exodus to it

you can't exodus to a dolmen, so i'm not sure what you're describing. sov freely within 5 squares for the food or other benefits. additional settlements require additional notifications.