Let's Discuss the 10 sq rule with settlers

cross-linking this reference for the convenience of any newbs reading the thread. on page 2 is HonoredMule's response which details H?'s thinking when it posted the 10-square rule as an alliance policy.

http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/epidemic-vs-crows_topic4839_page1.html

because i was there at the time, i best recall mCrow's reaction to the announcement of the rule, which was quite sceptical (and, to be fair, the practice works less well even now as one nears the centre board, where newbs spring unbidden from the very soil and ancient, close-built cities abound), but i think it is fair to say that the major alliances warmed to the idea once they realised that they could use it themselves, and, as a practical matter, there is not much incentive for them to give up privilege now established.

regarding it not being a rule of the game...it certainly is a rule where exodus and tenaril are concerned. what H? did was extend the concept to other sorts of settlements. had the game itself enforced an 8-square radius for exodus, i suspect we would be discussing the draconian nature of the "8 sq rule".

I think we need more new players to join established alliances. This will both make the top alliances in the game active and will enable the new players to settle or even Exodus and Tenaril into squares even 5 distant from their alliance mates. A 5 square distance ensures that both cities may claim sovereignty 2 squares from the city which will still allow each city its 20 sov squares.

Dragonwort wrote: [QUOTE=Rill]Dragonwort, every time there are new players people predict Illy will be more "xx" as a result.  "warlike" is often one of those descriptors.  I'm still waiting to see it.  (Long-established players are the ones most involved in the current war, as opposed to new players, for example.)[Quote] And , of course, you won't see it yet (not on a grand scale anyway) these players are too new and too small. BUT..a little time lurking in GC will illustrate my point. Some of the newer players after hopping from alliance to alliance looking for that perfect fit have started warring with each other on a small scale...just to be warring. Some have even taken on established players and lost cities in the process. More than once, a new player has asked, "how do I form an alliance?" with the intent, most likely, of bringing along their entire alliance from the"other" game. Rather than read; they ask. And THAT may be the one saving grace...for some their aggressiveness is exceeded only by their impatience. If Illy changes..it won't be overnight but the signs are there. remember where you read it first...lol  Dragonwort i have noticed that illy has become more agressive allready, but i might have had a false memory in my head of a peacefull utopia that crushes anyone who threatens it :p

I don't think that either way of viewing things is "wrong" or "right" in any sort of moral sense.  I am speaking pragmatically about what I see as being effective or ineffective.

bansisdead wrote: Bartleby wrote: bansisdead wrote: Rill you have to accept people are not going to play this sandbox game as you want it to be played. The same could be said from the other side, no? Well the current status quo has been accepted by the vast majority of the illy base.  As far as I can understand it Rill is telling others that their style of play is the problem and not the other way round.  So no it couldn't...