Let's Discuss the 10 sq rule with settlers

Rill wrote: I think the main problem is that people see it as a "rule."  To me, it is a guideline or a courtesy.  It is likewise courteous to agree to allow someone to settle closer than 10 squares as long as the settlement is not so close as to interfere with city growth. For those who say that 10 squares is some sort of reflexive minimum, I simply ask, "Why?" Other than assertion of dominance or trying to prevent other people from settling in "your" area, why are 10 squares so sacrosanct? And if the intention is to assert dominance or to "claim" an area ... again, why? What advantage does this provide? I'd like people to seriously and thoughtfully engage with this question.  I've been playing for Illyriad for close the three years now and have yet to hear any strong argument for exclusive control of an area.  ("We like it that way" is not a well-reasoned argument.) 10 squares is not required for sovereignty claims; a more reasonable guideline for that would be 6 squares, or possibly 7-8. With regard to mutual defense, exclusivity in an area does not seem to be substantially better than mere dominance.  And attempts at exclusivity or rigid enforcement of an arbitrary "rule" tend to stir up animosity. Perhaps the developers need not worry so much about creating opportunities for "friction."  It seems to me that the playerbase is quite good at creating arbitrary (and needless) sources of friction all on its own. I struggle with this question with my alliance mates as well.  When someone sees someone who settles within 10 squares without asking permission, the immediate reaction is that the other person has somehow disrespected or violated the player's space.  Hopefully one's first reaction could be to look at the actual situation and ask "well, does this settlement actually infringe on the potential growth of the other city"? and "is there any other reason the city being there will cause a substantial problem?"  Most of the time the answer to both questions is "no." As I said, I struggle even with folks in my alliance on this issue.  Yet at the same time I think that if one can set aside issues of ego and power, there is plenty of room for everyone.  And there are plenty of people who will find every opportunity to exercise arbitrary and capricious ego and/or power trips without the rest of us helping them along.

I tend to agree that 10, set in stone is a bit silly. It just isn't realistic. I also believe that there are plenty of spots still available. A 7 food spot is great if a large population is your goal, but it's not mine. I have had those sorts of spots and they kind of hampered my other resources. There are only 25 res spots after all. Those who give up some clay or iron or whatever for food will pay the price unless a large population is all they really want.

Personally, I don't care so much about asking. I have asked and been met with kind replies to the positive. I have answered such with positive replies but it just doesn't really matter. Realistically, if a player knows what a good spot looks like, they wont get too close because they wont want to hinder their own future in that new city. If they make a stupid mistake, they can be shown they have and likely be willing to try again.

As for "exclusive control", I don't have an argument for that, however I can argue why I'd like to see a Crow-less or an EE-less area. It isn't exclusive, it is safe. When the pile on comes, travel times make a lot of difference.

GM Rikoo wrote:   the players can come up with these type of rules if they want! :) GM Rikoo

Edited by Diva - 04 Apr 2014 at 17:31

Pellinell wrote: Diva wrote: Pellinell wrote:     So while I understand your frustration I don't see why this rule needs to be changed     Where is this rule? It is a behavioral constraint that the entire community has adopted and followed for a very long time. So an unspoken rule if you like.    The point is as I stated above, It is still possible to relocate or settle without violating another's 10 squares.

I think the main problem is that people see it as a "rule."  To me, it is a guideline or a courtesy.  It is likewise courteous to agree to allow someone to settle closer than 10 squares as long as the settlement is not so close as to interfere with city growth.

Epidemic wrote: I say we stop telling all the newbs to build new towns and move out of the newb circle. Let them figure it out on their own. The 10 sq. rule needs to stay in place, even expanded on. No way am I going to allow another town within my 10x10. Go find one of the hundreds of dead games out there that have all the cities built on top of each other. I didn't stay in this game for nearly 3 years just to see it destroyed by a bunch of huggers.