A statement from the Dwarven Lords...
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Politics & Diplomacy
Forum Description: If you run an alliance on Elgea, here's where you should make your intentions public.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=3566
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2022 at 21:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: A statement from the Dwarven Lords...
Posted By: belargyle
Subject: A statement from the Dwarven Lords...
Date Posted: 18 May 2012 at 22:04
|
Greetings everyone, Since there have been some issues of late with both us and others I believe it has come time to declare some things regarding the Dwarven Lords, that will keep things amicable between us and other parties. While there is not a ‘set’ 10 square rule regarding cities in or by which all members of Illy both agree with or play by, we - regarding us (the Dwarven Lords) have chosen to embrace this rule (with modification) as a means to help with tensions as well as declare a general ownership of said lands. Let me explain what I mean, if I may? The Dwarven Lords lay the right of claim upon all 10 squares around any of our cities (10 squares refer to the same as in the Rules for moving cities whether magical or relocating) as a ‘general’ ownership. I state it this way because even the game itself acknowledges this area as ‘potentially’ being a players land by right of presence. As such if a person tries to move a town to near another that is not allied with it, the game will not let you. Now, defining the term ‘general’ simply refers to what is claimed as Dlord land, but acknowledges that some of the land can also be given away at the owner or alliances discretion and therefore ownership is defined as ‘general’. Thus here are our rules regarding land disputes and actions
upon said lands: …1a. To negotiate land or sov rights
within the 10 square
area, simply mail the person to whom the land belongs, a courtesy mail,
explaining what you would ‘like to do’, and he or she will get back with
you,
or one of the Royal Caste (this is an extreme case, as the land in
question
could have specific current or future value to the alliance and not just
the
person in question). For those who land 'already' overlaps ours (and to
whom does it actually belong) again, goes back to simply talking it out
with the person. In all truth, this is not extreme but a setting forth of a common courtesy we would like from Illy community toward us, as we intend it toward them in like manner. We respond well to politeness and etiquette, however to threats and or demands you find our Dwarven spine stiffens and in one swift and sudden move, a whistle and a gentle breeze across neck line will be your last endearing thoughts . The above is subject to change at Dlord’s behest to add to,
modify, or remove any subject or action we deem necessary. We are not here
because we are favored, nor are we here because we are the best. We are here
because we carved out our position with clawed hands, persevering hearts. When
the sound of War begins, men’s hearts leap, the Orc rejoices, and Elves sadly
smile, but when the tromp of Dwarven Boots are heard, they all turn to fearful
dread. |
Replies:
Posted By: Subatoi
Date Posted: 18 May 2012 at 22:41
| Good for you guys. |
Posted By: Henrii StormStar
Date Posted: 18 May 2012 at 22:44
|
Hi Belargyle, Well written. Please clarify "10 Squares" as being 10 physical squares on the map, or a measured distance of 10 squares as displayed by a tool such as IllyTools. Thanks, Henrii |
Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 18 May 2012 at 22:56
|
The 10 square rule definition is "(as noted in the Rules for moving cities whether magical or relocating). I added it to the original document for better clarification. Thank you |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 18 May 2012 at 22:58
|
You will, of course, reciprocate this policy to all other palyers - meaning Dlords will not be settling within 10 sqs of other players, and all the other terms you have pronounced for Dlord. Is this correct?
|
Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 18 May 2012 at 23:01
|
Yes TD. From the above: "In all truth, this is not extreme but a setting forth of a common courtesy we would like from Illy community toward us, as we intend it toward them in like manner." |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 18 May 2012 at 23:04
| So why so much land when you have a current usage of 4.28 sqs per city? It makes 314 sqs per city seem like a lot. |
Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 18 May 2012 at 23:07
| Mostly... it is for courtesy and maybe potential alliance usage or even some individuals (just cause most don't use a lot does not mean others wont)... we are considering 5 squares, with NO negotiations on land or sovs, but the 10 allows for notification of intention, especially getting so close. So for now it is the 10 square rule of thumb. |
Posted By: Henrii StormStar
Date Posted: 18 May 2012 at 23:15
| Thank you Belargyle. Tenarils and exodus use the measured distance so it is crystal clear now. |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 18 May 2012 at 23:32
Courtesy?  Yes, thank you for the courtesy of telling me "cross this line and die". That is most generous.
"maybe potential?" That's a lot of turf for plans not yet conceived.
Well, 79 sqs is slightly less unreasonable than 314 sqs. If I may ask, which Dlord city currently has the most Sov claims and how many sqs are claimed?
|
belargyle wrote:Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 18 May 2012 at 23:37
|
This seems consistent with the evolving practice in Illy, although I would suggest at least contacting the hapless player who has moved or settled and negotiating with them before removing them with extreme prejudice. Some people don't read the forum, some people accidentally unclick encampments and don't see cities, that sort of thing. Ignorance is an excuse and stupidity isn't, but neither is necessarily representative of ill will. I recognize that you are trying to avoid having people say "what if I plunked a city down here and asked after," but at the same time I hope that in practice you will at least contact people first to evaluate their intentions. Presumably said rule will also not apply to new player spawns.
|
Posted By: Raatalagk
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 00:36
| Suppose I want to settle a city 8 squares distant from a current DLords city: I mail the corresponding player (call him "X"), and make my request. My impression is that player X essentially has veto power, and can flat out refuse my request. Is this what you intend? Because in that case, although you use the word "negotiation", it seems more like permission-asking. |
Posted By: Marquesta
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 06:02
|
I think it is a great idea. Everyone seems to think that Illy is getting 'too crowded' for the ten square rule to apply. What they are not noticing, is that every few weeks the Devs run a purge and viola! We have space! No there will never be as much land as there was a year ago, but as I said to someone recently, we are not to the point where we should be fighting over a few squares. ITG follows the ten square rule, with settlement within ten squares only at the approval of the nearest city's owner. It is very aggravating when others don't show the same courtesy and we end up crowded. Because we are a training alliance, we do not allow retaliation by our members and our officers will not take retaliation, to avoid others taking anything out on our newbs. If we are pressed we aren't without our allies, but to declare war on someone because they are thoughtless and inconsiderate is not something we will do. Karma will come round :) ------------- ~~Marquesta Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them... |
Posted By: Subatoi
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 06:14
| Out of curiosity how many other alliances have issued land claims similar to this one? Alliances still in existence. |
Posted By: Quackers
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 06:24
I know of three, but I cannot say their name out of respect for them (since I cannot speak for them.) I am unsure for TNH, but I respect and believe in the 10 square rule. 15 square if the player has built his towns in a central area, and any food dolmen within 10-15 squares that could be his next spot for his new town. |
Posted By: invictusa
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 07:13
|
So there are alliances and players that actually tolerate people moving within 10 tiles of their cities? For the ghetto's of the newb ring regions I can see how settling etiquette could be lax. But in all other cases I just figured it would be common sense. Perhaps it may save time to start a thread listing alliances that do care how close you settle to their cities. ------------- ...and miles to go before I sleep. |
Posted By: Subatoi
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 07:18
But then you'd have people challenge those alliances who do care about settlement proximity.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 07:34
I can only speak for nCrow and say that we try to be flexible about people wanting to settle within 10 squares of our cities. We prefer that they contact us first to discuss, but if there is reasonable sov available to support the growth of both cities, it's normally not a problem. Most players don't claim sov further than 3-5 squares out from their cities, although it's better to talk it over before settling. We would usually object to settlements within 3-5 squares. Our philosophy is that Illy is an MMO and therefore space is shared. Multiplayer games by their very nature involve ... well ... other players. If we wanted to avoid contact with other people, we'd be playing a PC game and using the freed-up bandwidth to download movies faster. So long as your city is not likely to substantially impinge on our enjoyment of the game and you do not have hostile intentions, we are happy to have you as a neighbor. Likewise, we expect others to work with us on settlement issues. It's not our intention to impinge on others' city areas, but an arbitrary refusal of settlement a reasonable distance away (8 squares for example) would be something that we'd probably try to negotiate. If all such requests were refused, we would be even more concerned. I could be wrong, but I think nCrow is fairly typical in this respect, although perhaps we have a more relaxed attitude than some.
|
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 08:25
| This is quite a reasonable request from Dlords and I believe that it is purely aimed at avoiding conflict but I don't think any land claim is valid and it always comes down to the bigger force being the ultimate decider. If a smaller alliance tries this they will be laughed out of town, Dlords can put this out there only because of their size ( of course their allies make things a helluvalot easier). Good luck with it, the theory is a good one as long as you have the might to support it, which you currently do, I've had people move within this range unannounced, I haven't destroyed nor threatened them, I don't like it but it is what it is. Good gaming folks. |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 08:40
What exactly do you mean by "immediately and with extreme prejudice"? Because to me, that sounds exactly like "without any notice" which I would hope is not the case. Also, if someone settles lets say, 9.X squares away (as in, counting tenths of squares) is that going to be an issue? It's a little ridiculous getting messages from upset players because someone settled 9.8 squares away from them.
|
Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 15:46
True. Thus it places the other players in the category of need to discuss location to near Dlord player cities.
True, but who, with a rational mind, does not plan on potentials farther out than a day or two. The potential is not set and therefore can be altered. For us, we plan way ahead. For example, Dlord is pretty much set up for T2 Trade, and AFTER that when we can create our own alliance Trade hubs, with not only stocks but potential and current sites for the Hubs later on.
Personally, I plan on sov'ing a larger portion in all my cities (sov lvl 1 only) for the purpose of future actions - ie, when Walls eventually come out among other things coming sooner and later. |
Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 16:09
Yes, that is what I am speaking to. The language of 'immediate removal' regarding the context of post in which I state we desire communication. This will precede any action, however if I need to make this more clear in the post, I can. As to newbies, No, this rule obviously does not apply since they have not control over where they fall from the proverbial sky and land their new town. |
Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 16:14
Yes - you need to ask permission, if permission says "no", try some negotiation. While many might just opt to give the land at such a distance away, some might like to receive some benefit for giving it away. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 16:15
| Bravo, Bela! Imo, a very well stated policy that makes a ton of sense. |
Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 16:17
|
Thank you, and to others as well for the support of the document. It seems something like this (for now) will help in the majority of cases in having something out there to refer back to (right threefootthree?  ) hehehe
|
Posted By: Raatalagk
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 17:23
I certainly agree that, when settling a city nearby another city, it is prudent to contact the owner of said city, if only to facilitate a peaceful and amicable relationship. However, I can't say I'm on board with the notion that a player effectively "owns" all squares within 10 squares of any of his cities, giving him the right to deny a bid to settle on any one of them, or even to charge for the privilege.
I applaud your effort to keep ugly situations to a minimum by clearly posting guidelines like these in advance. However, I think you reach too far with your claims. I'm not the boss of Illy, though, so what I personally think may well turn out to matter very little. :) |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 18:05
Not sure if you missed this (it was the last post after all) but I would like a response to it...
|
Posted By: nightfury
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 18:12
You like to ask questions and then expect answers, but you guys(crows) never make your position clear. let me ask a question to you. What is the position of crows in this matter? can I settle next to crow city without asking permission? what is the permissible distance? I request DLORD and H? not to answer any of Brids Q's till he answer Crows position he just asks and never makes things clear please ignore till he answers. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 18:13
And before you say "no one would ever send a mail complaining about someone who settled 9.8 squares away from them" ... yes, they would. And have. /me sighs Edited to add: Said person was not in DLords or any large alliance but was a newb in a relatively new alliance. In general, it seems that experienced Illy players don't get their feathers ruffled about such things.
|
Posted By: Subatoi
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 18:22
|
I don't see why the big issue with this claim, It was put out by Dlords to detail an area that they wish for solely their alliance and their sov purposes. For economic growth and city defense. Some of you voice *what will happen to those that land near them* if its a new player then Dlords won't do anything because as said previously they don't have a choice where they land, it's not their fault. However someone blatantly ignoring Dlord wishes and planting a city just to see if they could will most likely get aggression and would deserve it for baiting actions. If this claim had been stalled to be put on forums there would be more cities in Dlord area and therefor more awkward or harder to insure Dlord security and prosperity as well as a sort of right to those in the area. Better to install now with minimal non Dlord cities and should you want to settle you can ask. |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 19:44
Last I checked, I was a Rook of mCrow, not Rook of all the Crow alliances. If you want to know what Crow or nCrow or CrowW or Calcr or HUGcr thinks of the 10 square rule, you're going to need to ask them. Just like H? and T? are separate alliance, the Crow alliances are too. Furthermore, my stance of the 10 square rule and ScottFitz and Raritor's stance on the 10 square rule are different, so even that depends on who you're asking. If you're asking if mCrow as a whole has come to a decision on it, we haven't. At least not officially. My personal feelings? I'm undecided. I do think 3-5 squares is too close but to suggest you'll wipe out any armies or cities there is a little extreme. At least without any discussion about it. (not saying that's Dlods position on it, that's why I'm asking...) 10 squares though? I don't know. That's a lot of space and I don't think it's entirely reasonable to have to ask because your intended spot is 9 squares away. Plus a lot of mCrow cities are in Norweld and Meilla, you'd have to ask 50 people if you could move there, it's just not a rule that I think should be all consuming. In regards to your question, I would say you should honor your alliances rule and respect other peoples 10 square space thingy, even if they don't have that rule. Otherwise it would be pretty hypocritical of you. But personally speaking, as long as you're not grabbing sov in the immediate area of peoples cities, at least in crowded spaces, I wouldn't expect a message.
|
Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 19:51
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 20:15
|
This seems to get lost in the conversation, so I'll just quickly point out that a 10 square space between two cities must accommodate the range of sovereignty reach desired by both cities. Thus, a 10-square minimum between cities only reserves an average 5-square radius for personal sovereignty claims. This is a very small buffer zone over what cities use for great practical gain today, and still does not account for the fact that not all setups are interested in the nearest squares above other considerations. Production centers in particular would want, after the 8 adjacent squares, the 12 nearby squares with the best production bonus for the targeted resources or unit types. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 20:41
I posted my understanding of nCrow's position earlier in the thread, and I think I can speak for Ryelle and say that HUGcr shares the same general opinion. Each Crow alliance is independent and therefore there is no single Crow position, but I don't think that one can complain that Crows have not contributed substantively to this discussion. We are of course small alliances and have only 700 cities between us, so perhaps it is easy to overlook my comments. With regard to HM's point about 10 squares allowing 5 squares for each city, this is true. However, most cities will not want to claim 5 squares or will want to claim them selectively. Thus my own personal practice when people want to move 5-10 squares away is to inquire about their future sovereignty plans and perhaps even come to a specific agreement. One player who wants a military city and another player who wants a production city could settle 3 squares away from each other and be perfectly happy, depending on the layout of the sovereignty bonuses. This would probably be the exception rather than the rule at 3 squares distance, but would become quite common at 5-6 squares distance, particularly considering that such cities could presumably claim 10 squares in the direction the other city isn't. So it depends on what other cities are already in the area and what those players' plans are. That's why these "rules" should be put into practice flexibly with an effort to accommodate the greatest good for the most people -- which is something I generally see happening in Illy today.
|
Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 21:03
That should be somewhere near 30,000 gold and 3,000 RP per hour (?). A library level 20 yields 1013 RP/h, so this plan would require more than one chancery level 20 and/or lots of books from less ambitious cities.
|
Posted By: Taelin
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 21:03
|
May I ask for clarification regarding the applicability of Dwarven Lords territorial claim to existing cities? Are you saying that someone who has a city within 10 squares of a Dlord city is now obliged to negotiate its continued presence even if no mention has been made of any difficulty with proximity hitherto? or have I misunderstood?
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 21:43
Who said anything about claiming all the squares? If you have to resort to hyperbole to counterpoint, well... Every account gets at most 10 cities and that's it. After that it's all about how well we craft those cities. Only a short-sighted person wouldn't be concerned about losing the freedom to hold whichever nearby sovereign squares are most valuable to the city's long-term specialization or short-term needs--both of which can change at any time. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 21:51
Great question. The answer is 'no'. This is a 'hereafter' document. All towns currently in proximity have already reached or worked out agreements in the main. But I would state it would be a good idea to have a written copy of an agreement (mail) between the two of you (or however many) to make sure all things work well for each others benefit. |
Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 21:55
All the above are good points and is why it is good to have these things in writing so others can at 'least' have a reference point in disputes, or a place to look at to know their position on certain actions. |
Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 21:59
I did answer the question but it was to Rill. Here is what I posted: "... The language of 'immediate removal' should be understood regarding the context of post in which I state we desire communication. This will precede any action, however if I need to make this more clear in the post, I can." |
Posted By: Berylla
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 22:53
|
Diplomacy is the key. All we need is communication. Illy will not let us move a city through exodus within 10 squares of a yellow (neutral) city, or within 5 squares of a green (friendly) city. This can however be overruled by claiming sovreigny level 5. Sov lvl 5 takes over a week, and is costly if done from afar. It's easier and less costly to do a double exodus, but it still takes time. This is where troops come into play. They need to occupy the square long enough to claim the sov, and is thereby visible and can be scouted. If I found such an occupying army close to my own city, then I would ask why, contact the player, and hopefully get a proper answer. If there is no answer, and I notice the sov levels climb, I would ask my alliance for help. That is why we won't accept troops on our land. Fighting NPC is one thing. Seiging a city (maybe with our permission) might be OK too, but ask first to make things easier. A tourney is usually limited to certain squares, and shouldn't be a problem either. If someone settles a city close to my own without asking, I would send a message to that player, and ask why, what they want and so on. If the player is reasonable, there is probably no problem with it, but if they don't reply, or are hostile, then a document with our rules made public like this, would be very helpful. Some areas are crowded. That is a fact. The 10 square rule is almost impossible to keep in such an area, but we must always talk about it. Setting up an agreement between two players about what squares each will claim sov for, is an excellent idea. I have done so myself, except the player I did it with has gone, and the cities have been whiped. We talk in the alliance as well, when moving cities, and ask for help to find the best spot depending on what we plan to do with that city. I know that some people try to find fault with what others say. That is why we always need to talk, to clear up any misunderstandings. It's easy to make fun of statements set forth by alliances, that is part of the game of life, not just Illy. But the words need to be said and explained. Look upon the 5 squares as the garden surrounding a house, and the 10 squares as the rest of the plot of land. It's easy to give away land to someone who is nice and asks, but when someone suddenly starts camping in your back yard without asking, you get upset. We protect our gardens, our plots of land, even if there is no sov claimed on it yet. We plan ahead. Please don't step on our toes, and set up camp on our door-steps. That is all we ask.
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 23:05
That's what I get for only briefly skimming your other posts. Sorry about that.
|
Posted By: belargyle
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 23:14
|
No biggy.. I'm trying to answer what I can so people can understand both what, why, and how these things are being done. I appreciate the questions. |
Posted By: Ancient Nightowl
Date Posted: 19 May 2012 at 23:53
|
As a newbie I thought the 10 square "rule" was so that one had room for more towns in that area if so desired - claiming outlying Sov squares was the last thing on my mind. Now that I have been here a little while, I can understand it all a lot better and appreciate it for what it really is, room to lay claim to a plot up to 5 squares out from the city without getting or causing grief to the neighbors. Not a claim on land or resources up to 10 squares out as I originally supposed. I also see that unless one wants to lay claim to to a particularly strategic or rich outlying square then it does not matter if someone wants to move in a bit closer, especially if they ask. I have not claimed any Sov squares personally at this time, but I do think the Dwarven Lords document simply states what many people and some Alliances quote as a reasonable "rule" now and I am pleased that they have put it in the forum for open discussion. |
Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 00:49
Apparently you wanted to say that some (but not necessarily all) of the 12 squares in distance 5 from a given city can be economically interesting for potential sov, and of course that's even more so the case for the remaining 60+8 squares with a distance below 5. I'm just starting with sov and need examples to check the plausibility of your or of similar arguments. So far I learned by trial and error that I like a 30% cow bonus from two level III structures better than the 30% from one level V plus one level I. A city in distance 10 in the direction of an economically interesting square could claim that both cities are entitled to get it, so they'd better discuss this possibility before the second city settles. But if the squares in the middle of distance 10 are ordinary squares, without any unique bonus from both POVs, your specific argument for a general 10sq claim does not hold. This is not a small buffer zone, it is a huge worst case scenario in the game mechanics for exodus and teleport of bigger cities. For a new city starting at pop 0 you have weeks or more likely months to claim any economically interesting square in its direction, first come, first served. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 01:45
"But if" means a conditional clause, which completely short-circuits any arguments regarding a general rule. Exceptions abound, and negotiating to take advantage of them is simple. Coming up with public rules that somehow carefully reserve only the bare minimum that a person might want with consideration of the circumstances is beyond infeasible. "Don't come within 10 squares without working out an agreement" wraps all that complexity in a simple package with a nice little bow. Frankly, this is really like saying the opposite--that "I promise not to be bothered by your arrival, even if it's unannounced, so long as this margin of breathing room is maintained. At least one third of all land squares don't really qualify as "normal," in the sense that they have production bonuses or >5 plots for some resource. When you have a well-developed city and fully understand the economic tradeoffs, you will want exactly 20 sovereign claims (and typically no more only because we're limited to 20 sovereign structures). Depending on what you're attempting to accomplish at the moment, how you're specializing the city, and how quickly you want to be able to react to changing needs, it is feasible to maintain up to 30 sovereign claims all the time. (Example: currently focused on max livestock production, then war starts. You delete 10 lvl 1 livestock-boosting structures from their optimal locations and immediately build 10 infantry-boosting structures on the other previously unused lvl 1 claims which have better infantry bonuses). I don't think many will go that route, but it's a valid strategy. Ultimately, it's true that the vast majority of cases under current conditions will not have a problem when cities are as close as 7-8 tiles away. But that could change tomorrow, and undoing a 3-month exodus+rebuild is a hell of a price to pay for lack of foresight--especially if it was someone else's foresight that fell so short as to stunt your potential. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 01:59
|
As Illy becomes more crowded, arguments based on stunting someone's future potential will become less convincing. When keeping options open to allow for one's own future growth inhibits the abilities of others to grow in the present, it's hard to make a case for it. That is not YET the case in Illy; there are still plenty of decent spots to settle cities. However, there is a foreseeable future when sharing and compromise might be the ideal solution. It is of course possible that this could evolve into a battle of the "strong" vs. the "weak," where the stronger players and alliances are able to claim territory they don't need now but might need in some imagined future, whereas the weaker players and alliances are consigned to the margins. My personal hope is that we will be able to make different choices, and that the strong will not seek to exploit every advantage simply because they can. Thus far many of the more powerful players and alliances, including HM and H? have demonstrated a willingness to do so. Hopefully that will continue. In whatever case, it will be interesting to see the situation evolve. No need to raise alarms yet, imnsho. So far I think people are working quite well together for the most part.
|
Posted By: Quackers
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 02:03
|
Its best to play the game the way it is built today.. (or how ever it goes.) I agree, but that is stupid to do when you should always be planning ahead. The 10square rule is there to not only protect the person that was there first, but to protect the player that moved there. If Alliance walls come into play, would you want one of your towns stuck inside that alliance wall? (Wont come out this year, probably not even by Christmas next year-maybe with alot of luck with pathfind?) What if crafting adds new sov, makes sov cheaper, makes new kinds of sov you can claim? Stuff like this can and most likely will happen later on. Think if your less then 10 squares away, do you want your town next to a town that is stronger then you? Play the game the way its built today. Yet if you don't plan for the advancements do not cry when your city evidently gets siege off the map. Alliance have the 10 square rule to keep problems from occurring. Plus its just less explaining. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 02:44
There are 2,000 squares wide by 2,000 tall on the map. By my calculation, that makes 4,000,000 squares, no? And Illy is a sandbox. The pertinent word being "box". There are limited things here. We have had the luxury of being the early players in a game (like early settlers in North America) and had as much space as we want. Eventually that runs out. It should. And then we get to see the real dynamics I believe the GMs are looking to create... So every alliance that can, imo, should be instituting a 10 square rule, because you will need it in the future (or want the land). And if folks accuse people of doing so of being selfish or alliance centric, I would advocate telling them that it is merely prudent. We are going to, imo, in the near future, see a real test to Illy's community when resources are, in essence, no longer unlimited. And it's easy to be friends with everyone when you don't need to fight for anything to survive/thrive. So, imo, Illy needs to harden the f up and prepare for a less Disney time where relationships will be tested, confeds hardened in blood, and much of the drippy lovey dovey nature of the game goes by the wayside. Snuggles don't provide food and go ahead, give the next Orc you see on the battlefield a hug. I'm sure he'll appreciate your kindness while roasting your haunch on a spit for dinner later. Imo, all this does NOT, however, have to change our core principle as a community, that Newbies are protected. And shouldn't. In my opinion, to use a phrase that Jordan Sparks stole, "Better Go and Get Your Armor". Kumomoto |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 02:52
|
I disagree. I think there is enough for everyone if we choose to use it wisely. There may be people who believe it is more fun to have lots of conflict, and that's another reason to have more conflict. But saying there will be more conflict because somehow there isn't "enough" lacks logical foundation. It's about people making choices. I personally hope that people will choose to respect other people's choices to the greatest degree possible. Live and let live.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 02:53
| P.S. Small is beautiful, and that doesn't just apply to dwarves. |
Posted By: Suanne
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 03:02
|
I personally respect other peoples areas and am easy to get along with. But realistically, people are people and there will be conflict, and after all this is a game, everyone is trying to be best. Good luck to all |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 03:12
|
As Suanne said, when you have limited resources and humans, you will get conflict. If anyone wants to contradict that, I'll refer you to the History Section of the bookstore. Try reading it. And, I'm sure Sauron would have responded brilliantly to Aragorn's entreaties to just hug it out... |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 03:17
Kumomoto, you, sir are no Sauron ...  (Or was someone else supposed to be Sauron and you were supposed to be Aragon? I'm confused ...)
I believe that on a small scale, we can overcome history and our baser natures, if we choose to do so. I am not saying it is a "right" or a "wrong" way, simply that it is a choice. Oh, and honestly I don't care about being the best. I'm here to have fun and help other people have fun. Some people care about being the best, and that's great. It's not a priority for everyone. I guess you could say that I want to be the best Rill that I can be, but that doesn't mean that I need to be "better" than someone else. Lots of people can do what I do better than I can do it. Hopefully I can help and support them.
|
Posted By: Basil
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 03:56
| I'm a fairly new player here, but it seems to me that this policy is overly bellicose, and maybe just a little more than a bit greedy. You don't need that much space. If you'd said 8 squares, it would seem a little more reasonable, but even that is more than you can realistically use. Ten is absurd. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 04:18
As you said, Basil, you are new. And therefore, really do not have any appreciation for what you are talking about. And let's divorce ourselves from this concept of "let's discuss what is an appropriate distance for anything" and it needs to be approved by a popular vote. NO. Just like the real World. if there are treaties to be signed or alliances to be made, they are made by the powers that exist. And let those powers deliberate. And you know what? All the moaning and groaning and hugging and snuggling that can possibly happen is not going to matter a whit when these alliances do put their heads together... |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 04:34
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/World/Map/-756/817" rel="nofollow - http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/World/Map/-756/817
Not really. A lot of it is either large areas of 1 foods (can you actually settle on that? Because it'd be hilarious) or large expanses of water down to the south. Oh and there's some desert areas too that are basically uninhabitable. So 3M is probably around the actual number of useful squares on the map. At least currently.
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 04:36
Yes, really. It is actually 4mm squares. Whether they are appropriate for settling or not is completely irrelevant. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 04:51
Remember these words. Now abide faith, hope and love, these three. And the greatest of these is love.
|
Posted By: Basil
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 05:06
Wrong. I know exactly what I'm talking about.
I said nothing of the kind. I simply stated that a unilateral declaration of ten squares of exclusivity was absurd. In my opinion.
"Powers that be" includes every single player in Illy. Every single player in Illy has a right to voice his opinion/objection/approval of whatever has an effect. "Just like in the real World"
And do you know what? Sitting back and meekly accepting what's offered, regardless how it may negatively affect you, is a chicken-s**t way to conduct your life.
|
Posted By: Silverlake
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 05:08
| I find the request to be fair and honorable |
Posted By: SugarFree
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 05:09
just a few words ... LOL with love, Kilotov. ------------- Nuisance |
Posted By: Quackers
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 05:11
You can say what you want about the 10 square rule, but when someone starts stealing your sov, you will be upset. The 10 square rule is put in place for both parties, so each can grow. I wouldn't even dare putting my cities (unless it needed to be), within 10 squares of eachother. To do so would limit both towns growth. Call it stupid, but when you get to a high level (50k+ pop) you might start to see why 10 square rule is smart. It has nothing to do with being greedy or w/e, its about being there to help both parties grow their cities without limits. |
Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 05:13
Yeah. When I wrote 3,000,000 claimable squares it was mostly to get something working for a division by 150. And of course there really are lots of unclaimable ocean, volcano, loch, etc. squares, and some significant food 0 regions such as HoC and the east end of Qarosslan. I can't tell if these undesirable squares add up to a quarter of all 4,000,000 squares.
IBTD. Examples, it's kind of obvious that I MUST NOT settle on the nice island near your Kelhaven if the folks already there don't want it. There still are free squares in distances greater than 10sq from all towns, but the whole area is clearly H? territory, I need no published rule or land claim registry to see it. The opposite case is also possible, when somebody from H? settled exactly on the spot that I had bookmarked for a later exodus of my smallest town all I could do was to send some grumpy congrats for spotting the same dream coastal spot, and for grabbing it a.s.a.p. I certainly have not checked if this settlement in distance 7.1sq from another city in my alliance was negotiated under some ten square rule -- from my POV I was not fast enough, it was no obvious territory, end of story. Apologies to the DLords for my two H? examples, it just happens that I'll exodus at least one city to an area in Tallimar where H? is the biggest neighbour. Some smaller players are touchy with all those more or less obscure land claims of top alliances. Before this thread all I knew about DLords was "Kilotov is a nice dwarf", "DLords are the patrons of DiL", "DLords control some areas I'm not interested in", and of course "bring at least 25K stalwarts to a discussion with DLords".
Wait, this hugging business is another alliance, and I assure you that they have a ten square policy, where 98 is almost 100... umh, I digress. Let's say that I certainly intend to be able to hold my Illy jungle colony with or without prejudice soon™. @HM: mostly ACK, I got the idea of 20 sov structures on varying subsets of 30 sov spots. But there is a reason why one new player outside of an alliance (at this time) tried the desperate gamble of jungle cities (= less than 25 res plots) with water sov before the water sov numbers were published: Illy was very near to full three months ago, and there are only two compelling reasons for a general ten square land claim, (1) it is derived from the hardwired exodus rule, (2) top alliances including DLords and H? have lots of stalwarts.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 05:17
| I want to make it clear that whatever my philosophical differences with parties other than DLords regarding how to productively solve disputes in Illy are, I have, as I stated earlier, no substantive concerns about the OP's statement that have not already been addressed by them in clarifying posts. I think their position is completely reasonable. Working out such matters to the benefit of all involved parties is a worthwhile goal. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 05:22
|
Please see above. |
Posted By: Basil
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 06:44
You're misunderstanding my point, I think. The 10 square guideline (it's not a rule, else you wouldn't be able to do it, like Illy won't let you relocate within 10 squares), is reasonable enough. My issue with this declaration, and the policy it announces, is that as Illy gets more and more crowded, smaller players will have nowhere to relocate or expand to, because the map will be a giant, sparsely populated suburban-like landscape of unused space. Attempting to make use of what little space remains will be considered a hostile act. If the space isn't needed and isn't being used, it a belligerant and hostile policy to enact, in my opinion.
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 07:16
|
The dev's seem to have indicated their intention to not allow Elgea to become so crowded as to suppress new player growth. If the map were to become "a giant, sparsely populated suburban-like landscape of unused space" they would have missed their chance to do something. I think they will have acted long before that. I suppose that scenario is possible, but I believe it to be unlikely. ------------- |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 07:25
I don't remember the devs indicating this. In fact, they are in favor of circumstances that increase friction between players. Lack of space is quite nearly the definition of friction. I can't know the mind of the devs, but I don't think they have a particular vision for what Illy will be like, and even if they did they seem committed to a hands-off approach. My guess is that they will open another server based on several factors, including 1) achieving goals they have set for how the servers are to be connected; they have said they envision continents separated by navigable by water, which will require boats and therefore pathfinding; 2) when concurrent users exceed the maximum server load, causing a problem for performance; and 3) when the profit from doing so exceeds the profit from maintaining a single server. I have not spoken to the developers about this specifically, so all of the above statements are speculations. However, I think expecting the developers to intervene simply because players have conflicts over space is likely to lead to disappointment.
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 08:02
| I would assume the main factor in having a second server would be server stress, though I would imagine they would eventually have to open a second one would it get too crowded but I think that'll be a while before that happens. Most of the towns on the map are probably inactive anyway. |
Posted By: Quackers
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 08:10
You can do it by starting a new fresh town. That is the only way, unless your confed/nap with the player. Rule..  |
Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 08:15
/me looks at over 11000 sov squares claimed by the crowalition and thinks that not only new players outside of an alliance will be soon™ in various kinds of serious trouble.
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 08:18
Or, as it says, you can claim level 5 sov there. It's extremely costly (I just recently exodus'd one of my cities but needed to claim level 5 sov on a square 34 squares away, was costing me 18k gold an hour -.-) but it's doable if you have a large enough supply of gold and research points.
|
Posted By: Berylla
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 10:50
Exactly. Level 5 sov overrides and is very costly. As I said earlier, it also takes time and visible troops occupying the spot. Plenty of time to ask the player what they're doing and what their plans are. Yes, we do put up our "fences" around our 10 squares on the map. At least where it is possible. If you put an occupational force within those 10 squares without asking first, we will do something about it from now on. Just ask first... is that so hard to understand? We just want you to ask first. Talk. Communicate. Just say "Please, can I move my city/settle my new town on that spot?" Then we can say "Yes, that will be fine. What are your plans for your city?" Or we can say "No, that won't work. I plan to put a new city there myself... or someone is already moving there." Or what ever is the correct response in the situation at that point. We all make mistakes, I have too. But I am always open for negotiations. If you don't talk... if you don't ask... and don't reply to letters... we will use our stalwarts... and beware of the roar from our dwarven boots.
|
Posted By: Captain Ganoes Paran
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 11:13
| 10 squares between cites is a reasonable request especialy for people you dont know and i dont find anything wrong with DLord's statement |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 16:59
|
I must say I find it a little odd how much negative feedback this is
generating. Banshees scream bloody murder whenever someone in Harmless
sneezes and a flea gets knocked off course. And yet, when we announced
almost the exact same standard (requirements, procedures, responses all
nearly identical), we didn't get half this much flak. I think it goes without saying, but Harmless is wholeheartedly satisfied with the standard, our own use of it, and how it guided our interactions with players and alliances of all sizes. Furthermore, the idea that the server has reached the point where such claims are more damaging than they were back when we made it is absurd. Were that remotely true, forces would be pressuring us to rescind our stance, not reacting to other alliances taking a similar one. This is diplomatic Whack-a-Mole at its finest. Whoever pops his head out of his hole is the one at fault. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 18:10
|
Where is all the negative feedback? I've seen several posts requesting clarification and a number of other posts expressing approval. A small minority of posts express disagreement. And I could make a post about free ice cream and there would be someone complaining that it was fattening. Honestly HM, I'm just not seeing it.
|
Posted By: Taelin
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 19:27
|
I think its disgraceful that Rill should promote ice-cream, there are children who play this game for goodness sake... and also a flea could get seriously injured if a tub of ice-cream was left without a lid on.
|
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 20 May 2012 at 22:52
 ------------- "ouch...best of luck." HonoredMule |
Posted By: Mona Lisa
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 06:42
|
( Comments below do not represent any official Crow position, just those on a personal level ) In this particular instance, all I did was send a hello message "Cozy" to see what the reply was going to be. In the end, all was fine and no issue. I'll have all my SOV well claimed before there is any chance for conflict. I can certainly understand a swift and sudden response if someone settled within 5 sq., unless it is an inexperienced player who indeed could have done so by mistake. Had the before mentioned alliance leader settled 4 sq away, it would not have grown beyond a day or so. ( but then again, any experienced player settling 4 sq from another experienced player without prior agreement is clearly trying to trigger a reaction ....). I do think a hard and fast rule out 10 sq is becoming more and more, er unwieldy. I have had quite a large number of unannounced 10 sq new neighbors crop up, including those from an alliance whose leader openly declared he could wipe me from the face of Illy should he so desire (and even in that case, there was no issue as the player who settled was an innocent newbie, certainly not accountable to the rantings of his sometimes out of control leader..). I am a firm believer in a common sense rule being applied. In these days, just so long as the SOV needs of the senior city are respected, a junior city settling outside of the potential SOV range (such as the 5.8 sq city I experienced) of the older city should be bearable. Of course if there are extenuating circumstances, like prior hostilities or threats and the like, your mileage may well vary. ( and of course, I am not sorry that my cities are 1000+ sq away from Dlords ....)
|
Posted By: Marquesta
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 06:44
I will reiterate the point that HonoredMule made: If there are two cities 10 squares away from each other, it is a given that only 5 squares out from each city are the imminent domain of each city respectively! But another thing that should be pointed out; to move into that 10 square reach, limits both cities to the same extent, therefore, it actually behooves YOU to not move within that ten squares! If you feel you have to move a city within 10 squares of another player's city, you should be expected to contact that player and seek prior permission to (and someone else said this also) at the very least have a good relationship with your expected immediate neighbor. ------------- ~~Marquesta Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them... |
Posted By: invictusa
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 07:35
I agree whole heartedly. I am currently in this situation, and it never even occurred to me to raze the town in question.
I feel it is becoming more necessary. With Elgea nearing it's prime population-wise, clear precedents for an alliance's territory is more relevant than ever. I often hear whining about all the best city spots being taken. Not true! Give me 20 minutes and I would find you more than 10 excellent city locations with room to expand for your alliance to create a new hub. There is still plenty of prime real estate out there. I said it before and I'll say it again, the spawn ring and the surrounding regions are a ghetto which may be centralized, but does not give you the chance to stretch your legs. That being said, as has been mentioned before, the 10 square rule is not a rule. We will see a dog eat dog natural selection regarding territories sooner or later. i.e. "oh you parked a city right next to that faction hub? . . . sorry, that is MY faction hub. Get on and get." ... to state an example (in no way pertaining to myself) of what might occur in the future. ------------- ...and miles to go before I sleep. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 07:50
Can you send them to me by in-game mail? If not, forum mail would be fine. Thanks!
|
Posted By: 7Skiaxtro
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 08:57
|
I came here for the free coffee... Jk. Well said Belargyle! |
Posted By: Gilthoniel
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 13:40
|
I am not a member of the High Council of the Calaquendi so I can't
really comment on policies concerning city proximities. I can say that
the Calcr view of these issues is to take a measured and sensible path
to resolve them as when they arrive. Please don't mistake this as a
sign of weakness however - it is just that, as an alliance, we seek to
maintain what has been described elsewhere as the "Live and Let Live"
path where differences are resolved through sensible negotiation rather
than senseless conflict. This view is common thorughout most of the Crow
family alliances. Can I just add to most of the independent alliances out there - both "established" and new - It is always worth considering becoming part of the Crow family. Even if you have been, independent for a long time. It is something that you should consider! |
Posted By: invictusa
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 13:59
I wonder if there is a downside also. EDIT: Just wanted to point out the disrespect in slapping glue all over this thread and putting up a recruiting poster.
------------- ...and miles to go before I sleep. |
Posted By: Subatoi
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 14:16
| If Crow alliances are independent, what is stopping one alliance from declaring themselves free of the federation and seceding? |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 14:20
Nothing at all. Except that we became Crow for a reason and choose to remain Crow. But that's true of any member of any alliance or any confeds.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 14:25
Not to worry -- if DLords want to become Crow I'm sure we'd welcome them too. Point taken, although I don't think any disrespect was intended. /me steers conversation back to OP.
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 15:36
I think that would require a certain amount of eating... Crow. |
Posted By: Subatoi
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 18:30
Pardon?
|
Posted By: Daufer
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 19:06
DLords is the sixth biggest alliance, confed with the biggest and the eighth biggest. If they say a certain area around their cities is unilaterally theirs, then it is. It is a guideline if you can't enforce your will... a rule if you can. Lots of people are going to cry about this. Is anyone going to put them to the test? No? Didn't think so. A thousand newbs in a hundred tiny alliances with less combined population than one veteran player has are not going to challenge the status quo. If you have a problem with territorial claims by the military powers then unify, grow strong, and in the words of the inimitable Kumomoto "harden the f up". Otherwise learn to be really, really polite.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 20:02
I propose a different way. Unify, grow strong, harden the f up ... and stay really, really polite. Try to play the game in such a way that it is the most fun for everyone. It is of course possible that because one is polite and tries to accommodate the needs of other people (because that is one's general ethical approach to life) that people will dismiss you as being soft and an easy target.
|
Posted By: Rorgash
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 20:12
|
Sooooo not my "general ethical approach to life" never given much of a f what people think, unless i have something to gain or lose, its called politics. Illyriad is a world, just like your so called Real world, its not much different except your position in it. live the way you want and face the consequences, and if you dont like the consequences you conform. its what you do every day when you dont just take what you want from the store..
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 20:28
And is it what I do when I share my food with people who have less? Or tutor a child who is struggling in school? Or let someone else have the best parking space? Because that's how I live my life. Or try to. I'm not always my best self; probably no one can be. There are lots of ways of being. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that one can choose. Edited: Apologies again for derailing this thread which is about a completely reasonable statement from DLords about city settlement.
|
Posted By: Subatoi
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 21:33
|
If you realized you de-railed this thread to a certain degree and went back to acknowledged it, why didn't you clear out the de-railing comments? Also: I agree with Daufer
|
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 21:47
|
Personally, I find it silly to have to try and keep track of 100 alliances' particular settlement rules. Why not just use the Golden Rule and look for potential sov conflicts. If it looks like there's potential, send a message. If not, just settle, even if it's *gasp* nine squares away from someone. If you send a message, a lot of people will give you a negative response even if it's not the current city that is going to claim the sov. They'd just rather settle their next city there or have an alliance-mate, which I believe is outside of the spirit of why this rule is being thrown around... -Jane DarkMagic
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 21:55
A bad joke... |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 21 May 2012 at 21:55
You make a good point. I have therefore started a new thread where people who wish to discuss philosophical issues only tangentially related to DLords original post can participate in such a discussion. http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/philosophical-issues-unrelated-to-dlords_topic3577.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/philosophical-issues-unrelated-to-dlords_topic3577.html
|
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 22 May 2012 at 00:08
Dont crow about it. ------------- "ouch...best of luck." HonoredMule |