Abandoned Mine?
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Trade Chat
Forum Description: Discuss harvesting, crafting and trade on Elgea here.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=4698
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2022 at 19:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Abandoned Mine?
Posted By: Machete
Subject: Abandoned Mine?
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 00:51
|
When is a mine considered abandoned by the previous owner? I notice a mine with no occupying army. Hmmm..maybe they just didn't get troops back to it yet. Perhaps a week goes by and still no occupying army. So I send an occupying army and start harvesting. At least another week goes by and then I get an IGM...the sender says "You are on my mine and I want it back, please". So, when is a mine abandoned by the previous owner? |
Replies:
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 01:00
|
Why be nice? A few weeks ago I had a fantastic mine yield stripped away from me in moments, now I have to buy iceheart off the market, until i can find another mine with a weaker player holding it. Nice guys finish last ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Llyr
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 01:23
|
I would say if there's no army, and it's not on a sov square, then it belongs to no one. There's room for argument if it's within 5 squares or so of the player claiming to "own" it, even if it isn't sov. Maybe 10 squares if that player is in a big alliance with nasty catapults and stuff. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/187558" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 01:24
|
The issue of "ownership" of rare resources is a difficult one. On the one hand, this is a game, and perhaps in some instances someone is ill or loses an internet connection or whatever and cannot replace an army in a timely manner. On the other hand, how is that fair to everyone who might want to use those resources. Personally I think that resources belong to everyone who plays Illyriad. Part of the fun is competing to see who can control what resource -- and what they do with them. And yet at the same time rare resources are only a small part of the game, and competition over this small part can get extremely tiresome. I would suggest trying to find a solution that benefits both parties if at all possible. Be creative.
|
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 01:30
.... Seriously you say resources belong to everyone, and then you contradict it right after except you use the world control.... Simple if you can harvest it then your fine. Be it because you guys happen to be in dif time zones and never notice each other. Or you park your troops on it so no one can bump you. Who cares.... well unless it escalates into war... but then thats fun to.
|
Rill wrote:Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 02:43
| Some players purposely build towns near a mine to lay claim to it. If they don't place an army on it that doesn't negate the fact it's within their 5x5. If its within the 5x5 of a town I wouldn't send occupying troops, that is considered an aggressive move in some alliances. Try sending your miners in, if you're constantly bumped start looking elsewhere for a mine. |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 03:03
If all you had to do to claim a crafting component commodity was settle a city next to it, you'd see people doing it, which we are seeing anyway. At the end of the day the military might makes right. What is prohibiting Machete from keeping forces on the abandoned mine? The possibility that the people that have a trade agreement will bring in allies with superior military forces. At the end of the digital illyriad™ day you have to ask yourself "Do I really need this crafting component to craft a few near useless craft-able items anyway when I could just buy it off some person who doesn't know the value of it, or when you could just take over from a weaker player who has weak allies". ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Machete
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 03:33
|
4x2 away from them. Its really the inactivity that sticks in my throat. Since this time I needed to play nice, I gave it up. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 03:55
I should have made the distinction more explicit. Personally, I would prefer that no one attempt to lay exclusive claim to any resource. I believe that resources belong to everyone. However, I recognize that the majority of people do not agree with me on this and find it fun to compete over resources. Far be it from me to say they should not do this. I merely suggest that people keep the idea of the most fun for the most people in their minds as they do so. |
Posted By: Magnificence
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 04:28
Might is right. Three words is the charm. 
|
Posted By: Darmon
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 08:09
| "Might makes right" is a terrible cliche that only exists because it rhymes nicely. Having the strength to do something doesn't justify doing it, but it does put it on the table as an option. Now if someone could just think of a catchy way of saying that... |
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 09:10
This is by far the best reply posted here (emphasis added). If you have sov over it any square, if you control any square then it's yours.
I relocated most of my towns when the new resources came out in order to align my cities with the new game play... however every where I went was devoid of any activity. In contrast to that, I notice that some newer players have gotten it in their head that they can settle near a resource that is currently being used by other players and then try to lay exclusive claim over it. Just because you move a city near a mine doesn't make it yours. That is just a silly notion. If you exodus your town with the intent to interfere in another players game play (be it mining or just settling right next to their city) then you are should expect pushback from that player and you probably wasted an exodus. @Machete two weeks went by? That mine was open imo. By your account they had no control over it for at least two weeks. If they were serious about any claim then they would have stationed troops there and / or claimed sov, not left it unattended for so long. In fact they had no control over it and now you control it ergo it is yours and yours rightfully imho (you didn't bump them out to make use of it). That said, pay notice to Llyr's post. It's yours to control as long as you can control it. IF he's got bigger catapults... gl with your mining - M. as long as it's no where near me... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Magnificence
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 09:14
| @darmon, cool story bro. |
Posted By: Garth
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 11:44
|
There are other possibilities than that "it's abandoned," though I'm not saying that's what happened in your case. Oftentimes, players have agreements about mines/herb patches in their area, and part of that agreement can include not putting an army on the spot. One of our players has such a spot located between him and a TVM player. The mine is a bit outside of 5 squares from the HugCr player, and a bit under 5 squares from the TVM player. HugCr and TVM are neutral to each other, so in order for both players (and others) to be able to mine, the square has to stay unoccupied. In a case like that, it's a bit unreasonable for an outside party to plop an army down and then state that their claim has more substance than the players who made the agreement to leave it unoccupied. --edited for clarity
------------- Garthen |
Posted By: Grego
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 12:26
|
Agreement between SkB, Absa and RHY is one way how disputes can be resolved: Rare Mine or Resource Allocation 3a Ownership is automatic if within three squares of a city or nearest existing city if that is closer than three squares. A city settled with permission will be considered existing. 3b A sovereignty claim will be considered ownership provided it is not made within three squares of an existing city. A prior sovereignty claim will take precedence over 3c. 3c New cities establish ownership five days after notifying the party who currently claims ownership. Any occupying armies of the previous owner shall be withdrawn within those five days. 3d No new cities to be settled closer than seven squares of an existing city. 3e For other squares ownership shall be on the basis of occupying armies. 3f Were by merit of occupation, proximity or any other factor that the alliances consider open to interpretation a resource location is in dispute and two players have a claim that 3a to e does not resolve the player gathering will provide 30% of the resource gathered to the other player. 3g The player who holds ownership for a location may provide permission for another player to harvest that location. Once given permission will require renewal every six months the share of resources shall be as 3f above. 3h Resource locations belonging to inactive cities (defined as no player growth in 21 days) will be considered available for claim under rules 3a to e. If the inactive city concerned comes under new ownership it is to be considered settled with permission. |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 13:47
"Might makes Right" isn't unique to this game only, it's all over the digital world and in the real world. A real life scenario would be the law makers have the might to force you into jail if you drive drunk (a punishment for opposing their law) so you debate if it is worth driving drunk. And here, the lawmaker in this sense is the mine owner, who may or may not have the power to force and encourage you not to send an army at what they perceive to be their mine. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 14:09
MIGHT means "might" ?
|
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 15:22
|
u know.. it's not really so much about 'Might Makes Right'..the more apt axiom would be 'Possession is nine-tenths of the law'. The two are not always the same. - M. -------------
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 15:57
|
I think it's "Possession is eleven points of the law, and there are but twelve." The twelfth is, of course, catapults.
|
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 17:14
|
Well, I for one have stopped harvesting rares for two reasons. One, it is so darn time consuming and I am busy. Two, I have a large enough stockpile to last me quite a while and enough gold now that I can simply buy what I need. To be honest, the equipment is only needed for commanders and that means you really don't need much at all. I wouldn't be surprised if more rare resources become "abandoned" like this and available for the newer players. In fact, I think it is a pretty good idea really. I had a newbie neighbor of mine ask about an Ancient Oak patch that I had "claimed" and it felt pretty good to just tell him "it's all yours buddy." Hmm, don't know what that had to do with this but I was bored and I wanted to type something.
|
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 22:52
lol! now that's a quotable quote for Illy ;) -------------
|
Posted By: bansisdead
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2013 at 23:59
|
both nine-tenths and eleven points out of twelve mean the same thing. Regardless, there is no 'law' set in stone or rare minerals so we can argue all we want, the fact is illyriad is controlled by GC mob-rule. So it doesn't matter who is right or who has might, what matters is who can shout/cry the loudest in GC.
------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/124253" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 00:43
By gaining the backing of the GC mob, people are merely gaining a greater might, so this is still a case of 'might makes right'. |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 00:50
| the way this game is going its whoever has the biggest army is becoming more important than what the majority of what the people in the game want, hopefully games changes corrects this trend, limited sources of v2 materials encourages this type of strategy...... |
Posted By: bansisdead
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 01:06
|
Darkwords I can agree to a point with that, but might is right is a self destructive philosophy, and ultimatley leads to your down fall, as there will always be a mightier foe. It creates a endless cylce of destruction. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/124253" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 01:22
It has *never* been 'majority rule' in Illy. It has been what those who can control dictate. The Illy community has been lucky in that the top 'controlling' alliances have a sense of fair and good play and generally take the long-view in regards to community game play. the consensus of the GC / Forum crowd has always been a means players have used in an attempt to sway the view of those top 'controlling' groups. Sometimes it works for them, sometimes it doesn't but it has never been the determining factor; the determining factor has always been the will of those few who can exert control within the game. In the sense that most players and certainly most of the veteran players have demonstrated a reasonable sense of fair play i'd still say Rill's twelve point Axiom holds true. If you are in the possession of a city location or sov square and someone who is 'mightier' than you comes and forcibly removes you for no justifiable reason most veteran players and top alliances will view that as foul play and they will more than likely take note of your bad form. So just to clarify, while 'Might makes Right" may be the final end means of enforcing in-game principles, "Possession is nine-tenths" is the usually the reasoning. - M. -------------
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 04:27
|
GC as well as the forum is not important at all, imo. My experience is that bonds among players (hence alliances) have been forged before issues arise and are not swayed by public messages. Discussions that may or may not lead to participation (which is very different from sounding off on GC/forum) occur privately. As to the idea that somehow "larger" or "top" alliances are somehow controlling "community fair play" is an overstatement of the newbie protection. There are no Illy-Police settling alliance disputes. In RL, society determines "right" through democratic processes. Societal "Might" is the means of enforcing the rights determined by that community. Disputes among citizens are resolved peacefully through the judicial system of impartial judge maintaining fairness of disputed facts and arguments presented to an unbiased jury which applies the democraticly determined law to decide the "legal facts." To my thinking, the combination of political processes that determined the law through the trial can reasonably be characterized as Might. In Illy the idea that Might Makes Right is more obvious and direct than RL.
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 05:55
This is all pretty much spot on. I'd like to add, however that the Forum is fun. The back and forth between friend and foe alike is entertaining. It certainly does not determine much if anything but without it, how would I spout off? ------------- |
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 07:34
and what would I do on slow days at work? :)
oops.. didn't mean to imply it that way (that they were acting as Illy-Police). To explain, highly ranked / active alliances do not usually seek to exert control over a game in order to police it but more to protect the sandbox game that they've been enjoying. In this we are lucky imho... in many other sandbox games it has gone the other way where the straight out bullies rule the day intimidating and farming other players without check... and I would wonder if this is this how Illy would have been had H? lost that early war with White? From what i've read, I believe the preservation of their sense of community / and fair play is why they normally go to war. Then again, maybe i've drunk too much of the propaganda punch... -------------
|
Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 08:03
|
My mine is mine to mine
|
Posted By: Machete
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2013 at 15:45
|
Thank you to everyone who has responded. I read, I thought, I made up my own mind. No matter what rules exist to govern behavior, a situation always arises that isn't quite covered in the rules. |