Harvesting hides and animal parts
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=5109
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 14:30
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Harvesting hides and animal parts
Posted By: Gragnog
Subject: Harvesting hides and animal parts
Date Posted: 16 May 2013 at 17:48
|
The forum has been a bit quite so I thought I would put my opinion about harvesting hides and animal parts and leave it open for some discussion and other opinions. My standpoint is this: Anything I kill around my cites is mine to harvest. I do not leave an army marking it as it seems to be a waste of my armies. My opinion is that if you want to try and poach free hides and animal parts you have to be prepared to take the risk of having your guys killed. Nothing is for free and if you did not kill the NPC chances are someone else did. I know there is the chance that another NPC killed something but that is the risk you take. If your cities area of 10 squares overlaps with mine your guys will get bounced and I will send you a message. If you come from any further away do not expect me to contact you in any way, and expect your harvesters not to be returning. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Replies:
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 16 May 2013 at 19:12
|
Given the expense of skinners, purposely killing them is a great way to start a fight. If a kill is valuable enough to harvest, then it's valuable enough to guard. Period. If you abandon a kill on the map, it looks identical to animal vs animal battles. It's available to harvest. |
Posted By: Kale
Date Posted: 16 May 2013 at 19:14
+1
|
Gragnog wrote:Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 16 May 2013 at 19:22
That is the whole point of my argument. If you want to waste your valuable skinners poaching a kill that you did not kill near someone's city , you also need to accept the consequences that they will be killed. If you are so desperate for animal parts go and kill your own and use your troops. Skinners might be expensive but so are troops. The bottom line is respect peoples boundaries. Some people are more touchy than others. If you want to harvest near someones city best check their profiles first and perhaps contact that person before invading their space. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 16 May 2013 at 19:25
| I don't know about everywhere, but around me most kills are animals fighting each other. If you can't spare a few soldiers to keep an eye on your kills for a day, it's fair game. It's not a huge hardship. |
Posted By: Machete
Date Posted: 16 May 2013 at 20:01
|
My harvester account harvests where ever there are hides and skins. If there isn't an army on it or other harvesters on it, its open for anyone to harvest. I don't know who killed the NPCs. I don't know how much other people play or if the account is being perma-sat or if it is just idle. A few times my cotters have been killed. A couple times my skinners. Oh well. No biggie. To say "it's mine" because you state these are your rules is, in my opinion, only a guideline. I just told you my rules. I will not read everyone's profile to see what their rules are. Even if I did, I don't know your level of activity. If you only log on once a week, why let kills go to waste. If we clash, we clash. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 16 May 2013 at 20:22
|
@Machete: +1 I always leave the army on the kill, but that's just me. It eliminates all ownership questions and possible conflicts. I've also been burned by NPC spawn points delivering animals to a square after my harvesters are on the way (but inconveniently, I never see that with enough time to send cavalry to save them). |
Posted By: Salararius
Date Posted: 16 May 2013 at 21:52
|
If there are hides or animal parts and there are no skinners, harvesters or troops on them or traveling to them then they are available. A player may have killed them (or maybe not, how can anyone tell) but if they are important then the player should send a unit to collect or guard them. If a player leaves goods laying around, then as in real life they can expect someone else will pick it up. If you don't like what others do, you have no moral prerogative to "correct" the situation with force or by destroying their units. You may be able to do so, but don't expect everyone to bless you and say you have that right and if you do find yourself in the weaker position then you can expect to reap what you sow. |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 16 May 2013 at 23:06
|
You can state whatever rules you want. Doesn't mean others have to play by them. Don't be surprised if other people kill your harvesters because you killed theirs.
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 17 May 2013 at 00:55
|
As with most things, those with more power can make their own rules or flout conventions proposed by others. Those with less power would be wise to pay attention to such conventions and to the wishes of their neighbors. This is of course so obvious that one may question whether it needs to be stated, but I thought I'd say it in case we have a person who has not learned this lesson irl or thinks that in a fantasy world this does not apply.
|
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 17 May 2013 at 05:16
It is a moral imperative that I kill any poachers on my sov squares, whether or not I made the kill. Otherwise, it is my view that if you kill it, you harvest it. If you did not kill it, then you risk putting yourself in a bad spot by harvesting it. - M. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 17 May 2013 at 10:33
|
It all comes down to personal opinions and actions. My opinion is if you go into a farmers lands and steal his cows you are a thief, and as such you cannot moan if you get caught and punished. Illyriad is much the same in that I am a peaceful farmer who protects his lands. Now the boundies of those lands can be disputed but if you look at many alliances, they all have the "do not settle within 10 squares" and as such I consider 10 squares arounds my cites as my grazing lands. If you come from further out than that to STEAL items you know you did spend any energy in obtaining expect punishment. If you have any inclination to make an issue and try and retaliate on my "grazing lands" or park an army there expect to be visited by many more farmers with pitchforks and ploughs. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Auraya
Date Posted: 17 May 2013 at 11:37
|
If I spot a legion of rats, I'll kill them and leave the hides/parts because I'm only interested in the exp. People can harvest those if they want them.. I deliberately don't leave an army on those. If I kill something with parts I want, I leave my army there. To expect people not to gather animal parts of hides within 10 squares of a city is unrealistic. If NPCs didn't attack each other then what you're asking would seem much more reasonable.. but they do and no-one knows who killed what. Smaller players can't afford to kill a lot of NPCs and getting the hides to build their skinners is tough - NPC battles are very useful for them and killing the skinners they have worked very hard to build is counterproductive. My alliance rule is not to harvest within 3 squares of an active player.. but I have, more than once, killed/harvested parts 1-2 squares from a player and dropped them an IGM asking if they are active and want the parts. I'm prepared to give the parts up and recognise their claim but I'd have a VERY big problem if someone wiped my army/harvesters after I mailed them about it. If someone was harvesting parts I had killed too close to my city, I'd mail them to request the parts back rather than kill their skinners. If they continued to harvest too close despite being warned about it, then I'd consider taking military action.. but even then, I'd be more likely to simply bump them and mail their leadership. As with everything, try to treat people as you would like to be treated. How would you feel if your skinners were repeatedly being killed by players 7+ squares away who didn't bother to mark their kills? Compare that to how you would feel if your skinners were merely bumped and you got a mail saying 'Sorry but I killed these so I consider the parts to be mine'
|
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 17 May 2013 at 12:20
Everyone has their own way of dealing with things. I do not have a problem with people mailing me and asking if they can harvest, but without any form of communication and taking stuff you did not kill in the hope that it is a NPC killing another close to my cities always will get the same response. My farmers will go forth at speed to kill the offenders. If you are a new player then best start slow and develop instead of getting everything for free. If you are an older player you should know better. If I harvest close to other people I mail them and wait for a response before sending my harvesters. It is just polite. You do not go onto someone elses property in real life expecting to be given stuff you did not earn, unless you are a beggar and then the response will be go get a job, so why do you think it is ok to do so in Illy? ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Salararius
Date Posted: 17 May 2013 at 14:25
I like the analogy but it's incomplete at best. There are no clear boundaries in this game. The skins and animal parts that fall from slaughtered animals look exactly like the skins and animal parts that fall from animals fighting each other. A better analogy is if you are an apple "farmer" who has a dozen apple trees within an arbitrary distance of your home. At some random interval you put forth an effort to knock the apples off your trees and leave them laying on the ground with the intention of picking them up later. You thus feel that no one should collect any apples within that arbitrary distance from anyone's house because of the effort you've expended. As a result of this universally applied belief, you feel you don't have to mark "your" apple trees and you can automatically kill anyone who grabs an apple from the ground around "your" trees. Using the farmer paradigm, that's a closer analogy and I'm pretty sure most people would not consider a farmer like that very "peaceful". There's a mathematical flaw with the belief that everyone can settle as close as 10 squares from another's city and that everyone can own 10 squares around their city. If everyone has the right to own 10 squares around their city then no one can settle closer than 20 squares of another's city. But that's really beside the main point. |
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 17 May 2013 at 15:11
I have no problem with my neighbors harvesting if they are also within 10 squares. My problem comes in when people travel distances to harvest. And I also realize that there are no rules in Illy. That being said, harvest away near my cities. If I am in a good mood you may get some items. If I am not, you will lose your gatherers. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 18 May 2013 at 00:35
Sovereignty being an exception? That is certainly by design a clear boundary. Also well said on your second point. It is confused way too often... In any case, just because something is 10, 5 or 2 squares from your city doesn't *mark* it as yours. If you Sov it or put an army there, that would mark your claim and there would be no confusion. I do not get grumpy about players harvesting unmarked/unclaimed resources any distance from my cities. The only time I get grumpy is when the tile is clearly marked as claimed by my sov or my troops. If I fail to put the effort into building a fence, how would anyone know they've crossed into my property? I couldn't get upset about that... Also, I don't recall anyone really saying '10 squares is my grazing lands'. That old ten-square rule came about way before harvesting and was more about sov/city growth issues. Groups abusing that common understanding in an attempt to secure vast swathes of 'grazing land' without investing sov or the armies to claim it... well that's just impractical for all parties and something that I've never and would never observe. Better to mark it so there is no misunderstanding. - M. -------------
|
Posted By: Samalander
Date Posted: 18 May 2013 at 02:54
It amazes me how people who never kill their own npc's think the animals are killing each other left and right. It probably happens about twice a week in a 200 square area. 
|
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 18 May 2013 at 03:05
| It probably happens twice a week within ten squares of my capital. Not all 200 square areas are the same... |
Posted By: Llyr
Date Posted: 18 May 2013 at 03:19
|
I often harvest hides and animal parts from NPC's that I did not kill. How they got there is anyone's guess. But if another player did kill the NPC's, and decided to kill my harvesters for poaching, that's my problem and I don't feel I have any grounds to complain about it. It does, in fact, happen occasionally. In the last few hours I did kill a number of NPC groups around my towns. To ensure that I harvest the hides and parts, I've sent occupying armies to each of those squares. They only need to be there for a few days anyway. If I hadn't sent the armies and another player started harvesting the hides and parts, I would bump them but probably not kill them. Bottom Lines: 1. If you didn't kill it but you try to harvest it and get killed, don't complain. 2. If you did kill it and want the parts, take the time to mark the square with a token army for a day or two. Saves frayed tempers all round. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/187558" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 18 May 2013 at 03:22
| You can usually tell it was NPC vs. NPC by the presence of mixed animal parts. |
Posted By: Llyr
Date Posted: 18 May 2013 at 04:19
That's true, but how many people bother to take the time to scout first? I don't, but then again I don't complain about poaching skinners getting killed. People who are worried about it might want to take the precaution of scouting first. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/187558" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 18 May 2013 at 05:22
| If I'm going to risk expensive skinners on a kill that isn't mine, I scout every time. Although I really don't send skinners to things I don't kill anymore unless it was an awesome kill, like poisonous crawlers vs. scaled chargers or something. If you leave them exposed, the chance is too high that another player sends an army or an NPC lands on the square. And if you send an army, you're risking killing someone else's skinners. |
Posted By: Llyr
Date Posted: 18 May 2013 at 05:36
|
Personally I would never send an army to occupy a kill that wasn't mine, even if I knew it was NPC vs NPC. And apart from the time it takes to produce them, I don't consider skinners expensive. I have enough equally expendable cotters to grab hides for me, so I never have to buy them. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/187558" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 18 May 2013 at 20:16
|
I realize my standpoint is a bit controversial and aggressive w.r.t. animal parts around my cities. The reason for this is that I spend a lot of resources on troops to kill the items only to have someone try and take them. My attitude and actions would be very different to someone who had the decency to just send me a mail asking if I had any desire to harvest the items. I do have neighbors who harvest near me with no problems because we have reached understandings. Bottom line is if you know you did not kill the animals and want the parts, contact the person whose city is there and ask if they mind. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 18 May 2013 at 20:27
| Grag, is that practical? The hides and parts disappear after 1-2 days. How long are you supposed to wait for a response? |
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 18 May 2013 at 22:12
I cannot speak for other players but if it is around my cities you will get a reply way before those items disappear. If you do not hear from me then I would say take a chance and harvest. I would not kill someones harvesters if I knew they were going to be visiting. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Rupe
Date Posted: 19 May 2013 at 07:37
|
I am a close neighbour of Grags (Geographically speaking) and Grags system works well. Whats caused this huff is Grag calling his gameplay a rule. If that's the way Grag plays then fair do's. At least he has come here and told everyone so no surprises if you get killed. It is amazing how many of my kills that don't get poached around Grags cities. I do generally leave a guard if I really want the kill though. |
Posted By: EvilKatia
Date Posted: 19 May 2013 at 07:39
|
I partly agree with you Gragnog, Meaning I don't usually go very near other people cities to harvest especially not with skinners. I might risk a cotter now and then especially if I think the player is inactive but I usually consult of make deal. I have a deal with a player to harvest anything within his territory if I split what I harvest with him. in exchange he protect my skinners, and tell me when he kill animals who's part are valuable. I call that a win/win agreement : I get to harvest nearly 24h/7 and, while i have to share the profits, I get more that way then trying to sneak under his nose..... However I got cities in keshalia around wich animal kill other animal....I'm not going to forbid other players to harvest those even if they are near my city, after all sometime I have had up to 6 kills around my city(!)...that's a lot to harvest at the same time and it would be silly of me to be greedy and kill every harvester in sight. In region where they are less animal I found out there was more people willing to harvest my kills without permission and thus my use of armies. I find that I have to kill more often on plants or mine and people just plain dont think that other people might have harvested that spot just 1 hour ago and their 10-20-40 herbalist are gonna kill the patch..so I have to kill them unless I want to do without the plant or mine. Very Annoying. ------------- Kat 'They have to always turn a forum post into a badly written book that gives a headache and takes your iq points' - AO |
Posted By: EvilKatia
Date Posted: 19 May 2013 at 07:40
|
Lol rupe the area might have a reputation for disappearing cotters and skinners so that may be why less of them are brave enough to come around there :P
------------- Kat 'They have to always turn a forum post into a badly written book that gives a headache and takes your iq points' - AO |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 25 May 2013 at 15:26
that last is certainly not true. there are clear boundaries, and they are marked with sov. anyone harvesting on another's sovereign lands trespasses a military boundary and is at least deserving of a military response. lands not under sovereignty are better considered common lands; any player assertion of how they are properly used is just that. how Gragnog's neighbours treat the assertion is their own affair, but i think the appropriate comparison here is to neighbouring park land and, since there is no clear owner, Gragnog's hypothetical farmer grazes his unbranded herds there but still asserts ownership of the cows and expects to chastise those who steal them. for myself, i harvest close to my own cities. if resources are important enough to fight over, i post a garrison. in a few cases, there are resources farther away that i have harvested since before other cities were closer, and i continue to frequent those spots when available. i have occasionally harvested skins nearby my cities that i knew i had not killed, because they seemed to be about to go to waste and i had skinners to spare. in one case i was contacted by the hunter and happily sent on what i had harvested. in all cases, if my skinners were killed wantonly, i would consider it an act of aggression. |
Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 25 May 2013 at 15:45
|
Also being a neighbour of Gragnog, and having lost something like 180 skinners to his policies, I do not like it. I would be ok with being requested to give up the harvest if closer than 5 squares. But both killing skinners and claiming "farmland ownership" over a ten-square unmarked land is way too territorial in my opinion. (Note though, that I am talking skinners where the skinner is more valuable than his harvest - when herbalists might endanger a marked or within-5-square plot, I fully understand them being killed.) On the map screen of my closest town, I see dead animals in the north-east corner and I do not see any towns there. I send harvesters, and it took a couple of turns before I relised that it was Gragnog and not a random npc-spawn that killed my skinners. And then at first I thought it was an april fools joke. I am sort of ok with a range of 5 squares - being the logical consequence of the 10-square-ask-before-settle rule enforced by Harmless? and others, but last kill was 6 squares from his nearest town. You might suspect that he is trying to increase the price of the hides he harvests by killing skinners to increase demand. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 26 May 2013 at 01:48
You are ok with 5 squares. Grag is ok with 10. You both acknowledge that there is a distance where it is appropriate to respect others' rights to these things. You just differ on the distance. And after the first few times, I would have thought you'd stop sending... (doing the same thing and expecting different results et al...) This is Elgea, not suburbs USA. any time you send out someone to gather, you are taking a risk. And I applaud Grag for making his position clear. Now you and everyone else shouldn't have a problem avoiding getting your skinners killed... |
Posted By: Daufer
Date Posted: 26 May 2013 at 22:13
|
It would be convenient though if people could agree on a number and stick to it though. Every player or alliance seems to have their own rule, and how much even that is respected is based on military strength. For example, as a small alliance whose cities are rather tightly clustered I might feel that 5 squares around those cities should be inviolate, and that I have every right to bump non-confederate harvesters or kill non-confederate military occupations within that zone. Crow believes that if you don't claim sov you don't claim the square. While I could theoretically claim sov for five squares in every direction, 120 sov is very expensive, and as I can only build on 20 of them that is a lot of gold and RP to waste simply to gain the common courtesy of not finding strange armies camped 3 squares from my door. And while I might be able to enforce my will against a lone player or a group half my size, if it is a Crow then he gets to determine what I can "reasonably" claim. If I ask him to hunt elsewhere and he decides that I am not entitled to that third, fourth or fifth square unless I am paying for it, what can I do? Either I suck it up and let it go, or I wipe the army anyway and wait for the nastygram from his leadership demanding that I account for my unprovoked assault on their member and listing the reparations I must pay to avoid destruction. For myself I would say no one should harvest within 5 squares of a non-confed city without permission without expecting to be bumped at the least. Let the superpowers claim more if they want to fight about something, but I couldn't justify traveling twenty or thirty squares just to harvest something two or three squares from another player's town. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 27 May 2013 at 00:46
| I think in cases like that dialogue is important, Daufer. You might think that another alliance should not be able to determine the "rules"; another alliance might feel that you should not determine the "rules". Personally I think good communication is important. Usually these things can be worked out between neighbors. |
Posted By: Salararius
Date Posted: 27 May 2013 at 02:11
|
A lot of people have stated that "sov is theirs". or some such thing. I'd like to point out that according to the game rules, I can harvest on anyone's sov terrain. It's only "yours" to the extent that everyone within Illy both agrees it is yours and is willing to support that contention with force. If not, it's only "yours" to the extent you and those willing to fight with you can fight for it. Which has pretty much been my point all along. I can appreciate everyone's desire to "own" that which they kill. I see the "righteousness" of harvesting your own kill. If you are a neighbor of mine and someone I am on good relations with I'll even send some troops to support that right. But if it's a member of a big alliance poaching your kill there's a good chance that "righteousness" will fall to force. It will not be the first time that's happened nor the last. People keep debating "rightness" but in the end that doesn't matter. |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 27 May 2013 at 17:59
I would have to agree with you. I could make any sort of claim that I wish, I would still have to defend it with force if it was ever challenged. I have seen some new players advertise on their player profiles that they see the five squares in diameter around their town *theirs*. I imagine that others do not contest it to show it is not *theirs* just because they managed to teleport their city there, because it would create too much of a nuisance within the White Knight community. Might makes right, anywho. Subatoi ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 28 May 2013 at 20:07
Just to clarify my reasoning for each of the three teams killed, and still sending skinners to that quadrant of the map: 1st team, harvesting unmarked animal parts on map centred on my town, no town close on the map. I assume they were killed by critters spawned while they were in transit. (Yes, harvesting is a risktaking.) No message. 2d team, harvesting same area, Gragnog sends an april fools message (as I assume) pretending to be cross about my harvesting, but graciously allowing me to harvest 23 wolfskins or thereabouts. Somewhat later he actually kills a team and it becomes clear that he was not joking on 1st of April. I complain and he says "It is within 5 squares of my town, tough luck." or something like that. 3d team, I make sure by scrolling the map that the unmarked animal parts are NOT within 5 squares of a Gragnog town. Again they are killed, and again I complain, and now the reply does not say anything about a distance, but I should ask before I harvest. I don't LIKE a 10-square rule, but as Kumomoto says, if I know I can adapt, and as some others have pointed out you can claim whatever you want if you have big enough guns. But regardless of the guns, I would prefer if changes in policy would be stated a bit softer than killing other peoples harvesters in increasing circles around your towns. PS Are you saying that suburbs USA is safe, Kumomoto?  |
Posted By: Auraya
Date Posted: 28 May 2013 at 20:52
| I'm still unsure why you need to kill harvesters when you can bump them, unless someone has sent an army to mark your kill. Whatever you claim - 5 squares, 10, 100 - you can do so without killing someone's skinners. |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 28 May 2013 at 22:51
I would imagine it would be a form of punishment for leeching off of someone else's kill. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Halithore
Date Posted: 28 May 2013 at 23:48
If you don't mark your kills though people don't know if it was a player kill or NPCs coming together. If a hit is worth killing millions of golds worth of skinners over to send a message then it's worth putting 1 commander on it. ------------- For a pessimist i'm pretty optimistic |
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 29 May 2013 at 01:39
|
^^ Agree! I am not sure why someone would want to risk sending skinners out unprotected. I always occupy / camp any resources i've slain while gathering. For those who say, 'oh but might makes right! Small alliances loose in this' ... well, I am in a small alliance and I have had armies clash with larger groups such as H? or various crow confeds and I can say without a doubt that in all instances any incidents were easy to resolve based on who arrived first and were conducted without much grace by the larger groups. In my experience, it's the smaller groups who tend toward the 'might makes right' unreasonableness in these matters. - M. -------------
|
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 29 May 2013 at 02:22
It is not worth putting a commander on a pile when it could be off in another attack. If you would simply scout the pile of hides and animal parts you could easily see if it was created through an NPC V NPC battle or if a player killed a NPC gathering. When you scout the pile, if there are not mixed body parts belong to different NPC's, a good rule of thumb is that a player killed a NPC grouping. If you scout the pile and find mis-matched parts then you know that it is the result of a NPC v NPC clash. If you are upset over losing cotters or skinners but will continue to send them at other player's kills, I strongly suggest having a military force on standby to contest with. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 29 May 2013 at 02:26
I do not want to get too off topic so I will keep this short. Why are there not massed attacks on new players? The simple answer is that there are consistent threats by large players with the military power to back up the threats. These threats are very simple, if you harm a new player with no valid reason, we will harm you. The philosophy that might makes right is practiced all the time in Illyriad. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 29 May 2013 at 03:14
|
yeah that ^^ is off-topic. I'm speaking specifically in regard to the current topic... 'might makes right' ie 'i'm in a bigger alliance than you so i'm going to harvest that resource!'... this has not been my experience. My experience when dealing with those in larger groups in regard to harvesting resources has been instead 'oh i'm sorry, you got there first, let me make reparations for any loss of troop / harvesters and here are the resources'. It has never been, 'you can't harvest here' or 'this is mine'. I have only heard that kind of drivel ('your army and harvesters are 8.5 squares from my town! move it or die!') from small / new players. -------------
|
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 29 May 2013 at 07:10
|
You kill it you harvest it. You did not kill it, then you take a risk harvesting it. Stop moaning and crying when you want to get some things for free instead of earning it. The cost of troops in combating NPC's is far greater than a few skinners. My opinion has been very clear from the start. And to Nesse (Odd), had you bothered to read my profile like I mentioned to you months ago you would have known what my attitude is without trying to make it a propaganda event in the forum. The rest of my neighbours harvest their kills and even some of mine due to the fact that they bothered to contact me and reach some agreement. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 29 May 2013 at 10:29
Everything that glitters is not gold. And this myth that NPC's go on a rampage around peoples cities is getting to be a bit old. NPC's rarely kill anything and when they do they tend to hang around on their kills for a bit before moving on. Animal parts around active players cities did not magically appear from rabid NPC's roaming around on a killing spree but from hard work by those players and their troops. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 29 May 2013 at 12:18
|
They definitly do! I never saw any armies moving around my towns, nor did I kill animals myself, and my skinners always do have something to gather... Distance to anyones towns doesn't matter to NPC's so far (to my knowledge...), so why shouldn't they appear next to other towns? I'm thinking twice about harvesting within 5 squares of other towns, and on sovs it's a nogo, but 10 squares is a big piece of land to reserve... I myself wouldn't like, if someone took the stuff I killed, but hey!, I just bump them => problem solved... For salts, I definitly leave my army sitting on top... |
Posted By: Auraya
Date Posted: 29 May 2013 at 14:38
..and therein lies the problem. If you don't mark your kills and it isn't on sov, why are you getting annoyed? Just bump them and be done with it. Plenty of people kill NPCs, take the hides and leave the other parts because they are not very profitable - scavengers aren't really much of a problem, those parts are only going to waste. That or there are, for example, 8 hides left on a square and a larger player doesn't want to waste a cotter's time for only 8 hides.. but a 50 pop player might. Everyone has a different rule as to what is acceptable and what isn't. It's confusing for me let alone players newer to the game. Bumping says 'hands off' without the need to destroy anything. Unless someone is actively and repeatedly harvesting your kills, I don't see the need to punish them.
|
Posted By: Jorcle
Date Posted: 29 May 2013 at 14:55
|
Agree with Hora in that there are places on the map where the level of NPC vs. NPC kills is great enough that there is no requirements to send out armies to produce something to gather. I accept that the numbers of people trying to gather may also be a factor. There are also places on the map where common hides are quite hard to get in any quantity which makes building or replacing skinners far from easy. I ended up having to buy enough to make my skinners and would be very annoyed if someone killed them off instead of bumping. For the same reason there is a risk in sending an army to an NPC kill in that you might unintentionally kill someone else's skinners. For something that I had actually killed I nearly always let my army occupy for a day or two. As much to keep my gathers safe as to mark my kill. Of course you adapt to the environment that you are in. An area with many active gatherers is going to require more care than one where spare wildlife is plentiful. In a similar manner a small player from a small alliance would probably not be very successful enforcing a ten square rule. In fact it would be an extremely foolish thing for a player in a small alliance to try. |
Posted By: Halithore
Date Posted: 29 May 2013 at 15:54
I fully agree if you did not kill it you are taking a risk, the only bit i cannot understand is to the lack of marking your own kill. Even poaching aside i've lost skinners to animals moving onto tiles etc before and the annoyance isn't worth it. Placing 1 commander there shows it was your kill saving others the time of needing to scout and protects your skinners. Also the part "The cost of troops in combating NPC's is far greater than a few skinners" can sometimes not always be true. I can clear rats with minimal losses but when sending groups of 100+ skinners to harvest if i lose my biggest group then that is near 20 million in hides to replace them. There are no enforced rules server wide though which is what makes this game fun imo. As long as neighbours can hash out agreements and get along that is fine. ------------- For a pessimist i'm pretty optimistic |
Posted By: Daufer
Date Posted: 29 May 2013 at 16:47
I don't have a huge issue with people harvesting near me if I am not going to harvest the parts myself. If I want you gone, I'll bump you. Other players have made their positions clear and if they want to be more aggressive about it that is their business and their alliance. If you have read this and wish to harvest near Gragnog you now know what he expects of you, and if you can't be bothered to comply you know what to expect of him. My issue is more of locality. I keep my alliance clustered, as do my confeds. That means we have a relatively small harvesting area that is densely populated with harvesters. If there is something dead near me, I want my allies to have a shot at it. If someone I have no relationship with, who lives 30 squares away and has plenty of NPCs right next to him, prefers to kill and harvest in the middle of my territory instead, that deserves a bump in my mind. Except, when they decide to set an army on that spot, I can't just boot them off gently. Troops and cotters die and it turns into drama. So if you ask this intruder not to harvest so close and he replies "If you had sov there I wouldn't be harvesting 3 squares from this town, but since you don't I have as much right to it as you." By that token I could send fifty armies to occupy every non-sovereign square around this person's capitol and harvest anything that dies there. A jack*** move to be sure, but apparently well within my rights. |
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 30 May 2013 at 10:33
The cost of troops and gatherers and the value of them differers from person to person. In my opinion gatherers are cheap and troops are expensive. Basing the value on market prices is really amusing to me as those are based on what people think things are worth. For me hides and other gathered items cost nothing as I gather them myself but I never have enough weapons and armour and have to buy those, thus to me troops cost something and gatherers cost nothing. Trying to convince me 60 skinners are worth more than 60 Marshals is a joke. Animal parts around my cities and hides are never sold but converted into items my military can use. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Halithore
Date Posted: 30 May 2013 at 12:50
------------- For a pessimist i'm pretty optimistic |
Posted By: Llyr
Date Posted: 30 May 2013 at 17:00
As someone who is not an economist, but has been involved in business and financial decisions for over 30 years, I have to confess that the whole notion of "opportunity cost" seems totally bogus to me. Once you make a decision to spend money on something, that's it. There can be no genuine "cost" to something that you didn't do. But since economists are obviously doing a great job in running our real world economies perhaps I might be wrong  .------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/187558" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Halithore
Date Posted: 30 May 2013 at 17:24
------------- For a pessimist i'm pretty optimistic |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 30 May 2013 at 19:51
I kind of agree with you in general, Llyr, with the major exception of time. I feel that opportunity costs in time are very real and all too often lamentable! |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 30 May 2013 at 22:38
|
Gragnog since you value your hides at 0 I would like to buy all of them from you :D Also 60 skinners cost 10.6M gold, 60 marshals cost 400k gold So by shear mathematics a Skinner is worth roughly 265 marshals. You can fudge the numbers one way or the other depending on what market values you use. But its hard to argue with 2 factors of 10.
|
Posted By: Salararius
Date Posted: 30 May 2013 at 23:46
When someone goes and kills 60 of skinners. The hides that person will use to re-build those skinners could have been sold (on the Market, that is the opportunity cost) for 10 million gold. That's enough gold to buy equipment to build 2,000 Marshals. When killing 60 of someone's skinners, it's the economic (Illy economics) equivalent of killing 2,000 of their Marshals. How many troops are being lost killing those animals? The costs don't change just because any individual believes they do. The costs stay roughly the same for everyone with access to a viable market (which most everyone in Illy has). Any good in Illy can be reliably and repeatedly converted into any other good. That's not my opinion, it's something anyone with 20 cities should know. |
Posted By: Llyr
Date Posted: 31 May 2013 at 02:25
|
Here's my view on "opportunity cost". I walk into a store with a dollar. There are two things in the store, a candy bar and a bag of chips (crisps for my UK readers). Each costs a dollar, so I have to choose one. I buy the candy bar and give the storekeeper my dollar. According to the "opportunity cost" idea, I could have bought the chips, so that means I owe someone another dollar. Or that the candy bar actually costs two dollars. Or something equally silly. To try and get back on the actual topic, I don't really have any "cost" to build skinners. I can easily harvest any hides I need, and I usually just grab those hides (and other animal parts) off the map and rarely make kills myself. Fortunately I don't live near Gragnog . And if I do have cotters or skinners killed occasionally (and it does happen), then I just make new ones.------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/187558" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Halithore
Date Posted: 31 May 2013 at 03:22
There are monetary and non monetary opportunity costs, when you go into a shop and have $1 say and can buy crisps or a candy bar then the opportunity cost isn't something you can put a monetary value to. If you buy the candy bar the 'cost' is forgoing buying the crisps so the 'cost' is satisfaction from the crisps. We use this theory without really thinking about it more often than we think. The hides for skinners one can be summed up much easier as it is a straight forward monetary one. You have two mutually exclusive options with the hides, use them for skinners or sell them (in the example you gave the two options were buy A or buy B whereas in the skinner one it is use A or sell A). If you use them to make skinners then even if you assign no value to them the market does and you could sell them at that market value. A better way to put it would be you are faced with two options with 400 hides you have harvested, You can make 10 skinners (okay forget for this that skinners cost books too as they're a minor cost in the process) or sell the hides at market value and buy the materials to make 265 marshalls. You cannot do both as you can't use AND sell the hides. ------------- For a pessimist i'm pretty optimistic |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 31 May 2013 at 03:39
| Llyr, you generally apply opportunity cost to investing. Don't think candy vs. crisps, think buying a candy bar vs. saving that $1 in a bank account. You have lost the opportunity to earn a guaranteed return on that $1 by choosing to spend it on candy. It's also a useful tool for weighing two investments with different potential returns and amount of risk. You can make an extra mortgage payment (small guaranteed long term return), invest in a bond fund (stable medium term return) or invest in individual stocks (variable loss or return over short term). |
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 31 May 2013 at 07:35
|
I guess everyone is trying to convince me skinners are more valuable than Marshals. My position has been made pretty clear that I value troops over gatherers and thus if people value their gatherers over troops then do not harvest what you did not kill or be willing to take the risk of losing your valuable gatherers. I do see the other sides point and if I put a value on the items I might feel inclined to agree with you all, but sadly I do not see the value of things I make for free. I get pleasure from the fact that I gather and make most of what I need, and those items I am short of I buy from markets and other players. There is no winner in this debate, only different opinions, but I am pleased that it can be debated and I do not kill gatherers randomly, only those on my kills within 10 squares of my cities and only if no contact has been made before they arrive. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Auraya
Date Posted: 31 May 2013 at 14:49
|
I suspect to someone with 20 cities, the troop vs harvester issue is how quickly you can replace something. Harvesters are very easy to replace if you have unlimited gold, troops not so much as they take a long time to build and often, larger players have to sacrifice military sov for food sov. For smaller players, economy is much more important and if you don't have 24/7 troop queues, the value of those troops is merely how much it costs to build them. Not everyone has read this thread and I hope people will bear that in mind when dealing with others harvesting in their area. People generally don't read the profiles of people 7 squares away from a kill on the map. Under 3 squares, I'd understand the aggression because that's accepted as sov distance.. but for more than 5, when it's agreed that the 10 square rule is so that 2x cities can have 5 squares each, that is a little too territorial for my liking. I can only hope my newbies don't accidentally get caught up in something like this.
|
Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 31 May 2013 at 16:38
Gragnog, for someone who keeps talking about the importance of discussion to reach an agreement, you still do not get my main objection - after quite a few mails and ... "trying to make it a propaganda event in the forum". I got two teams of 60 skinners killed BEFORE you contacted me, and then a third team of 60 killed at six squares from your town after I had believed and put trust in your mail to me where you clearly stated that you would mark kills you wanted to harvest if outside a five square radius from your towns (Did you check my profile before killing my skinners?). I disagree with your valuation of troops and skinners, I disagree with your use of the "10-square rule", and I do not like your idea that everybody must be aware where your towns are and understand that things that you have killed are dangerous to pick up. You could easily have scouted and bumped my skinners, and requested payment for lost harvest. Never mind your valued cavalry, to me 60 skinners are way more valuable than 60 wolf furs even though the market cost for hides and wolf furs are similar. You have never asked me to replace lost harvest - on the contrary at the only occasion I am aware of "having got away with" harvesting something you killed (on first of april), you told me I could take it. I am NOW aware where your towns are and also that I have to be careful within a range of ten squares around them. Well, careful as in death zone... I (Nesse & Odd) have 18 towns in about a dozen areas, quite far apart, and in about a third of those areas there are pretty large numbers of self-killed npc's. (I am quite certain they are self-killed, as I very rarely see any harvesters or armies moving, and the ones I have checked were predominantly mixed animals.) A second third doesn't have much npc's, and what is dead usually has an army on it, and the last third have occasional self-dead piles but mostly the animals seem to get along. It is not a strange conclusion that a lot of dead animals in one place are due to animals killing each other. Do as you request of others, please, and talk before you engage in wanton killing! |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 31 May 2013 at 17:40
|
I suppose it is far better than everyone assuming that an unguarded pile of resources on the maps is theirs if they get to it first. If you want to harvest resources then I suggest sending military force to protect your harvesters. If someone else wants those resources then they will either have to buy them off you or other players or take the resources by force. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 31 May 2013 at 18:56
I suggest not to send armies to unguarded animal parts. Either it is somebodys kill, and as we have seen he will be angry for harvesters - I guess he would be furious over an army. Or someone else might send harvesters at the same time you send your army and then you will kill those for no obvious reason. |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 31 May 2013 at 20:37
Then why do we have armies on Herbs and Minerals? ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2013 at 00:12
Herb patches and Mines are permanent and an army marks ownership. Herbalists and miners are also significantly cheaper than skinners. Herb patches of course have the risk, also, of getting overharvested, while some minerals take a day or two to harvest - which makes it more costly to be interrupted. I have noticed, however, that a lot of the more common minerals and herbs no longer have an army, in many instances. But you know all that, ES2, right? |
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2013 at 06:53
I am not the one trying to get the stuff for free and thus do not see the need send any messages as to why someones gatherers are there. Read my posts carefully. What I am saying is if you want stuff for free stop moaning if gatherers get killed and if you want to harvest near me, YOU need to contact me. Not the other way around. If I send guys to someone else and I value the harvesters I will contact that person and let them know of my intentions. As of yet you have not once messaged me asking if you could harvest a patch of parts near my cities. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2013 at 23:42
A lot of minerals are currently unusable. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Cuddlesanne
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2013 at 16:16
| When I send my skinners out to spots where I'm unsure of, I accept the risk of losing them. I'd rather lose skinners than have someone start a war with me. I've also had people IGM me to let me know I was poaching. I just send them what I harvested and everyone is okay. |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 20 Oct 2013 at 16:59
Some would argue that they have to punish the offender more than the offender just sending back the resources. While some others would argue that as long as the offender gives back the stolen goods, all is well. It is all about eliminating the incentive for others to steal. Some have harsher punishments than others, though the harsher may have a better record in discouraging others from thieving. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: st aug
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 05:07
Bigger players pouch all the time . All you here is I am sorry. And they give resources and thinks its ok because they paid you and tell you to get used to it. You would think they would know they didn't kill it and leave it alone but they try and take anyway. They feel they can take what ever they want . The only way to stop them is to put an occupying army on your kill. Because if you don't somebody will take it . There's no such thing as fare fight and no rules in war. It is what it is .--- You still think this is a nice game played by nice people. 
|
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 05:21
If people are so upset over those that poach, I suggest military action. You want to discourage poaching, so you raze a few of the offender's cities off the map. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 21 Oct 2013 at 10:45
Now this approach I like.  ------------- Kaggen is my human half |