For the incoming new players, and probably more from LoU soon, there is hardly enough abandoneds to go around before we get the next clearing of spots. People are now looking for spots to settle, as newbs they usually need a 2nd city to achieve growth, and the quickest way is settling out of the rings... many have started their 2nd city with this in mind to get out of the Newb Rings.

Broken Lands has seen more broken promises, but hey we are still here. Elgea has no extra viable land anymore that isn't in someone's 10 square circumference.

The 10sq rule is imposed by the game itself, with Tenaril and Exodus. And it has been a rigid rule to settlers by those who feel it is set in stone.

We do need to redefine the settler's position and try to see where we can compromise. It was stated that you don't need 10sq circumference around any city as we can only sov 20 squares.

So do we turn away new players because we can't help them? Tell them to wait for 30 days and HOPE nine other players aren't headed to the same square? IMHO, the 10sq rule for settlers needs to be discussed, its old and outdated.

Perhaps your say will make a change.

Diva

-- Or perhaps we should start thinking of city expansion differently: instead of searching for those great (and mostly occupied) 7-food sites with good sov, just find an open space** and plonk down (almost) all of your cities there. I've found that many cities close together in 'nonviable' land inspire much better growth compared to scattering your cities around by only settling prime spots; so much so that I dislike settling further than 4sq's away from another city of my own, or my alliance's.

** I can find plenty of spots all over the map where there are no cities for 15 squares in any direction. While not considered prime land, these parts have massive potential if you don't mind clustering your cities properly.

"But I don't want to cluster my cities!", I hear some of you say. Well then, you'd simply have to negotiate for one of the massive number of great locations within 10sq's of another player. Something you might find very easy if you only want to settle a single city in a specific area.

  In the nearly 3 years I have been in Illy I have always followed the 10 square rule as has my alliance. We recently exo'ed around 30 cities to better spots in our regional hubs mostly in and around Keshsalia and Perrigor. We did so in about a months time and without violating anyones 10 squares. I will admit that finding a good square for settlement is not as easy as when I was a newb. However it is entirely possible.

    

   My alt is in a leadership position within a training alliance and the 10 square rule is observed there as well. It takes a bit of time to find our newbs spots suitable to their needs however it is accomplished by a few dedicated members who's only job is to find spots for these new players. (I absolutely hate looking for settlement spots as I don't have the patiences so I am more than grateful of their efforts)

  So while I understand your frustration I don't see why this rule needs to be changed as it is still possible to find good and even great spots without breaking the 10 square rule. I can say for 100% certainty that TO will not change their policy in regards to settlement and will continue to protect all within the 10 square radius of our cities.

I agree, helping newbs and hugs are destroying the game. 

Where is this rule?

For those who say that 10 squares is some sort of reflexive minimum, I simply ask, "Why?"

Other than assertion of dominance or trying to prevent other people from settling in "your" area, why are 10 squares so sacrosanct?

And if the intention is to assert dominance or to "claim" an area ... again, why? What advantage does this provide?

I'd like people to seriously and thoughtfully engage with this question.  I've been playing for Illyriad for close the three years now and have yet to hear any strong argument for exclusive control of an area.  ("We like it that way" is not a well-reasoned argument.)

10 squares is not required for sovereignty claims; a more reasonable guideline for that would be 6 squares, or possibly 7-8.

With regard to mutual defense, exclusivity in an area does not seem to be substantially better than mere dominance.  And attempts at exclusivity or rigid enforcement of an arbitrary "rule" tend to stir up animosity.

Perhaps the developers need not worry so much about creating opportunities for "friction."  It seems to me that the playerbase is quite good at creating arbitrary (and needless) sources of friction all on its own.

I struggle with this question with my alliance mates as well.  When someone sees someone who settles within 10 squares without asking permission, the immediate reaction is that the other person has somehow disrespected or violated the player's space.  Hopefully one's first reaction could be to look at the actual situation and ask "well, does this settlement actually infringe on the potential growth of the other city"? and "is there any other reason the city being there will cause a substantial problem?"  Most of the time the answer to both questions is "no."

As I said, I struggle even with folks in my alliance on this issue.  Yet at the same time I think that if one can set aside issues of ego and power, there is plenty of room for everyone.  And there are plenty of people who will find every opportunity to exercise arbitrary and capricious ego and/or power trips without the rest of us helping them along.

It is a behavioral constraint that the entire community has adopted and followed for a very long time. So an unspoken rule if you like. 

  The point is as I stated above, It is still possible to relocate or settle without violating another's 10 squares. 

not the entire community, i always only asked for 5 squares :p

Just to be clear: this is not a game-enforced "rule." It is something that the players have come up with as a courtesy to other players. But, as we hoped when the game was designed, the players can come up with these type of rules if they want! :)

GM Rikoo

End of discussion then.  Those that stick to the property line of 10 square are not going to relent what has been stated above. And because it is long standing force of the community, so be it. 

Thanks for everyone's input.

Diva

GM RIKOO, please close the thread.. it's now a moot point.

GM Rikoo

My point is that the game has these rules courtesies in place and most play and respect them.

I am in a teaching alliance and I was taught and respect the rule. I agree space is at a premium and my reasons are purely selfish...I want to continue building using the strategy of my choice AND still use the 10 square rule.

My point is this: Think long and hard about how a rule/courtesy/whatever change will affect ALL players...not just newbies and veterans, but thiose in-between.

That's my 2 pence Dragonwort

UPDATE: In my opinion the 10 square rule is there to facilitate the growth of your EMPIRE since few players sov that distance. AND just to reiterate...it's rather easy to opine on changes that have little effect on empires already established.
 

I hope your plan works out for you, Dragonwort, but I suggest that you approach it with flexibility.  Circumstances change.  And if you don't happen to be able to get those exact city locations you want (because someone wanted one before you built the population to create seven or eight cities), it is not the end of the world.

The same could be said from the other side, no?

This is the obvious answer to those who ask what's the advantage. Clustering cities makes res transport, troop transport, and sharing of different crafting between cities; faster and easier.

Clustering is an often used strategy during warfare...and I can almost guarantee that Illy will become even more warlike with the influx of new players from a certain game closing Dragonwort

Having cities close together is certainly an advantage.  Having them 10 squares from each other is not substantially more advantageous in my experience than having them 100 squares from each other -- and there are advantages to being slightly more spread out as well, for example from a hunting and harvesting perspective.

My own approach has been to create "twin cities" about 10-20 squares from each other, all in the same general area.  It seems to be working pretty well so far.

Yes, I thought this topic was a "discussion" of the status quo, no?

I think the majority of players agree with me and tend to function in the way I've described, agreeing to settlement within 10 squares but beyond 5-6 squares in most instances.  This has certainly been my experience.

Although there are a few vocal people who claim a sacrosanct 10 squares, if you look at the map of Illy, there are many, many examples of people from different alliances living in proximities closer than 10 squares, and it seems to be working just fine.

Naturally most people believe that theirs is the majority view.  One could start a poll on the question, but forum polls tend to be affected by sampling error.

Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.

And , of course, you won't see it yet (not on a grand scale anyway) these players are too new and too small. BUT..a little time lurking in GC will illustrate my point. Some of the newer players after hopping from alliance to alliance looking for that perfect fit have started warring with each other on a small scale...just to be warring. Some have even taken on established players and lost cities in the process.

More than once, a new player has asked, "how do I form an alliance?" with the intent, most likely, of bringing along their entire alliance from the"other" game. Rather than read; they ask. And THAT may be the one saving grace...for some their aggressiveness is exceeded only by their impatience.

If Illy changes..it won't be overnight but the signs are there. remember where you read it first...lol  Dragonwort

Actually, you are correct. I forgot to mention this part. Thanks!

GM Rikoo

The soon part has me hearing echoes... we have no idea when Broken Lands is opening, pathfinding, or any new feature will be "available" if not implemented here at the same time or before. Lots of stuff has been promised. Oh well! LOL  I can't even see the use yet for 120 sov'ed squares in ELGEA or how to get them or pay for them... wouldn't the circumference have to be enlarged? Make people move away? Talk about friction.. 

So my discussion began with what was the reality of what we have now, not promised or soon.

/me dislodges tongue from cheek

The Green and Yellow city also have the same option, but to come close to ME now is friction and reason to ask to move, they are so to speak "now in my zone of preferences". They are unreasonable of course to settle there. But I am too far from their base of a single city in their 10! Would they sov all along to there.. I think not, expensive to do so. 

I LIKE IT!

No, not to the dolmen, but there are two 7 food square next to the dolmen. and all that river front :)

That was just to clear the air, and WORK with my neighbors, and describing how it can be done legally, so the inference of "my 10sq rule from a neighbor" is just an argument for this so called rule.  No one can own it if its already overlapped by SEVERAL people when there was space previously or a legal space now.

You get my drift.

Thoughts from GM's??

As practiced, it is a 10-square radius, although most alliance practice a "soft" 10-square radius in which they request consultation if it is within 10 squares, but agree to most settlements outside 5-6 squares.  There are of course exceptions.

The best argument for the 10-square rule is that it leaves space for future expansion and enables the first settlers in a place to be a little bit selective about who they want as neighbours. Unless they plan to use it for their own expansion, most people will let you settle inside their area of interest if you have a good reputation.

So how does the rule make sense for a new player who has no control on where the game placed me. So I can't settle my second city near my original one because if violates someones else 10 sq rule even though they will never use half of those squares? So I have to settle somewhere farther apart and slow my growth. And as a new player how am I suppose to earn a good reputation? That takes time and diplomacy. 

In my opinion, the rule is outdated and unfair to the new players. Since this game has no end game, the established players will always have an edge over the new ones. How is a new player with two cities ever a threat to an established player with 8-10 cities. 

I notice you are in HOTH alliance in the game -- I suggest you work with your alliance leaders and WOT leaders to help you with settlement concerns.  I think you will find that you can work something out where you can grow and thrive.

If I can be of assistance, please contact me.

 

All other references to this are Alliance Policies, and not a rule.  To even correct a prior GM Rikoo statement on this, because the terminology matters - players do not create Rules in this game, nor do alliances create Rules in this game.  Only the game's leadership/dev's create game rules.  A GM should tread very carefully when using terms such as Rule, Policy, Restriction, Tradition, etc..  Nothing should be called a Rule unless the Game Company publishes it as such.  None of us, not even GM Rikoo, is the final authority for publishing a Game Rule.

 

Now, to get on with this, let it be known that my alliance, Tsunami [WAVE] will not publish nor honor a 10-Square Policy published by other alliances, but only because we do not acknowledge it.  Having said that, we will still follow tradition and courtesy as many of you do, especially mindful of the 20-square sovereignty pattern that the average player may employ, and specific to Settlement of towns.  However, there is already a Game coded restriction in place to settlement specifically, and it is the Sovereignty claim system.  If you don't want someone else to settle, then claim Sovereignty over the tile.

 

However, for resources, there is no way to guard/hold resources on the map other than placing your army on top of the tile and then hoping someone bigger does not come along with their army and crush you.  That - is the only way to define ownership of rare minerals, rare herbs, grapes, hides, anatomies, basic minerals, and basic herbs.  Anything else is just bluster, if you aren't willing to commit an army to hold the ground.  You don't own the "mineral rights" to the land - even in real life that is a complicated legal process and not automatic for the ground just beneath your home, so let's try not to apply fantasy logic here (and oh by the way this is an international game so not everyone has the same "norm" opinions as the others).  In this game, only armies control resources on the land, otherwise we bump caravans.

 

Myll

Brand,

Up front - I am in total agreement that an army should be on site if you want to control the resources. 

You may want it to imply ownership, but the coding of the game does not restrict gameplay for harvesting actions.  Yes, I already know the detractors will talk about Diplomacy and how important the finesse of it is, but that in itself still does not render ownership of the res, it only results in interpersonal negotiation with an end result of a player being sent an approval or disapproval of potential actions, and even then the players are both taking risk by sending either army(s) and/or harvester(s) to the site, and a 3rd party could even show up with their own army and harvesters! 

It's the "owner" part of the equation that really needs to be dissected in this argument - there is no ownership outside your town, only sovereignty (which is not by definition ownership), and there is control (which is temporary and based on the amount of force/army you are willing to commit).

Myll

I am trying to make a point - there is no obvious ownership of resources on the surface of a tile, whether sov'd or not.  The resources are free game without an army.  Your perspective is biased because of how yourself and others have viewed the issue for the last 2+ years, but not all players, especially those new to the game, have that bias (and as I've termed in the other thread - Dogma).

Players of all types will respect an army - whether sent to control the tile long term, or to kill off harvesters that are unprotected or under-protected.  But - to shew away players that could otherwise harvest with personal profile policies in writing, or alliance profile policies in writing, does not mean much to a player who ignores such things.  I'm not saying my alliance purposely looks for opportunities to go grab resources on sov'd tiles - but they are learning to see and understand whether resources are guarded or not.  

The fact of the matter is - either a player is going to actively play the game, actively defend the resources they desire to keep around their town (sov'd or not), or hope that their written policies influence others to leave their surrounding tiles free and clear to do what they please.  Which seems like the more reasonable approach?  I see the former, not the latter, as a better way to instruct new players and approach this game.  There are no "divine mineral rights" in the game and long-term alliances have been trying to uphold such within 10-squares of towns.

The game needs to change going forward, as we will certainly see more crowding of towns, which is a related but separate issue.

Myll

Myll,  I think there are plenty of players that would disagree with your statement.   Since you seem to be on a campaign, try placing a harvester on a silversteel mine square and you'll get your answer.    

I'm all for helping new players and have done so all my Illy life but you are using new players as an excuse to start problems with other players.    Any respectable alliance leader will tell you that diplomacy yields results, a friendly note from a player goes a long way to obtaining permission to harvest on squares or to move a city within ten squares of another player.   It's not difficult, there is plenty of room for new players but if you believe you are entitled to key locations without diplomacy, you are sadly mistaken.   As in all games, longevity has it's benefits if you are suggesting that you have rights to squares claimed by another player, you don't understand the culture or history of this game.   On the other hand unlike most games, Illy players go out of their way to help new players understand and build up in this game and one of the first lessons new players are instructed is diplomacy will get you more than brute force.      It appears you would rather send an army to prove your point rather than try diplomacy first.    I wish you luck with that, if that is your view of the future of Illy.  

Myll wrote:   There are no "divine mineral rights" in the game and long-term alliances have been trying to uphold such within 10-squares of towns. The game needs to change going forward, as we will certainly see more crowding of towns, which is a related but separate issue. Myll

Again that is your own opinion ... do as you will, but do not expect others to let you tread over them and how they manage their cities and their sov'ed squares.

P.s.
For a person that actually helped a person grow a city one step away from his own and sacrificed 1/3 of my sov for that newbie, I still find your "I'll grab what isn't nailed down to the floor" attitude, very aggravating ... kudos to you, there aren't many things that manage that nowadays


-------------



Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p