First, my primary argument: there is no 10-Square "Rule" in this game - that is a myth that needs to be broken apart and shoved down the throat of Audrey in her awakened state.

There is only a 10-Square "restriction" in this game, coded in by the developers to restrict settlement specifically by the Exodus or Tenaril movement processes, and that restriction is overcome by Sov 5 on the desired tile.  We can ask GM Stormcrow all day long as to "why" this was coded into the game, but the history will only be partly beneficial.

You can Settle a town within 10 squares!!  A Settler can be sent within the 10-square distance and settle a town, so what does this say about the intent of the dev's?  Again, none of these game coding dynamics results in a town "owning" squares around it - so why do we insist in speaking of and labeling a "10-Square Rule" that does not exist?

Okay, so you say your alliance upholds the "10-Square 'Rule'" for your alliance's sake.  Let's be clear on the terminology, and the semantics matters - what your alliance publishes is not a rule, it is an alliance policy.  None of us alliance leaders set rules in the game, we can only try to publish and enforce alliance policy.  So before you flame this post, recognize that.

More terminology: "tradition" - or even "Dogma."  Please look those up in your dictionary of choice.  That's a bit of what we have here in game with the 10-Square "Rule."

Land Sovereignty (not ownership).  We need to first be reminded that Sovereignty as defined means that the area is controlled and free from external influence.  However, a "Sovereign" tile can most certainly be influenced in this game!  If you do not have an army actively camped on a sovereign tile, the "locals" are not chasing off a neutral/enemy harvester, cotter, miner, herbalist, and especially not an enemy army.  Sovereignty, while the game continues to disallow counter-sov claims, is a (for now) permanent label but there is only one thing that sovereignty prevents: Settlement!!  So why do you think this gives you further ownership, when ownership in itself is different than sovereignty?  Sovereignty is the only coded-in labeling system to show a player's claims outside a town.  But - there's no 10-Square restriction to claiming sovereignty!  Think about that - the game coded in a system to claim land anywhere on the map, so long as your army can hold the land for the claim, and so long as you can afford to pay the gold.   

Land Control.  Now this is different, and regardless whether sovereignty does or does not exist on the tile - an Occupying Army can control land in this game.  That control by the army(s) will not last past 14 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes, unless the army is back-filled with another army before that time to continue the process of controlling the land.  Neutral or enemy harvesters are killed on site if they attempt to harvest from the same square an Army is occupying. 

While I am stating the obvious in terms of game dynamics, code, gameplay for many of you, I am putting all this in one thread because the primary argument is that we have a "norm" that is over-stated and misused in this game, to try and tell alliance members, newbs, and the whole community that there is a 10-Square "Rule" - but the rule is a myth.  Each alliance can try to make this a policy, and then fight to uphold their policy, but for the love of pete stop saying there is a 10-Square "Rule" that does not exist!!!

Myll

I'll try to find some links to one or more of the past threads where this was discussed.

http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/examining-the-10-square-rule-as-a-cause-of-war_topic5467.html

That's the most recent discussion.  I recall posts on this topic by Harmless? and DLords, among others, but can't locate them in the Politics and Diplomacy section of the forum.  Perhaps the original posters can recall their location?  I might just have missed them.

As most players only require 3 rings of sov for a 25k population town, many are happy to allow settlements further than 6 squares away (so that both cities can get 3 rings each without hampering each other). Some players may wish to claim further out, especially if there is a particularly nice resource/dolmen/whatever which is why we ask before sticking a city within 10x10. 

It may not be a game mechanic but it is a courtesy that most players observe. Ignore it at your peril. 

To be clear, my intent for this post is to prove once and for all that there is no 10-Square "Rule" and that we need to start calling it by the correct terminology in game and within our alliances.

 

KillerPoodle, you only reinforced this point, which actually bolsters my argument.  However, your alliance profile still has a hyperlinked "10-Square Rule" to an older discussion on the matter, in which more of the same is mentioned and shows that it is alliance policy and not a rule.

 

I am not trying to specifically make a point about Settlement.  That is only one aspect.  However, Settlement does need at least one follow-up clarification:  Within the game's code, Settlement can never be done on a tile on which another player has claimed Sovereignty.  That is a solid "Rule" if you will.  However, even this could be overcome in the future, when/if counter-sov claiming process is fixed, but then what does it get back to? Armies.  Those with a larger army will be able to claim or counter-claim the sov, and then the land gets controlled by the player who holds it.

 

I say this especially because the same is true already for resources.  Within the land surrounding a town, there is no game coded system to restrict other players from harvesting resources of any type, even when that res is just 1 square outside the town.  The only claim on those resources can be sat on by force, with an army.  Players may choose to play a calm/peaceful route, bumping each other's caravans, or they can attempt to control the res by force with armies.  But - to announce even in your alliance profile an alliance policy about such makes little difference to a player new to the game who shows up harvesting at your doorstep - why?  Because on average, they're not bothering to read your alliance policies, because they're not in your alliance.  I have a bunch of new players in my alliance, so I'm a bit more passionate about this issue now.  There are no divine mineral rights granted within 10-squares of towns, and many of you game veterans need to get over that.  In fact, if we get crowded and struggle for resources due to so many players being in this game - Great! That means the game company likely has more revenue, and we will see Broken Lands that much faster.  Maybe we'll see a duplicated Elgea server one day also.  Maybe the game dev's will make a non-pvp server for those who want armies to bounce off each other.  Regardless, we have the game as it exists now, without even the counter-sov capability yet, but some of you live in this game as control freaks.

 

If anything, many of you game veterans have developed policies and practices that sometimes can turn off many new players to this game.   The first 24-48 hours of gameplay are critical to retention of players for the long term.  I don't particularly like the tutorial system and timing, but it's what we have for now.  I am teaching my new alliance members to be resourceful, do quests, get into the Marketplace and trade, and avoid simply getting resources dumped on them.  All this requires a more open-ended gameplay for them, although they also know an army can show up and kill their harvesters (i.e. they aren't ignorant of risk/reward).  But to simply "say" you own things in the game that aren't coded in is ridiculous - put an army on the ground if you want to control something, otherwise the written policies are rubbish.

 

Myll

Written policies are called diplomacy and I'm afraid it is something you will have to master, if you wish to be a successful alliance leader. Try not to be so dismissive of the finesse required to thrive in Illyriad. This is a social game far more than a military one. 

 

I already understand the diplomacy here, but it's the front-side of diplomacy that you veterans are missing - you need to show and display ownership first (i.e. harvest with armies present to control resources), not hope it happens with words.

 

Otherwise, be satisfied with caravan bumps.

Myll

a) Because the player may have killed the hides/animal parts there but need the troops to kill more NPCs - you can only have 5 armies so occupying all kills is not always possible.

b) Because over-harvesting a herb patch near to someone's city is a VERY bad thing to do (and yes, this has happened to me).

c) Because quite often your skinners/miners/herbalists will be killed by players replacing their armies and those are costly to replace. 

Claiming more than 5 squares for harvesting is silly. The 10 square rule is designed for TWO cities to both have 5 squares each, the idea that one city can claim a full 10 square radius harvesting rights is laughable. 

 

Auraya,

a) If you kill the mob and want the dropped anatomies/hides, then you need to commit that army to stay in place and hold the ground.  Otherwise, those resources unguarded on the ground become free game to any player.  This is an example of the Dogma surrounding this issue - there's really no excuse for not guarding kills if you really need the anatomies or hides.  Should all the other players acknowledge that it is so inconvenient to Occupy with the army?  It really isn't that hard to change the dropdown in the menu and select a time schedule to stay in place, takes maybe what - 20 seconds extra time in the military order process? This is at the forefront of poor planning and laziness!  Although, I am not trying to be harsh with you personally, as I know this mindset in itself, this Dogma, has infected this game far too long (which is another thing I hope to do - break the Phalanx with this discussion).

 

b)  See a above: herb patches or other res are not owned/controlled unless by armies.  Now, you can also come in after your town sees a harvester, and kill them on site, that is another option aside from holding the land.  Otherwise, the "peaceful" bumping of a caravan is a third option.  If you feel a res plot is over-harvested, and desire control, then commit an army!  (seems like commitment of forces in this game really is undesired for some crazy reason)

 

c) You're simply describing the process that should exist as the norm in the game.  There is risk/reward to sending unguarded units of any type out and around in this game (just like the real world).  Diplomacy can work to a point, and I am not discounting that aspect, but in immediate terms an army on-site, on-hand, at least protects harvesters of any type while they work (until a bigger army comes along, of course).

 

Myll

I'm not out to prevent newbies harvesting. I often mail smaller players in the area when I'm done with my kills and I used to allow people to harvest my grape patch when they needed wine for another trader. 

If someone kills my harvesters, I request compensation. Likewise, if I killed someone's harvesters I would immediately mail an apology along with some goods to replace them. It's called respect, teaching that to newbies is no bad thing imo.

KillerPoodle,

There's many motives for this post - that's why people post here in the first place, to make a point.  It's not about preserving WAVE, it's about yours and others' long-term bias/Dogma over the way the game sees land control and a false sense of ownership.  Your alliance, most of all, held this ideal up for so long and it became a game norm.  It's time to "Break the Phalanx" KP, and begin to disavow that stance.  You should see, most of all, that land can only be controlled by force and not by words or policy.  Even Clausewitz made this clear in real life: "War is Policy by other Means."  Yourself and other large alliances have tried and tried to uphold your Policies over the last few years - you enforced yours with many great war victories, and now your opponents have upheld theirs (except for the regional hegemony you now enjoy within Azura).

You, as one of the primary spokesmen for the ongoing Dogma of this issue, are certain to be opposed to it, but at least give some thought to the need to change the approach across the map, across the game.  This issue isn't going away, and with each additional new player to the game the bias either gets reinforced in Dogma-teaching Training Alliances, or in alliances such as mine.  I believe there will be more alliances like mine going forward, but regardless what side of the fence you sit on, friction will exist.

For yourself and other game veterans, it would be refreshing to see a new approach to this issue, to clearly divide your policies for Settlement Restriction vs Resource Harvesting and not try and lump them together into your so-called "10-Square Rule."  My alliance will totally respect armies on the ground guarding harvesters, and we will certainly respect an army who comes to the site and kills off unprotected harvesters, but we don't respect policies that only show bluster without action on the site.  What your policies result in, KP, is for these type issues to lead to war, rather than mere battles.  We/Tsunami [WAVE] do not seek war, especially now, but we don't mind battles.  This game has lacked battles far too often and far too long, and unfortunately your alliance and others went straight to the "Declare War" option far too often, and it shows in your approach even within this thread.

Go ahead and kill off our unprotected harvesters if you feel they are within your perceived radius of Divine Mineral Rights, but don't expect finesse and groveling messages all the time, from all alliances.

Myll

Deranzin (and others),

Quite the opposite - accepting local skirmishes/battles/incidents (pick your term short of War) -- this is what the game needs to avoid wars.  We seem to have lost the ability in this game to compete at a local level without tieing our hands to policies that in themselves lead to a war.

Deranzin - if I right now ventured out and killed your harvesters, would H? declare war on us, or would you settle it locally first and foremost?  You have to think about that question, because it is at the core of how alliances approach the game.  I think two players can battle and compete without dragging their entire alliance into a war.

I have mostly new players in Tsunami [WAVE] - well over 40 members now, and we will be a 90+ member alliance one day.  We have a mix of a few returning players and some alt characters, but the majority are new to the game but not new to MMORPGs (many from LoU) --- i.e. they are gamers and not ignorant as to gameplay.

They are just as vocal to me that your long-standing Dogma is idiotic!!!  You have to control resources through force, not words, but you are also missing the point because you're sucked into the Dogma.

We need a fresh new approach to the game, which remains capable of local competition and actively playing the game, rather than the stodgy approaches that hoped for control through a war that references the violation of a published alliance policy.

Again, none of your arguments have changed the fact that there is no "10-Square Rule" and that what we have is a 10-Square Myth.

Myll 

+1

Leave the new players out of this, using them as an excuse because you don't like the 10 square rule is a poor excuse to start conflict.   If you are counseling new players to ignore the 10 square rule and take what they want, you are doing a disservice to new players, this community and the game.  If you want to start a conflict over the ten square rule, do so on your own.    Since you refuse to disclose your main account, I suspect you have an axe to bear.  

Is that clear enough on how trivial I consider your proposed "change" .?.

Myll wrote: I have mostly new players in Tsunami [WAVE] - well over 40 members now, and we will be a 90+ member alliance one day.  We have a mix of a few returning players and some alt characters, but the majority are new to the game but not new to MMORPGs (many from LoU) --- i.e. they are gamers and not ignorant as to gameplay.

You are setting them up as far as I am concerned ... they might be not ignorant to gameplay, but if you convince a newbie that he is doing the wrong thing right then he is bound to start stepping over toes sooner or later ...

Myll wrote: They are just as vocal to me that your long-standing Dogma is idiotic!!!  You have to control resources through force, not words, but you are also missing the point because you're sucked into the Dogma.

"they are .?. Well, then were are they .?. "we" would all like to hear "their" new and fresh approach and not some old bitter veteran's hiding behind a new account and sprouting propaganda in the name of invisible newbies ... my guess is that most of them do not even know what you are posting in their name ...

Myll wrote: Again, none of your arguments have changed the fact that there is no "10-Square Rule" and that what we have is a 10-Square Myth. Myll

I didn't make an argument ... I made a "point"



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



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

Myll wrote: They are just as vocal to me that your long-standing Dogma is idiotic!!!  You have to control resources through force, not words, but you are also missing the point because you're sucked into the Dogma.

Myll wrote: I have mostly new players in Tsunami [WAVE] - well over 40 members now, and we will be a 90+ member alliance one day.  We have a mix of a few returning players and some alt characters, but the majority are new to the game but not new to MMORPGs (many from LoU) --- i.e. they are gamers and not ignorant as to gameplay. They are just as vocal to me that your long-standing Dogma is idiotic!!!  You have to control resources through force, not words, but you are also missing the point because you're sucked into the Dogma.

new players have long bridled at any restriction to their settlement, long complained that the map is too crowded, long griped at lengthy research times, long felt that illy is over-politicked...in short, they are vocally opposed to anything that restricts their rise to power in the game. you may be surprised to find that as they join the status quo, they find the status quo more to their liking.

Myll wrote: We need a fresh new approach to the game, which remains capable of local competition and actively playing the game...

this has considerably more to do with alliances being willing to endure a certain amount of ambient conflict, and very little to do with the strength of the 10 square rule. atm, the dominant philosophy of very large alliances involves confronting threats as quickly as can be managed and defeating them definitively to remove any chance of recurrence. taking on the 10 square rule seems quite incidental to changing that dynamic.