No-Claim Land Claims
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: The Caravanserai
Forum Description: A place to just chat about whatever takes your fancy, whether it's about Illyriad or not.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=6435
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 03:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: No-Claim Land Claims
Posted By: Jejune
Subject: No-Claim Land Claims
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 11:02
|
Yesterday, the http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/#/Alliance/Alliance/846" rel="nofollow - TRIVIUM alliance went live with http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/alliance-land-claims_topic6359_post87235.html#87235" rel="nofollow - an alliance land claim in the Broken Lands . While alliance land claims are not new, this current initiative is involving a larger number of alliances, all of which are experimenting with new and different claim models and policies. I've said all along that the idea is an evolving one, and the more participation in the evolution of the model, the better the end result will be. TVM's claim model is unique in that it enforces two "zones" -- the inner "Zone 1" is a traditional alliance claim that, with noted exceptions, puts a freeze on the influx of new, non-aligned cities. However, "Zone 2" is what TVM calls a "claim-free zone." This outer ring remains open to non-aligned accounts for settlement, but discourages other alliances from making claims within the zone: "Any land claim attempted within the borders of this exclusionary zone will be considered null and void. Any land claim enforcement attempted within the borders of this exclusionary zone will be countered by the full force of TRIVIUM." I suggest that TVM has put into play a potentially interesting alternative to the traditional claim. It allows alliances who are ideologically opposed to land claims because of their restrictions on allowing free, non-aligned settlements to enforce a region around their clusters that would discourage rival claims. There are pros and cons to this claim model: Pros:
Cons:
I would encourage BL alliances to consider this new model. Assuming that a no-claim alliance land claim has foundation (i.e. not claiming the entire BL or wide swaths of lands with no alliance presence as no-claim) and is sufficiently reasonable, I will be more than happy to include the demarcation on the map. In the event that a no-claim land claim (or traditional one for that matter) is broached by a competing claim, I plan to demarcate these disputed areas on the map as well when and as needed. If you have additional questions about how to implement the no-claim land claim, please don't ask me here -- feel free to get in contact with me via IGM. I'm sure Bonfyr Verboo would be happy to help as well. Thanks! ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">  |
Replies:
Posted By: ajqtrz
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 17:00
|
While I still disagree with the basic premise upon which this has been done, I do appreciate that TVM is making some sort of effort to find a mechanism by which players can have, if not total freedom, at least partial freedom to settle where they wish. The mechanism of enforcement is still limited to large players enforcing the claim themselves and thus a technique largely restricted to alliances large enough to do so. I'm wondering if it might be better to have a procedure and set of criteria in place by which an alliance can lay claim to some part of Illy, and an agreement amongst all for the enforcement of that agreement, rather than individual alliances making their own rules, regulations and enforcement policies. But TVM at least appears cognizant of the problems and that's a step in the right direction. Kudo's to TVM AJ |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2015 at 17:18
| as an indivdual account, i totally support this new strategy and urge all that made land claims to adopt this feature...with new knowlegde and insight being discovered in the gaame itself there is no need for war drums and this new type of claim should be respected and no need for those to continue planning their gang bang...congrats tvm! |
Posted By: Thorn
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2015 at 16:34
| I just read the alliance page of the head alliance in illyriad (Dark Shade)which reads they will honor no land claims. Which brings to mind the question, Is a land claim only as good as what you can back militarily? Are those who are in a confed ready to fight for your land claim as well? |
Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2015 at 16:58
I cannot answer your second question, but for the first: yes. There is no official claiming system. The only thing that governs the legitimacy of a claim is an alliance's ability and willingness to defend it. ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow"> |
Thorn wrote:Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2015 at 17:29
|
I guess the next question is will an alliance proclaiming to be against claims simply send cities to test it and see what happens or will they use their proclamation as an excuse to attack players they already wish they could attack for no other reason than their own distaste? ------------- |
Posted By: Veneke
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2015 at 00:42
|
I think one of the major issues that everyone should consider with the current land claims is that they're currently in a very undeveloped and chaotic stage. There is no set formula for land claims, nor any guiding principles as to how they should be enforced or what is considered 'reasonable' in their use. I suspect that we're going to see a homogenization of the land claims process as approaches are tried, found wanting, and new approaches are considered. That's not going to happen overnight though, and until time dictates best practice a variety of approaches suited to individual needs is going to dominate BL land claims. One long-term development of land claims that I consider likely is that land claims in the BL will cease to matter except for new or growing alliances who are staking out their initial core. Currently all BL alliances are new or growing, but that won't always be true, and the incentive for a land claim in an already established alliance that is really not taking in a great deal of new players and has already firmly settled their core is unlikely to be strong. I could be totally wrong on that, but - and this is the crucial point - nobody knows how they'll develop or what is the most beneficial tweak to the core concept of a land claim. It's possible that a land claim might be tweaked in such a way as to make it fundamentally objectionable, as older land claims were when they obliged players to remove their existing cities from a particular area. None of the current land claims are this objectionable, and I hope that no future land claim attempts anything of the sort. TVM's no-claim land claim is an interesting solution to the same problem that obliges alliances concerned with their positioning to automatically refuse permission to settle within 10 squares of any of their towns. You can't allow potential enemies to set up shop right on your doorstep. The biggest difficulty with the no-claim land claim is really that it hinders new alliances making a land claim. I'm strongly of the opinion that land claims should come to dominate BL and be the gold standard for alliances throughout the continent. This impedes that sort of widespread development. Is this the right balance between allowing widespread land claims and permitting alliances to guard their core zones with buffers? I don't believe that it is, but until we find the right mix of permissiveness and ensuring the security of our alliance mates (present and future) this sort of experimentation with land claims should be encouraged. ------------- "May have been the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one." - Captain Malcolm Reynolds |
Posted By: Captain Kindly
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2015 at 16:16
I guess it differs for each claim. BB seems to have made a claim for their own. T-SC seems to have done the same. As far as I can tell I have seen no aggressive stances towards existing neighbours. The situation with the SIN claim is a little different. If one takes the effort of actually reading the claim, one sees that it is actually a claim on behalf of three alliances in a relatively small area, namely Fam, HALO and SIN, who (and I bothered to check this) are in a confed, probably (I assume) to settle and not be bothered by the 10 sq. Can't blame them for not wanting new settlers to mess that up. I also haven't seen anything about existing 3rd parties having to move out. I did spot a Crow there. But hey, why should one actually read a claim and check the local situation? Crying Foul is so much easier if one can do so unfounded.  We've seen mine possession and sov used as a 'valid' reason to start a war in the past. So I guess the 'validity' bar can still be put lower. We'll see  ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/60249" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: mjc2
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2015 at 18:12
| honestly i dont even know why people are trying to come up with a "valid" reason to start a war. in my opinion this is a game, if you want to start a war just say "hey, i want to declare war with you because i think it will be fun." that is pretty much the most "valid" reason i can come up with. granted that didnt work too well in the long run with NC but they did have some fun while it lasted. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2015 at 19:01
| If the other party in the conflict is also made up of people who would enjoy having a war, then the "I declare war with you because I think it will be fun" strategy could work out reasonably well, assuming that both sides are also willing to stop when one or the other ceases to have fun. |
Posted By: jcx
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2015 at 13:16
|
I claim all lands that haven't been claim yet!! :D ------------- Disclaimer: The above is jcx|orcboy's personal opinion and is not the opinion or policy of Harmless? [H?] or of the little green men that have been following him all day. jcx in H? | orcboy in H? |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2015 at 14:42
| i play this as a competitive game and enjoy seeing new strategies happening...the old way of playingwas gettingstale and promotes seldom needto actually log into the game. the claiming of land seems to have increased activity of players so i look at that as a benifit to the game...personally dont get oh i going to war against land claim alliances or the hostility against them. remember war is only one part of the competitive play in this strategy game and i always use other aspects of game play to cause the demise of my enemies...stop the anti war stuff, its part of the game and hopefully the devs change functions so it is less destructive, less predictable, and more fun...i say yes to the land claims cause they saving our game! |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2015 at 18:23
|
Posted By: Dungshoveleux
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2015 at 20:52
| The position of DS on the leader board confers NO special privilidges as far as I am aware, nor does it give DS the right to tell other alliances what to do. By the same logic, other claiming alliances could be considered to have no right to claim lands which they do not fully occupy. If a region has no free space >10 squares from any of the sole occupying allannce then I think it is "claimed". A claim is irrelevant unless the claiming alliance intends to enforce them. I think that this is the message DS are sending. |