TVM - SHARK Conflict
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Broken Lands
Forum Description: For everything related to the Broken Lands Continent
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=6581
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2022 at 20:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: TVM - SHARK Conflict
Posted By: Halcyon
Subject: TVM - SHARK Conflict
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2015 at 17:01
|
I would like to make it clear that the only reason for the current conflict in NewLands is that TVM has attacked SHRKr. Their pretext is that SHRKr towns have been placed inside their land claim. The reason that I'm making this statement is that another land claiming alliance -Roman Empire - has already scouted a SHARK town and I can only assume that they are planning to join TVM's aggression against us. At this time and before major damage is caused, SHARK has only one demand of TVM and RE: alt your aggression. To any others contemplating support of TVM and RE's aggression: Please don't. Halcyon for Dark and Darker Shade.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Auraya
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2015 at 18:01
| I would be interested to see the towns in question and their placement. Putting a town in the middle of a densely populated TVM area could be seen as an act of aggression. Conversely, attacking a town placed in an area sparsely populated by your alliance on the grounds of a 'land claim' seem ridiculous to me. |
Posted By: Stukahh
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2015 at 18:58
|
TVM is a tiny alliance. I am more concerned with Shark's aggression. Shark is 8 times the size of TVM. I admire them for standing up for what they believe is right. They must have a valid reason to do so. Sometimes you just have to fight even though the odds are stacked against you. So people shouldn't support TVM because you are requesting they don't? How about we lay the facts out on the table and let people think for themselves? I don't think the community should be told what to do. If you want to make this a public conversation we would be happy to hear both sides of the argument. Stukahh ------------- I don't always drink. But when I do, I prefer the blood of my enemies. |
Posted By: Tacardi
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2015 at 19:13
| It always amazes me how someone (Halcyon) can twist what is really going on. |
Posted By: Belegar Ironhammer
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2015 at 19:13
I suppose exo'ing cities laden with troops and placing them as close as possible to TVM towns doesn't count as aggression then.
|
Halcyon wrote:Posted By: Stukahh
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2015 at 19:16
 Screenshot above sent to me from Zenorra ------------- I don't always drink. But when I do, I prefer the blood of my enemies. |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2015 at 19:34
|
Well, it would be fabulous to have some context here. TVM have a land claim in Newlands, which Shark has been flouting for some time now. TVM have been remarkable candid in dealing with this, and recently Lorcan, part of TVM's leadership, offered to settle a settlement dispute with a member of Shark by offering a duel. This was accepted by the Shark member. However, Shark chose to intervene against Lorcan, violating the terms of a fair fight. Exactly how does that make TVM the aggressor?
|
Posted By: Solanar
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2015 at 19:41
|
Given that TVM is part of DSD, I take the initial post to mean Shark is confident vs TVM but not against the entire DSD. Alternatively, it could be a cloaked continuation of the land claim war, and they are concerned about SIN coming out of Fortress Fellendire. But maybe I'm just cynical.
|
Posted By: Solanar
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2015 at 19:45
However, to be fair, Halcyon said long ago (Posted: 05 Jul 2015 at 06:55)
|
Posted By: Auraya
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2015 at 20:52
If a valid solution to the problem has already been found, and Shark have indeed chosen to violate the terms of this, I fail to see why this has made the forums at all. If you violate the terms, you forfeit the competition - assuming this agreement is in writing and can be backed up with reports. I am pretty sure this dispute can be sorted without the need for military actions. Just saying.
|
Posted By: Solanar
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2015 at 20:59
Copied from Illy Times
|
Posted By: Tacardi
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2015 at 20:59
| Agreed Auraya, But obviously SHARK seems to have different intentions. As indicated with troop filled cities landing in TVM land claim. |
Posted By: mrmarcdee
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2015 at 22:32
|
Why do people assume things so resolutely when they do not know? Why do you say "obvious" when there are alternative explanations?
|
Posted By: Legoman
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2015 at 03:14
Isn't a land claim telling the community what to do, I.E stay out of my sandbox, even thou Illy is a sandbox for all players?
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2015 at 04:06
|
Posted By: JodaMyth
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2015 at 16:37
|
I don't understand the major issue here. Each side has a clear stance on land claims and are following through on it. TVM claimed an area and SHARK decided not to recognize land claims. It's up to TVM to defend their claim in this case either through diplomacy or military actions. There is a large size difference between the two but TVMs cluster and military focus would help negate much of that if it came down to an actual war. The thing between Odo and Lorcan seems to be a misunderstanding on the outcome and rules set up before the PvP took place, the only reason that was brought to a further light was through a combination of GC trolling, whining and soapboxing by some players painting SHARK as the enemy of all in an attempt to rally players/alliances against them hoping to hop into a war that has SHARK as the aggressors in order to avoid a pile on of Elgean confeds, at least that is how it seems to me.  This all could have been settled more easily but hindsight is 20/20 in this case it seems. Hey look a star!  |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2015 at 17:14
------------- |
Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2015 at 17:15
Yeah, me neither. Why would anyone lament this? This is the game. TVM made a big move to establish a bold land claim in the most central location in the BL. Shark also obviously wants to control part of that real estate, and were not going to let TVM annex it for themselves. This is in every sense of the word the makings of a "strategic" war for control of the southern half of Newlands. It's not a conflict because someone trolled GC, insulted someone in the forum, or doesn't like someone else's face. If the conflict cannot be resolved diplomatically, then there will be a war. If TVM wins, they could potentially move Shark out of their land claim. If Shark wins, they could force TVM to drop the claim and relinquish control of their portion of Newlands. The stakes are high and reasons for the conflict are geographical/political, not personal. ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Zenorra
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2015 at 20:03
|
Shark has been moving cities to BL for months. TVM have tried to solve things diplomatically, but Shark refuses to negotiate. Lorcan and Odoacer agreed to a pvp. If Lorcan wins, Odoacer would have to move his city out of the land claim. If Odoacer looses, Odoacer would stay. Lorcan dropped his TVM tag for this pvp, to keep TVM out of it. I have PROOF of this agreement. I would post it here, but I've been told its against the TOS. When Lorcan launched a siege against Odoacer during their pvp, Shark sent a mail telling Lorcan to remove the siege or they would remove it for him. (paraphrasing here). Lorcan recalled most of his armies, but did end up losing 1 to Shark. Next, Shark armies were/are on the way to various TVM members (some have been feints so far). Here is a screenshot with the TVM LC overlay.  "Why is this an issue?" I see this question asked several times already in this thread. This is an issue because Shark decided to pick on TVM first. Out of all of the different land claim alliances out there they could have chosen, they chose the one that is in a well known confederation. Shark is goading the DSD into another war. If and when the rest of the DSD steps in to support TVM, Sharks will bring their friends and BOOM! Another server war. THATS why this is an issue.
|
Posted By: JodaMyth
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2015 at 20:31
A server war would not be a good way to describe it, more like half a server war since if the entire DSD gets involved probably 80% of the fighting will be in Elgea judging by city locations. There would still be a large number of alliance uninvolved. The mix of a LC and confed here only serve to burden one side of a confed without adding any benefit to it, in the sense of needing to defend the claim itself not TVM as an alliance. As it stands it's a matter of alliance vs alliance which is slowly (or rapidly in Illy terms) devolving into confed vs confed. If both sides want a peaceful solution maybe try the same deal you have with mCrow in that claim. Seeing the previous server war mentioned though suggests to me there is some old bitterness still left over on either side. I wasn't around for that so sadly I cannot comment on it. Now that I read up I shouldn't be commenting on any of this as it's got nothing to do with me or my alliance  |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2015 at 21:33
|
A few things about what Zenorra wrote above:
Shark does not refuse to negotiate. We were offered nothing by TVM but: "get out". Shark does not say to TVM: "get out", we say that we can coexist in peace. Shark's strategic move into New Lands does not instruct our members to settle in TVM's land claim. It says that we are interested in placing towns in NewLands and that we do not recognize land claims when this interferes with our strategic objective. We do respect the 10 squares convention and have not placed a town inside TVM's 10 squares. The PVP agreement between Lorcan and Odoacer did not include relocation of towns and I have proof of THAT. Lorcan did recall his siege of 87 bombardment units before Shark armies were able to arrive. Shark did not pursue Lorcan, but a few days later attacks from Lorcan and several other TVM leaders hit Odo's town. Shark sent attacks against these TVM leaders. At this time I am not aware of any sieges sent on both sides. Shark did not decide to pick on TVM. Jujune pointed out that TVM claims a large portion in the middle of Broken Lands. We wish to be in the same area. The difference between us is that we are willing to coexist. There is no reason for war between Shark and TVM or the DSD. Shark holds no hostile intentions towards TVM or the DSD. Peace. |
Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2015 at 22:03
Make no mistake: Newlands is prime location for a militarized alliance. Its central position and relative number of plains plots makes it ideal to build a kind of "base" that would allow a TVM or Shark to reach key areas of the BL quickly, whether it was in a tournament or in a real war. Over the past 6-9 months, the rise of alliances in the immediate center of BL, such as Shu-Han, B!B, Hansa, BRO, Stark, plus other Elgean alliances' satellite clusters, all make it a region worth dominating. I'm not sure that I agree that Shark has moved into Newlands with daisies in the barrels of their guns -- I think that the composition of players who have moved there -- military-oriented accounts mostly -- indicates that they wanted to challenge TVM in Newlands, if not in outright war, then in a kind of "land grab." The factor here is that TVM settled into Southern Newlands and put a land claim into force and is now enforcing it. Shark is bumping up against that. There is probably a short-term diplomatic solution to what's happening now, but it won't stem the continued build-up of both alliances in the region. It's like an arms race, and an increase in city density from both alliances absent of a grand bargain sets the stage for medium- to long-term regional friction. In my opinion.
------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2015 at 22:22
You are correct. They were Daffodils.
|
Posted By: Pico
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2015 at 22:29
|
Very good point made by Jejune, and it´s exactly why Shark decided around 6 months ago, to make Newlands our base in BL. Being one of the top alliances in the game, having a base in the middle of BL provides us with the opportunity to reach out to different regions in a more efficient way. The only alliance that I have seen that likes to challenge other players or alliances into pvp or war is Sin. Nothing wrong with that, I can respect that style of play. But it seems to me quite clear, specially after the Stomp war, that 95% of the people that play this game, do not want to engage in war, they are happy with building their towns, trading and killing npcs. I´m pretty sure that there are few members in each alliance that are military oriented and would like to see more action in the game, and that probably makes up the 5% difference. The point is that Shark does not want to engage in a war and to suggest that we are looking to provoke DSD or an alliance with a land claim is dead wrong. I think is based on a couple of factors: Some players like to troll, others want to provoke war, others think they know the facts and condemn the actions according to their criteria. We will continue to protect our members and their towns. And I sincerely hope this does not escalate into a server war. |
Posted By: Bulani
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2015 at 23:21
| I am by no means the expert here, however, it would seem to me it would be better for SHARK's peaceful message to be delivered by someone other then the one who started the STOMP/Landclaim war. Now I do not claim to know what Shark's motives are or what they want, but come on. Pico's I'm here in peace is more then a bit of a stretch..... Just saying. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 00:25
Given that strong tendency, it seems reasonable to want some physical distance between your former adversaries and your alliance core. Even considering the tactical relevance of the Newlands, these moves seem like a conspicuous coincidence given the sour history between the participants and the recent fighting in the Broken Lands. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 00:39
...can only really mean that it would prefer that others abandon *their* tactical goals (where they conflict with DARK's) without giving it the trouble of a fight. i am a great admirer of the effective use of soft power. this post seems to undermine it. |
Posted By: Pico
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 00:47
|
What it means is that there are 7 adjecent regions to Newlands, taking the water out of the picture, and during a tourney Shark can decide which of those 7 regions best suits our interest. I appreciate the comment Angrim. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 01:07
|
Posted By: Pico
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 01:34
|
My pleasure Angrim. Shark was expecting a tourney to take place around April or May, considering that the last one took place around that time frame in 2014. Under Duke´s leadership, when BL broke out, he suggested we make our hub in Chulbran, for which a few members sent settlers or exoed towns there. After Duke left, with new leadership, and Shade merging with Dark, and becoming the top alliance in the game, we decided that a better fit for us would be Newlands, for the reasons I have already expressed. I personally believe TVM is trying to provoke us into war. Lorcan´s igms do not reflect the contrary. Hopefully he can prove me wrong. Cheers |
Posted By: Pellinell
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 01:49
|
I'd like to make something clear. The DSD will defend TVM in the event of war in a manner in which is proportionate to the threat. What I mean is the idea that the Elgean DSD alliances will get involved and a server war break out are fantasy at this point. BL wars will be common because of the land claims. That is something which we as a confed understand. There is no reason in my opinion for Elgean alliances to interfere in BL geopolitical disputes. The DSD alliances in BL are more then capable of their own defense and knew full well what initiating a land claim meant. We support our member alliance's 100% in what ever they decide is best for them. However I would suggest a diplomatic solution to this issue before it becomes a full fledged war. |
Posted By: JodaMyth
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 03:45
I have seen this on previous games a lot. For the entire time it seems you are fighting the same group over and over and over. That comment was due to my lack of knowledge about who fought whom in the last server war since I had joined after that. It seems that many of the thoughts and implications of future hostility without proof comes from those past wars though. ALSO if I was joking I would say, "A horse walks into a bar. The bartender looks at him and says, "Why the long face?" "
Diplomacy would be the best option since it seems neither side wants war. There is also the feeling that neither side will step down from their stance. The idea of Elgean alliances getting involved isn't very far fetched considering that the main body of DSD and SHARK is still in Elgea, T-O has already cancelled a WoW in preparation for this, as well as T-SC preparing for war does seem to indicate a large scale fight happening soon. SHARK does seem like enough of a proportionate threat to get the full attention of the DSD especially after their confeds are taken into consideration. I wouldn't call it a server war but a war none the less. I do share in the hope that it will get worked out peacefully since both sides have good and nice players, a 3rd party moderator might be useful in that case as well since when both sides speak it goes from 0 to argument in no time. |
Posted By: Pellinell
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 04:23
Joda, I appreciate your interest in the situation. Again I stress the fact that the DSD is not in any way preparing for war with Shark or anyone else in Elgea. I am confident that is not going to happen, I will say that I have enough knowledge of the situation to say the likely hood of a broader conflict involving DSD alliances in Elgea is extremely low. As any member of T-O will tell you there is scarecely a time we aren't on high alert for something. So I wouldn't read to much into it. 
|
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 16:49
|
Little bit of extra clarification here. Shark have been forthright, in following comments, that their actions are intended as a direct challenge to TVMs land claim. They do not respect land claims and reserve the right to challenge them. I understand and respect those feelings. However, they should be aware that DSD will defend our ally in land claims, in an approach that is proportional to the situation- we have no interest in bringing BL wars to Elgea- to the best of our ability. I would also cynically add that Shark are not stupid and are fully aware of this, which leaves their supposed pacifism towards the DSD something to be desired. Honestly, the only thing I particularly dislike in this situation is Shark trying to claim the moral high ground. What Shark is doing is attempting to better their own position strategically. They are not the victims of aggression. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 17:51
|
Posted By: Pico
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 19:14
|
A Little bit of extra clarification here. Shark´s actions are by no means a direct challenge to TVMs land claim. Shark does not recognize land claims therefore we do not need to reach out to any alliance with a land claim and ask permission to settle within a claim. A direct challenge would be construed in a completely different venue, where Shark would hit the red button and tell TVM upfront, we are challenging your land claim. You are welcome to think and have your own view on the matter, Shark is not interested in convincing the community that we hold the moral high ground per Nokigons assumption. If an alliance attacks our towns, we will defend them, period. |
Posted By: Pellinell
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 19:46
|
Pico, public relations aren't really your thing it seems. First off "Shark does not recognize land claims therefore we do not need to reach out to any alliance with a land claim and ask permission to settle within a claim" is a direct challenge to land claims in general. Secondly the player attacked agreed to a PvP. Like Nokigon I understand what is going on and have no problem with it. It makes strategic sense to want to control central BL. However it would be great if you could say. We want to control the center of BL for strategic reasons. This whole TVM is bullying Shark thing is just a little silly and not at all believable. So I suggest that maybe rhetoric on both sides should stop if diplomacy is going to work. We at least need to be truthful about the cause of the conflict. That is my 2 cents worth and not necessarily the DSD position. |
Posted By: Pico
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 20:32
|
Pellinell, first, by your logic, land claims are a direct challenge to alliances who do not recognize them. Second, the player attacked (Odoacer) who agreed to a PvP did not agree to sieges or relocation of his towns out of Newlands. That is not the issue, after the pvp had concluded, days passed and Odoacer was the recipient of several attacks from Lorcan and other members of TVM. Shark sent troops to counterstrike those players hitting Odoacer. That is where we are, TVM keeps sending troops at our towns, and we are responding to those attacks. Shark does not need to tell the community what are strategic goals are, nevertheless, in previous posts I have expressed the reason behind Shark´s settlements in Newlands. Shark has never stated that TVM is bullying Shark, again, any alliance that would attack us with diplos and military units, we will respond in kind, as I´m sure, anybody in a leadership position would do. I suggest Lorcan explain the attacks launched by him and several other TVM members’ days after the pvp had concluded. Was it out of outrage because he lost 19k t1 infantry units from one of his armies stationed outside of Odoacers town? Or are they trying to impose their land claim? I have yet to see any response from Lorcan or TVM in the forums defending their attacks on Odoacer, yet Shark has openly expressed its views on the matter. |
Posted By: Pellinell
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 20:58
|
Pico, unless you are a mind reader I fail to see how you derived my stance on opposition to land claims as I certainly never stated it. I understand your wanting to get revenge against the evil land claimers who refuse to play your way. Especially after the beating they gave you. However I again ask that you be truthful in your motivation for war. Particularly if you are stating the rhetoric publicly as you are here. |
Posted By: Pico
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 21:19
|
Pellinell, it is rather ironic and funny that you would call me a mind reader and the very next thing you say is to claim to know what my wants are. Truely, trolling at it´s finest, congrats!! |
Posted By: Pellinell
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 21:23
 |
Posted By: Bulani
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 22:02
|
I would like to point out something that seems to be completely ignored to this point. Yes we know that SHARK does not respect Land Claims and they only respect the 10 sq rule. What I find funny is the constant insistence that SHARK is not challenging the land claims. By landing your cities inside a land claim you are directly challenging that alliance to deal with it, one way or the other. I say again, the "We come in peace" message..... No one believes it. |
Posted By: JodaMyth
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2015 at 23:03
I believe it I saw the long discussions in SHARK AC and alliance mails while I was visiting there months ago about where and why to move in BL. TVM was never once mentioned, neither were land claims if I remember correctly. That's what I am basing it on. I might as well be saying this to the wall though since it seems at this point many have their opinions set in stone about the reasonings. Some can even read the thoughts *cough* Pelli and Pico *cough* of other players.
 |
Posted By: Pellinell
Date Posted: 17 Sep 2015 at 02:35
| Joda, so if I understand correctly. They ( a military alliance) decided to move to new lands without discussing TVM or land claims ? If that is indeed your story I'm afraid that is not even remotely believable. No alliance especially a military one decides on a new hub without serious forethought. There is no way Shark moved into TVM's land claim with peaceful intentions. If they had, an agreement would have been made before the cities landed. No Shark knew what they were doing, knew TVM wouldn't want a GA alliance in their land claim and that's why they sent military players there with cities full of troops. They knew full well what they were doing and that it would cause conflict. |
Posted By: Pellinell
Date Posted: 17 Sep 2015 at 03:14
Oh and btw reading thoughts is just one of my many super powers! I can also see through walls of BS 
|
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 17 Sep 2015 at 03:42
|
I think I can clear up the SHARK decision to move to BL's timeline because I am in Newlands and had conversations with both Pico and Bonfyr Verboo around the time the decisions were made because I had actually heard a rumor that SHARK wanted to land claim Newlands prompting my interest: 1. SHARK sent an All Alliance IGM saying they are moving to BL for strategic reasons to Newlands 2. SHARK hears rumors of TVM making a land claim 3. TVM makes land claim 4. STOMPS War starts 5. STOMPS War concludes 6. SHARK ramps up movements into BL with players inside and outside of TVM claim zones 7. PVP duel leading to the present situation
|
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 17 Sep 2015 at 08:11
For clarity neither I nor Grey have anything to do with this
|
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 17 Sep 2015 at 18:10
|
Lets face it, Shark are the top alliance and feel they can thus dictate whatever they want. Congrats to TVM for standing up to them. Unfortunately there can only be one outcome in this one sided conflict due to the fact that should Shark end up not winning against a much smaller opponent they will probably call in help from their allies. This conflict seems to be a clear attempt at gaining a Elgean grip on BL, and thus a subtle (well not so much) attempt to bring Elgean politics into our happy little wild west. It had to happen. Shark would gain more respect by actually admitting that they want to control BL as well, instead of trying to spin the story. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: Dungshoveleux
Date Posted: 17 Sep 2015 at 19:39
| If TVM had wanted to "claim" Newlands, they could have "10 squared" it by placing cities all over. SHARK's position is, as I understand it, that no-one has a right to claim anything that hasn't been "10 squared", which in historical Illyriad terms, is fair enough. It is a strategic error to claim as exclusively yours, something that you do not occupy or control. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 01:22
|
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 04:04
Maybe, maybe not. I just saw misinformation and chose to correct it.
|
Posted By: Binky the Berserker
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 09:42
|
I don't believe alliances who made a landclaim thought everyone would accept it and that they would live happily ever after in a peacefull land. The point of landclaiming is fighting for your territory, otherwise it's just empty words. When someone enters that teritory and you don't want him in you have to kick him out. If that's a problem cause the other side is to strong you maybe claimed more then you were able to defend. When you claim a central area that has strategic importance then offcourse it's only a matter of time before the bigger alliances will try to settle there. I don't know any details, but as I see it this tvm can't be surprised by shark settling there. if shark didn't attack tvm for that they've only be lucky to this moment that the bigger side was willing to live together. Again, i don't know details, so it's very well possible shark never meant to live together in the area. But that's what you get when claiming territory. Did you really expect that syaing the area is yours would have everyone in the game aggreeing with that? That's hard to believe for me. I think claiming is like saying: "fight me for it!" You can't ask for a fight and expect only weaker opponents to answer the call. |
Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 14:39
I think it depends on the situation. If you're a small alliance and you can deal with 99% of the interlopers in your claim, but then a player like He-Man comes along and puts one city in your claim that you could never forcibly remove, I don't think that totally negates your claim. It just shows to what extent you can enforce it. In the case of TVM and SHARK, both alliances are vying for Newlands, and the use and enforcement of the claim is rightly doing exactly what you said, Binky: it's enhancing the issue into a point of real contention in the game. By claiming lands and enforcing the claims, it forces alliances to address territorial disputes and control of regions in ways that didn't happen before. Alliances who are against claims can say they don't believe in them and therefore ignore the policies and settle inside claims. However, ignoring them or not doesn't change the fact that settling in them will force a conflict. This is why I contend that claiming alliances -- even small ones -- are in strong political positions, and because of the widespread reluctance for war in the game, are in a better position to hold on to their claim than lose it. Really, the only way to break a land claim is to decimate the claiming alliance in a war to the point where they must conditionally surrender and take down their claim as a bargaining chip. We haven't even been close to that yet. ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Pellinell
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 14:43
|
Binky, you seem to be missing the fact that nearly all BL alliances have a land claim. They all seem to be quite happy with it and work with one another. Where the issue arises is a certain group of Elgean alliances who think it's their right to dictate to everyone else how to play the game. In my honest opinion the BL land claimers should form a coalition and remove these Elgean alliances from BL before they get a foot hold and are able to challenge the LC alliances. It's obvious by their proxy Stomp and now Shark that they mean to use military force to dominate BL. Why give them that chance ? |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 16:10
|
Posted By: Stukahh
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 16:40
I will go on record here and say we have ZERO interest in this. We have plenty of neighbors that are mainly Elgean based and we get along just fine with them. Just because all the LC alliances are located in BL doesnt mean we are all aligned. SIN has zero interest in defending Land Claims of other alliances. We are only concerned with our own. ------------- I don't always drink. But when I do, I prefer the blood of my enemies. |
Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 17:15
Regardless of whether the solution turns out to be diplomatic or military in scope, the DSD is clearly the premier land claiming entity in the game. If you http://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1Xhp5hfHbonm8DttYb1mNMS_r-_RcwLxAw4qr9zlQHgo/edit?pli=1" rel="nofollow - look at the land claim map , the land that TVM, RE and T-O's sister alliance T-SC have claimed are among the most substantial in the Broken Lands. In addition, enforcement of a claim is not an offensive operation -- it is a defensive reaction to an insurgent city or group of cities. My point is to say that I don't think that DSD being pro-actively involved in this conflict is anything like "Elgean interference;" DSD is as much a BL organization as it is an Elgean one. And the same can be said for SHARK, who is an Elgean alliance with a growing presence in BL. To me, DSD and SHARK dealing with one another for either control of or cooperation within Newlands is very appropriate. And if it comes to military action, wielding Elgean forces to me would seem more than appropriate, given that both groups occupy both sides of the map. ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Pellinell
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 17:30
| Stukahh, noted |
Posted By: Pellinell
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 17:51
| Like I stated before in this thread, the DSD will respond to threats against member alliances proportionately. |
Posted By: Roman Empire
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 18:08
|
Roman empire wishes for a diplomatic solution to the problem, Rome has had people come into our land claim and we have managed to always fix it in a diplomatic way. However those players did not have 50-100k troops in the cities with over 300 catapults in them and neither were they aggressively seeking to settle in our land claim. Rome watches with concern at the aggressiveness of SHARK we must take note that TVM claims a small portion of Newlands in which they have a heavy presence in why SHARK is looking to settle in TVM land claim while space is available in the rest of newlands. With a heavy military presence also in my opinion SHARK is picking a fight with TVM as they wish for TVM to relinquish total control of newlands so SHARK can completely dominate that region.
|
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 18:46
|
Okay, I'm a little bit bored tonight, so I thought I'd waste a bit of time pointing out some of the holes in Shark's arguments. Once again: I understand the strategic desire of opposing this land claim, and also understand them wanting a fight. I also would like to point out that TVM have not given their side of this; that is because there is nothing left for them to say, and have no problem trying to enforce their land claim. So. SHARK have claimed so far that their actions are not intended as a challenge towards TVM's land claim in general. They claim to be furthering a strategic objective, which is to hold the centre of Broken Lands. The attitude I infer from there is "We don't really care about TVM; we have an objective and we're fulfilling it". They have consistently claimed to be keen to avoid a war. If you, as Shark have consistently stated, do not recognise land claims, then Shark's actions are entirely justified. This would appear to be the line of rhetoric which Shark are attempting to further. However, claiming as Halcyon did to be the victims of aggression is fairly misguided, for a number of different reasons. Firstly- regardless of whether you recognise land claims or not, Shark were aware that TVM would not have made their land claim without wishing to enforce it. By placing their cities specifically in an area of Newlands claimed by TVM (not all of Newlands is held by TVM), Shark are implicitly provoking a response. Secondly- if Shark truly did wish to compete in tournaments, why exactly have they been moving cities in that contain, for instance, 262 catapults? Thirdly- why is this forum post here to begin with? If Shark were truly interested in maintaining peace, they would have tried to message first Lorcan, then TVM leadership, then RE leadership. To a certain extent, this has happened. However, posting what is frankly a threat on the forum, directed purely at the leadership of two alliances, is one of two things (or both). It is either an attempt to claim, as I have already stated, the moral high ground- something which does not appear to be working all that well. Or- SHARK are flexing their muscles on the forums, and attempting to cow people into giving in to their strategic demands.... Or attempting to provoke the DSD further, of course. Once again.... If Shark want a fight, simply say so.
|
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 19:26
|
Like Nokigon, I'm getting a bit bored, but with the repeating
arguments made by DSD leaders. But…here
we go again: 1) Shark
does not recognize land claims, so after deciding to establish a presence in
NewLands, how can our leadership tell our members: "place towns in
NewLands, but do not do it in the TVM land claim that we do not
recognize"? A bit ridiculous, no?
2) Since
we do not recognize land claims, we also can't contact TVM and ask to be exempt
from their land claim. This will be recognizing the validity of their land
claim and in essence the validity of ALL land claims. Can't be done.
3) Shark's
stance in NewLands is defensive. There was no specific order given to move
towns to NewLands with bombardment units. I am not aware at this time of the
number of siege units we have in Broken Lands.
4) Saying
that Shark sent prominent military players to NewLands, is also false. We told
all our members that we want towns in NewLands. It is only natural that among
those who complied there are military oriented players since from my experience
such players tend to be both more active and team oriented.
5) I have
contacted the leadership of TVM privately with an offer how to end the current
conflict between us. This offer does not include any recognition in TVM's or
any other land claim, or an agreement to move any of our towns. It's an offer
to coexist peacefully.
|
Posted By: Nero
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 21:19
| Reguardless of the land claim, moving cities next to a rival alliance screams future conflict. If your goal was to be in the center of the map some your cities veered off to the left a little. |
Posted By: mjc2
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 21:20
ok, as a junior officer in a land claiming alliance, i have to argue with this. T-SC has made arrangements with several alliances to allow them to settle inside of our land claim without requiring them to recognize it. these negotiations are private between T-SC and the alliance in question so i am not authorized to publish who these alliances are but honestly you dont have to recognize land claims to negotiate with a land claiming alliance. if you could only negotiate with people that agreed with you then you wouldnt negotiate with anyone because the purpose of negotiation is so that 2 parties that do not agree on something can come to a compromise.
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 22:56
The SHARK group leadership has never been anything less than belligerent. Some individual members have actually been friendly but those conversations are out the window when leadership shuts the dialogue down and insists they "can't contact TVM" regardless of what variety of Olive Branch is extended. They have never gone beyond "our members will settle where they please and we dare you to stop them" (again, not a quote, but that's the main talking point, as seen above). This sort of "diplomacy" would not be tolerated anywhere, in Elgea or TBL, regardless of whatever claim has or has not been made by an alliance that is clearly colonizing an area. For example, if we were to send members to relocate and settle in a cluster of SHARK cities and when contacted by their leadership to ask what our intentions were we said "We will move where we want and don't care what you think," there would be some tension, to say the least. Don't be fooled by the talk; this is and has always been about diplomacy. Some are less...adept at it than others.
------------- |
Posted By: Jane DarkMagic
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2015 at 23:58
I think this type of relationship isn't born overnight either. Illyriad is a long game and it takes years of positive interactions to lead to large diplomatic decisions like TVM allowing both mcrow and HUGS to co-exist within their land claim. Some alliances work very hard at maintaining relationships and others focus on other aspects of the game. We've established trust... it's not the same as a confed because we do not agree with every decision tvm makes and I'm sure they don't agree with our's. But it would take something unforeseeable and completely out of left field to make us declare war on each other.
|
Posted By: Pico
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2015 at 00:08
TVM is welcome to settle towns in Sharks "cluster", just as long as you respect our 10sq radius, we dont have a problem with that. You certainly don´t need to contact us and ask permission for that, and we certainly dont care what your intentions are. |
Posted By: Bulani
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2015 at 00:35
|
It was 262 catapults and you do not need to worry about them as they were destroyed. Now while I have no reason to doubt Halcyon's word on this I would like to suggest maybe another motive here. Most of the shark players that have moved have decided to place cities outside the TVM land claim. However the few who have directly landed inside the claim are ex Stomp members. And with 262 cats, that particular player was geared up. Could it be that a few players are upset at the outcome of the previous war and are looking to fight it with Sharks assistance. Now that is pure speculation but there are some interesting coincidence's. Just saying |
Posted By: Diva
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2015 at 01:15
|
Is that an old scout report or a new one? ------------- "Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire |
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2015 at 08:11
If they have to ask you, they're recognizing it. If they even notify you specifically, they're admitting that you have some undue influence on that particular region. Not recognizing land claims means treating every city placement exactly the same no matter who may have said what about the area. The fact that some other alliances are more pragmatic about this doesn't change it as a matter of principle.
|
Posted By: Pellinell
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2015 at 15:20
| This would be true except the fact that they have "recognized" land claims in disputes with other LC alliances. So it's not a uniform code so to speak. It would be more accurate to say Shark doesn't recognize TVMs land claim but May others depending upon the other alliances strength in BL. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2015 at 15:45
|
Posted By: Halcyon
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2015 at 15:59
|
This is incorrect. Pellinell is referring to an
incident in which a SHRKr player placed a town within SIN's land claim and was
ordered first by SIN and then by myself to move out. This said member, a new
player, placed his town against alliance instructions, without consulting the
alliance leadership and against the alliance strategy. We had no interest in
him moving there and even less interest in him staying. In ordering him to
move, we did not recognize SIN's land claim, we decided that we are not ready
to fight for a misplaced town. The situation in NewLands is different. All members are there by alliance instructions and according to the alliance strategy. Here too, we do not want to fight, but we are ready. |
Posted By: Ashmadia
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2015 at 16:41
|
So, let me get this straight. Say i ignored others' policies, so i move inside a small alliances 10sq and become "amused" by their attampts to throw me out and i prove capable to throw them out instead. Say they call for help (typical Elgean politics, or so i read) and some "freedom fighter" alliances volunteer to assist and "rightfully" bash me eventually, "rid the disease". Explain to me, if the very same freedom fighters come into BL and settle a strategically ideal home (yeah, for tournaments!), how the above typical Elgean politics will not come along with their masters? Also try to explain to me, how i am an evil monster if i ignore policies in Elgea, and someone ignoring policies in BL is not one? Sure, this might seem like a "hyperbole" to equate 10sq to a land claim, but they are undeniably both policies. Even if the policy is absurd, you have to respect it and re-act to it however you see fit. You can't just close your eyes and play, as Angrim excellently put it. Like it or not, BL is forming into "kingdoms" due to the land claim policies. If you disrespect that, you leave yourselves open to hostilities in those kingdoms and you choose to step off "the moral high ground". If you do respect that, you also get to choose how you will react to those kingdoms, your honor intact. (join them, ally with them, make yours, contest them) I cannot possibly claim that this is the official Broken Blades stance on the matters i mentioned, merely my own thoughts in an attempt to show how wrong the SHARK policy on land claims is and how i hate "typical Elgean politics". BL breathed fresh air with the land claims, isn't that obvious overall yet? |
Posted By: demdigs
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2015 at 18:45
| Ashmadia, By your comments it shows your obvious bias involved. Playing out to be the good guys and "Evil Elgean masters" I personally have 5 cities in Elgea and 8 in TBL, by your bias just because i have 5 cities in Elgea makes me an evil Elgean and have no say in politics in TBL. Such absurdities like this prove that TBL land claims are like school yard bullies, this is my land you do as i say or else, proof is B!B's and RE's statements that if you move into "their" land they demand screenshots of your troops and troop movements or get sieged immediately. Additionally, there is a rule in law, saying an unjust rule is no rule at all, that being, said alliance, claiming land arbitrarily, without paying taxes for said land, or no rule in game allowing it specifically, IE no teleporting within 10 squares, it should not be a law. You pay no taxes for the land, you don't lose any resources for said land, nor do you loose any research points, this makes it arbitrary land claim. And your saying it's my way or the high way concerning honor, if you obey your "Land Claims" you have honor, if you don't you don't have honor. As far as you hating Elgean politics, you haven't even been around for a year, this game has been around for 5 years, you need some perspective on why certain things came around. And finally, I have a city in the Orken Coast, that gives me a legitimate opinion in B!B's land claim. Thank you very much for your time. :) |
Posted By: Legoman
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2015 at 19:13
If you notice most, but not all of the land claimers are the upstarts who haven't been playing for all that long deciding that all the established players are evil and wrong. Just my observation and opinion.
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2015 at 20:11
Four of the biggest land claiming alliances are Roman Empire, Trivium, The Southern Cross, and the Hashashin. The first two are old Elgean alliances, T-SC is an offshoot of the established T-O, and the Hashashin includes veteran Elgean players. I'd say that most of the big land claim alliances are actually Elgean players who moved aggressively to colonize the Broken Lands. That would make their opinions credible, at least by your criteria of having played the game for a long time. |
Posted By: Legoman
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2015 at 20:26
| I don't consider RE that old, thou I guess they are, offshoots aren't the same and yes there are older players in all, that's why I said most as many are new players who have followed the rhetoric that Elgea is being strangled by the large alliances. Thou even at it's most crowded there were less conflicts then then now with all this extra room. If you agree with land claims you will never see the other person's side clearly, just as if you don't agree with them you won't see their side clearly either. Everyone has their opinion and is entitled to it, it just gets tiring when people use a new excuse to rehash old issues. |
Posted By: Rosie Blackeye
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2015 at 20:36
Is that the "argument from seniority" fallacy?
|
Posted By: Rosie Blackeye
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2015 at 21:18
Demdigs, your own bias against land claiming alliances is even more obvious. Let's see:
Ashmadia did not say anything about BL vs. Elgea being good vs.
evil. What she actually had said
was this: “how i am an evil monster if i ignore policies in Elgea,
and someone ignoring policies in BL is not one?” In other words, if you choose to ignore some alliance's policy and
then go ahead and claim a higher moral ground there's an obvious
contradiction there. No matter whether you're from BL or Elgea.
When all else fails, queue in the AJ trope!
So if we as an alliance set a policy and the other alliance
chooses to ignore our policy outright, we are the bullies. Every
time. So the only way for us not to be bullies is to follow your
policy, which is totally not like our absurd policy. Got it.
What our policy actually says is, if you move your town into our
territory without first having contacted us you will get this
response. Here's a plausible alternative scenario: a player writes us
an IGM saying, hey, I want to settle this spot in your alliance hub.
We say, looks like it's not interfering with our hub, so go ahead. Or
maybe, our response will be, okay, but we will be using spots X, Y
and Z so we want you guys to give us a temporary confed at some
point.
And who sets and enforces THAT rule and who gets to decide what's
“just”? Is there some sort of secret "above the metagame" alliance I've
never heard of? Illy world government? Must be one of the factions that
haven't gone live yet.
I don't know what Elgean politics is. What I do know is this: certain Elgean
alliances are big enough to afford ignoring other (smaller) alliances' rules.
Fine, ignore them! But don't pretend that you are doing so because
you are following some higher set of rules that are right for all
Illy.
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2015 at 21:57
This game has seen three huge wars, and all of them were before the Broken Lands was released. Compared to those server wars, the conflicts that have happened in the Broken Lands were barely skirmishes. All of the recent wars were short, and none of them appeared to result in large-scale account destruction.
I neither strongly support nor strongly oppose the idea of land claims. Does that mean I see both sides clearly? My perspective on the matter is quite simple. In the absence of any other substantive Illyriad activity, the territory debate (both words and battles) has been the only interesting thing happening in this game for the entirety of 2015. I think it's great that territories were established aggressively and then opposed vehemently, because the conflict is creating interesting activity in the sandbox. If you guys weren't arguing, we would have nothing to talk about. If you guys weren't building troops at a furious pace, I wouldn't be selling munitions to anyone. The conflict, while tense for its actual participants, has been a net positive in generating player action both directly via wars and debates, and indirectly via trade and politics. Illyriad would have been boring in 2015 without them. |
Posted By: Ashmadia
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 00:42
But of course, ignoring the very essence of my post, trying to lure me in an endless fight of words. I will only say this - you, of all players (emphasis, cause you tend to "halucinate" most of the time), will be under judgement soon. Your actions and re-actions will determine and prove my words, or not, and not my bias.
Like a lot of people, you misinterpreted the whole situation. A land claim does not state "you CANNOT (emphasis on the ability) do this or that". A land claim is SUGGESTING (emphasis on the request) the community what to do. Like your alliance's current policy on the matter (ignoring any and all land claims), everyone is free to make their own choices here. (being in SHARK you actually self-defeated your own argument there, cause if you ignore them, noone effectively tells you what to do) Seems like your late post about "upstarts" that "haven't been playing for long" was directed at yours truly. Yet this upstart replied to your post above in private to avoid de-railing this topic, and got no answer. Do you expect this upstart to also apologize for your own failure to read and understand? Because this upstart never just "decided that ALL the established players are evil and wrong", instead tried to explain why she felt and thought CERTAIN established players are wrong. Concluding, why should this upstart care for what you observe or write from now on? |
Posted By: Dungshoveleux
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 08:49
|
A land claim does not state "you CANNOT (emphasis on the ability) do this or that". A land claim is SUGGESTING (emphasis on the request) the community what to do. A Land claim does put limits on what you can do because it allows the claiming alliance to veto city placements. The claiming alliance will enforce this right of veto with hostile action. This does put limits on where a player can place a city, and these limits exceed the historical 10 square radius "rule" or "convention". The notion that a Land Claim is merely a suggestion is frankly not correct - something about this:- "You can get further with a kind word and 500,000 knights, than you can with just a kind word". The point is this: a land claim "suggestion" backed up by the threat of force isn't a suggestion. It's more than that. It seeks to own a chunk of real estate by means other than the historical 10 square radius. In effect to reserve unoccupied and un-10-squared land. The older "convention" or "rule" worked perfectly fine and there is really no need to change it.
|
Posted By: Ashmadia
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 15:09
|
Dungshoveleux, you also drift away from the essence of my words and contradict your own self in the end: ' A Land claim does put limits on what you can do because it allows the claiming alliance to veto city placements. The claiming alliance will enforce this right of veto with hostile action. This does put limits on where a player can place a city, and these limits exceed the historical 10 square radius "rule" or "convention". The notion that a Land Claim is merely a suggestion is frankly not correct. ' The word suggest, combined with a threat or not, still means just that: suggest. It has nothing to do with your ability to conform to the suggestion or not: you still can do whatever you choose, evidently too, since your alliance was able to penetrate TVM's zone1 claim. Also, the notion that the 10 square rule or convention is the most ultimate of "laws" is frankly not acceptable. Can we also say that your request to conform with the 10-sq "rule" (that works perfectly fine until it doesnt) instead, offers the same freedom of choice? Sure, i will still be able to penetrate 10 squares in the same essence like land claim, but i will have to give up on my ideas of strategic gameplay that a claim allows. That is too much for me to give away, while you believe that with a claim i take even more away. Lets agree to disagree and move on. There were more threads circulating arguments for and against land claims, and i will not make this another one when i merely ask my words to be read as they were written. |
Posted By: Ricky
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 15:39
|
Ashmadia, In your response to Dungshoveleux, you mention "...strategic gameplay that a claim allows." Does this mean you view claiming as a variant of "King of the Castle", by claiming an area and daring others to contest you for it? If so, it appears that SHARK is doing as you wish and challenging TVM for the rights to their claim. If the intent of land claiming is to increase the opportunity and probability of conflict in B/L, then TVM's claim has worked as planned, and SHARK is doing what they're supposed to. If so, then I suspect the cries of outrage against SHARK are not that they are breaking any codes or laws, but rather that they overmatch TVM. Unfortunately, TVM didn't provide a desired profile for those who had to obey their claim ("must be smaller than TVM, and preferably without any military)...
|
Posted By: Pico
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 16:05
Great post Ricky! 
|
Posted By: Pellinell
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 17:06
|
Ricky, nearly every BL based alliance has a land claim. It isn't to start conflicts but rather the way these alliances on a new continent decided to control their areas. Much like the 10 square rule in Elgea. The only conflict has been Shark and their proxies starting trouble as is common with SHARK. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 17:18
|
I like Ricky's observation. You can't be King of the Castle without facing challengers. However, I think Dung is completely wrong that the 10 square rule worked well for everyone and had no shortcomings. Distance is the single biggest factor in Illyriad warfare. When enemy cities are mixed into your alliance core, you are always in danger of attack on short notice. It only takes a single city to deliver a fatal siege. Therefore, I can understand that true military alliances would want a much larger zone of control to prevent ambushes. Suggesting they accomplish their zone security by making sure that all their cities overlap the 10 squares is terribly naive (and perhaps willfully naive). People move cities, change alliances, and leave the game. Other alliances create infiltration accounts. Enforcing a territory has its downsides for the sandbox, but it is disingenuous at best to claim that the 10 square rule was working well for military alliances. I don't have to agree with their territory policies to understand that they exist for a legitimate strategic reason. |
Posted By: Rosie Blackeye
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 17:29
And here I thought it was SHARK outraged about TVM's aggression against
them? After all, TVM was stomping all over their daffodil beds.
|
Posted By: Ashmadia
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 17:30
|
Ricky, Exactly, but i have to direct you back to my original post. I never said SHARK was doing something wrong playing their strategy, i criticized their policy behind their actions only. As you stated, this is exactly what land claims hope for: challenges, friction and intrigue. So, do you find Demdig's reply appropriate to my criticism? Legoman's? Also, i never cried in outrage against SHARK's superiority over this or that alliance. I wouldn't be offended if you said i cried in outrage because they use that superiority to disregard and disrespect other alliances' policies, overstatement maybe (crying outrageously), but it would be acceptable. Edit: I have to ammend this sentence: "Exactly, but i have to direct you back to my original post. I never said SHARK was doing something wrong playing their strategy, i criticized their policy behind their actions only." I actually criticized their justification of strategy too, colonizing Newlands for the strategic advantage of future Tournaments. I believe my sarcastic exlamation mark was exactly appropriate to the above "sarcastic" justification to colonize Newlands by SHARK. |
Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 18:04
|
I like what Ricky is saying. One of the real benefits of the land claims is that they are a pretext for war, strategic conquest, tangible victory, and something that can be lost in surrender terms that means a lot and yet isn't anything as "real" as gold or cities. Granted, the land claims have meant different things to different alliances: some use them to establish room to grow an alliance, while other see them as a way to control harvestable resources. However, Rick's right: the long-play for land claims -- at least from my perspective -- was to encourage friction among alliances who would eventually wish to occupy the land same lands. I know that the concern has been that noobs would get caught in the cross-fire of that kind of play, but as Hal said earlier, Illyriad is dominated by alliance play, and so now we're beginning to see the fruits of the land claim initiative enhancing gameplay. At first, I thought that it would take two claiming alliances next to each other to have this kind of situation. But I think that the TVM/SHARK conflict is proving that the claims themselves can be a pretext for strategic warfare over key tracts of land even if one of the two alliances involved in the conflict is not counter-claiming or even a "believer" in land claims. By all means, there are no hapless victims in this conflict. No one is getting "bullied" here. To me, this is a political issue in every sense of the word, and all of the talk of bullying behavior is just rhetoric and hyperbole. ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 19:08
| Perhaps the arguing about land claims should be adjourned to some other thread? Not that there's really anything new to be said about the subject. |
Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 19:11
|
I agree that any discussion of land claims in this thread should be couched in the larger discussion of the conflict at hand. I think that I did that in my post, but if not, I'll try harder next time. ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Pellinell
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 19:32
|
By all means, there are no hapless victims in this conflict. No one is getting "bullied" here. To me, this is a political issue in every sense of the word, and all of the talk of bullying behavior is just rhetoric and hyperbole. Rhetoric and hyperbole are part of politics lol |
Posted By: Dungshoveleux
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2015 at 19:39
Land Claiming is an integral part of the current "conflict".
|
Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2015 at 05:13
|
Relevant: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/war-declarations_topic6591.html
|
Posted By: viperone
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2015 at 08:32
| Too new to know the political history that may have played a role in the most recent war declarations; however, all history aside it makes great military sense to attack a perceived threat prior to them reaching full strength or military capability. Often alliances are judged on past history and trust is very difficult to establish. It shall be interesting to see if the declaring alliances waited too long or pushed the button in a nick of time. |
Posted By: palmz
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2015 at 11:05
|
I think this is a powder keg, I think some one will step in and do something that will force others in to the fray, this will likely turn in to a much bigger conflict. I suppose time will tell.
|
Posted By: Jejune
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2015 at 12:29
I sure hope not. Pellinell has told the community time and time again that the BL alliance members of DSD are equipped to defend the land claims. Assuming that's true, one would think that TVM, TSC, and RE make a relatively even match against SHARK, the #1 alliance in the game. As you said, we shall see. ------------- https://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/394156" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 24 Sep 2015 at 13:49
if it didn't come across in my prior post, i think this particular thread is more pointless than usual. A few observations to illustrate that thought:
the land claim "system" depends to some extent on periodic challenges and, as Ricky has correctly pointed out, if SHARK is being honest about its motivations it is doing no more than is asked of it by testing the extent of TVM's claim. i don't see a moral issue here. those that insist on imposing one are either making motive attributions that SHARK has denied, trying to capitalise on the situation for reasons of their own, or both. (i am also slightly amused by the idea that, by steadfastly refusing to recognise a land claim, SHARK has become part of the process of vetting it.) |