|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 7> |
| Author | |
vty
Wordsmith
Joined: 24 Jan 2012 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 119 |
Topic: RARE HERBS WITHIN 5SQ's!Posted: 23 Sep 2012 at 03:11 |
|
Policy is posturing, 100% agree.
One alliance in particular LOVES to hold fast to their "no sov within 10 square" rule, then send their armies to occupy 2 squares from others. So, if you sov it, the tile is yours. If you want others to respect your dumb rule, then do onto others.
|
|
![]() |
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1118 |
Posted: 21 Sep 2012 at 16:47 |
|
Sovereignty and Armies are effective claims. Policy is just posturing.
|
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
BlindScribe
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 168 |
Posted: 21 Sep 2012 at 14:48 |
|
It's not an issue for me, Dre...I sov any tile I'm interested in...violations are therefore violations of national sovereignty...a separate, and very grave issue.
That said, we DO have ongoing cooperative harvesting in place, which answers your previously asked question. :)
|
|
![]() |
|
Drejan
Forum Warrior
Joined: 30 Sep 2010 Status: Offline Points: 234 |
Posted: 21 Sep 2012 at 14:41 |
|
We'r cooperating too Blind, and this involve asking first.
Anyway, since you say that you do not want to enforce play to others, let people harvast from mines near your cities ,if you think is good for you... just do not harvast from our without asking ;) |
|
![]() |
|
BlindScribe
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 168 |
Posted: 21 Sep 2012 at 13:00 |
|
Okay sir/ma'am...we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've outlined for you the way that we're using cooperative harvesting RIGHT NOW in the game.
Here is the question, word for word, you wrote, that I was answering: ...is it good for me to let anyone harvast from mines near my city?
Note that in this question was specifically NOT any indication that of course it could be good, but the person in question might not agree...merely asking was it, and under what conditions it might be. That was the question asked...and that was the question answered. IMO, of course. :) Edited by BlindScribe - 21 Sep 2012 at 13:36 |
|
![]() |
|
Drejan
Forum Warrior
Joined: 30 Sep 2010 Status: Offline Points: 234 |
Posted: 21 Sep 2012 at 12:48 |
Lol no...you did not at all, you are not using logic. You say might be "good" to share a resource ... but no one said it could not, we say you should ask the player if he agree, and he might not... Cooperation: an act or instance of working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit. How can you work together if you think is your right and you should not ask to anyone or pay anything for it? You are just greedy in this scenario. If you want to cooperate...ask, if he say no....talk more, pay more, or leave! If you want not to cooperate just fight for it. You are not cooperating, and want "Illyriad" to enforce some kind of rule to stop people to defende what they think is their right and let you do what you want. If you think you have the right to harvast in 5 square range from far place an army there and pay the conseguence. |
|
![]() |
|
BlindScribe
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 168 |
Posted: 21 Sep 2012 at 10:07 |
|
re: Meagh and this:
@Blind and Rill The cooping you guys are advocating comes through diplomacy, trade and just good play with your neighbors. I think it is fair to say that near every group in game supports that. However it seems to me that this kind of cooperation has little to do with control over tiles. If you control a tile, you are free to work out whatever cooperative agreement you like. Claiming a tile does not preclude this and I do not think belargyle or anyone else was advocating that it does. - M I agree, tho would point out that the specific question I was answering asked "how/when is it good to let someone else mine my stuff (by this, meaning "stuff near me" - no indication of sov or not). And in answering that question, I started from the premise that the asker did NOT feel there were any times when it could be a good. My goal from there, was to outline scenarios when it could be, and I think I succeeded in that mission. (note here, that in this question, the asker referred to "mines" in the generic, and made no particular specification on t1 or t2 res...just on the harvesting of stuff near him in general, which makes my scenario three applicable to the particulars of the question answered) @ Star...as you like...just pointing out the problems as I see 'em. :) Edited by BlindScribe - 21 Sep 2012 at 10:09 |
|
![]() |
|
STAR
Greenhorn
Joined: 11 Jun 2010 Status: Offline Points: 99 |
Posted: 21 Sep 2012 at 04:03 |
|
I would like to thank everyone for their opinions and suggestions and appreciate that ones have voiced their concerns.
I understand that some may feel that we are have no valid claim regarding a 5sq radius harvesting RARES rights and i also understand that not all are going to agree or respect that fact. I also understand that it would be of benefit if we did claim sov over the squares that have RARES upon them, it was something i had already thought about prior to this post and anticipated the possibility of this thread heading in that direction, so it would have been interesting to see where this post could have gone if i had added the sov part into my original post, but thinking about it further, it would have still caused problems for my members which in turn would be a problem for me, if not all my members had sov'd sq's within a 5square radius that had rares on it, and ones may or could assume, since it was not sov'd then it is ok, when the fact and point of this thread, it is not UNLESS prior arrangement has been made. It is not hard to contact a person in regards to harvesting near a players city. Even though i understand and acknowledged everyones opinions and concerns, my alliance will stand by what i have said and will defend what we feel is rightfully ours by right, weather ones agree with it or not, or feel if it is valid or not, that is up to the individual, so they too accept the consequences. Regards STAR FORSAKEN Alliance Leader |
|
![]() |
|
Meagh
Forum Warrior
Joined: 16 Jul 2011 Status: Offline Points: 224 |
Posted: 21 Sep 2012 at 02:47 |
This is true. Sov does not stop another player from countering the claim. However, with respect to Sov... most who use the game mechanic are willing to enforce the claim. I know that I do and would. I consider my Sov mine as much as my city is mine and if someone attacks my sov claim then I consider it an act of war and will respond as if they attacked my city. Likewise, if someone harvests on my sov without my permission, I will treat those harvesters just like the thieves they are. I do not think that I am alone in this regard. With respect to harvesting in proximity cities... If a sov claim has not been made over the tile, then it is excusable. I will contact the player about it and work something out or wait until they are done harvesting... how could the other player know that I was using the square. This is the real difference between sov and any other claim of ownership. Sov is clear and unmistakable, anything else is not. Even army encampments are not as clear as sov claims. They are limited in duration and who says someone may not send their army before yours arrives or in some brief moment after fourteen days when you are switching off the troop. In the end with regard to sov claims, if a player decides that might gives the privilege to disregard another players claim then that is their choice. Nothing stops another person from being stupid. However, the intention will be unmistakably clear. He will have committed an act of war by violating that other players sovereignty. With sov, there can be no confusion on either side. This again is how it differs from any other method of claim. @Star, having said that, I think your five square / working with neighbors policy is sound. I think most alliances give the same advise to their players. However, imho if you want to make sure your claim is clear to all and unmistakeable then claim sov over the square or at least place a defending army on it. As others have said in this thread, not everyone reads the forums. In the end you need to plant some kind of flag on the tile that people can see and respect. @Blind and Rill The cooping you guys are advocating comes through diplomacy, trade and just good play with your neighbors. I think it is fair to say that near every group in game supports that. However it seems to me that this kind of cooperation has little to do with control over tiles. If you control a tile, you are free to work out whatever cooperative agreement you like. Claiming a tile does not preclude this and I do not think belargyle or anyone else was advocating that it does. - M. Edited by Meagh - 21 Sep 2012 at 03:00 |
|
![]() |
|
BlindScribe
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 168 |
Posted: 21 Sep 2012 at 00:57 |
|
I agree with Rill...the entire question specifically WASN'T about whether one style of play was superior to the other, or anything about dictating the actions of someone else...the exact question I was responding to was:
"Definition of "good" here is a bit vague...is it good for me to let anyone harvast from mines near my city? Why? I don't get it resource in your storehouses are "good" in mine are "bad"? And are resource good or bad by themself?" So...define a scenario where it's "good" to let someone else harvest from a mine near your city. No need to quantify, per your points (if you agree in principle that it COULD be good, then we can iron out the details to find the sweet spot later)...merely outline how it could be a good...which I feel I've done (people trade favors in-game all the time, so it's hardly a stretch to imagine a scenario where resources are feathered into something like this). At the end of the day, if even ONE example can be illustrated, then the point is proved. We have, in our alliance, selected NAP's for the specific purpose of profitable, cooperative harvesting....that seems pretty compelling proof that it CAN be done. Whether or not people choose to is, of course, up to them. :) Edited by BlindScribe - 21 Sep 2012 at 01:03 |
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 7> |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |