The 10-Square Myth

 

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 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

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