The 10-Square Myth |
Post Reply
|
Page <123> |
| Author | ||||
Myll
New Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 Status: Offline Points: 25 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 Apr 2014 at 23:52 |
|||
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
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Auraya
Postmaster
Joined: 17 Nov 2011 Status: Offline Points: 523 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 00:01 |
|||
|
Now who's missing the point? You only have a maximum of 5 armies per city. That may be enough at your size but I assure you, it can be impossible to manage at my size with 10 newbies to guard as well as my own sov claims and kills outside my 5x5 to manage.. add in protecting everything I kill in my 5x5? Not realistic.
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.
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 02:25 |
|||
|
Herb patches and mines are owned if you establish sovereignty over them. A garrison is common sense, especially for herbs. If you can't spare the RP or single commander to establish indisputable ownership, perhaps the validity of your claim is rightly in question.
I feel the same way about hunting. If you can't spare the army, the kill is no longer yours. It's impossible to distinguish a player kill from an NPC-vs-NPC battle. I would never send skinners to a kill without an escort, and I would never send an army to a kill that I didn't make myself. Setting the kill army to Occupy removes all doubt of ownership, and is a tiny investment for the hunter. Generally, I think people who aren't following these common sense guidelines are basically just trying to start fights. That goes quintuple if their cities are located anywhere near the newb ring. You can already assume that the players around you don't know any complex Illyrian social rules that have been negotiated between seasoned alliances. |
||||
![]() |
||||
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 06:07 |
|||
|
Myll - I think you're trying to make a irrelevant distinction with an ulterior motive and that this thread says more about your desires than it does about which words alliances chose to use to describe rules/laws/whatever.
You want to call them 'policies' because in your mind that makes them weaker, less global and easier to dispute. Based on WAVE's past and current performance that's the real goal here - for you to find some way to get around those rules without being splatted by a bunch of folk who choose to enforce them together. |
||||
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
||||
![]() |
||||
Deranzin
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 845 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 09:08 |
|||
|
As a player 8 out of my 10 cities either had other players settle within the 10 squares (in one case in a distance of 1, due to newbie seeding system
) or I had done so myself after IGMs with the neighbors. The 10 square rule is set by the game mechanics and it exists whether people like it or not. That applies, in general. In the specific, if and only if you have a good relationship with your neighbors you can do whatever you all decide is best for your accounts. It is simple as that. It only demands a basic respect of other people's playstyle. So, Myll, if someone writes in his profile that he considers all resources in a 5-square around his city as his own, then that is how it is. If you choose to disrespect your neighbor and charge in there and grab them, then you are setting yourself for trouble. The proper conduct I think is to IGM your neighbor and ask for a specific permit to harvest a particular patch you fancy. A nice IGM and good behavior will get you places in this game, more than a mentality "heh rules .?. who cares about them .?." ![]() |
||||
![]() Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
||||
![]() |
||||
Myll
New Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 Status: Offline Points: 25 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 22:56 |
|||
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
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 845 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 23:07 |
|||
Translation : You are going to exploit newbies to start a war and drag some big alliance into it to make them look bad and possibly have some other pile upon them. Considering that iirc you are an older player that is not disclosing his alt (correct me if I am wrong), I find your motives quite blatantly obvious. |
||||
![]() Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
||||
![]() |
||||
Myll
New Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2012 Status: Offline Points: 25 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 23:22 |
|||
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
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Starry
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Mar 2010 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 612 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 23:37 |
|||
+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.
|
||||
|
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless? "Truth never dies." -HonoredMule |
||||
![]() |
||||
Deranzin
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 845 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 23:41 |
|||
No, because I do not have any. ![]() Seriously though, the answer is still no. Because in order for my alliance to take action, I would have had to inform them over that ... and before informing my alliance I would have first :
Is that clear enough on how trivial I consider your proposed "change" .?. ![]()
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 ...
"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 ...
I didn't make an argument ... I made a "point" ![]() Edited by Deranzin - 24 Apr 2014 at 23:42 |
||||
![]() Just like a "before and after" ad ! ahahahaah :p |
||||
![]() |
||||
Post Reply
|
Page <123> |
|
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 |