TOR Town Settled Inappropriately Close

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   settling within 3 squares of a established city is bad in taste. Even though I do not like 10 squares rule... 3 squares are too close for comfort 
and its always better to check with established player before you move into 10 squares. . I prefer minimum 7 squares distance to allow good levels of sov for both cities. Nobody goes beyond 3 squares unless it's high value target or if they have chancery in place.

As said earlier this is not land claim or land grabbing issue. It's a sov issue and Crows appear on correct side...polite enough...ready to negotiate...diplomatic solution rather than military. So any crow bashing on this issue seems unreasonable.

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
nightfury Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Greenhorn Joined: 23 Jun 2011 Status: Offline Points: 86	Posted: 26 Apr 2012 at 09:39
	settling within 3 squares of a established city is bad in taste. Even though I do not like 10 squares rule... 3 squares are too close for comfort and its always better to check with established player before you move into 10 squares. . I prefer minimum 7 squares distance to allow good levels of sov for both cities. Nobody goes beyond 3 squares unless it's high value target or if they have chancery in place. As said earlier this is not land claim or land grabbing issue. It's a sov issue and Crows appear on correct side...polite enough...ready to negotiate...diplomatic solution rather than military. So any crow bashing on this issue seems unreasonable.

Rill Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903	Posted: 26 Apr 2012 at 05:57
	I do want to say that we're not all bent out of shape about this. We just want to talk to TOR and get the matter resolved. We're generally pretty reasonable folks. Honest!

Silverlake Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Forum Warrior Joined: 15 Oct 2011 Status: Offline Points: 417	Posted: 26 Apr 2012 at 05:49
	It was a rude move to begin with, and the lack of communication adds insult to injury.

SunStorm Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster Joined: 01 Apr 2011 Location: "Look Up" Status: Offline Points: 979	Posted: 26 Apr 2012 at 04:41
	Ok, lets start with some facts we can all agree upon... This city is 3 squares away from an established city This player has four previous cities. All of these cities (with the exception of his capitol) are on 7 food plots. None of this players other cities are within 3 squares of another player. Editorial comment #1: This leads me to wonder why this one city has been placed so close. The player that moved into the area has been around long enough to know the basics of Illy - and basically people don't like others getting all up in their grill. The player who was already there is 2.24 squares away from that 15 food sov It is logical that the existing player intends to claim that food sov in the future There is an additional clay sov 3 squares to the east Clay sovs are useful for many T2 buildings It is logical that they will also be claiming this clay sov By claiming these, they will be expanding their sov radius beyond 2 squares. Editorial comment #2: If someone is 2.24 and 3 squares away from sovs that they are going to claim, it is logical to assume this player intends to expand their sov to a three square radius. The system blocks moving within 10 squares of other players unless you own the sov or are in the same alliance. So, this kind of action is fine if you are settling near your own towns or in your alliance hub (this is not only my personal opinion on the matter, but is also made apparent by the already established 10 square rules embedded within the game itself), but it is not ok if you have gone out of your way to send settlers within 3 squares of another player... sigh Edit: I have eliminated and abolished redundancy (:P) Edited by SunStorm - 26 Apr 2012 at 04:46
	"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR

Raatalagk Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Wordsmith Joined: 13 Dec 2011 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 154	Posted: 26 Apr 2012 at 00:59
	There is a spectrum of ways one can "claim" land, from actually building a city on a square, to simply declaring that some as yet unoccupied piece of real estate is "reserved". Somewhere in between these two extremes is the "reasonable radius around a city" kind of claim. While there is certainly dispute as to what constitutes a "reasonable" radius, any passing familiarity with the social norms of the Illyriad community would be sufficient to deduce that 3 squares is likely to ruffle some feathers. Claiming a 3-square radius around a pre-existing city is pretty clearly weaker than reserving a region in advance of city placement, and I would call into question the underlying motives behind any assertion to the contrary.

Mona Lisa Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Wordsmith Joined: 22 Feb 2012 Status: Offline Points: 120	Posted: 26 Apr 2012 at 00:45
	Seeking to open dialogue to discuss a clear SOV clash is hardly an example of a hypocritical Crow land grab, seriously work on your reading comprehension if you really believe it so. The issue is a simple one, an established player settles a city 3 squares from a clearly active and growing town. Call me crazy, but by nearly any standard I have seen in Illy, such a move would be seen as overtly aggressive (if not outright hostile), and at the very least, worthy of discussion between the interested parties. The objective of the original post was to start the discussion, as all other means of communication have gone unanswered. No Crow conspiracy , not one drop of hypocracy , and completely reasonable. Edited by Mona Lisa - 26 Apr 2012 at 01:57

abstractdream Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Joined: 02 Oct 2011 Location: Oarnamly Status: Offline Points: 1857	Posted: 26 Apr 2012 at 00:19
	Claiming land is claiming land regardless of the amount of land claimed or how it's claimed. "nCrow are more than happy to allow any player from any alliance into any hub or cluster of nCrow just as long as they are trustworthy and friendly." Saying you allow settlement implies ownership and the temperment of the player being in step with yours as a prerequisite for settlement reinforces that impression. It seems like a simple concept to me that this situation is a sovereignty issue more than a land claim issue. Anyone, and I mean anyone would be upset at waking up one morning and discovering a new village just 3 squares away.
	Bonfyr Verboo

Brids17 Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Joined: 30 Jul 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1483	Posted: 26 Apr 2012 at 00:09
	AtH are you actually going to do anything about it or are you going to just criticize everyone until someone gets sick of it and you repeat the cycle of self destruction and recreation like you always do?

(EOM) Harry Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Forum Warrior Joined: 06 Oct 2010 Status: Offline Points: 283	Posted: 25 Apr 2012 at 23:28
	I agree with Rill, nCrow are more than happy to allow any player from any alliance into any hub or cluster of nCrow just as long as they are trustworthy and friendly. That is all we ask! We do not want any more land claim than the availability of sov around an immediate area to fully grow a town. I apologise if even that is too aggressive of us. But we want nothing more than too have a safe area with a diversity of other alliances with us. I believe you mix your intentions with our own good sir.
	Fool's watch the land when the problem is in the heart.

Rill Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903	Posted: 25 Apr 2012 at 23:23
	This situation has been going on for a couple of weeks. While a siege is something that could be contemplated at some point, if the other party never responds to multiple attempts to contact them, that would not be our preference. Others might siege first and ask questions later, but this is not our way. I see the issue of proximity of settlement of a city as being different than a land claim. Perhaps others disagree. The distinction in my mind is this: HUGcr makes no attempt to claim land for possible future city settlement, nor to prevent others from settling in areas near HUGcr cities, unless such settlements pose a problem for the growth of already existing cities. That is potentially the case here. (Note: HUGcr also makes a practice of posting a marker army on locations to which a settler or Exodusing city is headed; this marker could be regarded as a claim of sorts, although I see it more as a "heads up, something is happening here" communication.) HUGcr has not yet even made a demand that the city be moved. In other similar situations it has been possible to negotiate a settlement with regard to future sovereignty claims that allowed both cities to stay in their positions. I don't know whether that will be possible here. I do know that it won't be possible unless we talk to each other. It could of course be argued that making a territorial claim and not allowing any settlement of other than one's own alliance would prevent all such conflicts. This is possibly true. However, my personal belief is that the ability of a diversity of players from multiple alliances to settle in reasonable proximity to each other creates more enjoyment for all and is worth the hassle of occasional situations such as this one.