TVM - SHARK Conflict

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.


Edited by Ashmadia - 23 Sep 2015 at 17:36

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.

Great post Ricky!

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.

demdigs wrote: 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. :)

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.

Legoman wrote: Stukahh wrote: 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 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?

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?