Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Valid Land Claims in the New Era
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedValid Land Claims in the New Era

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Author
Drejan View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 234
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 2012 at 03:09
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I have received multiple complaints of DLords armies killing gatherers and other armies far from DLords cities.  Not necessarily more so than other alliances, but not necessarily less so either.

This statement is completely accurate, so far as I know.  
How can this be accurate elude me :) "not necessarily" here "not necessarily" there.
If we talk of ranged claims i know of one issue with Dlords(where we asked our member to stop), while i've tons of non Dlords every day (often more than 50 range) .
The fact that someone complaints does not make it right.


Edited by Drejan - 08 Sep 2012 at 03:24
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 2012 at 02:00
thank you for attempting to address any misconceptions, Bela.

I said this:

I have received multiple complaints of DLords armies killing gatherers and other armies far from DLords cities.  Not necessarily more so than other alliances, but not necessarily less so either.

This statement is completely accurate, so far as I know.  Your attempts to cloud the issue by commenting on issues which I do or don't bring up directly with you rather than (as you admonished me to do) recommend that people raise with you directly, are entirely beside the point.  The point being that I see DLords as being neither a paradigm of virtue nor as some sort of villain but as essentially typical, although I think that certain of your members made some early missteps vis a vis mines that tended to create a bad impression.

I am not sure why my comment that DLords is essentially typical in this regard should be cause for concern.
Back to Top
EvilKatia View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2012
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 210
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 2012 at 00:21
pre-trade v2 I think he means. its after trade v2 was implemented that the number of problems regarding who's square is to whom have dramatically increased.
Kat

'They have to always turn a forum post into a badly written book that gives a headache and takes your iq points' - AO
Back to Top
Hewman View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 23:36
Sorry for my ignorance, what does "pre-Land claim" mean?
Back to Top
belargyle View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 22:39
Easy.. since that set up was most likely done pre-Land claim, it is whatever they have already established. Long before T2 came into play, the boundaries were understood or discussed at some point.  If they are closer than 5 square in this instance.. you would half the distance fairly between their cities. This is most often how lands were divided pre-land claims when they were close to one another.

I really don't understand what you don't get.
Back to Top
Hewman View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 22:11
Bela, I think I understand most of what you are saying - I simply disagree with it because I don't think its practical.  We have been talking about this pretty abstractly, so I thought I'd add a visual to demonstrate my reservations with your policy -- and perhaps it will also allow you to better explain how your policy would work...



Above is an area in Norweld centered on a city.  Around "your" city is a 10 square radius.  Within the 10 square radius are 9 other cities.  Explain which land is YOURS and which land belongs to the other 9 players.






Edited by Hewman - 07 Sep 2012 at 22:12
Back to Top
Hadus View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 21:54
Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

Hadus, people can be gentle and spend real time to scout message and answer to the average of 10 message the player will send you becouse he think to be right.
But the fact is that you have no right to place that army there and when you send the army you should expect to loose it, someone can argue i can ask you the resource lost attacking your troops too.
In a real world wars have started just becouse of troops placed near someone territory.
You are focused on the right to claim a land but what is your right to send troops far away or to claim sov?

Anyway again you say you do not want to ruminate on your personal view and keep enforcing your view to anyone else.

Edit: sorry maybe you are not the same person
Originally posted by Drejan Drejan wrote:

What you say is everything more than 3 square is free for all becouse you want to harvast all the possible territory in the map.
What we say is what is near our lands is our or of our nightbours, not free for all.
 
No no no, I'm miscommunicating my message to you still. My only point in posting the principles, and read the next sentence carefully, is this: Players need to differentiate between "Player X is deliberately trespassing on my land and needs to be punished" and "Player X does not realize I consider that square my land, I need to let them know."
 
Here's a scenario that will illustrate how many ways conflict can be avoided in a situation if people are simply more aware and cautious:
 
Player A believes any player can claim land within a 5 square radius. He sees a rare herb spot 7 squares from a city. If the city is in an alliance, one option is:
 
a. Check the player's alliance page to see what their alliance policy on land claims is.
 
If he does this, he should be able to figure out the other player's policy. But lets assume the city is not in the alliance, or that Player A is fairly new/out of the loop and doesn't know to check player's Alliance profiles for land claim policies. There are two more options:
 
b. Recognize that some players claim a larger radius than 5 squares and ask the player before sending an army or harvesters.
c. Impose his beliefs on the other player and send harvesters/an army without asking.
 
If the Player A chooses b. both players will know exactly what each other believe regarding land claims. But let's assume he picks c.
 
Player B's alliance claims all land within 10 squares. He logs in and sees an unknown army (Player A's) within 7 squares, harvesting on the rare herb spot. Player B hasn't sov'd or put an army on it, but considers it his. Player B can:
 
a. Contact the player via IGM and explain his land claim policy, asking them to leave.
b. Assume that everyone already knows his personal policies on land claims (which is absurd) and, in order of least to most aggressive:
 1. bump the units and send a message explaining his personal policies.
 2. bump the units and don't send a message.
 3. kill the units and send a message.
 4. kill the units and don't send a message.
 
If Player B chooses a. or even b.1., they avoid many of the potential conflicts by leaving the units intact and making their policy clear and obvious. If they choose b.2-4., they are still getting their point across, but also opening themselves up to further conflict in the near or far future.
 
Do you get my point now Drejan? It is folly to go around assuming everyone is going to know what your policy on land claims. Stating "If they come in our land we will kill them, no questions asked" only applies in the situation Salarius brought up below, or when dealing with repeat offenders. Take the time, make your intentions on land as clear and obvious as possible, and if they refuse to comply, then you bring out the troops.
 
Now let's look at Salarius' case.
 
Originally posted by Salararius Salararius wrote:

Actually, there is a reason although you may not agree with it.  There's a pretty good chance that the entire existence of a camp and removal of resources will only take 2-3 hours.  It takes 2 hours to harvest animal parts and some herbs/minerals are as quick.  In 2 hours 4 human cotters can take 84 hides IIRC (over 300K gold in value).  If I pop in here (Illy) and see a transgressing army there's a possibility that in the 10-15 minutes for my scouts to get there (5-7 squares) the offender will simply leave.  Let's say that doesn't happen (there's probably only a 10% chance of missing them entirely) I still have to wait 10-15 minutes to learn anything and if I wait until later to read the scout report the offender will likely have already left (with "my" resources).  I put the odds at 90%+ that if you return in only 90 minutes that the offender will be gone.  Maybe I don't have 10-15 minutes to play Illy, in which case my only options are to send troops, do nothing or beg for the return of what (if my scouts got their names before they left)?  The offender can always claim they were bumped or even killed by someone else.  Who's to say at that point? What if they simply don't respond?  Do you attack their city?  That's a pretty poor option when you could have got them red-handed, in the act and exacted a minimal punishment (the loss of whatever troops they chose to risk).
A great point Salarius. In this case, yes, killing the units is the only way to go. It should be noted though, that there are many ways to soften the blow of this action while saving your resources:
1. Send a message at the same time you send the attack, explaining your personal policies on land claims.
2. Explain that you only killed the units on the square to make sure the spot didn't go extinct.
3. If you really want to show benevolence, offer to give the the res needed to rebuild the units.


Edited by Hadus - 07 Sep 2012 at 21:59
Back to Top
belargyle View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 20:38
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Quite simply, it is not my job to solve everyone's problems.  A lot of people come to me with issues, and I choose not to involve myself in most of them.  Dealing with this sort of thing for two decent-sized alliances is quite enough of a headache.

Not sure why you (or anyone) thinks that I should have some sort of obligation to mediate or solve every dispute in Illy.

However, we are getting away from the topic at hand.  Let's try to keep personalities out of this discussion, shall we?
While yes it is off topic (but I'm a bit off anyway too :) ), I'm not bringing personalities into it I'm commenting on what YOU stated. You set forth a declaration on the public forum that you have "..received multiple complaints of DLords armies killing gatherers and other armies far from DLords cities."

My statement is directly related to YOUR comment in asking why you never brought such to my attention, when you on a couple had done so previously. NOW if these complaints are not FROM your alliance, then the issue could have easily been stated.. Not my alliance Bel but others..
If people are whining to you who are not in your alliance, tell them to go speak with their leadership or better yet.. speak with ours!

My point was simple.. if there was a problem, where was the communication. Every point I hear about I take care of personally and many can attest to it. Who said you need to resolve all the problems in Illy (I don't remember making any such statement).. just tell them to contact me if they had armies or caravans destroyed on their lands. I have replaced much and more so, anything we did that was not what we deem a correct action. And have only had 1 (that I know of) issue that turned out ok for both but both were not happy (us nor them). The rest have been taken care of and on good terms. If people have issues.. they need to stop being babies and come speak to the one or group that has caused issue and see if it can be worked out.

The issue here is that Dlord is being used as the example, which is no problem (though a bit touchy), yet due to this we and most definitely "I" am under obligation to correct misconceptions and false ideas when dealing with our policies, ideology, and gameplay.


Edited by belargyle - 07 Sep 2012 at 21:17
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 20:02
Originally posted by belargyle belargyle wrote:

Interesting Rill, you never made mention of all these incidents before.

You have contacted me on a couple.. and we worked them out -  what stopped you from telling me of the others?

I will qualify something however - If an army is on a mine (or whatever) that is not near any city.. there is nothing wrong with fighting for the mine. I disapprove of killing off caravans unnecessarily, but in this kind of an event.. it is fair game just as our armies are.

You know I don't put up with Dlords infringing others lands if we have no rights there, so I'm perplexed that you never brought it up. Confused

Quite simply, it is not my job to solve everyone's problems.  A lot of people come to me with issues, and I choose not to involve myself in most of them.  Dealing with this sort of thing for two decent-sized alliances is quite enough of a headache.

Not sure why you (or anyone) thinks that I should have some sort of obligation to mediate or solve every dispute in Illy.

However, we are getting away from the topic at hand.  Let's try to keep personalities out of this discussion, shall we?


Edited by Rill - 07 Sep 2012 at 20:08
Back to Top
belargyle View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 19:32
Interesting Rill, you never made mention of all these incidents before.

You have contacted me on a couple.. and we worked them out -  what stopped you from telling me of the others?

I will qualify something however - If an army is on a mine (or whatever) that is not near any city.. there is nothing wrong with fighting for the mine. I disapprove of killing off caravans unnecessarily, but in this kind of an event.. it is fair game just as our armies are.

You know I don't put up with Dlords infringing others lands if we have no rights there, so I'm perplexed that you never brought it up. Confused
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.