| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Berylla 
Wordsmith
Joined: 31 May 2011
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 121 |
 Posted: 19 May 2012 at 22:53 |
Diplomacy is the key. All we need is communication.
Illy will not let us move a city through exodus within 10 squares of a yellow (neutral) city, or within 5 squares of a green (friendly) city. This can however be
overruled by claiming sovreigny level 5. Sov lvl 5 takes over a week, and is costly if done from afar. It's easier and less costly to do a double exodus, but it still takes time.
This is where troops come into play. They need to occupy the square long enough to claim the sov, and is thereby visible and can be scouted. If I found such an occupying army close to my own city, then I would ask why, contact the player, and hopefully get a proper answer. If there is no answer, and I notice the sov levels climb, I would ask my alliance for help. That is why we won't accept troops on our land. Fighting NPC is one thing. Seiging a city (maybe with our permission)
might be OK too, but ask first to make things easier. A tourney is usually limited to certain squares, and shouldn't be a problem either.
If someone
settles a city close to my own
without asking, I would send a message to that player, and ask
why, what they want and so on.
If the player is reasonable, there is probably no problem with it, but if they don't reply, or are hostile, then a document with our rules made public like this, would be very helpful.
Some areas are crowded. That is a fact.
The 10 square rule is almost impossible to keep in such an area, but we must always talk about it. Setting up an agreement between two players about what squares each will claim sov for, is an excellent idea. I have done so myself, except the player I did it with has gone, and the cities have been whiped. We talk in the alliance as well, when moving cities, and ask for help to find the best spot depending on what we plan to do with that city.
I know that some people try to find fault with what others say. That is why we always need to talk, to clear up any misunderstandings. It's easy to make fun of statements set forth by alliances, that is part of the game of life, not just Illy. But the words need to be said and explained.
Look upon the 5 squares as the garden surrounding a house, and the 10 squares as the rest of the plot of land. It's easy to give away land to someone who is nice and asks, but when someone suddenly starts camping in your back yard without asking, you get upset.
We protect our gardens, our plots of land, even if there is no sov claimed on it yet. We plan ahead. Please don't step on our toes, and set up camp on our door-steps. That is all we ask.
|
 |
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483 |
Posted: 19 May 2012 at 23:05 |
 belargyle wrote:
I did answer the question but it was to Rill. Here is what I posted:
"... The language of 'immediate removal' should be understood regarding the context of post in which I state we desire communication. This will precede any action, however if I need to make this more clear in the post, I can."
|
That's what I get for only briefly skimming your other posts. Sorry about that.
|
|
belargyle
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401 |
Posted: 19 May 2012 at 23:14 |
|
No biggy.. I'm trying to answer what I can so people can understand both what, why, and how these things are being done. I appreciate the questions.
|
|
Ancient Nightowl
New Poster
Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Location: NZ
Status: Offline
Points: 38 |
Posted: 19 May 2012 at 23:53 |
As a newbie I thought the 10 square "rule" was so that one had room for more towns in that area if so desired - claiming outlying Sov squares was the last thing on my mind.
Now that I have been here a little while, I can understand it all a lot better and appreciate it for what it really is, room to lay claim to a plot up to 5 squares out from the city without getting or causing grief to the neighbors. Not a claim on land or resources up to 10 squares out as I originally supposed.
I also see that unless one wants to lay claim to to a particularly strategic or rich outlying square then it does not matter if someone wants to move in a bit closer, especially if they ask.
I have not claimed any Sov squares personally at this time, but I do think the Dwarven Lords document simply states what many people and some Alliances quote as a reasonable "rule" now and I am pleased that they have put it in the forum for open discussion.
|
|
dunnoob
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800 |
Posted: 20 May 2012 at 00:49 |
HonoredMule wrote:
Who said anything about claiming all the squares? If you have to resort to hyperbole to counterpoint, well... |
Let's see, I'm not yet sure. At the moment there is a maximum of 150 sov squares per city, on a map with about 3,000,000 claimable squares. In theory that's enough for about 20,000
huge cities belonging to 2000
huge players. And some Dwarven Lords certainly are huge, I have no problem to stay more than ten squares away from their clusters, and I'm fine with whatever they consider as
extreme prejudice if somebody settles near those obvious clusters. OTOH not all DLord cities belong to those clusters, and that's where their statement gets interesting.
Apparently you wanted to say that
some (but not necessarily
all) of the 12 squares in distance 5 from a given city can be
economically interesting for potential sov, and of course that's even more so the case for the remaining 60+8 squares with a distance below 5. I'm just starting with sov and need examples to check the plausibility of your or of similar arguments. So far I learned by trial and error that I like a 30% cow bonus from two level III structures better than the 30% from one level V plus one level I.
A city in distance 10 in the direction of an economically interesting square could claim that both cities are entitled to get it, so they'd better discuss this possibility before the second city settles. But if the squares in the middle of distance 10 are ordinary squares, without any unique bonus from both POVs, your specific argument for a general 10sq claim does not hold.
This is not a
small buffer zone, it is a huge worst case scenario in the game mechanics for exodus and teleport of bigger cities. For a new city starting at pop 0 you have weeks or more likely months to claim any
economically interesting square in its direction, first come, first served.
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650 |
Posted: 20 May 2012 at 01:45 |
| But if the squares in the middle of distance 10 are ordinary squares, without any unique bonus from both POVs, your specific argument for a general 10sq claim does not hold. |
"But if" means a conditional clause, which completely short-circuits any arguments regarding a
general rule. Exceptions abound, and negotiating to take advantage of them is simple. Coming up with public rules that somehow carefully reserve only the bare minimum that a person might want with consideration of the circumstances is beyond infeasible. "Don't come within 10 squares
without working out an agreement" wraps all that complexity in a simple package with a nice little bow. Frankly, this is really like saying the opposite--that "I promise not to be bothered by your arrival,
even if it's unannounced, so long as this margin of breathing room is maintained.
At least one third of all land squares don't really qualify as "normal," in the sense that they have production bonuses or >5 plots for some resource. When you have a well-developed city and fully understand the economic tradeoffs, you
will want exactly 20 sovereign claims (and typically no more only because we're limited to 20 sovereign
structures). Depending on what you're attempting to accomplish at the moment, how you're specializing the city, and how quickly you want to be able to react to changing needs, it is feasible to maintain up to 30 sovereign claims all the time. (Example: currently focused on max livestock production, then war starts. You delete 10 lvl 1 livestock-boosting structures from their optimal locations and immediately build 10 infantry-boosting structures on the other previously unused lvl 1 claims which have better infantry bonuses). I don't think many will go that route, but it's a valid strategy.
Ultimately, it's true that the vast majority of cases under current conditions will not have a problem when cities are as close as 7-8 tiles away. But that could change tomorrow, and undoing a 3-month exodus+rebuild is a hell of a price to pay for lack of foresight--especially if it was
someone else's foresight that fell so short as to stunt
your potential.
|
|
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 20 May 2012 at 01:59 |
As Illy becomes more crowded, arguments based on stunting someone's future potential will become less convincing. When keeping options open to allow for one's own future growth inhibits the abilities of others to grow in the present, it's hard to make a case for it. That is not YET the case in Illy; there are still plenty of decent spots to settle cities. However, there is a foreseeable future when sharing and compromise might be the ideal solution.
It is of course possible that this could evolve into a battle of the "strong" vs. the "weak," where the stronger players and alliances are able to claim territory they don't need now but might need in some imagined future, whereas the weaker players and alliances are consigned to the margins.
My personal hope is that we will be able to make different choices, and that the strong will not seek to exploit every advantage simply because they can. Thus far many of the more powerful players and alliances, including HM and H? have demonstrated a willingness to do so. Hopefully that will continue.
In whatever case, it will be interesting to see the situation evolve. No need to raise alarms yet, imnsho. So far I think people are working quite well together for the most part.
|
|
Quackers
Forum Warrior
Joined: 19 Nov 2011
Location: Jeff City
Status: Offline
Points: 435 |
Posted: 20 May 2012 at 02:03 |
|
Its best to play the game the way it is built today.. (or how ever it goes.) I agree, but that is stupid to do when you should always be planning ahead.
The 10square rule is there to not only protect the person that was there first, but to protect the player that moved there. If Alliance walls come into play, would you want one of your towns stuck inside that alliance wall? (Wont come out this year, probably not even by Christmas next year-maybe with alot of luck with pathfind?) What if crafting adds new sov, makes sov cheaper, makes new kinds of sov you can claim? Stuff like this can and most likely will happen later on. Think if your less then 10 squares away, do you want your town next to a town that is stronger then you?
Play the game the way its built today. Yet if you don't plan for the advancements do not cry when your city evidently gets siege off the map.
Alliance have the 10 square rule to keep problems from occurring. Plus its just less explaining.
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224 |
Posted: 20 May 2012 at 02:44 |
dunnoob wrote:
Let's see, I'm not yet sure. At the moment there is a maximum of 150 sov squares per city, on a map with about 3,000,000 claimable squares. In theory that's enough for about 20,000 huge cities belonging to 2000 huge players.
|
There are 2,000 squares wide by 2,000 tall on the map. By my calculation, that makes 4,000,000 squares, no?
And Illy is a sandbox. The pertinent word being "box". There are limited things here. We have had the luxury of being the early players in a game (like early settlers in North America) and had as much space as we want. Eventually that runs out. It should. And then we get to see the real dynamics I believe the GMs are looking to create...
So every alliance that can, imo, should be instituting a 10 square rule, because you will need it in the future (or want the land). And if folks accuse people of doing so of being selfish or alliance centric, I would advocate telling them that it is merely prudent.
We are going to, imo, in the near future, see a real test to Illy's community when resources are, in essence, no longer unlimited. And it's easy to be friends with everyone when you don't need to fight for anything to survive/thrive.
So, imo, Illy needs to harden the f up and prepare for a less Disney time where relationships will be tested, confeds hardened in blood, and much of the drippy lovey dovey nature of the game goes by the wayside. Snuggles don't provide food and go ahead, give the next Orc you see on the battlefield a hug. I'm sure he'll appreciate your kindness while roasting your haunch on a spit for dinner later.
Imo, all this does NOT, however, have to change our core principle as a community, that Newbies are protected. And shouldn't.
In my opinion, to use a phrase that Jordan Sparks stole, "Better Go and Get Your Armor".
Kumomoto
Edited by Kumomoto - 20 May 2012 at 02:45
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 20 May 2012 at 02:52 |
I disagree. I think there is enough for everyone if we choose to use it wisely. There may be people who believe it is more fun to have lots of conflict, and that's another reason to have more conflict. But saying there will be more conflict because somehow there isn't "enough" lacks logical foundation. It's about people making choices. I personally hope that people will choose to respect other people's choices to the greatest degree possible.
Live and let live.
|
|
Tweet
A statement from the Dwarven Lords...