|
Originally posted by ajqtrz
ajqtrz wrote:
What is a land claim? It is a individual, alliance, or group of alliances, claiming sovereignty over an area of Illy outside the bounds of the built in sovereignty mechanism and/or the accepted 10square rule. As such, at this point is may be defined as extra-legal at this point, with some players honoring the rule and some not yet doing so.
Your supposition that it may be defined as extra-legal immediately bathes the entire idea in a negative light. Regardless of definitions, the term "sounds" as though anyone who claims land is an outlaw. This is not the case. The community has mores, not laws. I doubt any player with any sort of stature would claim to be a maker of Illy law. I suggest we call the positive view of land claims as a minority view. If that's not acceptable, how about some suggestions that are less slanted?
I agree. The choice of "extra-legal" was probably not a good one. However, when a new "law" or "rule" is inacted by a group for a group without that groups consent or interation it's "extra" something...meaning outside the formal and accepted rules,norms, morals. In anycase, I quibble. I'm satisfied to call it something less if we can find a decent term.
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
The problems I have with all this are three: How it was done, what it means in the future, and how it does not align with the general values of the Illy community as historically expressed.
The process by which this process was adopted by those alliances adopting it, was unilateral. There was little to no discussion in the larger forums or GC, and the adoption by those alliances was done as a "fait acompli" with the expectation that there would be little to no resistance, or if there was a determination to war over the right.
The nature of a land claim would seem to me to be unilateral. As far as "discussion in the larger forums or GC," I would suggest the alliances making the claims very well knew the futility of such an endeavor. Finally, I know for a fact the alliances making these claims had absolutely no expectation of "little to no resistance," however, they do expect they will be able to defend their claims and should they fail, thus is the nature of the game.
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
Good points all. But what about those who are smaller than those making the claims? I keep using the playground metaphor for this because it's appropriate. You have areas on the playground and you have all sorts of children playing. Some are older and larger than the others. If some ofthose kids say, "The swings are ours and you can't use them without permission or we will 'remove' you" we call that bullying. Yes, the kids could go somewhere else. Yes, they could just not swing. But the playground "belongs" to all the kids and certain rules of play are generally accepted...that one cannot "claim" an area and exclude others without some kind of school rule. Illy is a sandbox in which we have a number of styles of play. No area should be excluded and no player or group of players should be allowed to "kick" around the smaller alliances and players. I really thought we left the bullying behind when we grew up.
And where, exactly, is the resistance coming from? It's been claimed that a bunch of comments have been made to one alliance and 90% of them were positive. Of course, I can't verify that number because those same correspondences are deemed "private" by the one making the claim so I guess we'll just have to trust him/her.
But actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it were 90%. It does appear to me I'm carrying the burden of being the loudest voice against the practice....oh well, it's always lonely at the front....(I'm not ready to look back to see if anyone is following...LOL).
On a side note, Shulnak said that I'm confusing land claims with a burning desire to bully. Bullying may be motivated by a desire to be a bully, but it's like intentional homicide and accidental homicide...theirs the same body no matter what is intended. Land claims may be "unintended" bullying, but they enact the same social structure of the strong dictating something to the weak.
Thus, we are faced with a situation in which we must "undo" what has been done if we decide that the new rule is not acceptable, rather than to have avoided this situation by having a good conversation and open discussion before it was done.
Abstractdreams reply:
Is this a royal we or are you speaking for some "shadow" group? I quite honestly believe you think there could have been a good conversation and an open discussion. I also believe you had a firm expectation of the outcome of that discussion. I have no doubt you feel this could have been avoided had those now claiming land simply listened to a good conversation.
"We" is an identifier. The context is a choice to leave alone or "undo" the land claims made by a few. Who has the right to make that choice? Is it not ALL the players of Illy, collectively? Thus, I present "we" as the group of which I am a member. Perfectly good Queen's English. And, in addition, ultimately it is Illy as a group who are going to make that decision...though they may make it much farther in the future than I like or may not make the decision I hope they make...they ultimately make all the decision as they are, collectively, the game.
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
In addition, I do not think this new development will bring a greater level of health to the Illy community.
Abstractdreams response:
Many of us think you are wrong. By the way, as has been pointed out by numerous players, this is not a new development. It is a new place to develop it, though.
My question to him:
I do expect that many of you think I'm wrong....but for what reasons?
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
Let us imagine what this may lead to in the future. Let us say that each of the largest 50 alliances decide to claim some portion of Illy for themselves. Let us further suppose that they claim an area approximately the same size of the current crop of claims. In the end this will mean that fifty alliances will hold sovereignty over 95% of Illy, and perhaps the entire thing. How will this effect the game? I think in several ways.
Abstractdream responds:
Conjecture is just that. I think Elgea will not be taken by a new wave of sweeping land claims. The "old world" long ago found its equalibrium. This is a new frontier.
To which I reply:
All statements regarding the future are conjecture...that doesn't make them wrong or right but only well based or not. If you read carefully I put a few caveats into my "conjecture" ....do you think those specifics (50 alliances, each with a certain size claim, etc) are not accurate? Then do post your conflicting evidence and/or reasoning and show my "conjecture" is inaccurate.
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
First, it will mean that any new players will have a very restricted road to growth and prosperity as they will have to get permission to found cities or join one of those alliances, if they are allowed.
Abstractdream responded:
Or, perhaps it will mean something else, entirely. Perhaps it will mean new players who care to "flex their military muscle" will have a place to go.
To which I ask:
"What, has military activity been banned by the devs? You mean nobody can "flex their military muscle" in Illy anymore?" Of course they can. And this is how the larger alliances seem to think it should be done: make a claim for an area and threaten, intimidate and coerce anybody who is too small to contest it. Rule by might....it works to some degree but is it healthy? I think not.
Before TBL opened, there was nowhere to do that. Those players who have no interest in combat will have a place to go, as they always have. In fact, there is much more area in Elgea for them to move into. Ursor is available now.
To which I respond:
Wait, hold the presses....I keep hearing that BL is supposed to be the new battle area ....which is why the current crop of claims is in TBL. So, let's see, in Elgea we have, according to Brandmeister, some alliances making informal claims, and in BL some making formal ones, but of course nobody expects this to be a trend.....hmmmmm....."we have peace in our time"
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
Second, it will mean that ultimately the gathering of resources, the founding of cities, the harvesting of NPC's and all of the various things we can do in an area can be easily restricted by the alliance claiming that area. There is no half-way for sovereignty...if you are in charge you are in charge.
Abstractdream responded:
Very true, however, it will enable the members of those alliances claiming the area to harvest, settle and hunt at will. It will eliminate the "accidental" incidents that are now so frequent in Elgea.
To which I respond:
Efficient harvesting.....centrally controlled. "Just harvest what and were we say, comrade and you will be taken care of...oh, by the way,don't forget to pay your tribute!" This is funny, no? But what is to stop it from occurring? Oh, yes, the goodness and graciousness of the big alliance leaders who, apparently, don't think us little guys should object to their land claims.
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
Third, the area claimed will make the alliance holding that area both a target by larger alliances wanting the area and a "premier" alliance into which most players will wish to move. These "premier" alliances will increasingly dominate the game and make it so that smaller alliances and individuals will need to at least align themselves with them just to survive. With this the larger "premier" alliances will make having a small or independent alliance meaningless and, should war break out, it will be on a very large scale indeed as these larger alliances drag individuals and smaller ones into the fray as "tribute" for allowing them to settle in the claimed area. In other words, even if these alliances allow others to settle in "their area" they will soon demand some kind of payment or support.
Abstractdream responded:
That all seems to be possible. This will not affect those "premier" alliances in Elgea, though. They've already got a stranglehold on much of the area there.
To which I respond:
Yes, leadership in Elgea has been weak in it's vision. It's nice and stable and boring there right now as so much seems to be controlled...but hey, if it worked in Elgea, why not TBL?
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
In summary of my second point I must say that allowing land claims by alliances changes the basic nature of the game from sandbox to a series of kingdoms fighting it out in which no player is exempt and thus no player is truly free to play as he or she desires. This leads me to my final reason for resisting these claims.
Abstractdream responded:
This is what we have now in Elgea. What is developing in TBL is a different dynamic. You may not enjoy it but there are many of us who do. Currently, in Elgea, there is no way for "us" to "play as he or she desires."
To which I respond:
Why not? You can't make war? You can't settle where you wish? You can't harvest what you want, trade where you will? If Elgea is so bad why do you wish to duplicate it in TBL? To turn around what people have said to me, "go play some war game if you want to make war" (Other have said to me "go play Farmville"if you don't like war). But that isn't the right solution. You don't kick the kid out of the sandbox because he wants to make his own sandcastle.
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
This basic change in the nature of the game effects the attractiveness of Illyriad.
Abstractdream responded:
It certainly does. It is now much more attractive to players like those I represent.
To which I reply:
At least we agree that this will change the game. I'm not sure how this squares with the claimes that "all this has been done before and it never panned out" that has been made. Perhaps those wanting to allow land claims are of two opinions...it won't change the game in any fundamental way, and it will change the game...for the better.
Well, to those who wish to make it more "competitive" I suggest the following:
Have a PVP area in the far south of BL, away from almost everybody, where the larger alliances can have their fun and leave the rest of Illy to the rest of us. Go make your claims, plant your cities and war to your hearts delight. A restricted area for PVP is fine by me just so the vast majority of Illy is left for the vast majority of players not at the top. But wait? Isn't that the same thing as restricting the non-waring players and alliances by telling them they can only have the leftovers? It's just the same thing in reverse, isn't it? I do wonder how the big alliances would react if they were restricted in where they could settle....but hey, that's never going to happen because it's "might makes right," and who actually wants to move all those cities even if it might be for the better of the game?
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
And why are the vets so friendly? Because they have learned that if you want to keep new players you must allow them the freedom to seek their own course and even help them along the way.
Abstractdream responded:
True. Unfortunately, until recently, many players tried Illy and left in a short time, or maybe a little while later because they found it to be boring. Many vets have left (or initiated "excitement") for that very reason.
To which I reply:
I'm wondering what part of "be patient" is not understood by the new players? Illy is not for everybody....the question before us is, how do we make it better for more players. One way would be to make it more "competitive -- meaning more warfare." Land claims do that by making it more like a "warlord" game. Do we want that? If so, then we can be more like a war game and get the same crowd as those games, with a social ethic closer to them. But that means we abandon the very thing, I think, that makes the game attractive to the "non-warlords" out there.
In the end it's probably a difficult question to answer. More warlike draws warriors but loses "peaceniks" (sorry, it's the only word I could think of). Keeping it like it is but adding neutral things like factions may do the trick AND still draw the peaceful players. I'm for keeping away from what has ruined so many games for so many ....the tendency of players who are powerful to walk all over the weaker ones. I think, in the long run, that will be a bigger draw than another 'wargame' BTW, I'm wondering how many of the "warlord" types in Illy actually do play other "wargames."
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
This help isn't restricted to resources. In fact, from what I've read and heard about the beginning of Illy, it entailed real battles to stop other players from raiding new players. In other words, Illy collectively made war against a philosophy of "might makes right" by exercising their collective might to stop the larger players from attacking the smaller ones.
Abstractdreams response:
How does that have any relavance, beyond your say so?
To answer:
The history of Illy shows that Illyites can and have, in the past, enforced norms that they collectively or at least consensually agreed needed to be enforced. If they agree that land claims are a bad thing they can do something about it. As far as my "say so," if you are disputing the historicity I can accept that. What evidence that this is not what happened do you bring to the argument?
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
This attitude of protecting the small from the large so that the smaller can grow and develop as he or she desires is what is at stake.
Abstractdream's thoughtful, provocative, and reasoned response:
Wrong
My reply, also thoughtful, provocative,and reasoned:
Right.
(now wasn't that helpful?)
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
Illyites decided long before I arrived that they needed to resist the domination of the small by the big on an individual level. They did so because it was something they envisioned as a unique opportunity to make OUR game what it is....a place were new players are very welcome.
Again, Abstractdream asks a rhetorical question:
And just because you say so, this "new" TBL trend is going to change that...?
To which I choose to reply:
Land claims are intimidation. Intimidation is not a friendly gesture. Nor are threats. And if a threat is carried out, it's not friendly either. Thus, the sum total of a land claim is not a friendly thing.....since they reduce the overall friendliness of TBL.
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
The developers make the mechanics, but in the end, we players make the game.
Abstractdream agreed:
That's right; playerS.
To which I parse to mean:
"big players make the game. Big alliances decide the rules. Big and power full groups of alliances dictate to the rest of us how the game will be played...and if we object we are told, "go play farmville." If Abstractdream thinks this an overstatement of his position all he has to do is to show me where the discussion was posted for all players to make comment upon before the formal land claiming began.
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
Now we are faced with the same problem on a larger scale. There are alliances who which to take away the sandbox from the smaller alliances and players. Do not fool yourself into believing that once the land is claimed you will be allowed to play as you wish. In a war all resources are claimed...including those of "neutral parties." Once the sandbox becomes so small that there is no room for new players or new alliances to play as they wish and where they wish, as all the land is claimed, the very openness and freedom of the game will be lost and it will change into a large alliance dominated war game like so many out there already. I suspect most of us do not wish to be like those and value the freedom of Illy to settle where you wish, associate with whom you wish to associate and, in general to be left alone to follow your own path to "victory" as you define it.
Abstractdream response:
This is a restatement of your previous points and I've addressed them above.
My response:
True, but it also a summation of a principle. I'm making a parallel argument by claiming that the same dynamic that allowed attacks on new players at the beginning of Illy, is at work and is equally undesirable.
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
There are those who wish to make Illy into something they want it to be. The sad part is that they are already free to do so within the scope of the game mechanics. They can "claim" all the land they wish using the 10 square rule and the sovereignty mechanism.
Abstractdream's response
Those statements are contradictory, however, I will say that claiming land within the mechanics of the game and claiming land within the metagame are not the same thing. If you think that is true, you are missing the point.
My reply:
First, I agree that the opening line is rather unclear and thus appears to contradict earlier points. Here's a better line, perhaps: There are those who wish to change how Illy is played in order to make it better for themselves. The sad part is.....
Second, now we are speaking of the "metagame"...by which I suppose you mean the informal and standard practices not dictated by the game mechanics or rules? Like the "no harvesting within x squares" and the "don't pick on the new players" rules? You are right that there is a "metagame" and you are right that it has rules and norms. But those rules and norms were put there by consensus, not by being imposed by smaller groups of players. of course, you are right when you say that there are land claims done by force...in Elgea...sadly. However, you still haven't addressed the question of why we should accept the 'metarule" instead of just relying upon what the game already provides...the 10 square rule and sov.
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
They can make war against any willing individual or alliance they wish. They don't need this new strategy, so why are they attempting to foist it upon us?
Abstractdreams' reply:
You say they don't need it.
My response:
If they can accomplish the same thing with the current set of rules, they don't need it. A need is something you must have because whatever you are trying to do cannot be done without it. Technically you could claim a good sized piece of Illy by just building cities. at 20 cities per player and 100 players you can cover a lot of territory if you put your cities 19 squares apart.... actually more like 12 squares apart, but the point is the same. And using sov you increase that to boot. So it's not a "need." In my opinion it's a clever way to do easily what is hard to do tactically. In some ways it's a shortcut to success, and like most shortcuts, is a bit LIKE cheating...after all, it's not available to all players since only those able to "enforce" the claim can actually make the claim. From this perspective it makes Illy less competitive. (Keep cool, it's not cheating and I didn't say it was....got to be more careful with my words...LOL)
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
In my opinion the reason they are doing this is because they can't accomplish what they wish to accomplish by using the mechanisms already in place.
Abstractdream responds:
We agree on this...
And I reply:
In my opinion the reason they can't accomplish what they wish is because they aren't as organized and disciplined as they should be. Claiming land should take some effort and it takes no effort to make the claim...especially if you are the biggest alliance in the area and/or the other alliances don't care or are too far away to do anything about it.
Originally posted by ajqtrz ajqtrz wrote:
They are in a hurry and are too disorganized or lazy to simply plant the towns, 19 squares apart fast enough to cover the entire area they wish to "claim."
Abstractdream replies:
...but not this.
My reply:
Not clear to me about what Abstractdream means....clarification may be needed.
Finally, I do appreciate the point by point response. I know it probably took a lot of work and some of Abstractdreams points are valid. I do think he has contributed some clarity to the subject by suggesting that the question is about what the players want Illy to be and the best way to get and keep new players. I suspect we will disagree about this matter for a long time, but such a civil answer is, in my opinion, to be commended.
Thanks,
aj
|
Tweet
Are Land Claims Bad for Illy?
Topic Options
ajqtrz wrote:
