Are Land Claims Bad for Illy?

Military activity certainly has not been banned by the Devs, however, the origination of the very reasoning you are using has made military activity in Elgea (beyond tournaments, official or otherwise, which are useful but have their limits) such a pariah that most players (I’d venture to say all who have been around long enough to have a few cities) are afraid for their accounts and those of their friends should they engage in such.  

ajqtrz wrote: 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" The informal claims Brandmeister was referring to (afaik) are the ways alliances have been clustering for years. So, based on that and your assumption that they are one and the same, nothing is changing. 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.

Your equating some of the situations in this game to Communism is quaint. As I see it, one of the reasons to claim land is to control those resources. Call it funny, call it what you will but it is a function of the process.

ajqtrz wrote: 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?  Right. It “worked” in Elgea.   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.

Elgea is not being duplicated in TBL. You can say that all you wish but it just isn't so. 

No one is kicking out anyone else; however, TBL gives those who are quick enough and willing to make the sacrifice the opportunity to play in a different way than has been the norm (enforced or otherwise) in Elgea.  

ajqtrz wrote: 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.

I think “change the game” may be an overstatement. I am guilty of having said that before and I think it is overreaching. The game won’t change (but for the Dev’s changing it) but the way many folks play it may, indeed be changing.  

ajqtrz wrote: 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.

It’s true that Illy is not for everybody. Those who would rather build and destroy and start again can find a lot of other games to play. Here, patience is the name of the game but patience is not exclusive of fun and excitement. I know many are here to chat and build and would like to never encounter an army but many others just do not have that desire. 

You are alluding to something here. It seems to me you think if the land claims continue, the community at large will change into a harsher, more violent entity. I think that is a flawed conclusion. I think the community is what it is and is a dynamic entity with a multiple ‘personality” so to speak and it is wrong to say that any change in the game (should a change occur) will change the community. As an example, I would guess the very leaders of these alliances making the initial claims would never stand by and watch a new player being harassed or farmed. I posit that they'd engage the offender sooner than others who’d rather talk them out of their offensive action and the merits of either action is a debate for another time, but they would not allow it any more than anyone else who makes up the fine Illyrian community.

ajqtrz wrote: 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."

I believe, that so long as Illy is not a “pay to win” game, it will remain the great game it is, regardless of how it’s played.  

ajqtrz wrote: 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?

I think you simplify the history to fit your argument, however, I will say that you are right so far as it goes; in the past, players battled against other players to set the norm. It’s happened, on the average, about once a year since illy’s inception. Currently TBL has allowed the tension that comes from those with the most power making the rules to ease a bit. It’s anybody’s guess how long that will last.  

ajqtrz wrote: 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?)

Thanks for the critique. What’s at stake is the future of land claims. You seem to want to paint this debate with a huge brush. I don't think it holds up. My reasoning has been stated throughout but in a sentence: given absolutely no extenuating circumstances, almost every alliance with any sort of longevity, almost every player with any sort of connections to the community, any sort, would not allow a larger player to stop a smaller player from developing. The current events will not change that. I hazard to guess there is nothing short of a complete restart that could give predatory players even a minuscule chance of doing anything of the sort for any amount of time in illyriad.

ajqtrz wrote: 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.

I have no legitimate argument against your view of this, as it is your view. Simply publishing a land claim is intimidation, by what you've stated. I don't think that land claims are intimidation, until intimidation is used to enforce them. You're assuming the overall friendliness of illy will be reduced. I disagree. I admit there are those who feel claims unfriendly. You are a prime and vocal example. I think that members of those claiming alliances and their friends do not see it as unfriendly. Given the protections implicit in a land claim for those covered under the claim, they might well see it as a very friendly act. A vast majority of players won't be affected by these claims at all. Can I assume a significant number of them won’t care and therefore won’t see it as unfriendly? I say that the atmosphere of Illy has become quite a bit friendlier for me and many of those I know and represent. I say Illy is more friendly now and getting more so with these claims and the possibility of future claims. It’s just my view; there is no legitimate argument against it.

ajqtrz wrote: 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.

What you say is true on the face of it. The semantics are complicated; I’d argue the rules are actually policies and the big alliances get together with other big alliances and set the tone of the game. That statement can be argued against but I don’t know how it can be done in light of history. 

You think the alliances making the claims should have allowed discussion before the claims, I don’t think it was relevant nor necessary to have a public debate. The outcome would be as you see it here; opposing sides arguing the issue with no consensus.  

ajqtrz wrote: 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.

Ok, I will take your statement at face value. I disagree with the statement. I will refrain from restating why.

ajqtrz wrote: 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.....

Therein is the conflict; you want to keep Illyriad as it is because you think it is better without what we are doing in TBL. We disagree that it is better now and want to make it better and we believe it will be better for all.

ajqtrz wrote: 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.

The metagame is a dimension of play that many don't care for and some aren't even aware of. That does not mean it shouldn't be pursued by those who enjoy it. I don't care if “you” want to limit your play to the mechanics of the game. That’s a legitimate way to play and if you refuse to “accept the ‘metarule,” then by all means at your disposal, don’t accept it.

ajqtrz wrote: 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)

I won't argue needs. I can only defer to those players and alliances that make claims to defend their needs. I won't presume to say they don't need it, though.

ajqtrz wrote: 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.

I would argue that that effort will come. Some minor amount of effort was required to organize and establish claims and more effort will come to maintain and defend those claims. Effort has been expended, is being expended now and will continue to be expended. You discount it as “no effort.” I call BS.

SIN, for example is far from disorganized. They are absolutely not lazy. I believe they feel that waiting to grow the necessary population to subtly claim by planting future cities will give them more trouble than making an overt claim now will give them. I will acquiesce to your supposition that they are in a hurry.  

ajqtrz wrote: 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

Thank you for taking the time to respond and I very much appreciate the venom-less manner you’ve maintained (I did note a bit of sarcasm, but I don’t fault anyone for having a little fun). I anticipate the continuation of this dialogue.

Edit: corrected a quote