Let's Discuss the 10 sq rule with settlers

GM Rikoo wrote:   the players can come up with these type of rules if they want! :) GM Rikoo

Edited by Diva - 04 Apr 2014 at 17:31

Rill wrote: I think the main problem is that people see it as a "rule."  To me, it is a guideline or a courtesy.  It is likewise courteous to agree to allow someone to settle closer than 10 squares as long as the settlement is not so close as to interfere with city growth. For those who say that 10 squares is some sort of reflexive minimum, I simply ask, "Why?" Other than assertion of dominance or trying to prevent other people from settling in "your" area, why are 10 squares so sacrosanct? And if the intention is to assert dominance or to "claim" an area ... again, why? What advantage does this provide? I'd like people to seriously and thoughtfully engage with this question.  I've been playing for Illyriad for close the three years now and have yet to hear any strong argument for exclusive control of an area.  ("We like it that way" is not a well-reasoned argument.) 10 squares is not required for sovereignty claims; a more reasonable guideline for that would be 6 squares, or possibly 7-8. With regard to mutual defense, exclusivity in an area does not seem to be substantially better than mere dominance.  And attempts at exclusivity or rigid enforcement of an arbitrary "rule" tend to stir up animosity. Perhaps the developers need not worry so much about creating opportunities for "friction."  It seems to me that the playerbase is quite good at creating arbitrary (and needless) sources of friction all on its own. I struggle with this question with my alliance mates as well.  When someone sees someone who settles within 10 squares without asking permission, the immediate reaction is that the other person has somehow disrespected or violated the player's space.  Hopefully one's first reaction could be to look at the actual situation and ask "well, does this settlement actually infringe on the potential growth of the other city"? and "is there any other reason the city being there will cause a substantial problem?"  Most of the time the answer to both questions is "no." As I said, I struggle even with folks in my alliance on this issue.  Yet at the same time I think that if one can set aside issues of ego and power, there is plenty of room for everyone.  And there are plenty of people who will find every opportunity to exercise arbitrary and capricious ego and/or power trips without the rest of us helping them along.

I tend to agree that 10, set in stone is a bit silly. It just isn't realistic. I also believe that there are plenty of spots still available. A 7 food spot is great if a large population is your goal, but it's not mine. I have had those sorts of spots and they kind of hampered my other resources. There are only 25 res spots after all. Those who give up some clay or iron or whatever for food will pay the price unless a large population is all they really want.

Personally, I don't care so much about asking. I have asked and been met with kind replies to the positive. I have answered such with positive replies but it just doesn't really matter. Realistically, if a player knows what a good spot looks like, they wont get too close because they wont want to hinder their own future in that new city. If they make a stupid mistake, they can be shown they have and likely be willing to try again.

As for "exclusive control", I don't have an argument for that, however I can argue why I'd like to see a Crow-less or an EE-less area. It isn't exclusive, it is safe. When the pile on comes, travel times make a lot of difference.

You can have all the benefits you mentioned by encouraging folks to locate in an area without "claiming" it.  So claiming it seems to be extraneous to the benefits you seek.

We are indirectly claiming most of MM as our land as we reside on much of that land.  When the idea of claiming MM was first banded about, a side effect of this claim was that we would become a 'nation' maybe the first nation of illyriad, personally I find this concept an interesting one, and one which shouldn't be seen as negative.


Edited by bansisdead - 04 Apr 2014 at 21:43

The idea that Dragonwort or anyone should be able to "save" a city location simply because it is in proximity to his/her existing cities is the main problem with the application of this guideline.  The guideline is intended to promote the growth of existing cities, not to reserve spots you "might" want later on.