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  <12345 7>
Author
   Topic Search Topic Search   Topic Options Topic Options
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 03:22
Rill, the city aspect regards our lands and what is ours therein.. thus this aspect extends itself into our lands claim for cities. As for Killing something on Dlord lands.. who says that is not yours to take.. YOU killed it and an Army over it is fine.. but send a message to the person, that is what you are doing. Simple Courteous and responsible.  I have told many people this time and time again.

Yes, we have a Kill policy for all Armies sent to our homeland and upon our lands. I have people ALL THE TIME why we killed their armies or miners 2 and 3 squares from our towns. DUH!!!

If we place our armies in such proximity to other towns, we would be at war and in fact about headed there over one of our members who did it.

We began this temporary policy because Others were doing it to us. Now that we are doing it back you have various alliances whining about unfair. How.. you can do it to us but we can't do it back.. BULL! 

People can claim whatever amount they like even 20 squares ( hey, why not!) , but they need to be ready to back up their claim and lay down their lives and their towns if they will make such claims. Dlord make 10 square claim, and we will protect what is ours from intruders and invaders. If people would just ask, be courteous, and speak with us prior to muscling their way in thing would run much smoother, but instead they muscle in and then go whining they got hurt in the act. I'm not talking about 20 squares out... MOST I'm referring to are within 5 squares of our towns.

While I agree and admit, we have had some of us do this.. I challenge ANYONE to say we have not compensated them fairly for misconduct on our behalf. Which is more than I can say for the vast majority who have done this to us.

Some things are just silly.. whining over being bumped off a square... GET OVER IT! We get bumped all the time. Do we write you all, pouting over it.. NO. We just send again... to our OWN mines we were bumped from most often.

Truthfully, I don't think we have a strong enough stance and maybe it needs to be stronger (doubt it but we shall see how things progress)... funny how everyone wants theirs at your expense and then get all up on arms because you say - No More!  We will not bow down and we will fight over what is ours. We don't have to, but if YOU wish to take us there.. we will happily walk with you and give you everything your asking for... over our dead bodies.

This is our sandbox to and we have a right to play our way as much as you do yours. We try to keep to ourselves and try to work things out. What we do is fair toward others and we give to others the same as we ask for.. if they have a different set of rules.. we abide by them, unless we feel we are being unfairly treated.. even then there is a process in which we endeavor to keep the faith as far as it can be kept.


Edited by belargyle - 07 Sep 2012 at 03:34
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 05:06
Communication is a good thing.  And if an army camped somewhere offends you, you could communicate with its owner.  Sometimes things work out.  Other times they don't so much.  But I still would argue that some sort of communication should be attempted.

Bela, you know that when we had issues with your member placing armies too close to our towns, we did not kill them.  We sent mail about it.  Instead of adopting the policies of the worst actors, why not adopt the practices of people who have shown some concern?

At least consider the history and intentions of people -- I think this is probably what you all will actually do, so the result is that your statement that you intend to kill all armies within 10 squares just ends up giving you a bad name.

Having been raked over the coals in gc myself after giving "only" 24 hours notice before we removed an army 5 squares from one of my player's cities, I certainly have empathy for what you are trying to accomplish.  But at the same time I don't think ultimatums are really all that helpful.

That's all I'm saying.


Edited by Rill - 07 Sep 2012 at 05:08
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 05:26
Rill, seriously that makes no sense.  First - We have had this issue for a while and we did not start killing armies initially. We sent message after message.. but when our armies were being killed on our own lands and in our homeland.. we took action.

Second - I don't understand why you state 'We' should send a message first to them, when any form of basic courtesy is them writing us before place military on our (or your) lands. Them placing an army on our lands INTENDS to destroy our caravans and keep us from our stuff. That is an act of aggression no matter how one wishes to make it sweet. I'm not talking about squares and squares away but on OUR lands and in our HomeLand.

This is about aggression via military on our lands, not harvesting. 

Harvesting while another issue is less of an issue, except in a few cases.


Edited by belargyle - 07 Sep 2012 at 05:34
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 05:45
I disagree that placing an army is necessarily an act of aggression.  I recommend against placing an army on sov or within about 3 squares of a city without checking with its owner.  But beyond around 3 squares, I think it's perfectly reasonable to hunt an animal and park an army to protect the rare parts.  I might or might not send mail in those situations depending on my past relationship with the other player, whether we are NAP'd and other issues.

Illy is a shared world.  I personally think it's more enjoyable when we make an effort to share in a spirit of generosity and kindness.  Would it be best for people to mail you before they park an army? Perhaps.  Does their failure to do so (for what is likely an innocent reason, like not noticing a city or having it out of their window view) mean that you then should ignore courtesy?  Personally, I don't think so.

To me this is not so much a question of "what can I justify doing" as it is of "what will make the game better for everyone."
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 06:21
Rill, your argument about killing something is without merit in my discussion. Refer back to my post above at the top of the page

Quote  As for Killing something on Dlord lands.. who says that is not yours to take.. YOU killed it and an Army over it is fine.. but send a message to the person, that is what you are doing. Simple Courteous and responsible.

An army, of itself, necessitates aggression as it only allows it's own, or allies to interact with the square. If it is on my lands that is an act of aggression, if it is there without permission OR without just cause. A kill is just cause and letter to me, lets me know why it is there. I should know I do this from time to time when I harvest my own kills near towns. I have yet to have a person kill my units over it. Funny how courtesy works most of the time.

We are not all here to make flowers and bubbles and share all we have with everyone and anyone (newbies excluded here). This is a game in which there are things that matter to some that don't to others. Thus this game is not Sim City. There is conflict.. that is fine.. there are wars.. hey great.. there is peace.. this is good to. But lets get real as to what type of game we are playing.. it is a sandbox. There are rules, there are guidelines, and there are things we do cause it best fits what we want from the game.

I think we NEED more bad guys (alliances) more friction, and more action. Not necessarily on a day to day basis mind you... even I would be hard pressed over that!!!  We need something to do. While chatting and such works for some.. they also need to learn how to play the game and like in real life, realize everyplace has different views, rules and such.. if we wish to be near them, work with them, we need to learn about them and work in the parameters they use.. if not, then try to work around them.. and if still not.. don't work with them or maybe seek to force a change in their thinking.

I do agree with your final comment to a point.. but at the same time.. it is combination of both. Being an alliance separates you by the very nature of the alliance. Thus there are things more important to that group over and above what makes the game better for everyone. While that is or should be in view.. it does not do away with the problem that what one considers 'will make the game better for everyone' is in fact Not Always what everyone wants or thinks will make it better. The very statement is problematic unless everyone seeks to follow one persons view.  It is like the new definition of tolerance. Before Tolerance referred to being able to agree to disagree and still maintain civility. Now it holds that you must not only agree with what I think but must incorporate into your life... if you don't then you are intolerant.

Let me make an example. Below is not you and me but I'm using 'you' in a general sense of anyone.

If my way of playing, which I think helps make the game better for everyone, does not equal your view.. it isn't that we can agree to disagree and continue playing and/or working things out. But one must be right and the other conform and make it part of their thinking. I have no problem trying to follow others requests and views, so long as they do not go against our own (this is even for THEIR benefit where we could potentially abuse an issue). Why must we yield to the bullying of others so 'we can all just get along'.  It doesn't work in a sandbox environment like that, and shouldn't.



Edited by belargyle - 07 Sep 2012 at 06:25
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 06:30
Now a call to simple courtesy is bullying?  This is a stretch of the definition of the word.

And why does one person have to be right and the other conform?  Why can't we strive to respect and understand each other?


Edited by Rill - 07 Sep 2012 at 06:31
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 06:33
My statement regarding Bulling is contextually in direct proportion to have to change cause others do not think it fits their view.

But I agree with your last post completely other than that. and that was exactly my point


Edited by belargyle - 07 Sep 2012 at 06:44
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 07:09
If your goal is to avoid conflict, I propose the following "guiding principles." They are meant for all of those who desire to avoid conflict over claimed land. These are not rules I think all members should follow; rather they are assumptions I believe should be made before taking action on squares near other players, as well as squares you consider yours.  Nowhere in the principles that follow do I suggest what actions should be taken based on these assumptions.
 
Guiding Principles of Land-Ownership
 
*All principles need only be applied in the absence of direct confirmation from the player or their alliance.
 
I. Actions on Other Player's Land
The following assumptions should be made before performing any action on any square.
 
1. Assume the player considers any square that is within 10 squares of their--and only their city--as their land.
 
2. Assume the player considers any square on which they have claimed sovereignty as their land.
 
3. Assume the player considers any non-sovereign square occupied by that player's army their square so long as the army is in place.
 
II. Determining Land Ownership
The following assumptions should be made when determining ownership of a square.
 
1. If a square is within 10 squares of two or more players, assume all players consider the square their land.
 
III. Contacting Players
The following assumptions should be made when debating whether to contact a player regarding an action on a square.
 
1. Assume that a player expects others to contact them before taking any action on a square they consider their land.
 
2. Assume a player expects at least 48 hours' time to reply to a contact regarding actions on a square they consider their land.
 
3. Assume a player expects the intentions of your actions to be made clear when contacting them.
 
IV. Protecting Owned Land
The following assumptions should be made when responding to actions on a square you consider your land.
 
1. Assume all players consider it unreasonable to claim ownership of a square more than 5 squares away without claiming sovereignty or placing an occupying army on the square.
 
2. Assume all players expect you to contact them before retaliating against any action, such as harvesting rare resources or placing an occupying army, on a square you consider yours. If the need is urgent and you cannot honor the 48 hour reply wait period, assume the player expects to find this out in the INITIAL contact.
 
3. Assume all players expect you to offer them a chance to repair the situation before retaliating against any action on a square you consider yours.


Edited by Hadus - 07 Sep 2012 at 07:11
Back to Top
hellion19 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 310 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 07:15
So far in this thread I seem to mostly agree with Bela.

As far as the OP goes there is no real server wide rule as it ultimately depends on the people that are involved as to what will happen. This means whoever has the military and the ability to make the rules in their scenario will ultimately have a say in it. Sometimes this can be done in a diplo way as long as an agreement can be made however everything eventually just falls upon who can back their claim and make it happen that way.

If I wanted to tell everyone that I have ownership over everything 30 squares outside of my town I am sure I can make this claim if I chose to. Now the question is whether or not I could also enforce it meaning I have to deal with everyone within 30 squares. If I can't get people to respect that claim then the claim is absolutely useless.
Back to Top
Smoking GNU View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Location: Windhoek
Status: Offline
Points: 313 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Sep 2012 at 10:35
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I disagree that placing an army is necessarily an act of aggression.  


I'm confused by this.
An Army is by it's DEFINITION a tool of aggression. You kill people with it. You use it to siege and destroy/take over cities with it. You blockade peoples cities with it. How could placing it close to someone elses' city NOT be considered in any way aggressive?

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 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.