I am curious about what YOU think.

Dung you are very right. Though I would hate to see that sitter rule implemented. I have sitters on other timezones who I keep or who may need to be reactivated. Also Ten K I would like to hear why you would like to see terraforming eliminated? I love my 5 plot forests :)

I would love it if terraforming were finally eliminated.

kodabear wrote: i love how somehow 142 people votes in this poll

I voted other. If any change is made I vote for a 'different?' type of account which would be used for terraforming. This account would have only needed research available and would self destruct after 2 weeks. This gives the player 1 week to make the terra and another to sell it and then the towns poof. Allow 1 or 2 but no more. I don't want more playable accounts for the same reason Ten Kulch states.

I think Illyriad was better when the playing field was more level. Going to 11+ cities really opened the gap between new and existing accounts. Increasing from 2 to 4+ accounts would also just favor established players from big alliances. It also unreasonably favors people who are willing to make Illyriad into a second job. What benefit does that provide to the player base? I don't see any virtue to unhealthy obsession, any more than I see virtue in pay-to-win. Hours spent will just replace real money as the currency of power, both at the expense of skill.

Permasats already make gold and supplies nearly unlimited for certain players and alliances. Cities and entire accounts become fully disposable. The slow speed of battles already makes victory correspondingly slow to achieve. Increasing the number of cities per account has slowed that further. Raising the number of legal accounts would guarantee that wars last forever, and the same account collectors always win tournaments.

One main, one alt. That formula has worked for eight years. That's the way it should stay.