Towards a better Illyria |
Post Reply | Page 123 4> |
Author | |
zap
New Poster Joined: 03 Nov 2015 Location: none Status: Offline Points: 32 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 12 Mar 2018 at 01:16 |
Hogwarts agrees with TheIceMan we will play as we choose > Don't even try to force your play style here
|
|
Just here
|
|
TheIceMan
New Poster Joined: 22 Feb 2018 Location: Arkansas Status: Offline Points: 8 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
i agree with Neytiri. and I say no to a council as no one is going to force a play style on me, and that is exactly what it would be
|
|
Neytiri
Wordsmith Joined: 25 Nov 2010 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 123 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
This train is off the rails. I'll get it back on for you: Don't kill my game, Hucster.
|
|
"It is well that their bodies know the heat and the cold; it will make them strong warriors and mothers." - Absaroke elder (from Edward S. Curtis's book 'The North American Indian')
|
|
OssianII
Forum Warrior Joined: 05 Sep 2017 Location: Penarth Status: Offline Points: 307 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
United Security Council of Illyria? What has G0ds been slipping in to your porridge, son?
Edited by OssianII - 07 Dec 2017 at 09:52 |
|
Turgon of Rhavenia
New Poster Joined: 06 Dec 2017 Status: Offline Points: 38 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I'm really new here but here are my 2 cents
FREEEEEDOOOOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!! Thanks for listening |
|
Ten Kulch
Postmaster Joined: 20 Jan 2017 Location: Fellandire Status: Offline Points: 678 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Wartow, although the conversation has wandered a bit, it is relevant to consider permasats in Hucbold's proposal. He sees bulk as a virtue. Much of the bulk in big, old alliances can be attributed to permasats. This is a major bone of contention between old Elgean alliances and new Broken Lands alliances. We (BL) feel that the active, vital alliance model is healthy for the game. We don't see a good reason why Elgea should continue to exert disproportionate influence over tournaments, politics, and the meta-game simply because they have amassed large rosters of zombie accounts that have been long abandoned by their original owners. Hucbold's proposal highlights that difference in mentality. Everything he proposes is directed towards assigning influence based on number of accounts, number of towns, and by extension raw population.
|
|
Check out my blog, Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.
|
|
Wartow
Postmaster Joined: 20 May 2014 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 924 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Sitters/Vacation capacity is valuable. Steps have been taken in the recent past to limit the duration that one can be appointed a sitter but I understand that these changes still do not make the system a perfect one.
Perhaps a sitter-day can be claimed daily (or weekly) similar to how the free prestige reward is claimed? A bank of time can be accumulated up to a certain limit (perhaps 30 days). Additional sitter-day bonus cannot be claimed while an active sitter is appointed. From an administrative perspective there would need to be a sustained effort for the password sharing violation hazard that may be induced by such an additional restriction. I agree with a previous recommendation (Ten Kulch, another thread) where an account that is being siege-held from deletion should be listed as abandoned and all towns without an active siege should be deleted. Again, I think I'm in the wrong thread...
|
|
|
|
Ten Kulch
Postmaster Joined: 20 Jan 2017 Location: Fellandire Status: Offline Points: 678 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The big, old alliances use password sharing to accomplish permasitting. You don't really think the original players are logging back in to reset sitter priveleges, do you?
|
|
Check out my blog, Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.
|
|
viperone
Greenhorn Joined: 18 Mar 2015 Location: philippines Status: Offline Points: 107 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I think the developers should eliminate Sat Accounts period. Provide an option for players to deactivate their account for a period of 30 days once every 6 months. During the deactivated period the town will be under a temporary rainbow so to speak. Players will not be able to deactivate their towns however with activity in progress, much the same as in exodus. Nor can players deactivate a town with inbound attacks.
Once the town's max of 30 days has expired the rainbow disappears and the town returns to normal status: whether or not the player logs in or not. This will level the playing field so to speak by eliminated all the permasat farms. Inactive accounts will be cleared or go poof over time. This really will have little impact on wars as troop movements and wars generally take substantial time; way more then the 30 day deactivated period.
|
|
Jamie
Greenhorn Joined: 25 Sep 2017 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 80 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Thanks for creating the tools btw, just ignore the guy complaining about the game. He clearly doesn't want to state his in-game name so we have no idea even if he came on for 1 hr and got angry at this game :P
|
|
Post Reply | Page 123 4> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |