Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - PermaSat Accounts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

PermaSat Accounts

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Benedetti View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 08 Feb 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 47
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benedetti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Nov 2017 at 23:47
I am definitely in favor of removing sitting. Anything to remove farms from the game. Even if we don't get a vacation mode or something in return I'd be in favor of removing it.

I have been wondering about the sitting feature of Illy since I started playing. We're allowed 2 accounts to play, that should be more than enough (even though I really *really* wish I could have 1 of each race :D ). I wonder if there are people actually fully *playing* 3rd or more accounts in stead of just using them as farms to add to their main accounts. Even if there are, I'm fairly sure that number is very limited compared to the number of accounts used as farms by permasitting.

I like the vacation mode. Many other games have them too. The account should go into hybernation (no res, production queues and research on pause). It should be like exo in that you need to have all vans, armies etc at home (or in hubs in the case of traders and vans), and some actions should probably be limited for a few days on activation.
My only problem is with not being able to activate it with incoming. Imagine going for a vacation and someone sends some diplos 'just for fun'. I would suggest that vacation mode must be turned on a few days (3? 5?) before it actually activates and/or vacation mode only means no new actions can be launched against the account. Diplos, attacks, sieges already on their way can finish their mission.

I see very little use in limiting the number of sitting days. People will just queue up large queues, and log in once a forthnight to send stuff (and gold) to main accounts. It'll be very hard to set something like this up that can not be abused/worked around (depending on perspective :D ).

I don't really like the idea of having to earn vacation days. How many days will a new player start with? I think it makes it all needlessly complicated.
Back to Top
DeathDealer89 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 885
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeathDealer89 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Nov 2017 at 07:00
The goal the developers have for the game is in theory to make money off prestige.  Why not charge players 3-5 prestige to establish the next 90 days of sitting.  The alliances that are full of perma-sat accounts will end up funding the devs for everyone else.  I would also consider having the sitter to have the right to pay for the extension out of their account leaving the active player as the one paying. 
Back to Top
Ten Kulch View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 20 Jan 2017
Location: Fellandire
Status: Offline
Points: 628
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ten Kulch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Nov 2017 at 14:48
75 or 150 prestige per 30 days seems more reasonable. That's only 20-50M gold at current market prices. Permasat farms generate far more than that in a month.
Check out my blog, Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.
Back to Top
Corwin View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Location: Farshards
Status: Offline
Points: 295
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Corwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Nov 2017 at 16:08
A prestige cost for sitting rights sounds good to me, but 75 is a bit high in my opinion. Keep in mind the sitter can't claim the daily reward, and true, 20-50 million isn't high cost for a permasitter, but sitting rights should also be available to newer players who just want a sitter for some periods. 5 or 10 prestige points seems reasonable to me, but it's still high cost for a new player who wants to play a free game. Best thing of illy in my opion is that free and paying players can do the same things.

Still, most important to know are the numbers of sitters and sat accounts. Perhaps it has less influence on the game as we think. Or maybe far more. Without any numbers it's all just speculation, which is fun, but also rather pointless.
Back to Top
Celebrant View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2017
Location: Bukurest
Status: Offline
Points: 86
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Celebrant Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Nov 2017 at 16:32
Megalomania is a disease

Back to Top
Mafro View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 172
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mafro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Nov 2017 at 22:16
Originally posted by Ten Kulch Ten Kulch wrote:

75 or 150 prestige per 30 days seems more reasonable. That's only 20-50M gold at current market prices. Permasat farms generate far more than that in a month.

I like this idea as well, and a price of 150 (or even 250) prestige per month feels right. Improve the gameplay and improve the devs' finances - win/win.

Appointing a sitter to enjoy a vacation is a privilege that doesn't overly unbalance the game. If having that privilege requires you support the game via prestige, then I'm all for it.

I imagine it would lessen the appeal of permasat farms, which would help level the playing field for those of us abiding by the spirit of the rule and not just the letter. Inactive players abandon instead of getting permasat, high value locations become available, and more people play instead of just harvest farms.

Speaking as a multi-year player who has never had or been a sitter, you don't need to have your account sat...so, if you don't want to pay 150 prestige for a month off...then don't!
Back to Top
eowan the short View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 383
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eowan the short Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Nov 2017 at 01:03
Consider the ramifications of this. If you introduce a significant cost to sitting accounts then it means those who are willing to buy prestige are suddenly at a significant advantage moving illy towards a p2w system. If someone spends money they can have 6 accounts at their disposal. If they don't then they can only have 2 if the cost is too high. This creates a massive advantage to old/rich players.

At the very least, there needs to be a free period to allow small accounts to be sat which won't be able to generate enough gold for the sitter fee. 2 weeks minimum but 30 days would probably be fair. 

Maybe a better solution would be to limit the number of times the same account could be set as the sitter in a given period. For example, you can't sit the same account for more than 60 days per year total. This would make having permasats more complex and I imagine some just wouldn't bother.
Back to Top
Mafro View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 172
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mafro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Nov 2017 at 04:19
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Consider the ramifications of this.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

I like the idea of paying prestige in order to allow a sitter AND I like the idea of limiting how much an account can be sat, such as by requiring the accumulation of vacation days. Of course, simply setting a hard limit of, say, 3 months in a year would do too. It would certainly limit the "perma" in permasat.

And it would definitely be better than Sit2Win.
Back to Top
viperone View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2015
Location: philippines
Status: Offline
Points: 46
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote viperone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Nov 2017 at 07:37
Back to the original premise on page 1.  The sitter concept and the attempted fix 2 years ago were and are a complete failure.  It did nothing to curb the 'legitimate' practice of sitting 6 to 12 or more accounts as 'farms'.
Elimination of the sitter concept and adding a "inactive or vacation status" would seem a reasonable alternative.  If players did not have big farms they would either leave the game or perhaps actually invest in prestige to grow their account.

The only situation where a sitter would be acceptable would be in a war scenario.  When at war, or sieging (a war action) having a sitter is useful.  Limiting a wartime sitter to troop only issues would and should be an acceptable issue.

Back to Top
Corwin View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Location: Farshards
Status: Offline
Points: 295
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Corwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Nov 2017 at 09:28
Originally posted by viperone viperone wrote:

Back to the original premise on page 1.  The sitter concept and the attempted fix 2 years ago were and are a complete failure.  It did nothing to curb the 'legitimate' practice of sitting 6 to 12 or more accounts as 'farms'.


Again, where are the numbers to back that statement? There's a lot off asdumption going on in this thread.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.