Print Page | Close Window

25MAY14 - Broken Lands update

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: News & Announcements
Forum Name: Announcements
Forum Description: Changes, patch release dates, server launch dates, downtime notifications etc.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=5603
Printed Date: 09 Dec 2019 at 15:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: 25MAY14 - Broken Lands update
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Subject: 25MAY14 - Broken Lands update
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 03:34
Hi all,

Just wanted to bring you all up-to-speed on changes to our planned release of the Broken Lands expansion to Illyriad.

There are a number of things to run through here, so please bear with me.

New player influx
We've recently had a large influx of new players, and Elgea is now getting pretty full.  Finding an unsettled area on Elgea for new alliances is proving extremely difficult, and I don't think anyone will doubt that all the "best" locations are pretty much taken.

We want to expand the landmass, and implementing our original plan for the Broken Lands - where, essentially, everyone in the game could start again from scratch with a further 2 pairs of 10 cities on another continent - isn't really a solution to this issue.

Expanding Elgea
What we really need right now is an expansion to the current continent of Elgea.  However, this has many difficulties in implementation due to matching the boundaries of the pre-generated fractal terrain (which was generated, sadly, from a now-lost seed, so can't be recreated).

What we do have, though, is a continent to the South of Elgea - the Broken lands - that some of the more eagle-eyed amongst you have already spotted is nearly ready to go.  We've seeded most of the terrain, most of the food squares etc... and whilst it's not completely baked yet and we have a few clean-up processes to run through (faction hubs, new terrain types to load up etc) it's practically there.

So what we're going to do is release the Broken Lands continent as a pure expansion to Elgea.  

This means that: 

  • The Broken Lands will be a land extension to Elgea, pretty much doubling the size of the current map
  • The Broken Lands will be separated from Elgea by 300 squares of water (currently visible on the ingame world map), so there will be some travel distance between continents by default
  • Players will be able to freely move (exodus, Tenaril, settlers, military, diplo, trade etc) between continents - exactly as they currently do across Elgea
  • There will be no PvP-free zone on the Broken Lands (to be frank, it has turned out to be a broadly unnecessary feature that has been largely impossible to implement without becoming a "griefers' paradise")
  • BL will, however, have its own factions (you can http://www.illyriad.co.uk/blog/index.php/category/development/broken-lands-factions/" rel="nofollow - read about them here ), and its own mysteries, unique terrains, units, tournaments etc
  • There will be no second accounts, or "10 more cities".  Everyone is still limited to 2 accounts of 10 cities each, across the combined continental landmasses. On a separate note, we are aware of many of the frustrations players experience due to perma-sat accounts, and we will be addressing this separately in the near future.
In essence - because of our space limitations on Elgea - the two things that we aren't implementing for the Broken Lands are a) the PvP-free zone, and b) allowing Elgea players to start afresh with a further up-to-20 cities.

Broken Lands map data
The BL map (in terms of terrain types and seeding of eg food values) is still in some state of flux, and I wouldn't put a huge amount of weight on what's currently there.  However, this state of flux will reach equilibrium in the next couple of days, and I will then release a datafile for those of you who are so minded to analyze it.

There's a generic large map of the Broken Lands available http://www.illyriad.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/broken_lands_map.gif" rel="nofollow - here , but to see it in more detail, simply go to the world map ingame and head south!

In Summary
There are arguments for and against releasing the Broken Lands like this, we know - we've had them internally for weeks now.  

After much deliberation, we feel this is the best balance between opening up new space for new players to grow into, as well as providing veteran players the opportunity to leverage their existing capabilities, networks and relationships to project their influence and power (or take the opportunity to regroup!) at much greater distances from the madding crowd.

I'm sure there will be many questions, to which the answer to most will be "imagine if we'd just added more space to the West/East of Elgea - that's what this Broken Lands release will be like, in terms of core gameplay".

With very best wishes,

SC


-------------
GM Stormcrow | http://bit.ly/rLKfoT" rel="nofollow - Twitter | http://on.fb.me/uvfajA" rel="nofollow - Facebook | http://bit.ly/rBzlzf" rel="nofollow - G+



Replies:
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 03:37
Will new accounts still "spawn" in Elgea?  I can see benefits for either answer, just wondering which one you're planning.

If new accounts spawn in Broken Lands, we might need extra turbo speed for care-a-vans.


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 03:38
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Will new accounts still "spawn" in Elgea?  I can see benefits for either answer, just wondering which one you're planning.

If new accounts spawn in Broken Lands, we might need extra turbo speed for care-a-vans.

Great question.  

The plan is to only spawn new accounts in Elgea; BL will be an optional "move-to".


Posted By: REX_GAMBIT
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 05:16
Are there plans to increase movement speeds of units? It takes days to travel to other corners of maps right now. Expanded map will cause huge logistic and strategic problems just because of the size and travel speeds. May be units can get bonus speed if they are travelling farther than X number of tiles (say 1000)?


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 06:49
Originally posted by REX_GAMBIT REX_GAMBIT wrote:

Are there plans to increase movement speeds of units? It takes days to travel to other corners of maps right now. Expanded map will cause huge logistic and strategic problems just because of the size and travel speeds. May be units can get bonus speed if they are travelling farther than X number of tiles (say 1000)?

No plans at present, Rex.   I expect most players who wish to be on both continents will want to establish local (continental) hubs on BL, and distribute resources from there initially.  Over time it'll become less relevant, I'm sure.

However, I believe the sea gap between the continents is actually one of the substantial plus points of the BL release in this form.

Regards,

SC


Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 07:04
Well this is reasonable, and honestly in a lot of ways a better implementation than what was being planned.  I am a bit sad we won't get the from-scratch restart.  Is it possible a new world/reseeded version of Elgea could fill that void?  


Posted By: Flavius Aetius
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 07:13
Originally posted by Aurordan Aurordan wrote:

Well this is reasonable, and honestly in a lot of ways a better implementation than what was being planned.  I am a bit sad we won't get the from-scratch restart.  Is it possible a new world/reseeded version of Elgea could fill that void?  

I may be mistaken, but I thought that the developers do not believe in new servers? 


Posted By: Spheniscidae
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 08:29
So...after all the hype, nothing for established players with 10 cities then - unless you want to exodus your cities to BL.

Way to go, devs, way to go.


Posted By: Cilcain
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 09:01
Originally posted by Spheniscidae Spheniscidae wrote:

So...after all the hype, nothing for established players with 10 cities then - unless you want to exodus your cities to BL.


I was thinking that too.....

How about increasing the city/account limit to 15? That way, both established and new players could have a stake in BL, although the presence of established players would be limited to the 5 extra cities (unless they exo).



-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/77750" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Spheniscidae
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 09:05
Or alternatively, maybe 1 free tenaril per 5 cities (so players with 10 cities get 2), with the stipulation that these may only be used to transfer cities from elgea to BL.


Posted By: Aurordan
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 09:24
Another question:  How is this affecting the rollout of factions?  Will we still be seeing them go live when BL comes out?


Posted By: DeliciousJosh
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 10:02
Question:

Future tournaments... Will they be held on Elgea alone, or will the regions of The Broken Lands be used as tournament regions as well?

In terms of this question, it is important for players to know whether to keep cities on Elgea for tournament purposes or will we be able to move to TBL, knowing there will be tournament play there?



-------------

PublicRelations
HumanResources


Posted By: DeliciousJosh
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 10:08
Originally posted by Spheniscidae Spheniscidae wrote:

Or alternatively, maybe 1 free tenaril per 5 cities (so players with 10 cities get 2), with the stipulation that these may only be used to transfer cities from elgea to BL.


+1
I think this is a good idea.
We should be allowed at least 1 Tenaril spell for accounts who have used theirs already. How this can be added to the various accounts, I do not know. It might be hard and have to be done manually and therefore be extremely time-consuming for the devs. 
Also the 15 cities per account sounds like a good implementation as well. or maybe just 12-13 so players can create a 2-3 town hub.

-------------

PublicRelations
HumanResources


Posted By: Dragonwort
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 11:18
How is this idea? The established players have had and still have rule of Elgea for 3-5 years or so.
Quit whining and give the newbies a chance to see if they can create something better in Broken Lands.

Giving the established player another Tenaril will enable them to move a fully developed city with full troop and diplo strength to open world where once again they will have a HUGE advantage over newer players.....You want another Tenaril? Abandon your accounts and move to Broken Lands...OF course, that will mean you will start on equal footing with the newbies, no advantage but your experience. this is the fairest way anyway....BUT it will take some intestinal fortitude.So if you have any left..."Come on Down"...AND you'll be helping the Dev's; they won't need to worry about the perma-sat accounts.

I am a three month newbie established in elgea and I STILL advocate this solution (NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) for the established whiners....lol....Smile Dragonwort


-------------
Just another wrench in the works..


Posted By: Dungshoveleux
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 11:25
Do we have to swim across? Dwarves don't swim too well.
Seriously, I think....
1 Tenarils for established players would populate the new map more quickly and substantially thin out Elgea.
2 Permasat accounts likewise.
3 Raise the city limit to 15.
4 There are far too many hubs - thin them out.
5 Caravan limits need to be increased or some way of hiring them hub to hub.


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 13:08
will the publicised Broken Lands quest line still be available at release?


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 13:34
Originally posted by Spheniscidae Spheniscidae wrote:

So...after all the hype, nothing for established players with 10 cities then - unless you want to exodus your cities to BL.

Way to go, devs, way to go.

Many veteran players have - and many do - run 60 cities across 2 accounts and 4 permasat accounts.  The total number of accounts and the number of cities is really not the issue here.

Originally posted by Aurordan Aurordan wrote:

Another question:  How is this affecting the rollout of factions?  Will we still be seeing them go live when BL comes out?

No, but they are a priority (behind lochs/lakes/tarns sov, counter-claiming sov, and fixing the sitting system, plus assorted outstanding bugfixes).

Originally posted by DeliciousJosh DeliciousJosh wrote:

Future tournaments... Will they be held on Elgea alone, or will the regions of The Broken Lands be used as tournament regions as well?

Due to the distances involved, tournaments will probably have to occur on both continents, independently.

Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

will the publicised Broken Lands quest line still be available at release?

No, it won't; but is an integral part of the faction release and the new BL mysteries.

Regarding a second Tenaril's, that's not going to happen - for a wide variety of reasons.

Regards,

SC


Posted By: Morgweneth
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 13:49
Cheers something new and a lot for established, and new players to think about, be very interesting to see what happens.
I know your thinking of having Cities wiped if they land on an occupied sq, but I think this may be a bit harsh and add to the logistics when traveling across the sea, also many Cities have troops which should at least be able to fight the critters or whoever else is there to secure the site for the lumbering dismantled city behind them.

Anyway all good stuff, please consider my suggestion and have a great Bank Holiday.




Posted By: Nesse
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 14:25
I like!
I think it is good to not add 10 cities - I have enough to do with the 19 I currently handle.
I also agree with not having a pvp-free zone.
What I am really looking forward to that is postponed further is the factions. However, I think it is much better to release some of the new stuff (even if just more land) rather then to wait further.
Good Speed!
/Odd and Nesse


-------------
Nesse(Dwarven Druids) and Odd (Fairy Road Authority)


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 14:35
YAY!

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Spheniscidae
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 14:58
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

Originally posted by Spheniscidae Spheniscidae wrote:

So...after all the hype, nothing for established players with 10 cities then - unless you want to exodus your cities to BL.

Way to go, devs, way to go.

Many veteran players have - and many do - run 60 cities across 2 accounts and 4 permasat accounts.  The total number of accounts and the number of cities is really not the issue here.


I don't see how the point I am trying to make has anything to do with the permasat issue (and anyway, for the record, both players I am listed as a sitter for are alive and kicking).

How are established players who are close to or have reached 10 cities able to participate in BL content, short of exodusing cities there? In that regard, for me, this update is completely irrelevant. For those of us who have waited throughout 2013 for BL, only to wait another half a year, with all the bugs (some of which are still extant) and the lack of information as to where Illy was going - this is underwhelming to say the least.

Furthermore - originally BL was supposed to be independent of Elgea, with no communication between both regions (at least initially). Now that you are allowing the free flow of military, diplo and goods between both regions - I'd say that's a large disadvantage for those located in the north of Elgea.


Posted By: WeeAshley
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 15:46
Fantastic!

I think this is a much better way to implement it.  The whole plan to have it as another continent which was unattached seemed silly to me.

Now we have more of a "Discovery of North America" or "New World" type vibe.  How much is each player going to devote to taming the new world?  Or will they remain in the Old World and grab for the things left behind here?

This decision has made me very excited.


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/226073" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Myzel
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 16:06
I also believe this is a better, more natural way to release it. The whole non-pvp area idea seemed pretty unworkable to me. I don't think the expansion is irrelevant for established players - you could always choose to use your alt and leave one account intact if you feel like exploring the new world. But it does mean these players (we) will think twice before moving there now. Which in turn means we might get a different dynamic there, instead of the same large alliances trying to outgrow each other with 20 new cities. 


Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 17:48
I've been thinking on this for the last few hours. Here's what I got so far:

I think this is a much better way to implement the update. I can only see it on a personal level so far, maybe later I will have a more subjective view to share (given that anyone cares at all).

For me and my alliance, this gives us a real shot at a substantial rebirth after the pile on, trouncing we took at the hands of the new Illy overlords. The way I see it, TBL will be a clean slate and the re-thinking on the way it is to be implemented will cool the heals of the big accounts because they will have no way to get there without loosing something. The war against TVM has actually pre-primed us for a mass move to TBL and our overlords are much less likely to meet us there (in their current form).

-------------
Bonfyr Verboo


Posted By: Lyken
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 18:23
With the addition of the new landmass, I do hope you understand the disappointment that many veteran players might feel. The Broken Lands can be labelled 'additional content', content in a game which they have waited on for quite some time. Their understanding is that they would be able to experience said new content (factions, item, NPCs, whatever) alongside their alliance members. As it is now, any player who has put the time into completing their account must give up a portion of that progress in order to do so.

That being said, I really have no suggestions on how to 'fix' that issue. Additional towns are not an option, as many large players would merely use them to increase their power here on Elgea. As a player who doesn't mind admitting to having a couple of mid-sized say accounts, and one who supports the idea of some sort of sitting time limit, I must point out that sitters cannot, in fact, exodus towns. Short of the towns being razed and re-settled , perma-sat towns would have to remain where they are. Really the worst part of the situation is that it actually makes these accounts the best way to play down there... hope you guys move ahead with your plans for those soon(ish)!


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/123034" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: arnesson
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 18:38
I agree with Myzel, and those others who believe this is a positive move.  The BL expansion that was originally planned would have taken much longer to implement and would not really address the main issues that negatively affect the game.  Many veterans would have difficulty finding the time to manage 4 accounts and 20 cities, especially if they are also sitting other accounts as well.   This is a workable compromise that keeps the game interesting for all, veterans and new players.

For me, the main issue is getting rid of perma-sitters and abandoned accounts.  That would also open up prime real estate in the existing Elgean continent, since many of those were held by veteran players.  After that, improving logistics would be of great benefit.

Thanks SC and the rest of the team.  Smile


Posted By: Miklabjarnir
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 19:20
This is really an interesting concept - it will be possible for those with really bad neighbours to go in exile.

I would like to introduce the concept of a colony. It would be a way for those who do not want to exodus their cities to take part in the new continent, and it would enrich the whole game. To start a colony, you should need to have finished all trade research. 

You would need a new unit - the Governor - who is made by upgrading a Trader. You should not be allowed to plant more than one colony from a given city, and it should need to be on a different continent or maybe at a minimum distance of 1000 squares. This will make it sufficiently expensive and time consuming to prevent people from planting too many colonies.

A colony should have some restrictions compared with a town. No advanced buildings, for example. Limits on military and diplomatic units - maybe at least half the strength needs to be from the mother city?



Posted By: Sheza
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 22:43
I would be happy with One spell  for my main cities per  accounts ..  

-------------
If Horses don't go to Heaven when they die. then I want to go where they go.


Posted By: Detritus
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 22:55
Playing 4 years of Illy, I think this year sees the BIGGEST changes in political landscapes EVER.

All those changes will cause considerable powershifts, territory claim conflicts, raising new alliances and difficult diplomacy coming ahead...

... I like!  Clap


Posted By: Korben Dallas
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 23:17
If you want to keep the idea of 'equal footing' for new players and veterans alike in Broken Lands I suggest making BL settler only. No tenariling or exodusing please. I know my suggestion means really planning your settlements and no terraforming. I'd also put in for a city destruction research (with a rules list like exodus) and faster moving settlers please? Wink


Posted By: Spheniscidae
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 23:27
Except that BL in its current form is in no way a clean slate - you can still send resources, armies and diplo freely there from Elgea.

Of course, depending on where you are situated in Elgea - this might be easier or more difficult...


Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 25 May 2014 at 23:59
I'd say all or nothing...

if BL are a expansion to the map it should be exactly that, without any extra rules (appart from extra mysteries and tourneys due to the distance...)

As far as many veteran players are concerned, the alteration in plans already is a huge gift to the new players, with veteran players having to sacrifice at least half a town to send anything to BL.

Making it settler only would increase this sacrifice even more, making it a whole town to kill off, when you've no free city slot...




Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 26 May 2014 at 05:10
Wow this is great! Way better than what was planned before. While I would have still played BL, an additional 18 cities would have become a nightmare.

Agree with Hora. No extra rules. Its great the way it is. 

Alliances beaten in war will get a chance to rebuild too, using resources from elgea, and far far away from their enemies.


Posted By: Merlinus
Date Posted: 26 May 2014 at 07:48
GMs:

I hope you will give consideration to what the players have input on this idea prior to releasing BL, but I would also hope for a concrete release date (no surprises?) that we can all use. Good work, and thanks for it.


-------------
In Peace we reign. In War we RULE!

Long live the Royal House of Merlinus!


Posted By: Neytiri
Date Posted: 26 May 2014 at 16:48
Thanks so much, SC and rest of Illy team!
You rock!



-------------
"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')


Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 26 May 2014 at 18:39
Glad to hear the devs have been up to something. I am very excited for more change in Elgea. 

Broken Lands seems to heavily feature oceans, rivers, and other water ways. With it being reachable from southern Elgea sea, it seems like a boat system would be a great addition and provide a lot of functionality. Particularly shipping boats for faster travel across oceans, troop transport across oceans, and military ship actions. I hope this is on your scrum board. 

I am guessing there will be mass exodus on day 1 of broken lands.  Will there be any exodus changes before BL is active? As I understand the following rules are in place: 

- If your city arrives and a non allied army occupies the square, your city is destroyed. 

- If your city arrives, and another city has already setup camp, your city is destroyed. 

Essentially a first come first serve set of rules. I wouldn't be surprised if people exodus to southern illy first before BL, then exodus again just to try and get infront of the competition. This heavily favours any alliance who have the large plumps of land carved out in southern Elgea. 

What is to stop a Southern player from sending 5 armies from every city to occupy different squares in Broken Lands to destroy other exodus cities from arriving? Knowing that people will only be moving to 7 food squares really limits the target locations down. 1 player alone could block 50 locations. 






-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Corwin
Date Posted: 26 May 2014 at 18:48
Seems a nice new addtition to the game, but I'm a little sceptic. Affraid we might have to wait another year before we can finally settle in broken lands. I really don't understand the complains about cities destoyed by occupying armies. Seems totally fair and realistic to me. 
If you don't want your exodused city destroyed just make sure you have alarge cavalry army clearing the square just before you arrive. I don't see the problem. 

2014 promises to be a lot better then 2013; we've had a tournement and we might actually get broken lands this year. Hope we don't get disapointed again


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 26 May 2014 at 19:34
in an effort to preserve the "other place" feeling of the Broken Lands, could we restrict the visibility of town trades to some reasonable radius before Broken Lands opens for settlement? even 300 squares would be enough.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 26 May 2014 at 21:08
Broken Lands is going to be a bear for city to city trades.  If I ever get my caravans back from sending to the new folks,  I will probably be raising the prices on basics a bit based on expectations of longer travel times.  Or at least trying to, and if others feel like me, it could affect the market significantly.


Posted By: Lwyllyn
Date Posted: 26 May 2014 at 23:55
Thank you, DEVs!

I like the idea of extending the limit to 15 cities. If a player is allowed no more than 10 on one continent, the playing field may remain level.


Posted By: Oneeye
Date Posted: 27 May 2014 at 02:28
I can see not too many allaince members sending res to other new players in BL cause of fellow  allaince members needing them there . N lady Rill ur rite i do see prices for basics going sky high in the market cause of this . (bows to all the great and amazing ppl in this great forum ) 


Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 27 May 2014 at 14:52
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Broken Lands is going to be a bear for city to city trades.  If I ever get my caravans back from sending to the new folks,  I will probably be raising the prices on basics a bit based on expectations of longer travel times.  Or at least trying to, and if others feel like me, it could affect the market significantly.

Demand should go up for basic resources. I assume exodus will be the primary form of settling BL. That requires millions of basic resources to rebuild the city back to it's target size. With so many people doing it, I imagine city to city sells will crazy. As well as prestige usage. 

Trade hub sells are likely to get even less attention in BL. Exodused cities will not be capable of sending caravans till their market is fully operational. Once fully operational, it will take twice as long to purchase from trade hub then to purchase from player cities. 

There may be a market for far south trade hub. Such as Larn or Farra Isle. But only if Elgea cities can keep it well stocked. 


-------------
http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Princely
Date Posted: 27 May 2014 at 17:58
Correct me if I am wrong... The travel distances established players will be experiencing when exo'ing their cities to BL will cause major problems once the cities land due to resource shortages. Once the city lands in BL a player could end up losing their shorts trying to get resources moved to their city that they move. The negative productions created by the exo from the move could easily start self destructing the town further before supplies arrive.

All thoughts and comments are eagerly awaited.


Posted By: Sheza
Date Posted: 27 May 2014 at 18:07
One free or  cost  prestige ?  tendril  spell,  l one  per  account  .    so we can  send  one city  there at least  .  Do it for the new lands  
All in favor .   



-------------
If Horses don't go to Heaven when they die. then I want to go where they go.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 27 May 2014 at 18:36
Princely:  It would depend on the buildings the player had in the city and the resource configuration of the destination square.  Certainly this is something that people would need to plan for ahead of time.  Another consideration will be the cost of maintaining buildings and troops during the long journey, which will be in the hundreds of millions of gold for anyone with a decent-sized army.  It's possible people will just decide to kill off most of their armies before they move.

Sheza:  Although I was not here at the time, it is my understanding that the Tenaril spell was basically "invented" to help players move as a result of a major map change.  It seems reasonable to me to allow another free Tenaril to accommodate people who want to move as a result of this major map change.  There will be people who disagree of course, for various political or gameplay reasons.  

Honestly this goes against my self interest, since I HAVE an alt with a Tenaril available, and this would just promote competition for my tiny one-city account from more established players.  I do think it's more fair to the bulk of the playerbase though.  Of course this would likely change dynamics of Broken Lands substantially from the last-announced intention of the developers.  But then the last-announced intention changed dynamics substantially from the previously announced intention.  Therefore this would not seem to me to be a barrier.

If the intention of opening up the Broken Lands is to create more space and free up some of the constrictions in Elgea, offering EVERY player a way to move at least one city would seem to accomplish this even more effectively.  

If there are other motivations, e.g., affording very new players a more even playing field in a new space, then there would be more effective ways of doing that, such as making Broken Lands a completely separate continent and simply not allowing any movement between the two areas, at least for a time.  Players could then choose whether to begin in a crowded Elgea or a less prosperous but also less crowded Broken Lands.  This would of course force existing players to choose whether to abandon already-built accounts in Elgea in favor of a new adventure in Broken Lands, creating a fairly draconian choice, but it would afford everyone starting in the new area a truly level playing field.


Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 27 May 2014 at 20:19
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

This means that: 

  • The Broken Lands will be a land extension to Elgea, pretty much doubling the size of the current map
  • The Broken Lands will be separated from Elgea by 300 squares of water (currently visible on the ingame world map), so there will be some travel distance between continents by default
  • Players will be able to freely move (exodus, Tenaril, settlers, military, diplo, trade etc) between continents - exactly as they currently do across Elgea
  • There will be no PvP-free zone on the Broken Lands (to be frank, it has turned out to be a broadly unnecessary feature that has been largely impossible to implement without becoming a "griefers' paradise")
  • BL will, however, have its own factions (you can http://www.illyriad.co.uk/blog/index.php/category/development/broken-lands-factions/" rel="nofollow - read about them here ), and its own mysteries, unique terrains, units, tournaments etc
  • There will be no second accounts, or "10 more cities".  Everyone is still limited to 2 accounts of 10 cities each, across the combined continental landmasses. On a separate note, we are aware of many of the frustrations players experience due to perma-sat accounts, and we will be addressing this separately in the near future.
In essence - because of our space limitations on Elgea - the two things that we aren't implementing for the Broken Lands are a) the PvP-free zone, and b) allowing Elgea players to start afresh with a further up-to-20 cities.

I don't know about anyone else but this is extremely disappointing to me. After no updates and a serious lack of bug fixes for a very long time, the developers finally come around to announce that one of the most anticipated patches to the game is maybe possibly coming soon. But low and behold it's not what we were told it would be. In fact, it's nothing like what we were told it was going to be. 

You guys took all the things that everyone was excited about and scrapped it. New accounts with the ability to reinvent yourself and play completely differently? Nope, we'll ban you if you make more than two accounts, but hey! Feel free to run an entire alliance by yourself exploiting the sitting system, something we said we would fix years ago. How about that cool new PVP and non-PVP zones we talked about? Yeah, that's not there either. But hey! Feel free to play the game the exact same way you've been playing it for the last few years!

This game has been slowly dying due to a lack of support and Broken Lands was something that many hoped would change that. And now you've decided to seemingly release it without actually putting in the time to finish it, leaving it a husk of what it was suppose to be and at most, quells the cries that this game has been abandoned while only serving to fix one issue; land disputes. 


-------------


Posted By: GirlFromHell
Date Posted: 27 May 2014 at 20:32
Originally posted by Brids17 Brids17 wrote:

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

This means that: 

  • The Broken Lands will be a land extension to Elgea, pretty much doubling the size of the current map
  • The Broken Lands will be separated from Elgea by 300 squares of water (currently visible on the ingame world map), so there will be some travel distance between continents by default
  • Players will be able to freely move (exodus, Tenaril, settlers, military, diplo, trade etc) between continents - exactly as they currently do across Elgea
  • There will be no PvP-free zone on the Broken Lands (to be frank, it has turned out to be a broadly unnecessary feature that has been largely impossible to implement without becoming a "griefers' paradise")
  • BL will, however, have its own factions (you can http://www.illyriad.co.uk/blog/index.php/category/development/broken-lands-factions/" rel="nofollow - read about them here ), and its own mysteries, unique terrains, units, tournaments etc
  • There will be no second accounts, or "10 more cities".  Everyone is still limited to 2 accounts of 10 cities each, across the combined continental landmasses. On a separate note, we are aware of many of the frustrations players experience due to perma-sat accounts, and we will be addressing this separately in the near future.
In essence - because of our space limitations on Elgea - the two things that we aren't implementing for the Broken Lands are a) the PvP-free zone, and b) allowing Elgea players to start afresh with a further up-to-20 cities.

I don't know about anyone else but this is extremely disappointing to me. After no updates and a serious lack of bug fixes for a very long time, the developers finally come around to announce that one of the most anticipated patches to the game is maybe possibly coming soon. But low and behold it's not what we were told it would be. In fact, it's nothing like what we were told it was going to be. 

You guys took all the things that everyone was excited about and scrapped it. New accounts with the ability to reinvent yourself and play completely differently? Nope, we'll ban you if you make more than two accounts, but hey! Feel free to run an entire alliance by yourself exploiting the sitting system, something we said we would fix years ago. How about that cool new PVP and non-PVP zones we talked about? Yeah, that's not there either. But hey! Feel free to play the game the exact same way you've been playing it for the last few years!

This game has been slowly dying due to a lack of support and Broken Lands was something that many hoped would change that. And now you've decided to seemingly release it without actually putting in the time to finish it, leaving it a husk of what it was suppose to be and at most, quells the cries that this game has been abandoned while only serving to fix one issue; land disputes. 

Hear, hear. Shift+R improves the quality of this image. Shift+A improves the quality of all images on this page.


-------------
~Hell_Girl_Rei / -Nyx-

Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.


Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 27 May 2014 at 23:37
Originally posted by Brids17 Brids17 wrote:

You guys took all the things that everyone was excited about and scrapped it. New accounts with the ability to reinvent yourself and play completely differently? Nope, we'll ban you if you make more than two accounts, but hey! Feel free to run an entire alliance by yourself exploiting the sitting system, something we said we would fix years ago. How about that cool new PVP and non-PVP zones we talked about? Yeah, that's not there either. But hey! Feel free to play the game the exact same way you've been playing it for the last few years!

This game has been slowly dying due to a lack of support and Broken Lands was something that many hoped would change that. And now you've decided to seemingly release it without actually putting in the time to finish it, leaving it a husk of what it was suppose to be and at most, quells the cries that this game has been abandoned while only serving to fix one issue; land disputes. 

...hmm... good points, Brids. But to be honest, I wasn't anticipating the "originally announced" BLs very much. I have 2 medium sized accounts and I'm quite busy. Actually I restrain myself from playing more than my RL can take, and I wouldn't have opened a new account in BL.
Now I'm actually considering to exodus 2 or 3 cities over there.

And this sitting thing is at least said to be on the priority list (...again Wink)...  So there's still hope, although this will cause some mayor population loss in older alliances (tiny bit of mixed feeling with this, but definitly would do the game good!)


Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 28 May 2014 at 01:16
So here's the thing. For a player with two main accounts and several auxiliary accounts, what's the cost of moving over an auxiliary to Broken Lands? Zero. I think people are complaining because they expected a fresh, level playing field in BL (as promised), and now it will basically just be Elgea x2 size. More good spots will open up, but I'd expect those to be quickly camped by alliances with lots of spare accounts, i.e. the same ones in power now.

Give it a year, people will still be complaining that all the good spots are taken. =P


Posted By: Flavius Aetius
Date Posted: 28 May 2014 at 01:33
Originally posted by Brandmeister Brandmeister wrote:

So here's the thing. For a player with two main accounts and several auxiliary accounts, what's the cost of moving over an auxiliary to Broken Lands? Zero. I think people are complaining because they expected a fresh, level playing field in BL (as promised), and now it will basically just be Elgea x2 size. More good spots will open up, but I'd expect those to be quickly camped by alliances with lots of spare accounts, i.e. the same ones in power now.

Give it a year, people will still be complaining that all the good spots are taken. =P

As you say, it just stalls the existing problem. This is a disappointment, but I would say that we should be used to such disappointments. 


-------------
Cry havoc and let slip the eagles of freedom - The Raven King


Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 28 May 2014 at 06:20
Don't care for BL personally, want Factions, they were something that was to be very unique to this game. I would rather sole focus be on releasing factions live.


Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 28 May 2014 at 06:48
Factions still have the promise of being very cool.


Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 28 May 2014 at 09:13
Many of their ideas have the promise of being cool but as we've seen, they rarely come to fruition. The game is filled with half finished content and rather than finishing it, the devs move onto something completely different. This is the same case here. They're going to release it but it's unfinished like everything else they release. They need to actually work on finishing things, rather than jumping around sporadically to new projects but I don't know if they'll ever do it or if by the time they do, it'll actually make a difference. 

-------------


Posted By: Spheniscidae
Date Posted: 28 May 2014 at 10:59
Originally posted by Brids17 Brids17 wrote:

You guys took all the things that everyone was excited about and scrapped it. New accounts with the ability to reinvent yourself and play completely differently? Nope, we'll ban you if you make more than two accounts, but hey! Feel free to run an entire alliance by yourself exploiting the sitting system, something we said we would fix years ago. How about that cool new PVP and non-PVP zones we talked about? Yeah, that's not there either. But hey! Feel free to play the game the exact same way you've been playing it for the last few years!

Exactly! Couldn't agree more...
Seems like we are suckers for having stayed with Illy through the Great Dev Silence - but I guess churning in new players is the name of the game now...



Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 28 May 2014 at 20:09
I never liked the limits that were going to be enforced on the non-pvp zone and I definitely did not like the idea of 20 cities per account. With the changes GM SC has announced, coinciding with the elimination of the abuse of permasitters, it is a win/win for the future of Illyriad.

The first 6 months of the BL release will be fun to watch; the power struggles, jostling for best spots and inevitable skirmishes.

More alliances, more players, less overly-bloated powerful accounts = A stronger, healthier Illy.


P.S. Any vet here can easily exodus to BL and rebuild, buying prestige can speed up res production. I wouldn't be surprised if several 10 city accounts were in BL within the first 6 months.


Posted By: arnesson
Date Posted: 28 May 2014 at 20:35
And now for something completely different.  How about a maximum of 5 cities per account per continent?  That would partially address the concerns that large, established alliances would take over all of the BL before others could take advantage of it.




Posted By: dantem
Date Posted: 28 May 2014 at 20:39
and what happens to the players who already have 10 cities??? lol..dont think they will appreciate this 1...

-------------
I believe that if life gives you lemons, you should make lemonade... And try to find somebody whose life has given them vodka, and have a party.


Posted By: Rupe
Date Posted: 28 May 2014 at 20:43
I personally think a max of 15 cities would work well but with a max of ten on any one continent.
I would opt for ten from alt in BL and ten main account in Elgea


Posted By: Rupe
Date Posted: 28 May 2014 at 20:46
Are the sizes of alliances going to be increased?


Posted By: DeliciousJosh
Date Posted: 29 May 2014 at 00:00
Alliance Size increased to 120? 130? 140? 150? 
Administrating that many people will become difficult, even if half the alliance is alts.

And yeah, I think it's going to be hard to code accounts to have 10 cities on one continent and 5 on another :)

-------------

PublicRelations
HumanResources


Posted By: Silent
Date Posted: 29 May 2014 at 06:34
Is there going to be anything really Unique to the Broken lands that makes it less like just a mere extension of the map

-------------
The Lord of all Dracolichs. Silent and Deadly.


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 29 May 2014 at 06:41
New mysteries and new factions.  Possibly new creatures?  That's not confirmed yet.


Posted By: kodabear
Date Posted: 29 May 2014 at 16:47
Originally posted by Rillbear Rillbear wrote:

New mysteries and new factions.  Possibly new creatures?  That's not confirmed yet.


if there is new creatures i vote for magic bear Big smile 
** Has the magic bear cast spell to forces everyone to vote for adding magic bears.**
I had hope to start over with everyone one use but oh well there is nothing i can do about that. We are running out of space for new alliance to setter at. Yes there are some space left but they aren't very good.


Posted By: dantem
Date Posted: 29 May 2014 at 18:24
Originally posted by kodabear kodabear wrote:

if there is new creatures i vote for magic bear Big smile 
** Has the magic bear cast spell to forces everyone to vote for adding magic bears.**

u have my vote!!! lol...but u still need 2 get the GM votes....Tongue


-------------
I believe that if life gives you lemons, you should make lemonade... And try to find somebody whose life has given them vodka, and have a party.


Posted By: Twist
Date Posted: 29 May 2014 at 19:46
in the initial anouncement of Broken lands... I think I remember Undead npcs? and not just for a tournament, but for regular play?
which would give some use to the crafted items with bonus vs undead ;)


Posted By: Beyljr
Date Posted: 29 May 2014 at 20:15
I like it!

I am glad that there won't be more cities, as that would totally defeat this upgrade. I also like the no extra tenaril.

Great job!


Posted By: Northern Ranger
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2014 at 03:52
I think the new plan is a much better way to open up BL than the original plan.  Thank you devs!  20 cities is already plenty to handle; doubling that would be just too much.

But, there is certainly merit to keeping things as close to a fresh start as possible.  How about instead of allowing a 'regular' exodus from Elgea, make every new city in Broken Lands start from scratch.  Allow Tenaril and settlers, nothing else.  For players who are at their limit of cities per their overall population, give them a way to desert existing cities in order to free up a slot for settlers.  (Actually, I think that would be a good thing independent of BL.)



Posted By: Ancient Nightowl
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2014 at 11:13
The original concept of BL was great - just what was required 18 months ago when it first hit the headlines. Since then NOTHING. 
In fact the idea of policing and clearing out the likes of old and permasat accounts and putting a stop to 3rd and 4th accounts for terraforming (regardless of how briefly they exist) has also fallen by the wayside.
This latest version of BL is BS.
Restrict the time one can babysit an account which will clear out the permasat ones and get back on track - at least with the original concept of BL, then start thinking about all the other broken promises - roads, Factions etc. etc and drop SOON from the vocabulary, its a very stale joke.


Posted By: Bytor
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2014 at 15:38
all i can say is i cant wait Big smile


Posted By: ICEKat
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2014 at 16:17
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

  • There will be no second accounts, or "10 more cities".  Everyone is still limited to 2 accounts of 10 cities each, across the combined continental landmasses. On a separate note, we are aware of many of the frustrations players experience due to perma-sat accounts, and we will be addressing this separately in the near future.

SC


simple solution to permasat accounts
do the same as in other games
sitters can't send resources or troops out of the account  - you're literally just sitting the account - moving defense around in the acct and building for the player who is absent for whatever reason

simples


Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2014 at 18:49
Since attacking a siege camp is one of the main ways of defending in Illyriad, it is not quite as simple as that, Kat.  Whether the sitting function is a good idea at all or how long it should last, etc., if the sitting function is supposed to be used to defend cities while a player is away, then the sitter needs to be able to use any armies in the account to attack.

One could certainly make an argument that account sitters should not be allowed to blockade or siege.

However, I think once we start dictating what an account sitter can or can't do in terms of account functions like this, the coding starts to get complicated.  So even if the idea is simple, the coding might not be.

Even though I like having a backup person appointed to sit my account in case I am not able to be online for health or other reasons and thus will be personally inconvenienced by the limitation on sitting to x number of days a year, it seems like it is probably the best choice the developers have at their disposal to deal with the problem, and I hope that they implement something along that line in the next few months.


Posted By: ICEKat
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2014 at 19:37
moving the troops around in the account for the account protection and moving the resources around to build more troops for defense etc is all that a sitter should be allowed to do

after all you're sitting - not supposed to be playing the account as the actual owner

still a simple solution and the most logical one to make permasits not used for long periods of time as they would be a burden rather than coveted



Posted By: Miklabjarnir
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2014 at 23:58
I can see a number of reasons why somebody might need to be away from the net for a year. I do not think that is what causes problems with and abuse of "permasitting". If sitters were restricted so they could not ship any resources to other accounts, I think the most obvious reason why some people are abusing the sitting function would disappear. 


Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 00:09
I've said this fairly often. Sitting avoids password sharing, which is a security risk. Limit sitting, and accounts will get shared. Unless the devs are going to start tracking multiple logins from one person, players will just run 3+ accounts in defiance of the rules.


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 00:25
I'd also add that players could/would also use thieves/troops as a way of taking (rather than sending) resources from a sat account, which would bypass the "no sending" implementation.

In Illy, it's never quite as simple as it looks on first glance! Smile

SC


Posted By: ICEKat
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 00:42
not if you limited the amount of time allowed for a sat account
say 50% of actual time logged by the owner  (not sat)
so they log on for 3 months straight they can be sat for 45 days

then once the account was no longer used by the real owner it would become abandoned surely ?


Posted By: Impedious
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 01:23
My two cents. I have been playing since Feb.  To find available 7 food locations took me over a week using Illytools and even then my spots were pretty crappy and I felt like I had to squeezing in to cracks making having a city cluster impossible.  It was incredibly frustrating and must be worse now. If new players like me can't join an game with feeling restricted beyond belief we won't and the game will die I suspect most 10 city players don't need to use prestige much anymore. The company has to make money or the game is gone a la LoU. For me having new land I can move into without squeezing into the cracks between established players who seem to do little is well worth the cost of using Exodus.  This is going to cause tension as players and alliance jostle for position which I think will liven up the game and make it more enjoyable for most players. I am happy with what the developers did and don't really give a rat's patooie what the the mega players think


Posted By: Flavius Aetius
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 01:38
Originally posted by Impedious Impedious wrote:

My two cents. I have been playing since Feb.  To find available 7 food locations took me over a week using Illytools and even then my spots were pretty crappy and I felt like I had to squeezing in to cracks making having a city cluster impossible.  It was incredibly frustrating and must be worse now. If new players like me can't join an game with feeling restricted beyond belief we won't and the game will die I suspect most 10 city players don't need to use prestige much anymore. The company has to make money or the game is gone a la LoU. For me having new land I can move into without squeezing into the cracks between established players who seem to do little is well worth the cost of using Exodus.  This is going to cause tension as players and alliance jostle for position which I think will liven up the game and make it more enjoyable for most players. I am happy with what the developers did and don't really give a rat's patooie what the the mega players think

I couldn't have said it better myself. 


-------------
Cry havoc and let slip the eagles of freedom - The Raven King


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 02:51
Originally posted by ICEKat ICEKat wrote:

not if you limited the amount of time allowed for a sat account
say 50% of actual time logged by the owner  (not sat)
so they log on for 3 months straight they can be sat for 45 days

then once the account was no longer used by the real owner it would become abandoned surely ?

I think that's what we're looking at: a time-limited period for sitting in a calendar year, beyond which further sitting is forbidden.  We'd much rather do that than a combination system.

SC




Posted By: ubluntu
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 03:54
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

Originally posted by ICEKat ICEKat wrote:

not if you limited the amount of time allowed for a sat account
say 50% of actual time logged by the owner  (not sat)
so they log on for 3 months straight they can be sat for 45 days

then once the account was no longer used by the real owner it would become abandoned surely ?

I think that's what we're looking at: a time-limited period for sitting in a calendar year, beyond which further sitting is forbidden.  We'd much rather do that than a combination system.

SC



Why not keep it simple?
If an account holder has not logged in for 60 days(maybe 90 for prestige buyers) remove all sitters from the account so the existing http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/6july2012-enforced-account-removal_topic3771.html" rel="nofollow - enforced account removal  can work as intended.

Yes, the account holder can login and appoint a sitter again, but how many permasat accounts see the real account holder?

I think it strikes a nice balance between minimizing development time and impact on gameplay while maximizing effectiveness.


Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 05:04
Originally posted by ubluntu ubluntu wrote:

Why not keep it simple?
If an account holder has not logged in for 60 days(maybe 90 for prestige buyers) remove all sitters from the account so the existing http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/6july2012-enforced-account-removal_topic3771.html" rel="nofollow - enforced account removal  can work as intended.

Yes, the account holder can login and appoint a sitter again, but how many permasat accounts see the real account holder?

I think it strikes a nice balance between minimizing development time and impact on gameplay while maximizing effectiveness.

It's certainly simple to implement.  

My worry is that it doesn't address the issue that under that system someone could genuinely log in 4 times a year and be regarded as an active player vs a permasat alt.  

I do think there's an issue with sitting that fundamentlly revolves around "actually playing the game" - and I don't want any change we make to bestow further "legitimacy" on the current state.

SC


Posted By: Ancient Nightowl
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 05:08
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

Originally posted by ICEKat ICEKat wrote:

not if you limited the amount of time allowed for a sat account
say 50% of actual time logged by the owner  (not sat)
so they log on for 3 months straight they can be sat for 45 days

then once the account was no longer used by the real owner it would become abandoned surely ?

I think that's what we're looking at: a time-limited period for sitting in a calendar year, beyond which further sitting is forbidden.  We'd much rather do that than a combination system.

SC



Exactly the sort of thing I was thinking about for these accounts.


Posted By: LadyLifeGrows
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 22:10
Originally posted by Korben Dallas Korben Dallas wrote:

If you want to keep the idea of 'equal footing' for new players and veterans alike in Broken Lands I suggest making BL settler only. No tenariling or exodusing please. I know my suggestion means really planning your settlements and no terraforming. I'd also put in for a city destruction research (with a rules list like exodus) and faster moving settlers please? Wink


I think this is excellent.

The Devs solution is superb for newer players.

But the Big ones have reason to be big-time disappointed. They matter, too. I suggest you copy one of LoU's good points and allow account-sitting for only half the number of days the account was actively played by its original owner. Just after that is implemented, you give the Big guys their sweetie: any player with 16 cities (in two accounts) may have a third account in their own name, which is automatically spawned in the B.L.


Posted By: LadyLifeGrows
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 22:34
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

I'd also add that players could/would also use thieves/troops as a way of taking (rather than sending) resources from a sat account, which would bypass the "no sending" implementation.

In Illy, it's never quite as simple as it looks on first glance! Smile

SC


Yes, StormCrow; that is how it was done in LoU.


Posted By: LadyLifeGrows
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2014 at 22:39
Originally posted by ubluntu ubluntu wrote:

Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

Originally posted by ICEKat ICEKat wrote:

not if you limited the amount of time allowed for a sat account
say 50% of actual time logged by the owner  (not sat)
so they log on for 3 months straight they can be sat for 45 days

then once the account was no longer used by the real owner it would become abandoned surely ?

I think that's what we're looking at: a time-limited period for sitting in a calendar year, beyond which further sitting is forbidden.  We'd much rather do that than a combination system.

SC



Why not keep it simple?
If an account holder has not logged in for 60 days(maybe 90 for prestige buyers) remove all sitters from the account so the existing http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/6july2012-enforced-account-removal_topic3771.html" rel="nofollow - enforced account removal  can work as intended.

Yes, the account holder can login and appoint a sitter again, but how many permasat accounts see the real account holder?

I think it strikes a nice balance between minimizing development time and impact on gameplay while maximizing effectiveness.


Another excellent one. The enforced account removal timer would begin the day the account sitters were kicked.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net