Print Page | Close Window

PermaSat Accounts

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=7353
Printed Date: 29 Mar 2024 at 01:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: PermaSat Accounts
Posted By: viperone
Subject: PermaSat Accounts
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2017 at 00:30
A couple of years back the Devs attempted to fix what we call PermaSat accounts and this attempted fix was a failure.  The issue of permanant sitters with password access has never adequately been addressed or dealt with.  My suggestion, open for discussion follows:

Eliminate sitter accounts entirely as they currently exist.  Allow a 'War' sitter for 12 hour periods only.  A 'War' sitter can only access troop(s) and troop movements and 'war' sitters are only possible if there is an active war declaration in effect on the particular player or players alliance.
 
For players taking game breaks and vacations create an Inactive Status.  This will allow a player to go Inactive for a period of up to 6 weeks every 12 calendar months.  An 'Inactive Status' account will have a rainbow over it, much the same as a newbie. 'Inactive Status' can be utilized in portions also, but not to exceed a maximum of 6 weeks per year.  Restrictions on going to an 'Inactive Status' would include similar restrictions as in exodus.  A player can not go inactive, for example, if there are inbound troops, blockades, siege encampments, and so forth. If a player exceeds the 'Inactive Status' time frame the rainbow over his/her towns would disappear and the towns are then vulnerable to diplo and military attacks.  

By eliminating PermaSat accounts the advantage of having a huge farm network becomes null and void.  The Devs can also help the game by speeding up the process of inactive accounts disappearing from the game.  If an account is inactive for 90 days following an 'Inactive Status' it should be cleared from the game and the towns should go 'poof'  Currently many inactive accounts just sit around for 6 months or more, occupying valuable illy real estate which could be utilized by new players.



Replies:
Posted By: Corwin
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2017 at 07:21
I believe there are different types of permasitting.
  1. an account that's purely created for an allready existing player with 2 accounts that can use the extra account as he pleases
  2. an account that's created by a person that wants to play tournaments/pvp but doesn't like the building, researching, gathering. He gives another player the rights to use the account how he wants as long as there are troops build for when tourny/war comes


I think most agree the first type is a bit cheating, but it's difficult to exclude them and not drive away the 2nd type, and I believe they make the game more fun, as they play with dedication when they do spend time on their account.

So personally I like it the way it is now, which isn't perfect, I agree. I just don't see a way to ban the first type and keep the second.


Posted By: viperone
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2017 at 10:42
Yes but you have to assume that a player can have 2 accounts....and each account can sit 2 accounts...in essence allowing a player to have 6 accounts under their control without actually multi-accounting


Posted By: OssianII
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2017 at 11:11
I support this as being a fairer and more reasonable way to play the game. It is also very similar to other games that are like Illyriad but even more centred on conflict and so there is no reason why warmongers of Illy should not support it - except...if they are selfish and greedy. Cheating ruins good gaming. Lets not see that here. What do all you newbes think? Lets see your views on the forum Clap

Ossian II
Chair of the Good, Fit and Proper Dwarf Players Society (ret'd)  Thumbs Up
(ps The Good, Fit and Proper Dwarf Players  Society at work)
(pps - We are not Trolls Tongue)


Posted By: Celebrant
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2017 at 12:23
My support.Although I think every such post is plunged into dust.

Trivia Tuesday today.


Posted By: Wartow
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2017 at 14:33
I'd prefer the sitter model be like a "vacation".  Vacation days are earned, just like they are at most places of employment.  The number of vacation days can accumulate to a max limit.

Example:

Every 21 unique days of signing into the game equals one sitter day.  This would give a daily player about 17 vacation days a year.  I'd set a max limit of accumulated days in the range from 40 to 50.  Each day the sitter accesses the sit-tee the vacation day is reduced by one.

More commentary:

This game is not one where your city can be attacked and captured within a matter of hours.  Upon System notification of a siege the sitter can access the sitted account and adjust defenses accordingly.  The need for 24-7 access by a sitter is, as mentioned above, to do the heavy lifting (clicking), or to possess an account as a backdoor mechanism to have more than two accounts.

Final commentary:

I don't feel good about the inactive with rainbow status.  Perhaps if it came with a very heavy cost (prestige) and additional requirements (all build and research queues must be empty, no res production during this period).  I'd also advocate for a 7 days "warm up" and "cool down" period to avoid switching this mode on to avoid incoming attacks or to prepare a counter-offensive.  All trade activity is also cancelled. This mode should hurt as much, if not more, than an exodus.


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


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2017 at 15:47
Wouldn't the simplest system be to allow a sitter connect once per day for a limited time e.g. 20 mins? and prevent the sitter from trading or dispatching gold to another player? - an end to gold farms!


Posted By: Corwin
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2017 at 17:29
It would be nice to have some numbers on the subject. How many accounts are being sat? And how many players (not accounts) are sitting? Are there alliances or regions with more then average sat accounts and the same for sitting accounts? What is the average time the actual player of a sat account is playing the account and what is the average time sitters use? 

When is a sat account a permasat account? The actual player needs to log in at least every 90 days to give sitter rights again, but if he comes on every 30 days, has a look, does some things and then gives it away again does that count as permasat? And every 3 weeks? Every 2? Once a week? Apparently there are people who want others to look after their full acounts, for longer periods. Who should be the judge on calling an account permasat? The people on the forums are most likely the most active players as well, so offcourse we say log in regular to play your own account. Less vocal/active players shouldn't be ignored though.

Without actual numbers we can't really say how many players (not accounts) would be driven away from the game by certain ruleadjustments. Offcourse we can speculate, but we should be carefull with what we wish for. A server without permasats seems great, but it might turn out to become a very empty or even dead server.


Posted By: Mafro
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2017 at 22:24
Originally posted by Wartow Wartow wrote:

I'd prefer the sitter model be like a "vacation".  Vacation days are earned, just like they are at most places of employment.  The number of vacation days can accumulate to a max limit.

Example:

Every 21 unique days of signing into the game equals one sitter day.  This would give a daily player about 17 vacation days a year.  I'd set a max limit of accumulated days in the range from 40 to 50.  Each day the sitter accesses the sit-tee the vacation day is reduced by one.

I really like this idea. Clap


Posted By: viperone
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2017 at 22:46
I agree that like in exodus all activity needs to be stopped such as research and resource cues.  Caravans need to be home and so forth.  While the earned vacation idea is nice it may be a difficult idea to program.  The 6 week period is a suggestion and can be more or less.  
The 'war sitter' suggestion would only provide access to troops: equipping them, assigning troops and divisions, dispatching them or dodging them, and if sieging capturing or razing.


Posted By: Benedetti
Date 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.


Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date 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. 


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date 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, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Corwin
Date 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.


Posted By: Celebrant
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2017 at 16:32
Megalomania is a disease



Posted By: Mafro
Date 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!


Posted By: eowan the short
Date 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.


Posted By: Mafro
Date 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.


Posted By: viperone
Date 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.



Posted By: Corwin
Date 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.


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2017 at 15:30
There are already restrictions on what a sitter can do
- cannot use prestige
- cannot exo a town

If the problem is 'farming' for gold, food, whatever then the following restrictions would solve that
- cannot dispatch vans except to other towns of the same player or a hub with that players trader(s)
- cannot make or fill a buy or sell order

The account can be developed for the owner's benefit only and the account can be defended (even better defended if exo was available).

Of course, if passwords are 'bequethed' this is no fix.

Maybe we need a Securities and Exchange Commission to examine irregular trading patterns or volumes e.g. people buying timber at 100,000 per unit or gold just being shipped to third parties.

 


Posted By: Celebrant
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2017 at 16:33
I told you, all of us, who are writing about this subject, fart in the dust.
Things are, from the beginning, for us players, wrongly set.

Money, from the outset, controls this game, as well as the whole world.

Reconcil with that.
Or build your permasat acc.

I was reconciled.

Trivia tuesday coming.
Soon.





Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2017 at 17:57
The problem is not with the sitter function. The problem is with outright multiaccounting. Modifying the sitter function is not going to change multiaccounting. It would require enormous effort on the devs part to crack down on multiaccounting, and they have zero economic incentive to do so. Changing the sitter function would just be a minor inconvenience to the multiaccounting players, since they obviously have the passwords to their farms.

I just assume that my adversaries have unlimited gold and supplies, and plan battle strategies accordingly. The place it affects the most is tournaments. Bummer for those guys.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Celebrant
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2017 at 08:55
And my last on this topic:

I expect from Devs team a medal for the big permasat (for those who manipulate the most accounts)

Soon

Love you all



Posted By: OssianII
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2017 at 15:10
Originally posted by Celebrant Celebrant wrote:

And my last on this topic:

I expect from Devs team a medal for the big permasat (for those who manipulate the most accounts)

Soon

Love you all


Da! On behalf the Devs - Honourary Party Boss Ossian (ret'd) will present your award personally Comrade Celebrant. Just move your  head a little to the left and...



...this bullet was awarded by the Soviet Union Wink


Posted By: Wartow
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2017 at 17:55
I hope the "fart in the dust" comment was not a result of Google Translate.

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


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2017 at 14:01
Originally posted by Wartow Wartow wrote:

I hope the "fart in the dust" comment was not a result of Google Translate.

On the contrary, I hope it was.


Posted By: Celebrant
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2017 at 14:31
Originally posted by Wartow Wartow wrote:

I hope the "fart in the dust" comment was not a result of Google Translate.


Google translate said

"blink into dust"

It was rude, and I had to change.

Love you all





Posted By: Celebrant
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2017 at 22:01
They are also farters into dust

Farters forever




Anno domini MMXII

http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/6july2012-enforced-account-removal_topic3771.html" rel="nofollow - Fart loudly



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net