25MAY14 - Broken Lands update |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234 9> |
| Author | |
GM Stormcrow 
Moderator Group 
GM Joined: 23 Feb 2010 Location: Illyria Status: Offline Points: 3820 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 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!  SC
|
|
 |
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General 
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Miklabjarnir
Greenhorn 
Joined: 07 Mar 2012 Status: Offline Points: 73 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
|
|
|
ICEKat
New Poster 
Joined: 28 May 2014 Location: Heaven Status: Offline Points: 24 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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 |
|
|
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
|
|
|
ICEKat
New Poster
Joined: 28 May 2014 Location: Heaven Status: Offline Points: 24 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jun 2014 at 16:17 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Bytor
New Poster
Joined: 04 Jun 2014 Status: Offline Points: 1 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 Jun 2014 at 15:38 |
|
all i can say is i cant wait
|
|
|
|
|
Ancient Nightowl
New Poster
Joined: 01 Jan 2012 Location: NZ Status: Offline Points: 38 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Northern Ranger
New Poster
Joined: 17 May 2012 Status: Offline Points: 14 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.) |
|
|
|
|
Beyljr
Wordsmith 
Joined: 12 Mar 2014 Status: Offline Points: 157 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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! |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234 9> |
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 |
Topic Options
GM Stormcrow wrote: