Account Sitters |
Post Reply
|
Page <1 456 |
| Author | |
Myr
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 May 2011 Location: Orlando, FL Status: Offline Points: 437 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 03:13 |
|
If you can't start production ques or troop ques you take away a couple of reasons that people ask for a sitter while they're away. A sitter sometimes has to move resources around between cities to keep things from de-leveling which can't be done if a sitter can't ship things. I think limiting sitter actions further is a bad idea.
|
|
![]() |
|
Alcie
Forum Warrior
Joined: 02 Dec 2012 Status: Offline Points: 308 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 02:05 |
|
As far as I understand, the purpose of account sitting is mainly for people who know (or sometimes don't know--e.g. some extended emergency) that they will be gone for an extended period of time not to be deleted or sieged for inactivity.
I think that is a good purpose and I have used it myself. Maybe put a time limit on it--1 year or 6 months perhaps. I know from experience that if it was less than 6 months it would mess up a lot of people, it really is possible not to have the ability to log on for half a year. If the real person does log on, the time limit could reset. Besides cities never going away and clogging up the map, the main problem is people using accounts sittees for themselves. This could be mostly solved if account sitters had less powers. Right now account sitters can: 1. start new production queues 2. build new troops 3. settle new towns 4. send out caravans full of gold to themselves... None of these things are needed if you are just trying to keep an account un-deleted and un-sieged while someone is gone for 6 months. I can understand reading emails to make sure there are no problems, perhaps having a building queue in the towns that do exist to make them look semi active. But if most other abilities such as the 4 above were not allowed to sitters, there would be not be many ways open to abuse. A line has to be drawn obviously, but right now sitters are allowed to do almost everything including settling new towns, which seems rediculous to me. More restricted sitter abilities would presumably be open to some abuse still, but combining it with a long but not-forever time limit such as 6 months would solve every problem I can think of. |
|
![]() |
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1005 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Dec 2013 at 19:49 |
|
I agree in a way and I am a perma sitter, the issue is that some long term players here have professions that mean they sometimes have to stay long term in places with little or no internet connection, but really I think a month or 2 of an actual player not logging in is probably enough to have the account closed.
|
|
![]() |
|
arnesson
Greenhorn
Joined: 27 Feb 2012 Location: Ontario, Canada Status: Offline Points: 69 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 Dec 2013 at 19:40 |
|
I agree. Even that is too long really! But perma-sitting MUST be eliminated!
|
|
![]() |
|
ES2
Postmaster
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 550 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 07:42 |
I would rather have something like this implemented than to carry on with the current sitting options. The ability to permanently sit an account is a bypass from the multiple account rule, and is unfair to players that do not sit other accounts.
|
|
|
Eternal Fire
|
|
![]() |
|
Arctic55
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 Sep 2011 Status: Offline Points: 379 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 06:36 |
|
I am hearing more and more about the problem of perma sitting. So I have a solution. Note: This solution is not gurantied to fix 100% of the perma sitting problems.
I think that if the account you are sitting is not logged into by the owner in 31 days, your sitting ability is removed and the 90 day countdown is started for that account. Therefore, after 121 days, including the sitting days, the account is deleted like normal unless they meet the normal restrictions and exceptions. Please comment below what you think about why or why not this should be implemented. Edited by Arctic55 - 27 Nov 2013 at 06:52 |
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 456 |
|
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 |