Account Sitters

Before I begin my commentary, I think DeathDealer89 said it very succinctly.

Angrim wrote: 1) sat accounts take space that actives might be using. i take a dim view of players who arrive in the game and immediately announce that "all the good spots are taken"...

I personally believe that people who complain about all the good spots being taken actually have no idea how to play Illyriad. What they are really complaining about is that all the PERFECT spots are taken, and that isn't anywhere close to the same thing. Only hardcore military players (and to a certain extent, hardcore tournament players) have any real need to closely tune population, including sov support using dolmens and fisheries. If you aren't fielding massive armies--and the vast majority of the complainers are non-military players--then there is no particular point to fretting over food sov. You can easily hit 10 cities with ordinary 7 food plains squares. You're just obsessing over your neighbor's Porsche when you can barely even drive your Mazda. I don't feel sorry that not everyone gets a Porsche in Illyriad, because 90% of the people complaining want one as a garage-kept status symbol, not as a tool to be used.

Would it be nice if there were lots of available 7 food plots with dolmens, conveniently placed in your desired alliance cores? Actually, no. That would remove all challenge for city building from the game. If you're not participating heavily in the military or trade aspects of Illyriad, then you're basically turning this into a very slow city builder game. Removing the last challenge to city builders would turn Illyriad into a remedial chore.

Angrim wrote: 2) sat accounts cannot spend prestige. they are dead to the revenue stream of the game, taking space and power and hardware capacity and giving nothing back.

That describes most Illyriad players. However, it is likely that big permasat accounts had prestige spent in the past (otherwise they probably wouldn't be worth sitting). Therefore, many of those accounts represent spent money, and punishing them somehow would just discourage future expenditures, because you know your investment might ultimately be wasted.

Angrim wrote: 3) current use of sat accounts concentrates power in old, well-established alliances (or really, veteran, well-established players)

THAT is the problem I have with permasat accounts. Permasitting basically collects power in the hands of the oldest alliances and most veteran players, far above and beyond the level they have already reached personally. Because Illyraid is a game of alliances on the large scale, this pretty much hoses everyone new. A big farm account can produce billions in gold and huge piles of equipment. This gives big, old alliances a source of nearly unlimited firepower. I expect their active players can run enormous deficits, +150-250% or more troop sov on every city, and never come up for air.

Anyone who doubts that needs to read the Herald more often. The daily battles in the server war are ridiculously huge. There is no way that unsupported accounts could sustain that level of troop production under normal conditions, for more than a few months.

Angrim wrote: both Binky's and Brandmeister's comments seem to beg the question: why have an account limit at all?

Well, it's not really the account limit - it's the ten-city limit.

Ok there are plenty of reasons why sitting is good or bad. 

Binky the Berserker wrote: Never said someone was stupid.

yes, actually, you did.

Binky the Berserker wrote: You call players without sitting accounts "normal" but imo they are just plain stupid for not using the rules to their advanage.

if you're going to deny something, you should at least destroy the evidence. ;)

both Binky's and Brandmeister's comments seem to beg the question: why have an account limit at all? doesn't a limit of two accounts also "encourage" people to cheat the system, signing up relatives and using alternate email addresses? and yet, there is the rule, because for whatever reason the devs decided to have it. i wonder if those who do not see an issue with the sitter rules see a purpose to the account limit. because if not, it's understandable that they wouldn't be bothered by the way current sitting use subverts it.

i do not see that the security problems inherent to giving away a password become the devs' problem if sitting rules change. as players are responsible for the actions of their sitters, the only risk added if they choose to give away their password is that the new owner will "steal" the account. that seems a fitting end for those prepared to violate the ToS.

that said, limiting the ability of a sitter to look after the account seems to undermine the purpose of sitting at all. indeed, as exodus is increasingly used as a defensive tactic, i wonder if the sitting abilities should be expanded to include relocation. i would find the game more enjoyable (and land would be used better) if sitting rules were shored up, but i would prefer that it were done via the usual purge rules--specifically, resetting the purge date only when the original owner of the account logs in. in that way, accounts could be maintained only for 90d or so without the continuing involvement of the original owner.

i don't like that idea. I won't be able to come online for an year because of my studies. I don't want to loose my account. so a sitter is my only way.