| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
G0DsDestroyer 
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Location: Ásgarð/Vanaheim
Status: Offline
Points: 975
|
 Posted: 31 Dec 2011 at 23:24 |
|
Aye, but you can't permanently sit someone's account.
And they are talking about abuse and problems caused by people sitting accounts, which is brought on by someone doing something with an account that they shouldn't, like starting wars or getting someone's account destroyed.
Both issues seem to be in this discussion, people will abuse it if it's here, that's the way some people operate.
|
|
|
 |
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 31 Dec 2011 at 22:31 |
|
I think you're misunderstanding what the problem is G0Ds. The issue isn't people misusing your account while they're sitting you, the issue is people permanently sitting someone in order to bypass the only allowed two accounts rule.
|
|
|
|
G0DsDestroyer
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Location: Ásgarð/Vanaheim
Status: Offline
Points: 975
|
Posted: 31 Dec 2011 at 17:57 |
|
Honestly, if you have any reason not to trust someone to sit your account. Don't let them!!! Quite obvious. I believe it still says what a sitter can do with your account, so it's not like experienced players don't know what they're getting into when they appoint a sitter.As for newer players who don't know better, is there a section in this newb guide on sitting telling them the risks of what can happen?
It's in your power to appoint someone as a sitter for your account, if they screw your account up intentionally, it's your fault for having them sit your account. One reason it wouldn't be your fault is if someone else took your account password and appointed someone as your sitter, and if that is happening, you're screwed either way I'd think.
I voted for the first option of course.
|
|
|
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
Posted: 31 Dec 2011 at 00:57 |
 scottfitz wrote:
What if we simply disallowed sending armies, diplos or vans for sat accounts. |
Scott, I see the point here - but I have used sitting to
coordinate attacks through the alliance. I have given a set time at which
point all armies should arrive at a location - then reversed the time travel of
an army to calculate the point at which the army should be sent, but players
cannot always be online to send at that set time...so I have sat an account in
the past to do just that.
I kinda think there should be a feature (date system) which you can set someone
as a sitter for an allotted time - such as being away for three days and
setting an expiration on the sitting privileges which kicks them after the time
has ended. This can be allowed for a maximum time setting (15 days max -
same length of army reinforcing/occupying) in which the sitter can have access,
then it must be refreshed by the account holder to continue any sitting privileges.
This would keep people from keeping accounts after the account holder has gone
inactive.
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 30 Dec 2011 at 23:57 |
scottfitz wrote:
What if we simply disallowed sending armies, diplos or vans for sat accounts. None of those three functions are necessary for legitimate sitting, but defense, research, construction, advanced production and troop training would be unaffected. |
I like this general suggestion, but it would need to permit at least Sally Forth, and I don't think Sally Forth can be used against blockades. There is also the difficulty of defending sovereignty.
A lot of people will appoint an account sitter specifically for the purpose of sending vans to support alliance mates during periods of inactivity.
The caravans point is more of a "nice to have" part, but being able to sally forth and send troops to defend sovereignty is a pretty crucial aspect of the game -- one which we fortunately do not have to use that often in this time of relative peace.
Edited by Rill - 30 Dec 2011 at 23:58
|
|
scottfitz
Forum Warrior
Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Location: Spokane WA USA
Status: Offline
Points: 433
|
Posted: 30 Dec 2011 at 22:37 |
|
What if we simply disallowed sending armies, diplos or vans for sat accounts. None of those three functions are necessary for legitimate sitting, but defense, research, construction, advanced production and troop training would be unaffected.
|
|
Babbens
Wordsmith
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 165
|
Posted: 30 Dec 2011 at 17:32 |
White Beard wrote:
Why not have a holiday / vacation function in place?
The account owner activates this function and all activities in the account stops, research building troop making etc.
And give a sort of newbie protection so attacks are impossible.
|
I'd like to have that function and no sitting. As it is, I voted for "should be modified to prevent abuse".
|
|
GM Luna
New Poster
Community Manager
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Location: Illyriad
Status: Offline
Points: 2042
|
Posted: 30 Dec 2011 at 03:19 |
Hi all,
Thanks for all the feedback with your thoughts on account sitting. Overall, the mechanic is intended to be used as a temporary measure for players who are away from the game for a period of time. Permanently sitting accounts that a player doesn't intend to return to or using the system for other means (while not strictly against the rules at this time) isn't really in the spirit of the mechanic.
Measures that put a limit on the amount of time an account can be sat for (as mentioned by SC in the past) are in the cards at some point. We hope that will steer players more toward the intended use of the system.
Luna
|
GM Luna | Illyriad Community Manager | community@illyriad.co.uk 
|
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
Posted: 30 Dec 2011 at 02:37 |
|
It is abused.
Pro:
I have used this function once to allow access fir a person to read an in game message - thus confirming the authenticity of the message which I had previously forwarded to them.
Con:
Sitters should never have access to alliance chat of the person they are sitting for. In addition, there should be other restrictions on actions allowed.
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
Raritor
Wordsmith
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 151
|
Posted: 29 Dec 2011 at 23:54 |
|
I have had sitters on my account almost from the begginning of this option and so far i never had a problem with them. I agree that there should be a time limit (like the 90 days a year) so you don't get a permanet sitting, but other than that i find it perfect the way it is.
|
|
Tweet
Account Sitting
