After 14 days res stop

Rasak wrote: What if sitters didn't count as if the original player was playing and after 14 days of no user login they stop producing res.

I thought about that to, and I really like that idea. If you choose a sitter you are choosing someone that is there to help watch your town and keep everything going. Though this does not stop people from abusing the sitting account. They can still ship in resources and they can still build advanced resources after the 14 day not logging on thing. So while I am for this idea it wont stop people from abusing the sitter function.

All it does is stop people that use it for the right reason from doing what they should be doing.

Rasak wrote: Also what if sitters didn't reset the counter that tracks how long till they are placed on the removal list.

I have went on vacation, went away from game and so on. If this was in place my account would be suspended. Something like this would do more harm then good. People that need to go away from an extended period of time whether it be for vacation to not being able to pay for internet that month would lose their account. I'd feel this would stop the sitter function from doing its job.

maybe it should be consider to get rid of the babysit mode and put in a vacation mode, it seems odd that a person can play others accounts and keep it active resources forever, can even go visit other alliances and see what is occurring, i seldom even know if i am actually talking to the account holder, we should be alerted when there is someone  playing the account in babysit mode, it also allows the babysitter to log in if the account is under attack or even launch attacks and the game never really knows who the attacker or defender actually is, it is the opinion without rulings by the devs that this is actually the way to play the game, its not abuse until the devs put in rulings but it does seem totally unfair, what are others thoughts and please stay on topic and no personal chatter amongst responder, it should be 14 days even if babysit mode, and further babysit mode should end and be replace with vacation mode

I've got a resolution for this. Sett you're account to someone who you trust and make an agreement with them not to abuse. For instance, I'd trust giving my account to Tarsha. I know for a fact she wouldn't abuse it.

Gameplayer, what would the difference be between sitter and vacation mode?  I actually don't think its odd that a player who is nominated by the account holder to act as a sitter has full control of the account bar some actions, as Rill states.  By reducing the functionality of a sitter, you run the risk of opening new loop holes.  Say a sitter has very limited control of an account, a player decides to go on holiday, sets up a sitter, off they go on their hols, whilst they are gone another player who is considered an enemy of the account holder finds out that the account holder is using a sitter whilst they they enjoy 2 weeks in Malaga, the enemy would be aware that the account has limited functionality, for example the sitter cannot produce res so therefore cannot be expected to defend themselves, a cunning enemy would see this as an ideal opportunity to wipe the player off the map, player comes back, nice and tanned, but to their horror the sitter has lost their cities because they were unable to produce res/produce troops/so on.  Most people aren't this callous and devious but some are.  Imho limiting the functionality of a sitter would just cause more issues than it solves.

Gameplayer, how would vacation mode work with sieges, say the player was going on holiday to Malaga, again, they liked it, would the ability to activate vacation mode depend on the town being under siege?  Would the player have to cancel their two weeks in Malaga because their town was under siege, or would the town simply disappear, leaving the sieging armies perplexed as to what happened to the town they were sieging?