| Author |
|
Rill 
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
 Posted: 27 Jun 2012 at 21:45 |
I am opposed to the idea of a "vacation mode" or "truce mode" other than the initial beginner's protection. One of the best things about Illy is that actions have consequences. Vacation mode is an easy way of delaying or completely avoiding consequences. Not to mention the tremendous advantage this would give to prestige players if it was paid for with prestige.
You may see the alliance prestige pool as being the answer to this, but that just results in alliances that pressure members to contribute prestige and perhaps even only admit people who contribute a certain amount of prestige. That might be good for the devs' pocketbooks, but it would be bad for the game. Note: I am not against the alliance prestige pool, I am just saying it is not the answer to suggested applications of prestige that have the potential to imbalance the game.
Look for an answer to your problems with account sitting elsewhere, in my opinion.
|
 |
Quackers
Forum Warrior
Joined: 19 Nov 2011
Location: Jeff City
Status: Offline
Points: 435
|
Posted: 27 Jun 2012 at 21:54 |
|
There is no possible way you can make vacation mode like that. The sitter account works just fine. Stop trying to get people to use prestige for everything, prestige should not be used for this sort of thing.
Not only that but to make the town unattackable destroys any balance that there is in the game. I see my alliance mates start to get into a war, I active this vacation thing so I cannot be attacked. Make an alt and turn off vacation mode when the war is done. I just escaped the fighting :)
No matter what function you set up someone will always find a way to abuse it.
Developers should make a sitter account like annual leave at work. The player gains annual leave by playing on the game and then that leave can be used for a sitter to log onto the account. If a player runs out of annual leave then the sitter cannot get on. Instead of making it in terms of hours, make it in terms of days. Person A gained 15 days of annual leave, so a sitter can log onto that person for 15 days. Once the sitter logs onto Person A's account one day is taken away from the annual leave. Though even with that it will be hard to manage and there will still be loopholes.
|
|
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so you will not be dependent on anybody.
|
|
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 27 Jun 2012 at 21:56 |
|
good point, vacation mode cant be used to stop things already in motion, but is it really fair to have another person come in and defend your castle or to have numerous people playing accounts 24/7 when siege is occurring, a major account can be in action legally 24/7 played by several people with the current baby sit rules, this is just one example what this rule can used for, there are many others, any other thoughts about the subject please add, but if it is not ruled against then it will be assume its legal to use the babysit rule for any way it can be played, please everyone feel free to add what can be legally done with the babysit rule as it is currently written so it can be fairly used by everyone in the game
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 27 Jun 2012 at 22:00 |
|
I have no problem with account sitting being used to defend (or attack) with an account 24/7. A mechanism that allows people to actually have a life outside of the game is a good thing. The option being used permanently in the absence of the actual player is the element that most concerns me.
|
|
Rohk
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 218
|
Posted: 27 Jun 2012 at 22:33 |
 gameplayer wrote:
good point, vacation mode cant be used to stop things already in motion, but is it really fair to have another person come in and defend your castle or to have numerous people playing accounts 24/7 when siege is occurring, a major account can be in action legally 24/7 played by several people with the current baby sit rules, this is just one example what this rule can used for, there are many others, any other thoughts about the subject please add, but if it is not ruled against then it will be assume its legal to use the babysit rule for any way it can be played, please everyone feel free to add what can be legally done with the babysit rule as it is currently written so it can be fairly used by everyone in the game
|
I agree with Rill and Quackers and the others that 'vacation mode' would not be efficient in the current game model and opens up a lot more loopholes.
One of the ways to deal with a lot of the hypotheticals that you suggest gameplayer, is to have only players that you trust sit for your account when you go on vacation. The way I have always done it and how people have done it with me is that I have only allowed my account to be sat by a member of my alliance that I trust and whom I have asked first. Also before I leave, I send them a PM with general guidelines of things that can be done in my cities (if I am working toward a specific strategy). If you have a sitter that goes and attacks a bunch of people with your account and starts a war, then you probably didn't pick someone you can trust to sit for you.
In the past we have used the account sit function in FDU with new players who got themselves into a mess by building T2 buildings too early or forgetting about food or raising their taxes too high and not being able to figure out what went wrong from their descriptions. Then a senior trainer if asked, sits the account to figure out what is wrong and then sends a PM to the player with suggestions on how to fix it and then cancels the sitting arrangement.
It has also been used in the past with tournaments by having two players in opposing time zones send scheduled attacks when the other is sleeping and vice versa and this is what I think you are referring to. And by the way an account can only be sat by 2 people not several and not at the same time.
I don't see why that should not be allowed if it is between two active accounts and within reason. An attacker should not get an automatic advantage by being in another time zone and attacking when the other person is sleeping nor do I think they should necessarily have to set an alarm to get up in the middle of the night to coordinate attacks/defences if they do not have to. There is an equal chance that the person works nights and could be up anyway to defend or is an insomniac and only really sleeps every couple of days so I don't really see how having an account being sat by someone while the other person is sleeping would be an issue considering it really doesn't change anything as running an account for 24 hours is medically possible (look at all those marathon StarCraft and Diablo II players who play for a week and then starve to death). It would even be realistic. The armies in your cities don't go to sleep when the user logs off but they actively defend the city if needed. In medieval times it is not like they didn't respond to sieging armies when the king was away, there was a regent or some other official put in charge to respond.
Actually I think Rill said it better (in the time it took me to write all this out):
Rill wrote:
I have no problem with account sitting being used to defend (or attack) with an account 24/7. A mechanism that allows people to actually have a life outside of the game is a good thing. The option being used permanently in the absence of the actual player is the element that most concerns me.
|
With all that said, I think that this thread is getting derailed a bit from its original topic.
Edited by Rohk - 27 Jun 2012 at 22:39
|
|
|
|
bansisdead
Postmaster
Joined: 08 Jan 2012
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 609
|
Posted: 27 Jun 2012 at 22:49 |
|
Gameplayer, I had a re-think, and maybe I do agree with you on some points. Though I do not agree on totally reducing the functionality of a sitter account or linking it to prestige, there are some things which could help reduce the abuse imo, for instance not allowing sitters to send out attacking armies or send other players resources, also the account could be flagged as a sitter account on GC, AC and ingame mail so people are aware that it is being sat, if it could be done. I think this may stop the sitter system being abused in certain areas, but not all. I dont know what could be done with all those accounts which allegedly are used to make an alliance look bigger than it actually is.
|
|
|
|
Rohk
Forum Warrior
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 218
|
Posted: 27 Jun 2012 at 22:58 |
bansisdead wrote:
Gameplayer, I had a re-think, and maybe I do agree with you on some points. Though I do not agree on totally reducing the functionality of a sitter account or linking it to prestige, there are some things which could help reduce the abuse imo, for instance not allowing sitters to send out attacking armies or send other players resources, also the account could be flagged as a sitter account on GC, AC and ingame mail so people are aware that it is being sat, if it could be done. I think this may stop the sitter system being abused in certain areas, but not all. I dont know what could be done with all those accounts which allegedly are used to make an alliance look bigger than it actually is.
|
I think that if the account was marked as being sat publicly AND the sitter could not send out armies and the original player is legitimately on vacation, it would just be painting a target on the city walls saying "Siege me because I am not here and can't attack the siege camp" and if I were in that situation as coming back to an account where I had to start over because my sitter couldn't defend it while I was off getting married, or on vacation or any of the other legitimate reasons for assigning a sitter, I would think twice about whether to stay in the game at all. For AC that wouldn't matter so much I would think.
|
|
|
|
bansisdead
Postmaster
Joined: 08 Jan 2012
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 609
|
Posted: 27 Jun 2012 at 23:31 |
|
Rohk, I mean by aggressive that a player cannot send out an army to another players town and lay siege, but still be able to defend their own towns from sieges. I don't know how it could be done tho....
this would stop players using sitter accounts to bolster their own armies and give them an unfair advantage over other players.
I take your point on advertising your account is being sat tho, you may as well paint a target on your rear...
Edited by bansisdead - 27 Jun 2012 at 23:32
|
|
|
|
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 28 Jun 2012 at 03:31 |
|
what i am mainly referring to is that the babysit rule allows a person to actually control 6 accounts, that these six accounts can be spread in several different alliances, that a group of people can have amazing strength and it all legal, reread the babysit rule, it says the rule allows the sitter to have full control of the account but for the prestige, it says nothing about whether the account player is still playing or not, it also allows three people to do the building of the account and even more if the account holder changes who is given baby sitting right, im sorry but getting hit nonstop from several accounts if u are not playing like this doesnt sound fair, or think about the number of dip missions hitting from six accounts and its really just one person but right now its all legal no rules are being broken, its something to think about and i invite responses, it might take away more fairness from the game than it currently adds, think upon this 2 people sending from 120 level 10 castles....ouch
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 28 Jun 2012 at 04:09 |
Edited by Rill - 09 Jul 2012 at 22:34
|
|
Tweet
After 14 days res stop
Topic Options
