| Author |
|
Elf Dragon
Greenhorn
Joined: 18 Apr 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 58
|
Topic: After 14 days res stop Posted: 30 Jun 2012 at 11:02 |
|
thanks for reply Rill. I was just curious
|
 |
Rasak
Wordsmith
Joined: 26 Nov 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 140
|
Posted: 29 Jun 2012 at 23:34 |
gameplayer wrote:
the game does know sitter from account setup holder, it blocks prestige from sitter, its best that we all incorporate the rule into our game play and each decide whether we want several people playing their account as this will keep the the 14 day rule plus the suspension rule at bay and add value to the account and not just to the original account setup holder
|
Lol. First off, Grats on the longest sentence award. Second I can't really tell what your saying here. So far throughout this tread you have been anti sitting and this post sounds like your for it now? As far as I understand it, the game does block the sitter from certain things(pres use, exodus, etc.) but any login to the account, whether by sitter or original holder of the account, acts against the inactive timer.
|
 |
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 29 Jun 2012 at 15:36 |
|
the game does know sitter from account setup holder, it blocks prestige from sitter, its best that we all incorporate the rule into our game play and each decide whether we want several people playing their account as this will keep the the 14 day rule plus the suspension rule at bay and add value to the account and not just to the original account setup holder
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 29 Jun 2012 at 15:01 |
Elf Dragon, the sitter logging in counts as an account login for the purpose of blocking Tenaril; the active player does not need to log on. From the perspective of the game database, there seems to be absolutely no difference between a logon by the sitter and a logon by the player; the game does not "know" whether it is the player or the sitter acting as the player that has done an action such as logging on.
Twilights/gameplayer, saying the same thing over and over does not either make it more true or make it more likely that people will agree or disagree with you. It just makes the thread a bit repetitive.
|
 |
Elf Dragon
Greenhorn
Joined: 18 Apr 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 58
|
Posted: 29 Jun 2012 at 13:40 |
|
I think that Devs made this already. When one player was trying to use spellvto move hic city has get this igm;
There are players within 10 squares of your intended destination who are
neither in your alliance nor confederated with your alliance, and who
either have logged in during the last 7 days, or have a population
greater than zero and have
logged in within the last 4 weeks - and this prevents you from moving.
ED
|
 |
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 29 Jun 2012 at 13:32 |
|
i think the whole rule needs to be rewritten, it seems crazy that anyone can control several major accounts,.....6 of them......., at any given time, it puts other people at a disadvantage that are not babysitting others and dont have access to major build out accounts, it allows possible unbalance in the game allowing a few to control the game.....after reading it over again it does not look like it was written for people that have to be away from the game for a time period but to allow several people to play the same account......why fight it but guess incorporate it in game style? currently it is legal to play 2 accounts and legal to play 4 babysit accounts at the same time, to do this u need to have access to several web browsers, simple to do with pc, tablets and iphone.....again ouch! please add your thoughts
|
 |
Rasak
Wordsmith
Joined: 26 Nov 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 140
|
Posted: 29 Jun 2012 at 07:55 |
Rymal wrote:
Sitting is meant to be helpful to active players. All that needs be done to stop most abuse is to limit the sitting time until the account owner logs in. When the true account owner logs in, the count re-starts. For example, the account could be "sat" for up to 4 weeks without the owner logging in. At 4 weeks, the sitters can no longer log in, until the owner logs in, at which point the sitting can start again for another 4 weeks. This would meet most active player needs, and ensure that accounts that are abandoned by their owner will eventually become unplayable. We can debate if it should be 2, 3, 4 or 10 sitting weeks, but I think the concept is worth considering.
If you want to control the sitting more, the game could actively remove sitter-appointments after the allotted time of inactivity by the account owner, requiring the account owner to become active enough when he/she logs on to appoint sitters. I like this option better than re-activating sitting ability or previously appointed sitters.
|
This seems like a perfect solution to me. :D
+1
|
 |
Quackers
Forum Warrior
Joined: 19 Nov 2011
Location: Jeff City
Status: Offline
Points: 435
|
Posted: 29 Jun 2012 at 06:40 |
Rymal wrote:
Sitting is meant to be helpful to active players. All that needs be done to stop most abuse is to limit the sitting time until the account owner logs in. When the true account owner logs in, the count re-starts. For example, the account could be "sat" for up to 4 weeks without the owner logging in. At 4 weeks, the sitters can no longer log in, until the owner logs in, at which point the sitting can start again for another 4 weeks. This would meet most active player needs, and ensure that accounts that are abandoned by their owner will eventually become unplayable. We can debate if it should be 2, 3, 4 or 10 sitting weeks, but I think the concept is worth considering.
If you want to control the sitting more, the game could actively remove sitter-appointments after the allotted time of inactivity by the account owner, requiring the account owner to become active enough when he/she logs on to appoint sitters. I like this option better than re-activating sitting ability or previously appointed sitters.
|
As long as its over/around 4 weeks* I don't see a problem with it. Most people can find a library or ask a friend/family member to log in to keep it activated if something comes up. I like the idea of sitter accounts needing the user to log in after 4 weeks to keep the sitter accounts active.
Edited by Quackers - 29 Jun 2012 at 06:40
|
|
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.
|
 |
Rymal
Greenhorn
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 51
|
Posted: 29 Jun 2012 at 05:38 |
Sitting is meant to be helpful to active players. All that needs be done to stop most abuse is to limit the sitting time until the account owner logs in. When the true account owner logs in, the count re-starts. For example, the account could be "sat" for up to 4 weeks without the owner logging in. At 4 weeks, the sitters can no longer log in, until the owner logs in, at which point the sitting can start again for another 4 weeks. This would meet most active player needs, and ensure that accounts that are abandoned by their owner will eventually become unplayable. We can debate if it should be 2, 3, 4 or 10 sitting weeks, but I think the concept is worth considering.
If you want to control the sitting more, the game could actively remove sitter-appointments after the allotted time of inactivity by the account owner, requiring the account owner to become active enough when he/she logs on to appoint sitters. I like this option better than re-activating sitting ability or previously appointed sitters.
|
|
The optimist sees the glass to be 1/2 full; the pessimist sees it to be 1/2 empty and the engineer sees that the size of the glass needs to be changed!
|
 |
Rasak
Wordsmith
Joined: 26 Nov 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 140
|
Posted: 28 Jun 2012 at 19:04 |
|
Vacation mode has another disadvantage. What happens to their cities? If they go on vacation more for forever will they be forever occupying those spots without a chance to reclaim them and put them to better use. This makes things worse in my opinion. Now we have people keeping dead accounts going. But we can still attack them. Vacation mode just makes dead accounts that can't be done anything with.
|
 |