Alliance Leadership on abandonment |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 567 |
| Author | ||
Artefore 
Forum Warrior 
Player Council - Biographer Joined: 21 Feb 2014 Location: Earf Status: Offline Points: 312 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 10:14 |
|
|
I think that sieges should keep the player in the game as long as the siege has building de-leveling engines in it. Seems a bit unfair to have cities disappear from under a siege, imo. "Place-holding" sieges or blockades shouldn't affect disappearance though.
|
||
|
"don't quote me on that" -Artefore
|
||
 |
||
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group 
GM Joined: 23 Feb 2010 Location: Illyria Status: Offline Points: 3820 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 10:13 |
|
It's a good edge case, and we'll test it first before releasing the code so we know what happens. At this point in time I have no idea what would happen :)
Not 100% sure on what a 'holding siege' is, but guess you mean it's a siege that is in place but chooses not to 'storm'? In which case, after the max siege day requirement it'd head home automatically (and no one else being able to send any new sieges due to the rainbow protection) then it'd just be a way of extending the timer before ultimate abandonment. SC
|
||
|
||
|
Rill
Postmaster General 
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 10:01 |
|
|
I think that would work, although if there is an ongoing siege, would the storm and raze or storm and capture step then bounce?
Sometimes people use a "holding siege" to maintain such an account (such as for future siege). Would this mean after a period of time holding sieges would no longer work? And if so, how would the player know?
|
||
|
||
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM Joined: 23 Feb 2010 Location: Illyria Status: Offline Points: 3820 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 09:58 |
|
|
Having talked through with TC, we think we might have a solution (at least technically, ie without the work on repatriating incoming units...)
After 90 days we stick a "long-period new player rainbow" on a city, so no new attacks can come in. Once all incoming attacks have completed, the player account would disappear as per the rules. Clearly, if anyone (player/sitter etc) logged into the account, the rainbow would instantly disappear. Any objections? SC
|
||
|
||
|
Jejune
Postmaster General
Joined: 10 Feb 2013 Status: Offline Points: 1015 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 09:49 |
|
|
To me, after the account has truly expired, it should be insta-deleted, along with all of its towns and assets. There are too many scenarios where artificially keeping these accounts alive through military operations can be exploited beyond the scope of what (I think) the game developers hope to achieve from allowing the cities to endure while military ops are underway.
If the city disappears mid-siege, then it's a disappointment for the sieger. But them's the breaks. It's not that different from harvesting a pile of hides and skins -- often times, big kills cannot get 100% harvested in time. It's just part of the game.
Edited by Jejune - 08 Feb 2016 at 09:50 |
||
 |
||
|
||
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM Joined: 23 Feb 2010 Location: Illyria Status: Offline Points: 3820 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 09:38 |
|
|
Hi everyone,
This is a question for feedback from you guys - our awesome playerbase - because I have a rule I want to change, but am not 100% sure about the negatives of it (if there are any) and would like your feedback. The scenario is the following: When a player stops playing illy, there is an account abandonment procedure that will eventually remove this player's account from the game. This usually can take up-to 90 days, depending on prestige use etc. However - even after 90 days - it is possible that this abandoned player's account can still remain in the game... because we do not abandon an account if it has incoming hostile units. We check for the presence of incoming hostile units every few hours, and all it takes is for one check to fail and then we abandon the account; however if there are incoming units (and the check succeeds) then we postpone abandonment by another few hours. On the whole, this works. However, when the abandoned account is (eg) the leader of an alliance - and the rest of the alliance are waiting on the account to be actually removed from the game - it is possible for people to keep the clock ticking over for ever (intentionally or accidentally), so that the alliance leadership role never gets passed down the tree. My question is... should we remove an abandoned account from the game after 90 days of inactivity (regardless of whether troops are incoming or not)? In this case we'd probably have to insta-repatriate the incoming units; reinforcements/blockades/sieges set up etc. It's not a small amount of work to do, and there may be a better solution - or there may be reasons why we shouldn't insta-abandon an account (though I fail to see what these could be outside farming and/or griefing)... Any thoughts? Best, SC
Edited by GM Stormcrow - 08 Feb 2016 at 09:46 |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 567 |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Rill wrote: