|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 8> |
| Author | |
Tordenkaffen
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Location: Denmark Status: Offline Points: 821 |
Topic: Auto kicking.Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 19:17 |
|
Due to information recently made public;
http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/crow-member-hotattack_topic2291.html I suggest that all inactive accounts are automatically kicked from their respective alliance after 2 months of player-absense. The reason is that it has become a far too common practice for new inexperienced players to take over dormant large cities within an alliance. It is key to maintaining a committed Illyriad community that players feel they have made an investment of time in their account and are rewarded accordingly. The alternative means cheapening the game considerably and admit potent inexperienced players with a complete disregard for their own and others accounts, thus making the game far less attractive for the vast majority of stable dedicated players that ultimately are contributors to the community. While no harm needs to come to an inactive player that has been ejected from an alliance, it is reasonable that other/active players has some measure of insight into the activity of their surrounding neighbours as many are already competing for attractive areas to settle new cities in, and the game itself should always benefit/present choices to the active player. |
|
![]() |
|
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011 Status: Offline Points: 723 |
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 19:19 |
|
i am against.
and yer rude to make such a suggestion. hope GM will leave things as they are in this issue. |
|
![]() |
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1269 |
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 20:13 |
Are you against capturing of cities just by the 'new inexperienced players'? What about big players like you capturing cities? Should that still be allowed? I don't see how that makes the game fair to anybody. |
|
![]() |
|
Tordenkaffen
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Location: Denmark Status: Offline Points: 821 |
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 20:22 |
|
Who captures which cities is completely irrelevant to me - and the problem of the individual aliance. If they dont want others to capture it they have the option of doing it themselves or razing the city, I just dont want alliances to be able to shield their inactives for more than two months.
Illyriad is a dynamic sandbox game and kicking inactives will show players what squares are in reality occupied by a "dead player" and reveal what alliances auto-inflate their numbers and strength and who do not. It will in general terms decrease exploitation by having players skip the hard initial work in Illyriad when joining, which is very disrespectful to the general player base who start on their own and build their own account. Unbelievable youre clinging to this exploit so tightly - are your alliances masses of "living dead"? Time to clean up this mess! Edited by Tordenkaffen - 27 Aug 2011 at 20:23 |
|
![]() |
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1269 |
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 20:38 |
Edited by Ander - 27 Aug 2011 at 21:12 |
|
![]() |
|
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011 Status: Offline Points: 723 |
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 21:02 |
|
i see an upset dude that is stomping on the ground screaming " BUILD YOUR TOWNS ALONE LIKE I DID...ALOOOONEEEE!!!!!I HATE you silly little buggers that capture towns ..IT'S an ABUSEEE BWAAA"
|
|
![]() |
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 22:30 |
|
Let's try to be civil about this. We are playing a game.
That said, I think if players are upset about alliances "keeping" inactive cities for themselves, they should probably attempt to seize the cities for themselves ... of course that does raise the risk that the alliance will retaliate. However, if enough players are upset at this method of "reserving" cities for alliance members, eventually the alliance that does it will face public pressure and/or attacks that will make them stop. I personally like building up cities from scratch, so I don't have a dawg in this fight, but I don't think the devs should hard-code a solution for a problem the community can deal with if it chooses. I can see the point about questioning the wisdom of an alliance making it too easy for its members to grow without "paying their dues." Personally I think that's an internal matter, and I intend to keep my nose out of other alliances' internal affairs.
|
|
![]() |
|
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011 Status: Offline Points: 723 |
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 22:56 |
for the sake of the newbies! the cities are for those that are little |
|
![]() |
|
Dhenna
Wordsmith
Joined: 09 Jun 2011 Location: Denmark Status: Offline Points: 156 |
Posted: 28 Aug 2011 at 04:19 |
|
I'm with Torden on this.
Also, the current practice makes the rankings skewed (sp).
|
|
![]() |
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 1269 |
Posted: 28 Aug 2011 at 08:40 |
|
The same two things that Rill said - I personally like building up cities from scratch, so I don't have a dawg in this fight, but I don't think the devs should hard-code a solution for a problem the community can deal with if it chooses. Building up your own city has its own advantages. I was happy to have captured one city, but did not go for any more captures even though a list of inactive towns was available. Sieging and capturing cities is a part of the game and it is fun. City building is another part of the game and it is even more fun. And too many rules spoil the fun.
Edited by Ander - 28 Aug 2011 at 08:52 |
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 8> |
|
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 |