Auto kicking.

Your suggestion has merit Ector, although I do feel you are accomodating the inactive party a little too much - I mean being completely absent for two months *is* quite a long time, and with the option to assign a sitter for 3 months (roughly), I do feel the capture/raze rights should at some point go from the alliance and to the community.

Oh and just to be clear, I dont know hotattack and the suggestion itself is not in itself aimed at him in any way, the forum post merely asserts how commonly the takeover practice is now being used in Illyriad.

I do not see the auto-kicking function as being in any way a terminal step for a player. His allies can sit his account, remove ongoing sieges if they occur, and provided that he does not lie very closely to hostile minded players, theres a big chance that his cities will survive unscathed. But if the player is of great inconvenience to other active players, he should have to accept that his absence would mean the possible removal of one or more of his cities. Illyriad is after all a finite universe (so far) and room is limited.
Opportunity should always be directed at the active player, as the world itself would find it difficult to perpetuate its player base if others had to show consideration to an increasing amount of inactive accounts. This being mostly theory at the moment, but we do still aim for Illyriad being a large dynamic succesful sandbox do we not?

Thanks for your constructive input Ector.

I somewhat agree with Tord on this one but the idea of auto kicking inactives seems a little harsh as we have had more than a few of them return to the game after a long term hiatus (Carro and Totemicon just to name a couple). Which probably would have been impossible for them if the account was kicked.

Tordenkaffen wrote: I have lost patience with you Brids, With Ander and with Kilotov - several players voiced their agreement that this idea could possibly benefit the game in the long run and you have not dealt with the issue as they too have presented it. If you would stay on topic and not change auto-kicking theme into "we are not allowed to capture cities anymore" and "Maybe it wont work so its best not doing anything at all" - REPEATEDLY, I might be able keep my tone in a level that wont bring you to tears. However having the same players use the same invalid arguments, while being obviously entangled in what i consider an exploit - meaning an unintended non-constructive way to further own purposes in spite of the negative effect it has on the game, can really **** me off. What provokes me most is that you throw all consideration for the game itself (which is still under developement) overboard in favor of selfish interest, and you do not at any point even try to argue from an objective standpoint. Your contributions so far have been in my view lobbying a harmfull mechanic that gives existing alliances an immense advantage (i.e. having all the time in the world to recycle their inactive cities), and instead of debating the central part of that - IS IT HARMFULL TO ILLYRIAD? you instead take it in every imaginable direction with EXCUSES why nothing should be done at all - "I dont think this and that"  - well we won't know what effect it will have until its implemented will we? And untill then if you can find one solid argument for why inactives should remain indefinitely in alliances - which in many peoples view warps the demography of Illyriad and prevents change in many ways, then we will have an actual meaningful debate. If my tone seems angry or frustrated, it is because that I am trying to make a simple message sink in with players who act like selfish little children and show no interest in the longevity of the game - and that severely wears on my patience as I would very much like to see Illyriad prosper in the future. You three have in spite of the evidence laid out plainly on the forum (from the Crows no less) not made a single attempt to relate to the core problem of the debate - which makes your contributions rather meaningless and - as you correctly point out a product of your (very) subjective opinions that are blatantly colored by the fact that you use and intend to use this system of exploitation. Oh and as far as money are concerned I regularly add my fair share of revenue to the game, which I consider an automatic entitlement to bring up issues - like this - which I find decadent and unsound. Now I will proceed to ignore your posts as well as you seem immune to relate to anything even close to the subject of this thread.

I feel that it gives players in alliances a bad feeling that if they were to leave the game for a few months or their own alliance, their old leader will siege and capture their cities.  This brings horrible morale to the player getting sieged and thus changes them to a troll or a spy or a warmonger.

What is the point to go all out for an alliance when something like this can happen?  There is no point of even trying to help your own alliance unless you are the leader.  Because after what is said and done, the leader seems to own everyone in their alliance.  All of the leaders in this game seem to have adopted the siege their own player if they leave the alliance or left the game for a few months.  Leaders seem to have no loyalty to their own players.  So, why should the players show any loyalty to the leaders of this game?  Players should not!

To the players in alliances, realize there is no point of putting 100% effort for your alliance, unless you are the leader. 

The leaders in this game think of their players as a piece of meat.  A piece of meat that increases their overall alliance pop size. Also if a player leaves, this gives a leader a town to capture for his or her alliance and newer players.


Edited by Divine Redemption - 04 Sep 2011 at 04:19

I have lost patience with you Brids, With Ander and with Kilotov - several players voiced their agreement that this idea could possibly benefit the game in the long run and you have not dealt with the issue as they too have presented it.
If you would stay on topic and not change auto-kicking theme into "we are not allowed to capture cities anymore" and "Maybe it wont work so its best not doing anything at all" - REPEATEDLY, I might be able keep my tone in a level that wont bring you to tears.

However having the same players use the same invalid arguments, while being obviously entangled in what i consider an exploit - meaning an unintended non-constructive way to further own purposes in spite of the negative effect it has on the game, can really **** me off.

What provokes me most is that you throw all consideration for the game itself (which is still under developement) overboard in favor of selfish interest, and you do not at any point even try to argue from an objective standpoint.

Your contributions so far have been in my view lobbying a harmfull mechanic that gives existing alliances an immense advantage (i.e. having all the time in the world to recycle their inactive cities), and instead of debating the central part of that - IS IT HARMFULL TO ILLYRIAD? you instead take it in every imaginable direction with EXCUSES why nothing should be done at all - "I dont think this and that"  - well we won't know what effect it will have until its implemented will we? And untill then if you can find one solid argument for why inactives should remain indefinitely in alliances - which in many peoples view warps the demography of Illyriad and prevents change in many ways, then we will have an actual meaningful debate.

If my tone seems angry or frustrated, it is because that I am trying to make a simple message sink in with players who act like selfish little children and show no interest in the longevity of the game - and that severely wears on my patience as I would very much like to see Illyriad prosper in the future.

You three have in spite of the evidence laid out plainly on the forum (from the Crows no less) not made a single attempt to relate to the core problem of the debate - which makes your contributions rather meaningless and - as you correctly point out a product of your (very) subjective opinions that are blatantly colored by the fact that you use and intend to use this system of exploitation.

Oh and as far as money are concerned I regularly add my fair share of revenue to the game, which I consider an automatic entitlement to bring up issues - like this - which I find decadent and unsound.

Now I will proceed to ignore your posts as well as you seem immune to relate to anything even close to the subject of this thread.

i just dont agree on your point of view.
this is not a cheat. this is a game mechanism.
are you upset cause i have a different opinion over things?