| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Tordenkaffen 
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 821
|
 Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 20:24 |
|
You are reaching Ander and wasting my time - Ill leave the decision with the GM's.
Good day.
|
 |
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 20:23 |
 Tordenkaffen wrote:
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.
|
In case you dont know Torden, many players do have some measure of insight into the activity of their surrounding neighbours. Many of us keep track of inactive cities (outside our alliance) and suggest them for other players in our alliance. I captured one that was suggested to me by a friend at the time when I had only three cities.
|
|
Tordenkaffen
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 821
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 20:05 |
Tordenkaffen wrote:
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.
|
|
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 20:01 |
Tordenkaffen wrote:
Tordenkaffen wrote:
- Then do what any other rule abiding player would do - remove the inactive cities.
|
|
why? if capturing of a city by your own alliance is "unfair", capturing the same city by an outside alliance is unfair too. Either remove the option to capture a city (which in my opinion would make the game very much dull) or leave it as it is.
|
|
Tordenkaffen
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 821
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 19:57 |
Tordenkaffen wrote:
- Then do what any other rule abiding player would do - remove the inactive cities.
|
|
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 19:50 |
Tordenkaffen wrote:
I had a discussion with SC earlier (think about 2-3 months) on where he declined to implement auto-kicking of members inactive over 2 months. |
I wouldn't want the auto-kicking implemented for other reasons too. Generally I am happy to see a player from another alliance settling in or near our alliance hubs. I see it as a friendly gesture and try to help the new settlers grow fast.
but it would be a very different thing to have a player in my backyard, who came there just because he wanted to capture an inactive city which belonged to one of our former members.
Also territorial alliances might not be interested in inactive cities in far away places. Which makes the inactive cities within their hubs even more valuable (Kilotov's argument about DLord cities in North Turalia).
Weigh in the question of diplo visibility range. There is no reason why any alliance would want to make a city in their midst "free for all".
Edited by Ander - 27 Aug 2011 at 19:53
|
|
Ander
Postmaster General
Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 19:37 |
I am very much with Kilotov on this. Alliances keeping their inactive players with big cities is very much justified. as long as the mechanism to capture a city is in place, that is the right thing to do with an inactive town.
If you are worried of a new player capturing a big city because he gets an "unfair advantage", you are stating that capturing of cities shouldn't be allowed. automatically booting inactives from alliances make it free for all, but not fair for all (except the biggies).
|
|
Llyorn Of Jaensch
Postmaster
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Points: 924
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 19:24 |
Tordenkaffen wrote:
Rules need to be: You get what you build, otherwise investing time and money in Illy is a complete waste so long as a completely new player can do these kinds of leaps and ultimately make your hard earned work and progress worthless.
Its decadent and exploitative - period.
|
+1
Tordenkaffen wrote:
Its Evony-like to think that because there is an exploit you should use it in good conscience. |
+1
|
|
"ouch...best of luck."
HonoredMule
|
|
(EOM) Harry
Forum Warrior
Joined: 06 Oct 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 283
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 19:00 |
Meh my bad, i thought Tord was in Valar.. I get confused quite a bit...
But even so, don't call me a troll. Under the right pretense of Tord being in Valar it would of been a Valid point, and yeah obviously i'm a troll! That's why i only comment when i feel i have a valid argument and back it up with evidence. Yep real troll like of me.
Don't just swing around insults with no evidence and forward thinking. As right now i could call you a troll but i'm not because i feel that there are two sides to this and that you may of just been hasty and i myself making a mistake, thus withheld the flying troll insults.
|
|
Fool's watch the land when the problem is in the heart.
|
|
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 18:56 |
Tordenkaffen wrote:
(EOM) Harry wrote:
Sorry mate, i forgot Valar and nice and clean and oh so up standing in this game, and yet you seem to be placing all your Valar towns outside Hubs, not allowing any non-confederate alliances to get a look in, oh so very clean!What was that word that started with Hy- and ending with pocrisy... |
Who are you talking to? I don't see a single Valar member that has posted in this thread yet.
|
indeed. but hidden undercover trolls like to start flame war...
|
|
Tweet
crow member hotattack