| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Brandmeister 
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
 Posted: 08 Aug 2013 at 05:08 |
 DeathDealer89 wrote:
So the guy who deployed for a year gets purged? ....'Good' plan. |
QFT I had exactly the same thought.
|
 |
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
Posted: 08 Aug 2013 at 04:17 |
|
So the guy who deployed for a year gets purged? ....'Good' plan.
|
|
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
|
Posted: 08 Aug 2013 at 01:40 |
Eiche wrote:
One possibility would be something like a stasis setting, where one could put your city into stasis for a pre-determined length of time, during which it would not generate resources, but would be invulnerable to military and diplomatic attacks. |
respectfully, i can think of many ways that this could be abused that would be far worse than the current sitting rules. sitting rules make a great deal of sense inasmuch as they keep the cities in play and available to military attack, etc., in the spirit of the perpetual game. stasis would violate that ethic. appointing a sitter accomplishes two things: it allows the account to be monitored against attack, and to defend itself in the absence of the owner; and it allows the extension of the purge rules for inactive accounts more or less indefinitely. with purges occurring after 90 days of inactivity, i would question the necessity of extending the purge period when a sitter takes control. if the original owner can't be bothered to log in every 90 days to keep the account alive, it seems reasonable to assume they will not return. if 90 days seems too short a time, then add 30 days to the purge grace for accounts with active sitters. (new players should understand that this thread is mostly a thought experiment, as we've been told on prior occasions that the devs have no plans to impose additional restrictions on sitting.)
Edited by Angrim - 08 Aug 2013 at 01:40
|
|
Arakamis
Greenhorn
Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Location: Waterdeep
Status: Offline
Points: 97
|
Posted: 07 Aug 2013 at 23:52 |
|
More of a suggestion but maybe they can put a time limit for sitting as well. say 180 days.. that would limit perma-sat accounts and will be a lot easier to implement..
|
|
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
Posted: 07 Aug 2013 at 22:42 |
Eiche wrote:
Why should some people be allowed to control 60 cities when I am only limited to 20?
|
Wait if this is the basis of your argument then the problem lies in you not the game. It can't be considered 'unfair' because you have the ability to do the same thing. There is no advantage they have that you don't.
I admit the 'stasis' idea is the first idea that comes to my mind when I attempt to re-create the benefits of sitting. Except sitting accomplishes allowing people to take a vacation much better than stasis and has fewer exploits. Further a sat account appears the exact same as a non-sat account to the opposing player mean all 'exploits' can be defeated by the opponent. Where as stasis exploits can't be.
If there is a way to accomplish the same thing sitting does and is better than the current sitting mechanic then bring it up. If you can't come up with something to replace sitting that is better than sitting then we shouldn't replace it.
|
|
Eiche
Greenhorn
Joined: 03 Jun 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 41
|
Posted: 07 Aug 2013 at 22:32 |
DeathDealer89 wrote:
Currently you can have access to 20 cities without sitting. And soon you will have access to 40 cities without sitting. |
Half of those cities would have to be in the Broken Lands, though, and there's no trade between continents at first, so it's not the same. My point is that sitting exists so that people can keep their accounts activated when they are away from the game for a long time - that is a valid reason. Sitting does not exist so that a single person can have control of 60 cities - if the game developers wanted a single person to have up to 60 cities they could do so in a far simpler way.
My contention is that if sitting is being used by people to have control of 60 cities in a permanent way, then perhaps we should think of a different way for people to keep their accounts alive when they take a break from the game that does not give so much control to other players over their account.
DeathDealer89 wrote:
So people complain about their not being enough space so remove sitting? Your answer is to allow statis? Semi-permanently blocking off the good squares? Thats a great idea. Plus no matter how many rules on it there are more ways to abuse that then sitting.
|
I suggest removing sitting because it is being used in a way contrary to intentions to subvert the 10-city limit. If you want to keep the current sitting then another possibility would be to remove the 10-city limit, so that it is a level playing field for everyone.
I never said my stasis idea was perfect, but it is an alternative to the current sitting that (1) allows people to keep their accounts alive if they will be absent from the game for a long period and (2) does not allow people to subvert the 10-city limit in an unfair way.
Why should some people be allowed to control 60 cities when I am only limited to 20?
Fundamentally, that points to a failure of sitting. I think we should find an alternative that still allows people to preserve their account in Illyriad if they will be absent for a long period for whatever reason.
|
|
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
Posted: 07 Aug 2013 at 13:48 |
Eiche wrote:
If this was the intention of the games developers it would be easier - and fairer - to change the population requirements for subsequent cities so that everyone could have access to thirty, forty, sixty, or however many cities. |
Currently you can have access to 20 cities without sitting. And soon you will have access to 40 cities without sitting. With sitting you will get access to potentially 120 cities. As anyone with a large number of cities will tell you, the simple fact that running 120 cities is near impossible for one person.
If you don't like people who sit accounts because they have to much power. Why not focus on eliminating alts? Further as previous stated without the sitting mechanic people will just hand out passwords for their account to have it kept alive. Now those people with 6 accounts through sitting, simply have 6 full accounts with the ability to use all those pretty buttons that sat accounts can't.
Eiche wrote:
So, it seems unlikely that this was the intention of the mechanic, and it would be better to provide a different way for people to preserve their accounts when they know in advance that they will be away from the game for an extended period - due to a tour of duty, travelling, new baby, etc.
One possibility would be something like a stasis setting, where one could put your city into stasis for a pre-determined length of time, during which it would not generate resources, but would be invulnerable to military and diplomatic attacks. To prevent abuse of this setting during war, one could make this stasis setting only available for a minimum of 30 days, thus dissuading active players from using it. |
So people complain about their not being enough space so remove sitting? Your answer is to allow statis? Semi-permanently blocking off the good squares? Thats a great idea. Plus no matter how many rules on it there are more ways to abuse that then sitting.
Edited by DeathDealer89 - 07 Aug 2013 at 13:48
|
|
Llyr
Forum Warrior
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 267
|
Posted: 07 Aug 2013 at 12:13 |
|
I agree that Eiche's idea is much better than allowing permasitting. I'd allow more than 30 days, but I'd also make it "non-cancellable"; in other words, you can set it for 12 months or more if you want, but you have to wait the full amount of time initially set before reactivating. Of course while in stasis the city could not launch any sort of diplo, military or harvesting actions either, nor could it build units or upgrade buildings.
Edited by Llyr - 07 Aug 2013 at 12:22
|
|
|
|
Auraya
Postmaster
Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 523
|
Posted: 07 Aug 2013 at 10:32 |
|
Actually, I've seen a game use that mechanic Eiche. I'd be all for it!
|
|
Eiche
Greenhorn
Joined: 03 Jun 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 41
|
Posted: 07 Aug 2013 at 09:25 |
DeathDealer89 wrote:
I agree with Rill, this topic has already been re-hashed enough times. But I believe giving people the option of having a vacation is a lot more important than the possibility that people are perma sitting. |
One of the unique aspects of Illyriad is the very strict ten city limit (or twenty including alt accounts). Permasitting provides a mechanic for increasing this limit to sixty cities, given the players with those extra cities a disproportionate amount of in-game power.
If this was the intention of the games developers it would be easier - and fairer - to change the population requirements for subsequent cities so that everyone could have access to thirty, forty, sixty, or however many cities.
So, it seems unlikely that this was the intention of the mechanic, and it would be better to provide a different way for people to preserve their accounts when they know in advance that they will be away from the game for an extended period - due to a tour of duty, travelling, new baby, etc.
One possibility would be something like a stasis setting, where one could put your city into stasis for a pre-determined length of time, during which it would not generate resources, but would be invulnerable to military and diplomatic attacks. To prevent abuse of this setting during war, one could make this stasis setting only available for a minimum of 30 days, thus dissuading active players from using it.
|
|
Tweet
how many accounts r u permasitting
