| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2012 at 05:51 |
Hadus wrote:
The_Dude wrote:
Hadus wrote:
Can I ask you a question(s) then? If these accounts are sitting inactive in an alliance, what are the alliance leaders doing? Shouldn't they be monitoring member activity and kicking inactive members? And if these inactives get attacked, how does anyone even know, and why would they care? And if it bothers you, why not bring it up with your alliance leaders, and ask them to kick the inactives.***
| RES retains inactive accounts for the purpose of trying to retain the 7 food sqs they settled their cities on. As a regional alliances focused in the newbie spawn zone, RES considers these sqs "strategic assets." |
Hm...my gut says that's an abuse of the game mechanics, and it falls right into the debate over "does purposely sitting an inactive account count as an alt/break the 2-account max?" But since it's technically game-permitted and I'm in no position nor have any desire to challenge you, I can't do much more than state my opinion on the matter.
If you're purposely prolonging the life of inactive accounts essentially to use them as giant occupying armies, and simultaneously denying active players 7-food spots, it seems as the least an underhanded approach. If there weren't so many 7-food spots left...
|
I did NOT say "sit". I said "retains" as in does not kick from the alliance. Words have meaning.
|
 |
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: 15 Nov 2012 at 01:35 |
The_Dude wrote:
Hadus wrote:
Can I ask you a question(s) then? If these accounts are sitting inactive in an alliance, what are the alliance leaders doing? Shouldn't they be monitoring member activity and kicking inactive members? And if these inactives get attacked, how does anyone even know, and why would they care? And if it bothers you, why not bring it up with your alliance leaders, and ask them to kick the inactives.***
| RES retains inactive accounts for the purpose of trying to retain the 7 food sqs they settled their cities on. As a regional alliances focused in the newbie spawn zone, RES considers these sqs "strategic assets." |
Hm...my gut says that's an abuse of the game mechanics, and it falls right into the debate over "does purposely sitting an inactive account count as an alt/break the 2-account max?" But since it's technically game-permitted and I'm in no position nor have any desire to challenge you, I can't do much more than state my opinion on the matter. If you're purposely prolonging the life of inactive accounts essentially to use them as giant occupying armies, and simultaneously denying active players 7-food spots, it seems as the least an underhanded approach. If there weren't so many 7-food spots left...
Edited by Hadus - 15 Nov 2012 at 01:36
|
|
|
 |
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 14 Nov 2012 at 22:26 |
Hadus wrote:
Can I ask you a question(s) then? If these accounts are sitting inactive in an alliance, what are the alliance leaders doing? Shouldn't they be monitoring member activity and kicking inactive members? And if these inactives get attacked, how does anyone even know, and why would they care? And if it bothers you, why not bring it up with your alliance leaders, and ask them to kick the inactives.***
|
RES retains inactive accounts for the purpose of trying to retain the 7 food sqs they settled their cities on. As a regional alliances focused in the newbie spawn zone, RES considers these sqs "strategic assets."
|
 |
Epidemic
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 768
|
Posted: 14 Nov 2012 at 21:37 |
gameplayer, it's not right to post your alliances business in forum. It's also not right to be in more then one alliance, unless your alt is known and is in their training alliance.
|
 |
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: 14 Nov 2012 at 21:37 |
gameplayer wrote:
oh well, just looking at the two alliances im in, and gosh not much good space around me, maybe there is alot more open land around u guys...it amazes me that accounts just sit there inactive 30 or more days in the alliance...things have changed alot in illyriad since i joined it....so many inactives ...number 8 ranking and many inactives...we need more active players! if more space created there would be no need to place a castle within 10 spaces which would end alot of the bullying, bullying causes new people to quit. new alliances attract new people...new people should be given the same opportunity to experience the game that us older people were given, we shouldnt be protecting seldomed used or inactive accounts that crowd players which in returns creates the enviroment of bullying
|
Can I ask you a question(s) then? If these accounts are sitting inactive in an alliance, what are the alliance leaders doing? Shouldn't they be monitoring member activity and kicking inactive members? And if these inactives get attacked, how does anyone even know, and why would they care? And if it bothers you, why not bring it up with your alliance leaders, and ask them to kick the inactives. Seriously, lets try to solve these problems ourselves before we go running back to the devs whining about how they don't run the game exactly as we want them to. The player base in Illy has more power than any other community to change the way the game is played, so why do we constantly resort to begging the developers?
|
|
|
 |
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 14 Nov 2012 at 21:09 |
|
oh well, just looking at the two alliances im in, and gosh not much good space around me, maybe there is alot more open land around u guys...it amazes me that accounts just sit there inactive 30 or more days in the alliance...things have changed alot in illyriad since i joined it....so many inactives ...number 8 ranking and many inactives...we need more active players! if more space created there would be no need to place a castle within 10 spaces which would end alot of the bullying, bullying causes new people to quit. new alliances attract new people...new people should be given the same opportunity to experience the game that us older people were given, we shouldnt be protecting seldomed used or inactive accounts that crowd players which in returns creates the enviroment of bullying
|
 |
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: 14 Nov 2012 at 18:54 |
gameplayer wrote:
alot of the problem would be resolved if the devs would have a quicker rule to get rid of inactive accounts, 30 days and they should be gone, this would free up so much of the map, gosh at least 30 percent of the accounts must be inactive and each probably has 3 or more castles, prob open up lots of castles slots of prime 7 food plot land, doing this would allow alliances to cluster build areas and there would be less of these conflicts and more interesting game play...ask urself this question.....how many active players are turned off by the amount of inactive accounts on t he map and choose to play a game elsewhere
|
You know, if you consider inactive accounts a detriment to the game, you can always take it into your own hands. Heck, you could create a whole alliance dedicated to the task.
|
|
|
 |
Epidemic
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 768
|
Posted: 14 Nov 2012 at 18:00 |
I agree with Silverlake's original posting. Without honor and respect for rules this game becomes just like all the rest, and nobody wants that. 7 food squares are all over the map, so that shouldn't be an issue. I do think the inactive accounts should be regulated differently. If an account, with multiple towns, isn't logged into for 30 days it is automatically booted from any alliance it is in. After 45 days of inactivity (inactive) is shown next to player name. 90 day inactive accounts are deleted. An account with only 1 town should be deleted after 7 days of inactivity. The only exception to this rule is prestige buyers. If you buy prestige you are immune to these rules, your account will never be deleted. Just my opinion.
Edited by Epidemic - 14 Nov 2012 at 18:02
|
 |
Loud Whispers
Wordsmith
Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Location: Saltmines
Status: Offline
Points: 196
|
Posted: 14 Nov 2012 at 17:40 |
gameplayer wrote:
No I was talking of how to get rid of the bullying of larger alliances against smaller ones, it's hard to cluster build when there are limited 7 food plot areas. Plus how do smaller alliances attract more members when active gamers notice the amount of inactive or seldom used accounts in each alliance or the vast number not in alliances but siting there? 30 days is one month, if they log in that seldom are they a serious player or are they taking up land that should be used by serious players? Space between active players will stop the bullying of larger alliances over a lot of land issues if there is no need to settle so closely... Gosh we need more active players in this game, why discourage new people with creating more bullying? |
Ftfy Also, are you seriously saying that casual gamers in larger alliances are bullying smaller alliances by existing? How you got to that conclusion, I do not know. Here's how small alliances recruit: They recruit. Advertise, tell new players what their alliance can offer - being honest.
Illyriad is the only casual game of this genre. Conflicts arise when people settle closely without asking their would-be neighbours. Illyriad is over crowded, commencing a mass cleansing of all the players sounds horrendous - and that would drive away new players. As would killing every account that ever collected dust once in a while. In short, your argument is coconuts.
|
 |
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 14 Nov 2012 at 14:29 |
|
no i was talking of how to get rid of bullying of larger alliances against smaller ones, its hard to cluster build when there are limited 7 food plot areas, plus how do smaller alliances attract more members when active gamers notice the amount of inactive or seldom used accounts in each alliance or the vast number not in alliances but siting there.....30 days is one month, if they log in that seldom are they a serious player or are they taking up land that should be played by serious players? space between active players will stop bullying of larger alliances over alot of land issues if there is no need to settle so closely....gosh we need more active players in this game, why discourage new people with creating more bullying
|
 |