Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Larger alliances taking advantage of smaller ones
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedLarger alliances taking advantage of smaller ones
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
The_Dude View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Nov 2012 at 22:26
Originally posted by Hadus 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."
Back to Top
Hadus View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2012 at 01:35
Originally posted by The_Dude The_Dude wrote:

Originally posted by Hadus 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
Back to Top
The_Dude View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2012 at 05:51
Originally posted by Hadus Hadus wrote:

Originally posted by The_Dude The_Dude wrote:

Originally posted by Hadus 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.
Back to Top
Aurordan View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar
Player Council - Ambassador

Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2012 at 06:01
Originally posted by The_Dude The_Dude wrote:

   I did NOT say "sit".  I said "retains" as in does not kick from the alliance.  Words have meaning.

He didn't say you said sit.  He just said you were sitting on them.  Which it can be at least reasonably argued you are.  
Back to Top
Llyr View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 267 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2012 at 06:23
As a fairly new player, I don't really understand all the fuss over "rare minerals". As far as I know, only four of the sixteen have any current use in the game. Supposition is that the remainder will play a part in new schools of magic, if and when those ever show up. But if the new magic is as feeble as the current magic, why even bother with them? Armies sitting on relatively useless mines aren't being used to attack other players, so let them sit.

Back to Top
dunnoob View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2012 at 07:45
Originally posted by Hadus Hadus wrote:

 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.
I tested reinforcement for the purpose of keeping an inactive account alive, and it failed miserably.  What do you have in mind?  

When SC or TC announced the new inactivity rules they explicitly mentioned siege as keep-alive strategy, presumably a blockade would also work.  It's rather convoluted if an alliance sieges or blockades their own inactive members for the purpose of keeping the accounts alive.  Vague idea, leave alliance, send dummy siege (no catapults) or blockade for 15 days, and join alliance again.  But convoluted is not the same as abusive, published rules are supposed to work as designed. Question
Back to Top
bansisdead View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 08 Jan 2012
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 609 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2012 at 08:49
I see nothing wrong with RETAINING inactive towns in alliances, for the purpose The_Dude describes.

"does purposely sitting an inactive account count as an alt/break the 2-account max?"Hadus

It is quite clear what hadus was eluding to, sitting as described in the game rules Audrordan...not sitting on.
Back to Top
Janosch View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 169 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2012 at 11:50
Based on this thread, I have initialised the Non-Aligned Movement some time ago:


This is still an active project and we are happy to debate or engage with more alliances. So if you are interested, feel free to send me a pm.

Clap


Edited by Janosch - 15 Nov 2012 at 11:51
You like Democracy? Join the Old Republic!
Back to Top
twilights View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2012 at 13:25
we should stay on topic of larger alliances attacking smaller alliances.....if more space was provided in the game there most likely will be less of these conflicts, smaller alliances can secure their own alliance areas without overlap of established larger alliances...inactive accounts can remain in game for over 120 days taking up space that could be used by active players causing these disputes of alliance claims on lands....
Back to Top
ES2 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 550 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2012 at 13:48
Originally posted by gameplayer gameplayer wrote:

we should stay on topic of larger alliances attacking smaller alliances.....if more space was provided in the game there most likely will be less of these conflicts, smaller alliances can secure their own alliance areas without overlap of established larger alliances...inactive accounts can remain in game for over 120 days taking up space that could be used by active players causing these disputes of alliance claims on lands....

"cough" war game "cough"
Eternal Fire
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.