Peaceful Illy Group (PIG)

Mahaut wrote: Maybe I'm missing something here but why does it matter if an innactive account gets decimated? Its INNACTIVE - obviously doesn't have a sitter or it wouldn't be innactive.

the account had a sitter. i'm not sure what difference that makes to your other point, as the only way anyone knows a sitter is by self-identification. the game makes the sitter more or less indistinguishable from the account owner while in place, so i'm somewhat curious how you would go about determining that there was "participation by the player himself/herself". imo, the account has to be considered the account, regardless of who is controlling it.

Mahaut wrote: I thought this thread was supposed to be looking forwards not backwards.

possible protests from other parties aside, PIG is very much oriented toward the experience of the defeated forces of the last two wars, and very much based on the adage "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Capricorne wrote: leaders have option to protect their members or not. Kicking them out is an option.

i was advised when i inquired about Beecks' departure from NC that she had been kicked in a bid to save the account, but that the attackers were persisting in spite of it. as a member of leadership in one of the opposing alliances, you would know more about how that happens than i.

Rill wrote: I don't think it's unreasonable to require that people make contact with the other warring party and arrange for an exit to the war.  If that is not possible, then perhaps their alliance leadership could do it on their behalf.

was done, in the above instance, or so i was assured. this is not an issue of attackers not realising that an account is exhausted.

Rill wrote: there were other examples of accounts that "left" a warring alliance, rearmed and subsequently re-entered the war.

i'm sure you could supply an example of this...or i would hope you could, if you're going to use it to undermine your otherwise generous "leave whenever you like" policy...which, one notes, you were apparently unable to convince even nCrow to employ with any consistency. (it's all very good to have an ethical stance, but even better to be actually occupying it.) this is, to bring us back to the topic, where PIG might be/might have been helpful.

Rill wrote: Brand, there were other examples of accounts that "left" a warring alliance, rearmed and subsequently re-entered the war.  I don't think it's unreasonable to require that people make contact with the other warring party and arrange for an exit to the war.  If that is not possible, then perhaps their alliance leadership could do it on their behalf.  What do you think of that idea?

How many players snuck out the back door to re-arm, compared to overall inactive accounts devastated? While striking your colors to re-arm is a little sleazy, I don't know that the occasional cowardly exception really justifies smashing up 5x as many inactive accounts, based some vague notion that they are a potential risk. It also ignores that after the first siege of a particular account, it should be very obvious that the player isn't actively defending. Checking their population growth should immediately reveal if they are entirely or mostly inactive. Telling that apart from someone sneaking out the back door to build more troops should be easy to distinguish.

The notion of the alliance leaders negotiating is a noble one. Here's how I would imagine it in practice:

A: "Hey, we need to kick Z for inactivity, and we'd like you to spare the account."
B: "We want a million jillion beer, or no deal."
A: "What?! We can't afford that. Especially not for a player who only logs in once a month."
B: "Well you had an option, and didn't take it. Now you have only yourselves to blame. Go ahead, kick Z. We will still torch the entire account. It's a potential threat, har har! Thanks for letting us know that Z can't effectively defend himself! Thieves and catapults away!"

Telling an enemy leader that an account is inactive takes a great deal of trust. The possibility of severe damage is high. It would have been a lot easier if you PIG guys had settled on a code of chivalry that allowed such conventions.

Brandmeister wrote: (...) that's a slimy statement when the aggressors are specifically targeting inactives. (...)

Cap, there were numerous examples of kicked accounts being hunted to annihilation. An absent player cannot surrender. Many warring alliances use online tools to identify and target accounts where the population hasn't changed, because they know that less active accounts are easier to attack. We have repeatedly heard the justification that "Kicking accounts is not enough, it is the player's responsibility to contact our alliance and personally surrender to us," but that's a slimy statement when the aggressors are specifically targeting inactives. They already know the player cannot surrender if they are away, which is why the surrender terms specifically exclude kicked accounts.