Petition for Dev intervention into Multiaccounting
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: The Caravanserai
Forum Description: A place to just chat about whatever takes your fancy, whether it's about Illyriad or not.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=10999
Printed Date: 27 Mar 2026 at 02:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Petition for Dev intervention into Multiaccounting
Posted By: ES2
Subject: Petition for Dev intervention into Multiaccounting
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2023 at 00:44
|
Hello, Illyriad has been the subject of heated discussion, accusations, and tentatively verified (on individual cases as much as player to player will allow) on the scourge of multi-accounting beyond what the ruleset permits for years. This issue has plagued both continents within the server on what accounts to cheating with an unfair advantage versus legitimate players that stay within the ruleset. I am asking with this petition for the Developers to conduct an investigation with these claims into the playerbase of the game, and to make a statement on the status of these multi-accounts within the playerbase that has lost faith that there is only a small percentage of active players participating in violating the ruleset. Eternal Fire ------------- Eternal Fire |
Replies:
Posted By: Duran
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2023 at 00:46
|
I second this. It's an issue that needs to be fixed, and with deliberate action. Or an admission. If players can legally have more than 2 accounts. That needs to be voiced. At some point down the line, you're going to run into a player with 4, 20 city accounts that will illegally be able to do something that a player with 2, 20 city accounts could. Either make it fair and allow for more, or abide by your own rules and start penalizing those players. Duran Shadowfist. ------------- "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2023 at 01:28
|
Duran covers my opinion pretty well- enforce, or legalise. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2023 at 00:53
|
WTF is this? Is this a thing. Are the DEVs allowing a player more than 2 accounts, or just ignoring the violation? I don't know about the other players, but I'd like to see a response here from them. ------------- |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2023 at 11:15
Same for me. I would heavily prefer enforcing though or at least still limit the amount of accounts you can have (maybe 3 or 5?). Following some background on my side. I had quite a bit of suspicious activities but never enough proof to really come forward with this. The activities are suspicious but only the developers can prove wether it was multi-accounting/password-sharing or not. Case 1: Over the years i bought more then 100 terraforms. I had phases were i pushed a lot of cities in a short time and required a lot of terraforms. I posted a message in GC that i am looking to buy (a lot of) terraforms. A player i did not know until then contacted me an offered me a lot of terraforms (5+ in a week for multiple weeks). I agreed and got the terraforms. Most of them were quite suspicious though - the accounts were active for sometimes multiple months (and at least weeks) and they usually did not abandon immediately after they were finished (sometimes it took multiple weeks). The first time this happened was a few years ago. Then it happened around a year ago with a different contact person but the same pattern. A few month ago i learned that my contact accounts were apparently "associated". Case 2: As some players know we had some issues with a player stealing from us some time ago. Before stealing that player went inactive. At the same time at least 10 other accounts (that i found in different alliances) went inactive. Then a few weeks later all those accounts "woke" up at the same time and showed regular growth again. The player has a reputation as "multi-accounter" in the community already - this just seems to support it. Case 3: While trading at Centrum there was a player (that probably had 2 accounts already - one i know for sure) that created an account, sold me 5-6 Tomes and then grew the account. This happened at least 3 times. The player later quit and all the accounts went inactive at the same time. Conclusion: Those are the most obvious cases. There are a lot more i know of and there are a lot of other suspicious activities (e.g. in general a lot of accounts having no growth/change for multiple years). I am glad to share more details with the developers if needed. Illyriad is meant to allow breaks (via sitters) and perma-sitters are common. This system is limited by the amount of sitters an account can have and most of the players that have sitters come back from time to time. Multi-accounting and sharing passwords does not have a limit and thus needs to be enforced by the developers. It is a huge advantage and problem. In my opinion a few players already abuse it quite a bit and that needs to be fixed! |
eowan the short wrote:Posted By: Dungshoveleux
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2023 at 14:48
|
As with AoA, Illyriad is facing development issues. The only way they can survive is if enough people buy prestige. Anything else is of secondary importance. If the multi account perpetrators are the ones buying lots of prestige, then don't hold your breath waiting for something to be done about it. I have religiously kept to the 2 account limit ever since the devs introduced it officially. My 2c Dung
|
Posted By: Gry
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2023 at 20:08
| If the multiaccounting rule cannot be enforced, abandon the rule. This won't prevent unfair advantage, but at least it will be one of means rather than scruples. |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2023 at 20:35
| For me is one way , enforse the rule . If they try they can do it . |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2023 at 02:17
If enforcing isn't viable for reasons either financial or technical, then legalise. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2023 at 02:39
|
Historically, people complaining about multi-accounting usually occurs before a war. The multi-accounting doesn't change, but the complaining about it does.
Who's going to war this time? |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2023 at 04:24
|
People complain about me multiaccounting all the time, and none of the complainers have ever gone to war with me. It's a constant low hum, and standard 'I don't like this person'. Every few months, there's a post or proposal somewhere that either multiaccount rules get enforced or stripped away. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2023 at 06:20
| If there are finansial reasons ,thats mean is more p2w so enforsement of the rule is even more nesesery. |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2023 at 12:52
I obviously do not have a deep insight into this - but in my opinion the reason Illyriad is/was facing development issues is because (some of) the focus was on AoA.
I agree with the first part but i disagree with the second part. In my opinion there are 2 more important factors. Getting new players and keeping the current players interested. With that players are going to buy Prestige and the the game is going to continue to be in a healthy state.
I completely disagree with that statement. Yes, in the short term those players might be a positive influence. But if those players increase the decline of the player base in the long run then it is defenitely not worth it. Conclusion: Life-service games with regular updates and improvements work - there are a lot of examples for that. While Illyriad had some content updates over the year it also has some major problems. In my opinion those need to be fixed as soon as possible - otherwise the playerbase is going to decline even more.
|
Posted By: Dungshoveleux
Date Posted: 20 Jan 2023 at 14:40
| Things ought to be done properly. However, experience says otherwise. Illyriad Games Ltd has not brought financial returns to its investors, as far as I can see. Hence I think they are constrained by cash. Accounting, compliance, and server fees need to be funded from revenue for the future to have significance. I have seen the player base steadily decline. Without some input from development and marketing, I do not see this situation changing. Less players = less prestige sales. |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2023 at 06:33
Painful truth...it SHOULDNT be true, but it is. Ive seen this in other games as well, in one case a kid "somehow" got about $1k in gift cards and spent it and was openly an admitted cheater and hacker. The devs (in a similar position to what the illy devs are now) simply let it happen knowing that he was their largest base of income.
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2023 at 20:18
A decision like this essentially means in my opinion that the devs gave up on the game and decided to "milk" it as much as possible. The cash income might work short term - but long term you essentially kill your own community and thus game. Reputation for live-service games is quite important and its really hard to get that back once you "ruined" it.
|
Posted By: Duran
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2023 at 21:16
|
I think Dung and BrianN really say this best, and it kills me. Because we have these conversations. The developers see them. It is their forum after all. and there's absolutely not a single re-assurance from them that this is being looked into or a potential solution. That's a huge let down in my opinion. ------------- "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2023 at 21:43
|
This conversation has been happening intermittently since before 2013, although the concern there was more about permasat accounts, which the devs did attempt to do something about with the 90-day rule. Still, it's been 10 years. I think that's an indication the problem is not high on the priority list for the developers. I can only speculate that this is because they believe that having multiple accounts per player is not a substantial strategic advantage, and I can understand where they are coming from in that regard because that is the way they built the game, but it is not the way the game plays as it exists now. There are a number of underlying flaws in Illyriad game mechanics that contribute to multi-accounting being a problem rather than a self-correcting phenomenon. 1) game mechanics favor defense of cities over attacks on cities -- not speaking of the military stats, which actually advantage attackers over defenders, but the results of those, because in Illy one attacks siege camps to defend and defends siege camps to attack. This results in cities rarely coming under serious threat. 2) The life cycle of Illyriad cities is that they consume more resources than they produce early in their lifetimes and later produce more than they consume (in general, with the exception of some very military-heavy players/cities). In order to maintain a resource balance and healthy level of competition for resources, the game is dependent on either a consistent influx of new players or upon existing players to build new cities. The game hasn't seen a substantial flow of new players since around 2015, and the developers compensated for this by encouraging players to build more and more new cities. However, the limits of this tactic have now been reached, because it is just not that fun to build 60 cities entirely composed of trade offices, at least not for most players. (For the elite players who find that resource management task amusing, kudos.) And alternative is that cities can be destroyed and rebuilt after wars, but see problem 1 for why that is not really a practical solution. 3) The above two flaws are of concern as the playberbase atrophies because of the overall low level of activity compared to the space and resources available. There's very little meaningful competition. If there were more competition for resources in Illyriad (and by resources I include prime real estate as well as harvestables, gold, etc.) then secondary and less active accounts would be less of an advantage because one would be required to defend them actively and they would consume time and resources in proportion to their advantage. In this case the time required to manage and defend is more of a factor than the resources required. Most players with large numbers of accounts and cities depend on them not being threatened in order to manage them effectively. Defense of 5-10 cities actively under attack can require the focus of a 20-30 player alliance, if the attackers are doing it right. If one actually had to defend four accounts with 10-20 cities each (or attack with four accounts with 10-20 cities each), the game would be unplayable. Summary: For cultural and game mechanics reasons, more than half of players/cities (and probably more like 80-90%) have a net resource surplus. They don't consume resources in any meaningful way, and really don't need to. It's possible to have an entire account that consumes very little in gold or other items and therefore produces a large surplus. It is this structural fact of game mechanics combined with general lack of player interest in Illyriad that contributes to multi-accounting being a concern to players -- one that the developers have not adequately taken into account. However, this very lack of player engagement means that the developers have little incentive to do anything about multi-accounting. From their perspective, any active player account is a bonus, without regard to who controls it. The snake is eating its tail. P.S. There are actually only two people playing Illyriad. One of them is me. You are the other.
|
Posted By: Snagglepuss
Date Posted: 22 Jan 2023 at 22:48
|
There has to be a way to enforce it, why not shoot Tens a few cans of Tuna, in payment for rooting out the offenders? I understand keeping the game alive, but is it really the multis buying the prestige? No offense to all of you who have posted, but the devs have kept the game going through a ton of BS through the years and I for one appreciate the fact I am still playing. That being said, I have always been of the opinion that its clearly cheating. So I go with the consensus, sort of...Enforce it, period. Please don't legalize it
|
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2023 at 01:14
I agree, and as we’ve seen here there is a large sample size that either believes they have dealt with multi accounting, or they want it legalized in the absence of what appears to be a lack of enforcement. To me, this reiterates the original concern of this post, that leads to a dev acknowledgment of community concern and their statement on it. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2023 at 08:39
You think i'd work for food?  Since this thread got started I've been mulling over the problem and the more I think about it the bigger it seems to get. I'm constantly reminded about an old adage: 'Any security system designed by man can be broken by man' That in effect sums up the problem in that no matter what sort of system the devs come up with there will be those who take it as a challenge to find ways around it. To counteract that would need a full time staff doing nothing but checking for attempts at breaching the system. Does that mean I think the problem is unsolvable or should just be ignored? No to both, there has to be a middle ground somewhere but finding that will be in my opinion a long and hard road. One thing that concerns me is that there are players who may decide to take advantage of the situation by accusing others of being multi-accounters just to settle old scores or gain an advantage. When folks get accused of something like that it can make them decide to leave even if they are innocent. As for the devs not caring - I just plain disagree with that. In all my dealings with any of the devs i've always found a passion for Illy that I've seldom seen anywhere else when it comes to peoples relationship with their work. Anyway, that is my opinion on it. Tens |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2023 at 11:30
|
Tbh, even if they did somehow solve it enough to make it so no one multiaccounted, there'd still be suspicions. And, yeah, 'x is a multiaccounter' is pretty much equivalent to 'I don't like x'. The solution is probably to just relax the rules. The problem with an unenforceable rule is that it punishes good behaviour- when you follow the rules, you find yourself at a disadvantage compared to those who buy a VPN subscription and have an account in every country on earth. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2023 at 19:00
| My concern of multi-accts. is less to do with traditional 'game mechanics' and more to do with spys/agents provocateurs/trolls. It is very easy to create a 5 city acct., join a military alliance, get in on the spreadsheet and wreak havoc. Join a traditional alliance, maybe even a training alliance, convince someone you are trust worthy, get sitting rights and wreak havoc then abandon. Have an acct. in every alliance in Illyriad... A person can do this without buying any prestige at all. There are many problems with allowing this to continue beyond gold/resource, troop production, prestige buying. |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 23 Jan 2023 at 19:26
While i do agree with the statement that its impossible to design a security system that cannot be broken i disagree with your conclusion. Security measures help. They do not completely fix the problem but they make it harder and more risky - thats the point. Letting an expensive bike stand outside without a lock is a lot worse then buying a good lock and using it. The bike is not secure from getting stolen - but it is less likely. Players knowing that the devs ban multi-accounters and follow up/act on petitions would probably solve most of the issues. Instead the opposite seems to be the case.
I agree with the passion for the game and that the devs have been dealing well with most of the easier issues. I found some major bugs that they fixed really fast and communicated really well. On important issues were it is often "either or" and making a decision would be important i was quite disappointed by the devs reaction. They seem to ignore it and stay out of it instead of a "Yes we know the problem exists and we have the following opinion". Which in my opinion would help a lot. Instead it seems to me that they are trying to make both sides happy - which in the long run makes the problem even worse. As an example: As far as i know there was strong evidence that a player was multi-accounting on a huge scale (a sitter of an account got a message with 8+ accounts with the same password by accident). A petition was created 2-3 years ago but as far as i know nothing happened on the devs side and the player was able to continue multi-accounting until now (and quite likely still is). And this example is a huge problem. It would have been easy for the devs to check it and post a response/statement. Instead apparently they ignored it.
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2023 at 09:05
I think infiltrator is a perfectly valid style of play. Just because there isn't an in game mechanic backing something, that doesn't mean it's a problem. The best and most interesting parts of illy come from non-mechanical play. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2023 at 10:41
|
To a certain degree I have to agree with Eowan on this - it is not against the rules (as I understand them) to infiltrate other alliances. The potential dangers of sitters is something that is warned about quite strongly I think. Infiltration and 'sitter abuse' are both things that I personally feel are 'dirty' so not things that I would contemplate doing but that is my play style and they are not breaches of the rules. Yes, creating multiple accounts simultaneously to infiltrate alliances is a breach and should be punished but if somebody simply uses their alt to do it then no rule is broken. One of the unique points about Illy is in my opinion the variety of ways it can be played and I think the devs don't get anywhere near the praise they deserve for having come up with the design in the first place. They have made a game that has relatively few rules yet has been going for over 10 years. Pretty damn amazing if you ask me. Tens |
Posted By: bzn
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2023 at 15:39
| I dont think the purpose of that guys post was to debate the legitimacy or morality of the infiltration tactic, but rather display how incredibly easy it is to do and how much widespread harm a single player can cause when the rules arent being enforced |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2023 at 16:10
|
But can they be enforced? The very enforceability of multi rules is questionable. In addition to this- infiltration can be done via a legitimate alt very easily. In fact, Thunderchild was an alt I had specifically for infiltration purposes. I don't believe that multiaccounting for infiltration is more harmful than, for example, multiaccounting for pvp or any other use. The end result is the same- an x account advantage over the law abiding player. And that, in my opinion, is the problem with multiaccounting. It's not what is done with the accounts- a legal account has the exact same abilities as an illegal one- it's the fact that an unenforceable rule results in the players who follow the rules being at a disadvantage. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: bzn
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2023 at 16:23
|
i dont believe its unenforceable, or at least it is a lot more enforceable than what is being done now (nothing), the amount of identifying data about users that website operators can gain is more than enough to catch a large amount of them, i believe. there are steps to mitigate identification from the user side, but there is also a lot that the operators can do to counter those. i doubt most people multi'ing are doing anything super sophisticated so simple fingerprinting tactics can likely catch most of them. its not just about catching people, but also deterring the act. right now the devs have shown there are 0 consequences to breaking the rules of the game, so people feel safe risking their big accounts. if real effort was made at a purge and big accounts faced the consequences, it would deter future rule breaking. to me it isnt that they arent putting in enough effort, its that they arent putting in any effort whatsoever. this points to either a lack of care or financial incentive, both of which i believe most players will view negatively.
|
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2023 at 18:05
|
Took the words out of my typing fingers. What about tournaments, which seem to be the new thing here. More than half of the members of an alliance, including 'tourney alliances', don't even participate. Why not put a newb one town acct. in Yarr! and if someone mentions in AC sending some troops to this square or lets stack up on this...
Coming from a former spy, it is a totally viable alternate game mechanic (and quite fun), WHEN PLAYED WITHIN THE RULES OF ILLYRIAD.
It is already clear from style of play, personal admissions over the years and their vehement defense of legalizing multi-accounting on this post, who one of these POS players is who has the multi-accounts. No respect for you ever, and already lost respect for the developers who can't enforce the 'unenforceable' rules in their own game, nor give an acknowledgement here that this may be a problem. |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2023 at 22:44
|
If someone's willing to put in the effort to run 10+ accounts, they're probably willing to take counter measures. There are plenty of fingerprints, but gloves also exist, to continue the metaphor. Enforceability should also consider not just theoretical enforceability, but effective enforceability. If, for any reason, the devs can't crack down on multiaccounting- be it technological, financial, time cost, whatever- then the rule is not enforceable. Sun Tzu, I sense some salt, lol. But, your point also doesn't really make any sense. Let's say I am a multiaccounter. Why on earth would I be arguing for the legalisation of multiaccounting? Rn I'd have a massive advantage over all you law abiding scrubs. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2023 at 22:48
| I learned Illy tournament and war strategy from ScottFitz. The fundamental principle is that none of us knew what we were doing. That made spying worthless. |
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2023 at 23:28
|
Well I guess it's pretty simple then. No reason for any of us 'law abiding scrubs' to buy chips anymore to play poker against players with a full deck up their sleeves. and if someone is willing to put in the effort to write essays on a forum that ten people read, I'd say they are willing to run 10+ accts. especially if said accts. are terras or two town intel plants.
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 24 Jan 2023 at 23:33
|
How else am I supposed to overtake kodabear in forum points if not by posting essays on a forum that ten people read?
EDIT: 190 to go! Down with the magic bear! ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 02:16
| Multiaccountng is bad . Alow multiaccounting is bad . Why do we have to choose what is whorst . Its devs job make the game fair and enjoiable . Game has already structure problems at strategic play and alow multiaccounting will be added to these and destroy even and its ruins . It is not that hard to find who is cheating and even if it is there are ways to denie benifites of cheating dy changing game meckanics like not alowing direct sends of gear to other accounts and hiding lower market prises .what i am saying is that if there is the willing the solutions would be found at some point . Even and a consule of players could fix this by at least invastigate the accusations of being multy. |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 02:32
|
Council of players would be biased- pretty sure half the game thinks I multi, not least because I do go out of my way to encourage such rumours; they amuse me. The other half of the game is me :P How would allowing multiaccounting add to the structural issues of the game? I could make a good argument that it would alleviate some of them- too much land, too many resources, not enough friction. I think removing account limits could genuinely bring a return to strategic focused pvp, rather than grudge focused pvp which is the dominant strain atm. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 05:24
I resemble the first part of that remark! but for the most part I cba to wander into Illy anymore. I mostly stick to the forum.
|
Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 06:18
I also resemble the first part and while I've had a great many accounts over the years I've NEVER had more than the two allowed at once. I've often created an account just to test how something in the tools worked for a brand new account and having learned what I needed abandoned it. As for only 10 people reading the forum, I often have a look down at the bottom of the forums where it tells you who is online here. There are more than 10 people who visit. Whether they actually read anything I don't know. Tens
|
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 07:43
| [REMOVED BY GM STORMCROW] |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 09:27
|
One of the main parts of a strategick play is that you use your tacticks to gain or avoid to lose something that will make you stronger or weaker . So having multies cut this cause you do not have to losse something that you realy care .... If both part have multies means that both part will have less to gain and losse .... So at the list with the prestige market .imo
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 09:30
|
Hey Sun Tzu, 'Our adversary is of a choleric temper and easily provoked; let us make constant sallies and break down his walls, then he will grow angry and come out. ' Gotcha ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 09:34
I mean, you still do lose something- building accounts would still take time and effort. It could potentially reduce the risk of pvp a bit by allowing anon pvp accounts more easily... but it's not like there's an overwhelming number of pvp players rn so hardly the worst thing in the world. If the pvp is towards a strategic goal (land, resources etc) then the risk in losing the pvp is there regardless of the number of accounts controlled. If the pvp is with the intent to wipe a player out, it would certainly be much harder.... but I don't see that as a significant issue- there aren't enough players anyway, so retaining a few more sounds good to me. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Dungshoveleux
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 11:19
 This is the first evidence of any form of activity in some time (that I have seen).
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 11:28
|
RIP ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 11:29
1. Bigger accounts currently have a bigger impact on the game then smaller ones (with the exception of Prestige sellers). Allowing more bigger accounts would make this worse. As an example a bigger player buying a lot of resources often "crashes" the market to some extend. As somebody who trades quite a bit at Centrum this happens quite often. As an Example: Just today i sold 4b worth of Scraps to a single player. 2. In Illyriad growth is kinda exponential. The bigger you get the easier it is to grow. Bigger players currently have an advantage (that they put hard work into getting - as 40/50 and especially max cities is really hard). Allowing multi-accounting would make that worse. As an (extreme) example: Allowing me more accounts means i can grow a lot faster then others. I
think i could probably get to 300 or even more additional cities in just a year if i
want to. 3. The Prestige price is already unhealthy for new players. Currently there is not enough supply of Prestige. Allowing multi-accounting means a lot of additional Prestige demand - which would make it a lot worse. In general multi-accounting would make the game even less new-player friendly as it is. Thus in my opinion it would be bad for the game overall.
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 11:37
|
1. More accounts means more supply and demand, means more volume, means more resilient markets. It would depend somewhat on patterns of behaviour. Regardless, I don't think market volatility is inherently a bad thing. 2. So... effort is rewarded? And, because people would have access to more accounts, more would be able to breach the 10 city threshold more easily. This then gets them onto the exponential curve and from there they end up bigger. 3. New players can make more accounts as well, so have increased gold generating potential. There would probably be inflation- I don't doubt that- but inflation hurts people with large amounts of gold, which isn't new players.
------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 11:56
The market would be more resilient if people constantly input volume. But that is usually not how it works. Most players usually sell/buy huge quantities in irregular intervals and that would become even worse.
But none of them can compete even closely with the growth of the current huge players. Which means the distance between small and huge players gets a lot bigger. Currently the growth potential is limited - that wouldn't be the case anymore.
Yes, the new player can make 10x 1-city accounts compared to my 10x 30 city accounts. The gold generation potential is not even close. Catching up to 2x 30 city accounts is a lot easier then catching up to 15-20 (or even more) 30 city accounts.
First inflation hurts players that are sitting on gold. Is does not really hurt players that invested it already (i.e. have a lot of cities) - as those players can make gold with those cities. Bigger players have a lot more options to make gold then smaller/new ones. I can make billions of gold per week if i need to (without much work) and a lot more with some work. Others cannot. For me 100m or even 150/200m per Scrap just means i have to wait a bit longer. For new players that is almost impossible - as buying terraforms would (probably) be not a thing anymore.
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 12:17
1. When I set queues, tend to do it on an account as a whole. More accounts means that people who follow my pattern of behaviour would spread their total purchasing more resulting in a more consistent demand pattern. There would still be spikers who bought for all accounts at once... whether one would outweigh the other would be interesting... the end result is probably minimal change. But, like I said, I don't view market volatility as inherently problematic- it creates market inefficiency which opens the door for dedicated traders. 2. You assume that maintaining an account has no overhead- there comes a point where people would stop building new accounts because they don't have the time to manage it. Each would have their own limit. More big accounts, means more towns available to cap, means more growth potential for new players. 3. The difference between 1 30 town account and 1 1 town account is proportionately the same as 1000000 30 town accounts and 1000000 1 town accounts. Therefore the gap is going to close at a similar rate. New players don't generate gold via taxes as their pop is tiny. They generate through selling stuff. Inflation would increase the value of sold stuff. This means that scraps may cost 100 mil, but herbs cost 1k so a new player has to harvest the same number of herbs to get a scrap. People are lazy. I could hunt and craft the gear I buy, but I don't. All of my towns have common grounds in them, but I haven't queued up a cow in at least a year. Terraforms would still have a place. They might be cheaper, but people could do more of them, and there'd be more towns so more demand. The amount of good or bad caused by these changes relies on a lot of guesswork. Two things that aren't guesswork are that failure to enforce rules hurts law abiding players, and that if enforcing multiaccounting was viable the devs would have done it already- it's not like this is the first time the issue's been raised. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 13:09
The market at Centrum already does not work because there are not enough traders buffering the supplies and demand. When i usually sell things there are not enough buy offers available for my quantity and the same happens with sell offers. There currently is a problem and it would get worse.
I agree. I played games were i had 300+ cities and there were accounts on older servers with 500 and more cities. The same could probably be done here. Growth potential is not limited by the amount of cities available to capture. It is limited by a) Prestige, b) Players helping with resources and c) Your own time.
??? (Sorry, but that argument is just silly) The gap would be closing at the same speed if you could scale up everything that is needed to grow. But you cannot. I can get a 1 city player to 30 cities in 2 month. Which requires a lot of Prestige, my resources/time and their time. But all those three factors (Prestige and my/their time) have a very limited scaling. Thus the gap is NOT going to close at a similar rate. Not even close.
Or the player that needs the herbs just makes a new harvest account and harvests them himself. Cotters currently are expensive to have - that would not be the case anymore. Thus i disagree with herbs getting more expensive.
And a lot of players are not lazy. I and probably most other bigger builders would do their own terraforms. Or maybe not - not sure.
In my opinion a completely wrong conclusion. Enforcing multi-accounting works decently well in most other games. But enforcing multiaccounting means the player numbers drop (a lot) - thus to some extend it is in the interest of the developers (especially for smaller games).
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 13:50
|
I mean, hub markets don't work because there is no incentive to pay taxes. Everyone knows that most trading is done direct. It's a separate problem, and one I imagine faction play may influence but that I doubt will go away. There isn't enough in centrum, typically, to satisfy even a moderately sized player- it isn't a unique condition due to your size. If you want to complain about how no one trades in hubs, might I suggest another thread? Short term growth potential for new players, particularly outside of established alliances, is highly limited by town availability. Long term growth potential in a multi-account legal system is not limited by prestige purchasing or resources, it's limited only by time. Sure, in an extreme speedrunning case there's a difference. But for the average non-pres buying newb who is not blessed to be noticed by you, the difference is the same. This is the same non-pres buying newb that you referenced when worrying about pres prices. Or, rather than setting up a harvest account, they instead set up a goldfarm account. This is more efficient in the long run due to minimal running effort and an increase in versatility. So, we agree, enforcing the multiaccounting rules is not viable? 'Not viable' can be due to multiple reasons. The reason doesn't matter to my point, the effect of non-enforcement does. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Dungshoveleux
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 14:54
| One of the ways around the problems of prestige and economics would be to expand the actions that could have prestige spent on them. For instance, allowing a reallocation of resource plots (eg on a sliding scale related to the difference between largest and smallest resources) in return for purchased prestige would be quite popular amongst some players and mean that the revenue streams could be optimised in order to make a multi account crack down financially viable. People gain advantage in all sorts of ways, and building in monetary routes for gaining that advantage would be a win-win situation (forgetting about the free-to-play principles - which don't really work if we think about it). |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 15:06
|
I'm not replying to everyone here, for which apologies; there are some things I'd like to say on behalf of the team here at Illy.
Revenue is nice, for sure, but it's nowhere near making the top 5 list of reasons why we run Illy, and it should be self-evident that multi-accounting is *not* good for Illy corp. As an example, multis are not good for player retention (who wants to play a rigged game?), they're not good for player engagement (people tend not to chat with themselves in AC) , and they're not good for revenue (lesser need for prestige due to enhanced ability to reach goals). Multi-accounting is toxic to the Illy ecosystem (alongside other things such as accusations of dev/GM favouritism).
^^ This, to the power of n
We have automated systems that look for (and shut down) *some* multi-accounts (within clear and obvious parameters), and flag others up for further investigation for us to manually investigate. We also manually look into allegations of multi-accounting that have been submitted by player petition. Whether we take action on an accusation or not... is not as simple as it might appear, so please read on.
This is very true, and sadly it can often be much more devious than that. As you know, the meta game in Illy is huge. Attempts at "Death by GM" are rampant and regular. Imagine you're in a war with the [DEV] alliance. Why not create lots of new Illy accounts, from computers at, say, the local library, called "GM Stormcrow 2/3/4 etc" and then send the genuine "GM Stormcrow" account a lot of resources over a period of time from these spurious accounts (which they cannot refuse to accept), and then report it to us as an example of "GM Stormcrow's multi-accounting"? Sometimes this happens in reverse, where different players set up (genuinely legal) alt accounts to make it look like *one of them* is a multi - in order to trigger an (incorrect) petition (wrongly) accusing that player of multi-accounting. Stuff like this happens more often than one might think, and with *infinitely* more subtlety than the (frankly insultingly) basic versions I outline above. Illy is a game often played with much subtlety, and sorting out the wheat (genuine, real reports of genuine, real multis) from the chaff (incorrect accusations, deliberate set-ups, death by GMs etc) is not straightforward, by any means.
^^ So true it hurts. I can definitely recast that sentence to say that "people complaining about multi-accounting spikes considerably before a war, and during a war from the side losing". It doesn't mean we don't look into the accusation from a neutral perspective, it's just empirically true.
I think that's what we strive towards. Can our systems be improved? For sure. There are no systems that can't be improved. As to whether we can definitively "solve" the issue of detecting multi-accounting, I can say with absolutely authority that "No, we can't". IP addresses can be hidden or spoofed, cookies can be cleared or circumvented, sessions can be redirected. So long as a multi maintains a consistent security/concealment protocol, and doesn't do anything that would set off the klaxons (examples of which I'm not going to spell out here, for obvious reasons), how could we possibly know? The only *absolute* solution to this would be to allow multi-accounting, but we believe that would be bad for the players and bad for the game - and therefore bad for Illy corp.
^^ This to the power of n+infinity.
Thank you, Tens (and others) for saying this, you can't imagine how appreciated it is by the team. * Edit note: For clarity, I changed "the issue of multi-accounting" to "the issue of detecting multi-accounting"
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 15:09
The point i was trying to make is that this existing problem would get worse. I can play/work around the current state.
The game is (on purpose) balanced around using Prestige. While yes, there is a way of playing without using Prestige it is in my opinion neither balanced well nor are the majority of active and engaging players doing it (yes there are a lot but most of them do interact little with the rest of Illyriad - at least in my experience). Time is a limiting factor - thus your previous statement is wrong? (That again was the point i was trying to make)
I am not talking about the speedrunning case. I am talking about the usual case were people buy Prestige from time to time and then use it to build.
In my opinion the reason does matter because it can change. A lot of companies change their course of action because of public opinion change and/or some information going public. It seems to me like you are over-simplyfing a lot of complex mechanics to get what you want. Allowing multiaccounting is going to completely change the game (a lot more then the change to allow more then 10 cities) and might even kill it. So the developers should be really careful about it. And i am not saying they should do it - i am just saying it is a difficult and complex decision (and especially not "A doesn't work => B has to be done") Somehow i feel like you just argue for the point of arguing.
|
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 25 Jan 2023 at 20:02
|
Some of the comments made here are derailing the thread. We've gone off into: the finances of running the game compared to prestige sales, comments that aided nothing in the pursuit of wondering if there is about to be a war, build times of prestige vs non-prestige users and more. Please stay on topic, Thank you. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Duran
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2023 at 02:32
|
GM SC. Thank you for responding. I actually got a lot of clarity out of that. ------------- "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2023 at 03:15
I'm not sure the existing problem would get worse. I think most trading happening outside of hubs is not a huge issue in the first place, I think large players should have been around long enough to cultivate trade contacts, and I think an increase in volatility in hub markets is not inherently bad. I'm also not convinced the "problem" if it can be called that would necessarily be made worse. Time, in this case, meaning month to month the time a player is willing to dedicate to illy. There is no mechanical prestige effect in illy that cannot be overcome by waiting. Therefore, in the long run, the only constraining factor is the time a player is willing to put into illy. In the short run, towns to capture can be a significant constraint on growth. It's not the only constraint on growth. You literally described a speedrunning case. Or are we not counting 2 months to 30 towns speedrunning? The reason you gave for non-viability was a small playerbase shrinking further. The only way I can see the viability changing there would be to have the playerbase grow. If the devs could make the playerbase double tomorrow, I'd bet good money they would. So, outside of highly random circumstances which shouldn't be relied upon to solve problems, how do you anticipate the small size of the playerbase to stop being an issue? I could say the same for you, on simplifying complex mechanics. In particular X will do Y to the markets. There's a famous quote- the only purpose of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable. People are messy, homo economicus isn't real, and you assume we have spherical players in a vacuum who seek to maximise profit when people still make siege blocks. No, I'm not arguing for the point of arguing. I'm arguing for forum points. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: sophia.nicole
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2023 at 14:00
|
Possible suggestions... (1) Extra step for setting sitter rights and shortening the Sitter days. All accounts are required to input an email address under "Accounts & Prefs -> Email" before giving sitting rights to other players. a. Players registering accounts through GMail will have the field auto-populated, players registering through Facebook, Steam, or Microsoft Store will have to manually set the email before they can set sitters. b. Assigning sitters will require an authentication code from your registered email address. c. The email address can be used as another flag for offenders. d. Sitter rights expires in 45 or maybe 60 days. Forcing permasats to go through the process all over again. (2) Scrap the Sitting feature entirely. Extend the days needed for accounts to poof. Accounts auto abandon after 6 months of inactivity. Abandoned accounts will poof after 2 months, to give alliances a chance to distribute old towns to new players. It won't solve multi-accounting entirely, but it will discourage prevalence. - Picky Princess
|
Posted By: Dungshoveleux
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2023 at 15:25
| At last GM Stormcrow responded. Thank you. |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2023 at 18:17
|
The sitting feature has some key uses beyond permasats- in war it's a godsend for awkward send timing or high intensity activities. Cutting down duration to maybe even a month could be a good idea. Personally, I think sitter slots per account should be cut to 1 per as well. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Dungshoveleux
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2023 at 19:52
|
Being a fairly simple chap, I hatched a cunning plan to monitor the activity on the game in a very crude sort of way... 02/06/2019 there were 3,640 non zero accounts 26/01/2023 there are 2,782 non zero accounts This is the game rankings and it ignores who is inactive and who has abandoned. In this period we lost 858 non zero accounts, or 23% of them. We are not over the event horizon, but I feel we are in the grip of powerful economic forces against which the founding principles on which Illyriad was based, are not sufficient. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but for me, the lack of development, help with the mysteries, and dev involvement is getting me down. |
Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 26 Jan 2023 at 19:56
|
What is a non-zero account? |
Posted By: Dungshoveleux
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2023 at 00:23
| A non zero account is one with an overall numerical ranking score of more than zero. So its not just military rank etc its the overall ranking. If you keep going to the last page of accounts, and then scroll back to find the last non zero account, you have the number of active accounts. By active, I mean something was done on the account to change the ranking score. |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 28 Jan 2023 at 19:40
|
"The solution is probably to just relax the rules. The problem with an unenforceable rule is that it punishes good behaviour" "it's the fact that an unenforceable rule results in the players who follow the rules being at a disadvantage. " "Let's say I am a multiaccounter. Why on earth would I be arguing for the legalisation of multiaccounting?" "How would allowing multiaccounting add to the structural issues of the game?" "More big accounts, means more towns available to cap, means more growth potential for new players. " "Inflation would increase the value of sold stuff." "All of my towns have common grounds in them, but I haven't queued up a cow in at least a year." "
The sitting feature has some key uses beyond permasats- in war it's a
godsend for awkward send timing or high intensity activities. " .weivdlrow ruoy pu ssem nac gnikniht "evitanretla" woh si sihT "Everyone knows that most trading is done direct." For the larger accounts it is, but I obviously do almost all my trading on centrum for a couple reasons. 1) I sell specialized items 2) I enjoy the open market aspect 3) I care about the viability of this game, and a game where more trading is done directly is not one open to newer players.
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 29 Jan 2023 at 07:31
|
I mean... 'alternative thinking' being.... 'I don't want to get up at 3am to send troops but x is in a timezone where 3am for me is 6pm for them so it's easy'? I didn't realise knowledge of timezones was considered a messed up worldview. 1. Specialised items sell just as well off market as on. I've bought and sold a bunch of specialised stuff off market. 2. You do you. 3. You don't lay out an adequate case for this at all. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 30 Jan 2023 at 20:47
|
"Specialised items sell just as well off market as on." Ill just assume you did that just to try and trigger me, instead of not understanding economics at all. Just like how you dodged virtually all my argument...Id spend more time with the last part on you but I really dont care.
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2023 at 00:01
|
People have no incentive to pay taxes. Therefore, they're usually perfectly happy to trade off market. The markets can act as a tool for client discovery, however there are other ways of finding clients. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2023 at 07:34
|
You're selectively eristic, but paltering the picking with doublespeak. Its a good example of how the Liberal Arts movement has spawned an alt-right argumentative style that cares nothing for real world truth. Using flowering language to obfuscate the fact that your own words and actions point to one very inescapable truth. There...I decided to humor you, now i again fully expect you to pick out the least ironclad part of that to debase the entire argument just like I did with the list of quotes. The final one in my list was to bait you into using your argumentative style so that you can be shown to not care for the truth or an actual argument, but to take the easiest way to derail a genuine argument. Its what you do, and its a popular thing at the moment with the basement/Mar-a-Lago dwelling online community at the moment, but its completely bereft of truth, and as soon as you step out into the real world (if you ever do) you will discover it has little use to save you from the truth. I could go into the different fallacies you use in each of the quotes to come to the inescapable conclusion that you alternately admit to and deny, but honestly ive just been dealing with some insomnia and your usefulness to me (as an intellectual lightweight to distract and bore me) has run out. Congratulations, you are able to piss people off and gain advantage using spurious means (while not actually being good at it). Its made you influential in an online game thats far past its prime, I hope that comforts you when the truth finally comes knocking. TLDR version: "If it looks like a duck...." when duck=someone of no substance who likes to argue to distract from that lack of substance.
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2023 at 08:48
|
There is some difficulty in justifiably assigning the epithet of 'flowering' to my statements inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear. My usage of demotic anglo-saxon employs verbiage in accordance with the subject at hand. Might I suggest the purchase of a reference document covering our post-norman tongue if my use of words such as 'unenforceable' causes you any pericombobulation. So, rather than making any actual point, you make ridiculous claims and then say that it was your plan all along to be called out on your ridiculous claims? Smacks a bit of arguing in bad faith, does it not? The word hypocrite springs to mind. Where you layout any semblance of a true point, I respond to each one, see the numbered list in my previous response. If you would like to elucidate upon what actual point you were attempting to convey with your quoting, I would respond in full. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2023 at 19:58
|
"I respond to each one," You responded to 1 of 8 of the quotes I cited (the one that I put in there so you'd decide to acknowledge the quotes and attack the one that didnt fit...instead of ignoring them altogether) . What you responded to was a subset of a separate point I was making where I wasnt making any claims at all about you. "So, rather than making any actual point, you make ridiculous claims and
then say that it was your plan all along to be called out on your
ridiculous claims?" I cannot tell whether or not you are arguing in bad faith because I never said that anything was part of a previous plan other than me including the last of the 8 quotes for you to glom on while ignoring all the other ones...and a quote by you is not a ridiculous claim by me. In any case, if you cannot bridge this intellectual divide between what you said and what I said, this just turns into a flame war, but i will assume that you're merely strawmanning to distract from your very telling quotes instead of assuming you're incapable of seeing that a quote of you is not a 'ridiculous claim' by me. If you want to make coherant points I will continue the discussion with you...Id also love to continue the discussion that everyone else in the world was having before you strawmanned my argument.
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2023 at 04:43
|
When you make a point, I respond. The ridiculous claim is that any of those quotes indicate a messed up worldview. Projecting much? ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Nawoe the Long
Date Posted: 03 Feb 2023 at 07:42
| Eowan the Short, You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found lacking. Come back when you're worthy. |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 03 Feb 2023 at 11:05
|
:o my evil alter ego from an alternate dimension is back??? ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2023 at 14:18
|
Petition #14106 ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2023 at 02:52
| <<<< The last post wins thread is over there. |
Posted By: Nawoe the Long
Date Posted: 09 Feb 2023 at 08:27
| <<<The get a life thread is beyond your reach. |
Posted By: Isaac FireGlade
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2023 at 11:32
|
Well since the thread can never end.... It would be nice if sitting can be automated. like an automatic reorder of certain crafting abilities for example. or like if you could click to automate a building's construction to a certain level provided you had the resources. ofc this might go against prestige as it is rn, but the current prestige system is a little broken anyways, you could charge prestige for the automation ofc.
|
Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2023 at 12:09
|
Pretty sure that will never happen. One of the biggest absolutes when it comes to third party tools is NO AUTOMATION. You can write tools that will fill in values etc but they have to be submitted by a human (or elf/orc/dwarf) clicking a button in the game. If you allow unlimited queue lengths (which is what you are suggesting) then you remove at least part of the need to log in every now and then. It becomes even more of a 'farming' situation which in my opinion would be very bad for the game. You can have two entries in the production queue for a building if you have an active prestige account so it is possible to say queue up 1000 swords and 1000 chainmail in the blacksmith and the building queue always has two slots available.
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2023 at 22:18
|
A)i think is off topick but i agree with any automated . log in
every two days could be a recoirment . and pay for it also . i strongly
believe subscrition at the side of free to play would be the most
benefitial for the game B)Regarding multiacounting there is a simple but hard
way to over with it at least with the most obviouse reason of it which
is gold/cow/.... do not start screaming i said the is a HARD way : 1) stop direct orders of res at towns belonging to other accounts + 2) hide at the hubs all the buy offers exept the higher ofer + 3) close permant all the sell offers all these 3 must be set to over multiacounting
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2023 at 09:38
Or just add new content. The last (bigger) content update was 3.5 years ago. More content -> more players -> more income.
So essentially you want to kill team play for the normal players while not really fixing probably the main reason for multi-accounting: Having accounts in different alliances means you have more knowledge, influence and to some extend safety. The developers can never really completely win against multi-accounting. But they can make it a lot harder and risky - thus (a lot) less people engage with it. That is how it is done in other MMOs.
|
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2023 at 10:51
| I do understand that it will cut from a aspect of the game my proposal,but why you think it not really fixing probably the main reason of multaccounting ? |
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2023 at 11:06
Your proposal removes trade from the game.
You assume that the main reason for multi-accounting is that people use it to get richer. I do not think that is the main reason though (at least for most players). I think most players multi-account because
At least that was the impression i got from Yuk/Hellie and some other players.
|
Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2023 at 11:12
|
I agree Thirion - knowledge and influence are the main reasons for multis |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2023 at 11:25
|
Thats make a lot sense Thirion i agree.. Yes i thought that the reason was get richer .. from my experience of multies around my area since they was not in alliance i assume they try to get rich . Regarding real trade vs patient trade we have speak to different post |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2023 at 17:36
|
Is the problem with multiaccounting not that lack of enforcement gives an unfair advantage to rule breakers? If so, just make it legal- it's quick, simple, and could probably bring in some more cash for the devs as people build their new accounts. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2023 at 18:54
| This will make the game more click/time to win which for me is by far worst |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2023 at 23:36
|
And aslo the way buildings work it would not require more prestige to grow higher but much less ...cause for example to get to 60 cities with multaccounting legal it would require 10 accounts with 6 cities each so 20.000 pop per account= 120.000 pop When on the other hand 1 account with 60 cities recoire 3.000.000 pop and much more than the prestige to do it.
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2023 at 11:35
|
More click/time to win? You mean it benefits people who *actually play the game*? God forbid. There would still be management benefits to fewer, larger accounts, though I would say it would reduce the importance of 60 cities. And, with more accounts recycling inactives, people would have to rely more on building via settlement which encourages more pres usage just to speed run the early stages. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2023 at 14:34
|
i am pretty sure hopfully most ppl play this game does not get enjoiment by clicking and puting time in , at least not me and i am prety sure not you either |
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2023 at 15:31
|
The devs should reward activity. ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2023 at 15:41
|
The more activity/time/money is rewarded the less strategic/knowledge.... Is rewarding Again you can not have it all you have to choose
|
Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2023 at 16:03
|
Strategy and knowledge act as multipliers on rewards- run cav into a building and you'll have a bad time if you have 10 accounts or 2. A lot of your posts on the forums come down to 'I don't want to put effort into playing the game, can't we just automate X or Y'. Willingness to put in time is one of the factors that differentiate bad players from good players ------------- This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because... |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2023 at 16:50
|
The only effort sould be rewarded imo is Mental in a strategy game . But you are ritgh thats just my opinion. Some other regarding your example would prefer to put endless click to harvest in order to have enough troops to eqoualy that they attack with cav to a building.... I would prefer to play a game that i would win this battle
|
Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2023 at 18:59
If you look at successful strategy PC games with a competitive scene (Warcraft 3, Starcraft 2, Age of Empires 2/4) then in my opinion there are the following points: 1) Strategy/Knowledge is important 2) Activity (troop control) is also important 3) There are both a military and economic approaches - which makes the games (a lot) more interesting It is similar in competitive sports. You usually need a good strategy - but you also need to be able to play well. Which comes with training and putting in time. Putting in time should reward you - otherwise what is even the point in playing? In addition to that putting in more time then others is a good "comeback"/"catch-up" mechanic in Illyriad. |
Posted By: Sif
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2023 at 20:01
|
For me the way to win at a strategy game sould be mentaly plan akording to the knowledge and your understanding... And then out in time and click to execute it ... The problem comes when there is an unlimited benifite regarding the time click koney you put in so it make minimaise the mental aspect . I have not problem to click time or money But here is the equation if time/money/ click = 00 then the mental strategy goes to zero Also when i play a strategy game i think it more like chest and less like sports |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 12 Jun 2023 at 00:49
|
I have a few issues with the pure more clicks equals more effort and thus more reward. Your magic score, quest score, attack score, and underworld unleashed rank score can all be who clicks more. I like effort in a game but I don't like a mindless clicking game.
|
Posted By: Auraya
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2023 at 20:30
|
Allow me to throw the cat amongst the pigeons here, why not allow multi-accounts but have them 'linked' to an overall ID? Effectively eliminates the 'information' aspect, allows people to experiment with different playstyles, join different friendly alliances etc. Devs should then enforce anything outside of this. My 2 cents.
|
Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2023 at 20:33
|
You can legally have 2 accounts now or are you saying remove the limit entirely. |
Posted By: Auraya
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2023 at 21:29
| Remove the limit entirely, just have them linked so people can see who they are. No-one can effectively run 10x serious accounts, as has already been discussed. People will create terraformers mostly. |
Posted By: bzn
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2023 at 22:35
| you might not be able to run 10x serious accounts, but people sure as hell could get 100 accounts to 4-8 towns and have them sit all over the map as gold farms, look over BL and you will see this in action |
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2023 at 23:57
| They're doing it with 10+ town accounts too |