Sitters
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Implemented
Forum Description: Suggestions which have been implemented or resolved.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=197
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 09:13
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Sitters
Posted By: DAVX
Subject: Sitters
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2010 at 22:17
| Does Illyriad have a policy on account sitters, please? There is nothing in the rules... |
Replies:
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2010 at 22:19
| What do you mean with account sitters? |
Posted By: DAVX
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2010 at 22:27
|
Suppose that I can't be online for a week - maybe I am on holiday... but I have a friend (who is perhaps playing the game already) who can log on and look after my account while I am away - you know, kick off a few builds, make sure that resources aren't going to waste. My friend would be "sitting" my account (like babysitting, maybe?). DAVX |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2010 at 22:31
|
You mean accountsharing. Well i would say it isnt allowed. I think SC can elaborate more about this subject. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2010 at 22:41
|
Actually, as far as I am aware there's nothing in the Ts & Cs about forbidding players to share account details. I might need to look at it a bit more closely; and the Ts & Cs / Current Rules can always be changed. We are (on the current dev list) planning on allowing "account holidays" of some nature, but this is further down the line. I don't believe we can guarantee that people aren't account sharing. I also know that somewhere in the server "player details" table are some data fields of appointing "Viceroys" who could have limited access to run your account on your behalf. So what I can say is that it's not entirely clear to me what the policy is, if indeed any currently exists. Let me find out some more and get back to you. GM Stormcrow PS. If anyone has any particularly strong thoughts on this one way or the other, now is a great time to share them; as I would guess that now is the time that this policy will probably end up being forumulated. |
Posted By: DAVX
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2010 at 22:50
|
I would not share account details unless it is within the rules... that would be unethical. But sitters can be really handy. Especially within alliances. DAVX |
Posted By: Corual
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 02:28
|
I would highly advise in a policy against account detail sharing. In this benign case, it wouldn't seem to be much of an issue (given you have no problems with the person later down the road). Yet, we have to look at the big picture (especially when it comes to game policies and rules), and consider all instances account information would be shared. We then get in to the problem of politics and handling each case as individual situations. That would mean the GMs would have to make judgement calls per case (not to mention the investigating they would have to do for each). That could be a monster of an issue when the player base grows. If there is a firm policy set in place now, it would eliminate the above issues all together. Given the "Holiday" policy that the GMs are looking at implementing, there would be next to no reason to share account information other than simply gaining a slight edge (your city progression) in the time you woule be absent. This would allow the GMs to have considerably more time focusing on game improvements, game issues (bugs/glitches), and management.
there's my two cents :P
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 07:59
|
Good point - and we don't want to be caught in the middle of a dispute between two players who have shared passwords. What do we think of the option of allowing players to appoint another player who can log in (with the other player's username but their own password) and have limited access to the appointing players' account (ie not buy or spend prestige etc)? I'm just a little concerned that we won't get round to implementing the "Holiday" option for a few weeks yet, given our other workloads. Unless it's something that should be prioritised higher because it will become an increasingly demanded item? |
Posted By: DAVX
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 08:14
|
I think that Corual is right - just allowing account sharing would have issues. And for myself, I would not be keen to simply share my account with another player anyway - it kind of reduces the sense that it is "me" playing the game. But allowing account sitters could be different from simple account sharing - though this would of course require some work up front to implement (sorry SC!). Suppose you allowed player A to specify another player (B) to be their "sitter". Then B would be able to log onto account A (perhaps using their own password, instead of the A's password), but would only have limited access - perhaps they would be able to kick of builds, trade, but not launch attacks. The level of access could be customised to fit the game. That would have several benefits: (1) If you cannot get online for some time then your account is at least being maintained (we all go on holiday, and the game is likely to last several months from start to finish). Otherwise it becomes a tempting target for raiding. (2) Alliances can share sitting duties between players - it could enhance the sense of community and cooperation within the game. It would be good for the alliance (more efficient growth), rewarding alliances that are better at cooperating. (3) It provides a legitimate method of coping with the "holiday" problem - if a player is really into the game, leaving their account inactive for a week or two is almost unthinkable - so there might be a temptation to share account details regardless. I think that the benefit of having a sitter is not trivial - an extra build or two each day can really make a difference. By the way, I am off on holiday myself tomorrow - though I am hoping to be able to log onto Illyriad with a laptop. This is why the issue occurred to me. |
Posted By: DAVX
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 08:15
| Ooops, sorry, I started my reply before SC posted his! |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 08:29
| Thread moved to the Suggestions & Enhancements Subforum |
Posted By: joekewl
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 12:50
|
I have seen quite a few different implementations of account sitting. Its not sharing. Its a limited access that allows for someone to ensure you are still building, not getting creamed by attackers, etc. You usually cant launch attacks or any aggressive actions and there is often a time limit that you are "allowed" to be sitting so that it doesnt become a 2nd account. Oh, and you also cant spend prestige points. As SC suggested, Usually this is a setting in your profile where you add a username as a sitter then they log in using your username and their password. |
Posted By: Corual
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2010 at 23:50
| yea, I could see this working if done correctly. Giving the player full control of having a second "sitter" password and being able to customize some limitations on the account (some options would need to be hard, like attacking/diplomacy/prestige etc) would be a good replacement of the "Holiday" option. Having the ability to control the access of the sitter would eliminate the politics of the relationship between the two players going sour. The time limit is a great idea in preventing account abuses. Since an offense can sometimes be a good defense strategy, I think that when someone is in the "sitter" status, their cities should not be attackable. If one can't move troops to defend their other cities, it could be a big vulnerability. If one COULD move troops, wouldn't it be a mess in programming in making sure the troop movements would be legal targets (cities needing defense) given the parameters (no attacking) of the "sitter" status? |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 25 Mar 2010 at 00:59
|
Let me throw my hat into the ring as well. I would like to see a non-restrictive system for supporting account sitting. Perhaps even two levels of access-sharing: one that protects the account from abuse, allowing only limited activity such as building units and buildings, and trading between account cities, and another for more trusted members that allows pretty much anything except spending prestige or buying more. I've seen other systems set up such that while an account is set as being babysat, the actual account owner can see and do nothing. This doesn't sit right with me. I believe the account owner should always be able to monitor what's happening, and revoke access early if he sees something that gives him cause for concern. This further justifies allowing a player the level of access he actually needs to account-sit effectively in any situation. To prevent abuse (presuming one considers dual attention on a single account to qualify as such), there could simply be a long cooldown (like 24 hours) on re-enabling account sitting by the same player. I do not feel strongly on the issue, but my sentiment does lean toward the belief that, if you trust someone to share your account fully with them (i.e. not account sitting but outright sharing of account credentials on a long-term basis), that's your business and your risk (assuming all involved parties do not have permanent access to more individual accounts than they are allowed to own outright). What such "co-conspirators" gain in increased online activity, they lose in ability to grow and spread using separate accounts. In my mind, the situation is still balanced and fair. I doubt many would be like-minded enough to execute such a strategy very effectively anyway, but if you can, good for you. For me the guiding principle behind these decisions is thus: I always hate game rules that criminalize ingenuity or talent in any form, technical or social. If you can pull it off and it doesn't cause actual problems (like bypassing the developers' profit-earning mechanisms, causing undue strain on servers, intentionally exploiting loopholes in game mechanics or security measures, etc.) it should be allowed. After all, if one person can do it, so can another. Talent as a differentiating factor is the basis of competition. It's like counting cards--it's not wrong because it's abuse or cheating in a meaningful sense; it's only wrong because the house loses the advantage...which is practically the player's objective in a nutshell. So effectively, it's "wrong" to win. But this game doesn't play against "the house," so there's no need for such arbitrary limitation on what intelligent player behavior constitutes fair play. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2010 at 13:58
|
Very useful thread, thank you all. What I'm looking at now is: 1. Implement an Account Sitting system 2. Players will be able to nominate up to 2 players to sit their account with 2 levels of sitting permission, "basic" and "advanced" 2a. "Basic" permission will permit production orders, building orders & research orders, but little else, including access to email 2b. "Advanced" permission will permit full access to everything that player can do, except for i) prestige functions, ii) adding or editing the player's profile details (which will include who the sitters are and the player's password), and iii) entering "holiday" mode. I'm not sure about adding a iv) alliance management functions and would welcome some thoughts on this. 3. Account sitters login to the sittee's account using the sittee's playername and the sitter's account password ('sittee' isn't a word, but I can't think of anything better atm  )4. Account sittees will be able to login to their account if a sitter is in the account, and make their own orders + revoke the sitter's access permissions 5. Account sharing via username and password transfer will be strictly prohibited, and anyone silly enough to hand out their username and password is on their ownsome Does this work for everyone? Corual, what I think you're mostly talking about would be covered in an entirely separate "Holiday" mode - when we implement such a scheme. I don't think we should conflate "account sitting" and "player holidays" as part of the same concept as this is largely unfair to "lone wolf" players of which there are still some out there. |
Posted By: Corual
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2010 at 00:04
Very good point, i agree. I think everything you posted would work great. it allows a good amount of flexibility to accomodate the real-time aspect of the game vs. account security issues. I like this idea a lot. Glad we could help SC, and much appreciation for being so attentive to the players!! :D
Also, about the alliance portion, I admit, I've been kind of inactive in alliance affairs so I don't think I would be able to provide very meaningful ideas at this point.
|
GM Stormcrow wrote:Posted By: Candls
Date Posted: 03 Apr 2010 at 22:59
|
Points 1,3,4 and 5 completely agree.
Points 2a and b;
I agree with the 3 exceptions in 2b, but as for basic and advanced how about a menu of functions to be authorised for the 'sitter'? That way each player can decide for themsevles what permissions to give.
Finally what would the 'player holiday' option look like?
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 04 Apr 2010 at 05:56
|
Will there be any restriction on the duration or quantity of account sitting that can occur, or will people be allowed to essentially use account sitting to watch each other's backs regularly or maintain account activity at all hours (by collaborating with players from different timezones)? I'm not opposed to unrestricted use beyond planned events, but--as member of a diverse alliance of highly honorable members--my position is a little biased. The idea of regularly having extra "executive" attention on my account is a favorable one. |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 04 Apr 2010 at 11:07
We're not considering restrictions on sitting hours, no.
Maybe - though this might just complicate things a bit too much for players. We're all in favour of simplicity wherever possible, so if we can predefine the categories it might work out better for everyone!
Current thinking is:
a) What's the cooldown period before you can declare another Player Holiday? I'm in favour of around 2 months, personally. b) Whether a city in Holiday mode continues to accrue resources, or whether we treat Holiday as a complete state of "suspended animation" Any comments / thoughts / ideas welcome, as always. Best wishes, GM Stormcrow |
Posted By: Candls
Date Posted: 04 Apr 2010 at 12:05
|
I'm not sure if there should be any cool down period for a player holiday, if you go for the 'suspended animation' option and its going to cost prestige then I can't see why someone would take a player holiday unless they really needed to.
I can't see why this system could be abused and therefore why you would need to have a cool down period.
I agree with no restrictions on sitting, when HonouredMule pointed out that it could be used to gain activity hours I initially raised an eyebrow, but now I think about it if Alliances want to expliot this then I'm all for it - at the end of the day the reason this is an online game is to allow interaction.
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 04 Apr 2010 at 16:38
Yes, completely agreed. If we go the "suspended animation" route + no sitter interaction, then I can't see why the holiday can't be extended beyond 2 weeks. I'd still like some sort of cooldown though - as I want to avoid the "holiday/overnight attack/holiday" scenario as much as possible. With some cooldown in place, plus suspended animation etc, I think it's unlikely people will use it for too long as they'll start falling behind their peers after a while. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 04 Apr 2010 at 19:41
|
Here's a thought regarding cooldown: Why not instead limit holiday time usage in a manner considerate of real-world holiday time? In other words, add usable holiday time for every actual statutory holiday that occurs in slight advance of the actual holiday (like 1 week). Start accounts with 2 weeks of usable holiday time, add two weeks at the end of every year, and limit total holiday time that can be saved to 3 or 4 weeks. This should coincide well with players' real-world holiday plans. Even players whose schedules differ are likely still having those real-world schedules restricted by very similar (and probably tighter) constraints. I would still use a small cooldown (like 24 hours) just to prevent the breaking up of holiday time into tiny increments that would allow activity at very regular intervals. Doing so isn't necessarily an exploit, but preventing such would actually be considerate to the player. If you're going to take a vacation, leave your cares behind and take a damn vacation! |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 04 Apr 2010 at 20:37
|
Interesting point HM. There are a number of players who have expressed specific interest in the mechanics of the "Player Holiday" option via petition and/or PM, and are (eg) serving members of various countries' armed forces. Their holiday plans don't fall into the typical office worker's schedules, ofc - and I think we'd be hard pushed to describe Helmand Province as a "holiday" anyway... Whilst we're not going to design a system around a specific set of professional obligations, it would be ideal if we could work out as flexible a system as possible that works for a variety of professions - and indeed countries. When I lived in the States, it was generally 2 weeks of holiday per year. Back in the UK, holiday is almost always 3 weeks - and quite often 4 weeks+ per year. And my French cousins... well, you wouldn't believe the holiday they get XD So I'd rather not implement a system that isn't as flexible as the international labour market if at all possible. |
Posted By: waylander69
Date Posted: 04 Apr 2010 at 21:39
| try spain..blinking kids get 3 months off school in the summer...so not fair... |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 04 Apr 2010 at 23:45
4+ weeks...wow. Well, I suppose there's got to be some compensation for living in France.  A lot of countries give 2-4 months off from various levels of education. For the most part, that in itself doesn't count...to my knowledge at least, students usually don't actually go anywhere for more than a few weeks. I did of course mean to include a merged schedule of countries' statutory holidays, but hadn't thought of military service. That's a tough one. I would imagine the 14 day consecutive holiday limit must interfere with that even more. Candls' suggestion that there be no cooldown and instead make holiday a true, full-blown "suspended animation state" is probably the simplest fair and workable system. |
Posted By: Candls
Date Posted: 04 Apr 2010 at 23:58
|
Some good points so far, but I think leave the the holidays unlimited if it does look like some players start to abuse then review/cancel, but reading what I have seen so far I think that will be unlikely.
I do accept that our French brethren may feel a little overworked only having 365 days available to take holiday though!! It sounds like everyone is quite happy with the 'sitter' idea so far.
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2010 at 00:00
^^ this is why the GM and Dev team love HM tbh |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2010 at 00:09
|
Though I still think there should be some cooldown between holiday ending and the next one starting. What I don't want is 2 cities nearby each other doing the following:
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2010 at 00:24
|
How about 48 hours AND only being allowed to activate holidays n times within x timespan? (perhaps 3 times within 4 weeks) If a player does find himself facing a situation similar to that which Stormcrow posted--be it in regard to holiday time or some other similar underhanded tactic--that player may wish to consider partnering with someone using the sitter system so that the window of opportunity for defensive and/or offensive reaction will not be lost. This would be just one of many ways that it pays to make friends in a game like this. |
Posted By: Candls
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2010 at 12:46
|
How about a minimum holiday period ie: 1 week, if people want to take a shorter break then either use the 'sitter' option or just take it on the chin.
This should make the difference between the 2 - short and long term and hopefully keep the holiday option fair. This could also be joined with a short cooldown period, I would agree with 48Hrs
|
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2010 at 20:52
|
whatever happens - your solution is now urgent if siege machines go live - in fact i hesitate to say that siege shouldnt go live until you've sorted a few odds and sods like this out. not many, but a few. Bow |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2010 at 16:08
|
Actually, I'm not so keen on minimum holiday time. I don't see a reason to differentiate between sitting and vacations, because they are already quite separated by capability and who can or will use them. If you have friends in game that you can trust, you should use sitters because that is inherently more flexible and secure, and keeps you growing--and while you can check in if you wish, you can also relax knowing your account is still being given care and attention. If you're a lone wolf, you'll need to spend prestige, be locked out of your account, and lose productivity. And, you'll likely use vacation time so you can go off the grid during long weekends spent camping, on a trip to Vegas, or stalking your co-worker's ex-wife's cousin (for example). In those cases, you won't need a full 7 days unless you get a little extra vacation in the cooler or get mauled by a cougar (for example). |
Posted By: Fishymax
Date Posted: 15 Apr 2010 at 15:59
|
The sitters policy has ruined games like Travian for all the players who enjoy the social aspect, and having their hard work rewarded. More and more the sitters are 3 people logging in for 8 hours each, so the account is running 24 hours per day. They raid constantly, (the entirety of the board sometimes with the better sharers) and never interact. Further to that, I dont want to have to be on a game every waking hour to have a chance at it, but if I do spend a day on a game, I want that to reflect in the progress I as an individual have made. Likewise, there are some people who do want to play for 8 hours per day, and their results should reflect that also. Just because I know some guy who works nights and is willing to keep on pressing buttons constantly, doesnt mean that I should have more impact on the game, than for instance, the friendly guy who I talk to every day at similar times, and makes the game a joy to play. sorry to go on, just my two - penneth. I think the web needs a game like this, but this time played by real people, not social recluses and grease-monkey. (the site that runs fixes for games, and takes all the fun out of them)
|
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 19 Apr 2010 at 22:20
| Account Sitting is now live, http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/announcement-19apr-account-sitting_topic393.html - Announcement in Forum . |
Posted By: Ivorich Von Forge
Date Posted: 20 Apr 2010 at 13:51
|
In every MMO I have ever played, till this one, account sharing has been illegal, has been done anyway, and has caused MASSIVE drama. Viceroys, on the other hand, wherein the acct owner types in the name of the chosen viceroy and clicks appoint and the viceroy then accepts and logs in on his own, self-selected PW to run the account until the owner comes back and removes the viceroy is good way of dealing with temporary inactivity and gives the player an option. "I can enter holiday mode and have protection similar to new player protection, but no activity at all can be done on the account; or I can appoint a viceroy to continue my growth, but I will have no protection." |
Posted By: rescendent
Date Posted: 20 Apr 2010 at 21:04
Might also cause drama when they get back off holiday - "What do you mean my town wasn't sufficiently protected while you were looking after it? - What have you done!"
|
Posted By: Ivorich Von Forge
Date Posted: 20 Apr 2010 at 22:39
| "I did my best. If my best was unsatisfactory, I suggest next time you chose a different Viceroy or holiday mode. Sorry." |