Auto kicking.
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=2309
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 03:29
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Auto kicking.
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Subject: Auto kicking.
Date Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 19:17
|
Due to information recently made public; http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/crow-member-hotattack_topic2291.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/crow-member-hotattack_topic2291.html I suggest that all inactive accounts are automatically kicked from their respective alliance after 2 months of player-absense. The reason is that it has become a far too common practice for new inexperienced players to take over dormant large cities within an alliance. It is key to maintaining a committed Illyriad community that players feel they have made an investment of time in their account and are rewarded accordingly. The alternative means cheapening the game considerably and admit potent inexperienced players with a complete disregard for their own and others accounts, thus making the game far less attractive for the vast majority of stable dedicated players that ultimately are contributors to the community. While no harm needs to come to an inactive player that has been ejected from an alliance, it is reasonable that other/active players has some measure of insight into the activity of their surrounding neighbours as many are already competing for attractive areas to settle new cities in, and the game itself should always benefit/present choices to the active player. |
Replies:
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 19:19
|
i am against. and yer rude to make such a suggestion. hope GM will leave things as they are in this issue. |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 20:13
Are you against capturing of cities just by the 'new inexperienced players'? What about big players like you capturing cities? Should that still be allowed? I don't see how that makes the game fair to anybody. |
Tordenkaffen wrote:Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 20:22
|
Who captures which cities is completely irrelevant to me - and the problem of the individual aliance. If they dont want others to capture it they have the option of doing it themselves or razing the city, I just dont want alliances to be able to shield their inactives for more than two months. Illyriad is a dynamic sandbox game and kicking inactives will show players what squares are in reality occupied by a "dead player" and reveal what alliances auto-inflate their numbers and strength and who do not. It will in general terms decrease exploitation by having players skip the hard initial work in Illyriad when joining, which is very disrespectful to the general player base who start on their own and build their own account. Unbelievable youre clinging to this exploit so tightly - are your alliances masses of "living dead"? Time to clean up this mess! |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 20:38
|
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 21:02
|
i see an upset dude that is stomping on the ground screaming " BUILD YOUR TOWNS ALONE LIKE I DID...ALOOOONEEEE!!!!!I HATE you silly little buggers that capture towns ..IT'S an ABUSEEE BWAAA" |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 22:30
|
Let's try to be civil about this. We are playing a game. That said, I think if players are upset about alliances "keeping" inactive cities for themselves, they should probably attempt to seize the cities for themselves ... of course that does raise the risk that the alliance will retaliate. However, if enough players are upset at this method of "reserving" cities for alliance members, eventually the alliance that does it will face public pressure and/or attacks that will make them stop. I personally like building up cities from scratch, so I don't have a dawg in this fight, but I don't think the devs should hard-code a solution for a problem the community can deal with if it chooses. I can see the point about questioning the wisdom of an alliance making it too easy for its members to grow without "paying their dues." Personally I think that's an internal matter, and I intend to keep my nose out of other alliances' internal affairs.
|
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 27 Aug 2011 at 22:56
for the sake of the newbies! the cities are for those that are little |
Posted By: Dhenna
Date Posted: 28 Aug 2011 at 04:19
|
I'm with Torden on this.
Also, the current practice makes the rankings skewed (sp).
|
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 28 Aug 2011 at 08:40
|
The same two things that Rill said - I personally like building up cities from scratch, so I don't have a dawg in this fight, but I don't think the devs should hard-code a solution for a problem the community can deal with if it chooses. Building up your own city has its own advantages. I was happy to have captured one city, but did not go for any more captures even though a list of inactive towns was available. Sieging and capturing cities is a part of the game and it is fun. City building is another part of the game and it is even more fun. And too many rules spoil the fun.
|
Posted By: Lord Harvey
Date Posted: 28 Aug 2011 at 09:20
|
This is a HUGE debate. I feel for both sides of the argument so therefore I can't really decide LH
|
Posted By: Sheogorath
Date Posted: 28 Aug 2011 at 19:07
|
^ ?
------------- =Colonialism At Its Finest= |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 01:07
yea it him. he makes it so obvious... yet i kinda find him cuddly.. |
Posted By: Tinuviel's Voice
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 08:00
| Some of us invest a lot of time and resources helping our alliance members build their cities. So it is only fair that, if one of our players decides to quit the game, to recover some of that investment by capturing his towns. |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 15:01
I took over an inactive city when I was still inexperienced and that certainly didn't stop me from becoming committed in the game. In fact, being able to boost my pop like that and work on a town that had a different layout and having to rebalance the city was actually a lot of fun and got me playing more.
Please don't speak for the entire community as a whole, you have no right and you certainly don't know what we all think. I don't see what harm a few players who took over old inactive cities would do. If they have a disregard for the cities then so what? They go off and attack someone and then they get completely destroyed. Or better yet, maybe they get backed by their alliance and the lucky targets get some action. Ultimately, I just don't see the difference. Even if they are kicked from the alliance, how will that stop players from taking over their cities? All an alliance needs to do is come onto the forums and say "Yo, don't siege anyone who was last in our alliance without our permission". And even if an alliance didn't do that, there is an abundance of large inactive cities scattered across the map. Small players are going to take over those cities regardless of whether or not those cities are in an alliance. -------------  |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 17:18
Then go ahead and capture them - who's stopping you? I simply argue that if alliances are allowed to perpetuate itself by hiding their inactives for more than 2 months, it will create a nepotistic culture in the game where competing for ranking becomes a question of who you know, and not what you do or how hard/long you work on it. Players who do not want to join the already established alliances and their ingrown culture will be deterred from joining Illyriad altogether since they will have months of extra work compared to the exploiters. Its a cheap and lazy trick - especially in its present organised form. That newbie players can focus singlemindedly on military progreess and build a level 20 barracks IS NOT IMPRESSIVE by any standard, and can in no way be compared to levelling your own town up from scratch. Not to mention the full/well grown research tree you take over as well - how many months of diligent work does that take? Lastly - Alliances don't own players - its absurd when an alliance claims ownership of what used to be an active player - if the player left the game, maybe its not a kudos to the alliance - maybe the alliance itself did not motivate their members to stay - and I see no reason why the cities should remain "private property" of the alliance. That alone speaks volumes about the mentality in the alliance and its way to perpetuate itself. |
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 17:36
|
IMO the intent of the Devs was for a new player to progress methodically throughout his/her growth learning in a periodical, step by step basis. Not to avoid steps 5-19 and jump straight to 20. As the Devs have pointed out regards their tax/resource amendments, though a legal 'exploit', that was never the intent for the game mechanics and hence those loopholes were closed. I believe this is the case here. Although I differ in view on Tords time-frame, I believe his principles have merit and the issue should be addressed. ------------- "ouch...best of luck." HonoredMule |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 17:42
and you know what the dev want right?  btw at the time a player CAN actually siege he has gone trough all the steps he needs to do. |
Posted By: Llyorn Of Jaensch
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 17:45
------------- "ouch...best of luck." HonoredMule |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 17:57
|
Llyorn puts it clearer than I could myself (thanks) - and the timeframe for kicking could easily be shorter in my opinion. My last 2 cents, waiting for the devs to reply. |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 18:31
It would take atleast a month for a player to have a level 20 Barracks and the siege encampment research finished. The researches take a lot of time. Also someone needs something like a level 18 warehouse before he can build a level 20 Barrack. By this time, he would have atleast three cities if he is fast enough. what are the steps 5 to 19 that someone could possibly skip?
|
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 18:33
buy prestige like some do, i think. |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 18:41
|
Even with prestige, you cannot make the research happen faster. Siege encampment research alone would take 4 days. Moreover warehouse and barracks takes up a lot of resource. After using prestige to build one level, you will have to wait a long time to fill up your storage again.
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 29 Aug 2011 at 18:54
|
Alliances are going to claim first right to towns in ex-alliance accounts anyway. It's a situation where there's benefit to be had and a credible argument in favor of claiming it for themselves. Some won't, but the point is that losing the alliance tag won't change much. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2011 at 08:46
|
I think its a very good idea to have inactive account loose alliance tag after 2 months.
But I do think that people should be allowed to be away from the game for more than 1-2 months so if you have a sitter (that actually sits ;-) ) the account should not be kicked from alliance.
The new rules about sitting will prevent people from being away for "ages" ------------- 
|
Posted By: Divine Redemption
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2011 at 09:32
|
I think in most cases leaders of alliances tend to think that they do own all of the players in their respected alliances. Players that seemed to be able to get out of the 'ownership' label was either by luck or knowing the right people. Also that is why I find it really important for new players that join an alliance to get a good feel of an alliance and perhaps ask ahead of time if it is okay to leave if things do not work out. I also recommend to NEVER join your alliance HUB ever. Their are plenty of players that have been sieged out of the game because of this alone. As far as the sitter option, I never liked it at all. It does more harm than good and allows players like Roller to become super account users. As far as claiming inactive account towns that have been kicked from alliance or by auto-kick... This can be solved by an alliance or player with more military power then the other alliance or player. For example, Valar was so powerful in military might that they were able to get Curse to stop attacks on Roller/Spirit even though Curse was closer to his towns. Valar > Curse in military power = Curse will do what Valar wants. |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2011 at 09:53
|
DR you are not making any sense. What are you writing and what are you quoting? -------------
|
Posted By: Divine Redemption
Date Posted: 30 Aug 2011 at 09:59
My internet connection dced while I posted that and never put in the rest of my post. |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 16:12
|
Seems LH was quoting me without having a point. Seeing as everyone is talking about making new alliances to stirr things up and see more changes in the Illyriad alliance constellation the question beckons; how much would the Illyriad landscape change if alliances really LOST the players that left the game rather than hoarding old dead accounts for future use? We all know there is a significant bulk of inactives hiding out in alliances, tho we dont know the exact number, dare I suggest that implementing the 2 month inactive auto kick would make the actual level of alliance transparency and measure of strength far far better? Dare I suggest that once the Alliance Mausoleums drop out, the static nature of Illyriads powercentres would disintegrate little by little and add a lot more inter alliance player mobility to the game? So far the only objections to this have come from players who either have used the current setup to skip rudimentary work, or aim to use the same shortcut in the future. The long term effect is that it will kill off the game - no change in the alliance strength relations means a very static, predictable dull game, and I strongly encourage the GMs to consider implementing this asap. |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 17:16
|
I don't think there's as many inactives in alliances as you think Tord. I'm not going to go through every alliance and check but I don't think it's a game killer. It may give a slight appearance of an alliance being larger than what it is but do you really thing there would be more action even if you saw that some alliance was lower pop than what it appears? ------------- |
Posted By: Aneirin
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 18:03
|
On balance Tordenkaffen's suggestion is a fair and honourable. I strongly disagree with those alliance leaders who argue that the city of an inactive player is their property because they may have gifted resources to it. The bottom line here is that if as a leader you cannot keep your members active and interested then you are not doing a very good job. There is no justification in hanging on to inactive accounts in order to maintain an advantage. It is lazy play and leads to the temptation of using multiple accounts. I support Tordenkaffen's suggestion except that, like Llyorn of Jaensch, I believe that the time period for deletion should be much shorter - say 28 days. |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 18:20
Yes I do. |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 18:43
|
Elaborating on the previous comment - several alliances have already implemented special ranks for their inactives - this was the case with MCrow who a few months ago had 6-7 "Lost Birds" listed on their roster. I was interested since Zek79 was placed very close to my capital and had shown no sign of activity for more than 6 months (give or take a month), and he was not demoted to the rank of lost bird until I made contact with MCrow (ScottFitz) and inquired about activity. I have a strong feeling that many alliances - not just MCrow and Crow which have been the obvious examples so far - have several large dormant accounts lying around that falsely inflate their numbers and visual strength and await a newcoming member to take over the larger dormant cities. If you dont believe me, look at the large alliances yourself - Look for large players with unusually low ranks - or better yet, take a screen shot and compare the member's growth over 14 days. This kind of metagaming opportunism will wreck Illyriad because it will enshroud the game in a stalemate, and instead breed more trolls to vent their frustration on the forum. |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 18:48
|
I don't think so. The community seems to look down on war, especially the ones starting it. If an alliance is smaller than it appears to be that's great and all but attacking that alliance will still probably bring down the wrath of the community onto you. I think a change within the community itself needs to happen before anything done to the game will encourage fighting. That said, I checked around half of H? members and I only found one inactive. Now while that's only one alliance and maybe the half I didn't check were the inactive ones, mCrow's inactive situation isn't too bad either. I don't think any alliance on the main page is going to drop so much in pop that it would severely change their placement or how people felt about war with them. This may effect smaller alliances more because one player can potentially mean 1/4 the alliance population but I still don't think it would be game changing. ------------- |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 18:59
|
Brids - your diminishing the problem does not dissuade me the least - its just excuses,excuses,excuses and you present no good/meaningful reason why they should stay. I propose that if there are inactives they should not be sheltered indefinately but rather be cast out to present a genuine image of the alliances actual strength - what part of that is it that you do not understand? Why should inactives have an alliance? Who would it justifiably benefit? Why do people only seem to have sloppy excuses that only suggests they themselves were counting on taking the easy road - its getting very tiresome. |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 19:02
Are you kidding me????? The only reason wars never come into fruition is because alliances are quick to back each other up meaning that any skirmish between two hotheads usually escalate into a worldwar if there is to be any war at all. Your reasoning is completely absent to say it in a nice way. If alliances would have to depend on their active members for war and not the intimidation factor of their size, war would me much more likely to erupt between rival alliances. All this said, war neednt be the reson behind implementing this - having the larger alliances shed their inactives may incense smaller alliances to compete more fiercely for a higher ranking - when they dont have to build and exceed large high pop dead accounts to be in the running. |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 19:06
and i personally would not want to see that. cause of the nature of war itself its better to offer mutual annihilation to both. in this way, war will not be a good option for anyone. |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 19:16
|
BullshXt - now youre all the major pacifists of Illyriad cause it serves your own purposes - that is weak and pathetic - and unbelivably decadent and corrupt seeing as Kilotov openly stated that taking over inactive account cities was a frequent method for his alliaces (Dlords) way to stay on top. http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/crow-member-hotattack_topic2291_page2.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/crow-member-hotattack_topic2291_page2.html |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 19:21
of course we recycle our inactive that are on our homeland...*facepalm* i lol at your attempt to make it sound scandalous... its not. its preservation of wealth and it ensures prosperity to the newcomers. btw, you lost that argument whit ander  |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 19:28
|
In other words, you are using a (by now)well known loophole to turboboost you newcoming members, effectively leaving the original game design obsolete and insisting that you have the freedom to do this in private. Why would anyone join Illyriad if exploitation, (skipping the hard part of the game), of this kind is so readily accepted. Again I think you are hurting Illyriad deliberately, and should this problem not be resolved in a meaningful fashion then it would truly be a gigantic waste of time to play for anyone but the exploiters themselves. Sorry I cant share your amusement, but your idiocy is a death sentence to this game. PS. Ander - much like yourself has been counting on taking the shortcut in the game - I cant waste all my life debating the same lame excuses over and over. |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 19:41
first: its not a loophole. its a game mechanism. ( or do cities in real life just evaporate if no one lives there for some years?) second: such cities are RARE. there are not enough dead cities to make it game breaking. third: about the hurting illy stuff... get a grip dude... this is not hurting illy at all. it can keep people from leaving cause of the extremely slow peace of the game and dont forget that even a big 20k town has to be brought down to 5k. ( try to rebuild a crashed town... its about as bitter as starting a new town). i dont see how my subjective thoughts about illy are a death sentence. you want more...what exactly? that people stop capturing abandoned cities in favour of still living towns? what's wrong whit you? as long there is siege there will be people that take cities. living ones or dead ones. i fail to see the logic behind your reasoning that this is a death sentence. peace isnt a bad thing. and you are far away, hidden in freamont whit your followers anyway, so why do you even care ? it's beyond me why you hate siege so much |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 19:50
|
blablabla - excuse. The game is slow paced - because that is the way it is DESIGNED! - This is not Evony. Secondly - for the 117th time - Capture whatever you want - this has nothing to do with capture but with inactives being sheltered indefinately in alliances, perpetuating themselves and maintaining their rank unrightfully - Please try to wrap your head around that. Now if youll excuse me - Ive wasted enough energy trying to make you understand whats obvious - you obviously do not wish to hear - thankfully your opinion does not matter to me beyond this point. Lastly: I just hate people who join a beta game under developement and look for cheating their way through from day 1. |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 20:00
|
i just dont agree on your point of view. this is not a cheat. this is a game mechanism. are you upset cause i have a different opinion over things? |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 20:39
And as I explained (which you seemingly ignored) I don't believe the ranks of any alliance on the first page would change much even if the inactives were removed. I understand your point but I don't think the change would do as much as you think it would. A change with limited purpose is reason enough to not do it. People think that to change something the GMs just have to click and button and it it's fixed. It takes time and subsequently money to change these things and I just don't see why it would be worth it.
Yes, I don't recall stating anything different. The issue is that the "world war" you speak of is actually one or two alliances against the bulk of the community and results in those alliances being sieged out of the game. That's an issue with the community, not the game and it makes people reluctant to get into a war because of it. As I said, a change needs to happen in the community first.
As I said, the community would "punish" the aggressor and it would be no different from how it is now. Everyone would jump on who was decided to be the bad guy and it would still mean people were highly reluctant to get into a war. I don't see why it's wrong to bolster your numbers with inactives in the first place. If an alliance has 1M pop and 300k of that is inactives and another alliance has 1M pop and has no inactives which alliance is at an advantage? Bolstering numbers may make people reluctant to attack you but when they do they're going to be unknowingly over compensating and you're going to get demolished.
This game is not in a beta. It is a full release game and no one has stated they are looking for ways to "cheat". Not only that, just because you deem something to be an exploit does not make it so, so please stop calling this an exploit. Lastly, I'd just like to say your tone throughout most of this thread has been bordering on little kid throwing a temper tantrum. We don't agree with each other, that's fine. Don't throw "excuses, excuses, blah blah blah" in my face about it. Act like the mature player I thought you were and either explain your point or accept that we're not going to agree and explain that you don't see a point in continuing to debate about it. ------------- |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 21:12
|
I have lost patience with you Brids, With Ander and with Kilotov - several players voiced their agreement that this idea could possibly benefit the game in the long run and you have not dealt with the issue as they too have presented it. If you would stay on topic and not change auto-kicking theme into "we are not allowed to capture cities anymore" and "Maybe it wont work so its best not doing anything at all" - REPEATEDLY, I might be able keep my tone in a level that wont bring you to tears. However having the same players use the same invalid arguments, while being obviously entangled in what i consider an exploit - meaning an unintended non-constructive way to further own purposes in spite of the negative effect it has on the game, can really **** me off. What provokes me most is that you throw all consideration for the game itself (which is still under developement) overboard in favor of selfish interest, and you do not at any point even try to argue from an objective standpoint. Your contributions so far have been in my view lobbying a harmfull mechanic that gives existing alliances an immense advantage (i.e. having all the time in the world to recycle their inactive cities), and instead of debating the central part of that - IS IT HARMFULL TO ILLYRIAD? you instead take it in every imaginable direction with EXCUSES why nothing should be done at all - "I dont think this and that" - well we won't know what effect it will have until its implemented will we? And untill then if you can find one solid argument for why inactives should remain indefinitely in alliances - which in many peoples view warps the demography of Illyriad and prevents change in many ways, then we will have an actual meaningful debate. If my tone seems angry or frustrated, it is because that I am trying to make a simple message sink in with players who act like selfish little children and show no interest in the longevity of the game - and that severely wears on my patience as I would very much like to see Illyriad prosper in the future. You three have in spite of the evidence laid out plainly on the forum (from the Crows no less) not made a single attempt to relate to the core problem of the debate - which makes your contributions rather meaningless and - as you correctly point out a product of your (very) subjective opinions that are blatantly colored by the fact that you use and intend to use this system of exploitation. Oh and as far as money are concerned I regularly add my fair share of revenue to the game, which I consider an automatic entitlement to bring up issues - like this - which I find decadent and unsound. Now I will proceed to ignore your posts as well as you seem immune to relate to anything even close to the subject of this thread. |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2011 at 21:36
|
I'd reply, but it seems you've already said everything for me.
------------- |
Posted By: Divine Redemption
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2011 at 03:56
I feel that it gives players in alliances a bad feeling that if they were to leave the game for a few months or their own alliance, their old leader will siege and capture their cities. This brings horrible morale to the player getting sieged and thus changes them to a troll or a spy or a warmonger. What is the point to go all out for an alliance when something like this can happen? There is no point of even trying to help your own alliance unless you are the leader. Because after what is said and done, the leader seems to own everyone in their alliance. All of the leaders in this game seem to have adopted the siege their own player if they leave the alliance or left the game for a few months. Leaders seem to have no loyalty to their own players. So, why should the players show any loyalty to the leaders of this game? Players should not! To the players in alliances, realize there is no point of putting 100% effort for your alliance, unless you are the leader. The leaders in this game think of their players as a piece of meat. A piece of meat that increases their overall alliance pop size. Also if a player leaves, this gives a leader a town to capture for his or her alliance and newer players. |
Posted By: Dhenna
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2011 at 11:03
|
"I propose that if there are inactives they should not be sheltered indefinately but rather be cast out to present a genuine image of the alliances actual strength"
^^
This
|
Posted By: Ector the Fury
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2011 at 20:32
|
Hello all. Sorry this got so long. I promise its all to help the disscusion move forward. :) First off I would like to say that Hotattack is not a "newb" that is being given a free city he does not deserve. He has been a part of Crow for a LONG time and has always been willing to give everything he has to help the alliance. If anyone needs anything he always gives all that he can and never asks for anything in return. NEVER. So for his steadfast dedication to the alliance he was gifted a city. So you can say that "reserving inactive cities for members is wrong" but please do not accuse Hotattack of being a nobody newb. In my opinion he is one of the best members Crow has. Maybe a good solution would be to allow everyone who views alliance summaries to see who is inactive for more than 30 days. And any account that is more than 30 days will not count towards alliance ranking. That would stop the "false buffering" of alliance ranks, which seems to be the number one issue that Tord has. And by knowing who is inacitve you would not need to fear those accounts if you ever wanted to throw the gauntlet down and challenge an alliance. Tough once "unlimited" city moves, pathfinding, and fog of war are released I can actually see this being a rather large issue. Alliances with inactives will have "free scrys" into certain areas of the map and will also give problems to those who are wanting to move their cities near these inactives (I might be wrong but I think its impossible to move a city near a non-alliance/confed player, even if they are inactive, correct me if I'm wrong). I do agree that something could be done to "remove" inactives from alliances, especially to show true alliance ranks. Just dont agree with the auto kick. Not sure how to deal with them after new content is released though. Maybe someone else can think of something? Other than "Just auto kick them all!!11!!1!". Although that might be the "best" solution.... I think more players would have be willing to listen and brainstrom solutions if this thread became a little more polite and actually talked about a solution, not just "Auto kick!!!!", "No!!", "Auto kick!!!!", "NO!!!!!", "Auto kiiiiicccckkkk!!!!!!!!, "NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!". Just my thoughts. Sorry if I offended anyone. This thread seems to be doing that a lot..... Thank you for your time. :)
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2011 at 20:45
|
One can move a capital near an inactive if the player has not been online for a period of time -- I think the length of time is based on the size of the inactive city. I'm not sure whether the player being in an alliance influences that.
Edited to add from GM SC's Moving Your Capital Post: Exemption for inactive accounts. You may move to within 10 squares of an inactive player. Inactive players are players who either have zero population and have not logged in for 1 week, or have more than zero population but have not logged in for 4 weeks.
|
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2011 at 20:48
|
Your suggestion has merit Ector, although I do feel you are accomodating the inactive party a little too much - I mean being completely absent for two months *is* quite a long time, and with the option to assign a sitter for 3 months (roughly), I do feel the capture/raze rights should at some point go from the alliance and to the community. Oh and just to be clear, I dont know hotattack and the suggestion itself is not in itself aimed at him in any way, the forum post merely asserts how commonly the takeover practice is now being used in Illyriad. I do not see the auto-kicking function as being in any way a terminal step for a player. His allies can sit his account, remove ongoing sieges if they occur, and provided that he does not lie very closely to hostile minded players, theres a big chance that his cities will survive unscathed. But if the player is of great inconvenience to other active players, he should have to accept that his absence would mean the possible removal of one or more of his cities. Illyriad is after all a finite universe (so far) and room is limited. Opportunity should always be directed at the active player, as the world itself would find it difficult to perpetuate its player base if others had to show consideration to an increasing amount of inactive accounts. This being mostly theory at the moment, but we do still aim for Illyriad being a large dynamic succesful sandbox do we not? Thanks for your constructive input Ector. |
Posted By: Tinuviel's Voice
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2011 at 20:52
Finally, a voice of reason! I agree 100% |
Posted By: Kurfist
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2011 at 20:56
|
I've been following this thread for a little bit and actually agree a little bit on where Torden is going, but the term "large dynamic succesful sandbox" baffled me. What does that mean? ------------- Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2011 at 20:59
|
What I mean is that things need to change as old players leave and new ones arrive. We should not keep the same "skeleton" for posterity. Change brings new options for players, and new constellations for alliances which will decrease the chance of a stalemate situation throughout the game lifespan. Or just to put it in a plain way - its more fun when something new happens. |
Posted By: Kurfist
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2011 at 21:19
|
Ah, I agree. ------------- Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin |
Posted By: Ector the Fury
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2011 at 01:42
See what I did there? I used the oft abused pratice of editing post but only in a way that more clearly shows the actual point of the original poster's thoughts. C'mon, kudos to me for that one. hahaha  That is an issue my suggestion overlooked and I apologize. I dont see a problem with "personal captures". If the account was in the alliance the whole time it was active that player was building to make that alliance stronger. Effort put into cities that were meant for the betterment of a certain alliance should therefore become the "property" of that alliance. When that person left the game they could have easily quit the alliance, not to mention petition the Gms to have the account deleted. With my first suggestion everyone would be able to clearly see that the account is inactive. If they want to capture or raze the city they can contact alliance leadership and ask for terms of capture/raze. Now thats just my personal opinion. I would love to hear what others think about this. Please be gentle. As much as I would love to safeguard inactive accounts that carry the same alliance ticker as myself, if only hoping for their eventual return or as a last resort a city for members to capture, if those accounts are going to cause a large problem with how community members play the game I would be inclined to agree with the kicking of inactives from alliances. Of course that all depends on IF they cause LARGE PROBLEMS and I dont see "I want to capture that city but they wont let me!!" a large enough community issue. Now "We are trying to build a road through that area and that city is totally in the way" or "That city is giving you sight through the fog of war!!" (totally guessing on these) could be viewed as a problem. The thing that worries me is what happens when new content is released. Fog of war, scrying, roads, and alliance walls to cover territory. I would think inactives are gonna be obstacles that others need to plan around and no active player should be forced to "play around" abandoned accounts. Maybe I'm over thinking it but this issue may become a large topic down the line. Of course I could just be over analyzing. I tend to do that. AS OF NOW I stand by my first suggestion. 30 day inactive accounts should be clearly visible to all who view the alliance summary and their population should not count towards overall alliance rank. If anyone sees any flaws in this please reply so we can find the best solution to this issue. But if we were somehow given any tidbits of information that would let us know if some of my concerns about future releases are legitimate. I would start to strongly lean towards the kicking of inactives from alliances. And thanks Rill for pointing out that players are able to move near inactive accounts. Even if they are part of a different alliance that is not confed with your own. Thats how I read it. Pretty sure thats right. Originally posted by GM Stormcrow (on moving your capital city): Cannot be a square that is within 10 squares' radius of another player who is not in your alliance, nor in an alliance that is confederated with yours Exemption for inactive accounts. You may move to within 10 squares of an inactive player. Inactive players are players who either have zero population and have not logged in for 1 week, or have more than zero population but have not logged in for 4 weeks. |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2011 at 08:22
|
When is an account inactive ?
1. When the owner has not logged in for 4 weeks ?
2. When the owner or a sitter has not logged in for 4 weeks ?
If it is the option 2 I see very little problems in kicking inactive acounts from alliances and make the city marked clearly on the map as inactive. You should not be able to leave the game for months unattended and expect the account to be unharmed when you get back. -------------
|
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2011 at 18:39
|
Kudos for that Ector - Ill agree with your view of how to solve the situation - Its not perfect but its far better than status quo. Just to round the subject off though Id like to try and look at the effects of the suggestion from different player's perspectives. Starting with my own. (large player) My continued work building a strong alliance will now no longer be held within the shadow of inactively buffed alliances. As of the moment, the 30 days inactive "visible invalidation" (what I call your suggestion for easy reference), is implemented, I can not only identify the inactives of any given alliance, and the actual strength present in said alliance, but I will also see the benefits of my active alliance manifest in some form in the rankings. This I like. As I have had a long time to develope a strategy in Illyriad I do not feel that small players taking over large cities threaten me as a player at this point. Seen from the perpective of a given alliance leader (which I am not, in case you were wondering) there should be satisfaction with the agreement as the major part dispute of the actual expelling of inactives will not be realised. Inactives will stay in their alliances (indefinitely?) although they will no longer figure in the rankings. The removal of same inactives is still at the alliance leaders discretion though. On a brief side note I would like to remark that I did not foresee this developement back when I started in this game . It makes an impression of alliances having a role more like Corporations - gathering assets in the form of inactive accounts for future take overs and exclusive use - than actual platforms of communication between likeminded players. At least thats how it comes across - this of course can be a conscious strategy for some, while just an overlooked sideeffect with others. From the mid-high player'sperspective there should now be a great interest to join the larger "holder alliances" of Illyriad, as it will enable them to save much time (several months) of building and researching as opposed to doing all the work themselves. Safe to say that satisfaction with the suggestion will depend on the individual players suggestion. From the newbie player's perpective, there is not much good news in this. Unless the newly started player can somehow make friends fast with a large alliance, he or she can expect to be surpassed quickly by other newbies that have friends in the large alliances. Not even with a fervent use of prestige can he/she hope to keep up as the research tree will have to be maticulously built up for each new city he/she settles. His given well connected counterparts can take over cities with existing buildings and a partial or full research tree. The difference in time would certainly be measured in months - maybe up to a year of game time. Like I stated previously I am content with your suggestion, because in the light of the vehement opposition from several large alliances (players in them), this is in my opinion as good as its going to get at this time. Ethically its far from a perfect solution - many problems remain unadressed, but I feel I have spent enough energy fighting for this cause. If some progress is attainable in this matterthen Ill take it, and if there are further arguments to be made Ill let someone else do the arguing. I hope the developers will look into this as soon as possible. Cheers Ector. Tordenkaffen |
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2011 at 21:27
Every time a new player joins Illyriad we try to remove an "abandoned account" in the following priority:
Last Active includes sitters. Also the account that we are abandoning cannot have unit incoming or an active siege/blockade in progress. Of course this does not mean an abandoned account will match the above criteria in which case the pool of active accounts grows. When an account is abandoned by the system at that time it will be removed from the Alliance it is in and all its towns removed from the map. Note: We've just recently added prestige purchasers to the deletion queue (alas...) and also just recently added Facebook, Mobile and Google Checkout to the purchases that will move a player into priority 5. This means a recent (or old for PayPal) prestige purchaser will have around 3 months of inactivity before being considered for deletion. Non-prestige purchasers will have around 28 days of inactivity before being considered for deletion. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2011 at 21:56
|
Based on my reading of GM TC's comments, it sounds like this concern will solve itself as inactive players are deleted more rapidly -- even those in alliances. The changes in the sitting rules to max of 90 days will close a remaining loophole. Here's to Illy as an active, dynamic sandbox! Although I understand the sadness of seeing the accounts of players who were longstanding friends and comrades in arms disappear. Perhaps alliances can develop traditions to honor their contributions -- a Wall of Names on the alliance forum?
|
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2011 at 22:04
|
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2011 at 22:10
| Ty TC |
Posted By: Aneirin
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2011 at 23:15
I know that you don't stick to these time periods - far from it. Even if you did. They are far too long. I get the impression that you can't be asked.
|
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2011 at 23:55
|
Aneirin, TC and SC have the biggest interest of all in making Illy work well, and now that they are aware of the debate, they can act upon it as time permits. Lets chill out and see if things dont get better after a while yeah? Peace out. |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2011 at 01:43
|
So what if a player is actually going to be inactive for more than 84 days? Is there a way to negate this account deleter thingy? ------------- |
Posted By: Kurfist
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2011 at 03:25
|
Some people can be away on business for about ninety days..
------------- Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin |
Posted By: Tordenkaffen
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2011 at 07:11
|
Good thing the internet is everywhere then ^^ Tordenkaffen wants YOU - to visit your local library. Cheers |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2011 at 07:37
Then its lucky you can have a sitter for 90 days
 and if you buy a little prestige you can even be away for almost 6 months (if you have a sitter). -------------
|
Posted By: Kurfist
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2011 at 14:04
|
Don't one up my comment! Huh wierd font.. Would you know a sitter who'd be fine using ALL of his sitting ability on you, if you were gone for 90 days? Just sayin ------------- Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin |
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 07:47
I know several I would trust my account to for 90 days. -------------
|
Posted By: Thexion
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 09:21
|
You have understood sitting rule incorrectly by the way one account can have sitter for 90 days but it does limit time sitter can sit on other accounts. Of course you can sit only 2 accounts at one time. I assume this rule has not gone live anyhow since there is no counter in my account management. |
Posted By: RatuJone
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2011 at 10:48
|
I agree with the pro autokicking sentiments. Not that I have a problem with anyone raiding or conquering or destroying any cities in inactive accounts, but simply to reduce the possibility of unfair advantage or even foul play. I suggest the following scenario for dealing with such accounts: After a period of inactivity by the owner of the account (I favour 30 consecutive days but could be 60 but not longer) suspend the account so no more activity by anyone is possible (including sitters) but leave the option to re-activate should the original owner re-log. That way any raiding or conquering or even razing of cities can be done at the attackers' risk in those first 30 days, yet after that no-one can gain any unfair advantage from the inactive account. The period in which the account could be re-activated should also have a limit after which auto kicking takes place. Just my 2 cents worth, Ratu |