This game has a few thousands accounts on a massive world map. I don't think getting rid of a good numbers of set accounts will do it any good.

Agree that several alliances each contribute 1 or 2 "permaset" accounts to a new alliance. This alliance will belong to the entire community. We call that alliance something sinister; maintain it and grow it stronger and in times of inactivity in the game (like now, since the end of the previous tournament), we use it as an opponent, or a community controlled faction.

This proposal may become redundant if factions really come alive anytime soon.

Illy takes a long time to grow up in. Keeping an account active when you're fairly confident someone is coming back.. well, that's a favour I might like to call in some time so I'll happily do it for someone else. 

If the opposite is true and someone you sit has left for 2 months without notifying anyone.. well, I'd call it a day and find people to take the cities. 

+1

I don't think that was ever the intention on the part of the game designers, but since they seem ok with it then I guess it's part of the game.

As someone that took a vacation I would have to disagree. As much as I love my account the game would have been better off without me without perma sitting. I would have been sad to lose my account but it was my choice. 

If this was the intention of the games developers it would be easier - and fairer - to change the population requirements for subsequent cities so that everyone could have access to thirty, forty, sixty, or however many cities.

So, it seems unlikely that this was the intention of the mechanic, and it would be better to provide a different way for people to preserve their accounts when they know in advance that they will be away from the game for an extended period - due to a tour of duty, travelling, new baby, etc.

One possibility would be something like a stasis setting, where one could put your city into stasis for a pre-determined length of time, during which it would not generate resources, but would be invulnerable to military and diplomatic attacks. To prevent abuse of this setting during war, one could make this stasis setting only available for a minimum of 30 days, thus dissuading active players from using it.

Currently you can have access to 20 cities without sitting.  And soon you will have access to 40 cities without sitting.  With sitting you will get access to potentially 120 cities.  As anyone with a large number of cities will tell you, the simple fact that running 120 cities is near impossible for one person.  

If you don't like people who sit accounts because they have to much power.  Why not focus on eliminating alts?  Further as previous stated without the sitting mechanic people will just hand out passwords for their account to have it kept alive.  Now those people with 6 accounts through sitting, simply have 6 full accounts with the ability to use all those pretty buttons that sat accounts can't.

My contention is that if sitting is being used by people to have control of 60 cities in a permanent way, then perhaps we should think of a different way for people to keep their accounts alive when they take a break from the game that does not give so much control to other players over their account.

DeathDealer89 wrote: So people complain about their not being enough space so remove sitting?  Your answer is to allow statis?  Semi-permanently blocking off the good squares?  Thats a great idea.  Plus no matter how many rules on it there are more ways to abuse that then sitting.

I suggest removing sitting because it is being used in a way contrary to intentions to subvert the 10-city limit. If you want to keep the current sitting then another possibility would be to remove the 10-city limit, so that it is a level playing field for everyone.

I never said my stasis idea was perfect, but it is an alternative to the current sitting that (1) allows people to keep their accounts alive if they will be absent from the game for a long period and (2) does not allow people to subvert the 10-city limit in an unfair way.

Why should some people be allowed to control 60 cities when I am only limited to 20?

Fundamentally, that points to a failure of sitting. I think we should find an alternative that still allows people to preserve their account in Illyriad if they will be absent for a long period for whatever reason.

Wait if this is the basis of your argument then the problem lies in you not the game.  It can't be considered 'unfair' because you have the ability to do the same thing.  There is no advantage they have that you don't.  

I admit the 'stasis' idea is the first idea that comes to my mind when I attempt to re-create the benefits of sitting.  Except sitting accomplishes allowing people to take a vacation much better than stasis and has fewer exploits.  Further a sat account  appears the exact same as a non-sat account to the opposing player mean all 'exploits' can be defeated by the opponent.  Where as stasis exploits can't be.

If there is a way to accomplish the same thing sitting does and is better than the current sitting mechanic then bring it up.  If you can't come up with something to replace sitting that is better than sitting then we shouldn't replace it.  

~The account I was assigned as sitter that turned into a "perma-sat" situation has been resolved.  After 6 months, I started offering the cities to alliance members and began deconstructing the account. After 9 months, I dropped myself as sitter.   One account with 10 cities is quite enough for me - yep, got rid of my alt as well.  

Well then you should be fine with the account sitting mechanic.

The problem could be eliminated by using smarts and new dynamics. For example, what if vans could be intercepted en-route with Pathfinding™. This would create problems for those sitting 'supply accounts', because vigilante players would have opportunity to enforce their will, probably by stealth.

My own opinion on this subject is that Illyriad T&C prohibit owning more than two accounts. Permasitting is not against the letter of the 'Law', but it's certainly against the spirit.

From an alliance perspective, "one player with control over many accounts in the same alliance" is not much different from "many players having control over the same accounts". However, if those accounts span alliances, the power and influence increases, (hypothetically) to the point where a loose confederation is actually just one alliance of hundreds-strong 'permasat' accounts.