Account Sitters
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=5335
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 03:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Account Sitters
Posted By: Arctic55
Subject: Account Sitters
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 06:36
|
I am hearing more and more about the problem of perma sitting. So I have a solution. Note: This solution is not gurantied to fix 100% of the perma sitting problems. I think that if the account you are sitting is not logged into by the owner in 31 days, your sitting ability is removed and the 90 day countdown is started for that account. Therefore, after 121 days, including the sitting days, the account is deleted like normal unless they meet the normal restrictions and exceptions. Please comment below what you think about why or why not this should be implemented. ------------- I'm pressed but not crushed. Persecuted but not abandoned. Struck down but not destroyed. |
Replies:
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2013 at 07:42
I would rather have something like this implemented than to carry on with the current sitting options. The ability to permanently sit an account is a bypass from the multiple account rule, and is unfair to players that do not sit other accounts. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Arctic55 wrote:Posted By: arnesson
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2013 at 19:40
| I agree. Even that is too long really! But perma-sitting MUST be eliminated! |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2013 at 19:49
| I agree in a way and I am a perma sitter, the issue is that some long term players here have professions that mean they sometimes have to stay long term in places with little or no internet connection, but really I think a month or 2 of an actual player not logging in is probably enough to have the account closed. |
Posted By: Alcie
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 02:05
|
As far as I understand, the purpose of account sitting is mainly for people who know (or sometimes don't know--e.g. some extended emergency) that they will be gone for an extended period of time not to be deleted or sieged for inactivity. I think that is a good purpose and I have used it myself. Maybe put a time limit on it--1 year or 6 months perhaps. I know from experience that if it was less than 6 months it would mess up a lot of people, it really is possible not to have the ability to log on for half a year. If the real person does log on, the time limit could reset. Besides cities never going away and clogging up the map, the main problem is people using accounts sittees for themselves. This could be mostly solved if account sitters had less powers. Right now account sitters can: 1. start new production queues 2. build new troops 3. settle new towns 4. send out caravans full of gold to themselves... None of these things are needed if you are just trying to keep an account un-deleted and un-sieged while someone is gone for 6 months. I can understand reading emails to make sure there are no problems, perhaps having a building queue in the towns that do exist to make them look semi active. But if most other abilities such as the 4 above were not allowed to sitters, there would be not be many ways open to abuse. A line has to be drawn obviously, but right now sitters are allowed to do almost everything including settling new towns, which seems rediculous to me. More restricted sitter abilities would presumably be open to some abuse still, but combining it with a long but not-forever time limit such as 6 months would solve every problem I can think of. |
Posted By: Myr
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 03:13
|
If you can't start production ques or troop ques you take away a couple of reasons that people ask for a sitter while they're away. A sitter sometimes has to move resources around between cities to keep things from de-leveling which can't be done if a sitter can't ship things. I think limiting sitter actions further is a bad idea.
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 04:03
|
As I have said in many other permasitter threads: If you remove or cripple the sitter function, it will only encourage players to give their login and password to other players. That's a security problem. The security risk outweighs the in-game problems caused by permasitters. |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 05:08
| I dont understand the continued thread after thread about sitting. The devs had said they will deal with perceived issues when they get to it, not because we keep banging on about it. In any case, the community can sort sitting issues out just as quickly as the devs can. No-one is being forced to sit an account, so if you don't agree with sitting, then simply stop. There's no unfair advantages from one group of player(s) to the next, its not an exploit its a game rule. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 05:31
|
Posted By: Binky the Berserker
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 13:27
|
I don't see any problems in perma sitting. There's still a limit on the number of accounts (6 instead of 2) and it is available for everyone. It's not unfair, because everybody can use it and sat accounts are nowhere as good as the standard accounts a player can have. I don't even think it's possible to play 6 accounts unless one would stop sleeping and working. I really don't understand the problems people have with permasitters. Is it because you don't have them you feel others shouldn't? Turn that around and just start sitting a quitter to make things equal again. It's part of the rules one can sit 4 accounts, and those rules are the same for everyone so please stop saying it's bad for ballance in the game. The fact that you don't know what players has which accounts is still there when you delete all permasat accounts. It just gets a bit easier to determine where the accounts belong. Simplifying the game doesn't improve it imo. Au contraire |
Posted By: Prares
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 13:52
Is anyone assuming that passing of accounts and dualling isn't happening now? I've seen the sitter function being abused with intimidation in other games so not very keen on that as a security blanket. I'd like to see all accounts deleted around the 1000-1200 day mark - limited life in a permanent world. |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 14:18
The problem with permasat accounts is leeching gold. One could have 4 permasat accounts in some training alliance, only to produce large amounts of gold and resources. The player need not even play the farm accounts - he just has to log in once a month to ship the gold and resources. That main account could then hold troop numbers that are not possible to sustain by a normal player. If you remember, there was some outrage during the start of this war when some 'inactive' accounts outside of any alliances were targeted and destroyed. Sat accounts being leeched for years and years is not good for the game imo. |
Posted By: Binky the Berserker
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 14:50
| Sorry, Ander, but I don't see your point. You call players without sitting accounts "normal" but imo they are just plain stupid for not using the rules to their advanage. Like I said, everybody can do it, so everybody is able to sustain same troop numbers. |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 16:57
|
That is true Binky, not using farming accounts puts you at a disadvantage. The only thing 'normal' about it is that most people doesn't use farm accounts. I am not sure if not holding sitter accounts (or not having alt accounts) qualifies someone as stupid though. That is the way many people like to play. It is only a personal preference to not use it. Letting players create as many accounts as they wish can also be called fair (as the rules are same for everyone). Despite that most online games restrict players to one account per server. Again it is only a personal opinion that permasitting/multi-accounts should be disabled in the game. |
Posted By: ES2
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 17:07
Permanent sitting is just a loophole around having more than two accounts. ------------- Eternal Fire |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 17:36
That is my 'opinion' too. |
Posted By: Binky the Berserker
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2013 at 18:19
Never said someone was stupid. The action is stupid, just as a lot of my own actions are. Didn't mean to insult. To be more precisely: I don't thinks it shows great brains when people complain about others doing something that they could do themself, unless they have ethic reasons to not do it. Personally I can't see any ethic reasons against permasitting. |
Posted By: dravog
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 11:22
| i don't like that idea. I won't be able to come online for an year because of my studies. I don't want to loose my account. so a sitter is my only way. |
Posted By: Arakamis
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 13:30
|
You can log in once a month in order not to loose your account. Join a training alliance, set up long queues and log in once a month. That simple. Permanent sitting should not be allowed. and maybe we need to define "permanent sitting". This is just a loophole as others have pointed out as well. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 16:14
both Binky's and Brandmeister's comments seem to beg the question: why have an account limit at all? doesn't a limit of two accounts also "encourage" people to cheat the system, signing up relatives and using alternate email addresses? and yet, there is the rule, because for whatever reason the devs decided to have it. i wonder if those who do not see an issue with the sitter rules see a purpose to the account limit. because if not, it's understandable that they wouldn't be bothered by the way current sitting use subverts it. i do not see that the security problems inherent to giving away a password become the devs' problem if sitting rules change. as players are responsible for the actions of their sitters, the only risk added if they choose to give away their password is that the new owner will "steal" the account. that seems a fitting end for those prepared to violate the ToS. that said, limiting the ability of a sitter to look after the account seems to undermine the purpose of sitting at all. indeed, as exodus is increasingly used as a defensive tactic, i wonder if the sitting abilities should be expanded to include relocation. i would find the game more enjoyable (and land would be used better) if sitting rules were shored up, but i would prefer that it were done via the usual purge rules--specifically, resetting the purge date only when the original owner of the account logs in. in that way, accounts could be maintained only for 90d or so without the continuing involvement of the original owner. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 16:40
|
on reflection, i wonder if those in favour of the current rules even agree that fewer sat accounts is better for the game...? there are a few reasons why i think so: 1) sat accounts take space that actives might be using. i take a dim view of players who arrive in the game and immediately announce that "all the good spots are taken", but there is no denying that many sat accounts are venerable, with good positions that might, were they purged, be suddenly available. the dynamic of the game is enhanced by more players, not more accounts. 2) sat accounts cannot spend prestige. they are dead to the revenue stream of the game, taking space and power and hardware capacity and giving nothing back. the game makes money from active, eager, impatient players; there should be little argument that it would be better off financially if the areas occupied by sat accounts were instead occupied by players not discouraged about how "crowded" the game has become. 3) current use of sat accounts concentrates power in old, well-established alliances (or really, veteran, well-established players) that have cultivated these hand-offs from players who have left the game. i used to believe that these farm accounts balanced themselves to some extent, as they would count against the total membership in a given alliance, but of late large alliances have begun to create confederated entities in which to stow them, or to hide them in training alliances to make them immune to attack. these are all clever uses of existing rule and convention, but they tend to stagnate a game that already operates on a timescale almost unimaginable to new players. that is all. flame away. |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 18:12
|
Ok there are plenty of reasons why sitting is good or bad. 1) We ran out of space, is not one of them. 2) The same thing could be sad for players who don't buy prestige, removing sat accounts doesn't mean a bunch of new prestige buyers will show up to replace them. 3) Actually that pretty much a legit point. In the end the multi-accounting will always end up being if there is a player crazy enough to make 50 accounts and thinks he can maintain them all so be it. With no other system in place for players to 'vacation' I think sitting is the best method available. I dare say the number of active-sitters vastly outnumbers the number of perma-sitters.
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 19:33
edited for spelling |
Posted By: Eiche
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 19:52
This is one of the unique features of Illyriad compared to other similar games, and, in combination with the sheer size of Elgea, it means that a small number of players cannot eliminate all competition. This means that you can have a perpetual server, rather than having server resets as with other similar games. To an extent, account sitting breaks this feature of Illyriad, but perhaps it makes it sufficiently awkward (compared to having no limit on number of cities, say) that it preserves the limit through defence in depth. I do agree with Brandmeister that in a game with such a long gestation period, you need to provide some way for people to save their progress if they take a long break, but I do think that it is being abused at present, and I hope that the devs come up with a clever solution, once factions are fully live, The Broken Lands are open, the extra schools of magic are discovered, etc...
|
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 19:52
|
Yes but a getting rid of a sat account doesn't make new players appear. Nor does it turn a free player into a paying one. The two have nothing to do with each other.
If u wanted to turn sat accounts into paying players you would allow the sitter the ability to use prestige they bought on the sat account. I imagine those who take advantage of sitting are also paying customers. In fact since u believe sat accounts are largely stored in training alliances which ship res to new players its likely sat accounts generate prestige purchases in new players. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 20:02
Before I begin my commentary, I think DeathDealer89 said it very succinctly.
I personally believe that people who complain about all the good spots being taken actually have no idea how to play Illyriad. What they are really complaining about is that all the PERFECT spots are taken, and that isn't anywhere close to the same thing. Only hardcore military players (and to a certain extent, hardcore tournament players) have any real need to closely tune population, including sov support using dolmens and fisheries. If you aren't fielding massive armies--and the vast majority of the complainers are non-military players--then there is no particular point to fretting over food sov. You can easily hit 10 cities with ordinary 7 food plains squares. You're just obsessing over your neighbor's Porsche when you can barely even drive your Mazda. I don't feel sorry that not everyone gets a Porsche in Illyriad, because 90% of the people complaining want one as a garage-kept status symbol, not as a tool to be used. Would it be nice if there were lots of available 7 food plots with dolmens, conveniently placed in your desired alliance cores? Actually, no. That would remove all challenge for city building from the game. If you're not participating heavily in the military or trade aspects of Illyriad, then you're basically turning this into a very slow city builder game. Removing the last challenge to city builders would turn Illyriad into a remedial chore.
That describes most Illyriad players. However, it is likely that big permasat accounts had prestige spent in the past (otherwise they probably wouldn't be worth sitting). Therefore, many of those accounts represent spent money, and punishing them somehow would just discourage future expenditures, because you know your investment might ultimately be wasted.
THAT is the problem I have with permasat accounts. Permasitting basically collects power in the hands of the oldest alliances and most veteran players, far above and beyond the level they have already reached personally. Because Illyraid is a game of alliances on the large scale, this pretty much hoses everyone new. A big farm account can produce billions in gold and huge piles of equipment. This gives big, old alliances a source of nearly unlimited firepower. I expect their active players can run enormous deficits, +150-250% or more troop sov on every city, and never come up for air. Anyone who doubts that needs to read the Herald more often. The daily battles in the server war are ridiculously huge. There is no way that unsupported accounts could sustain that level of troop production under normal conditions, for more than a few months. |
Posted By: st aug
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 21:07
| It's part of the game . You don't have to like it or even do it . But you do have to deal with it . Let them sit all they want there's nothing we can do about so why worrier or even care . Sit away |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 21:11
| Aug, there is nothing wrong with advocating for a policy change. Talking is a valid way to "deal with it". If you prefer silence, enjoy. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 21:17
beyond that, the idea that i might not spend prestige on my account today, which i am actively playing, because it might someday become a perma-sat account and the sitter might not be able to access all the fruits of that expenditure seems quite far-fetched. i don't think i believe that most players spend prestige hoping to build a really attractive account for someone else to sit. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 21:22
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 21:55
I believe they would be used for both purposes. Basic resources for newbs, advanced resources and gold for the primary accounts. If an account isn't building troops or actual buildings, then the warehouse is most likely full of basics. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 22:00
I would speculate that far more than half of big permasat accounts were from players who thought they were coming back, but then didn't. I wasn't saying that people envision making themselves into a permasat account, and spend prestige towards that specific end. I was saying that if you radically change the sitting rules, that might change prestige buying patterns because people don't think they can ever take a break without losing their investment. Sitting can be abused, but there remains a valid underlying use case for people who are busy with work, school, or other real life situations. I haven't seen any proposals to limit permasitting that didn't also cause problems for the valid and intended function of account sitting. |
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 22:13
| Maybe good start would be to reduce number of accounts that player can choose to sit for, one is enough. |
Posted By: Caconafyx
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 22:42
|
My suggestion would be to stop sitters from either making troops or issuing ATTACK or SIEGE orders to existing armies on a sat account. But I don't have a problem with sat accounts being used as a resource generator, especially for training alliances. Most of us have been in one, and most of us have enjoyed the advantage of a resource rich sat account
|
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 23:00
|
That would be a better start to limiting combat drone permasat accounts. The approach would need to be improved to allow for self defense. After all, people eventually find out who is away, and sitting isn't much good if you can't defend the city or its sov claims (like mines and herbs). Hostile diplos could be limited, though. Hindering the army and diplomatic corps doesn't solve the problem of resource generators (or the problem other folks have with good map locations being taken). |
Posted By: Arakamis
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 23:29
|
If you can't log into your account at least once in 3 months, or let's make it 6 months when a sitter is assigned, then maybe you shouldn't be playing a mmo game at all.. I have been a GM in an online game for about 6 years, and in that game in order to sit another account, you should get permission from GMs. Not a bad practice imo, and believe me it doesn't add too much pressure on GMs as well. 30k users and we were receiving only 3-5 sitting requests a month. Of course, it doesn't work with the current petition system and current DEV involvement in illyriad, which is imo a far more critical problem.
|
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 23:32
|
Actually removing the ability of sitters to send attacks would as Brandmeister says mean self-defense would be impossible. It also means you personally would have to be available for coordinated launches.
Also I fail to see how having an army of sat account resource generators is better than having an army of sat accounts that can fight. As for the 1 sitter argument you could make a similar argument in support of having infinite number of sitters. For example give access to my account to everyone I trust vs just 2 people I trust. I fail to see how any change to the current sitting policy and work required to do so would actually generate more revenue for the devs. If anything sitting allows the possibility the player may return to a full set of cities and start playing again. Rather than returning and deciding not to play because they have no cities.
|
Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 23:37
|
Beating a dead horse here imo, GM's have already stated they dont plan on adjusting the sitter features
------------- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 15 Dec 2013 at 23:42
| Duke that same sentiment applies to like 75% of the threads in the suggestion section. |
Posted By: Elmindra
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2013 at 01:01
|
The funny thing is that sat accounts have a way of working themselves out. I sat an account for ages for someone who I thought was never coming back but one day just hopped right back in and is still playing now.
As for attacking/defending, I think current rules are sufficient. You can't exodus, meaning you can't move them to a better location and you can't dodge sieges. You can't prestige build, so you can't outlast a siege. A large number of towns razed so far in the war are probably sat accounts that were simply unable to exodus out of harms way. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2013 at 03:07
| With regard to the percentage of players who purchase prestige, Stormcrow once said they have about a 60% conversion rate for players who play more than one week. He said that in November 2011, and things in Illyriad have changed a lot since then, but it is possible that more people buy prestige than you think. |
Posted By: Diva
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2013 at 18:20
|
Prolly been mentioned, but if you plan to donate your account to a sitter... give the prestige to the alliance, therefore no wasted coins in the game. Sitting is for the multi-tasker. If I'm asked to sit, two weeks is my limit and I'm not good @ remembering I'm sitting, I'd rather play my own castles. 2 cents with change available..
------------- "Um diva.... you are sort of acting like a .... diva...." - PhoenixFire |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 17 Dec 2013 at 05:45
|
returning again to the OP, i think further limiting the rights of sat accounts is probably *not* a good idea. i would like to see two changes to sat accounts to limit them: 1) logins from sitters do not reset the purge count, so that the owning player must still log in every 30-90 days to keep the account active. 2) that chat and igm from the sat account be identified as having been entered/sent by a sitter (a sigil after the account name, perhaps). The Duke is absolutely right, the devs will not implement any of these suggestions, but if those of us on the forum were fussed about something like that these pages would be quiet indeed. :P |
Posted By: JimJams
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 01:13
|
permasitting is bad
but this game is dead anyway
------------- 
|
Posted By: Arakamis
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 16:46
+1 to both..
illy is dying as far as i see.. not because of the war but because of the lack of development and dev. involvement.. |
Posted By: Darkwords
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 17:58
The fact you two are posting here, proves otherwise. If you honestly believed it was dead you would not log in. Personally I think the game is going strong. Lots of players, lots of action, also plenty of options of things to do. ------------- <Deranzin> I'd agree with darkone on that [21:59]<ropadope> you know I am perverted <Bartleby> dark is upsetting some peeps |
Posted By: Arakamis
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 19:14
| Not dead yet.. dying.. Slow games die slowly.. :))) |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 20:01
|
"Reports of my death are (greatly) exaggerated"
--Mark Twain
|
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 05 Jan 2014 at 20:20
Lol the same phrase that came to my mind too
 |
Posted By: st aug
Date Posted: 06 Jan 2014 at 00:08
| To all those who sit.----Power to the people . Sit and be king . There's no way a person who does not sit can stand up to you . You will over run them by shear numbers . And you shall control the game .Thanks for letting us little people hang around and play. Just think about that a bunch of sitters get together and turn to the dark side and go on the war path game over for a lot people they could put the hurt on a bunch of players. We have all played games already were they have done just that . So again from all the little people thank you to all the sitters for letting us play. |
Posted By: Morgweneth
Date Posted: 03 Feb 2014 at 23:09
| I am in complete agreement with Angrim, the current situation is not fair nor does if feel to be fair by the majority of Players I have spoken to, plus as the devs get no revenue from it I can only imagine they must like the game looking bigger. It is rare these days that someone cannot gain internet access or have the time just to log in now and then and where there are exceptional circumstances the Devs can be advised. The idea of a sat account to my way of thinking is putting something in trust and the sitter should be running a friends account to protect and develop it, not suiciding all it's troops or plundering its revenue, but a % could be available as a way of thanks. We are supposed to be limited to 2 accounts but currently because of the long term sitting rules this is not always the case, of course there are other ways people can try to get round this but they are separate issues and indeed such transgressions are not what this thread is about. In short it is not fair nor does it feel to be fair, and that to me matters a lot, and it is all easily fixable. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 03 Feb 2014 at 23:24
| The developers don't seem to think the fix is so easy. I think Stormcrow made reference to a desire to fix it in his most recent global chat appearance. (I was not there, only have a partial transcript.) It seems that they are finding it more difficult to do than we imagine. |
Posted By: Morgweneth
Date Posted: 04 Feb 2014 at 07:38
| Well thanks for that, but no idea why it should prove so dificult compared to other aspects of the game, actually it would be nice to have some input/coment from the devs here so we have something more definitive |
Posted By: Morgweneth
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2014 at 10:39
| Well I did ask for a comment or some response from the Devs on this one, but nothing so far. I like many others think its an important issue that's detracting from the game, so some response would be appretiated. |
Posted By: Miklabjarnir
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2014 at 17:32
Since the devs have already commented several times before on this topic, I do not think it is fair of you to expect them to comment on another person clobbering the dead horse. I think the limit on sitting is too high for a normal person to handle, and I would never try to sit more than two accounts - and not for more than a few weeks. People are different, however, and somebody who do not have other obligations (or even opportunities) might be playing Illyriad full-time. The only reason I see for the limitation on the number of accounts you can have is to prevent professional goldminers and account brokers from ruining the game like we have seen in other online games. When I signed up, the wording about the alt account was that you could have one if it was used for valid and interesting gameplay. Even your alt cannot "legally" be used as a pure resource feeder to your main. The problem with some accounts getting "unlimited" gold to build and keep oversize armies should be solved in another way. It is ridiculous that you can raise armies larger than your population and have them eat gold. Fixing this would be a big job for the devs, so I do not see it happening soon - but it needs to be done.
|
Posted By: Morgweneth
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2014 at 23:10
| I personally have not seen a comment in the forums by the Devs on this issue, though it may be there nor do I consider this important issue to be a dead horse. |