| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Tordenkaffen 
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 821 |
 Posted: 29 Dec 2011 at 18:55 |
Actually, having never been away from Illy more than a week or so, I have yet to draw full advantage of sitting, however, I have allowed new players to sit my account in the past so that they could send themselves basic resources from my cities, meaning I dont have to.
I know thats not how sitting is intended, but it really makes the game far more enjoyable that you can assist your allies with resources without having to go through the daily tedium of dispatching caravan after caravan. Maybe this feature could be altered to fit the game/intended purpose, like e.g. a pool of allied cities providing free resources for the new players to pick up as they like.
I disagree with the notion that the sitting option never being used at it is intended tho - many of my allies have utilised the sitting option when they have gone off for a holiday. Even if its just to allow little tweaks and details to be sorted while away, its always good to leave your account in ACTIVE hands - that way you don't get any nasty surprises when you come back. To limit multiaccounting, maybe we should require players to couple their accounts (register main and alt with the devs), effectively leading to any one singular player being able to sit the accounts of any one singular other player, and never more than one at a time.
Edited by Tordenkaffen - 29 Dec 2011 at 18:56
|
 |
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173 |
Posted: 29 Dec 2011 at 21:14 |
90 days seems like a very reasonable, even generous limit. I have wondered for some time how the one-alt rule could be enforced when I could easily recruit friends who, if/when they tired of the game, would bequeath me unending sitting rights on their accounts.
It also seems very reasonable to keep accounts that are being sat out of tournament standings--not by limiting the actions of the account, but by ignoring accounts with a sitter named during the tournament for purposes of scoring.
Edited by Angrim - 30 Dec 2011 at 00:27
|
|
Raritor
Wordsmith
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 151 |
Posted: 29 Dec 2011 at 23:54 |
|
I have had sitters on my account almost from the begginning of this option and so far i never had a problem with them. I agree that there should be a time limit (like the 90 days a year) so you don't get a permanet sitting, but other than that i find it perfect the way it is.
|
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979 |
Posted: 30 Dec 2011 at 02:37 |
|
It is abused.
Pro:
I have used this function once to allow access fir a person to read an in game message - thus confirming the authenticity of the message which I had previously forwarded to them.
Con:
Sitters should never have access to alliance chat of the person they are sitting for. In addition, there should be other restrictions on actions allowed.
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
GM Luna
New Poster
Community Manager
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Location: Illyriad
Status: Offline
Points: 2042 |
Posted: 30 Dec 2011 at 03:19 |
Hi all,
Thanks for all the feedback with your thoughts on account sitting. Overall, the mechanic is intended to be used as a temporary measure for players who are away from the game for a period of time. Permanently sitting accounts that a player doesn't intend to return to or using the system for other means (while not strictly against the rules at this time) isn't really in the spirit of the mechanic.
Measures that put a limit on the amount of time an account can be sat for (as mentioned by SC in the past) are in the cards at some point. We hope that will steer players more toward the intended use of the system.
Luna
|
GM Luna | Illyriad Community Manager | community@illyriad.co.uk
|
|
Babbens
Wordsmith
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 165 |
Posted: 30 Dec 2011 at 17:32 |
 White Beard wrote:
Why not have a holiday / vacation function in place?
The account owner activates this function and all activities in the account stops, research building troop making etc.
And give a sort of newbie protection so attacks are impossible.
|
I'd like to have that function and no sitting.
As it is, I voted for "should be modified to prevent abuse".
|
|
scottfitz
Forum Warrior
Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Location: Spokane WA USA
Status: Offline
Points: 433 |
Posted: 30 Dec 2011 at 22:37 |
|
What if we simply disallowed sending armies, diplos or vans for sat accounts. None of those three functions are necessary for legitimate sitting, but defense, research, construction, advanced production and troop training would be unaffected.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 |
Posted: 30 Dec 2011 at 23:57 |
scottfitz wrote:
What if we simply disallowed sending armies, diplos or vans for sat accounts. None of those three functions are necessary for legitimate sitting, but defense, research, construction, advanced production and troop training would be unaffected. |
I like this general suggestion, but it would need to permit at least Sally Forth, and I don't think Sally Forth can be used against blockades. There is also the difficulty of defending sovereignty.
A lot of people will appoint an account sitter specifically for the purpose of sending vans to support alliance mates during periods of inactivity.
The caravans point is more of a "nice to have" part, but being able to sally forth and send troops to defend sovereignty is a pretty crucial aspect of the game -- one which we fortunately do not have to use that often in this time of relative peace.
Edited by Rill - 30 Dec 2011 at 23:58
|
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979 |
Posted: 31 Dec 2011 at 00:57 |
scottfitz wrote:
What if we simply disallowed sending armies, diplos or vans for sat accounts. |
Scott, I see the point here - but I have used sitting to coordinate attacks through the alliance. I have given a set time at which point all armies should arrive at a location - then reversed the time travel of an army to calculate the point at which the army should be sent, but players cannot always be online to send at that set time...so I have sat an account in the past to do just that.
I kinda think there should be a feature (date system) which you can set someone as a sitter for an allotted time - such as being away for three days and setting an expiration on the sitting privileges which kicks them after the time has ended. This can be allowed for a maximum time setting (15 days max - same length of army reinforcing/occupying) in which the sitter can have access, then it must be refreshed by the account holder to continue any sitting privileges. This would keep people from keeping accounts after the account holder has gone inactive.
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
G0DsDestroyer
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Location: Ásgarð/Vanaheim
Status: Offline
Points: 975 |
Posted: 31 Dec 2011 at 17:57 |
|
Honestly, if you have any reason not to trust someone to sit your account. Don't let them!!! Quite obvious. I believe it still says what a sitter can do with your account, so it's not like experienced players don't know what they're getting into when they appoint a sitter.As for newer players who don't know better, is there a section in this newb guide on sitting telling them the risks of what can happen?
It's in your power to appoint someone as a sitter for your account, if they screw your account up intentionally, it's your fault for having them sit your account. One reason it wouldn't be your fault is if someone else took your account password and appointed someone as your sitter, and if that is happening, you're screwed either way I'd think.
I voted for the first option of course.
|
|
|
|
Tweet
Account Sitting