Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
   New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Alliance Leadership on abandonment
   FAQ FAQ   Forum Search    Register Register   Login Login

Alliance Leadership on abandonment

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
Starry View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Starry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 15:18
Actually, Jejune, real life happens; work, family, military service and/or health issues do play a part in activity.    For alliances that have members who have played the game for years, assuming they have quit before 90 days is just an insult to that friendship and dedication.     90 days gives players time to resolve RL issues and still continue game play without losing years of work.     

90 days is NOT a long time when you consider that some players have put years of work and money into their accounts.   




Edited by Starry - 08 Feb 2016 at 15:21
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule

Back to Top
Carbonara View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Location: Perth,Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carbonara Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 15:23
What if you only decide on day 80 that the player probably isn't coming back?
10 days isn't a long time.

What if they're in hospital in a coma for exactly 85 days? maybe they make it, maybe they don't.. if they don't, is 5 days enough time to siege their cities? lol

What exactly is your issue with the current system?

What if you go on a round the world trip for 88 days, fully expecting to come back to your "big, beautiful, shimmering cities with full research and stocked with gold that [you] pumped prestige into"?
and what if they were gone when you returned??!! wouldn't you be crushed?

and what if you returned and it was all still there.. because the alliance had decided to wait the full 90 days..
..but not only that, there was also a challenger dragon outside your city gates!! wouldn't you have a smile on your face? Thumbs Up
Back to Top
Jejune View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1015
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jejune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 15:24
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

Hi everyone,

When a player stops playing illy, there is an account abandonment procedure that will eventually remove this player's account from the game.  This usually can take up-to 90 days, depending on prestige use etc.  

However - even after 90 days - it is possible that this abandoned player's account can still remain in the game... because we do not abandon an account if it has incoming hostile units.

According to what Stormcrow wrote, we aren't talking about players who have gone inactive but whose accounts are still active. We're talking about (abandoned) accounts, and the period of time before these accounts are deleted. So, in this case, RL issues and the prospect of the player coming back to the account are moot -- the account is abandoned.

If Stormcrow isn't talking about (abandoned) accounts but rather inactive yet open accounts, he should clarify.

Back to Top
Starry View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Starry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 15:35
Please explain how an account can be inactive but open?   If player hasn't logged in for 90 days, it is set for deletion.   To jump the gun and attack players cities prior to 90 days in order to prevent deletion, defeats the reason for the 90 day period.    

There is a solution for addressing the problem with abandoned leadership account rather than negatively impacting all players who have put years and money into this game and seek to gain new cities.   

It's a little late in the game to be initiating changes of this magnitude.
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule

Back to Top
Lagavulin View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 187
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lagavulin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 16:29
I like this solution.
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 16:42
Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Ok, so let's be honest: at issue here really isn't about Stormcrow's rare scenario, but players' and alliances' desire to hoard the cities of abandoned alliance mates.
you are making it about that, yes, but that was not the "problem" GM Stormcrow stated he wished to solve. i would suggest that your concern might deserve its own discussion. i do not think it's appropriate to insert a solution that serves a specific side of that debate into this thread as a side-effect.

Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

And let's be even more honest: we're not talking about settlements with populations of 63 that never bought prestige and will be fast-tracked for deletion; we're talking about big, beautiful, shimmering cities with full research and stocked with gold that people pumped prestige into. In these cases, these cities re going to take a full 90 days to be deleted.
we are certainly not talking about populations of 63, because no one cares about those cities. ("stocked with gold" stretches credulity; as soon as word is out that a player is abandoned, these cities are stripped of their gold and remain as reservoirs of population and research...perhaps also cows, horses, and other items thieves cannot be induced to steal.)

Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

Are folks saying that three months isn't long enough for some alliances to be able to reappropriate these cities to active alliance members?
if we are speaking of inactive rather than abandoned accounts, alliances don't actually get three months to reappropriate the cities, because some players leave with instructions that they'll be out for a certain amount of time and we generally trust them to return as they've indicated, so no action is taken until that time elapses.

Originally posted by Jejune Jejune wrote:

That some alliances have such a high proportion of abandoned city inventory that they actually cannot redistribute those cities quickly enough to their small active player base in the alliance to capture the city? To me, if that's the case, and you need to keep putting place-holder sieges in place to keep abandoned cities alive even after three months, there's a bigger problem there than simply limiting the lifecycle of abandoned cities to the "90-day rule." 90 days is a long time, and should be ample time to cannibalize cities of abandoned players.
and perhaps also to GM Stormcrow. but if so, i would have expected him to come to the forum with that problem rather than the one with which he arrived.

now i think you are arguing from what you believe is good for the game, but we are both also aware that your alliance would benefit by comparison if the established, possibly declining alliances that oppose it were to be unable to hold these resources as long as they currently do. such a change might also force more alliances into publishing land claims, as cities on life support may currently be used to mark and reserve territory per the 10-square rule. if we are trying to solve some larger purge problem, i have some ideas on how to achieve that, but i think the larger problem requires a larger discussion. if GM Stormcrow wants that, i hope he will signal it. until then, i am for minimising unintended consequences.
Back to Top
Wartow View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 May 2014
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Wartow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 16:46
I'm going to steal an idea from another not-to-be-mentioned game...

After 90 days of inactivity the account is labeled as "abandoned" or something similar and the population (buildings) begin to decline at a steady rate regardless of whether a holding siege is present.  I would include the (capture-eligible) resources, military, diplos, magic, and research in the city to deplete at a similar rate.

The idea of a "rain cloud" as mentioned in an earlier reply would indicate that the city is starting to vacate.

Since this mechanism is not currently in the game (although not totally different from running out of a resource and de-leveling) it is probably one that requires the most work.

The "abandon" (or other label) would instantly invoke the shift of leadership roles in the alliance.  I don't know how that currently works as I tend to avoid responsibility, both good and bad.

Good luck!

Wartow
Back to Top
Excession View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 12
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Excession Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 16:47
I totally agree with Starry, it's not broke so don't fix it. As for the time required to make the change would it not be better spent on arranging a tournament? Or do we no longer have tournaments in Illyriad?
Back to Top
Gragnog View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gragnog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 16:49
Lets face fact here. Active players and alliances do not need the 90 day period anyway to use up abandoned or even inactive accounts. The biggest opposition to this move is from inactive alliances using these major accounts to be able to sustain their own growth as well as inflate their military and gold reserves. The 90 day sitting system proved not to work and so the devs are seeking another solution to a game wide problem.

My personal opinion is that abandoned accounts should be instantly deleted which will solve the main problem that the devs are addressing in this thread. The leadership role will then be immediately moved to next in line in the affected alliance.

The sitting and abusing of inactive accounts will continue to be discussion point with people complaining and moaning for both sides of the argument. Get over it. If you are such a weak player that you cannot do without 4 or more extra accounts supporting you then so be it. The fact that people spent money and prestige maintaining a sat account suggests cheating anyway as only the original player can spend and use prestige. If the original player has left so has his ability to buy and spend prestige thus making the account a farm.
Kaggen is my human half
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 16:49
reading the OP again, i think GM Stormcrow uses "abandon" and "abandoned" to mean "purgeable". in the game, we see "abandoned" only on accounts whose players have resigned, so the terminology here is not helping the conversation.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.