Auto kicking.

^ ?

Edited by Sheogorath - 28 Aug 2011 at 19:07

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.  

Tinuviel's Voice wrote: 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.

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.


Edited by Tordenkaffen - 29 Aug 2011 at 17:54

Llyorn Of Jaensch wrote: 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.

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.


Edited by Kilotov of DokGthung - 29 Aug 2011 at 17:44

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.