Auto kicking.

Ander wrote: 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. It would take atleast a month for a player to have a level 20 Barracks and the siege encampment research finished. The researches take a lot of time. Also someone needs something like a level 18 warehouse before he can build a level 20 Barrack. By this time, he would have atleast three cities if he is fast enough. what are the steps 5 to 19 that someone could possibly skip?

buy prestige like some do, i think.

Alliances are going to claim first right to towns in ex-alliance accounts anyway.  It's a situation where there's benefit to be had and a credible argument in favor of claiming it for themselves.  Some won't, but the point is that losing the alliance tag won't change much.

Tordenkaffen wrote: 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.

I think in most cases leaders of alliances tend to think that they do own all of the players in their respected alliances.  Players that seemed to be able to get out of the 'ownership' label was either by luck or knowing the right people.  Also that is why I find it really important for new players that join an alliance to get a good feel of an alliance and perhaps ask ahead of time if it is okay to leave if things do not work out.  I also recommend to NEVER join your alliance HUB ever.  Their are plenty of players that have been sieged out of the game because of this alone.

As far as the sitter option, I never liked it at all.  It does more harm than good and allows players like Roller to become super account users. 

As far as claiming inactive account towns that have been kicked from alliance or by auto-kick... This can be solved by an alliance or player with more military power then the other alliance or player. 

For example, Valar was so powerful in military might that they were able to get Curse to stop attacks on Roller/Spirit even though Curse was closer to his towns.  Valar > Curse in military power = Curse will do what Valar wants.

Edited by Divine Redemption - 30 Aug 2011 at 10:02

Faldrin wrote: DR you are not making any sense. What are you writing and what are you quoting?

My internet connection dced while I posted that and never put in the rest of my post. 

I don't think there's as many inactives in alliances as you think Tord. I'm not going to go through every alliance and check but I don't think it's a game killer. It may give a slight appearance of an alliance being larger than what it is but do you really thing there would be more action even if you saw that some alliance was lower pop than what it appears?