Auto kicking.

Ector the Fury wrote: Maybe a good solution would be to allow everyone who views alliance summaries to see who is inactive for more than 30 days. And any account that is more than 30 days will not count towards alliance ranking. That would stop the "false buffering" of alliance ranks, which seems to be the number one issue that Tord has. And by knowing who is inacitve you would not need to fear those accounts if you ever wanted to throw the gauntlet down and challenge an alliance. I think more players would have be willing to listen and brainstrom solutions if this thread became a little more polite and actually talked about a solution, not just "Auto kick!!!!", "No!!", "Auto kick!!!!", "NO!!!!!", "Auto kiiiiicccckkkk!!!!!!!!, "NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!". Just my thoughts. Sorry if I offended anyone. This thread seems to be doing that a lot.....

Finally, a voice of reason! I agree 100%

What I mean is that things need to change as old players leave and new ones arrive. We should not keep the same "skeleton" for posterity.

Change brings new options for players, and new constellations for alliances which will decrease the chance of a stalemate situation throughout the game lifespan.

Or just to put it in a plain way - its more fun when something new happens.


Edited by Tordenkaffen - 04 Sep 2011 at 21:00

Tordenkaffen wrote: I do feel the capture/raze rights should at some point go from the alliance and to the community....... if the player is of great inconvenience to other active players, he should have to accept that his absence would mean the possible removal of one or more of his cities......Opportunity should always be directed at the active player, as the world itself would find it difficult to perpetuate its player base if others had to show consideration to an increasing amount of inactive accounts.

Kudos for that Ector - Ill agree with your view of how to solve the situation - Its not perfect but its far better than status quo.

Just to round the subject off though Id like to try and look at the effects of the suggestion from different player's perspectives.

Starting with my own. (large player)
My continued work building a strong alliance will now no longer be held within the shadow of inactively buffed alliances. As of the moment, the 30 days inactive "visible invalidation" (what I call your suggestion for easy reference), is implemented, I can not only identify the inactives of any given alliance, and the actual strength present in said alliance, but I will also see the benefits of my active alliance manifest in some form in the rankings.
This I like. As I have had a long time to develope a strategy in Illyriad I do not feel that small players taking over large cities threaten me as a player at this point.

Seen from the perpective of a given alliance leader (which I am not, in case you were wondering) there should be satisfaction with the agreement as the major part dispute of the actual expelling of inactives will not be realised. Inactives will stay in their alliances (indefinitely?) although they will no longer figure in the rankings. The removal of same inactives is still at the alliance leaders discretion though.
On a brief side note I would like to remark that I did not foresee this developement back when I started in this game . It makes an impression of alliances having a role more like Corporations - gathering assets in the form of inactive accounts for future take overs and exclusive use - than actual platforms of communication between likeminded players. At least thats how it comes across - this of course can be a conscious strategy for some, while just an overlooked sideeffect with others.

From the mid-high player'sperspective there should now be a great interest to join the larger "holder alliances" of Illyriad, as it will enable them to save much time (several months) of building and researching as opposed to doing all the work themselves.  Safe to say that satisfaction with the suggestion will depend on the individual players suggestion.

From the newbie player's perpective, there is not much good news in this. Unless the newly started player can somehow make friends fast with a large alliance, he or she can expect to be surpassed quickly by other newbies that have friends in the large alliances. Not even with a fervent use of prestige can he/she hope to keep up as the research tree will have to be maticulously built up for each new city he/she settles. His given well connected counterparts can take over cities with existing buildings and a partial or full research tree. The difference in time would certainly be measured in months - maybe up to a year of game time.

Like I stated previously I am content with your suggestion, because in the light of the vehement opposition from several large alliances (players in them), this is in my opinion as good as its going to get at this time.

Ethically its far from a perfect solution - many problems remain unadressed, but I feel I have spent enough energy fighting for this cause. If some progress is attainable in this matterthen Ill take it, and if there are further arguments to be made Ill let someone else do the arguing.

I hope the developers will look into this as soon as possible.

Cheers Ector.

Tordenkaffen



Edited by Tordenkaffen - 05 Sep 2011 at 18:43

Based on my reading of GM TC's comments, it sounds like this concern will solve itself as inactive players are deleted more rapidly -- even those in alliances.  The changes in the sitting rules to max of 90 days will close a remaining loophole.