Rejected: Permanent sitter request

[cel micut]

As you know if somebody is sitter on your acount and you enter on your acount then you need to reenter on "acount sitting" and put again that person on sitter for the next time

My ideea is to have a designated sitter permanent. And If I enter on my acount not be needed to put that person again on sitter acount.

Ofcourse permanent don't have the privilages to change permanent sitter option only to change temorary sitter option

Or a permanent posibility for another user to enter on your acount as sitter when you are not on your acount (within sitting rules and privilages due acount) maybe interconected with greed dot on your friends for not happening fosr sitter to get over owner acount.

If you go on vacation and need a sitter you probably when you come back and look on the log you will se that your acount was pas betweenmore then 2-3 users. this improve the actual sitting performance permanent sitter can log on your acount to verify temporary sitter activity and have the pover to decide as he was the actual user acount. permanent sitter can decide who can be the temporary user when he is not on computer because eaven the sitter have to sleep or have emergencys

This way you gain 1 more sitter [one permanent (only acount owner decide who can be permanent sitter) and one teporary (actual sitter option that is active right now in game... temporary because sitter can change between them an acount sitter)].

And interdiction for owner to put same sitter as permanent and temporary (I know it sound crazy but trust me when I tell you that will happen in time this situation)

Thanks for your atention

 

[DeletedUser]

I like it.

 

[DeletedUser1013]

If someone can just access your account whenever they want, then presumably you can set them to do the same on yours, how is that any different from when co-players have 2 accounts on a world and run both? Which is highly illegal and always leads to a ban....

 

[DeletedUser]

They'd still be under the restrictions for the rules of sitting. It would just ensure your account isn't abandoned in your absence or if an emergency occurred and you are unable to set someone.

 

[cel micut]

I like it.

Thx. Glad you like it

If someone can just access your account whenever they want, then presumably you can set them to do the same on yours, how is that any different from when co-players have 2 accounts on a world and run both? Which is highly illegal and always leads to a ban....

Is the same as sitting, same sitting rules, same period of sitting, same restriction, NOT coplayer or other ideeas
Sometimes becouse of my job it happend to forget to put a sitter and I have to call a friend to enter acount with pass and put other on sitter. I belive that happens to many players.

PS: Not whenever they want. When is not on acount.. you know like red/green dot for your friends if you have premium. It could be a premium option, don't mind, better will make other to buy premium eaven for this option (i buy first time premium because the posibility to enter from village to village without entering in panel with all villages)

They'd still be under the restrictions for the rules of sitting. It would just ensure your account isn't abandoned in your absence or if an emergency occurred and you are unable to set someone.

exactly :*

 

[DeletedUser1013]

Or it could be used to easily allow two people to permanently play two accounts which is definitely illegal, you intentions are good I understand that, but I am making you aware of the fact that that you are crossing into a grey area of something which is illegal.

The result of you suggestion is that say myself and Mr Bob would have permanent access to two or more accounts, no matter what happened, and whenever we wanted to.

 

[DeletedUser]

They would only be able to "permanently" play two accounts for 60 days, then they would no longer be able to do anything with their troops other then defend their own villages. I really don't see this being a problem as you could do that much with the current sitting system.

 

[DeletedUser1013]

60 days is a long time, anyway, I have made my point on this thread, I didn't come to argue round in circles for hours

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not against the idea of being able to set someone as a fall back for a sitter, but we definitely need to watch out for the abuse.

I think it might work out better if you can set a fallback sitter, where if your account goes yellow (2 days inactive), it then sends the sit request to your fallback sitter once, but when they take the sit, they become the sitter, and are removed from the fallback.

Permanent sitting just sounds dangerous to me.

 

[DeletedUser]

I can appreciate your concerns but you guys don't seem to realize that it's already possible for people to continually share accounts for 60 days. This would not add any functionality for anyone who wanted to abuse it, just make it easier on those that are using the sitting feature for it's intended use.


A lot of damage can be done to your account if it isn't watched for two full days.

 

[cel micut]

I'm not against the idea of being able to set someone as a fall back for a sitter, but we definitely need to watch out for the abuse.

I think it might work out better if you can set a fallback sitter, where if your account goes yellow (2 days inactive), it then sends the sit request to your fallback sitter once, but when they take the sit, they become the sitter, and are removed from the fallback.

Permanent sitting just sounds dangerous to me.

If somebody doesn't trust his sitters just put a temporaly sitter (like now) but I trust my acount in alot of members from my tribe (for exemple) because we fight together on our country server so I can aford to put them on permanent I trust them

 

[DeletedUser1021]

I personally would have no use for this. In any tribe I have run, I have had the tribe members send me thier account sitting request,
which I then don't accept or reject. This means that accounts don't fall into too much trouble and can be accepted if the account turns yellow.
If members actually want a sitter, then they request one.
I would like to see this account sitting period of 60 days cut down to 30 days.
If someone has not logged in thier account for consecutive 30 days, then they sure as hell ain't playing.

After the 30 days, a 24 hour warning message is sent to the account,
then the account goes into a vacation mode for the next 30 days.
The account sit ends, the account freezes in time, where nothing builds,
and it can no longer be attacked.

Account can only be reactivated by the owner logging back in.

 

[DeletedUser]

I've had a similar experience to gramps here, with the exception I have those sit split to various leadership members in the tribe.

I also thing the 60 days is a little long, granted there are times when a person will leave for a month vacation, or a summer vacation.
But really how often does this happen, where a person really is planning on coming back to the game after?

 

[cel micut]

try to play 2-3 years on a world and you will see how much is usefull or not

 

[DeletedUser1078]

I personally would have no use for this. In any tribe I have run, I have had the tribe members send me thier account sitting request,
which I then don't accept or reject. This means that accounts don't fall into too much trouble and can be accepted if the account turns yellow.
If members actually want a sitter, then they request one.
I would like to see this account sitting period of 60 days cut down to 30 days.
If someone has not logged in thier account for consecutive 30 days, then they sure as hell ain't playing.

After the 30 days, a 24 hour warning message is sent to the account,
then the account goes into a vacation mode for the next 30 days.
The account sit ends, the account freezes in time, where nothing builds,
and it can no longer be attacked.

Account can only be reactivated by the owner logging back in.

The issue isnt needign a sitter, you accept the sit, are incoming, you deal with it for a couple hours, you pass to another player who will be on in about an hour, you pass the sit, player comes back logs in panics and sets you again and runs. And now the accoutn is undefended for 8 or so hours while you sleep...

this is my understanding of the idea

 

[DeletedUser]

i dont think that permanent sitter requests are a good idea...this is similar to having two accounts or so :S

The issue isnt needign a sitter, you accept the sit, are incoming, you deal with it for a couple hours, you pass to another player who will be on in about an hour, you pass the sit, player comes back logs in panics and sets you again and runs. And now the accoutn is undefended for 8 or so hours while you sleep...

this is my understanding of the idea

but yeah this is really a problem, and something there should be changed
maybe like this: when player a is the sitter for account x, and made a sitting request to player b for it, then when player x comes online himself the sitting request will not be deleted but still there
yes this could be a bit confusing for the player x when some hours later b accepts the sitting because he doesnt know x is online, but he just can end it again

OR
when x online, now there stands something like:
"Account sitting active
Currently a is serving as your account sitter. You can only access your account, if you chose to end the account sitting.
End Account sitting
Log out"
maybe this could be changed to
"Currently a is serving as your account sitter, and a sitting request is for b. You can only access your account, if you chose to end the account sitting."
so that he sees that there and can think about if he sets a or b as sitter when he leaves again

OR
it could be like this:
"Account sitting active
Currently a is serving as your account sitter and a sitting request is for b. You can only access your account, if you chose to end the account sitting.
End Account sitting and remove sitting request for b
End Account sitting and dont remove sitting request
Log out"
then he could think for himself what to do, with having all options

only problem there is: when player x still doesnt know who to set as sitter, even if he knows that a was current sitter and b was requested (when he cant ask a or b at the moment)
because it could be eighter like that: a is gone, b will be there in some minutes and will be the sitter for the next hours, or: a is gone for some minutes but will be there again soon and b is only set as request if a cant return because his internet is making problems but b will not be there the next hours

so x still could do it wrong!

i think best thing would be, if he could rearrange the situation like is was before he logged in: sitter is a, request for b^^
maybe he should be able to make 2 sitting requests, for both a and b..? what do you think?

 

[DeletedUser1078]

Multiple sit request i do liek the sound of, tho if you could send a message with the sit (to the multiple recipients of the request)

 

[DeletedUser]

I personally just don't feel the need.
There is sitting functionality already, there is no need for a second.

The only real way I could consider a permanent sitter if there was some restriction on it, that the account couldn't be taken for the sit until it had gone yellow or red (2 or 7 day inactivity).
I realize 2 days can mean a lot to an account early on, but often 2 days on an older account is going to be a very small percentage of their villages.

To me this sounds like a rule intended to recover accounts on players who are leaving so the tribe can deal with them in their own way. The answer here is make your members feel a commitment, and they'll make sure they take care of their account so they don't screw over their friends.

And cel micut, w32 has been going on almost 2 1/2 years now, my tribe is responsible enough to set their sitters when needed, do people quit? yes, but that's the game we play, real time 24/7, 5+ year term, your rarely going to have people who stick it out forever.

 

[DeletedUser]

i didnt say anything about People quitting, or what do you mean...?

 

[DeletedUser]

My bad, editing the post now, was cel micut.
I think my mind is going.. lol