Auto VOCATION Mode

you woude like to see AUTO Vocantion mode?

YES, after 1 week witout Log in
10
13%
YES, after 2 week witout Log in
18
23%
NO, i like the inactive acounts.
50
64%
 
Total votes: 78
User avatar
Cole
Forum History
Posts: 10000
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:45 am
Alliance: Generations
Race: System Lord
ID: 7889
Alternate name(s): Legendary Apophis, Apophis The Great, Legendary

wmd9999 wrote:i voted no and i will tell you why. the reason this updated should not be implemented is because all of you stronger players were able to raid these accounts as much as you wanted. now that you have your 50-75 million army size why would need them now? so to stay ahead of everyone else you want to boot the accounts that are not active and are not helping you so why keep them? before i sold my 1st account raiding these account was done by all and was the quickest way to grow. do not penalize the players who are starting over or are new to the game and need a chance to catch up and the only way to do it quickly is to raid small inactive accounts like most of you did while growing. how can a small player raid if there are too few fish in the sea?

Very valid point!
I have an idea I already suggested, and admin apparently liked it (he did it), you remember crap accounts with less than 2k troops and who seems to be almost frozen in income? (a small account who's active would end to have 10mils of naq not 150k or less of naq all the time), I think we should do it again :) , like that new players can still keep up with rading unactives, but the unusefull ones who screw up ranks get deleted (small accounts under 2k armies older than 103k ID).
What do you think?
Thufir_Hawat
Forum Regular
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:18 pm

The real problem now is that it seems the majority of the players do not like player to player activity.

They only want to hit "inactive" accounts.

When farming players they start pouting about why they were hit. And want their naq back because they are all peacefull tree huggers.

When I say farming I mean going thru the attack pages for the first time hitting accounts for the first time. They act like I have been sitting on them for a month. Damm I never had 1B out when I had a 1m army size... That is just lack of caring. And many with 50% of their army in defence. What happen to banking and using nox/criticical.

Get rid of the dead accounts and make the players play. The small ones will quickly latch onto bigger friends to help them overcome the loss of targets.
[SGC_ReplicÅtors]
Forum Addict
Posts: 3949
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:57 pm
ID: 0

Honestly i don't see a point in removing them, if u are 50-75million army size or larger why do u even bother with inactive accounts? they dont physical harm you.


like some1 said having a 80million army size and suggesting a idea like this for some1 like me i think theres another hidden agenda behind this idea...hell man i seen ideas like these before i even suggested them myself...and i seen it happen with the talks with forums too
User avatar
Cole
Forum History
Posts: 10000
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:45 am
Alliance: Generations
Race: System Lord
ID: 7889
Alternate name(s): Legendary Apophis, Apophis The Great, Legendary

As I said, we can keep inactive but not all, very small unacitve ones who have under 2k army sizes and are older than ID 103k

You want an example of what kind of account?
Go to page 2000 (yeah precisely page 2000), you'll not see new IDs who have alot of digits starting by "19", only under ID of 104k, with crap army sizes: very unactive and totally useless.
Rottenking
Forum Expert
Posts: 1123
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:55 pm
Alliance: The Legion
Race: System Lord
ID: 82082
Location: australia

i say only put the inactive people with small UP's on vac mode, cause small players should still be able to raid inactivs to get a bigger army size, and more experianced players for that matter
Image
Image
Image
If you cannot convince them, confuse them.
- Harry S Truman
BL1P
Forum Intermediate
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:54 am
ID: 0
Location: UK

voted no as i don't think the idea would help new players at all

100s come and go and only a few stay.
those that stay grow due too the inactives at first then get stronger.

removing the inactives would be like removing land from the earth or planets from the universe you would be taking away resources from the game especially for the newer players.

a nicer way might be if the account isn't logged into and isn't attacked in anyway over 1 month then vac it.
Image
ZenHouseOfShoes
Forum Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:34 am
ID: 0
Location: state of idiolalic glee

BL1P wrote:removing the inactives would be like removing land from the earth or planets from the universe you would be taking away resources from the game especially for the newer players.


instead of removing the resource, what about converting it into a more efficient fuel?

what if the following were implemented, over a phase-in period slowly (slow phase-in previously suggested by someone else):

a. inactives that haven't logged in a certain timeframe (previously suggested) AND less than X rank go vac

b. auto-vac'ed accounts that stay vac for so long get autodeleted (previously suggested)

AND

c. a new feature is implemented that allows a player to perform any current feature (attack, raid, etc) on a randomly-generated non-player "account" based on variables?

so basically, you can search and find an active and try to get the most bang for your AT, or you can gimp it and go random for a (usually) big cut in profit. it could easily be designed so that a random, on the average, yields about the same as the average inactive currently does, too, so effectively, it would be the same as far as advantages go, and better as far as disadvantages go.

this route frees up space and reveals all the actives.

it could even be set up, with a little more effort, so that instead of these "random" accounts insta-deleting themselves (to avoid a giant memory hades of an infinite stream of randoms), a user could choose to "hunt a random", where a random name generator ties in with it and the player gets to add a set amount of randoms to their "hunted" list, with a chance each day of any of them getting away from them permanently.

that way, if a player finds a random they like, they can try to hold on to it, to maintain that "farm" effect.

sometimes farms go away.

that solves that.

and this would also allow new players to still have something to practive the basics of spying and the sort on.

maybe even a random that is hunted by an active, while saved in the players list of hunted randoms, has a random chance of changing their stats (again, based on variables) as well as attacking the person that is hunting them.

the only thing would be to make it so players cannot make their random hunts their officers.

because you know that would be the first thing every new player does, and things are random as is without people being led around by a random generator.

take as little or much of my suggestion as you want, it wouldnt be necessary to use all of it to be more efficient than as is if you all ike my idea, just making a feature to attack something at random for a cut in profit and then vac'ing inactives and deleting ultra inactives would go very far if hand in hand, i think.

but im still covered in noob-like aftermath myself.

sorry for the rant.
this signature ensures me that i at least have one of life's little joys today, that being the fact that it should be impossible for some mindless drone to yell at me because they confused my signature with my post. now i can die happy.
Locked

Return to “Suggestions Archive”