All the land in vacation and disabled accounts...

Started by PhoenixOfPanem, January 21, 2013, 09:43:26 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PhoenixOfPanem

I suggest the disabled accounts' land goes to the landfarm, which would make the land accessible to everyone.
Vacation accounts: It depends on how long they've vacationed. I suggest if it's over a year and a half, they get a notification saying their land will go to the landfarm if they don't log on within a week or so.

All that land in vacation and disabled is really bugging me because people would like to have that available, what's the point in leaving it at rank #850 or so because people made a second account and it got disabled? I know each disabled has about 250 land and next to no networth, but all of those accounts added up becomes a lot of land.

Thoughts?
Quote from: PhoenixOfPanem
As the only member of RWL (as is currently known) to be of the same mindset, I formally declare allegiance to the Democratic Republic of Spammania.
**NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING MODERATORS CHANGE IN MY POSTS**
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn II link=topic=16923.msg356616#msg356616
No, I have failed

Drakus

Yes, I think so too. Hoever, if there is too much land, then all the best players will get it and destroy the weak players. That being said, I suggest that only a portion of that land gets carried over to landfarm.
meow

Shadow

Too much land is just as bad for the game a too little - people start taking over easily, etc. Frankly, I think reg has too much land at the moment anyway.
<=holbs-.. ..-holbs=> <=holbs-..

Wolf Snare

Judging by the few people playing I'd say shadow is right.
1. Fire Bringer (#22)
1. Jaturungkabart (#12)
1. Estranged (#50)
1. Fierce Deity (#17) 
1. bored... (#98)
1. Versace (#24)
1. Noah Calhoun (#10)
1. Day Old Hate (#7)
1. The Grand Optimist (#12)
1. Beast Mode (#7)

Jaffar

Yes, indeed I am bothered by the amount of land in vacation mode. As for disabled i thought they would empty the land unto land farm guess not... But re-introducing it would only cause more problems to occur as of now.  For example I will go above and beyond out of my way to lock it  up :D

I think people should not be able to take such large quantities of land into vacation mode however. Because it also creates issues.  What is stopping me from rounding up 500k land on massive networth (unclanned ;) )  and vacating and never ever coming back? Nothing really right? 

I see a 96k, 76k, and 67k acre empires in vacate that i want  >:(     
Maybe cut off certain percentages of land proportionate to the amount of land in the active server as the player who is going to vacate confirms to do so?  The land taken would just drop to land farm as they are once locked out of their account. I dunno something is better than nothing, as vacate is abuseable, which has been a presented issue many times before in the past lulz

Shadow

But dropping land like that has its own issues - for example, someone could use vacation as a way to dump extra acres and get a really good (above 175) defense ratio while till holding a heavy defense, etc. Vacation is a problem, but it's not one that has any easy solutions. Turbo is over fast enough that we just got rid of it, but reg is different.

I'd love to see this thread turn into a brainstorm session on it, though.
<=holbs-.. ..-holbs=> <=holbs-..

PhoenixOfPanem

The disabled ones, I think we should transfer their land though. Because they haven't contacted the admin email about getting their account enabled.
Quote from: PhoenixOfPanem
As the only member of RWL (as is currently known) to be of the same mindset, I formally declare allegiance to the Democratic Republic of Spammania.
**NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING MODERATORS CHANGE IN MY POSTS**
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn II link=topic=16923.msg356616#msg356616
No, I have failed


PhoenixOfPanem

Quote from: PhoenixOfPanem
As the only member of RWL (as is currently known) to be of the same mindset, I formally declare allegiance to the Democratic Republic of Spammania.
**NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING MODERATORS CHANGE IN MY POSTS**
Quote from: Ungatt Trunn II link=topic=16923.msg356616#msg356616
No, I have failed