Concerns About the Change to Sitting

How is activity signature traced insofar as recruitment page ascertained? Is it by province or by sitter?

I guess the duty here is to look for holes like we had with 24 hour respawning. There might be a benefit that hasn't occurred to someone yet, and I've only had one espresso today.

This should theoretically make my Virtual Kingdoms patented Elliptical Wave more impressive.

BoH if Steel can't explain it any clearer for you I doubt anyone can . It's simple why it's flawed . If it's something you can benefit from then I'm sure you would like to have it and defend . May have even helped promote them the idea like Cat did with trading years ago but who knows . It benefits a very few and isn't needed . Already have a bugs thread where someone bought sitting and is complaining he can't cancel it after 3 hours .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Band of Horses

You missed the point on the A vs B, it wasn't B sitting A. My fault for wording. It was same result, just one gave up one real world dollar the other gave up real world sleep for the same utopian effect.

It's not the difference for a province being available, that's you inferring a constant for out of game. People's real life constraints aren't in-game... Assuming they can't be there vs they don't want to be there is wrong.

The wording of it was that the minimum to take back over your province was reduced to 1 hour from 24 hours. That doesn't say that the setting of it is 1 day, and the cost of it is 1 day, and the 1 day comes from your 21 days. So you could use 21 hours and be out of sitting theoretically.

Any kingdom that pays for invites is paying 2 win! Any kingdom that uses 24hr sitting is paying 2 win. By your standards. So this new change isn't any new pay 2 win function.

---

Has nothing to with can't vs. not wanting to be there. Has to do with the fact that now, whatever the case, that province can be there. That is a benefit to the kingdom. If you want feature that help people manage Uto and RL then there needs to be a balance. It's unfair for KD A to get extra uniques because they're willing to set sitters for individual hits while KD B is unwilling. Same issue as was always present with sitting, only now its amplified, and to such an extent I would say it is p2w.

Invites I'd dispute. You can always get players for free. You cant have someone make attacks for you for free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder TA

BoH if Steel can't explain it any clearer for you I doubt anyone can . It's simple why it's flawed . If it's something you can benefit from then I'm sure you would like to have it and defend . May have even helped promote them the idea like Cat did with trading years ago but who knows . It benefits a very few and isn't needed . Already have a bugs thread where someone bought sitting and is complaining he can't cancel it after 3 hours .

---

So you can't come up with an in game benefit. You attempted a strawman argument likely because you want to be outraged but can present a case because you don't understand. You're adding nothing to this discussion and only diluting an actual conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pillz

Has nothing to with can't vs. not wanting to be there. Has to do with the fact that now, whatever the case, that province can be there. That is a benefit to the kingdom. If you want feature that help people manage Uto and RL then there needs to be a balance. It's unfair for KD A to get extra uniques because they're willing to set sitters for individual hits while KD B is unwilling. Same issue as was always present with sitting, only now its amplified, and to such an extent I would say it is p2w.

Invites I'd dispute. You can always get players for free. You cant have someone make attacks for you for free.

---

KD had the option to have all provinces show up for $0 and make their hits. That is not an unfair advantage. Every kingdom has the same options to be online and play the game. Paying does not give your province any added in game benefits compared to a province that spends $0 and is just online on their own. You don't get any extra gold, resources, or generals.

Invites aren't p2w in your mind? A player abandons a prov you can't fill it without an invite, thats p2w (to you).

Let's be realistic here.
1st. X logging is easy and impossible to block.
2nd. This change will not effect any top competition what's so ever. Why, because your top tier forces sitting on anyone who messes up prep or says maybe I won't show.
3rd. It will help the honest to enjoy the game and get sleep. As I said x logging is so easy when average house hold has 3 ip addresses.
4th. Please stop crying, most of you who are crying no longer play competitively. So please get off the new owners nuts.
5th. Keep it up zuaper your a good guy and I appreciate you trying to save the game. Haters will hate but keep doing what's best for utopia. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Band of Horses

So you can't come up with an in game benefit. You attempted a strawman argument likely because you want to be outraged but can present a case because you don't understand. You're adding nothing to this discussion and only diluting an actual conversation.



KD had the option to have all provinces show up for $0 and make their hits. That is not an unfair advantage. Every kingdom has the same options to be online and play the game. Paying does not give your province any added in game benefits compared to a province that spends $0 and is just online on their own. You don't get any extra gold, resources, or generals.

Invites aren't p2w in your mind? A player abandons a prov you can't fill it without an invite, thats p2w (to you).

---

KD has the option to put in the real world cost of having everyone online or pay money so they don't all have to play the game.

P2w

You're trying to emulate korp?

BoH since you cant understand the benefits that even ray charles can see i dont know how to help you.Its been made clear multiple times by multiple people.

ColdHearted:

Its doesnt matter where people play. A bad implement is a bad implement. Sofar the only ones crying about how good it is are the few who will benefit from it by doing the same thing the game has always tried to stop .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pillz

KD has the option to put in the real world cost of having everyone online or pay money so they don't all have to play the game.

P2w

You're trying to emulate korp?

---

You literally just did a proof for why it's not p2w. You can play the game (have the players online to attack) or you can pay to be lazy and not be there for the wave. Out of game cost for out of game benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder TA

BoH since you cant understand the benefits that even ray charles can see i dont know how to help you.Its been made clear multiple times by multiple people.

ColdHearted:

Its doesnt matter where people play. A bad implement is a bad implement. Sofar the only ones crying about how good it is are the few who will benefit from it by doing the same thing the game has always tried to stop .

---

It's so easy to see that ray charles can see it but you can't give a single in game advantage. lmfao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Band of Horses

You literally just did a proof for why it's not p2w. You can play the game (have the players online to attack) or you can pay to be lazy and not be there for the wave. Out of game cost for out of game benefit.



It's so easy to see that ray charles can see it but you can't give a single in game advantage. lmfao

---

No. It is not out of game cost for out of game benefit. The out of game benefit does not factor in. If RL prevents you from playing Utopia, the assumption should not be that paying to take time off helps your RL predicament. You are under no obligation to log in and miss sleep or a meeting or exam. The default state of us as human beings is not to be playing Utopia, it's to live our lives. Playing Utopia is secondary (Inb4 no it isn't).

Accordingly, you are paying real money in order for your province to be played without you investing the time.

If you have an army coming home and someone sitting you sends it out, that benefits you Ingame.
If you have to aid a kd mate and someone sitting you send the aid, that benefits you Ingame.
If you're a bank you can't login for a few important hours and someone sitting you does so, that benefits you Ingame.

The examples are endless and the core of it is this: if sitting benefits you Ingame prior to the change, it benefits you infinitely more as a kingdom after the change because it allows for increased flexibility of its application.

Your argument comes form the wrong direction entirely, and you plainly ignore the many possible scenarios in which sitting can help your performance and that of your kingdom Ingame.

Post under korp when you're being intentionally obtuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Band of Horses

See the post I just made. (I realize this can get a bit confusing since I write a reply and you guys reply to a different post while I respond)

---

Maybe you should post less then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Band of Horses

It's so easy to see that ray charles can see it but you can't give a single in game advantage. lmfao

---

While you're busy putting your ass back on, I'll try to bring you into the world of the average player.

Scenario A!

Player A is an attacker. They make attacks at Day 12 and then go to sleep. From Day 12 to Day 20, Player A's province gets chained and they are not present to mitigate the losses. They cannot

a) ask for gold to pay wages (possibly mitigated by kingdom mate awareness but not a guarantee)

b) release military and aid it out (benefits the kingdom) or dragon slay with it (benefits the kingdom) to avoid the alternative which is desertion into the ether (does not benefit anyone)

c) maybe steal runes to Land Lust some acres back during the chain, use up stealth maybe on intel before their thieves go on strike, small things that help the process of being chained not totally suck


Player A wakes up on Day 20 and finds their province unpaid and unable to attack for another tic, military efficiency down from unpaid military, countless military units deserted overnight instead of sent to benefit the kingdom, heck maybe even lost to starvation if that randomly started to happen. Well damn.


Scenario B!

Player A is an attacker. They make attacks at Day 12, set Player B to sit their province, and then go to sleep. From Day 12 to Day 20, Player A's province gets chained. Player B is watching the province however, so they are able to avoid heavy desertion by sending excess military units to slay the dragon every few hours. They mitigate the sharp drop in net gold profit by stealing some gold before their thieves go on strike, also ask for some aid to keep the province paid over the next few hours. They even get some food to avoid starvation.

Player A wakes up and takes control of their province. They find no drop in military efficiency from unpaid wages and minimal losses to desertion because Player B was able to mitigate the overpop with action. They even still have food and can attack that tic. The chain is nothing but a blip on the radar for this player.



So then bandito, I eagerly await your twisty tied wording attempts to turn this into not actually a benefit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pillz

No. It is not out of game cost for out of game benefit. The out of game benefit does not factor in. If RL prevents you from playing Utopia, the assumption should not be that paying to take time off helps your RL predicament. You are under no obligation to log in and miss sleep or a meeting or exam. The default state of us as human beings is not to be playing Utopia, it's to live our lives. Playing Utopia is secondary (Inb4 no it isn't).

Accordingly, you are paying real money in order for your province to be played without you investing the time.

If you have an army coming home and someone sitting you sends it out, that benefits you Ingame.
If you have to aid a kd mate and someone sitting you send the aid, that benefits you Ingame.
If you're a bank you can't login for a few important hours and someone sitting you does so, that benefits you Ingame.

The examples are endless and the core of it is this: if sitting benefits you Ingame prior to the change, it benefits you infinitely more as a kingdom after the change because it allows for increased flexibility of its application.

Your argument comes form the wrong direction entirely, and you plainly ignore the many possible scenarios in which sitting can help your performance and that of your kingdom Ingame.

Post under korp when you're being intentionally obtuse.

---

All of your examples infer that it is impossible for someone to play utopia no matter what, and that impossibility is an inevitability for everyone. Thus anyone that pays to overcome this has an unfair advantage. If the game locked you out for 8 hours of the day and you could pay to bypass it, that would be p2w. If circumstances outside the game make you choose between the game and real life, that is an out of game benefit since your opportunity cost for being there is real life, now you have an option of paying $1 so you can go to do your real life chit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Verminator

While you're busy putting your ass back on, I'll try to bring you into the world of the average player.

Scenario A!

Player A is an attacker. They make attacks at Day 12 and then go to sleep. From Day 12 to Day 20, Player A's province gets chained and they are not present to mitigate the losses. They cannot

a) ask for gold to pay wages (possibly mitigated by kingdom mate awareness but not a guarantee)

b) release military and aid it out (benefits the kingdom) or dragon slay with it (benefits the kingdom) to avoid the alternative which is desertion into the ether (does not benefit anyone)

c) maybe steal runes to Land Lust some acres back during the chain, use up stealth maybe on intel before their thieves go on strike, small things that help the process of being chained not totally suck


Player A wakes up on Day 20 and finds their province unpaid and unable to attack for another tic, military efficiency down from unpaid military, countless military units deserted overnight instead of sent to benefit the kingdom, heck maybe even lost to starvation if that randomly started to happen. Well damn.


Scenario B!

Player A is an attacker. They make attacks at Day 12, set Player B to sit their province, and then go to sleep. From Day 12 to Day 20, Player A's province gets chained. Player B is watching the province however, so they are able to avoid heavy desertion by sending excess military units to slay the dragon every few hours. They mitigate the sharp drop in net gold profit by stealing some gold before their thieves go on strike, also ask for some aid to keep the province paid over the next few hours. They even get some food to avoid starvation.

Player A wakes up and takes control of their province. They find no drop in military efficiency from unpaid wages and minimal losses to desertion because Player B was able to mitigate the overpop with action. They even still have food and can attack that tic. The chain is nothing but a blip on the radar for this player.



So then bandito, I eagerly await your twisty tied wording attempts to turn this into not actually a benefit...

---

Pay 2 win implies that you have an unfair advantage. This is not unfair since there are no ingame items or DLC. The sitter gets no extra tools, it is sill a person behind a keyboard playing by the same rules as if the owner was there.

If I am Player A in Scenario A, and you are Player A in Scenario B. If I decide to sleep the full night or if I decide to wake up and check ticks during the night, that is fully up to me and allowed. If I decide to stay up for 24hrs straight, checking my prov and micromanaging what UNFAIR advantage do you in Scenario B have over me? What did I give up? Sleep. I could have paid $1 to sleep. That's not an ingame advantage.




Will people use it? Hell yeah. Can people compete without it? Hell yeah. It's like complaining that munk's auto fill offense is p2w. Or munkbot and stinger in general. They benefit you if you have it and the other kingdom does not. Making the game less time consuming is a great thing for maintaining player base.

If Player B is just sitting there in either scenario, why in Scenario A doesn't he call Player A? You can't really attribute the difference to sitting. Player B is just a serious asshole.

The game is played by real people. A lot of real people have jobs that don't allow them to access utopia at random times while at work. Just because they have a job does not make them less committed. Why would you want to punish someone for being a productive member to society?

And as far as taking an advantage away...sure it does that. I guess you will have to actually be a better strategist then instead of preying on involuntary inactivity.

This change, other than the abuse that was already possible before, really equalizes outside circumstances making competition tighter and harder. Wars will be determined by game skill rather than by who can spend most time online.

Ehh. There've been a gazillion times I've wished I had the option to set sitter for a couple of hours; I'm opposed to the actual implementation of the feature unless it is accompanied by one or more limitations:

- a reduction to the maximum number of provinces that can be sat per kingdom (not preferred)
- a "cooldown" time between sits for the sat prov (would probably have to be accompanied by the ability to extend sitting whilst still active)
- a maximum to the number of times an individual player can use a short term (less than 24h) sit further to the existing sitting cap (or a 1h sit should count as a full day for the purposes of the sitting cap, if that's not already how it would work which I'm unclear on)

I can see the appeal to better allowing people to balance Uto and RL but I don't think that should mean that kingdoms can essentially pay to have all their provinces online 24/7 in wars. Like yes, you can do that for free but realistically it doesn't happen because the RL costs are too great, being able to pay for sitting by the hour makes it a lot easier as long as you've got a decent timezone/schedule spread in your KD. So the limitations I suggest would be geared at making this something to be used when unexpected stuff comes up, not just so someone else can play your prov every night while you're asleep. Which does feel p2w for me for the reasons outlined by Steel and others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodwitch

If I am not mistaken max days to sit is still 21? so if the system was changed to where sitting is linked to the province and not the user that would fix abuse for the most part. Until then maybe we should just hope people won't abuse it. Yes, I know some will, and we all know who too. But for the vast majority it's a great change that will make playing a lot easier for example if you planned your return time and then your boss tells you you are working overtime, or if your kingdom is planning a wave exactly when you are in surgery etc
And maybe the devs can keep a close eye out for those that like to abuse game mechanics ;) cause they know who that is too and hand out penalties more freely.

---

Best way to stop/prevent abuse of this is to link it to both the province and the user account.

I take it if you set sitter for 2 hours and cancel that will still count as 1 full day in terms of the 21 day limit?

@Band of Horses
Hypothetically if I were sell a bot that can play your province for only $1 a night, will you still considered it as not P2W?
Because by your argument I'm still only trading real world currency ($1) for real world benefit (sleep).
In fact why stop only at night? Why not let the bot run my province 24 hrs a day, up to 21 days an age?

Your argument might sounds reasonable at first glance, but in fact its just a slippery slope towards real money trading.
Just like how you could save time farming loots by buying them using cash, you too can save time not sleeping by paying someone to sit your province instead.

So let's not pretend that this isn't an improvement to an already p2w feature of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brickwolfman

Best way to stop/prevent abuse of this is to link it to both the province and the user account.

I take it if you set sitter for 2 hours and cancel that will still count as 1 full day in terms of the 21 day limit?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodwitch

The game is played by real people. A lot of real people have jobs that don't allow them to access utopia at random times while at work. Just because they have a job does not make them less committed. Why would you want to punish someone for being a productive member to society?

And as far as taking an advantage away...sure it does that. I guess you will have to actually be a better strategist then instead of preying on involuntary inactivity.

This change, other than the abuse that was already possible before, really equalizes outside circumstances making competition tighter and harder. Wars will be determined by game skill rather than by who can spend most time online.

---

People that are comitted would fiit their schedule so they can attack, none comitted people would chose this option. People that invest more time into this game should rewarded, people that dont invest enough time or cant shouldnt given a helping hand so they can play on the same level.

I'm confused as to why there's even a debate over this feature being P2W or not... Fairly delusional to act as if sitting wasn't already P2W in the first place.

I agree with Coffee that there needs to be a certain amount of limitations on it. I think the reduction to max provs per KD at a given time is very needed. The amount that this can be abused in its current state is pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drkzeraga

@Band of Horses
Hypothetically if I were sell a bot that can play your province for only $1 a night, will you still considered it as not P2W?
Because by your argument I'm still only trading real world currency ($1) for real world benefit (sleep).
In fact why stop only at night? Why not let the bot run my province 24 hrs a day, up to 21 days an age?

Your argument might sounds reasonable at first glance, but in fact its just a slippery slope towards real money trading.
Just like how you could save time farming loots by buying them using cash, you too can save time not sleeping by paying someone to sit your province instead.

So let's not pretend that this isn't an improvement to an already p2w feature of the game.

---

A bot that plays the game perfectly would be an unfair advantage over a human that is not infallible. My original point was that this new sitting is no different than the old sitting system, which you just made again.

Standard play is Human vs Human. If using munkbot to augment your ability, it is cyborg vs human essentially. You're now proposing full AI vs human. Watson vs Ken Jennings was not a fair competition.



GW is right in summarizing that you're afraid your skill isn't enough to beat people.

I genuinely don't believe most of you know what pay to win is. You see quality of life improvements and any change from the norm as evil because you're playing a 20 year old game and are afraid of change.

Quote:

---

I genuinely don't believe most of you know what pay to win is. You see quality of life improvements and any change from the norm as evil because you're playing a 20 year old game and are afraid of change.

---

What change? You been arguing that there is no change sitting has been around for awhile now? Also the game isnt 20 year sold unlike you played some super secret beta that only you had access too?

Oh BoH got burned. What's next?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

What change? You been arguing that there is no change sitting has been around for awhile now? Also the game isnt 20 year sold unlike you played some super secret beta that only you had access too?

---

Are you daft? My argument isn't that the sitting feature is still 24hrs minimum. I rounded up to the nearest decade, a bit of hyperbole look it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Band of Horses

Are you daft? My argument isn't that the sitting feature is still 24hrs minimum. I rounded up to the nearest decade, a bit of hyperbole look it up.

---

You open up with a personal attack thatst how much value your arguments hold that you cant even keep it civil. Ironic that you off all people should talk about others being afraid though. :)

But its is, if your argument was that sitting is still 24 hours you would be correct.

Though its pointless to argue with you since you dont seem to be able to comprehend that not having players around isnt a pay2win feauture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

You open up with a personal attack thatst how much value your arguments hold that you cant even keep it civil. Ironic that you off all people should talk about others being afraid though. :)

But its is, if your argument was that sitting is still 24 hours you would be correct.

Though its pointless to argue with you since you dont seem to be able to comprehend that not having players around isnt a pay2win feauture.

---

There is a difference between a personal attack and a question. If you genuinely think that my argument is that there is no change, I have to wonder if you're being silly; foolish (definition for you).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Band of Horses

A bot that plays the game perfectly would be an unfair advantage over a human that is not infallible. My original point was that this new sitting is no different than the old sitting system, which you just made again.

---

My argument is that both the new and old sitting are all p2w, which you seems to disagree with.

Also for the sake of argument what if I were to hire a goldfarmer from China and give him a set of instructions on how to play my province for me while I'm asleep? Does it still not counts as p2w for you? At what point do you draw the line?

The fact remains that you're paying money to gain an in-game benefit. It doesn't matter if the same benefit could have been obtained using other means. You paid said money, you gained said benefit. To me that exactly the definition of a p2w feature.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying its bad for the game. On the contrary I think its very good, especially for casual players like me. On more than 1 occasion I have been guilty of asking another kd mate to sit for me because I simply cannot stand waking up in the middle of yet another night to wave.

But did it ever cross my mind that what I was doing wasn't p2w? No! I'm knew exactly what I was doing. I'm simply buying the ingame benefit of having my army attack while I'm asleep.

So let's not kid ourselves that a feature is not p2w because its only a QOL improvement. That's just completely disingenuous bull****. The degree of benefit you obtained might differ, but its still p2w all the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Band of Horses

There is a difference between a personal attack and a question. If you genuinely think that my argument is that there is no change, I have to wonder if you're being silly; foolish (definition for you).

---

So thats how your conduct yourself in real life as well, when someone doesnt share your opinion the first thing you do is ask if they are daft? ANd please it wasnt really a question, you are just skirting the area, you wouldnt have "asked" it if you didnt already think i was daft.

Quote:

---

My original point was that this new sitting is no different than the old sitting system, which you just made again.

---

So you want to argue that this new change to the sitting isnt a new change but it is a new change but it isnt a new change? Your words "NO DIFFERENT" and how can there be a change if nothign is different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drkzeraga

My argument is that both the new and old sitting are all p2w, which you seems to disagree with.

Also for the sake of argument what if I were to hire a goldfarmer from China and give him a set of instructions on how to play my province for me while I'm asleep? Does it still not counts as p2w for you? At what point do you draw the line?

The fact remains that you're paying money to gain an in-game benefit. It doesn't matter if the same benefit could have been obtained using other means. You paid said money, you gained said benefit. To me that exactly the definition of a p2w feature.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying its bad for the game. On the contrary I think its very good, especially for casual players like me. On more than 1 occasion I have been guilty of asking another kd mate to sit for me because I simply cannot stand waking up in the middle of yet another night to wave.

But did it ever cross my mind that what I was doing wasn't p2w? No! I'm knew exactly what I was doing. I'm simply buying the ingame benefit of having my army attack while I'm asleep.

So let's not kid ourselves that a feature is not p2w because its only a QOL improvement. That's just completely disingenuous bull****. The degree of benefit you obtained might differ, but its still p2w all the same.

---

That's concise. Balanced and to the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drkzeraga

My argument is that both the new and old sitting are all p2w, which you seems to disagree with.

Also for the sake of argument what if I were to hire a goldfarmer from China and give him a set of instructions on how to play my province for me while I'm asleep? Does it still not counts as p2w for you? At what point do you draw the line?

The fact remains that you're paying money to gain an in-game benefit. It doesn't matter if the same benefit could have been obtained using other means. You paid said money, you gained said benefit. To me that exactly the definition of a p2w feature.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying its bad for the game. On the contrary I think its very good, especially for casual players like me. On more than 1 occasion I have been guilty of asking another kd mate to sit for me because I simply cannot stand waking up in the middle of yet another night to wave.

But did it ever cross my mind that what I was doing wasn't p2w? No! I'm knew exactly what I was doing. I'm simply buying the ingame benefit of having my army attack while I'm asleep.

So let's not kid ourselves that a feature is not p2w because its only a QOL improvement. That's just completely disingenuous bull****. The degree of benefit you obtained might differ, but its still p2w all the same.

---

I'm removing the fact that having someone else log your account in Utopia is against the rules. Just a hypothetical game, with a hypothetical goldfarmer (sorry I needed a minute to remove utopia and its rules.) The goldfarmer is a person, they are the intended human vs human interaction. There is no unfair advantage there. If you have ever played a truly p2w game you might understand a bit better. Lets say we've got an average player in utopia, we'll call him Anry. Anry wants to sleep at night so he hires this gold farmer to play his account at night based on his instructions. The goldfarmer does pretty much just as good as Anry when he plays his prov during the day. Anry's prov goes 1v1 with another prov lets call him Godly. Godly wakes up in the middle of the night and is a better player than Anry. Godly has an ungodly amount of crown and Anry has none. Who wins this 1v1? Sure as **** Godly does. If this was p2w anry could PAY TO WIN. You want to know what p2w would look like in this game? Anry could pay $100 and get one billion gc and despite Godly's superior skill, he couldn't beat the Anry.

An in-game benefit is not an advantage if the other side has the same opportunity without using it. IE I can stay awake and play my prov. The disadvantage I have in that situation is I lose sleep, that is out of game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

So thats how your conduct yourself in real life as well, when someone doesnt share your opinion the first thing you do is ask if they are daft? ANd please it wasnt really a question, you are just skirting the area, you wouldnt have "asked" it if you didnt already think i was daft.



So you want to argue that this new change to the sitting isnt a new change but it is a new change but it isnt a new change? Your words "NO DIFFERENT" and how can there be a change if nothign is different?

---

In real life if someone asks silly and or foolish things I ask them if they are daft. You yourself make intentionally silly or foolish posts, I would assume for your amusement. Asking for clarification on your posts is sometimes important.

If you truly are hurt by my question, then I am sorry.

The new sitting has no difference from old sitting ethically. There certainly is a change, you trying to twist my argument like that should be considered unethical though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Band of Horses

I'm removing the fact that having someone else log your account in Utopia is against the rules. Just a hypothetical game, with a hypothetical goldfarmer (sorry I needed a minute to remove utopia and its rules.) The goldfarmer is a person, they are the intended human vs human interaction. There is no unfair advantage there. If you have ever played a truly p2w game you might understand a bit better. Lets say we've got an average player in utopia, we'll call him Anry. Anry wants to sleep at night so he hires this gold farmer to play his account at night based on his instructions. The goldfarmer does pretty much just as good as Anry when he plays his prov during the day. Anry's prov goes 1v1 with another prov lets call him Godly. Godly wakes up in the middle of the night and is a better player than Anry. Godly has an ungodly amount of crown and Anry has none. Who wins this 1v1? Sure as **** Godly does. If this was p2w anry could PAY TO WIN. You want to know what p2w would look like in this game? Anry could pay $100 and get one billion gc and despite Godly's superior skill, he couldn't beat the Anry.

---

Sure but I think your example is a little misleading. Let use a more fair example instead:

Both Amy and Bob are players of identical skill level, who are both unwilling to wake up in the middle of the night to attack.
The only difference is Amy pays for someone to sit for her, while Bob doesn't.
End result: Amy's army attacks, Bob's doesn't.

Can you understand that from Bob's perspective, Amy just basically used a p2w feature?

Also on a tangent, "having someone else log your account in Utopia" is against the rule, but having someone log your province isn't? Why is that so? What's the difference between the 2 actions if the in-game benefits are the same? Just because one's an in-game feature makes it ethically ok?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drkzeraga

Sure but I think your example is a little misleading. Let use a more fair example instead:

Both Amy and Bob are players of identical skill level, who are both unwilling to wake up in the middle of the night to attack.
The only difference is Amy pays for someone to sit for her, while Bob doesn't.
End result: Amy's army attacks, Bob's doesn't.

Can you understand that from Bob's perspective, Amy just basically used a p2w feature?

Also on a tangent, "having someone else log your account in Utopia" is against the rule, but having someone log your province isn't? Why is that so? What's the difference between the 2 actions if the in-game benefits are the same? Just because one's an in-game feature makes it ethically ok?

---

Your definition of p2w is wrong. For it to be p2w it must both offer an advantage and the mechanic/item must not be available to a non paying player. Anything that can be obtained by a non paying player by just playing cannot be p2w, by definition.

Do we have free sitting?

Bishop just hit the nail on the head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Do we have free sitting?

---

You know fine well we don't. You can replicate it by playing therefore it doesn't fit the definition of p2w.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

You know fine well we don't. You can replicate it by playing therefore it doesn't fit the definition of p2w.

---

You pay to play 2 provinces how can you do that with just playing?

Especially consider you can legally play two provinces since sitting is just account bound. 21 days, abandon, new player 21 days, rinse repeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

You pay to play 2 provinces how can you do that with just playing?

Especially consider you can legally play two provinces since sitting is just account bound. 21 days, abandon, new player 21 days, rinse repeat.

---

Sitting is only beneficial when a player is not playing. By playing you match that.

We will be changing sitting to be linked to a province next age probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Do we have free sitting?

---

Not at the moment. But maybe Bishop is hinting that sitting will be made freely available to non paying players as well?
Or perhaps he consider the f2p option simply having someone log on to your account when you sleep?

I too will love some free legal options to have someone play my account while I sleep please.

But in all seriousness this whole discussion for me boils down to:

Is there any legal way to get someone to play my province for me, while I'm away, without paying for sitting?
The answer is NO.

Therefore by my definition sitting provide a function that is impossible to replicate, ergo its a p2w feature.
Convince me otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drkzeraga

But in all seriousness this whole discussion for me boils down to:

Is there any legal way to get someone to play my province for me, while I'm away, without paying for sitting?
The answer is NO.

Therefore by my definition sitting provide a function that is impossible to replicate, ergo its a p2w feature.
Convince me otherwise.

---

You don't really get to create new definitions to suit your argument. Regardless, we do we need to convince anyone? Sitting has existed for what, 8 years now? It's not really going anywhere soon.