Longturn Forum

I am a bit concerned about the delegate option.

I'm not sure how it works but some player are allowed to take over other's accounts. This in itself gives advantage to these players, but also the possibility to abuse this option. At the moment, a player, whom I will not name his/her name in all fairnes, is taking over another player. Both of them are my neighbours. One to the South, the other to the West. If this person decided that he/she didn't like me, I will be at a disadvantage at a two to one so early in the game. It is similar as if one player started with double the initial units. I'm not saying he/she has ill means, but it is still concerning to me.

My question is this; why is delegation by a current player even allowed?


ps: my North neighbour is also delegated by another player.

There was some discussion somewhere that the delagation should be limited in time. E.g. 15 days/game for one player alltogether regardless its continuity and the number of delegations. It could prevent the "double force" of one player that you have mentioned above. Similar system works well in other online games.

We have to allow delegation simply because people have lives and these games run for up to 6 months

Delegation to some other player in the game makes no sense, even if he is an allied.
Delegation should be done with external players only.
There's no clear limit between helping another player with a life and abuse of this.
Even if you swear you will not abuse, you'll end do it, because just by controlling another player you will come to know a lot of what's going on in the game. This spoils the game for your enemies and also for you.

We should make something like a "bank of time", or a sort of feedback mechanism to award external players who controls your civilization for some period.
Another thing could be a "twinship" with one or more other players in different LT games running at the same time (if there were more). In this case players playing different games can be involved and constantly informed about the other game (they would have a "observe" access, always), and will be ready to help with their time in case one need some.

Or, even better, there should be a special forum thread visible ONLY to registered users which are NOT playing in the game, in which players looking for a assistant may post "tasks" or "quests" ads, e.g. "Looking for a general to conduct campaing on Southern front till the end of the month", or "Are you a good tax collector? I need money for the next 5 turns", or "TO THE LAST BLOOD: RESIST! (me I'm a coward...)" and even post some data/maps/instructions and so on.
Providing that you have enough time to edit this ads before the period you will be offline, this may be a good hook to involve external and new players. Delegation then should be manual or automatic, depending on your preferences.

monamipierrot wrote: Even if you swear you will not abuse, you'll end do it, because just by controlling another player you will come to know a lot of what's going on in the game. This spoils the game for your enemies and also for you.

I really don't see the difference between this and simply communicating with your allies/sharing vision once embassies have been established. There is no limit to the level in which you communicate with others as to how you are playing a particular nation. True, other eyes may have other ideas as to what is possible... but given that the level of information sharing / coordination of activities is not restricted between players, I simply cannot see how this would give a single player that much more of an advantage.

monamipierrot wrote: Or, even better, there should be a special forum thread visible ONLY to registered users which are NOT playing in the game...

I see this being much more suceptible to abuse in terms of uncommitted players digging up information for rival groups. The current system minimizes information leakage and can ensure that turns taken during the time a player is away will be done in the players alliance's best interests.

bamskamp wrote:

monamipierrot wrote: Even if you swear you will not abuse, you'll end do it, because just by controlling another player you will come to know a lot of what's going on in the game. This spoils the game for your enemies and also for you.

I really don't see the difference between this and simply communicating with your allies/sharing vision once embassies have been established. There is no limit to the level in which you communicate with others as to how you are playing a particular nation. True, other eyes may have other ideas as to what is possible... but given that the level of information sharing / coordination of activities is not restricted between players, I simply cannot see how this would give a single player that much more of an advantage.

monamipierrot wrote: Or, even better, there should be a special forum thread visible ONLY to registered users which are NOT playing in the game...

I see this being much more suceptible to abuse in terms of uncommitted players digging up information for rival groups. The current system minimizes information leakage and can ensure that turns taken during the time a player is away will be done in the players alliance's best interests.

I agree with everything said here. Delegating within the game is necessary as people go on vacation and have computer troubles. Also, delegating to your ally is much much safer than delegating to a random person outside the game, and it really doesn't change the course of a nation's strategy.

monamipierrot wrote:Delegation to some other player in the game makes no sense, even if he is an allied.
Delegation should be done with external players only.
There's no clear limit between helping another player with a life and abuse of this.
Even if you swear you will not abuse, you'll end do it, because just by controlling another player you will come to know a lot of what's going on in the game. This spoils the game for your enemies and also for you.

I completely agree with monamipierrot. There are reasons why you need an embassey, writing, mapmaking, or anything else to be able to share vision, make alliance or anything else. Like monami says, you will end up using the information you have. This is much better than an alliance, no room for miscommunication/misunderstanding. You can even sacrifice land/resources for one nation in order to improve the other.

For me, it lessens the fun when I see too much delegations happening.

By the way, Canuck101, if you can post here, why don't you control your nation yourself?

I think that's a good compromise

seyit wrote:By the way, Canuck101, if you can post here, why don't you control your nation yourself?

I rescinded my delegation to pekka yesterday. I'm currently having computer issues (namely my laptop won't turn on) and am only able to play on days I go to the University.

I continue to have access to the webpage even on weekends through my phone.

I have a more relaxed view about delegation, but I think the following restriction should apply:

Only one player can have access to a player at any time. If I delgate to pekka, I should lose control of my player until I rescind the delegation.

seyit wrote:I completely agree with monamipierrot. There are reasons why you need an embassey, writing, mapmaking, or anything else to be able to share vision, make alliance or anything else. Like monami says, you will end up using the information you have. This is much better than an alliance, no room for miscommunication/misunderstanding. You can even sacrifice land/resources for one nation in order to improve the other.

For me, it lessens the fun when I see too much delegations happening

I can assure you that nobody is delegating to anyone that they are not in full cooperation with.

canuck101 wrote: I can assure you that nobody is delegating to anyone that they are not in full cooperation with.

I don't have any doubt this is as you say. You have problem with PC, you delegate to a friend and he will help getting on things. No doubt you're in full coop with him ("allies").
That's fine, but in my opinion there are already some issues, which are more relevant for you (both of you) than for "enemies". I'm not going to list them, but I would be very uncomfortable in let control of my nation to any of you, as I would in any way accept the control of any of your nation. It's too much a joy to explore this world with all that unknown things out there, to spoil it by giving a glance to the view of another player.
Maybe I'm a bit too radical, but perhaps I would not play LT if I would not this radical-minded.
Just remember your friend will use the info gained controlling you even if he doesn't "want". Maybe he will be attacked one of this turns, and find himself in trouble. He will remember some details known throu your embassy with the attacker... he will remember he doesn't have nor warrior code nor bronze working... He will try a successfull counterattack to the earth of that empire, where he can remember there were the capital.
And all of this without "wanting" it.
Well, you will say "so, what I'm going to do?" I really don't know, maybe delegating this way is the only solution. But I strongly recommend the community to find a radically different solution for the future, or even for this Game.

monamipierrot wrote:

canuck101 wrote: I can assure you that nobody is delegating to anyone that they are not in full cooperation with.

I don't have any doubt this is as you say. You have problem with PC, you delegate to a friend and he will help getting on things. No doubt you're in full coop with him ("allies").
That's fine, but in my opinion there are already some issues, which are more relevant for you (both of you) than for "enemies". I'm not going to list them, but I would be very uncomfortable in let control of my nation to any of you, as I would in any way accept the control of any of your nation. It's too much a joy to explore this world with all that unknown things out there, to spoil it by giving a glance to the view of another player.
Maybe I'm a bit too radical, but perhaps I would not play LT if I would not this radical-minded.
Just remember your friend will use the info gained controlling you even if he doesn't "want". Maybe he will be attacked one of this turns, and find himself in trouble. He will remember some details known throu your embassy with the attacker... he will remember he doesn't have nor warrior code nor bronze working... He will try a successfull counterattack to the earth of that empire, where he can remember there were the capital.
And all of this without "wanting" it.
Well, you will say "so, what I'm going to do?" I really don't know, maybe delegating this way is the only solution. But I strongly recommend the community to find a radically different solution for the future, or even for this Game.

What's preventing me from just telling him what techs said player has?

canuck101 wrote:I have a more relaxed view about delegation, but I think the following restriction should apply:

Only one player can have access to a player at any time. If I delgate to pekka, I should lose control of my player until I rescind the delegation.

I like the ideas of a player limit (canuck101) and a time limit (kryon).

I also wanted to say that I already experience the negative effects of two nations controlled by one. Some explorers and warriors surround my territory and monitor all my movements and block my area.

"one man's problem is another man's opportunity"

I honestly wasn't expecting any action. Just people's view on the matter. Your opinion is quite clear.

akfaew wrote:

seyit wrote:I also wanted to say that I already experience the negative effects of two nations controlled by one.

This is getting ridiculous. This is no different than two players in an alliance. Suck it up and deal with it, delegation has to stay - there is no question about it. We can change the rules a bit but one way or the other allowing someone else to control your nation in your absence must be possible.

The issue some players have wih the current delegation system is that we get situations where one person controls multiple countries in the same game. Letting a person have two countries at his/her disposal is different from two (different) persons controlling allied countries as the latter still requires some coordination and cooperation between the involved individual humans. A person who via delegation controls two countries only have to coordinate and cooperate with him-/herself.

I'm fine if someone else takes control of a nation, as long as that someone else is not playing another alive country in that game. Actually, that would be an interesting twist to delegation: you can only delegate to someone who has been killed in that very game. That way, there is an incite to get countries eliminated (otherwise... NO DELEGATION ) and you avoid the situation that one person controls multiple nations.

(Or, as someone else has mentioned: you can delegate the country to someone not participating in the game but still registered on the server).

Part of playing these games is that sometimes you get temporarily caught up by real life and you have to let your simcity/warcampaing/fightforyourverysurvival game be mismanaged by your absence for a few turns until you're back again. Not necessarily the end of the world, especially as several of the other players run into similar situations from time to time. Sometimes you get the disadvanage of being absent a few turns, sometimes you gain the advantage of OTHERS being absent a few turns.

/Jakob/IllvilJa/Sweden@lt30

IllvilJa wrote:

akfaew wrote:

seyit wrote:I also wanted to say that I already experience the negative effects of two nations controlled by one.

This is getting ridiculous. This is no different than two players in an alliance. Suck it up and deal with it, delegation has to stay - there is no question about it. We can change the rules a bit but one way or the other allowing someone else to control your nation in your absence must be possible.

The issue some players have wih the current delegation system is that we get situations where one person controls multiple countries in the same game. Letting a person have two countries at his/her disposal is different from two (different) persons controlling allied countries as the latter still requires some coordination and cooperation between the involved individual humans. A person who via delegation controls two countries only have to coordinate and cooperate with him-/herself.

I'm fine if someone else takes control of a nation, as long as that someone else is not playing another alive country in that game. Actually, that would be an interesting twist to delegation: you can only delegate to someone who has been killed in that very game. That way, there is an incite to get countries eliminated (otherwise... NO DELEGATION ) and you avoid the situation that one person controls multiple nations.

(Or, as someone else has mentioned: you can delegate the country to someone not participating in the game but still registered on the server).

Part of playing these games is that sometimes you get temporarily caught up by real life and you have to let your simcity/warcampaing/fightforyourverysurvival game be mismanaged by your absence for a few turns until you're back again. Not necessarily the end of the world, especially as several of the other players run into similar situations from time to time. Sometimes you get the disadvanage of being absent a few turns, sometimes you gain the advantage of OTHERS being absent a few turns.

/Jakob/IllvilJa/Sweden@lt30

Sure, maybe there's a minor advantage of coordination right now when countries are small, but further on in the game it is much easier for 2 players to coordinate an attack than for one to keep switching accounts.

In addition, only delegating to players who are dead or aren't playing simply isn't feasible for a few reasons:

1) There is no way to trust this player. You delegate to him for a few turns, he takes a look at your country, and could relay that to another alliance. Not to mention the issue of multiple accounts.

2) Even if you had no issue with point 1, you're not going to find someone who is both willing to play for a few turns and who is up to speed with the goings on of your country.

The reason why delegation works is because you can give control to a player who is apprised of the goings on of your country, at least on a macro level. Thus making an absence for a few days relatively seamless.

akfaew wrote: This is getting ridiculous. This is no different than two players in an alliance. Suck it up and deal with it, delegation has to stay - there is no question about it. We can change the rules a bit but one way or the other allowing someone else to control your nation in your absence must be possible.

I just thought this was worth everybody reading again

mrsynical wrote:

akfaew wrote: This is getting ridiculous. This is no different than two players in an alliance. Suck it up and deal with it, delegation has to stay - there is no question about it. We can change the rules a bit but one way or the other allowing someone else to control your nation in your absence must be possible.

I just thought this was worth everybody reading again

Yes delegation is necessary to make this game playable. We're pretty tough on idlers, so we should make sure that if a player is simply on vacation or making exams he doesn't get kicked out.

We already limited the duration of delegation, though I agree we can look for ways to enforce this more strictly. We can set a clear maximum number of turns or days rather than "it shouldn't be too long", and create some kind of delegation clock if that's doable. Also we could make a rule that one player can only control one delegated account, though that can already cause trouble for legitimate behavior (if 2 players in a 3-player alliance go on vacation then one would end up kicked out as an idler since his ally can't control both, though the one kicked out didn't do anything wrong).

Question
canuck delgated to pekka and while pekka was usung his acc. Is that allowed?
I thought that you can't login when you delegated.