Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Inactive accounts and Company Influence Cap.

Tyncale
When an account becomes inactive(no sub), will the characters on that account that are part of a Company still count towards the Influence cap of that Company? Should be No off course, but not sure if this is implemented yet.
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
Doc
I'd be really surprised if that was implemented. If they did, it would reveal a much more accurate picture of current player base.
Lee Hammock
That is not implemented currently but it is something we are currently discussing.
Tyncale
Thanks Lee. I hope you are not really considering NOT to lower the cap when characters are stopped being paid for. You can even pad a cap with buddy accounts then. You have been assuring us that the increased Influence Cap is actually the most important effect from a new member joining, so this seems easily exploitable then if those derelict accounts keep counting towards it. smile
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
Mistwalker
I would prefer that it not be a priority to implement.

There is enough trouble communicating with folks in game, to know if they are still playing, have suspended their accounts for a bit or permanently, that starting to remove them from companies will likely only make the situation worse. Not to mention the approach to implementing headaches (removed as soon as the account goes inactive? - what about credit card hiccups that result in a missed/delayed payment, or a forgotten renewal date? etc)

With the current server population, I think that companies having a bit of extra on the influence cap is helping the game, as it is allowing those that are playing the game help work out how things work, find the bugs, and demonstrating that the game mechanics, approach and ideas work.

Before the influence can be used, it has to be gained by playing the game, so you have active players working in the companies. As the extra bodies aren't automatically generating influence, I see little harm in allowing it to continue until server population grows - and then have a well publicized process for removing those accounts (perhaps even having the company leaders notified a month before the removal).
Mistwalker
Tyncale
You have been assuring us that the increased Influence Cap is actually the most important effect from a new member joining, so this seems easily exploitable then if those derelict accounts keep counting towards it. smile

I will gladly take any new members that you don't want. smile

I would love to have the problem of having too many active players, but I don't think that any of us are in that situation right now. And I agree that the influence cap is supposed to help convince veteran companies to keep accepting new players, but I don't think that we are having that problem right now.

There was some concern when GW clearly stated that the new player quests could be done as much as anyone wanted to with their 1000 XP alts, once per day per alt. I haven't seen any abuse of new player quests, and I suspect that it will be the same in this situation - even more so, as GW should be able to see who is giving out all of the buddy accounts and if they go dormant in 15 days, after all three characters join the same company.
Thod-Theodum
I currently have 2 inactive Mac Users - they plan to be back once it runs again on their computers. I just throw this out here.
In general I'm also for a way to deal with inactive players - but removal from companies isn't the best way. You rather need an active and incative status and maybe an active and inactive number of players. You don't want to lose even a handful of players just because the easiest way is to remove them and not to have more then one status.
Thod/Theodum are the OOC/IC leaders of the Emerald Lodge - a neutral settlement in the center of the mal that tries to the first to explore the Emerald Spire - should that part of the game ever become available. We have a strong in game and out of game relationship with the Pathfinder Society.
We welcome both hard core players as well as casual players with or without tabletop experience. We have a strong group in Europe and are slowly expanding into the US. We are predominately PvE as our neutral political stance means that we tend to use PvP only in self-defence. We are not anti-PVP - but expect limited PvP opportunity with us.
Brighthaven Leader
I will let you all know this right now, if they implement this, as well as removing alts not gaining experience, then we will see the collapse of a lot of settlements. Without this extra buffer currently, the server would lose 20k+ influence, which, by the numbers, means another couple settlements might bite the dust by phase 3.
Brighthaven is a Neutral Good settlement focused on defending its citizens and its allies from negative fringe based PvP (Player Killing and Griefing) while striving to become a large and shining beacon for Good. Whether you wish to benefit from this protection or you love PvP and wish to assist in providing this protection, Brighthaven aims to be the home and support center for you!
Tuoweit
Mistwalker
I would prefer that it not be a priority to implement.

There is enough trouble communicating with folks in game, to know if they are still playing, have suspended their accounts for a bit or permanently, that starting to remove them from companies will likely only make the situation worse. Not to mention the approach to implementing headaches (removed as soon as the account goes inactive? - what about credit card hiccups that result in a missed/delayed payment, or a forgotten renewal date? etc)
I don't think Tyncale was proposing to remove these characters/accounts from company rosters, but rather just stop counting them towards company influence caps.

Cheatle for TEO
as well as removing alts not gaining experience
This, too, was not part of Tyncale's proposal.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Tuoweit
Mistwalker
I would prefer that it not be a priority to implement.

There is enough trouble communicating with folks in game, to know if they are still playing, have suspended their accounts for a bit or permanently, that starting to remove them from companies will likely only make the situation worse. Not to mention the approach to implementing headaches (removed as soon as the account goes inactive? - what about credit card hiccups that result in a missed/delayed payment, or a forgotten renewal date? etc)
I don't think Tyncale was proposing to remove these characters/accounts from company rosters, but rather just stop counting them towards company influence caps.

Cheatle for TEO
as well as removing alts not gaining experience
This, too, was not part of Tyncale's proposal.
I think Cheatle is trying to make the point that removing these characters from influence caps will have a devastating influence on the total pool in the game. I suspect that a lot of holdings and outposts laid down in the game by both large and small groups would vanish overnight due to insufficient bank to support them.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post