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.

Duffy Swiftshadow
That can cause all sorts of chaos now that I really think about it, especially right now when things are in such a flux and people could be hibernating for awhile. Not to mention Cheatle's point, the possible influence contraction could be devastating to the game state, there's a lot of 'padding' out there, pretty sure every settlement would see a drastic drop in influence if it applied to no-xp alts too.
Edam
People also need to bare in mind that not everyone on the server has two DTs as fulltime characters and a disposable 1000 point alt they randomly delete and recreate if they want to get a character up to Marchmont quickly.

We have a number of players with single training accounts who rotate that training between a couple of characters. Dropping the company influence maximum and wiping influence everytime someone switches training to another alt temporarily will play havoc with settlement management.
Atheory
I would rather have a system in place that reflects the long term goals of the mechanic. I personally believe only active, training/subscribing accounts (not including trials/buddy keys) should contribute to the influence system. Better to have the companies adapt now, then continue to build up and have to do it later.

I do think any changes wouldn't be immediate anyway, so we'll cross that bridge when we get there.
Edam
Atheory
I personally believe only active, training/subscribing accounts (not including trials/buddy keys) should contribute to the influence system.

Accounts or characters? There is a difference.
Yrme
Edam
Atheory
I personally believe only active, training/subscribing accounts (not including trials/buddy keys) should contribute to the influence system.

Accounts or characters? There is a difference.

I'm thinking it should be the characters in active accounts. Like you say, there are people who are spreading training across multiple characters. But whether there are a pair of DTs and a 1000xp alt, or a main and two alts, or three characters with an even split of xp, I think that each character could be counted, as long as the account is active.

At some point, the inactive accounts should be cut off (imo). For large companies, the loss of a character here or there only affects the influence ceiling, and the company can adjust. That would be fine when the game is more mature. For now, some companies might be close to the edge of six characters - and losing two characters because a subscription lapsed could shift a company from "can have influence" to "no influence". So any change can wait.
At some point, crowdforging suggestions seem to be like fan fiction. Some good, some bad, some repetitious and predictable. But maybe there are some gems out there.
Tyncale
I thought I was pretty clear in my OP about non-active *accounts*, not about characters that are currently not training. I also indeed did not imply that these characters should be booted from the Company immediately, just that their effect on the Influence cap should be nixed. After all, we are talking about players that have left the game(if only temporarily) and can not even log in any of these characters.

I certainly agree that this could be a "soft" proces though, with some delay and ample notifications. And could indeed be delayed untill the game has more footing. 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
Tyncale
I thought I was pretty clear in my OP about non-active *accounts*, not about characters that are currently not training. I also indeed did not imply that these characters should be booted from the Company immediately, just that their effect on the Influence cap should be nixed. After all, we are talking about players that have left the game(if only temporarily) and can not even log in any of these characters.

I certainly agree that this could be a "soft" proces though, with some delay and ample notifications. And could indeed be delayed untill the game has more footing. smile

One of the problems I see with only removing the contribution to the influence cap is that how is a company leader supposed to know which ones have become inactive and which are adding to the influence cap?

I suspect that making that change without some obvious way for the company to know when it has happened will create a fair number of customer service requests/complaints due to the math not adding up for their specific company.
Tyncale
I think it would be good to know for a Companyleader when one of his members has an inactive account. I do not think many MMO's do this though: at most, MMO's show you when a certain Guildmember has logged into the game for the last time. Many are FTP too so an inactive account is not something that they could show anyway.

The thing with PFO is that an inactive account is not a simple matter of the characters of that account not showing up in the game anymore: they are still an asset to the Company through their contribution to the Inf cap which is atypical for a MMO.

I think most Companies do roll calls to see who is active: not a very precise method, I'll admit. I am not sure if game companies will want to go so far as to show when a certain player has inactivated his account though.

If an INf cap suddenly lowers that's a sure sign that certain members have inactivated their account, Maybe this is not such a bad reminder for the Company to re-assess their membership and do a roll call or something.

I will admit that in PFO the consequences of inactivating an account would be rather direct and possibly debilitating, so I am all for a delayed response, or notifications or some.
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)
coach
not really understanding how this is breaking the game?

are you saying that GW should implement these strategies in order to force the little guys out or to larger settlements?

(assuming that is what you are talking about that potentially being an "exploit" for smaller groups to swell their cap?)

this is SO far down on the list of GW's concerns i'd hope, like in the 4-digit range of the to-do list, maybe issue #2176 but no higher LOL

Disclaimer: our group has substantial gap between Max and Gained Influence so not worried if this is implemented, just wanting to fight for the companymates who may have just looked at this game and decided to suspend their account for an indefinite amount of time
coach - Dreamless Company

PM coach on Paizo Forum
Jokken
Edam
People also need to bare in mind that not everyone on the server has two DTs as fulltime characters and a disposable 1000 point alt they randomly delete and recreate if they want to get a character up to Marchmont quickly.

We have a number of players with single training accounts who rotate that training between a couple of characters. Dropping the company influence maximum and wiping influence everytime someone switches training to another alt temporarily will play havoc with settlement management.

THIS, very much this. I know several players personal who operate in this way and swap which character is actively gaining xp all the time. If the character they had been training on one week stops training so that one of the players other two can train a bit and the game reduces the first character's company max influence and the company is already at max influence, I could see that player ending out in the dirt. I wouldn't do it someone personally, but I know that it would be far more likely than not.

If that type of culture persisted you would be locking those players to only one character, which I think would be a shame.

I personally am not against turning off influence cap qualifications for accounts that are not subbing, but it wasn't too long ago Goblinworks was talking about f2p options post OE. I would think the two concepts would be in opposition long term.
Go West for freedom and adventure! Join the free soil settlers of High Road. Be a positive and constructive force for freedom in the Bulwark Hills. www.coalroad.com/hrc
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post