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.

Demotion of unsubscribed characters

You are a Troll
Could you please define what the difference between an inactive character and an inactive alt character is?
Bob
You are a Troll
Could you please define what the difference between an inactive character and an inactive alt character is?

I was trying to use "alt" in the sense it often seemed to be used under the old subscription model, where an account had its main characters training and then one or two untrained alts. Perhaps that's not the best term, since one can think of all their characters as alts, or any Free Trial Mode character as an alt.

The important point moving forward is that all inactive characters will be treated identically, whether they're on an account with other active characters or not.

malmuerta
In your terminology, is there any difference between a "Free Trial Mode" character and an "Inactive" character?
Bob
malmuerta
In your terminology, is there any difference between a "Free Trial Mode" character and an "Inactive" character?

Nope, those terms are interchangeable.
Azure_Zero
I think there is a small problem Bob.

Some of us have X companies (that we completely control with other characters and or no other players in)
and have less then X companies of characters subbed.
So companies become leaderless and no way to get them back into leader position without sending support tickets.
Bob
Azure_Zero
I think there is a small problem Bob.

Some of us have X companies (that we completely control with other characters and or no other players in)
and have less then X companies of characters subbed.
So companies become leaderless and no way to get them back into leader position without sending support tickets.

I believe there are some safeguards in place to keep companies from becoming technically leaderless, so there should always be at least one character listed as a leader. If those failed, or if I'm wrong and we just don't have many safeguards, then I'd consider that a bug and work with the members (active first, regularly-playing Free Trial Mode if necessary) to pick a new leader, whether that leader was active or not.

If the company is simply leaderless because the current leader characters aren't playing regularly, then yes, at least one of the members needs to be active to file a leadership challenge, and that member would therefore be in the line of succession to become leader as a result of the challenge (so leadership challenges themselves can't result in a leaderless company). This may require activating that character for one month so they can file the leadership challenge, but there's no requirement to stay active after that. Once that character is a leader, they can still log in using Free Trial Mode to survive any challenges. Plus, in the cases you're talking about, future challenges seem unlikely.
Azure_Zero
What if a company has say 3 characters all leaders, two are inactive and the active leader jumps to help another company, we run into the same issue.
I think it might be best to do this inactive check at the account level, rather then checking on the character.
Bob
Azure_Zero
What if a company has say 3 characters all leaders, two are inactive and the active leader jumps to help another company, we run into the same issue.

Depends on what you mean by inactive here. If the other two leaders are in Free Trial Mode but are still controlled by players who are regularly in-game, then they can just log in, let the character back into the company, and promote them back to leader. If the other two leaders are truly inactive and unwilling/unable to log into the game, even in Free Trial Mode, then you'd have to go through a leadership challenge to get them removed so that another character could take over, and that does require at least one active/subbed member. That said, if an inactive character requests a leadership challenge, I just ask them to activate the character first. No harm, no foul.

In general, I'd recommend extreme caution when jumping a leader out of a company temporarily. If you're not sure the remaining leaders are regularly in-game and will reinstate you afterward, it would be best to promote another one of your characters to leader first. It also wouldn't be a bad idea in cases like this to file a preemptive leadership challenge to clean things up. That way you'd be blocked from accidentally leaving the company leaderless.

Azure_Zero
I think it might be best to do this inactive check at the account level, rather then checking on the character.

Part of the reason the price per month dropped so much with the per character subscription switch was precisely because we're no longer passing any benefits of being active along to the other characters on the account. On the positive side, it's now cheaper to occasionally activate those secondary characters for rare issues like this than it was to pay to have the whole account active all the time.
Azure_Zero
Bob
Azure_Zero


Azure_Zero
I think it might be best to do this inactive check at the account level, rather then checking on the character.

Part of the reason the price per month dropped so much with the per character subscription switch was precisely because we're no longer passing any benefits of being active along to the other characters on the account. On the positive side, it's now cheaper to occasionally activate those secondary characters for rare issues like this than it was to pay to have the whole account active all the time.

I think this part should be an exemption from the rule, and be account based, not character based.
As a inactive character does not have any of the main benefits of being active, and doing account based stops some possible headaches.
Bob
Azure_Zero
I think this part should be an exemption from the rule, and be account based, not character based.
As a inactive character does not have any of the main benefits of being active, and doing account based stops some possible headaches.

The only real headache involved is that the character has to be activated for a month to file the leadership challenge, and this fortunately isn't a very common occurrence. I think I've only been asked to help out with similar situations a few times over the last few years. I'm also generally willing to be fairly helpful in terms of just helping players get in touch with other players in these cases, particularly when it feels like the game didn't do enough to discourage characters from getting into these situations.

Speaking of which, I was testing this all out a bit just to see what we do to prevent this kind of situation. The last leader is in fact blocked from leaving the company, though not if they're the last member of the company. Of course, they're not blocked from leaving at all if there are technically other leaders, but they're not actively playing, which can effectively leave the company leaderless. I think adding some confirmation dialogs and/or adding some hoops to the process (like requiring leaders to demote themselves first before leaving the company) would help a lot here. I've filed a bug report to look into possible improvements.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post