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

Flari-Merchant
The situation with complete companies being AWOL can be as simple as booting the company and taking the hex away by feud.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Stilachio Thrax
Apyx
I'm all for demoting unsubscribed characters but i'm not as certain about demoting inactive but subscribed characters if that will cause a change in Settlement ownership.

I don't think anyone was advocating for anything other than the bolded regarding individual accounts.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Apyx
Giorgio seemed to be advocating for demoting all inactive leaders not just the unsubscribed. I probably should have quoted his post.

Stilachio Thrax
Apyx
I'm all for demoting unsubscribed characters but i'm not as certain about demoting inactive but subscribed characters if that will cause a change in Settlement ownership.

I don't think anyone was advocating for anything other than the bolded regarding individual accounts.
Giorgio
Apyx
Giorgio seemed to be advocating for demoting all inactive leaders not just the unsubscribed. I probably should have quoted his post.


Not at all, only unsubscribed accounts for a long period of time, for the reasons given above. My words not good today it seems.
First Elder Durin Steelforge; Leader of Forgeholm; Founder of Steelforge Engineering Company

PM Giorgo on Paizo Forums
PM Admin George on Commonwealth of the Free Highlands
Apyx
Giorgio
Apyx
Giorgio seemed to be advocating for demoting all inactive leaders not just the unsubscribed. I probably should have quoted his post.

Not at all, only unsubscribed accounts for a long period of time, for the reasons given above. My words not good today it seems.

Or my synapses are not firing again.
Bob
We always want to be very careful when we take things away from inactive players, much as we leave their inventory and vault contents in place. Fortunately, our early blog posts about companies talked about mechanics for voting and appointing of leaders, so changes along these lines wouldn't be a complete surprise. Still, I think inactive leaders require at least some warning before losing control of a company. They may very well intend to return, and it's possible that a company is really just basically where one player keeps everything from all their characters. But if they'd let in an acquaintance just to make it easier to exchange some stuff, knowing everything in the secure vaults was safe, it could be a big surprise to find we'd given everything to that recruit.

This is definitely something we need to look at, but it's going to take a fair amount of work to do right.
Bob
Flari-Merchant
At the very least can we contact you with petitions to cut off access to unsubscribed characters/companies/etc.. to fix dangerous access weaknesses?

Until we have well-thought-out policies/mechanics established for this, I'm reticent to remove anyone from their leadership rank without their permission. Right now, that would require basically contacting them and asking if they mind being demoted, which doesn't sound very tempting for them. I have on occasion reached out to unresponsive company leaders (maybe inactive, maybe just not responding) on behalf of current/potential members to get things moving, but it's time-consuming, so best only done with the right combination of high importance to the active player involved and reasonable likelihood of a positive response from the unresponsive one.

Maxen
I agree that things need to be done right, although I don’t understand the desire to protect former subscribers who have for all intents and purposes, exited the game. They are not paying customers. I wasn’t asking for them to be removed from the company, but they do not deserve to be in a leadership position. In SWTOR, even the Guildmaster is automatically demoted if they don’t log on in 30 days. And that is with a subbed account.

As always, I appreciate everything you and Cole are doing to keep the development of this game moving forward and I am glad to hear this is something that will be implimented down the road. But I also hope you are prepared to give full consideration to active players should they log in one day to find their vaults ransacked or holdings and buildings torn down due to someone resubscribing and laying waste to everything built over the last several years. Yes, that’s very “worse case scenario” and I hope it never happens, but settlement warfare may just bring back players none of us know or trust who can do just that.
Bob
We've had players return off-and-on, and many who left expressed a desire to return as we got closer to Open Enrollment, so we definitely want to be fair to them. We just need to work through the edge cases to figure out what fair means here, then we can look at implementing something. Hopefully we can take a look at that soon, since it does seem to be coming up more and more.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Maxen
I agree that things need to be done right, although I don’t understand the desire to protect former subscribers who have for all intents and purposes, exited the game. They are not paying customers.
Maybe because most of us did not expect to still be paying for an incomplete game for three and a half years after we started paying?
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post