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
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?
More than a couple of things strike me as being worthy of borrowing your example as an illustration, Cal, and I hope that you will not mind. You where very heavily invested in PfO with more than a cpl accounts, numerous companies, and a legit claim (probably) on more than one settlement. For your own reasons (probably common reasons) you decided not to play anymore. These companies and settlements still have "Leader" tags on them.

There is a difference here though.

You are still in frequent contact with those who are still playing and still running what you left behind. You are non hostile to those people. You are always willing to help get done what can't get done without you still being here.

That isn't a universal situation.
"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
Flari-Merchant
This is not directed at Cal.

The only thing that is being asked of Paizo is that absentee Leaders who are non responsive, possibly hostile and possibly willing to sell accounts (or just gift them) without turning off sensitive access be demoted. They are absently standing in the way of these companies and settlements progressing without worries of disaster.

Many have been gone longer than they were here. They have done nothing to keep these settlements and/or companies going for a long time in MMO terms.

All that is being asked is that they be demoted to a position that is below an access level with which BAD THINGS can be done to these companies and settlements. No one is asking that their accounts be erased or that their personal goods be vanished…

It seems somewhat both inconsiderate and unwise for the Developers to so casually dismiss these concerns.
"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
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Flari-Merchant
The only thing that is being asked of Paizo is that absentee Leaders who are non responsive, possibly hostile and possibly willing to sell accounts (or just gift them) without turning off sensitive access be demoted. They are absently standing in the way of these companies and settlements progressing without worries of disaster.
I'm not blind to the problems, and it isn't unreasonable request. A problem I see is that Paizo does not know how much contact a player has with their former comrades, and their former comrades don't know how much contact they have with Paizo. I am active on the Free Highlander extra-game forums, which Paizo doesn't know, and I filed a ticket with Goblinworks a couple of days ago, which the Free Highlanders don't know about. Unless you are proposing that Paizo devote resources to making case-by-case studies of each account in conjunction with settlement leaders, it will be risky for either party to say with any certainty the state of a player. How long inactive makes inactive? Will there have to be an appeals process? If there is, who will adjudicate when someone returns and complains about their loss of their company?

Pathfinder is in a difficult state. The easiest and appropriate answer (in a game with hundreds or more of active players) would be to turf those companies and start again, including founding companies with the designated supervisor assigning a new company to settlement control. But that would be a hardship with the current active population. The next likely candidate is probably implementation of elections, as was promised from the start, so there is nothing players can legitimately complain about if they get voted out.

I think Bob knows he needs to tread lightly on this, and attempts to press for quick action risks more negative results for the game as a whole.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Also, more granularity with who can do what would help. I'm thinking that if settlement leadership could add and remove specific individuals from access to the the bank, rather than having access by company affiliation. Because in the long run, access by company affiliation is going to be a security hole for everyone, regardless of their active status.

When the game has stuff that matters, and any company leader in the settlement can grant access to the vaults by promoting the entirety of an about-to-be-invading army into leadership of one company in the middle of the night, people are going to get screwed.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Smitty
To my knowledge
The devs are more than happy to accommodate changes in company leader ship - even involving characters that are not active. Even email alone is all they require .. as long as the email comes from the email of the leader of the company.. ( I went through this with one of Golgotha’s companies, when try to get a hex under my control so I could manage it)..

I finally got it worked out with an officer in the company and didn’t need to involve the devs, can the original owner come back? Sure. Can they sell their account- to someone who can then own one of Golgotha’s core 6? Sure - I have reservations about that- but I accept the risk because I want to use the influence to control the hex- if I ever feel the risk is too great- then I will tear down that holding and put that hex in a more secure company leadership role -

For more than a year the active players have been more than happy to reap the rewards for using companies like the one I took control over .. If the risk ever is too great - I will do the work to eliminate the risk- but until then- I have gained 2-3 years of gains from accepting the risk with my actions..
I think settlement founding companies are a bit harder to deal with- but just for companies - the current system is fine- don’t change a thing ..
Giorgio
Smitty
I think settlement founding companies are a bit harder to deal with- but just for companies - the current system is fine- don’t change a thing ..

The current situation is absolutely not fine, and is a detriment for currently active/playing leadership that have little to no control over the current make up of companies leadership structure, vault vulnerability, and limited tools to deal with this (kick non-leadership players out, disbar a company from you Settlement, then wage war on them!), are not ideal.

Non_paying and non_active players should not be able to destroy, or severely limit, all the hard work of actively paying and actively playing players as a general idea.

Your solution doesn't work for me (and a few others).
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
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Giorgio
Your solution doesn't work for me (and a few others).
And I have been saying from almost day one of EE that we needed the promised charters and voting structures, but got alomst zero support from other players. Wide open access to settlement vaults based on something that any player with a company attached to settlement can change on a whim is a significant flaw, but it is not the fault of people who got tired of paying to run around an abandoned countryside. I've put a large (and by many measures, I've no doubt unreasonable) amount of money into this game, and have put people who wanted to continue to pay in charge of things I built, and now you want to take that away by fiat because I've gone mostly dormant.

Anyone who is a leader of a company is so because they had a reason for being so. Maybe they built it themselves, maybe they put out a great deal of effort and proved their value. All I'm saying is it is no simple task to take that away from them, and pretty much every single bad decision that has occurred in the development of PFO has occurred as the result of pressure from players to do something quickly.

Bob did away with influence caps. If it is critical to people that they not get stabbed in the back by someone that they or someone else once trusted, you can always kick those companies out of the settlement and rebuild what they built.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Flari-Merchant
Seems like there is much confusion about what is being pushed at for consideration and what people believe is being pushed at for consideration.

From my point at least, if players have a non playing Co/Settlement leader who can be contacted and will help them get done whatever they need to get done and may even want to come back some day… well that is the best possible case. Those cases need no intervention.

Also, situations with companies may be "fixable" by dumping the company and feuding it, or leaving the company and starting over. Not so great an option for any that may have been in a company with a year or two invested time, though.

Much can be fixed by adjusting settlement permissions. That will make working smoothly on crafting and huge projects a real PITA all over again, but it could be done.

There ARE cases though in which no one knows who "Jakkabo" is, why he is a leader, he doesn't answer or can't be contacted, etc…

Let's say that PfO really took off in popularity. So yeah, some of those absentee leaders will come back. Maybe almost all of them. Assume though that some will not come back: they found a game they like better, they haven't the time, they still don't like the gameplay, they haven't THE MONEY TO PLAY…

It would take only one or a few of these players to decide "Hey my old PfO accts are worth lots of cash now" and sell them off without a second thought to the players who have stayed put and worked hard to keep absentee peoples "land possessions" going, growing and strong. If a rival play group or just an internet troll were to buy an acct like this, it would not just be a disaster on morale, it would be a media nightmare.

This is only a call for a little security and only for those cases that are impossible to solve through normal channels. It isn't a call to strip EVERY non subbed leader of their accts but only their rank, which they could get back in most cases.

Everyone assumes that companies and settlements are jealous little groups wherein the players are all jealous of leadership positions. That they would not be very happy to have lapsed leaders back and probably more so to let them lead again. I don't feel like that is the situation within The Commonwealth. I pity you others that play in an environment where that is the case…
"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
Smitty
You already have an option to address taking full control over that company..
Have the player that owns the company send an email from the account - that founded the company - in that email have them tell GW that that person wants you to be leader-
After that GW should be able to deal with demotions as needed- since it is your company at that point..

The fact that GW is willing to do this is super cool - I would expect most companies to ignore the request outright..
Like I said - if dealing with a settlement founding company it’s a bit harder- but if you are just worried about a company that you took over- where the original company founder doesn’t play- - And you think it is too much of a risk – phase out that company -
Asking GW to fix your risk- just because you wanted to use that companies influence is on you.. (This was a real thing when we had an influence cap - but that went away months ago..)
IF you have continued to use those companies - because they were established - you picked the easy road- It was your choice to continue to use those companies - now you are asking GW to protect you from the risk you took in taking that easy road..

As long as we aren’t talking about a settlement founding company- the tools that exist are fine - Does it mean you have some work to do.. It Absolutely does.. But It was your choice to build your settlement that way -

Perhaps im missing your guys point - but to me it sounds like you bought some companies - you don’t have founding leadership in them - you have been using them for years now ( instead of building up your own) .

And for some reason you think it is in GW best interest to protect a choice you made -

Here is why GW should have no business doing anything - other than dealing with emails from the founding company..

Avenger Company
Founded by
Captain A - Leader
Metal Dude as officer
Captain A stops playing
Then Metal Dude - quits sells account his account to you..
You play metal Dude you love Metal Dude - you Build up the avengers and take control of land you control for 3 years..

You some how convince GW that Metal Dude is the leader are the Avengers.. because Captain A hasn’t been around.
You have GW demote Captain A to recruit ..
Now Captain A returns - to find out Metal Dude- who was actually an imposter of the original Metal Dude is now running the Avengers..
Captain A Looks at GW and says WTF - you took my company away from Me ! I have been the Avenger for 10+ years in every game I play- You guys suck.. Im out of here..

Regardless of what you feel you are owed for building up the Avengers for 3 years - Captain A is right! GS has no right to give the Avengers to anyone other the Captain A .. Unless Captain A has told GW to do it..
GW wants Captain A to return- and should do everything in their power to not piss off Captain A- should he come back..
Flari-Merchant
@ Smitty

First, GW was willing to fix some things, but not all things. Probably because it might deluge them with requests to be Net Detectives and eat enormous amounts of time. As it stands now, there is absolutely no way to resolve multiple leadership of settlements. There should probably have been a One Settlement-One Leader Policy limit from the start of the game. Then permissions and appeals to GW would have been plenty for security.

Second, this isn't about "gaining" leadership in any companies, to take a look at their inaccessible vaults and getting Influence and things for free. I personally do not support that approach. Not everyone does or lobbies for personal gain exclusively. Anyone supporting this just to get into a company's Inf pool or vaults ain't in my camp.
But there is a huge "Backdoor to Ruin" potential here from an overlooked security hole. Like the kind that we were promised would not be there. Considering that this game was supposed to rival EVE in it's treacherous political amnd personal conduct.

Third, I won't argue that I am "entitled" to any such "security assurances" because that is a ridiculous position. I choose to play, I accept the conditions extant in that play. I will say that I did expect it to take more than pure $$$, a careless sale of an acct, and a touch of evil mischief to destroy the work of many, so easily.
"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
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post