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

Smitty


Guess you guys know where I stand on this subject ..

As long as we don’t have a influence cap -
And You keep a settlement leader list that has an active character as the leader of the settlement ..

Then don’t waste anytime with this request ..

The founding company leader can already remove any company they need to.
The founding company leader can demote any leader within his own company..

Then there is nothing you guys should really worry about ..
Any non founding company with questionable leadership - can be replaced with trusted players and leaders - that just takes time - and influence farming. If those companies hold holdings the settlement should take it upon themselves to fix that issue.

If those companies don’t have any active players and still have holding hexes - that could be an issue- that may need your intervention- but that seems like a super edge case. Because then they can kick the company and feud it and take over the hex the old fashion way..
I urge you guys to take zero chances of pissing off returning players by demoting them . Players are typically loyal their company / guild names .. If they come back and find out their company is controlled by a former enemy or they no longer control the guild name that they have controlled in every game they have played in for 10 years….., and then find out GW / Pazio are the ones that demoted them .

You are taking a risk of pissing off the very player base you want to recruit back into the game…

Just my opinion on it ..
Flari-Merchant
Not that I disagree with your point. I also feel that in the case of companies, there are avenues already available even if some are a real hassle.

What though should a person that lapsed their account, disappeared from possible contact, or won't return attempts to make contact really expect? Just for an opening question.
"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
How about completely dead companies with holding that can't be accessed? Will these returning players be less happy to find their settlement bulldozed the returny's holdings to make productive hexes?
"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
Father Bronin
Smitty
Guess you guys know where I stand on this subject ..

As long as we don’t have a influence cap -
And You keep a settlement leader list that has an active character as the leader of the settlement ..

Then don’t waste anytime with this request ..

The founding company leader can already remove any company they need to.
The founding company leader can demote any leader within his own company..

Then there is nothing you guys should really worry about ..
Any non founding company with questionable leadership - can be replaced with trusted players and leaders - that just takes time - and influence farming. If those companies hold holdings the settlement should take it upon themselves to fix that issue.

If those companies don’t have any active players and still have holding hexes - that could be an issue- that may need your intervention- but that seems like a super edge case. Because then they can kick the company and feud it and take over the hex the old fashion way..
I urge you guys to take zero chances of pissing off returning players by demoting them . Players are typically loyal their company / guild names .. If they come back and find out their company is controlled by a former enemy or they no longer control the guild name that they have controlled in every game they have played in for 10 years….., and then find out GW / Pazio are the ones that demoted them .

You are taking a risk of pissing off the very player base you want to recruit back into the game…

Just my opinion on it ..

+1 for Smitty
Maxen
Father Bronin
Four weeks seems pretty short. If I lose internet access for 6 weeks I can be removed as a company leader?

All parties are notified by email. I highly doubt people would not have access to email in some form or fashion for 4 weeks straight.
Maxen
I’ve said my piece.

A) This is a needed social mechanic. No unsubbed player should expect to have any rights. I am paying to play this game as it existed at the beginning of Early Enrollment AND as it exists today. They are not. If that pisses them off, that is their problem. Not mine.
B) I understand and support that there are other elements of the game that need considerably more attention.
C) I feel that Bob has offered a viable option, but I support any final decision Paizo makes on the matter.
D) Bob has said they will implement something formal eventually.
E) God forbid it happens, but if settlements are raped and pillaged by a company or settlement leadership level player who resubs, original account owner or not, I expect Paizo to fully investigate and set things right.
You are a Troll
Maxen
E) God forbid it happens, but if settlements are raped and pillaged by a company or settlement leadership level player who resubs, original account owner or not, I expect Paizo to fully investigate and set things right.

+1 to all Smitty's points.

Could you explain a bit more about what you mean here Maxen?
Smitty
Will try to let this one go after this - I understand your claims - but read the example below try to come up with how something positive happens for GW/ Pazio ..

Going to use an example.. to illustrate why this is such a horrible idea.
I know of a company that was attached to Kreutz.
The founding member of the company and most of the leaders walked away from the game.
One of those members who was a leader in the company sold their account.
That company is not the founding company of Carpe , but it was used to put up holdings (not certain if it is still used that way but at one point in time it was). I understand the guys who have played that company for the last 2 years have probably done more with the company than the original owners..

To Some folks perception is reality .. So look at it from the returning players side.

The original group decides to give PFO a shot again ( GW and Paizo should support that idea)- All the original leaders of that company come back- they are expecting that they have a company with a 1k-1.5k influence.

With this “ email us if you want to keep the company idea” - these guys would be ousted from their own company .. not by players but by the developers of the game and the policies of the company..

KB is now Carpe - and who is one of the players of carpe ? The CEO of GW/Paizo..
.
You can say that is not what happened till you are blue in the face - but to those returning players - their company was stolen from them by GW/Pazio, and it benefited the CEO ‘s settlement ..

.
Like I said - I don’t think this going to happen - but it is a possibility - and since it is GW/Paizo should not be involved with anything like this – Ever..
Nothing good can come from it-

Let any drama that comes about form a return - happen without direct developer involvement-

Let the players sort it out.
Maxen
You are a Troll
Maxen
E) God forbid it happens, but if settlements are raped and pillaged by a company or settlement leadership level player who resubs, original account owner or not, I expect Paizo to fully investigate and set things right.

+1 to all Smitty's points.

Could you explain a bit more about what you mean here Maxen?

Sure, simply put. Game mechanics should exist that would allow the players to deal with this (as Smitty says.) Currently, they do not and are not on the road map. Since the players are systematically unable to manage their own internal affairs, we must rely on Paizo to do it for us in some form or fashion.

Whatever the likeliness, it is a real possibility that an inactive account could resub and do significant damage to a company or settlement within minutes with no recourse by the other active players. If that happens, I would expect Paizo to look at the logs and investigate the situation. If it's determined that a non-active account was suddenly resubbed and the settlement vault was cleaned out and/or outposts/holdings torn down, I expect that situation to be corrected by reimbursing the company with lost items. I would also expect that player to be removed from the company immediately. This is not unreasonable because we do not have the tools to effectively manage it ourselves.

Any MMO I've ever played has rules around inactive and non-subbed accounts. I am a founding player of SWTOR and I maintain my account and guild there. I don't play it much anymore because I've devoted the last 3+ years to this game, but you'd better believe I log in at least once every 30 days lest I be auto-demoted and someone else is promoted as Guildmaster. In the case of SWTOR, it's the next person who logs in. How's that for a change in leadership? (Note that I'm not endorsing that. I think that's a dumb way to do it.)
Bob
Maxen
Any MMO I've ever played has rules around inactive and non-subbed accounts. I am a founding player of SWTOR and I maintain my account and guild there. I don't play it much anymore because I've devoted the last 3+ years to this game, but you'd better believe I log in at least once every 30 days lest I be auto-demoted and someone else is promoted as Guildmaster. In the case of SWTOR, it's the next person who logs in. How's that for a change in leadership? (Note that I'm not endorsing that. I think that's a dumb way to do it.)

We do eventually want to include something along these lines, but we don't want to introduce that until we can implement it properly, including the addition of better systems for warning players (even inactive ones) that they're running up against any time limits. Even then, a player would likely be able to protect a relatively-personal company by booting everyone else before going inactive, since that would leave nobody else to be promoted to leader until the player returned.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post