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

Midnight
It would be disastrous if groups wind up being taken over by some dude who had little to do with the first 8 months of big active companies accruing wealth before the layoffs.

Many people still intend to return to the game, but won't if some random they were willing to give a chance, but didn't trust enough to make a leader, becomes the leader and empties the vault.

Anyone who finds their company's leadership isn't present should have moved to a company that is active, rather than angling for a hostile takeover that is only possible with dev interference (and they are likely wanting to do it with some alt, since a main would have joined a new company with active leadership by now).
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Flari-Merchant
Midnight
It would be disastrous if groups wind up being taken over by some dude who had little to do with the first 8 months of big active companies accruing wealth before the layoffs.

Many people still intend to return to the game, but won't if some random they were willing to give a chance, but didn't trust enough to make a leader, becomes the leader and empties the vault.

Anyone who finds their company's leadership isn't present should have moved to a company that is active, rather than angling for a hostile takeover that is only possible with dev interference (and they are likely wanting to do it with some alt, since a main would have joined a new company with active leadership by now).
Good thing that there is the opportunity to respond to such challenges and that it looks like the highest ranked "actives" will all be considered as replacement first. Otherwise it could be almost as dangerous as someone getting control through an account sale and wrecking everything. Even waiting to switch out of Banner Status so a Sett can be sieged 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
Midnight
Flari-Merchant
Midnight
It would be disastrous if groups wind up being taken over by some dude who had little to do with the first 8 months of big active companies accruing wealth before the layoffs.

Many people still intend to return to the game, but won't if some random they were willing to give a chance, but didn't trust enough to make a leader, becomes the leader and empties the vault.

Anyone who finds their company's leadership isn't present should have moved to a company that is active, rather than angling for a hostile takeover that is only possible with dev interference (and they are likely wanting to do it with some alt, since a main would have joined a new company with active leadership by now).
Good thing that there is the opportunity to respond to such challenges and that it looks like the highest ranked "actives" will all be considered as replacement first. Otherwise it could be almost as dangerous as someone getting control through an account sale and wrecking everything. Even waiting to switch out of Banner Status so a Sett can be sieged easily.

Disregarding the players who suspended their subscriptions during crippled development of a long overdue game (and who far outnumber the actives) would seem to be a serious misstep, in my opinion. And why in the heck would active players even have remained in leaderless companies? It still smells like alts hoping to gain undeserved rewards.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Flari-Merchant
It's not even an issue for me personally. My companies are under my control and they are in order. I would not have a care about companies. They can be dealt with by leaving or bull dozing, etc…
When an active settlement is vulnerable to being screwed over by a casual account sale, however, that gets under my skin. Settlement founding companies are still companies. It's a bit more to just say, "take your company to a new settlement". Absentee sett leaders are a server wide problem.

If you do care about your settlement and do plan to come back, you should at least be capable of being contacted. There is your chance to save your spot.

It just seems ridiculous that unsubscribed players should have so much influence in a pay to play basically "live action" game while subscribed players are vulnerable to back-door-disaster because of it.
"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
Midnight
Flari-Merchant
It's not even an issue for me personally. My companies are under my control and they are in order. I would not have a care about companies. They can be dealt with by leaving or bull dozing, etc…
When an active settlement is vulnerable to being screwed over by a casual account sale, however, that gets under my skin. Settlement founding companies are still companies. It's a bit more to just say, "take your company to a new settlement". Absentee sett leaders are a server wide problem.

If you do care about your settlement and do plan to come back, you should at least be capable of being contacted. There is your chance to save your spot.

It just seems ridiculous that unsubscribed players should have so much influence in a pay to play basically "live action" game while subscribed players are vulnerable to back-door-disaster because of it.

If the game hadn't encountered a meltdown in funding followed by layoffs and an incredibly delayed Open Enrollment, I'd agree with you. But those suspended accounts vastly outnumber actives because of the delays. Your (and my one active account) subscription entitles you to romp through the world with little crowding or opposition. It isn't like you aren't being rewarded for remaining subscribed; but for this game to become an actual MMO they need those inactive folks to return (and bring friends) when the game is ready.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Flari-Merchant
There is much that could be said in answer to what you have written there but I think that the most important point I can stress is that a settlement can be pretty much wrecked by the casual sale of a long unsubscribed account. That is just wrong. Not to mention there could be things that absentee did not give abilities to perform when they dropped out.

I think that any group's lost leaders coming back as themselves would be welcomed and almost always given their spots back without issue. That is how much just about anyone would love old players to come back. I think that it would be a few corner cases where a struggle to be the leader again would need to be hashed out. But even then, where have they been while players stayed subbed and kept the lights on? Many cases of "replacement leaders" now that have been leaders far longer than the original.

This game has only been in actual production(worked on) for 3-4 years. Most games with huge budgets and teams are in production for that long before they are even played. There are paying customers and there are non paying customers, who haven't even spoken up about this by the way, and there are imaginary players that MIGHT want to come back. There is all of that. Trumping all, IMO, is a serious security risk of having many players lose a great deal of effort from just one account sale. Including those originals that may seriously want to return.

Remember, no one is talking about erasing anyone's accounts here. Just demotion for dereliction of Duty.
"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
Mistwalker
How about this:

Non settlement controlling companies do not get touched.

Settlement controlling companies get a name change, a new company with the old name is created and all of the unsubbed characters are moved to it, at their present rank, with say a 1000 influence.

Would this address everyone's concerns/issues?
Maxen
I think I need to clarify for Midnight that my original suggestion never had anything to do with non-leaders being able to challenge and take over a company from an inactive leader. And if Bob’s proposed rules allow for that, I don’t agree that should be an option.

My original point was that there should be a way to demote non-active “leaders”. Many very valid points have been raised. You talk about all the hard work that went on in the early days of the game. Well, the current, active, paying players have worked their butts off since those “leaders” went silent. In my case, I’ve worked to gain influence for 4 companies to raise all holdings and outposts to at least +3 or higher. Granted, that is with the help of alliance mates, but still no small feat given the low game population.

Finding a fair way for an active leader to challenge an inactive leader’s status is needed to avoid other very serious issues mentioned like sabotage. They are not losing anything more than what they could have potentially lost already through thier inactivity since my leader characters have the same vault access.

And believe you me. I don’t want to be a leader in 4 different companies. If these inactive players return and convey through their actions that the are interested in playing an intragal role in the development of our settlement, I will gladly turn the reins back over. But frankly, I continue to contend that they are owed nothing. I have paid for multiple subscriptions throughout the very slow development of this game and actively played daily. They have not.
Flari-Merchant
Mistwalker
How about this:

Non settlement controlling companies do not get touched.

Settlement controlling companies get a name change, a new company with the old name is created and all of the unsubbed characters are moved to it, at their present rank, with say a 1000 influence.

Would this address everyone's concerns/issues?
I doubt it. The issue seems to hang on the belief that absentee settlement leaders who may want to come back "someday" will expect to just take back their leadership spots like they never abandoned them and totally helped build up what is there now. That they will be very "hurt" that, that might turn out to not be so set in stone.

It is probably more likely that they would come back and expect nothing more than to hopefully find their accounts intact and a few of their old friends around, their Org still going strong and any spot within it a welcoming one.

But I digress, they are not around to confirm or deny either such reaction…The real concern, IMO, is the very wide, sloppy back door for settlement security that exists here. Your solution does the same thing. It removes absentee settlement leaders from the "top dog" spot. That Really isn't the "problem" or the ultimate solution(IMO at least) that is being sought here.
"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 guys are still missing the point –
People have sold accounts - that is a fact and nothing we can do anything about.. The issue in my mind is when the person who bought the account takes control of an entire company that they never actually joined ( beginning of the game when all the leaders were active, they didn’t grind up the original influence , they just bought it -)..

Those guys probably know they aren’t getting anything out of their settlement vaults ( because someone sold their account when they were a leader, and that is completely expected )-
but they are thinking they have a company and influence .. with which they can do things in game, feud raid, siege etc.

What this policy is going to do is take those companies away from them. When/If they return and they aren’t happy with the direction of the new leadership and cant take control back because they are no longer leaders - their only recourse is going to be to start over (instead of the current players starting over in a new company)..

That alone is going to make them bitter enough to just turn the game off for good and trash the game/ Paizo on whatever media platform they can find..

Still don’t understand how/why some of the decisions that are made here are so short sighted…
This is a horrible PR move .. it doesn’t do anything to welcome people back it just creates a chance that someone that returns is going to be pissed that they did..
Look at who it could affect and how it affects them, and what it could do to hurt the game in the long run, not how it affects the few folks left playing - We can build up a new company and phase out risky ones if needed.

So why even take the chance ?
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post