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
If people want “their value to be recognized for __ years” why not go back to the original influence discussion and tie influence to a character instead of something a company controls..

That way if you leave a company and start a new one / join a new one - you take your influence with you - (just seems that was against the whole concept of influence to begin with . Yet it would give characters the value you want for the time you put in.).
Flari-Merchant
What is the difference?

Example 1: Old leader comes back to find that New leader has allowed settlement to bulldoze original company and helped new leader to start over because of security issues. Old Leader has to start over…

Example 2: Old leader comes back to find that he has been replaced and demoted because of security issues. Old leader has to start over…

His company is still there in #2 and Old Leader might just be welcomed back to his spot.
"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
@ Flari
In example 1 - the old leader comes back to a company with influence already intact- just needs to figure out what settlement he is attached to and if he wants to stay- or if he wants to move- He can build up holdings if needed ( immediately) declare a few feuds for raids (immediately) or conquering - and pretty much get back into the game as fast as he wants ..

Example 2 - the old leader comes back to the game finds out he is not a leader of a company - new leadership doesn’t want him to raid or feud, doesn’t want him to take over certain hexes unless they tell him which ones etc - or just didn’t like the person much when they played 3 years ago - so new leader doesn’t reinstate his role - and he has to leave and start over with a new company ( perhaps leaving a guild name he really is attached too) - so his first couple months in game he is rebuilding influence and working for 3+ months to get back to the point where he thought he would be when he first came back to the game.. but face it PFO’s track record isn’t going to make him stay for 3 months to do all that - he is going to log in find out what happened logged out and tell everyone how PFO online screwed him over …
Pretty big difference to me
Flari-Merchant
I'm done. Your position is emotion based(which varies too much person to person) and is based on you deciding how someone will feel. Mine is practical security based. We can't ever reach level ground in this case.

Though I would ask you, if the President of a bank disappears and can't be communicated with or found, you take over in his place, do you think it would be a good idea to change the locks?

Peace smile
"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
Smitty
you guys are still missing the point –

but they are thinking they have a company and influence .. with which they can do things in game, feud raid, siege etc.

And my idea of making a company for them, with their original company name, along with some influence (suggesting 1000, just as a number to start discussion)? Wouldn't this address the points that you are raising?

Not trying to be sarcastic, just trying to understand where I am missing things/not understanding.
Flari-Merchant
@ Mistwalker

Pretty easy to abuse for 1000 Influence. It might be fine to change old company and reserve the name, I suppose. The old leader would still be bereft of his old holdings and who would join a company that had no leader?
"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
Flari-Merchant
@ Mistwalker

Pretty easy to abuse for 1000 Influence. It might be fine to change old company and reserve the name, I suppose. The old leader would still be bereft of his old holdings and who would join a company that had no leader?

How is it easy to abuse?
One company per settlement would be the maximum, and that only for unsubbed settlement controlling companies.

It isn't about getting people to join the re-created company, but to ensure that if they decided to resub, they have their company (preferred name, some influence, still leaders of said company). But this would also remove the possibility of sabotage or other such issues.

If we have to feud and do warfare to take the settlements, then they will have no holdings either.
I have noticed that a fair number of holdings have collapsed due to the changes a while back, and with no one subbing, no adjustments were made.
And, with some influence, they can feud to take holdings.

But, the security issue that you have would be addressed.
Flari-Merchant
Mistwalker
Flari-Merchant
@ Mistwalker

Pretty easy to abuse for 1000 Influence. It might be fine to change old company and reserve the name, I suppose. The old leader would still be bereft of his old holdings and who would join a company that had no leader?

How is it easy to abuse?
One company per settlement would be the maximum, and that only for unsubbed settlement controlling companies.

It isn't about getting people to join the re-created company, but to ensure that if they decided to resub, they have their company (preferred name, some influence, still leaders of said company). But this would also remove the possibility of sabotage or other such issues.

If we have to feud and do warfare to take the settlements, then they will have no holdings either.
I have noticed that a fair number of holdings have collapsed due to the changes a while back, and with no one subbing, no adjustments were made.
And, with some influence, they can feud to take holdings.

But, the security issue that you have would be addressed.
It could be played (for influence) if not carefully watched by Bob and Cole. There are cases of "free account" created companies out there I am pretty sure. I am already relieved that this doesn't require much more work than a pronouncement from Bob, whatever "challenges" they get via email and a little process. I doubt that all that many groups will even use it. That is their choice.

As for incentives to come back, I am really all for that. So my position is… flexible if abuse can be avoided and it only really makes a difference if they DO come back. It could be a win-win I suppose.

I retract my dismissal of your solution idea, Sir Mistwalker. smile
"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
Bob
Midnight
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.

Inactive players definitely wouldn't be disregarded. Every effort would be made to contact them, and as long as they respond with a protest, they wouldn't be demoted unless there are active leaders and all the active leaders who respond vote against the protest. In such a case, there likely wouldn't be much of a company to return to anyway, as I'd expect the current active leaders to strip the company clean and start a new one if they didn't have the option of demoting the challenged leader.

The goal is to provide lots of protection for inactive leaders who are even vaguely considering returning at some point, while making some allowance for company members who are deeply invested in a company to keep it viable when inactive leaders can't even be contacted. Challenging the inactive leaders is actually pretty risky, since they have a pretty good chance of successfully protesting the challenge, or they could choose to return to the game and clear the company out, but at least then the company knows where they stand and can move on.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
I was initially on the fence ovet this but I now am leaning towards not using it except in extreme cases.

Some of the issues posted such as a leader sells a leadership account to someone else is not something anyone can fix. The devs cant control someone who wants to sell their account much less what is on it. Sure I sympathize with how bad that would be but even this new system proposed can only do so much.

Any system to make it even easier than the one Bob proposed to challenge and take over leadership will be easily abused. The one Bob is proposing is still concerning for me but at least it gives some power to the original leaders. Some of these other changes some of you are proposing are far more dangerous.

I think the people cheering for this are forgetting that you never know why someone went inactive. Some are waiting for the game to be ready, some may have personal reasons or maybe unable to even get online for periods of time. What if their machine died and couldn't afford a new one right away?

There is a lot of prejudice here against people who are currently inactive on the part of some in our very tiny active player base. Others who say it is unfair to the old leader to force him not just out of his position but to completely start from scratch being unfair are correct. It is a pretty cruel thing to do and should be avoided unless there is absolutely no other choice for the settlement to function at all. If someone has a personal matter or their computer died some months in and goes inactive for a long time, are you guys suggesting that he shpuld basically lose everything pver things outside of their control? If you are effectively shut out from your settlement because one or two active players decided you needed to go then best case is they may promote you back. Worst case you are an outcast and being an outcast with these current mechanics means you may as well stop playing.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of the Kathalpas Coalition and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post