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.

All posts created by Azure_Zero

Azure_Zero
Bob
Azure_Zero
I think this part should be an exemption from the rule, and be account based, not character based.
As a inactive character does not have any of the main benefits of being active, and doing account based stops some possible headaches.

The only real headache involved is that the character has to be activated for a month to file the leadership challenge, and this fortunately isn't a very common occurrence. I think I've only been asked to help out with similar situations a few times over the last few years. I'm also generally willing to be fairly helpful in terms of just helping players get in touch with other players in these cases, particularly when it feels like the game didn't do enough to discourage characters from getting into these situations.

Speaking of which, I was testing this all out a bit just to see what we do to prevent this kind of situation. The last leader is in fact blocked from leaving the company, though not if they're the last member of the company. Of course, they're not blocked from leaving at all if there are technically other leaders, but they're not actively playing, which can effectively leave the company leaderless. I think adding some confirmation dialogs and/or adding some hoops to the process (like requiring leaders to demote themselves first before leaving the company) would help a lot here. I've filed a bug report to look into possible improvements.

Alright Bob, I'll give a scenario as to why you'll need to do this on an account base over a character base.
Say someone has X accounts, so 3X in characters and has say (1.5+)X in companies,
but is only subbing for X or less in characters and has 1 character hopping around to keep those companies useful and manage them.
Being account based you just sank about X companies into uselessness, and can't be helped cause a character can't hop around without being locked into a company.
While if the inactivity checks based on account rather then character, All companies can be in a useful state and accessible, but now it would require that they do keep all accounts active to do so and could be counted as a bit of a compromise.
Azure_Zero
I'd like it if the Library actually functioned like a Library and could store all those papers we find.
Azure_Zero
Bob
Azure_Zero


Azure_Zero
I think it might be best to do this inactive check at the account level, rather then checking on the character.

Part of the reason the price per month dropped so much with the per character subscription switch was precisely because we're no longer passing any benefits of being active along to the other characters on the account. On the positive side, it's now cheaper to occasionally activate those secondary characters for rare issues like this than it was to pay to have the whole account active all the time.

I think this part should be an exemption from the rule, and be account based, not character based.
As a inactive character does not have any of the main benefits of being active, and doing account based stops some possible headaches.
Azure_Zero
If one looks at the table top version a bit, I could see, Skirmisher being part of the needed training.

Now I could see Alchemist if it weren't tied to any of the main combat class buildings, that it'd likely either a building that experts use or where one can craft with alchemy.
Azure_Zero
What if a company has say 3 characters all leaders, two are inactive and the active leader jumps to help another company, we run into the same issue.
I think it might be best to do this inactive check at the account level, rather then checking on the character.
Azure_Zero
I think there is a small problem Bob.

Some of us have X companies (that we completely control with other characters and or no other players in)
and have less then X companies of characters subbed.
So companies become leaderless and no way to get them back into leader position without sending support tickets.
Azure_Zero
Bob
Congratulations to Keeper's Pass for taking Second Place! Two more settlements have also joined the list:


I think there is a case-n-paste error, and that is suppose to say
Congratulations to Keeper's Pass for taking Third Place!
Azure_Zero
Well my not make a 1st ed and 2nd ed deities and domains a dual-supporting of both since;
1) The game started with 1st ed Pathfinder
2) Not everything in 1st ed has a 2nd ed version
3) Since folks bought feats for specific deities that where modded in their conversion to 2nd ed.

4) Not everyone playing TT or PBP has switched to 2nd Ed and or wants to, like myself.
Azure_Zero
Talonguard would like to have Talonguard 1-6 as it's monster hex.
Azure_Zero
It would be nice to see how many credits are in each account…