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.

Pathfinder Online will be ending operations on November 28, 2021. For more details please visit our FAQ.

All posts created by Bob

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.
We eventually want to provide company/settlement settings that handle leadership challenges and succession in-game, but we won't be able to get to that for a while. Until we're able to tackle that, I'd like to propose the following rules for leadership challenges:

For a variety of reasons, sometimes a company's leadership (in whole or in part) stops playing an active role in the game and becomes a detriment to that company. If you feel that one or more of the leaders in your company have become inactive and need to be demoted, you can challenge their leadership by sending an email to stating your company’s name, your character’s name (must be a member of the company in question and must be on an active account), and the character names of any leaders you’re challenging.

First, all leaders of the company, challenged or not, active or not, will be notified of the challenge and reminded of the rules for leadership challenges. The character challenging the leaders won't be identified, though it may be obvious to those challenged. The message will also include a reminder that any leader can request to have themselves demoted at any time if they'd like to speed the process up and help clean up the company's leadership roles. The character challenging the leaders won't be identified, though it may be obvious to those challenged.

Any time before the challenge process is completed, any active leader can unilaterally veto the challenge. Any challenged leaders who've already been demoted will remain demoted, but no other leaders will be demoted unless they personally request it.

We will next check to see if the challenged leaders have been logged into the game over the last four weeks. Those who have will retain their leadership. Those who have not logged in will be contacted and warned that if they do not log that character in within two weeks, or protest the challenge within that time and subsequently succeed with that protest, they will be demoted.

To protest the challenge, a challenged leader simply needs to reply to the notification email stating that they protest the challenge. This will remove the option of logging in to avoid being demoted, so it should only be done if the challenged leader understands and accepts the risks involved. If the protesting leader is on an active account, then the protest succeeds and the leader will not be demoted. If not on an active account, all leaders of the company on active accounts will be asked to approve or disapprove of demoting the challenged leader. If there are no active leaders, no responses within two weeks, or a single disapproving response, the protesting leader will remain as a leader. Otherwise, the protesting leader will be demoted.

Any challenged leaders who don't log in or successfully protest their challenge, as well as any leader who requests to be demoted, will be demoted to Recruits. If there are no remaining leaders, we will work with the highest-ranked active members to select new leadership.

To keep this from becoming too much work, we’ll be handling a limited number of challenges on any given business day, and handling none at all on particularly busy days. All remaining challenges will be queued up based on the order they’re submitted. Multiple challenges to the same company will be lumped together with the earliest challenge, and frivolous or unreasonably-repetitive challenges will be rejected, at our discretion.


Edit 1: Added the ability of active leaders to veto the challenge at any time, and added a two-week time limit for approving/disapproving any protests.
Before things get too nasty and we all stop even reading posts before we trash them, is this still a valid procedure for handling Settlement Leadership? I want to be sure that I am not just misunderstanding the issue here.

"Read this again- it was 2 years ago Dec 2016 - last I heard it was still valid..
“The only situation so far where we allow one player to request that another player be demoted from company leader is when the official settlement owner requests that a leader of the settlement's founding company be demoted, and that's only allowed because it's kind of essential to being a settlement's tyrant. ….. “

Yup, I continue to honor requests from settlement owners to demote founding company leaders.

I'm also writing up a proposal for handling leadership challenges for all companies. I'll post it here for discussion shortly.
I lean toward the Knights of Iomedae (Fort Riverwatch), the Hellknights (Fort Inevitable) and the Denizens of the Echo Wood (Thornkeep). Factions along those lines are the most tightly integrated with our storyline, and would be ideal for linking quests to specific factions in ways that bring the storyline to life.
Are we not Goblinworks? We are Paizo!

We'll of course answer to either, but Pathfinder Online is officially a Paizo project, with Cole and I working for the Golem now. Still goblins at heart, though. smile
I spent 3+ hours over two days this weekend trying to find *magic using skeletons* in the Skeletal Uprising Home hex where the Finding Your Path quests sends you. I tried both simply running through every group on the map to see which ones attacked with spells (which didn't work - there was only a single skeletal caster in the whole hex) as well as killing every skeleton I came across. I finally found and killed 5, but not until I would have become very frustrated as a new player. Maybe 3 would be a better number since they seems so rare?

My hunch is the skeletal mages only appear when the home hex escalation has dropped in percentage. Problem being, that is a very good hex for running gushers and people keep killing off the home hex boss to reset the escalation thereby making running gushers easier smile

I did a little more research and the issue is that during the first two phases of the escalation, as well as the fallow phase, skeletal wizards only appear in small numbers at very large encounters. In the later phases they start to appear in uneven and 5m encounters, and at fairly reasonable rates. I'll change things around a bit so that they also appear in the smaller encounters during those easier phases.
Nice catch. I've filed a bug to look into that, should be a fairly easy fix.
One further thought that I had almost forgotten: When you are sending the player to a "Player run Settlement" with the idea to train one or more skills and get next destination, isn't that kind of a roll of the dice for that player? A player settlement could be closed to them through lists, "shut down" or simply not have the buildings that offer the training.

Questers already have enough running to do don't they? Might be better, for "training tasks" to always send them to an NPC Sett. Or maybe "instruct" to ask in Gen Chat to be sure there is a nearby Sett with the buildings they need?

I tried to only send questers to player settlements when those feat ranks aren't available at NPC settlements. Ideally we'd have some in-game ways for players to see which player settlements would work for them, but for now giving them some advice on finding one is a good idea. I'll file a bug report to look into that.
I filed a bug to look into the Skeletal Wizards. The lowered requirement was actually just me fixing the text to say Kill 10, since the coding said to Kill 5, but clearly when it was written I knew there wouldn't be a lot of them around, and it wouldn't be too surprising for more to be needed during the fallow time.

Glad the quest worked for you overall and was reasonably entertaining, especially given that we could only make minor tweaks to the quest system while developing it. We do hope to improve on it as we get better tools, but this should give new players a pretty thorough introduction until then.
We've had players return off-and-on, and many who left expressed a desire to return as we got closer to Open Enrollment, so we definitely want to be fair to them. We just need to work through the edge cases to figure out what fair means here, then we can look at implementing something. Hopefully we can take a look at that soon, since it does seem to be coming up more and more.