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 Flari-Merchant

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
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?
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
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.
Flari-Merchant
@ Stilachio and @ Xyzzy

I do understand where you are coming from and I do respect your outlooks on the issue. I even agree that you have valid feelings about it.

Not everyone feels the same and there should probably be ways for players with less time to get things done through azoth BUT I agree these things should also ALWAYS be doable by players with effort and willingness to invest more time.
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.
Flari-Merchant
Stilachio Thrax
Flari-Merchant
I know that I am just a 1/2 pea in a 5 gallon pot of the green stuff but think how much Azoth might flow around if we could list player gathered and crafted stuff or bid for things with Azoth through the AH? smile

I'd be very leary of this. It is good from Paizo's standpoint as it would encourage Azoth purchases. However, in every game I've ever played that allowed a real $ premium currency to be used in an auction house, the exact same thing happened- anything of value, and even things of value, are only listed as buy with premium currency (Azoth). Everyone wants the premium currency, and no one wants the regular currency. In the end, you are practically forced to buy the premium currency to buy anything from the AH.
Always be cautious! However Azoth is MORE stable than in game coin ever will be. It is already tradable. If 1650 azoth = 1 month's subscription and remains so, it will always be more stable than coin. The value of items that players value at LESS THAN 1 AZOTH keep coin necessary for transactions which players value at less 1/1650th of a month's subscription. There are VERY Many such transactions every day.

Just never let items be sold in "bundles" on the AH and the need for copper coins never goes away.

PfO needs an increased revenue stream. You sometimes need to think outside the box. Outside the established "norms" of "old grognard standards" that first came along because overly greedy game companies made everyone shy about in game stores, micro transactions, pay-to-win economies… all that crap that STILL goes on. Skirt that line and push that envelope. Since Azoth is already tradable NOW, this game is already there. You can already buy Azoth with real cash and sell it for in game currency. Just make it a lil more convenient for players. Just don't push it over the edge.

Always keep that connection between player effort to create items/game coin between the "RL cash/Azoth" and you won't cross the boundry of pay-to-win.
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.
Flari-Merchant
Midnight
I think the blob has enough advantages, and because of that failure penalties are less likely to affect the blob than those who'd be willing to test the blob. Underdogs are already going to be risking gear and siege engines and are already more likely to lose that stuff and the blob is less likely to lose their gear. The blob doesn't need any further disincentives to being attacked, nor any further rewards for prevailing.

I say this as someone whose coalition WAS the blob to 75% of the playerbase.
Fair enough. There should be a negative result to discourage blobs from attacking everything and everyone though. If there isn't, they will.

I should point out that I am talking about aggressive type blobs here. You could be perfectly blob-ish and not be a threat to anyone.
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.