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
@ Bob
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. ….. “

Thanks, Bob
Flari-Merchant
@ Smitty

Along these lines, do you really feel that it is right that a settlement could be wrecked by "Arch Enemy" because he bought an old acct that has not been subbed for as many as 2 years ago?

Is that how you envision a great territorial control MMO?
Flari-Merchant
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. ….. “


What you quoted up there is no longer the case according to Bob in an earlier post in this thread. Unless he is just referring to "COMPANY LEADERS".
I am specifically referring to SETTLEMENT leaders now, though that was not so clear back in the dim days of this thread (for which I apologize). There are all manner of ways in game to knock a company out.

Never suggested that a leader run a settlement in any way other than how they like.

Never suggested that subscribed players should have ANY problem. My problem is with very old unsubscribed accts and the characters that are both unsubscribed leaders of active settlements and seem to be beyond contact without paying a P.I. Or are just plain unresponsive…
Flari-Merchant
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Flari-Merchant
Why should leadership that is not supporting the game by subbing, no one remembers or simply can't be contacted by players anymore have it within their power to wreck a settlement possibly just by selling an account to the wrong person?
They probably shouldn't. Which is why there should be a way of removing them. The way that was promised half a decade ago. Not a new way that gives us yet another chance to introduce bugs or unexpected consequences which will have to be replaced by the appropriate way at some point.
Anything that fixes such a glaring security risk is fine by me. I am not pushing to have it done today. Tomorrow would be fine. smile
Flari-Merchant
Why should leadership that is not supporting the game by subbing, no one remembers or simply can't be contacted by players anymore have it within their power to wreck a settlement possibly just by selling an account to the wrong person?

We did get ourselves into the mess but humans without limits will always do that. It is Paizo's (good business sense) responsibility that there are no "back doors" of such obvious exploitation.

It should be kept at the settlement level and it could be on a case by case basis. There are probably 100's of companies but there are only (I believe) less than 30 player settlements.
Flari-Merchant
********************GREATER COMMONWEALTH TRADING********************

With the renaming of the Dominion comes a need to rename my company "Dominion Shipping/Trading Inc." to something more appropriate. The name that has been selected is "Greater Commonwealth Trading" and will be operating almost exclusively from Caer Coedwig. Which I must say, has been an exceptionally succesful marketplace so far.

Until The Commonwealth has satisfied it's settlement building materials needs, there will be little or no listings of materials that are required to fill those needs. For now the items for sale will be mostly T2 and up for raw materials, what gear items that I can craft(T2+) and some things that you do not often see on Auction House menus. Anything for sale can be bought for an equivalent amount of Azoth. You just need to contact me to get it pulled off the shelf.

Buying Azoth: (I pay 5s for 1 Azoth) As always I have bid orders in both Caer Coedwig and Thornkeep to buy your Azoth. Additionally, trade of items or materials is possible if a mutually beneficial deal can be worked out. When you find that you are short of coin, it is there, waiting for you.

Aeon Stones: (1 Aeon Stone = 1p or 1000 Azoth) A limited supply of these wonderful INV bonus giving stones is for sale at Caer Coedwig. The coin price is set high as I want to encourage that they be traded for Azoth rather than coin. Coin interests me but little. Come take a look and see if I have any that you want. I expect them to go fast.
If you wish to trade for Azoth, the stones will be delivered to any player or NPC settlement without added charges. Enquiries as to what is in stock are welcome if the trip to Caer Coedwig is too far.

Free Shipping: For now, Greater Commonwealth Trading offers free shipping on any purchase with Azoth that totals 500 Azoth or more. Shipping will be included to any settlement, NPC or player, of your choosing. Shipment must be deliverable and paid for on the spot ageed, within 36 hours of the agreed meeting time or will be returned. I don't have the time to set a meet and be stood up, waiting for days, way far from home. smile

CURRENTLY BUYING AT THORNKEEP
Azoth 1 Azoth=5s
Animal Pelt 20c
Antithesis Essense 20c
Beast Pelts 20c
Iron Ore 30c
Lodestone 50c
Pine Log 35c
Wool 20c

Thank you for reading and happy shopping!
Flari-Merchant
I don't think that it is such a big issue with companies. There are tools available for that as you have pointed out. A settlement is a different animal, however, and MUCH more is at stake.

Yes a founding leader should be able to demote leaders. Still, I lobby that an unsubscribed leader that is uncommunicative (virtually), should be replaceable by a subscribed and active leader if the Settlement all wants it so. There is no tool for that.

I totally get that Paizo does not want to ruffle the feathers of any players that might return. I do not get why a nonsubbed and totally missing leader should be in charge of a settlement and that there be such a potential back door to wrecking so much effort.

We are talking about demoting a character here and then using the tools that we have to set security levels, not about erasing accounts.
Flari-Merchant
@ Smitty

First, GW was willing to fix some things, but not all things. Probably because it might deluge them with requests to be Net Detectives and eat enormous amounts of time. As it stands now, there is absolutely no way to resolve multiple leadership of settlements. There should probably have been a One Settlement-One Leader Policy limit from the start of the game. Then permissions and appeals to GW would have been plenty for security.

Second, this isn't about "gaining" leadership in any companies, to take a look at their inaccessible vaults and getting Influence and things for free. I personally do not support that approach. Not everyone does or lobbies for personal gain exclusively. Anyone supporting this just to get into a company's Inf pool or vaults ain't in my camp.
But there is a huge "Backdoor to Ruin" potential here from an overlooked security hole. Like the kind that we were promised would not be there. Considering that this game was supposed to rival EVE in it's treacherous political amnd personal conduct.

Third, I won't argue that I am "entitled" to any such "security assurances" because that is a ridiculous position. I choose to play, I accept the conditions extant in that play. I will say that I did expect it to take more than pure $$$, a careless sale of an acct, and a touch of evil mischief to destroy the work of many, so easily.
Flari-Merchant
Seems like there is much confusion about what is being pushed at for consideration and what people believe is being pushed at for consideration.

From my point at least, if players have a non playing Co/Settlement leader who can be contacted and will help them get done whatever they need to get done and may even want to come back some day… well that is the best possible case. Those cases need no intervention.

Also, situations with companies may be "fixable" by dumping the company and feuding it, or leaving the company and starting over. Not so great an option for any that may have been in a company with a year or two invested time, though.

Much can be fixed by adjusting settlement permissions. That will make working smoothly on crafting and huge projects a real PITA all over again, but it could be done.

There ARE cases though in which no one knows who "Jakkabo" is, why he is a leader, he doesn't answer or can't be contacted, etc…

Let's say that PfO really took off in popularity. So yeah, some of those absentee leaders will come back. Maybe almost all of them. Assume though that some will not come back: they found a game they like better, they haven't the time, they still don't like the gameplay, they haven't THE MONEY TO PLAY…

It would take only one or a few of these players to decide "Hey my old PfO accts are worth lots of cash now" and sell them off without a second thought to the players who have stayed put and worked hard to keep absentee peoples "land possessions" going, growing and strong. If a rival play group or just an internet troll were to buy an acct like this, it would not just be a disaster on morale, it would be a media nightmare.

This is only a call for a little security and only for those cases that are impossible to solve through normal channels. It isn't a call to strip EVERY non subbed leader of their accts but only their rank, which they could get back in most cases.

Everyone assumes that companies and settlements are jealous little groups wherein the players are all jealous of leadership positions. That they would not be very happy to have lapsed leaders back and probably more so to let them lead again. I don't feel like that is the situation within The Commonwealth. I pity you others that play in an environment where that is the case…
Flari-Merchant
This is not directed at Cal.

The only thing that is being asked of Paizo is that absentee Leaders who are non responsive, possibly hostile and possibly willing to sell accounts (or just gift them) without turning off sensitive access be demoted. They are absently standing in the way of these companies and settlements progressing without worries of disaster.

Many have been gone longer than they were here. They have done nothing to keep these settlements and/or companies going for a long time in MMO terms.

All that is being asked is that they be demoted to a position that is below an access level with which BAD THINGS can be done to these companies and settlements. No one is asking that their accounts be erased or that their personal goods be vanished…

It seems somewhat both inconsiderate and unwise for the Developers to so casually dismiss these concerns.