CB Report

[Androgos]

And with some matrix effects with green signs slowly coming out of the body it would be awsome

[Zellgadess]

Lol, maby when you delete char there money goes to the mobs and dragons, etc

The House Would become free, and someone else could take over the guild

[daecarne]

Originally posted by Seytra
.. be \"inherited\" by someone. So maybe we need some inheritance system \"last will\" coded into the game, that decided who gets what upon deletion of a char?

 Wow,  a very interesting idea.  On the one hand, I like that a char cannot be erased freely, and on the other the \'heritage\' concept is very original.
 However, first it\'s necessary to look for a solution for those chars who we leave them and they are never used anymore.  I believe that would be interesting to add the idea of \'missing\', one char could enter into this state on determined inactivity time.  Then, their goods could be inherited, auctioned or donated to the public treasure; finally, the GM would give a worthy burial him . Anyway, it is necessary to introduce the Seytra\'s idea of the \'Heritage\'.
 I think that everything would have to be inherited, goods and duties without exception.  This creates the problem of who is the heir (it would have to be unique), one solution could be for example:

        Char without guild  ---------> The heir will be designated by the player previously
     Char pertaining on a guild --> The heir will be the guild leader or, if char is the leader, the next member in hierarchic order,
       
Well, only is MHO.

[Hatchnet]

sorry daecarne but I don\'t like the idea of automaticly giveing a guild leader inheratence from his guild members the player may have someone else that he would like to have his items when he leaves the game.

[Zellgadess]

We Dont Want To Make The Rich Richer And Ther Poor Poorer

[Xordan]

Originally posted by Zellgadess
We Dont Want To Make The Rich Richer And Ther Poor Poorer

I disagree, especially as I\'m planning on being very rich

[Seytra]

Originally posted by Hatchnet
sorry daecarne but I don\'t like the idea of automaticly giveing a guild leader inheratence from his guild members the player may have someone else that he would like to have his items when he leaves the game.

Yes, we should have a default heir that gets everything in the case there is no specific last will. If there is any, this will take precedense and the default heir would only get what is left, most likely nothing (unless the last will says otrherwise). The final instance (i.e., if absolutely no default heir can be found) usually is the government, otherwise it\'s the family members, close relatives taking precedence. The guild wouldn\'t be in unless the last will says so (making last wills really important). Also, what about the thieves guild?

The \"missing\" idea sounds good as well, but one needs to be very careful to not have the timeout too fast. 6 RL months IMO are minimum to give the player time. Also, the timer should be put on hold if the player indicates that they are temporarily leaving for an extended time (holidays, exchange semesters, whatever).

[daecarne]

Originally posted by Hatchnet
sorry daecarne but I don\'t like the idea of automaticly giveing a guild leader inheratence from his guild members the player may have someone else that he would like to have his items when he leaves the game.

Ok, but think on this: if it were possible to rebel yourself against the leader, because he/she doesn\'t share those \'Heritage\', would not be one RPG rule more interesting?. Of course, the winner would be the new leader and the new heir.

On another hand, this would only happen in the \'missing\' case and player hadn\'t designated his/her heir.

[Hatchnet]

if this sort of ting is input into the game the magority of players will probably designate heirs more so that they have a chance of geting their items back in case of the unforseen.

[daecarne]

Originally posted by Hatchnet
if this sort of ting is input into the game the magority of players will probably designate heirs more so that they have a chance of geting their items back in case of the unforseen.

Yeah, it would be correct thing    
Much better than many \'missing\' chars populating the server or losing resources, items, etc.

[daecarne]

Originally posted by Seytra
[ 6 RL months IMO are minimum to give the player time. Also, the timer should be put on hold if the player indicates that they are temporarily leaving for an extended time (holidays, exchange semesters, whatever).

Good idea Seytra! I like the 6 RL month limit and the timer (checkbox or listbox), but IMO, it must be limited also.

[Seytra]

Yes, the \"absence period\" should also be limited, maybe to another 6 months or even a year, so that orphan accounts don\'t clutter up the server as they do in MB. Everything that goes beyond this (already very generous) absence period would need to be requested of a GM in advance, who would then be able to set an even longer timeout. Needless to say, the account would be frozen until the player indicates that they are back, at which point any GM-extension of the absence period would be cleared and the \"missing\" timer resumes operation.
This way it would be possible to keep your account and chars by simply logging on twice a year, each time re-setting the absence period, but if you lose interest, the system would remove your account eventually.

[Myrtl]

Ya i totally agree Seytra. If you are inactive for too long your account should be deleted. Althought i think it should be 4 months not 6. If they only go on twice a year they dont deserve to have an account  

[Seytra]

I was thinking about people who need to go to some place without internet for one semester, like studying abroad. Tey might not be able to get the kind of internet connectivity that is required to play PS (i.e., not extremely expensive) or to have an adequate machine, or both, and would therefore only be able to log on when they have the chance to visit their family, which will be approx. two times a year. This would last one year, but still they should be able to keep theirt accounts. Maybe this is a better case for GM extension, however.

[Adeli]

Firstly, Sorry Androgos, but this doesn\'t work. More than more than six?

6*many = A lot ( More than > 6 yeah

I think the deletion period should be a year. Some people get really really busy during the year, I know I have, and can\'t log in for quite some time. Then there is the fact they might have account or connection problems (ISP not PS).

Ya i totally agree Seytra. If you are inactive for too long your account should be deleted. Althought i think it should be 4 months not 6. If they only go on twice a year they dont deserve to have an account

Umm Myrtl, being offline for four months does not mean that they only log in twice a year... It is much more likely that someone was just absent for 4 months, as Seytra said, away for a semester... or perhaps on holidays?

Six months, is IMO too short. I would constantly need to recreate characters that I lost due to inactivity. As I often have something unexpected come up, that keeps me busy for a few months or so, sometimes more than six.
If there is no heir, the money should go to a charity or something similar. Or just disappear... I like the disappear option. Government claimed it, no one will ever see it again.

The original deadline of last November...
Was that made to shut people up after they were whining about no release date?
It is a very unrealistic estimation, and the devs must have known it was impossible. The fact there was no test planned seems to show this is true.

As for a current release date. I am content to wait with no word, and be pleasantly surprised when it comes out.