COMMUNITY - FORUMS - GENERAL DISCUSSION
One Kingdom, two tribes

Yes, another topic on kingdom and tribe fears during domain selection.

We all know there are many concearned about being forced to choose between playing a tribe they dislike but stay with the community they like or playing the tribe they like with a community they dislike. There are concerns about bidding wars, etc, etc.

We know there were many discussions about that and many different answers. My proposal is simple, and hope not imposible:

That each kingdom has, at least, two different tribes with a significative population. Which ones?

Well, there are some tribes paired that can remain that way, but the others could be paired "randomly" (but attending to lore logic) with another tribe.

It's not perfect but, at least, that way, everyone will be able to choose between two tribes instead of being forced to a concrete tribe they hate or dislike if they want to remain with their community.

Some can say, "well, now you are forced between two tribes you may dislike" and that's true, but, at least, you have choice now and each kingdom ensures diversity.

I also know that tribes like de Waerd are pretty difficult to pair with someone else and that there are impossible pairings like janoa and Dras, but there's also the Neran wildcard.

And another thing, some (like me) will find interesting if two tribes in the same kingdom have issues between them, it can be very interesting to see how both tribes and their players manage the situation and it will cause a lot of extra roleplay for those interested on that aspect of the game.

PS: Dunno if someone proposed something similar in another post, my apologies if it is the case.

... ...
7/21/2017 7:27:20 PM #46

Posted By Corin at 8:05 PM - Fri Jul 21 2017

They're not doing something wrong, they did something wrong, and now you are holding them to that standard. They didn't anticipate the groups forming this early....

Yea because groups being formed for 2 years before they release the tribes is early, when is late then? when is it not early? do you need to form groups 10 years before the game for it not to be early?

.. but rather than changing the game design to account for them, they have decided that the game matters more than these pre-launch communities. Catering the the communities that have been here sense pre-launch is also a way to shut out new players.

Catering to the communities is a way to shut out new players? Maybe, and this is a big maybe, the communities that have been interested in this game for quite some time now knows what they want, and maybe the new people coming in to the game might agree with them too, it seems a lot like you're putting it as "old community members vs new ones"

And may I just say how wrong this sentence you used is? of course the game should cater to the community, I mean the whole reason for this game is to entertain the community and people playing it, if it doesn't do that then it's no longer a game, or at least fun at that.


I'm also going to use an example here, Black Desert used to be a Full PVP, open world, world bosses, guild controlled territory kinda game, with no action houses and such until the publishers decided they wanted to cater to the larger audience. They then made housing instanced, put an awful karma system in place to punish any pvp, removed world bosses and put in summoned bosses instead, kept a bit of the guild controlled territory, but the damage was done, trading was 100% safe because of the karma system etc. and it went from being the most anticipated game, and fun at that, till skydropping out of the top 10 games in Korea.

And one thing to remember here is that the original community, the small community that wanted this game to succeed so badly all were against this, they warned them of this.


I'm not saying that they should follow blindly what the community wants, especially the "smaller" ones as you call them/us, but listening to the community, the one that stays active, pledge, and share the ideal and most importantly, want the game to succeed, is not the end of the world, and it might benefit the game more than ruin it.

If SBS had known, at the time, that they were doing this sort of thing with the tribes, it would have been way better to launch tribe-based sub-forums, and then tell backers to lay off grouping up before domain selection.

They didn't explicitly tell the backers to lay off grouping before domain selection, they just didn't expect it, and when it happened they embraced it. This is important to note because never, ever, have I seen it stated by any of the developers that they strongly oppose grouping before domain selection.

>> Also stone isn't an european thing, it's a world thing, it was used everywhere in the world to build the living for nobility, if not as the walls it was used in the foundation etc.

You literally are asking to base To'resk architecture of a European nation.

I could've just as well said Chiang-Nan which is a Chinese city.

which is basically the same, the most important part I want to get across is that they use the same techniques across the world, and you can find your "venice" in several places. Even St. Petersburg was build on wetlands.

So saying I'm basing it only in Europe is just plain stupid, as this method was used across the world.

Just because the To'resk value things that last forever, doesn't mean that their houses need to. After all, if everything lasted forever where the To'resk lived, why would they value it? People don't want more of what they already have, they want what they lack.

They value it because everything is changing around them, so they take comfort in what stays the same, and since the To'resk is such a family oriented Tribe they want to build up their family home, make it a form of status symbol which will last for generations. Just like we leave behind heirlooms, they too will have one big heirloom being their house. That was the point I was trying to make, which I think makes sense for the To'resk.

>> I'm not saying every tribe should have the Neran,

Yes, you are. Every kingdom has Neran enclaves, and you want every kingdom with Neran Enclaves to have Neran nobility.

Omg No I'm not, I wouldn't want the Dras, nor the Waerd or the Brudvir to have Neran, because they don't really fit, I would understand why they would want to put Neran and Waerd together, but from a lore perspective it just doesn't fit.

I'm saying that the Neran fits nicely with Kypiq and Horathi because they share a lot of things, not just biomes. But the To'resk would fit better with the Dras than the Neran would.


7/21/2017 7:36:24 PM #47

Eliminate tribes from this discussion and I get the feeling that people would be complaining about the last kingdom to choose not getting access to iron because they're in a desert. Or about all of the disease they'll be dealing with because they're in a swamp. Or how they can't use their Nordic lore because they're in the tropics. Or they were going to be a naval power but have no shoreline. Would SBS need to alter their map or their game to cater to groups in that situation too?


7/21/2017 8:12:33 PM #48

Posted By Kaynadin at 9:36 PM - Fri Jul 21 2017

Eliminate tribes from this discussion and I get the feeling that people would be complaining about the last kingdom to choose not getting access to iron because they're in a desert. Or about all of the disease they'll be dealing with because they're in a swamp. Or how they can't use their Nordic lore because they're in the tropics. Or they were going to be a naval power but have no shoreline. Would SBS need to alter their map or their game to cater to groups in that situation too?

I don't think that's true, to some extent, I think there's a lot of people worried about the tribes because it directly influences the communities and playstyles. Where the availability of iron, etc. isn't that influential. Of course there will always be people complaining, but right now it's not just one or two, but it's a lot of people, not only that but it's forcing the last kings who picks, to pick a tribe they might not want to, there'll be more than 1 biome in a kingdom, so it won't be too much of a problem since it's giving you some say in which biome you choose to settle, but it gives no wriggle room what tribe goes, only the To'resk/Janoa and Hrothi/Brudvir got at least a bit choice, and the others can be first picked, but for the person to pick last they're forced to play the majority tribe which they might even want to.

Also I don't really think it's a sound argument, you're saying that "if we weren't discussing tribes we would just be discussing biomes/diseases or resources" which is all hypothetical, but it still somewhat invalidates our concern. Not only that but you say cater to groups, like it's a small group who only wants it, but it isn't. You make it sound like if they go and change this then they're forced to bow and do other small groups bidding, but this is not the case.

We're discussing a problem and trying to come up with solutions, if other problems arise in the future I'm sure we would want to discuss them too, either acknowledge the problem or not, but most importantly not just shut them down with the landslide/slippery slope theory which you're putting fort, which hold no solution, but just shuts down arguments because we, as a community, aren't allowed to influence the development of the game.

I'm sorry Kaynadin if anything I write or wrote comes across as mean, I don't mean anything in an attacking or rude way :)


7/21/2017 8:37:57 PM #49

This is why everyone keeps saying to chill out...If your game-plan was really to STRICTLY base your entire play-style and game-play for the next ten years on a pre-production idea PITCH, not a finished design, A PITCH..., then idk what to tell you tbh. Everyone based their plan on the pitch, that's not the point, it's a problem when your plans are so concrete that SBS can't touch their pitch or your RP or entire play is fucked. That's a you issue.

Nothing in their pitch said there wouldn't be races as well so if your using the "it didn't say" argument that logic swings both ways. Neither do I remember anyone asking in a old QnA back in 2k15 or 16 about more tribes. Doing a google find on the compilitation of 2k15/16 QnA for tribes, races, playable, and human I got 0 results on the document. Meaning it never said there couldn't be nor did anyone ask if there were.

Tbh if I was going to make such a fragile plan that the introduction of races, a mechanic every MMO has, would demolish it, you would think I would ask SBS first. It says your a 2k15 member, SBS was still responding to dm's literally same day in 2k15 so I'm confused to why it never occurred to clarify something that would desecrate your game. Then at least your argument could be "I asked back before the ks and they assured me there would be only humans and now their is tribes". That would be a valid argument. As far as when I joined, tribes of mann have been hinted to in discord since ~ September.

SBS told us back in like October 2016 we were making plans to early. Those who continue developing up to now July 2017 are doing it to themselves...broad "what are my general goals" plans are fine, but mapping out exactly how, when and what your going to do to the last pubic hair isn't.

Everytime they announce a feature the next weeks there is thread after thread about how it is destroying their rp or some shit. Play another game until selection.


I don't know anymore.

7/21/2017 8:50:25 PM #50

I focused on resources and biome because those are the things that drove the tribes to act the way they do. If you made everyone Neran and dropped them into these different biomes they would structure themselves very similarly to the way the tribes are structured now if SBS has tuned things to be fairly realistic. If you're the kingdom who ended up with mountains and iron and lands that grow wheat you would become blacksmiths and wheat farmers. If you ended up with the land that was semi arid desert and you had rocks and a few animals you had to move around constantly and enough variability in resource availability that you'd die repeatedly without sharing you'd turn into something like the waerd. If you ended up with forests that were packed with animals that killed everyone constantly unless you built in the trees or on very high platforms and avoided climbing down to the ground you'd turn into something like the kypiq.

Now what if you were a community that wanted to be blacksmiths and knights and wanted to follow the traditional individualistic model of success and you were stuck with the arid region? Would you need to change the way you played the game? You bet you would or you'd have very little success. I argue that people would see that as the case, and they would complain about a lack of choice in how they played the game because they chose last.


7/21/2017 10:00:02 PM #51

@Liva

It's not my fault you forgot every tribe has the Neran in enclaves, and said every kingdom with an Enclave needs to have royal for that tribe. If you go back and read my posts, however, I do address why filling unpopular tribes with popular ones is a bad idea.

As for the off topic conversion we are having:

First off, I consider this whole forum, especially the ones of us who post here, a minority of the community who is backing this game, or is interested in the game. The hundreds of responses to polls demonstrate that. I do think the devs should listen to what we say here, just not this particular idea, as it is a massive change that will affect everyone at and post launch in a way i believe to be negative. If you don't think it's negative, I would like to see why, else I wound't be continuing this conversation.

Second off, the To'resk don't have any natural stones to work with, so they would need to import it. As a result, they don't have any skill or experience with it. Additionally, considering you supposedly can't move siege engines into the wetlands, I take it moving huge bolder is also out of the question. Not even the Hrothi have experience building in that biome, even if they brought the stone in small pieces. Of course they would want permanent houses, but they don't have the resources or technology to do so.

It's not like they're the only tribe that isn't using stone for their housing. The Kypiqs have tree forts, and the Dras are in a swamp.

Now, back on topic. Giving unpopular tribe the popular ones isn't the solution. The problem is the unpopular tribes. This is what got this argument started in the first place.

Considering how you continue to avoid the question, I now have to ask you directly. How is filling the kingdoms "stuck" with unpopular tribes with other tribes, a solution? Either you think it is, or it isn't.

I think we should improve the "bad" tribes, rather than burring them with the "good" ones, what do you think should be done?


Count Einzbern of Aichhalt.

Kingdom of Ashland.

Duchy of Sanctaphandri.

Seated in Darmindatch.

7/21/2017 10:21:19 PM #52

I want to know who in this conversation pledged to a Kingdom that chooses last. Because those people knew what was up and will have fun playin whatever tribe they end up with.


7/21/2017 11:14:56 PM #53

If we want to improve the "bad" tribes maybe we should start with people listing the aspects of them that make them bad. Then examine one at a time and see if changing that fits with the overall lore and with their biome.


7/22/2017 3:14:19 AM #54

Does "anything that forces me to change my 10 year rp plan" count as a bad aspect? XD


I don't know anymore.

7/22/2017 4:09:46 AM #55

Posted By Corin at 07:00 AM - Sat Jul 22 2017

Giving unpopular tribe the popular ones isn't the solution. The problem is the unpopular tribes. This is what got this argument started in the first place.

I think we should improve the "bad" tribes, rather than burring them with the "good" ones, what do you think should be done?

Dear all,

Corin, although I often agree with your comments, I don't think that you have identified the problem correctly. The problem is neither the right mix of tribes (I agree with you on this) nor that some tribes are "bad".

The problem is that many people (I am talking here mostly about the nobles) were building a community by far too early, and are now confronted with two bad choices: either stay with the community in an unfavourable tribe or leave the community to get the preferred tribe.

And the sad truth is that this problem cannot be solved. Even if a community has the first pick, there will always be some people, who will not like the choice.

The polls have shown that there is actually no really bad tribe. Every tribe has enough people, who would take them as the first pick. But they are unlikely to follow their heart, because they have community commitments.

I have changed my community. It was not easy, and I can understand why this is such a huge issue for many people. But on the other hand, I really hope that SBS is not following any of those suggestions to "solve" this "problem". I am convinced that it would only damage the game in the long run, because all kingdoms would end up with 12 tribes inside their borders in order to accomodate every single community member. I would find this outcome very boring.

Best wishes,

Kant

P.S.: My kingdom has currently the 4th picking slot, and I have to live with what I get. And I am fine with it.


7/22/2017 5:01:59 AM #56

alrighty awake once more.

i am very happy to see even my worse critics had read my post with a open mind as this spells progress on this subject.

i must say the personal qoute arguements went on a bit tofar but ha thats the forums.

but now i had time to sleep and you guys had time to address my post i shall reply to the main concerns raised. if i missed one let me know

Concern 1. why split up the naren nation?

well that actually is the easiest to answer it has so much precedent that i am surprised SBS did not already just do it.

think back to nearly every fantasy book you read that had elfs humans dwarfs or any the mariard races available, can u think of How many where Humanity was united as 1 kingdom?

nearly every book i seen humans were a collection of nations.. we are nothing if not constant we cant become 1 nation as we always find conflicting views.

look at lord of the rings as a example there were evil humans working for mordor and good humans split across 3 or 4 kingdoms.. nowhere were we united...

Concern 2. Why double up on dwarfs? (ops hrothi)

another easy one. like with the above explain in humans being split up well in many story there would be separate dwarfen kingdoms usely the dwarf kingdoms would be setup in mountain ranges and one would expect that mountains would not just be in 1 place in the world but could randomly be placed around the world.

so it would stand to reason if there was 1000km gape between 2 mountain ranges then the hrothi would have 2 separate kingdoms. so say for this instance there is a northern range where the hrothi and brudvir live there could be a southern range where the naren and hrothi group stands.

Concerns 3. Biome placement.

this is another easy one both what had been put in as a central grasslands connected and split into 3 separate naren kingdoms that connect with respective tribes is totally doable and since they are kingdoms who will have naren in them one would expect that the naren would have over the years setup lands along the coast lines but maybe there bigger populations would be the grasslands.

there is also the aspect most seem to forget which is bioms can practically be anywhere as long as there is the right conditions. there could be a northern grasslands and a southern grassland behind the swamp lands that then transfers into a arid desert thus explaining the ward.

this i think is the easy part for SBS

i also aimed to have logical biome boarders being a key reason for the combos

Concern 4. Lore

when selecting the combos i did i had a very hard time because when i was playing around with different combos i could not realy prove a lore connection

i ended up opening up all the races and rereading there relationships after doing so the combos became more easy and logical to make.

the only one which was a stretch lore wise was the kypiq combo but i feel there lore shows there mutual respect. but all the others have strong lore reasons for being good combos.

Closing

personally i feel the combos i setup solve nearly all the issues and even if a certain combo was not as wanted as the rest they would more then make up for usefulness compared to the current system.

i hope we can keep this conversation civil and constructive and maybe not just complain about things but provide usable options instead. we all know there is a issue we may have differing views on exactly what that issue is but we know there is one.

there is one direct question i would put out to the kings but.

with the changes i placed in the combos what would be your view on being suck with a ward naren combo or kypiq naren combo?

would you feel u got shafted or would u think now they would be worth ruleing?


Click Banner To Visit County. Join me on Discord: https://discord.gg/V6aCA2X

7/22/2017 1:20:17 PM #57

Or you could just select a neran in any kingdom like you can now. Not sure why we need 4 neran kingdoms just so you can play one when you can do so already. You don't need a X kingdom to play as X tribe member.

Worst case scenario = put your preferred tribe on your second FREE soul, walk dat booty to your county and give it your title. Done.

There really isn't an issue with the game. There is a issue with people fucking up and then not wanting to work around their problem and wanting SBS to fix it for them. Even the fix isn't a fix, Your suggestion is shaft other kingdoms to help yourself from your own mistake.

I fucked up so let me borrow half your tribe and move em over here. < The suggestions in a nutshell.

Tribes presenting kingdom identity and reason to play. Why would a new player seeking master craftsmanship choose the hrothi / brudvir kingdom when they can now choose a new dwarf area that has the biggest traders and workforce on the planet...Splitting another kingdoms potential player base and taking away from them poaching their community because no one listened 1 year+ about making strict plans.

This is about as realistic as your community going to play WoW and telling them to put humans on the Horde because your guild is horde but you wanna play human. And race in that game matters 10000000 times less but even they know when to keep it separate.


I don't know anymore.

7/22/2017 2:25:33 PM #58

tekeda i am not sure what thread you been reading or if u actually read this thread but the whole issue is that why a standard player (gentry or lower) can choose a tribe other then the major tribe easily a title holder cant.

i will take you comments to mean you did not understand the concerns raised and thank your for your effort but please read up on the issues before making such comments.

and to be clear no one here has "f'ed up" as the info needed to do so was never released until now.

so the issue is not so black and white as you see but more colorful as the tribes are the colors of the rainbow... IE different then just black and white.

to even bring up wow as a defence is just silly it is nothing like this game. personally i dislike even attempting to link this game to wow as wow is shit and this game has the hall marks of greatness.

but here is the bigist thing.... the devs changed plans already regarding tribes so your words lose a certain level of merit there when your saying we "f'ed up"

all comes down to this. giving title holders u know those guys who are spending the big bucks... the chance to be able to not be locked with a tribe they hate by giving them at least a choice.

current king views is that Weard is last pick... This is a fact.

so why some players love the weard and even some counts and mayors may like them most everyone else has issues with them.

so what you say is that king who choose last "f'ed up" he spent only 10k..... in order for him not to "f up" he needs to spend more money?

sorry a biding war is not the solution as was raised in my last thread. but what i have offered in my alternative pairing i feel covers all the lore aspects all the biome aspects and also makes the tribe choices all exciting and suddenly less drama.

they give a chance to all level of players not just the gentry and lower which is the current status.

get over the fact people formed kingdoms before the game started already and lets work on a actuality workable compromise.


Click Banner To Visit County. Join me on Discord: https://discord.gg/V6aCA2X

7/22/2017 3:56:45 PM #59

Posted By mandrake1980 at 07:25 AM - Sat Jul 22 2017

tekeda i am not sure what thread you been reading or if u actually read this thread but the whole issue is that why a standard player (gentry or lower) can choose a tribe other then the major tribe easily a title holder cant.

The reason a title holder should be restricted to what tribe they rule, is because they are going to be representing they kingdom and tribe they rule. What is it going o be like for new players, or people who actually enjoy the tribe their in, to know that their leader is of a completely different tribe/culture, and dislikes the community/culture their ruling? As a leader, I wouldn't do that because it's political suicide. It would be like an American politician calling Canada the best country int the world.

Imagine if, in World of Warcraft, the horde was being run by a bunch of humans, or the Alliance was being run by the Tauren? It would make no sense, and ruin kingdom identity, while appealing to a very small percentage of the player base (the title holders from pre-launch only).

so the issue is not so black and white as you see but more colorful as the tribes are the colors of the rainbow... IE different then just black and white.

It is black and white, you're just trying to take the moral high ground by saying it's not.

Give me a good list of other reasons why a title holder from launch would want to play as a tribe not from the kingdom they have decided to inhabit.

Sure, there is some role-play value, but is that really the only other reason?

to even bring up wow as a defence is just silly it is nothing like this game. personally i dislike even attempting to link this game to wow as wow is shit and this game has the hall marks of greatness.

Dude, come on, you're basically baiting at this point. You know how easy it is to say

"You see? He doesn't refute my argument, so he attacks the the analogy itself. Therefore, I'm right!"

This is a cookie cutter response, you mean to tell me you can't see this coming from a mile away?

but here is the bigist thing.... the devs changed plans already regarding tribes so your words lose a certain level of merit there when your saying we "f'ed up"

They made a change because they believed that the game would suffer if left as-is. This idea to allow all the royalty to play as any tribe? While I can't say for certain that it would hurt the game in the long run, I can certainly make the argument it would.

all comes down to this. giving title holders u know those guys who are spending the big bucks... the chance to be able to not be locked with a tribe they hate by giving them at least a choice.

"Cater to the big money backers at the expense of the rest of the community." Now you're thinking like a politician!

You are not locked with a tribe you hate, you choose what kingdom you want. The only person that is really locked to something they may not want, are the Monarch backers, but this isn't a change that will help them.

current king views is that Weard is last pick... This is a fact.

Yes, and playing as a Neran won't change the fact that you're leading the Waerd. Even if just the less desirable tribes had access to the Neran as royalty, they would still be last pick.

so why some players love the weard and even some counts and mayors may like them most everyone else has issues with them.

So change the Waerd. Don't thrown the Neran blanket over the problem.

so what you say is that king who choose last "f'ed up" he spent only 10k..... in order for him not to "f up" he needs to spend more money?

You honestly think that the only problem with ruling a kingdom you don't want, is that you would be stuck playing a tribe you don't want?

Do you really think everyone is so shallow, that it's the only thing they care about?

sorry a biding war is not the solution as was raised in my last thread. but what i have offered in my alternative pairing i feel covers all the lore aspects all the biome aspects and also makes the tribe choices all exciting and suddenly less drama.

Yes, your proposition it would fix the problems with the kingdoms, but there is now a shit ton of lore to write, and mechanics to back it up. You can't just make all 3 Neran tribes the same, and hand wave the obvious questions it raises.

get over the fact people formed kingdoms before the game started already and lets work on a actuality workable compromise.

Then stop pretending that give the Neran away to the unpopular tribes will fix the unpopular tribes. It's narrow minded, petty, and ultimately doesn't address the issue. You think otherwise we are all waiting for that argument.


Count Einzbern of Aichhalt.

Kingdom of Ashland.

Duchy of Sanctaphandri.

Seated in Darmindatch.

7/22/2017 5:31:52 PM #60

ok now who is not reading previus threads. it is nice you try to copy and repost every ones posts but this is truly becoming a joke...

i will again ansawer you statement in there worth replying too.

how dose adding naren to weard make the weard more interesting to a king?

well the Weard are a quite powerful tribe if used in conjunction with another. by them selves they are open to invasion and being whiped out... why you say well the whole no feild of battle....

adding in naren allows the weard to have a shield of sorts to ply there true trade Assassination. all the lore is there to support it.

which is the most funy part of ur post saying they would need to recreate the lore when i did the pairings Basied on the lore..

again people not bothering to read or should i say selectivly reading once more.

and sorry WOW is shit has always been shit and will continue to be shit no matter what the wow lovers try to bring up in propaganda. COE has nothing to do with it and should never in any way shape or form be even remotely compared to that game.

I joined COE purely to support a non WOW clone so please keep your corruption called wowish from this game thank you very much.

so corin i challange you to come up with a constructive idea that will resolve the concerns rased in this thread instead of being a constant obstruction.


Click Banner To Visit County. Join me on Discord: https://discord.gg/V6aCA2X

... ...