I wonder this too, what if someone takes over Vornair for example with there huge Social media presence.
I wonder this too, what if someone takes over Vornair for example with there huge Social media presence.
I like your post, it shows intricate consequences of dance of dynasties, but... I have to add this Interregnum historically was messy affair, and I am glad it will be so in game as well.
Here is why I have that stand: Take in consideration the time and effort in branding and forging friendship and alliances, as you probably know it takes lots of time and effort. So if king Whiteywalls takes over King Glorybeard's kingdom for the sake of argument just by using force he has myriad of other issues to deal with he has no support and will face resistance. As in real world force alone is not enough. If king Whiteywalls has more developed culture and technology forges support as a just ruler he might have a chance.
Now king Glorybeard if he was a good ruler, he will always have a chance of retaking and liberating the kingdom if he did everything that good king should do: forge brand name, forge alliances and friendships this is the nature of CB a claim for a throne.
Being king won't be easy at all, successfully taking over a kingdom even harder, successfully ruling over taken over kingdom even hardest.
And this is where COE will shine, all the intricate challenges and consequences one has to think about before making fateful decisions.
I have seen even the king backers loose support here, on these forums, before the game is even out. I don't see any kingdom lasting for more than two years before there is a large power struggle, not including invasion.
How is loyalty to the previous leader considered meta gaming? Sure, you met outside of the game, but that's still the king using charisma to gain support and followers. Even though this is out side of the game, there is little difference between a king drumming up support here, than it would be in-game. I feel like I need to stress this fact, as it gets forgotten from time to time, but it is canonical that the players (i forget what we're called in game) exist in a realm outside the mortal one, are being consistently reborn, and sometimes even possess normal people (npcs).
If a foreign power takes over another kingdom, then is it really so out of place that the citizens for a resistance force to re-take the throne? Sure they might use OOC knowledge to find the re-born king, but the players being re-born over and over again is cannon knowledge, even to NPCs. It's perfectly natural that the people would want their reborn king to be on the throne again.
Then there is the logistics of a king loosing the throne to inside forces, which is most likely only going to happen when, and this is important, the majority of the dukes/duchess turn on the king.
In other words, the king doesn't stop being king when he loses the crown, he is no longer king when he loses his people. If, by some bizarre situation of events, the king loses power but still has majority support, then it is natal that his people would do everything they can to place him back on a seat of power.
New kingdoms shouldn't need a new lore, after all, this is happening in-game. Anything else is just make belief.
The kingdom falling into civil war due to a usurper and the old king? That's not out of place in history. And remember, if it was some force not caused by a CB from the dukes/duchesses, then the new king can appoint new leaders (probably the ones who got him to power in the first place).
On the legal front, although I can't really speak with any authority, all kingdoms and everything that happens in game is the intellectual property of soul bound studios, not the creator. Everything outside of the game is the property of whoever makes it (or just normal copyright laws).
Count Einzbern of Aichhalt.
Kingdom of Ashland.
Duchy of Sanctaphandri.
Seated in Darmindatch.
I think your working assumptions will fold, Dekul.
SbS legal won't let the ToS neglect a clause that any creative IP put in game will hence belong to SbS.
Posted By Ecir_Edyah at 10:06 AM - Tue Jun 27 2017
I think your working assumptions will fold, Dekul.
SbS legal won't let the ToS neglect a clause that any creative IP put in game will hence belong to SbS.
And what about the IP that's not in the game, such as the aforementioned social media/discord accounts and websites? Basically the more organized a kingdom gets outside the game the harder it will be to deal with them inside the game. Whether that's a good thing remains to be seen, obviously kingdoms should be hard to overthrow, but it should still be possible or the basic premise of the game is flawed. I think the fall of kingdoms before release is completely possible and to be expected, many people are not TOO invested yet and some of those fallen kingdoms never had a king pledge to begin with, or weren't that organized. I worry that by the time we get closer to release we have a system where any kingdom of note is 'too big to fail'.
Posted By Dekul at 10:14 AM - Tue Jun 27 2017
And what about the IP that's not in the game, such as the aforementioned social media/discord accounts and websites? Basically the more organized a kingdom gets outside the game the harder it will be to deal with them inside the game. Whether that's a good thing remains to be seen, obviously kingdoms should be hard to overthrow, but it should still be possible or the basic premise of the game is flawed. I think the fall of kingdoms before release is completely possible and to be expected, many people are not TOO invested yet and some of those fallen kingdoms never had a king pledge to begin with, or weren't that organized. I worry that by the time we get closer to release we have a system where any kingdom of note is 'too big to fail'.
The very switch from forum to in-game is enough to destabilize these kingdoms (no offence, I just don't think you can please everyone). For example, Dukes and Duchesses might not be content with the biome/resources the had to settle with, causing infighting either between them or with the ruler.
I think you're missing what were trying to say. If the support on social media is possessive, then chances are the kingdom is stable. It's unlikely that the kingdom could be trying to overthrow the king, while outside of the game he is doing fine. They are deeply connected. Drama from outside the game bleeds into the politics in-game, and strife creates drama for social media. If one falls, the other falls, nothing unnatural about that.
It may seem unnatural, but it's just like the relationship between the president and the press.
What is a legitimate concern, is the kingdoms that result from this transition that are now based on tangible politics and resources. But all kingdoms can collapse from the inside.
If even one duke isn't liked, then when the mayors/barons launch a CB against them, the king either has to pick from letting the power struggle run its course, or intervene with military might. Civil war breaks out in the Provence, and the mayors seek sport from foreign powers or other provinces.
Eve online is a perfect example on how even the biggest "kingdom" may fall.
Edit: spelling is hard.
Count Einzbern of Aichhalt.
Kingdom of Ashland.
Duchy of Sanctaphandri.
Seated in Darmindatch.
Posted By Dekul at 12:14 PM - Tue Jun 27 2017
And what about the IP that's not in the game, such as the aforementioned social media/discord accounts and websites? Basically the more organized a kingdom gets outside the game the harder it will be to deal with them inside the game. Whether that's a good thing remains to be seen, obviously kingdoms should be hard to overthrow, but it should still be possible or the basic premise of the game is flawed. I think the fall of kingdoms before release is completely possible and to be expected, many people are not TOO invested yet and some of those fallen kingdoms never had a king pledge to begin with, or weren't that organized. I worry that by the time we get closer to release we have a system where any kingdom of note is 'too big to fail'.
I agree that out-of-game organization and creativity is an asset to game performance. I'm not seeing how it presents a problem to usurpers, though. Creating new Discord channels is pretty easy, and any iconography the old monarch used in game might as well be public domain to reuse by the usurper.
By all the IP used in-game becoming SbS property, there's continuity to all the players' stories.
Websites are harder, I get it. But not irreplaceable. And a deposed monarch may even be willing to sell it.
Just spitballing here: Perhaps at Launch, the SbS forums can be made to include private Kingdom sub-forums? Their utility remains in continuity through shifts in power. (Let's say it's still considered the "same" kingdom if its capital didn't move.) Other new sub-forums are added when the game recognizes a new kingdom, (with a different capital.)
Posted By Ecir_Edyah at 10:35 AM - Tue Jun 27 2017
Posted By Dekul at 12:14 PM - Tue Jun 27 2017
And what about the IP that's not in the game, such as the aforementioned social media/discord accounts and websites? Basically the more organized a kingdom gets outside the game the harder it will be to deal with them inside the game. Whether that's a good thing remains to be seen, obviously kingdoms should be hard to overthrow, but it should still be possible or the basic premise of the game is flawed. I think the fall of kingdoms before release is completely possible and to be expected, many people are not TOO invested yet and some of those fallen kingdoms never had a king pledge to begin with, or weren't that organized. I worry that by the time we get closer to release we have a system where any kingdom of note is 'too big to fail'.
I agreed that out-of-game organization and creativity is an asset to game performance. I'm not seeing how it presents a problem to usurpers, though. Creating new Discord channels is pretty easy, and any iconography the old monarch used in game might as well be public domain to reuse by the userper.
By all the IP used in-game becoming SbS property, there's continuity to all the players' stories.
Websites are harder, I get it. But not irreplaceable. And a deposed monarch may even be willing to sell it.
Just spitballing here: Perhaps at Launch, the SbS forums can be made to include private Kingdom sub-forums? Their utility remains in continuity through shifts in power. (Let's say it's still considered the "same" kingdom if its capital didn't move.) Other new sub-forums are added when the game recognizes a new kingdom, (with a different capital.)
Could be an interesting idea. For instance that one game nobody likes to speak of (star citizen) integrating their own social media/forum platform inside and outside the game (spectrum), but that's a bigger undertaking to support your own social network integrated app on top of producing a game.
I guess i'm not worried about most of this stuff except on the conceptual level I think it makes it much harder to achieve the meaningful change through the dance of dynasties than perhaps the game mechanics would appear, the only real fear I have is the potential mixing of in-game and out of game property and the dispute over who owns what... the last thing this game needs is real world drama turning into litigation and other hassles.
Posted By Dekul at 10:40 AM - Tue Jun 27 2017
I guess i'm not worried about most of this stuff except on the conceptual level I think it makes it much harder to achieve the meaningful change through the dance of dynasties than perhaps the game mechanics would appear, the only real fear I have is the potential mixing of in-game and out of game property and the dispute over who owns what... the last thing this game needs is real world drama turning into litigation and other hassles.
No-one want's that, so I hope that, at the very least, the king level backers will/have at least read the Terms and Conditions before spending a ludicrous amount of money on what amount(ed) to a sales pitch.
Politics in the game will be very different from real life, after all, the people are immortal, murder is still a viable option, and there is magic (although I understand SBS are trying to keep that somewhat hush-hush.)
Count Einzbern of Aichhalt.
Kingdom of Ashland.
Duchy of Sanctaphandri.
Seated in Darmindatch.
The developers have said before that they don't expect kingdom vs kingdom wars to occur often - mainly because it's supposed to be a very significant event of change within a world. There's a lot bound to a war of that scale such as costs, time investment in war, potentially adverse opinions on if to wage war and the risk to loose territory or the kingdom altogether.
I see kings being replaced from within the kingdom to be a much more frequent event than from the outside.
Now if a king manages to conquer another kingdom, a rebell force would be good for building up story and conflict. Note that unless we get a huge amount of players into the game early on, the majority of people could be NPCs. Since NPCs act according to their hierachy of needs and the OCEAN personaility model, to most NPCs it wouldn't matter too much who the supreme ruler of the kingdom would be - unless the new king misbehaves badly. Just because there's so much more to worry about: Income, extending the business, honing one's skills, having food and water as well as a healthy family all well and up etc.
Finally, it would add real fire to the conflict of kingdoms vs kingdoms fights if, after one party will have won, the king could access or view the history of a community forum where lots of people have been discussing strategies to bring him and his kingdom down as well as potentially having called him names or sometimes been harsh or very negative about him. This would cause a lot of negative vibe between the conqueror and his new citizens.
Remember we're talking about 3rd party forums that aren't monitored in the same way.
Posted By Ecir_Edyah at 7:35 PM - Tue Jun 27 2017
Just spitballing here: Perhaps at Launch, the SbS forums can be made to include private Kingdom sub-forums? Their utility remains in continuity through shifts in power. (Let's say it's still considered the "same" kingdom if its capital didn't move.) Other new sub-forums are added when the game recognizes a new kingdom, (with a different capital.)
This would be quite difficult to implement as borders can change dynamically with settlements as well as it's citizens in flux.
I also would see that feature used as a primary tool for espionage.
To the best of my knowledge, nobody is spending any money, let alone ludicrous amounts, on anything other than the basics such as a website. I manage Vornair's social media efforts and all they have cost is elbow grease.
I would say that a robust social media presence will bring more players to the game and may actually enhance the Dance of Dynasties and its appeal to the broader MMO world by having it play out in a more public venue. Can a social media presence be used as a recruiting tool? Absolutely. Will it single handedly win a war against a superior opponent? Absolutely not.
Regardless of the impact of social media, the game must still be played. The best organized and most cohesive communities will prosper whether they utilize social media or not.
In terms of IP and branding concerns, Pan Am Airlines no longer exists. How many Pan Am ads do you see on TV?
This is a very well-thought-out concern, well done for spotting the issue and detailing it in a clear manner.
One thing I will contribute on this is something I feel everyone's missing so far from my skim through the rest of the thread - 100,000 people for a full server, up to 5 kingdoms per server, means anywhere from 10-20k people per kingdom. While the number looks small, and the world looks big to us by comparison to everything we've played... those people are all on one map with to-scale spatial dimensions. That's a lot of people.
Most gaming groups will number dozens. Some of the more successful ones will garner hundreds of players; some few have hit thousands. To my knowledge, a united, organised gaming community of the scale that some of these kingdoms may reach hasn't existed. Not as an ingame play group. The very size of such a group works against it, and such groups are prone to fragmentation.
You see this in the (much smaller) gaming groups and factions of other games; one group stays popular for a few months, a year, possibly a year and a half if they're lucky... and then people start ragging on them, internal discord tears them apart, or their rivals on the server simply smash them down and they don't recover. In CoE, even if the larger groups manage to stay together and hold power, they're not going to reach a large enough size to create a united server front even if the ruler's fair and favoured by a majority of players. The dynamics of cassus belli on a kingdom scale will literally reflect the dynamics of the players ingame and out of game - all the forum shitflinging, the ingame griefing, the elitist douchebaggery and cliquey crap will lead to the splits in the aristocracy that allow a kingdom-scale cassus belli to become possible and be executed. Both sides of that conflict will be backed by players - and at that stage it really comes down to which is stronger and smarter.
Caspian's view on this is the right one if you look at the history of gaming groups in MMOs with PvP and the potential for power dynamics in an open world. Nobody's going to be a favourite forever, even those with integrity. The propoganda game finds its way into everything from politics to family to gaming, and the more people there are involved the messier it gets. Cassus belli can't work in a player-run kingdom (which pretty much all of them will be after the first year or two, if it takes even that long) without community support for a change - and managing treason in your player group is much like managing it in the real world. You either rule through fear, or you rule through integrity. And you fight tooth and nail when push comes to shove, using everything you have to hold what you've got against those who want to take it. The loser, whoever they are, either integrates, moves elsewhere, tries again, or exits the game - as it has always been throughout all the conflicts of history on every scale.
Out-of-game assets would remain with the communities who use them - I doubt in the event of a hostile and messy takeover that those groups would relinquish or share their assets with their usurpers. Whether those assets would be used against the conquerors is ultimately up to the conquered... and probably, by whatever ruleset is put in place when the game goes live, fair game. I don't feel that the good sportsmanship Caspian wants us to show will hold out of game - simply because I know my crowd, and that few of us PvPers take losing well or easily - but I do feel that he and his team will factor that problem into their final decision on the rules and systems they employ. They've shown good sense in most of their decisions so far.
To touch Divinity, one must be prepared to brave Reality.
Posted By Wolfguarde at 11:10 AM - Tue Jun 27 2017
This is a very well-thought-out concern, well done for spotting the issue and detailing it in a clear manner.
One thing I will contribute on this is something I feel everyone's missing so far from my skim through the rest of the thread - 100,000 people for a full server, up to 5 kingdoms per server, means anywhere from 10-20k people per kingdom. While the number looks small, and the world looks big to us by comparison to everything we've played... those people are all on one map with to-scale spatial dimensions. That's a lot of people.
Most gaming groups will number dozens. Some of the more successful ones will garner hundreds of players; some few have hit thousands. To my knowledge, a united, organised gaming community of the scale that some of these kingdoms may reach hasn't existed. Not as an ingame play group. The very size of such a group works against it, and such groups are prone to fragmentation.
You see this in the (much smaller) gaming groups and factions of other games; one group stays popular for a few months, a year, possibly a year and a half if they're lucky... and then people start ragging on them, internal discord tears them apart, or their rivals on the server simply smash them down and they don't recover. In CoE, even if the larger groups manage to stay together and hold power, they're not going to reach a large enough size to create a united server front even if the ruler's fair and favoured by a majority of players. The dynamics of cassus belli on a kingdom scale will literally reflect the dynamics of the players ingame and out of game - all the forum shitflinging, the ingame griefing, the elitist douchebaggery and cliquey crap will lead to the splits in the aristocracy that allow a kingdom-scale cassus belli to become possible and be executed. Both sides of that conflict will be backed by players - and at that stage it really comes down to which is stronger and smarter.
Caspian's view on this is the right one if you look at the history of gaming groups in MMOs with PvP and the potential for power dynamics in an open world. Nobody's going to be a favourite forever, even those with integrity. The propoganda game finds its way into everything from politics to family to gaming, and the more people there are involved the messier it gets. Cassus belli can't work in a player-run kingdom (which pretty much all of them will be after the first year or two, if it takes even that long) without community support for a change - and managing treason in your player group is much like managing it in the real world. You either rule through fear, or you rule through integrity. And you fight tooth and nail when push comes to shove, using everything you have to hold what you've got against those who want to take it. The loser, whoever they are, either integrates, moves elsewhere, tries again, or exits the game - as it has always been throughout all the conflicts of history on every scale.
Out-of-game assets would remain with the communities who use them - I doubt in the event of a hostile and messy takeover that those groups would relinquish or share their assets with their usurpers. Whether those assets would be used against the conquerors is ultimately up to the conquered... and probably, by whatever ruleset is put in place when the game goes live, fair game. I don't feel that the good sportsmanship Caspian wants us to show will hold out of game - simply because I know my crowd, and that not all of us PvPers take losing well or easily - but I do feel that he and his team will factor that problem into their final decision on the rules and systems they employ. They've shown good sense in most of their decisions so far.
And that's a very detailed and well thought out response, thank you. I think there's some truth to what you say, individual groups will splinter and factionalize, but on kingdom or even duchy scale, no one group will have that much power, but they ALL will have those out of game considerations weighting their in-game decisions. Even if a large number of them hate the king, I still think it might be hard to convince them to support an in-game takeover if it means losing the out of game infrastructure and having to rebuild those communities and content. Maybe this is as it should be. I can't really predict what the social situation is going to look like once we add in thousands of unpledged random spawns at launch just going wherever the game puts them.
Posted By Ollobik at 11:08 AM - Tue Jun 27 2017
To the best of my knowledge, nobody is spending any money, let alone ludicrous amounts, on anything other than the basics such as a website.
I meant the people spending money for the monarchy package, not spending money on social media.
Count Einzbern of Aichhalt.
Kingdom of Ashland.
Duchy of Sanctaphandri.
Seated in Darmindatch.
Posted By MoonChaser at 1:08 PM - Tue Jun 27 2017
Posted By Ecir_Edyah at 7:35 PM - Tue Jun 27 2017
Just spitballing here: Perhaps at Launch, the SbS forums can be made to include private Kingdom sub-forums? Their utility remains in continuity through shifts in power. (Let's say it's still considered the "same" kingdom if its capital didn't move.) Other new sub-forums are added when the game recognizes a new kingdom, (with a different capital.)
This would be quite difficult to implement as borders can change dynamically with settlements as well as it's citizens changing all the time.
Actually, if those settlements had individual threads, they could be moved back and forth to the appropriate sub-forum by mods. (Flashman and Barghest are pretty swift at it!) I'd say the work required of screening and enabling new citizen access is up to the government players, just as it is at their websites and current discords now. Re: Espionage: that was always up to the government to guard against by dispensing varying levels of access permissions.
SbS can sponsor their own Kingdom Discord servers too. They only have to pay attention to it when a shift in power changes hands--the rest of the work is again up to the government. (Which they're used to doing already.)