COMMUNITY - FORUMS - GENERAL DISCUSSION
Pledging fealty and influence trickle

After putting some thought into the influence trickle that SbS has discussed and a little bit into map voting it made me wonder if SbS considered the following:

• Utilizing the same process that map voting will utilize. To clarify: That is using sparks of life to weigh how much influence is being contributed but the total possible influence is a set value [maybe based on total influence of the account or influence of the position of the individual - however SbS intends to do this]

The reasons for this are simple: It allows for people to spread out their influence based on desired alts etc. and contribute where they really want and it utilizes a system that will have already been in play.

• For those with FK packages [if the influence trickle comes from total influence of the account], negate the influence they obtained from the tokens that were acquired and allow the FK package holders to contribute the influence they acquired via purchases or community involvement upward via the system proposed in point 1.

The reason for this is also simple, it allows for the players to still contribute to a community they have participated in developing be it the FK or another kingdom. It also removes the influence that was awarded by SbS due to the tokens themselves [making the direct contribution influence the only influence that impacts this process].

Let me know what y'all think, if you have changes etc. that think should be made, etc. And yes, this is open to critique, hate, love, etc.

Edited in note: I will not be arguing my perspective or entering into prolonged discussion within this thread. I will, however, provide clarification if it is requested.

Edited in note as I forgot to include it with the main post: The reason for negating the FK influence was made in response to caspian stating the trickle up process would not apply to winners of FK packages. [They, themselves, wont contribute upwards due to having already received influence].


10/4/2018 2:55:10 AM #1

As we move into events where IP matters, I'd like to see another round of IP giveaways. The last one was 8 months ago, and a lot of people have done a lot of cool things since then.

10/4/2018 3:11:53 AM #2

<Removed my comments after edits made in OP>

10/4/2018 3:17:07 AM #3

It's nice to gift people with IP to show appreciation for what they've done for the community and for CoE. I'm more worried about how large communities naturally draw more crowds and are going to be rewarded in a feedback loop, in a way that makes them bigger, and draws more recruits, for simply 'being big'.

We know, all of us, that the pretty promises sometimes don't amount to much more than assumptions and flat-out lies.

While I don't want to upset any of the hard workers and genuine people, we know that there are those who take the easy way out. 'Yeah man, we'll totally, definately be brudvir. you can count on it. and we'll all be knights and mercenaries, and vampires!' etc etc. So they get a bunch of pledges and then, rewarded through the vassal system that's been proposed, grow their group, and numbers draw even more people in.

Dunno about that.


10/4/2018 3:19:30 AM #4

Posted By Teland at 8:11 PM - Wed Oct 03 2018

Hmm. While I understand the sentiment, where IP comes from shouldn't matter. If SbS decided to gift people IP vs people acquiring it through purchases, they are both legitimate and equal in my mind. Just because the studio provided it shouldn't diminish its value or weight.

Oh sorry, I actually forgot something in my post that came up in the discord chat prior to me making the thread. I edited it in at the bottom of the initial post.


10/4/2018 3:35:53 AM #5

I agree with Sylvae. I never liked this idea when I first heard about it. It's really just another way to give bonuses to big kingdoms. Do they really need another reward?

Could of course argue all day about how starting in an big kingdom may or may not be the best move. But I don't see a point to the whole thing really.

Of course I don't understand how the whole thing will work. So you give influence to those above you, thus getting locked to them. Easy enough. But what happens if you can't pick a spot under them? Does that then open up a loophole?

As I said before, this is really just another way to throw favour to big kingdoms. While also, nothing like giving people more reasons to vulture recruit others.


10/4/2018 4:43:19 AM #6

Posted By Gunnlang at 11:35 PM - Wed Oct 03 2018

I agree with Sylvae. I never liked this idea when I first heard about it. It's really just another way to give bonuses to big kingdoms. Do they really need another reward?

Could of course argue all day about how starting in an big kingdom may or may not be the best move. But I don't see a point to the whole thing really.

Of course I don't understand how the whole thing will work. So you give influence to those above you, thus getting locked to them. Easy enough. But what happens if you can't pick a spot under them? Does that then open up a loophole?

As I said before, this is really just another way to throw favour to big kingdoms. While also, nothing like giving people more reasons to vulture recruit others.

..So to be honest, i think that's the point with the "trickle up effect".. You reward those who have grown their community, yes, it's true that "numbers attract numbers". People want to join the big groups, because there's advantages to numbers. It's like that IRL, and SbS is trying to make this game at least operate how history/IRL does.. Life is not always fair. Numbers attracting numbers is not a new concept, and we all new we needed people. Some (like myself) chose to wait in recruitment for our projects or lands/titles, while others starting their campaigns and recruitment. Most offering stuff they we'rent guaranteed (specific tribes, or locations..all you "navy/Sea faring duchies). But because they had identifiable and visual goals/promises, people were attracted to them and or their numbers. And if they don't end up with what they promised, they have spent the last 2-3 years building up their communities. At that point, most communities would choose to stick together and just work with what they're giving..I'v seen the error of my ways. It's almost like the saying "its better to ask for forgiveness later, then permission now (Phyllain knows how i love this one ;) ).

Anyways..my wall of text rant aside, why should people not be rewarded for creating and growing their communities, however they did it (since not all communities are build on promises that may never come true)?


10/4/2018 4:55:44 AM #7

No, it's not a new concept and it is not fair. I agree. And I think many agree that there's 'historical precedent' for it. However, do we really want a mechanical boost for this? Let it happen naturally, sure. That's fine.

SBS shouldn't really put a hand into how player popularity and propaganda 'win'.

That's the whole point. A difference between actively boosting of IP and a more laissez faire, hand's-off approach to the concept of actually rewarding IP to people with bigger communities.

Also the point that was missed by Tigari is the disingenuous nature of people; to lie, cheat, and steal to get a leg up. The 'trickle up/down' approach assumes honesty and integrity on the part of the players, and demands a hands-off approach, from SBS, by the nature of it. Can't have it both ways.

Looking forward to hearing how Objectivists argue for active intervention from the development company to "stimulate" bigger groups while urging the others to work harder on growth. :D


10/4/2018 9:55:21 AM #8

Posted By Tigari at 2:43 PM - Thu Oct 04 2018

why should people not be rewarded for creating and growing their communities, however they did it (since not all communities are build on promises that may never come true)?

My whole point, which you seem to have missed. Is why should people be rewarded in the first place?

People starting with strong communities will be better off, than those without. Anyone walking into this game will gaming groups will be even more better off.

Yeah this whole game is built around not being fair. I think everyone gets that. But my point, those communities already start at a better position. So why reward them even more? More so for something they would have done in the first place.

To answer your question, I don't see why communities should be rewarded. Is growing relationships and finding people to start the game with not good enough? Knowing who they can and can't work with. Not going into this game blind and not even knowing who is around them. Joining a community right now and building something. Already gives those people something. I don't see the need for another bonus on top of that.


10/5/2018 4:29:20 AM #9

Everyone has shared interesting perspectives so far and I can sympathize with a few of them.

Did anyone else have anything to add to this topic/discussion?


10/5/2018 3:06:29 PM #10

My concerns on the subject are the same as they were the first time it was presented to us.

1) what is the expected scale of effect ? what numbers are we talking about ? will it be in the hundred, hundreds or even thousands of IP ? As i'm totally fine with IP rewarding for community building in order to let a hard working leader to get on top of the crowd, giving it a few hundred IP max to let him get away from the generic pool, i am not ok at all with game changing numbers. Because as it has been already stated, community is already rewarding by nature, then, because friend codes already did part of the job and because it was never implied to any of us that it would work that way.

So if the system let you get in front of the crowd and compete with people that have put a few extra bucks, ok. Lets say the system should never let you get more than half what your pledge is, beyond that it is unfair for people that have actually supported the game.

2) what is the price of pledging ? If there is no "price" it will only turn into a popularity/number contest where groups are mindlessly going to try to grab any pledged they can just to add up free IP, where you might even see people buy pledge and any and all imaginable manipulation and abuse of the system.

3) All other rewards have been with EP/store credits, why this one is to be with IP? If we have to reward the work of those that built communities with IP the only meaning is to impact domain selection order. But then, the question would be why domain selection order is a reward? Most if not all the communities have been saying again and again that all that matter tot them is the community, the people they managed to gather, to know and like and with whom they want to play, everything else is at best secondary or even irrelevant. So why would they need to improve their domain selection order ? why if not because they built those communities on things they think they can not deliver, and that contrary to their motto, are things that matter a lot to most of their members to the point that it put them at risk. So that way to reward community building is in fact turning into saving bad community building and trying to correct false promises and lies from harming too much those that used them.

So to reward us for our work on bringing more people to the game and building thriving communities, active and participating, give us store credits, or free packages to gift and bring in more people, or give us items or EPor grant us extra villager tokens, invent county, duchy and kingdom tokens that will grant the domain fame and renown, those could bring in more characters and trade and scare away crime and npc noble attack attempts, but do not give us IP.


10/5/2018 3:22:49 PM #11

While the big get bigger as a result of IP rewards, it's also possible to see it as a reward for the earliest, most active backers continuing to expand the community. I don't see this as a reason not to do the giveaways. However, that the point regarding people faking info/results for a leg up is a valid one, and more likely the more giveaways are done and the closer we get to launch.


To touch Divinity, one must be prepared to brave Reality.