Posted By Gunnlang at 11:10 AM - Fri Oct 19 2018

Like I said, I get why they are giving nobles power. Goes with everything about this game, where rich have all the say. >

Considering in some of the earliest literature (from the KS era) only the 10K club got to vote on maps I think that the current voting system is fair to the various people.

If you spent more your vote is worth more, yes, but if SBS doesn't reward the whales early on their high-value backers (who continuously spend significant amounts) will begin to become disillusioned very rapidly.

Posted By Gunnlang at 11:10 AM - Fri Oct 19 2018

Over what Caspian has said, about maps affecting nobles more. Which is where it goes funny, since most believe, nobles now, will lose their title within the first year.

I wholeheartedly believe I will lose my title within the first year. I will, however, try not to lose my title, and I will have around a year of playing with that title. So yes map selection is more important to nobles than other (less static) groups since it will define at least a year of play for us.

Posted By Gunnlang at 11:10 AM - Fri Oct 19 2018

Yet there could be so many great leaders, that just didn't have the money to throw at a title. From this vote, makes it come across like what they want doesn't matter. Just nobles now, even if everyone knows most will lose their title dam fast.

Considering SbS gave an entire kingdom's worth of nobility packages away for free and gave away 1000s of dollars of free packages there have been several opportunities for the financially challenged leaders to grab a title. Even without a title, an actually good leader would just organise the lower ranked votes. You're a 10k backer? Get six of your cohorts to vote on the same map as you - you're outvoting most dukes. Got 20 mates with Elyrian packages you're basically a count. The lower orders will be through sheer numbers able to outvote the higher ranks - they just need one of those great leaders you're talking about.

Posted By Gunnlang at 10/19/2018 10:10:26 AM

I would have rather each title gets their own fixed amount. That way, those with higher titles can still feel special. Over giving them insane power. Assuming kingdoms can get their followers to vote together, it basically just means the richest kingdoms will be picking.

I think Gunnlang nailed it, or at least I concur that using total influence is not the grandiose "player community building the world" announcement I expected, very far from it.

I follow the game since a very long time and there was always such design/orientation decision like this one that made me reconsider getting involved... and I don't think I'm the only one fearing that pattern.

There were other possibilities

A fair solution would have been where all eligible players would a base value for their vote (solving the gifted packages non-sense): a value that would get multiplied by one plus the forum ranks (which is based on influence, not title per se and maxed at 12).

Sure, rounding wouldn't matter too much neither with a base value of 60 points per vote (dividable by 1 to 6 and 10... which is already quite a lot of life sparks and diluted voting).

Recurring bias and mismatching signals

Big spenders already got advantages for what they paid for, just like any other contributors, no need to unbalance it ever more.... taking their support into account, sure, giving them appealing biais, no. Like I shown in the previous section, it was possible, Soulbond Studios chose another way.

Contributors got rewarded time and again for their high (villa for mayors for instance), early (veteran perks) or active (searing plague) contribution. That was a relative good direction to proceed/maintain.

@Markof (and others thinking on the same line) There are no "basic" kings anymore (except maybe the mute ones), plus they are not alone and have wealthy duke-level players behind them.... worth in the current system so much more than hundreds of bloodline players.

Sure my proposal would suck for someone like Ghettomaster (sorry for the spelling) who dwarf anyone around influence-wise, despite wanting to be "only" a count or baron and settled for duke instead if I'm correct.

But for all the majority of players, it sends a loud signal that devs say one thing but don't care about their voices (for instance even ambassadors and moderators are not automatically allowed in the exclusive Q&A access club, reserved to big spenders).

Here we go again

A recurrent state of things that kicks the wasp/bug's nest of "pay-to-win"... again.

Sure it is literally "pay-to-build", but if/when the high spenders get all the votes, others have paid but can't build: it becomes "pay-to-win" material, not even like in a regular auction, as wronged people (those with "normal" influence) have spent to even get the invite.

I wouldn't mind too much personaly (and I'm thrilled for being able to map vote), if it was not advertised as "democratic" or "fair" to the community at large.

I am beyond ready for this.

Posted By chipla at 10:16 PM - Fri Oct 19 2018

I wholeheartedly believe I will lose my title within the first year. I will, however, try not to lose my title, and I will have around a year of playing with that title. So yes map selection is more important to nobles than other (less static) groups since it will define at least a year of play for us.

You are missing my point there completely. Which was, if others within the community that held nothing more than a basic package, could really hold a title for longer that anyone that brought one. Simply cause they are better leaders. Yet it seems like they don't matter right now.

Considering SbS gave an entire kingdom's worth of nobility packages away for free

What? You mean the FK event? Wouldn't really call that for free, the counts no doubt got it dam cheap. But all the others, if anything had people pay more for them. Like Phyllain winning, but had people give him 14k worth of tokens. While no doubt, still an awesome move for SBS, still wouldn't say free.

You're a 10k backer? Get six of your cohorts to vote on the same map as you - you're outvoting most dukes. Got 20 mates with Elyrian packages you're basically a count. The lower orders will be through sheer numbers able to outvote the higher ranks - they just need one of those great leaders you're talking about.

I like that you and others. Are always comparing it to "most dukes" "most kings". When most of both that I know are thousands over their basic packages. Sure if the majority of higher title holders, really didn't move from their package, it wouldn't be overall a problem. But seeing most have, that be where the problem is.

But anyway, I just wanted to share my views. Hope everyone enjoys the map voting process.

Posted By chipla at 05:16 AM - Fri Oct 19 2018

Considering SbS gave an entire kingdom's worth of nobility packages away for free

Less than half a kingdom and definitely not for free lol

@kurugi:

Firstly, I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to a fixed voting weight based on level/package.... I don't mind at all.

But I do take issue with your screams of "pay-to-win" and claims that it is unfair for the vote to be weighted so heavily up the package level.

You do understand how big the starting continent and world truly is don't you?

I mean no disrespect, but other than purely aesthetics, can you explain to me (seriously) why the shape of the starting continent really matters for an Elyrian Package up to a Proprietor (perhaps a small amount for the Proprietor)?

The land is so vast that once you've chosen your tribe and biome you can practically go anywhere, settle anywhere and have little to no ties to the land itself.

In fact if you are seeking adventure and exploration, why does the shape and geographical features actually matter at a macro-scale?

Let's jump to the Counts, Dukes and Kings now. Forgive me skipping the Aristocracy, I just want to compare and contrast the extremes in this argument. The shape and geological formations etc become of utmost importance for the Nobility, not because of how much they have spent, but because at that tier, Diplomacy and Politics, Trade, Economics and infrastructure, Resources (speculative), Defense and Offense among other things become vitally important in the decision making process.

Furthermore, while it may seem like semantics, even though the amount an individual has spent should have no baring on the weight of their vote, don't you think the amount they stand to lose by the vote should? Yes these two numbers are the same, ie amount_paid == potential_loss, butwhile this may seem like semantics, I don't think anyone should dismiss what another person stands to lose.

So it's more about the level of impact the map has on an individual (aesthetics vs real impact) and how much that individual stands to lose, not "The Rich guys/girls get preferential treatment..... This is a pay-to-win scam"

Can't wait! Thank you Soulbound!

Will we be voting for the starter continent maps or maps for the whole world in round 1 (and 2 too I guess)?

We will only see the starting continent. We won't get to see the rest of the world before we get sea travel...

Posted By Solarity at 10:58 AM - Fri Oct 19 2018

Posted By ZeroCool at 3:47 PM - Fri Oct 19 2018

Let's say you have 4025 IP (an arbitrary amount) and 3 sparks. If you voted for a single map on 3 separate servers, each vote would get 33% of your IP so 1,341.66 IP (not sure how they will handle rounding but it hardly matters.)

Thank you for your reply but I also would like to hear this from SBS staff too.

I understand if the IP got divided in one server as it mean you are not sure yet which map you want for that server and want to select more than one.

However, in my example. you are certain of which map you would like to have for that server and it is just that you still not sure which server you will play which is by the way a separate matter.

This event is a map selection and shouldn't be an event that force me or any person to choose their server to play.

It's right there in the OP;

Posted By Serpentius here

6 . Each vote cast divides a user's influence by the new total number of votes made. E.g.: A single vote would be equal to 100% of a user's Influence. A second vote would split the first and the second vote into 50% each. A third vote would split each vote into 33% of their total Influence. The more times a person votes, the less each vote is worth. A person can vote on a server more than once in order to distribute their Influence to their liking for example: 2 votes on map A, and 1 vote on map B, would be a 66%-33% split.

Also the FAQ answers your other concern;

Q13: Does voting for a server mean I am locked to playing on that server?

A13: No, it does not.

Re-reading one of the last paragraphs leads me to believe each server could end up having a different starting continent, correct?

"Having backers vote on the maps for the servers aligns with our community-centric development approach. It allows each server to be unique, right from the start..."

Posted By Kava at 10/19/2018 3:58:07 PM

Re-reading one of the last paragraphs leads me to believe each server could end up having a different starting continent, correct?

"Having backers vote on the maps for the servers aligns with our community-centric development approach. It allows each server to be unique, right from the start..."

Yes the idea is that each server has a different starting map.

This actually helps accentuate the differences in the servers, as the map will to at least some extent determine the path of development and story that the server takes.

Each server will have a different map. In round 2 voting no one map will exist on more than one server.

@Serpentius when I click on the link i get directed to error 404. It's saying my page has yet to be seen. I have an account and pledged a package, so what could be the issue?