@SirZyr

What "sort of behavior"?

Clear and fair warning? And expectation of cooperation with a large existing community? A public statement of intent regarding counts from the ruling duke?

Sure, immediately ostracizing any random that happens to set foot in your land would be unfair, and against the "spirit of play".

But that's not what it happening here, and for someone who seems to be frustrated with people "putting words in their mouth" or being presented with strawman arguments, you seem oddly inclined to do the same.

If people were claiming some type of "you are not in my community, therefore we will immediately attack you" approach, I might see where you are coming from. However, that's not happening either. Most of these posts are from the angle of "we have a community, you are welcome, just reach out".

To maintain the poker reference - these communities (especially the large ones that have filled their domains at the count level), have already chosen the hand they want to play with.

It may not be the best hand, but it is the hand they are betting on. "Forcing" them to take another card, under the guise of "you might get a better hand" is just as "bad" (IMO), as refusing to take another card.

Play how you want. This isn't "harassment", it's simply a desired style of play.

In this kind of game the line between OOC/OOG and IC/IG will be very, very blurry, which is why personal attacks already happen and just shouldn’t be taken as such, but rather be accepted as part of the game as it will happen again and again.

We have many playstones here to control. Our characters, our souls and our forum / discord personas are all part of game and you can’t just neatly separate it all from another like in other games, as the strategy expands much further into social media than in other games and feeds right back into to it.

Just like in a box fight, your opponent might attack you verbally out of the ring, just to make you nervous or angry to provoke a mistake of yours inside the ring. It’s gonna happen, it’s a tried and true tactic for ages. Prepare for it.

This, of course, demands from all of us, to constantly keep in mind, that all of this is just a game and it is just about pixels in the end. Accepting that even our out of game personas connected to this game and this game only are game themselves, does not change the fact that personal attacks against our true and IRL selfs are off limits.

In that wondrous realm of reality, we should really try to picture us friends, sitting around a table playing our favorite table top game. If then someone makes a treacherous, hideous move against us, we should all laugh together and applaud them for their deviant energy - and plot our revenge with a smile.

Yes, I know, that’s an ideal. But one worth striving for, methinks.

And another thing...

I consider Earth 1.0 (is it, really?) and the concept of an MEOW both to be infinite games. If you plan to win, you’re playing the wrong game. ;)

The political intrigue of CoE is fairly interesting not only from a gamer stand point, but also in 'real world' fields of study in psychological and political science.

It is very interesting to me how some people behave in digital environments and how the 'Dance' will unfold within the game's landscape. It's like a mini drama-filled political arena where real-life professions, national origin, upbringing, etc, potentially have no play in the political system. For example, a real life farmer could out 'Dance' a heart doctor. You never know!

Posted By Sir Zyr at 01:41 AM - Sat Sep 07 2019

Posted By Marovec at 10:46 PM - Fri Sep 06 2019

Posted By Sir Zyr at 01:33 AM - Sat Sep 07 2019

Posted By Marovec at 10:29 PM - Fri Sep 06 2019

Posted By Sir Zyr at 11:57 PM - Fri Sep 06 2019

Posted By Moonlynx at 8:51 PM - Fri Sep 06 2019

Ah, the dance, the black tie and tails, the beautiful ballgowns and jewelry, the orchestra playing in harmony... and then some yokel shows up wearing a cowboy hat and boots requesting "Achy Breaky Heart". Yeah, the dancers who have spent money on their finery and jewelry are going to be upset if the music changes mid-dance. All people have been asking is if you arrive in the middle of the song that you go with the flow and speak to the conductor to see where you can best fit in before you step on someone's toes. No one likes their toes stepped on.

Except it is an open dance with requests allowed, and potentially granted to those who have paid enough to come in, no matter what the other dancers think, based on how SBS is running it. And it's not like the dance doesn't start and stop, either.

Edit to add: a flexible leader who's willing to work with anyone who they end up with is going to be a lot more successful than one who is rigid about who gets what and will attack anyone who doesn't follow their master plan in DSS or otherwise.

Also, if NPCs see kings, dukes, and/or counts attacking otherwise loyal underlings for poorly defined in-game reasons (remember, as far as the game's NPCs are concerned, nothing on the forum happened), how long until talk of rebellion starts and how long after that until the days of their rule come to a violent end?

edit 2: removed something I felt was overly inflammitory

You can bandy analogies all you want, but at the end of the day, large, organized communities that choose to take a more...exclusionary...stance with their domains, and the "dance", have every right to do so.

Just like you have every right to be as welcoming and inclusive of outsiders as you desire.

Which approach ends up being the "best" is yet to be seen, both both are legitimate approaches to gameplay - each with their own consequences and results.

You seem to take a very strong stance against any type of "closed borders" approach, and that's fine. However, it sometimes seems like a reminder that just because you disagree with their approach, doesn't make it "wrong"...

It's just an approach you don't like.

And if Vye's OP is anything to go by, neither does SBS.

Either way, it wasn't my analogy. I was just correcting Moonlynx's based on the reality

There's nothing to correct. Her's was accurate from her viewpoint.

Through numerous threads I have seen you target and attack anyone who suggests not welcoming "randoms" with open arms.

I am simply pointing out that while you are obviously welcome to your opinion, it is still an opinion.

Vye's ambiguous allusion to the fact that people should look at "randoms" as a benefit does not mean that anyone who doesn't share that view is doomed to fail (unless they implement hard mechanics), it just means there might be consequences or hurdles to that style of domain management.

No different than people who formed massive multi-domains despite being repeatedly warned by SBS that was not a wise choice.

Given what I know of the communities that are taking the more strict stances...I promise you, they are well aware of the risks, and have communicated their intent "fully informed".

Attacking them? Eyeroll

Attacking them would be making statements against their person. I did nothing of the sort (aside from one person who kept thinking me upset for some reason and I called tone deaf partly in response and later accused of projecting, see how I hate having words put in my mouth). I did, nowever, attack their arguments and explained why I was things the way I did and why I thought they were bad and would hurt the game which is entirely different. but please, keep making baseless accusations against me. If I did engage in personal attacks, report them to the mods.

Also, fourth paragraph (I'm on tablet and block quoting is a headache with it), don't put word in my mouth. I never said that, but this is hardly the first time someone strawmanned me on this topic and it's tiring (and that is not an attack on you but your flawed argument against one I did not make but why is easier to beat than the next I did). All I said was that, and let me emphasize for you so you can't straw man me again, SBS is saying that this sort of behavior against randoms is not what they want and may cause unnecessary drama, especially if harassment takes place, not whether or not it will work.

Also her perception and the perception promoted by sbs were at extreme odds, and I simply pointed it the discrepancy between her analogy and the reality of how dss works. Or are you saying reality is subjective now? Because if it's right from her point of view but wrong in fact, then lo and behold, she's wrong and I've seen nothing from you or her to suggest her point of view is correct in reality

I am only wrong in your opinion. The fact remains that SBS changed the rules on which tribe you can be long after many of us had backed it in Kickstarter. THAT IS FACT!!!! Therefore, there are limited places for someone who wants a specific tribe and has a title to go. THAT IS FACT!!!! So, yes, some communities are protecting their people, which is the way they should be. It isn't saying that they don't want random people to settle, but they don't want the random people who disrupt the community plans. They want the random people to, OMG, talk to the leaders to minimize the impact. Thank Gods. At least someone is looking out for the early backers. What is so difficult to understand?

How SbS wants us to play the game is irrelevant if they don't implement any mechanics to prevent it.

Just like the drama with people voting for maps on servers other than their own- if SbS didn't want us to do it, it would have been disabled.

Welcome to sandbox games.

Posted By mickdude2 at 3:47 PM - Sat Sep 07 2019

How SbS wants us to play the game is irrelevant if they don't implement any mechanics to prevent it.

Just like the drama with people voting for maps on servers other than their own- if SbS didn't want us to do it, it would have been disabled.

Welcome to sandbox games.

This, 100%. While I am concerned over the changes they will make over time because "people aren't playing right", nothing, so far, has broken any rules, or even violated intent.

Everyone, SBS included, keeps talking about how "conflict is content" - seems people quickly change their tune when it is conflict they don't like.

To be honest with the reverse auction about to start of course Sbs would point out that the “dance” is just now starting so new folks who might buy a title in said auction wouldn’t feel like it’s a waste of money and they will be a target on day 1.

Reality is sbs has been behind the curve in community building and community progress since the KS. We as a community have repeatedly shown they underestimate and under prepared for what the community would do.

I believe this is the case here. Of course there should be zero RL threats made and there should be an immediate corrective measure taken up to a deletion of the offending account if such things are said.

However if you don’t have a community at this point it is likely you will be at a severe disadvantage regardless of how sbs thinks things will go. You need to reach out and hope you find an accepting home where you don’t create problems for those who have been there since the beginning.

Posted By Malais at 4:35 PM - Sat Sep 07 2019

I believe this is the case here. Of course there should be zero RL threats made and there should be an immediate corrective measure taken up to a deletion of the offending account if such things are said.

They haven't done anything about everyone who's been doxxed thusfar; why would this change?

I go to a game night at a friends house regularly. There are usually lots of people, and multiple games being played.

Just as with this Studio, multiple Kingdoms are playing their own games, and have their own plans.

If someone new comes to our game night, then no one has a problem if they want to introduce themselves and play in one of the many available games, but what is NOT acceptable is if they are uninvited, don't introduce themselves, and force their way into a game that is already ongoing and are seeking to play in their own way regardless of what everyone else is doing.

They will be asked to change their behavior or asked to leave. If they do neither of these things then they will be forced to leave.

The really only became a bigger issue since Mayor upgrades and Count upgrades were released to the public after being taken away, and at the same time, the Dutch Auction. People have been theorycrafting for years and will feel threatened by any "new" nobility who may break those theories. You can say "be nice to them" but in reality, A leader saying someone will be targeted if they dont listen to their rules of their community is fair. thats how laws and societies are governed. There are RL nations who have closed borders and don't take kindly to people randomly dropping in. It's going to happen.

Whether or not this is just a general statement so people feel more comfortable buying the count/mayor upgrades and bypass the communities plans, or really for the "play experience". however, there are lots of quotes from people and even sbs members about how Elyria is a fuedalistic society and isnt meant to be fair. that was the Logic behind the Mayor rules or the rules for AL. Obviously any RL threats are to be avoided, but threats about what is going to happen purely in game are 100% apart of the Dance.

If you classify people "threatening" to make peoples player experiences worse, how are you allowing something like Solaris to "threaten" independance. wouldnt that be hurting Thared's "player experience"? What about Counts and Dukes threatening to take AL? Any hostilities between ANY two parties would be viewed as threats and would be against your ToS and CoC if you followed your logic correctly.

Posted By Kinoss at 2:16 PM - Sat Sep 07 2019

I go to a game night at a friends house regularly. There are usually lots of people, and multiple games being played.

Just as with this Studio, multiple Kingdoms are playing their own games, and have their own plans.

If someone new comes to our game night, then no one has a problem if they want to introduce themselves and play in one of the many available games, but what is NOT acceptable is if they are uninvited, don't introduce themselves, and force their way into a game that is already ongoing and are seeking to play in their own way regardless of what everyone else is doing.

They will be asked to change their behavior or asked to leave. If they do neither of these things then they will be forced to leave.

You are moving the goalposts. You are treating each kingdom as it’s own house with its own game night. SBS is the house and COE is the game night. Each game can make up its own rules, to some extent, but it can’t expect to do so without scrutiny and without consequences if what they have made up doesn’t fit the overarching house rules or expectations.

Also, unlike your game night, this is an announced open game night. Anyone can come. Just buy a ticket and you are in. The rules are NOT against unannounced drop in. The rules actually favor that.

It’s like a poker night. Anyone can sit at any table, as long as there is an empty seat when they show up. And while some seats can be saved, you can’t save seats other than as allowed by the house rules. Trying to do so with goons violates the rules.

That said, if someone sits down at a table full of card sharps working together, they are going to get fleeced.

Posted By Caspian at 3:48 PM - Sat Sep 07 2019

And in case there's any question, threatening, intimidating, or harassing other players, or in any way communicating that you intend to make their play experience poorer as a result of their D&SS pick is not the Dance of Dynasties. That's simply bullying and is viewed as a violation of our ToS and CoC.

Note: Nowhere have I said that people cannot use the in-game mechanics to try and force people out of their domain, only that everyone needs to be free to make their picks without hostile intervention.

So what you're saying here is these communities are free to take this aggressive stance, but not let people know. So you would rather people drop in with no warning into a place that is sure to get them stomped on by a larger force, when that larger force is just trying to do them a favor by letting them know what will happen ahead of time if they should do so?

Is it really bullying when it's not a threat, simply fair warning of a fact? I feel like it's a positive public service personally. It's preventing future unnecessary negativity by giving people the information they need to make educated decisions.

What you are in essence saying here is you would prefer people waste their money by dropping their domains in a doomed location, rather than allowing people to give fair warning of these situations to prevent problems for both groups. Take a look at the groups making these claims. They are big enough to back them up. So these situations are going to happen either way, you're just removing the positive way these groups can handle the situation by making them unable to warn people.

This is criminally short sighted.

Because that's exactly what these announcements are. The people making these announcements are not bullying, because they do not have ill intent. They don't necessarily want to ruin the play of anyone, but they will to protect their own environment. They are trying to help both themselves and the groups they are warning off have a better experience, rather than just letting the situation be worse both for their own communities, and the ones who dropped in unannounced. How is that a bad thing?

So the takeaway is that, do not warn or threaten that you will be taking their domain once in game to encourage new players to plan and coordinate with a pre existing community (so that they can keep their domain once in game)...

INSTEAD... Just do it in game, and let them find out organically in game that they lost their domain. And dont tell them why.

I understand the message tho, but I think this is how some members of the community will take it. (to use in game mechanics instead of warning newer players of the best course of their actions).

So, point blank Caspian, are Vornair and other communities posts breaking ToS?