16 August

What it means to Find the Fun

By Vye

Hail and well met, Elyrians!

We’ve been hearing from you about the evolving design of CoE, and there’s a lot of passion and concern regarding the future of many of our gameplay systems, biome details, release timeframes, etc.

At the moment we’re meeting every morning to work through our upcoming release of D&SS, but today the discussion was focused on this topic and how we talk to our community about the inescapable realities of Game Development and the challenges we face in this process.

To be clear, it isn’t our goal to turn our community into educated Game Developers, or to make some deep understanding of the Game Development process a requirement of posting your thoughts or concerns. Not even a little bit! You’re our customers and our advocates. We’re here because of you! We want to hear from you whenever something is on your mind. What we see is room to make the conversations more productive.

We want to arm you with an understanding of the challenges we face, and give you information that’s going to help you focus your feedback on areas we can impact. There’s a lot about the process of making a game that we can’t control, but we’re constantly listening for your voice in areas where we can make a change to delight you! This is our everyday goal at Soulbound Studios, and you’re the community we’re thrilled to serve.

This also gives us an opportunity to set healthy expectations for the future. CoE is a game that we’ll be servicing for as long as there’s a community there keeping it going, and the game will always be evolving – we’ll be updating systems, balancing professions, adding new elements into the mix that impact complex economies, and otherwise always incrementing on what the experience is. So we really need to get you guys used to change as a constant!

Welcome to life at Soulbound Studios and the complex journey to put CoE in your hands.

With a little help from my friends…

Let’s talk about making games. We’re going to be quiet for a minute and let others explain it in their own words.

This is a presentation we could watch over and over again. 17 years later it’s still a poignant and honest thesis on the realities of Game Development and how games should be made.

This is Mark Cerny discussing his approach to making games, which he called “Method”. That’s the same Mark Cerny behind Crash Bandicoot and Spyro the Dragon, and the architect of the PlayStation 4. This was all the way back in 2002 when folks were still making PS2 and original Xbox games. When you understand the ways in which making games is difficult, listening to Mark explain this philosophy and speak very truthfully about those problems is almost jarring. He’s being very candid at a time when many of us were convinced we could still schedule these things. The practical ways he offered to structure business around the cost of finding the fun was equally exciting.

But even he would tell you that this isn’t a new idea and he didn’t invent developing games in that way. Holistic and iterative game development – that is to say, the process of having an idea, implementing and experimenting, learning from your design and iterating to make it better – this practice has been the bedrock for many of the most successful and enjoyable games ever made.

It’s the way Shigeru Miyamoto and Nintendo make games and introduced the world to Mario:


It’s the way Valve made Half-Life and changed Shooters forever:


It’s famously the way that Blizzard has cultivated a portfolio of some of the most beloved games of the last 30 years:


And it’s how No Man’s Sky went from being one of the most visible controversies in recent years to a successful game with an active community

It’s also something that’s incredibly hard to do, because businesses want predictability. They want fixed costs, fixed timeframes, and predictable outcomes. It’s a pretty normal MBA bias and, if we were making Big Macs, it’d be easy. You can figure out the line, optimize the price of ingredients, manage uniform labor and performance standards, and spend your years driving down very predictable costs and increasing your margins – you can literally min/max burger manufacturing in a spreadsheet and make people happy! We really wish making games was anything like making Big Macs. We really, really do.

Instead, it’s a process that starts with tons of variables and unknowns, and pretty much the only thing you can be sure of at the start of the process is that you’re going to be wrong about a lot of things – hence the title at the top of this post. Game Development is a process of discovery, so let’s roll up our sleeves and talk about the messy work of creating something fun to play.

Finding the Fun, or, the Reality of Everything Being a Moving Target

We sometimes refer to it as certain uncertainty. Game Design and Game Development starts with assumptions, and as you get more experience making games you develop an awareness for just how much you don’t know when you’re starting new projects. Sure, you have a strong vision, and it’s usually always well informed by industry standards and your prior experience. But underneath even the best plans are a series of assumptions, and every single one of those assumptions – big or small – is going to be challenged and have to fight for its life.

Some things wind up being pretty well defined if we’re starting with technologies or creative concepts we’ve already worked with, and those are great wins! But any time we say we want to innovate or try something new, we introduce a handful of new problems we have to solve and, by nature, a lot of uncertainty. It winds up being a matrix that’s a bit painful on all sides.

  1. You don’t actually know if your new concepts are fun
  2. You don’t actually know if your new technology will work the way you need it to
  3. You don’t actually know if the content you want to create is optimal until you lock down a lot of technical parameters
  4. And you can’t know/won’t know/have no way of knowing any of this, until you actually build it and build it fairly extensively

It’s a process of implementation, discovery, and iteration that can be pretty brutal to work through, because the margin of concepts that don’t work as planned are typically pretty high. In the case of some of the examples above (a favorite being the story of Half-Life’s development), teams threw out entire almost-finished games in favor of making pivots with just a handful of proven mechanics.

Here’s what all of this boils down to. Making something fun is actually pretty damn difficult, and it takes a lot of time to answer the questions and solve the problems that pour out of that churn. Our day-to-day work involves a constant process of creative failure and, it turns out, that creative failure is the most important tool we have. Every little failure can teach us things, and when we iterate using that hard-earned learning, we’re able to make things better and get closer to something special. Sometimes the adjustments are minor, and sometimes they can represent fundamental shifts in how things need to work in order to be balanced and entertaining. This is what we’re describing when we use the term “finding the fun”, and it it’s a bit like the scientific method. You have to be loyal to the truth and follow it, even when change impacts your vision, challenges your bias, or makes you feel like an idiot.

You’re all very familiar with our vision and how we’re thinking about things but, as we work, we discover. This means stuff is going to change. Even if certain gameplay systems launch exactly as we initially described them, we’re going to get tons of player feedback that rolls into a constant process of balancing and updating the game.

In this process, please always share your voice with us. Share your thoughts, concerns, ideas, nitpicks, praise, frustration – all of it. Because we’re going to be listening and taking action. Why? Because you’re also a point of discovery and, as we learn from you, it helps us shape the world of CoE and do our best work in delivering an experience that you enjoy.

What this means in CoE terms…

What we’ve said so far is general and abstract. Let’s talk about some specific examples from CoE.

We worked through development of the four world maps with a very top-down approach, e.g. “the Neran live in the grasslands and they build houses out of stone and wood!” It turns out this didn’t create the sort of pseudo-realistic environment we were trying to create. Sure, our assumptions weren’t wrong, but the assumptions also weren’t good – this design took away our ability to give you the challenges and potential of the game world that’s equally important. From life being so easy no settlement needed to change or grow, to the wilds being smaller and emptier than any adventurer would like, we discovered that our initial designs were actually working against our vision instead of contributing to it. We learned that the only way to get what we were looking for was to take a different direction and build the world from its bones out – a bottom-up approach – and then using our generation algorithms to simulate growth and change. The results are a lot closer to what we imagined Elyria should be. Looking back at an earlier example, stone is not a common resource in the grasslands today. Sure, we could have included it artificially, but that would have been apparent and felt like a hack, and the last thing we want to do is present a game world that mostly immerses you. Who wants to play a mostly-immersive game? It sounds as ridiculous as it felt typing it.

It’s not just about the world content either. We end up having to deal with this at a systems level too. You’re all very familiar with the many varied and complex systems in CoE, and by design we have to bring a ton of assumptions into implementing these systems and trying to achieve our shared vision. Not all of that has worked as we thought it initially would. The core skill mechanics are a good example. When we realized that character knowledge had to be tracked for things like gossip and reputation in order to function properly, we didn’t just add a system for tracking knowledge. That realization rippled across other systems as well, to the point where we completely redefined the skills each character can learn, as well as the way your soul preserves your skill progress from lifetime to lifetime. It even changed the way players acquire new combat techniques and crafting recipes. The result is different than what we imagined, but the change brought us closer to what we all collectively want CoE to be.

Crafting is yet another example. We knew we wanted to do more with crafting than simply clicking items and buttons and watching progression bars fill. So our original designs were based on integrating almost party-game style mini-experiences to add skill and gameplay to crafting. The idea was that creating a new shirt would be something like a game of tracing the shape of the pattern and then coloring it. What we discovered through implementation and iteration was that this just didn’t fit – it felt out of place next to many other mechanics within CoE that are more grounded and “real seeming”. Party games don’t fit well next to complex narrative systems, it turns out. Back to basics then – crafting had to be more than a bar, but it also had to be more than a displaced set of party games. Struggling through this system led us to how crafting works today, where each step of the crafting process feels as close to doing the real thing as possible, but still fun and not too simulation-obsessed. Like the knowledge system, that affected the skill system and created a kinda web of techniques and recipes that lay out a whole new path of progression and growth for crafters. All it took was completely overhauling our initial design. Fun!

But this is the nature of the game, so to speak. And these are just a few of the highlights from recent months that speak to the challenges we’re talking about overall.

So what do we do with this information?

If you love games and you’ve been following a few favorite Game Developers for a while, then a lot of this won’t be new. But it’s kind of our thing to offer transparency and updates around everything we’re working on at any given time, how it’s going, what our priorities are, how things are changing, how much complexity is involved in Game Development, and how much of that can be unpredictable despite any risk mitigation we may put in place. This is especially new if we’re trying to do something innovative, and CoE is a kitchen sink full of big ideas!

So we wanted to reset the conversation and calibrate expectations. As we develop and learn, CoE and its features are going to evolve. Whenever you think about CoE and your interest in certain parts of the experience, this evolution is a fundamental truth we want you to keep in mind. We want to keep you engaged in our process and keep YOU a part of the feedback and comment cycles we thrive on. Keep giving us feedback and keep letting us know how you feel about the work we’re doing, because we’re definitely listening!

Now, that doesn’t mean you have to like those changes. By all means, if you think we’ve made a mistake we want to know! But we want you to expect that as concepts make their way into code and demonstrable gameplay, we’re going to be learning and CoE will be evolving. This is the very nature of how we develop games. And this would be true even if we weren’t saying it, but we are so that you know what to expect as the months and years tick by. Just like Elyria is a living world, so too is the process of bringing this world to life. Change is the constant you can count on.

Please make sure you post that feedback in our forums – good or bad, we want to hear it and we’ll be reacting. And thank YOU for joining us on this long and winding road. We can’t wait to put D&SS in your hands!

Pledged to Your Continued Adventures in Life, Both Actual and Fantasy,

Vye and the entire Soulbound Studios team

Discuss

Log in to post
ElijahSozo - 1 month ago

mark Cerny made my favorite game of all time, Crash Bandicoot. Still to this day, it's my favorite. If you guys are following his method, then please keep doing it! Everyone I know has been told about this game and they look at me like I'm crazy because the game is not available to play yet and when they ask when I can play it I say not sure maybe next year they look at me like i'm crazier! Breathes deeply Anyway, thank you SBS!

baviasi - 1 month ago

I've been encouraged, throughout the dev journals and other information provided, by the refreshing views expressed by SBS on what the game should be like. I realize that we can't always make what we want into a reality, but I recognize the monumental effort going into that labour of love. And I can't wait to see what DOES come out of it.

Keep on keeping on!

P.S. I am very excited about the NPC system, as that is one of the areas I think MMOs can grow into, so here's rooting for good little bots! ;)

Flashman - 1 month ago

Really great post here, thank you.

MisterTuggles - 1 month ago

You spoke of No Man's Sky... do what they did. Reduce the complexity of the systems you want, get a stable, smooth, playable game into the hands of the core group of players, and then build upon that into a much better game.

Squiddy_la_Femme - 1 month ago

Even though some of us have gotten VERY busy with our lives and haven't been tuned into the drama, I, for one, am still cheering for you from whatever desk I'm chained to. I'll be happily awaiting whatever comes as it does. Works of passion and art can take a long, long time to achieve and leave those to behold it with something amazing. These delays only mean something being made better along the path, and the time and attention it's being given is appreciated.

HolyAvengerOne - 1 month ago

Mea culpa accepted, SBS. 100% of humans do make errors as they learn, otherwise they wouldn't be learning; the real challenge lies in being grown-ass adults about those errors, owning-up and then move on. Today was a step in owning up, so gg Vye, SBS.

This here is a good lesson in humility and overconfidence that I sincerely hope we -- all involved, community, studio, et al. -- will all remember when it comes to the challenges that lay ahead in building Elyria together.

Thank you for taking the time to explain, Vye, appreciated. I'm not sure how much of that is solely from you, but I think we can all feel the wisdom behind your words.

F

curts

Tange - 2 months ago

A complete CI/CD pipeline might counter argue this pre-Agile methodology. Though I do agree that you cannot manage when inspiration will strike.

Pham - 2 months ago

I definitely don't agree with some of the things Rob discussed in the wow video.

I think the wow team gave up on asynchronous gameplay way too easily. I would have sided with Chris Metzen more in placing more value on maintaining the sanctity of the lore of warcraft - even at the expense of accessibility - as well.

Pham - 2 months ago

Some good videos here

Another good series is Ars Technica's "War Stories"

Pham - 2 months ago

So do you guys have a "publishable" first playable, internally, yet? :)

fireslash - 2 months ago

how fare are we until we get an open beta or something that will let us try the game ?

Malais - 2 months ago
@fireslash:

Posted By fireslash at 8/22/2019 1:06:30 PM

how fare are we until we get an open beta or something that will let us try the game ?

Several years.

Scorus - 2 months ago

Thanks for this, very informative and timely.

My only (hopefully constructive) feedback is that I encourage you to ask yourselves why this blog posting was needed and what could have been done differently such that it would not have been. Much of the information that was delivered both in this blog and the informative videos were things that SBS used to put forward in communication systems that seem to have been shelved. Mock up a calendar of all of your previous Design Journals and hour-long videos with some combination of Caspian, Snipehunter, and Vye giving juicy information and answering questions, and I think you will see that these extremely valuable tools seem to have been largely abandoned. I doubt that was intentional, I'd guess it was a result of DSS pressures and the feeling that the solution to all of that was just around the next corner. But the effect has been larger than you may realize. Shinys are great as a weekly piece of information. But when they replace instead of supplement longer, less frequent regular communications, they unintentionally look like the well-worn RPG technique of using shiny things to distract that literal troll ("Shiny, shiny!" as my players used to say). We need something meatier on a more regular timeline, nothing more than you've done in the past, just a return to that awesome level of engagement and information that really seemed to set SBS apart.

Thanks for listening and onward and upward!

Scorus

Chronic - 2 months ago
@Scorus:

"and what could have been done differently such that it would not have been." Quoted for truth.

Diggalot - 2 months ago

Keep on truckin' SBS, just run the fuck over any trolls on the rocky road ahead.

CountShady - 2 months ago

The fact that DSS never fully kicked off, and there was a major information change before DSS has resumed, seems to be like the right and honest play here is to just reset it completely.

Its not just the kings that were part of their kingdom picks and I think people are reshaping the argument to make it seem like its just a couple of kings pushing for this change.

The reality is... there are dukes, counts, mayors and just players in general who all discussed things with their monarch that lead to these decisions.

So its not JUST a couple of people who are frustrated by this decision by SBS to change information after the fact.

Some monarchs can look in the mirror and say.... I dont like this and I am going to do whats right for me.

While other monarchs are are looking into the mirror and going, I dont like this and I want to do whats right for Everybody.

We have seen who these monarchs are in this thread.

I just hope SBS can look in the mirror and go, I dont like this and We should do the right thing because its fair and we actually did kinda mislead people at the time with bad information. We should actually fix this and roll back to the very beginning especially considering that it never really got started to begin with.

Ironside - 2 months ago

I think some people need to be reminded of the difference between an investor and a backer.

An 'Investor' is defined as a person or organization that puts money into financial schemes, property, etc. with the expectation of achieving a profit.

A 'Backer' is defined as a person, institution, or country that supports someone or something, especially financially.

We are backers, not investors. It does not matter if you sold your house and gave all your money to SBS, you're a backer. I think the difference needs to be noted during legitimate and honest conversations because the context is significantly different.

When you back a game, you are not promised anything. You are not even promised the fact that the game will even see the light of day. Did anyone back WH40K: Eternal Crusade? I did and the entire premise of the game changed mid-development! What did the backers do? Nothing...because they're backers.

Bluebelle - 2 months ago
@Ironside:

Posted By Ironside at 5:09 PM - Sun Aug 18 2019

I think some people need to be reminded of the difference between an investor and a backer.

An 'Investor' is defined as a person or organization that puts money into financial schemes, property, etc. with the expectation of achieving a profit.

A 'Backer' is defined as a person, institution, or country that supports someone or something, especially financially.

We are backers, not investors. It does not matter if you sold your house and gave all your money to SBS, you're a backer. I think the difference needs to be noted during legitimate and honest conversations because the context is significantly different.

When you back a game, you are not promised anything. You are not even promised the fact that the game will even see the light of day. Did anyone back WH40K: Eternal Crusade? I did and the entire premise of the game changed mid-development! What did the backers do? Nothing...because they're backers.

Very true Ironside poor wording on my part. But my post's sentiment is the same. I'm not demanding anything because I or anyone else backed merely pointing out why this process in particular has been so turbulent. You're absolutely right that SBS doesn't technically owe us anything. They can do whatever they want or whatever they think is right and I have absolutely no argument with that. This is their game and I have faith in the team and the game. But I think the studio tries to do right by the backers when they can and I was pointing out that in this case that didn't happen no matter how unintentional or involuntary (this is by no means over though so we can still hope that they come to a solution). So while they don't owe us anything, I think that they try to respect the contribution nonetheless even if they aren't legally obligated to. My post was merely a personal opinion on the goings on meant as feedback going forward

Bluebelle - 2 months ago

I have no issue with design iteration, the game development process, extending deadlines, and making changes. That’s the industry and it generally doesn’t phase me over much (iterations happen for a reason after all) l. The only issue I think exists because the studio had people making $5,000-$10,000 (correct me if the monarch package pricing is wrong please!) decisions based on incomplete information that, as we’ve seen can change fairly significantly throughout the early stages of the development process. So while I think it’s incredible to have the community involved in the development to the level that it is there are some issues where maybe major locked decisions shouldn’t be taking place until later in the pipeline when ideas and iterations are more fleshed out and changes tend to be more minor and cosmetic rather than majorly affecting the game mechanics at a base level. I realize this late in the game it’s difficult to change all that though. Hindsight is 20/20 after all but hopefully we can avoid this in the future now that the issue has been raised.

In a perfect world we would all roll with the punches and go with the flow but some people have invested significantly in the project and so we’ve run into the issue at hand where we’re not just players but investors and we’ve now had some major investors make decisions with incorrect or incomplete information.

Again hopefully this is all resolved. Again we do appreciate this post Vye so thank you for taking the time to put it together!

Drudge - 2 months ago
@Bluebelle:

Posted By Bluebelle at 7:55 PM - Sun Aug 18 2019

So while I think it’s incredible to have the community involved in the development to the level that it is there are some issues where maybe major locked decisions shouldn’t be taking place until later in the pipeline when ideas and iterations are more fleshed out and changes tend to be more minor and cosmetic rather than majorly affecting the game mechanics at a base level.

Yes exactly! We all know things will change and accept that. We also know that the game still has a long development role ahead of it. Let's take a deep breath and let the game develop more firmly before people get locked into positions which may change drastically between now and release. It's so far away, what is the rush? The current map changes are just one of many potential times things will change. Why force selections when we know this will happen?

Gunnlang - 2 months ago
@Drudge:

Posted By Drudge at 11:37 AM - Mon Aug 19 2019

Yes exactly! We all know things will change and accept that. We also know that the game still has a long development role ahead of it. Let's take a deep breath and let the game develop more firmly before people get locked into positions which may change drastically between now and release. It's so far away, what is the rush? The current map changes are just one of many potential times things will change. Why force selections when we know this will happen?

People aren't even thinking about the big picture. How many communities have completely fallen apart because of drama? Locking in most people with a title many years from launch, what's the worse that can happen? SBS will have the conflict they want. Assuming people don't just abandon their titles all together.

I had a drama event in my own kingdom, just a few weeks back. Lucky DSS was delayed or it would make for an very interesting launch. Unless people plan to pick then ghost the game until launch comes around. I expect there be many duchies/counties within the same kingdom, at war come launch.

kajoreh - 2 months ago

Speaking just to the original post...

This should have been what was done in the first place.

But SBS now knows this in hindsight...

And they would like us all to be patient as they go back and reset an unknown number of variable that the community believed were set in stone...

That's a very BIG order...

But it IS better than continuing down an incorrect path that has been very damaging to their credibility in the past few months...

Perhaps it would help justify some of the communities issues about what is and isn't still "canon" to this game if a statement were made directly to that effect.

Most of us understand that everything originally conceived, planned, or promised is now not going to be delivered in the form in which it was first presented to us, such as the Engine, the Vox, and many other things far to numerous to list here.

And this isn't a call to debate if they were the right or wrong calls, either.

What's done is done.

But it does sound like we have reached a crossroads here.

So, now focusing on the future...

CAN SBS SIMPLY TELL US WHAT ARE NOW THE TRUE FACTS OF THIS GAME AT THIS POINT IN TIME?

Put another way, a declarative statement of WHAT IS and WHAT NO LONGER IS.

And this should be done OFFICIALLY and ONLY ON THE COE WEBSITE.

Something along the lines of a DJ, or a State of the Game type posting, that adds any new information and deletes/edits any information that is now incorrect or out of date.

AND IT SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN DISCORD, AS IT HAS BEEN STATED MULTIPLE TIMES BY THIS COMPANY THAT DISCORD IS NOT OFFICIAL GAME POLICY!!!

If you want us all to trust you, and essentially start over from here, then we need to know where we, and this game, now stand so that we can make informed decisions.

I get that this is an evolving process...

That's the E in the MEOW, right?...

I just think it would help all parties involved to know where we are in that process RIGHT NOW.

If we are now pushing a reset button, it doesn't seem unreasonable for us to know what the new baseline is, especially if you truly feel the way you say you feel about this community.

Thank you for your time.

TalHawkins - 2 months ago

Okay, I understand SBS wants to be true to reality in that in grasslands there is usually not a lot of stone. That being said....why? This is a fantasy world. SBS has already created a culture and architecture for Neran for years and people made plans based on that. Why not just put the stone there anyway?

If that still isn't palatable to SBS and they are unwilling to do that, I suggest a compromise: make anyone building in stone in grasslands during expo pay for building in stone at a SUBSTANTIAL rebate, ONLY during expo.

That would let SBS keep some of their promises they made by designing Neran the way they did with stone being a main building material. It would do away with some of the ill will felt by those who feel like they can't trust SBS on core information like race info.

So, for example (very much an example not based on real numbers I don't know): Building 50m of wall in wood would cost say 50EP. Building it in stone would normally cost 100EP.

Make it so that for those building in grasslands during expo it only costs 60 EP instead of 100EP.

That would also be true to the vision SBS stated for Nerans when they created the race and people began making plans years ago for selecting them.

Elderwood - 2 months ago
@TalHawkins:

.

Noslim - 2 months ago
@Elderwood:

Posted By Brythwaite at 6:11 PM - Sun Aug 18 2019

Wrong thread.

Really? I was pretty sure Tal was talking about points in OP.. here I'll point them out for you:

Posted By Bluebelle at 6:55 PM - Sun Aug 18 2019

>The only issue I think exists because the studio had people making $5,000-$10,000 (correct me if the monarch package pricing is wrong please!) decisions based on incomplete information that, as we’ve seen can change fairly significantly throughout the early stages of the development process.

Not only incomplete Mel, but as you can see in the screen above.. "We learned that the only way to get what we were looking for was to take a different direction" the information changed after Monarchs were asked to lock in.

Lemonsquid - 2 months ago
@Noslim:

Posted By Noslim at 8:05 PM - Sun Aug 18 2019

Posted By Brythwaite at 6:11 PM - Sun Aug 18 2019

Wrong thread.

Really? I was pretty sure Tal was talking about points in OP.. here I'll point them out for you:

Posted By Bluebelle at 6:55 PM - Sun Aug 18 2019

>The only issue I think exists because the studio had people making $5,000-$10,000 (correct me if the monarch package pricing is wrong please!) decisions based on incomplete information that, as we’ve seen can change fairly significantly throughout the early stages of the development process.

Not only incomplete Mel, but as you can see in the screen above.. "We learned that the only way to get what we were looking for was to take a different direction" the information changed after Monarchs were asked to lock in.

so not only the monarchs who spent a huge sum of money, but every other pledge level that has committed themselves to an entire kingdom

Dleatherus - 2 months ago

sigh

i first mentioned about discussing it on the livestream on the previous page - page 9 of 10 - post #127

most posts since then have not been me, unless i was responding to somebody asking a question or making a suggestion and seeing that. suggested taking the discussion to the relevant thread

problem?

you can carry on discussing it here if you wish, i won't be

ty

Taymuraz - 2 months ago

All of this because four kingdoms - one on each server - have a small portion of their land with fewer rocks than they were expecting. Not even that as only two of them have made anything resembling a complaint.

Meanwhile literally everyone else has dealt with similar small changes here and there without having a meltdown.

The point of the OP is solely to get people to understand that this is a game in early development, not even at the normal early access stage yet. Things will continue to change, and SBS have never said otherwise.

Fairly normal for early ideas and concepts to not pan out the way you had intended and the final game winding up with some things quite different. SBS have done well to keep it to things that have low or no discernible impact so far.

Dleatherus - 2 months ago

i also politely ask that any further questions or suggestions regarding the livestream be made in the thread i made for the stream, because i don't want to be hijacking this thread, which is intended for feedback to Vye's post

TY!

Elderwood - 2 months ago
@Dleatherus:

.

Sanguinesh_Blackwind - 2 months ago
@Elderwood:

Posted By Brythwaite at 6:36 PM - Sun Aug 18 2019

Posted By Dleatherus at 1:59 PM - Sun Aug 18 2019

i also politely ask that any further questions or suggestions regarding the livestream be made in the thread i made for the stream, because i don't want to be hijacking this thread, which is intended for feedback to Vye's post

TY!

hmm 10 pages later and your worried about Hijacking the thread? hehe 9 of the 10 pages has zero to do with post and all about u and wanting to repick? Sorry just found the quote super funny.

and that is how you do that ... bravo Brythe

Taymuraz - 2 months ago
@Elderwood:

Posted By Brythwaite at 08:36 AM - Mon Aug 19 2019

Posted By Dleatherus at 1:59 PM - Sun Aug 18 2019

i also politely ask that any further questions or suggestions regarding the livestream be made in the thread i made for the stream, because i don't want to be hijacking this thread, which is intended for feedback to Vye's post

TY!

hmm 10 pages later and your worried about Hijacking the thread? hehe 9 of the 10 pages has zero to do with post and all about u and wanting to repick? Sorry just found the quote super funny.

Had the same reaction.

Vaku - 2 months ago

Whoa, whoa. Take it down a notch.

Posted By Dleatherus at 07:34 AM - Sun Aug 18 2019

i think there is a LOT of misinformation...

i will make this the topic of our BBC livestream this coming tuesday, because any discussion surrounding the very valid topic in these forums, has so far been trolled....

Have someone on the show to argue the counter-point. Someone who ain't a troll.

Noslim - 2 months ago
@Vaku:

Posted By Vaku at 3:25 PM - Sun Aug 18 2019

Have someone on the show to argue the counter-point. Someone who ain't a troll.

Did I just get kicked off the show I've produced for 2 years?

Dleatherus - 2 months ago
@Vaku:

Posted By Vaku at 1:25 PM - Sun Aug 18 2019

Whoa, whoa. Take it down a notch.

Posted By Dleatherus at 07:34 AM - Sun Aug 18 2019

i think there is a LOT of misinformation...

i will make this the topic of our BBC livestream this coming tuesday, because any discussion surrounding the very valid topic in these forums, has so far been trolled....

Have someone on the show to argue the counter-point. Someone who ain't a troll.

it's a fair suggestion, and one i very strongly considered

however given that i consider this to be a complex multifaceted issue and will be making a rather lengthy presentation, the format for this livestream will be me making said presentation, and THEN fielding questions after it has been shared in full

at that point i'll be open to answering questions from anybody who has them, and can do so in a civil manner

Noslim our producer has already agreed to go well past the 45-60 minutes time we usually set for our livestreams in case we have questions from our viewers that still need to be answered

i will also ask one of our team to specifically mod the chat and take note of all reasonable questions so that we hopefully don't miss any

i am clearly in the minority on my position, and i accept that

for the most part my discussions about this with all the other monarchs have been very civil, though we clearly differ on many points, and i think that many of their points are VERY valid

Arisilde - 2 months ago

Posted By Toven at 7:02 PM - Sat Aug 17 2019

@Vye

Here are the issues I've identified, and the second half of this post will be proposed solutions. The issues first, though.

1) SBS employees and owners make absolute statements. Things like "maps are finished and rolling out," and "D&SS will begin in x days."

2) Absolute information is unavailable at this stage of development, according to your post. That means absolute statements are known to have a high probability of untruth before they are issued. An assertion of an absolute will always be construed as such. This is the cause of almost all of the anger in this thread.

3) If you make an absolute statement and it changes later, the absolute statement is no less of a lie than if it was intentional misinformation. There is a limit to how many times you can lie to a person before they turn on you. It is irrelevant what the intention of a statement is, only the perception of it. There is no post that will ever change the way people perceive statements of absolutes, and there will always be someone who hasn't read it, even if that's not the case.

4) Failure to communicate issues with people they affect as they are identified is foolish, and there is no way to justify it (NDA about the specifics of a system is not a valid excuse for not communicating that there is an issue with the system that needs to be addressed). An example to clarify this point: if I ask you to water my plants and feed my pets while I'm out of town and you say you will, then I get back and my plants and pets are dead, that means you killed them as literally as if you shot my pets and salted my plants. All you have to do in this example is call and say you can't watch them, and I can find an alternate sitter. All you have to do with CoE is post that you're having issues with a thing and that you're working on it, and at least you aren't lying by omission.

5) Because all of these issues are frequent, SBS is garnering a reputation as being untrustworthy. Your post is not an apology and a plan to earn that lost trust back that can be acted upon. Your post is an excuse for continuing to behave in the same way that you have all along, also it says that we need to not hold you to the same standard that we would hold any other business, our friends, our family, and our neighbors.

Identifying issues is insufficient in this situation, so I will offer up my advice for how to address these issues and work towards a solution.

1) When an SBS employee makes a comment about the game, they should be aware of the fact that statements of fact will be taken as such. This means not making absolute statements when change is relatively possible. This means if, for example, the maps are working, and testing is about to begin, then say that. Do not say the maps are done and being rolled out.

2) Guarantees should never be made unless you already have the guaranteed thing in place and ready to go, fully tested and iterated. They should never be made about anything uncertain. If the maps don't work, guaranteeing that they will in x time is a lie. If you are going to make a guarantee about something that is not complete, tested and ready, make your guarantees about effort, not about the object of your effort. A guarantee that you will work all weekend to try to solve the problem is one thing, but guaranteeing that it will be complete by the end of the weekend if it's not already complete sets an expectation that if you meet it, nobody cares because you're just doing what you said you would, and if you don't meet it, you're a liar.

3) Practice 1, and 2. Send comments to other people at SBS before making them publicly so you can help each other not make false guarantees, unfulfillable promises, or otherwise foolish comments.

4) Hire a public relations person to make all of the official announcements and have all other SBS employees refrain from commenting on their work. They could still go on Discord and the forums and hang out, but not discuss the actual development. (I don't like this idea, but if you really want to reset the conversation and earn back trust, having someone coordinate all of the announcements, give updates and act as an intermediary between the community and the developers could go a long way to preventing accidental misinformation that negatively affects the community's perception).

5) Probably the most important thing you can do is acknowledge that you are aware that SBS has an obligation to communicate clearly, then lay out a demonstrable, and actionable plan on how you intend to do this, so that when you do, you can point at it and say "look how far we've come," and if you fail to live up to it, we can point to it and say, "look, you just did this thing you were trying to correct."

If anything I've said here is unclear, please let me know so I can clarify it. If anything I've said is untrue or unrealistic, I'd like to know how and why, so I can alter my position accordingly, and finally if anything I've said is offensive ask why it offends you before launching into an attack on it or me.

Just wanted to quote and reformat this excellent post so it is more readable. I think it does a good job summing up a lot of why people are upset, despite the people trying to reduce the issue down to people complaining about specific resources in specific places on the map. You people are either sorely misinformed, or intentionally misrepresenting the situation. Either way, the problem is you.

None of this would have been a problem if SbS had kept to the original timeline and DSS was after alpha 1. The devs would have had more time to finalize systems. No one would be made to make choices on too little, or poor information. Less chance for that information to change between their picks and the final version. This apparent desire to rush ahead with making people stake their money on things that have basically no chance of staying constant is a huge mistake, and the response from the community is showing exactly why.

Long story short, if the game is going to take longer, that's cool. Let it take longer. Most of us never believed the short timeline you originally gave us anyway, knowing how game design always goes. You were being way too optimistic. However, don't make the paying customers shoulder the fallout. That's on you guys. Don't force us to gamble our money more than the inherent uncertainty that the game design was always going to. We can lose anything, by design, and I think we're all fine with that. But we were told to expect to be able to at least know what we were picking, and you have continually pulled back on that until now there is almost no certainty on anything. That is not right.

Kyleran - 2 months ago

Here's a bold thought, how about if every backer is allowed to vote on whether or not DSS should be restarted from the beginning after the maps have been shared with all of them for a reasonable period of time.

One backer, one vote, even Arebax should support such a fair and non P2W solution.

Amirite?

Noslim - 2 months ago

So let me see if I got this right. SbS asked monarchs to pick without solid information so that DSS wouldn't be delayed. It was ultimately delayed anyway. If monarchs didn't pick it would look like they were the reason for the delay.

So the whole reason for picking with bad info is kinda moot now. But some got a good roll and others didn't and the ones that didn't should just suck it up because others did. Makes sense.

King_Aerbax - 2 months ago

Charlie, as Adam has very much indicated anything remotely RNG that prevents the high IP monarchs from picking first is completely unacceptable.

Charlie George - 2 months ago
@King_Aerbax:

Posted By King_Aerbax at 11:08 AM - Sun Aug 18 2019

Charlie, as Adam has very much indicated anything remotely RNG that prevents the high IP monarchs from picking first is completely unacceptable.

Well to be fair I didn't expect there to be any buyers whatsoever. It's kind of a ridiculous idea.

I love that SBS wants resource scarcity in regions, it makes doing logistics fun for me. I was especially happy that it seems like they are committed to keeping that in mind, while trying to strike a balance with this new map.

Kingdoms via raffle would likely upend entire communities but it was a funny and curious thought experiment at the time I posted it :)

I was mostly curious where the line in the sand was on these moral grounds. Would anyone be willing to potentially lose everything in an effort to ensure fair play?

Charlie George - 2 months ago

I think the only way to move forward is to remove all the monarch's ability to pick their kingdoms via IP. Instead they should be assigned a random number (or color if you prefer). They all get thrown inside a hollowed out gourd and are randomly drawn on live stream by the developers.

It would be disruptive and it would be bad but it would certainly be extremely fair (and not in any way selfish). The only way to ensure fairness of choice is to remove freedom of choice.

King_Aerbax - 2 months ago

right, because apparently, my desire to keep my choice is negated by the fact you feel a sense of entitlement that despite your own acceptance to the change caspian made to resources. you pushed forward, you are just as culpable as SBS is, yet you blame them.

There was every opportunity, but instead now, 4 months later is when you have a problem with it, and want to force every monarch to repick.

im sorry that i want to keep my kingdoms pick without subjecting it to further drama, how incredibly selfish to me. Well at least im not willing to screw over every other community to get what I want. No one gets screwed over by me keeping my choice.

King_Aerbax - 2 months ago

Very small number meaning 2 out of how many?

Regardless of your reason you intentionally want to screw others over so you can have your chance at repicking a kingdom, despite the fact you knew this information would be subject to change since we are in an early stage kickstarter game.

Despite the endless discussion, you genuinely believe unless we agree with you, we are idiots and dont mind being screwed by SBS.

Your selfish reasons aside, the virtually massive majority of us dont want repicks. We are happy with our choices, and since you shot down the idea that those who are happy with our kingdom choices cant lock it in, it only means that you are willing to screw over the rest of our communities in order to try to get yourself a different pick. Thankfully the only two monarchs who seem to be on this idea are Adam and D, which since adam is not changing his pick, its just an empty vote of support since the only monarch interested in changing his pick is D.

But yea D, thanks for trying to screw the rest of us over because you want to be stubborn and draw your line in the sand because you didnt get everything you wanted in a "subject to change" resource list you knew would be subject to change before you even picked the kingdom.

Toven - 2 months ago
@King_Aerbax:

Posted By King_Aerbax at 10:53 AM - Sun Aug 18 2019

Despite the endless discussion, you genuinely believe unless we agree with you, we are idiots and dont mind being screwed by SBS.

You have given no evidence to the contrary in this thread. You don't just fail to understand the opposing viewpoint, but you don't even follow your own arguments to their rational conclusions. Your argument is broken down into three main parts, that there are only two kings that want to repick, that everyone else likes their kingdom and does not want to lose it, and that you don't like the IP system.

If your first two points are true, then at most 4 kingdoms will change, the two who want to and their two neighbors, who will then take the two who want to change's original picks. This isn't a valid argument unless you are one of the neighboring kingdoms on their server. This means your argument is left with the IP system being unfair because it is biased towards the wealthy. You like kingdom 6 on your server and are afraid one of the other kings will take it. This is a perfectly valid and reasonable thought. Your opinion is formulated from this fear, and any reasoning you give is something you retroactively applied to justify your opinion, though.

To be clear, I'm not condemning you or your opinion. I don't know you, and you're free to hold whatever opinion you want. My issue is that you are aware on some level that your opinion is strictly selfish, and has nothing to do with how the situation should be handled in terms of what the most ethical solution is, otherwise you wouldn't have any pretense that there was some weird illogical chicanery that needs to be prevented. You attest to the fact that SBS did not deliver on the agreed upon terms in that quote, yet you would rather keep your kingdom than find an ethical solution.

If this is your arguing tactic, you will never be able to hold SBS accountable for anything they guarantee, because you are just as unethical in your presentation as they are. If what they did "screwed you," or anyone else, they need to make it right. Whether that's by redoing kingdom selection or not, I don't know or care. I'm playing a Brudvir blacksmith on North America East regardless of who the king is so it only affects me insofar as I have to see your comments when I look at this thread.

Because of this, I would ask you why you're arguing if you don't think your opponent respects you, but the only rational answer is that you are trying to convince yourself that you aren't being selfish. Respect yourself first, then the rest of us will be able to respect you. Truthfully state your concerns without excuses and people can work through them with you. Otherwise keep being belligerent, whiny and entitled and people will continue to speak to you as if you're stupid and don't mind SBS "screwing you."

As to your seeming issue with IP being the order determinant, that's the best solution. It encouraged funding the development of COE, it's what was stated from the beginning, and it gives a sense of realism to the selection process. I don't have the money to be a mayor, much less a king. Should I get to be one anyway? Should I get to pick before you because I am needier than you? RNG is a stupid way to do pick order because it's not how being kings were selected. It should follow the same logic.

As to the comment someone made about me being a member for 3 years and not having commented before, this is why. It isn't an alt account, I just avoid forums because I am easily irritated, and I don't want to be burned out before the game launches. I get most of my info about it from my wife. She said I should read Vye's post, so I did, then I made the mistake of reading the comments before posting my reply so I wouldn't be redundant. Turns out I was redundant anyway, but maybe SBS will internalize it this time.

Dleatherus - 2 months ago
@King_Aerbax:

Posted By King_Aerbax at 08:53 AM - Sun Aug 18 2019

Very small number meaning 2 out of how many?

Regardless of your reason you intentionally want to screw others over so you can have your chance at repicking a kingdom, despite the fact you knew this information would be subject to change since we are in an early stage kickstarter game.

Despite the endless discussion, you genuinely believe unless we agree with you, we are idiots and dont mind being screwed by SBS.

Your selfish reasons aside, the virtually massive majority of us dont want repicks. We are happy with our choices, and since you shot down the idea that those who are happy with our kingdom choices cant lock it in, it only means that you are willing to screw over the rest of our communities in order to try to get yourself a different pick. Thankfully the only two monarchs who seem to be on this idea are Adam and D, which since adam is not changing his pick, its just an empty vote of support since the only monarch interested in changing his pick is D.

But yea D, thanks for trying to screw the rest of us over because you want to be stubborn and draw your line in the sand because you didnt get everything you wanted in a "subject to change" resource list you knew would be subject to change before you even picked the kingdom.

it actually has little to do with not getting everything i wanted

you are throwing down the gauntlet that i am being selfish - i invite you to tune in tuesday night and find out why it is you that are being the selfish one,

Kurko - 2 months ago

Howabout digging stones out deeper from the ground? I bet there is rock below even in grasslands, not only soft soil :)

malacar - 2 months ago

OMG so much text my eyes are bleeding.

So to the uniformed of us it looks like the real issue of wanting to repick is because people wont have stone on there grasslands... and SBS thinks just putting it in because it was promised doesn't work because it breaks immersion? Or is the real reason they can't do it for some technical reason?

Hey SBS I think you can explain things like stone in grasslands hundreds of ways if that's all it really is. Volcano.. rock spewed... done.

Or I'm way off and they want to repick for a lot of other things that we just don't understand, or maybe because the tribe details changed too much?

To such kingdoms: can't you adapt? No guarantee your lands wont be changed or lost anyway, flooded/destroyed by fire etc, etc. ? Is your kingdoms whole core built on the idea around just what resources your land starts with?

Dleatherus - 2 months ago
@malacar:

Posted By malacar at 07:25 AM - Sun Aug 18 2019

OMG so much text my eyes are bleeding.

So to the uniformed of us it looks like the real issue of wanting to repick is because people wont have stone on there grasslands... and SBS thinks just putting it in because it was promised doesn't work because it breaks immersion? Or is the real reason they can't do it for some technical reason?

Hey SBS I think you can explain things like stone in grasslands hundreds of ways if that's all it really is. Volcano.. rock spewed... done.

Or I'm way off and they want to repick for a lot of other things that we just don't understand, or maybe because the tribe details changed too much?

To such kingdoms: can't you adapt? No guarantee your lands wont be changed or lost anyway, flooded/destroyed by fire etc, etc. ? Is your kingdoms whole core built on the idea around just what resources your land starts with?

i think there is a LOT of misinformation about why just a very small number of monarchs are very adamant about wanting to repick, and why the large majority of monarchs are equally adamant about not wanting a repick

hrmm - i think i will make this the topic of our BBC livestream this coming tuesday, because any discussion surrounding the very valid topic in these forums, has so far been trolled to where a legitimate discourse on it is nigh on impossible

Dleatherus - 2 months ago

@Toven

though it is a wall of text. that is one hell of an awesome post, especially it being your first and only one in almost 3 years (alt account perhaps?)

i agree with it fully

alas some of us have been painstakingly alerting SBS to the perils of losing consumer confidence and support (essential to successful crowd funding) by over promising and under delivering and how to manage a community's expectations for a long time now

i sincerely hope that your well written post has more success than everybody else who has tried before you

Ravenlute - 2 months ago

Suffers 3d10 bludgeon damage from Toven's Wall of Text.

Toven - 2 months ago

@Vye

Here are the issues I've identified, and the second half of this post will be proposed solutions. The issues first, though. 1) SBS employees and owners make absolute statements. Things like "maps are finished and rolling out," and "D&SS will begin in x days." 2) Absolute information is unavailable at this stage of development, according to your post. That means absolute statements are known to have a high probability of untruth before they are issued. An assertion of an absolute will always be construed as such. This is the cause of almost all of the anger in this thread. 3) If you make an absolute statement and it changes later, the absolute statement is no less of a lie than if it was intentional misinformation. There is a limit to how many times you can lie to a person before they turn on you. It is irrelevant what the intention of a statement is, only the perception of it. There is no post that will ever change the way people perceive statements of absolutes, and there will always be someone who hasn't read it, even if that's not the case. 4) Failure to communicate issues with people they affect as they are identified is foolish, and there is no way to justify it (NDA about the specifics of a system is not a valid excuse for not communicating that there is an issue with the system that needs to be addressed). An example to clarify this point: if I ask you to water my plants and feed my pets while I'm out of town and you say you will, then I get back and my plants and pets are dead, that means you killed them as literally as if you shot my pets and salted my plants. All you have to do in this example is call and say you can't watch them, and I can find an alternate sitter. All you have to do with CoE is post that you're having issues with a thing and that you're working on it, and at least you aren't lying by omission. 5) Because all of these issues are frequent, SBS is garnering a reputation as being untrustworthy. Your post is not an apology and a plan to earn that lost trust back that can be acted upon. Your post is an excuse for continuing to behave in the same way that you have all along, also it says that we need to not hold you to the same standard that we would hold any other business, our friends, our family, and our neighbors.

Identifying issues is insufficient in this situation, so I will offer up my advice for how to address these issues and work towards a solution. 1) When an SBS employee makes a comment about the game, they should be aware of the fact that statements of fact will be taken as such. This means not making absolute statements when change is relatively possible. This means if, for example, the maps are working, and testing is about to begin, then say that. Do not say the maps are done and being rolled out. 2) Guarantees should never be made unless you already have the guaranteed thing in place and ready to go, fully tested and iterated. They should never be made about anything uncertain. If the maps don't work, guaranteeing that they will in x time is a lie. If you are going to make a guarantee about something that is not complete, tested and ready, make your guarantees about effort, not about the object of your effort. A guarantee that you will work all weekend to try to solve the problem is one thing, but guaranteeing that it will be complete by the end of the weekend if it's not already complete sets an expectation that if you meet it, nobody cares because you're just doing what you said you would, and if you don't meet it, you're a liar. 3) Practice 1, and 2. Send comments to other people at SBS before making them publicly so you can help each other not make false guarantees, unfulfillable promises, or otherwise foolish comments. 4) Hire a public relations person to make all of the official announcements and have all other SBS employees refrain from commenting on their work. They could still go on Discord and the forums and hang out, but not discuss the actual development. (I don't like this idea, but if you really want to reset the conversation and earn back trust, having someone coordinate all of the announcements, give updates and act as an intermediary between the community and the developers could go a long way to preventing accidental misinformation that negatively affects the community's perception). 5) Probably the most important thing you can do is acknowledge that you are aware that SBS has an obligation to communicate clearly, then lay out a demonstrable, and actionable plan on how you intend to do this, so that when you do, you can point at it and say "look how far we've come," and if you fail to live up to it, we can point to it and say, "look, you just did this thing you were trying to correct."

If anything I've said here is unclear, please let me know so I can clarify it. If anything I've said is untrue or unrealistic, I'd like to know how and why, so I can alter my position accordingly, and finally if anything I've said is offensive ask why it offends you before launching into an attack on it or me.

Hawarth_Hugiz - 2 months ago
@Toven:

Posted By Toven at 02:02 AM - Sun Aug 18 2019

@Vye

Here are the issues I've identified, and the second half of this post will be proposed solutions. The issues first, though.

1) When an SBS employee makes a comment about the game, they should be aware of the fact that statements of fact will be taken as such. This means not making absolute statements when change is relatively possible. This means if, for example, the maps are working, and testing is about to begin, then say that. Do not say the maps are done and being rolled out.

2) Guarantees should never be made unless you already have the guaranteed thing in place and ready to go, fully tested and iterated. They should never be made about anything uncertain. If the maps don't work, guaranteeing that they will in x time is a lie.

If you are going to make a guarantee about something that is not complete, tested and ready, make your guarantees about effort, not about the object of your effort. A guarantee that you will work all weekend to try to solve the problem is one thing, but guaranteeing that it will be complete by the end of the weekend if it's not already complete sets an expectation that if you meet it, nobody cares because you're just doing what you said you would, and if you don't meet it, you're a liar.

3) Practice 1, and 2. Send comments to other people at SBS before making them publicly so you can help each other not make false guarantees, unfulfillable promises, or otherwise foolish comments.

4) Hire a public relations person to make all of the official announcements and have all other SBS employees refrain from commenting on their work. They could still go on Discord and the forums and hang out, but not discuss the actual development.

(I don't like this idea, but if you really want to reset the conversation and earn back trust, having someone coordinate all of the announcements, give updates and act as an intermediary between the community and the developers could go a long way to preventing accidental misinformation that negatively affects the community's perception).

5) Probably the most important thing you can do is acknowledge that you are aware that SBS has an obligation to communicate clearly, then lay out a demonstrable, and actionable plan on how you intend to do this, so that when you do, you can point at it and say "look how far we've come," and if you fail to live up to it, we can point to it and say, "look, you just did this thing you were trying to correct."

If anything I've said here is unclear, please let me know so I can clarify it. If anything I've said is untrue or unrealistic, I'd like to know how and why, so I can alter my position accordingly, and finally if anything I've said is offensive ask why it offends you before launching into an attack on it or me.

Quoted and edited for better readability. Edit glitched for a moment, but don’t think something was lost.

Chillspark - 2 months ago

For what it’s worth I can only assume there are others like me who contentedly check back to see how everything is going. I funded this believing in the vision you all expressed and know it is a chance worth taking. My funds are a gift to your team from my gaming soul in the hopes you will bring something new into an industry I love (and dream to contribute to one day should I ever get the chance) I’m sorry you have to explain all this to The Entitled among us backers. I just hope the worst of them leave before launch - it will be a cleansing for the community 😂

Grapefruitkush - 2 months ago

I don’t know what it means to find the fun because I can’t play CoE yet 😀😎😎🤓..

Jokes aside , nice work and can’t wait to see the d&ss actually rolling out !

Daynen - 2 months ago

I get why people are getting salty right now. They've been taught that money=the ability to forcibly alter reality to suit their whims. Thanks, unchecked capitalism!

Get over it folks. It's numbers on a screen made to keep count of paper with presidents on it. Nobody made you fund it; COE isn't your electric bill. Calm down. CoE is set to change literally everything about the MMO genre for the better; deadlines are part of that genre and SBS is handling those differently too.

Again, I get it. your money=your time and that's not infinite (well, not for most of us anyway.) It represents something and you want it respected. So do I. The difference is in how we define that respect. I've seen what happens when games get rushed and that's not respecting ANYONE'S time. You want it NOW; I want it to be READY.

I want CoE to be WORTH THE WAIT. Stay the course, SBS. The stormiest night brings the brightest dawn.

Kheil - 2 months ago

Keep it cool SBS, try to make the game you would love to play. You have so many great and passionate people on your team that i know if all of them put all of their shiny heads together they would make a great game. :)

FASHION - 2 months ago

All I ever wanted from this game was to be a Neran stone farmer who lived a quite life ;(

Ser Long - 2 months ago
@FASHION:

Then you can live in the lower montane and do it!

Wise_Insights - 2 months ago

Thank you, team. Of note, the principles of Agile/SAFe and Design Thinking/Human-centered design is not true of just game development. More to support your overall point, moving a culture away from "roadmaps" to sprints with burn down and WSJF techniques does take some cultural change management, but in the end these types of principles deliver better products because they are grounded on a "learner's mindset" versus a "SME's mindset."

Carry on!

Kreatner - 2 months ago

Keep up the good work SBS! (... and try to hang in there :) )

Xarkfleur - 2 months ago

Thanks for the bomb dropping original off-topic, non-proper-channel post. A right, fair public bomb made for all to admire. Nice /s

Ikkerens - 2 months ago

While I understand plenty of people here are very passionate about their opinions regarding the selection process and past rounds of it.

That said, I would like to note that that is not what this thread is about. Kindly find a more appropriate thread for the topic of Kingdom reselection (though I would like to once again note that the studio has released no plans to do so until now).

And as usual, keep it respectful folks! Thanks.

DerryFH - 2 months ago
@Ikkerens:

Posted By Ikkerens at 10:42 PM - Sat Aug 17 2019

And as usual, keep it respectful folks! Thanks.

If only SBS would be as considerate as you are. Their attitude after KS is clearly showing disrespect to the backers and now they just gave a middle finger to everyone.

Sanguinesh_Blackwind - 2 months ago

...so much to say about this ... not ready to be banned from the forums yet ...

I'll keep it simple. The majority decided to choose. They have chosen. Just like in real life, you don't always get what you expect when you make a choice. Deal with it. The biggest delays in this game as of late seem to be exclusively due to SBS trying to cater to all the whining and crying and bitching that is based around selfishness and ego.

It boils down quite simply and honestly to this: until this game launches no one here has bought anything but a chance to help fund the creation of an entirely new gaming experience. This isn't about you, it's about the concept we read on a website or heard from another gamer. It's about getting as close to what Caspian originally wrote and shared all those years ago. Instead of crying because you didn't get enough purple horseshoe marshmallows in your lucky charms, embrace the chance to make something great out of what may not look so great right now.

TLDR: let them make the game we all want so badly.

HerbLord - 2 months ago
@Sanguinesh_Blackwind:

Posted By Sanguinesh_Blackwind at 8:06 PM - Sat Aug 17 2019

. The biggest delays in this game as of late seem to be exclusively due to SBS trying to cater to all the whining and crying and bitching that is based around selfishness and ego.

I didnt know it was this bad! I guess when rich people spend a fortune to help fund the game, some of them may feel entitled. The worst of the bunch may cry n whine and even go so far as to buy them gifts to keep any perceived 'power' they hold over SBS...

but... SBS shouldn't cater to their every whims. Do not listen to the salty entitled monarchs. Just make the game you always wanted to make and when its released the dust will settle and the real fans will still be with you :)

DerryFH - 2 months ago
@Sanguinesh_Blackwind:

Posted By Sanguinesh_Blackwind at 10:36 PM - Sat Aug 17 2019

...so much to say about this ... not ready to be banned from the forums yet ...

I'll keep it simple. The majority decided to choose. They have chosen. Just like in real life, you don't always get what you expect when you make a choice. Deal with it. The biggest delays in this game as of late seem to be exclusively due to SBS trying to cater to all the whining and crying and bitching that is based around selfishness and ego.

It boils down quite simply and honestly to this: until this game launches no one here has bought anything but a chance to help fund the creation of an entirely new gaming experience. This isn't about you, it's about the concept we read on a website or heard from another gamer. It's about getting as close to what Caspian originally wrote and shared all those years ago. Instead of crying because you didn't get enough purple horseshoe marshmallows in your lucky charms, embrace the chance to make something great out of what may not look so great right now.

TLDR: STFU and let them make the goddamned game we all want so badly.

I'm sorry for you and the world you live in.

Basically, you are saying that if one is shown a prospect of an orange, sports car and decides to buy it, then after 5 months later dealer brings to their door a brown family car - they should just bend and accept that world is changing and be happy about what they got.

Foxforylation - 2 months ago
@DerryFH:

we knew what we were signing up for when we joined the crowdfunding. Best let the process up to SBS and hope they deliver now .

Sanguinesh_Blackwind - 2 months ago
@DerryFH:

Posted By DerryFH at 10:49 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

I'm sorry for you and the world you live in.

Basically, you are saying that if one is shown a prospect of an orange, sports car and decides to buy it, then after 5 months later dealer brings to their door a brown family car - they should just bend and accept that world is changing and be happy about what they got.

If you can truly equate purchasing a specific item in the real world to gambling on a virtual entity that is still in the very early stages of development - I believe you would be the one in need of sympathy ...

Not getting it from me.

DerryFH - 2 months ago

So if core mechanics are no longer to be trusted - do we still age our characters, have immortal souls and all that core stuff, or shall we expect it to change in two years when we finally get to alpha and SBS decided that it is too difficult to deliver what was promised?

Just saying, that if we do not hold studio responsible for their promises, we may as well leave this place because there is a high chance that the game will become a pen and paper board game with online account to have images of lands that we cross during our multi-player rpg sessions.

IvyDreams - 2 months ago

Sounds like you bit off more than you could chew and don't want to admit it. Yes, things change. That's why it is development and not a completed game. However, good developers know not to make promises they can't keep. Transparency is a great thing, but has to be done with the understanding that everything stated will be taken as 100% truth and not a maybe. Do not think people will always be forgiving when core ideas of the game keep changing due to unforeseen complications that should have been seen by a knowledgeable developer.

King_Aerbax - 2 months ago

Raziel, it’s I believe something many other monarchs share the feeling of. Without breaking NDA;

Things will be subject to change, even “ironclad” ideas. Things like racials, the amount of resources, hidden resources, cities, kingdoms, weapons and armor. These things may all change, because this game is still in it’s early stages. One person or even a few, being unhappy about resource availability for an area, and demanding changes based on that...

But the idea of pushing for a world wide kingdom repick, means that SBS creates a precedent, of every time something “ironclad” changes, then people will want to repick, if they change the amount of rainfall, or soil fertility for a biome, will dukes, counts and mayors be clamoring for a repick of dss?

The idea is that, which makes more sense, continue trying to work on the map? Or walk back every time they have to make a change from something they promised in order to continue forward. I no longer expect the kingdoms to be perfectly represented in the way of the documents before. But there will be things down the road that will balance it all out, I believe that SBS is not blind to that, they make mistakes, like all humans do, and there are poor decisions made, but I truly believe, SBS will find a way to balance and make things reasonably fair for everyone. There can’t be equality, but I think SBS has a plan for it, and we may hit these bumps, but they are here to develop a game they love. I think we can believe that and trust they will do everything they can not to “blow it up.”

TLDR: we can’t take 2 steps back every 3 steps forward we make.

Drudge - 2 months ago
@King_Aerbax:

Posted By King_Aerbax at 09:43 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

TLDR: we can’t take 2 steps back every 3 steps forward we make.

Would it not make more sense to wait to make these game defining choices until things are more set in stone? This way you are on firm footing with each step you take and very little chance you will need to take a step backward. You will also know that the step you take is really where you want to go and the destination will not change after you start your journey. What happens if my Mayor, Duke, Count decides not to play a year from now and I am stuck with my village, town, whatever being under the domain of someone else that I do not like?

To some extent, it will always exist but whenever possible these kinds of decisions should be backloaded to avoid heartache and grief.

It will also help build "hype" at the proper time. As a prelude to actually setting foot in their chosen world people can select their locations and spend their EP to customize their starting position. Seems to make a lot more sense than doing so 2 years before you enter the game.

Seems like a win-win.

Drudge - 2 months ago

Sorry for butting in when it’s obvious that people have far greater stakes in this than I do but I cannot help but think that this is a symptom of trying to get game defining decisions made years before the game launches. Ask yourselves what else will change as development goes by. Does it make sense to make these game defining decisions so early in the process? Over the next few years, several of you may no longer even be playing by the time launch comes. Also, you may find that mechanics which encouraged you to pick Kingdom, Count, Dutch, Town,Village have also changed and you no longer want to be a farmer, miner, breeder, whatever. It seems that this is just the first of many times this situations will come up, and everyone will be locked in to their selection.

What’s the rush? Let the Devs get further along and just do the selection right before the first development phase that will actually require the choices? That would be when people start playing on the actual maps. Maybe Kingdoms Of Elyria?

Kyleran - 2 months ago
@Drudge:

Posted By Drudge at 09:10 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

Sorry for butting in when it’s obvious that people have far greater stakes in this than I do but I cannot help but think that this is a symptom of trying to get game defining decisions made years before the game launches. Ask yourselves what else will change as development goes by. Does it make sense to make these game defining decisions so early in the process? Over the next few years, several of you may no longer even be playing by the time launch comes. Also, you may find that mechanics which encouraged you to pick Kingdom, Count, Dutch, Town,Village have also changed and you no longer want to be a farmer, miner, breeder, whatever. It seems that this is just the first of many times this situations will come up, and everyone will be locked in to their selection.

What’s the rush? Let the Devs get further along and just do the selection right before the first development phase that will actually require the choices? That would be when people start playing on the actual maps. Maybe Kingdoms Of Elyria?

So perhaps the best solution is to throw out all previous result and defer DSS until....you know, they are further along in the actual development of the game world and systems.

Of course, then I'd have to say, see you in three years.

My guess is few would support that.

Drudge - 2 months ago
@Kyleran:

Posted By Kyleran at 11:21 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

Posted By Drudge at 09:10 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

Sorry for butting in when it’s obvious that people have far greater stakes in this than I do but I cannot help but think that this is a symptom of trying to get game defining decisions made years before the game launches. Ask yourselves what else will change as development goes by. Does it make sense to make these game defining decisions so early in the process? Over the next few years, several of you may no longer even be playing by the time launch comes. Also, you may find that mechanics which encouraged you to pick Kingdom, Count, Dutch, Town,Village have also changed and you no longer want to be a farmer, miner, breeder, whatever. It seems that this is just the first of many times this situations will come up, and everyone will be locked in to their selection.

What’s the rush? Let the Devs get further along and just do the selection right before the first development phase that will actually require the choices? That would be when people start playing on the actual maps. Maybe Kingdoms Of Elyria?

So perhaps the best solution is to throw out all previous result and defer DSS until....you know, they are further along in the actual development of the game world and systems.

Of course, then I'd have to say, see you in three years.

My guess is few would support that.

What is the point of choosing so far in advance? Only bad things will happen. This is just the tip of the iceberg. This is a marathon, not a sprint. No rush. Each step when it is time. Let the developers finalize the worlds and the mechanics, then choose with confidence.

HuldricFranconian - 2 months ago

Daarco - 2 months ago

I thought all gamers knew how MMO development work?

And every creative person here in the community who does art, writing, movies, music etc know it is a dynamic process with alot of changes (rewrites anyone?). Then apply that to a whole MMO!

People standing next to you screaming "are you done yet" every day does not help at all.

Keep up the good work SBS.

Miothadil - 2 months ago

@Vye, well I'm happy you want my feedback and will gladly give it:

  • I understand game dev takes a lot of time and many changes to become fun.

  • I do not agree that biome and tribe descriptions should be fickle variables on that road to fun. They are among the guidestones for your game. And your backers have long since organised themselves around them.
    In fact I remember we were once very clearly told to not focus as much on location and meta community, but on the actual tribes we would be playing and their stated characteristics. We did. Now you pull the chair out from under us.

  • I do not agree with the timing of this blog on the whole. The only takeaway for the general public will be that not only sbs can't keep to a schedule and maps are still not done, now you can't even stick to your stated vision. That's not entirely true as far as what's been done, but it will come across like that. Just more bad PR at this time.

  • I do not agree with the content and examples given to this audience. You specifically include grasslands stone, which I suspect in fact prompted this blog to begin with. When the proper venue to discuss the reasoning for that would have been the early access forums. Since you've now made this public, I assume I can mention you've received much feedback about it since it's unexplained absence from RC8 on. But it's an awkward position to put us in. Because that feedback was about more then just people nagging for stone on their supposed turf.

(I'm on mobile, forgive my awkward quoting) "Looking back at an earlier example, stone is not a common resource in the grasslands today. Sure, we could have included it artificially, but that would have been apparent and felt like a hack, and the last thing we want to do is present a game world that mostly immerses you. Who wants to play a mostly-immersive game? It sounds as ridiculous as it felt typing it." ^Two issues with this: - not common, is not the same as absent. - using a strawmann to seed the masses for eventual acceptance and rejection of those that disagree "because they must want a mostly-immersive game only haha" is a despicable tactic even at the best of times.

  • I do not agree with the timing of this blog, as relating to early access specifically. We were told RC10 was getting built. Then we got a very nice message from Snipe that our concerns for RC9 were indeed very valid. And that it would be taken into account for RC10. No guarantees for succes, but that's understandable. Then the next update is not RC10, or an EA explanation and path for RC10. But this public "yeah..but no" blog. What the HELL are we supposed to think about a bomb like this?!

  • Specific feedback on the maps was already given where appropriate. Since we've apparently gone public on this, I'll only add this: The unfairness people that are less informed here want in the game, already existed. According to this blog the grassland nerans are now in fact neutered to what sbs's restricted simulation suggests makes it less unfair. While making the other tribes and biomes more of the same. Since noone other then a handful of friends has played anything of the game, predicting the behaviour of the masses of players that will not distribute among tribes and biomes equally at all seems a little premature. Certainly as a reason for changing base tribal and biome assumptions. Especially as we've seen nothing that suggests why that might that be the case or how they arrived at that conclusion.

Conclusion: I'll await RC10 and will be prepared to compromise within reason as usual, but the way this is being handled feels as yet another blunder. Incidentally if we want to talk dark roads, this blog pretty much cover all bases for eventually limiting release to just prelyria and neatly complying to kickstarter's minimum requirements to evade refunds. After all, that's yet another valid way to "Find the fun".

Raziel - 2 months ago

Thanks for this article Vye. 🧐

On the matter of kingdom re-pick :

While my kingdom is, on paper, not exactly what I was expecting, I’ve chosen my lands (kingdom 6) based on my liking of the tribes majorly present and the biomes looks.

Ultimately all we could really be a little sure about are looks. And, still, on paper, it looks like I’m getting the short end of the stick. No one had been picking a kingdom because of the presence of clay, stone or sand, let’s be honest.

We were given the options to wait for the map and more information to pick, I was one of the few that thought waiting for the maps was a better way to go, though most of the kings wanted to pick without it. And so we picked. Now I don’t believe we should be allowed to change.

While I’m afraid for the future of the game and of for my in-game experience of it, I’ve got to trust the studio in balancing out the game in a way that will be fun for the players. They are the one making the game if we don’t trust them in the capability of making it balanced all this waiting and theory-crafting on what kingdoms, biomes and tribes are best is pure nonsense. We don’t have enough information as of now to make any assessment on how balance nor fair the maps are.

Thereby all we can do is wait and hope. I’ll be the first to annoy the studio with designs that seem illogical and propose solution to remedy exploits and imbalances I will see once I’ll get my hands on the product. But as of now I can’t do that, nor I can say if any of what we have is best or better.

I’ve been asking for more clear information on the maps especially on the nature of the ressources that could be found in a specific location. Because I think more info would be helpful for the players picking and would help people pick the spot that is right for them. By more info I mean knowing what type of minerals are present per example and not just knowing there are minerals in the region. From one to the other it could drastically change the gameplay experience and could go from perfectly fitting someone expectations to totally disgusting him.

Now I wouldn’t insult my fellow kings of whiners in asking for a re-pick or considering it. I can understand that from a certain point of view. All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t be that concerned right now we have no idea of what is what and who is who. Let’s keep the analysis of balance and fairness for the Alpha and Beta phases. You might want to change your pick but would end up being disgusted by your new pick once again the day you end up in-game.

Sareseras - 2 months ago

Those saying things like monarchs this, monarchs that, don't even seem to consider the fact that most if not all the monarchs talk to their fellow habitants, atleast within their kingdom(s) wide discords that's for sure.

Cannot completely agree with both sides since there are good and bad points given from each perspective.

HerbLord - 2 months ago

I find this extremely amusing. Long essay about the troubles of game development, with sources, just to lessen the blow to the monarchs... who still cry like entitled babies. Just do your thing SBS, ignore the salt :D

Rework your combat animations though, it feels like there's no weight to them.

HuldricFranconian - 2 months ago

@"Aerbax"

Stephan, the thing is: the other monarchs actually paid for their monarch packages. While I assume you're stating that they're entitled, quite frankly, they are. Between $10k-40k entitled to their opinion and I support a repick. Not because I want to change my biome/tribe, but because it's fair for people to make clear and informed decisions when they spent thousands of dollars on something. Just because someone wants a repick, doesn't necessarily mean they're going to change their pick.

@Hieronymus

That was a wonderful post, mate and I 100% agree with your sentiment. It will be interesting to see how things progress in the near future.

Taymuraz - 2 months ago

Great post. I hope some people take the time to read it and understand the challenges of this stage of game development. :)

Brettoner - 2 months ago

Look at the drama at just the Kingdom level. I can’t wait to see the chaos at the Duchy level. Dukes having a change of heart once they see the Duchy they were destined to pick. Magnify that chaos at the County level.

I want to watch the world burn.

zimmah - 2 months ago
@Brettoner:

Posted By odd fella at 12:17 PM - Sat Aug 17 2019

Look at the drama at just the Kingdom level. I can’t wait to see the chaos at the Duchy level. Dukes having a change of heart once they see the Duchy they were destined to pick. Magnify that chaos at the County level.

I want to watch the world burn.

At least dukes and counts can still change their minds based on the data. Unless of course 6 months after picking the maps change again. And that nice county you picked now has plague in one half, an active volcano in the other half. And is also hit by a tsunami.

Vaku - 2 months ago
@zimmah:

Posted By zimmah at 05:28 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

At least dukes and counts can still change their minds based on the data. Unless of course 6 months after picking the maps change again. And that nice county you picked now has plague in one half, an active volcano in the other half. And is also hit by a tsunami.

What's bizarre is buying into a game where our decisions have a consequence, and then pleading to re-roll decisions once hindsight barely approaches 20/20.

Tsunamis, volcanoes, or all hell—it's really so premature to be aggravated over the card you've agreed be dealt—such is the case with monarchs selecting K1-K6.

There are specific design experiences monarch-backers were promised, and reversing the infamous DSS Disjunction of 2019 wasn't one of them.

Agryffin - 2 months ago

Are we non-NDA'ers in for a major shock when we finally see the maps or what? Outside of what has already been mentioned (new road systems, coastal changes, scarcity of stone etc.), what exactly is changing, and does the scale of change really warrant a re-selection of Kingdoms?

Vaku - 2 months ago
@Agryffin:

Posted By Agryffin at 03:12 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

What exactly is changing, and does the scale of change really warrant a re-selection of Kingdoms?

Kypiq are tall, Neran are orcs, and Brudvir have hippo teeth.

It'd be interesting for communities of folk who aren't exposed to NDA to imagine the sort of world-shifting change to really warrant the world-shifting ramifications of a monarch re-pick.

Gnox - 2 months ago

In an attempt to come back to Vye is saying in this blog I want to give feedback to this. Also I want to propose a constructive way of giving feedback by including (1) my personal opinion about (2) what I like and (3) what I dislike about this "piece of information" and (4) what I think could be done differently in the future. Thus I treat this information like I think actual game-updates should be treated as well.

Short summary of what I take from this article:

  • There will be changes to what has been announced before.
  • Contrary to the wording SbS started using around the end of 2016 about "transitioning into production" CoE is due to it's PrElyria approach basically still in pre production (see the first video around minute 14)!

(2) What I like about Vyes post:

  • To me it appears SbS understood the importance of transparency.
  • As someone who's also been working in the games industry I agree to most of what the designers in the videos are saying.
  • I like the fact that SbS seems to still think about what's in Elyria's best interest.
  • I like that the community's opinions and feedback are still important.

(2) What I dislike about Vyes post:

  • It's still very vague which is something the community has often critizised in the past. Concerns in the past mostly have not been about the vague ideas but about weather SbS can deliver actual "hardfacts" like a functional D&SS and PrElyria client.
  • What the designer's are saying in the videos kind of contradicts what Caspian has been saying in his design pillars - and I believe in terms of production & management decisions the designers in the videos are closer to how game development reality works (at least from my experience in the industry).

(4) What I think could be done differently in the future:

  • Don't overexaggerate the progress Elyria is making. WE KNOW IT'S A SHITLOAD OF WORK to make a MEOW - so I assume most of us prefer realistic updates instead of selective eyecandy.
  • If concrete changes are being made just name them and maybe explain why - no philosophical discussions about game philosophy; just quick and raw information!
  • Avoid confusion - sometimes less is more! With an outdated website and an additional wiki there's quite some contradicting information around. Maybe just "clean" a little (this could be done by community managers). It'd be great if the official Game section (Overview, World, Game guide) had only the information which are actually accurate. A reeeaally nice to have feature would be a simple progress bar for each how close it is to actually being IN THE GAME (PrElyria). Outdated information are fine and shouldn't be deleted but marked as such in terms of transparency - e.g. by having a link to the prior versions in these sections for comprehensibility of changes.
  • keep valuing the community
Emery - 2 months ago

I just want to pop in here, and say that I do not think allowing Kings to repick would be productive at this point. The Kings were asked to pick based on incomplete information that could change and we agreed to pick based on that.

Let's not rehash the drama of Kingdoms not being locked into their lands.

Adam Burrfoot - 2 months ago
@Emery:

Posted By Emery at 02:21 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

I just want to pop in here, and say that I do not think allowing Kings to repick would be productive at this point. The Kings were asked to pick based on incomplete information that could change and we agreed to pick based on that.

Let's not rehash the drama of Kingdoms not being locked into their lands.

I dont appreciate you completely misrepresenting what the conversation actually was and what was actually agreed to.

The actual parameters of the agreement was exactly this:

As you can see in this summary from Caspian of what the ACTUAL points of order and agreed upon terms were.

Terms 4 and 5 were not adhered to what so ever.

You may have agreed to picking on completely incomplete information, however you did not agree to pick on inaccurate information. Additionally the parameters were not adhered to, therefore the ethical and moral thing to do would to be allow for a repick.

If Kings dont want to pick a different spot, the solution is simple... pick the same spot so long as its still available. If its not available then it wouldnt have been available had we done DSS the right way in the first place.

I am done cleaning up SBS's mess for them, this is a mess they created that never needed to be a mess but they came to us and we decided to help them based upon the parameters above. They didnt deliver therefore I do not see any reason why they would require us to hold to that agreement.

I understand some monarchs dont want to re-pick because they might be displaced from the Kingdom they want now. However that is selfish and self-serving compared to pushing for the right thing to be done here.

Just my opinion though.

Vaku - 2 months ago
@Adam Burrfoot:

Posted By Adam Burrfoot at 01:55 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

The actual parameters of the agreement was exactly this:

As you can see in this summary from Caspian of what the ACTUAL points of order and agreed upon terms were.

Terms 4 and 5 were not adhered to what so ever.

Have you considered that you're misinterpreting "high-level meta-data" to mean 'extremely granular, precise, and unshifting information?'

I've yet to see one stage of development where SbS has failed to add the caveat emptor: 'in the midst of development, things change.'

From the text documents you've shared in #domain-and-settlement-selection on the official discord, it is apparent you and your peers were provided meta-data.

Is it the very granular & precise data you seemingly allude would warrant an upheaval in everyone's trickled-down selection? Perhaps not—but it is meta-data you and all your peers figured was data reasonable enough to make your selections in the first place.

Frankly, I find this stage in development not dissimilar to the introduction of tribes, biomes, and other minutia—all of which we had no indication when we bought into the game.

Posted By Adam Burrfoot at 01:55 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

I am done cleaning up SBS's mess for them,

This is not the mess of a company, and you're certainly not cleaning it for them. This is the creation of a mess via disgruntled perception—where some see a mess, many of us can show it is not.

Provided you've 20 some peers as monarch-backers, and a consequently larger community of everyone else who'd be affected by a re-pick, it seems absurd to lay that kind of bomb in SbS's lap. You've argued for a choice of a re-pick that SbS didn't propose and none of us have to accept—so it's not their mess, but simply a complaint you can withdraw—namely on the basis that we've known, all this time, the meta-data changes to such a degree we'd be naive to assume it'll stay the same.

zimmah - 2 months ago
@Vaku:

Posted By Vaku at 11:47 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

Posted By Adam Burrfoot at 01:55 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

The actual parameters of the agreement was exactly this:

As you can see in this summary from Caspian of what the ACTUAL points of order and agreed upon terms were.

Terms 4 and 5 were not adhered to what so ever.

Have you considered that you're misinterpreting "high-level meta-data" to mean 'extremely granular, precise, and unshifting information?'

I've yet to see one stage of development where SbS has failed to add the caveat emptor: 'in the midst of development, things change.'

From the text documents you've shared in #domain-and-settlement-selection on the official discord, it is apparent you and your peers were provided meta-data.

Is it the very granular & precise data you seemingly allude would warrant an upheaval in everyone's trickled-down selection? Perhaps not—but it is meta-data you and all your peers figured was data reasonable enough to make your selections in the first place.

Frankly, I find this stage in development not dissimilar to the introduction of tribes, biomes, and other minutia—all of which we had no indication when we bought into the game.

Posted By Adam Burrfoot at 01:55 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

I am done cleaning up SBS's mess for them,

This is not the mess of a company, and you're certainly not cleaning it for them. This is the creation of a mess via disgruntled perception—where some see a mess, many of us can show it is not.

Provided you've 20 some peers as monarch-backers, and a consequently larger community of everyone else who'd be affected by a re-pick, it seems absurd to lay that kind of bomb in SbS's lap. You've argued for a choice of a re-pick that SbS didn't propose and none of us have to accept—so it's not their mess, but simply a complaint you can withdraw—namely on the basis that we've known, all this time, the meta-data changes to such a degree we'd be naive to assume it'll stay the same.

The metadata wasn’t very specific like “this biome has x amount of y” but it did state things like “grassland is known for being very fertile lands and having deposits of rocks, buildings in the farmland are primarily made of stone”. Something along those lines.

None of the biomes match up in any way to the metadata that was provided, not even remotely close. And now he gives us some bullshit “it’s not immersive”? What is not immersive to me is having a grasslands that has a lower population density than taiga and arid places like shrublands.

Hieronymus - 2 months ago

I like that you're thinking outside the box, Nimb. :thumbsup: But if 6 people can't agree on repicking kingdoms, I'm thinking the prospect of achieving consensus on a united map is slim to nonexistent. Put up a poll and see what happens? :D

CountShady - 2 months ago

I act like things are uber different?

is it perhaps ...because... almost all of the Neran Homeland lore is going to change because of this?

Or other tribe bios are going to change because of this?

Words written years ago are going to change drastically because algorithmically they dont align with what the lore written stated.

This to me is a big deal regardless of which biome/tribe is affected.

It has the ability to change somebodies perspective given the lore is potentially no longer even remotely valid.

Arsenhelm - 2 months ago

Shady is just an assassin correct? and not a diplomat amirite. Gotta be.

King_Aerbax - 2 months ago

Shady, you are welcome to your opinion, thankfully your narrowsighted view is not shared by the majority

Edit: bryth, agreed, but we can’t discuss it without breaking NDA here, and no one wants an oops like that!

CountShady - 2 months ago
@King_Aerbax:

Posted By King_Aerbax at 01:54 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

Shady, you are welcome to your opinion, thankfully your narrowsighted view is not shared by the majority

Once again coming from the Hypocrite King. Who demands others bend to his will but not see how doing the right and fair thing is sometimes the best thing.

You argue like a 2 year old. I want my pick because.... REASONS.... DONT TAKE MY PICK AWAY FROM ME.....

Thats what i get from you. You are flat out ignoring how SBS should step up and admit they misled you into making a decision and to do the right thing by having everybody go thru the process properly from start to finish.

Your inability to want to do the right thing because of your own selfishness is ... what is actually sad.

King_Aerbax - 2 months ago

Of course I have bias shady, I want to keep my pick, and just because one king wants to change what kingdom he gets, doesn’t mean I should give up the choice I made because he has buyers remorse in a part of the game that still has a ton of development to go before it even gets close to being final. I don’t want a repick every time some unknown happens. Your inability to see that or perhaps lack of care that some people are happy where they are with what they have, is sad.

CountShady - 2 months ago
@King_Aerbax:

Posted By King_Aerbax at 01:47 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

Of course I have bias shady, I want to keep my pick, and just because one king wants to change what kingdom he gets, doesn’t mean I should give up the choice I made because he has buyers remorse in a part of the game that still has a ton of development to go before it even gets close to being final. I don’t want a repick every time some unknown happens. Your inability to see that or perhaps lack of care that some people are happy where they are with what they have, is sad.

But here is the funny thing. You are assuming they want to change. What they might actually want here.... Is for an Honest Restart to the entire thing based on the new information. Considering that only a handful of people are actually impacted currently shouldnt really matter.

The right thing to do here is, start it over and do it right based on the current information and not data that was far outdated when the decision was made.

Nobody has pulled the trigger here yet on the current map releases to become final. With that said... I dont think its right for the decisions of the monarchs to be held solid when they were given bad information.

Server - 2 months ago

I think it would be fair if kings could just vote on it internally as a group. Majority wins ,and let it be that.

CountShady - 2 months ago

\. In that sense it prevents high ip picks from being able to screw over others, while allowing others to get what they want if it’s available, meaning

Are you kidding me? You are showing your clear bias right here against the IP selection picks with this statement.

You dont want it to change because ... people had more IP than you sooooo WE SHOULDNT REDO IT GUIS

King_Aerbax - 2 months ago

@shady, I just made a suggestion, try not to make an assumption, it never looks good believing that someone is one way or another.

Nimb - 2 months ago

I have a wild idea for a thought experiment. For those who are both heavily opposed and for a repick.

What if the devs decided to just use one map for all four servers and not do a repick. If you picked kingdom 5 on your previous map you are kingdom 5 on this map. Its a roll of the dice. Maybe its good maybe its bad. Maybe kingdom 5 isn't even the same tribe make up or biomes who knows. (All done in good faith for the betterment of the game.)

The question is if it is ethical to force the kings to stick with a selection that was in many other situations non-consensual due to false information (intentional or not). Additionally is it worth the effort to allow a repick. Does it have a higher cost in consumer confidence to allow the repicks or to deny them?

That isn't even getting into the allegations of deals made/agreed upon as contingencies of consent.

I don't have answers to these questions.

CountShady - 2 months ago

and you totally missed the point of my post.

I guess you are content to eating lemons when you were sold something called strawberries.

It wasnt at all about getting a refund. shesh.

And to top it off, you feel people should bend to what ever changes take place, and yet you are rigid in your opinion that since you dont want it to change, that it shouldnt.

Seems a bit hypocritical if you ask me.

Elderwood - 2 months ago
@CountShady:

.

CountShady - 2 months ago

You see no valid reason to re-pick?

Put yourself into this situation.

You were given a choice to make a decision 4 months ago with the assurances that what you were told then was solid. You were told all of these things were going to kick off a few days later.

4 months later, you should be held to your decisions based on bad information but... the developers should just be given a free pass for drastically changing the information over the 4 months that have passed?

How is starting over to ensure full fairness when all of the data that was originally promised us actually becomes available not a valid reason to repick?

Mikhal - 2 months ago
@CountShady:

Posted By CountShady at 11:27 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

You see no valid reason to re-pick?

Put yourself into this situation.

You were given a choice to make a decision 4 months ago with the assurances that what you were told then was solid. You were told all of these things were going to kick off a few days later.

4 months later, you should be held to your decisions based on bad information but... the developers should just be given a free pass for drastically changing the information over the 4 months that have passed?

How is starting over to ensure full fairness when all of the data that was originally promised us actually becomes available not a valid reason to repick?

While I can see your reasoning behind being upset, there are other kings who are not even though they had the same information as you. It is not as if only certain kings were privy to certain information. Everyone had access to the same, albeit limited, info as everyone else at that point. And while I agree that you would be right in feeling betrayed in this situation, I do not see how your feelings should supersede everyone else involved. That would be like purchasing an item only to find out it wasn't what was advertised... while you have the right to return said item, you do not have the right to force everyone else who bought the same item as you to return it as well. If you truly do feel that you were unjustly given false information then your argument should be to get a return on your purchase, not force everyone else to agree with you to make it right for you...

CountShady - 2 months ago
@Mikhal:

Posted By Mikhal at 01:42 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

Posted By CountShady at 11:27 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

You see no valid reason to re-pick?

Put yourself into this situation.

You were given a choice to make a decision 4 months ago with the assurances that what you were told then was solid. You were told all of these things were going to kick off a few days later.

4 months later, you should be held to your decisions based on bad information but... the developers should just be given a free pass for drastically changing the information over the 4 months that have passed?

How is starting over to ensure full fairness when all of the data that was originally promised us actually becomes available not a valid reason to repick?

While I can see your reasoning behind being upset, there are other kings who are not even though they had the same information as you. It is not as if only certain kings were privy to certain information. Everyone had access to the same, albeit limited, info as everyone else at that point. And while I agree that you would be right in feeling betrayed in this situation, I do not see how your feelings should supersede everyone else involved. That would be like purchasing an item only to find out it wasn't what was advertised... while you have the right to return said item, you do not have the right to force everyone else who bought the same item as you to return it as well. If you truly do feel that you were unjustly given false information then your argument should be to get a return on your purchase, not force everyone else to agree with you to make it right for you...

Im not actually upset, I just have a sense of what is right/fair in this particular situation.

I believe that.. while there is time, and nothing is set in stone... that the decisions players made on bad information given by the developers themselves, it should fully restart the entire process of selection.

I believe this to be the fair and honest choice in the matter.

Others believe opposite. I disagree with them.

Mikhal - 2 months ago
@CountShady:

Posted By CountShady at 11:47 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

Posted By Mikhal at 01:42 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

Posted By CountShady at 11:27 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

You see no valid reason to re-pick?

Put yourself into this situation.

You were given a choice to make a decision 4 months ago with the assurances that what you were told then was solid. You were told all of these things were going to kick off a few days later.

4 months later, you should be held to your decisions based on bad information but... the developers should just be given a free pass for drastically changing the information over the 4 months that have passed?

How is starting over to ensure full fairness when all of the data that was originally promised us actually becomes available not a valid reason to repick?

While I can see your reasoning behind being upset, there are other kings who are not even though they had the same information as you. It is not as if only certain kings were privy to certain information. Everyone had access to the same, albeit limited, info as everyone else at that point. And while I agree that you would be right in feeling betrayed in this situation, I do not see how your feelings should supersede everyone else involved. That would be like purchasing an item only to find out it wasn't what was advertised... while you have the right to return said item, you do not have the right to force everyone else who bought the same item as you to return it as well. If you truly do feel that you were unjustly given false information then your argument should be to get a return on your purchase, not force everyone else to agree with you to make it right for you...

Im not actually upset, I just have a sense of what is right/fair in this particular situation.

I believe that.. while there is time, and nothing is set in stone... that the decisions players made on bad information given by the developers themselves, it should fully restart the entire process of selection.

I believe this to be the fair and honest choice in the matter.

Others believe opposite. I disagree with them.

That's completely understandable and I agree that this is definitely a discussion that needs to be had given all the new information on hand. My stance in this is to avoid any more unwanted anger and dissent from the players, especially the other kings if they are forced to re-choose against their will. As it stands the kingdoms are set and the players are mostly come to terms with this. Sadly, no matter what choice is made people will be upset... I simply am standing by the path that should upset the least amount of people since the selection has already been made months ago.

CountShady - 2 months ago
@Mikhal:

Posted By Mikhal at 02:04 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

Posted By CountShady at 11:47 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

Posted By Mikhal at 01:42 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

Posted By CountShady at 11:27 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

You see no valid reason to re-pick?

Put yourself into this situation.

You were given a choice to make a decision 4 months ago with the assurances that what you were told then was solid. You were told all of these things were going to kick off a few days later.

4 months later, you should be held to your decisions based on bad information but... the developers should just be given a free pass for drastically changing the information over the 4 months that have passed?

How is starting over to ensure full fairness when all of the data that was originally promised us actually becomes available not a valid reason to repick?

While I can see your reasoning behind being upset, there are other kings who are not even though they had the same information as you. It is not as if only certain kings were privy to certain information. Everyone had access to the same, albeit limited, info as everyone else at that point. And while I agree that you would be right in feeling betrayed in this situation, I do not see how your feelings should supersede everyone else involved. That would be like purchasing an item only to find out it wasn't what was advertised... while you have the right to return said item, you do not have the right to force everyone else who bought the same item as you to return it as well. If you truly do feel that you were unjustly given false information then your argument should be to get a return on your purchase, not force everyone else to agree with you to make it right for you...

Im not actually upset, I just have a sense of what is right/fair in this particular situation.

I believe that.. while there is time, and nothing is set in stone... that the decisions players made on bad information given by the developers themselves, it should fully restart the entire process of selection.

I believe this to be the fair and honest choice in the matter.

Others believe opposite. I disagree with them.

That's completely understandable and I agree that this is definitely a discussion that needs to be had given all the new information on hand. My stance in this is to avoid any more unwanted anger and dissent from the players, especially the other kings if they are forced to re-choose against their will. As it stands the kingdoms are set and the players are mostly come to terms with this. Sadly, no matter what choice is made people will be upset... I simply am standing by the path that should upset the least amount of people since the selection has already been made months ago.

I think the thing that frustrates me the most is that the arguments are being made to just bend the knee to the changes but are purely selfish reasons to convince others to just accept things.

If there were actual legitimate counter arguments to this other than purely selfish motivations i could possibly empathize with those reasons and might see it a different way.

But as it is, we are being told to accept it for what it is because people have accepted their fate in life while at the same time yelling that things can change at any point in the development process.

If things can and will change so readily by the developers, why are they so in lockstep to force players to stick to an ill informed decision 4 months ago? ... In a game thats not even released yet

I just dont see this as a logical argument

Mikhal - 2 months ago

The problem with a kingdom re-pick at this point is... if it isn't agreed upon unanimously by all kings, then this is a moot point and will do nothing but sow discontent with every kingdom that does NOT want a re-pick. Even if it is only 1 king, that kingdom represents hundreds of other players and will force that kingdom to do something against their will. Obviously points were made about DSS promises being broken and reasons why kingdoms should be re-picked, but at this point none of those are worth attempting to force kings to re-select when they have voiced that they do not want to. As was mentioned in above posts, 4 months have passed since selection and by this time all the kingdoms have settled into their choices as have the players that have backed them. I see absolutely no valid reason given so far to allow a re-pick of kingdoms without the unanimous consensus of every king involved. Nobody's voice is any more important than anyone else's here, so even though the discussion is valid, there is no point in trying to force a change on those that don't want it.

Adam Burrfoot - 2 months ago

I am using false pretense not in the legal way but in the definition of the individual words way. Pretense: a claim, especially a false or ambitious one (regardless of intent false is false, true is true) False: not according with truth or fact; incorrect. (again regardless of intent).

I am not accusing the studio of being intentional in this, and if I have led you to believe that then I apologize.

Also the term lying is the same it doesnt require intent.

If I tell my wife that I will take the trash out tomorrow fully intending to take the trash out tomorrow, then I dont take the trash out tomorrow I have lied to my wife.

Elderwood - 2 months ago
@Adam Burrfoot:

.

Arsenhelm - 2 months ago

Okay so one king wants a re-pick right Guys? Just One. One.

Poldano - 2 months ago

@Vye,

Your post is very well done.

@Everyone,

I'm fascinated by what could be the cause of the dissension. At first guess, from what has been mentioned, I speculate that grassland-dwelling Nerans will have a harder time populating their lands with stone fortifications because of revised resource allocations. Please don't break NDA by either confirming or denying my speculation.

Kraysus - 2 months ago

This is less about the honestly arguably off-topic conversationabout kingdom repicks, and more directly relevant to Vye's original post:

I understand and sympathize with the fact that games chagne over the course of development. I've never followed a game that ended up the exact way that it was originally concieved, because often the original conception isn't going to be good. I'm glad that you guys are iterating.

... but some visibility into what things are changing would be nice. I mean we've got plenty of dev journals, biome writeups, tribe writeups, etc., that I honestly have no idea what's changed, and what's not. Sometimes it's details that get tweaked, and sometimes it's broad changes... and the best information we as a community have to form our expectations are often utterly wrong. I also understand that you can't be going over every dev journal and adjusting every change as it's happening in real time, that would be insane. But every once in a while, getting an update (other than through comments in discord that get buried and lost forever) for a general expectation adjustment. Maybe either go back and release updates to old dev jounrals, maybe every year, or even two years, or maybe every 6 months just release a new dev journal outlying some of the changes that have happened and let the community keep track of those in the wikis with proper references, or make your own evolving wiki of some flavor. There's plenty of possibilities, and it would be nice to be updated when things change in a location that's visible.

Elderwood - 2 months ago
@Kraysus:

.

CountShady - 2 months ago

@King_Aerbax

Would you not return something sold to you under falsehoods and misrepresentations regardless of intentions?

Why cant you see that all of the monarchs covered for SBS's delays well before the information that was supposed to be afforded you was actually available.

And now you want everybody to be locked into a decision that was made under bad intel?

King_Aerbax - 2 months ago
@CountShady:

Posted By CountShady at 11:12 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

@King_Aerbax

Would you not return something sold to you under falsehoods and misrepresentations regardless of intentions?

Why cant you see that all of the monarchs covered for SBS's delays well before the information that was supposed to be afforded you was actually available.

And now you want everybody to be locked into a decision that was made under bad intel?

If he wants a refund on the game good luck, but every time an aspect of the game changes we can’t demand a walk back, this isn’t some vacuum cleaner that doesn’t bend at an angle like it said it would, this is a kickstarted game, which has changed by a huge amount already, a desire for a repick is not akin to taking back a defective product.

Things will change. Every time something changes doesn’t mean it’s time for us to walk it back because one person doesn’t like it, even two.

Nimb - 2 months ago

I am indifferent either way because it was not my pledge nor was it a deal made with me.

If it did come to pass I would only have one request and that is that for the sake of fairness pick order be based on the day picking was originally made. This allows anyone who was a sleeper, kept their place and IP a secret and used a strategy to not get ripped off because someone had second thoughts or because a deal was not held up.

If we are going to talk about ethical and fair we had better be fair and ethical toward each other and our peers. We can leave the back stabbing and conniving for the in game world. (Not accusing anyone of anything)

I must admit if the same was done to me at the duke level I'd probably request it even if I wanted the same location. Not because things changed, but because a deal / word was broken (allegedly I wasn't there and don't know).

King_Aerbax - 2 months ago

I did not base my choice off something as... unknown as resources, outside the obvious, wood, water, food. Culture, races that were available, possible government design. Many aspects of this game will be further subject to change.

The whole idea that one person, didn’t get everything they were hoping for, well, too bad. Welcome to how the people at the bottom of the IP pick list feel. When they were originally sold the game, they didn’t know they would have to pay to get the kingdom they wanted, pay to get the duchy, county or town they wanted. I wasn’t, I was under the impression that we would work with devs to create unique kingdoms, but I’ve accepted that change, the people who got bottom picks don’t get to chose whatever they like. The select entitled few, surprise surprise, feel they should get a repick because they didn’t get everything they wanted, well, I’m sure quite a few people at the end of domain selection will be unhappy they didn’t get what they wanted. Now 4 months down the line, people are going to be subjected to another upheaval? Of course not you (Adam) because you are guaranteed first pick, and since it seems like you aren’t changing your kingdom pick, what was D? Second?

I do hope SBS doesn’t open a dangerous precedent of walking back people’s “uninformed” choices because of one aspect or another changing?

I’ll remind you, I’m probably going to get a very raw end of the deal with k6 but I’m sticking with it, because by the possible launch of the game I believe k6 will be a unique kingdom with a good community, not because I didn’t have a resource here or people there.

Edit: many other aspects of this game were set in stone, but things change, are we going to walk back 10 steps for every 2 we move forward? Fixing something sure, walking back and resetting? Not the same thing. Just so one can get a different pick.

Sersei - 2 months ago
@King_Aerbax:

Posted By King_Aerbax at 02:07 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

I did not base my choice off something as... unknown as resources, outside the obvious, wood, water, food. Culture, races that were available, possible government design. Many aspects of this game will be further subject to change.

The whole idea that one person, didn’t get everything they were hoping for, well, too bad. Welcome to how the people at the bottom of the IP pick list feel. When they were originally sold the game, they didn’t know they would have to pay to get the kingdom they wanted, pay to get the duchy, county or town they wanted. I wasn’t, I was under the impression that we would work with devs to create unique kingdoms, but I’ve accepted that change, the people who got bottom picks don’t get to chose whatever they like. The select entitled few, surprise surprise, feel they should get a repick because they didn’t get everything they wanted, well, I’m sure quite a few people at the end of domain selection will be unhappy they didn’t get what they wanted. Now 4 months down the line, people are going to be subjected to another upheaval? Of course not you (Adam) because you are guaranteed first pick, and since it seems like you aren’t changing your kingdom pick, what was D? Second?

I do hope SBS doesn’t open a dangerous precedent of walking back people’s “uninformed” choices because of one aspect or another changing?

I’ll remind you, I’m probably going to get a very raw end of the deal with k6 but I’m sticking with it, because by the possible launch of the game I believe k6 will be a unique kingdom with a good community, not because I didn’t have a resource here or people there.

Edit: many other aspects of this game were set in stone, but things change, are we going to walk back 10 steps for every 2 we move forward? Fixing something sure, walking back and resetting? Not the same thing. Just so one can get a different pick.

You know, some people spent money so that they could attempt to give their communities a better chance to get what they wanted? It isn't all entitlement.

I respect that not everyone can afford the same thing, or afford to put as much money into something like a game. But because I can, or someone else can, we shouldn't be mocked or belittled because someone else cannot.

This is all about having fun for me and my community, and that's really all that matters. I originally wanted to be in the Grasslands, but based on some information, I'm likely not going to go there. Which is no big deal, but if I had worked off the information we had in biome writeups months ago, and selected -- there would have been some discrepancies I would not be okay with.

You do not need to repick. But if others want to do so because of inaccurate information they were provided, they should certainly have that chance imo.

NA-W will likely be unaffected if a repick happens. But selection will actually play out as it was supposed to back in April/May, and that's the DSS experience I was looking forward to myself.

King_Aerbax - 2 months ago
@Sersei:

Posted By Sersei at 11:21 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

Posted By King_Aerbax at 02:07 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

I did not base my choice off something as... unknown as resources, outside the obvious, wood, water, food. Culture, races that were available, possible government design. Many aspects of this game will be further subject to change.

The whole idea that one person, didn’t get everything they were hoping for, well, too bad. Welcome to how the people at the bottom of the IP pick list feel. When they were originally sold the game, they didn’t know they would have to pay to get the kingdom they wanted, pay to get the duchy, county or town they wanted. I wasn’t, I was under the impression that we would work with devs to create unique kingdoms, but I’ve accepted that change, the people who got bottom picks don’t get to chose whatever they like. The select entitled few, surprise surprise, feel they should get a repick because they didn’t get everything they wanted, well, I’m sure quite a few people at the end of domain selection will be unhappy they didn’t get what they wanted. Now 4 months down the line, people are going to be subjected to another upheaval? Of course not you (Adam) because you are guaranteed first pick, and since it seems like you aren’t changing your kingdom pick, what was D? Second?

I do hope SBS doesn’t open a dangerous precedent of walking back people’s “uninformed” choices because of one aspect or another changing?

I’ll remind you, I’m probably going to get a very raw end of the deal with k6 but I’m sticking with it, because by the possible launch of the game I believe k6 will be a unique kingdom with a good community, not because I didn’t have a resource here or people there.

Edit: many other aspects of this game were set in stone, but things change, are we going to walk back 10 steps for every 2 we move forward? Fixing something sure, walking back and resetting? Not the same thing. Just so one can get a different pick.

You know, some people spent money so that they could attempt to give their communities a better chance to get what they wanted? It isn't all entitlement.

I respect that not everyone can afford the same thing, or afford to put as much money into something like a game. But because I can, or someone else can, we shouldn't be mocked or belittled because someone else cannot.

This is all about having fun for me and my community, and that's really all that matters. I originally wanted to be in the Grasslands, but based on some information, I'm likely not going to go there. Which is no big deal, but if I had worked off the information we had in biome writeups months ago, and selected -- there would have been some discrepancies I would not be okay with.

You do not need to repick. But if others want to do so because of inaccurate information they were provided, they should certainly have that chance imo.

NA-W will likely be unaffected if a repick happens. But selection will actually play out as it was supposed to back in April/May, and that's the DSS experience I was looking forward to myself.

By no means am I mocking anyone with spending money on the game to get them a better community or game, but using that money to try to force your desire for something else down others throats? Of course I’ll have a problem with it.

The only situation I could see kingdom repicks happening is if it was either unanimous amongst a server, or it was allowed to repick amongst a pool of those that want it. In that sense it prevents high ip picks from being able to screw over others, while allowing others to get what they want if it’s available, meaning

If kingdom 1-4 decide to repick, those monarchs can repick through kingdom 1-4, leaving 5/6 unable to be picked or their monarchs to pick another kingdom. That’s the only way I see that being relatively drama free, otherwise, a repick forcing everyone to give up their picks, will at some point screw one person or another

Dleatherus - 2 months ago

i respect our differences in opinion and made it clear in my initial post in this thread that i do NOT speak for any other monarch than myself

i also get the point that some monarchs chose their kingdoms using an entirely different set of personal or community parameters than other monarchs did, and so there are for sure going to differences there

it's not about walking back every decision when a change is made

for me it's about making a decision based upon reassurances and guarantees from the studio, those not coming through for one reason or another on the part of the studio

it's about being able to make a choice on my domain on behalf of my community on the same equal footing with the same equal data that every duke, count, mayor and baron is being afforded

to some that might seem unreasonable, to me it is ethical and fair

CountShady - 2 months ago

It seems the other Monarchs are all for... Hey, Things change and you should deal with it. Except... that yall were all misled when you made your picks.

Being misled is neither fun, or fair in the grand scheme of things.

While you may like your small corner of the map, and have made plans.... So did everybody else based on information that what we thought was originally written in STONE at the time. Now we find out that ... Well, our algorithms couldnt support what we wrote sooo all of the lore is now invalid.

The one thing yall are forgetting the most is.... This information was supposed to be available to yall before you picked. Had all of this information been readily available to you and all of the other monarchs... conversations may have gone very differently. But as it is, you made a decision based on 1. bad information, 2. bad lore. Both of which have caused the landscape to change in a very different way.

Its only right and proper to restart DSS entirely at this point. Release IP points, Unslect lands, and start it all over again properly like it was supposed to be 4 months ago...

Whenever the maps are final.

Kraysus - 2 months ago

I'm not a monarch, so my input may not be worth what the others are, but I think both Aerbax and Dleatherus/Adam have good points. It's kind of a sticky situation, and I think the conversation needs to happen, whether it results in a repick happening as well. There's some obvious pros and cons, and some questions to make regarding what could happen in the event of a repick.

1) Yes, the monarchs agreed to pick with what they had based on a guarantee that ended up being way off, and the picks were based very little on what actually turned out to be accurate. I mean I don't see any spiders in the Taiga... (sorry had to throw that in) 2) Is it likely that anyone would actually change what picks they did? Most kingdoms have spent the last 4 months getting used to the kingdoms they're settled in. Broad plans have formed and changed around them as people have come to accept what they've gotten. If anyone DOES change, is it fair at this point for the kingdoms that didn't want to change, but get forced to? 3) If a change was decided upon, what order would be taken? Would there be another blind IP auction? We know some monarchs would likely invest heavily in this because they didn't get their top pick last time, and there's a more clear idea of what monarch IPs exist, since many were revealed after the original kingdom selection. Is this fair to the community?

Ultimately, I think it's a conversation that should happen, and these things should be discussed by the studio and the monarchs, and the community.

Just my 2 cents.

Adam Burrfoot - 2 months ago

Agree to repicks and you are simply acknowledging that what you did with the Monarch's picking based upon no information what so ever was wrong and you wont make that mistake again. It is as simple as that. Admitting mistakes and correcting them is important to regaining faith and confidence in the studio's ability to do the right thing.

This blog post speaks about aligning expectations appropriately before moving forward. Were the expectations aligned appropriately for the Monarchs before they made their decisions? Were they given the same opportunity as everyone else to make the selections of their domains with that aligned expectation? If the answer to either of those questions is no, then there should be a moral obligation of the studio to restart DSS in its entirety once everyone has had their expectations aligned as needed, and is able to select based upon the same information.

I mean, I dont think anyone else would want to select their domains at this point based upon the same information the Monarchs were given to select theirs. Think about that before you ask these monarchs, who have as much to lose in their excitement and hopes for this game as anyone else with a domain does, to be forced to keep their selections they made on false data and under false pretense. Do you see that as fair or the right thing to do? Do you see that as ethical? Would you want to be given the simple opportunity to pick under the right information and right pretense if you were in the same predicament?

These seem like pretty easy questions to answer in my opinion and all of the answers lead to it being common sense the right thing to do to allow the Monarchs to re-select at the start of DSS with appropriately aligned expectations, and the current information available on whatever the final map becomes.

Elderwood - 2 months ago
@Adam Burrfoot:

.

EdwardBishop - 2 months ago

I concur with my colleague, King Aerbax.

King_Aerbax - 2 months ago

The fact a very select one or two monarchs genuinely want to repick, is thankfully not the general consensus. The idea is something distasteful to me, especially as pointed out by someone, that the only monarchs that the two who genuinely want to repick kingdoms are among the top 3 of picks on their respective servers. To me, it’s incredibly sad when people think just because they have more money invested into a game, they can throw a fit and ruin other people’s picks because they didn’t get every little checkbox marked for them.

Kingdom 6 by no means is in a great position. In fact personally I think it’s in the worst, but I didn’t pick kingdom 6 for what resources it had. I picked it for from what was available, it was a kingdom the community liked above the others. And we have accepted the kingdom and even gotten excited about it.

If SBS read my comment, my words would be this, the game is in a constant state of flux, will we have to sit down and re do kingdoms, races, cities every time some gameplay element changes? Every time a racial bonus gets tweaked, every time a resource is balanced for the game world? Agree to this outcry by a select few for repicks and you open up that precedent. Every time someone is unhappy with something that changed, we cannot walk back and re do everyone’s pick to allow that one or two people to be happy. It’s selfish and frustrating. I want to see Fixes, not a walk back every time we see a change that has an affect on gameplay.

Edit: so far Adam and D you two are the ones who have been pushing for it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but Adam are you no longer picking 1 and 2? Has your pick changed? If not, then I’m guessing you are speaking up so D may repick, assured in the trust you get first pick and your own pick won’t be messed up by a repick.

Ortherion - 2 months ago
@King_Aerbax:

Posted By King_Aerbax at 10:46 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

The fact a very select one or two monarchs genuinely want to repick, is thankfully not the general consensus. The idea is something distasteful to me, especially as pointed out by someone, that the only monarchs that the two who genuinely want to repick kingdoms are among the top 3 of picks on their respective servers. To me, it’s incredibly sad when people think just because they have more money invested into a game, they can throw a fit and ruin other people’s picks because they didn’t get every little checkbox marked for them.

Kingdom 6 by no means is in a great position. In fact personally I think it’s in the worst, but I didn’t pick kingdom 6 for what resources it had. I picked it for from what was available, it was a kingdom the community liked above the others. And we have accepted the kingdom and even gotten excited about it.

If SBS read my comment, my words would be this, the game is in a constant state of flux, will we have to sit down and re do kingdoms, races, cities every time some gameplay element changes? Every time a racial bonus gets tweaked, every time a resource is balanced for the game world? Agree to this outcry by a select few for repicks and you open up that precedent. Every time someone is unhappy with something that changed, we cannot walk back and re do everyone’s pick to allow that one or two people to be happy. It’s selfish and frustrating. I want to see Fixes, not a walk back every time we see a change that has an affect on gameplay.

Edit: so far Adam and D you two are the ones who have been pushing for it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but Adam are you no longer picking 1 and 2? Has your pick changed? If not, then I’m guessing you are speaking up so D may repick, assured in the trust you get first pick and your own pick won’t be messed up by a repick.

I concur with King Aerbax and have additional respect for you Sir!!

Dleatherus - 2 months ago

ty Adam

in response to caspian's comment, i don't know what time zone that timestamp is at, but:

i asked caspian directly this morning about kingdom repicks at around 9am pacific time

I have mentioned it a number of times in the EA forums over the past day or two

i asked earlier in this thread

i have messaged serp about it

maybe all of these occured after caspian's comment so all good there

regarding it being premature to discuss, sorry caspian but i call bullshit

this isn't about seeing the final map and perhaps not liking it and THEN saying 'i want a reroll'

this is about the studio stepping up and acknowledging whether it was intended or not, that the monarchs made their decision to help you out and pick manually to not delay D&SS under the assurance that we would know everything we needed to know to pick in confidence, and YOUR 100% guarantee that dukes would be picking via the map at their intended date and time right after the monarchs finished picking manually

given that we are almost 4 months removed from that point, and much has changed, and given that dates and timelines with the studio have been sketchy at best (and i'm being kind here), it is not premature to start that discussion now

because the question is do the monarch's have a right to repick based upon them being misled back in april (am not going to make the accusation that it was intentional)

and that question isn't dependent on what the final map looks like

i want to emphatically state that i support the studio with their changes

however it's not ethical to hold us to our former picks in light of the in some cases very differing data

ty

Adam Burrfoot - 2 months ago
@Dleatherus:

Posted By Dleatherus at 11:29 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

ty Adam

in response to caspian's comment, i don't know what time zone that timestamp is at, but:

i asked caspian directly this morning about kingdom repicks at around 9am pacific time

I have mentioned it a number of times in the EA forums over the past day or two

i asked earlier in this thread

i have messaged serp about it

regarding it being premature to discuss, sorry caspian but i call bullshit

this isn't about seeing the final map and perhaps not liking it and THEN saying 'i want a reroll'

this is about the studio stepping up and acknowledging whether it was intended or not, that the monarchs made their decision to help you out and pick manually to not delay D&SS under the assurance that we would know everything we needed to know to pick in confidence, and YOUR 100% guarantee that dukes would be picking at their intended date and time right after the monarchs finished picking

given that we are almost 4 months removed from that point, and much has changed, and given that dates and timelines with the studio have been sketchy at best (and i'm being kind here), it is not premature to start that discussion now

because the question is do the monarch's have a right to repick based upon them being misled back in april (am not going to make the accusation that it was intentional)

and that question isn't dependent on what the final map looks like

ty

Solid points, and I concur whole heartedly.

CountShady - 2 months ago

I fully support a Repick at this point. Regardless of the map. Start the conversation now before you give us 2-3 days before DSS starts with no warning

Xarkfleur - 2 months ago

Where's the leaders we thought we knew - who took a dive on a dare and would build worlds>?

I felt the kings and queens were being brave and earning their place in a way from taking such chances, such risk in the face of so much unknown. This talk just makes me realize they are gamers.

It's fair to ask and pursue your line, just a disappoint and small one on my part.

Kyleran - 2 months ago

I view the entire write up to say basically: 1) Game development is hard, which we just now understand.

2) We can't deliver many of the systems and designs which were promised which we know players will hate, but they are going to have to suck it up and learn to accept change.

3) It will be a long journey to the finish line, years in fact, so better sit back, grab your ankles and say, "thank you sir, may I please have another."

Did I get that mostly right?

Adam Burrfoot - 2 months ago

I want to say that your post was a perfect post and was basically what I was looking for from my write up yesterday, essentially what I read is that you guys are building the world differently than you were originally intending out of interest of making this game as close to the vision as possible and as fun and interactive as possible. I read that you guys want this game to legitimately be fun to play for everyone, and that once we get into play testing your players and you will find things that are fun and things that are not fun and we can focus on iteration on the pieces that arent fun.

I'd imagine feeling imbalanced as a group or community would not be fun, and that there will be parameters that are changable to ensure that a reasonable level of balance is maintained so no one community feels as though they literally cant do anything they want to do in game simply because they are just too weak.

I am glad you took the time to explain, and I hope I am interpreting the messaging appropriately. Thank you!

Hieronymus - 2 months ago

I don't know where else to leave feedback on this other than here (since it's the forums), but in light of what we've been told, I'd like to ask two things that I feel deserve some answers:

1) If we cannot rely on the designs you've shared with us to remain firm, what can we rely on? What game are we ultimately funding the development of? I think we all expected there to be change, but the deviations in map testing were so significant that they warranted this post to justify them.

2) If you're still figuring things out and learning what works and what doesn't, why are you forcing backers to make premature choices at this stage of your development and locking people into domains that may still change considerably or be affected by such change? I realize this is an uncomfortable question but it's an honest one.

You may recall that these concerns were raised in XA back when the stylized map idea was first introduced. The knowledge that even the tribe write ups are subject to change only compounds this problem. So to continue on in spite of the understanding that your ideas for this game are not yet concrete I think only ensures that an even greater reckoning will take place down the line once people discover that the tribes, the biomes or even the mechanics no longer align with their expectations.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too," is an old proverb and I feel like that's exactly what you're attempting to do here as a studio by moving forward knowing that things are not finalized enough to do so but expecting us to be perfectly understanding and ok with that. The trouble is, people simply have too much at stake to accept such a random outcome. And perhaps you just lack the perspective as a developer to realize it. It is going to blow up very predictably in a very bad way, just as it has here and now.

It might be worth remembering also that the original plan had us using the UE4 client to make our choices. Clearly, at that stage, the world would exist. The tribes would exist. There is far more certainty and far less likelihood for things to change dramatically like they might while you're still figuring things out. I always thought that was a wise plan, and today, it seems wiser than ever. So perhaps part of learning what works and what doesn't is also recognizing when a plan just isn't a good one and adjusting accordingly.

Thanks for reading this far and, hopefully, for taking the time to respond to my concerns.

Samson2124 - 2 months ago
@Hieronymus:

Posted By Hieronymus at 8:42 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

I don't know where else to leave feedback on this other than here (since it's the forums), but in light of what we've been told, I'd like to ask two things that I feel deserve some answers:

1) If we cannot rely on the designs you've shared with us to remain firm, what can we rely on? What game are we ultimately funding the development of? I think we all expected there to be change, but the deviations in map testing were so significant that they warranted this post to justify them.

2) If you're still figuring things out and learning what works and what doesn't, why are you forcing backers to make premature choices at this stage of your development and locking people into domains that may still change considerably or be affected by such change? I realize this is an uncomfortable question but it's an honest one.

You may recall that these concerns were raised in XA back when the stylized map idea was first introduced. The knowledge that even the tribe write ups are subject to change only compounds this problem. So to continue on in spite of the understanding that your ideas for this game are not yet concrete I think only ensures that an even greater reckoning will take place down the line once people discover that the tribes, the biomes or even the mechanics no longer align with their expectations.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too," is an old proverb and I feel like that's exactly what you're attempting to do here as a studio by moving forward knowing that things are not finalized enough to do so but expecting us to be perfectly understanding and ok with that. The trouble is, people simply have too much at stake to accept such a random outcome. And perhaps you just lack the perspective as a developer to realize it. It is going to blow up very predictably in a very bad way, just as it has here and now.

It might be worth remembering also that the original plan had us using the UE4 client to make our choices. Clearly, at that stage, the world would exist. The tribes would exist. There is far more certainty and far less likelihood for things to change dramatically like they might while you're still figuring things out. I always thought that was a wise plan, and today, it seems wiser than ever. So perhaps part of learning what works and what doesn't is also recognizing when a plan just isn't a good one and adjusting accordingly.

Thanks for reading this far and, hopefully, for taking the time to respond to my concerns.

This.

And I'll also add - if we are to believe that we are wrong in expecting things told to us to at least be used to form SOME basis of expectations, then should we have no expectation at all? Or maybe Murphy's law should be our expectation?

One example being that the promo iitems and everything else being offered in the store are surely NOT being marketed as "maybe you can build a farm and maybe you will be able to use these seed kits to maybe be able to harvest these crops if they maybe get implemented in game."

They are written as such that they do have defined functions and a reasonable person would be able to interpret those said definitions to formulate a basis of expectation, such as "if i buy this horse, i will be able to claim and ride it in game," or "if I buy this farm deed and vitner kit and seeds, i should be able to claim it in game, grow crops, and produce wine." What's to say that the items dont just become cosmetic or useless because either coding and implementation was limited and/or the scope of the game changed in the future?

Ok cool, things change. But should we, then, be expected to just accept it without an opportunity of being able to change decisions made, based on previously reasonable expectations, for something that -does- fit in the newly defined scope of the project? Or are we officially expected to write it off as a loss?

I am not insinuating that there is malicious intent of the studio nor am I saying there is willful deception and what not.

Just wanting answers to quell this nebulous cloud of uncertainty.

Gunnlang - 2 months ago
@Hieronymus:

Posted By Hieronymus at 1:42 PM - Sat Aug 17 2019

I don't know where else to leave feedback on this other than here (since it's the forums), but in light of what we've been told, I'd like to ask two things that I feel deserve some answers:

1) If we cannot rely on the designs you've shared with us to remain firm, what can we rely on? What game are we ultimately funding the development of? I think we all expected there to be change, but the deviations in map testing were so significant that they warranted this post to justify them.

2) If you're still figuring things out and learning what works and what doesn't, why are you forcing backers to make premature choices at this stage of your development and locking people into domains that may still change considerably or be affected by such change? I realize this is an uncomfortable question but it's an honest one.

You may recall that these concerns were raised in XA back when the stylized map idea was first introduced. The knowledge that even the tribe write ups are subject to change only compounds this problem. So to continue on in spite of the understanding that your ideas for this game are not yet concrete I think only ensures that an even greater reckoning will take place down the line once people discover that the tribes, the biomes or even the mechanics no longer align with their expectations.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too," is an old proverb and I feel like that's exactly what you're attempting to do here as a studio by moving forward knowing that things are not finalized enough to do so but expecting us to be perfectly understanding and ok with that. The trouble is, people simply have too much at stake to accept such a random outcome. And perhaps you just lack the perspective as a developer to realize it. It is going to blow up very predictably in a very bad way, just as it has here and now.

It might be worth remembering also that the original plan had us using the UE4 client to make our choices. Clearly, at that stage, the world would exist. The tribes would exist. There is far more certainty and far less likelihood for things to change dramatically like they might while you're still figuring things out. I always thought that was a wise plan, and today, it seems wiser than ever. So perhaps part of learning what works and what doesn't is also recognizing when a plan just isn't a good one and adjusting accordingly.

Thanks for reading this far and, hopefully, for taking the time to respond to my concerns.

I feel like this thread has turned into a few kings bitching back and forth. When what, Hieronymus said, seems to be the real problem.

There doesn't seem to anything stopping the game being completely and utterly different come launch. I can understand somethings will change overtime, which is fine. Just seems hard to get hyped about anything, when we have no idea if it will even make it into the game.

Elderwood - 2 months ago
@Hieronymus:

.

Kyleran - 2 months ago
@Elderwood:

Posted By Brythwaite at 02:04 AM - Sat Aug 17 2019

I think DSS is optional. You can choose to wait and select a location later if you are worried about something changed drastically. You just give up picking before people with less IP. They are not forcing anything.

Also these are concepts. The word implies subject to change.

Honestly would you rather hold them to everything they have published if it broke the game? what good would that do any one.

Do realize if you don't hold them to everything, you can't really hold them to anything.

Which perhaps is the realization many are just now coming to, but actually has always been the case.

Xefipor - 2 months ago

I guess... I am one of the people who are okay with this.. But.. I've seen all of these video's already..

I've always looked at all information giving as "Subject to Change". I've always looked at each of the write-ups as design plans and paths. Not as finished product manuals. Early on in game development it has been stated by SBS that this is a work in progress. And that at anytime until release, all things could and probably would go through changes.

It just surprises me at the number of people who feel blindsided when it happens.

Elderwood - 2 months ago
@Xefipor:

.

Charlie George - 2 months ago

This write up has done more to build my confidence in this title than many before it.

Thanks SBS,

Lawetz Ironhard - 2 months ago
@Charlie George:

Me too. This was nice to read (and watch).

Bourneh - 2 months ago

Guess I can tell everyone I know and my community to completely ignore all media posts and write ups made about CoE and its tribes/biomes by SBS then! Solid!

So essentially, we don't even have valid lore or tribe descriptions at this point in development!

Elderwood - 2 months ago
@Bourneh:

.

SuraHP - 2 months ago
@Bourneh:

Fresh Salt GET YOUR FRESH SALT MARSH Sugar, not really its just salt.

Brudvir_Stronk - 2 months ago
@Bourneh:

needs more salt....

Karybdus - 2 months ago
@Bourneh:

got salt?

HuldricFranconian - 2 months ago

Serverus - 2 months ago

Great write up!

Kitlandria - 2 months ago

As this is a blog about game designs and the challenges faced along the way, please keep the discussion related. Thank you.

HuldricFranconian - 2 months ago

Xarkfleur - 2 months ago

Brill. Brilliant.

Recalibrated and ready for the Fun along the way.

Thank you Vye.

Cimeies - 2 months ago

I think people tend to overlook a lot of these processes. SBS has been very transparent through their entire development, so we have been able to see all the changes made along the way in order to realize the vision. What we don't see is that all studios go through this with all the games, they just don't share the pre-pre-vision that gets edited down to the release we do get to see.

This is all normal, most people just aren't familiar with it.

Dleatherus - 2 months ago

ty for the explanation

i think most of us understand that changes, sometimes dramatic ones, can take place

given that these changes were made known AFTER the monarchs chose their kingdoms manually without knowledge of these changes, and being told that the data supplied to them at the time was reliable and we could make our picks with confidence with the caveat that they could be subject to tweaks (many of these changes are NOT tweaks), it would be unethical to hold them to their picks

we were told that D&SS would NOT be delayed and that dukes, counts, barons and mayors would all start picking a week later (100% guaranteed) and would be picking using the same data and designs

we are now 4 MONTHS past that and as seen, MUCH has changed

what are the plans to allow the monarchs to repick in light of these new designs and changes?

ty

p,s, i do NOT speak for any monarch other than myself in this post

Kyleran - 2 months ago
@Dleatherus:

Posted By Dleatherus at 7:57 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

ty for the explanation

i think most of us understand that changes, sometimes dramatic ones, can take place

given that these changes were made known AFTER the monarchs chose their kingdoms manually without knowledge of these changes, and being told that the data supplied to them at the time was reliable and we could make our picks with confidence with the caveat that they could be subject to tweaks (many of these changes are NOT tweaks), it would be unethical to hold them to their picks

we were told that D&SS would NOT be delayed and that dukes, counts, barons and mayors would all start picking a week later (100% guaranteed) and would be picking using the same data and designs

we are now 4 MONTHS past that and as seen, MUCH has changed

what are the plans to allow the monarchs to repick in light of these new designs and changes?

ty

p,s, i do NOT speak for any monarch other than myself in this post

Clearly you aren't reaching out through proper channels.

Caspian ☁Today at 12:39 AM

"1. No monarch has approached the studio yet to start a conversation about re-picking. 2. There's yet to be a release of the official maps. So any conversation of re-picking is premature without seeing the final maps."

Adam Burrfoot - 2 months ago
@Kyleran:

Posted By Kyleran at 10:54 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

Posted By Dleatherus at 7:57 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

ty for the explanation

i think most of us understand that changes, sometimes dramatic ones, can take place

given that these changes were made known AFTER the monarchs chose their kingdoms manually without knowledge of these changes, and being told that the data supplied to them at the time was reliable and we could make our picks with confidence with the caveat that they could be subject to tweaks (many of these changes are NOT tweaks), it would be unethical to hold them to their picks

we were told that D&SS would NOT be delayed and that dukes, counts, barons and mayors would all start picking a week later (100% guaranteed) and would be picking using the same data and designs

we are now 4 MONTHS past that and as seen, MUCH has changed

what are the plans to allow the monarchs to repick in light of these new designs and changes?

ty

p,s, i do NOT speak for any monarch other than myself in this post

Clearly you aren't reaching out through proper channels.

Caspian ☁Today at 12:39 AM

"1. No monarch has approached the studio yet to start a conversation about re-picking. 2. There's yet to be a release of the official maps. So any conversation of re-picking is premature without seeing the final maps."

I have to say I completely agree with Dleatherus here in relation to the ethical thing being to allow the monarchs the opportunity to re-pick based upon the drastic changes that were made in the last 4 months and the false pretense used to goad us into making our selection without the real information being ready in the first place.

Further I have to say multiple monarchs have approached the studio about this, that quote from Caspian in discord is either a bull-faced lie or he simply doesnt read the feedback in the forums on the RCs because it has been covered quite in depth in those threads.

I am sure its not his job to go through the threads, he is ofcourse the company founder and owner. However the studio asked for that to be the place for feedback and the feedback is there, therefore there have indeed been Multiple Monarchs who have approached the studio, in their required format, to start that conversation. We have simply not received anything back from the studio yet.

Since seeing that quote (which this is the first time I am seeing it) I will certainly give Serp a quick message in Discord asking how else we are to approach the studio with a request like that to move that discussion forward. As well as encourage my peers to do the same.

Augustus_Aquila - 2 months ago

Awesome update Vye.

Incandescent Anon - 2 months ago

A dose of realism is well timed. Lofty goals just mean the finished project will have a shot at being something unique. Focus on the work and not the noise...

You really don't have any competition in the imagination department...

Aemon_Blackfyre - 2 months ago

I must say, this was eye opening. While I typically sit back without complaints, i too am guilty of letting reality vs. personal expectations clash. I'm currently halfway through the first video and it truly is eye opening, especially in the pre-production phase. Thanks as always for everything you do SBS, and know that we all love and support you!

Kyleran - 2 months ago
@Aemon_Blackfyre:

Posted By Aemon_Blackfyre at 7:52 PM - Fri Aug 16 2019

I must say, this was eye opening. While I typically sit back without complaints, i too am guilty of letting reality vs. personal expectations clash. I'm currently halfway through the first video and it truly is eye opening, especially in the pre-production phase. Thanks as always for everything you do SBS, and know that we all love and support you!

Don't put too much stock in the first video, is mostly an apologist excuse on why he personally and the game industry in general sucks on planning.

He created small, 20 level console games and if you watch through the QA you'll see him flounder when someone asks how he would use Method to deliver a multiplayer game with thousands of players.

After explaining how a five page high level design is all one ever needs, one of the panel turns out to be a successful game dev too, who wrote a 500 page design doc which was rigorously adhered to and I feel did a credible job in explaining why he did it and how well it worked for his game.

Game devs love to claim creative arts are too difficult to plan or budget for or hit a deadline but isn't true, well, unless you lack the skill or will to do so.

Meanwhile in the film industry they can create a $300M film, often full of never before seen special effects and CGI in like ...three to five years.

While some take longer than planned or go over budget, most actually are well run and deliver per planned timelines.

So, let's go with the Method, here we are three years in, about time to evaluate the "two" complete, production ready "levels" and decide whether to move forward, or kill the project, because was really what the talk was about.

I'm guessing putting a stake in COEs heart would be the proper course of action at this point considering more money has been spent so far than it cost to build Spyro.....yet still nothing discernable to show for it.

Don't let Vye's dog and pony show convince you that game development is totally unplannable or its impossible to hit any milestones, lots of games do all of the time when someone holds the dev teams feet to the fire.

Last thought, we software development project managers have a tongue in cheek saying, the effort it takes to deliver software always equals or exceeds the amount of time permitted in the project plan.

So I ask, if there is no hard timeline, will a game ever actually be delivered?

With CU and SC each well past six years with no end in sight despite having far more resources and better experienced developers, (but no firm delivery timeline) how long is this one going to take?

Server - 2 months ago

Well..This will be interesting.

Gwyn - 2 months ago

I love getting glimpses 'behind the scenes' for the development process, both good and bad, sticking to a plan or acknowledging a need to adjust. This is the first game I've really supported before any kind of release, and the reason for it waaaaay back in Kickstarter was definitely this openness to the idea of, "Hey, sometimes the things we set out to do aren't right, and we have to adjust, and we make mistakes." It feels more sincere than developments that try to paint everything as going perfectly smoothly, and bolstered my faith in the development of COE.

Plus it's just fun to see iterations. As someone interested in the UX field, it's really, really interesting to see how things develop, change, and change again based on user feedback and adjustments and newly learned things in a project that I'm excited about. The information, both the successes and the hiccups, is definitely appreciated.

Fieran - 2 months ago

I am glad that you guys are letting the game evolve as needed. I am really hoping that people read this and understand that things will be changing as development progresses. If we get too caught up in how we expect things to be, we risk missing out on how great something can become.

The work you guys are doing is amazing and I am glad to be along for the ride with you.

Sneezewortt - 2 months ago

thanks vye and the rest of the team for all the work & the detailed explanation and write up :)

Nahkahiiri - 2 months ago

"... we discovered that our initial designs were actually working against our vision..." So we shouldn't read wiki anymore because those designs went out of the window? What is the vision then? Currently I feel that I have no idea where you are aiming for and therefore it's hard to help. Maybe it's just because it's 3am...

Mordakai - 2 months ago

We still love you!

Donut310 - 2 months ago

Thanks for describing, in detail, what developing a game actually involves, and the challenges we all have as both backers and developers will face in the upcoming months/years.

It's very easy for someone to sit on the computer and be an armchair developer, I hope that the people who do this, see this post and realize they'd do a lot more good by just sitting back and letting you guys do your thing.

Keep up the great work SBS. I may be a bit over-critical sometimes but that's just my way of providing feedback.

Foxforylation - 2 months ago

Awesome post!

Personally the crafting and knowledge system amaze me, and you guys have really shown innovation and creativity there.

One other thing that i'm really looking forward is magic in this game, it has been made clear that this will be a low magic game, but the fact that there is some, in whatever way, shape or form that will come, excites me greatly.

Keep doing what ya doing guys. ^^

Starfire - 2 months ago

Your doing a great job, keep on going! :D

JohnnyViscerate - 2 months ago

Huzzah