Personally I favor DM roles to be played by the staff only, but I also recognize that you guys may be too busy to play active roles, IF such roles even need to be particularly active (for story reasons etc.).

However, if players should get the opportunity to play as vices or virtues, on separate accounts, then I'd feel more comfortable with it being someone who earned that right through activity and contribution to their respective religion as that means they will have gained sufficient understanding of the religion to do a better job of RP'ing such a vice or virtue.

I would like to know when does it become so inequitable that it does not make sense to play on that Server. I am concerned that Caspian it not taking to heart the lessons learned from what killed the game Shawdow Bane. Zerg Empires were allowed to develop without a counter and the game quickly died because of it.

I want the game mechanics to be fair and I do understand the game from a Dance of Dynasty's is supposed to be inequitable, hey someone wants to front for two Kingdoms go for it. I have never been in favor of selling multiple titles and now we are seeing how this is going to be gamed in a PTW way if you have enough money to spend.

I will not play on a Server where one person buys 3 or 4 of the 5 Kingdoms on that Server as that is clearly entering pay to win category. I wonder if people that are lawaway kings will feel they are being ripped off when they can't join NA-E because it will be full if a person buys 3 or 4 Kingdoms. SBS how many Kingdoms can a person buy on a Server? Can I buy all 5?

I think SBS is really going to shoot themselves in the foot with selling King spots to people in this fashion.

EDIT--- It is Caspian's game to develop and I respect that. I hope they continue to analyze decisions they make that impact the depth of the game they are trying to develop.

Will I agree with you ShadowTani, one thing to remember is that IF Caspian and SBS did allow someone to DM the world, they would be someone that they knew they could trust. I have no doubt they would also be checking to make sure that that person wasn't abusing the privilege of doing so as that could potentially hurt SBS if it went unchecked or created an imbalance in the world or the story. Remember what happen to the armies of Mordor at the end of Return of the King? That would probably be pretty similar to what would happen to the Kingdom(s) of whoever abused Caspian and SBS's trust in this case.

Posted By Ortherion at 01:36 AM - Sat Dec 10 2016

I would like to know when does it become so inequitable that it does not make sense to play on that Server. I am concerned that Caspian it not taking to heart the lessons learned from what killed the game Shawdow Bane. Zerg Empires were allowed to develop without a counter and the game quickly died because of it.

I want the game mechanics to be fair and I do understand the game from a Dance of Dynasty's is supposed to be inequitable, hey someone wants to front for two Kingdoms go for it. I have never been in favor of selling multiple titles and now we are seeing how this is going to be gamed in a PTW way if you have enough money to spend.

I will not play on a Server where one person buys 3 or 4 of the 5 Kingdoms on that Server as that is clearly entering pay to win category. Frankly if SBS allows that I may ask for a refund of my Duke Pledge. I wonder if people that are lawaway kings will feel they are being ripped off when they can't join NA-E because it will be full if a person buys 3 or 4 Kingdoms. SBS how many Kingdoms can a person buy on a Server? Can I buy all 5?

I think SBS is really going to shoot themselves in the foot with selling King spots to people in this fashion.

Why not just move to a different server, why is it soo bad that if one server is monarch bought out, they can't 100% control that server. There will be others looking to tear that Kingdom down. So get a flag to stand behind and become the new ruler, not through money, but through power.

Just what I'd do.

But I do agree that it'd suck to be a Monarch and be blocked of from a whole server via one person buying all the spots.

I have to agree with Ortherion, and even though both sides of the argument has merits, i cant help but make the conclusion that although someone owning 2,3 or 4 kingdoms can potentially add to A story (not the story) it also can greatly diminish the immersion and experience. Realistically it can go either way, but i dont think anyone can argue limiting how much one can own(through money backing) is the safest bet that the games experience and immersion isn't tossed out the window. To add i think anyone using the argument that people can just go play on another server is just ridiculous.

I don't think 2 kingdoms is enough to really dull the experience, but anything more than two doesn't get my stamp of approval, i would believe it to be more harmful or at the very least potentially harmful than its worth (gained through backing).

Posted By Orodreth Coamenal at 10:44 PM - Fri Dec 09 2016

Someone has to have the kingdoms or they dont. If one player wants the task at trying to run all these places why not, it adds more content to the game.

If you have a giant tyrannical government it could easily be an early mass quest for those who do not play within their rules to overthrow him >:3

Yes the Rebel against the Empire game play does have a romantic flare as you describe it but I am afraid what you would end up with is a dead Server run by the Zerg Empire on that Server. I have seen it happen in Shadowbane, Eve and Darkfall and countless other dead titles.

Once a certain Empire in Eve reached a certain pinnacle of power the game actually became really a bore to play as no one would challenge the status quo.

I don't think the original design of the game intended to have us start with Emperors. If that was ever an intent that should have been disclosed during the DJ's and Kickstarter.

@AnniTheLost - It is not that easy to change Servers when their is only two and some members of your group are EU players.

Caspian, I'd say that depends on the character of those given access to such an account. There'd be quite a lot of potential for abuse there, not all of it reconcilable within the context of the story. Is that really the sort of power you want to give away?

I feel that the developers should restrict access to such accounts to employees - not necessarily developers, but have each person they give access to a non-standard account legally bound to... not screw shit up, essentially. I don't know how much more/less control that gives you over how those accounts are used, but it at least shows that you're keeping responsibility for those accounts close to home.

I'm comfortable with the OP -- I wouldn't have backed the game otherwise :)

And I'd expect others to be in the same boat. If you've read up on the game, pondered if it's right for you, then backed... surely you're comfortable with it, too?

That said, I have been in crowd-funded game communities where people seem to ignore the concept at hand completely, put their money down, then start indicating all the ways the game doesn't suit them. I've never really understood that sort of behaviour.

Posted By Flashman at 12:34 AM - Sat Dec 10 2016

I'm comfortable with the OP -- I wouldn't have backed the game otherwise :)

And I'd expect others to be in the same boat. If you've read up on the game, pondered if it's right for you, then backed... surely you're comfortable with it, too?

That said, I have been in crowd-funded game communities where people seem to ignore the concept at hand completely, put their money down, then start indicating all the ways the game doesn't suit them. I've never really understood that sort of behaviour.

Probably because it was never brought up because people thought nobody would be insane enough to put $20,000 on a video game. Whats that?! Things Change over time? Shocking!

Posted By Kalexius at 6:44 PM - Sat Dec 10 2016

Probably because it was never brought up because people thought nobody would be insane enough to put $20,000 on a video game. Whats that?! Things Change over time? Shocking!

I'm not even thinking/commenting about that. My comments are in relation to the topic raised in the OP, basically talking about the nature/philosophy of the game, overall.

Though I can't say I like some people having huge amount of power just cause they happen to be rich in RL. We have ghettomaster with some crazy amount of EP. He could buy so much of everything. I wonder if there is a limit on for example resources he could buy. He could build a city out of gold he has so much EP. Or he could buy hundreds of siege weapons and destroy everyone. Hate to be on that EU server.

Then we have Adam, who atm has 2 kings and a duke. Just in case he wants a 3rd kingdom. By my count NA E should be full now. Has it been marked as full? What happens if someone tries to buy king/queen and wants to go east? Since all the "locked" to one server is meant to come in whenever the store changes. From the last I heard at least.

Both cases are clearly unfair, which is fine. The game is built around being unfair. But is it game breaking for that server is the question.

For ghettomaster and the rumours around there only being one EU server. That would suck, but I know really nothing about anyone from those servers but that he is apart of a big kingdom.

Then there is Vornair, which I have known for ages is by far the biggest group in the game. I know there are a ton of pvp groups over there and I also have zero idea how many are under him. Surely he can't buy a 3rd kingdom since I thought at least 5 was the max, unless someone gets pushed out.

The real question at what point does it feel too unfair? Again I'm glad I'm NA W so I won't have to deal with either of those cases. But if I happened to be on NAE, I would just change. Anyone having that much power, at launch, feels wrong. If someone took over the whole server after years of war, that be one thing. But how much can someone buy from the get-go?