Lot Selection Sequence Process

That's very true for myself I really wanted a large home so the city lot seemed like the best value as all homes are designed to fit on city size lots even the ones that come with LOTM or Duke can be placed on a city lot. So while I'm not fussed about the homes that come with the Baron tier I know Port will eventually release something cool in game or via the store that I can grab and throw down on my city lot. I'm also a bit of a sucker for all the extras like talking mirror, imp, baron servant, beds and was also interested in the video conference with LB as there is no way I'd be able to make use of the VIP round table reward of the Duke tier.

I've been assured that there will be plenty of lots available in game at the start and no one will be forced into a POT. As far as finding a suitable city lot goes that of course is a worry I think most people have of any tier and with 84 Barons finding a city lot that you want is going to require a lot of luck and a decent internet connection. As far as getting a decent lot however I don't think we need to worry too much, this is a bit of speculation on my part but from my understanding city lots are going to be placed in areas of key interest which is another reason these are so valuable. So we should find most city lots in areas like cities that have high security, vendors and so forth but as of right now the devs have added in a number of additional city lots to allow backers at this level to place their home and play around a bit. Once Novia is built out and more cities come online I'm sure they will start to remove these from the smaller towns.

In addition back during KS days they advised of only a few dozen city lots being available in game and with 84 lots already taken up I suspect they are reaching that mark. A while back they sold out of Baron 2 and the tier was removed from the game it was by popular demand that they released Baron 3 which makes me wonder if we will see a sell out of Baron 3 at all. I admit it's still a hell of a gamble upgrading and hoping that you will be able to get a good spot as it seems the higher you go up the less lots there are so the harder the chance of obtaining a lot in the area you desire.

KS Quote: "Cities also have the largest and most valuable homesteads. Be aware though, that the most valuable properties are available to very limited number of players and will likely be in high demand! (Only a few dozen City homes will be available to players in-game.)"
https://www.kickstarter.com/project...-the-avatar-forsaken-virtues-0?ref=nav_search

 

Aye, I have seen all the info you posted as well, and know there is a promise that everyone with a pledge is guaranteed there will be a lot for us to go find at the selection process. I was just saying for me it wasn't worth it We all have different desires within the pledges that enticed us to spend more, and I'm glad you found a tier you like. For me though, if the cities (meaning Kingsport, Owl's Head, etc) were bigger in size and would have more lot spaces I could see taking a chance, but as it looks currently, they're very small, and don't have a lot of lots in them (for the amount of people that will be playing the game). If I were at Baron level, all the good city lots in a city will be gone when Royal Founders go first (which is great because they were all in at the beginning and deserve it), and I being Founder would be left to the boring side villages, which will still happen with the town lot I have now anyways. There's almost no chance of getting a lot in the city for me so I wouldn't go up any further hehe. Hopefully, they have plans to liven up the side villages they have as those will just be plentiful, but currently they're very boring instanced villages where you hardly see anyone in them. It's still very early in alpha so we'll see how it progresses.

 

I will say it again - The "fear" or "theory" that Duke/LOTM would use keep/castle deeds to Place on City or even below that is absurd.

It will happen, yes, maybe 2 or 3, but noone in thier right mind would without a very good reason

 

There are those with the opinion of 'tear the wall down' on the keep/castle lot. Reasonings range from needing more garden space to maze building. The factoring of aesthetics alone is powerful enough to keep someone at that level from building with a wall in the way.

 

I know that, but in order to do that you need to drasticly decrease house size aswell.... And then why are you at Duke+ level?

Mmm, i sincerly doubt it's an issue.

 

How to player owned cities fit into all of this? Say I have a Row lot but want to live in a city owned by a Duke. Don't the people that own player cities get to decide who lives in their cities? And is this apart from this?

 

Also keep in mind this is initial placement -- there will be folks moving and lots going unclaimed as players fail to log in within the appropriate time period. So if you get 'stuck in a boring side town' there will be other opportunities opening up after awhile.

As for the walls around keeps and castles... well I suppose they could make it optional to have the wall or not.... it's not they would actually be involved in battles......would they?

 

Yes, owners of player owned towns would need to give you permission to live there. This would be outside of the "land rush" selection process.

So if you can find someone with a player owned town that will give you permission to live there, you're set. However, please be advised that they can also remove you from their town for any reason.

 

@Sophi

Yes, there will be battles. Towns will be under attack now and then, and i want to keep my keep safe!

However, Should they allow us to remove walls, i will most likely do so.

 

woohoo!! castles under siege! that would be awesome

 

Just to add that I think most POT owners won't be kicking out people on a whim.

The best thing is to communicate between all PoT citizens and keep that channel open. The POT owner is part of the citizen group in my POT. I think we are all equal and there to see the town thrive.

The only reason I would kick someone out is if they committed to be in the POT and suddenly for months they are no where to be found and did not communicate with me to let me know they ran into a real life problem and they will be gone for a while. Things happen that are out of our control and communication is the key.

For Dara Brae, I wanted to make sure there was a place for anyone who wanted a home for Druids, Bards, Rangers, and Shepherds. A Celtic place for anyone who is interested in that like I am. A successor of Skara Brae and Yew from Ultima lore.

I forgot to add that I created an Enjin site to help communication within Dara Brae and other POTs, since a lot of other POTs have Enjin sites already. At Http://darabrae.enjin.com In addition to our original page on sotamuseum.com

 

+1. I am not sure where the concern was coming from. Sure, POT owners will be able to kick out residents given the ability to do so. I fail to see where the incentive is to do it without justification. We paid significant money to secure a place for the community we wanted to build so anything that threatens stability in the communities that we built seems worthy of avoiding when at all possible. It is work to recruit anyone to come live in your POT. Any given POT can only create one atmosphere. With the competition that exists, you can only attract a fraction of the player base to live in your POT in the first place. I, for one, have better ways to spend my time and effort that recruiting new residents beyond natural attrition. I would only exacerbate the issue if I was kicking people out without justification that prevented harm to the community.

Last week's Update of the Avatar #116 gives even less reason to boot residents because it jeopardize Blessing(s) if I sacrificed NPC buildings in lieu of Monuments/Shrines. Even if I am well above the threshold "(for example 60% occupancy)", it makes it more difficult to recruit a replacement resident and fill other vacancies if I forcefully removed a resident that wasn't a threat to the community. Without justification for kicking a resident, other residents feel less secure and are more likely to leave my POT which actually could jeopardize Blessing(s). Portalarium openly stated in Update of the Avatar #116 that the system should "encourage owners to be really reliable/trustworthy landlords so players want to live there." I would point

There are alternatives to POTs if players are that concerned about despotic POT owners.

 

If you don't trust your landlord, don't live in their town.

 

I just noticed that with this system somebody who upgraded a pledge long after the Kickstarter would usually get to choose his lot before people who paid for the full pledge during the Kickstarter already. The reason is that post-Kickstarter prices were higher. Add to this that post-Kickstarter Portalarium has run promos, such as adding 10% extra dollars to each pledge for a while.

Example:
RF Citizen paid in full during Kickstarter: $500
RF Citizen obtained 10 months after the Kickstarter by upgrading a $25 Kickstarter pledge to Citizen tier: $500 paid plus 10% bonus results in $550 pledge
RF Citizen obtained 2 years after the Kickstarter by upgrading a $25 Kickstarter pledge to Citizen tier: $550 paid and $550 on pledge (more if during a promo)

In this example that I consider quite typical and relevant (lots of people have been upgrading pledges later!) the person pledging in full during the Kickstarter comes last.

Doesn't feel quite right to me. Seems people who committed in full early on get punished that way, relative to people who took a wait and see approach and only upgraded later.

My suggestion is to slightly modify the suggested formula and take into account the standard price of the pledge at the time the pledge was bought or last upgraded and only count excess dollars pledged above the normal pledge price. Example:

RF Citizen pledge obtained for $500 pledged when Citizen pledge cost $500 would count as: +$0
RF Pioneer pledge upgraded later to $550 RF Citizen pledge when Citizen pledge cost $550 would count as: +$0

Both would be treated as the same pledge amount (amount = full price for Citizen paid at time of purchase, no extra money added). They would either be in the same claim window or the actual purchase date would decide.

RF Citizen pledge obtained for $510 pledged when Citizen pledge cost $500 would count as: +$10
RF pledge upgraded later to $555 pledged when Citizen pledge cost $550 would count as: +$5

First pledge for $510 would come first because at the time of purchase the buyer overpaid by $10, while in the second case he only overpaid by $5.

RF Citizen pledge obtained for $505 pledged when Citizen pledge cost $500 would count as: +$5
RF pledge upgraded later to $560 pledged when Citizen pledge cost $550 would count as: +$10

Second pledge would come before the first pledge because player overpaid by $10 vs only $5 on the first pledge.

 

Here we go... An interesting observation. I am going to be cold-hearted and suggest that the earliest pledges have a choice. That CHOICE is what is important. We have known that there was a pecking order (even if we did not know details in the beginning) and the pecking order considered how much was pledged. The earliest pledges can still choose to pledge more or even upgrade their pledge. Is it fair? Depends on how you are judging fairness I suppose.

 

Actually the most fair and most practical solution to this problem would be if Portalarium would automatically lift all pledges to current pledge prices in dollars, effectively treating them like discount purchases. For example $500 pledged for a Citizen pledge during Kickstarter should be upgraded to a $550 Citizen pledge by adding the $50 savings/discount of the Kickstarter to the pledge. That would also preserve that Kickstarter discount for people who upgrade a pledge post Kickstarter. I think for most Kickstarter purchases a +10% addition to the pledge value (based on what was paid during the Kickstarter campaign, not what was added in upgrades later) would do the trick.

 

You can't really expect people to be aware of such an issue. Most will simply get surprised when the best lots are taken by people who pledged later than them. If this is really going to be how it will work, then a lot of Kickstarter backers will end up with a bad feeling.

 

I will respectfully agree to disagree that "lifting" pledges prices is fair or practical. This is a retread of an old suggestion that Portalarium has left on the table in the past.

 

It is both fair and practical. During Kickstarter everyone was made to believe they would get a discount for pledging early. Now their $500 pledge during the Kickstarter should suddenly be worth less than somebody (like myself by the way) paying $500 almost a year post-Kickstarter to receive a $550 pledge because of a 10% bonus discount promo?

If I can get a 10% bonus added to my Citizen pledge I bought a year after the Kickstarter then why can't the actual Kickstarter backers get their 10% discount added to their pledges as well so that they are on fair footing during the land rush and also don't have to loose that discount again when upgrading? It is a very easy and practical solution to two major problems.

All they need to do is get their original Kickstarter backer list with payments made during the Kickstarter campaign and add 10% of that amount to each of those pledges.

 

For the record, did Kickstarter pledges get their "discount" or did they not? I did on more than a handful of accounts. Are you aware of a Kickstarter who paid current price for a pledge that was made during Kickstarter? We received the benefit of pledging during Kickstarter.

On most of my Kickstarter accounts, I have upgraded the pledge. I did that with the full awareness that I had to make up the difference between my Kickstarter pledge price and the current price BEFORE I paid to upgrade my pledge to the current price. I had the choice to stay where I was on my Kickstarter accounts and preserve my "discount" or pay to upgrade. I had a CHOICE about what I valued most. Everyone had a CHOICE to upgrade during the 10% bonus promo. I did it and then merged the pledges to get to the appropriate pledge level that I wanted to be at. I, and other Kickstarters, can still CHOOSE to purchase a small pledge and merge it to improve our precedence.

If we do as you suggest, I may find it VERY unfair to retroactively "lift" pledges for those who did not choose to upgrade their pledges. They made a choice and you would have us reward them for a choice that did not directly benefit the game. I, and others, made a choice that directly benefited the game by giving additional funds for development and you would place others who did not give additional funds on par with us?