Make PoTs first come first served, not by bank account size. (POLL) [UNOFFICIAL]

I am not trolling or asking people to be derisive. Please thoughtful replies only. The use of Principles and Opposing Principles is for illustrative purposes only and not an indictment or accusation of any person, company, or entity in any manner whatsoever.

It was suggested in yesterday’s cyber telethon that the development of PoT’s would go from the person who paid the most (larger PoTs) to the person who paid the least (Hamlets last). Then in the order of who purchased first (date order). I condemn these actions. I will explain using the three virtues of Lord British why this must be overturned to simply go in the order of first come first served (date order).

• Is the game being developed by the wealthy and for the wealthy? Last I looked greed was not a virtue.
• Since when do we get in line and someone comes along with more money and we have to part the seas to make way for them.
• By shuffling us to the back of the line we lose on better home placement locations and some could be possibly be forced into biomes they have no desire to participate in. Location is everything for many of us.
• If you are pushed to the back of the line will your PoT be ready when the game is released?

For these and many other reasons, I am asking Portalarium to show that every player in the game has worth and not just those who can buy their way to the front on the queue.

It seems to me that the shadowlords must be involved for we see the following:

• Falsehood – Serving those who came late and denying others their rightful place in line.
• Hatred – Pushing those with less money around as if they are somehow less deserving.
• Cowardice – Failing to stand up for those with smaller accounts and looking mostly to those with sizable assets in life.

Portalarium we call on you to stand on the three principles of Truth, Love, and Courage.

• Truth – Those who were first should be first.
• Love – Love all players equally not just those with larger bank accounts.
• Courage – Show the courage to do what should be done and fix this policy of money rules all.

 

You open up with a statement that you want thoughtful responces only, yet this entire post lack insight in the bigger picture, and i dont feel that its been thought thru at all.

This was dicussed with Housing lots aswell, priority pick where Biggest plege go before earliest pledge. Im not going to go deep into that, but the same thing is applied here.

First, Dont try to make this into a Good vs evil theme, the thread itself stinks of selfish reasons, without looking into the bigger picture at all.

I totally agree with and support the idea that the largest PoTs gets placed first.

Some short reasons why are as follows:

• The largest PoTs require the most time from the Devs for various reasons
• The largest PoTs are usually owned by a group of people pitching together funds. Your statement that its about largest wallet is 100% False.
• For balancing purposes, it's obvius that the largest PoTs need to be balanced and scattered thruout the lands, while smaller ones can be placed pretty much anywhere.

The Key reason, is number 3.
Player owned towns of the largest sizes need to be scattered thruout the lands. If this went wild west and all the smaller PoTs who surely was bought first got to chose location, we would see 50 small crossroads all around KEY locations on the world such as major harbors, major cities etc, where it makes NO sense to have small settlements, but rather larger towns, while settlements usually are in the outskirts or far off areas.

I understand that many small PoT owners want to have thier settlements in key locations etc, but im glad that is not going to happen, it would break immersion greatly.
For the same reason, many Metroplis owners want thier PoTs next to huge cities or key locations, which also won't happen, since there already will be towns there.
So once Portalarium decide to work on PoTs and have a list infront of them with the number of different sizes, it makes the absolute sense to start with the largest towns and walk down the list.
That is pure logic, and anything else is pure selfish greed.

And no, i don't own a PoT, fully or partly.

 

A combination of time and value would probably be best. Much like the landrush is a combination of era and value. There isn't the same obvious divide of era in POTs, but the devs could do it on a monthly basis.

The first POT to be purchased was Paxlair. They are also a metro which means you'd think they would be the first to place. Well if it is done by the total number of dollars pledge to POTs then Paxlair and the account which holds the metro is not (afaik) the account which has invested the most money into POTs. From the premise that the greatest amount of dollars invested begats the first choice of location then that honour belongs to another player (no names) who owns several POTs yet purchased them later.

This is further muddied by upgrades. Pax was the first city and potentially the first metro, yet it was not Pax who request the metro to be added to the game.

Most POT leaders want a fair chance at the best spots. Rewarding early pledgers is similar to the eras in KS, while rewarding the greatest number of dollars respects players who have helped fund the game the most. Both make sense, but not so much in isolation.

I'm naively suggesting that segregation by month pledged as a coarse enough filter to not give the devs a headache but also give some meaning to those who pledged early. Then divide that month by greatest value invested.

 

I am quite sure that Portalarium will use the same First come first serve basis as they do with Pledges.

Metropolis first, First come first serve
City after, First come , first serve.

And so on.

And it's the most logical way to go.

 

I think the way they are doing it is just fine. Turning this all into a Money issue gets us nowhere but into a dark pit of finger pointing.

Sacrifice has a Hamlet, so I do have vested interest in this.

TBH, I like that they are starting with the biggest PoT's, they will get most of all scenarios dealt with right away and they will see what they can do and what they can't. By the time they get to the smaller towns, it will be well organized process.

I 'm pretty good knowing that by the time they get to our Hamlet all the kinks will be worked out and they will know what they can do to support us and what they can't.

 

Yes, they said that in the telethon. That is by dollar value (then subdivided by time), which produces a vastly different outcome to what I said. It isn't the most logical way; it is one logical way. It isn't necessarily the fairest, but fairness is relative.

edit:
Disclosure: I have a POT but I pledged quite late. So if I upgrade then I benefit from the pure dollar value method of selecting location. I'm basically arguing against myself getting a better spot....

I pledged late because I didn't have the money, I didn't pay for any sota purchase on credit. Although I like to point out that my town post was the first one made after the megapost was made public. Which is obviously a better way to rank the spots (j/k!). I'd be number 2 after Paxlair (granting they moved to SotA to be a town since KS) ?

 

I don't think it should be purely on a first come first served basis, but I feel it should not be purely based on 'wallet size' either..

Although the OP's post may 'stink' of 'selfish reasons', I do not see why the largest wallets always need to go first either, esp. with POTs where quite a lot of owners are not, as Duke Arradin suggests, groups of people pooled together (few of those groups will ever reach Metropolis!), but also commercially motivated individuals (where "individual" should be interpreted very broadly) who actually only want to make a profit off of players looking for a place to live... (And then there are those that just want the "power"... <G>)

Also, unlike with housing, we are talking about an almost infinitesimally small part of the map being influenced (well below 1% according to the Port team), so I do not see why it would be 'obvious' that Metropoli should go first for 'balancing purposes' per sé.

However, there is also no reason why a holdfast should have first choice of any location... It is - for instance - unlikely a small holdfast would be the closest town to a bigger city like Ardoris or even Brittany...

So it is not an easy question to answer! Perhaps there should be regions defined do define what level you need to be to get prioritized and pick first. So in 'Holdfast regions' anyone gets to pick based on age of pledge, in 'Village regions" any owner of a village or above get to pick based on age, and then the holdfast owners get to pick, in 'Crossroads regions' any owner of a crossroads village or above get to pick based on age, then the village owners and then the holdfast owners get to pick, etc.

That way if you want more (note I say "more" not "absolute") certainty, you pick in a region at your level or below, but if you want a more 'premium' spot, you have to wait and take the risk your preferred location gets picked by someone with a higher pledge?

It's a bit more work to establish the regions, but it seems a rather more balanced approach between 'cash'-ability and age.

I feel that age (ie those who took the biggest leap of faith and 'pledged' early) should be awarded, but I also see that Portalarium, as a company with a commercial obligation to their players *and* employees, has to tread lightly when it comes to finances, and thus need to also keep those that pay more happy!

 

You obviously missed my statement that I was only using the principles as illustrative points and not indictments . There s no good vs. evil discussion here.

This is not housing with thousands of accounts involved and massive logistics needed to manage it. This is around 80 some odd locations at last count. This is about who paid more vs who bought in first.

Selfishness - since when is standing up for yourself bad thing. Since I am somewhere in the 40’s for placement I wont benefit very much anyway. But I do have an interest in making sure my PoT is in the game on release and not waiting due to a late purchase of a metropolis.

Locations need more dev time. I agree but that also means more small towns can be completed quickly. That argument works both ways. Solution - all PoTs make the early release date or none at all.
Your largest wallet statement…. Well my group is small but we group funded too. So it is about who has the most money at purchase. Stating that it is 100% false is misleading. It is about the cost of PoTs and where they get placed in the development cycle.

Location decisions should be purely game design decisions and not I paid more money so I get what I want. What about groups that want to grow their hamlet up to a metropolis over time as upgrades exist in the game design? Do they get moved or what? What if a metropolis fails does it get yanked or moved? So location based on size won’t work too well in the long run either.

As for your statement “That is pure logic, and anything else is pure selfish greed.” Your just attempting to turn the argument into a personal attack on those with fewer assets, resources, or members. After all we didn’t ask for someone to be put us the end of a line after we bought in early.

Greed involves putting yourself ahead at someone else's expense. We are the party being shoved around. Not you by your own admission; since you don't own a PoT, fully or partly. So I have to wonder why you are arguing for or against something that according to you doesn’t even involve you.

This entire issue can be resolved if Portalarium agrees to the following:

• All PoTs will be in the game before the early release date.
• No PoT will be placed in a biome not of their choice. (Portalarium has stated that is their intent; but, what if there are not enough locations to support too many people desiring the same type of biome).
• Locations of large vs small PoT sizes will be decided by Portalarium not by the size of an entity’s wallet while guaranteeing biome and quadrant placement.

If this became policy I would completely agree that the order of development does not matter and this argument becomes moot.

 

Just for perspective...I pledged early and a lot...so I should be near the front of the line.

I think doing the Metropolis's first is the right way to go, here's why. If they start with the largest towns, they can spread them out more easily. That's it, it's that simple. If you start with holdfasts, you're far more likely to end up with a handful of them in the same quadrant. Then when the owner of a larger city shows up and says "We want to be here!" You don't have do gymnastics to fit them into that area.

With there being over 80 POT's at the moment, I think it's going to be a crowded map as it is. So I would hope they would start with the largest cities first and then as more POTs are designed, just tell the owners right off the bat, "sorry, that quadrant is already full for episode I".

That's what's best for the game, imo.

 

I for one don't care. I have a crossroads, if I am first or last, it is of no concern to me. My pledge to the game was not for a pecking order, it was for development. I can change my name from Sawtooth to some other name easily and I can fit into any scenario by just a couple pen strokes. If my place is taken before I can get it, I will still have my town and can enjoy the game. It seems like many people are thinking of this as work, and I really did not pledge to work in a game hehe, I pledged for fun.

 

They said 80 POTs were well below 1% of the map's hexes... So that is why I feel "spreading" POTs based on size to prevent a "full quadrant" is an irrelevant argument...

Agreed... As a citizen of our combined towns (Port Phoenix/Sawtooth), I really do not care that much where exactly we end up... As long as they don't take away our town, and give us a shot at our desired biome, I'll be happy!

 

With there being over 80 POT's at the moment, I think it's going to be a crowded map as it is. So I would hope they would start with the largest cities first and then as more POTs are designed, just tell the owners right off the bat, "sorry, that quadrant is already full for episode I.

It does seem very crowded and hence the concerns about making it into the game for release 1. It just doesn't make sense to me that someone could purchase a metropolis in February and suddenly push the development cycle way off for smaller town owners who purchased a long time ago and potentially push them out of release 1.

 

I understand that it is 1% of land mass not 1% of hexes. I also understand that land mass includes the land inside each scene in the calculation and not just the overland map.
Could you point me to your clarification so that I am not misleading.

 

I do understand your concern, and I have that same concern do to lore and planning, but some people do not care about that, and must have what they must have. I will not mention names lol. I wont let that bother me though, because I do not want to associate with those types of people anyway. Let them place first, and I will place far away from them haha!

 

First off, I'm pretty sure when they say that they're including water hexes and the Vale. So I think that's a little misleading.

Secondly, I would challenge anyone to find 80 spots on the mainland map that don't begin to create clutter while also appearing to give each town owner an equal distribution of resources and attractions near their town.

I think it's going to be hard to put 11 Metropolis's on the map and not make it look cluttered. Don't you? Where are we going to put them all? Are we going to put one on either side of Britanny? Are we thinking that it would be a good idea to have one close to Ardoris?

See, to me the map was created without player towns in mind. The roads and the rivers all lead to NPC towns, it's logical. It's not logical to just start throwing towns onto the map. It can and will be done...but it's going to get tricky.

 

I have to agree that this is a very bad case of mission creep and close to creating a very messy quandary to crawl out of. But I have faith in Lord British. But if there is no discussion then he will not become aware. So I made my post to get the ball rolling. Hopefully an equitable outcome can be implemented for all concerned.

 

As i did write in my post, Larger PoTs wont be guaranteed thier location of choise just because they get first pick.

As i also wrote, im sure that they will sit down with exact number infront of them before they decide how they are going to proceed.

If the numbers stay as they do now, 80+ towns with 11 Metros, it would be quite easy to say that they scatter the metros out, and then fill gaps with smaller PoTs.

But what if every single PoT of all the 80 want to live in the same quadrant?
They can't GUARANTEE a quadrant, but they can guarantee biome , i belive.

Lets play with the idea that they come to the conclution that they allow 5 metros per quadrant and 20 of the smaller ones per quadrant, and then they primise that all 80 towns will be ingame before launch....
Easy, First come firt serve, based on size of town and THEN Time of purchase.....

Metros first, Citys after etc...
It would still benifit those who pledged early, becaue it would let you chose your quadrant of choise, but not the exact location...

and since this is EXACTLY how portalarium worded it all so far, and it is EXACTLY how Pledge house lots work, i don't see why this would be ANY different, nor do i understand why it would be done in any other way.

Benefactor Citizens could pledge NOW and buy the smallest PoT and get locations better than any baron/duke . Wouldnt make sense.

 

this is not a duel vote argument, redo your poll and maybe I'll vote.


when I first donated they were at less than a million, thanks to a lot of these high level donors we are now at 5 million and WE will have a much better game as a result, not only that but most are doing a considerable amount for the community and the game developers. One should learn the facts before accusing others of falsehoods, cowardice, and hatred. because failing to do so only reflects poorly on those who are simply miss informed.

 

I hope I'm not sounding negative about any of this. For my part I'm very positive about player owned towns (although I do have concerns there will be too many of them).

I wasn't encouraged by the dev hang out yesterday though. Too many unknowns right now.

I have confidence in the development team to sort it out over time.

 

That seems unlikely at the current rate of growth. 20-30 since the steam release alone.

So Duke Arradin do you agree that my previously suggested solution of (selfless quote of myself - my apologies):

This after all would be a way to resolve this equitably for all concerned. Especially points 1 and 2 .