Design Question About Permanent States For Nodes

ArchivedUser

Heyo @Intrepid and All! 

 So I was mulling this idea over and thought I'd just bring it to you. WHAT IF... 

Once a node has been in its LAST phase (Big town/ Full City/ Metropolis) for more than a year or an 'X' number of time. How great would it be or not if it became officially affixed to the world? Meaning it can finally prosper eternally on this server and in some ways keep growing as a safe(er) social hub everyone can really rely on all the time!? Allowing @Intrepid to add different mechanics to it. Gameplay, social or otherwise (Festivals!? < One thing LOTRO does great). 

Now this wouldn't be applicable for ALL nodes, just a few but it would, I think, create even more diversity between server worlds (That stays/ permanent), establish a serious sense of accomplishment and belonging for players (Who fought for it) and be a fun hook to keep players invested in some nods (Keep us online for INSANE number of hours!). 

Thoughts? Ideas? Complaints? Violent Reactions? Share!

~ V

ArchivedUser

Hmmm...shades of 'Crowfall' and their 'Eternal Kingdoms.'

This could maybe be a future Livestream Question to Devs , if put briefly? 

ArchivedUser

My violent reaction to this would be to suggest any civilization may rise or fall... I think locking something in permanently defeats a core concept of the game.. however I could certainly get behind the idea of a long term city becoming 'thicker' over time.. just generally the longer it stands the harder it would be to tear down .

after all, there is power in old things...

ArchivedUser

Don't see it happening. Goes against the very core of their concept that anything built up can be torn down. Cities in RL die/morph/change all the time. And occasionally are wiped right off the map. “One of the problems with all of this is that not all narratives are equal. Imagine, to take a silly example, that someone told you story after story extolling the virtues of eating dog shit. You've been told these stories since you were a child. You believe them. You eat dog shit hotdogs, dog shit ice cream, General Tso's dog shit. Sooner or later, if you are exposed to some other foods, you might figure out that dog shit really doesn't taste good. Or if you cling too tightly to these stories (or if your enculturation is so strong that dog shit actually does taste good to you), the diet might make you sick or kill you. To make this example a little less silly, substitute the word pesticides for dog shit. Or, for that matter, substitute Big Mac, Whopper, or Coca Cola.” 
― Derrick Jensen, Endgame, Vol. 1: The Problem of Civilization

ArchivedUser

Wraeven said:

My violent reaction to this would be to suggest any civilization may rise or fall... I think locking something in permanently defeats a core concept of the game.. however I could certainly get behind the idea of a long term city becoming 'thicker' over time.. just generally the longer it stands the harder it would be to tear down .

after all, there is power in old things...

Ooh I like that 'Thicker', basically stronger. My fear is that players (we) do have a certain sense of attachment/ belonging to accomplishment but it doesn't last, it tends to fade as we need and eat up new content. So I'm wondering how will the node system still work after 1 or 2 years... The hardcore AoC players will have locked their nodes in and no one (bunch of noobs) won't be able to budge them (If not backed by top levels) OR vice versa high tier players will just not care anymore about lower level nodes and the newer players (which tend to be much less in numbers) will level through zones, not really caring about nodes or having a hard time reaching Metropolis level because they are so few. 

I think for an mmo to be truly successful it needs to evolve with the players. Offering the same thing 2 years in but with just higher level looking skin won't do it for everyone. They'll have to think NEXT LEVEL SHIT when it comes to nodes. 

I know we don't have all the details and maybe it'll sound better to me when we do. I LIKE the idea a lot, I'm just curious to see how it still fares after 6, 12, 24 months. 

But ya, I love the 'THICKER' idea, solution. Not permanent but with time becomes more locked in. 

ArchivedUser

I think that instead of permanently existing, then if it was say completely annihilated that ruins would remain, that would be pretty cool. Mostly for the new players to see it and the old players to say, "Yeah I used to live there."

ArchivedUser

Change isn't permanent but change is.

ArchivedUser

I like the idea of ruins. Then they could be mined just like the ancient roman ruins when Rome fell. People built new cities right next to the ruins so that they could use the easily gathered materials.

ArchivedUser

Silverbrand said:

I think that instead of permanently existing, then if it was say completely annihilated that ruins would remain, that would be pretty cool. Mostly for the new players to see it and the old players to say, "Yeah I used to live there."

Oooh, I like this a lot... Like a node could have an 'Abandoned' status... Just a ruin. I imagine SOME nodes might start as ruins though. I'm SECRETELY hoping that there's a few secret/hidden nodes in the world. Like, you don't even know it's one until all of a sudden it updates because of something you did. Something possibly completely random like killing an insane amount of bunnies! 

ArchivedUser

Silverbrand said:

I think that instead of permanently existing, then if it was say completely annihilated that ruins would remain, that would be pretty cool. Mostly for the new players to see it and the old players to say, "Yeah I used to live there."

I'm opposed to the idea of any metropolis ever becoming permanent but I think the idea of a city leaving ruins is great.  I think this  notion could be expanded on even as twisted humanoid races would possibly move in and set it up as their own base. Lets say since they're using a ruined shell they're not capable of building the walls that the metropolis originally had but lets say the breaches in the walls were fixed with more primitive fortifications.  If left unchecked they will begin to grow in power and send out raiding parties against adjacent nodes as well.

With this idea I think as a node is deleveled instead of it just reverting to the previous level of development that the area should simply progressively break down. The housing at the center are still mansions but they've lost their buffer from the attack they had when it was a higher level node.  It doesn't make sense just because a node is deleveled that your house that was a mansion reverts back to a "tier 2" building.  I'm thinking that the city is kinda like attack on titan.  Each of the nodes circles, squares or whatever geometric shape has its own wall so a metropolis as it progresses is like an onion that is layered.  Climbing back up the "civilization ladder" restores its former glory and perhaps because of the ruins that are left its easier for this former metropolis to reachieve its former glory?

ArchivedUser

Like the others, I don't agree with something becoming more permanent.

If the players have a consensus they like a place, it will probably be more permanent anyway.

I do like the idea of ruin too. Any abandoned nodes would have had resources dug up and treasures found. So anything that wasn't found by the players should probably be laying around the ruins for anyone to find. This also allows a kind of head start for social groups on the resource harvesting front.

ArchivedUser

You would be taking away the sandbox element from the game with this idea, simple as that. With the current node system we have, it is possible to have this kind of 'eternal kingdoms' with the power of players instead of a dictated game mechanic, which is a lot better imo.