@Noaani Reminds me of the demon-hunter Paladin who lost the connection to his god after becoming possessed by a demon himself and killing several nuns. That demon was exorcised but he still had to suffer through being a fallen Paladin. The Clockwork Wars
Corrupted Bounty Hunter could be a fascinating story for Ashes.
Except corrupt isn't a play style it's a punishment in ashes. If it were more like fable (good vs evil) and it affected your interactions in towns (npc interactions, tax rates, ability to become a citizen in a religious node, purchase and sell goods) and with players it could be an interesting mechanic instead it's being used as a redundant pvp deterent to protect people who don't want to pvp (which isn't a bad thing). Which honestly the bounty system properly implemented would heavily encourage player policing of the same mechanics.
Of course people will also move more wider, but most of the time players will play near their own node, generally and averagely. That is just simple math.
Well if players in militaristic nodes' focus to gank own non-combatant citizens and that way slow down their node's progression, then i guess i will just be amazed of the stupidity.
I was planning to bountyhunt mostly in my node and that way give fellow citizens more safe gathering and generally PvE play, so our node would progress faster. To neightbour zones i will assemble ganking groups to slow down progression and steal some resources at the same time.
If people do not care about their citizenship, then i guess my plan is just shit.
I'm not so sure the game will be node vs node.
The way I understand node progression, nodes gain experience based on what happens within their ZoI, rather than the actions of it's citizens. This is kind of the only way it could work, as nodes need to level up before players can even become citizens of them (I believe we can declare citizenship to nodes at level 3 or higher).
What this means is that if I am in another nodes ZoI, and I am harvesting, that node gets experience, not my node.
If you come over to my node and kill some people harvesting, sure, you'll get their resources. However, the act of harvesting those resources already gave experience to my node - regardless of where those players were from. If you kill them, the resources will still be there for someone else to come along and take, thus still earning my node experience. If you decide to take the resources for yourself, my node still gets the experience as the resources were in my nodes ZoI. Additionally, if PvP kills award experience, then the act of killing other players within my nodes ZoI gives my node experience.
Now, you get the resources, and the resources can be used to make items - the act of which will earn the node that crafting is done in more experience. Thing is, unless you do that crafting yourself, you don't know where those resources - and thus the experience a node can gain from them - will go.
I would argue that if you have a few friends, if you want to get your node ahead of your neighboring node in terms of experience, the best thing you could do is go on a mass murdering spree of the mobs in your nodes ZoI - just rampage through as much as you can as fast as you can.
---
It is also worth pointing out that there is plenty of scope for a player to want a node other than their own to level up.
I can see there being people that want to live in a specific node type, but under the ZoI of a different metropolis. An example of this could be a military node under the ZoI of a scientific node. This gives the military node all the benefits of the first 5 levels, but then also gives them access to the scientific metropolis' ZoI-wide fast travel.
I can see a server with a military node containing improvements to reduce corruption or with bounty hunting, that also has fast travel to ~20% of the leveled up nodes on the server being far different from a server that doesn't have such a military node.
In fact, I can see that military node defending that metropolis when sieged, or helping build it back to metropolis if de-leveled purely in order to keep that fast travel.
In my mind, the interplay between nodes is far more complex than simply "level us up faster, kill everyone else". I mean, once the game is 6 months old or so, I don't even see people looking at their individual node as being their home, but rather looking at a given metropolis and it's ZoI as being their home.
Rather than attacking the neighboring node, you would want to attack the neighboring metropolis, and the nodes within it's ZoI.
Ferryman said:Zerg typically means large group of players which roams through lands killing everything in path and trusting to their numbers. That would be closer truth.
Semantics. But, no. Zerging is a large number of characters forming quickly and throwing themselves against an otherwise highly challenging obstacle - attempting to win by sheer numbers. A large group of players roaming the land killing stuff is just a raid.
Ferryman said:Zerg typically means large group of players which roams through lands killing everything in path and trusting to their numbers. That would be closer truth.
Semantics. But, no. Zerging is a large number of characters forming quickly and throwing themselves against an otherwise highly challenging obstacle - attempting to win by sheer numbers. A large group of players roaming the land killing stuff is just a raid.
Maybe you should understand where the concept of zerging comes from. "The word is derived from the Zergling rush strategy in StarCraft(also a race in Starcraft)." What I've stated is in the links you provided.
In context, if the Ashes design meets its objectives, it will be possible to successfully raid a city, but it will not be possible to successfully zerg a city. Same for a Castle.
Maybe you should understand where the concept of zerging comes from. "The word is derived from the Zergling rush strategy in StarCraft(also a race in Starcraft)." What I've stated is in the links you provided.
In context, if the Ashes design meets its objectives, it will be possible to successfully raid a city, but it will not be possible to successfully zerg a city. Same for a Castle.
I know the etymology of zerging and that has nothing to do with this discussion. We were talking about what zerging means in mmorpgs and not how it first was used in Starcraft.
What you have stated has not been in any of those links. Where you see fast travel mentioned with quick group assembling? You seem to be blind or a liar.
You are just trying to squirm out of the point with arguments totally out of the context. I was at the beginning speaking of open world PvP zerging, which is also known as ZvZ. You are just trying to get the main point out of track with your empty arguments.
And like you have said before, you are a PvE centric player, so it is not actually suprise that you dont know much of PvP side of mmorpgs and terminology & stuff related to that aspect. It is totally fine, but please dont state any arguments if you dont have any knowledge. Chirst..
The etymology of zerging has everything to do with a discussion of the meaning of zerging. No fast travel means there cannot be enough of a rush to qualify as a zerg. But, there are other features in Ashes that prevents zerging as well.
I am a casual PvPer. Not that that has any bearing on this specific topic. You act as though zerging only applies to PvP. It does not. If I had no knowledge of what I speak, I would be the only one in the thread discussing why limited fast travel makes zerging next to impossible in Ashes. I'm explaining to you why people in this thread don't agree with your usage of zerg. I don't think it was a "PvE-centric" person who first pointed that out to you.
No fast travel is one limitation. The other is that most combat is going to require strategy rather than numbers. Steven often talks about mechanics to prevent zerging - which means most players are going to be fight with strategy rather than using numbers instead of strategy. I've been around since before Starcraft, so I understand the meaning of the term quite well.
"Nowadays term zerg is used in mmo games to describe force consisted of large group of lower level players (often with only basic equipment) who use numbers rather then strategy to defeat the enemy, therefore requiring no skill."
Noaani said: I'm not so sure the game will be node vs node.
The way I understand node progression, nodes gain experience based on what happens within their ZoI, rather than the actions of it's citizens. This is kind of the only way it could work, as nodes need to level up before players can even become citizens of them (I believe we can declare citizenship to nodes at level 3 or higher).
What this means is that if I am in another nodes ZoI, and I am harvesting, that node gets experience, not my node.
If you come over to my node and kill some people harvesting, sure, you'll get their resources. However, the act of harvesting those resources already gave experience to my node - regardless of where those players were from. If you kill them, the resources will still be there for someone else to come along and take, thus still earning my node experience. If you decide to take the resources for yourself, my node still gets the experience as the resources were in my nodes ZoI. Additionally, if PvP kills award experience, then the act of killing other players within my nodes ZoI gives my node experience.
Great post! Way too long to quote the whole thing!!
I'm thinking that Node A gains xp from players sent on quests to gather resources in Node B. At some point, Node A is going to need the resources delivered and processed into buildings and services in order to grow. So, preventing those resources from being delivered can impede the growth of a node. That is a primary reason for attacking rival caravans. It's not so much about the resources that can be gained from individual players - which will be minimal. Rather, it will be about impeding the delivery of bulk resources to rival nodes and reaping the spoils of destroyed caravans. Delivering the stolen resources to Node B should give the pertinent xp to Node B and no xp to Node A (in regard to delivery of goods).
You dont clearly know how words zerg and zerging are used in some other mmorpgs and especially PvP oriented games. And because you dont have that knowledge why you even bother counter argue? I guess you just want to be against because of some weird principals. Now i see why people gets frustrated to discuss with you. You dont stay at the point and you focus only to write nonsense. I cant take you seriously anymore so i will just ignore you now on. Have fun.
@Noaani Reminds me of the demon-hunter Paladin who lost the connection to his god after becoming possessed by a demon himself and killing several nuns. That demon was exorcised but he still had to suffer through being a fallen Paladin. The Clockwork Wars
Corrupted Bounty Hunter could be a fascinating story for Ashes.
Except corrupt isn't a play style it's a punishment in ashes. If it were more like fable (good vs evil) and it affected your interactions in towns (npc interactions, tax rates, ability to become a citizen in a religious node, purchase and sell goods) and with players it could be an interesting mechanic instead it's being used as a redundant pvp deterent to protect people who don't want to pvp (which isn't a bad thing). Which honestly the bounty system properly implemented would heavily encourage player policing of the same mechanics.
You pose quite an interesting implementation of the corruption system, as a play style, as opposed to a punishment.
I like the idea of additionally incorporating corruption as a play style, while still keeping the "teeth" in it, as a punishment. Though, instead of hard baking mechanics into the game, perhaps something as simple as allowing there to be systems that town leaders can institute, making it harder for "criminals" to operate within town limits, along with the bounty system, of course. I believe a name tag color change is already a part of the system, as well, so people will readily know a criminal when they see one.
I believe that a well adjusted exp debt, gear/stat loss, should still be in place, because there will always be those players that don't care about anything, but killing players (outside of "meaningful" pvp). That kind of toxicity has to be dissuaded from the start, imo. As much as I like the idea of giving as much freedom to players as possible...in a game there have to be limits. And, honestly, I haven't seen enough positive player agency, that I could put my trust in it, to that degree. Not yet, lol.
Of course people will also move more wider, but most of the time players will play near their own node, generally and averagely. That is just simple math.
Well if players in militaristic nodes' focus to gank own non-combatant citizens and that way slow down their node's progression, then i guess i will just be amazed of the stupidity.
I was planning to bountyhunt mostly in my node and that way give fellow citizens more safe gathering and generally PvE play, so our node would progress faster. To neightbour zones i will assemble ganking groups to slow down progression and steal some resources at the same time.
If people do not care about their citizenship, then i guess my plan is just shit.
I'm not so sure the game will be node vs node.
If you come over to my node and kill some people harvesting, sure, you'll get their resources. However, the act of harvesting those resources already gave experience to my node - regardless of where those players were from. If you kill them, the resources will still be there for someone else to come along and take, thus still earning my node experience. If you decide to take the resources for yourself, my node still gets the experience as the resources were in my nodes ZoI. Additionally, if PvP kills award experience, then the act of killing other players within my nodes ZoI gives my node experience.
It will be somehow of Node v Node even it would not be the main thing. At least at point when there are all 5 metropolis already in game and no more can be upgraded before one of five will fall. That will create some node conflicts, as well if several nodes are rushing towards metropolis level before others.
Well i am not sure either how the xp goes in nodes and it does not actually matter at my example. If i manage to gank some gatherers, it is true that someone else will eventually come to gather to the same spot, but the question is when? It is not happening instantly so i have slowed down the progression of node X time. And if my group continues this kind of behavior we might have slowed down at least a bit the progression and if we get away alive before bountyhunters gets there, then we maybe got some resources as well (as loot drop). But if i am ganking and i am corrupted already, i wont stop to gather for sure. That will most likely lead to death (unless we have a large group).. or unless we are baiting and ambushing..
You dont clearly know how words zerg and zerging are used in some other mmorpgs and especially PvP oriented games. And because you dont have that knowledge why you even bother counter argue? I guess you just want to be against because of some weird principals. Now i see why people gets frustrated to discuss with you. You dont stay at the point and you focus only to write nonsense. I cant take you seriously anymore so i will just ignore you now on. Have fun.
Ashes is not a "PvP-oriented" game. Which is part of this specific point. It's like someone saying, "Pizza Hut doesn't sell Coke." And you saying, "Pizza Hut does because where I come from the generic term for all sodas is coke. Even Pepsi is coke." I didn't say anything about how terms are used in the games you play. I'm explaining to you why people are saying that fast travel precludes zerging in Ashes. In addition to other Ashes features that preclude zerging. Semantics.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Caravans#Zergs Zergs are empowered by fast-travel. Meaningful travel times will prevent zerg play from being so much of an influence. We're very cognizant of the fact that we don't want to see zerging be a mechanic that's utilized by guilds to accomplish content or just to steamroll over sieges... There are specific mechanics that we are working on that will be seen through the testing phases that relate to a degree of understanding of certain systems that can't just be overrun with numbers.
Well, yeah, it's a watered down version of EQNext and Revival - with many devs from Daybreak. Which is a main draw. One of the lead designers of Revival is now the lead designer of CoE.
So, I would expect people to see similarities. And, I also expect similar issues that plagued EQNext and Revival.
That is a primary reason for attacking rival caravans. It's not so much about the resources that can be gained from individual players - which will be minimal.
As well as being a system for node related quests, caravans act like giant chests to move resources around the game world in ways players are unable to do without them.
One needs to remember that if a resource - say, ore - is harvested in a node, and put up for sale on the market in that node, the buyer has to be in that node in order to buy it, and takes possession of the resource in that same node (all excluding the possibility of economic metropolis).
If that node doesn't have the infrastructure to process that ore (smelter, forge etc), it will need to be taken to a node that does have it. The only way to do this efficiently (barring scientific metropolis) is via caravan.
While a player may only be able to hold 50 ore due to weight limitations, a caravan may be able to hold 1,000 (numbers assumptions, mechanic itself confirmed). Attacking a caravan full of metal ore rewards the attackers - if successful - that metal ore.
Now, we don't know what the rewards will be for attacking a node progression based caravan - but if that node progression quest simply asks for players to bring a caravan of X raw resource to the node, then we can obviously assume those resources are the reward for successfully attacking the caravan.
We will play in Alpha and hope to see the game evolve to be as fun as it promises to be. But I remain disappointed that griefers are going to have a new playground among us.
Tbh, it's not griefing if it's just killing. That's just killing simply because : A. He/She wanted too there and then. B .He/She wanted your farming spot. C. He/She Just don't like ya ^.^
The way I understand griefing would be repeating A or C, over and over again, just for the kill. If you keep coming back for more, it's honestly not griefing
This game is quite dependent on the PvP side of things. In any case, I do hope, that in despite of this, you and your wify manages to overcome your grudge towards pkers, and enjoy loads and loads of decent gaming hours in Ashes of Creation. :-)
It will be somehow of Node v Node even it would not be the main thing. At least at point when there are all 5 metropolis already in game and no more can be upgraded before one of five will fall. That will create some node conflicts, as well if several nodes are rushing towards metropolis level before others.
Well i am not sure either how the xp goes in nodes and it does not actually matter at my example. If i manage to gank some gatherers, it is true that someone else will eventually come to gather to the same spot, but the question is when? It is not happening instantly so i have slowed down the progression of node X time. And if my group continues this kind of behavior we might have slowed down at least a bit the progression and if we get away alive before bountyhunters gets there, then we maybe got some resources as well (as loot drop). But if i am ganking and i am corrupted already, i wont stop to gather for sure. That will most likely lead to death (unless we have a large group).. or unless we are baiting and ambushing..
There will be some node based competition, I just don't see the purpose of it being with a direct neighbor - even if that neighbor is leveling faster than you.
If a neighboring node is leveling faster than your node, it won't take long before your node falls under it's ZoI (we can declare citizenship at node level 3, and I believe ZoI expansion starts at level 4). Thing is, if you spend time and resources trying to pull down your neighbor, while another nearby cluster of nodes all work together, you may find yourself and your neighboring node on the outer edge of a metropolis ZoI, meaning you can't progress past level 3 or 4.
To me, that is the worst possible start to the game.
The best thing to do, in my mind, is to look at a group or cluster of nodes as your home - not an individual node. Better off being in a city next to a metropolis rather than in a village or town on the outskirts.
This holds true as the nodes level up as well. Different node types will offer different things - not just to the citizens, but to everyone nearby. An obvious example of this is military nodes offering bounty hunters, but it is probable that all node types will have a service that all players will want to make use of, and players looking at a cluster of nodes as being our home rather than a single node will make this much easier - especially if everyone in that cluster looks at things the same.
So, at least to me, when leveling up nodes, I would rather attack nearby clusters of nodes rather than a direct node neighbor.
That said, if you do go off attacking a nearby cluster of nodes, and are not preventing the progression of those nodes as much or more than the amount of progress you could provide your node or node cluster, you are better off simply working on your own node than worrying about interrupting the progress of others.
There is a lot we don't know about the node system and ZoI's. We don't even know if there is room in the game world for a level 5 node to exist outside of the ZoI of a metropolis - and that one possibility can change a lot about the game in itself.
Neighbors may indeed be in conflict because of different racial dominance or because of different node type. If the community in my node wants the ZOI to be a Scientific ZOI, we're going to be fighting against neighboring nodes of different types. Same if the community in my node wants the ZOI to be Vek but a Py'Rai node is competing with us for dominance. Could be the same for religious dominance.
I expect the Metropolises to be fairly spread out. So, even though all of the above conflict will be a factor throughout the game, I don't think we will be competing so much to prevent ZOIs directly on our borders from becoming a Metropolis.
Noaani said: Now, we don't know what the rewards will be for attacking a node progression based caravan - but if that node progression quest simply asks for players to bring a caravan of X raw resource to the node, then we can obviously assume those resources are the reward for successfully attacking the caravan.
Exactly! Which is why it's way better to attack a caravan for resources than to attack individuals for dropped resources. Dropped resources isn't the primary reason to attack individual players or to engage individual players in PvP combat. The reward of dropped resources is not enough of a guarantee - as in no guarantee that the resources that happen to drop will be of much value. If what you want are valuable resources, it makes much more sense to attack a caravan, where Corruption is disabled. Most of the loot comes from disrupting the caravan, plus there should also be some loot from individual kills, too.
I'm not saying that there is no value to looting resources from individual characters off doing their own thing. I'm saying, in response to the suggestion that there would be no reason to engage individuals in PvP if you couldn't loot the dropped resources, looting dropped resources from individuals is probably going to be a minor motivation among more primary motivations - especially when attacking caravans is probably the better path to valuable resources, for a variety of reasons.
Neighbors may indeed be in conflict because of different racial dominance or because of different node type. If the community in my node wants the ZOI to be a Scientific ZOI, we're going to be fighting against neighboring nodes of different types. Same if the community in my node wants the ZOI to be Vek but a Py'Rai node is competing with us for dominance. Could be the same for religious dominance.
I expect the Metropolises to be fairly spread out. So, even though all of the above conflict will be a factor throughout the game, I don't think we will be competing so much to prevent ZOIs directly on our borders from becoming a Metropolis.
But, we shall see.
There are times I wonder how much of a grip you have on concepts in Ashes.
I can see you ending up on the outskirts of a metropolis, with everyone in the neighboring nodes being out to get you for hampering their progression. I mean, if you get a scientific metropolis up first, it isn't like that is a permanent thing anyway. it will be sieged and deleveled in a matter of months.
Seems to me the better approach is to build up a strong, multi-node community that is able to sustain itself through losing a siege and having to level up a second node to metropolis.
I mean, if the game didn't fluctuate, then sure, go all out to get the node you want. Thing is, the game will shift and change, and if you are a player wanting to be in this game long term, you would do well setting yourself up for the long term rather than fighting future allies for short term success.
The only thing race brings to a node is architecture. Architecture is node based, not ZoI based. You will see nodes that have an architecture different from that of the node they are in the ZoI of.
I'm not actually sure what you mean by "I don't think we will be competing so much to prevent ZOIs directly on our borders". Those words in that order doesn't make any sense to me at all.
@Noaani Reminds me of the demon-hunter Paladin who lost the connection to his god after becoming possessed by a demon himself and killing several nuns. That demon was exorcised but he still had to suffer through being a fallen Paladin. The Clockwork Wars
Corrupted Bounty Hunter could be a fascinating story for Ashes.
Except corrupt isn't a play style it's a punishment in ashes. If it were more like fable (good vs evil) and it affected your interactions in towns (npc interactions, tax rates, ability to become a citizen in a religious node, purchase and sell goods) and with players it could be an interesting mechanic instead it's being used as a redundant pvp deterent to protect people who don't want to pvp (which isn't a bad thing). Which honestly the bounty system properly implemented would heavily encourage player policing of the same mechanics.
Hunh. I don't understand why you wrote that as a reply to what I wrote. I play MMORPGs to focus on the RPG aspects of the game.
What you are talking about is how NPCs and player characters treat the Bounty Hunter while Corrupted. What I'm talking about is what happens to the character from an RP/story standpoint after the Corruption score has been lost and the character is no longer mechanically Corrupted. How does that affect his ability to be a Bounty Hunter? Does she have to start the quest over again? Will the quest have increased challenge after being stripped of the BH title previously? And how will the character's reputation be affected among the server community from an RP perspective?
I also don't quite understand why you think being Corrupted could not be a "playstyle". When I played KOA:Reckoning, one thing I love most about the game was that it turned me from a carebear pacifist into a cut-throat rogue who literally reveled in slitting people's throats. The graphics for that behavior were fabulous and it's the game where I felt most like I was a Rogue. One of the most enjoyable features was turning red after being caught pick-pocketing to murdering someone and the NPCs either running away in terror at the sight of me or cowering away from me as they refused to trade or speak to me - and hiding from the guards as they attempted to find the whereabouts of the nearby criminal (me).
As I've said many times before... If I enjoyed griefing people, I would have alt zombies that strive to gain as much Corruption as possible before falling to pieces from stat decay and/or being hacked to death by Bounty hunters or former victims. Corruption is only effective as a punishment if I lose more progression on a specific character than I am willing to lose. On some characters, gaining Corruption could, indeed, be a playstyle - because it;s really all about the RP. I could have tons of fun playing a Corrupted character - beyond the aspect of ruining the play session of a non-combatant player by forcing them into a PvP combat encounter against their will.
Neighbors may indeed be in conflict because of different racial dominance or because of different node type. If the community in my node wants the ZOI to be a Scientific ZOI, we're going to be fighting against neighboring nodes of different types. Same if the community in my node wants the ZOI to be Vek but a Py'Rai node is competing with us for dominance. Could be the same for religious dominance.
I expect the Metropolises to be fairly spread out. So, even though all of the above conflict will be a factor throughout the game, I don't think we will be competing so much to prevent ZOIs directly on our borders from becoming a Metropolis.
But, we shall see.
There are times I wonder how much of a grip you have on concepts in Ashes.
I can see you ending up on the outskirts of a metropolis, with everyone in the neighboring nodes being out to get you for hampering their progression. I mean, if you get a scientific metropolis up first, it isn't like that is a permanent thing anyway. it will be sieged and deleveled in a matter of months.
Seems to me the better approach is to build up a strong, multi-node community that is able to sustain itself through losing a siege and having to level up a second node to metropolis.
I mean, if the game didn't fluctuate, then sure, go all out to get the node you want. Thing is, the game will shift and change, and if you are a player wanting to be in this game long term, you would do well setting yourself up for the long term rather than fighting future allies for short term success.
The only thing race brings to a node is architecture. Architecture is node based, not ZoI based. You will see nodes that have an architecture different from that of the node they are in the ZoI of.
I'm not actually sure what you mean by "I don't think we will be competing so much to prevent ZOIs directly on our borders". Those words in that order doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Demurring from the node community aspect of your post, I would like to briefly chime in on the architecture part.
I could be mistaken, but I believe that Steven has stated that architecture is ZOI based, while the type of node (military, scientific, divine, economic) is node based. The race with the majority that contributes to a particular nodes growth, within its ZOI, will determine it's architecture.
If the racial majority changes while that particular node is active, I'm not sure it it changes as well, or stays as previously determined.
Also, when a node turns into a camp, you will be able to tell by it's aesthetics what type of node it is. Thus, you can continue to aid it's growth, if it's the node you like, or scout for another one, more to your liking. If I'm not mistaken.
The quote I go with for determining node type early on is that you will be able to tell from the npcs that populate the early camps. Soldiers-military, Merchants-economic, Priests-religious, and Scholars-scientific.
Neighbors may indeed be in conflict because of different racial dominance or because of different node type. If the community in my node wants the ZOI to be a Scientific ZOI, we're going to be fighting against neighboring nodes of different types. Same if the community in my node wants the ZOI to be Vek but a Py'Rai node is competing with us for dominance. Could be the same for religious dominance.
I expect the Metropolises to be fairly spread out. So, even though all of the above conflict will be a factor throughout the game, I don't think we will be competing so much to prevent ZOIs directly on our borders from becoming a Metropolis.
But, we shall see.
There are times I wonder how much of a grip you have on concepts in Ashes.
I can see you ending up on the outskirts of a metropolis, with everyone in the neighboring nodes being out to get you for hampering their progression. I mean, if you get a scientific metropolis up first, it isn't like that is a permanent thing anyway. it will be sieged and deleveled in a matter of months.
Seems to me the better approach is to build up a strong, multi-node community that is able to sustain itself through losing a siege and having to level up a second node to metropolis.
I mean, if the game didn't fluctuate, then sure, go all out to get the node you want. Thing is, the game will shift and change, and if you are a player wanting to be in this game long term, you would do well setting yourself up for the long term rather than fighting future allies for short term success.
The only thing race brings to a node is architecture. Architecture is node based, not ZoI based. You will see nodes that have an architecture different from that of the node they are in the ZoI of.
I'm not actually sure what you mean by "I don't think we will be competing so much to prevent ZOIs directly on our borders". Those words in that order doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Getting a Scientific Metropolis up first might get the node sieged and deleveled in a matter of months - especially if most of the people on the server want a world that has no fast travel. Working together to make sure the Metropolises you want built on the server actually get created is precisely what causes the node v node PvP conflict. What type of node will be the 5th Metropolis on a server? What race will dominate that Metropolis? Will people on a server want 3 Divine Metropolises, a Military Metropolis and an Economic Metropolis? Will the people who want a Scientific node on that server just capitulate and stop striving to tear down rival nodes in order to ensure a Scientific node exists? Will the Empyrean Scientists and the Kaelar Scientists band together to raze the Economic Metropolis first and then the eradicate the Nikua Devine Metropolis so that the server will instead have 2 Scientific Metropolises, 2 Divine Metropolises and a Military Metropolis? There is a ton of potential for node v node conflict.
Building up a strong community is a great strategy if you have the numbers to support the Metropolis you hope to build. I imagine that, to start, we won't really have Metropolises butting up against each other because the racial starting areas will most likely be quite spread out. So, for the most part, it will be people of the same race banding together to create a Metropolis. But, then the community has to decide on type. And there is no guarantee that won;t involve node v node PvP conflict. It's likely to involve some node v node PvP conflict fairly commonly.
I am planning to play a Vek in a Scientific or Divine Metropolis, so, I'm going to be fighting locally to ensure that there is a Vek Scientific or Divine Metropolis, preferably fairly near the Orc starting area. If that means node v node warfare against neighboring Ren'Kai Military or Economic nodes, so be it. I might compromise to work towards Ren'Kai Scientific or Divine Metropolis. I'm a carebear pacifist, but if I have to engage in node v node warfare with neghboring nodes to get the type of Metropolis I want, node v node conflict will be an acceptable path to reaching my goals. Will there be enough Vek around who also want a Scientific or Devine Metropolis? Will I have to compromise for a Ren'Kai Scientific of Divine Metropolis? Or will those who share my vision have to form armies to fight rival nodes to ensure we get the type of Metropolis we want?
The game will fluctuate - precisely due to node v node conflict.
Architecture is based on the race that most contributes to the node as it progresses. Node type is determined by the node itself. We won't really know what type a node is until it reaches Stage 1.
Yes. If you cut off my sentence, it's probably not going to make any sense. What I wrote is, "I don't think we will be competing so much to prevent ZOIs directly on our borders from becoming a Metropolis." You wrote about the threat of nearby nodes absorbing our node into its ZOI. That happens on borders. If Metropolis_A gets knocked down to City-A, that reduces its ZOI significantly. It gives City-B the potential to absorb a node that was formerly part of the Metropolis A ZOI once City-B becomes Metropolis-B. But, my expectation is that node v node combat over which ZOI becomes a Metropolis will be much more spread out than that, rather than it being a border dispute. I think the local border disputes/neighbor node disputes when it comes to which node gets absorbed in the ZOI will peter out before the Metropolis stage.
Demurring from the node community aspect of your post, I would like to briefly chime in on the architecture part.
I could be mistaken, but I believe that Steven has stated that architecture is ZOI based, while the type of node (military, scientific, divine, economic) is node based. The race with the majority that contributes to a particular nodes growth, within its ZOI, will determine it's architecture.
If the racial majority changes while that particular node is active, I'm not sure it it changes as well, or stays as previously determined.
I'm not saying that no such quote exists, but I have looked for it and not found anything.
The only actual quote I have found about node architecture what the answer to a question actually asked by Dygz - which baffles me even more about how s/he doesn't grasp this - is from here.
If you're a character who is collecting experience, you have markers that denote your race. When you give experience to the node, just by doing your normal activities, that experience is tagged with your racial marker.
When the node develops it will represent in it's architecture what the domanant racial marker was in contribution to it's development.
So in short, yes, nodes will reflect the predominant race in it's development.
No where in that does it talk about ZoI.
Now again, I am not saying there isn't a quote out there that says race affects the architecture of the whole ZoI, I am simply saying there is a quote out there saying it affects node architecture, and if anything else is to be assumed or claimed, imo a quote is needed.
Getting a Scientific Metropolis up first might get the node sieged and deleveled in a matter of months - especially if most of the people on the server want a world that has no fast travel.
Working together to make sure the Metropolises you want built on the server actually get created is precisely what causes the node v node PvP conflict. What type of node will be the 5th Metropolis on a server? What race will dominate that Metropolis? Will people on a server want 3 Divine Metropolises, a Military Metropolis and an Economic Metropolis? Will the people who want a Scientific node on that server just capitulate and stop striving to tear down rival nodes in order to ensure a Scientific node exists? Will the Empyrean Scientists and the Kaelar Scientists band together to raze the Economic Metropolis first and then the eradicate the Nikua Devine Metropolis so that the server will instead have 2 Scientific Metropolises, 2 Divine Metropolises and a Military Metropolis? There is a ton of potential for node v node conflict.
Building up a strong community is a great strategy if you have the numbers to support the Metropolis you hope to build. I imagine that, to start, we won't really have Metropolises butting up against each other because the racial starting areas will most likely be quite spread out. So, for the most part, it will be people of the same race banding together to create a Metropolis. But, then the community has to decide on type. And there is no guarantee that won;t involve node v node PvP conflict. It's likely to involve some node v node PvP conflict fairly commonly.
I am planning to play a Vek in a Scientific or Divine Metropolis, so, I'm going to be fighting locally to ensure that there is a Vek Scientific or Divine Metropolis, preferably fairly near the Orc starting area. If that means node v node warfare against neighboring Ren'Kai Military or Economic nodes, so be it. I might compromise to work towards Ren'Kai Scientific or Divine Metropolis. I'm a carebear pacifist, but if I have to engage in node v node warfare with neghboring nodes to get the type of Metropolis I want, node v node conflict will be an acceptable path to reaching my goals. Will there be enough Vek around who also want a Scientific or Devine Metropolis? Will I have to compromise for a Ren'Kai Scientific of Divine Metropolis? Or will those who share my vision have to form armies to fight rival nodes to ensure we get the type of Metropolis we want?
The game will fluctuate - precisely due to node v node conflict.
Architecture is based on the race that most contributes to the node as it progresses. Node type is determined by the node itself. We won't really know what type a node is until it reaches Stage 1.
Yes. If you cut off my sentence, it's probably not going to make any sense. What I wrote is, "I don't think we will be competing so much to prevent ZOIs directly on our borders from becoming a Metropolis." You wrote about the threat of nearby nodes absorbing our node into its ZOI. That happens on borders. If Metropolis_A gets knocked down to City-A, that reduces its ZOI significantly. It gives City-B the potential to absorb a node that was formerly part of the Metropolis A ZOI once City-B becomes Metropolis-B. But, my expectation is that node v node combat over which ZOI becomes a Metropolis will be much more spread out than that, rather than it being a border dispute. I think the local border disputes/neighbor node disputes when it comes to which node gets absorbed in the ZOI will peter out before the Metropolis stage.
Even adding those extra four words doesn't mean it makes any sense. It made more without them than with them, as ZoI's don't become metropoles, nodes do.
I'm not saying the idea behind the sentence doesn't make sense - I can't say that as I don't know what the idea behind it is. All I am saying is that the sentence itself makes no sense to me.
I think you are going to be the only player in the whole game that has both a racial type and node type they are going to try and go for. To most players, architecture will offer a nice distinction between nodes, but will never become something to specifically work towards.
Most players will want to build up a strong community, and will realize that exactly what that community is at the start is actually totally irrelevant in the short term as it will change often. Most players will just want to be involved in getting *a* metropolis built, rather than getting the exact metropolis they want with the exact racial architecture they want.
And I can tell you know who will win out of a group of people just wanting it built, and a group of people excluding 8 races.
When we are talking about a thousand or more players building up a metropolis, with experience going to it from players in potentially over a dozen different nodes, having any sort of actual control over the architecture is likely out of the scope of players at all, let alone the scope of a single player.
If you're a character who is collecting experience, you have markers that denote your race. When you give experience to the node, just by doing your normal activities, that experience is tagged with your racial marker.
When the node develops it will represent in it's architecture what the domanant racial marker was in contribution to it's development.
So in short, yes, nodes will reflect the predominant race in it's development.
No where in that does it talk about ZoI.
Now again, I am not saying there isn't a quote out there that says race affects the architecture of the whole ZoI, I am simply saying there is a quote out there saying it affects node architecture, and if anything else is to be assumed or claimed, imo a quote is needed.
When the ZOI expands, it's going to carry with it the racial marker of the Parent node.
If you're a character who is collecting experience, you have markers that denote your race. When you give experience to the node, just by doing your normal activities, that experience is tagged with your racial marker.
When the node develops it will represent in it's architecture what the domanant racial marker was in contribution to it's development.
So in short, yes, nodes will reflect the predominant race in it's development.
No where in that does it talk about ZoI.
Now again, I am not saying there isn't a quote out there that says race affects the architecture of the whole ZoI, I am simply saying there is a quote out there saying it affects node architecture, and if anything else is to be assumed or claimed, imo a quote is needed.
When the ZOI expands, it's going to carry with it the racial marker of the Parent node.
This is the notion I am trying to find a quote to confirm.
The way it has been described, ZoI plays no direct role at all. Each node is it's own thing, and the races that contribute to that specific node are what determines that specific nodes architecture.
Now again, I am not saying this is definite, I am saying I *can* find a quote to back this up (posted above), but *can not* find anything at all to claim ZoI has an impact.
Basically, we have a quote saying architecture is node specific, claiming anything besides that needs a more recent quote.
A node within the ZoI of a larger node is still it's own unique thing. It is not consumed by the larger node. Architecture taking over based on ZoI is different to architecture being node specific, and so claiming it needs a quote.
Honestly, that's an interesting social experiment. In regards to whether players will try to overtly influence a nodes architecture. While extremely hard, at face value, I guess it all depends.
First, I could only imagine a large guild trying to achieve something of that nature. Finding a particular node they want, and ensuring all members of the guild are of a preferred, predominant race.
To make sure the node "flags" in their favor, as it's developed, they would have to dissuade other races from entering the area in large enough numbers to affect the architecture. While also trying to encourage potential players of the same race to join their cause.
That's a lot of work, no doubt. Also, if the architecture is fluid, pertaining to the dominant race, as opposed to fixed, that's additional maintenance. As in, "Non-Dwarves not allowed!", type of stuff, lol. OR, at least, stringently enforced minimal allowance of "outside races".
Would be interesting to see if that could be pulled off, successfully.
Comments
The way I understand node progression, nodes gain experience based on what happens within their ZoI, rather than the actions of it's citizens. This is kind of the only way it could work, as nodes need to level up before players can even become citizens of them (I believe we can declare citizenship to nodes at level 3 or higher).
What this means is that if I am in another nodes ZoI, and I am harvesting, that node gets experience, not my node.
If you come over to my node and kill some people harvesting, sure, you'll get their resources. However, the act of harvesting those resources already gave experience to my node - regardless of where those players were from. If you kill them, the resources will still be there for someone else to come along and take, thus still earning my node experience. If you decide to take the resources for yourself, my node still gets the experience as the resources were in my nodes ZoI. Additionally, if PvP kills award experience, then the act of killing other players within my nodes ZoI gives my node experience.
Now, you get the resources, and the resources can be used to make items - the act of which will earn the node that crafting is done in more experience. Thing is, unless you do that crafting yourself, you don't know where those resources - and thus the experience a node can gain from them - will go.
I would argue that if you have a few friends, if you want to get your node ahead of your neighboring node in terms of experience, the best thing you could do is go on a mass murdering spree of the mobs in your nodes ZoI - just rampage through as much as you can as fast as you can.
---
It is also worth pointing out that there is plenty of scope for a player to want a node other than their own to level up.
I can see there being people that want to live in a specific node type, but under the ZoI of a different metropolis. An example of this could be a military node under the ZoI of a scientific node. This gives the military node all the benefits of the first 5 levels, but then also gives them access to the scientific metropolis' ZoI-wide fast travel.
I can see a server with a military node containing improvements to reduce corruption or with bounty hunting, that also has fast travel to ~20% of the leveled up nodes on the server being far different from a server that doesn't have such a military node.
In fact, I can see that military node defending that metropolis when sieged, or helping build it back to metropolis if de-leveled purely in order to keep that fast travel.
In my mind, the interplay between nodes is far more complex than simply "level us up faster, kill everyone else". I mean, once the game is 6 months old or so, I don't even see people looking at their individual node as being their home, but rather looking at a given metropolis and it's ZoI as being their home.
Rather than attacking the neighboring node, you would want to attack the neighboring metropolis, and the nodes within it's ZoI.
Zerging is a large number of characters forming quickly and throwing themselves against an otherwise highly challenging obstacle - attempting to win by sheer numbers.
A large group of players roaming the land killing stuff is just a raid.
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/27053/zerg
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=zerg
http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Zerg
https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Zerg
https://www.mmorpg.com/mobile/features.cfm?read=9816&game=958&ismb=1
"The word is derived from the Zergling rush strategy in StarCraft(also a race in Starcraft)."
What I've stated is in the links you provided.
In context, if the Ashes design meets its objectives, it will be possible to successfully raid a city, but it will not be possible to successfully zerg a city.
Same for a Castle.
What you have stated has not been in any of those links. Where you see fast travel mentioned with quick group assembling? You seem to be blind or a liar.
You are just trying to squirm out of the point with arguments totally out of the context. I was at the beginning speaking of open world PvP zerging, which is also known as ZvZ. You are just trying to get the main point out of track with your empty arguments.
And like you have said before, you are a PvE centric player, so it is not actually suprise that you dont know much of PvP side of mmorpgs and terminology & stuff related to that aspect. It is totally fine, but please dont state any arguments if you dont have any knowledge. Chirst..
No fast travel means there cannot be enough of a rush to qualify as a zerg.
But, there are other features in Ashes that prevents zerging as well.
I am a casual PvPer. Not that that has any bearing on this specific topic.
You act as though zerging only applies to PvP. It does not.
If I had no knowledge of what I speak, I would be the only one in the thread discussing why limited fast travel makes zerging next to impossible in Ashes. I'm explaining to you why people in this thread don't agree with your usage of zerg.
I don't think it was a "PvE-centric" person who first pointed that out to you.
No fast travel is one limitation.
The other is that most combat is going to require strategy rather than numbers.
Steven often talks about mechanics to prevent zerging - which means most players are going to be fight with strategy rather than using numbers instead of strategy.
I've been around since before Starcraft, so I understand the meaning of the term quite well.
"Nowadays term zerg is used in mmo games to describe force consisted of large group of lower level players (often with only basic equipment) who use numbers rather then strategy to defeat the enemy, therefore requiring no skill."
I'm thinking that Node A gains xp from players sent on quests to gather resources in Node B. At some point, Node A is going to need the resources delivered and processed into buildings and services in order to grow. So, preventing those resources from being delivered can impede the growth of a node.
That is a primary reason for attacking rival caravans. It's not so much about the resources that can be gained from individual players - which will be minimal.
Rather, it will be about impeding the delivery of bulk resources to rival nodes and reaping the spoils of destroyed caravans.
Delivering the stolen resources to Node B should give the pertinent xp to Node B and no xp to Node A (in regard to delivery of goods).
I like the idea of additionally incorporating corruption as a play style, while still keeping the "teeth" in it, as a punishment. Though, instead of hard baking mechanics into the game, perhaps something as simple as allowing there to be systems that town leaders can institute, making it harder for "criminals" to operate within town limits, along with the bounty system, of course. I believe a name tag color change is already a part of the system, as well, so people will readily know a criminal when they see one.
I believe that a well adjusted exp debt, gear/stat loss, should still be in place, because there will always be those players that don't care about anything, but killing players (outside of "meaningful" pvp). That kind of toxicity has to be dissuaded from the start, imo. As much as I like the idea of giving as much freedom to players as possible...in a game there have to be limits. And, honestly, I haven't seen enough positive player agency, that I could put my trust in it, to that degree. Not yet, lol.
Well i am not sure either how the xp goes in nodes and it does not actually matter at my example. If i manage to gank some gatherers, it is true that someone else will eventually come to gather to the same spot, but the question is when? It is not happening instantly so i have slowed down the progression of node X time. And if my group continues this kind of behavior we might have slowed down at least a bit the progression and if we get away alive before bountyhunters gets there, then we maybe got some resources as well (as loot drop). But if i am ganking and i am corrupted already, i wont stop to gather for sure. That will most likely lead to death (unless we have a large group).. or unless we are baiting and ambushing..
Which is part of this specific point.
It's like someone saying, "Pizza Hut doesn't sell Coke."
And you saying, "Pizza Hut does because where I come from the generic term for all sodas is coke. Even Pepsi is coke."
I didn't say anything about how terms are used in the games you play.
I'm explaining to you why people are saying that fast travel precludes zerging in Ashes. In addition to other Ashes features that preclude zerging.
Semantics.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Caravans#Zergs
Zergs are empowered by fast-travel. Meaningful travel times will prevent zerg play from being so much of an influence.
We're very cognizant of the fact that we don't want to see zerging be a mechanic that's utilized by guilds to accomplish content or just to steamroll over sieges... There are specific mechanics that we are working on that will be seen through the testing phases that relate to a degree of understanding of certain systems that can't just be overrun with numbers.
One of the lead designers of Revival is now the lead designer of CoE.
So, I would expect people to see similarities.
And, I also expect similar issues that plagued EQNext and Revival.
One needs to remember that if a resource - say, ore - is harvested in a node, and put up for sale on the market in that node, the buyer has to be in that node in order to buy it, and takes possession of the resource in that same node (all excluding the possibility of economic metropolis).
If that node doesn't have the infrastructure to process that ore (smelter, forge etc), it will need to be taken to a node that does have it. The only way to do this efficiently (barring scientific metropolis) is via caravan.
While a player may only be able to hold 50 ore due to weight limitations, a caravan may be able to hold 1,000 (numbers assumptions, mechanic itself confirmed). Attacking a caravan full of metal ore rewards the attackers - if successful - that metal ore.
Now, we don't know what the rewards will be for attacking a node progression based caravan - but if that node progression quest simply asks for players to bring a caravan of X raw resource to the node, then we can obviously assume those resources are the reward for successfully attacking the caravan.
A. He/She wanted too there and then.
B .He/She wanted your farming spot.
C. He/She Just don't like ya ^.^
The way I understand griefing would be repeating A or C, over and over again, just for the kill. If you keep coming back for more, it's honestly not griefing
This game is quite dependent on the PvP side of things. In any case, I do hope, that in despite of this, you and your wify manages to overcome your grudge towards pkers, and enjoy loads and loads of decent gaming hours in Ashes of Creation. :-)
If a neighboring node is leveling faster than your node, it won't take long before your node falls under it's ZoI (we can declare citizenship at node level 3, and I believe ZoI expansion starts at level 4). Thing is, if you spend time and resources trying to pull down your neighbor, while another nearby cluster of nodes all work together, you may find yourself and your neighboring node on the outer edge of a metropolis ZoI, meaning you can't progress past level 3 or 4.
To me, that is the worst possible start to the game.
The best thing to do, in my mind, is to look at a group or cluster of nodes as your home - not an individual node. Better off being in a city next to a metropolis rather than in a village or town on the outskirts.
This holds true as the nodes level up as well. Different node types will offer different things - not just to the citizens, but to everyone nearby. An obvious example of this is military nodes offering bounty hunters, but it is probable that all node types will have a service that all players will want to make use of, and players looking at a cluster of nodes as being our home rather than a single node will make this much easier - especially if everyone in that cluster looks at things the same.
So, at least to me, when leveling up nodes, I would rather attack nearby clusters of nodes rather than a direct node neighbor.
That said, if you do go off attacking a nearby cluster of nodes, and are not preventing the progression of those nodes as much or more than the amount of progress you could provide your node or node cluster, you are better off simply working on your own node than worrying about interrupting the progress of others.
There is a lot we don't know about the node system and ZoI's. We don't even know if there is room in the game world for a level 5 node to exist outside of the ZoI of a metropolis - and that one possibility can change a lot about the game in itself.
If the community in my node wants the ZOI to be a Scientific ZOI, we're going to be fighting against neighboring nodes of different types.
Same if the community in my node wants the ZOI to be Vek but a Py'Rai node is competing with us for dominance.
Could be the same for religious dominance.
I expect the Metropolises to be fairly spread out. So, even though all of the above conflict will be a factor throughout the game, I don't think we will be competing so much to prevent ZOIs directly on our borders from becoming a Metropolis.
But, we shall see.
Which is why it's way better to attack a caravan for resources than to attack individuals for dropped resources. Dropped resources isn't the primary reason to attack individual players or to engage individual players in PvP combat.
The reward of dropped resources is not enough of a guarantee - as in no guarantee that the resources that happen to drop will be of much value.
If what you want are valuable resources, it makes much more sense to attack a caravan, where Corruption is disabled.
Most of the loot comes from disrupting the caravan, plus there should also be some loot from individual kills, too.
I'm not saying that there is no value to looting resources from individual characters off doing their own thing. I'm saying, in response to the suggestion that there would be no reason to engage individuals in PvP if you couldn't loot the dropped resources, looting dropped resources from individuals is probably going to be a minor motivation among more primary motivations - especially when attacking caravans is probably the better path to valuable resources, for a variety of reasons.
I can see you ending up on the outskirts of a metropolis, with everyone in the neighboring nodes being out to get you for hampering their progression. I mean, if you get a scientific metropolis up first, it isn't like that is a permanent thing anyway. it will be sieged and deleveled in a matter of months.
Seems to me the better approach is to build up a strong, multi-node community that is able to sustain itself through losing a siege and having to level up a second node to metropolis.
I mean, if the game didn't fluctuate, then sure, go all out to get the node you want. Thing is, the game will shift and change, and if you are a player wanting to be in this game long term, you would do well setting yourself up for the long term rather than fighting future allies for short term success.
The only thing race brings to a node is architecture. Architecture is node based, not ZoI based. You will see nodes that have an architecture different from that of the node they are in the ZoI of.
I'm not actually sure what you mean by "I don't think we will be competing so much to prevent ZOIs directly on our borders". Those words in that order doesn't make any sense to me at all.
I play MMORPGs to focus on the RPG aspects of the game.
What you are talking about is how NPCs and player characters treat the Bounty Hunter while Corrupted. What I'm talking about is what happens to the character from an RP/story standpoint after the Corruption score has been lost and the character is no longer mechanically Corrupted.
How does that affect his ability to be a Bounty Hunter? Does she have to start the quest over again? Will the quest have increased challenge after being stripped of the BH title previously? And how will the character's reputation be affected among the server community from an RP perspective?
I also don't quite understand why you think being Corrupted could not be a "playstyle".
When I played KOA:Reckoning, one thing I love most about the game was that it turned me from a carebear pacifist into a cut-throat rogue who literally reveled in slitting people's throats. The graphics for that behavior were fabulous and it's the game where I felt most like I was a Rogue.
One of the most enjoyable features was turning red after being caught pick-pocketing to murdering someone and the NPCs either running away in terror at the sight of me or cowering away from me as they refused to trade or speak to me - and hiding from the guards as they attempted to find the whereabouts of the nearby criminal (me).
As I've said many times before...
If I enjoyed griefing people, I would have alt zombies that strive to gain as much Corruption as possible before falling to pieces from stat decay and/or being hacked to death by Bounty hunters or former victims.
Corruption is only effective as a punishment if I lose more progression on a specific character than I am willing to lose.
On some characters, gaining Corruption could, indeed, be a playstyle - because it;s really all about the RP.
I could have tons of fun playing a Corrupted character - beyond the aspect of ruining the play session of a non-combatant player by forcing them into a PvP combat encounter against their will.
I could be mistaken, but I believe that Steven has stated that architecture is ZOI based, while the type of node (military, scientific, divine, economic) is node based. The race with the majority that contributes to a particular nodes growth, within its ZOI, will determine it's architecture.
If the racial majority changes while that particular node is active, I'm not sure it it changes as well, or stays as previously determined.
Working together to make sure the Metropolises you want built on the server actually get created is precisely what causes the node v node PvP conflict.
What type of node will be the 5th Metropolis on a server?
What race will dominate that Metropolis?
Will people on a server want 3 Divine Metropolises, a Military Metropolis and an Economic Metropolis?
Will the people who want a Scientific node on that server just capitulate and stop striving to tear down rival nodes in order to ensure a Scientific node exists?
Will the Empyrean Scientists and the Kaelar Scientists band together to raze the Economic Metropolis first and then the eradicate the Nikua Devine Metropolis so that the server will instead have 2 Scientific Metropolises, 2 Divine Metropolises and a Military Metropolis?
There is a ton of potential for node v node conflict.
Building up a strong community is a great strategy if you have the numbers to support the Metropolis you hope to build.
I imagine that, to start, we won't really have Metropolises butting up against each other because the racial starting areas will most likely be quite spread out.
So, for the most part, it will be people of the same race banding together to create a Metropolis.
But, then the community has to decide on type. And there is no guarantee that won;t involve node v node PvP conflict. It's likely to involve some node v node PvP conflict fairly commonly.
I am planning to play a Vek in a Scientific or Divine Metropolis, so, I'm going to be fighting locally to ensure that there is a Vek Scientific or Divine Metropolis, preferably fairly near the Orc starting area.
If that means node v node warfare against neighboring Ren'Kai Military or Economic nodes, so be it.
I might compromise to work towards Ren'Kai Scientific or Divine Metropolis.
I'm a carebear pacifist, but if I have to engage in node v node warfare with neghboring nodes to get the type of Metropolis I want, node v node conflict will be an acceptable path to reaching my goals.
Will there be enough Vek around who also want a Scientific or Devine Metropolis? Will I have to compromise for a Ren'Kai Scientific of Divine Metropolis?
Or will those who share my vision have to form armies to fight rival nodes to ensure we get the type of Metropolis we want?
The game will fluctuate - precisely due to node v node conflict.
Architecture is based on the race that most contributes to the node as it progresses.
Node type is determined by the node itself. We won't really know what type a node is until it reaches Stage 1.
Yes. If you cut off my sentence, it's probably not going to make any sense.
What I wrote is, "I don't think we will be competing so much to prevent ZOIs directly on our borders from becoming a Metropolis."
You wrote about the threat of nearby nodes absorbing our node into its ZOI. That happens on borders.
If Metropolis_A gets knocked down to City-A, that reduces its ZOI significantly.
It gives City-B the potential to absorb a node that was formerly part of the Metropolis A ZOI once City-B becomes Metropolis-B.
But, my expectation is that node v node combat over which ZOI becomes a Metropolis will be much more spread out than that, rather than it being a border dispute.
I think the local border disputes/neighbor node disputes when it comes to which node gets absorbed in the ZOI will peter out before the Metropolis stage.
The only actual quote I have found about node architecture what the answer to a question actually asked by Dygz - which baffles me even more about how s/he doesn't grasp this - is from here.
No where in that does it talk about ZoI.
Now again, I am not saying there isn't a quote out there that says race affects the architecture of the whole ZoI, I am simply saying there is a quote out there saying it affects node architecture, and if anything else is to be assumed or claimed, imo a quote is needed.
I'm not saying the idea behind the sentence doesn't make sense - I can't say that as I don't know what the idea behind it is. All I am saying is that the sentence itself makes no sense to me.
I think you are going to be the only player in the whole game that has both a racial type and node type they are going to try and go for. To most players, architecture will offer a nice distinction between nodes, but will never become something to specifically work towards.
Most players will want to build up a strong community, and will realize that exactly what that community is at the start is actually totally irrelevant in the short term as it will change often. Most players will just want to be involved in getting *a* metropolis built, rather than getting the exact metropolis they want with the exact racial architecture they want.
And I can tell you know who will win out of a group of people just wanting it built, and a group of people excluding 8 races.
When we are talking about a thousand or more players building up a metropolis, with experience going to it from players in potentially over a dozen different nodes, having any sort of actual control over the architecture is likely out of the scope of players at all, let alone the scope of a single player.
The way it has been described, ZoI plays no direct role at all. Each node is it's own thing, and the races that contribute to that specific node are what determines that specific nodes architecture.
Now again, I am not saying this is definite, I am saying I *can* find a quote to back this up (posted above), but *can not* find anything at all to claim ZoI has an impact.
Basically, we have a quote saying architecture is node specific, claiming anything besides that needs a more recent quote.
A node within the ZoI of a larger node is still it's own unique thing. It is not consumed by the larger node. Architecture taking over based on ZoI is different to architecture being node specific, and so claiming it needs a quote.
First, I could only imagine a large guild trying to achieve something of that nature. Finding a particular node they want, and ensuring all members of the guild are of a preferred, predominant race.
To make sure the node "flags" in their favor, as it's developed, they would have to dissuade other races from entering the area in large enough numbers to affect the architecture. While also trying to encourage potential players of the same race to join their cause.
That's a lot of work, no doubt. Also, if the architecture is fluid, pertaining to the dominant race, as opposed to fixed, that's additional maintenance. As in, "Non-Dwarves not allowed!", type of stuff, lol. OR, at least, stringently enforced minimal allowance of "outside races".
Would be interesting to see if that could be pulled off, successfully.