Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
New clarification info drop from The Ashen Forge interview.
What a great, informative interview. Lots of new clarifications. I may have missed some, so feel free to point them out. I will list the main things I noticed from the first viewing. Many of these are clarifications of questions. I did not list stuff that we had previous confirmation for unless it was changed.
1. Corruption stat degradation affects pvp performance only.
2. Ships must be summoned from shore.
3. Items dropped from having high corruption are indeed lootable, not destroyed.
4. No "carrot" incentive for pkers.
5. Co-op caravans
6. No gifting of account cosmetic items confirmed again.
7. Separate crafting tools per crafting tier.
8. Castle siege guild winner is whoever completes the final long cast first.
9. No API exposure. Other ways for people to access resources like Twitch.
10. A big one here. Server bound citizenship. Main/alts on a single server have same node citizenship. Freehold single per account confirmed once again.
11. Cleric secondary may indeed be able to heal others to a lesser degree depending on augment chosen.
12. Dominant racial affects each node stage.
13. No plan on gender neutral pronouns. LBGTQ concessions through the marriage system.
14. Crafting systems available to be tested Alpha 1-Phase 2.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/260403378##
1. Corruption stat degradation affects pvp performance only.
2. Ships must be summoned from shore.
3. Items dropped from having high corruption are indeed lootable, not destroyed.
4. No "carrot" incentive for pkers.
5. Co-op caravans
6. No gifting of account cosmetic items confirmed again.
7. Separate crafting tools per crafting tier.
8. Castle siege guild winner is whoever completes the final long cast first.
9. No API exposure. Other ways for people to access resources like Twitch.
10. A big one here. Server bound citizenship. Main/alts on a single server have same node citizenship. Freehold single per account confirmed once again.
11. Cleric secondary may indeed be able to heal others to a lesser degree depending on augment chosen.
12. Dominant racial affects each node stage.
13. No plan on gender neutral pronouns. LBGTQ concessions through the marriage system.
14. Crafting systems available to be tested Alpha 1-Phase 2.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/260403378##
0
Comments
After witnessing @Dygz's pointed questions, and counter-questions, for Steven, I was like "Yep. That's @Dygz. Classic.", lol. Good job, Ashen Forge, and thanks!
Hope the content providers like @Aggelos, Death's Proxy, yourself, and others, continue to keep the community up to date, and informed.
My main concern for clarification, which we received, is that alts can have citizenship with different nodes as long as they are on a separate server. Which gives each alt on a separate server the potential to have in-node housing.
Although, only ever one Freehold per account.
That seems much more fair than only one of each type of housing for one account.
Which was seeming like a possible reading of the info before the clarification.
So, ZOIs do expand considerably as the Parent Node levels.
In the example provided during the interview, Steven confirmed the possibility that Aggelos' Dwarven Metropolis could engulf my Elven Town. Aggelos could rally his followers to siege and "destroy" my Town (Parent Node > Child Node), but the PvP combat alliance rules would prevent my Town from being able to siege Aggelos' Metropolis (Child Node < Parent Node).
My understanding of what Steven said is that Aggelos would not be able to interfere with the political decisions and development of my Town, other than raising taxes.
Steven also confirmed that the racial influence of a Node could change from Town stage to City stage, based on which race contributed more to the development of the Node during the Town stage. And, because the narrative and perks of a race can be significantly affected by which race dominates the Node[s], it can be important to ensure that there are Towns and Cities (...and Metropolises) in the world which are dominated by your race/culture.
If Aggelos hates Elves, he will probably want to do whatever it takes to make sure that Elves never make the greatest contribution to the development of his Node. And would also do whatever it takes to ensure that his Node is never absorbed by an Elven City or Metropolis.
Hence, motivating Node v Node wars, possibly even with neighboring Nodes and neighboring ZOIs (where ZOIs are acting similar to nations).
If we get another interview with Steven, which seems likely, we will try to get answers to the questions asked from the chat.
I did try to get a couple answered and also started with some from other people here on the forums.
But, trying to fit as much as possible into just an hour was a challenge.
Whew!!!
The way I took it is that node state affects content. We always knew this, it was just confirmation that race is a factor in node state in regards to content - specifically, quests.
Once the game gets going, there absolutely will be people that want to change a specific node for racial reasons - but there will be people that want to keep a node as it is due to the content it has opened up, or due to having built up a crafting/trading empire in the node, or wanting the specific assets the node has provided, or being friends with the nodes rulers. Or hell, maybe that guy that is the only one that can make that bow is from that node - then everyone wanting that bow will defend that node.
If a player - regardless of if they are a guild leader, a metropolis ruler, or neither - says to the general playerbase "we should siege this node in order to change it's predominant race", most players will stop and think "do I want that node to be sieged? How will that impact the content I participate in?". If a given player has a reason to not want the node to change, they either won't participate in the siege, or will defend the node.
The only way this won't hold true is if the guild or node leader has a means of compelling players to spend their time on these things. I could see it with some guilds (do what you're told or you get booted), but I don't see that being the case with nodes.
I absolutely do see people deliberately siegeing nodes that are vassals of their metropolis, but there needs to be more than just one reason to do so or the numbers just won't be there.
I'm not just talking about race either. I don't see people wanting to change a node just to get access to a new group dungeon having much luck by themselves either.
Granted, the CD for renouncing and applying/accepting membership will diminish the facility of these occurrences. But, still very much possible, for those dedicated enough. Risk vs. Reward. Cool stuff.
I wasn't aware of a mechanic that disabled players from flagging other players, ally, fellow citizen, or otherwise. If indeed that were the case, that would be a damper on player agency, imo. But, from the interview, a node swallowed up by a larger "parent node", would not automatically trigger an alliance with "child nodes". Parent nodes, and potential child nodes, could still carry over any previous acrimony. But, the parent node would be in a more dominant position, giving it's ability to siege the child.
Which brings me to another point. While I liked a lot of what Steven was relaying about intended mechanics, and the reasoning behind those choices, I'm not really sold on the aforementioned "parent > child" node mechanic. If a node is absorbed by a more dominant node, it would add to player agency/intrigue, if that child node(s) had the agency to rebel against a parent node. Sort of like a disgruntled populace is tired of the heavy handed taxation of a distant, tyrannical ruler, type of scenario.
Granted, players could just leave, for other lands, or possibly help an enemy node to successfully siege the parent node, thus breaking it's hold on the outlying citizenry. But, the ability for a confederation of child nodes to come together, to siege a bigger parent node, definitely adds flavor to internecine conflict.
Also, I can see players possibly leading pogroms, such as trying to limit or exclude, certain races. But, I don't think most ruling bodies would want ghettos in their node(s), seeing as how it would inhibit prosperity, this inhibiting node progress. Though, also, still possible, I think.
But, yes. If players are given good reasons to not want a Node to change, they will defend the Node. Just as if players are given good reasons to want a Node to change, they will siege the Node.
Which is why racial progression is built into Node advancement in the way that it is - besides just architectural style.
But, you get to believe whatever you want to believe.
I can definitely get with the flagging system, in regards to parties, and raids, for obvious reasons. Guild members as well.
I can understand, to a degree, about including Alliances in that sphere of "non-flagging" as well...hmmm. Was originally envisioning a little more "grey area", when it came to how alliances might function. But, this could still work. Just means that if there is to be any internal conflict, players would have to be more subtle/subversive, than just attacking an ally, outright. At least while their still allies. Depends on the facility with which players can enter, and break off, alliances. Interesting.
That said, forcing ghettos on to other players would be quite difficult when the players in question are freely able to move to a different node.
When battlegrounds are a thing (sieges and caravan attacks, and potentially other things as well), every player needs to be flagged as being on one side or the other. It only makes sense that a citizen of a node is automatically flagged as a defender of that node - just as the driver of a caravan is automatically flagged as a defender of that caravan.
Under these circumstances, PvP flags (green, purple and red) aren't a "thing". That type of flagging only applies when battlegrounds are not present.
Without this separation of flagging systems there would be conflict in regards to guilds with citizens of multiple nodes in regards to sieges.
If I remember correctly, the quote from Steven was in the context of PvP flagging, not battleground flagging, and so - again as my assumption - quotes about battleground flagging don't factor in to it as they are different systems.
The other thing to me is that it would seem odd for Steven to refer to citizens of the same node as "alliance members" rather than citizens of the same node - especially in the context of an alliance system being present. He picks his words fairly carefully, so it would be somewhat out of place for him to make that mistake.
Saying that, I totally agree that clarification is needed. To me though, the balance of everything tips towards the statement being about allied guilds and their members.
And probably a variety of types of Node alliances.
In our interview with Steven, we learned that according to these rules, the Parent Node can initiate a siege against a Child Node, but a Child Node cannot initiate a siege against a Parent Node.
So there is some degree of hierarchy in some of the alliance types.
(Of course, pretty much everything Noanni perceives is from the guild perspective.)