Node & Gear loss attrition

Noaani

leonerdo wrote: »

If nodes serve the whole community equally, then the decisions made by the mayor are either good for everyone or bad for everyone. I'm kinda hoping that doesn't happen. It would be more interesting to have competing policy ideals and internal political debates.

If mayoral decisions DO impact citizen unequally, then guilds would have a small incentive to dominate and control the elections, in order to guarantee better policies for their members, while ignoring the needs of other players. But it doesn't seem like many of the node systems would have such unequal impacts.

Regardless, y'all have worn me down on this topic, and I'll concede that node-guild squabbles will probably be relatively minor. The edge case possibilities aren't worth fighting over.

Oh, there will be some competing ideals within a node, this should go without saying. Even if everyone in a node wants the same basic services, the order at which they are bought on will differ.

No doubt players in scientific nodes will use this as a platform for elections, and any cooperation in other node types in regards to leadership contests will be based on this as well.

Thing is - while there will be services that some players want over others, they will all serve guilds that call that node home equally well.

If a guild is made up of a roughly similar demographic to the general population in terms of basic class, the desires of the guild will reflect the desires of the population.

This is why there is no point in a *guild* attempting to take control of these things - the things that they want are the things that the population in general would probably want, and if that is not the case, the node still has to go with what the bulk of the population wants.

A straight up example of this would be religion. There is every reason to believe that a node can only build one temple - and the mayor decides who that temple is to. Every god in the game will benefit some players, which means they will all benefit guilds.

However, if there happens to be more citizens of a node that want a temple to one of the gods, that is the one the node should probably build.

Atama

I just love the idea of there being good nodes, and bad nodes, and nodes that grow and improve, and others that atrophy and fail. The drama when a good node is mismanaged, the hope when people try to fix a bad node. It makes me feel like the game will never get stale, regardless of how much content gets added by developers.

(Yes, I may be overly optimistic, but damn there is so much potential here.)

Ventharien

Nah i agree, the potential is amazing. Especially as nodes start becoming famous, and people are straight up immigrating across Vera to be a part of that badass metros cluster of nodes.

Noaani

I'm not sure if I see all that much potential for individual nodes to be bought back after poor leadership, I would think even a month of mismanagement would see most nodes lose enough players to see atrophy become a real threat, and if you lose a level like this, you will likely end up as a vassal node of one of your previous vassals.

I do see all of this happening in regards to a node cluster though.

Tyrantor

noaani wrote: »

To add to the above

Tyrantor wrote: »

Honestly I feel like you you're a true board warrior and i'm not sure if you're responses are more detrimental to me, you or both of us as this continues. I just quoted something Steven said, I didn't make that theory up. However unlikely it is - it does at a minimum prove that you can Siege your own node via individual, guild or alliance if you choose to.

I'm in this thread to make sure there is no outright misinformation left unchallenged - that is my primary reason for posting in this specific thread.

Since I am posting in this thread, a secondary objective here is to attempt to correct you in things you are completely incorrect in, and point out things you are likely incorrect on or things you are making a massive, unfounded assumption on.

For some reason though, you spent a whole lot longer than you should have refusing to believe that you were incorrect in your initial assumptions - and that the fact that those assumptions were incorrect makes the actual question in the OP that you asked essentially obsolete.



Maybe you'll get around to that at some point, but I'm not holding my breath.

Seems like the exact definition of a board warrior so thank you for making my point. While you do have some good information you're not right about everything you've posted here even though you think you are. Hope we end up on the same server my friend.

GoaB

These players likely developed a comfort level from any of these possible scenarios and having to learn and adjust to something else could create turmoil that they simple do not want to deal with or try and learn.

That's like saying "Some people are uncomfortable with the castle move in chess. When they move is played, it allow the opponent to connect their rooks, creating an adverse situation. This needs to be removed from the game because feeling."