I mean, I just show up to the siege as a defender and sabotage "my own team" by miss appropriating ressources. I don't see the issue not being able to attack. <smirk>
I can be a life fulfilling dream. - Zekece
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
Ah isn't there a node degradation where in if the exp received by the node is not maintained, a node might delevel?
Yes, that's currently a thing although I think they're still tossing the idea around. I like the idea, though, and it makes sense.
Because imagine if a level 6 node and it's surrounding area was suddenly abandoned due to whatever reasons (bad government, decline in server population, etc.). If that area suddenly sees sharp declines in activity, the nodes could go into ruin and start to delevel, and therefore would more accurately reflect the region. It's a balancing act, though, you don't want to make it too hard to keep a region up.
It could also be a VERY passive aggressive way to siege a level 6 node, by simply NOT questing in its ZOI. If left completely alone, the whole area could slowly go into ruin without ever needing to siege it.
I mean, I just show up to the siege as a defender and sabotage "my own team" by miss appropriating ressources. I don't see the issue not being able to attack. <smirk>
Nodes 6 in theory will have the most well equiped players, can't all node 6 people make an alliance and keep protecting their nodes together against other less well equiped nodes?
Nodes 6 in theory will have the most well equiped players, can't all node 6 people make an alliance and keep protecting their nodes together against other less well equiped nodes?
Theoretically, yes. And if node 6 mayors and guilds are actively working together, I very much see that happening. I think there are simply more incentives to see players work together than actively against another.
And imagine how pissed of players of a level 6 node would be if they lost a siege? They might forever remember the names of the players and guilds that took them down.
Yes, the initial geographic region is the node’s base ZOI size, and then it will level up and grow beyond that. The potential size of its ZOI however, is static. It can never grow beyond the reach of a metro.
It's been stated that at no point will you ever be on the map and not be within some nodes ZOI.
Yes you will be in constant contact with nodes’ ZOIs as you travel, I don’t see how this would change that nodes have changing ZOI sizes based on their level.
So what happens when a node levels up to level 1? Would its ZOI overlap with surrounding level 0's? Or are you suggesting that its ZOI would grow and then "push out" the level 0's, and the overall size of the ZOI of the 0's would shrink?
Nodes’ ZOIs only grow and shrink dependent on their own level. As nodes level up, their ZOIs encompass a wider area and more land, so yes they can and are intended to completely overlap other nodes’ ZOIs at a point. That’s how vassalage works, by a node’s growing ZOI encompassing lower level nodes nearby.
I appreciate the patience and the graphs Caeryl! So that all makes more sense and is definitely more complicated than how I was originally understanding it. I was stuck seeing the system in a particular way, and that first picture was enough to let me see things differently. I also think the most interesting part of that first picture is on the right side.
There is a blue area overlapping a pink area, and just judging by how the overlapped area appears to be highlighted blue, it appears that the blue area has overtaken part of the pink area.
I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for nodes to be completely overlapped by more than one node. Judging by the second picture, that certainly seems possible.
I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for a node to have more than one parent... I'm assuming not. That might make the whole hierarchy of nodes/vassals/parents get a little murky.
I find this whole system fascinating. I also wonder if players are going to have access to a map like the first one, and if they'll be able to see the boundaries of the nodes within the world.
I appreciate the patience and the graphs Caeryl! So that all makes more sense and is definitely more complicated than how I was originally understanding it. I was stuck seeing the system in a particular way, and that first picture was enough to let me see things differently. I also think the most interesting part of that first picture is on the right side.
There is a blue area overlapping a pink area, and just judging by how the overlapped area appears to be highlighted blue, it appears that the blue area has overtaken part of the pink area.
I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for nodes to be completely overlapped by more than one node. Judging by the second picture, that certainly seems possible.
I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for a node to have more than one parent... I'm assuming not. That might make the whole hierarchy of nodes/vassals/parents get a little murky.
I find this whole system fascinating. I also wonder if players are going to have access to a map like the first one, and if they'll be able to see the boundaries of the nodes within the world.
There’s plans for a cartographer profession, but we don’t have many specifics on it besides that they’ll be able to create and sell maps which... well I assumed as much lol.
I appreciate the patience and the graphs Caeryl! So that all makes more sense and is definitely more complicated than how I was originally understanding it. I was stuck seeing the system in a particular way, and that first picture was enough to let me see things differently. I also think the most interesting part of that first picture is on the right side.
There is a blue area overlapping a pink area, and just judging by how the overlapped area appears to be highlighted blue, it appears that the blue area has overtaken part of the pink area.
I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for nodes to be completely overlapped by more than one node. Judging by the second picture, that certainly seems possible.
I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for a node to have more than one parent... I'm assuming not. That might make the whole hierarchy of nodes/vassals/parents get a little murky.
I find this whole system fascinating. I also wonder if players are going to have access to a map like the first one, and if they'll be able to see the boundaries of the nodes within the world.
There’s plans for a cartographer profession, but we don’t have many specifics on it besides that they’ll be able to create and sell maps which... well I assumed as much lol.
I was discussing this with people when we were talking about the scribe profession. We pretty much came to the conclusion the same great thing allowing us to play the game ruins the idea.
I appreciate the patience and the graphs Caeryl! So that all makes more sense and is definitely more complicated than how I was originally understanding it. I was stuck seeing the system in a particular way, and that first picture was enough to let me see things differently. I also think the most interesting part of that first picture is on the right side.
There is a blue area overlapping a pink area, and just judging by how the overlapped area appears to be highlighted blue, it appears that the blue area has overtaken part of the pink area.
I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for nodes to be completely overlapped by more than one node. Judging by the second picture, that certainly seems possible.
I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for a node to have more than one parent... I'm assuming not. That might make the whole hierarchy of nodes/vassals/parents get a little murky.
I find this whole system fascinating. I also wonder if players are going to have access to a map like the first one, and if they'll be able to see the boundaries of the nodes within the world.
There’s plans for a cartographer profession, but we don’t have many specifics on it besides that they’ll be able to create and sell maps which... well I assumed as much lol.
I was discussing this with people when we were talking about the scribe profession. We pretty much came to the conclusion the same great thing allowing us to play the game ruins the idea.
The internet lol
Yep. Even though the servers will be different, unless maps made by scribes update in real time to look monitor nodes growing, falling, etc. Then word of mouth and screenshots will be faster than anyone could be in the game.
The game is kind of too far off from completion for me to have a proper opinion on it. However it makes sense that the people closest to the node would have the biggest reason to fight it. I think it would be better that if nodes can pick their vassal nodes and if the vassal node responds with a yes it happens. Until then just not have vassal nodes naturally.
Castles are occupied by guilds. Guilds will control a metro or more nodes. If you want to increase your node to a metro, your guild will have to siege the castle controlling the unwanted metro, so you can dictate the controlled nodes growth.
0
Options
XenantayaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
So just to follow up on this and retract my prior statements, someone asked basically this question on Jahlon's stream last night. Jahlon (a knowledge content creator who hosts lengthy Q&As) responded that the players from the vassal node that wanted to participate in the siege of the parent would need to drop citizenship. Thus, sounds like OP is correct that citizens of vassal nodes cannot siege parent nodes, even though those vassal citizens have the most to gain from a siege.
I suppose we'll see how things work over the course of testing and the early game, but I remain concerned that this limitation will make the game too static once all 5 metropolises are established, with each controlling 20% of the world. At that point, only citizens under Metropolis B (or C, D, or E) will be able to siege Metropolis A, but I doubt they'll have much incentive to do so on their own, unless Metro B is lead by aggressive PvPers who just want siege content, or if they know the only way to pop a new raid or some other content is to destroy Metro A. Of course, the citizens of a City that is Metro A's vassal could offer gold, resources, etc. to entice Metro B to siege Metro A, creating diplomacy opportunities.
And in the end, it's an MMO and I hope Intrepid will change the rules as needed after launch so that sieges play a role in changing the world. Hell, Albion Online has radically changed the basic rules of territory control and access repeatedly after launch.
While it's understandable that vassal nodes might be unhappy with their metros and parent nodes and what not, you forget that they'll also be benefiting from things like the reliquary (I think that's what it was called) which gives the city and citizens benefits from their accomplishments, which gives an incentive to grow with their parent node. Sure it might be a little sad that maybe your city can't become a metropolis, but not everyone wants to live in the big city. If you're unhappy with the state of things, well the mayor changes pretty frequently, (you can always just suck it up), there's nothing stopping you from leaving, and if you really want you can always make a stand of some sort, be it rebellion or what have you.
However, it should be understood that the metropolis is not the end all be all of the game. For example, you could always be an influential figure in your religion's faction or say something like the scholar or thieves' guild. You could always start your own business in the big metro where there's more people while your home is back in your level 4 town. Or maybe you go it alone and do some PvE content. Point is, there are so many different systems other than the node system that, while the problems you're talking about could be an issue if the game was solely based on just the node system, the node system is really just one of many different systems meant to enhance your experience in the game.
Also, it should be hard to attack a metropolis. There should be actual effort to siege one successfully. You think you can just rebel or attack the land's capital willy nilly? There are not only high level adventurers in there, you got the mayor's giant mount with AoE damage coming your way, they got city benefits from the reliquary, and they got their city fortifications, in addition to any guilds that might be stationed there. You're gonna need a whole lot more than a group of friends to take that on. And honestly, that's how it should be. If you're asking for an easy way for your city to become the local 'numero uno', then it should be just as easy for your city to get taken down to.
We'll see how things turn out though, I could always be totally wrong, but this is going to be a game where you have to invest, and there's always someone who has invested more than you into something. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I honestly don't think it's going to be an issue, and if it is, then the devs will do something about it.
If your node is progression blocked, you need to drop citizenship to siege the higher node. ( are you locked out of reclaiming said citizenship for 2 weeks?) They however can bully anyone at anytime.
There is no purpose attacking nodes in other kingdoms other than loot / pvp.
Those victories will not progress your node.
Long story Long seems to be:
Local uprisings to grow your node:
If you win, you now have to race any and all same sized nodes in the area from growing to that progression size first, thus ruining all your plans and hard work.
Win or lose, there will be repercussions. The people who just lost their homes will want revenge. The other same sized nodes will be happy to help. ( it removes 1 competitor). Every node below you will be happy to help. (they can grow 1 extra level). Now it's in everybody's self interest to wipe you out.
Example:
City A wants to become the Metropolis. They drop citizenship, recruit help, lay Siege. Lose: Metro comes after them, to prevent further uprisings.
Win: Former Metro comes after them, revenge
Everyone else hops on board either way, because it opens up a progression slot.
Worse yet?:
City A wins and continues to exist. ( cooldown period? or just survives retaliatory stike) City B & C didn't waste any time or effort preparing for a siege, but now have an equal chance to progress to Metropolis level. (assuming 3 cities / kingdom)
Worse worse yet??:
You place a siege banner against the Level 6, but then the next day a siege banner is placed at your doorstep. ( this may not be possible, but I cannot see why not, perhaps unlikely though ) Whilst you were planning your coup... That friendly ( or so you thought ) level 4 town has chosen to take advantage and crush you while you're off in the big city.
I am new to AoC, and I do realize not every scenario here is a "likely" outcome. But is any of it wrong? Growing nodes seems a very...very risky business. ( all is conjecture and subject to change)
Also, if citizenship slots are fewer than housing available in a node, you might never regain your citizenship even if you achieve the optimal outcome.
Deep into that Darkness peering. Long there I stood; Wondering, Fearing, Doubting...
"Vassals are subject to the government, alliances, wars, taxes, and trade of their parent node, and are able to receive federal aid from them.
Vassal nodes cannot declare war on their parent node or any of their vassals.
Citizens of vassals are bound by the diplomatic states of the parent node."
Those are quotes from the wiki.
While I have not found anything explicit about such in my admittedly lazy reading into the topic, doesn’t this heavily imply that vassal nodes will have some sort of representation? I understand the role of node mayor will not be a layabout position; seeing as benefits are conferred to vassal nodes from parent nodes, shouldn’t diplomatic ties require the vassal mayors to work as representatives for their nodes. Is there any information I’m not seeing regarding expansion of leadership selection into vassal nodes, so leaders of parent nodes may be beholden to vassal nodes they levee taxes from?
This thread seems, at times, to treat the term “diplomacy” as though it solely refers to aggressive conflict with a ruling body. I’m fairly sure that groups of like-minded players will advance these fastest, so comparatively few will be stuck under the umbrella of a different specialization than desired. Still, it seems vassal nodes would be more like provinces in a nation than territories that must give more than they benefit, with little means of voicing dissent.
While it's understandable that vassal nodes might be unhappy with their metros and parent nodes and what not, you forget that they'll also be benefiting from things like the reliquary (I think that's what it was called) which gives the city and citizens benefits from their accomplishments, which gives an incentive to grow with their parent node. Sure it might be a little sad that maybe your city can't become a metropolis, but not everyone wants to live in the big city. If you're unhappy with the state of things, well the mayor changes pretty frequently, (you can always just suck it up), there's nothing stopping you from leaving, and if you really want you can always make a stand of some sort, be it rebellion or what have you.
However, it should be understood that the metropolis is not the end all be all of the game. For example, you could always be an influential figure in your religion's faction or say something like the scholar or thieves' guild. You could always start your own business in the big metro where there's more people while your home is back in your level 4 town. Or maybe you go it alone and do some PvE content. Point is, there are so many different systems other than the node system that, while the problems you're talking about could be an issue if the game was solely based on just the node system, the node system is really just one of many different systems meant to enhance your experience in the game.
Also, it should be hard to attack a metropolis. There should be actual effort to siege one successfully. You think you can just rebel or attack the land's capital willy nilly? There are not only high level adventurers in there, you got the mayor's giant mount with AoE damage coming your way, they got city benefits from the reliquary, and they got their city fortifications, in addition to any guilds that might be stationed there. You're gonna need a whole lot more than a group of friends to take that on. And honestly, that's how it should be. If you're asking for an easy way for your city to become the local 'numero uno', then it should be just as easy for your city to get taken down to.
We'll see how things turn out though, I could always be totally wrong, but this is going to be a game where you have to invest, and there's always someone who has invested more than you into something. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I honestly don't think it's going to be an issue, and if it is, then the devs will do something about it.
This. ^
I think most people will see the city as their home. If they don't live in the city then they will see the metropolis as the guardian of their home. If they don't like how the metropolis is being run they can leave or they can stand up and do something about it. They can campaign. Even if they don't have the resources to win they can change the conversation.
A siege, or series of sieges over time, should be memorable. The events leading to war and the war its self should leave a lasting impression for you to look back on with nostalgia. You won't get that if there's a siege every week and they all blur together.
Hm... I tend to think of node development and stability from an inertia perspective. It takes an amount of energy to advance a node. If there is more energy to advance the node than oppose its growth, then the node will advance.
Likewise, each time a node advances it will take a larger force to counter the stability of that node. It will take a huge amount of effort to get a node to level 6, and therefore should take a massive effort to siege that node.
I think this is pretty intuitive & acceptable. It also brings a bit of stability to a node / nation and the freeholds / allies that depend on the node.
Hm... I tend to think of node development and stability from an inertia perspective. It takes an amount of energy to advance a node. If there is more energy to advance the node than oppose its growth, then the node will advance.
Likewise, each time a node advances it will take a larger force to counter the stability of that node. It will take a huge amount of effort to get a node to level 6, and therefore should take a massive effort to siege that node.
I think this is pretty intuitive & acceptable. It also brings a bit of stability to a node / nation and the freeholds / allies that depend on the node.
Yea but that isn't the problem @CROW3 . Assume that you and your friends are working on a lvl5 node and are on the way to make it lvl6. Just before you do so, another lvl5 node near you, levels to 6 and turns your node into a vassal node. All that effort you put into leveling your node, is now gone. That is what @Wiplasher is concerned about and it is indeed a valid concern imo.
I think more weight, work and emphasis should be put on the citizenship status.
What I mean is:
If someone is a citizen in one of the vassal nodes, he should be able to be such a big contributor to the vassal and master node that losing him would bring serious aftermath for all the close vassal nodes and the master node.
This way by making the citizen powerful, we add diplomatic leverage. So if that citizen is unhappy about the fact that he is a vassal node citizen, he should have the option by denouncing his citizenship to inflict serious trouble to the vassal node and the vassal nodes close to it and the master node.
This opens up more possibilities - like for example:
-The citizen could just straight up leave, hurt the vassal and master node by doing so and go find himself a new kingdom where he is happy and perhaps try to support them in planning and executing a siege on his previous master node with which he was unhappy. Citizens should have enough power to actually be able to do this sort of thing because from what I gather right now being a citizen doesn't mean much, if you leave someone else will take your spot and even if no one takes your spot it wont matter much.
-The citizen could talk to other powerful citizens in his node and the surrounding nodes about making a threat to the master node for a collective citizenship denouncement. This sort of coup should inflict severe or devastating damage (depending on the size of the coup) on the master node and it's vassals. Thus giving the master node an ultimatum demand - give is this, that and this (lower taxes etc.). Or demand that just straight up make one of the vassal nodes the new master node or we all lose everything.
On the idea of vassal nodes being able to rebel by using a siege - I like it but I'd like to see some rules restricting when a vassal node can make a siege. It's prime function should somehow be obstructed by the master node for a siege to be able to commence and/or it has to meet certain conditions.
So for example:
Military vassal nodes can start sieges against the master node whenever they want. (They are more of a dictatorship/tyrant/conquerAll sort of place from what I gather) or (if there is such a mechanic for the master node) when the master node denies the military node to engage in a siege/guild war more than 2 times in a row.
Scientific vassal nodes can only start sieges against the master node when most of it's citizens vote to start the siege.
Economic vassal nodes can only start sieges against the master node if it has the lowest profit compared to close-by economical nodes which are vassals(or a master node) to a different master node.
Levelling up a node to stage 6 takes a TON of time. One person leaving the node shouldn't affect the effort of a few hundred people. That's why I disagree with giving certain citizens "weight".
Levelling up a node to stage 6 takes a TON of time. One person leaving the node shouldn't affect the effort of a few hundred people. That's why I disagree with giving certain citizens "weight".
I am not talking about giving certain citizens weight. I am talking about giving weight to the citizens that contributed the most to the development of the node.
So if someone comes and contributes enough to get it from level 5 to 6 or someone who has been on contributing to the node since level 0. Those citizens should have more weight than others. A lot more.
As it is right now, it doesn't matter if you are the founding father of the node. You are the same trash as someone who came today and signed up for citizenship in the node.
Levelling up a node to stage 6 takes a TON of time. One person leaving the node shouldn't affect the effort of a few hundred people. That's why I disagree with giving certain citizens "weight".
I am not talking about giving certain citizens weight. I am talking about giving weight to the citizens that contributed the most to the development of the node.
So if someone comes and contributes enough to get it from level 5 to 6 or someone who has been on contributing to the node since level 0. Those citizens should have more weight than others. A lot more.
As it is right now, it doesn't matter if you are the founding father of the node. You are the same trash as someone who came today and signed up for citizenship in the node.
Thats just not right, dont you think?
Hmm. It is an interesting idea for sure. Maybe you should make a detailed post about it so that you can get others' opinions on it.
But just wondering, how exactly does it solve the problem that OP is talking about?
Assume that you and your friends are working on a lvl5 node and are on the way to make it lvl6. Just before you do so, another lvl5 node near you, levels to 6 and turns your node into a vassal node. All that effort you put into leveling your node, is now gone. That is what @Wiplasher is concerned about and it is indeed a valid concern imo.
Assume that you and your friends are working on a lvl5 node and are on the way to make it lvl6. Just before you do so, another lvl5 node near you, levels to 6 and turns your node into a vassal node. All that effort you put into leveling your node, is now gone. That is what @Wiplasher is concerned about and it is indeed a valid concern imo.
Thanks, @CaptnChuck. I went back and reread the wiki. In the example above, it sounds like the enslavement of one of the neighboring nodes would have happened at level 3, and wouldn’t have been staved off to level 6.
“Village (stage 3) or higher nodes enslave nearby nodes, converting them into vassal nodes.”
I think as long as the node dynamics are clear and consistent, I don’t think it’s a problem. If you understand how the node system works and two teams put themselves in the position where enslavement is a possible outcome then they accept that risk. If they don’t want to take that risk, there are options to move their resources to develop a non-neighboring node.
Levelling up a node to stage 6 takes a TON of time. One person leaving the node shouldn't affect the effort of a few hundred people. That's why I disagree with giving certain citizens "weight".
I am not talking about giving certain citizens weight. I am talking about giving weight to the citizens that contributed the most to the development of the node.
So if someone comes and contributes enough to get it from level 5 to 6 or someone who has been on contributing to the node since level 0. Those citizens should have more weight than others. A lot more.
As it is right now, it doesn't matter if you are the founding father of the node. You are the same trash as someone who came today and signed up for citizenship in the node.
Thats just not right, dont you think?
Hmm. It is an interesting idea for sure. Maybe you should make a detailed post about it so that you can get others' opinions on it.
But just wondering, how exactly does it solve the problem that OP is talking about?
Assume that you and your friends are working on a lvl5 node and are on the way to make it lvl6. Just before you do so, another lvl5 node near you, levels to 6 and turns your node into a vassal node. All that effort you put into leveling your node, is now gone. That is what @Wiplasher is concerned about and it is indeed a valid concern imo.
OP wants vassals to be able to siege.
My idea allows for more possibilities on how vassal nodes can rebel against the parent node - a carefully planned coup, a siege, a strike to the economy of the parent's node by a citizenship denouncement.
Also gives room for more negotiations. By giving citizens power, which they've earned through helping and leveling the node, you give them bargaining chips, for example:
-Want me to stay in your node instead of leaving and taking all my riches/influence/resources/profession somewhere else? Okay then give me X. Do X for me.
This also gives bargaining chips to the players as well, so if couple of those high influence, high powered in the node band together they can set up a coup, a siege.
It makes the process have more preparation time, more depth, more meaning.
If we just allow vassal nodes to siege the parent node like any other node it'll could cause exploits and redicilous things like:
-Master nodes switching very often because vassal nodes constantly fight among each other. This is going to be just ridiculous. Would look like some kids being constantly unhappy that they aren't the boss. And it would take away from the focus of siege on enemy nodes.
Exploits:
-Vassal nodes can siege the master node and lose on purpose so that the master node goes on cooldown thanks to the unsuccessful siege and now it's real enemies can't siege it.
-Master node loses on purpose from the vassal node. Why? After all the dungeons it unlocked have been grinded by the majority of it's citizens, It loses the siege on purposes so that the dungeons which the new master node will unlock upon reaching max node level can be unlocked to be grinded. This exploit in particular will shorten the game lifespan immensely, due to players being able to go through all the content at a faster rate than what the original idea is.
So just giving vassal nodes the ability to straight up siege the master node is a bad idea. There have to be rules about when it's possible for a vassal node siege. There need to be big repercussions about it. And it's also important that the players are given a number of ways to achieve it, rather than just the usual - go declare siege, so the game gets more depth.
Otherwise these nodes wont have any meaning. Not sure if intrepid has noticed this but if the systems in nodes, between nodes, in government in nodes, in citizenships etc. if those systems don't have good depth then nodes will only become simple tools for blocking/unlocking content or ways to change the surrounding theme parks. Which from what I know they are extremely against - making another theme park mmo.
Comments
I can be a life devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
Yes, that's currently a thing although I think they're still tossing the idea around. I like the idea, though, and it makes sense.
Because imagine if a level 6 node and it's surrounding area was suddenly abandoned due to whatever reasons (bad government, decline in server population, etc.). If that area suddenly sees sharp declines in activity, the nodes could go into ruin and start to delevel, and therefore would more accurately reflect the region. It's a balancing act, though, you don't want to make it too hard to keep a region up.
It could also be a VERY passive aggressive way to siege a level 6 node, by simply NOT questing in its ZOI. If left completely alone, the whole area could slowly go into ruin without ever needing to siege it.
LOL, I like your style, sir!
Theoretically, yes. And if node 6 mayors and guilds are actively working together, I very much see that happening. I think there are simply more incentives to see players work together than actively against another.
And imagine how pissed of players of a level 6 node would be if they lost a siege? They might forever remember the names of the players and guilds that took them down.
Bad blood, for sure
Yes you will be in constant contact with nodes’ ZOIs as you travel, I don’t see how this would change that nodes have changing ZOI sizes based on their level.
Nodes’ ZOIs only grow and shrink dependent on their own level. As nodes level up, their ZOIs encompass a wider area and more land, so yes they can and are intended to completely overlap other nodes’ ZOIs at a point. That’s how vassalage works, by a node’s growing ZOI encompassing lower level nodes nearby.
Here, directly from the wiki about nodes:
There is a blue area overlapping a pink area, and just judging by how the overlapped area appears to be highlighted blue, it appears that the blue area has overtaken part of the pink area.
I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for nodes to be completely overlapped by more than one node. Judging by the second picture, that certainly seems possible.
I'm also wondering if it's going to be possible for a node to have more than one parent... I'm assuming not. That might make the whole hierarchy of nodes/vassals/parents get a little murky.
I find this whole system fascinating. I also wonder if players are going to have access to a map like the first one, and if they'll be able to see the boundaries of the nodes within the world.
There’s plans for a cartographer profession, but we don’t have many specifics on it besides that they’ll be able to create and sell maps which... well I assumed as much lol.
I was discussing this with people when we were talking about the scribe profession. We pretty much came to the conclusion the same great thing allowing us to play the game ruins the idea.
The internet lol
Yep. Even though the servers will be different, unless maps made by scribes update in real time to look monitor nodes growing, falling, etc. Then word of mouth and screenshots will be faster than anyone could be in the game.
U.S. East
I suppose we'll see how things work over the course of testing and the early game, but I remain concerned that this limitation will make the game too static once all 5 metropolises are established, with each controlling 20% of the world. At that point, only citizens under Metropolis B (or C, D, or E) will be able to siege Metropolis A, but I doubt they'll have much incentive to do so on their own, unless Metro B is lead by aggressive PvPers who just want siege content, or if they know the only way to pop a new raid or some other content is to destroy Metro A. Of course, the citizens of a City that is Metro A's vassal could offer gold, resources, etc. to entice Metro B to siege Metro A, creating diplomacy opportunities.
And in the end, it's an MMO and I hope Intrepid will change the rules as needed after launch so that sieges play a role in changing the world. Hell, Albion Online has radically changed the basic rules of territory control and access repeatedly after launch.
However, it should be understood that the metropolis is not the end all be all of the game. For example, you could always be an influential figure in your religion's faction or say something like the scholar or thieves' guild. You could always start your own business in the big metro where there's more people while your home is back in your level 4 town. Or maybe you go it alone and do some PvE content. Point is, there are so many different systems other than the node system that, while the problems you're talking about could be an issue if the game was solely based on just the node system, the node system is really just one of many different systems meant to enhance your experience in the game.
Also, it should be hard to attack a metropolis. There should be actual effort to siege one successfully. You think you can just rebel or attack the land's capital willy nilly? There are not only high level adventurers in there, you got the mayor's giant mount with AoE damage coming your way, they got city benefits from the reliquary, and they got their city fortifications, in addition to any guilds that might be stationed there. You're gonna need a whole lot more than a group of friends to take that on. And honestly, that's how it should be. If you're asking for an easy way for your city to become the local 'numero uno', then it should be just as easy for your city to get taken down to.
We'll see how things turn out though, I could always be totally wrong, but this is going to be a game where you have to invest, and there's always someone who has invested more than you into something. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I honestly don't think it's going to be an issue, and if it is, then the devs will do something about it.
If your node is progression blocked, you need to drop citizenship to siege the higher node. ( are you locked out of reclaiming said citizenship for 2 weeks?) They however can bully anyone at anytime.
There is no purpose attacking nodes in other kingdoms other than loot / pvp.
Those victories will not progress your node.
Long story Long seems to be:
Local uprisings to grow your node:
If you win, you now have to race any and all same sized nodes in the area from growing to that progression size first, thus ruining all your plans and hard work.
Win or lose, there will be repercussions. The people who just lost their homes will want revenge. The other same sized nodes will be happy to help. ( it removes 1 competitor). Every node below you will be happy to help. (they can grow 1 extra level). Now it's in everybody's self interest to wipe you out.
Example:
City A wants to become the Metropolis. They drop citizenship, recruit help, lay Siege. Lose: Metro comes after them, to prevent further uprisings.
Win: Former Metro comes after them, revenge
Everyone else hops on board either way, because it opens up a progression slot.
Worse yet?:
City A wins and continues to exist. ( cooldown period? or just survives retaliatory stike) City B & C didn't waste any time or effort preparing for a siege, but now have an equal chance to progress to Metropolis level. (assuming 3 cities / kingdom)
Worse worse yet??:
You place a siege banner against the Level 6, but then the next day a siege banner is placed at your doorstep. ( this may not be possible, but I cannot see why not, perhaps unlikely though ) Whilst you were planning your coup... That friendly ( or so you thought ) level 4 town has chosen to take advantage and crush you while you're off in the big city.
I am new to AoC, and I do realize not every scenario here is a "likely" outcome. But is any of it wrong? Growing nodes seems a very...very risky business. ( all is conjecture and subject to change)
Also, if citizenship slots are fewer than housing available in a node, you might never regain your citizenship even if you achieve the optimal outcome.
While I have not found anything explicit about such in my admittedly lazy reading into the topic, doesn’t this heavily imply that vassal nodes will have some sort of representation? I understand the role of node mayor will not be a layabout position; seeing as benefits are conferred to vassal nodes from parent nodes, shouldn’t diplomatic ties require the vassal mayors to work as representatives for their nodes. Is there any information I’m not seeing regarding expansion of leadership selection into vassal nodes, so leaders of parent nodes may be beholden to vassal nodes they levee taxes from?
This thread seems, at times, to treat the term “diplomacy” as though it solely refers to aggressive conflict with a ruling body. I’m fairly sure that groups of like-minded players will advance these fastest, so comparatively few will be stuck under the umbrella of a different specialization than desired. Still, it seems vassal nodes would be more like provinces in a nation than territories that must give more than they benefit, with little means of voicing dissent.
This. ^
I think most people will see the city as their home. If they don't live in the city then they will see the metropolis as the guardian of their home. If they don't like how the metropolis is being run they can leave or they can stand up and do something about it. They can campaign. Even if they don't have the resources to win they can change the conversation.
A siege, or series of sieges over time, should be memorable. The events leading to war and the war its self should leave a lasting impression for you to look back on with nostalgia. You won't get that if there's a siege every week and they all blur together.
Likewise, each time a node advances it will take a larger force to counter the stability of that node. It will take a huge amount of effort to get a node to level 6, and therefore should take a massive effort to siege that node.
I think this is pretty intuitive & acceptable. It also brings a bit of stability to a node / nation and the freeholds / allies that depend on the node.
Yea but that isn't the problem @CROW3 . Assume that you and your friends are working on a lvl5 node and are on the way to make it lvl6. Just before you do so, another lvl5 node near you, levels to 6 and turns your node into a vassal node. All that effort you put into leveling your node, is now gone. That is what @Wiplasher is concerned about and it is indeed a valid concern imo.
What I mean is:
If someone is a citizen in one of the vassal nodes, he should be able to be such a big contributor to the vassal and master node that losing him would bring serious aftermath for all the close vassal nodes and the master node.
This way by making the citizen powerful, we add diplomatic leverage. So if that citizen is unhappy about the fact that he is a vassal node citizen, he should have the option by denouncing his citizenship to inflict serious trouble to the vassal node and the vassal nodes close to it and the master node.
This opens up more possibilities - like for example:
-The citizen could just straight up leave, hurt the vassal and master node by doing so and go find himself a new kingdom where he is happy and perhaps try to support them in planning and executing a siege on his previous master node with which he was unhappy. Citizens should have enough power to actually be able to do this sort of thing because from what I gather right now being a citizen doesn't mean much, if you leave someone else will take your spot and even if no one takes your spot it wont matter much.
-The citizen could talk to other powerful citizens in his node and the surrounding nodes about making a threat to the master node for a collective citizenship denouncement. This sort of coup should inflict severe or devastating damage (depending on the size of the coup) on the master node and it's vassals. Thus giving the master node an ultimatum demand - give is this, that and this (lower taxes etc.). Or demand that just straight up make one of the vassal nodes the new master node or we all lose everything.
On the idea of vassal nodes being able to rebel by using a siege - I like it but I'd like to see some rules restricting when a vassal node can make a siege. It's prime function should somehow be obstructed by the master node for a siege to be able to commence and/or it has to meet certain conditions.
So for example:
Military vassal nodes can start sieges against the master node whenever they want. (They are more of a dictatorship/tyrant/conquerAll sort of place from what I gather) or (if there is such a mechanic for the master node) when the master node denies the military node to engage in a siege/guild war more than 2 times in a row.
Scientific vassal nodes can only start sieges against the master node when most of it's citizens vote to start the siege.
Economic vassal nodes can only start sieges against the master node if it has the lowest profit compared to close-by economical nodes which are vassals(or a master node) to a different master node.
I don't really agree with your idea.
Levelling up a node to stage 6 takes a TON of time. One person leaving the node shouldn't affect the effort of a few hundred people. That's why I disagree with giving certain citizens "weight".
I am not talking about giving certain citizens weight. I am talking about giving weight to the citizens that contributed the most to the development of the node.
So if someone comes and contributes enough to get it from level 5 to 6 or someone who has been on contributing to the node since level 0. Those citizens should have more weight than others. A lot more.
As it is right now, it doesn't matter if you are the founding father of the node. You are the same trash as someone who came today and signed up for citizenship in the node.
Thats just not right, dont you think?
Hmm. It is an interesting idea for sure. Maybe you should make a detailed post about it so that you can get others' opinions on it.
But just wondering, how exactly does it solve the problem that OP is talking about?
Thanks, @CaptnChuck. I went back and reread the wiki. In the example above, it sounds like the enslavement of one of the neighboring nodes would have happened at level 3, and wouldn’t have been staved off to level 6.
“Village (stage 3) or higher nodes enslave nearby nodes, converting them into vassal nodes.”
I think as long as the node dynamics are clear and consistent, I don’t think it’s a problem. If you understand how the node system works and two teams put themselves in the position where enslavement is a possible outcome then they accept that risk. If they don’t want to take that risk, there are options to move their resources to develop a non-neighboring node.
OP wants vassals to be able to siege.
My idea allows for more possibilities on how vassal nodes can rebel against the parent node - a carefully planned coup, a siege, a strike to the economy of the parent's node by a citizenship denouncement.
Also gives room for more negotiations. By giving citizens power, which they've earned through helping and leveling the node, you give them bargaining chips, for example:
-Want me to stay in your node instead of leaving and taking all my riches/influence/resources/profession somewhere else? Okay then give me X. Do X for me.
This also gives bargaining chips to the players as well, so if couple of those high influence, high powered in the node band together they can set up a coup, a siege.
It makes the process have more preparation time, more depth, more meaning.
If we just allow vassal nodes to siege the parent node like any other node it'll could cause exploits and redicilous things like:
-Master nodes switching very often because vassal nodes constantly fight among each other. This is going to be just ridiculous. Would look like some kids being constantly unhappy that they aren't the boss. And it would take away from the focus of siege on enemy nodes.
Exploits:
-Vassal nodes can siege the master node and lose on purpose so that the master node goes on cooldown thanks to the unsuccessful siege and now it's real enemies can't siege it.
-Master node loses on purpose from the vassal node. Why? After all the dungeons it unlocked have been grinded by the majority of it's citizens, It loses the siege on purposes so that the dungeons which the new master node will unlock upon reaching max node level can be unlocked to be grinded. This exploit in particular will shorten the game lifespan immensely, due to players being able to go through all the content at a faster rate than what the original idea is.
So just giving vassal nodes the ability to straight up siege the master node is a bad idea. There have to be rules about when it's possible for a vassal node siege. There need to be big repercussions about it. And it's also important that the players are given a number of ways to achieve it, rather than just the usual - go declare siege, so the game gets more depth.
Otherwise these nodes wont have any meaning. Not sure if intrepid has noticed this but if the systems in nodes, between nodes, in government in nodes, in citizenships etc. if those systems don't have good depth then nodes will only become simple tools for blocking/unlocking content or ways to change the surrounding theme parks. Which from what I know they are extremely against - making another theme park mmo.