How to reward conflict. Node system cooperation/contention balancing and combating Corporatism.

Purple Polo Player

Hello all,

I've been thinking quite a lot about the innovative node system and its potential flaws that will prevent that system from developing organically and/or dynamically. One of the potential flaws of the system is that the rewards for building up a node (cooperation) will greatly outweigh the rewards for destroying a node's progress (contention).

This problem has manifested in titles like Dark Age of Camelot, Elder Scrolls Online, and Warhammer Online. I'll use Warhammer Online as an example. In Warhammer's open world PvP players on opposing realms would repeatedly cycle possession of keeps without offering resistance to the opposing realm. The rewards in terms of progress via XP and loot were excellent for taking a keep, and paltry for defending a keep. Since players are tempted to follow the path of least resistance in order to progress, the result was endless zergs of keep trading. That keep system became pointless and circumvented the point of the game which was to engage in realm versus realm PvP.

This brings us to Ashes's Node System. There appears to be a great reward for building up a node tier by tier. Access to dungeons and trade. Will the desire for competing nodes to have these things be enough to warrant an attack? It might be easier to call a truce. This brings us to the corporatism that occurs on large scale maps.

The two examples I'm thinking of are EVE Online's nul-sec space control and World of Tanks guild wars map. In EVE Online massive alliances control a certain portion of space and they all have truces with their neighbors. The ownership of these portions of space go largely unchallenged for long periods of times. Similarly in World of Tanks, clans will take over certain portions of the maps, and then call truces with their neighbors. Everyone is content to sit in their own areas soaking up currency and rewards largely uncontested. The reward for cooperation greatly outweighs the potential reward for contention.

This is a very real problem that Ashes will have to consider. The Node system could very well devolve into a static series of alliance controlled sectors. Players that want to participate in the highest level of content are forced to join an alliance and pay the alliance tax in order to participate. The five metropolis nodes possible could very well end up being the same node for months or years.

In order to break up such a static and boring result, there must be excellent rewards for engaging in conflict and conquest. These rewards need to outweigh the potential rewards for mere collusion. Also, it would be nice if they game naturally implemented progressively stronger reactions to Metropolis nodes that have been owned for a long period of time. This could be accomplished by increasingly prevalent scarcity of resources or attacks by increasingly difficult NPC's making possession of such a node neigh impossible after enough time has passed.

Obviously this is a highly dynamic problem and I'm not sure there's a perfect solution. I hope we can possibley agree that conflict and competition is fun and that effort should be encouraged. Cooperation and teamwork are also valid play styles and should be most certainly be rewarded to a point. It would be nice if the game rules would prevent overly-lengthy, static map stalemates and keep the node system dynamic. The Node system has the potential to be great, but could result in deal-breaking flaws if not implemented properly. I look forward to hearing your thoughtful ideas on the subject.

Regards,
PPP

CaptnChuck

I'm concerned about this as well. From what I've heard so far, forming alliances is better than creating enemies. I really hope that I'm wrong though.

Jubilum

I have no doubt that there will be servers that end up with the above described scenario. All servers will be different some will have major conflict others will have very little conflict. Some will be pvp oriented others pve flavored. Some could be controled by one large alliance, you could have servers with no node that ever levels above lvl 4 from lack of cooperation. I'm hoping that of say 100 servers each one is completely different, that if you switch servers you would not recognize it as the same game.

Ventharien

Even in the hypothetical you proposed though, the world would likely not remain static. If the world just became a cluster of alliances, eventually people would want to get new content, and thus would want to shift nodes to differing areas. Even in the unlikely event that all the people that had lived in these nodes previously were ok with being relocated, the world would be changing.

A more likely scenario would be a fracturing of the existing alliances and intercluster wars and skirmishes.

loghan

One counter to stagnation is that top tier PvE guilds will hear that you must have a metropolis located on the Military node on the top left portion of the map in order to cause a world boss to spawn unique to it that has a sword and shield drop better than any server has found to date. No min/max opportunity will be left behind so suddenly that node will get built up and the nearby metropolis trying to block that from happening will be sieged down.

Xenotor

From what i understood: The Reward for the Attackers in a node siege are the raw resources and materials from players inside node.
Thanks to that, Everyone who has Res sources stored in the Node has a high desire to defend it from being taken over.

Also the higher the node the better the benefits for those living there, while at the same time citizenship is limited per node. So not everyone can go the the level 6 nodes to live there.
The entire system is made so people want to destroy other nodes while defending their own node.
Quit brilliant if i may say so.

Shaladoor

The resource rewards from attacking a node will simply not be enough, by itself, to entice node sieges. Loot and plunder are just icing on the cake of a successful siege. I do believe node sieges will happen, but not at a high frequency, and not just because of the resource gains to be had. Even after a successful siege, only a portion of the resources will be lootable, and even then you have to actually go through the town and loot them. I imagine everyone will get their small share, but I don't think that'll be the driving force behind sieges given the tough requirements behind starting one. Just look at the requirements:

Requirements:
1. "Sieges are started via a siege scroll, which is acquired through a quest that scales in difficulty with respect to the level of the node. A substantial investment is required to attain the siege scroll.[12][2][10]"
2. "Sieging will require a similar amount of resources and time to what it took to develop the node being sieged.[13]"
3. "Siege equipment will need to be crafted based on the stage of the defending node.[14]"

Just looking at these three requirements, I think it's safe to say that node sieges will only be implemented by higher tier guilds and higher level nodes (at least at first). Lower level nodes and guilds will likely be saving their resources and spending their time farming to level up their own nodes.

I think sieges will start to pick up in frequency once nodes start to stabilize, and that will probably be weeks or possibly months down the road. In the beginning , I believe most people are going to be too excited leveling up their own nodes to even bother with sieges.

However, after nodes stabilize and resources slowly stockpile, I *hope* that players/nodes/guilds will begin to have excess in order to just THROW into sieging neighbor nodes. They'll start to chomp at the bit in order to level up their own home nodes, but will be unable to due to being locked out by surrounding nodes, both friendly and unfriendly. Slowly... slowly... they will turn towards their neighbors with a greedy gleam in their eyes. They'll go through the necessary stages to obtain a siege scroll... not because of any resource rewards... but due to the promise of POWAHH!!

And once a siege is kicked off, I believe everyone who can will come to participate, and most of them will likely side with the attackers. And this is the crux of the whole node siege system. Letting everyone come participate will be the thing that really swings node sieges into an amazing part of the game. Citizens and vassals of the besieged node will defend their homes with vigor, but the attackers will come from far and wide, with nothing to lose and pockets ready to be filled with fresh loot.

Overall, I think the toughest part of any siege is simply going to be gathering the resources necessary to kick it off, and also the extra resources to build the siege weapons required to win.

HiddenDaggerInn

Totally agree about the reward for defending in Warhammer as subpar, it should be eqaul amounts of reward, with a bonus going to the Victor.

As far as things going static, ya it's possible, be almost always there is someone else that want's what you have, and is gearing up to go pee pee in your cheerios.

I won't be satisfied until I have a metropolis, my citizen's are thrinving and we're plundering and burning down any impending threat in our way!