Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Metropolis too big to fail? Possible solution.
Khakipanda
Member
I all, I was discussing with some mates about the possible issue of a city being to big to fail. And a node being locked out for a lengthy amount of time.
The solution would be for the guild in charge to initiate a "capital relocation" or something like this. Where the city can choose to abandon amd relocate the metropolis to a more beneficial location. There could be two main catalyst for this that the server could install to make the moves more advantages. One could be farming and resource depletion. The other would simply be decay of the city. The first is simple the second would make parts of the city decay over time. So the need to build a new city would eventually out weigh the ongoing upkeep of maintenance on things like walls and roads.
This way, if a guild is too big to fail and can't be defeated, it means the nodes still have a rotation.
What do you think?
The solution would be for the guild in charge to initiate a "capital relocation" or something like this. Where the city can choose to abandon amd relocate the metropolis to a more beneficial location. There could be two main catalyst for this that the server could install to make the moves more advantages. One could be farming and resource depletion. The other would simply be decay of the city. The first is simple the second would make parts of the city decay over time. So the need to build a new city would eventually out weigh the ongoing upkeep of maintenance on things like walls and roads.
This way, if a guild is too big to fail and can't be defeated, it means the nodes still have a rotation.
What do you think?
0
Comments
IMO if a metropolis can stand up to the entire rest of the server, it deserves to remain. If people don't like that, they can move to one of the other metropolis nodes or it's cluster.
Also is there a mechanic that allows cities to vacate jsmust because they choose to move onto a different node?
Thoughts?
AoC has always said "Choices matter" and an ever changing world.
It can also mean that the choices people make are strong and the content that they have access to, are the content most people want.
Its a possiblility but thats the appeal to me tbh. It also encourages player engagement and give and take at every level. But realistically what you proposed is a possibility that people will likely engage with if the content rewards are valuable enough for the citizens of a node to give up their city and rebuild it diffferently.
Just dont expect it to be a given. Rememeber the game isnt being designed for everyone to be a winner. You have to compromise, work with others, and make change happen.
For no reason should there be a "This Metropolis has been here for too long so it's time to make it easier to destroy it". That's shit game design. It just means players will be less invested in their own city if they know it's forced to be temporary.
If the population of a node is invested enough in keeping the city running and well-defended then by all means it should be difficult to take down. If they're a population that is slacking then that's on them if they lose a siege or lose to decay.
Only finished goods are completely save.
So raw iron and iron ingots are part of the loot while the finished sword is not.
A level 6 node has a giant "Loot box here" sign over it. The moment the siege declaration is set down, people can no longer move their resources out of the city.
They can also no longer use the services inside the city.
So the Blacksmith is closed, you cant make all your ingots into swords to bypass the looting.
I can imagine a level 6 node having hundred of thousands of raw / processed resources stored from the different players
That is the reason why each level 6 node have a 50 days cooldown after successful defense and why the siege declaration will be really expensive to make.
High risk, high reward.
I understand OP's concern, but they already have mechanics in place to prevent that. I think for this possible problem we will just have to wait and see how things unfold. the devs can always implement an other mechanic if it turns out that it's needed to keep the world from getting stagnant.
Rather than a guild initiated self-destruct I think another option could be an expansion of the Monster Coin system where after X amount of time the Monster Coin events get harder and harder w/ unique waves that can cause a node to be destroyed but offer a huge reward if you successfully defend it.
The concept is, for nodes to have varying perks. With only one metro per region, metros will have to fall, to allow other nodes to grow for those perks.
What perk do you want in your region? Teleportation to vassal node, a connected auction house, a zeplin, buffs to stats and extra augments? These perks are dependant on the node and it's stage.
One guild might want an AH, while another wants divine buffs. Guess what? We have a war. Choose your side.
So I don't see metros being static forever. Long periods, sure. But eventually a group will be unhappy because they can't craft a certain item or get a certain augment.
Edit: I can't wait for the healer strike, when they want a divine augment from a divine metro node, and everyone else wants a connected AH. No heals for joo!
A metropolis AKA a TR6 node is supposedly going to take up 20% of the map with a zone of influence.
There's only five and coincidentally there's only five castles.
So the city-states will duke it out but on a long enough time scale it would behoove that region to get along because they will also be competing against other kingdoms.
I could see it being fine since most top guilds and top players (especially pve) regularly swap out multiple characters for roles.
Doubt it will come down to any one groups decision since many players decisions could be based on housing, thematics, racial designs, city node politics, etc.. To many factors to consider to call it one way or another
But maybe they will be too good for the other clans and guilds to compete. So everyone else ups and moves servers. That clan will then miss out on even more content as there will be little pvp, little sieges and no new content after they have captured the other cities. Congratulations you are the top guild of a dead server.
All in saying is I feel there is more to the problem then people might see at first glance. Its not about punishment of good guilds, but server health and longevity.
However, like mentioned above. It will come out in the tests, and in early life. I hope in wrong.
This only sounds bad because you stop the story here as if things stay the same forever.
We could easily continue this hypothetical story with more: "And then the guild organises to siege their own cities to change content or they have internal disputes leading to fractures and a revitalisation of the server".
That soften em up. Coordinate a monster token with a siege near the end of the month. Maybe try to get some other rival guild in on it. It's not an unbeatable system.
Not to mention the metropolis will have such a large zone if influence and have dependencies on smaller nodes in their region.
There is a ton of room for asymmetrical warfare.