Node siege incentives

Mojottv

Hi All, maybe this has been answered somewhere, but i couldn't find the answer. I know that higher level node has to be destroyed for neighboring nodes to be able to level up, so this kind of makes sense to motivate players to siege the nodes, but what is stopping everyone just getting citizenship of bigger level node in stead? Even if there's cooldown, to join new city after leaving old one, you still can do it.

So why would anyone want to join lower level node?

Is there cap at how many people can be citizens?

Is there limited housing space? (I've seen somewhere that there's instanced housing as well as open world housing, so just cap for open world housing?)

Vyraka

Mojottv wrote: »

Hi All, maybe this has been answered somewhere, but i couldn't find the answer. I know that higher level node has to be destroyed for neighboring nodes to be able to level up, so this kind of makes sense to motivate players to siege the nodes, but what is stopping everyone just getting citizenship of bigger level node in stead? Even if there's cooldown, to join new city after leaving old one, you still can do it.

So why would anyone want to join lower level node?

Is there cap at how many people can be citizens?

Is there limited housing space? (I've seen somewhere that there's instanced housing as well as open world housing, so just cap for open world housing?)

One reason I can see for wanting to level a different node is that the higher level node might be economic, but the citizens want a scientific node for fast travel. Or any combination of that scenario.

Asura

Mojottv wrote: »

Hi All, maybe this has been answered somewhere, but i couldn't find the answer. I know that higher level node has to be destroyed for neighboring nodes to be able to level up, so this kind of makes sense to motivate players to siege the nodes, but what is stopping everyone just getting citizenship of bigger level node in stead? Even if there's cooldown, to join new city after leaving old one, you still can do it.

So why would anyone want to join lower level node?

Is there cap at how many people can be citizens?

Is there limited housing space? (I've seen somewhere that there's instanced housing as well as open world housing, so just cap for open world housing?)

Yes there is a citizen cap

Mojottv

Vyraka wrote: »

Mojottv wrote: »

Hi All, maybe this has been answered somewhere, but i couldn't find the answer. I know that higher level node has to be destroyed for neighboring nodes to be able to level up, so this kind of makes sense to motivate players to siege the nodes, but what is stopping everyone just getting citizenship of bigger level node in stead? Even if there's cooldown, to join new city after leaving old one, you still can do it.

So why would anyone want to join lower level node?

Is there cap at how many people can be citizens?

Is there limited housing space? (I've seen somewhere that there's instanced housing as well as open world housing, so just cap for open world housing?)

One reason I can see for wanting to level a different node is that the higher level node might be economic, but the citizens want a scientific node for fast travel. Or any combination of that scenario.

Well, dont think that would be high enough incentive to go and try to destroy a node, as destroying would be quite time consuming, would require resourses etc etc. If you want other type of node, why not just go somewhere else and join that type of node?

Mojottv

Asura wrote: »

Mojottv wrote: »

Hi All, maybe this has been answered somewhere, but i couldn't find the answer. I know that higher level node has to be destroyed for neighboring nodes to be able to level up, so this kind of makes sense to motivate players to siege the nodes, but what is stopping everyone just getting citizenship of bigger level node in stead? Even if there's cooldown, to join new city after leaving old one, you still can do it.

So why would anyone want to join lower level node?

Is there cap at how many people can be citizens?

Is there limited housing space? (I've seen somewhere that there's instanced housing as well as open world housing, so just cap for open world housing?)

Yes there is a citizen cap

Do you know, what are the caps yet? Also what are the citizen perks?

Vyraka

Mojottv wrote: »

Vyraka wrote: »

Mojottv wrote: »

Hi All, maybe this has been answered somewhere, but i couldn't find the answer. I know that higher level node has to be destroyed for neighboring nodes to be able to level up, so this kind of makes sense to motivate players to siege the nodes, but what is stopping everyone just getting citizenship of bigger level node in stead? Even if there's cooldown, to join new city after leaving old one, you still can do it.

So why would anyone want to join lower level node?

Is there cap at how many people can be citizens?

Is there limited housing space? (I've seen somewhere that there's instanced housing as well as open world housing, so just cap for open world housing?)

One reason I can see for wanting to level a different node is that the higher level node might be economic, but the citizens want a scientific node for fast travel. Or any combination of that scenario.

Well, dont think that would be high enough incentive to go and try to destroy a node, as destroying would be quite time consuming, would require resourses etc etc. If you want other type of node, why not just go somewhere else and join that type of node?

I agree with you. I just said it could be a reason.

Bricktop

Just going to pull some stuff off the wiki that I think would attract players to actively siege and defend nodes.

"A portion of all Materials (crafting components) and Gatherables that were stored in the destroyed node will become lootable to the victors of the siege as spoils of war."

"Destroyed freeholds are subject to material loss. Freeholds may be attacked by any player[114] for a period of two hours[21] following a successful siege against its parent node.[115]"

"Relics are achievements for a node that unlock over time. They allow node citizens to craft certain legendary items and progress in certain legendary quest lines.[46]"

Some of my own thoughts:

People will want to destroy nodes and have others be built up to open new content in the world. Certain bosses/events can only happen in certain nodes and it will be up to the players to discover. Things like an ice dragon popping out of a newly leveled node and turning the world frozen for a period of time or until the dragon dies.

The node could be under the control of a massive alliance that sets very high taxes that is hated throughout the server and the people of the server want to make life difficult for them.

People will want to defend their relics or deny the enemy node/guilds in the areas access to their relic.

Non-instanced houses are prestigious, people will want to defend them.

Wiki

Mojottv

Bricktop wrote: »

Just going to pull some stuff off the wiki that I think would attract players to actively siege and defend nodes.

"A portion of all Materials (crafting components) and Gatherables that were stored in the destroyed node will become lootable to the victors of the siege as spoils of war."

"Destroyed freeholds are subject to material loss. Freeholds may be attacked by any player[114] for a period of two hours[21] following a successful siege against its parent node.[115]"

"Relics are achievements for a node that unlock over time. They allow node citizens to craft certain legendary items and progress in certain legendary quest lines.[46]"

Some of my own thoughts:

People will want to destroy nodes and have others be built up to open new content in the world. Certain bosses/events can only happen in certain nodes and it will be up to the players to discover. Things like an ice dragon popping out of a newly leveled node and turning the world frozen for a period of time or until the dragon dies.

The node could be under the control of a massive alliance that sets very high taxes that is hated throughout the server and the people of the server want to make life difficult for them.

People will want to defend their relics or deny the enemy node/guilds in the areas access to their relic.

Non-instanced houses are prestigious, people will want to defend them.

Wiki

well i don't think its enough of motivation to be honest. because big guilds will join with others and form big alliances, so bunch of randoms and smaller guilds wont be able to compete. the fact that you can get loot after successful siege wont do any good, because again, big alliances will help to defend each others nodes and castles.

The only possible scenario I can see based on what you pulled out of wiki, is that the guild that owns a node, would take their stuff to other node, leave current node, join the other node, then destroy the node they left, so they can unlock different content.

I think, there's enough of incentive to defend the node youre in, but not enough incentive be part of smaller node. and only thing that could aleviate this, would be smart restrictions on citizen number, guild numbers, freehold availability etc. In other words, you need to have content locked for other players and only way to unlock it, is by joining small node, and destroying the big one. So if i cant get freehold in some local metropolis, i will join smaller node, so that i can have the big one destroyed etc...

Vyraka

I'm kind of curious to see how effective perks are for smaller guilds than the larger perkless guilds. You never know - an alliance of smaller guilds with lots of perks might be able to take on alliance of larger perkless guilds.

Bricktop

I promise you people won't allow themselves to be bullied by a big alliance and do nothing about it. There are 1200 person alliances set to be in the game, and a goal of 8-10k players playing at any given time per server, with 50k accounts per server. All those random smaller guilds will get sick of not being able to compete and they will send diplomatic feelers out to other small groups.

You can almost bet on A LOT of different alliances, guilds, and groups of many types and sizes that are all constantly gaining and losing strength, and they will all have a role to play. They WILL go to war with one another, it's just the nature of the beast.

Mojottv

Bricktop wrote: »

I promise you people won't allow themselves to be bullied by a big alliance and do nothing about it. There are 1200 person alliances set to be in the game, and a goal of 8-10k players playing at any given time per server, with 50k accounts per server. All those random smaller guilds will get sick of not being able to compete and they will send diplomatic feelers out to other small groups.

You can almost bet on A LOT of different alliances, guilds, and groups of many types and sizes that are all constantly gaining and losing strength, and they will all have a role to play. They WILL go to war with one another, it's just the nature of the beast.

well i don't think its a good design choice to rely on people to act in certain way. And 1200 is a lot of players. Random players can't compete against organised players even if the odds are 3 to 1... so i think there should be some mechanics in place to give incentive for players to fight each. Lock out content for players in big alliences and guilds

Tyrantor

Yeah I'm really curious what the smaller guild buffs/abilities look like as well. My initial impression is it would give +health/mana/dmg type of adjustments that would slowly phase out as a guild grew in size to a threshold. Though if guilds can just form alliances to mitigate this and keep the boons offered to being a smaller guild i'm not entirely sure why guilds would maximize their player limit(s) if alliance chat works just the same.

They may make different nodes offer different bonus/boons for the guilds.
Few examples:
Military +DMG+Resistances
Divine: +Mana+health regen
Scientific: +Int+Mana regen
Economic: +Armor+Health

Ventharien

@Mojottv There are plenty of reasons to want to hit a node. To clear some things up, Guilds don't control nodes. They might have a big influence in the city, could currently have a player sitting as mayor, or just be a majority of the citizenry, but they never 'own' the node.

Once someone declares a siege, it's like blood in the water. Anybody can come and join in, and since it will be a pvp zone for the duration, there won't be any corruption penalty. So all it will take is even one person willing to grind for the materials (however long that could be) and make the declaration. So at that point, why wouldn't anyone who wants to pvp, (not even counting anyone with a beef with the node, or guilds inside) come for a chance for loot?

As to your original questions, yes there is an effective citizen cap. You can only become a citizen by owning land, and there are limited housing options in every node. Even the instanced housing is tied to an in node apartment building has a finite number of rooms, starting at 50.

And people might join a lower than metro node for various reasons, like resource availability, being in a less crowded settlement, wanting to be in a particular node class, so taking a lower leveled one instead of searching for a metro version. We also know there are something that will need to be crafted/gathered/completed, at lower level nodes, Metros can't survive on their own.

Mojottv

Tyrantor wrote: »

Yeah I'm really curious what the smaller guild buffs/abilities look like as well. My initial impression is it would give +health/mana/dmg type of adjustments that would slowly phase out as a guild grew in size to a threshold. Though if guilds can just form alliances to mitigate this and keep the boons offered to being a smaller guild i'm not entirely sure why guilds would maximize their player limit(s) if alliance chat works just the same.

They may make different nodes offer different bonus/boons for the guilds.
Few examples:
Military +DMG+Resistances
Divine: +Mana+health regen
Scientific: +Int+Mana regen
Economic: +Armor+Health

to be hones giving buffs, for smaller guilds and phasing out those buffs for bigger guilds i would not agree with, i think if you meet someone 1v1 in the open world, it should be level playing ground. so discouraging big guilds due to buff dampening i would not agree with. I'd rather would like to see something, like caps on citizenship, free holds etc, so that big guilds would not have enough space in one node, thus people be forced to divide and create theyr own guilds to compete.

winner909098

people will want to take out the nodes in order to grow their node. Saying that there is no reason is never true. People will want endgame stuff, and that means the death of a node.

Ventharien

Guilds have their own progression trees and perks as well. If you decide to take perks that increase your size you miss out on others. Totally up to the guild in question.

Mojottv

Ventharien wrote: »

@Mojottv There are plenty of reasons to want to hit a node. To clear some things up, Guilds don't control nodes. They might have a big influence in the city, could currently have a player sitting as mayor, or just be a majority of the citizenry, but they never 'own' the node.

Once someone declares a siege, it's like blood in the water. Anybody can come and join in, and since it will be a pvp zone for the duration, there won't be any corruption penalty. So all it will take is even one person willing to grind for the materials (however long that could be) and make the declaration. So at that point, why wouldn't anyone who wants to pvp, (not even counting anyone with a beef with the node, or guilds inside) come for a chance for loot?

As to your original questions, yes there is an effective citizen cap. You can only become a citizen by owning land, and there are limited housing options in every node. Even the instanced housing is tied to an in node apartment building has a finite number of rooms, starting at 50.

And people might join a lower than metro node for various reasons, like resource availability, being in a less crowded settlement, wanting to be in a particular node class, so taking a lower leveled one instead of searching for a metro version. We also know there are something that will need to be crafted/gathered/completed, at lower level nodes, Metros can't survive on their own.

well when i talk about guilds controling the node, i mean if big guild in a big allience, are all citizens of the node, they all have access to all the benefits, that means they will be incentifised to defend the node and along with all the other randoms and smaller guilds who are citizens + help of this guild allience, it will be virtually impossible for anyone to destroy the node, thus this guild is controling the node.

Regarding people just wanting to go out and do some pvp, trust me, a lot of players as you might see in the forum, they care only about pve and being left alone. so i wouldnt bet on that.

well if some stuff can only be made on lower lvl nodes, then its just going to be annoying when those nodes lvl up. also what i wouldnt like to see is dominant guilds moving from node to node to unlock certain content. would rather see, haviing no incentive to be in huge alliance, and being forced to join smaller underdog guilds to be able to overthrow guilds dominating certain nodes, to access content/.

Tyrantor

Mojottv wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

Yeah I'm really curious what the smaller guild buffs/abilities look like as well. My initial impression is it would give +health/mana/dmg type of adjustments that would slowly phase out as a guild grew in size to a threshold. Though if guilds can just form alliances to mitigate this and keep the boons offered to being a smaller guild i'm not entirely sure why guilds would maximize their player limit(s) if alliance chat works just the same.

They may make different nodes offer different bonus/boons for the guilds.
Few examples:
Military +DMG+Resistances
Divine: +Mana+health regen
Scientific: +Int+Mana regen
Economic: +Armor+Health

to be hones giving buffs, for smaller guilds and phasing out those buffs for bigger guilds i would not agree with, i think if you meet someone 1v1 in the open world, it should be level playing ground. so discouraging big guilds due to buff dampening i would not agree with. I'd rather would like to see something, like caps on citizenship, free holds etc, so that big guilds would not have enough space in one node, thus people be forced to divide and create theyr own guilds to compete.

Was talking more siege specific buffs not open world stuff.

Tyrantor

I'm sort of interested to see what happens to the low level nodes once the game has been around for a while. I mean will they be populated due to limited housing in the larger nodes or will they be empty because people have fled to the larger nodes / freeholds for end game services/content.

Xyls

The only reason I really need to siege another node is because it's PvP.

Mojottv

Tyrantor wrote: »

I'm sort of interested to see what happens to the low level nodes once the game has been around for a while. I mean will they be populated due to limited housing in the larger nodes or will they be empty because people have fled to the larger nodes / freeholds for end game services/content.

Thats my exact point of this thread, if they can balance properly guild, allience sizes along with freehold and housing availability based on server population, to force people to join different nodes then i think they will achieve dynamic world where its constant struggle and wars between guilds and nodes. I would not want to see big guilds traveling from one node to other to unlock content.

Gimlog

@Mojottv if a big guild as all his member in one node , it's a bad guild ...

We don't know much of nodes augments, but there is no way one node type get a augment that is the best for all classes.
You'll have to split member in the 4 nodes types.
And so you'll have less influence on nodes but you'll get the benefits of the 4 nodes types that make your guild stronger.

Mojottv

Gimlog wrote: »

@Mojottv if a big guild as all his member in one node , it's a bad guild ...

We don't know much of nodes augments, but there is no way one node type get a augment that is the best for all classes.
You'll have to split member in the 4 nodes types.
And so you'll have less influence on nodes but you'll get the benefits of the 4 nodes types that make your guild stronger.

Hmm.. i dunno how it would work, then, so how many guilds would defend the node? I mean, it should have bigger incentive for guilds to be based at the same or vassal nodes. I mean, ideally you want constant struggle to unlock content. So that there's many strong alliences fighting each other over map control and who can progress their node. and not just couple of mega huge alliences holding 4 types of nodes.

Littlekenny21

If the combat system is done reasonably well, there should be groups that specialise in these sieges and can easily take on pve focused guilds of double the size. Winning the siege is the only incentive they would need. That's the group I would want to come under but don't have much faith the combat system will work well for large scale PvP.

biggkenny

Littlekenny21 wrote: »

If the combat system is done reasonably well, there should be groups that specialise in these sieges and can easily take on pve focused guilds of double the size. Winning the siege is the only incentive they would need. That's the group I would want to come under but don't have much faith the combat system will work well for large scale PvP.

Strangely enough I agree with my brother here.. If the combat is good enough to allow for smaller groups to be able to fight larger groups due to skill then I can see specialised groups appearing. Running around as a tactical small group in GW2 was one of the most fun things I've done in games, and I would be totally up for doing that in this game. The incentive would just be that it is possible to do and feels good to play.
Briefly regarding the combat system, some worries are:
- tab target abilities will be as strong as skillshots (big worry)
- zergs will be able to out CC a smaller group through sheer numbers

Tyrantor

I think you're both saying "Combat" but the reality is what needs to be "good enough" for that type of a scenario to play out is how much players can actually customize their characters. If attribute and skill point allocation allows us to create very specific playstyles, group focus and strategic builds for PvP that allows us to counter specific strategies then Yes that would make the "combat" good enough in a way that a smaller group can compete against the odds.

However if the game is going to have relatively generic attribute allocations where 10 additional points in specific attributes has minimal to no real meaning and the game will rely solely on these "buffs" to level the playing field by essentially buffing the characters for us that just sounds like some WoW type of balance mechanic.

Players should be rewarded for understanding how to build characters with attributes, skills and equipment and that is what should give smaller groups an advantage over larger ones more than any buff the game is going to offer in addition to.

Mojottv

Tyrantor wrote: »

I think you're both saying "Combat" but the reality is what needs to be "good enough" for that type of a scenario to play out is how much players can actually customize their characters. If attribute and skill point allocation allows us to create very specific playstyles, group focus and strategic builds for PvP that allows us to counter specific strategies then Yes that would make the "combat" good enough in a way that a smaller group can compete against the odds.

However if the game is going to have relatively generic attribute allocations where 10 additional points in specific attributes has minimal to no real meaning and the game will rely solely on these "buffs" to level the playing field by essentially buffing the characters for us that just sounds like some WoW type of balance mechanic.

Players should be rewarded for understanding how to build characters with attributes, skills and equipment and that is what should give smaller groups an advantage over larger ones more than any buff the game is going to offer in addition to.

Well I really hope, they will do it similar to Lineage, where although all clases were basicly the same, except for small variation in gear. But well built party, with people who can play they characters good, would anahilate 4-5 parties of equal level and similar gear.

Gimlog

@Mojottv there is no incentive for guild in nodes because nodes aren't guild content, castles are.
Nodes are a world mechanic that every player need to get content.

Guild that are interested in castle will gather around them .
The perfect situation would be the 4 types of nodes represent in 1 metropolis and 3 city.
You could do almost nothing to prevents rivals guilds to live in those to.

Guilds not interests in castles will eventually siege those metropolis to get one in a others place.
And those rivals guild will work to gather to defend it , and that what is beautiful

Those who will try to organise and lead the defense would probably be the major, his subordinates, players with the highest grade in religions and social organisations and the king of the region. Because they have battle size ability during sieges.

But all is subject to change in beta ...

Bricktop

There will be a system where guilds can swear allegiance to the mayor of a node that I read about on the wiki, but I don't think it's fleshed out yet.

Mojottv

well it makes sense that guilds would be based around same node, otherwise there's not going to be much of node fights