Citizenship and nodes - just a meaningless status and themepark unlockers?

I think more weight, work and emphasis should be put on the citizenship status and node systems.
What I mean is weight should be given based on the contribution of a particular citizen to that node's development

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.

I am not talking about giving certain citizens weight or every citizen 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?

2ND PART IDEA

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.

My idea allows for vassal nodes to siege master nodes and gives an idea 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 ridiculous 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 and citizenship 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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

CaptnChuck

I think you should mention in your post that weight should be given based on the contribution of a particular citizen to that node's development, as its not clearly mentioned in your post.

I kind of disagree with your idea though. I cannot really explain why, as its just based on instinct. My gut tells me that giving a few people that much power can lead to trouble.

Birthday

CaptnChuck wrote: »

I think you should mention in your post that weight should be given based on the contribution of a particular citizen to that node's development, as its not clearly mentioned in your post.

I kind of disagree with your idea though. I cannot really explain why, as its just based on instinct. My gut tells me that giving a few people that much power can lead to trouble.

CaptnChuck is right about my idea being about weight being based on the contribution.

If we don't give the citizens power then all the power goes to an even smaller group of people - mayors (exactly 1 person in every node). That makes it worse because power is centered around one person rather then spread through everyone in the node equally depending on their contribution.

TheGoodzilla

What if...

Instead of "I'm taking my toys and going home" they implemented some wort of reduced effect like this.

Warnjng: my example most likely does not fit current game mechanics. So don't bother flaming about that

So I'm suggesting a player hypothetically contributes materials and resources to a node and then gets to unlock and then build some piece of infrastructure (say a genral goods store). Then Ego McHorrible-Mayor gets elected and starts wrecking stuff.

Player can go "OK, fix it or I'm forfeiting my land" (which would deconstruct building and give player some resources back. Town could still make a new store because it's still unlocked, but would have to regather resources

My point is (trying to agree with Captn) no single player should be allowed to be a lynch pin in the workings of a node. But those that contribute the most should be able to (like people do irl) move thaor assets and influence to another town which isn't so undesirable, leaving a vacuum of some size in their wake.

This would help sell the morality play of: keep your town running nice or people will abandon it and then it becomes a ghost town.

Birthday

TheGoodzilla wrote: »

What if...

Instead of "I'm taking my toys and going home" they implemented some wort of reduced effect like this.

Warnjng: my example most likely does not fit current game mechanics. So don't bother flaming about that

So I'm suggesting a player hypothetically contributes materials and resources to a node and then gets to unlock and then build some piece of infrastructure (say a genral goods store). Then Ego McHorrible-Mayor gets elected and starts wrecking stuff.

Player can go "OK, fix it or I'm forfeiting my land" (which would deconstruct building and give player some resources back. Town could still make a new store because it's still unlocked, but would have to regather resources

My point is (trying to agree with Captn) no single player should be allowed to be a lynch pin in the workings of a node. But those that contribute the most should be able to (like people do irl) move thaor assets and influence to another town which isn't so undesirable, leaving a vacuum of some size in their wake.

This would help sell the morality play of: keep your town running nice or people will abandon it and then it becomes a ghost town.

Yes exactly. great

Merek

TheGoodzilla wrote: »

What if...

Instead of "I'm taking my toys and going home" they implemented some wort of reduced effect like this.

Warnjng: my example most likely does not fit current game mechanics. So don't bother flaming about that

So I'm suggesting a player hypothetically contributes materials and resources to a node and then gets to unlock and then build some piece of infrastructure (say a genral goods store). Then Ego McHorrible-Mayor gets elected and starts wrecking stuff.

Player can go "OK, fix it or I'm forfeiting my land" (which would deconstruct building and give player some resources back. Town could still make a new store because it's still unlocked, but would have to regather resources

My point is (trying to agree with Captn) no single player should be allowed to be a lynch pin in the workings of a node. But those that contribute the most should be able to (like people do irl) move thaor assets and influence to another town which isn't so undesirable, leaving a vacuum of some size in their wake.

This would help sell the morality play of: keep your town running nice or people will abandon it and then it becomes a ghost town.

That would just encourage xenophobic guild monopolies, if you added resources and then tried to run off with them, they would just flag up and slaughter you to take the resources back. Your own guild won't kill you if you're corrupt. I do agree that a single player shouldn't be able to be an egotistical twat, but it's always a problem in MMO's especially ones where you can control something.

I can also see the possibility for abuse, if a guild builds half of every node around them, then someone they don't like takes control, they can 'forfeit' their land, crippling it, then they can siege it without an issue. There would definitely need to be a time window which allows a player to reclaim their materials. Without it, it'd just be a way for people to be annoying.

Voidwalkers

I'm trying to see the difference between what you're suggesting and what's already possible with known mechanics.

- Weight / contribution
-- How would you measure this? I could imagine "amount of node XP contributed" be a straight forward way, but how should the game decide "who are the most important folks in town?" Sometimes you can't just measure importance by "raw contribution" -- e.g. the trader may be contributing minimal node xp, but his presence & activity brings life to the local market, which IS important. (well unless market sales also contributes to node xp)

- Weight of citizenship, shouldn't be something that people could just sign up for
-- A player already needs to invest & have stakes in a node (in the form of housing) before signing up for citizenship, so it's not free. But may be the devs could also gate that sign up behind "contributing X amount of node XP"

- Citizens making an impact by leaving
-- With the current implementation, I guess we can almost equate a citizen to "an active player basing out of and having adequate stakes in the node", in that case ...
-- A high level artisan leaving would have an impact (fewer goods available)
-- An active adventurer leaving would have an impact (fewer node XP, and fewer "drop certificates" & raw mats e.g. pelts available)
-- A bounty hunter leaving would have an impact (node area less safe from PKers)
-- An active trader leaving would have an impact (less stuff on market, reduced convenience for other residents)
-- What I'm saying is, with the current mechanics, the citizens leaving already has an impact on the node (just not measurable in hard numbers). But for the "making a threat to leave" part, may be the devs can add a "petition board" or something like that. There's already a bulletin board anyway.

- Vassals rebelling against the Parent node
-- For now I can already imagine vassal node citizens wanting to hire mercenary guilds to take down their parent node, after all different player wants different node services. e.g. traders would prefer a high level economic node, crafters would prefer a high level scientific node, they would want to be near each other, but I guess they would probably argue over whether the econ or science node gets to be a metropolis.
-- Giving Vassals citizens the actual ability to rebel & join the node siege against their parent node could be interesting, but then that raises another question:

Why would a vassal node NOT want to rebel (apart from not having enough strength / resource to do so)?
- say I'm a crafter in a LV5 science node, a nearby econ node grows to lv 6 and puts my city under its ZOI. Now I definitely want to rebel coz I want access to the academy (only available in lv 6 science node). And many crafters in town would probably think the same way - either rebel, or move to another established science node. --- What could the parent node do to stop these crafters from leaving or staging a rebellion?

Kneczhevo

You really got me thinking, on this topic.

Then I recalled Intrepid saying; the mayor (individual) has the power to do great things or be a douche (or something along those lines). It's up to the community (resident's) responsibility to deal with the latter (voting out mayor, guild warring, move, etc). So, those are their resolve to that issue.

As to notoriety (weight) for contribution, to a node? Ya, I wanna be recognized for my efforts to. Is it really that important, to me? Not really. Tho, if others see my contribution, they might vote for me. 😁

FuryBladeborne

A guild (which has a potential maximum size 300) cannot control tier 6 node as that node will probably have influence over around 10k players on a maxed server. Giving 1 player a lot of power over a node probably won't happen aside from the mayor; and, the mayor answers to the people or the requirements for reelection.

Additionally, the highest contribution of any one player to the development of a tier 6 node (which means the player that contributes the most experience earned to level the node) is going to be quite insignificant compared to the number of people that have to put in months of work to max a node.

So, one person who's contribution is quite insignificant in the grande scheme of the node progression should somehow have a large impact on the node and their continuing presence is required over time? Why?

Birthday wrote: »

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.

One person will not be leveling from 5-6. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_advancement

Birthday wrote: »

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.

Except that you can own a mansion centerpiece to the node and there is only a small number of mansion lots available.

A note for recognition of scale: A maxed server is 50,000 players (10,000 concurrently active). Those 50k are spread across the map in a way that may be more or less even. There is a max of 5 tier 6 nodes, each controls 20% of the world. Therefore, a tier 6 node on a maxed server probably has around 10,000 players under its influence.

Warth

Birthday wrote: »

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.

This doesn't work. It has already been adressed by IS. Upon declaring thecsiege ANYBODY can join it. If you declare a siege on the lord node anybody, you will just open the doors for its enemies. You essentially save them money and resources.

Regarding the suggestions:

1. would only empower the mayor that intentionally wants to screw the city as people leaving would only increase the Damage he can do.

"important" players to the node will be known. Their leave will hurt. This could be certain guilds, known trader and high level artisans.

2. Vassals being allowed to siege the lord node would backfire immensly. The first thing everybody within a lord node will do is sieging/preparing a siege against every city rank vassal they have, apart from 3 or 2 that are loyal and controlled by someone they know / a guildmate.

Essentially just keeping everybody down before they have a reason to siege you.

Which would just screw the vassals even more.

In the current design Lord nodes are inclined to protect their vassals and keep them healthy, as every person within that node is certainly -1 Attacker and potentially +1 Defender in the Node Siege.

In your design, you'd actively encourage the lord nodes to fuck their vassals before they have a reason to siege you.

Warth

You are onto something though. You just shouldn't punish the node citizens for a bad mayor which is what you are suggesting. This is (imo) a step too late.

A system should prevent the bad mayor from getting power in the first place.In its current design, a powerful guild could just buy themselves into the mayoral seat despite only being there for essentially 2 days, then start screwing the node from there. The same might be true for Divine nodes and possibly military ones

Long term citizen should have a better chance of becoming major than random joe who just joined 2 days before the latest election cycle started. Personally, I'd do something along the lines of:

Eco:

each contribution towards becoming mayor is calcukated with +2% for each week you have been a citizen of the node (up to +50% total when you have been there for 3 months)

Divine:

each devotion quest towards becoming mayor is calcukated with +2% for each week you have been a citizen of the node (up to +50% total when you have been there for 3 months)

Military

each champion quest towards building your camp to become mayor is contributing +2% towards the currency pool of you champion (to buy gear) for each week you have been a citizen of the node (up to +50% total when you have been there for 3 months)

Scientific

None at all or the same as the ones a ove, just for votes

Mojottv

Warth wrote: »

You are onto something though. You just shouldn't punish the node citizens for a bad mayor which is what you are suggesting. This is (imo) a step too late.

A system should prevent the bad mayor from getting power in the first place.In its current design, a powerful guild could just buy themselves into the mayoral seat despite only being there for essentially 2 days, then start screwing the node from there. The same might be true for Divine nodes and possibly military ones

Long term citizen should have a better chance of becoming major than random joe who just joined 2 days before the latest election cycle started. Personally, I'd do something along the lines of:

Eco:

each contribution towards becoming mayor is calcukated with +2% for each week you have been a citizen of the node (up to +50% total when you have been there for 3 months)

Divine:

each devotion quest towards becoming mayor is calcukated with +2% for each week you have been a citizen of the node (up to +50% total when you have been there for 3 months)

Military

each champion quest towards building your camp to become mayor is contributing +2% towards the currency pool of you champion (to buy gear) for each week you have been a citizen of the node (up to +50% total when you have been there for 3 months)

Scientific

None at all or the same as the ones a ove, just for votes

Good idea, the longer you are citizen of the node, the bigger advantage you have. Makes sense, also Will keep out guilds switching the nodes and taking mayorship.

Gimlog

@Birthday with stuff like this you'll break to much their system.
And hard core player will have more advantage then the others player.

They don't want us to know anything about the xp system of nodes and your idea will show it.

And I don't know in your country but in my country I have as much right as a guy that got his nationality since one day. I don't see why it need to be different in Aoc . It will even close doors for those who come later in game.

The vassal système is there to give some stability in the world if vassals attack their parent node , we will have a very hard time getting a metropolis...
To rise a node from city to metropolis you'll need 20% of the server work for many week ...
It would be a mess if they are not force to work for the metropolis

Mojottv

Gimlog wrote: »

@Birthday with stuff like this you'll break to much their system.
And hard core player will have more advantage then the others player.

They don't want us to know anything about the xp system of nodes and your idea will show it.

And I don't know in your country but in my country I have as much right as a guy that got his nationality since one day. I don't see why it need to be different in Aoc . It will even close doors for those who come later in game.

The vassal système is there to give some stability in the world if vassals attack their parent node , we will have a very hard time getting a metropolis...
To rise a node from city to metropolis you'll need 20% of the server work for many week ...
It would be a mess if they are not force to work for the metropolis

Well, what he was suggesting doesn't put you at a disadvantage if you are not hardcore player actually, as it doesn't rely on your exp contribution or anything. I just takes into account how long ago you joined the node.

And yes, you and guy who just got nationality have same rights, but you have advantages in being born in that country, living there longer. The longer you live in one country the bigger advantage you have against someone who newly moved there. Because of your connections, work history, knowing how things actually work, etc etc. So running for office would be easier for you than, new guy.

And it should be extremely hard in my opinion.dont like idea of top end things being easy, and metropolis node is top end.

neuroguy

I don't like this because players contribute to node xp by just doing their own thing. If you want to have a voice in your node/impact, you should make deliberate choices to do so at the expensive of other things you could be working on. Having political power should revolve around investing into becoming mayor or having a guild that can provide important services etc. To have political power just by gathering a lot, or farming mobs in a certain spot doesn't feel good to me and diminishes the identify of different node types. If I can gain political power just by gathering and farming mobs in any kind of node, it feels bland.

Your ideas just seem to be very solo/individual centric which I think the game is definitely not about. Even when it comes to becoming mayor, it sounds like people could group together to make it happen. E.g. you make an agreement in the free-for-all between some players to not attack each other in a military node, or you invest and donate to a certain player so they have enough money to win in an economic node. So to give random individual players lots of power without requiring them to make significant social interactions/contributions doesn't fit the game's design philosophy in my eyes.

I believe IS already said they are working on a system to prematurely remove a mayor people don't like.

Marcet

I think the way the developers made this is already good, and we'll see when the game launches how it goes.

Gimlog

@Mojottv well than it's knowledge and social connections, it doesn't need to be implemented in game as a mechanic.
If you are in a node and I come 2 month later in , you'll have the knowledge of where to go and who to talk with to get what ever you want while I may struggle a bit to find out.
If you are part of a group that is very skilled to defend the node or caravan and gathering resources, you will have as a group the weight you are looking for. It's social interaction and it doesn't need to be coded in game ...
The influence you have in your country isn't from laws but from your skills and connections.

But what ever it doesn't really matter if it's realistic for a game.
If I over all accept your idea , the problem that comes up is will we really be able to get influence throw your system?
We don't know how much would be needed to build a infrastructure or how much xp is need to lvl up nodes , you may end up with a guy that play 20h a day and got 2% of the general progression

Mojottv

Gimlog wrote: »

@Mojottv well than it's knowledge and social connections, it doesn't need to be implemented in game as a mechanic.
If you are in a node and I come 2 month later in , you'll have the knowledge of where to go and who to talk with to get what ever you want while I may struggle a bit to find out.
If you are part of a group that is very skilled to defend the node or caravan and gathering resources, you will have as a group the weight you are looking for. It's social interaction and it doesn't need to be coded in game ...
The influence you have in your country isn't from laws but from your skills and connections.

But what ever it doesn't really matter if it's realistic for a game.
If I over all accept your idea , the problem that comes up is will we really be able to get influence throw your system?
We don't know how much would be needed to build a infrastructure or how much xp is need to lvl up nodes , you may end up with a guy that play 20h a day and got 2% of the general progression

Well its not my idea, but @Warth . I mean, its not real life it's a game and you cant have 1000s of ways to get into politics and becoming a mayor, so some rules have to be hardcoded. The thing is, every same lvl node will be more or less similar, so there's not much new to learn if you join a new node, all the game mechanics will be the same, rules the same, in real world, rules change country to country and node is basically a country, or kingdom. Moreover if you have a good party, it will not help you much, if massive guild decides to take over, come in numbers, join before the election and vote you out etc etc. I believe religion node is the only one that wouldnt allow it.

In any case, if i understand correctly @Warth idea, is that if lets say you been citizen of the node for 3 months, you get extra 50%, so if its scientific node, you get 100 votes, so your total is 150. Someone who has been in the node for only 1.5 month with 100 votes will have 125 votes in total as his bonus is 25%, massive guild comes in, day before election, they don't get no bonus. So its not about how many hours you clocked in while exping in the node but about how long you have been a citizen. You get bonus based on time you been citizen, so you get even more incentive to stay at one node and this further discourages guilds jumping node to node.

Child Item