Well, only in the same way some brat kid places his hand barely in front of another childs face, yelling "I'm not touching you!".
Your suggestion takes the game from being one where players build all civilization (which is a basic requirement based on what little we know of the lore), to one of "for some reason, player characters and NPC's each have their own cities, and can't co-mingle", which is just straight up not what Ashes is.
Basically, you are coming up with a game that is not this game.
Well, only in the same way some brat kid places his hand barely in front of another childs face, yelling "I'm not touching you!"..
Wow! No, its not.
Your suggestion takes the game from being one where players build all civilization (which is a basic requirement based on what little we know of the lore), to one of "for some reason, player characters and NPC's each have their own cities, and can't co-mingle", which is just straight up not what Ashes is.
The basis of the game is nodes is meant for us. I'm adding that nodes can be utilized to build further life in the game in the opposite direction. How far or how deep, and how fast is not something I've touched upon that much as this is an initial idea - discussing it to improve it is kinda the point.
We've already got the "Monster Coin" event, where NPC's interact with us through the node system. I'm simply builing more on that, which creates a logical reason as to why they have further incentives to do so imo. So that logic is already there for them to launch an attack towards us. The difference now is that if we leave that area alone if they win, they start to build up a harder camp/village for us to take over again later.
What kind of camp/village they build surely depends on where in the world it is. If its a bunch of dragons that is attacking, then it makes no sense for a "dragon-village", but a "dragon-den" in contact with the zone in the mountains for example would build it self up. Over time dragons fly over the zone, and it becomes an endgame zone procedurally. To take it over, we fight back and kill off the dragons with the main finale in the dragons-den. Its the same logic that follows now for our node system where it goes in the opposite direction.
If we reach a LV6 Metrolopis this type of boss encounters opens anyway, and same would be true the opposite direction where they are left to roam and rule at will without interruption to grow.
The same underlying systems are still there, and how much my idea gets involved is up to discussion.
Well, only in the same way some brat kid places his hand barely in front of another childs face, yelling "I'm not touching you!"..
Wow! No, its not.
It really is.
Ashes is all about node rivalry - but that rivalry is supposed to be with other players, not with NPC's. You are trying to take the primary rivalry in the game and lessen it by making it PvE rather than PvP.
Again, that is a totally different game to what Ashes is.
Well, only in the same way some brat kid places his hand barely in front of another childs face, yelling "I'm not touching you!"..
Wow! No, its not.
Ashes is all about node rivalry - but that rivalry is supposed to be with other players, not with NPC's. You are trying to take the primary rivalry in the game and lessen it by making it PvE rather than PvP.
Why do players fight in the game in the first place? To get control over resources. If you control NPC's you get resources. A player ran node can perfectly fine want to protect and remove players from the neighboring node which is controlled by NPCs because that zone is their grinding spot.
I also introduced an extension towards the caravan system that could and most likely will produce a lot of good PvP content.
If a NPC gets big enough to be characterized as a boss, a procedural quest system spawned caravans in neighbouring Player controlled nodes to drive towards the NPC, where it would arrive at the same time.
What would the players do in an open world sandbox PvP game? Will they cooperate to beat the boss? Will they kill off eachother first to be able to get the boss alone to not share the loot?
A Sandbox game is about options. The more options the game give players, the more intrigues will results from is, for us to make our own history.
Why would they take a game that is built on the foundation of PVP and change it?
Think of a house. You can make cosmetic changes any time you want. If you want to change the foundation, you have to start over.
If you introduce higher reward, you also introduce more incentive to control those rewards. This isn't about PvE, its about PvX.
The foundation is the same, its utilizing the same logic the game already have. No changes would be needed on the "+" stage of the node system. I introduce a "-" stage on the other end.
So instead of nodes only having a minimum state of 0 where no one controls it up to state 6 where its a Metroloplis for Players, it also have a "-" stage going towards NPC controlled content.
Guilds having control to utilize the "-" stage is of course something that would have been seen, and players would fight over the right to farm this area to progress them selves. The difference is at "+" zones, you farm reagents for crafting. At "-" states its best to farm mobs since they are automatically bigger, and badder there where all of this is controlled procedurally based on our movement in the world.
0
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The devs have said from day one this is how its going to work and you want to change it?
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
Big fan of the ideas presented by OP. My preferred iterations on these ideas are:
"NPC nodes" aren't nodes in any traditional sense, but most closely resemble the Dragon Den you referred to, oophus. This really captures the idea that the open world is a wild one, and if left to it's own devices it will become increasingly harder to tame. I think that makes more sense that town-type nodes, since this world is meant to be largely unoccupied by advanced civilizations or creatures with any form of built up environment. If these creatures existed, Verra would already have cities upon arrival. I would be fascinated by the idea of including humanoid races with basic societies resembling those of First Peoples on our Earth, allowing for players to decide to share tech with them or steal their resources, however as others have mentioned, I think that's outside of the scope of the lore and dev's intentions.
The whole idea of mobs getting stronger/more notorious as they battle/kill players is super exciting. What really caught my eye was the mention of a sea-monster that suddenly arose from the depths to kill a bunch of players, eat their gear, and then sink back to the ocean floor. This creates an incredible world event that combines PvE aspect (hunting the monster and killing it) with a PvP aspect (racing and battling other hunting squads to be the first to get the loot). I think if this were something more intentionally placed by devs, rather than a run-of-the-mill mob slowly getting stronger by chance kills, it would be a great addition to the world - I think it would also be hilarious for the devs to be able to log in and play as these "bounty monsters". I'm sure they'd have a blast, and it would make the hunt/fight just that much more interactive!
0
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
Not only have they laid out what they want to do, they have said they aren't really going to entertain suggestions from the player base. The feedback they want from us is in relation to whether or not things appear to be working as intended, not as to how someone wants then to drastically alter the fou rations of the game.
1
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
And I'm tired of people having the need to jump into discussions without even touching the topic at hand. Whats the point? If you don't like a thread or an idea, don't get involved. Or at least give reasons to why you don't like it if you end up writing something. You speaking for the devs makes no sense.
0
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
And I'm tired of people having the need to jump into discussions without even touching the topic at hand. Whats the point? If you don't like a thread or an idea, don't get involved. Or at least give reasons to why you don't like it if you end up writing something. You speaking for the devs makes no sense.
Im not speaking for the devs I'm just repeating what they have said
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
And I'm tired of people having the need to jump into discussions without even touching the topic at hand. Whats the point? If you don't like a thread or an idea, don't get involved. Or at least give reasons to why you don't like it if you end up writing something. You speaking for the devs makes no sense.
Im not speaking for the devs I'm just repeating what they have said
Give a link to what they have said then. Plus why have a forum if the devs aren't interested in reading it? They are even asking for feedback and have said they are willing to and welcome ideas.
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
And I'm tired of people having the need to jump into discussions without even touching the topic at hand. Whats the point? If you don't like a thread or an idea, don't get involved. Or at least give reasons to why you don't like it if you end up writing something. You speaking for the devs makes no sense.
Agreed. This was a great idea, one that could have developed into a great conversation, but now I doubt anyone interested is going to take the time to waddle through all the squabbling.
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
And I'm tired of people having the need to jump into discussions without even touching the topic at hand. Whats the point? If you don't like a thread or an idea, don't get involved. Or at least give reasons to why you don't like it if you end up writing something. You speaking for the devs makes no sense.
Agreed. This was a great idea, one that could have developed into a great conversation, but now I doubt anyone interested is going to take the time to waddle through all the squabbling.
I know. The guys spamming the forums with comments that doesn't touch the topic but just whine doesn't do the forum any good. I will report some posts in here and hope the moderator can clean it up a bit.
1
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
And I'm tired of people having the need to jump into discussions without even touching the topic at hand. Whats the point? If you don't like a thread or an idea, don't get involved. Or at least give reasons to why you don't like it if you end up writing something. You speaking for the devs makes no sense.
Im not speaking for the devs I'm just repeating what they have said
Give a link to what they have said then. Plus why have a forum if the devs aren't interested in reading it? They are even asking for feedback and have said they are willing to and welcome ideas.
Ok here you go
and the devs want feedback not changes with out proof
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
And I'm tired of people having the need to jump into discussions without even touching the topic at hand. Whats the point? If you don't like a thread or an idea, don't get involved. Or at least give reasons to why you don't like it if you end up writing something. You speaking for the devs makes no sense.
Im not speaking for the devs I'm just repeating what they have said
Give a link to what they have said then. Plus why have a forum if the devs aren't interested in reading it? They are even asking for feedback and have said they are willing to and welcome ideas.
Ok here you go
and the devs want feedback not changes with out proof
My suggestion does not alter the max allowed Metropolis nodes. I have even stated that I don't think NPC nodes should reach level 6 unless it really makes sense to do so. And if an NPC Node actually gets to level 6, then it would take the place of player ran nodes. Which means a fight to take it down from players, and between players would be the result of it, as it would be a node to be worth fighting over.
0
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
And I'm tired of people having the need to jump into discussions without even touching the topic at hand. Whats the point? If you don't like a thread or an idea, don't get involved. Or at least give reasons to why you don't like it if you end up writing something. You speaking for the devs makes no sense.
Im not speaking for the devs I'm just repeating what they have said
Give a link to what they have said then. Plus why have a forum if the devs aren't interested in reading it? They are even asking for feedback and have said they are willing to and welcome ideas.
Ok here you go
and the devs want feedback not changes with out proof
My suggestion does not alter the max allowed Metropolis nodes. I have even stated that I don't think NPC nodes should reach level 6 unless it really makes sense to do so. And if an NPC Node actually gets to level 6, then it would take the place of player ran nodes. Which means a fight to take it down from players, and between players would be the result of it, as it would be a node to be worth fighting over.
that again does not fit. remember we are some of the first people in Verra we are rebuilding the world so having NPC cities makes no sense
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
And I'm tired of people having the need to jump into discussions without even touching the topic at hand. Whats the point? If you don't like a thread or an idea, don't get involved. Or at least give reasons to why you don't like it if you end up writing something. You speaking for the devs makes no sense.
Im not speaking for the devs I'm just repeating what they have said
Give a link to what they have said then. Plus why have a forum if the devs aren't interested in reading it? They are even asking for feedback and have said they are willing to and welcome ideas.
Ok here you go
and the devs want feedback not changes with out proof
My suggestion does not alter the max allowed Metropolis nodes. I have even stated that I don't think NPC nodes should reach level 6 unless it really makes sense to do so. And if an NPC Node actually gets to level 6, then it would take the place of player ran nodes. Which means a fight to take it down from players, and between players would be the result of it, as it would be a node to be worth fighting over.
that again does not fit. remember we are some of the first people in Verra we are rebuilding the world so having NPC cities makes no sense
The world of Vera is already populated by NPC's. How the node system towards them works does not necessarily mean that they build a normal settlment... It has to be logical and I've already explained this.
Animals out in the world do a ton of different things to protect their habitat, and whatever NPC that is in X location will make the node fitting to that type of animal, monster or creep.
and the devs want feedback not changes with out proof
My suggestion does not alter the max allowed Metropolis nodes. I have even stated that I don't think NPC nodes should reach level 6 unless it really makes sense to do so. And if an NPC Node actually gets to level 6, then it would take the place of player ran nodes. Which means a fight to take it down from players, and between players would be the result of it, as it would be a node to be worth fighting over.
that again does not fit. remember we are some of the first people in Verra we are rebuilding the world so having NPC cities makes no sense [/quote]
@Nagash What do you think of the Dragon Den idea that @oophus outlined earlier and that I backed above? I agree that having established civs would be wrong, as would having NPC races that could suddenly build cities once our races arrive... But the idea of untamed land becoming more and more dangerous as wild beasts breed and settle into it more is a cool one to me. Also, you could argue that it makes sense for these things to happen near nodes because if we're drawn to a node to settle (abundance of resources being a main driver, most like) then the wild beasts would prefer to settle there too, right?
0
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
And I'm tired of people having the need to jump into discussions without even touching the topic at hand. Whats the point? If you don't like a thread or an idea, don't get involved. Or at least give reasons to why you don't like it if you end up writing something. You speaking for the devs makes no sense.
Im not speaking for the devs I'm just repeating what they have said
Give a link to what they have said then. Plus why have a forum if the devs aren't interested in reading it? They are even asking for feedback and have said they are willing to and welcome ideas.
Ok here you go
and the devs want feedback not changes with out proof
My suggestion does not alter the max allowed Metropolis nodes. I have even stated that I don't think NPC nodes should reach level 6 unless it really makes sense to do so. And if an NPC Node actually gets to level 6, then it would take the place of player ran nodes. Which means a fight to take it down from players, and between players would be the result of it, as it would be a node to be worth fighting over.
that again does not fit. remember we are some of the first people in Verra we are rebuilding the world so having NPC cities makes no sense
The world of Vera is already populated by NPC's. How the node system towards them works does not necessarily mean that they build a normal settlment... It has to be logical and I've already explained this.
Animals out in the world do a ton of different things to protect their habitat, and whatever NPC that is in X location will make the node fitting to that type of animal, monster or creep.
while there are NPC in ashes they do not make nodes that is all the players
and the devs want feedback not changes with out proof
My suggestion does not alter the max allowed Metropolis nodes. I have even stated that I don't think NPC nodes should reach level 6 unless it really makes sense to do so. And if an NPC Node actually gets to level 6, then it would take the place of player ran nodes. Which means a fight to take it down from players, and between players would be the result of it, as it would be a node to be worth fighting over.
that again does not fit. remember we are some of the first people in Verra we are rebuilding the world so having NPC cities makes no sense
@Nagash What do you think of the Dragon Den idea that @oophus outlined earlier and that I backed above? I agree that having established civs would be wrong, as would having NPC races that could suddenly build cities once our races arrive... But the idea of untamed land becoming more and more dangerous as wild beasts breed and settle into it more is a cool one to me. Also, you could argue that it makes sense for these things to happen near nodes because if we're drawn to a node to settle (abundance of resources being a main driver, most like) then the wild beasts would prefer to settle there too, right?
[/quote]
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
And I'm tired of people having the need to jump into discussions without even touching the topic at hand. Whats the point? If you don't like a thread or an idea, don't get involved. Or at least give reasons to why you don't like it if you end up writing something. You speaking for the devs makes no sense.
Im not speaking for the devs I'm just repeating what they have said
Give a link to what they have said then. Plus why have a forum if the devs aren't interested in reading it? They are even asking for feedback and have said they are willing to and welcome ideas.
Ok here you go
and the devs want feedback not changes with out proof
My suggestion does not alter the max allowed Metropolis nodes. I have even stated that I don't think NPC nodes should reach level 6 unless it really makes sense to do so. And if an NPC Node actually gets to level 6, then it would take the place of player ran nodes. Which means a fight to take it down from players, and between players would be the result of it, as it would be a node to be worth fighting over.
that again does not fit. remember we are some of the first people in Verra we are rebuilding the world so having NPC cities makes no sense
The world of Vera is already populated by NPC's. How the node system towards them works does not necessarily mean that they build a normal settlment... It has to be logical and I've already explained this.
Animals out in the world do a ton of different things to protect their habitat, and whatever NPC that is in X location will make the node fitting to that type of animal, monster or creep.
while there are NPC in ashes they do not make nodes that is all the players
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
It is way better for you to address your concerns than for me to repeat what I've already stated in this thread. My stance on why I think this would be a good addition to the game is pretty clear already.
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
And I'm tired of people having the need to jump into discussions without even touching the topic at hand. Whats the point? If you don't like a thread or an idea, don't get involved. Or at least give reasons to why you don't like it if you end up writing something. You speaking for the devs makes no sense.
Im not speaking for the devs I'm just repeating what they have said
Give a link to what they have said then. Plus why have a forum if the devs aren't interested in reading it? They are even asking for feedback and have said they are willing to and welcome ideas.
Ok here you go
and the devs want feedback not changes with out proof
My suggestion does not alter the max allowed Metropolis nodes. I have even stated that I don't think NPC nodes should reach level 6 unless it really makes sense to do so. And if an NPC Node actually gets to level 6, then it would take the place of player ran nodes. Which means a fight to take it down from players, and between players would be the result of it, as it would be a node to be worth fighting over.
that again does not fit. remember we are some of the first people in Verra we are rebuilding the world so having NPC cities makes no sense
The world of Vera is already populated by NPC's. How the node system towards them works does not necessarily mean that they build a normal settlment... It has to be logical and I've already explained this.
Animals out in the world do a ton of different things to protect their habitat, and whatever NPC that is in X location will make the node fitting to that type of animal, monster or creep.
while there are NPC in ashes they do not make nodes that is all the players
Comments
Your suggestion takes the game from being one where players build all civilization (which is a basic requirement based on what little we know of the lore), to one of "for some reason, player characters and NPC's each have their own cities, and can't co-mingle", which is just straight up not what Ashes is.
Basically, you are coming up with a game that is not this game.
The basis of the game is nodes is meant for us. I'm adding that nodes can be utilized to build further life in the game in the opposite direction. How far or how deep, and how fast is not something I've touched upon that much as this is an initial idea - discussing it to improve it is kinda the point.
We've already got the "Monster Coin" event, where NPC's interact with us through the node system. I'm simply builing more on that, which creates a logical reason as to why they have further incentives to do so imo. So that logic is already there for them to launch an attack towards us. The difference now is that if we leave that area alone if they win, they start to build up a harder camp/village for us to take over again later.
What kind of camp/village they build surely depends on where in the world it is. If its a bunch of dragons that is attacking, then it makes no sense for a "dragon-village", but a "dragon-den" in contact with the zone in the mountains for example would build it self up. Over time dragons fly over the zone, and it becomes an endgame zone procedurally. To take it over, we fight back and kill off the dragons with the main finale in the dragons-den. Its the same logic that follows now for our node system where it goes in the opposite direction.
If we reach a LV6 Metrolopis this type of boss encounters opens anyway, and same would be true the opposite direction where they are left to roam and rule at will without interruption to grow.
The same underlying systems are still there, and how much my idea gets involved is up to discussion.
Ashes is all about node rivalry - but that rivalry is supposed to be with other players, not with NPC's. You are trying to take the primary rivalry in the game and lessen it by making it PvE rather than PvP.
Again, that is a totally different game to what Ashes is.
Think of a house. You can make cosmetic changes any time you want. If you want to change the foundation, you have to start over.
Why do players fight in the game in the first place? To get control over resources. If you control NPC's you get resources. A player ran node can perfectly fine want to protect and remove players from the neighboring node which is controlled by NPCs because that zone is their grinding spot.
I also introduced an extension towards the caravan system that could and most likely will produce a lot of good PvP content.
If a NPC gets big enough to be characterized as a boss, a procedural quest system spawned caravans in neighbouring Player controlled nodes to drive towards the NPC, where it would arrive at the same time.
What would the players do in an open world sandbox PvP game? Will they cooperate to beat the boss? Will they kill off eachother first to be able to get the boss alone to not share the loot?
A Sandbox game is about options. The more options the game give players, the more intrigues will results from is, for us to make our own history.
If you introduce higher reward, you also introduce more incentive to control those rewards. This isn't about PvE, its about PvX.
The foundation is the same, its utilizing the same logic the game already have. No changes would be needed on the "+" stage of the node system. I introduce a "-" stage on the other end.
So instead of nodes only having a minimum state of 0 where no one controls it up to state 6 where its a Metroloplis for Players, it also have a "-" stage going towards NPC controlled content.
Guilds having control to utilize the "-" stage is of course something that would have been seen, and players would fight over the right to farm this area to progress them selves. The difference is at "+" zones, you farm reagents for crafting. At "-" states its best to farm mobs since they are automatically bigger, and badder there where all of this is controlled procedurally based on our movement in the world.
to add or take away is changing
and why is your idea better than what we have already?
"NPC nodes" aren't nodes in any traditional sense, but most closely resemble the Dragon Den you referred to, oophus. This really captures the idea that the open world is a wild one, and if left to it's own devices it will become increasingly harder to tame. I think that makes more sense that town-type nodes, since this world is meant to be largely unoccupied by advanced civilizations or creatures with any form of built up environment. If these creatures existed, Verra would already have cities upon arrival. I would be fascinated by the idea of including humanoid races with basic societies resembling those of First Peoples on our Earth, allowing for players to decide to share tech with them or steal their resources, however as others have mentioned, I think that's outside of the scope of the lore and dev's intentions.
The whole idea of mobs getting stronger/more notorious as they battle/kill players is super exciting. What really caught my eye was the mention of a sea-monster that suddenly arose from the depths to kill a bunch of players, eat their gear, and then sink back to the ocean floor. This creates an incredible world event that combines PvE aspect (hunting the monster and killing it) with a PvP aspect (racing and battling other hunting squads to be the first to get the loot). I think if this were something more intentionally placed by devs, rather than a run-of-the-mill mob slowly getting stronger by chance kills, it would be a great addition to the world - I think it would also be hilarious for the devs to be able to log in and play as these "bounty monsters". I'm sure they'd have a blast, and it would make the hunt/fight just that much more interactive!
I don't have concerns I'm just tired of people who join wanting the game to do what they say when the devs have laid out their plans form day one
It is also well within the devs plans to listen to the community's feedback and desires, that's been stated as like their highest priority.
Not only have they laid out what they want to do, they have said they aren't really going to entertain suggestions from the player base. The feedback they want from us is in relation to whether or not things appear to be working as intended, not as to how someone wants then to drastically alter the fou rations of the game.
where did you read that?
Im not speaking for the devs I'm just repeating what they have said
Agreed. This was a great idea, one that could have developed into a great conversation, but now I doubt anyone interested is going to take the time to waddle through all the squabbling.
I know. The guys spamming the forums with comments that doesn't touch the topic but just whine doesn't do the forum any good. I will report some posts in here and hope the moderator can clean it up a bit.
Ok here you go
and the devs want feedback not changes with out proof
that again does not fit. remember we are some of the first people in Verra we are rebuilding the world so having NPC cities makes no sense
Animals out in the world do a ton of different things to protect their habitat, and whatever NPC that is in X location will make the node fitting to that type of animal, monster or creep.
that again does not fit. remember we are some of the first people in Verra we are rebuilding the world so having NPC cities makes no sense [/quote]
@Nagash What do you think of the Dragon Den idea that @oophus outlined earlier and that I backed above? I agree that having established civs would be wrong, as would having NPC races that could suddenly build cities once our races arrive... But the idea of untamed land becoming more and more dangerous as wild beasts breed and settle into it more is a cool one to me. Also, you could argue that it makes sense for these things to happen near nodes because if we're drawn to a node to settle (abundance of resources being a main driver, most like) then the wild beasts would prefer to settle there too, right?
while there are NPC in ashes they do not make nodes that is all the players
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_advancement just have a read of this, please
@Nagash What do you think of the Dragon Den idea that @oophus outlined earlier and that I backed above? I agree that having established civs would be wrong, as would having NPC races that could suddenly build cities once our races arrive... But the idea of untamed land becoming more and more dangerous as wild beasts breed and settle into it more is a cool one to me. Also, you could argue that it makes sense for these things to happen near nodes because if we're drawn to a node to settle (abundance of resources being a main driver, most like) then the wild beasts would prefer to settle there too, right?
[/quote]
well that already happens
I did and like I said before NPC do NOT make nodes only players