Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Calamity (node destroyer) contestable quests?
Everdark
Member, Alpha Two
Given that a functional driver of AoC is the cycle of building and destroying nodes, I curious how many node destruction options should exist. At present we know that nodes can atrophy and be de-leveled or destroyed as a result, and node sieges allow players to destroy nodes. Is two sufficient or would you like more options to influence the world in this particular manner? I've thrown out one idea below.
I think it might be interesting to add a calamity quest line as another method to destroy a node. This means node defenders have to worry about splitting their focus between defending against sieges and also preventing completion of calamity quests. The quest-line would obviously need to be fairly long, with contestable completion requirements, but could introduce a little more complexity to node defense and attack.
For example, the final part of the attacker quest might require attackers to establish corrupted magic crystals in the underrealm beneath the metropolis and establish magical connections from those crystals to the center of the metropolis - if all are established and connected the node is annihilated. Defenders can destroy the crystals themselves as well as the magical supply lines preventing completion. Spacing these crystals out over a sufficiently large area around the node center and you've got a map control mechanic that players can fight over when node sieges are not occurring. To make it interesting, maybe the defenders get a buff if no corrupted crystals have been established, giving those who want to destroy the node incentive to split some of their time to this mechanic. Not sure how the open world type PvP environment would function in something like this, but I think you could make it work.
I think it might be interesting to add a calamity quest line as another method to destroy a node. This means node defenders have to worry about splitting their focus between defending against sieges and also preventing completion of calamity quests. The quest-line would obviously need to be fairly long, with contestable completion requirements, but could introduce a little more complexity to node defense and attack.
For example, the final part of the attacker quest might require attackers to establish corrupted magic crystals in the underrealm beneath the metropolis and establish magical connections from those crystals to the center of the metropolis - if all are established and connected the node is annihilated. Defenders can destroy the crystals themselves as well as the magical supply lines preventing completion. Spacing these crystals out over a sufficiently large area around the node center and you've got a map control mechanic that players can fight over when node sieges are not occurring. To make it interesting, maybe the defenders get a buff if no corrupted crystals have been established, giving those who want to destroy the node incentive to split some of their time to this mechanic. Not sure how the open world type PvP environment would function in something like this, but I think you could make it work.
1
Comments
One thing I'd change is make it impossible for a calamity and a siege to both happen - seems a lot for defenders to handle. I think it's also important to put a reason behind it. Having one metropolis suddenly being targeted by a natural disaster without justification could be received as unfair.
You could, for instance, have hints of the calamitous threat toward a node sprinkled through certain quest lines and raids so that player's are made aware of the risks of their decisions when choosing what content to pursue, and they are given the opportunity to prepare for it.
Maybe when the server finally has all 6(?) or so metropolis built a world encounter begins at some point where a big baddie sends out 6 big baddies to go attack said metropolises (metropoli?) and in order to entice everyone in the server if they defeat the big baddie the gods, or what not, reward the server with a week long buff or blessing or something.
(I do agree that PvE sieges shouldn't be allowed in tangent with PvP sieges as they could both be counted as a declared sieged, but perhaps having a much shorter refresh timer for siege declaration compared to a PvP siege in order not to ~~~~block a group that might've be working towards a PvP siege)
Buuuuut I can kinda see how player pettiness and mayoral voting systems make that maybe a poor idea.
I think the possibility of tying in PvE content to the shuffling of the node system is compelling - I have previously mostly thought of PvE building up and using the nodes (crafting, economy, quests) and PvP being the force that drives razing and resets. Contestable requirements seems like a cool way to keep it from being hammered on by aggressive players too. For some reason it makes me think of the Shattered Sun Offensive from Burning Crusade - kind of a big incremental thing with elements of player choice along the way.
A more pertinent reference might be the recent PvE event in EVE where players worked with an NPC invasion force to raze an important system that disrupted long-established trade routes.
I'm eager to see how the organizations that players can join will have an effect on the world as well - things like the thieves' guild or the academy pursuing their own goals that might run counter to the interests of specific nodes. I think you get a lot of good emergent story out of conflicting loyalties - you're a thief and the thieves's guild is planning on busting the mayoral vault in your metro, who do you help? who do you betray?