Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Calamity (node destroyer) contestable quests?

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.

Comments

  • RavudhaRavudha Member
    edited January 2021
    I really like the idea of having PvE have far-reaching effects like damaging a node (maybe destroying is a bit far).

    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.
  • JamationJamation Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    So I think there are times when monsters will attack a node, especially as the node progresses, but I've always loved the idea of a worldwide event where the server population has to work together.

    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)
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Undead wave please ^^
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    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
  • I actually like the idea of being the Mayor and having the option to complete some absurdly difficult questline, that upon completion sacrifices my city and all its inhabitants to one of the dark gods in some horrible dark magical obliteration.

    Buuuuut I can kinda see how player pettiness and mayoral voting systems make that maybe a poor idea.
  • These are some super exciting ideas
    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.