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!
Options
Destruction of nodes.
FastLoaf
Member
What would incentivize a player to keep playing after their node is destroyed; other than revenge? I mean if you lose so much stuff even your housing and a % of things in the bank. I personally worry that a lot of players will be really into the node leveling aspect, but completely be turned off when it is conquered and they lose a lot of things. I wonder what would give them a reason to keep playing?
1
Comments
But people are generally more accepting of things like this when they know it's a possibility beforehand.
Furthermore, the victories, progress and such mean more when you have things to lose.
That aside, I'm pretty sure you don't actually lose that much personally when a node is destroyed.
You lose access to the crafting stations and stuff the node had but you keep your stuff. You even keep the layout of your house for you to just spawn back in when you get it back.
In addition, I wouldn't be surprised if the more aggressive guilds tended to gravitate towards military nodes to get the PvP benefits from those nodes. So the big military nodes may want to protect the nearby scientific, divine and economic nodes which all provide benefits to the military node in the middle of them. So what may happen is the big PvP military nodes go after each other first.
But what do you think @FastLoaf ? I am just speculating.
As for Alliances, If I understand this correctly guilds are separate from node citizenship. This means a large guild could decide a central node to level and focus on. Then the surrounding nodes taken over by different guild members via the mayoral system and making a guild run kingdom. This would allow them to muster forces quicker, pass treaties more effectively and quickly, have safer trade routs allowing them to distribute resources more effectively. They would probably actually need some guild members to be very focused on the logistics of their kingdom. This would be even more powerful if the guild owns both a metropolis and one of the five castles in the world.
I see a large guild, probably a streamers guild doing this first and then other large guilds following the formula and making several large kingdoms on the map. Then smaller kingdoms banning together to try and not get gobbles up by the larger ones influence or power. Kind of like medieval Europe.
The beauty and scary truth about the mayoral system is that is will allow a guild to take over a node with no military or siege. Economic nodes are especially susceptible to large guilds sending a member in with a lot of gold and just out bidding everyone who is actually local. In the long term I see less and less sieges and more mayoral takeovers, mostly because an already established city is way more useful and profitable.
This train of thought is dependent on if guild members can be citizens of different nodes. I have not seen information to the contrary.
I guess I just really hope a lot of players stick around long enough to see the world get beyond its chaotic beginnings.
Pre-launch here, yours truly has found that many players feel that they'll be settling down in a Node for a very long time, possibly for the life of the game. However, the more of the mechanics I've learned, the more it looks like the average player may change Nodes every so many months.
It kind of feels like the better question is: "Why would you quit just because your first Node was destroyed?"
@Tyranthraxus I believe that the idea used to be that a node defeated in a siege decreased by one level, but that is different now. A node which loses to the attacker in a siege now goes down to Wilderness! So any city level adjacent nodes can now race to become the new Metropolis. Check the wiki, of course, to make sure that I am correct here.
I agree that citizens should hopefully be tough enough to push through the adversity of losing a node and keep playing for the long game. I would submit that any player who quit because their node lost a battle is the kind of person who is going to quit over SOMETHING pretty soon anyway, so that kind of player we really don't need, IMHO.
View it as an opportunity for a new beginning and a change of scenery, not the end of fun in the game.
But yea, people will quit the game over this for sure. Oh well
What ways can we help players cope with loss, and encourage them to pick up the pieces and go again?
there are two types of node player
1. why would you burn down my home after so much work, you monster!
2. blood for the blood god skulls for the skull throne let Verra burn!
@Nagash
You really got to stop saying this, my guy. I'm not sure if it's you every time, but I read this a lot. let's try to be a little more inclusive, help new people adjust, eh?
If a Node loses a siege, it goes to level 0 and is basically destroyed. A citizen of that node keeps some of the stuff from the bank, and the layout of their house and/ or freehold, but the node is gone.
No no, we should make sure people are completely aware of the type of game they are getting into. Why would we want to cater to a player if they are gonna rage quit the first time their node is destroyed and they lose a portion of their banked materials? Isn't node sieging going to be a VERY large part of the game considering it's how you unlock new PvE content in the world?
It's not going to be a matter of "If" your node is going to be destroyed, it's a matter of "When" chances are. If people quit the game over that, this game isn't exactly built for them is it?
Yes, i understand it is good to educate people. but saying "go home, we don't want you here" just doesn't sit right with me.
I understand what you been but I'm sticking to my point that if people find ashes, not to their taste then they should not force themselves to play. An example I suck at platformers so when I play one and I complain that it's too hard or that there is a mechanic that I don't like and I demand that the game should change to fit me then that's my fault and not the games. The same is said of ashes. Some of the mechanics in ashes will not be for everyone and that's fine as some games are just not for everyone some games have a niche and we should accept that.
I'm sorry but I may have missed the part where anyone was catering to players who will just rage quit? He was asking for the phrase "maybe this isn't the game for you" (which indeed is used too much on these forums) to be used less in order to include more players to the game. Helping to build the community up is what Intrepid has asked of us. We do want everyone to know exactly what this game will be but there are better ways than "go away if you don't like it".
@FastLoaf this style of game is fun for a number of reasons. Ashes of Creation = from the ashes of destruction, we will create. Revenge is a given. Destroy a guilds area and naturally they will spend more time rebuilding to get revenge. I am assuming you mean the smaller groups or even solo players. In this case, smaller groups and solo players at that point in time can decide to move to a new area, go across the continent, join a new group, merge into the successful group and so much more. Yeah, some stuff got destroyed or stolen but we will still have the essentials to be able to make other choices.
If you look at games like Rust or Conan Exiles. People are relentless. You lose EVERYTHING and become naked when you get wiped out. In Rust there are weekly, bi-weekly and monthly wipes. Players look forward to wipe days to start fresh and go from naked to AK asap. I don't see AOC being nearly as bad as Rust in terms of losses.
@maouw The gaming community absolutely has been babied. I'm really hoping individual banked loot will be untouched to prevent any sort of total loss. I haven't done much research in this area.
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.[119][120][121]
This includes gatherables and processed goods that were stored in in-node housing and apartment storage chests. These do not become lootable if the node survives the siege- even if the housing buildings are destroyed or damaged during the siege.[119]
Players are prohibited from moving goods out of depositories within the node following a siege declaration against that node
Impact on player housing
Player housing designs and decorations are retained and can be placed again later if the housing is destroyed during a node siege.[130][131]
Blueprints are mailed to the player to utilize for future placement.[27]
Destroyed freeholds are subject to material loss.[27]
Certificates will track major milestones (such as Furnaces and Homesteads, for example).[130][131]
A possible design idea is for items such as furnishings to be boxed in crates that are accessible inside the new home
This is my feeling. It would suck, sure, but it's not permadeath. Your character doesn't lose all of their stuff and drop down to level 1. Even your freehold gets packed up to be redeployed later. It's a setback but it's not the end of the world. You might even be more incentivized because now you want revenge against the scum that destroyed your home, and so will hundreds of other people.
Getting your base blown up was part of the game when I played Star Wars Galaxies. It sucked because it took a lot of investments to build it, and it really sucked when you and some allies did all you could to protect it, but couldn't stop the enemy. But it is SOOOO SWEET when you blow up the enemy's base.
I remember we got so angry on my server that my Player Association (the really stupid thing that they called guilds, that was an in-game label, it made no damn sense) joined with other PAs and built a ton of bases on the planet Lok. Dozens of them, and they formed a giant Imperial symbol from above. It was a middle finger to the Rebels and dared them to blow them up. I am pretty sure that was too much for them. Ah, I'm telling you, it's those losses that can somehow make the game more fun in the end.
This is basically equivalent to punishing rage quitting, since you lose more by ragequitting.
Is that weird?
There are some things the game could do to make some situations better, but at the end of it, this game is about losing things fairly often.
If a player is absolutely against the idea of losing their node at all, then Ashes isn't the game for them.
I literally just said this in another thread lol. I don't mean to be non inclusive saying it. It's just the truth. The game, quite literally, is not going to be for everyone. That goes for everything, everywhere, ever. Baseball is not for me. Neither are mushrooms. And if something has mushrooms inside of it, I am very appreciative of the cook letting me know beforehand.
But the more the merrier, I'm not trying to turn anyone off the game. Everyone should give it a try. It's gonna be absolutely epic.
Edit: And in many of my posts where I state that the game isn't going to be for everyone, I go on to explain how it might actually be the game for some people who might think it's not their cup of tea.
Edit 2: Pve players are more than happy to let us pvp players know that X game is not for us. And they're willing to actively vouch for and work towards neutering pvp games. It's all puppy dogs kitty cats and inclusivity until it goes against something in your own agenda.
It is like your personal investment portfolio, you diversify it to decrease the risk.
If you are able and willing to have more than one account, it is even easier to diversify.
When the update became live, multiple clans set their eyes on particular halls in certain towns and it was a race to outbid for those halls. Some clans were successful to get a hall, some a second choice hall and some were utterly outbid.
Then came a new update with clan halls in a different town.. with, I think a re-set of current halls.
There was no outrage on the forums, it was accepted as that was how it was, and the same race again to bid for a clan hall within the expanded realm of clan halls.
Second time round, our clan got a clan hall in a location that was more useful than the previous, so we were all pleased!
My gut feeling is that, as others have stated, if it is all clear and transparent, and a little dependant your own outlook and expectations as it may end up as opportunity rather than loss.
Some people will go in to the game with this mindset - but that is the same group of players those games are aimed at.
Ashes is aiming at a larger player base. It wants those PvP players, but it also wants PvE players - as long as they are ok with some PvP.
These people will not go in to the game with this mindset, and most of them will not shift towards having it either. Those players will look at Ashes as they look at all MMO's. The world is persistent, so the value of their character is the sum total of the wealth they have gathered.
While there needs to be an acceptance of loss in Ashes - without a doubt - this is not and should not be on par with a non-MMO survival game like Rust, a niche PvP only game like Albion, or an MMO with PvP battles so infrequent they each get their own name.